Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Massive cover-up! Here's the proof!

Reply
Thread Tools

Massive cover-up! Here's the proof!

 
 
ray o'hara
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-15-2006

"JP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:ViM9g.757$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "ray o'hara" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed). ..
> >
> > "JP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > news:UaK9g.756$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > >
> > > "ray o'hara" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > > news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > > >
> > > > "Major H" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > > > news:C08CC278.88CAA%(E-Mail Removed)...
> > > > > > I'm amazed that someone so monumentally brain damaged is even

> alive
> > > much
> > > > less
> > > > > > posting this insanity to Usenet.
> > > > >
> > > > > Almost half of U.S. voters opted for Kerry. Nothing can amaze me

> > after
> > > > > that.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best regards, Major H.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > yeah what were the rest thinking.
> > > > a guy who actually showed up for the war is a bigger coward than the

> > draft
> > > > dodgers we have.
> > > > after all we don't want someone who would be fiscally responsible.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Speaking of draft dodging, I wonder how Slick Willy enjoyed Oxford.
> > >
> > >
> > > Your lefty hypocrisy is showing itself. Again.
> > >
> > >

> >
> > did slick willy start a war? he didn't fight in one and he had the

decency
> > not to fight one under false pretences{lies}.

>
>
> Lol, no he didn't, but then, that's the problem. He should have, and

all
> the stuff you bitch about now wouldn't have needed to have taken place.
>
> But then, you already knew that.
>
> But nice dodge anyway. No wonder you're a SW fanboy.
>
>



all the stuff now is because you repubs were more concerned with getting
clinton than with getting things done.
they fixated on his willy like they were monica and they thwarted any
attempts at foriegn policy.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
JP
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-15-2006

"ray o'hara" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "JP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:ViM9g.757$(E-Mail Removed)...
> >
> > "ray o'hara" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > news:(E-Mail Removed). ..
> > >
> > > "JP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > > news:UaK9g.756$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > > >
> > > > "ray o'hara" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > > > news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Major H" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > > > > news:C08CC278.88CAA%(E-Mail Removed)...
> > > > > > > I'm amazed that someone so monumentally brain damaged is even

> > alive
> > > > much
> > > > > less
> > > > > > > posting this insanity to Usenet.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Almost half of U.S. voters opted for Kerry. Nothing can amaze

me
> > > after
> > > > > > that.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best regards, Major H.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > yeah what were the rest thinking.
> > > > > a guy who actually showed up for the war is a bigger coward than

the
> > > draft
> > > > > dodgers we have.
> > > > > after all we don't want someone who would be fiscally responsible.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Speaking of draft dodging, I wonder how Slick Willy enjoyed

Oxford.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Your lefty hypocrisy is showing itself. Again.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > did slick willy start a war? he didn't fight in one and he had the

> decency
> > > not to fight one under false pretences{lies}.

> >
> >
> > Lol, no he didn't, but then, that's the problem. He should have, and

> all
> > the stuff you bitch about now wouldn't have needed to have taken place.
> >
> > But then, you already knew that.
> >
> > But nice dodge anyway. No wonder you're a SW fanboy.
> >
> >

>
>
> all the stuff now is because you repubs were more concerned with getting
> clinton than with getting things done.
> they fixated on his willy like they were monica and they thwarted any
> attempts at foriegn policy.
>



Lol, this is priceless. Ray's twisted logic appears again.

Explain exactly how the scenario you mention above prevented SW from doing
what he should have done, whack RagheadsRUs ? I'm particularly interested
in, say, ... for starters ... , how the scenario above affected SW's actions
(or should be said, lack thereof) after the first WTC attack, which, as a
reminder, was years before your above scenario ?

(btw, if anyone is fixated on that topic, I'd say you have any repubs beat
by a long shot).

Anyway, I await your, cough, response.



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
ray o'hara
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-15-2006

"JP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:LwQ9g.765$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "ray o'hara" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news(E-Mail Removed)...
> >
> > "JP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > news:ViM9g.757$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > >
> > > "ray o'hara" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > > news:(E-Mail Removed). ..
> > > >
> > > > "JP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > > > news:UaK9g.756$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > > > >
> > > > > "ray o'hara" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > > > > news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Major H" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:C08CC278.88CAA%(E-Mail Removed)...
> > > > > > > > I'm amazed that someone so monumentally brain damaged is

even
> > > alive
> > > > > much
> > > > > > less
> > > > > > > > posting this insanity to Usenet.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Almost half of U.S. voters opted for Kerry. Nothing can amaze

> me
> > > > after
> > > > > > > that.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Best regards, Major H.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > yeah what were the rest thinking.
> > > > > > a guy who actually showed up for the war is a bigger coward than

> the
> > > > draft
> > > > > > dodgers we have.
> > > > > > after all we don't want someone who would be fiscally

responsible.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Speaking of draft dodging, I wonder how Slick Willy enjoyed

> Oxford.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Your lefty hypocrisy is showing itself. Again.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > did slick willy start a war? he didn't fight in one and he had the

> > decency
> > > > not to fight one under false pretences{lies}.
> > >
> > >
> > > Lol, no he didn't, but then, that's the problem. He should have,

and
> > all
> > > the stuff you bitch about now wouldn't have needed to have taken

place.
> > >
> > > But then, you already knew that.
> > >
> > > But nice dodge anyway. No wonder you're a SW fanboy.
> > >
> > >

> >
> >
> > all the stuff now is because you repubs were more concerned with

getting
> > clinton than with getting things done.
> > they fixated on his willy like they were monica and they thwarted any
> > attempts at foriegn policy.
> >

>
>
> Lol, this is priceless. Ray's twisted logic appears again.
>
> Explain exactly how the scenario you mention above prevented SW from

doing
> what he should have done, whack RagheadsRUs ? I'm particularly interested
> in, say, ... for starters ... , how the scenario above affected SW's

actions
> (or should be said, lack thereof) after the first WTC attack, which, as a
> reminder, was years before your above scenario ?
>
> (btw, if anyone is fixated on that topic, I'd say you have any repubs

beat
> by a long shot).
>
> Anyway, I await your, cough, response.
>
>
>



i guess because before the chimpler presidents went by the law.
congress ws republican and didn't support him. the same congress that has
rolled over and played dead for bush.
only a president with a tame congress can ignore the law.


 
Reply With Quote
 
JP
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-15-2006

"ray o'hara" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "JP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:LwQ9g.765$(E-Mail Removed)...
> >
> > "ray o'hara" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > news(E-Mail Removed)...
> > >
> > > "JP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > > news:ViM9g.757$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > > >
> > > > "ray o'hara" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > > > news:(E-Mail Removed). ..
> > > > >
> > > > > "JP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > > > > news:UaK9g.756$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "ray o'hara" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Major H" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:C08CC278.88CAA%(E-Mail Removed)...
> > > > > > > > > I'm amazed that someone so monumentally brain damaged is

> even
> > > > alive
> > > > > > much
> > > > > > > less
> > > > > > > > > posting this insanity to Usenet.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Almost half of U.S. voters opted for Kerry. Nothing can

amaze
> > me
> > > > > after
> > > > > > > > that.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Best regards, Major H.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > yeah what were the rest thinking.
> > > > > > > a guy who actually showed up for the war is a bigger coward

than
> > the
> > > > > draft
> > > > > > > dodgers we have.
> > > > > > > after all we don't want someone who would be fiscally

> responsible.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Speaking of draft dodging, I wonder how Slick Willy enjoyed

> > Oxford.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Your lefty hypocrisy is showing itself. Again.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > did slick willy start a war? he didn't fight in one and he had the
> > > decency
> > > > > not to fight one under false pretences{lies}.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Lol, no he didn't, but then, that's the problem. He should have,

> and
> > > all
> > > > the stuff you bitch about now wouldn't have needed to have taken

> place.
> > > >
> > > > But then, you already knew that.
> > > >
> > > > But nice dodge anyway. No wonder you're a SW fanboy.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > all the stuff now is because you repubs were more concerned with

> getting
> > > clinton than with getting things done.
> > > they fixated on his willy like they were monica and they thwarted any
> > > attempts at foriegn policy.
> > >

> >
> >
> > Lol, this is priceless. Ray's twisted logic appears again.
> >
> > Explain exactly how the scenario you mention above prevented SW from

> doing
> > what he should have done, whack RagheadsRUs ? I'm particularly

interested
> > in, say, ... for starters ... , how the scenario above affected SW's

> actions
> > (or should be said, lack thereof) after the first WTC attack, which, as

a
> > reminder, was years before your above scenario ?
> >
> > (btw, if anyone is fixated on that topic, I'd say you have any repubs

> beat
> > by a long shot).
> >
> > Anyway, I await your, cough, response.
> >
> >
> >

>
>
> i guess because before the chimpler presidents went by the law.
> congress ws republican and didn't support him. the same congress that has
> rolled over and played dead for bush.
> only a president with a tame congress can ignore the law.



Or put another way; "Damn, I hate it when they ask for facts, as I
haven't an answer !"

But what the hell. Second chance Raymond; how exactly did the Congress
during the SW admin prevent him from taking action against the ragheads ?

Again, let's try the first WTC attack for starters.

And of course, what "foreign policy" has to do with it is another
(demented) question. What, you think the Sec of State should have had talks
with them ? (lol).






 
Reply With Quote
 
ray o'hara
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-15-2006

"JP" <>
>
> Or put another way; "Damn, I hate it when they ask for facts, as I
> haven't an answer !"
>


YOU ARE FULL OF YOURSELF WHICJH MEAND YOU ARE FULL OF ****.


> But what the hell. Second chance Raymond; how exactly did the

Congress
> during the SW admin prevent him from taking action against the ragheads ?
>
> Again, let's try the first WTC attack for starters.


they were all arrested and are all in jail. remember.



>
> And of course, what "foreign policy" has to do with it is another
> (demented) question. What, you think the Sec of State should have had

talks
> with them ? (lol).
>


talks with who? al qaeda?

i see you think saddam was behind 9/11. you're one of those loons.
the bushites were warned about planes being used for an attack., the
bushites didn't listen.

you are a major fool. put the koolade down and pay attention.


 
Reply With Quote
 
JP
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-15-2006

"ray o'hara" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "JP" <>
> >
> > Or put another way; "Damn, I hate it when they ask for facts, as I
> > haven't an answer !"
> >

>
> YOU ARE FULL OF YOURSELF WHICJH MEAND YOU ARE FULL OF ****.
>
>
> > But what the hell. Second chance Raymond; how exactly did the

> Congress
> > during the SW admin prevent him from taking action against the ragheads

?
> >
> > Again, let's try the first WTC attack for starters.

>
> they were all arrested and are all in jail. remember.



If they "were all", how come the WTC (among other attacks) was attacked
again ?




>
>
>
> >
> > And of course, what "foreign policy" has to do with it is another
> > (demented) question. What, you think the Sec of State should have had

> talks
> > with them ? (lol).
> >

>
> talks with who? al qaeda?
>
> i see you think saddam was behind 9/11. you're one of those loons.
> the bushites were warned about planes being used for an attack., the
> bushites didn't listen.



Show me where I said I thought SH was behind 9/11.


>
> you are a major fool. put the koolade down and pay attention.
>



And you're the "Artful Dodger" lol.

Ray telling *anyone* to pay attention....................priceless.



 
Reply With Quote
 
ray o'hara
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-15-2006

"JP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:lpR9g.767$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "ray o'hara" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> >
> > "JP" <>
> > >
> > > Or put another way; "Damn, I hate it when they ask for facts, as I
> > > haven't an answer !"
> > >

> >
> > YOU ARE FULL OF YOURSELF WHICJH MEAND YOU ARE FULL OF ****.
> >
> >
> > > But what the hell. Second chance Raymond; how exactly did the

> > Congress
> > > during the SW admin prevent him from taking action against the

ragheads
> ?
> > >
> > > Again, let's try the first WTC attack for starters.

> >
> > they were all arrested and are all in jail. remember.

>
>
> If they "were all", how come the WTC (among other attacks) was attacked
> again ?


because they recruited more.
do you think the afghaninvasion get everybody? do you thibk the war in irsq
will get everybody.
the the ones who attacked the first time were caught.
because of the chimplers bungling there are 10 times as many now as before



"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our
number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01

"I want justice...There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said,
'Wanted: Dead or Alive,'"
- G.W. Bush, 9/17/01, UPI

"...Secondly, he is not escaping us. This is a guy, who, three months ago,
was in control of a county [sic]. Now he's maybe in control of a cave. He's
on the run. Listen, a while ago I said to the American people, our objective
is more than bin Laden. But one of the things for certain is we're going to
get him running and keep him running, and bring him to justice. And that's
what's happening. He's on the run, if he's running at all. So we don't know
whether he's in cave with the door shut, or a cave with the door open -- we
just don't know...."
- Bush, in remarks in a Press Availablity with the Press Travel Pool,
The Prairie Chapel Ranch, Crawford TX, 12/28/01, as reported on
official White House site

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's
not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)

* * *



 
Reply With Quote
 
ray o'hara
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-15-2006

"JP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:lpR9g.767$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "ray o'hara" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> >
> > "JP" <>
> > >
> > > Or put another way; "Damn, I hate it when they ask for facts, as I
> > > haven't an answer !"
> > >

> >
> > YOU ARE FULL OF YOURSELF WHICJH MEAND YOU ARE FULL OF ****.
> >
> >
> > > But what the hell. Second chance Raymond; how exactly did the

> > Congress
> > > during the SW admin prevent him from taking action against the

ragheads
> ?
> > >
> > > Again, let's try the first WTC attack for starters.

> >
> > they were all arrested and are all in jail. remember.

>
>
> If they "were all", how come the WTC (among other attacks) was attacked
> again ?
>
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > And of course, what "foreign policy" has to do with it is another
> > > (demented) question. What, you think the Sec of State should have had

> > talks
> > > with them ? (lol).
> > >

> >
> > talks with who? al qaeda?
> >
> > i see you think saddam was behind 9/11. you're one of those loons.
> > the bushites were warned about planes being used for an attack., the
> > bushites didn't listen.

>
>
> Show me where I said I thought SH was behind 9/11.
>
>
> >
> > you are a major fool. put the koolade down and pay attention.
> >

>
>
> And you're the "Artful Dodger" lol.
>
> Ray telling *anyone* to pay attention....................priceless.
>
>
>


why if it was so obvious didn't bush catch them before 9/11?
if they were so well known why did they get the chance to attack again.
seems your logic cuts two ways.


 
Reply With Quote
 
JP
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-15-2006

"ray o'hara" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "JP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:lpR9g.767$(E-Mail Removed)...
> >
> > "ray o'hara" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > >
> > > "JP" <>
> > > >
> > > > Or put another way; "Damn, I hate it when they ask for facts, as

I
> > > > haven't an answer !"
> > > >
> > >
> > > YOU ARE FULL OF YOURSELF WHICJH MEAND YOU ARE FULL OF ****.
> > >
> > >
> > > > But what the hell. Second chance Raymond; how exactly did the
> > > Congress
> > > > during the SW admin prevent him from taking action against the

> ragheads
> > ?
> > > >
> > > > Again, let's try the first WTC attack for starters.
> > >
> > > they were all arrested and are all in jail. remember.

> >
> >
> > If they "were all", how come the WTC (among other attacks) was

attacked
> > again ?

>
> because they recruited more.
> do you think the afghaninvasion get everybody? do you thibk the war in

irsq
> will get everybody.
> the the ones who attacked the first time were caught.
> because of the chimplers bungling there are 10 times as many now as before



****, now we're at war in irsq too ?!?!?

Who is this "they" ? Wow, if "they're" so important as to have
"recruited more", it makes one think SW should have done something about
"them", eh ?

Surely, you don't mean OBL, i.e., since after all, he was offered on a
plate to SW, but SW turned it down ?

p.s. As I'm sure, deep down inside, you know, the reason the WTC was
attacked again and other targets were attacked is because SW did nothing in
response to these attacks. This lack of response equals emboldenment to the
OBL mindset.

It's really not rocket science.



>
>
> "The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our
> number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
> - G.W. Bush, 9/13/01
>
> "I want justice...There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said,
> 'Wanted: Dead or Alive,'"
> - G.W. Bush, 9/17/01, UPI
>
> "...Secondly, he is not escaping us. This is a guy, who, three months ago,
> was in control of a county [sic]. Now he's maybe in control of a cave.

He's
> on the run. Listen, a while ago I said to the American people, our

objective
> is more than bin Laden. But one of the things for certain is we're going

to
> get him running and keep him running, and bring him to justice. And that's
> what's happening. He's on the run, if he's running at all. So we don't

know
> whether he's in cave with the door shut, or a cave with the door open --

we
> just don't know...."
> - Bush, in remarks in a Press Availablity with the Press Travel Pool,
> The Prairie Chapel Ranch, Crawford TX, 12/28/01, as reported on
> official White House site
>
> "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care.

It's
> not that important. It's not our priority."
> - G.W. Bush, 3/13/02
>
> "I am truly not that concerned about him."
> - G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
> 3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)
>
> * * *
>



Nice quotes. Not sure of their relevance to the question I asked you,
which I see you still haven't answered. Surprised, I am not.

But it's not a total loss; at least this time you're making an idiot of
yourself on five ngs, instead of the usual one.


 
Reply With Quote
 
JP
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-15-2006

"ray o'hara" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "JP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:lpR9g.767$(E-Mail Removed)...
> >
> > "ray o'hara" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > >
> > > "JP" <>
> > > >
> > > > Or put another way; "Damn, I hate it when they ask for facts, as

I
> > > > haven't an answer !"
> > > >
> > >
> > > YOU ARE FULL OF YOURSELF WHICJH MEAND YOU ARE FULL OF ****.
> > >
> > >
> > > > But what the hell. Second chance Raymond; how exactly did the
> > > Congress
> > > > during the SW admin prevent him from taking action against the

> ragheads
> > ?
> > > >
> > > > Again, let's try the first WTC attack for starters.
> > >
> > > they were all arrested and are all in jail. remember.

> >
> >
> > If they "were all", how come the WTC (among other attacks) was

attacked
> > again ?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > And of course, what "foreign policy" has to do with it is

another
> > > > (demented) question. What, you think the Sec of State should have

had
> > > talks
> > > > with them ? (lol).
> > > >
> > >
> > > talks with who? al qaeda?
> > >
> > > i see you think saddam was behind 9/11. you're one of those loons.
> > > the bushites were warned about planes being used for an attack., the
> > > bushites didn't listen.

> >
> >
> > Show me where I said I thought SH was behind 9/11.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > you are a major fool. put the koolade down and pay attention.
> > >

> >
> >
> > And you're the "Artful Dodger" lol.
> >
> > Ray telling *anyone* to pay attention....................priceless.
> >
> >
> >

>
> why if it was so obvious didn't bush catch them before 9/11?
> if they were so well known why did they get the chance to attack again.
> seems your logic cuts two ways.



Hehe, answer my question first. But nice try at divertion. Besides
the fact, as usual, you're not making sense here anyway.




 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Massive cyclone hits Australia bigal The Lounge 8 03-21-2006 05:20 PM
Massive TTL Decrease ISAKMP-IPSEC VPN Joel Salminen Cisco 1 01-20-2006 05:33 AM
[Ad] FPGA Boards Massive Sale Tony Burch VHDL 0 10-31-2004 03:34 PM
Potentially Massive Internet Attack Starts Today =?iso-8859-1?Q?Frisbee=AE_MCNGP?= MCSE 14 08-26-2003 02:12 AM
Re: Massive Search and Replace with a twist Craig R. Dunn Perl 0 08-22-2003 01:12 PM



Advertisments