Debtor Nation by dreamtrove

Breaking News: Obama announces Debt Ceiling Deal:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20086104-503544.html

Quote:
President Barack Obama announced that an agreement with Republicans has been struck to raise the debt ceiling. The agreement now awaits approval by Congress, which could happen as early as Monday.

The debt ceiling raise would happen in exchange for $1 trillion in spending cuts over the next ten years, Mr. Obama said.

Mr. Obama said the deal will result in the lowest level of domestic spending since the Eisenhower administration in the 1950s, but still allow the U.S. to create jobs.

Still clinging to his idea of a balanced approach, Obama said "we have to ask wealthiest Americans to give up tax breaks," as well as make modest adjustments to entitlement programs like Medicare and Medicaid.

The second part of the agreement reached was a previously mentioned bipartisan Congressional committee, which will report back by November with a proposal to further reduce the deficit. Their proposals will then be put in front of congress for up or down vote.

ETA: I hope that $100 billion/year will be discretionary, and not something like "We will cull all of this from the EPA, etc."

ETA 2: watched the video, a committee is being set up to decide how to cut the budget by november, it will be the 100 billion per year. I don't see where this makes it "the lowest level of spending since Eisenhower." Seems Clinton had an entire budget of 1.9, and here we're talking walking back from 3.7 to 3.6.
That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 1, 2011 1:21 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Announcing a deal doesn't make it something everyone will vote on. And they're not...just like Boner's "deal", they haven't brought it to a vote 'cuz they ain't got the votes.

It's a terrible, terrible deal. Look into it. See how it can be manipulated. Easily. See how, if you follow the logical course of it, we wind up with a Balanced Budget Amendment which makes EVER raising the debt ceiling impossible ever again; see how it automatically gives the Tea Party all the cuts they ever want to make, just by not agreeing with anything else.

It's a mess; it's Obama coming to a strip-poker game half naked, and my prayer is it never comes to the floor, House or Senate. Each is right now waiting for the other to get the votes so they can be blamed, nothing new there.

Did'ja hear Boner, who is using as a talking point that "Obama CHOSE not to do away with the Bush tax cuts because he knew doing so would be wrong in the current situation", when in actuality Obama got BLACKMAILED into not letting them expire (sounds good tho', doesn't it?)? They held the government/country/people hostage then and it worked. This is more of the same. If it just wouldn't work ONCE, maybe they'd slow down. I'm not holding my breath.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 1, 2011 1:27 PM

DALEK!

The problem is that The President has to compromise or let the country default. Maybe not right away because the dead line is an estimate from the Federal Reserve, but default none the less. It is hard to get anything from the Tea Tards when they are more then willing to let the country burn.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 1, 2011 1:32 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

14th Amendment! He can raise it all by his lonesome. They've said very, very clearly that if he tries it they'll try to impeach him, and if "he" let's us default, they'll try to impeach him. He's got nothing to lose (only he's such a wishy-washy coward, he'll never do it). Only hope I'm clinging to is that they're STARTING to talk about the possibility. Go 14th Amendment!

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 1, 2011 2:18 PM

DALEK!

I replied in the other thread, The White House does not think that argument would hold up in court. I agree with them.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 1, 2011 2:23 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Well, it's too late now anyway. They got their ransom--every single gloody penny. WE all better start SAVING whatever pennies we can...it's gonna get pretty bad.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 1, 2011 2:32 PM

DALEK!

If it gets that bad pennies or any other money or gold won't help.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 1, 2011 2:35 PM

I concur with Niki, except for the part about the 14th giving obama that power. The president has never been given constitutional spending power, the vlidity of the public debt is still congressional.

It is however, my least favorite clause. Everything should be questioned, especially the validity of the public debt.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 1, 2011 2:47 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

This is an excerpt from something I saw about the President's authority to honor our debts:

Quote:
With this context, it is astonishing that apparently nobody has bothered to read the text of Public Debt Law of 1941 itself, embodied in 31 USC 3101, which is what codifies a national debt limit. That law states that

"The face amount of obligations issued under this chapter and the face amount of obligations whose principal and interest are guaranteed by the United States Government (except guaranteed obligations held by the Secretary of the Treasury) may not be more than [some arbitrary huge number] . . . "

Please take careful note of the words "EXCEPT guaranteed obligations held by the Secretary of The Treasury". By undeniably clear law as passed by Congress, such obligations are NOT constrained by any so-called debt limit. Now all you have to do is run your finger down to the very next section 31 USC 3102 [Bonds] and you will read

"With the approval of the President, the Secretary of the Treasury may borrow on the credit of the United States Government amounts necessary for expenditures authorized by law . . . "

By this section Congress gives the President the EXPRESS, inherent and unilateral authority to direct the Secretary of the Treasury to incur obligations to cover all expenditures authorized by law, which is to say the sum of the appropriations bills Congress has already passed.

It seems Obama actually COULD order the Secretary of the Treasury to sell more bonds and T-bills to raise the debt limit, regardless of what Congress or anyone else has to say about it.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 2, 2011 1:18 AM

That's saying he can order them to sell treasury bonds, on which there is no limit. They can do that, if anyone is buying, which they aren't.

The abstract debt of the fed is twisted, but does require congressional approval. The fed loans the govt. Money, but then they have to be given the power to print it for that purpose, which is insane.

If the fed possessed unlimited non-congressional power to mint money, then the US govt, would simply cease to exist the next day, as the fed could simply hire the army and all govt agencies away from them, and not have to put up with democracy. It could then do the same to the private sector, and establish a socialist state, and there's not really a reason to assume they wouldn't do that.

Instead what we have is the govt. Paying interest in the money which it has printed in the past, for the corporations stamp of approval on the printing of that money, which is an absolutely absurd situation. The result is we are creeping towards the federal reserve takeover dystopia, and increasingly seeing non-elected bodies in decision making, and non-military mercenary contractor armies, etc, until the corporation runs the nation directly and can dispense with the govt.

Right now, it needs the govt, to vote to give it that power.

From a micro to macro point of view, when the govt. Prints money the dollar is devalued, like happened yesterday, and we all get poorer. When this happens, we the people tend to vote republican, because they can just make the case "are you better off than you were four years ago" and people will check "no" without really knowing why. The GOP will then reel in borrowing because they're altruistic (nah, just kidding, it's really greed

) because they're the party of rich people who are already rich, and want their wealth not to be diminished by inflation.

So, I have radically less money than they do, but I still don't want to see it devalued, or anyone's income devalued, or taxes raised on anyone (because those rich people make and sell products, the price of which will go up if their taxes go up, which will actually have more effect on me than on them.)

Essentially, if the new money can be created without congressional approval at any point, my advice is to move all your money out of dollars, something I wish I had done a year ago. Actually, the smart money did it when Obama was elected, and I feel like a moron for not following suit. I have a friend in england who reacted that way to Tony Blair's election, which also turned out to be a good idea. Big spending means weak currency. Unlimited spending means worthless currency. Just ask any Russian.

ETA: for anyone who didn't follow this logic, think of it this way: America (or Russia) has a fairly constant value, its resources, population, etc. remain fairly constant. The dollar (or rouble) is a share of that economy. If you increase the number of shares (denominator) then the value (fraction) of each share (numerator) goes down. It's an inverse relationship, there's no mechanisms of economics going on here, it's just a correlary relationship.

It's arguable that part of what happened to Russia is that the govt. Spending was and had been out of control for a while, but the currency was tied to that of other communist nations in europe, central asia and to some extent china, which enable it to float in a world of fiscal irresponsibility, and that now, the US is in the exact same predicament. The dollar doesn't collapse because it is pegged to lots of stabel economies, and so they essentially pay the price of our irresponsibility, just as czechoslovakia et al paid for Russia's. When those pegs are removed (because they get sick of putting up with our blatantly irresponsible habits, such as handing trillions of dollars to our friends, and when they blow the first 81 billion on hookers and coke, just handing them more) then the US dollar becomes a closed system, in which we have to pay the price for our own gorram spending, and inflation will rocket out of control.

ETA2: the dollar today is worth around 60% of what it was worth when Obama was elected. That's change I can, unfortunately, believe in, but I'm writing this at 7:30 in the morning, so I imagine it will be worth less when you read this. One economic trick to be wary of: our media often measures the dollar against the Euro, which is a fallacy, as the Euro, as a currency, is a sinking stone headed for default. We're down around 12% relative to the euro, but that's like falling off a building, and passing a man with an umbrella and saying "it's not that bad, we're only falling a little faster than he is" and should he then catch up with and pass on our collective fall to the bottom, reaching the bizarre conclusion "look, we're going up!" as if soon we will be comfortable back on our windowsill, and not splat on the concrete because we have never measured our position relative to the sidewalk or any of the more fortuitous folks who happen to be walking along on it.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 2, 2011 4:26 AM

DALEK!

In some ways the dollar being worth less is not a bad think. It does make US exports cheaper. That is why China has been keeping the yen artificially low for many years, it keeps their exports cheaper then others.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 2, 2011 6:29 AM

What exports? Guns, bullets, and artillery? Most of our manufacturing is overseas.

Maybe you mean the hardwork, intelligence, and innovation of our college graduates - oh wait. I'm thinking of India. Individually we have some bright people in America, but generally, we're not making much anymore or revolutionizing anything.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 2, 2011 7:19 AM

Someone just sent me this, it does sort of nail the deaf ear blame game. I noticed the same thing when Bush was president. No one it seems accepts blame anymore.

Also, reading more about this committe it's starting to bug me. I'm not sure what powers it actually has, with this "fast track" voting, but he phrase "supercongress" is worrisome.

Still awaiting more data.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 2, 2011 7:25 AM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

I have more money in my bank account than the US Govt has in its bank account.

"The whole government is a Ponzi scheme."
-Jew Bernie Madoff, who stole $150-Billion...more than all other criminals in USA combined (not counting the foreign "Federal" Reserve Bank)
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=13015875

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 2, 2011 8:41 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Huh. It seems to me " may borrow on the credit of the United States Government " doesn't mean JUST bonds, unless there's something else in there to limit it to just bonds. "Borrow on the credit" should mean "borrow in any way on the credit", shouldn't it?

I'm so pissed off at this I can barely see straight. The Tea Party got virtually EVERYTHING (except NOT raising the ceiling!), and will continue to. This "supercommittee" (I don't like that EITHER!) supposedly has until Thankxgiving to come up with cuts or it triggere either a Balanced Budget Amendment (the GOP wording of which is REAL bad!) or across-the-board cuts. SUPPOSEDLY they can discuss revenue, but that ain't gonna happen...all the GOP/Tea Party has to do is refuse to consider them and the stalemate triggers all the cuts they WANT (since I doubt the BBA will fly--gawd I hope not!). So it's a sweet deal; work together on cuts, refuse to close loopholes or any other kind of revenue, if the cuts aren't what they want just stonewall and they'll get them...and the Dems can't do a bloody thing! If they insist on revenue, they get blocked and the cuts are triggered. It's HORRIBLE!

He sold us down the river yet again. I'm really sorry now that Clinton didn't make it--bad as she is, she wouldn't have stood for all the shit HE has, dammit!

Just sick at heart and mad as hell...sigh...

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 2, 2011 8:59 AM

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
What exports? Guns, bullets, and artillery? Most of our manufacturing is overseas.

Maybe you mean the hardwork, intelligence, and innovation of our college graduates - oh wait. I'm thinking of India. Individually we have some bright people in America, but generally, we're not making much anymore or revolutionizing anything.

The US is the second largest exporter in the world, and is still the largest manufacturing nation in the world.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/12/business/economy/12charts.html

http://shopfloor.org/2011/03/u-s-manufacturing-remains-worlds-largest/
18756

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 2, 2011 9:03 AM

It's not as good as you think, man, the article says that a big part of the increase is CHEMICAL manufacturing.

As in stuff that's killing us, and being used to kill other people. You know what's a big chemical sink that's been on the rise in our country, a market niche that's booming? Fracking for natural gas and oil shale. That's what's accounting for this, and the increase of employment is the government subsidies for it.

And the food exports is fast food, McDonalds and the like becoming popular because other nations working class are getting longer hours for less pay. Also essentially "chemicals killing people."

Actually, after reading that, my reaction was "oh ****, it's worse than I thought."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 2, 2011 9:14 AM

DALEK!

The point is that the US s still one of the largest exporters in the world.

....according to this, not #1 anymore, but #4.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/
2078rank.html

Oh, and not all chemicals are dangerous or killing us.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 2, 2011 9:23 AM

Quote:
The point is that the US is still one of the largest exporters in the world.

Say that you have an economy that necessitates going into other countries with guns and stealing off with the natural resources, and you STILL have so much in the way of energy needs that your government starts subsidizing a lot of drilling, and a lot of manufacturing chemicals for this drilling, both at home and abroad.

Say that proponents of that kind of energy have been lying about the kinds of yields you get, and the reserves of oil you have, creating an inflationary bubble while they flip wells around, and say that you can't sustain the wars you're fighting elsewhere forever, because you're starting to stretch your military so thin that you have to buy mercenary contractors.

Would you still say that manufacturing is robust, or that it's a healthy measure of this economy? How stable would you consider this economy?

Chemicals: everything is toxic in sufficient enough dose. EVERYTHING. Including water. Unnatural stuff people make tends to be bad, though there's plenty of organic chemicals that will also screw you up a lot. Perhaps arguably the organic stuff is worse simply because it can be confused by your systems for something that's supposed to be there.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 2, 2011 9:35 AM

DALEK!

Chemicals may be a growing export for the US, but it is not the top export nor the only one.

http://www.worldsrichestcountries.com/top_us_exports.html

Civilian aircraft are the largest export.

Yes everything is bad in sufficient doses. Many of those things are also good at lower doses. Without some of those chemicals we don't grow enough food to feed everyone.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 2, 2011 9:39 AM

I was wrong to say there's "no" manufacturing, which would have been wrong even if manufacturing was on the decline. I was exaggerating.

But I also don't think we're exactly on stable ground, and when you say that we're fourth in the world, you have to consider that's out of not a large number of fully developed nations. And if you say that we're second (which I'm not sure about, simply because of Japan and Germany), then you have to compare that to CHINA.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 2, 2011 9:42 AM

Quote:
Yes everything is bad in sufficient doses. Many of those things are also good at lower doses. Without some of those chemicals we don't grow enough food to feed everyone.

Food grows fine on it's own, some of the chemicals we're putting on things are really a do not want.

We have food surplus, and destroy food to keep prices up. This is another side effect of corn ethanol, which the corn lobby wants because corn becomes more expensive.

I'm just saying, things aren't looking good.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 2, 2011 10:17 AM

DALEK!

Food grows fine, if you have the right soil and conditions. We in the US has some surplus, other countries don't.

I just disagree with you. I don't think things are as bad as you do.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 2, 2011 10:32 AM

There's some irrigation issues in some nations, and it doesn't help if crops are non-native to the area and climate. And there are some places that have abused their land so much that not much grows there.

Otherwise I'd say that famine is caused by drought and warfare, and not lack of pesticides.

Chemical manufacturing isn't very good, and particularly not the specific sector of growth we're talking about here.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 2, 2011 10:39 AM

DALEK!

Pesticides are not the whole story. Nutrients such are phosphates are also needed.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 2, 2011 10:43 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I'm with Byte on the use of pesticides. We put so much money into R&D to find the CHEAPEST way to attain whatever we want; if we put all that energy, money and time into finding OTHER ways to protect crops, just imagine what we could do.

I don't believe pesticides are "necessary", and the harm they do far outweighs any benefits, to me. We need to find better ways.

And we DEFINITELY need to work on our manufacturing sector; in my opinion we have been steadily losing ground where that's concerned, and it's part of what made us so "great" (as in, "richer than third-world countries", if you will).

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 2, 2011 10:50 AM

Which is itself not sustainable, as it has to be mined.

Plants used to grow all by themselves without all the nutrients we're putting on them, every year without completely using up soil resources. Plants that weren't in balance with the native soil composition exchanging and taking died off. The problem is the crops being grown aren't right for the climate or soil. Native crops are preferable, assuming you can find a good combination of native crops that can meet nutrition needs. But then again, people have lived on every continent on earth except Antarctica for thousand of years.

You might be able to trace the problem to too many people, but I think the problem is non-native crops. And I think we could probably improve a lot of other agriculture techniques.

Also, phosphates are poisonous in sufficient dose. And, the sector in the chemical manufacturing industry that's increasing is drilling fluid. The chemical manufacturing is not necessarily a good sign.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 2, 2011 12:13 PM

Niki

It was well understood by the court at the time to mean through the issuing of bonds, which was the only legal way to borrow money at the time.

Hillary would have been a nightmare. She wanted to invade Iran. That would have started world war three. There is nothing that Obama has done that hillary hasn't also said she would do, or that she has objected to. I mean, she is still in the administration.

John,

You must be doing pretty well, the US federal govt. Has $3 trillion in its bank accounts.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 2, 2011 1:05 PM

KWICKO

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
What exports? Guns, bullets, and artillery? Most of our manufacturing is overseas.

Maybe you mean the hardwork, intelligence, and innovation of our college graduates - oh wait. I'm thinking of India. Individually we have some bright people in America, but generally, we're not making much anymore or revolutionizing anything.

About 25% of my business is exporting to other countries. The vast majority of my products are made in the USA.

I'm hardly alone in this.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 2, 2011 1:08 PM

KWICKO

Quote:
Originally posted by piratenews:

I have more money in my bank account than the US Govt has in its bank account.

You really don't. Think about it - anything you have in YOUR bank account, the U.S. government has in its bank account if it decides it really really wants or needs it.

You were saying...?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 3, 2011 1:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Eww, supercommittee.

Although, the spending cap could be a disincentive to go to war. Unfortunately, they'll probably cut social programs and infrastructure instead.

They never cut handouts to the rich. Notice how the balance of medicare spending has shifted steadily in favor of paying way to much for drugs we don't need like anti-psychotics for children.

Social security for millionaires keeps going up, my mom's keeps going down.

This sort of thing is why budgets for things that sound good are always down in the low millions and the bad stuff is always skirting a trillion. It's in the numbers, which are voted on by congress each year, and their votes are bought by rich people, who have more money.

Sorry, crossing threads here, but I thought this belonged over here.

The supercomittee it appears will actuallt have some absolute power: congress can vote down the budget it comes up with, but they cannot amend it or break it up. This means TPTB get to pick three members from each party/body to become "congress." So, we can elect 50 dem senators, and they can say "Harry Reid, Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman are democrats. They rest are just pledges." for the house, my apocalyptic worst case dem selection would be something like baeney frank, nancy pelosi and Steny Hoyer. Republicans, dunno, boehner, ryan, cantor, And senate: mcconnell, kyl, demint.

I mean, y'all know the list is going to look something like this.

And yeah, they'll find ways to say "no more aid to the poor" like "if you have one govt. Service you can't get another." they've already done a couple of these to my mom: the cost of her medicare is taken out of social security, she no longer gets a cost of living increase, and also she has like a $500 deductable now, all of which are defined in some way to say "because you're poor, you will now get less. So, she gets $300 now, and i have wealthy relatives getting $2000 and full health coverage, because they're rich, and so clearly need more govt. Assistance.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 3, 2011 5:56 AM