Barack Obama, our next President

Barack Obama, our next President

There are 1534355 comments on the Hampton Roads Daily Press story from Nov 5, 2008, titled Barack Obama, our next President. In it, Hampton Roads Daily Press reports that:

"The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep," Obama cautioned. Young and charismatic but with little experience on the national level, Obama smashed through racial barriers and easily defeated ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Hampton Roads Daily Press.

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

Gauley Bridge WV

#1103343 Mar 25, 2014
sonicfilter wrote:
<quoted text>
mock the source because you can't dispute the facts.
just the usual right wing nutjob response to facts.
Investors shift money from taxable investments (such as stocks and bonds) to non-taxable ones (such as municipal bonds). All investors, from millionaires to fixed income retirees, seek to maximize their annual investment income. Tax-free investments like munis naturally pay a lower rate of return. Taxable investments like corporate bonds, pay a higher rate. Since the government taxes a chunk out of taxable income, the after-tax return changes in response to a change in rates. For example, say a $1000 corporate bond pays 10 percent, leading to a $100 interest payment. A marginal tax rate of 30% means the after-tax return is $70 ($100-$30 tax). If the municipal bond pays a rate of 6 percent, the after-tax return is $60 ($1000*6%). So because $70 is higher than $60, the investor stays with the corporate bond. Now assume the marginal tax rate is raised to 50%, the after-tax return of the corporate bond is now $50 ($100-$50 tax). Since the municipal bond now pays $10 more, investors are likely to shift money from the corporate bond to the non-taxable muni. Consequently, that first factor, TAXABLE INCOME, drops to $0, and the tax revenue from the bond is completely eliminated. Sure, this is a simplified example, but remember investors nowadays are more sophisticated, especially wealthy individuals that can hire expert accountants and lawyers to squeeze out every penny of income. Computers are making this easier every day.

There is less incentive to work extra hours given the smaller after-tax wage rate, meaning taxable wages decrease. While almost everyone has to work to some extent to pay the bills, the decision to work a second job and/or overtime hours is often one of choice. Do you really need the extra income enough to give up much of your leisure and relaxation time? At $100 per hour, you might say "No doubt"! At $50, probably yes. At $25, maybe. At $10, no way. Everyone has their threshold where the extra money just isn't worth it. By raising tax rates, the hourly rate of take-home pay drops, pushing some below their acceptable threshold. The threshold exists at all levels, from the factory worker that declines taking an additional shift, to the doctor who sees fewer patients. The bottom line is that their is less productivity and taxable income.

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

Gauley Bridge WV

#1103344 Mar 25, 2014
sonicfilter wrote:
<quoted text>
mock the source because you can't dispute the facts.
just the usual right wing nutjob response to facts.
A smaller potential return means investors & venture capitalists are less willing to risk their money, meaning less business & capital gain income. Everyone with savings has a choice where to put his or her money. We want to earn as much of a return as possible, but we don't want to put our savings at excessive risk of loss in the process. Higher risks, therefore, must be accompanied by higher potential return. If you know the government will take a substantial portion of your earnings if an investment happens to pay off, you know the potential return is limited. Therefore, you may instead decide it isn't worth the risk, and instead put your money in a safer investment like a money market, where you won't lose any money. The net effect on society is that fewer people are willing to start new businesses, businesses are less willing to expand, venture capitalists are less willing to put up money into new opportunities, and investors are less willing to put money into stocks. Business tax income as well as individual capital gains & dividend income are limited as a result. Keep in mind that lower risk investments like CD's are taxed only once, while corporate income is effectively taxed twice--once at the business level and once when it's distributed to owners as dividends. Thus, it generates much more taxable income if investors put their money in stock.

Total economic activity slows as a result of money being taken out of the private sector, where it is spent more efficiently, where capital is pumped into more productive parts of the economy, and where the fiscal multiplier effect is much greater than it is in government. Everyone knows how inefficiently government operates. We've all seen news stories about $500 hammers, bridges to nowhere, duplicate work processes, government employees lounging on the job, and on and on. Not only is government wasteful, it's corrupt, as politicians frequently load bills with pork that pays back campaign contributors and bring business back to their states. Due to the massive government waste, the economic multiplier effect of a $1 of government spending isn't nearly as high as a $1 of private spending. Government is the only place where a miserably failing program or agency could continue to get funding. Conversely, in the private sector is placed into the most efficient and in-demand places. Poorly-run businesses that don't earn more than they spend go out of business.

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

Gauley Bridge WV

#1103345 Mar 25, 2014
A smaller potential return means investors & venture capitalists are less willing to risk their money, meaning less business & capital gain income. Everyone with savings has a choice where to put his or her money. We want to earn as much of a return as possible, but we don't want to put our savings at excessive risk of loss in the process. Higher risks, therefore, must be accompanied by higher potential return. If you know the government will take a substantial portion of your earnings if an investment happens to pay off, you know the potential return is limited. Therefore, you may instead decide it isn't worth the risk, and instead put your money in a safer investment like a money market, where you won't lose any money. The net effect on society is that fewer people are willing to start new businesses, businesses are less willing to expand, venture capitalists are less willing to put up money into new opportunities, and investors are less willing to put money into stocks. Business tax income as well as individual capital gains & dividend income are limited as a result. Keep in mind that lower risk investments like CD's are taxed only once, while corporate income is effectively taxed twice--once at the business level and once when it's distributed to owners as dividends. Thus, it generates much more taxable income if investors put their money in stock.

Total economic activity slows as a result of money being taken out of the private sector, where it is spent more efficiently, where capital is pumped into more productive parts of the economy, and where the fiscal multiplier effect is much greater than it is in government. Everyone knows how inefficiently government operates. We've all seen news stories about $500 hammers, bridges to nowhere, duplicate work processes, government employees lounging on the job, and on and on. Not only is government wasteful, it's corrupt, as politicians frequently load bills with pork that pays back campaign contributors and bring business back to their states. Due to the massive government waste, the economic multiplier effect of a $1 of government spending isn't nearly as high as a $1 of private spending. Government is the only place where a miserably failing program or agency could continue to get funding. Conversely, in the private sector is placed into the most efficient and in-demand places. Poorly-run businesses that don't earn more than they spend go out of business.
forks_make_us_fa t

Norman, OK

#1103346 Mar 25, 2014
PDUPONT wrote:
<quoted text>
You can live as healthy a life style as you want but if you get bit by Deer lice carrying Lyme disease or a mosquito with West Nile virus, that's not going to help now is it? There are plenty of diseases out there like leukemia that have nothing to do with lifestyle.
You're an idiot!
What does A PERSON choosing to get stoned have to do with a tick bite?

Since: May 11

Blain, PA

#1103347 Mar 25, 2014
flack wrote:
<quoted text> Huf Puff Post!!! LMAO!!!!
Joe Messerli . LMAO
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#1103348 Mar 25, 2014
Hobby Lobby case fuels bigotry

Christ sought to protect and comfort the weak, not control them.

We know that most American women, regardless of what religion they are, use contraception at some point in their lives. As a pastor, I have seen firsthand what a gift it is to be able to control when and whether one has a child. It offers women some measure of control over their lives.

Sometimes, even for a bishop, it's embarrassing to be a Christian. Not that I'm embarrassed by Jesus, whose life was spent caring and advocating for the marginalized, and whom I believe to be the perfect revelation of God. I'm just sometimes embarrassed to be associated with others who claim to follow him.

The Jesus I follow always stood with the poor and powerless — and trust me, this struggle is about about power. Whether the issue touches women or gays and lesbians, our religion should be about more love, not less; more dignity, not less.

The Supreme Court's rulings on gay rights, with Justice Anthony Kennedy's leadership, have been on this path for more than a decade. The court has made great strides in recognizing the worth and dignity of women and LGBT Americans. A decision in favor of Hobby Lobby would change that direction. It would not be a victory for religious freedom, but a victory for discrimination and a repudiation of the vital progress the court has made in securing equal justice for all.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/03...
Grey Ghost

Bumpass, VA

#1103349 Mar 25, 2014
flack wrote:
<quoted text> Huf Puff Post!!! LMAO!!!!
Flacks problem is he wants so bad to contribute something to the conversation that is insightful but unfortunately it's pretty obvious that he offers little to society in general. So he is pretty much reduced to the bizarre and flamboyant as a means to fit in, something that yells "HEY" look at me. He cannot even be honest with his self. He claims to have an open mind but as of yet that part has never surfaced.
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#1103352 Mar 25, 2014
flack wrote:
<quoted text>A smaller potential return means investors & venture capitalists are less willing to risk their money, meaning less business & capital gain income. Everyone with savings has a choice where to put his or her money. We want to earn as much of a return as possible, but we don't want to put our savings at excessive risk of loss in the process. Higher risks, therefore, must be accompanied by higher potential return. If you know the government will take a substantial portion of your earnings if an investment happens to pay off, you know the potential return is limited. Therefore, you may instead decide it isn't worth the risk, and instead put your money in a safer investment like a money market, where you won't lose any money. The net effect on society is that fewer people are willing to start new businesses, businesses are less willing to expand, venture capitalists are less willing to put up money into new opportunities, and investors are less willing to put money into stocks. Business tax income as well as individual capital gains & dividend income are limited as a result. Keep in mind that lower risk investments like CD's are taxed only once, while corporate income is effectively taxed twice--once at the business level and once when it's distributed to owners as dividends. Thus, it generates much more taxable income if investors put their money in stock.
Total economic activity slows as a result of money being taken out of the private sector, where it is spent more efficiently, where capital is pumped into more productive parts of the economy, and where the fiscal multiplier effect is much greater than it is in government. Everyone knows how inefficiently government operates. We've all seen news stories about $500 hammers, bridges to nowhere, duplicate work processes, government employees lounging on the job, and on and on. Not only is government wasteful, it's corrupt, as politicians frequently load bills with pork that pays back campaign contributors and bring business back to their states. Due to the massive government waste, the economic multiplier effect of a $1 of government spending isn't nearly as high as a $1 of private spending. Government is the only place where a miserably failing program or agency could continue to get funding. Conversely, in the private sector is placed into the most efficient and in-demand places. Poorly-run businesses that don't earn more than they spend go out of business.
no, i didn't expect a direct response from you.

facts are not your friend. your constant running away from them can attest.

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

Gauley Bridge WV

#1103353 Mar 25, 2014
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
Joe Messerli . LMAO
See Sonic!!!

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

Gauley Bridge WV

#1103354 Mar 25, 2014
Citizens have greater incentive to cheat on taxes, use risky tax shelters, or hide their income. Imagine you were making $250,000 per year in before-tax income. If the government was taking 40%, or $100,000, would you look for risky or potentially audit-triggering deductions? Would you report some extra cash income you made working a side job? Would you go to an accountant to find deductions or tax shelters? Would you try to hide some of your income in foreign accounts or in some other way cheat on your tax return? What if the rate went up to 60%, costing you an additional $50,000 per year? What if the rate went up to 80%, costing you $200,000 per year in taxes? Most people have a threshold where they no longer are completely being law-abiding citizens as far as taxes are concerned. At a low tax rate, people may think, "It's not worth the risk of jail, fines, or an audit." At higher rates, that can change quickly. Look at it from the perspective of a billionaire. Assume he makes $250 million in income per year. A simple tax rate increase of 5% amounts to $12.5 million per year! Do you think it's worth that much to hire expensive accountants or lawyers to stretch the law in their quest for keeping taxable income as low as possible?

The underground economy, consisting of bartering and off-the-books cash transactions, grows bigger in size, reducing on-the-books taxable income. This relates to the same kind of thinking as with cheating on taxes; i.e. there is more incentive as tax rates increase. For example, an independent computer consultant needs help with his tax return; an accountant needs help setting up QuickBooks on a network. Rather than charge each other a $100/hr rate as they might with other customers, they simply trade each other services without reporting anything to the IRS. Another example, a lawn service quotes you two prices: 1)$40 per hour if paid by check, 2)$30 per hour if paid by cash. The cash deal is better for them since they can keep the transaction off the company tax return, while a check can be traced. As taxes increase, more people are willing to work out these off-the-books type of deals, which lead to less taxable income and revenue.

People are more likely to contribute money to 401k's and IRA's in a higher-tax environment. It's definitely not a bad thing that people are saving for retirement, but contributions do lead to a reduction of taxable income and revenue to the government. Most people don't contribute the maximum to these accounts since they can't access the funds until retirement without penalty. However, as tax rates get higher, more and more people will decide the limited access to the funds isn't worth the tax cost, so they increase their contributions.

Corporations and wealthy individuals eventually leave the country, taking all their income with them; this is especially true nowadays in a world where technology makes it easier to live or do business overseas. There are hundreds of nations around the world that would love to play host to businesses and individuals with wealth. And in an age of advancing technology, you can get your sports, music, TV, movies, etc. anywhere as long as you have an internet connection. Consequently, if the U.S. keeps raising taxes, eventually the people of wealth will get fed up and simply leave the country. It's ironic that citizens from all over world used to seek sanctuary from such things.
forks_make_us_fa t

Norman, OK

#1103355 Mar 25, 2014
Progressives hate God and lub dem some Science...

and I used QUOTATION MARKS.....

"...90% of Medical Research Is Wrong..."

"...Of the 49 articles, 45 claimed to have uncovered effective interventions. Thirty-four of these claims had been retested, and 14 of these, or 41 percent, had been convincingly shown to be wrong or significantly exaggerated."

http://healthland.time.com/2010/10/20/a-resea...
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#1103356 Mar 25, 2014
flack wrote:
<quoted text> Hell that's all you libtards do!!! I refuted your post with posts of my own, then laughed at you.
Huffpost and Media Matters are the most oft cited sites on the internet. even by right wing sites.

Republican Sens. John McCain and Susan Collins are criticizing three of their more conservative GOP colleagues for taking what McCain called a "bizarre" stand in trying to block a conference with the House on a Senate-passed budget bill.

Their anger is directed at tea party Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky, Ted Cruz of Texas, and Mike Lee of Utah, who so far have stopped the Senate from sending the budget it passed March 23 to a conference committee with the House.

According to the Huffington Post, McCain on Tuesday called the trio’s actions “bizarre,” saying on the Senate floor,“I would like to point out to my colleagues — on this side of the aisle — that for four years ... we complained about the fact that the majority leader ... would refuse to bring a budget to the floor of the United States Senate.”

“We did a budget and all of us patted each other on the back and we were so proud we did the budget," he continued. "And, by golly, now we’ll move with the House of Representatives, and we will have a budget, hopefully at least [we’ll] begin negotiations with the House of Representatives, which is a majority of Republicans — not Democrats, Republicans.”

Paul, Cruz and Lee, however, want to prohibit Senate conferees from agreeing to any deal that would raise either taxes or the debt ceiling.

That demand, McCain said, is contrary to the Senate's regular conference process.
“We ‘instruct’ the conferees,” he said.“We don’t ‘require’ the conferees because that’s why we appoint conferees and that’s why we approve or disapprove the result of that conference. That’s how our laws are made.”

It’s not the first time the Arizona Republican has slammed Paul and Cruz over obstructionist tactics. After Paul’s March filibuster over the Obama administration’s drone policy, McCain called Paul’s concerns “totally unfounded" and referred to him and Cruz as "wacko birds."

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/McCain-Paul-C...

the fact....when the dems did submit a budget the republicans decided that it wouldn't have mattered if they ever did.

pretty sure it's easy enough to find proof of the record the republicans have set over the last 6 years in obstructing the furthering of governance.

Adam 36

Since: Aug 13

Location hidden

#1103357 Mar 25, 2014
Even the LSM is fed up with Obama

NYT reporter: Obama administration ‘the greatest enemy of press freedom’ in a generation

http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/24/nyt-reporte...
PDUPONT

Chicopee, MA

#1103358 Mar 25, 2014
Incognito4Ever wrote:
<quoted text>
The British Medical Journal published a study showing no measurable rates of heart disease or lung cancer among nonsmokers who ever lived with smokers, and reports only a slight increased risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
"We found no measurable effect from being exposed to secondhand smoke and an increased risk of heart disease or lung cancer in nonsmokers -- not at any time or at any level," lead researcher James Enstrom, PhD, MPH, of the UCLA School of Public Health, tells WebMD. "The only thing we did find, which was not reported in the study, is that nonsmokers who live with smokers have a increased risk of widowhood because their smoking spouses do die prematurely."
http://www.bmj.com/content/326/7398/1057
The only risk is an increased risk of widowhood because smoking spouses die prematurely. Same with spouses who eat a regular diet of cheeseburgers and fries too I would imagine.
People still don't want your smoke in their lungs dimwit! What's so hard to understand about that?

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

Gauley Bridge WV

#1103359 Mar 25, 2014
sonicfilter wrote:
Hobby Lobby case fuels bigotry
Christ sought to protect and comfort the weak, not control them.
We know that most American women, regardless of what religion they are, use contraception at some point in their lives. As a pastor, I have seen firsthand what a gift it is to be able to control when and whether one has a child. It offers women some measure of control over their lives.
Sometimes, even for a bishop, it's embarrassing to be a Christian. Not that I'm embarrassed by Jesus, whose life was spent caring and advocating for the marginalized, and whom I believe to be the perfect revelation of God. I'm just sometimes embarrassed to be associated with others who claim to follow him.
The Jesus I follow always stood with the poor and powerless — and trust me, this struggle is about about power. Whether the issue touches women or gays and lesbians, our religion should be about more love, not less; more dignity, not less.
The Supreme Court's rulings on gay rights, with Justice Anthony Kennedy's leadership, have been on this path for more than a decade. The court has made great strides in recognizing the worth and dignity of women and LGBT Americans. A decision in favor of Hobby Lobby would change that direction. It would not be a victory for religious freedom, but a victory for discrimination and a repudiation of the vital progress the court has made in securing equal justice for all.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/03...
You libtards do realize that Hobby Lobby is not against birth control only that they shouldn't have to pay for it against there religious leanings. I think they shouldn't be forced to go against their religion. While trying to keep religion away from government you are instilling government as your religion. Something the founders were righteously worried about.
forks_make_us_fa t

Norman, OK

#1103360 Mar 25, 2014
...and to think I used to make jokes about coat hangers...

"The Coat Hanger as a Symbol, and Why Abortion Access Matters"

http://dcabortionfund.org/donate/

Since: May 11

Blain, PA

#1103361 Mar 25, 2014
flack wrote:
Why do total tax revenues go down when income tax rates go up (and vice versa)?
By: Joe Messerli
"It should be known that at the beginning of a dynasty, taxation yields a large revenue from small assessments. At the end of the dynasty, taxation yields a small revenue from large assessments" --Ibn Khaldûn
The S&P downgrade of the U.S. credit rating, a result of a near $15 trillion debt that is growing by almost $1.3 trillion per year with no end in sight, has brought national attention to a growing crisis that threatens to destroy not only the U.S. economy, but the world economy also. Most people would agree that out-of-control government spending is the main cause, as evidenced by the fact that spending has doubled in the last decade, while tax revenues have stayed relatively constant . However, most people would agree that total tax revenues will likely have to increase along with a drastic cut in spending in order to bring the budget back in balance. The specifics of growing that revenue is hotly under debate, however.
Many politicians and media pundits are calling for increasing tax rates, primarily on upper income individuals and businesses. But does this really increase total revenues? Total tax revenues have actually increased under the tax cuts of Reagan, Kennedy, and Bush. Annual revenues nearly doubled under Reagan's presidency, despite the fact the top tax rates were drastically cut ! Nowadays, the government is finding every way under the sun to tax us, but total revenues aren't increasing. But why?!!! It can by boiled down to one simple equation:
TOTAL TAX REVENUE = TAXABLE INCOME * TAX RATE
For example, if taxable income was $10 trillion, and average tax rate was 20%, the total tax revenue would be $2 trillion. Simple, right? So why wouldn't total revenue increase to $3 trillion if you raised the average rate to 30%?! It's because this assumes the other number, taxable income, stays constant. But the fact is, it doesn't ! Businesses and individuals change their behavior in response to changes in the tax rate structure. This partially explains why tax revenue actually increased under Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush (at least until the 2007 financial crisis), despite the fact they cut rates. Let's examine why that first factor, taxable income, goes down in response to an increase in the tax rate.
"Annual revenues nearly doubled under Reagan's presidency".

So did the debt as a % of the GDP.
Pinocchiobama

Satellite Beach, FL

#1103362 Mar 25, 2014
PDUPONT wrote:
<quoted text>
People still don't want your smoke in their lungs dimwit! What's so hard to understand about that?
Nor do they want lies in their White House: Barack Hussein Obama: "Lie of the Year"!
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#1103363 Mar 25, 2014
Billionaire mogul Sheldon Adelson looks for mainstream Republican who can win in 2016

“He doesn’t want a crazy extremist to be the nominee,” Chaltiel said.“He wants someone who has the chance to win the election, who is reasonable in his positions, who has convictions but is not totally crazy.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/billio...

sorry Ted.

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

Gauley Bridge WV

#1103366 Mar 25, 2014
sonicfilter wrote:
<quoted text>
Huffpost and Media Matters are the most oft cited sites on the internet. even by right wing sites.
Republican Sens. John McCain and Susan Collins are criticizing three of their more conservative GOP colleagues for taking what McCain called a "bizarre" stand in trying to block a conference with the House on a Senate-passed budget bill.
Their anger is directed at tea party Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky, Ted Cruz of Texas, and Mike Lee of Utah, who so far have stopped the Senate from sending the budget it passed March 23 to a conference committee with the House.
According to the Huffington Post, McCain on Tuesday called the trio’s actions “bizarre,” saying on the Senate floor,“I would like to point out to my colleagues — on this side of the aisle — that for four years ... we complained about the fact that the majority leader ... would refuse to bring a budget to the floor of the United States Senate.”
“We did a budget and all of us patted each other on the back and we were so proud we did the budget," he continued. "And, by golly, now we’ll move with the House of Representatives, and we will have a budget, hopefully at least [we’ll] begin negotiations with the House of Representatives, which is a majority of Republicans — not Democrats, Republicans.”
Paul, Cruz and Lee, however, want to prohibit Senate conferees from agreeing to any deal that would raise either taxes or the debt ceiling.
That demand, McCain said, is contrary to the Senate's regular conference process.
“We ‘instruct’ the conferees,” he said.“We don’t ‘require’ the conferees because that’s why we appoint conferees and that’s why we approve or disapprove the result of that conference. That’s how our laws are made.”
It’s not the first time the Arizona Republican has slammed Paul and Cruz over obstructionist tactics. After Paul’s March filibuster over the Obama administration’s drone policy, McCain called Paul’s concerns “totally unfounded" and referred to him and Cruz as "wacko birds."
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/McCain-Paul-C...
the fact....when the dems did submit a budget the republicans decided that it wouldn't have mattered if they ever did.
pretty sure it's easy enough to find proof of the record the republicans have set over the last 6 years in obstructing the furthering of governance.
John McCain is progressive and Susan Collins is a libtard. HuffPo is a libtard wet dream. The writers there are all progressive libtards! I knew of Arianna long before she formed HuffPo. She was a middle of the road person then. Till she found out the money was in loonyville!!!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

NCAA Basketball Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 13 min UidiotRaceUMAKEWO... 314,304
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 3 hr superwilly 258,464
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 8 hr Here pharters 33,082
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) May 16 Patriot 11,170
Penn State University & State College May 12 Truechange 1
I got my loan from [email protected] (Jun '13) Apr '17 GLOBAL FUNDING SO... 43
How to Recover Deleted or lost Contacts from Sa... (Dec '14) Apr '17 DelucaKoehn 11
More from around the web