Keeping the blogosphere posted on the goings on of the world of submarines since late 2004... and mocking and belittling general foolishness wherever it may be found. Idaho's first and foremost submarine blog. (If you don't like something on this blog, please E-mail me; don't call me at home.)

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

Topic For Debate

Resolved: While I will give soon-to-be President Obama the respect due to the office as Commander-in-Chief after his inauguration, I reserve the right to disagree with certain of his policies without being considered a "racist".

Discuss.

35 Comments:

Blogger Papaya Mom said...

YOU may not be racist but there is some interesting sociological research on people who say in polling they would be alright with a black man as president but in the voting booth - don't. It seems the new trend is to say you are supporting a white candidate (ie. Hillary) but in private actually vote for a black one you support (ie. Obama) so maybe it is all changing around...

That being said - racism is still a real factor in this race no matter what we say here. It may not be polite to talk about but it is there with no question.

10/14/2008 6:00 PM

 
Blogger J120 Bowman said...

I read the linked post. If Obama loses by a landslide, then yes it will be because of racism. The Doug Wilder effect. If he loses by a slim margin racism will be thrown out there as an excuse, but what exit or post election poll will be able to prove that? I'm not proud of it, but a close relative (white woman in her 60's, heavily conservative) of mine said recently if Obama is elected, we are electing Biden. After reminding her the same could be said of Palin, her response was at least McCain might die a natural death. The implication is Obama will be a greater assasination target because he is black. I was quite appalled and disappointed. However it does show there is latent racism. In some respects, the only difference between 1968 and now is people don't openly display their racism.

I could care less if our president is black, brown or purple. I don't agree with Obama, like I didn't agree with Clinton. Remember the cold reception Clinton received from the military? Remember the stories from the White House about the way young Clintonites looked down on very senior military officers? I see the same thing coming from Obama.

If Obama is elected, he is the CIC, plain and simple.

10/14/2008 6:13 PM

 
Blogger Patty Wayne said...

While I will give soon-to-be President Obama the respect due to the office as Commander-in-Chief after his inauguration, I reserve the right to disagree with certain of his policies without being considered a "racist"

It's going to be tough. Many in the population won't let you. Just as those of us who respectfully disagree with certain policies of President Bush, while giving him the respect due the commander in chief, do so by being considered "unpatriotic" by many others.

PW

10/14/2008 6:51 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Given that a supermajority of blacks are voting for Obama because he is black is overt racism, but the MSM won't report it. While I can logically see, when taken to an absurd extreme, the reasoning behind a black person's justification based on past injustices, at some point we have to draw a line. No one living today was ever a slave, nor did anyone living today ever on slaves. But the taxpayers of this country have coughed up TRILLIONS of dollars to the welfare state to no avail.

New immigrants with no English skills have assimilated and excelled within two generations - why not "African Americans" born here?

If blacks want to vote for Obama becasue he's black, that's fine with me, but don't tell me that I'm a racist because I oppose his socialist,take from me to give to you, pie in the sky, utopian drivel. The guy is a socialist pure and simple - and I wouldn't vote for him if he were purple.

10/14/2008 6:59 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In all fairness I think you're wasting a perfectly good debate topic on an article which is bunk on its face.

You could certainly argue *now* after watching Palin and several debates that if Obama loses it is because of any host of factors which he couldn't help (i.e. racism, voter fraud, etc.) I don't think that could have been argued in August when that article was written.

Beyond that even given that there is a group of people who will never vote for Obama it is certainly possible that is not due to race (for instance, the fact that he represents the Democratic Party is an automatic disqualifer for many).

Instead though you focus on the article trying to play the race card and make the obvious statement that you should be able to criticize a Presidential candidate without it being racism. But even as flawed as the article was, the author never claimed you shouldn't criticize Sen. Obama, just that he didn't think you could logically end up voting for Sen. McCain over Sen. Obama.

10/14/2008 7:59 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous, are you trying to say black people are too dumb to excel? That's what I got out of your flawed immigrant analogy.
Plenty of black Americans become people of not just success, but value. Immigrants view America in a different light than a black boy born in South Chicago. And not all immigrant families become successful down the line. Look at places like China Town or Little Italy. Those aren't reputed breeding grounds for success abroad. At least they have a well defined culture going for them.

10/14/2008 8:28 PM

 
Blogger beebs said...

Obama, Osama, McCain, it doesn't matter.

We have to get the budget under control. Neither will do it.

10/15/2008 12:54 AM

 
Anonymous Ross Kline said...

Yes! Beebs has hit the nail on the head!

And lets not forget the other branch of the government...you remember, the one with a lower approval rating than the presidents? That group is called "Congress", and they aren't helping either.

10/15/2008 5:58 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You are correct Ross, yet the Democrats were supposed to make everything better. What is Nancy Pelosi's record?

anon #2... the analogy is not flawed, I see it every day. And nobody called anyone dumb. You sound like a social worker whose job depends on an active welfare state.

When people need help, it is not kind of us to give them a hand out. It makes the GIVER feel better temporarily, it relieves their guilt. Makes them feel better about themselves. In the long run it does not help the recipient, rather it makes them dependent on the system and they lose their sense of self. The more excuses they are fed along with the handout continues to erode their self-esteem until you are left with what we have; generations on the dole.

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime.

Back to the original post, if Obama loses, people will play the race card. It's been reported in the MSM and interviewees are proud that they will, "protest, riot and stuff".

Reverse racism.

10/15/2008 6:19 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm tired of the "teach a man to fish" thing. I like this one better.

"Light a fire for a man, you keep him warm for a night. Light a man on fire, and you keep him warm the rest of his life."

10/15/2008 6:24 AM

 
Blogger Rubber Ducky said...

"If blacks want to vote for Obama becasue he's black, that's fine with me, but don't tell me that I'm a racist because I oppose his socialist,take from me to give to you, pie in the sky, utopian drivel. The guy is a socialist pure and simple - and I wouldn't vote for him if he were purple."

You may not be a racist (I think the jury's still out), but obviously that doesn't stop you from being an ignorant fathead.

10/15/2008 7:31 AM

 
Blogger Submaster said...

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" This phrase pretty much sums up Obama...problem is this is what Karl Marx said. The phrase summarizes the principles that, under a communist system, every person should contribute to society to the best of their ability and consume from society in proportion to their needs, regardless of how much they have contributed.

This is WHY I'm not voting Obama!!

It's "patriotic" to pay more taxes to support those who are less fortunate and can't manage. Obama's message is nothing new, just repackaged communism.

10/15/2008 8:10 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gallup Poll concerning effects of race on the election:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/111049/Obamas-Race-May-Much-Plus-Minus.aspx

RM1/SS

10/15/2008 8:12 AM

 
Blogger Submaster said...

Rubber Ducky,
You missed the point. 95% of blacks are voting for Obama. If this number were 95% of whites voting for McCain, there would be such a stink raised that there is racism. BUT 95% of blacks voting for Obama is not racism?!?!?

If you're honest...you will have to admit that a 95% voting block is pretty monolithic and smells just a little bit.

10/15/2008 8:18 AM

 
Blogger Sandy Salt said...

This is still America and you don't have to vote for anyone that doesn't share your views regardless what the media wants you to believe. You should vote for the person that reflects your views regardless of skin color. Say you are against abortion then you should vote for McCain or if you are for universal health care then vote for Obama. It should be as simple as that, but the media wants you to believe if you are white voting for McCain that makes you racist. That is lunacy, but that is the MSM today. I won't comment on the fact that certain groups will be voting certains ways because of skin color alone because this cuts both ways, since there are some folks that just don't care about the issue just skin color.

10/15/2008 10:00 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"...the media wants you to believe if you are white voting for McCain that makes you racist. That is lunacy, but that is the MSM today."

No, that's not what anyone in the MSM is saying. They are saying that race will be a factor, and SOME people who otherwise might share Obama's views will likely vote against him because he is black. Do you really disagree with that?
I agree that the same could be said about afican americans who might otherwise support McCain, but given the historical support of the demoncratic party by african americans is there really any shift to talk about? Enough to alter the outcome?
I challenge anyone to post a link from a journalist in the MSM who makes the blanket statement that if a white person votes for McCain they are being racist. The link from the orignal post doesn't. It suggests that Obama would have a bigger lead if race wasn't a factor. I'm not sure I agree, but its hardly an inditement of all white McCain supporters. Also, a 2nd class pundit on Slate is hardly the MSM.

10/15/2008 10:21 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is unfortunate that some posters find it necessary to call others names. The elastic hydrocarbon polymer water fowl has done it in previous posts as well. Best to classify him/her as a troll and/or koo-aid drinker and move on.

Obama has clearly stated that he wants to redistribute wealth. That is simply wrong no matter what color you are.

SSNCOB

10/15/2008 10:30 AM

 
Blogger Sandy Salt said...

Anon,
If you bothered to read the entire post, you would have seen that I do agree that there are people on both sides that don't care about the issues and will only vote based on skin color.

As for the MSM and quotes, the fact that they suggest that Obama's lead would be bigger if it were not for the racist voting for McCain proves the point I was trying to make. If you are white voting for McCain then you must be a racist, since Obama is such a great candidate with such a wonderful vision for this country. The MSM doesn't allow for disagreements on the issues, only the fact that if you are white and not voting for Obama you must be a racist because you can't see his greatness. They of course say nothing of the 90+% of a certain race voting for Obama because they are voting correctly in the eyes of the MSM.

10/15/2008 10:33 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sandy Salt,

"the fact that they suggest that Obama's lead would be bigger if it were not for the racist voting for McCain proves the point I was trying to make. If you are white voting for McCain then you must be a racist, since Obama is such a great candidate with such a wonderful vision for this country."

Your logic is simply wrong, and it does't prove your point. If I say that the Celtic-Cavs game would have been closer, but the refs made some bad calls, that is not the same thing as saying that all the calls against the Celtic were bad, or even that all the refs made bad calls. Explain to me where my logic breaks down or stop beating the straw man...

10/15/2008 11:22 AM

 
Blogger Sandy Salt said...

Anon,

The fact that the MSM does not allow for the fact that people are not voting for Obama because they don't agree with him vice the color of his skin. You are the one beating the strawman. It is true that this year the "average Democrat" should be beating the "average Republican" by double digits does not mean that since Obama is failing to do that it is racism that is the cause. This is faulty logic. Obama is not the "average Democrat" because he has the most liberal voting record, so he is not average. Maybe people are not voting for him because they don't agree with his positions more so than the color of his skin. I find it offensive that the MSM questions the motivations of some, but not others.

As for you bad refs and close games, a game could have been closer if certain bad calls had not been made at all. A bad call can give an advantage to a team, which the other has difficulty overcoming (momentum busters). I fail to see how this applies to the fact that the MSM feels that Obama should be farther ahead except for the fact of racism. If the truth be known, it would be a closer race if it wasn't for racism.

10/15/2008 11:36 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Obama has clearly stated that he wants to redistribute wealth. That is simply wrong no matter what color you are."

Any taxation system, reditributes wealth. By this logic Bush was wrong to:

1) Add an additional child tax credit, transferring wealth from people without kids to people with kids.

2) Cut the corporate dividends tax transferring wealth from people who don't have stock (poor people) to people who do hold stock (rich people).

Further McCain's plan to give a tax break to people who purchase health insurance is a wealth redistribution from people who don't have or can't afford health insurance to people who do.

You can rightly argue that some of these cases represent cancelling out other forms of wealth redistribution, but my point is that characterizing Obama as a socialist when the GOP (except for a few flat taxers) is just as invovled in wealth redistribution as the Dems.

10/15/2008 11:36 AM

 
Anonymous Carl said...

First to the specific resolution, I agree. And how others will be perceived, such as how those who disagree with Bush are considered unpatriotic, is dependent on how the disagree'ers are characterized by the administration.

Supporters may try to label those who disagree with Obama as "racist" but without support from the administration to make these labels stick, there will be no long-lasting issue. The Bush administration did very well in facilitating the nattering-nabobs' characterizations of disagreement as unpatriotic and so it's stuck in general.

10/15/2008 1:36 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I’ll keep my opinions to myself on the issue of color. The largest racist I ever met was a black college classmate. I look more at experience and I will cast my vote relying on what I feel I know.
I can’t trust the media to tell the truth and both the candidates will say what every they need to in order to get into office and when they get there, nothing will be changed because they can’t get Capitol Hill to play nice.
It is what it is and all I can do is vote and complain.

10/15/2008 1:52 PM

 
Anonymous Deployable said...

"anon #2... the analogy is not flawed, I see it every day. And nobody called anyone dumb. You sound like a social worker whose job depends on an active welfare state."

Actually I just had gotten back from 14 hours of supervising torpedo onload and post-shipping handling evolutions when I posted that comment but thanks for playing.

"When people need help, it is not kind of us to give them a hand out. It makes the GIVER feel better temporarily, it relieves their guilt. Makes them feel better about themselves. In the long run it does not help the recipient, rather it makes them dependent on the system and they lose their sense of self. The more excuses they are fed along with the handout continues to erode their self-esteem until you are left with what we have; generations on the dole.

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime."

Um, duh? That doesn't relate to hardly a damn thing I said though.

"Back to the original post, if Obama loses, people will play the race card. It's been reported in the MSM and interviewees are proud that they will, "protest, riot and stuff".

You remember after Bush won in 2000 and all those guys started driving around with "Proud Member of a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy"? This is what you sound like right now, except you're complaining about some vast liberal conspiracy vice a Right wing conspiracy.

The point about Obama and voting is something called the Bradley Effect, where someone will tell a pollster one thing but in the secrecy of a ballot box decide that he can't vote for the black guy. Turns out the Bradley Effect probably doesn't actually exist as the vote in question (I'll let you Google it; O'Reilly hasn't boycotted Google yet, has he?) had already been drastically narrowing. Discussing racism in politics doesn't automatically make a white McCain voter racist but if thinking that mainstream media is guilt-tripping those poor vegetable white voters into voting for Obama makes you sleep better at night after Nov. 4th then more power to you.

I prefer to think that white voters for Obama actually choose to vote for Obama (or against McCain/Palin) instead of being brainwashed by the media into it based on Obama being black. Especially given how this matches my experience with the election coverage this cycle.

10/15/2008 2:00 PM

 
Blogger Rubber Ducky said...

"If you're honest...you will have to admit that a 95% voting block is pretty monolithic and smells just a little bit."

Yup. Smells like democracy. Suggest rereading the 14th Amendment.

10/15/2008 2:19 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Yup. Smells like democracy. Suggest rereading the 14th Amendment."

Precisely why the Electoral College exists - to prevent populous states and monolithic voting blocks from running roughshod over flyover country.

10/15/2008 2:54 PM

 
Blogger Mark said...

Joel, I have to say... way to incite mounds of ridiculous comment by making an entirely uncontroversial statement. Also, way to pick an obscure article out of a political landscape that hasn't existed for almost two months.

10/15/2008 2:56 PM

 
Blogger Rubber Ducky said...

"Precisely why the Electoral College exists - to prevent populous states and monolithic voting blocks from running roughshod over flyover country."

Am having trouble understanding how a concept created in 1787 to serve the 13 states on the Eastern Seaboard could have had in mind either aviation or Manifest Destiny. Confirms a long held belief: lots of folks who identify themselves with the military could sure use a civics lesson.

10/15/2008 3:03 PM

 
Blogger Port Tack Start said...

Am having trouble understanding how a concept created in 1787 to serve the 13 states on the Eastern Seaboard could have had in mind either aviation or Manifest Destiny. Confirms a long held belief: lots of folks who identify themselves with the military could sure use a civics lesson.

Please refrain from insulting us if you're having a self-admitted comprehension problem. The grandparent post was informing us of his opinion of the current purpose of the EC. It was in no way, state, or form a discussion on the creation of the EC.

10/15/2008 6:17 PM

 
Blogger Rubber Ducky said...

"The grandparent post was informing us of his opinion of the current purpose of the EC. It was in no way, state, or form a discussion on the creation of the EC."

Gee, I wasn't aware that its purpose had changed since its creation. Wow. Thanks for clearing that up. You must be a nuke.

10/15/2008 6:28 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rubber Ducky -

In regards to your first post on this topic:

"You may not be a racist (I think the jury's still out), but obviously that doesn't stop you from being an ignorant fathead."

I would like to know exactly what your objection (other than an ad hominem attack) is to the original concept - that white voters should be able to legitimately object to Obama's policies without being tarred as a racism (since we seem to be giving a pass to the 95% of black voters who oppose McCain). And why term the poster a fathead? Certainly Obama's recent quote to the small business-owning plumber - "we need to spread the wealth around" could be interpreted as socialism, pure and simple.

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/195153.html

10/15/2008 7:05 PM

 
Blogger Rubber Ducky said...

"I would like to know exactly what your objection (other than an ad hominem attack) is to the original concept - that white voters should be able to legitimately object to Obama's policies without being tarred as a racism (since we seem to be giving a pass to the 95% of black voters who oppose McCain). And why term the poster a fathead? Certainly Obama's recent quote to the small business-owning plumber - "we need to spread the wealth around" could be interpreted as socialism, pure and simple." Or as a principled stand against the rapacious greed of the party now in the White House...

The original post tying vote preference to race was itself ad hominem - 'against the man' - in its association of a citizen's choice for president to the race of the chooser. Shared values? Common experience? Deeper trust? No: race determines vote, or so contend those troubled by it.

Others (I'm one) would reply that 'correlation does not imply causation,' a view reinforced by the free-choice nature of American voting. How a person votes and why is not subject to a statistical test that denigrates that vote if too many of an artificial grouping agree.

The very concept of race is becoming invalid and specious. Those choosing the Democratic nominee for president will be voting for a person half black, half white, and all American. Look around you: the 'typical American' increasingly looks a lot more like Tiger Woods than John McCain.

I am myself a haolie and a gringo, but I am encouraged by the competent and successful candidacy of the Democrats' 'post-racial' candidate. It's time. The racial arguments posted previously are so 20th century.

And as to why this guy is a fathead? Nature? Nurture? Beats me.

10/16/2008 5:26 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ducky,

Is it racist for me to point out that 95% of blacks supporting a black candidate seem, well, racist? Is it racist for me to point out that, disproportionately, larger percentages of blacks than non-blacks collect welfare? Is it racist to point out that, according to the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports, blacks commit disproportionate percentages of violent crimes - particularly against other races? Just wondering, 'cause if pointing out those FACTS makes me a racist, then I guess I'm a racist.

But to the main discussion at hand, I have no problem voting for a qualified black man for POTUS. In fact, I would much prefer to vote for Alan Keyes than John McLame. That said, I will NEVER knowingly vote for an avowed socialist (as Obama surely is), regardless of skin color. Fortunately for me I live in a state in which Obama hasn't a prayer to win. In fact, McCain will win in a landslide. Knowing that, I may just vote for Chuck Baldwin to send a tiny message to the GOP that I'm not happy with the lite-leftist McCain.

10/16/2008 10:32 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

From Ann Coulter today:

EIGHTY-FOUR PERCENT SAY THEY'D NEVER LIE TO A POLLSTER
October 15, 2008


With an African-American running for president this year, there has been a lot of chatter about the "Bradley effect," allowing the media to wail about institutional racism in America.

Named after Tom Bradley, who lost his election for California governor in 1982 despite a substantial lead in the polls, the Bradley effect says that black candidates will poll much stronger than the actual election results.

First of all, if true, this is the opposite of racism: It is fear of being accused of racism. For most Americans, there is nothing more terrifying than the prospect of being called a racist. It's scarier than flood or famine, terrorist attacks or flesh-eating bacteria. To some, it's even scarier than "food insecurity."

Political correctness has taught people to lie to pollsters rather than be forced to explain why they're not voting for the African-American.

This is how two typical voters might answer a pollster's question: "Whom do you support for president?"

Average Obama voter: "Obama." (Name of average Obama voter: "Mickey Mouse.")

Average McCain voter: "I'm voting for McCain, but I swear it's just about the issues. It's not because Obama's black. If Barack Obama were a little more moderate -- hey, I'd vote for Colin Powell. But my convictions force me to vote for the candidate who just happens to be white. Say, do you know where I can get Patti LaBelle tickets?"

In addition to the social pressure to constantly prove you're not a racist, apparently there is massive social pressure to prove you're not a Republican. No one is lying about voting for McCain just to sound cool.

Reviewing the polls printed in The New York Times and The Washington Post in the last month of every presidential election since 1976, I found the polls were never wrong in a friendly way to Republicans. When the polls were wrong, which was often, they overestimated support for the Democrat, usually by about 6 to 10 points.

In 1976, Jimmy Carter narrowly beat Gerald Ford 50.1 percent to 48 percent. And yet, on Sept. 1, Carter led Ford by 15 points. Just weeks before the election, on Oct. 16, 1976, Carter led Ford in the Gallup Poll by 6 percentage points -- down from his 33-point Gallup Poll lead in August.

Reading newspaper coverage of presidential elections in 1980 and 1984, I found myself paralyzed by the fear that Reagan was going to lose.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan beat Carter by nearly 10 points, 51 percent to 41 percent. In a Gallup Poll released days before the election on Oct. 27, it was Carter who led Reagan 45 percent to 42 percent.

In 1984, Reagan walloped Walter Mondale 58.8 percent to 40 percent, -- the largest electoral landslide in U.S. history. But on Oct. 15, The New York Daily News published a poll showing Mondale with only a 4-point deficit to Reagan, 45 percent to 41 percent. A Harris Poll about the same time showed Reagan with only a 9-point lead. The Oct. 19 New York Times/CBS News Poll had Mr. Reagan ahead of Mondale by 13 points. All these polls underestimated Reagan's actual margin of victory by 6 to 15 points.

In 1988, George H.W. Bush beat Michael Dukakis by a whopping 53.4 percent to 45.6 percent. A New York Times/CBS News Poll on Oct. 5 had Bush leading the Greek homunculus by a statistically insignificant 2 points -- 45 percent to 43 percent. (For the kids out there: Before it became a clearinghouse for anti-Bush conspiracy theories, CBS News was considered a credible journalistic entity.)

A week later -- or one tank ride later, depending on who's telling the story -- on Oct. 13, Bush was leading Dukakis in The New York Times Poll by a mere 5 points.

Admittedly, a 3- to 6-point error is not as crazily wrong as the 6- to 15-point error in 1984. But it's striking that even small "margin of error" mistakes never seem to benefit Republicans.

In 1992, Bill Clinton beat the first President Bush 43 percent to 37.7 percent. (Ross Perot got 18.9 percent of Bush's voters that year.) On Oct. 18, a Newsweek Poll had Clinton winning 46 percent to 31 percent, and a CBS News Poll showed Clinton winning 47 percent to 35 percent.

So in 1992, the polls had Clinton 12 to 15 points ahead, but he won by only 5.3 points.

In 1996, Bill Clinton beat Bob Dole 49 percent to 40 percent. And yet on Oct. 22, 1996, The New York Times/CBS News Poll showed Clinton leading by a massive 22 points, 55 percent to 33 percent.

In 2000, which I seem to recall as being fairly close, the October polls accurately described the election as a virtual tie, with either Bush or Al Gore 1 or 2 points ahead in various polls. But in one of the latest polls to give either candidate a clear advantage, The New York Times/CBS News Poll on Oct. 3, 2000, showed Gore winning by 45 percent to 39 percent.

In the last presidential election the polls were surprisingly accurate -- not including the massively inaccurate Election Day exit poll. In the end, Bush beat John Kerry 50.7 percent to 48.3 percent in 2004. Most of the October polls showed the candidates in a dead-heat, with Bush 1 to 3 points ahead. So either pollsters got a whole lot better starting in 2004, or Democrats stole more votes in that election than we even realized.

10/17/2008 7:29 PM

 
Blogger Mark said...

Thank you for that rigorous treatment of polling data. I especially appreciate the consistency with which she chose pollsters, poll dates, and treated major political events near election day. The non sequitur finish about voter fraud was especially scintillating.

10/18/2008 2:09 PM

 

Post a Comment

<< Home