Page 16 of 18 FirstFirst ... 61415161718 LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 174

Thread: IRS officials in Washington were involved in targeting of conservative groups

  1. #151
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:28 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,671

    Re: IRS officials in Washington were involved in targeting of conservative groups

    Quote Originally Posted by MMC View Post
    Well my point was Obama knew that he was dictating the change of direction. He won in 2008. Was getting his people into place. While always going after the Repubs. So yeah he was cleaning house. Plus setting the tone for the change up. His Administration. Which his people knew his agenda.

    2009 rolls along Team Obama is in play. AmeriCorps was being investigated. Obama finds out and s**t cans the IG after his findings on his buddy. Grassley and the Media Carries it all into 2010. While pointing out that Obama didn't even have any grounds to fire the IG over. Other than he lost confidence in the man. What a crock a s**t. Then True the Vote takes place. "Why" them first. Well their Platform says it all. Election Fraud and that's what they were talking about. So Naturally The Democrats are going to panic. Can't have more groups out there solely focused on Election fraud and be a Conservative Group from the Right garnering up more money. That could upset the Demo Applecart. Which now we know who sent letters to the IRS. As well as Levin's intention to hold a Committee hearing over why the had failed to address the Demos Side of the issue.

    Unfortunately one can always go and blame the Previous Administration......talk about what they did was wrong. Use that as the rational and excuse. That, because it was done before. That none should say anything about it. That they should accept this is the way things are. Busssssh......5years later. Buussssh its what he did. Busssssh the same ignoramus that all the left claims is a dunce. Buuuush policy destroyed us. Despite most of Clintons S**t taking affect all throughout Buuuuuusssh time.

    Also yeah it was a crappy firing but Obama didn't fail to stop the investigation.....he just came in on the end of it, after the IG had already made its discovery and findings of The Mayor of Sacramento. Which naturally with the Media Coverage and Grassley being aware, Johnson would do the Right thing and pay back the money.

    You didn't think that The Mayor of Sacramento would be highlighted in National Coverage and just think he could walk away from the issue.....now did you? That he could say screw it and not pay the money back.....Right? Kinda Hard for Obama to stop what he knew was being reported to the media and Walpin. That would look like direct interference into an Investigation. Which is why Obama waited until it concluded to make his move. Which again shows he is aware of things in the beginning of 2010. At least with the IRS and this issue.

    My thinking is he doesn't know what was going down with the Justice Dept. That falls on Holder and the Democrats. Like Schumer, Welch, and any other Democrats that were sending letters and Emails to the IRS over it. I would even check those Pol's phone records to see if calls were made. Course I would play it fair and go after any Repubs that were trying to do it to the Democrats.

    Which to me.....getting rid of the Two party system. Just seems more and more like the Right thing to do. Then maybe we wont have to worry as much about such an Issue.
    You can't blame this on the President.. well you can, but then you wouldn't be correct.
    If the President was going to go after 501(c)(4)'s why would he not have made a push to shutdown the organizations that were spending all of the money? An even better question, why would the Republicans ignore treasury reports that this was going on? Why would the scandal hungry House Republicans sit on this story while at the same time flogging faux scandals like “Fast and Furious”. Generally you can trust people to act in their own interest, this is especially true for politicians.

    I think everyone ignored this until now because they either didn't believe it, or didn't mind. In other words the IRS did this on their own, but no one cared.

    No one likes the Tea Party. Yes, the GOP needs their votes and their excitement, but the GOP loses seats every time a Tea Party member opens their mouth. Without the Tea Party we'd almost certainly have a GOP controlled Senate. If conservative donors want to donate anonymously, then GOP groups want to make sure that those donations go to big groups that they can control. The GOP doesn't want independent grassroots Tea Party groups involved in anything other than donating and voting.

    Look at how much dark money has moved through 501(c) status organizations. Liberals aren't going to rock the boat while conservative groups are being targeted, and conservatives aren't going to complain when grassroots Tea Party groups are being shut down.

    Political Spending by 501(C) Organizations

  2. #152
    Sage
    OpportunityCost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:23 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,734

    Re: IRS officials in Washington were involved in targeting of conservative groups

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    No, it's the core of the topic. The whole IRS "scandal" stems from the code and the abuse of the code.



    What's ****ing tiring is when partisan hackjobs get all upset over **** they don't understand. Fail to understand the reasons, and then ignore when their party did objectively worse **** that had no rational basis. At least the IRS had a rational reason for what it did. I haven't heard any of the "Impeach Obama" Club say a damn thing about how it was wrong for Bush to go after Greenpeace purely because a few donators didn't like them. If you want to get upset over the IRS scandal, you need to go back a decade. Or you are without question a partisan hackjob tool.



    The code is still ultimately the problem. 501(c)4s shouldn't have anything to do with politics. In fact, the entire 501(c)4 really shouldn't exist.



    And there lies the problem. We either get Congress to change it, or we let the IRS crack down.



    And one side was stupid enough to put politically overt names on applications for a status that bars them from being primarily political. If you were the IRS agent and you got a deluge of overly politically named organizations apply for a status that lawfully prohibited their primary function of politics, wouldn't you start sorting them via names? The IRS did the same thing the Israelis do.



    They should! Actually, social not so much as that alone doesn't tell us anything. Justice could go either way, particularly since many of those are often education outreach for poor to get lawyer help. Nothing really political about that. I know a few in my state with that in their name that do exactly zero lobbying. I'd advocate that the IRS profile based on names if Congress can't get its **** together.



    I suspect that the Democrats didn't subscribe to the same stupidity that the TP did in putting overt political names out. Notice that the one Democrat that got denied was overtly political.

    TP should have done "St. Cloud's Swim Club." That would have likely gotten past the IRS.



    But they got their first scrutiny after the Pastor came out against the Iraq war. Which was well after the election. Furthermore, they should have gotten revoked for that statement. They should NOT have gotten scrutiny for being against the Iraq war. There are things that violate the political activity. Being against causing mass destruction is not necessarily one of them. Saying to the congregation, vote for X is.
    So many wrongheaded ideas.

    1. What something is NAMED should not affect how its treated under the law.
    2. The IRS is not allowed to crack down willy nilly. It has oversight, it has regulations to adhere to, excessive repeated examination of a person or organization is exactly the kind of misuse of government we are supposedly trying to avoid--yet you want more of it.
    3. Eliminating tax exempt status is a non starter, your opinion is noted and your distaste of the group as a whole is noted. IE your inherent bias...
    4.
    What's ****ing tiring is when partisan hackjobs get all upset over **** they don't understand. Fail to understand the reasons, and then ignore when their party did objectively worse **** that had no rational basis. At least the IRS had a rational reason for what it did. I haven't heard any of the "Impeach Obama" Club say a damn thing about how it was wrong for Bush to go after Greenpeace purely because a few donators didn't like them. If you want to get upset over the IRS scandal, you need to go back a decade. Or you are without question a partisan hackjob tool.
    Trolling bull**** is trolling bull****. Not everyone that disagrees with you doesnt understand, they just dont agree. If you really want to hold out that environmental groups dont advocate into politics, you are definitely fooling yourself.
    5. Coming out against a specific war rather than war itself. Gray area. One that Bush got a lot of heat over. Again BOOOOOOSHHHHHH. Cant help yourself, can you?

  3. #153
    Sage
    OpportunityCost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:23 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,734

    Re: IRS officials in Washington were involved in targeting of conservative groups

    Quote Originally Posted by Mithros View Post
    You can't blame this on the President.. well you can, but then you wouldn't be correct.
    If the President was going to go after 501(c)(4)'s why would he not have made a push to shutdown the organizations that were spending all of the money? An even better question, why would the Republicans ignore treasury reports that this was going on? Why would the scandal hungry House Republicans sit on this story while at the same time flogging faux scandals like “Fast and Furious”. Generally you can trust people to act in their own interest, this is especially true for politicians.

    I think everyone ignored this until now because they either didn't believe it, or didn't mind. In other words the IRS did this on their own, but no one cared.

    No one likes the Tea Party. Yes, the GOP needs their votes and their excitement, but the GOP loses seats every time a Tea Party member opens their mouth. Without the Tea Party we'd almost certainly have a GOP controlled Senate. If conservative donors want to donate anonymously, then GOP groups want to make sure that those donations go to big groups that they can control. The GOP doesn't want independent grassroots Tea Party groups involved in anything other than donating and voting.

    Look at how much dark money has moved through 501(c) status organizations. Liberals aren't going to rock the boat while conservative groups are being targeted, and conservatives aren't going to complain when grassroots Tea Party groups are being shut down.

    Political Spending by 501(C) Organizations
    Regarding bolded, I would say no one likes congress, the current admin, or the IRS (especially the IRS) worse. No one likes the Tea Party is the kind of generalized political statement that betrays immediate bias. Further, how much someone is liked shouldnt matter at all about how they are treated by the government.

    Now regarding the no one cares...no one would if the President were actually doing something to correct the abuses and remove the people that implemented them. Hes engaging in a method of operation that he always has, hes expecting the press to carry water for him and allow him to sweep it under the rug. Firing an interim director? How about cleaning house in the unit making the decisions? How about aiding in the investigation? How about not to feigning ignorance? How about saying, Im going to find out, and heads will roll? The admin and the IRS are doing the opposite.

    The problem with plausible deniability is that you dont look like a leader, you look like a weasel.

  4. #154
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: IRS officials in Washington were involved in targeting of conservative groups

    Quote Originally Posted by Mithros View Post
    You can't blame this on the President.. well you can, but then you wouldn't be correct.
    If the President was going to go after 501(c)(4)'s why would he not have made a push to shutdown the organizations that were spending all of the money? An even better question, why would the Republicans ignore treasury reports that this was going on? Why would the scandal hungry House Republicans sit on this story while at the same time flogging faux scandals like “Fast and Furious”. Generally you can trust people to act in their own interest, this is especially true for politicians.

    I think everyone ignored this until now because they either didn't believe it, or didn't mind. In other words the IRS did this on their own, but no one cared.

    No one likes the Tea Party. Yes, the GOP needs their votes and their excitement, but the GOP loses seats every time a Tea Party member opens their mouth. Without the Tea Party we'd almost certainly have a GOP controlled Senate. If conservative donors want to donate anonymously, then GOP groups want to make sure that those donations go to big groups that they can control. The GOP doesn't want independent grassroots Tea Party groups involved in anything other than donating and voting.

    Look at how much dark money has moved through 501(c) status organizations. Liberals aren't going to rock the boat while conservative groups are being targeted, and conservatives aren't going to complain when grassroots Tea Party groups are being shut down.

    Political Spending by 501(C) Organizations
    "Oh", I think they can say Obama knew but not what was going thru his Judicial as that was other Depts within the Judicial.....True the Vote starts in 2010. Grassley and the media carried Obama firing an AG who had found his Buddy guilty of doing such with AmeriCorps. Which the Mayor of Sacramento. Kevin Johnson and good buddy of Obama's. Paid back the Money. It's Called Walpin Gate. Started 2009.

    Walpin-gate

    Congress ought to open an investigation, New York Times editorialists should be in a state of apoplexy, and MSNBC hosts ought to be frothing at the mouth. Without appropriate documentation or good reason, President Obama has fired a federal investigator who was on the case against a political ally of the president’s. Mr. Obama’s move has the stench of scandal.

    On June 11, Mr. Obama fired Gerald Walpin, inspector general for the Corporation for National and Community Service. He offered no public reason for doing so other than that he “no longer” had “the fullest confidence” in Mr. Walpin. Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican, is rightly questioning the firing and the explanation for it.

    The senator noted that the Inspector General Reform Act requires the president to “communicate in writing … the reasons for any such removal.” Losing one’s “fullest confidence” hardly qualifies as a justifiable reason. The Senate report language attached to the act explains: “The requirement to notify the Congress in advance of the reasons for the removal should serve to ensure that Inspectors General are not removed for political reasons.”

    Yet, as Associated Press noted, “Obama’s move follows an investigation by IG Gerald Walpin finding misuse of federal grants by a nonprofit education group led by Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, who is an Obama supporter and former NBA basketball star.” Further, “The IG found that Johnson … had used Americorps grants to pay volunteers to engage in school-board political activities, run personal errands for Johnson and even wash his car.”

    Sacramento U.S. Attorney Larry Brown criticized Mr. Walpin for publicly announcing the investigation rather than more quietly cooperating with federal prosecutors. Clearly, though, there was merit to Mr. Walpin’s charges: Mr. Brown’s office reached a settlement ordering the nonprofit organization to repay half of the $850,000 in grant money it received - with $72,836.50 of that repayment coming from Mr. Johnson’s own pocket.


    Read more: EDITORIAL: Walpin-gate - Washington Times
    Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/genera...ion-group.html
    Last edited by MMC; 05-23-13 at 12:26 PM.

  5. #155
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:28 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,671

    Re: IRS officials in Washington were involved in targeting of conservative groups

    Quote Originally Posted by OpportunityCost View Post
    So many wrongheaded ideas.

    1. What something is NAMED should not affect how its treated under the law.
    2. The IRS is not allowed to crack down willy nilly. It has oversight, it has regulations to adhere to, excessive repeated examination of a person or organization is exactly the kind of misuse of government we are supposedly trying to avoid--yet you want more of it.
    3. Eliminating tax exempt status is a non starter, your opinion is noted and your distaste of the group as a whole is noted. IE your inherent bias...
    4. Trolling bull**** is trolling bull****. Not everyone that disagrees with you doesnt understand, they just dont agree. If you really want to hold out that environmental groups dont advocate into politics, you are definitely fooling yourself.
    5. Coming out against a specific war rather than war itself. Gray area. One that Bush got a lot of heat over. Again BOOOOOOSHHHHHH. Cant help yourself, can you?
    I was about to write that 1 is totally correct, but I think I've moved away from that position. Certainly it's wrong to single out only Conservative buzzwords.

    But yesterday I went through 1018 groups that had been approved by the IRS in 2012, and tried to see for myself which groups were political and which weren't. I hate to say it, but the names are useful.

    Here are 13 pseudorandomly selected groups from the 1018. Which would you think deserve higher levels of scrutiny?
    1. World Chinese Bodybuilding & Fitness Association
    2. Seymour Johnson Air Force Base Non- Commissioned Officers Wives Club
    3. Restore Americas Voice Foundation
    4. Pelham Bay Taxpayers and Civic Association
    5. Norwood Citizens Car Show
    6. Michigan State Council of Senior Citizens
    7. Lions Club of Mason City Iowa
    8. Homeless But Not Powerless
    9. Friends of the Jeffersonville Twp. Public Library
    10. Disabled American Veterans Milbank-Sisseton Chapter 19
    11. Chrome Czars Motor Club Inc.
    12. Campaign for Justice
    13. A Patch of Lakeshore Quilters


    I think the problem is the way the names were generated. What if we did it with an algorithm? Take the names of all of the groups that were accepted, and compare them to the groups that were flagged. If a word occurs more frequently in the flagged groups, then it goes on the BOLO.

  6. #156
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:28 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,671

    Re: IRS officials in Washington were involved in targeting of conservative groups

    Quote Originally Posted by OpportunityCost View Post
    Regarding bolded, I would say no one likes congress, the current admin, or the IRS (especially the IRS) worse. No one likes the Tea Party is the kind of generalized political statement that betrays immediate bias. Further, how much someone is liked shouldnt matter at all about how they are treated by the government.

    Now regarding the no one cares...no one would if the President were actually doing something to correct the abuses and remove the people that implemented them. Hes engaging in a method of operation that he always has, hes expecting the press to carry water for him and allow him to sweep it under the rug. Firing an interim director? How about cleaning house in the unit making the decisions? How about aiding in the investigation? How about not to feigning ignorance? How about saying, Im going to find out, and heads will roll? The admin and the IRS are doing the opposite.

    The problem with plausible deniability is that you dont look like a leader, you look like a weasel.
    By no one, I mean no one who had oversight of the IRS.

  7. #157
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: IRS officials in Washington were involved in targeting of conservative groups

    Quote Originally Posted by MMC View Post
    "Oh", I think they can say Obama knew but not what was going thru his Judicial as that was other Depts within the Judicial.....True the Vote starts in 2010. Grassley and the media carried Obama firing an AG who had found his Buddy guilty of doing such with AmeriCorps. Which the Mayor of Sacramento. Kevin Johnson and good buddy of Obama's. Paid back the Money. It's Called Walpin Gate. Started 2009.

    Walpin-gate

    Congress ought to open an investigation, New York Times editorialists should be in a state of apoplexy, and MSNBC hosts ought to be frothing at the mouth. Without appropriate documentation or good reason, President Obama has fired a federal investigator who was on the case against a political ally of the president’s. Mr. Obama’s move has the stench of scandal.

    On June 11, Mr. Obama fired Gerald Walpin, inspector general for the Corporation for National and Community Service. He offered no public reason for doing so other than that he “no longer” had “the fullest confidence” in Mr. Walpin. Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican, is rightly questioning the firing and the explanation for it.

    The senator noted that the Inspector General Reform Act requires the president to “communicate in writing … the reasons for any such removal.” Losing one’s “fullest confidence” hardly qualifies as a justifiable reason. The Senate report language attached to the act explains: “The requirement to notify the Congress in advance of the reasons for the removal should serve to ensure that Inspectors General are not removed for political reasons.”

    Yet, as Associated Press noted, “Obama’s move follows an investigation by IG Gerald Walpin finding misuse of federal grants by a nonprofit education group led by Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, who is an Obama supporter and former NBA basketball star.” Further, “The IG found that Johnson … had used Americorps grants to pay volunteers to engage in school-board political activities, run personal errands for Johnson and even wash his car.”

    Sacramento U.S. Attorney Larry Brown criticized Mr. Walpin for publicly announcing the investigation rather than more quietly cooperating with federal prosecutors. Clearly, though, there was merit to Mr. Walpin’s charges: Mr. Brown’s office reached a settlement ordering the nonprofit organization to repay half of the $850,000 in grant money it received - with $72,836.50 of that repayment coming from Mr. Johnson’s own pocket.


    Read more: EDITORIAL: Walpin-gate - Washington Times
    Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/genera...ion-group.html

    BTW notice......US ATTORNEY Larry Brown. Basically Team Obama and Obama himself got upset that it was done all publicly.

  8. #158
    Sage
    OpportunityCost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:23 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,734

    Re: IRS officials in Washington were involved in targeting of conservative groups

    Quote Originally Posted by Mithros View Post
    By no one, I mean no one who had oversight of the IRS.
    LOL, then **** them. If they cant administer oversight irregardless of whose ox got gored, then they shouldnt be in charge of a boy scout troop.

    If they cant apply the law equally, they should absolutely be removed from their jobs.

  9. #159
    Sage
    OpportunityCost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:23 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,734

    Re: IRS officials in Washington were involved in targeting of conservative groups

    Quote Originally Posted by Mithros View Post
    I was about to write that 1 is totally correct, but I think I've moved away from that position. Certainly it's wrong to single out only Conservative buzzwords.

    But yesterday I went through 1018 groups that had been approved by the IRS in 2012, and tried to see for myself which groups were political and which weren't. I hate to say it, but the names are useful.

    Here are 13 pseudorandomly selected groups from the 1018. Which would you think deserve higher levels of scrutiny?
    1. World Chinese Bodybuilding & Fitness Association
    2. Seymour Johnson Air Force Base Non- Commissioned Officers Wives Club
    3. Restore Americas Voice Foundation
    4. Pelham Bay Taxpayers and Civic Association
    5. Norwood Citizens Car Show
    6. Michigan State Council of Senior Citizens
    7. Lions Club of Mason City Iowa
    8. Homeless But Not Powerless
    9. Friends of the Jeffersonville Twp. Public Library
    10. Disabled American Veterans Milbank-Sisseton Chapter 19
    11. Chrome Czars Motor Club Inc.
    12. Campaign for Justice
    13. A Patch of Lakeshore Quilters


    I think the problem is the way the names were generated. What if we did it with an algorithm? Take the names of all of the groups that were accepted, and compare them to the groups that were flagged. If a word occurs more frequently in the flagged groups, then it goes on the BOLO.
    Which ignores leaving left wing sounding groups alone while adding extra scrutiny to right wing sounding ones. Blaming the process does not remove culpability for those controlling it. We havent seen anyone acting to remove those bad decision makers and/or policy makers. I hear a lot of talk of inability to examine things objectively, Im not buying that as an excuse. If they dont have enough personnel for that how can they have enough personnel to examine all the nonsense they are asking for? They are literally asking for hundreds of pages of documents to sift through.

  10. #160
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:28 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,671

    Re: IRS officials in Washington were involved in targeting of conservative groups

    Quote Originally Posted by OpportunityCost View Post
    Which ignores leaving left wing sounding groups alone while adding extra scrutiny to right wing sounding ones. Blaming the process does not remove culpability for those controlling it. We havent seen anyone acting to remove those bad decision makers and/or policy makers. I hear a lot of talk of inability to examine things objectively, Im not buying that as an excuse. If they dont have enough personnel for that how can they have enough personnel to examine all the nonsense they are asking for? They are literally asking for hundreds of pages of documents to sift through.
    How so? Left wing organizations that use similar keywords would similarly be targeted. Just for the hell of it I ran the numbers. Here's the list I used, (Feel free to critique since it was a fairly superficial, though I think mostly fair analysis)

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/genera...post1061839433

    The control points seem to match up fairly well. There were aprox 8800 words in all of the organizations approved, and 392 words in the organizations with political leanings. Here are the results of every word that occurred 5 or more times in the political list. (And please, I did this fast so there may be mistakes, but no intentional ones)

    Word #Occ %Occ %Baseline
    Inc
    Party
    Tea
    for
    Patriots
    of
    Fund
    Coalition
    American
    the
    Ohio
    Action
    Freedom
    31
    24
    23
    17
    13
    11
    7
    7
    7
    6
    6
    6
    5
    7.91
    6.12
    5.87
    4.34
    3.32
    2.81
    1.79
    1.79
    1.79
    1.53
    1.53
    1.53
    1.28
    7.21
    0.53
    0.26
    1.11
    0.25
    5.47
    0.36
    0.32
    1.18
    0.90
    0.25
    0.34
    0.34

    And if we limit the number to say words that occur 5x more often in groups flagged for politics than the universe of groups at large we get:
    Tea: 22 Times more likely
    Patriots: 13 Times more likely
    Party: 12 Times more likely
    Ohio: 6 Times more likely
    Coalition: 6 Times more likely
    Fund: 5 Times more likely
    Action: 5 Times more likely.

    So here's my Bolo, "Tea, Patriots, Party, Ohio, Coalition, Fund, Action and Progress". Progress should also be one, but it wasn't pulled up by the algorithm because it's split up among Progress/Progressive/Progressnow.. etc..." But, that's me adding in my personal bias to the selection, also 912 occurred 4 times, but 4 is less than my arbitrary number of 5. (I would have had to add Country, and, a, and 912).

    Addendum: here's the list from the IRS. Some of these groups were filing as 501(c)(3)'s
    http://www.irs.gov/PUP/newsroom/Appr...209%202013.pdf
    Last edited by Mithros; 05-23-13 at 01:43 PM.

Page 16 of 18 FirstFirst ... 61415161718 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •