Second Presidential Debate

So here we are. Less than a month to go before we have to pick one of these guys to lead the nation. Which means debates. We already had the first one, which I missed part of, but McCain one that one soundly from all the poll data I've seen on it. His command of foreign policy on that one was dead on, while Obama sounded like a raving radical lunatic wanting to bomb Pakistan.

Fast forward to tonight, where the dominant subject was the economy. I have to say, before getting into anything else, I think Tom Brokaw needs to take a chill pill. The man looked angry, hostile, and came off as extremely rude and arrogant. It almost seemed like he wanted to pick a fight, and I was surprised to see that both candidates refused to take the bait. Maybe that's a good thing, who knows. All I do know is that most people attending and watching these things simply don't care about nitpicky crap like 2 minute responses and 1 minute follow-ups. The issues are too complex for that and the world doesn't live by soundbytes. So please. Stop trying to run debates as though it does!

That being said, both candidates had a tendency to wander. Sometimes not answering the questions posed to them. It might be because they were really crappy questions we've all heard before. I thought a townhall format was supposed to bring us some surprises. Interesting looks into how these guys think. Stuff to throw them off their games. We got none of that, and we should all be sad for it. But it wasn't completely without merit either. For what they did get asked gave us a peek into their policy at least.

The Economy

McCain explained in pretty clear terms that he's in favor of maintaining the current tax policy. He doesn't want to raise taxes on anyone and is advocating further tax cuts, incentives, and other breaks that should be of benefit to everyone. Not just the rich or the middle class. He hit on the one point everyone wanted to hit. Government spending needs to be reigned in, everywhere. Not just in a few select programs while you fatten up the budgets of the others. His $5,000 tax credit for healthcare insurance seems like a reasonable idea. The benefits I had with Behr cost a bit more than $3,500 a year to maintain, so that $5k should be plenty to cover it with. I wish he'd gone more into his Social Security plan though. I got the vague notion he agreed with Bush's idea of privatization but didn't go beyond that. As far as the bailout, since I think all sides were asses about it, I don't give a crap how they want to spin it away. Socialistic policy can't help, ever.

Obama failed to explain exactly what he wants from his cuts for 95% of Americans. He's either unable to, or unwilling to acknowledge that his $250,000 cut-off point will impact far more than he's letting on. Taxing small businesses who make more than $250K seems extremely shortsighted since those companies will pass that expense on to the people. In fact, raising taxes in a downed economy is a sure way to send it spiraling into death. Obama wants to institute $1 Trillion in new spending to pay for all the crap he wants. Universal healthcare the biggest one among them. I guess he figures the rich will gladly fork over their money to pay for it since nobody else can afford it. And WTF?!? You're going to *FINE* non-compliant companies and *INDIVIDUALS* if they don't pony up? Obama's ignorance of Social Security's crisis is disturbing too. I don't recall hearing him say anything about it.

I firmly believe McCain won this one hands down.

Obama played too much blame game with "Bush ruined it all" and we all know by now one man can't possibly do that, right? Obama came off as anti-free market. No surprise. He's an ultra-left, borderline socialist.

Energy

McCain made a lot of talk about alternative fuels, nuclear power, hybrid cars, and green whatever, but I think the most important thing he said is we need to drill. McCain at least demonstrates to me that he's aware we need something for the here and now while we're researching, developing, and deploying all of the cool new stuff of the future. The biggest problem right now is oil. McCain knows this, and I was satisfied with his balanced approach to dealing with it.

Obama on the other hand seems caught up in the whole global warming lunacy. Solar, wind, biofuels, blah blah blah, but seems stubbornly unwilling to concede we need to do something right now, not 20 years from now. His opposition to drilling is disturbing. He can say what he likes when he thinks we're not listening, but his record speaks volumes. And so does where he goes to hang out after the debate. Thinking back, I don't recall what he said about nuclear, if anything. Tsk.

I call a wash. Though Obama is clearly not the answer, McCain just wasn't forceful enough about it and didn't really seem to know specifically what he wanted.

Foreign Policy

Really, I don't know what more to add here since nothing changed. They both more or less regurgitated what they've said before. McCain wants a surge in Afghanistan to help with crushing the Taliban. Good idea, and since Petraeus seems to be getting involved there, it's likely to happen. Obama says he wants to bomb Pakistan. Not in those exact words, but you know, if bin Laden is there we should get him. Even if it means bombing Pakistan. Obama claims that's not what he wants to do, but it seemed pretty obvious to me. The basics are there though. Finish up in Iraq. Finish up in Afghanistan. Then decide where the next war would be. The two simply disagree on whether finishing means winning, or surrendering.

There seemed to be an awful lot of noise made about Rwadna, Darfur, Somalia, etc. Really people. After all the bitching and crying over going to war with sworn enemies who want us dead, you now want to go marching in to clean up all of Africa? On this I think both candidates sensibly sidestepped the issue. We really don't need to be getting involved in something that's not threatening our security. Unless those countries ask for our help. Which to my knowledge they have not, other than Somalia.

On Iran, both candidates say no way in hell they should be allowed to get nukes. The only problem is, when Obama says it, I don't believe he'll actually do what's going to be necessary to stop them. His words ring hollow on the subject. Maybe he still wants to bomb Pakistan.

On Israel, McCain answered exactly as I hope he would. No, we will not wait for UN approval to come to Israel's aid. If they are attacked, we will intervene. Which is as it should be. Obama neatly dodged answering the question, so I'll have to assume he's going to abandon them to their fate since he's clearly an anti-war Democrat.

On Russia, neither candidate gave an acceptable answer. Putin should be put down. As in assassinated. There, I said it. Since neither of them was willing to call Russia the Evil Empire we all know it is. McCain came close by pointing out Putin and the KGB are joined at the hip. Neither of them answered the real question of what to do about them.

Obama kept pointing out that Bush policy is a failure and that our reputations were ruined, our alliances in shambles, blah blah blah. Senator, *NOT* true, so take your defeatist attitude and go back to Illinois, please.

Over all, McCain wins on foreign policy. Perhaps not by a very large margin, but still.

I'm sure the media spinmeisters have been out in force claiming that McCain failed to provide the miracle that would have blown it wide open. That Obama was clear, articulate, knowledgeable, and answered all the hard questions. I say this without really having watched the post-debate coverage, but if I'm wrong someone please tell me. Because the description fits McCain, not Obama. The debate I watched, Obama sidestepped many questions. Brokaw failed to call him on it. NBC? Obama? Coincidence? We don't think so.
.........................
"It is pointless to resist, my son." -- Darth Vader
"Resistance is futile." -- The Borg
"Mother's coming for me in the dragon ships. I don't like these itchy clothes, but I have to wear them or it frightens the fish." -- Thurindil

Well. I guess that's that then.

       
« California Propositions
Obama is a Marxist »

Posted on Oct 8, 2008 12:54 am by Samson in: | 11 comment(s) [Closed]
Comments
Samson,

My sources could be incorrect, but I read that the healthcare tax-credit advocated by McCain goes to the insurance companies, not to people like you and me. I've been leaning heavily towards McCain, and still am. No way do I want to provide for peole too lazy to provide for themselves...but that screams to me "keeping the rich men rich and the poor men poor." If I'm wrong, please correct me. It will make me feel better.

       
In short, my reactions:

- I wasn't really annoyed with Brokaw's moderation at the time, but seeing the reactions from the basically 100% of everyone else in the world who hated it, I can see why they did. That aside, if you're going to agree to time limits, you ought to actually make some attempt to actually, you know, stay in those time limits. Which to be fair to John McCain, he...sort of...did, and Obama didn't give a damn, so far as I could tell.

That aside, the format was lame, and overly constricted. And, to McCain's discredit, he clearly and obviously attempted to game the format at least twice to take shots at Obama he couldn't answer without once talking about his own side of the question. Which I think Obama rightly reacted to. That was low. I didn't detect anything nearly so bad by Obama, but then, going first is a disadvantage for that sort of thing.

Also low was the whole "That one" crack by McCain, which...oi. Civility, people. Is it too much to ask?

Three more general observations:

- Man, McCain looks REALLY...tired. I understand that he's a former POW and all, but there were a surprising number of verbal missteps in there, too. Little worrisome.

- Obama for serious needs to stop throwing out detailed histories of every single problem, every single question. Or maybe people like that. I liked it, before I knew all of said histories, so I dunno. Maybe I'm just being crotchety and Brokawish about that time limit thing.

- That aside, I am encouraged when candidates are willing to talk in specifics and in numbers, and Obama is willing to do that. McCain, not so much, except oddly enough about Obama's policies. For his part, he assures us he knows how, but won't tell us how, and I dislike it when any politician of any party takes that tone.

A few specifics. I guess there was a debate there, though really, if you've been paying attention you know what they said already, because they said it before.

Economy

- We've heard both candidates' policies before. New for this debate was McCain's idea of a (I think) $300 billion mortgage bailout for homeowners. I'm not sure that I'm against the idea, but I'm not sure I'm for it yet either. More info, please. Also unsure if Obama signed off on the idea too, though he vaguely sounded like it.

- I'm not sure I believe either candidate in regards to their tax plans versus their spending plans, though I thought Obama's plans were marginally better.

- Social what? Medi-what?

- Obama fairly clearly made the point that we're in this mess because of a lack of oversight and failed regulation, to include failure of the regulatory schemes themselves. Which I think is pretty fair. Blamed Bush a lot, but assigned blame to everybody.

- Without a transcript I can't remember much of what McCain said, which I think is because this is one of the points he went off on a "diss Obama and don't talk about me" rant.

Energy

- I found both candidates substantively the same, with slightly differing rhetoric. Off top of my head, I think the main disagreement is on the effectiveness of drilling, but not if or if not we shouldn't do it - Obama fairly clearly came out and said he supports offshore drilling. Obama also said he's in favor of nuclear power, as he did at the last debate and other times, which McCain of course is all for. I really don't see a lot of difference here.

Foreign Policy

- We've heard this all before. McCain is still doing the "trust me!" line, which is infuriating, but at least Obama didn't go unhinged on Iraq like he did last time.

- Afghanistan: Obama seemed slightly more in line with what our actual military leaders (namely McKiernan - Petraeus is new in charge of CENTCOM, we'll see what he says later), who seem to believe that we don't need so much a surge as a modest troop increase while addressing critical failures in the Afghan government and security forces, namely corruption. McCain talked about clearing and holding, which I think is at best only half an answer.

On that note, two links of interest - David Frum, who was just there and says interesting things (see Oct 6th), and Spencer Ackerman, likewise. My thought is that we, or at least the candidates, are not totally addressing the concerns these guys are bringing up as much as we perhaps should, though, like I said, I think Obama gets a bit closer.

- If I read McCain right, he more or less thinks the same plan of action as Obama in respect to Pakistan, but he won't come out and say it because it's not smart to do. Which I have some sympathy for, but it's hard to really figure out what he believes. In the event, I thought the questioner who mentioned Cambodia had a good analogy, as they are roughly similar. And I think Obama's having a sort of Nixonian moment of not wanting to leave safe base camps, which remains the right attitude even if they take hits for it.

- Still not convinced by Obama's Iraq message, for all that it's the same actual strategy being touted by the Iraqis and the Bush administration now. I suspect we shall see. OTOH, I'm not even sure what McCain's Iraq strategy IS, save for "winning", which is a little too vague to be helpful.

- I'm really unsure what planet all of these Darfur, etc. questions are coming from, in light of our military already being stretched thin. It's one of those things we should be doing in principle, but in practice isn't so easy, and I think both candidates were pretty clear on that, so good for them.

- I'm not particularly filled with the warm fuzzy feeling on either candidate's Iran response. I think Obama gave a slightly better line, but I am unconvinced that it will work. I remain unclear as to what McCain's line even is.

- I'm not sure as how either candidate is really substantively different on Israel, since they both seemed to be saying the same things to me. What I want to know from you, however, is how Obama can be an "anti-war Democrat" who wants to bomb Pakistan, which seems slightly warlike to me.

- While I fail to see assassinating Putin as the ideal choice, I agree, not entirely what I wanted to hear, though I think both of them answered better last debate, IIRC.

- All things considered, I think Obama's mostly correct on the Bush record, although I'd suggest it's more nuanced than his rhetoric believes. I suspect we'll need to agree to disagree on that, though.

Consensus among the post-debate coverage I saw (ABC, IIRC), and the blogosphere right and left is that:

- As a debate, this was pretty lackluster.

- For all that McCain supposedly owns townhalls, he didn't really own this one, though he didn't really fail either. Then again, its status as a townhall debate is...debatable.

- Obama didn't biff, but he didn't say anything new and amazing.

- Given that Obama's ahead, any tie goes to the winner.

I find the analysis decent as far as it goes, but as always I'm going to wait and see what happens on election day. As 2000 taught us, you never know, now do you?

       
I fell asleep while watching it and had a pretty hot dream about Sarah Palin making me a huge pastrami and corned beef sandwich.

       
...

       
And, to McCain's discredit, he clearly and obviously attempted to game the format at least twice to take shots at Obama


Right. And Barry was a complete and total gentleman as always. Except how, oh, I don't know, he tried to pick a fight with Brokaw and McCain had to break the two of them up? I think it's pretty bad form to try and start a fight with the moderator when said moderator is trying to get you to adhere to your own rules.

I didn't detect anything nearly so bad by Obama


Can't put this nicely. I don't think you looked because you didn't wan to see it. Your bias in favor of him is coming through loud and clear. As I'm sure by now I must be dripping with bias in favor of McCain. Just remember who picked the fight with Brokaw.

Man, McCain looks REALLY...tired. I understand that he's a former POW and all, but there were a surprising number of verbal missteps in there, too. Little worrisome.


Thus the obvious choice of a young healthy woman to take his place should the media get their wish and old Johnny dies of skin cancer, yes?

Obama fairly clearly made the point that we're in this mess because of a lack of oversight and failed regulation, to include failure of the regulatory schemes themselves. Which I think is pretty fair. Blamed Bush a lot, but assigned blame to everybody.


Without once pointing out that himself, Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, and Chris Dodd opposed any attempt to pass regulation such as McCain's two attempts, once in 2003 and again in 2005. But why should Obama let a small thing like the facts get in his way? OH! I know why. Might have something to do with being Fannie and Freddie's #2 contribution recipient. Can't speak ill of your biggest donator now can we?

New for this debate was McCain's idea of a (I think) $300 billion mortgage bailout for homeowners.


Not entirely new, no. What McCain actually said was that he wanted to use $300 billion of the already approved $700 billion bailout to go to who they claim they did all that for. Folks with mortgages. You know, the ones everyone says is going to lose their homes? I think it's an excellent idea to setup a bypass so the scheister companies that helped get them into their mess don't benefit from getting them back out. I think McCain was subtly trying to say if you're a shit company, you deserve a shit fate.

What I want to know from you, however, is how Obama can be an "anti-war Democrat" who wants to bomb Pakistan, which seems slightly warlike to me.


Interesting, isn't it? I'd love to know the same. The man votes to defund both wars, surrender to the enemy, run home with our tails tucked firmly between our legs, then unleash the Air Force on Pakistan? I think we all deserve an answer to that line of thinking. We sure as hell didn't get it during the debate.

Granted, if bombing Pakistan is in the cards and they both know it, it's pretty damn stupid to brag about how you're going to do it.

Still not convinced by Obama's Iraq message


You shouldn't be, especially in light of new information coming out that says he's been over there trying to get Malaki to delay his deal with Bush until after the election he seems so sure he's going to win. I wonder how he could be so certain. ACORN anyone?

I think Obama's mostly correct on the Bush record


Except for, oh, I don't know, how the surge supposedly failed, was never going to work, and can't ever work. Something he's yet to come out and say actually has worked. If I were Petraeus, I wouldn't wan this guy in charge of my command structure.

Oh, and except for how the Bush tax cuts stimulated massive economic growth at historic levels and created millions of jobs.

But maybe you were talking about the phantom border fence? That must be it :)

Anyway, like you, I was less than impressed by the debate. The ones between Bush and Kerry were better quality, and that's really not so good when you think about it. But these guys have one more to go. So who knows. BTW, tie goes to the runner only applies in baseball.

It also sounds like Tyche had the right idea here. Fall asleep and have interesting dreams about our next VP. Hmmmm......

       
BTW - since I didn't devote a post to the VP debate, one might find this interesting as a late analysis of Biden's pathological nature: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,433314,00.html

       
Samson said:

It also sounds like Tyche had the right idea here. Fall asleep and have interesting dreams about our next VP. Hmmmm......

I hate to point out the, seemingly, obvious flaw in that plan but, she's just not that hot...

       
Samson said:

(Obama) tried to pick a fight with Brokaw


...when the hell was this? Only times I can think of where Obama got at all cross with Brokaw were after McCain had just dissed him with the expectation of Obama not replying. Which I thought was pretty fair. And I don't remember McCain breaking much of anything up, so much as saying "If he gets a followup, I want one too!"

That aside, while, yes, barring alien invasion (I, for one, welcome our new magnetic overlord) I'm pretty much going to be voting for Obama/Biden at this point, for reasons I think I have made clear but will elaborate on if you like, I really did think Obama's behavior was better than McCain's except for in one respect: McCain made a better show of respecting his time limits. On the other hand, I object to bits like this from the transcript: "Well, you know, nailing down Sen. Obama's various tax proposals is like nailing Jell-O to the wall." which is in McCain's answer on taxes, in which he spends precious little time talking about his own tax plan in specifics. My objection is twofold:

- If somebody is saying stuff about your ideas that is untrue, you ought to be able to respond. Which is probably a moderation issue more than anything, but we ought not to be saying untrue things in the first place.

- I've probably given Obama more of a pass on that, both because McCain always got a chance to respond, and because I'm fairly aware of what Obama wants his policies to be, because Obama has told me what he wants them to be, and so it becomes easier for me to know if untruths are said about them. Whereas I really don't have much of an idea what McCain wants to do at all, because McCain pretty much refuses to tell me in any sort of specific terms, as opposed to "trust me, I know how to fix hard problems." So if Obama's saying whacked shit about them, I really have no idea, because I don't know what they are in the first place.

And that's something I would and have beat on any candidate for. Being able to talk details about what one wants means a lot to me. McCain did not seem especially interested in doing so.

All that aside, I tried to be pretty open about saying that both candidates played pretty loose with the debate rules and the actual questions, which also does not set well with me, although it sets slightly more well than saying things that flat out are not true.

Samson said:

Thus the obvious choice of a young healthy woman to take his place should the media get their wish and old Johnny dies of skin cancer, yes?


Sure, if I or anybody else actually thought Palin was for a moment capable of being President. Only, well, not so much, really. And we've been over that quite enough, I think.

Samson said:

Without once pointing out that himself, Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, and Chris Dodd opposed any attempt to pass regulation such as McCain's two attempts, once in 2003 and again in 2005. But why should Obama let a small thing like the facts get in his way? OH! I know why. Might have something to do with being Fannie and Freddie's #2 contribution recipient. Can't speak ill of your biggest donator now can we?


Yes, let us blame the Democrats in a Republican-controlled Congress! Clearly they are solely to blame! As opposed to, like I and Obama said, pretty much everybody including both members of the executive and legislative branches. And while we're on that note, can we note that McCain's campaign manager is a lobbyist for Fannie and Freddie? Not strange at all, that. But I guess we can't speak ill of Republicans, so yeah, let's blame some Democrats.

Samson said:

Interesting, isn't it? I'd love to know the same. The man votes to defund both wars, surrender to the enemy, run home with our tails tucked firmly between our legs, then unleash the Air Force on Pakistan? I think we all deserve an answer to that line of thinking. We sure as hell didn't get it during the debate.

Granted, if bombing Pakistan is in the cards and they both know it, it's pretty damn stupid to brag about how you're going to do it.


- I think Obama's fairly well defended that particular voting record, as has McCain when it's come up for him. I also think that they both look ridiculous on the subject, but enh. However, while I think Obama's Iraq position is whacked, he did, in this debate, give a pretty clear rationale for what he wants to do in Afghanistan, and one that follows fairly well what General McKiernan has said on the subject. I'd love to see some debate quotes from Obama showing how he wants to withdraw from Afghanistan, because I sure can't see it.

- While I'm not convinced telling everyone you'll attack into Pakistan is a hugely wise move, at least I can be sure Obama's committed to doing something, and has detailed something resembling an actual strategy. Which is, frankly, more than I can say for John McCain. The whole victory with honor thing sounds really great, and I agree, let's win and do it honorably. But saying that is not a replacement for a strategy, and again, what is McCain's strategy for the GWOT? Seriously, I have basically no idea, because I don't feel like he's told me.

Samson said:

Except for, oh, I don't know, how the surge supposedly failed, was never going to work, and can't ever work. Something he's yet to come out and say actually has worked. If I were Petraeus, I wouldn't wan this guy in charge of my command structure.

Oh, and except for how the Bush tax cuts stimulated massive economic growth at historic levels and created millions of jobs.

But maybe you were talking about the phantom border fence? That must be it :)


On the fence, I find it very interesting that with as much debate as their was on immigration not so long ago, we're talkin...oh wait we aren't talking about it at all, are we? Huh.

As regards being right about the surge, yeah, Obama fucked that one up, and not many people are denying that, including me. OTOH, fair bit of other stuff he is right about:

- The Bush economy has been a disaster. Current financial crisis aside, we're also how much in debt? I know we're pretty much going to have to agree to disagree here, but I've been saying as far back as '03 that cutting taxes during a war is insanity, and I've been talking about the need for regulation since the 90s, and I really don't think I've been proven wrong about this. And, whatever I think aside, I'm not sure if I agree with all of Obama's plans, but he's right in essence on a lot of it.

- I'll argue against the idea that the Iraq war was a mistake, because I'm just not convinced that it was, but if you've paid as much attention as I have, you'll know that we biffed the occupation real real bad, and basically everybody, including John McCain, recognizes that. For that matter, some of what I've read on the matter I picked up because...John McCain recommended it.

- That aside, post-Rumsfeld handling of Iraq has largely been much improved. We can all pretty much agree that Obama's wrong on the surge, and between SecDef Gates and General Petraeus, the thing is much better now. This is easily my most significant disagreement with Obama.

- Now, he's right that Iraq has by and large been a distraction from the work we were doing in Afghanistan. I think there's a legitimate argument to be made either way as to if the distraction has been worthwhile, but a distraction it has been. It is also immediately obvious to anybody who cares to put in the effort to check that we're just not doing well there like we ought to be. Command structure's a shambles, we need more troops, we for serious need to do something about Pakistan, and definitely all our support for Musharraf didn't work so well there, now did it? Granted some of that isn't entirely Bush's fault - various countries deserve some blame there, too, but there's work that needed to be done to correct the problems that just wasn't getting done prior to right about this year.

But.

Samson said:

Anyway, like you, I was less than impressed by the debate. The ones between Bush and Kerry were better quality, and that's really not so good when you think about it. But these guys have one more to go. So who knows. BTW, tie goes to the runner only applies in baseball.


I do think about it, and yes, the Bush/Kerry debates were largely better. And that's not so good, you're right.

And, well, Obama's pretty well ahead that I can see, so it seems to be holding true for politics, as well.

       
All I can say is that you clearly either watched a debate from a parallel universe, or your bias in favor of Obama isn't letting you see things for what they are. Especially when he was clearly picking a fight with Brokaw after he tried to usurp the process to get an extra response to what McCain said.

I'm also extremely puzzled at how you can say McCain never explained anything when he quite clearly said his tax plan is simply not to raise them at all, and to give extra tax credits for middle class families, such as the $5000 healthcare credit and doubling the child credit from $3500 to $7000. Obama just rattled off his "95% of Americans will get a tax cut" slogan which means nothing, especially when he fails to tell you the fines for not insuring your kids would wipe out any potential tax cut. Not to mention that he wants to raise them on anyone making $250,000 or more per year, which includes practically all small businesses. Employ more than 5 people and you're probably getting a tax hike under Obama. Obama has also failed to specify if he means gross pay or net pay or taxable income level or what. Nobody lives on gross pay, so you best watch out for that if that's what he means.

The Bush economy has been a disaster.


Prove it. Period. A blanket statement like that that flies in the face of everything anyone with any sense has been saying for 8 years says this is a flat out lie being spread by the Democrats. It also flies in the face of my own personal observations of how well people were doing here right up until this mortgage thing blew up in everyone's faces. The economy over the last 6 months has been disastrous, but translating that back over the last 8 years is just plain wrong.

       
I'd like to pre-empt Dwip and say that I am pretty sure the two of you watched the debate from parallel universes. ;)

       
I think we clearly are. And since we're pretty much at line by line deconstruction of a transcript time, I think it's about time to drop this particular topic and move to something more beneficial to our time, like noting how awesome those new Oblivion pics that got put up are. And how Anvil is awesome. How cliff racers rule the internet. Things of that nature.

       
<< prev 1 next >>
Comments Closed
Comments for this entry have been closed.
Anonymous
Register

Forgot Password?

SuMoTuWeThFrSa
 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31