Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Seattle Times)   Being all she can be: Miss Everett Teen USA 2004 enlists in U.S. Army   (seattletimes.nwsource.com ) divider line 537
    More: Hero  
•       •       •

32660 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Aug 2005 at 3:14 PM (10 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



537 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2005-08-01 05:46:57 PM  
Tool_001

Shut up and buy my new record...
 
2005-08-01 05:47:23 PM  
Well, we know she's smart enough to be Miss Everett Teen USA.
 
2005-08-01 05:47:35 PM  
equusdc

uselessgit

...and yet, the end result is the same. On average, a soldier is no more or less likely to suffer severe injury or death on the job than the average person walking down the street.


Why, yes, I see your point. That dude just walking down the street deserves just as much respect from me as the guy eating dirt in Iraq. How could I not see it! I see it now. Where can I get my lapel?



I think though, that the guy walking down the street only has to really worry about guys driving to fast because they have 'better stuff to do."
 
2005-08-01 05:49:49 PM  
Those that want to lay the blame for 9/11 at our own feet because we somehow did something to incur the ire of the terrorists, are using the same logic a defense attorney might try to use to say that the victim of a rape somehow "asked for it", that she herself is to blame, not the scum that actually raped her...that somehow we need to understand the needs of the rapist or that the rapist felt alienated as a child because of an abusive neighbor. Why are we then later shocked when someone that was convicted of rape, went to prison and let out, rapes someone again?

Anyone that supported going into Iraq based on the assumption that somehow they were directly connected to what happened on 9/11 would have been wrong...BUT that's not why we went there.

The President cleary stated the reasons we went there, because of what happened to the extent it did on 9/11, that for nearly 12 years, Saddam's regime thumbed it's nose at the UN resolutions that were placed on it after the cease fire of the Gulf War, chiefly to give complete, unfettered access to the entire country for inspections and to give definative proof that no means of projecting harm outside his country existed...he chose not to do that. The President had an obligation to no longer use wishful thanking to hope that a similar attack as 9/11 might not come from Iraq...for if he had done nothing to Iraq and the next big attack we suffered came from within Iraq, he would have been vilified for his inaction to prevent it (let's be honest about that point at least).

Regardless of your opinion about the President or what you think of his motives...it is only after the hindsight of being there to see for ourselves that the threat that had existed following the cease fire of the Gulf War was indeed gone or able to be explained away, that we could know 100% that a hostile country that had used grand scale destructive weapons before was now neutered and mostly harmless.

I fully understand that trying to make these points in this forum is about as productive as trying to build a house of cards during a hurricane, and that I've voiced my points without having to resort to name calling of those that differ with me, but hey, I'm just funny like that.

I would offer more logical points than what I have, but since we are obviously not speaking the same language in here, they would just be wasted on those that I was trying to enlighten. So feel free to start the name calling in 3...2...1...GO!
 
2005-08-01 05:50:07 PM  
oldweevilI agree, there are a lot of immature shiatheads dumping on her. I hope she enjoys her service and achieves her goals. I have a lot of friends that have served some really took to it and some counted the days until they were out.

I do think it is important that she makes an informed decision about this. I don't know her and I could be very wrong about this but I get the impression that her parents have heavily sheltered her. It could be that the military is perfect for someone with really watchful parents and trying to get out into the world.

Recruiters can hardly be counted on for a reliable view of what military service means. I hope her brothers helped her come to this conclusion by giving her a honest account of military life and what she can expect as a pretty young woman in the military.

While she may not have a strong grasp of today's international political climate or the recent history of the war on terror, that may not matter that much unless she really cares about it. I'm betting she's aware that that she has pretty good odds of serving in a hostile desert somewhere far from home. That's a hard thing to do and she's pretty brave.
 
2005-08-01 05:50:43 PM  
Black6,

People like Kevin who think they have all the answers are the ones who end up hurting the most when they realize life without purpose just plain sucks. It's no better than the life of a house fly. They don't get it now because they have girls on the brain and brother it just don't get any better than that. Right lightweights?
 
2005-08-01 05:51:18 PM  
Anyone notice that the military folks are the only ones bringing any semblance of dignity to the comments here?

/I did.
//Food for thought.
 
2005-08-01 05:51:50 PM  
> Soldiers don't get to pick the wars. kudos to you.

That's the whole point. People already in the military don't get to pick their wars. Bush and his cronies carry all the responsibility for it and are to blame for the deaths of the 1700-some soldiers who have to fight this unjust war. But she did have a choice, she chose to support this war by enlisting now, despite the fact that if she was paying attention she would realized how Bush has lied about the reasons for it and how it is creating more harm than good. That makes her a dumbass.

Seriously, how can you people say you support the military by supporting the killing of its personal in an unjust war based on lies by a corrupt administration? I really support the armed forces; I support bringing them home to their families and their country and having less of them die for no good reason.
 
2005-08-01 05:52:46 PM  
Nutsac_Jim

There is a difference putting your life on the line for the just cause vs just putting food on the table.

WRONG. THAT is the difference RIGHT THERE. As I've said before, I respect those in the military who DO stand for "just cause" who ARE in the military NOT just to put food on the table, who AREN'T there for the inducements and who ARE willing to sacrifice their paychecks and careers in order to NOT kill when it is NOT just and, obviously, those who are willing to go into harms way for a just cause, not just because they got marching orders -- and under "Just War Doctrine" this and other "conflicts" missed the mark by a long shot.

I'm NOT however willing to just kiss the ass of anyone who happens to have done a stint slinging hash in San Diego who then pretends to have made some great farking sacrifice for god and country just because they donned a bad polyester suit and risked neither life nor limb, save the odd grease burn, and only joined up so for the GI bill and a security clearance to get a job at Lockheed.
 
2005-08-01 05:53:23 PM  
Wow, what a bunch of whiny little biatches you liberals are. I think you are all upset because she's prettier than any girl who's ever spoken to you AND she can kick your ass.
 
2005-08-01 05:53:28 PM  
I've said it from the beginning: show me how occupying Iraq makes the U.S. safer..and I'll be on board. Difficulty: can't use the words "liberal" or "america hating"

That being said, I salute our armed forces..as many of my closest friends have served in Iraq. Oddly enough, none of them are itching to get back over there..they can't seem to point to a specific reason we're there. But, they did point out that Halliburton employees make a lot more than they did over there.
 
2005-08-01 05:54:03 PM  
the_god_ninti,

You watch too much Mike "fathead" Moore.
 
2005-08-01 06:00:09 PM  
KeithGate
I'm sure that if you looked hard enough you'd find someone that thought the terrorists were justified in their actions. That "some guy" is pretty stupid.

- I think terrorism is hard to defeat with conventional warfare tactics. Bombing populated areas could make more terrorists.
- I think it is important to understand the motivation of a difficult and powerful enemy in order to defeat them. These people have been jerked around quite a lot by the West and that is important but not an excuse for their behavior.
- I think using terrorism as an excuse to start an invasion of an Arab nation that didn't have much to do with terrorism wasn't a good anti-terror tactic.
 
2005-08-01 06:00:45 PM  
> Anyone that supported going into Iraq based on the assumption that somehow they were directly connected to what happened on 9/11 would have been wrong...BUT that's not why we went there.

I love the attempt to rewrite history the Cons are attempting to do with regards to the reasons we went to war. Bush and his cronies directly connected Iraq to 9/11, not once but over and over again. They lied and said they had proof of contacts between the Al Queda and Iraq. They lied and said they had WMDs. They lied and said they knew exactly where they were. They lied and claimed they were trying to build atomic bombs. There was little mention of the reasons they are stating now, Bush hardly ever mentioned bringing freedom to the Iraqi people or any of that other BS you Cons are spouting now. He tricked the American people into supporting this war by bringing up imagery of 9/11 repeatedly. You can try and lie now and say that that was not the reason we went to war, but this time the lie is visible for everyone to see.
 
2005-08-01 06:02:33 PM  
> You watch too much Mike "fathead" Moore.

Wow, such a great argument there. Truly the most magnificant comeback ever on Fark. Congrats.
 
2005-08-01 06:03:31 PM  
Satchel_Brown,

Removing Saddam from power and defending the Iraqi people from his terrorist remainders keeps other less visible Islamo fachist sympathisers from being as bold as they would otherwise be. Bush was clear, whether you agree or not that all terrorists and harborers of terrorists would be our enemy and treated as such. No real question that the folks we are battleing in Iraq are terrorists. Every terrorist dispatched over there is one less that will ever be her in the U.S. thus making you more safe.
 
2005-08-01 06:06:44 PM  
'milk_plus- I think it is important to understand the motivation of a difficult and powerful enemy in order to defeat them. These people have been jerked around quite a lot by the West and that is important but not an excuse for their behavior.'

Actually they are a bunch of restless young men who fight because they don't have jobs. It's pretty much as simple as that. It's not rooted in some ancient hate. They only use that for motivation. The bottom line is they are under utilized and have turned to some romantic notion of purpose. Same thing that got the young bolsheviks and anarchists stirred up about this time last century. It's a youthful expression of anger. And they need to be given productive work to do or killed pretty much to the last one.
 
2005-08-01 06:07:42 PM  
Well, the_god_ninti, if you hadn't been quoting his foolish work word for word, then I wouldn't have said that..."lies, its all lies!!"
 
2005-08-01 06:07:55 PM  
keeps other less visible Islamo fachist sympathisers from being as bold as they would otherwise be.

Oh, you mean like Saudi Arabia, which incidentally is an Islamofascist dictatorship "monarchy" compared to Iraq that was a secular dictatorship? If "Islamofascism" was the problem, we'd have best stayed allies with Saddam...
 
2005-08-01 06:08:42 PM  
the_god_ninti,

Bush hardly ever mentioned bringing freedom to the Iraqi people or any of that other BS you Cons are spouting now.

Here is the Iraq resolution, which states the reasons
for the Iraq war, and was approved by the house and the senate.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

The reasons include WMDs, of course, but also bringing democracy to Iraq and the liberation of the Iraqi people (more on this below), Iraq's violation of the cease-fire after the Kuwait war, attempts to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors, violation of resolutions of
the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait.

Also included is the continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States (including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush) and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council,
continuing to aid and harbor international terrorist organizations, et cetera.

Here's a list of the seventeen United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCRs) Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated, which the U.N., showing how worthless it is, did nothing about.

http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/01fs/14906.htm

The Iraq Liberation Act signed by Clinton in 1998 states, in pertinent part, "Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies
within the region. The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would
permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.

My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership."

http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/libera.htm

This, of course, is the main reason we invaded Iraq: to liberate its people. As someone else wrote, the name of the operation wasn't 'Operation Let's Go Kick Some Butt and Get Some WMD's,' it was 'Operation Iraqi Freedom.'

In the 2003 State of the Union address, Bush said:

"Different threats require different strategies. In Iran we continue to see a government that represses its people, pursues weapons of mass destruction and supports terror.

We also see Iranian citizens risking intimidation and death as they speak out for liberty and human rights and democracy. Iranians, like all people, have a right to choose their own government, and determine their own destiny, and the United States supports their aspirations to
live in freedom. . . .

And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country, your enemy is ruling your country.

And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day
of your liberation. . . .

Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of
every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is
not America's gift to the world; it is God's gift to humanity."

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/28/sotu.transcript/

Remarks by President Bush to the U.N. General Assembly from 2002:

"The United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people; they've
suffered too long in silent captivity. Liberty for the Iraqi people is
a great moral cause, and a great strategic goal. The people of Iraq
deserve it; the security of all nations requires it. Free societies do
not intimidate through cruelty and conquest, and open societies do not
threaten the world with mass murder. The United States supports
political and economic liberty in a unified Iraq."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html

The Feb. 27, 2003 transcript (a month before the war) from PBS's Newshour:

"MARGARET WARNER: Last night, Pres. Bush laid out his argument that a
post-Saddam Iraq could become a flourishing democracy.

PRES. GEORGE W. BUSH: There was a time when many said that the
cultures of Japan and Germany were incapable of sustaining democratic
values. Well, they were wrong. Some say the same of Iraq today. They
are mistaken. (Applause) The nation of Iraq, with its proud heritage,
abundant resources and skilled and educated people, is fully capable
of moving toward democracy and living in freedom. (Applause)

MARGARET WARNER: The president further asserted that a democratic Iraq
could transform the entire region in a similar way.

PRES. GEORGE W. BUSH: There are hopeful signs of the desire for
freedom in the Middle East. Arab intellectuals have called on Arab
governments to address the freedom gap, so their peoples can fully
share in the progress of our times. From Morocco to Bahrain and
beyond, nations are taking genuine steps toward political reform. A
new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of
freedom for other nations in the region. (Applause) It is presumptuous
and insulting to suggest that a whole region of the world, or the
one-fifth of humanity that is Muslim, is somehow untouched by the most
basic aspirations of life."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june03/democracy_2-27.html
 
2005-08-01 06:08:59 PM  
Preacher... you won't change their mind. They were pretty well happy to have Communist Russia and thought the right was evil for wanting to free half of Europe. The left just needs more causes... supporting terrorits and islamofacists by trying to tear down America is the best they can get these days.
 
2005-08-01 06:12:14 PM  
Remember that rough men stand ready to do violence on your behalf so that you can live in peace and safety.

Did you order the Code Red?

No, okay how about some regular Mountain Dew then?
 
2005-08-01 06:12:55 PM  
That's a nice theory, but unfortunately you can't interview a dead insurgent and ask him if he was a dispatched terrorist or simply one who wants freakin American troops the hell out of his country. So, yes, there is a real big question as to whether they are terrorists. Your theory sounds just fine until the next terror attack on our soil happens...and it will..remember Bush said that?

It's interesting to think what desperate measures we Americans would take if we were being occupied by an outside force. I know I'd be on the hillside with a high-powered rifle just waiting to pick off the enemy.

So, in conclusion: try again. by the way, Saddam Hussein wasn't a "Islamo fachist." He ran a secular govt. The U.S. helped him keep that position as a counterpart to the surrounding "Islamo fachist" govts. try again.
 
2005-08-01 06:13:01 PM  
uselessgit,

True..You do know that the Nazi suppression of Jews was just the right's overly active imagination and we would have been far safer to just leave Germany alone and mind our own business.
 
2005-08-01 06:15:28 PM  
It is presumptuous
and insulting to suggest that a whole region of the world, or the
one-fifth of humanity that is Muslim, is somehow untouched by the most
basic aspirations of life."


That I agree with, although I do not think he meant it in the way his wording could be construed as implying. The entire Muslim world neither needs nor wants to be "saved" by the United States.

Talk about being insultingly presumptuous...
 
2005-08-01 06:16:06 PM  
She's gonna take over Ms. Englands job at Gitmo.
 
2005-08-01 06:16:20 PM  
uselessgit

just stop. Your posts show you are clearly out of your league here. But, if you must post, please define "liberal" and "communist" for me. not some copy and paste job either. oh..and do it without somehow throwing a jab at liberals while trying to define who they are.
 
2005-08-01 06:17:25 PM  
Sassach
Thank you for your reply.

I've wonder why people on Fark's political threads, Free Republic, Democratic Underground, etc., seem so unhappy.
 
2005-08-01 06:18:27 PM  
Satchel_Brown,

And your solution is?? I take it you did support the intern abusing president who had the opprotunity to dispatch Osama and didn't. Talk is pretty cheap, what have liberals actually done to stop terrorism? In your opinion who would Osama prefer we had as president? Bush or Clinton?
 
2005-08-01 06:20:13 PM  
> Bush hardly ever mentioned bringing freedom to the Iraqi people or any of that other BS you Cons are spouting now.

Nice cut and paste. I could cut and paste Bush's State of the Union speech for you in return, where Iraq, WMDs, and Terrorism are mentioned hundred of times, and Iraqi freedoms are mentioned once, but you can just go look it up yourself.
 
2005-08-01 06:21:24 PM  
Spent twenty years (USAF)defending your right to whine about how bad America is. Spent fifteen years (FAA)ensuring that the landing, navigation, and communications systems used by your airliner during flight were safe to use. I retired with pride eighteen months ago. I salute the young women and pray God's protection and blessing. To the whiners in this thread ... America succeeds in spite of you.
 
2005-08-01 06:22:06 PM  
Colgate
So do. Some don't.

Some could work in Afghan poppy fields. Some could have been working in the reconstruction if they'd had a chance. Some don't like western nations for trespassing. Some don't like western nations for propping up dictators. Some don't like western nations for colonial occupations. Some don't like western religions. Some are mad because their relative died and they are blaming us. There are a lot of things to be mad about. It depends on the group or even the person and I imagine most are mad about more than one thing.

These people have been around for a long, long time and most of the time, other than reign of the Persian Empire and a few other incidents, they got along pretty well when they weren't being farked with. That isn't really an option now but it is something to keep in mind when fighting the small handful of terrorists among them.
 
2005-08-01 06:22:23 PM  
> In your opinion who would Osama prefer we had as president? Bush or Clinton?

Bush of course. He has done more to create terrorists worldwide then any other president in history. He has single handedly guaranteed that enough of the Muslim world hates us to give them recruits for the next 50 years.
 
2005-08-01 06:22:28 PM  
PreacherTech

ok you're done. I suspected you might be making a good effort to show me the light. Alas, you took the low road down to talk smack on liberals. bad form, sir. You see, I asked why occupying Iraq made the U.S. safer...

next batter?
 
2005-08-01 06:22:33 PM  
PreacherTech
If you're going to complain about Clinton's inaction (*), then you must defend Bush's inaction regarding terrorism between January 20 and September 10, 2001.

You can form your own opinions, but please don't deny the facts.

(*) If Clinton had done something more than what he did (the occasional cruise missile attacks came as close as anything Bush has done to catching Osama), Republicans would have been screaming 'WAG THE DOG!!!ein!!!'
 
2005-08-01 06:24:23 PM  
I wonder why some on here think there was a Golden Age of Liberty when the Constitution was perfectly followed and no rights were ever violated.

Or, why is today a time uniquely devoid of virtue?
 
2005-08-01 06:25:49 PM  
Satchel_Brown

Thanks for pointing out your solution..
 
2005-08-01 06:26:31 PM  
the_god_ninti

If you actually read it instead of dismissing it, you might actually learn something. Please try not to be close-minded during discussions. Besides, I included a big Clinton quote just for you.

=)
 
2005-08-01 06:28:37 PM  
the_god_ninti,

You haven't figured out that the Muslim world hated us long before Bush? Keeping them happy and letting them have our country peacefully is not a very good solution either.
 
2005-08-01 06:29:22 PM  
my solution for what? occupying Iraq? finding OBL? or for abusing interns? or for liberalism?

All I want to know is how occupying Iraq is directly related to the safety of the U.S.
 
2005-08-01 06:30:37 PM  
In your opinion who would Osama prefer we had as president? Bush or Clinton?

Doesn't really matter who was president. 9/11 was a provocation -- a very, very successful one. The Taliban were rubes that Osama used and probably couldn't care less about losing. The Russians are out of Afghanistan, thanks to him and a great deal of our money and I'm sure he's thankful for that. He _hated_ Saddam Hussein and is no doubt dancing a jig that we got rid of him free of charge. The world is now so pissed off about terrorism that Israel is starting to look the persecuted and more the persecutor, which must make Osama wet as they slowly pull out. At the end of the game, however, is that if the United States "succeeds," we will become irrelevant and have to leave the middle east, else we be exposed as occupiers. This is his primary goal and we are are following through very, very nicely for him lately.

He probably wanks himself to a picture of Bush at this point.
 
2005-08-01 06:31:41 PM  
DaShredda
I dropped a farking nuclear bomb on a civilian city in Japan and killed innocent people!

Why do you think America was the 'bad guy' in World War II, or that World War II was a fight between equals in terms of morality?

This is an example of the worldview that turns average Americans off. Or, if these people are seen too much as the average Democrat, Republicans will win.

Democrats today sound like Republicans from 1997. I just wonder what the over-trumped impeachment 'scandal' will be.

It is on economic issues that the Christian Right is not 'on board' with the rest of the Republican Party.
 
2005-08-01 06:32:51 PM  
Satchel_Brown,

The same way occupying Germany did. I asked what your solution is to the terrorist problem that was made visible on 9/11.
 
2005-08-01 06:34:13 PM  
I'd liberate it
 
2005-08-01 06:34:18 PM  
PreacherTech
Now why is it that you think terror was not visible before 9/11?
 
2005-08-01 06:34:33 PM  
> If you actually read it instead of dismissing it, you might actually learn something.

What would I have learned? That Bush did mention the freedom of the Iraqi people? I already knew that. But I suspect your list has almost every mention of that subject he ever did before the war. A post with his every mention of Iraqi WMDs and Iraqi terrorists would fill up the entire space of Fark's servers.

> You haven't figured out that the Muslim world hated us long before Bush?

Some did. Some didn't. A lot more do now. A lot more. Seems like Osama must be pretty happy about that, don't you think?
 
2005-08-01 06:36:37 PM  
stpickrell,

the average citizen of the US saw it as someone elses problem until then.
 
2005-08-01 06:38:24 PM  
strike two. Extra deduction for trying to compare Iraq to Germany.


How is occupying Iraq making the U.S. safer?
 
2005-08-01 06:42:45 PM  
Satchel_Brown,

No one intended to occupy Iraq, nor is the simple act of occupying it making anyone here safer, removing evil men from power and mopping up a terrible mess makes not only us, but the whole free world safer. I don't believe we found what we expected when we got there, we found far worse things, just as we did in Germany. Just because you don't like the comparison, does not make it invalid.
 
2005-08-01 06:42:55 PM  
the_god_ninti

What would I have learned?

One, that you are mistaken, and I have provided numerous references to prove this.

Here's a big clue for you: the war was referred to as 'Operation Iraqi Freedom.'

Regardless, you are metaphorically covering your ears and eyes to things that don't fit your world view. You are being closeminded and ignorant of facts, and refusing to look at something just because it might prove you wrong.

PS: Nice cut and paste. I could cut and paste Bush's State of the Union speech for you in return, where Iraq, WMDs, and Terrorism are mentioned hundred of times, and Iraqi freedoms are mentioned once, but you can just go look it up yourself.

I cut and pasted from myself, FYI. Also, if you had read it, you would know that I cited and quoted Bush's State of the Union speech. You really aren't making yourself look to good as a debator.
 
Displayed 50 of 537 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report