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.

(KNBC 4 Los Angeles)   Obama vows to block AIG bonuses   (nbclosangeles.com) divider line 640
    More: Hero  
•       •       •

14083 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Mar 2009 at 3:44 PM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



640 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-03-16 01:22:36 PM
I sympathize with his sentiments. But those bonuses are contracted and even the US government can't just break employee contracts just by saying so. They can pay the contracted amount, and have AIG then fire them.....but just saying they will not pay what the contracts say doesn't seem to be an appropriate path.
 
2009-03-16 01:28:12 PM
arkansas: hey can pay the contracted amount, and have AIG then fire them.

TFA: "These people may have a right to their bonuses. They don't have a right to their jobs forever," said Frank

Sounds like that's what they're thinking.
 
2009-03-16 01:30:48 PM
EatHam: arkansas: hey can pay the contracted amount, and have AIG then fire them.

TFA: "These people may have a right to their bonuses. They don't have a right to their jobs forever," said Frank

Sounds like that's what they're thinking.


A better plan would be "voluntarily turn down your bonus and we won't fire you."
 
2009-03-16 01:31:35 PM
Noting that AIG has "received substantial sums" of federal aid from the federal government, Obama said he has asked Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner "to use that leverage and pursue every legal avenue to block these bonuses and make the American taxpayers whole."

As a lawyer, Obama should know that this is a truly stupid idea. If they don't pay those bonuses that they are contractually obligated to pay, the guys who were to receive them will sue for breach of contract, and then not only will AIG have to pay the bonuses off, but also will have to pay attorney's fees as well... and I guarantee the lawyers for the executives won't be charging $200/hour, try closer to $600/hour.
 
2009-03-16 01:35:49 PM
Hender: A better plan would be "voluntarily turn down your bonus and we won't fire you."

So, if they don't accept a huge sum of money, they will be able to keep a job at a sinking ship?

Cake or death, anyone?
 
2009-03-16 01:38:37 PM
Why is everyone running around freaking out about 1/10 of 1% of the total bailout $ when over half of it went to Goldman-Sachs and a couple of European banks?
 
2009-03-16 01:41:04 PM
So not one of our great governmental overlords thought to look into AIG's contractual obligations before we tossed them 173B? I'm sure the company could have worked out a deal to toss these contracts in order to receive the bailout money.
 
2009-03-16 01:41:21 PM
Not a single quote or reference to his Attorney General in the article.
 
2009-03-16 01:45:12 PM
KaponoFor3: Noting that AIG has "received substantial sums" of federal aid from the federal government, Obama said he has asked Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner "to use that leverage and pursue every legal avenue to block these bonuses and make the American taxpayers whole."

As a lawyer, Obama should know that this is a truly stupid idea. If they don't pay those bonuses that they are contractually obligated to pay, the guys who were to receive them will sue for breach of contract, and then not only will AIG have to pay the bonuses off, but also will have to pay attorney's fees as well... and I guarantee the lawyers for the executives won't be charging $200/hour, try closer to $600/hour.


Seconded. Obama knows this, too, so why he is making such a rash promise he knows he likely will have a difficult time keeping from a legal standpoint is beyond me. There isn't much really recent on the Contracts Clause from the appellate courts of which I am aware, but this is going to lead only to costly vexatious litigation.
 
2009-03-16 01:52:32 PM
Wouldn't it be a lot cheaper just to order the Army to kill all those farkers? Like Stalin said, "No person? No problem."
 
2009-03-16 01:58:57 PM
Nabb1: Seconded. Obama knows this, too, so why he is making such a rash promise he knows he likely will have a difficult time keeping from a legal standpoint is beyond me.

He isn't promising to block the bonuses, he's promising to look into any legal avenue that may allow him to block the bonuses. He's just appeasing the masses, he knows he doesn't have any legal ground to stand on.
 
2009-03-16 02:00:51 PM
Nabb1: Obama knows this, too, so why he is making such a rash promise he knows he likely will have a difficult time keeping from a legal standpoint is beyond me

Could you identify where Obama makes a promise?

The one sentence I can find is this:

Obama said he has asked Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner "to use that leverage and pursue every legal avenue to block these bonuses and make the American taxpayers whole."

Incomplete sentences as quotes always bug me, and the meaninglessness of "make the American taxpayers whole" is disheartening.

However, it appears to be that Obama's promise is that his administration will pursue every legal avenue to block these bonuses. Would you say that's correct?
 
2009-03-16 02:06:57 PM
Can't Congress just pass the "it just doesn't seem right" Bill, or if necessary the "seriously you gotta be kidding" Constitutional Amendment?
 
2009-03-16 02:07:00 PM
KaponoFor3: As a lawyer, Obama should know that this is a truly stupid idea. If they don't pay those bonuses that they are contractually obligated to pay, the guys who were to receive them will sue for breach of contract, and then not only will AIG have to pay the bonuses off, but also will have to pay attorney's fees as well... and I guarantee the lawyers for the executives won't be charging $200/hour, try closer to $600/hour.

yeah well they broke their contract with us first. they promised to insure these loans. if it were me I'd just cut the bonus money out of their bailout money.
 
2009-03-16 02:07:23 PM
Obdicut: However, it appears to be that Obama's promise is that his administration will pursue every legal avenue to block these bonuses. Would you say that's correct?

I'll tell you what, Fluffy, why don't you come up with a legally sound basis upon which the Administration can come close to doing what they say they want to do - with citations to relevant, controlling legal authority, and then I'll answer your questions. In other words - why don't you actually try contributing something to the discussion that actually has some substance to it? Do you think you can handle that?
 
2009-03-16 02:09:44 PM
Hobodeluxe: yeah well they broke their contract with us first.

Oh well damn why didn't I just think of that first?

Totally irrelevant, won't even play a minute consideration in a judge's decision.
 
2009-03-16 02:10:13 PM
arkansas: I sympathize with his sentiments. But those bonuses are contracted and even the US government can't just break employee contracts just by saying so.

AIG was saved from bankruptcy by the government. had AIG gone into bankruptcy, those contracts would have been nullified. therefore, the legitimacy of those contracts is severely questionable.

of course, i'd prefer if instead of waiting for shiat like this to happen then acting all indignant about it, congress and the white house would actually act to prevent this shiat in the first place.

NATIONALIZE THEM.
 
2009-03-16 02:10:23 PM
Obdicut: Would you say that's correct?

Sure, that's correct, but it really doesn't matter. This is all a play for the cameras. He knows there is no legal way to block the payments.
 
2009-03-16 02:11:20 PM
dj_bigbird: Why is everyone running around freaking out about 1/10 of 1% of the total bailout $ when over half of it went to Goldman-Sachs and a couple of European banks?

So you are suggesting that AIG not pay its customers' insurance claims? Because that's what the bailout is for, ya know.
 
2009-03-16 02:12:17 PM
arkansas: But those bonuses are contracted

have you seen these contracts? i haven't seen any suggestion that all of them are guaranteed, only that "some of them" are. for AIG's board to not make any attempt to limit these payments (where legally supportable) could be seen as a breach of their duty to the shareholders - but they are clearly leaning on the argument that it's essential to attract and maintain the "talent" that got them into this mess.

this is a perfect example of why bankruptcy was, and continues to be, the best option for AIG. make those jerks get in line with the rest of the unsecured creditors.
 
2009-03-16 02:14:23 PM
also of note is that the UAW had to renegotiate their contracts for their industry to get some government aid. in fact, as glenn greenwald puts it:

Apparently, the supreme sanctity of employment contracts applies only to some types of employees but not others. Either way, the Obama administration's claim that nothing could be done about the AIG bonuses because AIG has solid, sacred contractual commitments to pay them is, for so many reasons, absurd on its face.

As any lawyer knows, there are few things more common - or easier -- than finding legal arguments that call into question the meaning and validity of contracts. Every day, commercial courts are filled with litigations between parties to seemingly clear-cut agreements. Particularly in circumstances as extreme as these, there are a litany of arguments and legal strategies that any lawyer would immediately recognize to bestow AIG with leverage either to be able to avoid these sleazy payments or force substantial concessions.
 
2009-03-16 02:14:25 PM
arkansas: I sympathize with his sentiments. But those bonuses are contracted and even the US government can't just break employee contracts just by saying so.

Oh yeah, because if there's anything in the world that's written in stone and must be complied with, it's a business contract. I mean, there is absolutely no way to contend those, and it never happens.

Translation: business contracts are about the easiest things to litigate and break in the universe. AIG lawyers, if responding honestly, could come up with about 100 avenues to dispute these contracts in the first 30 seconds. Which would place all of the receivers in the position of litigating to get paid, and let's say I doubt many of them would go to court in the near future and publicly claim and argue that they are deserving of the money.
 
2009-03-16 02:17:24 PM
Nabb1: I'll tell you what, Fluffy, why don't you...

...?
 
2009-03-16 02:17:29 PM
burndtdan: As any lawyer knows, there are few things more common - or easier -- than finding legal arguments that call into question the meaning and validity of contracts.


vossiewulf: Translation: business contracts are about the easiest things to litigate and break in the universe. AIG lawyers, if responding honestly, could come up with about 100 avenues to dispute these contracts in the first 30 seconds. Which would place all of the receivers in the position of litigating to get paid, and let's say I doubt many of them would go to court in the near future and publicly claim and argue that they are deserving of the money

That doesn't mean those arguments will be winners, and you can guarantee the executives will hire an expensive cadre of attorneys who can find just as many arguments that the bonuses are legally binding.
 
2009-03-16 02:17:42 PM
Nabb1: I'll tell you what, Fluffy, why don't you come up with a legally sound basis upon which the Administration can come close to doing what they say they want to do - with citations to relevant, controlling legal authority, and then I'll answer your questions. In other words - why don't you actually try contributing something to the discussion that actually has some substance to it? Do you think you can handle that?

I have no clue if there is a sound basis. I was pointing out that you were saying his position was that he would stop the bonuses. I pointed out that's not his position. Do you disagree with that, or would you prefer to ignore that question?

It seems to me that there is no legal way to do it, though, obviously, the bailout money probably makes this scenario rather unusual. Barney Frank appears to agree with you, and think there's no way to prevent them from taking bonuses, but comments that they could then be fired. Whether or not it's legal to threaten someone for termination for taking a bonus they were contractually owed, I don't know. Do you?

KaponoFor3: Sure, that's correct, but it really doesn't matter. This is all a play for the cameras. He knows there is no legal way to block the payments.

Well, I think it's a show for the cameras hoping to shame AIG into forgoing the bonuses-- which might be impossible (legally) too, I don't know. Other quotes include:

"We ought to explore everything that we can through the government to make sure that this money is not wasted," said Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala. "These people brought this on themselves. Now you're rewarding failure. A lot of these people should be fired, not awarded bonuses. This is horrible. It's outrageous."


AIG has agreed to Obama administration requests to restrain future payments. Geithner had pressed the president's case with AIG's chairman, Edward Liddy, last week.

"He stepped in and berated them, got them to reduce the bonuses following every legal means he has to do this," said Austan Goolsbee, staff director of President Barack Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board.

Obama did note in his remarks Monday that Liddy "came on board after the contracts that led to these bonuses were agreed to last year."


So it appears there is a definite claim made by the hilariously-named Austan Goolsbee.

There is also the claim in the article that:

AIG has agreed to Obama administration requests to restrain future payments. Geithner had pressed the president's case with AIG's chairman, Edward Liddy, last week.

So that is verifiable too.


So if either of those claims can be falsified, then this is just a show for the cameras and nothing happened. If either can be verified, then it's not 'just' a show for the cameras. Would you agree to that?
 
2009-03-16 02:17:43 PM
Nabb1: Obdicut: However, it appears to be that Obama's promise is that his administration will pursue every legal avenue to block these bonuses. Would you say that's correct?

I'll tell you what, Fluffy, why don't you come up with a legally sound basis upon which the Administration can come close to doing what they say they want to do - with citations to relevant, controlling legal authority, and then I'll answer your questions. In other words - why don't you actually try contributing something to the discussion that actually has some substance to it? Do you think you can handle that?


First off, what AIG was doing was downright corrupt and criminal. Basically it was fraud. They are lucky to still be in business. I think we should pass a law forbidding a company to give bonuses if they don't show a profit. It would protect the stockholders. Hell I never worked at a company that based bonuses on anything but profit. Why does Wall st. have to be bass ackwards? Isn't that a demotivating factor? It's like welfare.
And as for the canard of "if we don't pay them they will go somewhere else" I'd like to know where because it's all in the crapper. Where else can they get paid like that for failing on an epic scale?
 
2009-03-16 02:18:55 PM
Tigger: Can't Congress just pass the "it just doesn't seem right" Bill, or if necessary the "seriously you gotta be kidding" Constitutional Amendment?

Sounds like Barney Frank is thinking along the same lines.
 
2009-03-16 02:20:46 PM
Hobodeluxe: I think we should pass a law forbidding a company to give bonuses if they don't show a profit. It would protect the stockholders.

would you start a business if this law were in place? do you really think it's appropriate for government to interfere unnecessarily with freedom of contract?
 
2009-03-16 02:21:25 PM
There should be NO bonuses paid with taxpayer money.
 
2009-03-16 02:23:05 PM
Obdicut: Whether or not it's legal to threaten someone for termination for taking a bonus they were contractually owed, I don't know. Do you?

It's questionably legal but it's a biatch to prove, and the employer has a variety of defenses depending on the state they are in. Many states have a defense that basically amounts to "I would have fired him anyways for X reason", even if you fire someone for an illegal reason (which accepting a bonus they are contractually obligated to receive may or may not be).

Well, I think it's a show for the cameras hoping to shame AIG into forgoing the bonuses-- which might be impossible (legally) too, I don't know.

That may be their best hope -- shame the executives into coming to the table and agreeing to forego a portion of the bonuses.

Obdicut: If either can be verified, then it's not 'just' a show for the cameras. Would you agree to that

No, because I think its clear those aren't referring to currently owed bonuses.

Whether or not AIG or the government would win if this goes to litigation, I don't know. I'd lean towards AIG. That being said, I can guarantee it will either cost AIG shareholders or the taxpayers a shiatload of money to find out.
 
2009-03-16 02:23:07 PM
Obdicut: I have no clue if there is a sound basis. I was pointing out that you were saying his position was that he would stop the bonuses. I pointed out that's not his position. Do you disagree with that, or would you prefer to ignore that question?

Because it was only tangentially material to the thrust of my post which was I know of no legal authority by which they can actually accomplish what they stated they would use every legal means to stop, which while not actually promising to stop the bonuses certainly sounds like they will do everything they can to try, a difference that seems to be very important to you, but rather weaselly by any rational standards.

It seems to me that there is no legal way to do it, though, obviously, the bailout money probably makes this scenario rather unusual. Barney Frank appears to agree with you, and think there's no way to prevent them from taking bonuses, but comments that they could then be fired. Whether or not it's legal to threaten someone for termination for taking a bonus they were contractually owed, I don't know. Do you?

It would most likely be an improper inducement to breach a contract that would be voided by any court.
 
2009-03-16 02:26:47 PM
LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD...SHHH: So not one of our great governmental overlords thought to look into AIG's contractual obligations before we tossed them 173B? I'm sure the company could have worked out a deal to toss these contracts in order to receive the bailout money.

Good eye.
 
2009-03-16 02:28:06 PM
KaponoFor3

He knows there is no legal way to block the payments

But I thought it wasn't illegal when the President does it.
 
2009-03-16 02:30:36 PM
DON'T PAY THEM. Screw the contract. It is now void.

Anybody who complains- lock them up in Guantanamo and charge them with financial terrorism. Send a message to American financial service sector that they are now government property. Failure to comply will result in termination. Of life.

Do not tolerate this nonsense. Inform these fools that they are now in it for the long haul. That they will spend the good part of a decade working for pennies to help fix our system. That the punishment for failure that catastrophic is paid not in prison, not in bankruptcy, but compliance and servitude. When the government is forced to step in and fix your failures for the benefits of America, your petty grievances no longer matter.
 
2009-03-16 02:31:02 PM
Write a law: "Any bonuses received by employees at a company that receives TARP money are to be taxed at 100%."
 
2009-03-16 02:31:10 PM
KaponoFor3: That doesn't mean those arguments will be winners, and you can guarantee the executives will hire an expensive cadre of attorneys who can find just as many arguments that the bonuses are legally binding.

you're absolutely right... the existence of the possibility of failure should always preclude trying.
 
2009-03-16 02:33:23 PM
KaponoFor3: No, because I think its clear those aren't referring to currently owed bonuses.

I feel one of them is about current bonuses:

"He stepped in and berated them, got them to reduce the bonuses following every legal means he has to do this," said Austan Goolsbee, staff director of President Barack Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board.

Unless you think that's just an awkward phrasing, and by "got to", Austan Goolsbee means that he, Austan Goolsbee is saying that Obama berated them into reducing future bonuses. Which is a perfectly valid reading of the sentence.

And in that case, if all the quotes are about future bonuses, then might not the government have legal recourse to reducing future bonuses?

KaponoFor3: That may be their best hope -- shame the executives into coming to the table and agreeing to forego a portion of the bonuses.

Well, they're claiming this has already occurred, whether for now or the future is the outstanding question. And whether or not they (the Obama administration) is telling the truth.

Nabb1

Because it was only tangentially material to the thrust of my post which was I know of no legal authority by which they can actually accomplish what they stated they would use every legal means to stop, which while not actually promising to stop the bonuses certainly sounds like they will do everything they can to try, a difference that seems to be very important to you, but rather weaselly by any rational standards.

It's the difference between what you said and something else. If you don't want to actually defend what you said, that's fine with me. I can't help it if your actual claim and the thrust of your argument don't actually match each other.

I fully accept your argument that there is probably no way they can legally do much to accomplish this (though I know jack shiat about it), and, as I said, Barney Frank agrees with you. The article is written in a way that makes it impossible to tell, as KaponoFor3 has pointed out, whether they're claiming they already got AIG to reduce current bonuses, or whether they're getting AIG to reduce future bonuses.

It's not like this is a one-time problem, after all.

Nabb1: It would most likely be an improper inducement to breach a contract that would be voided by any court.

I don't know much about this, so could you explain that? If you tell an employee, "Look, you royally screwed up this year and you don't deserve a bonus. However, I'm contractually obligated to give you one. But if you take it, I'm not going to renew your contract for next year," is legally prohibited? Or am I stating it wrong?

Final note:

KaponoFor3

Whether or not AIG or the government would win if this goes to litigation, I don't know. I'd lean towards AIG. That being said, I can guarantee it will either cost AIG shareholders or the taxpayers a shiatload of money to find out.

Do you feel that it might it be worth it, in the current atmosphere, to figure this shiat out now that the US government is becoming heavy investors in many US companies? Or do you just feel this would be a terrible, murky case to do that?
 
2009-03-16 02:33:48 PM
arkansas: .but just saying they will not pay what the contracts say doesn't seem to be an appropriate path.

just say: "The company is worth negative billions of dollars. If it were not for the US Government writing you a massive check for your failures; you would be getting a bonus of zero + maybe jail. You get nothing, be happy with it and go away."
 
2009-03-16 02:34:53 PM
burndtdan: KaponoFor3: That doesn't mean those arguments will be winners, and you can guarantee the executives will hire an expensive cadre of attorneys who can find just as many arguments that the bonuses are legally binding.

you're absolutely right... the existence of the possibility of failure should always preclude trying.


It's not a possibility - it's a strong likelihood. And to not even acknowledge that fact publicly when making a pronouncement to do everything legally possible to stop it to me, and to my inimitable co-counselor here, seems extremely disingenuous and misleading a great number of folks in the public who would have no reason to know that the legality of stopping these bonuses is extremely remote in the most optimistic of terms.
 
2009-03-16 02:35:31 PM
If a bonus is contractually bound and not based on performance... isn't that just salary?
 
2009-03-16 02:35:51 PM
Dancin_In_Anson: LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD...SHHH: So not one of our great governmental overlords thought to look into AIG's contractual obligations before we tossed them 173B? I'm sure the company could have worked out a deal to toss these contracts in order to receive the bailout money.

Good eye.


Well, no one ever accused the Bush administration of being competent.
 
2009-03-16 02:36:45 PM
Tigger: Can't Congress just pass the "it just doesn't seem right" Bill, or if necessary the "seriously you gotta be kidding" Constitutional Amendment?

Link (new window)
 
2009-03-16 02:39:26 PM
Nabb1: burndtdan: KaponoFor3: That doesn't mean those arguments will be winners, and you can guarantee the executives will hire an expensive cadre of attorneys who can find just as many arguments that the bonuses are legally binding.

you're absolutely right... the existence of the possibility of failure should always preclude trying.

It's not a possibility - it's a strong likelihood. And to not even acknowledge that fact publicly when making a pronouncement to do everything legally possible to stop it to me, and to my inimitable co-counselor here, seems extremely disingenuous and misleading a great number of folks in the public who would have no reason to know that the legality of stopping these bonuses is extremely remote in the most optimistic of terms.


Like you said, Obama is a lawyer and should know that this is on shaky legal ground at best. But what I'm thinking is that this isn't necessarily about getting a court to stop these bonuses, but more about forcing AIG to publicly defend their policies regarding bonuses while getting government money. Shame is a powerfully force.
 
2009-03-16 02:39:37 PM
Before anyone gets too excited, let's call it like it is: all he's doing is saying, "Look, you d-bags. We helped you out. I cannot probably legally stop you right now, but I will point out just how d-baggy you're acting to the entire world right now so that HOPEFULLY I don't have to do anything legally i.e. change the laws to make you suffer. Kthxbai LOL -BHO."
 
2009-03-16 02:40:06 PM
Nabb1: seems extremely disingenuous and misleading a great number of folks in the public who would have no reason to know that the legality of stopping these bonuses is extremely remote in the most optimistic of terms.

Playing to the camera and skating along on collective public ignorance are basically the same thing here.

Also, I'm pretty sure I read a quote from Eric Holder last week saying there was nothing legally they could do about the bonuses. Can't find it on google though.
 
2009-03-16 02:41:25 PM
Obdicut: Nabb1

Because it was only tangentially material to the thrust of my post which was I know of no legal authority by which they can actually accomplish what they stated they would use every legal means to stop, which while not actually promising to stop the bonuses certainly sounds like they will do everything they can to try, a difference that seems to be very important to you, but rather weaselly by any rational standards.

It's the difference between what you said and something else. If you don't want to actually defend what you said, that's fine with me. I can't help it if your actual claim and the thrust of your argument don't actually match each other.


I am sure it is as you say, but it seems to me you were splitting hairs to pick an argument.

Nabb1: It would most likely be an improper inducement to breach a contract that would be voided by any court.

I don't know much about this, so could you explain that? If you tell an employee, "Look, you royally screwed up this year and you don't deserve a bonus. However, I'm contractually obligated to give you one. But if you take it, I'm not going to renew your contract for next year," is legally prohibited? Or am I stating it wrong?


You question presupposes a number of facts not made clear, i.e. the terms of the contract. If the contractual term is over, yes, one could take that position in negotiating for the renewal of the contract. If not, and you want to not pay the bonus, you better have a verifiable reason under the terms of the contract for doing it. If you are trying to get out of paying it for other reasons and lean on poor job performance as an excuse, well, good luck with that. I wouldn't recommend that course of action.
 
2009-03-16 02:44:12 PM
Which one of you Bozos thought up this "fluffy" nonsense and why do you feel it helps your argument?
 
2009-03-16 02:45:29 PM
Let the behemoth fall and the pieces fall where they may.
 
2009-03-16 02:46:54 PM
basemetal: Let the behemoth fall and the pieces fall where they may.

I'm pretty sure that means the destruction of a large number of government pensions (at least, I think that's why the government cares so much about AIG).
 
2009-03-16 02:52:06 PM
bulldg4life: basemetal: Let the behemoth fall and the pieces fall where they may.

I'm pretty sure that means the destruction of a large number of government pensions (at least, I think that's why the government cares so much about AIG).


It's not like it's worth much right now.
 
Displayed 50 of 640 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report