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.

(CNN)   Lawmakers: You really want these tanks, huh? Army: No, not really. Lawmakers: Come on... you know you want 'em. Army: Goddammit we said "No"   (security.blogs.cnn.com) divider line 306
    More: Asinine, Odierno, Yoshiaki Iwasaki, General Dynamics, Drew Griffin, Sierra Nevada  
•       •       •

6454 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Oct 2012 at 8:24 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



306 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-10 10:37:55 AM

bbfreak: Also, we can afford 3 billion a year to keep building tanks but not 3 million a year to keep the Aquarius undersea Lab running. Nice math idiots. Jobs are more important than science though eh?


i24.photobucket.com
"They're cutting our funding to build tanks? That's it! I'm declaring Martian law!"
 
2012-10-10 10:38:03 AM
This is the true entitlement program that's killing America.

These contractors feel entitled to our tax money to pay for their pet projects and it's draining out budget.

But yeah, go after PBS. Afterall, they're really the ones bleeding this country fiscally dry.

/rolls eyes
 
2012-10-10 10:39:20 AM

GAT_00: Yeah, but the rest of the world combined can't even field 12 fleet carriers, like we do. I think they can if you include those crappy helicopter carriers that aren't real carriers. Fine, keep 3 for the Arabian Sea, and 3 for China. Who the fark are the rest for? And just cutting those 6 carriers from active deployment can save something like $100 billion a year.


This was actually explained to me - We half half on deployment at any time, and the other half in dock for repair and resupply. You want to have 2 carriers for every deploy point, so there can always be one in the region.
 
2012-10-10 10:41:51 AM

JokerMattly: GAT_00: Yeah, but the rest of the world combined can't even field 12 fleet carriers, like we do. I think they can if you include those crappy helicopter carriers that aren't real carriers. Fine, keep 3 for the Arabian Sea, and 3 for China. Who the fark are the rest for? And just cutting those 6 carriers from active deployment can save something like $100 billion a year.

This was actually explained to me - We half half on deployment at any time, and the other half in dock for repair and resupply. You want to have 2 carriers for every deploy point, so there can always be one in the region.


Why the fark do we need a fleet carrier on deployment in every region 100% of the time? What threat is of such magnitude to require that?
 
2012-10-10 10:42:16 AM

qorkfiend: Epoch_Zero: If it prevents racists and religious zealots from injecting fascism and outright lies into the textbooks that are used for the national standard, then perhaps it should be looked into.

You honestly think giving Congress the power to set national education standards would prevent racists and religious zealots from injecting fascism and outright lies into the national standard? Seriously?


I think giving the Department of Education the power to set national education standards would prevent that more than a set of backwards state representatives from Texas, yes. As of right now the DoE can only "identify issues and focus attention on them", they can't enforce anything other than non-discrimination policies.

Leaving this up to the states is a stupid idea. We need to be a country, already.
 
2012-10-10 10:42:17 AM
Does the Army know something Congress doesn't? That maybe our super duper armor can now be penetrated by a cheap small penetrator, easily disabling a very expensive tank (not to mention killing it's crew)?


I would have linked to the original article in The Army Times but, strangely enough, the article is no longer available. Doo doodly doo doo
 
2012-10-10 10:43:11 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: JokerMattly: GAT_00: Yeah, but the rest of the world combined can't even field 12 fleet carriers, like we do. I think they can if you include those crappy helicopter carriers that aren't real carriers. Fine, keep 3 for the Arabian Sea, and 3 for China. Who the fark are the rest for? And just cutting those 6 carriers from active deployment can save something like $100 billion a year.

This was actually explained to me - We half half on deployment at any time, and the other half in dock for repair and resupply. You want to have 2 carriers for every deploy point, so there can always be one in the region.

Why the fark do we need a fleet carrier on deployment in every region 100% of the time? What threat is of such magnitude to require that?


The threat of not having a fleet carrier on deployment in every region 100% of the time. I get scared just thinking about it.
 
2012-10-10 10:44:13 AM

qorkfiend: You think inflicting the Texas Board of Education on the entire country by Congressional mandate is a good idea. Why?


I neither proposed the idea of full Congressional control nor expressly advocated it. I simply pointed out that it was not worse than the idea of a bunch of religious zealots from Texas having as much control as they do now.

I do believe that national educational standards are not only possible but desirable, as long as the states are allowed some leeway for regional or statehood education. Honestly, the system wouldn't be too different from the standards currently used for the NCLB mandated crap, only it would be actually effective because the same entity would be providing the curriculum to be tested on as well as the test, rather than the clusterf*ck we have now of teachers having to teach to state requirements but being tested on national requirements..
 
2012-10-10 10:45:23 AM

Mrtraveler01: This is the true entitlement program that's killing America.

These contractors feel entitled to our tax money to pay for their pet projects and it's draining out budget.

But yeah, go after PBS. Afterall, they're really the ones bleeding this country fiscally dry.

/rolls eyes


It's really simple, though.

To the dumb pork grind eating dickhead in the South, what's more favorable - protecting us from brown people overseas or Big Bird? Costs don't matter to a guy who can't evaluate the square root of 400.
 
2012-10-10 10:46:10 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: What threat is of such magnitude to require that?


Mooslims that hate us for our freedoms. Duh.
 
2012-10-10 10:48:09 AM

qorkfiend: Arkanaut: ox45tallboy: Arkanaut: IMO globalization is a red herring -- it's not that difficult* to bring jobs back

Of course not. When you add in the cost of transportation, corporations don't save a huge amount of money by moving manufacturing overseas. If we built more infrastructure around manufacturing, companies could eliminate the management headaches of production facilities being halfway around the world, and create even more demand for their products by making sure more people could afford them.

But when mutual fund managers make that extra .02%, it translates directly into their own pocket, and makes a difference on whether their kid goes to Harvard or State U.

When one or two companies moves their manufacturing overseas, they make pretty well. When everyone does it, the whole system collapses because no one has customers who can afford their products anymore.

If you read the rest of my post, what I meant was that if we support worker's wages, particularly at the lower end, we can have the best of both worlds -- the fund managers can get that .02% and we can have workers who can feed their families. I think.

How would the fund managers get their .02% in this case? They move overseas because lower labor and regulatory compliance costs offset the higher costs of transportation, thus increasing profitability. Moving them back and making them pay their workers more won't help with that.


The idea is, negative taxation could make a $15/hr worker cost only $12 to the employer. Then if you factor in the better quality of work, lower cost of transport, shorter lines of communication, and faster time to market, it could very well be worth it to a corporation's bottom line to hire workers in the same market as your customers.

I do agree though that employer-based health insurance is a hindrance -- single-payer or at least a public option would be a huge help.
 
2012-10-10 10:50:23 AM

coeyagi: To the dumb pork grind eating dickhead in the South


Look, there's no need to get personal. I like living in Atlanta, and I just happen to be staying in farktard redneck Alabama at the moment. I'm not too sure what "pork grind" is, but I've probably eaten it at some point in the last two weeks. It's not like I ordered it at a restaurant or anything, it's just my sister serves that sort of thing, so don't hold it against me if I've been polite and eaten it anyways.

And I'm all in favor of Big Bird, and, with deference to Mittens, even if it means we have to borrow money from China to pay for it. Because educating our children is that important.
 
2012-10-10 10:51:19 AM
i449.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-10 10:51:21 AM

liam76: Things have gotten many orders of magnitude more complicated since then.


And the ability to modify production equipment has improved by orders of magnitude since then. Back then if you wanted to go from stamping out airplane parts to stamping out car parts, it was going to take a while. Today? Can do it a lot faster. The machine doing the stamping, then as now, doesn't change you just need a new die. Well back then, it took a while to make one and there was always the chance it wouldn't turn out right. Today? Thanks to computer controlled cutting machines they're made to tolerances that are best understood in terms of the width of a human hair. And it's faster. A lot faster.
 
2012-10-10 10:52:05 AM

Arkanaut: I do agree though that employer-based health insurance is a hindrance -- single-payer or at least a public option would be a huge help.


This is how Japan kicked our collective asses (and continues to do so) in the automobile market. They don't have to factor employee health care costs into the price of an automobile.
 
2012-10-10 10:55:02 AM

WhyteRaven74: liam76: Things have gotten many orders of magnitude more complicated since then.

And the ability to modify production equipment has improved by orders of magnitude since then. Back then if you wanted to go from stamping out airplane parts to stamping out car parts, it was going to take a while. Today? Can do it a lot faster. The machine doing the stamping, then as now, doesn't change you just need a new die. Well back then, it took a while to make one and there was always the chance it wouldn't turn out right. Today? Thanks to computer controlled cutting machines they're made to tolerances that are best understood in terms of the width of a human hair. And it's faster. A lot faster.


My position is that it would take about the same amount of time today to change over our factories to wartime production as it did in the 1940's. Things like complexity of the product are canceled out by complexity and effectiveness of the machinery involved, as well as improved communications and computers to keep track of inventory. Do you think that it could be accomplished as quickly as we did it in the 1940's?
 
2012-10-10 10:55:22 AM

qorkfiend: Epoch_Zero: GoldSpider: Epoch_Zero: Exactly - by pupil. Not by school. There are a few extremely rich schools where they get what they need and the rest, well, they have to get bootstrappy.

Would you support consolidating school districts to the county level (in states where it's not already so) and change the funding mechanism from local property taxes to a county income tax?

No - that wouldn't do anything. That the funding is local is already the problem. Schools should get what they need regardless of what economic area they happen to be located in. Everyone talks about how education is a way out of poverty, yet schools located in poor neighborhoods are at a disadvantage because of it. The school system needs to be nationalized. It would solve a lot of problems.

I'm not sure if I want Congress setting national education standards.


Congress isn't too trustworthy at the moment, but I'll take them over your average school board.
 
2012-10-10 10:57:01 AM

ox45tallboy: coeyagi: To the dumb pork grind eating dickhead in the South

Look, there's no need to get personal. I like living in Atlanta, and I just happen to be staying in farktard redneck Alabama at the moment. I'm not too sure what "pork grind" is, but I've probably eaten it at some point in the last two weeks. It's not like I ordered it at a restaurant or anything, it's just my sister serves that sort of thing, so don't hold it against me if I've been polite and eaten it anyways.

And I'm all in favor of Big Bird, and, with deference to Mittens, even if it means we have to borrow money from China to pay for it. Because educating our children is that important.


I wasn't saying everyone in the South fit into this category, just for those who do...

Also, you would remember a pork rind:

cdn.blisstree.com
 
2012-10-10 10:58:39 AM
You want to build tanks to help local economies? Fine, but you should also stimulate the economy by destroying old ones if you have a surplus. Recycling that steel, plastic, and whatever else can be recycled could be done for no cost to the military. It would create jobs, and generate a little business for someone.
 
2012-10-10 10:59:43 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: JokerMattly: GAT_00: Yeah, but the rest of the world combined can't even field 12 fleet carriers, like we do. I think they can if you include those crappy helicopter carriers that aren't real carriers. Fine, keep 3 for the Arabian Sea, and 3 for China. Who the fark are the rest for? And just cutting those 6 carriers from active deployment can save something like $100 billion a year.

This was actually explained to me - We half half on deployment at any time, and the other half in dock for repair and resupply. You want to have 2 carriers for every deploy point, so there can always be one in the region.

Why the fark do we need a fleet carrier on deployment in every region 100% of the time? What threat is of such magnitude to require that?


We must stand ready in case President Madagascar tries to shut down everything.
 
2012-10-10 10:59:48 AM

ox45tallboy: liam76: Tanks might share seats.

Do you happen to know who makes the gas turbine engine used in the Abrams? Or who makes the diesel option that other countries that are buying the Abrams from us want instead of the 3 gallons per mile (not a typo) gas turbine?

I'll give you a hint: it's not General Dynamics. They buy the engines that are already in production by a couple of major US manufacturers.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honeywell_AGT1500

The Honeywell AGT1500 gas turbine engine is the main powerplant of the M1 Abrams series of tanks. The engine was originally designed and produced by the Lycoming Turbine Engine Division in the Stratford Army Engine Plant. In 1995, production was moved to the Anniston Army Depot in Anniston, Alabama after the Stratford Army Engine Plant was shut down.

Not a tank expert, and this is from Wiki, but it doesn't seem to be a commercial engine.
 
2012-10-10 11:00:10 AM

Alphax: Congress isn't too trustworthy at the moment, but I'll take them over your average school board.


No Child Left Behind
 
2012-10-10 11:01:02 AM

imontheinternet: Philip Francis Queeg: JokerMattly: GAT_00: Yeah, but the rest of the world combined can't even field 12 fleet carriers, like we do. I think they can if you include those crappy helicopter carriers that aren't real carriers. Fine, keep 3 for the Arabian Sea, and 3 for China. Who the fark are the rest for? And just cutting those 6 carriers from active deployment can save something like $100 billion a year.

This was actually explained to me - We half half on deployment at any time, and the other half in dock for repair and resupply. You want to have 2 carriers for every deploy point, so there can always be one in the region.

Why the fark do we need a fleet carrier on deployment in every region 100% of the time? What threat is of such magnitude to require that?

We must stand ready in case President Madagascar tries to shut down everything.


i0.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-10-10 11:02:10 AM
Came here to echo what has been said. The military usually knows what needs to be done and what they need to do it. Especially with armaments. They make a mis-step here and there, like underestimating the need for uparmored Hummers to avoid IED casualties, but on the whole they do it correctly.

The role of the military isn't to provide jobs for equipment that isn't needed. Couldn't those suppliers design and build other things, like kick-ass software and electronics for the auto and trucking industry, or really cool armor for industrial use, such as in dangerous manufacturing zones like steel mills?

Just spit-balling here. Either way, we shouldn't buy things we don't need.
 
2012-10-10 11:02:26 AM

imontheinternet: Philip Francis Queeg: JokerMattly: GAT_00: Yeah, but the rest of the world combined can't even field 12 fleet carriers, like we do. I think they can if you include those crappy helicopter carriers that aren't real carriers. Fine, keep 3 for the Arabian Sea, and 3 for China. Who the fark are the rest for? And just cutting those 6 carriers from active deployment can save something like $100 billion a year.

This was actually explained to me - We half half on deployment at any time, and the other half in dock for repair and resupply. You want to have 2 carriers for every deploy point, so there can always be one in the region.

Why the fark do we need a fleet carrier on deployment in every region 100% of the time? What threat is of such magnitude to require that?

We must stand ready in case President Madagascar tries to shut down everything.


That, and in case we need to coordinate a worldwide alien counteroffensive with the window of only a few hours (in Robert Loggia's voice).
 
2012-10-10 11:02:50 AM

GoldSpider: Alphax: Congress isn't too trustworthy at the moment, but I'll take them over your average school board.

No Child Left Behind


No Child Left Behind indoctrinated millions of this country's youth into believing blatant falsehoods about history and that magic is real? Huh, didn't know that. I just thought it was a poorly planned operation that predictably failed. Who knew?
 
2012-10-10 11:03:58 AM

coeyagi: To the dumb pork grind eating dickhead in the South


coeyagi: Also, you would remember a pork rind:


Yes, due to the "G", I thought you were referring to something else...
 
2012-10-10 11:04:26 AM

NewportBarGuy: AbbeySomeone: Follow the money people.

Personally? I think they care more about losing jobs in their district. They can raise $56k other ways, but they can't fight local paper headline of people getting laid off. I understand why they do it, but it's just another reason we need term limits so people don't make stupid decisions like this just to keep their job.


Term limits won't solve this problem at all. The newbies would be just as easily swayed, if not outright bought, to do the same thing when elected.
 
2012-10-10 11:05:32 AM

Mikey1969: This is just more enforcement of what we are told are "myths" or "urban legrnds", the stories about military units having to use up all of their budget is true, too, although people try and tell us all of the time that it never happens. My bro-in-law recently retired from the Air Force, and had been running his squadron for years. He was constantly trying to figure out what to blow their budget on at the end of the year.

Three examples were a large screen theater system, a popcorn machine and a snow cone machine for the break room. Not because they needed this stuff, but because if he didn't spend it, his budget would get slashed for the next year. He was getting annoyed with having to constantly think of new unnecessary shiat...


I've seen this in action. Fiscal year winding down? Got money left? Let's get a whole break room full of new furniture and maybe replace all of our tools with new Snap-On gear because we have to use up our budget or we'll get less next year.
 
2012-10-10 11:05:37 AM

dittybopper: Funny thing about isolationism: We tried that in the first half of the last century,


BWAHAHAHA

Because nothing says "isolationism" like attempting to intervene diplomatically in the middle of a war, and then attempting to form the League of Nations afterwards.

Because nothing says "isolationism" like enacting the lend-lease and embargoes with opposing sides in an ongoing global conflict.

But yeah, we were totally "dragged" into those wars.
 
2012-10-10 11:05:43 AM

coeyagi:

Also, you would remember a pork rind:

[cdn.blisstree.com image 300x500]


What? No Extra Stubble?
 
2012-10-10 11:07:06 AM

GoldSpider: Alphax: Congress isn't too trustworthy at the moment, but I'll take them over your average school board.

No Child Left Behind


No military manufacturer left behind will be the next initiative.
 
2012-10-10 11:07:07 AM

Epoch_Zero: No Child Left Behind indoctrinated millions of this country's youth into believing blatant falsehoods about history and that magic is real? Huh, didn't know that. I just thought it was a poorly planned operation that predictably failed. Who knew?


NCLB has been a disaster, and should serve as a warning against broad and rigid national education policy.
 
2012-10-10 11:10:11 AM
Actually, you need 3 carriers for each one you want in an active deployment zone. That's one on deployment, one in port refitting, and one working up getting ready for deployment or returning home from deployment. You can get two on station by delaying the return of the carrier scheduled to come home, but that wears out both the ships and the crew.

As for tanks, they aren't exactly disposable hardware. Put them in a humidity-free area like the SW desert, and they just sit there until you need them again. Congress just wants the tank factory kept going to provide jobs for their voters.

/you know who else had factories making pointless items?
//that's right, the Soviet Union!
 
2012-10-10 11:13:26 AM

liam76: Not a tank expert, and this is from Wiki, but it doesn't seem to be a commercial engine.


That's the M1A1. I mean currently.

Link

"The decision to buy a turbine engine tank was a political decision. The Army had intended to select the GM version, which had a diesel engine. However, at the eleventh hour, The DepSecDef apparently ordered the Sec Army to reverse the decision and select the Chrysler version, which had the gas turbine engine."

-B. G. Steve Bliss, USA, Ret.

For the record, Chrysler did later sell off it's tank division which produced the gas turbine engine. But my point still stands - the Abrams doesn't use some hand-made specialty engine with individually crafted parts made by Christian Science monks under a vow of silence in a secret lair in the foothills of South Dakota. It's a production-line engine, or as you referred to it, "off-the-shelf".
 
2012-10-10 11:15:38 AM

GoldSpider: Epoch_Zero: No Child Left Behind indoctrinated millions of this country's youth into believing blatant falsehoods about history and that magic is real? Huh, didn't know that. I just thought it was a poorly planned operation that predictably failed. Who knew?

NCLB has been a disaster, and should serve as a warning against broad and rigid national education policy.


Having a national standard isn't a bad idea. Their slavish devotion to testing was the problem. Not sure that's worse than states pushing for biblical math and creation science as valid curriculum.
 
2012-10-10 11:19:35 AM

ox45tallboy: Arkanaut: I do agree though that employer-based health insurance is a hindrance -- single-payer or at least a public option would be a huge help.

This is how Japan kicked our collective asses (and continues to do so) in the automobile market. They don't have to factor employee health care costs into the price of an automobile.


Holy crap, you CAN say something factually correct!
 
2012-10-10 11:22:55 AM

ghare: Holy crap, you CAN say something factually correct!


Please point out something I have said that is not.
 
2012-10-10 11:23:06 AM

cptjeff: ladyfortuna: Tell you what, start selling the oldest ones at auction without the firing parts included. I'll be in the line somewhere to help rid you of the back stock...

There are ways to get surplus tanks.

Here, for example. I'm sure shipping to the US could be arranged.


My wife's birthday is coming up, she's gonna be so excited!
 
2012-10-10 11:23:41 AM
Clearly there's no ideological opposition to spending taxpayer money to put people to work building stuff. It's just not okay for it to be even slightly useful stuff that might compete even slightly with anything in the private sector.
 
2012-10-10 11:28:44 AM

Nem Wan: Clearly there's no ideological opposition to spending taxpayer money to put people to work building stuff. It's just not okay for it to be even slightly useful stuff that might compete even slightly with anything in the private sector.


There shouldn't be any profit motive in infrastructure. I don't like the idea of paying a toll every time I pull out of the driveway. Therefore, some things need to be done even if they are not profitable. This is where government should be doing the work.

Put these defense contractors to work on police and civilian government vehicles instead of tanks. If we need the tanks, then they can convert their factories back over, and have employees already trained in the use of the equipment. It's just stupid to keep producing all of these tanks we don't want or need and can't afford the upkeep for.
 
2012-10-10 11:33:08 AM

ox45tallboy: . Do you think that it could be accomplished as quickly as we did it in the 1940's?


If the right people are in place at a given factory, easily.
 
2012-10-10 11:33:11 AM

AbbeySomeone: NewportBarGuy: And this is why we can't cut the defense budget. We're at war with our own "Representatives."

I don't know how you keep them idle for three years, but find something. Figure it out. There is no sense buying sh*t just to park it in a motor pool and never use it. We're moving away from large-scale armor engagements, so there is really no need going nuts on armor.

McKeon said he's thinking about the long range view. "... If someone could guarantee us that we'll never need tanks in the future, that would be good. I don't see that guarantee."

More than what we have and can refurbish? Uhhh... I can guarantee you that for a while. Go to Aberdeen Proving Grounds or any of the other storage sites for armor we can just refurbish and put into action. We have the tools. Take the $3,000,000,000 and use it elsewhere. Don't worry... I'm sure the Army will ask for it for something else sooner than you can imagine.

McKeon was also unaware that the tank makers had made a hefty contribution to his campaign. Follow the money people. F*ck the taxpayers, we want kickbacks.


Buck McKeon has a reputation for this exact thing. He was the one who pushed for bringing the SR-71 out of retirement because Lockheed begged him to, so they could make a killing on selling parts to the USAF. The USAF was saying "how bout no? These planes are old, outdated, and we can get better results from our satellites".

The result was the USAF had to dig out a bunch of planes built in the 1950s, repair them, and then not use them.
 
2012-10-10 11:38:30 AM
fta: "The fact that the military is having such a hard time getting this relatively small amount of money to be saved, I think is an indication of the huge uphill fight that the military faces when it comes to Congress," Sharp said. "Congress is going to fight tooth and nail to protect defense investments ..."

It's almost as though, by contrast to our corporate defense industry, the military has become the peace branch of American society which leads me, at times, to suspect American society is doomed.
 
2012-10-10 11:39:38 AM
We're moving away from large-scale armor engagements, so there is really no need going nuts on armor.


Don't worry, President Romney won't let those tanks and the production lines go idle.
 
2012-10-10 11:43:15 AM

sunlion: Don't worry, President Romney won't let those tanks and the production lines go idle.

Someone

has to go fight Iran, since we deposed their greatest enemy.
 
2012-10-10 11:44:41 AM

ox45tallboy: sunlion: Don't worry, President Romney won't let those tanks and the production lines go idle.

Someone has to go fight Iran, since we deposed their greatest enemy.


Yeah, but we're propping up their next greatest enemy. Why can't we just deploy Operation Jew Shield?
 
2012-10-10 11:47:02 AM

HotWingConspiracy: Somehow this will end with the tanks being sold to suburban police departments.


CRUSH & FRISK!
 
2012-10-10 11:47:14 AM

coeyagi: Why can't we just deploy Operation Jew Shield?


Thing is, the only thing Iran has to fight about Israel with is the way they're treating the Palestinians.
 
2012-10-10 11:49:00 AM

ox45tallboy: Thing is, the only thing Iran has to fight about Israel with is the way they're treating the Palestinians.


Well, that, and Israel's right to exist as an independent state.
 
Displayed 50 of 306 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report