board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

Coverage from around the world......

Post Reply   Page 8 of 10  [ 200 posts ]
Jump to page « 16 7 8 9 10 »
Author Message
Lurker
Post subject: Re: Coverage from around the world......
Posted: Thu 22 Jan , 2009 4:59 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 571
Joined: Wed 16 Mar , 2005 10:42 pm
Location: Body in Calgary, Alberta, Soul in Toronto
 
Yeah, addressing head on doesn't mean spewing the same rhethorics over and over again that I heard from the campaign trail. I haven't even heard a "specific" solution yet.

It ain't your money too, it's other taxpayer's money as well. They are just the silent minority.

_________________

Caution...You are entering the NO SPIN ZONE.


Top
Profile Quote
Estel
Post subject: Re: Coverage from around the world......
Posted: Thu 22 Jan , 2009 6:58 pm
Pure Kitsch Flavor
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5159
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:47 pm
Location: London
 
Lurker wrote:
If he really is for change, then why not make it low key and say that during this hard economic times we must use the money Lead by example, yeah, when Bush said go out and spend your money, people got upset. Yet, people didn't seem to bothered when $175 M (some of it from taxpayer's) being spent on pomp and pageantry.

The thing is, the money was already spent. Other than the last minute guests to make it personal to Obama, rather than McCain, this has probably been well in the planning stages for at least a year, if not more. By saying it should've been smaller, you're basically saying that they should've known that the economy would be worse than shit in the beginning of the planning, and should've planned the inauguration accordingly so that the new president, whoever that would be, would look better. I'd be saying the same thing if McCain had won, or Hillary for that matter.

The tax money that was needed for this was already spoken for when the budget was decided more than a year ago. Making it a cheaper ceremony would've been an empty gesture as the money had already been spent. I guarantee that with the huge bureaucracy in the government, not just in the department that takes care of the inauguration, but also in the budgetry department, it would've taken years to get that money back and into a more fruitful endeavor, millions of dollars wouldn't have been gotten back, and there would've been less organization to the inauguration and therefore more cost in the end.

It's like a massive version of a big fancy wedding. The planning starts well ahead of time, deposits are paid, etc etc. If you decide to suddenly make it a small wedding just before the date (and two months before something this huge would've been just before the date, that's for sure), you don't get the deposits back, it'll take forever for you to get the actual money that you paid back - probably not in enough time to use them to pay for the scaled down version - you end up with a last minute horror show that leaves everyone confused and can be a logistical nightmare, and you probably end up spending more money that you would've if you had just stuck to your original plan. And that's just a wedding.

Talk about something like an inauguration and you've got thousands of people who've got to be paid who've been working on various projects for many months, if not more than a year. The projects they've been working on have to have the materials paid for, even if they're not going to be used anymore, plus they've got to be put into storage, which also costs money. You've got congressmen and women and senators who need to be told that they don't get to request tickets to give for the first time, because you need to sell them to keep costs low. That amps up the need for security since you're essentially selling the close-up tickets to the highest bidder, whoever that may be. Plus the members of congress and the senate probably had their tickets requested and the holders vetted well ahead of time, so you've got a few thousand people who you've wasted money getting background checks on, and on top of that, they've probably already booked posh hotel rooms and plane tickets, which they will now cancel at the last minute thus losing their deposits, and causing a rather big inconvenience to the hotels and airlines - after all, all the rooms sell out, but these are top dollar customers and it's bit harder to sell first class airline tickets and hotel suites. So now you have to pay extra money to do background checks on the new people who've bought tickets, and since you have to do it in such a short period of time, you also have to amp up security just in case - yet another cost.

Basically, if you wanted it to be a less costly inauguration, you should've asked for it two years ago, at minumum. Changing the plans at the last minute is simply raising the cost, not lowering them, and you're ending up with a nightmarish logistical situation that will raise the cost of security even more, and still leave openings and issues with that.


Steve could explain it a lot better than I could, and I'll try to get him to, but I'll say simply this.

Trying, at the last minute, to change the inauguration ceremony plans is not only impractical, but it would cost more and security would be less. Plus it would make the new President seem completely incompetent because the inauguration would be even more of a nightmare than it already was for people trying to get to it and take part, which would've lowered peoples confidence which would've caused more worry about the economy which would've led the markets to get even worse and the economy to perhaps even go a bit lower.

We all remember the effect 9/11 had on the economy. Imagine what it would do if on the first day of his presidency, it seems like we would have to deal with 4 more years of an incompetent president.

It's a nice thought, but from a cost perspective and a social study perspective, and I'm sure from a lot of other perscpectives, doing a last minute change like that simply would be a disaster.


Top
Profile Quote
vison
Post subject: Re: Coverage from around the world......
Posted: Thu 22 Jan , 2009 7:09 pm
Best friends forever
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 6546
Joined: Fri 04 Feb , 2005 4:49 am
 
Excellent, excellent post, Estel.

In the grand scheme of things, the cost of the inauguration is a drop in the bucket. Add up the salaries and bonuses of a couple - maybe 3 or 4 - of those slimy Wall Street thieves who conned the US taxpayer out of $700 billion (billion with a B) and it would come to much more than the cost of this celebration.

Mr. Obama did not invent the inauguration ceremonies and as Estel pointed out, the plans were long made and much of the money already spent by November 4, 2008. The pomp and ceremony have been part of the occasion for decades, or longer. Are the American people never to have the thrill of pomp and ceremony? These events bind people together in an emotional outpouring of pride.

To compare the splendid day to some bullshit in some tinpot dictatorship where the transition of power comes out of the barrel of a gun? Cheap shot.

_________________

Living on Earth is expensive,
but it does include a free trip
around the sun every year.


Top
Profile Quote
Dave_LF
Post subject: Re: Coverage from around the world......
Posted: Thu 22 Jan , 2009 7:19 pm
You are hearing me talk
Offline
 
Posts: 2950
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 8:14 am
Location: Great Lakes
 
Dave_LF wrote:
I think the anti-Bush crowd can be proud that it made it though all eight years without doing anything much worse than bickering and snarling.
When I posted this this morning, I came very close to adding a sentence wondering how long it would take the McVeigh types and clinic bombers to come back out of the woodwork now that their guy was out of power. The answer was: not very long at all.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1" target="_blank


Top
Profile Quote
sauronsfinger
Post subject: Re: Coverage from around the world......
Posted: Thu 22 Jan , 2009 7:22 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 4336
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 9:28 pm
Location: The real world
 
Dave... maybe he was just angry he missed out on the free donuts?

Estel - well said.

_________________

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs. - John Rogers


Top
Profile Quote
Lidless
Post subject: Re: Coverage from around the world......
Posted: Thu 22 Jan , 2009 7:27 pm
Als u het leven te ernstig neemt, mist u de betekenis.
Offline
 
Posts: 8261
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 8:21 pm
Location: London
 
Of the USD 150m, USD 45m came from donations. That leaves USD 105m. Most of that goes on law enforcement - which is mostly apportioning an existing cost (an officer on USD 52k who spends a week on the inauguration: voilà USD 1k added to the cost). The only extra cost from that of law enforcement is overtime - but that would not be as large as the headline suggests.

The only real extras would be the construction of the platform and rental of chairs (USD 3m), extra transportation, overtime, and sundry extras such as keeping the Smithsonian open for longer (USD 0.7m). My gut feel is USD 40m.

So there's the problem. People see USD 150m - but it is not the true cost: it's an allocated gross cost, not an extra net cost. It's a headline-grabber and I've wiped my backside on more interesting things.


But I also take issue on people saying that in times of depression such frivolities should be curtailed. Does this mean that all work on statues should be stopped? That we should throw rotten fruit and veg at mourners who have given flowers rather than donating to charities? That we shoud ostracize people going on holiday to foreign lands and spending their dollars there - people who should be helping out in soup kitchens and land reclamation projects in the US instead?

Depression is a emotion, not just a fiscal noun, even though en masse the two are highly correlated. But the emotion can be lifted at the expense of the noun to the overall good. A motivated and feel-good populace? What price on that?

Last edited by Lidless on Thu 22 Jan , 2009 7:35 pm, edited 2 times in total.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Riverthalos
Post subject: Re: Coverage from around the world......
Posted: Thu 22 Jan , 2009 7:29 pm
bioalchemist
Offline
 
Posts: 5205
Joined: Wed 16 Mar , 2005 2:10 am
Location: at a safe distance
 
I find it ironic that the only person bitching about the inauguration cost in this thread is a not American.

Seriously. Presidential inaugurations in the US are always accompanied by pomp and circumstance. It's not exactly an empty thing, especially when replacing someone as unpopular as Bush with someone as popular as Obama. And we only get to do this every four years.

_________________

"He attacks. And here I can kill him. But I don't. That's the answer to world peace, people."
-Stickles Shihan


Top
Profile Quote
Lurker
Post subject: Re: Coverage from around the world......
Posted: Thu 22 Jan , 2009 7:38 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 571
Joined: Wed 16 Mar , 2005 10:42 pm
Location: Body in Calgary, Alberta, Soul in Toronto
 
vison wrote:
Excellent, excellent post, Estel.

In the grand scheme of things, the cost of the inauguration is a drop in the bucket. Add up the salaries and bonuses of a couple - maybe 3 or 4 - of those slimy Wall Street thieves who conned the US taxpayer out of $700 billion (billion with a B) and it would come to much more than the cost of this celebration.

Mr. Obama did not invent the inauguration ceremonies and as Estel pointed out, the plans were long made and much of the money already spent by November 4, 2008. The pomp and ceremony have been part of the occasion for decades, or longer. Are the American people never to have the thrill of pomp and ceremony? These events bind people together in an emotional outpouring of pride.

To compare the splendid day to some bullshit in some tinpot dictatorship where the transition of power comes out of the barrel of a gun? Cheap shot.
I don't like you guys defeatest attitude that it's done, it's over, it's not your money. I want answers. :blackeye:

Just because it's a "tradition" you had to do it for three days, yet traditionally correct me if I'm wrong it's just one day. Scaling down doesn't mean you don't have to celebrate if he really wants to show change why start by cutting down on the expenses used for the three day event. You don't need glitz and glamour to make history, you make history by what you can do 100 days for now. Until then, I won't start praising somebody until he got something to show for it. His record in the senate didn't impress me at all.

Not all dictators used the barrel of the gun to get elected. Most of them started off, as the hope of the nation and got elected through the democratic process, the problem is once they get there they don't want to leave it anymore. Power can be good or bad. So don't you go telling me that, only people who use the gun are evil.

Edit to add:
River are you saying that I can't bitch because I'm not American. Then why don't we just stop bitching about the role of Israel in Gaza or whatever is happening around the world cause we are not citizens of that country.

I'm not bitching just critizing that there is an economic crisis going on and yet money is spent on pomp and pageantry.

_________________

Caution...You are entering the NO SPIN ZONE.


Top
Profile Quote
Riverthalos
Post subject: Re: Coverage from around the world......
Posted: Thu 22 Jan , 2009 7:55 pm
bioalchemist
Offline
 
Posts: 5205
Joined: Wed 16 Mar , 2005 2:10 am
Location: at a safe distance
 
As Estel said, the money was already spent. It was almost certainly allocated before the markets crashed and everything went into turmoil. Changing plans wouldn't have saved us anything. And, anyway, it's not as if we don't know we're in a crisis. We elected Obama because he said he'd help us out of this mess. He even addressed the crisis in his speech.

Anyway, as far doing stuff goes, he trammeled the lobbyists into a nice little cage yesterday, capped White House salaries yesterday, and signed the orders to close Gitmo within the year and forbid the CIA from torturing people today. He's also halted the pig circus trials at Gitmo and ordered the men on trial to be shunted into a real justice system (not sure yet if it'll be civil or military) and put a stop on all of Bush's pending regulations. But, for the really big stuff, he's going to need his Cabinet in place and Congress on the line. Congress hasn't even approved all his appointees yet. But the things he can do by himself quickly he's doing.

_________________

"He attacks. And here I can kill him. But I don't. That's the answer to world peace, people."
-Stickles Shihan


Top
Profile Quote
elfshadow
Post subject: Re: Coverage from around the world......
Posted: Thu 22 Jan , 2009 8:39 pm
Kill the headlights and put it in neutral
Offline
 
Posts: 5407
Joined: Tue 09 Aug , 2005 2:27 am
 
Lurker, maybe if you had watched the Inauguration you would have noticed the happiness and joy experienced by the 2 million people who were in DC for the ceremony. The 2 million doesn't count the millions of people around the country who were uplifted by the festivities, and the millions of people around the world who were uplifted by the festivities. Several people have already explained the cost figure, and there's nothing I can really add to that. But you are also completely ignoring the tens of thousands of people who volunteered their time and resources to help put this together. People such as myself, for example. I spent the entire day (4:30am to 7pm) staffing one of the medical aid tents and I didn't get paid. I also didn't get to actually watch the Inauguration itself because I was seeing patients. People, real people, donated in countless ways so that the ceremony could happen, in addition to the actual amount of money that was spent. You are criticizing a dollar figure without considering the emotional benefits delivered to hundreds of millions of people, if not more.

Also, have you considered that the money spent on the ceremony helped real people financially? That it paid for overtime wages for the entire DC police force? That it gave business to the companies who provided the bleachers and fencing? That there was money spent on additional security and dozens of Jumbotrons because the entire National Mall was open for the public to view the event, whereas it is normally just a staging area for the parade participants? That these people who would not have otherwise come to the ceremony gave much-needed business to shuttle buses, to the airlines, to Amtrak, to Metro (the subway system), to area hotels and restaurants? This past weekend was HUGE for the businesses in DC and the surrounding suburbs. HUGE. I can personally attest to that. So open your mind a little before laying down such harsh criticism.


Top
Profile Quote
Lurker
Post subject: Re: Coverage from around the world......
Posted: Thu 22 Jan , 2009 9:12 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 571
Joined: Wed 16 Mar , 2005 10:42 pm
Location: Body in Calgary, Alberta, Soul in Toronto
 
Short term solutions for a long term problem.

So you are saying people wouldn't be happy if they didn't see pomp and pageantry? It's like celebrating your birthday at home instead of a restuarant, what's the difference, you still get to celebrate it, you're still happy, but you saved money. :halo:

What if I say that money could have been used building low cost housing for those who got their mortgages pulled and called it the "Pres. Obama Housing" wouldn't that be a better legacy. It still created jobs, you can still volunteer, you still helped people in need. That's my bottom line - Money can be spent elsewhere, how about paying off your debts.

It's like taking out money from your credit line which is already maxed out.

BTW, this is a constructive criticism not trying to rain on your parade. :)

_________________

Caution...You are entering the NO SPIN ZONE.


Top
Profile Quote
elfshadow
Post subject: Re: Coverage from around the world......
Posted: Thu 22 Jan , 2009 9:20 pm
Kill the headlights and put it in neutral
Offline
 
Posts: 5407
Joined: Tue 09 Aug , 2005 2:27 am
 
Long-term solutions don't erase the need for short-term ones.

You can always say that money could have been spent in a different way. Money always can be spent in a different way. In this case, spending money on low-income housing would have helped people, but it would have helped different people. Either way, I think the money spent is doing some good.

And, depending on your economic philosophy (I do NOT want to get into a debate on that), the government doesn't and can't spend money in the same way that the individual citizen does. Certainly according to Obama's economic philosophy, the government can't just start saving money instead of spending because it has debts to pay off. It has a much much larger line of credit than the individual. The debts need to be paid, I agree, but as I said you can't sacrifice short-term suffering for long-term solutions. They both need to be addressed.

To add a caveat: again, I do not want to debate whether there is an economic ideology that is better. I am simply stating that Obama is acting in accordance with his own economic ideology, which I think he has made abundantly clear.


Top
Profile Quote
halplm
Post subject: Re: Coverage from around the world......
Posted: Thu 22 Jan , 2009 9:35 pm
b77 whipping boy
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 9079
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 4:40 pm
 
The analysis for "when" the money was spent, and thus it "had to be spent" is so far beyond absurd I don't even know where to start.

The inauguration could have been done for a buck fifty in the White house if Obama had wanted it that way. He wanted it, and it cost a lot of money.

I don't care that he spent the money, but It is worth pointing out the hypocracy of people that complained when Bush spent less 4 years ago, and now say it is fine and good for Obama to spend more.

_________________

I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.


Top
Profile Quote
ellienor
Post subject: Re: Coverage from around the world......
Posted: Thu 22 Jan , 2009 9:38 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 328
Joined: Mon 13 Dec , 2004 9:07 pm
 
What if we do an analysis of spending per unit person attending, or spending per unit people watching on TV?

By that measure the Obama inauguration has got to be cheaper by a lot, since there were so many people there (est 2 million) and so many watching on TV (est 2 [edit] billion worldwide).

Thanks River!!! :oops:

Last edited by ellienor on Thu 22 Jan , 2009 10:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
Profile Quote
Riverthalos
Post subject: Re: Coverage from around the world......
Posted: Thu 22 Jan , 2009 10:10 pm
bioalchemist
Offline
 
Posts: 5205
Joined: Wed 16 Mar , 2005 2:10 am
Location: at a safe distance
 
Think you meant 2 billion worldwide Ellie. 6 billion would be almost the entire global population!

_________________

"He attacks. And here I can kill him. But I don't. That's the answer to world peace, people."
-Stickles Shihan


Top
Profile Quote
Estel
Post subject: Re: Coverage from around the world......
Posted: Thu 22 Jan , 2009 10:40 pm
Pure Kitsch Flavor
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5159
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:47 pm
Location: London
 
Lurker, changing the plans for the $150 million inauguration 60 days ahead of time would've been the equivelent of changing the plans for a £1 million wedding 8 hours ahead of time.

The money was already spent.

The money was gone.

It doesn't matter what Obama might've wanted to do with the money rather than have a big inauguration - by the time he got elected, it was gone. By that point, it would've cost more money to change the plans to a so called cheaper inauguration, than it would've to keep it the same.

Your birthday anaology simply doesn't work because it assumes spending the money at the time of the event. That's not the way this works. The deposits were paid. The wages were paid. Most of the bills had already been paid, or at least hundreds of thousands of pounds in interest on loans had been.

As for the money being spent elsewhere - that would've required congressional committees deciding in 2007 to take money away from the inauguration with the specific intent of getting that money put towards housing, then that would've had to be approved by the budgetary committee, then approved by congress, and it would've stayed there for quite some time getting addendums and whatnot added to it.....

Frankly, what you're saying Obama should've done is completely and utterly impossible. A pipedream. If the U.S. Governemt wanted to do it before even knowing who was running, let alone elected, they would've had to start the process probably 3 or 4 years ago.

This also is constructive criticism and I'm not trying to rain on your parade. I just don't think you fully understand just how vast the American government is or how slowly it moves. It's not like you and I having cash and thinking, well, I could go out for a big birthday dinner or I could stay home and donate the money I would've spent to charity instead. A better comparison would be me saying, when I was 26, that I wanted to do a big blow out party for my 30th birthday - spend thousands of dollars, and putting that money in a blind trust fund where the people who ran it would only let me access the money for that purpose. Then deciding when I was 28 that I changed my mind, and wanted to donate the money to charity, therefore needing to go through all the red tape of the banks, hiring lawyers, breaking contracts, etc etc etc.


It simply isn't possible. It doesn't matter how nice you, or anyone else, thinks it would be. In order to do that for the next inauguration, they would have to start changing the rules NOW.

As for all the pomp and circumstance - this is the only thing of that nature that we Americans get, and we only get it every 4 years. So yes, a great many of us do want a big event. A great many of us do want the chance to participate in one way or another. The rest of the world has traditions that go back centuries, if not thousands of years. We have this one thing, and we only get it a few times a decade. It's a sign of change, but it's also a tradition - having both in the same ceremony is a great comfort.

If it bothers you so much, then move over, switch citizenship, write to your member of congress and vote. Or get elected.

Either way, if you're going to be so emphatic about making a criticism about it, then please understand the complexities behind what you're asking to be done. It's not as easy as you think it is. In fact, it's not remotely easy at all.

It's a pipedream. Simple as that.


Top
Profile Quote
halplm
Post subject: Re: Coverage from around the world......
Posted: Thu 22 Jan , 2009 10:44 pm
b77 whipping boy
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 9079
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 4:40 pm
 
Estel, you are incorrect. Despite the size and slowness of our government, they can get things done if necessary. If Obama had wanted to scale things down, they would have gotten it done for him. Instead, because of the spectacle that was added because it was Obama, they had to scale it up.

To put it even more simply, if McCain had won, it would have been much much less of a spectacle, even if he had wanted more.

_________________

I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.


Top
Profile Quote
Rebecca
Post subject: Re: Coverage from around the world......
Posted: Thu 22 Jan , 2009 10:47 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3463
Joined: Thu 24 Feb , 2005 10:34 pm
Location: Fall River, MA
Contact: Website
 
halplm wrote:
Estel, you are incorrect. Despite the size and slowness of our government, they can get things done if necessary. If Obama had wanted to scale things down, they would have gotten it done for him. Instead, because of the spectacle that was added because it was Obama, they had to scale it up.

To put it even more simply, if McCain had won, it would have been much much less of a spectacle, even if he had wanted more.
Probably because they'd be dealing with less of a crowd, which means less money. :shrug:

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Di of Long Cleeve
Post subject: Re: Coverage from around the world......
Posted: Thu 22 Jan , 2009 11:00 pm
Frodo's girl through and through
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 989
Joined: Sun 06 Mar , 2005 10:08 pm
Location: The Shire
 
To my British ears, Obama seemed to push every possible American button, in the right sort of way and certainly not a triumphalistic way. We are a great nation, we should lead by example, that kind of thing. His speech was also rather Churchillian, I thought: times ahead are tough, we have to knuckle under and work together and rebuild our nation and get on with it.

:cool:

I liked the poem, and the poet. :)

Aretha's hat, bless her, was :damnfunny:

I found it interesting, how much God got mentioned. :D

The Lincoln Bible was ... :)

Oh, and I really liked the John Williams composition, "Air and Simple Gifts". :)

_________________

"Frodo undertook his quest out of love - to save the world he knew from disaster at his own expense, if he could ... " Letter no. 246

Avatar by elanordh on Live Journal


Top
Profile Quote
ellienor
Post subject: Re: Coverage from around the world......
Posted: Thu 22 Jan , 2009 11:16 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 328
Joined: Mon 13 Dec , 2004 9:07 pm
 
Hal, what was such a "spectacle" about it? Mostly the spectacle I saw was 2 million people and the armies of police, security, and suchlike to keep such a crowd under reasonable control and minimize chaos. There was the Chief Justice, the President, the Legislature, all seated there, and a cannon blasting off. That's pretty mild. Then there was a parade, which I didn't see much of, but it looked like representatives of all states. Who had to apply to get in. Colorado sent a delegation of equestriennes and their horses all decked out in American flags. The story I heard was that they paid many of their own expenses.

Then there were inaugural balls. Now those had the down payments, all the stuff Estel was talking about, with attendent difficulties in cutting back. Plus, most everyone paid something like $150 a ticket or so from what I understand.

So what was the expensive spectacle? :scratch:
Quote:
To put it even more simply, if McCain had won, it would have been much much less of a spectacle, even if he had wanted more.


Well, that is true, since there would have been far fewer people present and far fewer watching worldwide. This is not meant to be a slam of McCain. It's just that the first African-American President is much more of an event than another white guy.

Last edited by ellienor on Thu 22 Jan , 2009 11:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
Profile Quote
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Post Reply   Page 8 of 10  [ 200 posts ]
Return to “The Symposium” | Jump to page « 16 7 8 9 10 »
Jump to: