| Scintillater |
So I saw it last night...it was a good movie.
I'm unbelievably disturbed though at the fact that we live in a country right next to one run by a total idiot.
Before this movie ever came out, the first thought that ran through my head when Bush declared war in Iraq, was, umm....isn't Bin Laden in Afghanistan? Why is he suddenly diverting attention, and why are the American people condoning it?
dayam *shakes head* |
|
|
| energie |
| i saw it too, they make Bush look so bad |
|
|
| Bad Egg |
| Michael Moore may be a funny guy, but he is far from honest or accurate. Remember his statement after 911...he thought the terrorists should have attacked states that voted for Bush instead of ones that Gore carried(NY). There are whole websites devoted to debunking this asshat's BS. |
|
|
| oldraven |
quote:
Originally posted by energie
i saw it too, they make Bush look so bad
No, he did that all by himself. Moore just slapped it all together on film. |
|
|
| Miss Nikki Sixx |
Two thumbs down, way down.
Worst movie I have ever seen. I could hardly finish watching it. It was so transparent. If people can change their ideologies for example over this movie than Moore was right when he said "Americans are stupid"
This movie relies on an audience that has no solid previous knowledge of these topics or one that will not further investigate. As Moore himself said "There's a gullible side to American people. They can be easily misled"
Moore is a freakin hypocrite! Sure, he made his point, but only by manipulating the facts and lying.
Worst movie evar!
 |
|
|
| Bad Egg |
I am glad I am not alone in despising this clown...
...and Miss Nikki, the real live version of the Simpsons comic store guy works at the Kingsway Mall in a ...comic book store. East Entrance next to Sears. I kid not. |
|
|
| Insomniac |
Movie gets two solid thumbs up from me.
... and since I'm smarter than anyone who has posted in this thread so far, I win. |
|
|
| snugs |
Making fun of Bush is like shooting fish in a barrel.
Denial... its not just a river in Egypt. :p |
|
|
| Bad Egg |
Insomniac-you win what, a date with Michael Moore?
snugs-weren't you the guy whining about "influence" in the media yesterday...and you give Moore's blatent propaganda a free pass? I guess the only people ever allowed to comment on events are ones who's views are the same as yours? |
|
|
| Insomniac |
I have decided that the only thing worse than the people who blindly believe this movie, are the sheep that jump on the anti-F911 bandwagon. More often than not, their beliefs are founded ideals more fallible than even Moore's movies.
:lol: |
|
|
| oldraven |
| What the fuck are you talking about Bad Egg? Did you even read his post? That's a lot of bullshit you pulled out of your arse there. Raggin on the guy just for the sake of it. You're the one who took issue with him having a different view, you idiot. |
|
|
| Scintillater |
| well either way, whether or not the movie is accurate, based on all the media hype and comparing both, there ARE huge holes in all of Bush's explainations. There WERE NO weapons of mass destruction found....and they ARE making a SHIT LOAD of money from the war after tearing up another country. That alone, and the lack of any remorse for that, should be enough to make you wonder. |
|
|
| Insomniac |
| Oooh... Egg got owned by a guy who drives a Tbird. Now that's harsh:D |
|
|
| oldraven |
quote:
Originally posted by Insomniac
Oooh... Egg got owned by a guy who drives a Tbird. Now that's harsh:D
I do my best. Even though I drive a Ford. :p |
|
|
| snugs |
quote:
Originally posted by Bad Egg
snugs-weren't you the guy whining about "influence" in the media yesterday...and you give Moore's blatent propaganda a free pass? I guess the only people ever allowed to comment on events are ones who's views are the same as yours?
:lol: ROTFL, you mean my post here.
http://forums.780tuners.com/showthr...;threadid=17792
Considering how everything in the media is heavily spun I suppose its wrong to actually try and understand the motives behind the groups releasing those kinds of items.
Moore tells us where he stands and he makes it painful clear that he is biased, links like what you posted do not do this. In order to make up their own mind about stuff like this a person should have all the information they can get and if you are unwilling to give people that opportunity don't get mad when somebody else does.:wavey: |
|
|
| Bad Egg |
quote:
Originally posted by oldraven
What the fuck are you talking about Bad Egg? Did you even read his post? That's a lot of bullshit you pulled out of your arse there. Raggin on the guy just for the sake of it. You're the one who took issue with him having a different view, you idiot.
I wont take offense at your foolishness, t-bird guy, since this is an issue from another thread and not inherently obvious to the casual observer. You need to understand the whole before you can take up his cause and attack me. I think snugs is more than intelligent enough to speak for himself and has little need of your support.
...and for the record Insomniac, I have despised Michael Moore for years. He can be very funny, but never for a moment think that he is above all the clever propaganda tricks.
Yes, snugs, AEI is a conservative website, it is not a secret for anyone who looks at their home page. I don't see "manipulation" in the link I posted. The video link there has no spin on it. It is just there, in all it's horrible reality for you to accept or ignore.
We got to see weeks of the Abu prison debacle that made America look bad. Funny how little is shown of what kind of prisoner treatment went on in the past. |
|
|
| snugs |
quote:
Originally posted by Bad Egg
Yes, snugs, AEI is a conservative website, it is not a secret for anyone who looks at their home page. I don't see "manipulation" in the link I posted. The video link there has no spin on it. It is just there, in all it's horrible reality for you to accept or ignore.
We got to see weeks of the Abu prison debacle that made America look bad. Funny how little is shown of what kind of prisoner treatment went on in the past.
Its all about context and implication egg, otherwise you wouldn't be able to claim that Moore's movie is dishonest or inaccurate since its about 90% newsreel video footage. ;)
When you start going back and comparing things with what happened before in an attempt to justify current actions, or imply that what the US did isn't really that bad because Saddam was worse, you go down a slippery slope that will eventually kill your argument. :) |
|
|
| Bad Egg |
quote:
Originally posted by snugs
:lol: ROTFL, you mean my post here.
http://forums.780tuners.com/showthr...;threadid=17792
Considering how everything in the media is heavily spun I suppose its wrong to actually try and understand the motives behind the groups releasing those kinds of items.
Moore tells us where he stands and he makes it painful clear that he is biased, links like what you posted do not do this. In order to make up their own mind about stuff like this a person should have all the information they can get and if you are unwilling to give people that opportunity don't get mad when somebody else does.:wavey:
I wasn't mad snugs, "whining" was a poor choice of words and I apologize for that. I am just tired of seeing that supposed "documentry" producer's smug mug every time I turn around. Why would you attempt to discredit the source of the clip I presented if you believe so strongly in gathering all the information? I agree that you should always consider the source but your citing of a liberal spin site to discredit a conservative spin site just leaves us all spinning.
If you are claiming AEI's credibility is less than Moore's, however, then I have to call...
:bs: |
|
|
| TylerH |
Looks like we have some regular republicans here, no facts, all yelling :mad: . I enjoyed the movie, i took it with a grain of salt (as with any Moore production), but you can't deny the footage of Bush that was in the film. And i'd love to know what previous knowledge i'm missing out on Miss Nikki Sixx, that would make me all of a sudden realize how GREAT the current president of the US is :rolleyes:
I don't see how Bush's invasion of Iraq was justified or did anything other then to further the US oil agenda. Bush has a new spin on why they went into that country every week, based on which lie he gets caught in:
1. Ties to Osama - nope, didn't work out, well at least we got the ball rolling on the "Invading Iraq thing", lets think of a new one
2. Weapons of Mass destuction, including pictures of portable chemical manufacturing facilities and underground stores of chemical munnitions - damn, no luck there either, not a single thing there, Bush just has no luck!
3. And finally, one that can't be knocked off, "We went in to bring freedom to Iraqi's" (and gain control over the worlds 2nd largest oil reserve).
I find many republican rebuttals hilarious as they blatantly refuse to look at the facts. Bush isn't bad for just the US, he's bad for the world. |
|
|
| Miss Nikki Sixx |
quote:
Originally posted by Insomniac
I have decided that the only thing worse than the people who blindly believe this movie, are the sheep that jump on the anti-F911 bandwagon. More often than not, their beliefs are founded ideals more fallible than even Moore's movies.
:lol:
oh that's very solid argument you have there :rolleyes: how about backing that little statement up?? Give me an example of some beliefs that are more falliable than the movie cause geez really I'm eager to learn and better my argument, so let's hear it.
haha wait just a second, this is coming from the guy that always asks me, ummm, what's the question?? Oh yeah
"So is Bush a Republican or Democrat??" :lol: |
|
|
| Miss Nikki Sixx |
quote:
Originally posted by TylerH
And i'd love to know what previous knowledge i'm missing out on Miss Nikki Sixx, that would make me all of a sudden realize how GREAT the current president of the US is :rolleyes:
Yeah, because that's exactly what I meant by my statement about previous knowledge :rolleyes:
OK, so how about this little piece of partisan crap....when Moore claimed the Supreme Court stole the election. He made somewhat of a good case for it, but I couldnt help thinking about those Florida Republicans Gore was trying to disenfranchise when he cherry picked only Democratic counties to recount. Oh how very convienent. |
|
|
| Bad Egg |
quote:
Originally posted by snugs
Its all about context and implication egg, otherwise you wouldn't be able to claim that Moore's movie is dishonest or inaccurate since its about 90% newsreel video footage. ;)
When you start going back and comparing things with what happened before in an attempt to justify current actions, or imply that what the US did isn't really that bad because Saddam was worse, you go down a slippery slope that will eventually kill your argument. :)
I think you are overanalyzing this one snugs. I don't think there is a smart aleck voice over like Moore's on the clip I linked to. Footage of a rocket used for satellite launching magically becomes a Weapon of Mass Destruction under Michael's careful editing(Bowling for Columbine).
Of course the Americans released the video to overshadow their own wrong actions but the brutality did exist. The amputations, torture, shredders, genocide, all happened in Iraq long before the Yanks got there.
I think that most Iraqi's will be better off in the future then they would have if America hadn't stuck their nose in. I don't think it was necessarily a good or smart move for Bush to do it. If he had stopped with Afghanistan he would be far better off politically and economically - what has this debacle cost...80 B??? I think George would have his reelection wrapped up if he had quit when he was ahead. |
|
|
| 2000z |
Bush- One side of extreme propaganda
Moore- Other side of (maybe less?) extreme propaganda
Just an opinion. Very few people in this world can say they are truly well informed about this issue. For that to be true you would have to be in Iraq and see/hear/experience what is truly happening and also be in close quarters with the US administration(including Bush) to see their true agenda.
Again, just an opinion. Interesting discussion for sure. |
|
|
| mx73someday |
2000z's got the idea. Everyone is bombarded with one viewpoint: the corporate media's. For a change we get Michael Moore's point of view. You (and I) don't have to believe any of it, but at least it reminds us that there is another side to the story and that there is more going on than we might not otherwise know.
I have to say for myself, Michael Moore's "point of view" has influenced me to read books that I otherwise would have never read (and I'm not much of a reader). |
|
|
| Alpha Gangsta |
so... anyone watch Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Idiot yet?
its an actual movie...
I think the name of the movie gives it away...
but yeah... Michael Moore movies are fun to watch but he does manipualte the information for his own purposes and what not.... that or hes a big fat idiot. but whatever. |
|
|
| Bad Egg |
quote:
Originally posted by 2000z
...cut...
Very few people in this world can say they are truly well informed about this issue. For that to be true you would have to be in Iraq and see/hear/experience what is truly happening and also be in close quarters with the US administration(including Bush) to see their true agenda.
Again, just an opinion. Interesting discussion for sure.
A point I would very much agree with. It would sure have been interesting to review the intelligence briefing sessions that went on before the decision to invade Iraq was made... |
|
|
| POX |
| the movie has done it job, because your all discussing it, so in the end you can hate him or love him, but if your talking about it and discussing the issues then he still wins, cause that what he wants. |
|
|
| 96MX6 |
| Someone told me that Moore/Howard stern are doing a completle Bush documentary. I'm too lazy to read up on this...should be interesting. I already love the GB stuff on Letterman:D |
|
|
| S2000_rider |
I have yet to see the movie so I'm unable to comment but from what I've heard, it is refreshing to hear the other side of the story instead of hearing all the bullshit on CNN/FoxNews/ABC/NBC/CBC etc etc that heavily endorse and support the actions of the GWB.
To lighten the topic a little bit, check out these quotes from the president of the most powerful country in the world.
They had me on the floor laughing, especially the last one.
“In my judgment, when the United States says there will be serious consequences, and if there isn't serious consequences, it creates adverse consequences.”
“As you notice, when there's a hole in the ground and a person is able to crawl into it in a country the size of California, it means we're on a scavenger hunt for terror, and find these terrorists who hide in holes is to get people coming forth to describe the location of the hole, is to give clues and data. And we're on it.”
“It's a different kind of combat mission, but, nevertheless, it's combat, just ask the kids that are over there killing and being shot at.”
“Security is the essential roadblock to achieving the road map to peace.”
“The problem with the French is that they don't have a word for entrepreneur.”
“I'm also not very analytical. You know I don't spend a lot of time thinking about myself, about why I do things.”
“There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again.” :lol: :lol:
What a phuken idiot!
- George W. Bush, President Of The United States Of America |
|
|
| scooby_dooby |
Ok so Moore spins footage and facts to create a more compelling case, but can you blame him? He's trying to speak to the 50% of americans who are hypnotized by the EXTREME propaganda of the Bush administration,
And regardless it doesn't change the KEY facts of the movie, it's a huge cop-out if you just sluff the movie off because it wasn't "balanced", who cares! Just consider the facts that you KNOW are true. Show me a single time Micheal Moore claimed this was supposed to be objective.
The Lied to their own people, attacked a country that had never even threatened them, killed a single american, and would not have the capacity to attack if they wanted to.
They told Saddam to disarm, he said he HAD disarmed, without ZERO evidence they said he was lying and killed 10,000 innocent civilians. What's so great about killing 10,000 innocent people?
The fact is, at least we knew what Saddam was all about, he was not suicidal, he wasn't stupid, he hated al-queida and had one of THE ONLY countries in the middle east with absolutely NO al-queda cells.
Now what we have is a giant question mark, and this naive-fath that everything will magically work out is a joke. A new dictator will emerge in Iraq, that's REALISTIC for that region, and the chaces are they won't be as anti-terrorist as Saddam was.
And to top it off millions of new soldiers in the palestinian cause have been created, just imagine how many brothers, mothers, daughters, grand-mothers were just murdered by the united stated in Iraq. Can anyone think there'll be no reprecussions?
When will the United Stated learn that you can't just push people around, and bomb the shit out of them, it's not going to work, it will backfire, that backfire was Sept. 11th, and because of the last 3 years of Bush's invasions and bombings, it will become much much worse in the enxt 10-20years. |
|
|
| Bad Egg |
The thread was about the Moore's movie. Some of us merely pointed out that you had to take his editing and production values with a grain of salt.
Did the US go too far in invading Iraq? Quite probably. The safe thing to do would have been to retire after Afghanistan. Their intelligence community for too long relied on their technical sophistication instead of on the ground resources(spies). The plan for "regime change" in Iraq was made long before Junior became president. FACT: Regime Change in Iraq was a policy during the Clinton administration.
Iraq had violated UN resolutions to disarm for over 10 years and had repeatedly frustrated weapons inspectors. If there were no weapons, why did Saddam refuse free inspections? There was either weapons there or he is the world's worst poker player.
How are you so certain there were no terrorist cells in Iraq? Saddam delighted in showing up the US, I think it is not that far-fetched that he would support anyone who went against them. He seemed to have plenty of money to support suicide bombers families...
quote:When will the United Stated learn that you can't just push people around, and bomb the shit out of them, it's not going to work, it will backfire, that backfire was Sept. 11th, and because of the last 3 years of Bush's invasions and bombings, it will become much much worse in the enxt 10-20years.:unquote
Don't you have that backward? The US was sleeping until 911. Now they have taken the battle to the other guy's backyard. When will these terrorist learn that the US does not run scared and that they mean business? The US would have been perfectly happy at home with their NFL and Survivor if they hadn't been challenged. |
|
|
| scooby_dooby |
No man, you have it backwards. The US thought they could just kick them out of their own country, by force, and 60 years later the US is runnin scared, just look how scared they have their own people right now.
There's a HUGE difference between regime change, and a pre-emptive invasion. 1st time in the history of modern warfare this has ever been done, claiming self-defense in advance. You betetr have some damn good evidence to set this precedent, not only did they not have good evidence, they had NO evidence.
Not only did they not have evidence, but it just "happened" to be the most oil rich region in the world, and it just "happened" to be the guy who tried assasinating the current presidents dad, and it's just "happened" to pour billions of dollars into the pockets of corporate friends like halliburton. You gotta be able to see this for what it is, an invasion and murder of innocent people, for revenge and for profit.
Believe me George Bush would nto risk his political life to "liberate the peole of Iraq" that's te biggest load of crap I've heard in my life. As if he cares a lick for the people of Iraq.
And also I think the thinking that it's "Not too far-fetched" to believe saddam supprted al-queida is the exact reason we're in this problem. NO, just because he's arab, and doesn't get along with the US doesn't make him guilty, that's not how the world operates.
You need PROOF, evidence, and the fact is allmost every expert I've ever heard recognizes that all the evidence points to the fact that saddam had absolutely zero-tolerence for these bombers inside his country, he hated bin-laden, he NEVER attacked the US, never even threatened them!! |
|
|
| snugs |
quote:
Originally posted by Bad Egg
Don't you have that backward? The US was sleeping until 911. Now they have taken the battle to the other guy's backyard. When will these terrorist learn that the US does not run scared and that they mean business? The US would have been perfectly happy at home with their NFL and Survivor if they hadn't been challenged.
Not exactly, the US population was asleep, the power brokers were not.
The need for 911 was outlined in PNAC's published literature even before Bush was appointed. It was executed as required, and the desired results were achieved. Its almost too bad that they handled the ensuing situation so poorly though. |
|
|
| scooby_dooby |
from http://www.presentdanger.org/fronti...eocon_body.html
---------------------------------------------------------
The Bush foreign policy team has been champing at the bit to get on with the foreign policy agenda laid out in the 1990s by groups like the American Enterprise Institute, Hudson Institute, Center for Security Policy, and the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). These and other right-wing think-tanks and policy institutes believe that George W.'s father and Clinton squandered the opportunity to fashion a truly global U.S. hegemony or imperium in the 1990s. High on the list of priorities for the interventionist agenda of the conservative internationalists is overthrowing Saddam Hussein--a case of a U.S. foreign policy objective where moral clarity partners with U.S. national interest, namely controlling a major source of oil.
.....
PNAC's Present Dangers apparently functions as a playbook for the Bush administration. In his chapter on the Middle East, Elliott Abrams lays out the "peace through strength" credo that has become the operating principle of this administration. "Our military strength and willingness to use it will remain a key factor in our ability to promote peace," wrote Abrams, who is the administration's National Security Council Senior Director for Democracy, Human Rights, and International Operations. Like the other PNAC principals, Abrams calls for a preemptive "toppling of Saddam Hussein." Strengthening our major ally in the region, Israel, should be the base of U.S. Middle East policy, and we should not permit the establishment of a Palestinian state that does not explicitly uphold U.S. policy in the region, according to Abrams.
Under a heading labeled "Regime Change" in the introductory chapter, Kristol and Kagan target Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and China as challengers that need to be confronted. With respect to Iraq and North Korea, the two PNAC founders conclude that U.S. "preeminence" in the 21st century cannot rest on "simply wish[ing] hostile regimes out of existence." They warn that the U.S. will have "to intervene abroad even when we cannot prove that a narrowly construed 'vital interest' of the United States is at stake."
This is precisely why the Bush administration is having such a difficult time explaining why it is on the war path against Iraq. The arguments made by the Pentagon, State Department, and White House about the Iraqi regime's support for international terrorism, its obstruction of UN inspections, or its repressive character don't go to the heart of their agenda--namely to effect "regime change" in all countries that constitute a challenge--real or potential--to the American "imperium," with their control of essential global resources and its global military domination.
The Bush administration contends, like Teddy Roosevelt, that U.S. war-making is a strike for peace. Writing during the last presidential campaign, Kagan and Kristol called for a new foreign policy based on the principles of superior military power and conservative internationalism. "Conservative internationalists," they said, "…are the true heirs to a tradition in American foreign policy that runs from Theodore Roosevelt through Ronald Reagan." Fortunately, most of the international community and growing numbers of Americans reject the revival of 19th century gunboat diplomacy as an appropriate manifestation of 21st century internationalism.
----------------------------------------------------------------
that was written 2 years ago, |
|
|
| S2000_rider |
quote:
Originally posted by scooby_dooby
from http://www.presentdanger.org/fronti...eocon_body.html
---------------------------------------------------------
The Bush foreign policy team has been champing at the bit to get on with the foreign policy agenda laid out in the 1990s by groups like the American Enterprise Institute, Hudson Institute, Center for Security Policy, and the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). These and other right-wing think-tanks and policy institutes believe that George W.'s father and Clinton squandered the opportunity to fashion a truly global U.S. hegemony or imperium in the 1990s. High on the list of priorities for the interventionist agenda of the conservative internationalists is overthrowing Saddam Hussein--a case of a U.S. foreign policy objective where moral clarity partners with U.S. national interest, namely controlling a major source of oil.
.....
PNAC's Present Dangers apparently functions as a playbook for the Bush administration. In his chapter on the Middle East, Elliott Abrams lays out the "peace through strength" credo that has become the operating principle of this administration. "Our military strength and willingness to use it will remain a key factor in our ability to promote peace," wrote Abrams, who is the administration's National Security Council Senior Director for Democracy, Human Rights, and International Operations. Like the other PNAC principals, Abrams calls for a preemptive "toppling of Saddam Hussein." Strengthening our major ally in the region, Israel, should be the base of U.S. Middle East policy, and we should not permit the establishment of a Palestinian state that does not explicitly uphold U.S. policy in the region, according to Abrams.
Under a heading labeled "Regime Change" in the introductory chapter, Kristol and Kagan target Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and China as challengers that need to be confronted. With respect to Iraq and North Korea, the two PNAC founders conclude that U.S. "preeminence" in the 21st century cannot rest on "simply wish[ing] hostile regimes out of existence." They warn that the U.S. will have "to intervene abroad even when we cannot prove that a narrowly construed 'vital interest' of the United States is at stake."
This is precisely why the Bush administration is having such a difficult time explaining why it is on the war path against Iraq. The arguments made by the Pentagon, State Department, and White House about the Iraqi regime's support for international terrorism, its obstruction of UN inspections, or its repressive character don't go to the heart of their agenda--namely to effect "regime change" in all countries that constitute a challenge--real or potential--to the American "imperium," with their control of essential global resources and its global military domination.
The Bush administration contends, like Teddy Roosevelt, that U.S. war-making is a strike for peace. Writing during the last presidential campaign, Kagan and Kristol called for a new foreign policy based on the principles of superior military power and conservative internationalism. "Conservative internationalists," they said, "…are the true heirs to a tradition in American foreign policy that runs from Theodore Roosevelt through Ronald Reagan." Fortunately, most of the international community and growing numbers of Americans reject the revival of 19th century gunboat diplomacy as an appropriate manifestation of 21st century internationalism.
----------------------------------------------------------------
:bowdown: EXCELLENT POST! When will the U.S. realize ALL THIS HATRED towards them stems from one thing and one thing ONLY....AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY! |
|
|
| Casanova |
Americans are stupid, bush is more stupider. and Michael Moore is American.
He makes a point.. but he lowers his credibility by being so extreme towards one point, there is journalist discretion |
|
|
| Bad Egg |
Good post Scooby, I will have to do some homework and get back to you!
|
|
|
| snugs |
quote:
Originally posted by Bad Egg
Good post Scooby, I will have to do some homework and get back to you!
If you want to see something cool, punch "WTC7" into google and watch the footage of the implosion. |
|
|
| JustinL |
quote:
Originally posted by Casanova
Americans are stupid, bush is more stupider.
HAHAHAHA That's the most retarded thing I've read in a long time! Read that with the Ralf Wiggum voice and ask yourself who is "more stupider".:lol: |
|
|
| Scintillater |
| OMG LMAO OWNED! |
|
|
| Casanova |
| If you dont realize that was intentional then you are more stupider than Bush. |
|
|
| JustinL |
I'm just giving you a hard time :D
I hold an American citizenship, so I have to say something when people make foolish generalizations like that.
Justin
P.S. How the hell was I supposed to know that your mistake was intentional?? :dunno: |
|
|
| Casanova |
| hehe I am a US landed immigrant. I lived there for a year and my parents live in LA. and I guess I figure no one could be more stupider to actually use such bad english. haha |
|
|
|
