1
   

The New Official Catch Phrase

 
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 05:09 pm
Shiite! You know that's right.
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 05:15 pm
maporsche wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
maporsche wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
maporsche wrote:
djjd62 wrote:

gee, as i understood it as "special" as in short bus and olympics


And you would have understood it correctly.

As far a LSM, what did I tell ya.......REAL special.

Awww, did i hurt your little feelings, is that why your little brain is set on empty mode?


Nope. I have no feelings. I've worked very hard at eliminating them.

Good for you because that's the first requirement to be a liberal.


I guess the first requirement of being a conservative is eliminating rational thought.


I guess you would know about eliminating rational thought, you check it at the door everytime you log in here....because the only thought you have here is nonsensical crap like talking about breeding, something you haven't been very successful with.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 06:02 pm
LoneStarMadam wrote:
nonsensical crap like talking about breeding, something you haven't been very successful with.


And HOW exactly would you know that?
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 06:11 pm
maporsche wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
nonsensical crap like talking about breeding, something you haven't been very successful with.


And HOW exactly would you know that?

Because you told your business here.
Don't talk to me about my breeding unless you want yours brought up.
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 06:12 pm
maporsche wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
It might help if you people realized that Bush calls the shots for the military, unless the new dem congress cuts funds. lol


Unfortunately I think many of us understand this ALL too well.

I fail to see the humor here though? Or the reason to "lol".

They must breed them 'real special' down in Texas huh? (this little jab could be referring to either you or Bush, or both, whichever you prefer)
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 06:13 pm
Setanta wrote:
I for one am glad to know that our courageous President will be surging forward to clear, hold and build, and to lead the benighted Iraqi people to the shining city on the hill, and the sunny uplands of Freedom!



I'm gonna go way out on a limb here...

...and guess you are being facetious.
Twisted Evil
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 06:14 pm
maporsche
maporsche wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
nonsensical crap like talking about breeding, something you haven't been very successful with.

And HOW exactly would you know that?


Most of us who are interesting in discussion the topic of an A2K member's post ignore LoneStarMadam because her only interest is as a provocatuer in subverting the thread and treating members with disrespect.

BBB
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 06:20 pm
LoneStarMadam wrote:
maporsche wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
nonsensical crap like talking about breeding, something you haven't been very successful with.


And HOW exactly would you know that?

Because you told your business here.
Don't talk to me about my breeding unless you want yours brought up.


Are you referring to me wanting to adopt a child?

That has nothing to do with being unable to breed (which I, and my spouse, are most certaintly capable of). Where did I ever say that I was unable to have a child the natural way? I'll give you a hint, you CAN'T you jackass. Very Happy

But I find it far more interesting that you would use someone's inability to have a baby (which you incorrectly assumed I had a problem with) as an ATTACK.

No DECENT person would use something like that, something very personal, emotional, etc, to ATTACK someone with.

It's even funnier because you INCORRECTLY ASSUMED that I had that problem. Wow, a whole new side to you.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 06:22 pm
Bear
Bear, we learned some new information today during the Iraq hearings. It was asserted by Condi Rice that it was the oil contracts agreements that was holding up a agreement by the Iraq government representatives. Turns out, the major road block was the signing of oil delivery contracts with the United States---not the oil distribution issues between the various tribes claimed by the Bush administration.

Do you suppose Bush's reluctance to force the Iraqi leadership to comply with our demands is based on our oil interests instead of ending the civil war? Did Bush promise to keep US troops in Iraq if they would agree to our oil contract demands? Nah! No loyal American president would do that---would he? Nah! No caring American president would put his oil buddies interests ahead of the safety of our troops---would he?

BBB
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 06:27 pm
maporsche wrote:
I'll give you a hint, you CAN'T you jackass. Very Happy


It should read:

"you CAN'T find where you jackass, because I never said it."
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 06:28 pm
maporsche wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
maporsche wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
nonsensical crap like talking about breeding, something you haven't been very successful with.


And HOW exactly would you know that?

Because you told your business here.
Don't talk to me about my breeding unless you want yours brought up.


Are you referring to me wanting to adopt a child?

That has nothing to do with being unable to breed (which I, and my spouse, are most certaintly capable of). Where did I ever say that I was unable to have a child the natural way? I'll give you a hint, you CAN'T you jackass. Very Happy

But I find it far more interesting that you would use someone's inability to have a baby (which you incorrectly assumed I had a problem with) as an ATTACK.

No DECENT person would use something like that, something very personal, emotional, etc, to ATTACK someone with.

It's even funnier because you INCORRECTLY ASSUMED that I had that problem. Wow, a whole new side to you.

& a decent person would bring up anothers breedding habits? You are pathetic.
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 06:29 pm
Re: maporsche
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
maporsche wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
nonsensical crap like talking about breeding, something you haven't been very successful with.

And HOW exactly would you know that?


Most of us who are interesting in discussion the topic of an A2K member's post ignore LoneStarMadam because her only interest is as a provocatuer in subverting the thread and treating members with disrespect.

BBB

LMAO, but you never miss a chance at talking about me, huh. Laughing
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 06:35 pm
LoneStarMadam wrote:
maporsche wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
maporsche wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
nonsensical crap like talking about breeding, something you haven't been very successful with.


And HOW exactly would you know that?

Because you told your business here.
Don't talk to me about my breeding unless you want yours brought up.


Are you referring to me wanting to adopt a child?

That has nothing to do with being unable to breed (which I, and my spouse, are most certaintly capable of). Where did I ever say that I was unable to have a child the natural way? I'll give you a hint, you CAN'T you jackass. Very Happy

But I find it far more interesting that you would use someone's inability to have a baby (which you incorrectly assumed I had a problem with) as an ATTACK.

No DECENT person would use something like that, something very personal, emotional, etc, to ATTACK someone with.

It's even funnier because you INCORRECTLY ASSUMED that I had that problem. Wow, a whole new side to you.

& a decent person would bring up anothers breedding habits? You are pathetic.


I didn't bring up YOUR breeding habits.

But I would NEVER bring up someone's inability to breed. That's just cruel and unchristian-like.

How about you make fun of someone's physical deformity next. Or how about a crippled person? Sounds like fun huh LSM?
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 06:40 pm
maporsche
maporsche, it would be great if you would show respect to BiPolarBear's thread topic by not engaging in topic subverion with the Madam. If you are intent is engaging in a pissing match with Madam, why don't you start a new thread for that purpose so the rest of us can discuss the thread's topic?

BBB
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 10:28 pm
Re: maporsche
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
maporsche wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
nonsensical crap like talking about breeding, something you haven't been very successful with.

And HOW exactly would you know that?


Most of us who are interesting in discussion the topic of an A2K member's post ignore LoneStarMadam because her only interest is as a provocatuer in subverting the thread and treating members with disrespect.

BBB

BBB likes to play a game with people by accusing them of going off topic, unless it's one of his little playmates like snood, never mind that BBB exempts himself from the rules he likes to st for others. HYPOCRITE, comes to mind.
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 10:36 pm
maporsche wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
maporsche wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
maporsche wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
nonsensical crap like talking about breeding, something you haven't been very successful with.


And HOW exactly would you know that?

Because you told your business here.
Don't talk to me about my breeding unless you want yours brought up.


Are you referring to me wanting to adopt a child?

That has nothing to do with being unable to breed (which I, and my spouse, are most certaintly capable of). Where did I ever say that I was unable to have a child the natural way? I'll give you a hint, you CAN'T you jackass. Very Happy

But I find it far more interesting that you would use someone's inability to have a baby (which you incorrectly assumed I had a problem with) as an ATTACK.

No DECENT person would use something like that, something very personal, emotional, etc, to ATTACK someone with.

It's even funnier because you INCORRECTLY ASSUMED that I had that problem. Wow, a whole new side to you.

& a decent person would bring up anothers breedding habits? You are pathetic.


I didn't bring up YOUR breeding habits.

But I would NEVER bring up someone's inability to breed. That's just cruel and unchristian-like.

How about you make fun of someone's physical deformity next. Or how about a crippled person? Sounds like fun huh LSM?

You didn't make fun of the inability to breed, you said that we have strange breeding habits in Tx, & you said it twice, I brought your two posts forward. Again, if you don't want the mud you sling slung back at you, then lay off.
I admit that throwing in "your inability to breed" was a low & unChristian thing for me to say & I do feel a bit guilty for saying it, however, you might want to think about making fun of peoples personal life that you don't have the first clue about.
I don't make fun of infirmities, but not being able to breed is a blessing in some peoples case & fortunate for any children that would be unfortunate enough to be born to them.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Jan, 2007 08:58 am
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Jan, 2007 09:42 am
Congressman Acts to Revoke Iraq War Resolution
Congressman Acts to Revoke Iraq War Resolution
By Matt Renner
t r u t h o u t | Report
Friday 12 January 2007

In response to President Bush's speech Wednesday night, many Democrats and Republicans in Congress have rebuked his plan to increase the number of troops in Iraq.

Among Democrats, strategies for gradual draw-downs or strategic redeployments have been proposed and are being considered. Legislation to force the president to get authorization from Congress for a troop escalation has been proposed by Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.). Congressman Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii) has joined Senator Kennedy's call; co-authoring similar legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives. Representative Abercrombie is the Chairman of the powerful Air-Land Subcommittee which oversees military ground forces and air power. Senator Harry Reid stated Thursday that he has enough Republican support to pass a non-binding resolution of disapproval for the president's plan.

One Democratic member of the House of Representatives has taken a more drastic step.

Congressman Sam Farr introduced legislation Thursday that would repeal the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, essentially pulling the rug out from under the president.

Revoking of the authorization that gave war powers to the president would stop the "surge" in its tracks and would mandate an immediate withdrawal of US Forces from Iraq.

Accompanying his resolution, Congressman Farr issued this statement: "The longer this war drags on, the clearer it becomes that it is the wrong war at the wrong time for the wrong reasons. Trying to make up for the fact that the administration insisted on going into Iraq with too few troops more than three years ago by escalating our involvement now is not a 'new strategy.' There is a way forward, but that way is through withdrawing, not sending more troops."

Congressman Farr gave some background on this effort Wednesday in an interview on "The Peter B. Collins Radio Show."

Farr outlined his view about Congressional war powers: "We strict constitutionalists think that the president needs a new resolution. This president and the former president have ignored this."

"When the Republicans were in charge of the House and Senate, they insisted that President Clinton had to have permission to go into Kosovo."

Three votes were taken in the House. "The first vote was to support the war; it failed. The second vote was to oppose the war; it failed. The third vote was to do nothing about it; it failed."

Thursday, when asked about cutting funding for the occupation in Iraq, Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said, "I don't think Congress has the authority to do it." McConnell added, "You can't run a war by a committee of - you know - 435 in the House and 100 in the Senate." McConnell supported legislation in November of 1993 that set a timetable for the military action in Somalia by cutting off funding.

At this point, it is unlikely Congressman Farr will garner the support needed to pass this bill. As with all legislation, it will be subject to a presidential veto if it passes both houses of Congress. Thus, Farr will need support from 67 Senators and 290 members of the House if this action is to succeed.

The table has been set for a constitutional battle pitting Congress against the president. In the court of public opinion, Congress seems to have the upper hand. A CBS/AP poll conducted after Bush presented his plan to the nation showed only 37 percent support for his strategy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Renner is a reporter and radio producer and a recent graduate of the University of California at Berkeley.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Jan, 2007 09:20 am
Rice says U.S. will defend its interest in the Persian Gulf
Posted on Sat, Jan. 13, 2007
Rice says U.S. will defend its interest in the Persian Gulf
By Warren P. Strobel
McClatchy Newspapers

JERUSALEM - U.S. military moves in the Persian Gulf and raids against Iranian installations in Iraq are meant to demonstrate that the United States will defend its interests against an increasingly aggressive Iran, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Saturday.

Rice made her comments as she began a Middle East tour in which she will try to bolster moderate Arab leaders who increasingly are under threat from both Shiite and Sunni Muslim extremists.

The focus of her diplomacy this week shows how far the United States has been forced to change its aims in the region because the war in Iraq has turned out differently than planned.

President Bush, Rice and others predicted the Iraq invasion would spread democracy throughout the Arab world. Instead, Rice now appears to be playing defense against Iran's emboldened leaders.

Following a new policy laid down by President Bush, U.S. military forces this week detained Iranians in two raids in northern Iraq. Washington says it has evidence that Iranian agents are destabilizing Iraq by constructing a deadly class of roadside bombs and backing Shiite militias.

Bush, who issued fresh warnings to Iran in his Wednesday speech outlining his new Iraq plan, has also ordered a second U.S. aircraft carrier strike group to the Persian Gulf and dispatched Patriot anti-missile batteries to American allies in the Gulf.

Some senators have expressed alarm that the moves could represent a widening of U.S. war aims in the strategic Gulf region.

But Rice said the moves were merely a response to Iranian actions.

"The United States has long, historic interests in the Persian Gulf," Rice said at an appearance with Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni. "We have always-president after president after president-sought to have a force posture that makes clear we can defend those interests."

Rice meets with Palestinian and Israeli leaders Sunday and Monday in an effort to lay the groundwork for progress in solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

But she has played down the prospects of quick movement. She told reporters traveling aboard her airplane that, "I'm not coming with a proposal. I'm not coming with a plan" to present to the two sides.

At the appearance with Livni, Rice acknowledged "there are a lot of obstacles" to surmount.

But she said Bush is determined to make progress toward a Palestinian state before he leaves office in two years.

Livni, potentially a future Israeli prime minister, has floated a proposal to flesh out the characteristics of an eventual Palestinian state, in order to strengthen Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

Rice did not endorse the idea, but said she was open to considering "all the options."

Complicating Rice's diplomacy is the fact that both Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Abbas are politically weak.

The Bush administration is planning to spend $86 million to train and equip Abbas' security forces, to strengthen him in his power struggle with the militant group Hamas.

Aboard her plane, Rice also told reporters that the United States would not abandon Iraq even if Bush's latest plan fails.

"We're not pulling the plug on Iraq," she said. "I think we'll worry about making Plan A work for now. And obviously, if it doesn't, then you know, we're not going to say, oh my goodness, that didn't work, there's nothing that can be done."
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Jan, 2007 10:53 am
Are Americans Getting Truth on Iraq?
McClatchy Report: Are Americans Getting Truth on Iraq?
By Mark Seibel, McClatchy Newspapers
Published: January 14, 2007 9:15 PM ET

President Bush and his aides, explaining their reasons for sending more American troops to Iraq, are offering an incomplete, oversimplified and possibly untrue version of events there that raises new questions about the accuracy of the administration's statements about Iraq.

President Bush unveiled the new version on Wednesday during his nationally televised speech announcing his new Iraq policy.

"When I addressed you just over a year ago, nearly 12 million Iraqis had cast their ballots for a unified and democratic nation," he said. "We thought that these elections would bring Iraqis together - and that as we trained Iraqi security forces, we could accomplish our mission with fewer American troops.

"But in 2006, the opposite happened. The violence in Iraq - particularly in Baghdad - overwhelmed the political gains Iraqis had made. Al-Qaida terrorists and Sunni insurgents recognized the mortal danger that Iraq's election posed for their cause. And they responded with outrageous acts of murder aimed at innocent Iraqis.

"They blew up one of the holiest shrines in Shia Islam - the Golden Mosque of Samarra - in a calculated effort to provoke Iraq's Shia population to retaliate," Bush said. "Their strategy worked. Radical Shia elements, some supported by Iran, formed death squads. And the result was a vicious cycle of sectarian violence that continues today."

That version of events helps to justify Bush's "new way forward" in Iraq, in which U.S. forces will largely target Sunni insurgents and leave it to Iraq's U.S.-backed Shiite government to - perhaps - disarm its allies in Shiite militias and death squads.

But the president's account understates by at least 15 months when Shiite death squads began targeting Sunni politicians and clerics. It also ignores the role that Iranian-backed Shiite groups had in death squad activities prior to the Samarra bombing.

Blaming the start of sectarian violence in Iraq on the Golden Dome bombing risks policy errors because it underestimates the depth of sectarian hatred in Iraq and overlooks the conflict's root causes. The Bush account also fails to acknowledge that Iranian-backed Iraqi Shiite groups stoked the conflict.

Bush's national security adviser Stephen Hadley used the same version of events in an appearance Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press."

Much like the administration's pre-war claims about Saddam's alleged ties to al-Qaida and purported nuclear weapons program, the claims about the bombing of the Shiite mosque in Samarra ignore inconvenient facts and highlight questionable but politically useful assumptions.

No one disagrees that the February bombing of the Golden Dome shrine was a pivotal moment. In the days following the attack, armed Shiites stormed Sunni mosques and neighborhoods, killing hundreds. Baghdad's Sunni residents responded by arming themselves, and Sunni insurgents set off car bombs in Shiite neighborhoods. By October, the monthly death toll was reaching into the thousands.

U.S. diplomats, reporters and military and intelligence officers began reporting that Shiite death squads were targeting Sunni clerics and former officials of Saddam Hussein's Sunni regime at least 15 months before the Samarra bombing.

Then-Secretary of State Colin Powell urged a U.S. offensive against radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army militia in 2004. But he was overruled by then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, then-defense secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney. They argued against fighting a two-front war against Sunni insurgents and Shiite militants.

The concerns about Shiite militias grew after the Jan. 30, 2005, elections that brought the Shiite-led government of then-Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari to power. Journalists in Iraq, the CIA station, the U.S. Embassy and the U.S. military all reported throughout 2005 that evidence was mounting that Jaafari's government was incorporating Shiite militias and death squads into the Iraqi army and police.

A year before the Samarra bombing, Hannah Allam, writing for what was then Knight Ridder Newspapers, reported that Iraq could be headed toward civil war. Knight Ridder was purchased by The McClatchy Co. last June.

"Shiite Muslim assassins are killing former members of Saddam Hussein's mostly Sunni Muslim regime with impunity in a wave of violence that, combined with the ongoing Sunni insurgency, threatens to escalate into civil war," Allam, then the news organization's Baghdad bureau chief, wrote on Feb. 27, 2005. "The war between Shiite vigilantes and former Baath Party members is seldom investigated and largely overshadowed by the insurgency."

She added, "Iraq's new Shiite leaders have little interest in prosecuting those who kill their former oppressors or their enemies in the insurgency."

The story quoted the then-spokesman for the Iraqi Interior Ministry, Sabah Kadhim: "It's the beginning, and we could go down the slippery slope very quickly. ... Both sides are sharpening their knives."

By the summer, the tortured bodies of kidnapped Sunni clerics had begun turning up regularly on Baghdad's streets, and on Aug. 10, 2005, Knight Ridder correspondent Tom Lasseter wrote:

"A militant Shiite Muslim group with close ties to Iran has gained enormous power since Iraq's January elections and now is accused of conducting a terror campaign against Iraq's Sunni Muslim minority that includes kidnappings, threats and murders."

Lasseter identified the group as the Badr Organization and reported that Iraq's interior minister was associated with it.

On Nov. 15, 2005, U.S. troops raided an Interior Ministry building in Baghdad and found 169 malnourished prisoners, many of whom had been tortured. The vast majority of the victims, if not all of them, were Sunnis.

By December, Badr's involvement in death squads was widely known.

"The Iranian-backed militia the Badr Organization has taken over many of the Iraqi Interior Ministry's intelligence activities and infiltrated its elite commando units," Lasseter wrote, on Dec. 12, 2005, citing U.S. and Iraqi officials.

"That's enabled the Shiite Muslim militia to use Interior Ministry vehicles and equipment - much of it bought with American money - to carry out revenge attacks against the minority Sunni Muslims, who persecuted the Shiites under Sunni dictator Saddam Hussein," he added.

Beginning in 2002, the administration's case for a pre-emptive war in Iraq was plagued by similar oversights, oversimplifications, misjudgments and misinformation. Unlike the administration's claims about the Samarra bombing, however, much of that information was peddled by Iraqi exiles and defectors and accepted by some eager officials and journalists.

The best known of those pre-war claims was that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and had reconstituted his nuclear weapons program - Bush's primary stated reason for invading Iraq.

Administration officials and their allies also claimed that Saddam had trained terrorists to hijack airplanes; that a Saddam emissary had met with lead Sept. 11 hijacker Mohammed Atta in Prague; that Iraq had purchased aluminum tubes that could be used only to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons; that Iraq had attempted to buy uranium from the African country of Niger; that Iraqis would greet American troops as liberators; and that Iraqi oil revenues would cover most of the cost of the war.

The administration has continued to offer inaccurate information to Congress, the American people and sometimes to itself. The Iraq Study Group, in its December report, concluded, for example, that the U.S. military was systematically under-reporting the violence in Iraq in an effort to disguise policy failings. The group recommended that the military change its reporting system.

Whether many of the administration's statements about Iraq for nearly five years have been deliberately misleading or honest but gullible mistakes hasn't been determined. The Senate Intelligence Committee has yet to complete an investigation into the issue that was begun but stalled when Republicans controlled the committee.

On Thursday, frustration over the accuracy of administration statements on Iraq boiled over during Rice's testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing.

"Madam Secretary," said Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., "I have supported you and the administration on the war, and I cannot continue to support the administration's position. I have not been told the truth over and over again by administration witnesses, and the American people have not been told the truth."
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/10/2021 at 02:59:19