Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Fireball

Obama is an Intellectual Midget

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

The radicalness of Marx often gets underestimated - he didnt support really the sort of things which Obama is proposing. Obama's position is fairly straightforward social democracy, as implemented in pretty much every Western country. It has little to do with socialism/communism/Marx, all of whcih involve a radical transformation of society rather than just raising tax by another few percent and having a couple more social programs. Remember that Obama is still to the right economically of every European country including the UK, and none of them could reasonably be described socialist under its proper definition.

Also Marxists tend to be ambivalent towards the welfare state rather than enthusiastic supporters, since they often see it as propping up a fundamentally broken system (a fairly standard Marxian analysis of the 20th century is that programs like the New Deal and various welfare states in other countries were necessary to prevent the working classes revolting against the capitalist system and bringing it down entirely). Obama wants a largely market-based economy with a social welfare net, which has little in common with what socialists/communists are after. Obama's America will still have a lot more in common with an idealist Objectivist society that it will have with either Soviet Russia or a theoretical anarchist/communist state.

Its not too important, but he graduated magna cum laude,

I'd disagree with this - first, there isnt a direct connection between intelligence and being a good public speaker (although with Obama's legal background I'd expect him to be quick on his feet in debates), and secondly Im not sure I agree with your assessment. I havent watched Obama speak many times, but on the few occasions that I have, I've thought that he comes across as fairly intelligent (for a politician) - he handled the Joe the Plumber incident well, and made his point with more clarity than I'd expect from people like Bush/McCain (its not a case of whether you agree with his position, its how lucidly he managed to present it).

I find his pre-written speeches genuinelly painful to listen to due to all the banality and cliches that he uses, but again I think that's more of a reflection of the political system as a whole, and the audience he's addressing, that it is of him personally. The only politicians who are interesting to listen to are those who have no chance of being elected and so are free to say whatever they like rather than pandering to populism (Ron Paul for example), but I dont think this makes them any more intelligent than Obama.

Ok, seriously, are you an objectivist?

I need to understand what context you are operating under because are views on reality are in direct opposition to each other.

Words like "social democracy have about as much meaning to me as "group rights."

To call a government that already directly controls more then 50% of the gdp through taxation(more if you count inflation); that completely runs the banking industry, the life blood of everything else; a government that regulates everything from setting interest rates to putting up drywall, a term as warm and fluffy as "social democracy" is to obfuscate entirely the circumstances. All you are talking about is a slight difference in the degree of socialism. "Social democracies" and "mixed economies" are just double speak.

Then to paint someone who wishes to bankrupt energy production in the west, turn doctors into slaves, and redistribute more wealth then is already being distributed, as being pro-market, is factually absurd.

You go on further to say that he handled Joe the Plumber well? The plumber himself walked away from that and said Obama sounded "socialistic." Regardless of terminology, I think it's a safe bet that he talked poor Joe out of starting a business and creating jobs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The criticisms against Obama don't focus on his words or his policies. They instead focus on things like, who was in the same room as Obama at one point in time and what they said during another point in time. Even when his words are used to criticize him, they are taken out of context or entirely made up by the pundits. Like the "redistribution" comment. Everyone took that and put their own spin on what Obama meant by it. And it obviously had to be something horriable.

Has his cousin Aila Odinga the Muslim extremist who recently lost the Kenyan Presidential election to a Christian not visited with him in both Illinois and Kenya?

Does his brother Bongo not preaches that the “Black man must liberate himself from the poisons of European cultures and western values” "?

Does he not belong to Obama belong’s to the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, Illinois. Here is their own church statement :

“We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian... Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community.

Did he not attend" god damn America wrights" services and even name his books after one of sermons?

Did he not write in his most recent book, The Audacity of Hope: "Affirmative action programs, when properly structured, can open up opportunities?

Was he not the principal sponsor of the Global Poverty Act of 2007 (S.2433)?

Has he not pledged to cut greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 by creating a market-based cap-and-trade system on his own site?

In 1996, during Obama's run for the Illinois State Senate did his questionnaire not show that he supported a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns?

Did he not declare in July 2008, that if elected president he would expand the delivery of social services through churches and other religious organizations, vowing to achieve what he said President Bush had fallen short on?

On his own website did he not state that he wants "all middle and high school students to perform 50 hours of community service per year."

LOOK AT IT! Face the facts, they are not just someone else's opinion! Don't give me "well McCain is worse BS" you can't defend him by attacking McCain. He has a radical background supports forced service, environmentalist carbon trades, gun control, affirmative action, government sponsored faith initiatives, and his past is surrounded by radical Islam both friends and family. I did I miss anything? I know I have but I'm not going to wast anymore of my time looking for it to argue pseudo Objectivist goose stepping to Obama's tune.

Edited by Rearden_Steel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When alleged defenders of freedom decide to "sit this one out", what message does that send to anybody listening?

The same one that Rand sent when she abstained during the Reagan Carter election, that you can't fight for individual rights on altruistic premises. The idea that one should vote for Republicans regardless of their flaws becuase they somehow represent any real defense of capitalism is a strategy that has never been advocated by any Objectivist intellectual as particularly "objetivist". Maybe those who would cast stones against "putative" students of Objectivism would be better served by studying the actions of past objectivists, including Rand herself.

I feel very strongly that it is an illusion to believe that casting a vote for McCain says something more than abstaining. Mostly because I believe that how we vote, especially in particularly depressing elections such as this is a particularly weak form of activism.

I'm pretty stunned at the amount of ire that has arisen from all three camps. As I've said in the past on this board, this is a close election to try to call on principle, here I'm talking about the potential political impact of both candidate, as opposed to their espoused principles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Except for sen. Inhofe and a few others, republicans feel the same way about global warming.

Recognizing that the Republican Party is embracing environmentalism and the welfare-state, driven by religious altruism does not mean someone is an Obama supporter: we just want the republicans to lose, because they are far more dangerous than some junior senator raising taxes a little for a few years.

I don't understand why McCain would be a better president:

Is he prepared to defeat Iran? (by defeat I don't mean a few bombs dropped in the desert, for show)

Is he going to take the government oyt of the economy, or at least take steps in that direction?

Is he going to lower taxes for those who produce wealth in this country?

Is he going to abolish the FCC or restrict it's powers?

Is he going to end the war on drugs?

Is he going to go into Pakistan, and kill the leadership of al-Qaeda?

Please, answer yes to any of those questions, produce some evidence, and I'll be the first one to encourage everyone I know to vote for him. Until then, I think throwing the ball around in the back yard, or having a barbecue would make a perfect tuesday afternoon.

You misunderstand me. I'm not a supporter of McCain. I am simply discouraged that so many here are not saying that they are choosing obama because the republican theo-socialistic future would be worse, but are actually defending him as a sound choice. In truth I'm not voting for either, and I would not fault you for voting Maobama, just don't sleep well the night you do believing you elected someone even remotely in favor of free markets.

Edited by aequalsa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The same one that Rand sent when she abstained during the Reagan Carter election, that you can't fight for individual rights on altruistic premises...

Given that, why did Peikoff advocate for Kerry last time? Should he not have advocated abstention then, as well?

I feel very strongly that it is an illusion to believe that casting a vote for McCain says something more than abstaining. Mostly because I believe that how we vote, especially in particularly depressing elections such as this is a particularly weak form of activism.

If voting is "weak activism", what is not voting?

Neither politicians, pollsters, nor pundits care about you if you don't vote. At that point, you are nothing more than a statistic with a half-life of 1 week.

I'm pretty stunned at the amount of ire that has arisen from all three camps. As I've said in the past on this board, this is a close election to try to call on principle, here I'm talking about the potential political impact of both candidate, as opposed to their espoused principles.

As I see it, there would be less political impact with gridlock, than with A Messiah + large Democrat majorities. If all else is equal, you should vote for the least harm, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The idea that one should vote for Republicans regardless of their flaws becuase they somehow represent any real defense of capitalism

That is not the idea. I don't think it represents a position of those Objectivists who will/would vote against Obama.

I feel very strongly that it is an illusion to believe that casting a vote for McCain says something more than abstaining. Mostly because I believe that how we vote, especially in particularly depressing elections such as this is a particularly weak form of activism
.

It is just an assessment of threat and a defensive action. Activism needs to happen in-between elections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If voting is "weak activism", what is not voting?

Exactly what I said it was in the first sentence you quoted.

Neither politicians, pollsters, nor pundits care about you if you don't vote. At that point, you are nothing more than a statistic with a half-life of 1 week.

I've answered that before already. It's simply not true. The voters on the margins (those who didn't vote previoiusly, and those who might switch thier vote) are the most important to politicians, pollsters, and their strategists.

As I see it, there would be less political impact with gridlock, than with A Messiah + large Democrat majorities. If all else is equal, you should vote for the least harm, IMO.

Well now see, that's a nice reasoned approach. Why not lead with that and not this crap:

This is what I find so depressing - that putative Students of Objectivism (a philosophy founded on the ideals of reason and freedom), could find a way to rationalize support (or at the very least a "moral equivalency" argument for) one of the most blatantly irrational and anti-freedom candidates since Huey Long. When alleged defenders of freedom decide to "sit this one out", what message does that send to anybody listening?

:lol:

That's just condescending and contemptuous.

I think this whole vitriol's gotta get toned down. It's a tough choice this year, but we don't get very far by shooting arrows at each other. The enemy's out there. And anyone who thinks they can make a case to defend either of the candidates on principle (rather than claiming the other candidate is worse) can get a pretty good debate from me.

It's the people who think that one choice is so obvious as to make the others out to be imbeciles that get my dander up. Both are incapable of seeing the extreme failures of both sides. Clinton was a far better defender of capitalism than the imbecilic altruist in the post currently (from which cloth McCain is cut), and Obama has espoused consistently Socialist principles, no doubt. I'll agree with the worst interpretations on both counts.

The real question is in practice will McCain's pragmatism moderate him, or will Obama's role as the executive limit his damage. Anyone who thinks they have a clear answer there is smoking something, because it is future factors, other than their espoused campaign principles, that will determine it.

Really, come on people. Tone it down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think this whole vitriol's gotta get toned down.
Vitriol, what vitriol? Maybe it's your imagination and you're blind as an ObaMcCain fan, or abstainer, or whatever!! :lol:

You're right, of course. I'll be glad when this damn election is over. This reminds me of the folks on the ships in the recent Batman movie, quarreling about what decision to make: does one choose from a bad choice, does one try to out-guess the motivations of the players, does one stand on principle... and so on. Like that scene, the election seems to be like a psychological experiment designed by an evil professor to prove he can get people to fight: "See, humans are like animals; when cornered, they lash out!" [i grant occasional mea culpa too; but, really, Kendall has it right... these two girls aren't worth fighting over even if we have our strong preferences.]

My diagnosis: a higher than normal degree of fear on both sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that it's relevant particularly, but Obama did not go to Harvard for undergrad. He went to Columbia. He went to Harvard for law school after he'd been back in Chicago for awhile. There he was elected president of the law review. For anyone who doesn't know, becoming president of the law review at Harvard is really doing something. So stupid he ain't. He may be wrong, and he may have faulty reasoning on many, many things, but to characterize him as unintelligent is incorrect. Whether people take that as a point for or against, well, that's up to you.

Thirded on wanting this election, and all this nonsense, to be over with by the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bottom line is that people don't know how to argue. This includes people on this board and people everywhere else in the country.

What we get is name-calling, fear-tatics and smearing. In this entire campaign, and in the one in 2004, the Republicans have relied on these things more then making principled arguements and having healthy exchanges. It's something I've noticed and become more disgusted with. This time around was looking more promising, but they went back to it.

sNerd is right when he said,

My diagnosis: a higher than normal degree of fear on both sides.

And here is the kicker -- some of you guys have totally fallen for it! You fell for the fear-mongering. You walked right into it. I expect higher standards around here. In fact, I demand such standards. What do I get when I say such things? Name calling! Being called an Obamunist or pseudo-Objectivist or some snide off-hand remark about being a secret saboteur of some kind.

Again -- learn how to argue. Name calling and making blanket claims are not the way to argue. That's what I see a lot of going on with regards to Obama, both on and off this board. That's why I said all of this in regards to Fireball's post.

The election is almost over. I understand that. But you don't understand how utterly sick I am of seeing people say the same irrelevent things over and over. I'm also frustrated because it's almost all entirely one-sided.

McCain associates himself with Gordon Liddy. Palin attends a Church that openly admits to want the world to end. These two things aren't brought up nearly as much as Obama's associates. In the media, on the Internet, on this board... why is this? Why is Obama the only "intellectual midget" here? Where is the criticisms of everyone else? Where is the same blind raging hatred of everyone else?

It's only applied to Barack Obama. I can post a sound bite of Obama saying something like "I don't enjoy Nike shoes" and I'd generate 50 posts of people talking about how this means Obama is out to destroy the entire shoe industry and place everyone who buys Nike shoes in a concentration camp. In fact, there has to be a bare minimum of 37 off-hand Obama-Hitler comparsions or else we've failed as intellectuals. I can post something about Sarah Palin supporting a plan to give millions more in aid to families with child with disabilities and maybe get two or three posts, and maybe a forth with "BUT OBAMA IS WORSE!"

This isn't a matter of less or more evil. This is a matter of examing the pro et contra of the individual candidates and giving each their own evaluation.

In that regard, I think the Republicans have been getting more free passes from this board. Criticisms and issues brought up about the Republican candidates or supporters are down played, swept under the rug or actually let off the hook with an "Oh, everyone does that!"

I've been getting tremendous amounts of bullshit thrown at me for asking for objectivity here.

I'm just a guy who thinks assets should equal liabilities and equity.

There is still a lot to say, but I'm going to address individual posts now instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh please, give me a break. There has been plenty of criticism of his words and his proposed policies.

These aren't in Fireball's posts. Also, where are these? Where is a criticism based solely on his words and proposed policies without bringing up who he knows, where he lived or a picture of hitler with Obama's face photoshoped over it.

The substance of what this guy proposes is horrible, but you cut him slack at every chance.

Because we should look at the pro et contra and not just one side. I believe in looking at reality objectively, not with "THE DEMOCRATS ARE ALWAYS WRONG" goggles on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because we should look at the pro et contra and not just one side. I believe in looking at reality objectively, not with "THE DEMOCRATS ARE ALWAYS WRONG" goggles on.
As long as you're not using the other googles (the ones that say the GOP is always wrong) you're good! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your posts are insulting, Mammon and add nothing of substance in terms of arguments. They just empty accusations.

Did you miss the first post being made on here? Read it again. It's nothing but empty accusations. It's completely devoid of substance. That's what I'm arguing against it here.

This is false. Personally, I went extensively through this proposals.

You did, but I wasn't talking to you. This was addressed at the ones who don't. And Fireball.

Audience. Audience. Audience.

People have already responded to you on this topic.

Where and what exactly topic here?

I look at things from a perspective of an outsider (not attached to any of the political parties)

I won't dispute that Sophia.

and someone who had experienced communism.

I will dispute this. Sorry to be a smart-ass, but you lived in a country where the means of production were equally shared and there was no government?

I did not see previous Democratic candidates in the same light, as radical, as I see Obama. What I see in this election seems almost unbelievable to me.

I don't see Obama as any worse then other Democratic candidates. He is considered radical by some and moderate by others. I still say it's a coin-toss because we don't have a enough information from him personally to really assess his views. George Bush said in his elections that he didn't want to have to go to war and he waged two of them so, what's said in the elections sometimes but not be the best indicator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did you miss the first post being made on here? Read it again. It's nothing but empty accusations. It's completely devoid of substance. That's what I'm arguing against it here.
The misunderstanding comes in when you frame your statement broadly as in "people don't know how to argue" etc. When you don't identify whom you are reacting to, it is natural that others might think they're included. So, when one says "the criticisms against Obama don't focus on his words or his policies", it's natural that someone who has posted in the same thread before you, and has been critical of Obama will consider themselves included. Put down the shot-gun and use a rifle instead. :lol:

Sorry to be a smart-ass, but you lived in a country where the means of production were equally shared and there was no government?
Is this the argument that communism has not really been tried, so Poland was never communist? Or are you making some other point? Edited by softwareNerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
These aren't in Fireball's posts. Also, where are these? Where is a criticism based solely on his words and proposed policies without bringing up who he knows, where he lived or a picture of hitler with Obama's face photoshoped over it.

To find these substantive critical posts, all you need to do is go back and look at several of the recent threads in the "US Elections 2004/2008" section or others on this site. Virtually every one of the threads dealing with the election discusses some of the issues where Obama's position violates individual rights. These threads also talk about how McCain is wrong on many of the same issues.

I decided a long time ago that Obama was a pathetic leftist and McCain was a foolish pragmatist willing to sell out and abandon nearly every principle he thinks might bring him political favor or portray him as putting "country first". In the end, I voted for McCain because I believe that having him as president with both houses of Congress controlled by the Democrats gives us the best chance for total gridlock. If the government weren't able to accomplish anything for the next four years, we'd all be better off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't see Obama as any worse then other Democratic candidates. He is considered radical by some and moderate by others. I still say it's a coin-toss because we don't have a enough information from him personally to really assess his views.
He is certainly one of the more left wing members of the Democrat party and he has had one of the more liberal voting records during his short time in the US Senate. The only people who could see Obama as a moderate would be some of the hard-left screw balls that occupy the radical wing of the Democrat party. You don't agree with those fellows, do you? Also, Obama has said enough about his views on issues like taxes, health care, income redistribution, the environment, drilling for oil, nuclear power, gun rights, national defense, etc... to allow even the most casual observer to make a rational judgement about his candidacy.

George Bush said in his elections that he didn't want to have to go to war and he waged two of them so, what's said in the elections sometimes but not be the best indicator.
Say what you will about the weak and confused manner in which Bush has waged war, but don't forget that 9/11 happened and we were perfectly justified in retaliating for those attacks. To insinuate that Bush broke an election campaign promise to not go to war while ignoring the fact of 9/11 is rather silly, isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
or a picture of hitler with Obama's face photoshoped over it

lol that would be me *raises hand*

For the record, I will vote for Obama, but for very different reasons. I am in no way pro-McCain. My objections is that some people on this borad like you, Mammon, seem to never accept ANY criticism of Obama whatsoever. So I would just like to ask - for the record Mammon, et al, what do you NOT like about Obama? Let's hear YOUR criticisms. If you don't have any - then I simply fail to see how you could belong here - that's not an ad hominem attack, it is a brutal fact. If you have no attacks against Obama, then are you saying he is a perfect, pro-capitalist lassaiz-faire Objectivist candidate? If not then you must have SOMETHING critical to say. I want to hear it just once before this election is over.. please? Lemme hear something!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So I would just like to ask - for the record Mammon, et al, what do you NOT like about Obama? Let's hear YOUR criticisms.
I think that is an excellent idea, Kevin, lets see if anyone takes you up on it. For myself, I am no fan of John McCain. I agree with virtually every criticism leveled against him here and I believe he would likely be a horrible president and do untold damage to the long term interests of the country. I will vote for him not as a show of support for him, but as a vote against the guy who I believe will be even worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lol that would be me *raises hand*

For the record, I will vote for Obama, but for very different reasons. I am in no way pro-McCain. My objections is that some people on this borad like you, Mammon, seem to never accept ANY criticism of Obama whatsoever. So I would just like to ask - for the record Mammon, et al, what do you NOT like about Obama? Let's hear YOUR criticisms. If you don't have any - then I simply fail to see how you could belong here - that's not an ad hominem attack, it is a brutal fact. If you have no attacks against Obama, then are you saying he is a perfect, pro-capitalist lassaiz-faire Objectivist candidate? If not then you must have SOMETHING critical to say. I want to hear it just once before this election is over.. please? Lemme hear something!

I can't answer for Mammon, but I'll answer for "et al". I don't like Obama's desire to be "unselfish" with my money! He has a static view of human nature, with the "have-nots" being helpless and needing government assistance and being unable to adapt to changing conditions, and the "haves" going on robotically doing what they've been doing regardless of any new tax or regulatory burdens placed upon them. He's "not worried about" the big oil companies or the big pharmaceutical companies. Yep, he's not worried, because he takes it for granted that they'll just keep on producing no matter what he does. I'm really not looking forward to four years of Jimmy Carter-like "sacrifice" rhetoric from him. :dough:

At this point, it seems as though I'm going to vote against the last candidate to piss me off. Right now, I'm voting against McCain because I just got like my 10th robo-call from their camp. That could change within the hour, though. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would an Objectivist vote Obama? I still see no real reasons from anyone here, except for the 'I want the socialists to see what will really happen when they get what they want', but even this is faulty because we all know that the media will continue to blame our problems on material greed and the zombie hordes will hang on their every word.

Some of you say you favor Obama because of McCain's religion.

While I agree that religion is a greater threat than socialism to long-term Objectivist goals, you need to shake off the vision that if McCain is elected we will be living under some theocracy where everyone is forced to be christian. This will not and cannot happen, especially with a democratic congress.

Listen to Barack Obama talk. Or look up his quotes. The stuff this man(if you can call him that) says is if not on par with, is even worse than the things you'll read in Atlas Shrugged.

Plus, Barack Obama is not just a radical socialist, hes throwing religion into the mix, and using the bible as it was intended to be used: as a socialist manifesto.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole 'I want the socialists to see what will really happen when they get what they want' mentality seems incredibly nihilistic to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lol that would be me *raises hand*

For the record, I will vote for Obama, but for very different reasons. I am in no way pro-McCain. My objections is that some people on this borad like you, Mammon, seem to never accept ANY criticism of Obama whatsoever. So I would just like to ask - for the record Mammon, et al, what do you NOT like about Obama? Let's hear YOUR criticisms. If you don't have any - then I simply fail to see how you could belong here - that's not an ad hominem attack, it is a brutal fact. If you have no attacks against Obama, then are you saying he is a perfect, pro-capitalist lassaiz-faire Objectivist candidate? If not then you must have SOMETHING critical to say. I want to hear it just once before this election is over.. please? Lemme hear something!

I'm voting for Obama. In fact, I already did. I mailed my ballot in about a week and a half ago. I can't stand pretty much anything he ever says about healthcare. I'm crossing my fingers that he'll know that can't possibly be paid for and that it won't happen for that reason. I don't want him to raise the capital gains tax. I don't want any more national service. I don't like the rhetoric about being our brothers' keeper. I don't want more government programs to "help" me (want to help me? Don't tax my damn fellowship money!). Pretty much any domestic program he's talked about enacting, I'm against. But, I'm hoping he'll be logical enough to see that it just can't be paid for, and that he'll have to break most of his campaign promises in that regard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ah, the joys of not having a landline phone :dough:

They call my cell phone! I hate them! I don't have a land line, so I assume my voter's registration asked for a home phone and I put my cell?? I'm not sure how else they got it. Anyway, I'm gonna make up a number next time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...