CSNbbs

Full Version: Trump Administration
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656
(04-23-2019 01:52 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-23-2019 01:10 PM)At Ease Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote:So all the “fake news” was true. A hostile foreign power intervened in the presidential election, hoping to install Donald Trump in the White House. The Trump campaign was aware of this intervention and welcomed it. And once in power, Trump tried to block any inquiry into what happened.

Never mind attempts to spin this story as somehow not meeting some definitions of collusion or obstruction of justice. The fact is that the occupant of the White House betrayed his country. And the question everyone is asking is, what will Democrats do about it?

But notice that the question is only about Democrats. Everyone (correctly) takes it as a given that Republicans will do nothing. Why?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/22/opini...party.html

foreign meddling

How is this different? What are you gong to do about it?

Why do you think a liberal economist knows more about collusion than a former Attorney General of the US?

Three questions - I wonder how many you will answer. Best guess: zero.

To the question about the Attorney General, do you know if they feel that Trump's actions were a betrayal? Trump supporters are hanging their hat on the fact that facts and evidence do not prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that anything illegal occurred, while completely ignoring the moral and ethical issues that arise.

The question of betrayal in the context above isn't legal.
(04-23-2019 02:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-23-2019 01:52 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-23-2019 01:10 PM)At Ease Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote:So all the “fake news” was true. A hostile foreign power intervened in the presidential election, hoping to install Donald Trump in the White House. The Trump campaign was aware of this intervention and welcomed it. And once in power, Trump tried to block any inquiry into what happened.

Never mind attempts to spin this story as somehow not meeting some definitions of collusion or obstruction of justice. The fact is that the occupant of the White House betrayed his country. And the question everyone is asking is, what will Democrats do about it?

But notice that the question is only about Democrats. Everyone (correctly) takes it as a given that Republicans will do nothing. Why?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/22/opini...party.html

foreign meddling

How is this different? What are you gong to do about it?

Why do you think a liberal economist knows more about collusion than a former Attorney General of the US?

Three questions - I wonder how many you will answer. Best guess: zero.

To the question about the Attorney General, do you know if they feel that Trump's actions were a betrayal? Trump supporters are hanging their hat on the fact that facts and evidence do not prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that anything illegal occurred, while completely ignoring the moral and ethical issues that arise.

The question of betrayal in the context above isn't legal.

Assuming for argument that everything you say is true, how does this differ from Clinton/Ukraine?

Ok, now let's talk about what you said.

What actions by Trump are you talking about? I want specifics, not innuendo or supposition.

Here's what I hang MY hat on. The investigation was into collusion.
All we have heard from the left side of the fence for two years is collusion. Mueller found no collusion. Those are facts. He didn't say, as Comey did, that the facts would not prove beyond a resonable doubt. He said no evidence of collusion was found.

The facts and evidence that you and the rest of them are talking about are mostly conjecture and innuendo. So start listing some facts that show collusion.

Beyond a reasonable doubt is what is needed for conviction. Indictment is a much lower bar. I sat on a grand jury. Our job to was to decide if there was enough evidence to warrant a trial. NOT if the charges were provable beyond a reasonable doubt. BUT, if you think it could not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, then it follows that all your doubts are not reasonable.

It seems to me your side is muttering "I KNOW he is guilty, I just can't prove it. Stupid laws. Stupid Constitution."
(04-23-2019 02:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-23-2019 02:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-23-2019 01:52 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-23-2019 01:10 PM)At Ease Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote:So all the “fake news” was true. A hostile foreign power intervened in the presidential election, hoping to install Donald Trump in the White House. The Trump campaign was aware of this intervention and welcomed it. And once in power, Trump tried to block any inquiry into what happened.

Never mind attempts to spin this story as somehow not meeting some definitions of collusion or obstruction of justice. The fact is that the occupant of the White House betrayed his country. And the question everyone is asking is, what will Democrats do about it?

But notice that the question is only about Democrats. Everyone (correctly) takes it as a given that Republicans will do nothing. Why?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/22/opini...party.html

foreign meddling

How is this different? What are you gong to do about it?

Why do you think a liberal economist knows more about collusion than a former Attorney General of the US?

Three questions - I wonder how many you will answer. Best guess: zero.

To the question about the Attorney General, do you know if they feel that Trump's actions were a betrayal? Trump supporters are hanging their hat on the fact that facts and evidence do not prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that anything illegal occurred, while completely ignoring the moral and ethical issues that arise.

The question of betrayal in the context above isn't legal.

Assuming for argument that everything you say is true, how does this differ from Clinton/Ukraine?

Ok, now let's talk about what you said.

What actions by Trump are you talking about? I want specifics, not innuendo or supposition.

Here's what I hang MY hat on. The investigation was into collusion.
All we have heard from the left side of the fence for two years is collusion. Mueller found no collusion. Those are facts. He didn't say, as Comey did, that the facts would not prove beyond a resonable doubt. He said no evidence of collusion was found.

The facts and evidence that you and the rest of them are talking about are mostly conjecture and innuendo. So start listing some facts that show collusion.

Beyond a reasonable doubt is what is needed for conviction. Indictment is a much lower bar. I sat on a grand jury. Our job to was to decide if there was enough evidence to warrant a trial. NOT if the charges were provable beyond a reasonable doubt. BUT, if you think it could not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, then it follows that all your doubts are not reasonable.

It seems to me your side is muttering "I KNOW he is guilty, I just can't prove it. Stupid laws. Stupid Constitution."

So, no facts?
(04-23-2019 02:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-23-2019 01:52 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-23-2019 01:10 PM)At Ease Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote:So all the “fake news” was true. A hostile foreign power intervened in the presidential election, hoping to install Donald Trump in the White House. The Trump campaign was aware of this intervention and welcomed it. And once in power, Trump tried to block any inquiry into what happened.
Never mind attempts to spin this story as somehow not meeting some definitions of collusion or obstruction of justice. The fact is that the occupant of the White House betrayed his country. And the question everyone is asking is, what will Democrats do about it?
But notice that the question is only about Democrats. Everyone (correctly) takes it as a given that Republicans will do nothing. Why?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/22/opini...party.html
foreign meddling
How is this different? What are you gong to do about it?
Why do you think a liberal economist knows more about collusion than a former Attorney General of the US?
Three questions - I wonder how many you will answer. Best guess: zero.
To the question about the Attorney General, do you know if they feel that Trump's actions were a betrayal? Trump supporters are hanging their hat on the fact that facts and evidence do not prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that anything illegal occurred, while completely ignoring the moral and ethical issues that arise.
The question of betrayal in the context above isn't legal.

Krugman is a lying political hack sack of ****. He has leveraged his Nobel into claimed status as a pseudo-expert about all sorts of things that have nothing to do with the subject matter of his Nobel.

So, to what moral and ethical issues do you refer?
Neither Lad nor AtEase will respond with any specifics.
Heh.... asking AtEase to respond, let alone respond with any specifics..... rofl

Why do you expect that from a whack a troll?
(04-24-2019 12:14 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Heh.... asking AtEase to respond, let alone respond with any specifics..... rofl

Why do you expect that from a whack a troll?


It was rhetorical. He does not want to compare to the Clinton/Ukrainian collusion.

Lad might respond. But he might not. Depends on his mood and his work. But I noticed he was posting in the transgender thread taking potshots at you while ignoring my request.
(04-24-2019 12:14 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Heh.... asking AtEase to respond, let alone respond with any specifics..... rofl

That privileged coward? Not a chance.
(04-24-2019 08:11 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-24-2019 12:14 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Heh.... asking AtEase to respond, let alone respond with any specifics..... rofl

That privileged coward? Not a chance.

I know nothing of AE except that in 2008 he did engage in discussion with me and now he is a hit-and-run poster. However, his straight ticket Democrat attitude seems the same.
(04-24-2019 10:07 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-24-2019 08:11 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-24-2019 12:14 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Heh.... asking AtEase to respond, let alone respond with any specifics..... rofl

That privileged coward? Not a chance.

I know nothing of AE except that in 2008 he did engage in discussion with me and now he is a hit-and-run poster. However, his straight ticket Democrat attitude seems the same.

Perhaps you arent as nuanced a conversationalist as he would prefer.
(04-24-2019 10:21 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-24-2019 10:07 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-24-2019 08:11 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-24-2019 12:14 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Heh.... asking AtEase to respond, let alone respond with any specifics..... rofl

That privileged coward? Not a chance.

I know nothing of AE except that in 2008 he did engage in discussion with me and now he is a hit-and-run poster. However, his straight ticket Democrat attitude seems the same.

Perhaps you arent as nuanced a conversationalist as he would prefer.

I AM less knee-jerk anti-Republican than he and others would like. Also less knee-jerk pro-Republican asthey think. It's not that I think Republicans are great: I just think they are better than the alternative, generally speaking.

I did not vote for Trump in 2016, either in the primary or the general. I most certainly will in 2020, now that he has a proven track record. All the hysterical finger pointing in the world does not affect my life, but his economic and foreign policy actions do, and in a positive way. I think Democrats want me to hurt. If anybody wants to push Grandpa off a cliff, it s them. I am Grandpa. The view from the wheelchair is bit different.

It would be different if any of their complaints were real and/or reasonable. But it is all about bad jokes, bragging, and imaginary collusion. They were ready to accept the results of the 2016 election, as long as it went as expected to their dream. But it didn't. They were ready to accept the results of the Mueller investigation, as long as it condemned Trump as a traitor. But it didn't. I said two years ago no collusion would be found. it was crazy and irrational. I was right. But they continue to fight for their dream. guess we are in for six more years of this, and then on January 20, 2025, president AOC will ask her Attorney General to file charges against him, before she gets to the business of wrecking the country, as "getting" Trump is the whole raison d'etre for Democrats now. He has become their white whale. (Pun intended)
(04-24-2019 10:21 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-24-2019 10:07 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-24-2019 08:11 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-24-2019 12:14 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Heh.... asking AtEase to respond, let alone respond with any specifics..... rofl

That privileged coward? Not a chance.

I know nothing of AE except that in 2008 he did engage in discussion with me and now he is a hit-and-run poster. However, his straight ticket Democrat attitude seems the same.

Perhaps you arent as nuanced a conversationalist as he would prefer.

Nice little soap box you got there.

You seem to be rather cranky that I suggested a topic deserves some nuance and care.
(04-24-2019 10:56 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-24-2019 10:21 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-24-2019 10:07 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-24-2019 08:11 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-24-2019 12:14 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Heh.... asking AtEase to respond, let alone respond with any specifics..... rofl

That privileged coward? Not a chance.

I know nothing of AE except that in 2008 he did engage in discussion with me and now he is a hit-and-run poster. However, his straight ticket Democrat attitude seems the same.

Perhaps you arent as nuanced a conversationalist as he would prefer.

Nice little soap box you got there.

You seem to be rather cranky that I suggested a topic deserves some nuance and care.

Soap boxes are what the Quad is for. You have one, I have one. Not much use coming here if you have no viewpoint to advocate. Soap boxes are the bedrock of free speech.
(04-24-2019 11:12 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-24-2019 10:56 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-24-2019 10:21 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-24-2019 10:07 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-24-2019 08:11 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]That privileged coward? Not a chance.

I know nothing of AE except that in 2008 he did engage in discussion with me and now he is a hit-and-run poster. However, his straight ticket Democrat attitude seems the same.

Perhaps you arent as nuanced a conversationalist as he would prefer.

Nice little soap box you got there.

You seem to be rather cranky that I suggested a topic deserves some nuance and care.

Soap boxes are what the Quad is for. You have one, I have one. Not much use coming here if you have no viewpoint to advocate. Soap boxes are the bedrock of free speech.

And I never said the Quad wasn't the place for it, did I?

Did you chide Tanq when he said the same thing to me in another thread you're actively participating in?
(04-24-2019 10:56 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-24-2019 10:21 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-24-2019 10:07 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-24-2019 08:11 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-24-2019 12:14 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Heh.... asking AtEase to respond, let alone respond with any specifics..... rofl

That privileged coward? Not a chance.

I know nothing of AE except that in 2008 he did engage in discussion with me and now he is a hit-and-run poster. However, his straight ticket Democrat attitude seems the same.

Perhaps you arent as nuanced a conversationalist as he would prefer.

Nice little soap box you got there.

I dont think my position on AtEase is much of a soapbox, lad. Bad hair day or somefink?
(04-24-2019 11:19 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-24-2019 11:12 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-24-2019 10:56 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-24-2019 10:21 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-24-2019 10:07 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I know nothing of AE except that in 2008 he did engage in discussion with me and now he is a hit-and-run poster. However, his straight ticket Democrat attitude seems the same.

Perhaps you arent as nuanced a conversationalist as he would prefer.

Nice little soap box you got there.

You seem to be rather cranky that I suggested a topic deserves some nuance and care.

Soap boxes are what the Quad is for. You have one, I have one. Not much use coming here if you have no viewpoint to advocate. Soap boxes are the bedrock of free speech.

And I never said the Quad wasn't the place for it, did I?

Did you chide Tanq when he said the same thing to me in another thread you're actively participating in?

You kind of implied that Tanq should get off his soap box. On the Quad.

I must have missed it when Tanq criticized your soap box.

You sure are touchy lately. Is it because Mueller found no collusion? Kind of like finding out there is no Santa Claus.

You ready with the moral and ethical issues you referenced?*

*Trump supporters are hanging their hat on the fact that facts and evidence do not prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that anything illegal occurred, while completely ignoring the moral and ethical issues that arise.

Be sure to tie those moral and ethical issues to the Clinton/Ukraine collaboration and the Clinton involvement with the Russians thorough Steele.
(04-24-2019 02:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-24-2019 11:19 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-24-2019 11:12 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-24-2019 10:56 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-24-2019 10:21 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Perhaps you arent as nuanced a conversationalist as he would prefer.

Nice little soap box you got there.

You seem to be rather cranky that I suggested a topic deserves some nuance and care.

Soap boxes are what the Quad is for. You have one, I have one. Not much use coming here if you have no viewpoint to advocate. Soap boxes are the bedrock of free speech.

And I never said the Quad wasn't the place for it, did I?

Did you chide Tanq when he said the same thing to me in another thread you're actively participating in?

You kind of implied that Tanq should get off his soap box. On the Quad.

I must have missed it when Tanq criticized your soap box.

You sure are touchy lately. Is it because Mueller found no collusion? Kind of like finding out there is no Santa Claus.

You ready with the moral and ethical issues you referenced?*

*Trump supporters are hanging their hat on the fact that facts and evidence do not prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that anything illegal occurred, while completely ignoring the moral and ethical issues that arise.

Be sure to tie those moral and ethical issues to the Clinton/Ukraine collaboration and the Clinton involvement with the Russians thorough Steele.

I've been ignoring your questions about the moral/ethical issues because they've been provided to you so many times that it's pointless to do it once more.
(04-24-2019 02:59 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-24-2019 02:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-24-2019 11:19 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-24-2019 11:12 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-24-2019 10:56 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Nice little soap box you got there.

You seem to be rather cranky that I suggested a topic deserves some nuance and care.

Soap boxes are what the Quad is for. You have one, I have one. Not much use coming here if you have no viewpoint to advocate. Soap boxes are the bedrock of free speech.

And I never said the Quad wasn't the place for it, did I?

Did you chide Tanq when he said the same thing to me in another thread you're actively participating in?

You kind of implied that Tanq should get off his soap box. On the Quad.

I must have missed it when Tanq criticized your soap box.

You sure are touchy lately. Is it because Mueller found no collusion? Kind of like finding out there is no Santa Claus.

You ready with the moral and ethical issues you referenced?*

*Trump supporters are hanging their hat on the fact that facts and evidence do not prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that anything illegal occurred, while completely ignoring the moral and ethical issues that arise.

Be sure to tie those moral and ethical issues to the Clinton/Ukraine collaboration and the Clinton involvement with the Russians thorough Steele.

I've been ignoring your questions about the moral/ethical issues because they've been provided to you so many times that it's pointless to do it once more.

Dodge, and dodge, and dodge. You keep bringing them up. I know why you are dodging them.

So answer the question about how Clinton/Ukraine is different from the alleged Trump/Russia that Mueller didn't find.
(04-24-2019 03:23 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-24-2019 02:59 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]I've been ignoring your questions about the moral/ethical issues because they've been provided to you so many times that it's pointless to do it once more.
Dodge, and dodge, and dodge. You keep bringing them up. I know why you are dodging them.
So answer the question about how Clinton/Ukraine is different from the alleged Trump/Russia that Mueller didn't find.

How about one happened, the other didn't?
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656
Reference URL's