Litlos Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 No sorry I definitely do not like the Greens. Green by name and by nature I think. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chao Lao Beach Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 Fortunately with the election being held in Australia's winter, the public will not have to see Tony Abbott in his Budgie Catchers,(a male swimsuit not unlike the G-string)running along the beaches of Sydney. Err... "Budgie Smugglers" is the correct term. Well, i go nuts listening to Gillard mono-tone slurred alcoholic voice. They should be illegal, or at least the the "sicko's who where these should have to pay for the clean up of all the vomit that is produced they general public seeing it . Many examples, click here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David48 Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 Well, i go nuts listening to Gillard mono-tone slurred alcoholic voice. Hey Skips ... just for you ... Julia Gillard 'I Dreamed a Dream' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7N9LPdgGsI Julia and Kevin - Wednesday Night Fever . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David48 Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 This famous clip has been sub-titled for many a comedy sketch. On this one ... Hitler Reacts to Kevin Rudd's Challenge Against Julia Gillard . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simple1 Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 (edited) Rudd's latest thoughts on the Australian economy. "The truth is in 2013, the China resources boom is over. While the export of resource and commodity volumes are up, the prices we receive for them have now fallen almost 25 per cent since their peak and may well fall further. "Right now, we find ourselves at a crossover point for our national economy." Detail at: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/business/international/australia-s-economy-at/741224.html Edited July 12, 2013 by simple1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benaud Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Rudd's latest thoughts on the Australian economy. "The truth is in 2013, the China resources boom is over. While the export of resource and commodity volumes are up, the prices we receive for them have now fallen almost 25 per cent since their peak and may well fall further. "Right now, we find ourselves at a crossover point for our national economy." Detail at: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/business/international/australia-s-economy-at/741224.html Sorry didn't read the article. Is it basically saying the China resources boom isn't over? If so I shall stop, drop and lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chao Lao Beach Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Here is some ridiculous reading, talk about a religious nut job. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-07-14/abbotts-divorce-proposal-ludicrous/1352668 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chooka Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 (edited) Definitely keeping it all in the family and this could hurt his election campaign. Nicholas Rudd given senior role for Labor Nicholas Rudd, the son of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, has been appointed to a senior role on Labor's election campaign team. Nicholas Rudd, 24, will act as a key adviser to his father and be a member of the prime minister's travelling party. News Limited also reports on Saturday that Kevin Rudd's eldest son, a lawyer, was involved in drafting of the reforms of the Labor Party that the prime minister announced on Monday. http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2013/07/13/04/54/nicholas-rudd-given-senior-role-for-labor Edited July 13, 2013 by chooka Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sing_Sling Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 (edited) It just gets worse, doesn't it . . . a senior adviser at the age of 24 . . . another son as legal counsel. Nepotism is a wonderful thing Edited July 13, 2013 by Sing_Sling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simple1 Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 (edited) Here is some ridiculous reading, talk about a religious nut job. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-07-14/abbotts-divorce-proposal-ludicrous/1352668 Abbott's views will shorten the odds for Rudd, cannot understand why a seasoned opposition politician would propose this legislation Edited July 13, 2013 by simple1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David48 Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 Here is some ridiculous reading, talk about a religious nut job. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-07-14/abbotts-divorce-proposal-ludicrous/1352668 Abbott's views will shorten the odds for Rudd, cannot understand why a seasoned opposition politician would propose this legislation Agreed ... I hadn't even heard that till now. Crazy stuff really. Wait till your well into your third term of Government before the crazies start calling. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simple1 Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 Article in The Economist reviewing Rudd and asylum seeker policy. Julia Bishop is of the opinion that “Australia is within its rights to turn the boats back in our waters, in international waters, where it’s safe to do so.” http://www.economist.com/blogs/banyan/2013/07/australia-and-asylum-seekers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harrry Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 (edited) Not sure why it's undemocratic. Does the Queen ever say no? I don't know the answer. I think it is more just a procedural matter, just going through the motions. Edit: I note the monarch has not, and cannot say no. The monarch has no discretion and must agree to appoint the gg. Lets see, an unelected foreign head of state who is chosen based on birth and who can't be Catholic, let alone Australian, gets to choose who nominally holds the reigns of power in Australia. Whether it is based on advice from the far flung regions of an non-existent empire matters not a jot. A resident for president, please. The monarchy does not 'normally' decide who holds the reigns of power. Where did you get that idea? 1975 Edited July 14, 2013 by harrry 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FDog Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 Not sure why it's undemocratic. Does the Queen ever say no? I don't know the answer. I think it is more just a procedural matter, just going through the motions. Edit: I note the monarch has not, and cannot say no. The monarch has no discretion and must agree to appoint the gg. Lets see, an unelected foreign head of state who is chosen based on birth and who can't be Catholic, let alone Australian, gets to choose who nominally holds the reigns of power in Australia. Whether it is based on advice from the far flung regions of an non-existent empire matters not a jot. A resident for president, please. The monarchy does not 'normally' decide who holds the reigns of power. Where did you get that idea? 1975 Is 1975 considered a 'normal' occurrence? And you may recall the monarchy did not get a vote in the election to decide who governed the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David48 Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 The monarchy does not 'normally' decide who holds the reigns of power. Where did you get that idea? 1975 Is 1975 considered a 'normal' occurrence? And you may recall the monarchy did not get a vote in the election to decide who governed the country. ... but the monarchy did get to decide who didn't governed the country. BTW ... I like ole' Libby . 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chooka Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 (edited) Here is some ridiculous reading, talk about a religious nut job. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-07-14/abbotts-divorce-proposal-ludicrous/1352668 Abbott's views will shorten the odds for Rudd, cannot understand why a seasoned opposition politician would propose this legislation I guess the Historic landslide is not going to happen now. New poll shows big jump for Labor 2:20am July 15, 2013 A new poll shows a massive jump in support for Labor following Kevin Rudd's return as prime minister. The Nielsen poll published in Monday's Fairfax newspapers shows the ALP's primary support up a whopping 10 percentage points to 39 per cent compared to the coalition on 44, down three, and the Greens on nine per cent, down two. The two-party preferred numbers put Labor at 50 per cent (up seven points) with the opposition also on 50, having lost seven points. http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2013/07/15/02/23/new-poll-shows-big-jump-for-labor Edited July 14, 2013 by chooka 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BookMan Posted July 15, 2013 Share Posted July 15, 2013 Should Rudd call the election for august? Or should he wait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibeachlovers Posted July 15, 2013 Share Posted July 15, 2013 Should Rudd call the election for august? Or should he wait. He should call it ASAP. He needs to go to the people as an unelected PM. However, I guess he wants to enjoy being PM as long as possible, so will probably put it off as LONG as possible. If the Oz public can't see through him, they deserve to have Labour for another 3 years, along with many many thousands of illegal immigrants off the boats. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simple1 Posted July 15, 2013 Share Posted July 15, 2013 (edited) Should Rudd call the election for august? Or should he wait. He should call it ASAP. He needs to go to the people as an unelected PM. However, I guess he wants to enjoy being PM as long as possible, so will probably put it off as LONG as possible. If the Oz public can't see through him, they deserve to have Labour for another 3 years, along with many many thousands of illegal immigrants off the boats. Sorry, but those arriving by boat are processed as asylum seekers or refugees; not illegal immigrants. If they are assessed as economic refugees they are eventually returned to their home country. For facts, as opposed to urban myths, go to following URL: http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/docs/news&events/rw/2010/4%20-%20Myths%20and%20facts%20about%20refugees%20and%20asylum%20seekers%202010.pdf Edited July 15, 2013 by simple1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David48 Posted July 15, 2013 Share Posted July 15, 2013 Should Rudd call the election for august? Or should he wait. He should call it ASAP. He needs to go to the people as an unelected PM. However, I guess he wants to enjoy being PM as long as possible, so will probably put it off as LONG as possible. If the Oz public can't see through him, they deserve to have Labour for another 3 years, along with many many thousands of illegal immigrants off the boats. Sorry, but those arriving by boat are processed as asylum seekers or refugees; not illegal immigrants. If they are assessed as economic refugees they are eventually returned to their home country. For facts, as opposed to urban myths, go to following URL: http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/docs/news&events/rw/2010/4%20-%20Myths%20and%20facts%20about%20refugees%20and%20asylum%20seekers%202010.pdf simple1 ... I like a lot of the stuff you write. But, anyone who can spend between $5,000 - $10,000 on a spot in a people smugglers boat and then rip up their identification documents before the Australian Navy/Customs pick them up because their boat is sinking ... because they have pulled the bungs out of the holes drilled into the hull ... sorry ... no. To be honest, to read the document above written by the refugee council holds no weight at all. They have travelled through a number of countries before reaching Australia who would offer them asylum. The other countries are transit countries ... Australia is a destination. But we do digress form the OP ... . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BookMan Posted July 15, 2013 Share Posted July 15, 2013 A number of news sources are saying today that Labor party insiders want to call the election for August 24 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibeachlovers Posted July 15, 2013 Share Posted July 15, 2013 Should Rudd call the election for august? Or should he wait. He should call it ASAP. He needs to go to the people as an unelected PM. However, I guess he wants to enjoy being PM as long as possible, so will probably put it off as LONG as possible. If the Oz public can't see through him, they deserve to have Labour for another 3 years, along with many many thousands of illegal immigrants off the boats. Sorry, but those arriving by boat are processed as asylum seekers or refugees; not illegal immigrants. If they are assessed as economic refugees they are eventually returned to their home country. For facts, as opposed to urban myths, go to following URL: http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/docs/news&events/rw/2010/4%20-%20Myths%20and%20facts%20about%20refugees%20and%20asylum%20seekers%202010.pdf You need to take that up with Bob Carr then. He has said there are far too many illegal economic migrants pretending to be asylum seekers and the criteria is too lenient at present. Calling illegal immigrants asylum seekers or refugees is just PC. If they were genuine refugees in fear for their life, they'd stay in the first safe country they come to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xangsamhua Posted July 15, 2013 Share Posted July 15, 2013 Lets see, an unelected foreign head of state who is chosen based on birth and who can't be Catholic, let alone Australian, gets to choose who nominally holds the reigns of power in Australia. Whether it is based on advice from the far flung regions of an non-existent empire matters not a jot. A resident for president, please. The monarchy does not 'normally' decide who holds the reigns of power. Where did you get that idea? 1975 Is 1975 considered a 'normal' occurrence? And you may recall the monarchy did not get a vote in the election to decide who governed the country. The word Samran used was "nominally", not "normally". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xangsamhua Posted July 15, 2013 Share Posted July 15, 2013 (edited) Should Rudd call the election for august? Or should he wait. He should call it ASAP. He needs to go to the people as an unelected PM. However, I guess he wants to enjoy being PM as long as possible, so will probably put it off as LONG as possible. If the Oz public can't see through him, they deserve to have Labour for another 3 years, along with many many thousands of illegal immigrants off the boats. Sorry, but those arriving by boat are processed as asylum seekers or refugees; not illegal immigrants. If they are assessed as economic refugees they are eventually returned to their home country. For facts, as opposed to urban myths, go to following URL: http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/docs/news&events/rw/2010/4%20-%20Myths%20and%20facts%20about%20refugees%20and%20asylum%20seekers%202010.pdf You need to take that up with Bob Carr then. He has said there are far too many illegal economic migrants pretending to be asylum seekers and the criteria is too lenient at present. Calling illegal immigrants asylum seekers or refugees is just PC. If they were genuine refugees in fear for their life, they'd stay in the first safe country they come to. Well, short of shooting them, it looks like they're going to come anyway. $5000 - $10,000 doesn't seem a lot, but it would be better paid to the Commonwealth than to the smugglers. I don't know what a reasonable amount to charge would be, but if it's that important for these people to come here, where they're likely to have a support network, find jobs and raise their children well, then I would think a properly researched charge could be levied on them, such that they can come here legally and safely (I don't like seeing babies and children drown) without all the points that are required at present. We don't need to restrict ourselves to well educated and well-off Asians, who are the ones getting through on the current points system. We can handle some Hazari Shi'ites, Iraqi Christians, Sri Lankan Hindus and the like. Perhaps we need to be looking at a policy that recognizes the rights as freedoms of people to cross borders, and to regain some of the openness and generosity of spirit that Australia showed towards the boat people of the 70s and 80s (and many of them weren't really political refugees either). It's a difficult matter, I know. But perhaps Australia is just a bit too picky in regard to whom it welcomes and whom it wants to keep at bay. In the eyes of the world we must look a bit like a continent-sized Trekboer stockade. PS. Letting them come doesn't mean they should be entitled to welfare payments and easy citizenship. Knowing they'll have to get by without these for perhaps 5 - 10 years might put some of them off, but will not deter those who really want to have a go. Edited July 15, 2013 by Xangsamhua 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samran Posted July 15, 2013 Share Posted July 15, 2013 Should Rudd call the election for august? Or should he wait. He should call it ASAP. He needs to go to the people as an unelected PM. However, I guess he wants to enjoy being PM as long as possible, so will probably put it off as LONG as possible. If the Oz public can't see through him, they deserve to have Labour for another 3 years, along with many many thousands of illegal immigrants off the boats. Sorry, but those arriving by boat are processed as asylum seekers or refugees; not illegal immigrants. If they are assessed as economic refugees they are eventually returned to their home country. For facts, as opposed to urban myths, go to following URL: http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/docs/news&events/rw/2010/4%20-%20Myths%20and%20facts%20about%20refugees%20and%20asylum%20seekers%202010.pdf You need to take that up with Bob Carr then. He has said there are far too many illegal economic migrants pretending to be asylum seekers and the criteria is too lenient at present. Calling illegal immigrants asylum seekers or refugees is just PC. If they were genuine refugees in fear for their life, they'd stay in the first safe country they come to. Bit hard to feed your family though in the first safe country when they don't let you work there and can't send your kids to school. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simple1 Posted July 15, 2013 Share Posted July 15, 2013 Should Rudd call the election for august? Or should he wait. He should call it ASAP. He needs to go to the people as an unelected PM. However, I guess he wants to enjoy being PM as long as possible, so will probably put it off as LONG as possible. If the Oz public can't see through him, they deserve to have Labour for another 3 years, along with many many thousands of illegal immigrants off the boats. Sorry, but those arriving by boat are processed as asylum seekers or refugees; not illegal immigrants. If they are assessed as economic refugees they are eventually returned to their home country. For facts, as opposed to urban myths, go to following URL: http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/docs/news&events/rw/2010/4%20-%20Myths%20and%20facts%20about%20refugees%20and%20asylum%20seekers%202010.pdf simple1 ... I like a lot of the stuff you write. But, anyone who can spend between $5,000 - $10,000 on a spot in a people smugglers boat and then rip up their identification documents before the Australian Navy/Customs pick them up because their boat is sinking ... because they have pulled the bungs out of the holes drilled into the hull ... sorry ... no. To be honest, to read the document above written by the refugee council holds no weight at all. They have travelled through a number of countries before reaching Australia who would offer them asylum. The other countries are transit countries ... Australia is a destination. But we do digress form the OP ... . David, paying thousands of dollars to people smugglers. The money is usually accumulated after selling all or most of their assets or borrowed from loan sharks. If from loan sharks a family member/s stay in the home country as security for eventual repayment. I know that it commonly happens that people destroy their ID & to you and me appears to be illogical, but the bottom line is that it delays assessment of people’s status & can lead to many years in detention and eventual return to their home country. A few examples of the reasons are: "ASYLUM-SEEKERS have described how people-smugglers falsely warn them that Australian authorities will send anyone with passports back to their country, prompting them to tear up their own documents on the boat from Indonesia. And Afghan Hazaras said yesterday they usually did not have passports, birth certificates or other identity documents in the first place, so Indonesian people-smugglers gave them fakes to enter on, which they retrieved for the next batch of asylum-seekers" http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/immigration/asylum-con-sees-papers-torn-up/story-fn9hm1gu-1226390568845 As I said those arriving by boat or air who are assessed as actually being economic refugees or if you prefer "illegal migrants" are usually returned overseas. The vast majority of "illegal migrants" are actually legally defined as over stayers/illegal workers who arrive by air. My Thai wife worked as a part time housekeeper for a judge on the Refugee Review Tribunal for a number of years, I can assure you she wasn't a naive sympathiser for asylum seekers/refugees. I suggest to you your dismissal of the analysis by the Tribunal is an error of judgement. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sing_Sling Posted July 15, 2013 Share Posted July 15, 2013 You need to take that up with Bob Carr then. He has said there are far too many illegal economic migrants pretending to be asylum seekers and the criteria is too lenient at present. Calling illegal immigrants asylum seekers or refugees is just PC. If they were genuine refugees in fear for their life, they'd stay in the first safe country they come to. Well, short of shooting them, it looks like they're going to come anyway. $5000 - $10,000 doesn't seem a lot, but it would be better paid to the Commonwealth than to the smugglers. I don't know what a reasonable amount to charge would be, but if it's that important for these people to come here, where they're likely to have a support network, find jobs and raise their children well, then I would think a properly researched charge could be levied on them, such that they can come here legally and safely (I don't like seeing babies and children drown) without all the points that are required at present. We don't need to restrict ourselves to well educated and well-off Asians, who are the ones getting through on the current points system. We can handle some Hazari Shi'ites, Iraqi Christians, Sri Lankan Hindus and the like. Perhaps we need to be looking at a policy that recognizes the rights as freedoms of people to cross borders, and to regain some of the openness and generosity of spirit that Australia showed towards the boat people of the 70s and 80s (and many of them weren't really political refugees either). It's a difficult matter, I know. But perhaps Australia is just a bit too picky in regard to whom it welcomes and whom it wants to keep at bay. In the eyes of the world we must look a bit like a continent-sized Trekboer stockade. PS. Letting them come doesn't mean they should be entitled to welfare payments and easy citizenship. Knowing they'll have to get by without these for perhaps 5 - 10 years might put some of them off, but will not deter those who really want to have a go. The problem with your suggested approach is that it would cut out 'real' refugees who have nothing, not even 5-10k for the processing fee. . . . As for the 'well-educated' Asians, nothing wrong with that - we have, unfortunately, created a ghetto-sytem in Australia by taking in fairly well everyone during the 'open doors' stage - not to be confused with the White Australia stage, that created - well, ghettos. I happened to catch an ABC show on Cabramatta the other night and remember driving through there once to search fro some good food and it was made quite clear to me that I wasn't wanted. No big deal, I dn't claim ownership of the country or any suburb, nor do I resent them for wanting to be among themselves - - - everyone has gone through that, the Italians, Greeks etc... Well educated Asians, and other well-educated migrants help build Australia, help create and maintain the environment we are used to as a nation. As for being too picky . . . well, I think we should be and as for well-educated Asians . . . the current flavour of the month by Oz Immigration starts at accounting, goes through to HR and aircraft maintenance and ends with plumbing and printing with many trades in between 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David48 Posted July 15, 2013 Share Posted July 15, 2013 To be honest, to read the document above written by the refugee council holds no weight at all. But we do digress from the OP ... ... I suggest to you your dismissal of the analysis by the Tribunal is an error of judgement. ... and I did read it. The Refugee Council of Australia (RCOA) is the national umbrella body for refugees and the organisations and individuals who support them. It has more than 140 organisational and 500 individual members. RCOA promotes the adoption of flexible, humane and practical policies towards refugees and asylum seekers both within Australia and internationally through conducting research, advocacy, policy analysis and community education. I suppose it comes down to whose advice someone wishes to follow. A multicultural and humane society is a strength, not a weakness. However, we, as a Nation, have a right to decide who come here ... and who doesn't. My heart goes out to those thousands of people waiting patiently in the camps in Malaysia and the like whose places are being usurped by the cue jumpers who arrive by boat. It's my opinion, which maybe be different from yours. Doesn't make me right, and you wrong ... just that we have different opinions. OH ... BTW ... I'll be dammed if some loony Council decides that Christmas decorations will not be allowed because we may upset those who are not of the Christian faith ... <deleted> .. (not directed at you mate) ... we digress further. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simple1 Posted July 15, 2013 Share Posted July 15, 2013 To be honest, to read the document above written by the refugee council holds no weight at all. But we do digress from the OP ... ... I suggest to you your dismissal of the analysis by the Tribunal is an error of judgement. ... and I did read it. The Refugee Council of Australia (RCOA) is the national umbrella body for refugees and the organisations and individuals who support them. It has more than 140 organisational and 500 individual members. RCOA promotes the adoption of flexible, humane and practical policies towards refugees and asylum seekers both within Australia and internationally through conducting research, advocacy, policy analysis and community education. I suppose it comes down to whose advice someone wishes to follow. A multicultural and humane society is a strength, not a weakness. However, we, as a Nation, have a right to decide who come here ... and who doesn't. My heart goes out to those thousands of people waiting patiently in the camps in Malaysia and the like whose places are being usurped by the cue jumpers who arrive by boat. It's my opinion, which maybe be different from yours. Doesn't make me right, and you wrong ... just that we have different opinions. OH ... BTW ... I'll be dammed if some loony Council decides that Christmas decorations will not be allowed because we may upset those who are not of the Christian faith ... <deleted> .. (not directed at you mate) ... we digress further. . Sure accept people have different opinions, thankfully in this topic we are not subjected to abuse from those who disagree. BTW if you are interested click through on the URL below that talks to actual decisions on cases that were subject to formal review. Lot more informative than some rubbish that is posted on TV regards migrants & refugees http://www.mrt-rrt.gov.au/Decisions.aspx 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sing_Sling Posted July 15, 2013 Share Posted July 15, 2013 (edited) One of the problems Australia has is that it is woefully under-equipped to handle the number of immigrants, legal and illegal, 'refugees' and refugees. We come up with simply stunning ideas of doing a swap with one country thousands of miles away and an offshore penitentiary on a sinking heap of guano . . . all the while we think Chrissie Island is part of Australia and we keep thousands in camps for years . . . but at least they've arrived in the real Australia. We are useless as a nation in anything approaching larger problems and come across as bungling morons who complain about an integrated Muslim entering parliament and holding a Koran. While we are talking about immigration . . . how have we done with immigrants from Africa? Not too well . . I wonder why Edited July 15, 2013 by Sing_Sling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts