Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Jan 3, 2013, 11:24 AM   #51
rdowns
macrumors Penryn
 
rdowns's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.G View Post
There's a big difference between compromising and totally caving. Boehner is a total wuss. He's not standing up for conservative values -- which is spending cuts and tax cuts. It's been proven time and time again that lowering taxes boosts the economy and increases revenue. Instead, the libs want to increase taxes and increase spending -- giving even more money to people who won't work.

Obama and Reid have been totally unwilling to compromise at all. Boehner's "Plan B" was vastly superior to the deal they just worked out. The GOP is clueless. Get somebody in there who will stand up for conservative values.
And it appears you have no idea what Boehner even proposed during the negotiations. See chart below.

Please show me where it has been proven that lowering taxes boost the economy. Where was the prosperity under Bush after his tax cuts? How about the second time he cut taxes? Where are the 8 million jobs we were promised if we enacted Bush's tax cuts; all I remember were we were losing 700,000 jobs a month for several months under Bush and his lower tax rates?

Thumb resize.





Quote:
I'm guessing you feel the same way about Sarah Palin.

Rob
I thought we were talking politicians, not reality TV stars.
rdowns is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2013, 11:30 AM   #52
yg17
In Time-Out
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: St. Louis, MO
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.G View Post
I'm guessing you feel the same way about Sarah Palin.

Rob
I'd call her a **** but I think that's an insult to good vaginas everywhere.
yg17 is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2013, 11:32 AM   #53
Rob.G
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: NW Oregon
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcrain View Post
I call BS. It has NEVER been "proven" that lowering taxes boosts the economy and increases revenue. There are often many things happening at the same time, and correlation and causation in situations where taxes went down are not equal. If they were, how on earth do you reconcile the periods in our history of fastest growth and higher taxes?

One link
Two Link
Three link
Four

Sorry, that's all liberal BS. I've seen it before. It's all about "income inequality" -- the whole thing liberals claim to be against. They want to drag everybody down to the same level. And so they're trying to fight the FACT that lower taxes does in fact increase revenue.

Here's my link on the issue.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatt...nment-revenue/


The perfect example, without even needing a link is Walmart. Walmart is one of the largest companies in the world (or maybe it's THE largest, I forget). How'd it get that way? LOW PRICES. The lower the price, the more you sell (to a point). Look at the iOS App Store -- how likely are you to buy an app for 99 cents versus one for $1.99 or $2.99? So given two or three apps, all of which do the same basic thing, for three different prices. Which one do you think will sell more? The cheaper one, of course. Probably ten times more. And so the guy who has the cheaper app will make more money.

Anybody here remember the Jimmy Carter era? The top tax rate was something nuts like 70 or 77%. The economy was almost as bad as it is now. Ronald Reagan wins and cuts the top rate to 28%. The economy took off! Unprecedented growth. And it continued until Clinton was elected and raised taxes, which sent things downward again. And Janet Reno's investigation into Microsoft is what burst the first dot-com bubble.

While I'm at it, let's consider what got us into this mess in the first place -- the subprime mortgage crisis. How'd that happen? Banks were forced to make loans to people who could never pay it back. Forced by liberals like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. All in the name of, "fairness." Many have been predicting the tailspin because of these policies but nobody listened (and I can find you YouTube links on that if you want). And so we had the crash.

And so ever since Obama was first elected, he's been blaming Bush for EVERYTHING. The economy was never Bush's fault. Who was running Congress for the two years prior to Obama's election? The liberals. Bush's power during those final two years of his presidency were sorely limited.

Unless you guys want to actually start listening to the truth, we can both sit here and mudsling at each other all day long and it's not gonna get us anywhere.

Rob
__________________
Late 2012 Mac Mini 2.6 i7/16gb/256gb SSD/1tb HD
Late 2013 rMBP 13 i5/16gb/512gb SSD
Galaxy Note 3 32gb AT&T
Rob.G is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2013, 11:36 AM   #54
Moyank24
macrumors 68040
 
Moyank24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: in a New York State of mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.G View Post

The perfect example, without even needing a link is Walmart. Walmart is one of the largest companies in the world (or maybe it's THE largest, I forget). How'd it get that way? LOW PRICES. The lower the price, the more you sell (to a point). Look at the iOS App Store -- how likely are you to buy an app for 99 cents versus one for $1.99 or $2.99? So given two or three apps, all of which do the same basic thing, for three different prices. Which one do you think will sell more? The cheaper one, of course. Probably ten times more. And so the guy who has the cheaper app will make more money.
Does being the largest mean it's the most successful? Especially when margins are so low in the supermarket industry. You can sell more but you may make just as much as someone who charges double but only sells half as much.

What about Apple? Aren't they one of the most profitable companies in the world? Did they get that way because of low prices?
Moyank24 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2013, 11:41 AM   #55
rdowns
macrumors Penryn
 
rdowns's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.G View Post
Sorry, that's all liberal BS. I've seen it before. It's all about "income inequality" -- the whole thing liberals claim to be against. They want to drag everybody down to the same level. And so they're trying to fight the FACT that lower taxes does in fact increase revenue.

Here's my link on the issue.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatt...nment-revenue/


The perfect example, without even needing a link is Walmart. Walmart is one of the largest companies in the world (or maybe it's THE largest, I forget). How'd it get that way? LOW PRICES. The lower the price, the more you sell (to a point). Look at the iOS App Store -- how likely are you to buy an app for 99 cents versus one for $1.99 or $2.99? So given two or three apps, all of which do the same basic thing, for three different prices. Which one do you think will sell more? The cheaper one, of course. Probably ten times more. And so the guy who has the cheaper app will make more money.

Anybody here remember the Jimmy Carter era? The top tax rate was something nuts like 70 or 77%. The economy was almost as bad as it is now. Ronald Reagan wins and cuts the top rate to 28%. The economy took off! Unprecedented growth. And it continued until Clinton was elected and raised taxes, which sent things downward again. And Janet Reno's investigation into Microsoft is what burst the first dot-com bubble.

While I'm at it, let's consider what got us into this mess in the first place -- the subprime mortgage crisis. How'd that happen? Banks were forced to make loans to people who could never pay it back. Forced by liberals like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. All in the name of, "fairness." Many have been predicting the tailspin because of these policies but nobody listened (and I can find you YouTube links on that if you want). And so we had the crash.

And so ever since Obama was first elected, he's been blaming Bush for EVERYTHING. The economy was never Bush's fault. Who was running Congress for the two years prior to Obama's election? The liberals. Bush's power during those final two years of his presidency were sorely limited.

Unless you guys want to actually start listening to the truth, we can both sit here and mudsling at each other all day long and it's not gonna get us anywhere.

Rob

Wow, you are more misinformed than I imagined. You don't even get the talking points right. Here's a hint dude, when you have to tell people that your posts represent the "truth", your credibility level is somewhere between, well, Bachmann and Palin.

And thanks for the laugh of the day, "The economy was never Bush's fault." My sides are aching after that laugh.
rdowns is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2013, 11:56 AM   #56
Bug-Creator
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Germany
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.G View Post
And Janet Reno's investigation into Microsoft is what burst the first dot-com bubble.
I'm not even gonna bother wether thats true or not, but ....

Bursting ANY investment bubble is allways good, as such a bubble just hast to burst at one point anyways and the earlier you do it the smaller the damage.
Bug-Creator is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2013, 12:21 PM   #57
mrkramer
macrumors 601
 
mrkramer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Somewhere
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.G View Post
And so ever since Obama was first elected, he's been blaming Bush for EVERYTHING. The economy was never Bush's fault. Who was running Congress for the two years prior to Obama's election? The liberals. Bush's power during those final two years of his presidency were sorely limited.
So I'm assuming that if we can't blame Bush for the economy since the dems controlled congress anything bad that happens now is not Obama's fault since the Republicans control congress?
__________________
"Jesus was the first socialist, the first to seek a better life for mankind." -Mikhail Gorbachev
mrkramer is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2013, 12:43 PM   #58
Happybunny
macrumors 68000
 
Happybunny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 's-Hertogenbosch Netherlands
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.G View Post
Christie is a RINO at best. He needs to go the hell away or turn blue like he really is. But if he did, My Belle Michelle would be putting him on a weight-loss program.

Boehner is an idiot. The entire ***** mainstream GOP are idiots. We need to be rid of every one of them. They're no better than the democrats. Only the true Tea Party Conservatives have a clue what's going on, but the GOP wants to be rid of them too because they're in the way of their own power.

So right now we have the democrats in charge, who are far-left marxist/socialist/communist dweebs who want to run everybody's life and make everything "fair" at the cost of what this country stands for. Then we have the GOP, who are just Lite version of the Democrats.

For what it's worth, they walked away from the Sandy bill because it was full of PORK. It's one of the good moves they've made. But the mainstream media and the Left will sensationalize it into something it isn't, which seem to be mostly what this thread is doing. It's no different than somebody voting against reduced arsenic levels in water and therefore being branded "against clean water," which is utter BS. It could just be that levels are FINE where they are and reducing them further would cost too much for everybody. But that's a whole 'nother argument; that was just an example.

I think Boehner is history. There had been talk of Michelle Bachman challenging him. I hope she wins if so.

Rob
After reading this I was sure that this was meant as a satire.

Now I'm not so sure, the trickle down economices as been shown not to work. Ever anywhere, not even in La la land, it's a myth like Unicorns, which I hope you also don't believe in?

Looking at your Congress all I see are two deeply entrenched parties, what you need is more bipartisanship, not more fanatical drum beating. Holding up disaster relief because of party politics, is a scumbag thing to do. These are your own people, what kind of message does this send to the rest of the world.

I would have thought that the Republican party would have learnt from November's defeat.

The extreme right of the GOP is why so many outside America, no longer look to you for any sort of leadership, in any thing.
You cannot get proper disaster relief for your own population in NYC/and metropolitan area, after nine weeks. This is beyond a joke this is criminal.
__________________
'You cannot undo history, but you can learn from it'

Last edited by Happybunny; Jan 3, 2013 at 11:07 PM.
Happybunny is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2013, 02:06 PM   #59
rdowns
macrumors Penryn
 
rdowns's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.G View Post
I think Boehner is history. There had been talk of Michelle Bachman challenging him. I hope she wins if so.

Rob

Guess not. Don't worry though, Bachmann is still relevant. She introduced the first bill of the new Congress to repeal Obamacare in its entirety. She really has a handle of the pulse of Americans.
rdowns is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2013, 02:14 PM   #60
samiwas
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Atlanta, GA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.G View Post
....

Rob
All of you aren't taking this guy seriously, are you? Come on....he's yanking your chain.

At least, I certainly hope so and that he's not actually saying what he thinks. Because THAT would be freakin' scary.
__________________
A lack of planning on your part should not constitute an emergency on mine.
samiwas is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2013, 02:17 PM   #61
PracticalMac
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by zioxide View Post
The Republican party is heading towards epic collapse over the next few years and it's going to be hilarious to watch every minute.
I am crying as I type. (what kind is question)
__________________
FireWire 1394 Intelligent network guaranteed data transfer, 1500mA power, Ethernet compatible
Read: 160 files, 650MB total, FW400 70% faster then USB2
Write: 160 files, 650MB total, FW400 48% faster
PracticalMac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2013, 02:34 PM   #62
rdowns
macrumors Penryn
 
rdowns's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by samiwas View Post
All of you aren't taking this guy seriously, are you? Come on....he's yanking your chain.

At least, I certainly hope so and that he's not actually saying what he thinks. Because THAT would be freakin' scary.

I actually quite enjoy posts like this. First of all, they provide great entertainment in reading. Second of all, they let me know that the people who write them are either partisan hacks or have no actual basis in reality. Thusly, I know not to believe anything else they write about anything. That's why whenever they write, well, pretty much anything, I know it's just flat out crap. But it is entertaining crap.

rdowns is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2013, 02:41 PM   #63
zioxide
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Massachusetts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.G View Post
The perfect example, without even needing a link is Walmart. Walmart is one of the largest companies in the world (or maybe it's THE largest, I forget). How'd it get that way? LOW PRICES. The lower the price, the more you sell (to a point).
So you are okay with the American public's tax dollars subsidizing Walmart's workforce so Walmart can get bigger and make more profits?

Quote:
Originally Posted by rdowns View Post
I actually quite enjoy posts like this. First of all, they provide great entertainment in reading. Second of all, they let me know that the people who write them are either partisan hacks or have no actual basis in reality. Thusly, I know not to believe anything else they write about anything. That's why whenever they write, well, pretty much anything, I know it's just flat out crap. But it is entertaining crap.

They sure do make Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert's jobs a hell of a lot easier.
zioxide is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2013, 04:05 PM   #64
MadeTheSwitch
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.G View Post
Only the true Tea Party Conservatives have a clue what's going on
ROTFLMAO. Oh really? The same people that pushed our credit rating down? The same people who drag their feet on things like 9/11 first responder bills or now Sandy relief? Yeah...they really have a clue. The word "don't" should be before the word "have" in your sentence. Then it would be more accurate.
MadeTheSwitch is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2013, 04:18 PM   #65
samiwas
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Atlanta, GA
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdowns View Post
I actually quite enjoy posts like this. First of all, they provide great entertainment in reading. Second of all, they let me know that the people who write them are either partisan hacks or have no actual basis in reality. Thusly, I know not to believe anything else they write about anything. That's why whenever they write, well, pretty much anything, I know it's just flat out crap. But it is entertaining crap.

Well played, rdowns...well played.
__________________
A lack of planning on your part should not constitute an emergency on mine.
samiwas is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 4, 2013, 01:24 AM   #66
hulugu
macrumors 68000
 
hulugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: the faraway towns
Quote:
Originally Posted by ugahairydawgs View Post
In his defense....he's right about the pork in the bill.

A completely politically tone deaf move by the Republican leadership in the House though. I'm completely fine with telling the Senate to piss off on their bill, but you have to have an aid package of your own ready to go before you do.
Looking at the list of pork, it's certainly there, but not as profound and some have made it out to be. For instance, while $13 billion for "mitigation" efforts might seem expensive, it also acknowledges the reality that you can't just rebuild the coastline, you have to deal with the reality that future storms are likely. And, $17 billion in block development grants allows for local control.

The money for Alaskan fisheries through NOAA (giving more money to NOAA seems right, but why those fisheries?) and Homeland Security equipment is definitely bacon, but I'm also not sure that new public transportation spending, $10.78 billion is all that bad either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.G View Post
Sorry, that's all liberal BS. I've seen it before. It's all about "income inequality" -- the whole thing liberals claim to be against. They want to drag everybody down to the same level. And so they're trying to fight the FACT that lower taxes does in fact increase revenue.

Here's my link on the issue.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatt...nment-revenue/...
This is refuted simply, correlation does not imply causation. As liberals tend to argue that higher top tax rates created the economic boom of the 1990s, conservatives tend to argue that there's a strong causal relationship between lowering the tax rate and increasing tax revenue. This ignores a host of other factors that are actually more important.

As the Congressional Research Service noted after completing a review of 65 years of history:

Quote:
...The results of the analysis suggest that changes over the past 65 years in the top marginal tax rate and the top capital gains tax rate do not appear correlated with economic growth. The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment, and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie.
Also, the Forbes blogs aren't the best source for these kinds of arguments. You really need to dig into the data and history to understand big casual relationships.

Quote:
...While I'm at it, let's consider what got us into this mess in the first place -- the subprime mortgage crisis. How'd that happen? Banks were forced to make loans to people who could never pay it back. Forced by liberals like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. All in the name of, "fairness." Many have been predicting the tailspin because of these policies but nobody listened (and I can find you YouTube links on that if you want). And so we had the crash.
Even if we assume that A) Banks were "forced" to make loans by Frank and Dodd (which is by the way fundamentally untrue), the banks were the ones who created the instruments that magnified their risk and then knowingly spread that risk around until it become endemic and destructive. The CDS structure was designed to hide risk and allow it to be traded, thereby taking the small batch of "forced" loans and mixing them up with other loans. Some financial services companies were so into the scam that they shorted investments while selling that same investment to their own customers.

Moreover, it's worth noting that loans under the CRA had a lower default rate than nominal loans.

If you really want to understand this, read Michael Lewis' "The Big Short" or the reporting of Matt Taibbi.

Quote:
...And so ever since Obama was first elected, he's been blaming Bush for EVERYTHING. The economy was never Bush's fault. Who was running Congress for the two years prior to Obama's election? The liberals. Bush's power during those final two years of his presidency were sorely limited.
Assume this is true, economic polices have a two-year lead, meaning that what Bush did in 2005 caused whatever happened in 2007.
__________________
I look like a soldier; I feel like a thief
hulugu is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 4, 2013, 08:47 AM   #67
ugahairydawgs
macrumors 68020
 
ugahairydawgs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by hulugu View Post
The money for Alaskan fisheries through NOAA (giving more money to NOAA seems right, but why those fisheries?) and Homeland Security equipment is definitely bacon, but I'm also not sure that new public transportation spending, $10.78 billion is all that bad either.
Maybe not, but again.....if it's that dang important they can get their own bill. This is like shopping with a credit card and snapping up all of the little extra things the store has for sale up by the register just because it could be useful down the road. Sure.....who couldn't use extra chapstick and batteries.
ugahairydawgs is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 4, 2013, 10:37 AM   #68
Rodimus Prime
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by ugahairydawgs View Post
Maybe not, but again.....if it's that dang important they can get their own bill. This is like shopping with a credit card and snapping up all of the little extra things the store has for sale up by the register just because it could be useful down the road. Sure.....who couldn't use extra chapstick and batteries.
and the counter point to that is how often would you just drive to the store to get a thing of chapstick or batteries.
You know as well as I do the answer is very rarely. They are normally tack on items because you are there for other stuff.
Rodimus Prime is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 4, 2013, 10:48 AM   #69
ugahairydawgs
macrumors 68020
 
ugahairydawgs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodimus Prime View Post
and the counter point to that is how often would you just drive to the store to get a thing of chapstick or batteries.
You know as well as I do the answer is very rarely. They are normally tack on items because you are there for other stuff.
Right. But when you have $16,400,000,000.00 in debt you have to start making tougher decisions about which packs of chapstick and batteries you can truly afford.
ugahairydawgs is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 4, 2013, 11:39 AM   #70
Rodimus Prime
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by ugahairydawgs View Post
Right. But when you have $16,400,000,000.00 in debt you have to start making tougher decisions about which packs of chapstick and batteries you can truly afford.
point back to long term cost savings. Either add the debt now or have to increase it a hell of a lot more later with a massive repair bill that could of been avoided.
Rodimus Prime is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 4, 2013, 11:42 AM   #71
ugahairydawgs
macrumors 68020
 
ugahairydawgs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodimus Prime View Post
point back to long term cost savings. Either add the debt now or have to increase it a hell of a lot more later with a massive repair bill that could of been avoided.
Then I would tell the states they better start saving their pennies.
ugahairydawgs is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 4, 2013, 12:20 PM   #72
Rodimus Prime
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by ugahairydawgs View Post
Then I would tell the states they better start saving their pennies.
but those are on federal land not state land or in federal waters not state waters. (aka the fed is responsiable for them) Also the fed would be paying for those repairs any how so it goes back to my earlier point.
Biggest problem is a lot of that stuff has just been kicking the can and not doing the maintenance that has needed and the longer it is put off the higher the cost gets.
Rodimus Prime is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 4, 2013, 12:36 PM   #73
AhmedFaisal
Guest
 
<snip>

Last edited by AhmedFaisal; Nov 16, 2013 at 07:01 PM.
  0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 4, 2013, 12:38 PM   #74
NickZac
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Kudos to the new congress to passing $10 billion of the bill in record timing! (first segment of as much as $60 billion total)

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/n...,2123431.story
NickZac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 4, 2013, 12:50 PM   #75
MacNut
macrumors P6
 
MacNut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: CT
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickZac View Post
Kudos to the new congress to passing $10 billion of the bill in record timing! (first segment of as much as $60 billion total)

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/n...,2123431.story
I am hoping this money makes it's way down the chain fast. It's been 2 months and the government has been dragging it's feet on getting anything done.
__________________
The thoughts in my head are rated TV-MA. Viewer discretion is advised.
Now batting, Number 2 Derek Jeter, Number 2
MacNut is online now   0 Reply With Quote


Reply
MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Boehner to Senate: Pass a budget or don't get paid ugahairydawgs Politics, Religion, Social Issues 24 Jan 20, 2013 08:11 AM
After caving on sandy, boehner kicks back on women this time AhmedFaisal Politics, Religion, Social Issues 16 Jan 6, 2013 06:50 PM
Election not yet over, Boehner already picks a fight Thomas Veil Politics, Religion, Social Issues 7 Nov 6, 2012 05:39 PM
iPhone 5 Wallpapers - Shelves only edtorious iPhone 4 Oct 3, 2012 06:57 AM
Hearing Aide Use with Mountain Lion applepackard OS X 10.8 Mountain Lion 11 Jul 19, 2012 06:49 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:14 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC