Jump to content

Welcome to the new Traders Laboratory! Please bear with us as we finish the migration over the next few days. If you find any issues, want to leave feedback, get in touch with us, or offer suggestions please post to the Support forum here.

  • Welcome Guests

    Welcome. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest which does not give you access to all the great features at Traders Laboratory such as interacting with members, access to all forums, downloading attachments, and eligibility to win free giveaways. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. Create a FREE Traders Laboratory account here.

Reaver

So who do you think will be the next president of the USA?

Recommended Posts

  Reaver said:
I didn't recall hearing about his indictment for that. A code is not a legal requirement. You are illiterate apparently.

 

Well, maybe we'll have someone come along that's deaf and we'll have the three monkeys.

 

 

I never said I was voting for Obama, I was making a point.

 

From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access

[wais.access.gpo.gov]

[Laws in effect as of January 3, 2005]

[Document not affected by Public Laws enacted between

January 3, 2005 and October 30, 2006]

[CITE: 36USC301]

 

 

TITLE 36--PATRIOTIC AND NATIONAL OBSERVANCES, CEREMONIES, AND

ORGANIZATIONS

 

Subtitle I--Patriotic and National Observances and Ceremonies

 

Part A--Observances and Ceremonies

 

CHAPTER 3--NATIONAL ANTHEM, MOTTO, FLORAL EMBLEM \1\ MARCH, AND TREE

 

Sec. 301. National anthem

 

(a) Designation.--The composition consisting of the words and music

known as the Star-Spangled Banner is the national anthem.

(b) Conduct During Playing.--During a rendition of the national

anthem--

(1) when the flag is displayed--

(A) all present except those in uniform should stand at

attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart;

(B) men not in uniform should remove their headdress with

their right hand and hold the headdress at the left shoulder,

the hand being over the heart; and

© individuals in uniform should give the military salute

at the first note of the anthem and maintain that position until

the last note; and

 

(2) when the flag is not displayed, all present should face

toward the music and act in the same manner they would if the flag

were displayed.

 

(Pub. L. 105-225, Aug. 12, 1998, 112 Stat. 1263.)

 

Historical and Revision Notes

 

Notice above it says Laws in Effect as of Jan 2005. Laws!

 

It is the same place where you find Title 26 and 26A the US code (laws) for IRS and the ones they will use against you in a court of law. So Mr Reaver me thinks any presidential candidate that would openly flaunt his disrespect has no business being the leader of our country, IMO. Now who is illiterate??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

United States Code

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

The United States Code (U.S.C.) is a compilation and codification of the general and permanent federal law of the United States.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Reaver said:
Right now,

 

I like Obama and Ron Paul....Ron Paul ran as a Libertarian in 1988 I believe....I like what he has to say about taxes,etc....

 

Obama, I like him because he keeps it real. He hasn't had a chance to be corrupted by the political system...

 

Who do I think will win?

 

Hell...I can't really even answer my own question...there are so many variables at play.

You like him but you won't vote for him ...eh??? Yeh he keeps it real all right. Publically show just how much he disrespects our laws and our country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First the Law:

 

 

 

4 USC Sec. 7 01/02/2006

 

-EXPCITE-

 

TITLE 4 - FLAG AND SEAL, SEAT OF GOVERNMENT, AND THE STATES

 

CHAPTER 1 - THE FLAG

 

-HEAD-

 

Sec. 7. Position and manner of display

 

-STATUTE-

 

(f) When flags of States, cities, or localities, or pennants of

 

societies are flown on the same halyard with the flag of the United

 

States, the latter should always be at the peak. When the flags are

 

flown from adjacent staffs, the flag of the United States should be

 

hoisted first and lowered last. No such flag or pennant may be

 

placed above the flag of the United States or to the United States

 

flag's right.

 

 

Now HERE is a REAL American that loves their country and knows the law!! Obama apparently scores "0" on both!

 

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57960

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Reaver said:
Please find me the sentencing guidelines for violation of this "law".

 

 

Oh, there are none?

That would be for a court of law to decide. How old are you reaver? IT IS LAW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I guess this Mr Scarborough is a real American as well?

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=658_1185903108

 

You have to remember..my love for this country is not on trial, I have fought for it..have you?

 

I am making the point, that if put on trial in the Supreme Court, the first amendment will supersede any of the "codes" you are posting.

 

You say what you want, but like I said, it is not ILLEGAL. Post the sentencing guidelines for this violation please.

 

You can't even enforce the saying of the pledge of allegiance in public schools anymore..trust me, no one is going to arrest Mr Obama for not placing his hand on his heart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL try pulling the amendment stuff on title 26 and 26a of the same USC. against the IRS and see if that will fly in a court of law. Some of tried the amendment deal with IRS. Guess where they are at?? In prison!! IT IS THE LAW and HE should have been arrested or cited for it. THIS IS FEDERAL CODE reaver.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  WHY? said:
From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access

[wais.access.gpo.gov]

[Laws in effect as of January 3, 2005]

[Document not affected by Public Laws enacted between

January 3, 2005 and October 30, 2006]

[CITE: 36USC301]

 

 

TITLE 36--PATRIOTIC AND NATIONAL OBSERVANCES, CEREMONIES, AND

ORGANIZATIONS

 

Subtitle I--Patriotic and National Observances and Ceremonies

 

Part A--Observances and Ceremonies

 

CHAPTER 3--NATIONAL ANTHEM, MOTTO, FLORAL EMBLEM \1\ MARCH, AND TREE

 

Sec. 301. National anthem

 

(a) Designation.--The composition consisting of the words and music

known as the Star-Spangled Banner is the national anthem.

(b) Conduct During Playing.--During a rendition of the national

anthem--

(1) when the flag is displayed--

(A) all present except those in uniform should stand at

attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart;

 

Okey dokey....so...who in that picture is standing at attention? Go ahead, I am waiting. Oh, also..wonder what flag ol' Hillary is facing? hmmm what about Mr Richardson? I am getting confused here, I was under the impression it was required BY LAW to face the flag and stand at attention!!?? Gee willikers!

 

 

So "WHY?" are you just bashing Obama, or are you gonna bash everyone else in the picture for breaking the "law"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Quote
You have to remember..my love for this country is not on trial, I have fought for it..have you?
The you ought to be the more upset about it. But, no, instead you apparently think NOTHING is wrong with what he is doing????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Quote
....so...who in that picture is standing at attention? Go ahead, I am waiting. Oh, also..wonder what flag ol' Hillary is facing? hmmm what about Mr Richardson? I am getting confused here, I was under the impression it was required BY LAW to face the flag and stand at attention!!?? Gee willikers!

 

 

So "WHY?" are you just bashing Obama, or are you gonna bash everyone else in the picture for breaking the "law"?

Well it may not be the best stand but at least they tried. Obama stands with his hands clasped near his.....well you get the idea. They were probably facing a flag where the music was coming from. Is that so hard to figure out reaver???? You don't face a poster flag. You face THE flag.

This is going no where. so I am off this thread but IT IS LAW AND HE SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED A CITATION

 

Good night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  WHY? said:
Well it may not be the best stand but at least they tried. Obama stands with his hands clasped near his.....well you get the idea. They were probably facing a flag where the music was coming from. Is that so hard to figure out reaver???? You don't face a poster flag. You face THE flag.

This is going no where. so I am off this thread but IT IS LAW AND HE SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED A CITATION

 

Good night.

 

 

Oh they "probably" were...oh...uh...okay..I see....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  WHY? said:
Well it may not be the best stand but at least they tried. Obama stands with his hands clasped near his.....well you get the idea. They were probably facing a flag where the music was coming from. Is that so hard to figure out reaver???? You don't face a poster flag. You face THE flag.

This is going no where. so I am off this thread but IT IS LAW AND HE SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED A CITATION

 

Good night.

 

Oh THE flag? as in the one behind them???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  WHY? said:
The you ought to be the more upset about it. But, no, instead you apparently think NOTHING is wrong with what he is doing????

 

Nope, I am not upset..because my service in the military was for this country and the FREEDOM that it provides...even to the losers that bash the military and go out of their way to cause trouble. Just like I can go wave a 50'X50' flag on the street corner and it's not illegal, so can someone else go and wave a Russian flag and it's not illegal. This country is based on FREEDOM and RIGHTS OF EXPRESSION.

 

No, I do not agree with his actions....but my point is that he is no worse off than anyone else. Stop nitpicking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  WHY? said:
LOL try pulling the amendment stuff on title 26 and 26a of the same USC. against the IRS and see if that will fly in a court of law. Some of tried the amendment deal with IRS. Guess where they are at?? In prison!! IT IS THE LAW and HE should have been arrested or cited for it. THIS IS FEDERAL CODE reaver.

 

SHHHH! well don't tell this guy that!

 

http://consumerist.com/consumer/irs/man-dodges-taxes-for-10-years-wins-in-federal-district-court-279978.php

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  WHY? said:
I am glad you see!:cheers:

 

I guess we're playing the ASSumption game now...Obama probably had a flare up of his Parkinsons and was clasping his hands together to prevent them from shaking in public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If not putting your hand over your heart means you're unpatiotic then most of the citizens of Australia are pretty (to use a very "in" term now" un-Australian. We even make fun of our national anthem!

 

I don't believe that patriotism revolves around a set of gestures or hollow promises to be true and faithfull blah blah blah. Patriotism is more about the feeling of love and dedication you have for your land. It doesn't have to always be ostensibly shown through the innane practice of holding a hand over your heart. When your country looses a close sporting event and you're on the verge of tears that makes you pretty damn patriotic.

 

When you can sit back and joke about yourselves that makes you patriotic. Australia is definately a different place than the US. Over here we have a sense of larikanism that is pretty wide spread throughout the country. We don't like to take things too seriously here so if we had Obama here not putting his hand over his heart most people except for the ultra conservatives wouldn't give a rat's arse about it.

 

What is worrying here however, is that the government wants to implement a citizenship test for all new immigrants before they are allowed to become citizens. The test is meant to be about Australian values. How do you quantify something like that? Countries like the USA and Australia are relatively new countries in the world and since their inceptions have become melting pots to a very vast range of different people from different ethnic, cultural, religioius, and linguistic backgrounds. Is it fair to assume that the values held by the first white people to settle in the land as being the litmus (sp?) test for the level of patriotism we should all aspire too?

 

If we take the original settlers as being the epitomy of patriotism I should be speaking one of the 150+ Aboriginal dialects in this country which has been inhabited by the Aboriginals for over 45,000 years!

 

I reckon that in the end your meaningfull actions really define how much of a patriot you are. Not placing a hand over a heart is hardly a case for concern. For some of you it may be, however I'd be pretty offended if someone said I was un-Australian because I think that the Ugg boot is one of the worst inventions in fashion ever, or that Fosters and VB suck balls in the beer department (sorry USA fellas we ship that camel piss over to you guys lol).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Nick1984 said:
If not putting your hand over your heart means you're unpatiotic then most of the citizens of Australia are pretty (to use a very "in" term now" un-Australian. We even make fun of our national anthem!

 

I don't believe that patriotism revolves around a set of gestures or hollow promises to be true and faithfull blah blah blah. Patriotism is more about the feeling of love and dedication you have for your land. It doesn't have to always be ostensibly shown through the innane practice of holding a hand over your heart. When your country looses a close sporting event and you're on the verge of tears that makes you pretty damn patriotic.

 

When you can sit back and joke about yourselves that makes you patriotic. Australia is definately a different place than the US. Over here we have a sense of larikanism that is pretty wide spread throughout the country. We don't like to take things too seriously here so if we had Obama here not putting his hand over his heart most people except for the ultra conservatives wouldn't give a rat's arse about it.

 

What is worrying here however, is that the government wants to implement a citizenship test for all new immigrants before they are allowed to become citizens. The test is meant to be about Australian values. How do you quantify something like that? Countries like the USA and Australia are relatively new countries in the world and since their inceptions have become melting pots to a very vast range of different people from different ethnic, cultural, religioius, and linguistic backgrounds. Is it fair to assume that the values held by the first white people to settle in the land as being the litmus (sp?) test for the level of patriotism we should all aspire too?

 

If we take the original settlers as being the epitomy of patriotism I should be speaking one of the 150+ Aboriginal dialects in this country which has been inhabited by the Aboriginals for over 45,000 years!

 

I reckon that in the end your meaningfull actions really define how much of a patriot you are. Not placing a hand over a heart is hardly a case for concern. For some of you it may be, however I'd be pretty offended if someone said I was un-Australian because I think that the Ugg boot is one of the worst inventions in fashion ever, or that Fosters and VB suck balls in the beer department (sorry USA fellas we ship that camel piss over to you guys lol).

 

Yeah I agree with you there Nick. As much as I personally take pride in putting my hand over my heart (or popping a salute as it used to be)...I am not going to jump to conclusions that someone is unpatriotic just because they don't share my exact beliefs. Like you said, your actions, not gestures are the defining characteristics of someone as a patriot.

 

ha ha funny, as I knew a couple girls from Sydney who said the same thing about Fosters. haha!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I was an american, I'd go with Ron Paul, what the guy talks about sounds good, dunno of course how good his policies would work out.

Politicians being politicians, it is of course doubtful that he'd live up to all of his promises, but his record looks real good.

The way that american politics works makes it very unlikely that he'll even become a candidate.

I got the video from the high probablity trader, I like that guy :D.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really enjoyed that Ron Paul video. There are some interesting points brought up on this thread, some beaten to death. Some important points:

 

1. It would be a travesty if the president was elected because he/she WAS AFRICAN AMERICAN OR A WOMAN. Sorry soultrader, that was a thoughtless comment and maybe you didn't mean it that way.

 

2. A president should be elected for their ideas. Not their past or the SIZE OF THEIR CAMPAIGN FUND. This is a key point guys - the money comes from special interest groups who are buying the presidency and positioning themselves. I realize it's a capitalist country, but money should have nothing to do with getting elected.

 

3. We need to look beneath the presidency to see what is really going on. How many people here think Bushy actually has "any" power, aside from being a figure-head. This is a trend, and a major sign of corruption at the top.

SO if Bush is not the one calling the shots, can we actually vote for someone who will? Or are there more powerful sources like special interest groups (oil, defense, drug, labor, etc.) that over-ride. DOES THIS GOVERNMENT REALLY REPRESENT THE PEOPLE anymore?

 

3. WHY? kept talking about some law about saluting the flag - Nick the aussie is right about not giving this stuff too much credence. This symbolism leads to blind patriotism which, in my opinion, is total bull. Even the founding fathers would agree that trusting your government is probably the worst mistake you can make. Any government that enforces mandatory patriotism/nationalism over freedom of speech sounds like nazism to me.

 

4. The power is in the people, the government needs to be reminded of this. For quite some time there has been a majority against the war in Iraq - so why are we paying for it! There is a parallel that goes back to Vietnam, when the PEOPLE were so fed up with the government sending youths off to die that they began rioting in masses. At the time Nixon did not admit their influence, but in his memoirs he said that he took the protesters very seriously, and was fearful of their effect.

 

We need more fear and accountability in government. Responsibility to the people and not to the special interest groups. Folks my parents age, baby boomers, still have this blind faith in the US that they learned from their parents (WWII era). Subsequent generations have lost this faith with the TRUTH about the crap that was done in the past 40 years by agencies like the CIA and even higher up. This is another trend.

 

Future generations are going to have less and less faith in the government when stuff like this keeps going on. They have no reason to have faith, instead what they have is a growing mistrust and a lack of power to do anything about it.

 

Well the power is in numbers, and yes I think that revolution and anarchy is not out of the question someday- just throw in a few variables. I don't like to think about what will happen when the full story comes to light on the 911 events.

 

So that's my ramble, maybe it can spark some new thoughts on this thread, as it seemed to be dying.

 

PS yes I am in canada - wife and daughter canadian, but born in the US and lived there most of my life. I don't agree with Socialism here, don't think it works except in situations like Norway where you have oil buffering the bureaucratic inefficiencies. Canada is so inefficient it's ridiculous.

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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

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.


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Thx for reminding us... I don't bang that drum often enough anymore Another part for consideration is who that money initially went to...
    • TDUP ThredUp stock, watch for a top of range breakout above 2.94 at https://stockconsultant.com/?TDUP
    • How long does it take to receive HFM's withdrawal via Skrill? less than 24H?
    • My wife Robin just wanted some groceries.   Simple enough.   She parked the car for fifteen minutes, and returned to find a huge scratch on the side.   Someone keyed her car.   To be clear, this isn’t just any car.   It’s a Cybertruck—Elon Musk's stainless-steel spaceship on wheels. She bought it back in 2021, before Musk became everyone's favorite villain or savior.   Someone saw it parked in a grocery lot and felt compelled to carve their hatred directly into the metal.   That's what happens when you stand out.   Nobody keys a beige minivan.   When you're polarizing, you're impossible to ignore. But the irony is: the more attention something has, the harder it is to find the truth about it.   What’s Elon Musk really thinking? What are his plans? What will happen with DOGE? Is he deserving of all of this adoration and hate? Hard to say.   Ideas work the same way.   Take tariffs, for example.   Tariffs have become the Cybertrucks of economic policy. People either love them or hate them. Even if they don’t understand what they are and how they work. (Most don’t.)   That’s why, in my latest podcast (link below), I wanted to explore the “in-between” truth about tariffs.   And like Cybertrucks, I guess my thoughts on tariffs are polarizing.   Greg Gutfield mentioned me on Fox News. Harvard professors hate me now. (I wonder if they also key Cybertrucks?)   But before I show you what I think about tariffs… I have to mention something.   We’re Headed to Austin, Texas This weekend, my team and I are headed to Austin. By now, you should probably know why.   Yes, SXSW is happening. But my team and I are doing something I think is even better.   We’re putting on a FREE event on “Tech’s Turning Point.”   AI, quantum, biotech, crypto, and more—it’s all on the table.   Just now, we posted a special webpage with the agenda.   Click here to check it out and add it to your calendar.   The Truth About Tariffs People love to panic about tariffs causing inflation.   They wave around the ghost of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff from the Great Depression like it’s Exhibit A proving tariffs equal economic collapse.   But let me pop this myth:   Tariffs don’t cause inflation. And no, I'm not crazy (despite what angry professors from Harvard or Stanford might tweet at me).   Here's the deal.   Inflation isn’t when just a couple of things become pricier. It’s when your entire shopping basket—eggs, shirts, Netflix subscriptions, bananas, everything—starts costing more because your money’s worth less.   Inflation means your dollars aren’t stretching as far as they used to.   Take the 1800s.   For nearly a century, 97% of America’s revenue came from tariffs. Income tax? Didn’t exist. And guess what inflation was? Basically zero. Maybe 1% a year.   The economy was booming, and tariffs funded nearly everything. So, why do people suddenly think tariffs cause inflation today?   Tariffs are taxes on imports, yes, but prices are set by supply and demand—not tariffs.   Let me give you a simple example.   Imagine fancy potato chips from Canada cost $10, and a 20% tariff pushes that to $12. Everyone panics—prices rose! Inflation!   Nope.   If I only have $100 to spend and the price of my favorite chips goes up, I either stop buying chips or I buy, say, fewer newspapers.   If everyone stops buying newspapers because they’re overspending on chips, newspapers lower their prices or go out of business.   Overall spending stays the same, and inflation doesn’t budge.   Three quick scenarios:   We buy pricier chips, but fewer other things: Inflation unchanged. Manufacturers shift to the U.S. to avoid tariffs: Inflation unchanged (and more jobs here). We stop buying fancy chips: Prices drop again. Inflation? Still unchanged. The only thing that actually causes inflation is printing money.   Between 2020 and 2022 alone, 40% of all money ever created in history appeared overnight.   That’s why inflation shot up afterward—not because of tariffs.   Back to tariffs today.   Still No Inflation Unlike the infamous Smoot-Hawley blanket tariff (imagine Oprah handing out tariffs: "You get a tariff, and you get a tariff!"), today's tariffs are strategic.   Trump slapped tariffs on chips from Taiwan because we shouldn’t rely on a single foreign supplier for vital tech components—especially if that supplier might get invaded.   Now Taiwan Semiconductor is investing $100 billion in American manufacturing.   Strategic win, no inflation.   Then there’s Canada and Mexico—our friendly neighbors with weirdly huge tariffs on things like milk and butter (299% tariff on butter—really, Canada?).   Trump’s not blanketing everything with tariffs; he’s pressuring trade partners to lower theirs.   If they do, everybody wins. If they don’t, well, then we have a strategic trade chess game—but still no inflation.   In short, tariffs are about strategy, security, and fairness—not inflation.   Yes, blanket tariffs from the Great Depression era were dumb. Obviously. Today's targeted tariffs? Smart.   Listen to the whole podcast to hear why I think this.   And by the way, if you see a Cybertruck, don’t key it. Robin doesn’t care about your politics; she just likes her weird truck.   Maybe read a good book, relax, and leave cars alone.   (And yes, nobody keys Volkswagens, even though they were basically created by Hitler. Strange world we live in.) Source: https://altucherconfidential.com/posts/the-truth-about-tariffs-busting-the-inflation-myth    Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/       
    • No, not if you are comparing apples to apples. What we call “poor” is obviously a pretty high bar but if you’re talking about like a total homeless shambling skexie in like San Fran then, no. The U.S.A. in not particularly kind to you. It is not an abuse so much as it is a sad relatively minor consequence of our optimism and industriousness.   What you consider rich changes with circumstances obviously. If you are genuinely poor in the U.S.A., you experience a quirky hodgepodge of unhelpful and/or abstract extreme lavishnesses while also being alienated from your social support network. It’s about the same as being a refugee. For a fraction of the ‘kindness’ available to you in non bio-available form, you could have simply stayed closer to your people and been MUCH better off.   It’s just a quirk of how we run the place and our values; we are more worried about interfering with people’s liberty and natural inclination to do for themselves than we are about no bums left behind. It is a slightly hurtful position and we know it; we are just scared to death of socialism cancer and we’re willing to put our money where our mouth is.   So, if you’re a bum; you got 5G, the ER will spend like $1,000,000 on you over a hangnail but then kick you out as soon as you’re “stabilized”, the logistics are surpremely efficient, you have total unchecked freedom of speech, real-estate, motels, and jobs are all natural healthy markets in perfect competition, you got compulsory three ‘R’’s, your military owns the sky, sea, space, night, information-space, and has the best hairdos, you can fill out paper and get all the stuff up to and including a Ph.D. Pretty much everything a very generous, eager, flawless go-getter with five minutes to spare would think you might need.   It’s worse. Our whole society is competitive and we do NOT value or make any kumbaya exception. The last kumbaya types we had werr the Shakers and they literally went extinct. Pueblo peoples are still around but they kind of don’t count since they were here before us. So basically, if you’re poor in the U.S.A., you are automatically a loser and a deadbeat too. You will be treated as such by anybody not specifically either paid to deal with you or shysters selling bejesus, Amway, and drugs. Plus, it ain’t safe out there. Not everybody uses muhfreedoms to lift their truck, people be thugging and bums are very vulnerable here. The history of a large mobile workforce means nobody has a village to go home to. Source: https://askdaddy.quora.com/Are-the-poor-people-in-the-United-States-the-richest-poor-people-in-the-world-6   Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/ 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.