# Three Cheers for the SEC



## Political Junky (Apr 16, 2010)

The Buzz: SEC deserves praise for taking on Goldman Sachs - Apr. 16, 2010

By Paul R. La Monica, editor at large April 16, 2010: 2:13 PM ET

The Buzz is now on Twitter! Follow me @LaMonicaBuzz

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The SEC showed some major teeth Friday. It's about time. And hopefully this won't be the last time the agency bares its fangs.

The Securities and Exchange Commission is going after the biggest of the big on Wall Street. Goldman Sachs.

paul_lamonica_morning_buzz2.jpg

The SEC alleged that Goldman Sachs (GS, Fortune 500) failed to disclose to investors in a pool of subprime mortgages that Paulson & Co., one of the most influential hedge funds in the world, was making bets against the security.

If the SEC's claim is true, this is a major transgression. Even if it turns out that the wrongdoing was the work of one rogue employee -- the SEC specifically named Goldman Vice President Fabrice Tourre -- it is clear that Goldman has some explaining to do and must pay.  <more>


----------



## Vast LWC (Apr 16, 2010)

Three Cheers indeed.  Finally someone is taking action.

Way to go SEC.


----------



## Xenophon (Apr 16, 2010)

Ah, Barry's latest scapegoat is already feeling the pinch.


----------



## Vast LWC (Apr 16, 2010)

Yep, because corporations are run by saints who obviously never do anything wrong.

Did you actually bother to look into the allegations?


----------



## Xenophon (Apr 16, 2010)

Do you actually bother to understand how the world works?

The gov goes from one scapegoat to the next, this is the big plan to 'win' over the public, go after the 'fatcats' on wall street.

Watch the law of unintended consequnces go wild now, its already started:

Stocks tumble as Goldman charged with civil fraud


----------



## Vast LWC (Apr 16, 2010)

Xenophon said:


> Do you actually bother to understand how the world works?
> 
> The gov goes from one scapegoat to the next, this is the big plan to 'win' over the public, go after the 'fatcats' on wall street.
> 
> ...



Did Goldman not in fact rip off it's investors by advising them to buy stocks that THEY KNEW WERE GOING TO FAIL???

Is that not *Fraud*?

Should the SEC look the other way and let them get away with it?

Seriously man, try to think about what you're saying before posting it.


----------



## Political Junky (Apr 16, 2010)

Vast LWC said:


> Xenophon said:
> 
> 
> > Do you actually bother to understand how the world works?
> ...


Cons support corporations over citizens. That worked, for a while, for Mussolini.


----------



## Gatekeeper (Apr 16, 2010)

Political Junky said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > Xenophon said:
> ...



Congrats to the SEC, for now, wonder if they will continue to weed out these corporate slime?

Also the quote:





> "Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power."
> - Benito Mussolini



The people got fed up enough with Corporatism that they made Wind Chimes out of Benito and his wife.


----------



## Political Junky (Apr 16, 2010)

Gatekeeper said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Vast LWC said:
> ...


Wind Chimes, that's good. They sure did hang their bodies upside down in Milan.


----------



## Dr Gregg (Apr 16, 2010)

I was expecting to hear a conservative on here bitch about how the stock market went down in part due to this news


----------



## Vast LWC (Apr 16, 2010)

Dr Gregg said:


> I was expecting to hear a conservative on here bitch about how the stock market went down in part due to this news



Then you missed Xeno's post:



Xenophon said:


> Do you actually bother to understand how the world works?
> 
> The gov goes from one scapegoat to the next, this is the big plan to 'win' over the public, go after the 'fatcats' on wall street.
> 
> ...



Good call though.


----------



## Paulie (Apr 16, 2010)

I'm a conservative who finds this to be pleasing news, although I understand what Xenophon is trying to say.

I'll reserve most of my judgment until this plays itself out, but I won't be the least bit surprised to see only one or a select few individuals at Goldman take the fall for something that I'm sure anyone in the upper echelon of the company knew about.

There's much more corruption at Goldman than just misleading investors about CDO's.  

This looks on the surface to be nothing more than pacifying the sheep by taking a little action that is otherwise a microcosm of what is actually needed.


----------



## Dr Gregg (Apr 16, 2010)

Vast LWC said:


> Dr Gregg said:
> 
> 
> > I was expecting to hear a conservative on here bitch about how the stock market went down in part due to this news
> ...



They are just so predictable, first thing I thought when reading the article Tend not to read to much of Xenophobe's tripe


----------



## Paulie (Apr 16, 2010)

Dr Gregg said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Gregg said:
> ...



So if only one or a few people go to jail, you will be satisfied?


----------



## Dr Gregg (Apr 16, 2010)

Paulie said:


> Dr Gregg said:
> 
> 
> > Vast LWC said:
> ...



and that has what to do with anything we've been talking about  or anything I"ve said


----------



## Vast LWC (Apr 16, 2010)

Paulie said:


> I'm a conservative who finds this to be pleasing news, although I understand what Xenophon is trying to say.
> 
> I'll reserve most of my judgment until this plays itself out, but I won't be the least bit surprised to see only one or a select few individuals at Goldman take the fall for something that I'm sure anyone in the upper echelon of the company knew about.
> 
> ...



I would agree that there is much more that needs to be investigated in many parts of the financial industry, starting with all of Goldman's various actions.

In fact I think this is a rather excellent post, though obviously not the "sheep" portion of the comment, lol.


----------



## Paulie (Apr 16, 2010)

Vast LWC said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> > I'm a conservative who finds this to be pleasing news, although I understand what Xenophon is trying to say.
> ...


Well come on, you have to admit that there are a lot of sheep voters who will be satisfied with only a couple people going down, and will credit the democrats and the administration with some kind of "victory".

That's not partisan, that's just reality.  I'd be saying the same shit if it involved republicans, because the same sheep voter mentality applies to those voters too.


----------



## Paulie (Apr 16, 2010)

Dr Gregg said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Gregg said:
> ...



I asked a question that has a specific purpose.


----------



## Dr Gregg (Apr 16, 2010)

Paulie said:


> Dr Gregg said:
> 
> 
> > Paulie said:
> ...



Whoever the hell is found guilty and responsible should go to jail for fraud, like the law states.


----------



## Paulie (Apr 16, 2010)

Dr Gregg said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Gregg said:
> ...



Obviously you don't want to answer the question.


----------



## Vast LWC (Apr 16, 2010)

Paulie said:


> Well come on, you have to admit that there are a lot of sheep voters who will be satisfied with only a couple people going down, and will credit the democrats and the administration with some kind of "victory".
> 
> That's not partisan, that's just reality.  I'd be saying the same shit if it involved republicans, because the same sheep voter mentality applies to those voters too.



Alright, that is a good point in that context.


----------



## The T (Apr 16, 2010)

Xenophon said:


> Do you actually bother to understand how the world works?
> 
> The gov goes from one scapegoat to the next, this is the big plan to 'win' over the public, go after the 'fatcats' on wall street.
> 
> ...


 
Yep. And alot of politicians benefitted from Goldman contributions...


----------



## Dr Gregg (Apr 16, 2010)

Paulie said:


> Dr Gregg said:
> 
> 
> > Paulie said:
> ...



I answered, I don't care if its one or a few, if they are found guilty, then they should go to jail. If found innocent, then nobody. 

Still have no idea what the hell your point is


----------



## Paulie (Apr 17, 2010)

Dr Gregg said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Gregg said:
> ...



My point is that you'd be completely satisfied if only a couple scapegoats go down for something that anyone with brains knows is widespread among Goldman's upper management, and probably beyond.

Rather than calling for everyone's head, including Blankfein, you'd accept Obama's offer of only a few.

The point is, you're fucking blind.


----------



## twogreen2c (Apr 17, 2010)

An little unknown financial adviser by the name Steve Cordasco has been speaking of this GS fraud for years on his talk radio show.  Now he is predicting and I agree, one or two guys will take the fall for GS.  GS owns the White House.  They will just get a little slap for this misdoing.  The Obama administration needs something to pull up their falling approval ratings.  The Obama Administration will push for banking regulations knowing all along what GS and the rest of Wall Street was doing.  Politicians got paid off by these big financial institutions.  They will now use this GS event as a way to try and save their political careers.  The mass media will spin it to give kudos to Obama and the crooked Capitol Hill politicians who will now go after GS.  You watch, one or two GS execs will take the fall.  Then it will be business as usual as GS lobbies for the cap and trade bill which Obama so loves.


----------



## rdean (Apr 17, 2010)

I outlined the cause of the collapse here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...-prospect-of-wider-crackdown.html#post2216650

The thing that has me curious;  at what point to neocons stop blaming the collapse on "Freddie/Fannie"?  Have we already reached that point?  Do they just stop talking about it and move on to another lie?  I  haven't heard about death panels for a while.  Or kill grandma.  

Since the major banks paid back their loans, they stopped with the government take over of banks.

Since GM is paying back it's loans 5 years early and expects to post a profit this year, they've stopped calling it "Government Motors".

They refuse to say anything about the tens of billions the government has made from loan interest.

So, where is the next big lie?  They seem to do that better than solutions.  And they want to run the country?  Or run the country into the ground?


----------



## Gunny (Apr 17, 2010)

Political Junky said:


> The Buzz: SEC deserves praise for taking on Goldman Sachs - Apr. 16, 2010
> 
> By Paul R. La Monica, editor at large April 16, 2010: 2:13 PM ET
> 
> ...





Vast LWC said:


> Three Cheers indeed.  Finally someone is taking action.
> 
> Way to go SEC.



Way to go.  More meddling from the Fourth Reich.


----------



## rdean (Apr 17, 2010)

Gunny said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > The Buzz: SEC deserves praise for taking on Goldman Sachs - Apr. 16, 2010
> ...



Do yo see what I'm talking about?  Is this is someone who is representative of the white wing.  Their greed nearly ruined the eoncomy.  Stopping them from doing it again is meddling, which of course, is just "crazy".


----------



## Paulie (Apr 17, 2010)

rdean said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...


Yeah, it's meddling when they're obviously going to just pick a couple patsies to take the fall while Goldman continues business as usual.

Come talk to me when the whole board and all the officers are locked up, and the entire management of the company is changed over to fresh faces.

The corruption is deeply embedded at that place, and you're living in fantasy land if you think otherwise.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Apr 19, 2010)

rdean said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



Now the irrational hatred of President Obama will come out all across the pseudo-populist wing of conservatism.   

Obama was bad for being for the Wall Street bailout.  Now he'll be bad for going after Wall Street.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Apr 19, 2010)

It is great to see the phoniness of the right erupt right before our eyes.


----------



## Dr Gregg (Apr 19, 2010)

Paulie said:


> Dr Gregg said:
> 
> 
> > Paulie said:
> ...



Obama's offer? WTF does this have to do with Obama? what's clear is you are a blind partisan hack. I never said a few, I said whoever is responsible. fucking hacks, not even transparant about it. Yes, I'm blind yet here you are making this about Obama and bashing him. Nutjobs

SEC is investigating, NOT obama. give it a rest already with the obama bashing, you idiots


----------



## Dr Gregg (Apr 19, 2010)

NYcarbineer said:


> It is great to see the phoniness of the right erupt right before our eyes.



I'm amazed they are so willing to look so stupid and petty and partisan.


----------



## KissMy (Apr 19, 2010)

Political Junky said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > Xenophon said:
> ...



Goldman did not rip off its investors or average citizens. Goldman knowingly sold other banks junk paper to qualified investment funds who are responsible for their own research, unlike the unsuspecting public. This is not against the law because brokers do not have fiduciary responsibility to qualified investors. We may want to change some laws now but I do not see how Goldman broke any in that case.

The government should take away the money Goldman got from the bailout of AIG since Goldman either did not research AIG to make sure they could pay their loss or expected the government to back AIG & cover their loss. If it were not for the government bailouts of others Goldman would have gone under, so why did the government save them & now parade out this BS lawsuit around that Goldman will win? Could it be that Goldman has paid off, employed, or will employ many politicians? Welcome to corruptions dog & pony show.

For all the commies jumping up & down due to this lawsuit, the GSEs are still the 800 pound gorilla in the room who bought 80% of the US mortgage market.


----------



## Toro (Apr 19, 2010)

Actually, the more I read about this today, the less substance I think there are in the charges.


----------



## Toro (Apr 19, 2010)

KissMy said:


> Goldman did not rip off its investors or average citizens.



Goldman was almost certainly days away from collapsing as the repo market was drying up and their short-term funding was disappearing.  The Fed bailed them out.  Effectively, the government backstopped the cash market, nationalized AIG, and created various funding programs to take bad assets off the books of banks, which allowed Goldman to survive.  The Fed is keeping rates at 0%, effectively allowing the likes of Goldman (and others) to borrow for free while they buy risky assets earning 4%, 5%, 6% or more, essentially making free money.  Today, they are paying their employees on average $800k.

None of this is illegal but people have every right to be furious with Goldman and Wall Street.  They helped create this mess, got bailed out by the government, have massively profited from the government's actions and now are paying themselves egregious amounts of money while unemployment is at multi-decade highs.


----------



## Paulie (Apr 19, 2010)

Dr Gregg said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Gregg said:
> ...



You do understand that the SEC is an agency under the jurisdiction of the executive branch, right?  They are an independent government agency, independent meaning that they are not subordinate to a cabinet department.  But they are still under executive branch jurisdiction, as are the vast majority of independent government agencies.  The SEC can and does operate at the behest of the executive.

It's naive to think that the president would have nothing to do with a move like this, when it has as direct a political affect on him as it does.

This is why YOU are the hack.  You take the position that most favors your guy.  I look at the situation objectively and take the most RATIONAL position. 

But it's ok if you want to pretend that such a significant move as this has nothing to do with the president.  Whatever helps you sleep easier.


----------



## KissMy (Apr 19, 2010)

Toro said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > Goldman did not rip off its investors or average citizens.
> ...



Yea, I also have a major problem with them paying themselves egregious amounts of money while we lend them 0% money & have saved their ass. They should have their asses taxed off until they straighten up.

I like Carl Icahn's plan "say on pay" vote, giving shareholders voting rights to determine executive pay. Most of these banks have the government as major a shareholder who could determine executive pay.


----------



## Toro (Apr 19, 2010)

KissMy said:


> I like Carl Icahn's plan "say on pay" vote, giving shareholders voting rights to determine executive pay. Most of these banks have the government as major a shareholder who could determine executive pay.



One of the weaknesses of American capitalism is the level of governance.  The board system does not work particularly well in the United States.  Shareholders have less power than they should whereas managers can often dictate board composition and agendas at the expense of shareholders.  America should look at Scandinavia, where it is much easier for shareholders to fire incompetent and venal executives.


----------



## uscitizen (Apr 19, 2010)

Our media should be empahsizing the fraud and corruption in America.  And not just Fox on democratic corruption.
Corporate corruption as well.


----------



## KissMy (Apr 19, 2010)

Toro said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > I like Carl Icahn's plan "say on pay" vote, giving shareholders voting rights to determine executive pay. Most of these banks have the government as major a shareholder who could determine executive pay.
> ...



I agree. Shareholders & investors need more power over corporate governance.


----------



## Paulie (Apr 19, 2010)

Toro said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > I like Carl Icahn's plan "say on pay" vote, giving shareholders voting rights to determine executive pay. Most of these banks have the government as major a shareholder who could determine executive pay.
> ...



Board members, or institutions holding major share amounts and who have vested interest in a particular company, end up being the majority in the shareholder pool, and thereby have the voting power.

I'm not so sure that's necessarily a reflection on anything other than our wealth gap.

Do you not agree with one share/one vote?


----------



## KissMy (Apr 19, 2010)

Bottom line is these wall street banks need to fail. They are not lending much here in average Americans anymore.

The Fed should not be creating money for wall street to package junk & sell it to them. We should be getting something worthwhile for the money.

We could either limit leverage, or impose loan origination accountability & transparency, or impose a fiduciary responsibility on wall street, or separate wall street from banking like Glass Steagall or nationalize them like we just did the GSEs.

Currently It looks like the government has invested in them to make a profit from the federal reserve zero interest money machine for the government slush fund, cronies & political contributions. This may be worse than communism.


----------



## Gunny (Apr 20, 2010)

Vast LWC said:


> Yep, because corporations are run by saints who obviously never do anything wrong.
> 
> Did you actually bother to look into the allegations?



Because our government is run by saints.  Ever look into the allegations?


----------



## Gunny (Apr 20, 2010)

Dr Gregg said:


> I was expecting to hear a conservative on here bitch about how the stock market went down in part due to this news



Just as I expected a dickhead, leftwing troll to shit on the thread.


----------



## Gunny (Apr 20, 2010)

Dr Gregg said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Gregg said:
> ...



You haven't said a word worth responding to.  Why should anyone waste their time on your dumb ass?


----------



## editec (Apr 20, 2010)

IF some people -- the people who really were responsible -- don't go down, then seriously...how can anybody invest wisely?

What Goldman did was really a crime AGAINST CAPITALISM.

It takes a particularly _blind faith in corporatism_ to claim that you love capitalism _so much_, that you'll let insider capitalists STEAL from outsider capitalists_ with impunity._

Which is, incidently_, exactly _what Bush II allowed to happen on his watch.


----------



## KissMy (Apr 20, 2010)

I think the best thing to do is have the buyers pay the rating agency instead of the sellers.


----------



## Toro (Apr 20, 2010)

KissMy said:


> I think the best thing to do is have the buyers pay the rating agency instead of the sellers.



I think this is a great idea. 

The problem is that there is more money on the side of the guys selling the bonds than the guys buying the bonds.


----------



## jeffrockit (Apr 24, 2010)

Vast LWC said:


> Three Cheers indeed.  Finally someone is taking action.
> 
> Way to go SEC.



You mean this SEC?
SEC watching porn instead of financial industry / The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com

Way to go indeed!


----------



## jeffrockit (Apr 24, 2010)

Gatekeeper said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Vast LWC said:
> ...


----------



## chanel (Apr 24, 2010)

Something smells fishy.  How did the NYT get the info before the announcement?  How  could Organizing for America send out "millions" of emails less than a half hour after the NYT article? Why wasn't GS notified before the official announcement, as is common practice with other SEC investigations?

http://republicans.oversight.house....rs/20100423issalettertoseciginvestigation.pdf

If they are guilty, let them be prosecuted - BECAUSE of wrongdoing - NOT to further a political agenda.


----------



## frazzledgear (Apr 26, 2010)

Political Junky said:


> The Buzz: SEC deserves praise for taking on Goldman Sachs - Apr. 16, 2010
> 
> By Paul R. La Monica, editor at large April 16, 2010: 2:13 PM ET
> 
> ...



The SEC doesn't deserve any praise whatsoever.  These porn watching morons at the SEC collecting six figure salaries paid by taxpayers - failed in their jobs in the first place.  The very same people who never saw Madoff's pyramid scheme when even Madoff admitted it was blatantly obvious for YEARS he was running a pyramid scheme.  So please, let's not pretend these overpaid, incompetent assholes at the SEC are suddenly interested in doing their jobs now.  

But THIS charge is the typical Obama regime sleight of hand BULLSHIT.   Watch what they are doing over here so you don't notice what is going on over there.   Because that is how stupid the Obama administration believes people really are anyway -in fact, liberals in general believe people are cows made to be led around and manipulated by them anyway.   Which is why they have zero qualms about standing up before the American people and deliberately lying and misleading them  -such as happened with the health care bill.  It took how many WEEKS for the truth about the fact that health care bill will overload our already overloaded deficit and will result in even MORE unsustainable spending when Congress already created an unsustainable level of spending even before that bill  -to finally come out?  Oh I'm sure if Democrats had only known they would have changed their vote, right?  But "fortunately" for those who intend to play dumb, someone with the pull, control and authority somehow managed to hold that important information from being released until AFTER the vote was in.  Another coincidence I'm sure.

What  Goldman Sachs has actually been charged with as specifically spelled out in the document itself -wasn't a crime at the time.  Doesn't matter if anyone thinks it should have been or not.  It wasn't -and in this country, unlike the Soviet Union, you can't go back and charge someone with a crime by making it a crime after the fact.  Since those at the SEC would certainly know this (assuming they can pry themselves away from their favorite bestiality flick), it begs the question what is the Obama administration really up to here with this bogus charge.  Painting one industry after another as the "enemy" in this country serves Obama very well, it is what he does and it is how he justifies setting the groundwork for government takeover of entire industries.  In THIS case where people already have a low opinion of this kind of business anyway, it would be an easy sell and he would expect most people to not bother doing any real questioning of what is really going on here.   But let's not forget that Obama is the same guy who has surrounded himself with around a dozen former Goldman Sachs CEOs, COOs and CFOs, maybe more -including some who were still with Goldman Sachs during the time period when this supposed "crime" took place.  

As one cynic suggested, since what Goldman has really been charged with wasn't a crime at the time and the Obama administration is jammed pack full of Goldman Sachs bigwigs who still have financial interests with the company - it is far more likely this bogus charge was made as part of a deal.  Goldman Sachs ends up pleading guilty or more likely no contest in exchange for no further charges being filed against Goldman Sachs having to do with their REAL role, involving real crimes in the near global financial meltdown that started back in 2007.  If it doesn't get thrown out even before trial, it gets reversed on appeal because it wasn't a crime at the time anyway and these charge are never re-filed.  Obama can still use it as part of the justification for the kind of "regulations" that amounts to government takeover -and everyone is happy.  (Because we all saw what a great job government already did with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac we can all be assured of that same level of excellence from government.)  Including the people who only needed to hear that Goldman Sachs was charged, won't bother finding out it wasn't a crime at the time, won't pay attention when the charges are either thrown out or the outcome reversed on appeal -and will be forever satisfied as a result of the charge being filed in the first place without any regard to the ultimate outcome and without understanding the real bullet Goldman Sachs dodged with this bogus charge.    THIS charge has nothing to do with the near global financial meltdown whatsoever -and it is a fact that Goldman Sachs was a major player in that.  How much culpability it carries for that may never be known as a result of whatever backroom deal was made in exchange for filing this bogus charge that wasn't even a crime at the time it is alleged Goldman Sachs did this.

One of the biggest winners in that near meltdown -was Goldman Sachs, with government taking an active role in allowing Goldman's top competition to go under -and where listing Goldman Sachs as your previous employer made being picked up by the Obama administration a near certainty to become one of his top "advisers".   Something really, really stinks in this entire thing but the Chicago fix is in.   Which means it is a pretty safe bet that it is a really good deal for the power players in all this, but almost certainly really bad for everyone else.


----------



## Paulie (Apr 27, 2010)

When are some of you going to realize that the SEC didn't "miss" the fraudulent actions, but rather knowingly did nothing to stop them?


----------



## Cuyo (Apr 27, 2010)

Paulie said:


> When are some of you going to realize that the SEC didn't "miss" the fraudulent actions, but rather knowingly did nothing to stop them?



uhhh... Yeah, what do you guys think Hank Paulson did before he was Treasury Secretary?  The same Hank Paulson who proposed a 3/4 TRILLION bank handout with no oversight, and that actually excluded itself from judicial review?  Not the bill that passed; the 3 page bill that got shot down.

Anyone know?  Anyone know what Hank Paulson was, before he was Treasury Secretary?  

Please tell me you guys know.


----------



## Paulie (Apr 27, 2010)

Cuyo said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> > When are some of you going to realize that the SEC didn't "miss" the fraudulent actions, but rather knowingly did nothing to stop them?
> ...



Goldman's CEO.  But I'm a registered republican, so I don't care about that


----------



## Cuyo (Apr 27, 2010)

Paulie said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > Paulie said:
> ...



I _believe_ you that it doesn't bother you, and I believe that it's because you're a registered republican.  

And that's scary as shit.


----------



## Paulie (Apr 28, 2010)

Cuyo said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...


----------

