Is conservative ire at plug-in cars shifting (slowly) from the Chevrolet Volt to Fisker Automotive? A new attack ad targeting President Obama certainly brings the California-based automaker further into the political fight – following Fisker ex-chair's comments about Mitt Romney – by making insinuations that the DOE is spending money to create jobs in Finland. As regular readers know, this isn't true, even though there is a connection between Fisker and Finland because that's where Valmet builds the company's Karma model. The DOE did approve a $529-million loan to Fisker, but hasn't given the company all of the money and the money that was spent on the Karma was for engineering and design work done in the U.S., Fisker said.

Released Thursday, the ad conflates these facts, as you can see down below. The DOE responded charitably, saying critics "are misunderstanding the loan," instead of accusing them of playing politics. The ad, which looks at various cases of what it calls wasteful spending, was released by Americans for Prosperity (AFP), a conservative group that gets some funding from the Koch brothers.

According to Delaware Online, two Republican U.S. Senators – Chuck Grassley (IA) and John Thune (SD) – are picking up the attack baton, writing a letter to DOE Secretary Stephen Chu Friday asking him to defend the Fisker loan. They write, "Though the Department of Energy has now frozen the remaining portion of Fisker's loan, questions remain as to why a loan was extended to this now 'troubled' auto company in the first place." The DOE is looking into things on its own, announcing recently it would assign a loan consultant to the Fisker situation.



I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 70 Comments
      Grendal
      • 3 Years Ago
      Told you.
      islandboy
      • 3 Years Ago
      Not being a US citizen, feel free to ignore me but isn't this ad a little hypocritical? American jobs have been going overseas for at least two decades now under Obama, two terms of Bush Jr., two terms of Clinton and Bush Sr. before that. They have been going overseas because American corporations (mostly) have been using cheap foreign labor to achieve higher profits. As a result, American consumers are paying to send their own jobs to foreign countries. How about telling corporate America "money spent by American consumers should help American taxpayers (workers)"? I guess that would interfere with the rights of your "corporate persons" to make decisions in the best interests of their shareholders. Plus it's different when it's tax dollars benefiting overseas interest as opposed to private money if you know what I mean. We all know that those increased profits from off-shoring jobs trickle down to benefit the 99%. In addition you must never interfere withe the "free" market unless (insert your favorite excuse here).
      Maddoxx
      • 3 Years Ago
      It's disgusting when failing companies think they are entitled to taxpayer's money.
        Nick
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Maddoxx
        Like Enron, Merryll Lynch, Goldman Sachs and Bank of America? Agreed. Fisker isn't failing though, you haven't even given them a chance and declared them a "failure" from the on set...because it goes against your own agenda.
          Ford Future
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Nick
          Dont' forget the Whole US Fracking Industry, all phony Enron accounting.
      Bart
      • 3 Years Ago
      Great article in the latest issue of Esquire about how extreme and psychotic the Republican party has become.
        mylexicon
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Bart
        The party out of power is always psychotic. Look at what Obama promised if he became president. Sounds like a boy describing a wet dream. None of it has come to pass, which is tragic b/c we actually had the know how to put this recession to bed in 18-24 months. It's going on 4 years, and we don't really have an end to the budget deficits in sight. I'm not against liberalism, if I were, I wouldn't waste time on a green message board, but this is what happens when socialists lose the plot. Deficit spending is implicitly compassionate or equitable b/c they money is coming from future wealthy, theoretically it should come from near future wealthy, but we haven't paid down our debt in decades. The 111th Congress and President Obama needed to get work 24/7 on the economy. They needed to make sure the last of our stash was spent on important development for the future. If they had done it, the Democratic Party would have demonstrated competence, and they would have consolidated a huge power base. Instead, liberals followed the sirens song of universal healthcare, they got pummeled in the 2010 mid terms, and now they face the possibility of losing the whole shabangabang. During the Great Depression, FDR managed to be elected 4 times. Rules no longer permit, but Obama should have been a two-term shoo-in. Instead, aging liberal hippies with a losers-mentality panicked, and rammed through a bad healthcare bill, which was written by lobbyists. Partisanship reigns supreme, the opposite of what is expected during an economic collapse.
          EVnerdGene
          • 3 Years Ago
          @mylexicon
          Whoa. That's the best overview of this administration I've ever heard. One thing definitely missing in trying to get this country back on track is: CUT CUT CUT. and instead we give loans for rich boy toys after high-5's at the whitehouse. Nero fiddled while Rome burned.
        Edge
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Bart
        As well all know, with the American deficit, the US government has unlimited funds for the rich and their toys. To me that beyond extreme and psychotic, it's insane. The only car companies that deserve these funds, are Nissan and Ford so far.
        kitman3
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Bart
        Republicans are extreme I think not. Obama claims he saved GM what a joke. All he accomplished was to give 17% of the company to the unions and screwing the bond holders. Why should the tax payers have to subsidize any car especially one with a 27 year pay back. If you take the $7,500 subsidy and add in the billions GM still owes the tax payers I reckon each Volt costs about $250k. That is really smart economics considering the country is broke. Let's also not forget the Solyndra wasted millions the recent ENER1 going under more millions gone and at least ten other so-called "green" companies that have failed or are failing and you call Republicans extreme. Republicans believe in a free market not the government to pick the winners and losers. And so far the government track record is miserable. What's really extreme is the progressive media's failure to tell the truth about Obama and his pathetic miserable record. Esquire is nothing more than a shill for this administration.
          islandboy
          • 3 Years Ago
          @kitman3
          Again at the risk of interfering in the politics os somebody else's country I'd like offer some observations, specifically to kitman3. Obama won in 2008 because the opposing ticket was lame. My sister lives in the UK and told me that the general consensus of the man in the street there was that, America would have to be crazy to elect McCain or more specifically Pailin. I suspect that was the view in most of the world. What was McCain thinking? Obama is likely to win again this year based on what I have seen of his opposition so far. Obama may sound fanciful and dreamy to the point of being childlike but, his opposition just sounds bat$#!t crazy with some of the stuff that escapes their lips. Trust me, step outside of your borders and take a look from the outside. The Republican candidates do not look good, more like candidates for a term in an asylum than the Whitehouse. Obama on the other hand, at least appears to live on the same planet as the rest of us.
          • 3 Years Ago
          @kitman3
          If republicans believe in a free market, why don't they practice it? They love to give subsidies to oil and support the dirtiest of the industries. They have interventionist policies. Why do you conveniently forget the ATVM loans and the bank bailouts were done under a republican administration? I call BS on you, all over.
          Edge
          • 3 Years Ago
          @kitman3
          > Esquire is nothing more than a shill for this administration. It's like asking Fox news to give a fair assessment of the Obama administration. Who cares what Esquire has to say.
      • 3 Years Ago
      I see the GOP is trying to sink Fisker before the elections. However they won't be able to. Fisker is selling cars and they raised quite a bit of money. After a shaky start the car seems to perform somewhat better (see fiskerbuzz blog and Fisker Facebook page). With the market expanding to the MENA they will be able to sell quite a bit more cars this year. I am sure they will survive the next 7 months... I hope the Obama administration (ie. DOE) grows a pair and tells the GOP to f off. Fisker gets its loan and builds the Atlantic in Delaware. Or Fisker pays the DOE loan, the DOE declares victory, Fisker declares victory and they build the Atlantic...who knows where. Still for a start-up the low cost loan would help. However doing away with the politics would also be good. But come to think of it...would the GOP attacks really stop if the DOE loan gets repaid? I mean they straight out lie about the Volt, why wouldn't they lie about Fisker. I think the best way to hit back for all of the green companies is to be successful. The country does need alternatives to oil, a minority should not be allowed to ruin our chances now.
        • 2 Years Ago
        Are you sure you aren't really Butthead? The problem with a liberal is that they have no logic and lack reasoning skills. Let's take some basic facts. The DOE loan was supposed to be $529,000,000. The Fisker sells for about $100,000. Auto manufacturers have about 10% profit in a new car. If Fisker gave back every cent of profit for every car build, then just to repay the loan, Fisker would have to sell 52,900 cars. There is no market for 52,900 electric cars that cost $100,000 EACH! This is simple math folks.
        mylexicon
        • 3 Years Ago
        I hope Fisker make it through b/c the prospect of high-tech American luxury brands can't really be construed as a bad thing. Cadillac certainly are delivering the Volt variants (Converj) they promised or any ULC-like production vehicles. Fisker are also much further along than other companies who apply for funding, and they have established car people working on the inside. However, you've got to see the other side argument. Government making loans to politically connected people, then using demand subsidies at state and federal level to create a market for the companies who have outstanding loans. After burning through $50M dollars in taxpayer money, and loaning out taxpayer funds to high-risk companies at below market interest rates, politicians declare they have created a company and government is good. The car industry happens to be a corrupt oligopoly, imo, so the goodness of their argument may not be much of a stretch, but it is a bad karma (get it?) to proliferate the idea that companies are built with subprime government loans and taxpayer demand subsidies. The government is supposed to be addressing market failure, not nurturing businesses from cradle to grave with startup capital, demand subsidies, and bailouts.
          mylexicon
          • 3 Years Ago
          @mylexicon
          I'm not confused. I don't live the over-simplified political world in which you live, until I have to go to the ballot boxes. People in the know are searching for pareto efficiencies. Some believe that entrenched KH business efficiency is the biggest impediment to improvement (real Democrats). Some of believe that zero-sum socialist demagoguery is the biggest impediment to change (real Republicans). These people are debating the relative merits of maximax and minimin strategies, imo. Maximax and minimin are cooperative strategies, hence socialism and capitalism, when pointed in the right direction, are complementary opposites. The current political arrangement is fighting over worst-case pessimism, maximin or minimax. These strategies are not cooperative, hence the toxic, irreconcilable political atmosphere in DC. In high uncertainty, maximin and minimax tend to lead to very conservative policy (not politically), like bailing out bunk auto manufacturers who have simultaneously embraced politically conservative oil wasting and politically liberal employee collective-bargaining extortion. Was I against the bailouts? No. Why? b/c the current political environment makes maximax or minimin nearly impossible, thanks to the climate of pessimism within the populace (since 2003-ish). Was I against the way the Obama administration solved one problem, but not the other? Yes. Am I against intervention? No. Why? b/c venture capital has many failures, as does the auto upstart industry. Am I against the current policies regarding loan volume and interest rates? More or less. Am I against giving $500M to a company run by a designer? Yes. Am I weary of giving another $500M to a company run by an ex-Chrysler executive? A bit. To intervene or not to intervene? Who cares? The goal is the same. Sometimes intervention is necessary, sometimes it isn't.
          Marco Polo
          • 3 Years Ago
          @mylexicon
          @ mylexicon Good grief, if even you don't know what you mean, how is anyone else to understand ?
          mylexicon
          • 3 Years Ago
          @mylexicon
          A mortgage is a mortgage. Subprime refers to prime interest rates. Do you even know what prime interest rate is? Do you know what makes the prime rate? I don't understand what kind of person would tell someone the definition of prime without knowing what prime rate is or how it applies to investment instruments and loans. Furthermore, you don't even understand basic economic theory and the government's role to address market failure. You probably don't even know what a market failure is, do you? Why would I alter my posts to cater to the uneducated, who also appear to have no interest in learning new things? I'm not whinging about anything. Business are supposed to produce for the people. If the government is sloppy, reckless, or indifferent, vital startup companies become bureaucratic pet projects.
          Marco Polo
          • 3 Years Ago
          @mylexicon
          @ mylexicon, Yeah, I understand the prime lending rate. But evidently you can't understand the context of fully secured loans ( mortgages etc) and Venture capital lending. Nothing in your confused post is new, but it's evident you have learned some jargon without understanding the context which gives it meaning. Your vague phrases, like " Businesses are supposed to produce for the people" , are nonsense. Your confusion seems to stem from a blend of two different economic theories. Business has no moral or economic obligation to "produce for 'the' people"! The government may have an obligation to 'the' people, but business limits it's obligation to the 'the people' to it's tax contribution! Governments can either address market failure by ignoring it and hope it will repair itself, or actively intervene with incentives and the provision of Loan guarantees, and a range of other economic policies. What governments can't do, is what you claim, intervene without intervening!
          Marco Polo
          • 3 Years Ago
          @mylexicon
          @mylexicon Do you ever just sit an think through what you write? Sub-prime loans, are mortgage instruments, nothing to do with Venture capital guarantees. Oligarchies depicts family or small entrenched elites, with the exception of Ford and possibly Toyota, most Automakers are large public corporation with ten of thousands of shareholders. " Governments, are supposed to be addressing market failure, not nurturing businesses..." That doesn't even make sense! Think clearly about what you write and you won't sound like just an inane hate filled, whinger! .
          mylexicon
          • 3 Years Ago
          @mylexicon
          Then you have exposed yourself as knowing little to nothing about the automobile market or oligopoly. High barriers to entry. Interdependence markets, interdependent investment, and mergers. Patent-sharing and licensing across firms. Price homogenization. Homogenous products and market segments. 50% of the US market controlled by GM, Ford, and Toyota. Before the bailout, when gasoline was cheap, GM and Ford had almost 50% of the market. Small numbers of suppliers in various segments. Two kinds of oligopoly: homogenized and differentiated. The automobile market is moving from a stable homogenized market back to a differentiated market with the rise of consumer electronics and fuel saving technologies. Same thing happened in telecom. Stable oligopoly. Went wireless differentiation. Now it evolves as rapidly as the phone tech. Still an oligopoly. Decent people and thieves both compete with one another. Look at the pricing strategies of major auto manufacturers. Look at the credit strategies of major auto manufacturers. Look at the results, and the legislative response to the results (bailout). Auto companies are endemically corrupt, with an occasional glimmer of decency. In other industries, companies have been taken to the woodshed for similar strategies.
          Marco Polo
          • 3 Years Ago
          @mylexicon
          @ mylexicon I was being kind, I assumed that your comment couldn't be so ridiculous as the claim the " The car industry happens to be a corrupt oligopoly," . Such a remark makes no sense when there are over 60 major automobile manufactures, 300 or so smaller manufacturers and 1200 specialist manufactures. That doesn't include diverse models and brands built by the same makers. Nearly 75 million passenger vehicles are produced each year. The term Oligopoly, is defined as "a market dominated by a few producers, each of which has control over the market." This would hardly describe the fiercely contested Automobile market ! Like I say, your post are confusing, I'm sure you know what you mean, but judging from your audience reaction, something is being lost in the translation.
          mylexicon
          • 3 Years Ago
          @mylexicon
          This was a dumb conversation from the start. You made a weird comment about prime interest rates, and you confused oligopoly and oligarchy. It was pointless of me to stray into decision theory and political game theory. I railed against a specific combination of economic policies, a tiny sample of the policy tools available to address market failure. Yet, you insist that I want to intervene without intervening. This is conversation is roughly as intelligent as the following scenario: mylexicon: I don't like food dishes that mix tomatoes, eggplant, and fennel. Marco Polo: How can someone claim to like food if they don't eat dishes with tomatoes, eggplant, and fennel mixed together? Gee, let me waste some more of my time trying to decode this stupefying rebuttal.
        Marco Polo
        • 3 Years Ago
        @ Bevis "a minority should not be allowed to ruin our chances now". If it's a minority, you have nothing to fear ! If it becomes a majority, you must accept the result until you can persuade the majority to agree ! The weakness of GOP policy, is they are not really trying to sink Fisker, GM, etc..(support was once GOP policy) . The GOP is trying to sink the Obama presidency. This is difficult because they lack a popular candidate, and can only offer confused, ineffective policies. The rest is just the usual hoo-ha of politics.
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Marco Polo
          Common mistake. The GOP is not trying to sink Obama, they and the pluocrats luv the guy. What they are doing is fielding a bunch of circus clown candidates who they know won't win the election, while using culture wars to keep their base from noticing Obama isn't so different from a typical 90s republican.
      Gabbo
      • 3 Years Ago
      You liberals can explain to us why these vehicles are being built in FInland, and not Delaware ? Isn't that what the taxpayer dollars were for ... to subsidize them being built in the US ? Can you say "Solyndra" ?
        Spec
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Gabbo
        Can you explain why you get tricked so easily Gabbo? The Karma was NEVER intended to be built in Delaware. The loans were explicitly for the development and manufacture of the follow-on model code-named 'Nina' and now named 'Atlantic'. Fisker got less than $200M which paid for development work all done in the USA. However, Fisker has missed milestones and the loan is currently suspended. Now . . . will you get mad at the new source that fed you this misleading information and abandon them? No, you'll just go back to it like a dog returning to eat up its vomit.
          Ford Future
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Spec
          Limbaugh told him it wasn't true, drug addict Limbaugh never wrong, Limbaugh God.
          design eye
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Spec
          @ Spec thank you for brightening up my day!
        Actionable Mango
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Gabbo
        The Karma is an existing model. The US Federal loan is to make future models in the USA. A more valid complaint is the electric car rebate for which we are subsidizing rich people when they buy their $100,000 cars.
          Ford Future
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Actionable Mango
          Gabbo Knows the Fed Loans are for the future model. He's been here before. Yet, that doesn't stop him from shooting his Fox Fiction, like he knows something.
        brotherkenny4
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Gabbo
        Delusions are wonderful things aren't they. How wonderful too for the GOP to have a base that is in no need of factual input. Big brother would be proud.
          Ford Future
          • 3 Years Ago
          @brotherkenny4
          The only thing wrong with 1984 is Orwell didn't see what profound bs "Capitalists" could produce.
        Dan Frederiksen
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Gabbo
        can you say ignorant
          Gabbo
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Dan Frederiksen
          @Dan F : Can you say "bah, bah" , sheep ?
      JonathanBond
      • 3 Years Ago
      just bought a chevy volt last month. never put gas in it since i bought it
      Grendal
      • 3 Years Ago
      This is the first of many such attack ads.
        Grendal
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Grendal
        Okay. A little research into the $1.2 Billion going to the solar power company is actually a loan to NRG solar. They were given a loan by the DOE to buy a solar power farm in San Luis Obispo, California from SunPower. SunPower is building a manufacturing plant in Mexico, near the border, to import panels into the US. The NRG farm would hire and employ 350 people in the US. So, in a roundabout way, it's sort of true. Just like the Fisker statement - sort of true.
      2 Wheeled Menace
      • 3 Years Ago
      The oil party strikes again.
      HVH20
      • 3 Years Ago
      I can't believe they called Fisker and electric car company, Its a plug-in serial hybrid! Can't believe the level of ignorance and misinformation. - Lol But really, I hate politics, its like watching the special olympics of propaganda and crap.
        Marco Polo
        • 3 Years Ago
        @HVH20
        HVV20 I cant believe you persist annoyingly with your instance on only your terminology being correct ! No one cares, except a few anally retentive, anorak glad, posters on the internet, Those who know, already know, those who don't, either don't agree, or just don't care! Ev technology comes in all shades, mild-Hybrid, Hybrid, Plug-in Hybrid, EREV, EV and several other designations. To the general public the last three are all electric cars. Get over it !
          Marco Polo
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Marco Polo
          @HVH20, The US political system has some weaknesses and some strengths. Constitutional monarchies, non executive parliamentary republics, are in some ways a better model of government. But they all require people who will step forward from their private lives to dedicate themselves to the abuse, danger and expense of public life. The people get the leaders they deserve! A small businessman in the US can earn more than the President ! In a nation where only 40% of people bother to vote, who's responsible if you wind up with a lacklustre candidate ?.
          HVH20
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Marco Polo
          That was a ridiculous sarcastic comment about vehicle terminology, and albeit its at least true, I was also poking fun at how ridiculous those political ads are. They are riddled with misinformation, agenda (obviously), and unnecessary hate towards another person. Sorry you missed that humor. What ever happened to elementary school elections? Who are you and why are you the best person for the job? Instead its this showcase of crap that tries to polarize the country into extreme left or extreme right wing and pit them against each other. Honestly I don't like any of the candidates, the systems is so full corruption that in order to get as far as a presidential candidates you must be playing the game with everyone else and be "good" at it.
      Richard Carnes
      • 3 Years Ago
      After three months I finally filled the gas tank in my Fisker for the first time. 7 gallons. Over 1300 miles. BItch and moan all you want about DOE loans. Complain to your hearts content about all the (mis)information being spewed by those wishing to politicize a car company. I will just continue to enjoy driving the coolest car I've ever had the pleasure to own...
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Richard Carnes
        WOW 1300 miles and only 7 gallons of gas. That is amazing. $100,000 for the car. 1300 miles driven. That costs $76.92 per mile driven.... oh yeah, plus the 7 gallons of gas.
      Marco Polo
      • 3 Years Ago
      Mitt Romney has nothing to do with the conduct of Fiskers Loan. Nor should he ! If the DoE was influenced in dealing with a loan recipient by supporters of a candidate for political office, or acted because the administration has become spooked at it's perceived economic vulnerability, and changed loan processing policy to Fiskers detriment, then it's a serious issue of Civil Service corruption and should be investigated. If the decision to appoint of an outside 'consultant' was to shield the government or DoE from adverse criticism,then that constitutes bad faith and unconscionable conduct by the DoE. "IF' (and its a big IF) that's shown to be the case, then the blame lies with the DoE and the administration, not Romney. Let's face it, in this election, the Republicans have very little opportunity to gain ground against a relatively secure President seeking a second term. The GOP has a somewhat lustreless candidate with limited appeal and not much in the way of policies. But the one area the Obama administration is vulnerable is the economy. Fisker's loan is a good issue to attack the administration. Government loans are resented by a significant percentage of the US population. It doesn't matter if the ad's inaccurate and appeals to peoples worst instincts. That's been a part of US political campaigning since George Washington left office ! The left will in turn attack Mitt Romney for being rich, Mormon, or other irrelevant issues. The democratic process is not perfect, and most attempts to make it 'fairer' end up failures. It is, what it is, citizens must just trust their fellow citizens intelligence and nose for hypocrisy. But, these sort of ads have a bad habit of rebounding, and almost alway detract from a candidates campaign, by showing signs of desperation.
        Letstakeawalk
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Marco Polo
        "If the DoE was influenced in dealing with a loan recipient by supporters of a candidate for political office, or acted because the administration has become spooked at it's perceived economic vulnerability, and changed loan processing policy to Fiskers detriment, then it's a serious issue of Civil Service corruption and should be investigated. If the decision to appoint of an outside 'consultant' was to shield the government or DoE from adverse criticism,then that constitutes bad faith and unconscionable conduct by the DoE. "IF' (and its a big IF) that's shown to be the case, then the blame lies with the DoE and the administration, not Romney. " I agree. I think the irony is that the obvious attack on Fisker is from those complaining about the handling of the AVTM Loan program, but that such criticism would be harmless *unless* there is also a similar voice inside the DoE that would prefer to avoid such criticism by simply cutting off all funding to any potentially "risky" enterprise. The AVTM Program is meant to support those "risky" endeavors that otherwise wouldn't have been pursued by traditional automakers. The DoE is showing great political and administrative weakness by not acting decisively and actively explaining their decisions to either disburse or withdraw Loan funds. Since the DoE is currently staffed through the will of the Obama Administration, their indecision and delay reflects upon the President's willingness to stand behind the AVTM Loan program and defend it against the "conservative" criticism. Obama will be forced to defend the DoE's actions in administering the AVTM Loan Program.
          Marco Polo
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Letstakeawalk
          @ LTW. Exactly, LTW, the real danger is for the DoE to display weakness, or hesitancy. This will give the impression that the DoE programs were not valid and valuable economic polices in the national interest but simply expensive political stunts by the Obama administration to be popular at the expense of the economy. It's a clever political move by the GOP strategists. It forces Obama to defend policies that are poorly understood, and contain are lot of confused prejudice from left and right. The GOP has nothing to lose! If the strategy fails, well they weren't going to win anyway, but there's always a chance that someone in the DoE will panic, and a scandal can be beaten up just long enough for the campaign. Fiskers Ex-Chairman, has already aided the Romney campaign by erroneously blaming Romney, thereby giving Romney an aura of power he simply doesn't possess. It's and old, but true saying, "Oppositions don't 'win' elections, Governments lose elections".
    • Load More Comments
    Share This Photo X