The 2012 "Election" thread

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: i used to be among the crowd you're in with

Postby 8bitagent » Tue Oct 30, 2012 12:55 pm

IanEye wrote:

8bit, when you go on and on about how awful Obama is for executing his drone policy, and then turn around and say how "exciting" it would be to see Romney don a Reagan mask, well, that's the part of you that needs to shut the fuck up.



I guess the sarcasm was lost. Joss Whedon wasn't advocating Romney either. He was saying "boy, if you want the zombie apocalypse, vote Romney". I think it comes down to social policy. Economically I don't see much difference. But when it comes to the perception of civil rights in America, it's Zomney who represents a rollback of tolerance. And ultimately that's what it comes down to. Obama could slaughter village after village every day, but understandably for people concerned about basic liberties they know they can't allow Romney to win.
"Do you know who I am? I am the arm, and I sound like this..."-man from another place, twin peaks fire walk with me
User avatar
8bitagent
 
Posts: 12244
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The 2012 "Election" thread

Postby 8bitagent » Tue Oct 30, 2012 1:02 pm

82_28 wrote:Jesus H fucking Christ. It's come to this? Really? Really?

There is precisely nothing stupid about 8bit's comment. It's what he said. He said it. You can obviously tell he's not "stupid". I really don't like this witch hunting in the sense you just may, you very well may be hurting someone's feelings. I don't play sides here at all and while I have been known to speak my mind and have gotten into trouble sometimes, 8bit is a member as far as I am concerned in good standing. Like my opinion means anything, it means something to me and I think all of y'all need to focus on being more civil.

And in all honesty, I do not get it. Do you curse water for coming out of a faucet you turned on?

Again, Jesus H fucking Christ.



I understand emotions are high, and that it's serious biz in the mind of many people for this election. I had just watched the rather brilliant(in my view) Joss Whedon spoof endorsement and it got me thinking: If you want to see the Watchmen/Dark Knight Returns/V For Vendetta/Robocop/William Gibson-esque future, the one promised us in geek filled 80's poptainment...Romney is your man. Romney totally seems like a political creature from Heavy Metal magazine, Or if you're a younger kid, "the zombie apocalypse".

I was also spoofing how right wingers have this idea of a "glorious Ronald Reagan golden age"...

Clearly, as this rather good new music video highlights, Reagan's reign was anything but golden or some rose colored beacon of wonderment


All I was saying is that Romney reminds me of a Reagan cartoon in some ways, with a dash of Dubya. And that if you wanna see the crime ridden chaotic twilight zone wasteland we were promised in the 80's, Rombie is your man!
"Do you know who I am? I am the arm, and I sound like this..."-man from another place, twin peaks fire walk with me
User avatar
8bitagent
 
Posts: 12244
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The 2012 "Election" thread

Postby Project Willow » Tue Oct 30, 2012 1:39 pm

Iamwhomiam wrote:Jesus, Willow, what's up with you, jumping all over my shit like that? I called for Peace between posters; to respect each other while knowing our life experiences are different and that their choice to vote or not was the right choice for them.

You decided to take issue with my comment and afterward with my rationale. I don't have your eyes or experience and mine is very different from what you've shared of yours with me and others on this board. I tried my best to explain my reasoning and I am truly sorry that my doing so upset you further.


I'm not upset, and I'm sorry if it seems that way. I was just being my opinionated self and I had thought, rather calmly, explaining my position, but it's the internet, you can't see me talking. :wave:

I'd be happy to speak with your friend.
User avatar
Project Willow
 
Posts: 4798
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 9:37 pm
Location: Seattle
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: The 2012 "Election" thread

Postby ninakat » Tue Oct 30, 2012 1:52 pm

Thanks for those explanations, 8bit. I didn't need them though because I know and respect where you're coming from, and part of the point you were making is one Norm Pollack and people here have made -- that with a Romney presidency, the left might come together to fight the good fight again. These heated arguments between us liberals/progressives here at RI are a testament to just how successful Obama has been at shattering the left into warring factions with confusion about who the real enemy is. Sad but true. I'm sure someone will emphatically disagree with me though. :tongout
User avatar
ninakat
 
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 1:38 pm
Location: "Nothing he's got he really needs."
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The 2012 "Election" thread

Postby ninakat » Tue Oct 30, 2012 1:56 pm

Apocalyptoween
By James Howard Kunstler
on October 29, 2012 9:33 AM

With little to do while waiting for something possibly very bad to happen people tend to get jokey. That was how I felt about the election until Hurricane Sandy came along. For one thing, I happened to travel (by car - how else?) last week from Bennington through Brattleboro, Vermont, and down into a de-industrialized corner of northwestern Massachusetts. There were at least three major highway bridge re-construction projects (and many lesser ones) still underway along the route from last year's Hurricane Irene, which devastated Vermont. There's a fair chance that Vermont will get whacked again, undoing a billion dollars of work along the same mountain river roads. How demoralizing will that be? And where does the local share of the money come from?

I remember, too, being in Wilkes-Barre, in Eastern Pennsylvania just a few years ago and seeing that the city never actually recovered from floods induced by Hurricane Agnes in 1972, which coincided with the beginning of the end of the local coal industry. The downtown was functionally dead, with a zombie overlay of social services, wig shops, and street people conversing with themselves. It appears that Hurricane Sandy is going to rip through the same region again, then curl east into my part of upstate New York and finally slog into the same new England states that got bashed last year.

Then, of course, there is the question of what happens to New York City in the next 48 hours, a potential enormity too vast to quantify from here (not to mention Washington DC, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Wilmington, and the toxic waste dump formerly known as New Jersey).

My own main worry, sitting here in comfort, in a well-lighted room, is how widespread the electric power outages might be and how long might they last -- conceivably even through the election. Surely, Mr. Obama is pacing nervously now in some deep underground White House command center, worrying about what might be required if there is no electricity to run the voting machines across the nation's most populous region, or if many hundreds of thousands of voters get stranded at home by broken bridges and washed-out roads, or how many votes his government might lose if the juice stays on but he can't relieve the anticipated misery fast enough... with the idiot Romney kibitzing from the sideline.

I don't know if the US can take that kind of disruption and come out the other side the same way it went in. The systems that keep us going are already in trouble, some of them already teetering, like the airline industry, which can barely keep going with jet fuel clocking at 40 percent of its operating costs due to $90-a-barrel oil. The political system itself is more fragile than we might suppose, despite the seemingly despotic reach of surveillance, the size of the government payroll, and the amazing complacency of the sports-and-fructose-saturated public. Few believe in the two major parties, or what they pretend to stand for, including many officers and foot-soldiers in those parties. If the system finds itself unable to hold an election on the day specified by the constitution, what happens then? Another trip to the Supreme Court. Uh-oh....

Anyway, Hurricane Sandy and all it portends this Monday morning is a nice distraction from all the other things un-winding, tottering, and fracturing in so many advanced nations. Promises of massive (and improbable) bailouts have kept the financial meltdown of Europe a few degrees below critical mass for a couple of months, but the thermometer is inching upward with the ominous Catalan regional election in Spain tipping well toward the secessionists, and Greece whirling around the economic drain, with all of its previous bail-out money merely yo-yoing back to the client banks of the "troika" that arranged the bail-outs, and countries like Italy, Portugal, and Ireland whistling past the graveyard beyond the news media's peripheral vision. And then there is China with its government transition hugger-mugger, its empty make-work cities, its crony banking system unaccountable to anyone, and its extremely modest reserves of its own oil to run the whole hastily constructed shootin' match. They have been working earnestly in plain sight - off the news media's radar screen - to construct a resource extraction empire in Africa, but then they will be stuck with the job of defending 12,000 mile supply lines. Good luck with that.

Finally, there is the nauseating spectacle of the presidential election itself, with two creatures of corporate capture pretending to represent the interests of some hypothetical majority who wish to remain the slaves of WalMart and Goldman Sachs. If Hurricane Sandy causes such massive disruption as to interfere with the election, perhaps that will be a good thing - a sudden, unavoidable re-thinking of our ossified institutional customs, and a thrust into the emergent history of the future.
User avatar
ninakat
 
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 1:38 pm
Location: "Nothing he's got he really needs."
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The 2012 "Election" thread

Postby barracuda » Tue Oct 30, 2012 2:10 pm

ninakat wrote:These heated arguments between us liberals/progressives here at RI are a testament to just how successful Obama has been at shattering the left into warring factions with confusion about who the real enemy is. Sad but true. I'm sure someone will emphatically disagree with me though. :tongout


I semi-emphatically disagree. I seem to recall more than a few heated and bitchy arguments between the liberals/progressives on this forum long before anyone really knew diddly about Barwhack Obama. It is hardly fitting or fair to describe the cattiness and acrimony of political discussions on a website in which people earnestly debate whether or not satanic octopuses control the world as resulting from the successfully divisive strategies of the president of the United States.
User avatar
barracuda
 
Posts: 12890
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 5:58 pm
Location: Niles, California
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The 2012 "Election" thread

Postby brainpanhandler » Tue Oct 30, 2012 2:25 pm

barracuda wrote:
ninakat wrote:These heated arguments between us liberals/progressives here at RI are a testament to just how successful Obama has been at shattering the left into warring factions with confusion about who the real enemy is. Sad but true. I'm sure someone will emphatically disagree with me though. :tongout


I semi-emphatically disagree. I seem to recall more than a few heated and bitchy arguments between the liberals/progressives on this forum long before anyone really knew diddly about Barwhack Obama. It is hardly fitting or fair to describe the cattiness and acrimony of political discussions on a website in which people earnestly debate whether or not satanic octopuses control the world as resulting from the successfully divisive strategies of the president of the United States.


You beat me to it.
"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." - Martin Luther King Jr.
User avatar
brainpanhandler
 
Posts: 5114
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 9:38 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The 2012 "Election" thread

Postby ninakat » Tue Oct 30, 2012 2:27 pm

Yeah, I know what you're saying cuda. But has there been as divisive a "progressive" "leader" as Obama? I don't recall this kind of division in the Clinton years. Back then, it seems more of us played along with the partisan bickering and defended Clinton. Maybe nothing has changed though, except my own clear vision. (as if)
User avatar
ninakat
 
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 1:38 pm
Location: "Nothing he's got he really needs."
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The 2012 "Election" thread

Postby Rory » Tue Oct 30, 2012 2:32 pm

ninakat wrote:Thanks for those explanations, 8bit. I didn't need them though because I know and respect where you're coming from, and part of the point you were making is one Norm Pollack and people here have made -- that with a Romney presidency, the left might come together to fight the good fight again. These heated arguments between us liberals/progressives here at RI are a testament to just how successful Obama has been at shattering the left into warring factions with confusion about who the real enemy is. Sad but true. I'm sure someone will emphatically disagree with me though. :tongout



I'm not going to disagree with you, but I think you are wrong (an example of holding contradictory opinions).

Obama has not shattered the left. The 'left' is as diverse a group as 'male' or female' or 'the right'. People are are arguing on the left (and correspondingly, seem more united on the right) because of the current government status quo. (Also, see Christie for an example of Republican going off party script to thank Obama for disaster relief, despite Romney saying it should not be the preserve of the federal government). The left is arguing because it always has, and always will - people will argue until we get the hive mind upgrade :tongout

The idea that 'people will be more united under a Republican presidency' is inaccurate. Yes, to some degree or other, they will be more unified in the sheer horror that a Romney presidency would entail. They will be more concerted efforts to fight for basic rights: Things the left kind of take for granted now, like environmental laws, civil and social rights, etc.. (which Barracuda referenced above) will become battlegrounds again. There will be a distraction from tackling real issues (such as the MIC led policies of bombing brown babies). Yes, the left will be unified, but fighting battles thought already to be 'won'.

It is a false and vain hope that there will be a more conducive atmosphere towards progressive political change.

My analogy would be:

Obama's presidency represents having a stable home life from which to attempt to sustain, educate, nurture and grow.

Compared to Romney's broken home where day to day survival supersedes all other concerns.

I think your heart is in the right place - I think that much of what you say is right and true, but don't be stubborn: Appreciate that Romney will be worse in every way. If not for any other thing - The ogallala aquifer. The KeyStone pipeline will leak. This is as certain as southern states repealing pro women, pro minority equality legislation (when Romney devolves these powers to them).

When the oil seeps into the ground, it is nigh on impossible to ever get it back out. http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/en ... ation.html.

People will die, and for decades into the future as a result of this one policy. Not to mention that he will push more funding into nuclear, frakking/gas and other hydrocarbon energy policies.

Vote with your heart, don't let anyone push you around, think it is all a shame, etc.. but don't pretend that Romney represents a better alternative. There in madness lies.
Rory
 
Posts: 1596
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 2:08 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The 2012 "Election" thread

Postby JackRiddler » Tue Oct 30, 2012 2:56 pm

ninakat's fallacy about the salutory effects of Republican admins on "the left" doesn't get any better for being repeated 38 times while ignoring the refutations. It requires a kind of amnesia about what actually happens during Republican restorations. Soon as they come to power, they stop faking to the center and take the imperial agenda into overdrive. They understand shock and awe. They roll out initiatives on every front. They start big new wars. They bully the pliant Democrats into compliance with commie-traitor talk. They get EVERYTHING they want for a minimum of two years -- six, in Bush's case, with Social Security as the sole exception.

In Bush Jr's case, the left movement, which had been strong around 2000, DISAPPEARED for almost two years. After all, the majority of Americans (close enough) had spoken. That will also be the first effect of a Romney victory.

When "the left" returned, it was indeed united, but what did it do? After failing in a valiant effort to stop the Iraq war, it focused pretty much exclusively on the electoral politics of attempting to remove Bush. A "real" left movement didn't appear again until we had Obama! And it happened because the Democrats were in power, and exposing themselves as corporate tools. Bringing back the Republicans puts the D's back in opposition and starts the two-party cycle over again. The only way out is for the GOP to die first.

There's a special irony in anti-voters complaining about how elections split the left and then rooting for a Republican president to "unite it," but ignoring that (inevitably) this "unity" will be behind the next Democrat who will promise to "take back America."

.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The 2012 "Election" thread

Postby Project Willow » Tue Oct 30, 2012 3:26 pm

JackRiddler wrote:In Bush Jr's case, the left movement, which had been strong around 2000, DISAPPEARED for almost two years. After all, the majority of Americans (close enough) had spoken. That will also be the first effect of a Romney victory.
.


It was 9/11 that did that, and if you think a similar catastrophe or false flag op is impossible under Obama, then you're mistaken. And if you think Obama's attacks on civil liberties haven't had a chilling effect on activists, then again, you're mistaken.

Anyway, glad you made it through the big storm, JR.
User avatar
Project Willow
 
Posts: 4798
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 9:37 pm
Location: Seattle
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: The 2012 "Election" thread

Postby ninakat » Tue Oct 30, 2012 4:17 pm

Published on Tuesday, October 30, 2012 by Naked Capitalism
The Great Betrayal – and the Cynicism of Calling it a Grand Bargain
by William K. Black

Robert Kuttner has written much of the column I intended to write on this subject, so I will point you to his excellent column and add a few thoughts.

Kuttner wrote to warn that Obama intends to seek a "grand bargain" causing the U.S. to adopt the type of austerity program that threw the Eurozone back into a gratuitous recession.

Worse, Obama intends to begin to unravel the safety net (Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid) to convince the Republicans to enter into this Faustian bargain. Just as only a conservative Republican could visit "Red" China, only a Democrat can begin the destruction of the safety net. The difference, of course, is that normalizing relations with China was a good thing while unraveling the safety net is a terrible thing.

Wall Street's greatest desire is privatizing Social Security. Wall Street stands to make scores of billions of dollars annually in additional fees should it ever buy enough politicians to privatize Social Security. The Republican Party's greatest goal is unraveling the safety net. They always wish to attack the most successful and popular programs introduced by the Democratic Party. Their problem is that they know it is toxic for Republican candidates to try to destroy the safety net. Only Democrats, through a "Great Betrayal" can give Republicans the political cover they need to unravel the safety net.

The safety net is so popular with the American people because it consists of superb programs that constantly put the lie to Republican memes that the government is incapable of success. There is no need to allow Social Security to "go bankrupt." The necessary expenditures can easily be made by the Treasury.

There is a need to contain the rise in medical costs, but we know how to do that without harming health outcomes. Most advanced nations attain the same health outcomes at half the expense (relative to GDP) of the U.S. Obama's opposition to the "public mandate" was a grave mistake that needs to be reversed.

Because unraveling the safety net is unnecessary, harmful, and politically insane for a Democrat and politically suicidal for Republicans, the proponents of these terrible policies have long failed in their efforts. Republicans, however, have now found a fifth column within the Democratic Party who they hope will open the door to attacking the safety net. This would provide the political cover that Republicans could use to unravel fully the safety net.

The Republican Party's approach to convincing Obama to commit the Great Betrayal cleverly exploits three human weaknesses. First, Obama wants to be considered a "centrist." Second, Obama yearns to be considered "bipartisan." These first two weaknesses are forms of vanity.

The siren song is "do this and you will become known as the President who acted as a statesman to cut across Party and ideological divides and make the hard choices essential to allowing America to continue to be a great nation -- while 'saving' the safety net."

The third weakness that the Republicans seek to exploit is fear -- and the death of alternatives. The mantra of European austerity proponents is "there is no alternative." The only choice is between austerity and collapse, and that means there is no real choice. The Republican strategy is to create a series of "moral panics." As the name implies, this involves the creation of a special form of panic falsely premised on immorality. (Think: "Reefer Madness" or Professor Hill causing River City, Iowans to believe that the arrival of pool hall demonstrated the imminent moral collapse of their children.) The Great Betrayal can only occur if Obama succumbs to mindless (and innumerate) panic.

The Democratic wing of the Democratic Party has to lead the effort to save America from the Great Betrayal. It is essential to focus on the self-destructive nature of austerity. The irony is that a proponent of austerity has just handed us a coup. Becky Quick, co-host of one of CNBC's business entertainment program, recently wrote a column intended to discredit Paul Krugman. Quick solicited a written statement from former President Bill Clinton to use in her attack on Krugman (who had criticized Quick and her co-host's stream of "zombie facts" when he appeared on their program). Quick reveled in her success in obtaining ammunition from Clinton to attack Krugman, asserting that it constituted a "damning retort to Krugman" and proved the need to adopt austerity. In fact, Clinton's statement stated his agreement with Krugman:

    [I]t's important not to impose austerity now before a growth trend is clearly established, because as the austerity policies in the eurozone and the U.S. show, that will slow the economy, cut jobs, and increase deficits....

Clinton is a leader within the Rubin-wing of the Democratic Party that has been seeking to create the moral panic, but even he admits that "austerity now" "will slow the economy, cut jobs, and increase deficits." The Great Betrayal of the safety net will begin if Obama is able to deliver the "grand bargain" imposing austerity that would "slow the economy, cut jobs, and increase deficits" and unravel the safety nets - the four horsemen of the economic apocalypse.

Obama is telling the media that the Great Betrayal is his first, and overarching, priority should he be re-elected. We are forewarned and we must act now to make clear that we will block the Great Betrayal and crush at the polls any member of Congress who supports it.

Do not concede the phrase "grand bargain" to the proponents of the betrayal. We should heed Camus' warning that it is essential to call a plague by its real name if one is to resist it -- and it is essential to resist the pestilence. "[W]hen you see the suffering and pain that it brings, you have to be mad, blind or a coward to resign yourself to the plague." We must refuse to resign ourselves to being betrayed by Democratic leaders. Our actions must make it clear that we are not mad, blind, or cowards. We refuse to fall for their faux moral panics. It is our leaders who are all too often mad, blind, and cowards.

© 2012 William K. Black
User avatar
ninakat
 
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 1:38 pm
Location: "Nothing he's got he really needs."
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The 2012 "Election" thread

Postby JackRiddler » Tue Oct 30, 2012 4:49 pm

The "Great Betrayal" is indeed the immediate stakes in this election.

With Romney and a Republican House, it will happen guaranteed - the same or worse - and with little static on the Congressional side. The Senate - ha! - will not stand alone against that.

With Obama, he'll try hard to get it through in lame duck. This emphasizes the importance of getting the House out of Tea Party hands. Then you'll see resistance enough in lame duck to bury it before a vote.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The 2012 "Election" thread

Postby ninakat » Tue Oct 30, 2012 4:49 pm

Bruce Dazzling wrote:In response to Rory, Arthur Silber has addressed the war criminal question multiple times.

Barack Obama, Murderer and War Criminal-in-Chief

A Choice of War Criminals

Depraved, Obscene Absurdities

And in brief, of course Obama is responsible for lots of terrible things, and if re-elected, will be responsible for countless more terrible things. I wish, on a daily fucking basis, that this country would have reached the point by now where we would have come together to demand choices beyond the criminal duopoly.

We haven't.

I am confident that a Romney administration will be responsible for all of the same terrible things as the Obama administration. I am also confident, however, that a Romney administration will be responsible for even more terrible things, and an even greater number of innocent human beings will be negatively impacted.

So, in a world where we've failed to create the critical mass to induce people to demand third, fourth, and fifth party candidates, we're left with a choice between these two colossal fucking dildo asshole lying fascist fucks, and if one of them is even slightly less of a colossal fucking dildo asshole lying fascist fuck, then that's the one we should vote for.

It's a shit sandwich, and it's going to leave a really bad taste in your mouth, but ask yourselves if you seriously thought, four years ago, that October 2012 would roll around without a war in Iran. I sure as fuck didn't, and that's the sort of thing that can make an enoumous difference to an enormous amount of ordinary human beings who are just trying to make it through the day without getting their heads separated from their torsos.

Carry on.


I generally agree with you Bruce, but I highlighted the point about Iran because in fact we are at war with Iran now, under Obama -- just not the overt bombing campaign type. Were you giving Obama credit of a sort for your surprise that the teevee war of the "shock and awe" variety didn't happen in his first term?

People are suffering now in Iran because of the sanctions. This seems so much like the provocation of the Japanese before WWII. And whether or not Obama is re-elected, he has clearly set the stage for a larger and more violent war.

Anyway, I hope you and Miss Dazzling weathered the storm ok in your fortress above the flooded streets.

The Unfolding Human Catastrophe in Iran
Sanctions imposed on Iran's banks and financial institutions could lead to a humanitarian crisis.
User avatar
ninakat
 
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 1:38 pm
Location: "Nothing he's got he really needs."
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The 2012 "Election" thread

Postby justdrew » Tue Oct 30, 2012 5:03 pm

Iran's government shares responsibility. They could just open wide up for inspections.

While I don't consider an atomic capable Iran to automatically be a serious problem, many others in the world do, and really, I don't really fancy a theocracy having atomic weapons. Do you?

It is not politically possible for Obama to just stand aside and let them do whatever atomic work in secret that they feel like. Deal with reality.

The Iranian government could just put to rest fears of atomic weapons, they refrain from doing so. The sanctions were a predictable outcome. Therefore they are to blame for them.
By 1964 there were 1.5 million mobile phone users in the US
User avatar
justdrew
 
Posts: 11966
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 7:57 pm
Location: unknown
Blog: View Blog (11)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 168 guests