Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
by 8bitagent » Sun Oct 16, 2016 1:14 am
by 82_28 » Sun Oct 16, 2016 2:21 am
8bitagent » Sat Oct 15, 2016 9:14 pm wrote:As a life long progressive liberal(least since high school), is it wrong there's a little part of me that wants to see Donald Trump win just to piss
off the smug hoity toity rich big city MSNBC elites and yuppies (and GOP neverTrumpers) and marinate in their twitter tears?
by 8bitagent » Sun Oct 16, 2016 2:52 am
82_28 » Sun Oct 16, 2016 1:21 am wrote:8bitagent » Sat Oct 15, 2016 9:14 pm wrote:As a life long progressive liberal(least since high school), is it wrong there's a little part of me that wants to see Donald Trump win just to piss
off the smug hoity toity rich big city MSNBC elites and yuppies (and GOP neverTrumpers) and marinate in their twitter tears?
We are quasi friends in real life, 8bit but yes, in my view it is wrong. I say this basically because of children first and foremost. Like it or not, if you're an American, we cannot have a trump. How do you explain this to a child? Like I said I think the page back that children of all "groups" will never have anything to compare this to. How will it be explained? If you're already someone who identifies racist, do you set your child up on your lap and explain racism, groping of women etc, is OK now? Like a huge windstorm or a bull in the china shop this is going to have to be cleaned up. America is not going away but the lesser of two evils is a false choice. But domestically at least there is a lesser of two evils. I will not be voting for Clinton because I am told this is a safe state.
by JackRiddler » Sun Oct 16, 2016 2:55 am
by Freitag » Sun Oct 16, 2016 3:50 am
Belligerent Savant » Wed Oct 12, 2016 5:05 pm wrote:.You got Palantir running under the hood?
by seemslikeadream » Sun Oct 16, 2016 7:10 am
by seemslikeadream » Sun Oct 16, 2016 7:31 am
Kathy Shelton, the rape victim Donald Trump is now using against Hillary Clinton, explained
Trump’s attack that Clinton defends rapists is really an attack on the Sixth Amendment.
Updated by Dara Lind @DLind dara@vox.com Oct 9, 2016, 10:11p
Both before and during the second presidential debate, Donald Trump attempted to accuse Hillary Clinton of defending sexual assault of women by mentioning a woman named Kathy Shelton — who’d been raped at the age of 12.
Trump lumped her in with other women who had accused Bill Clinton of sexual misconduct in the past. Shelton’s accusation is different. It has nothing to do with Bill Clinton at all, but rather about Hillary Clinton’s legal career before she went into politics.
Clinton, then a young attorney, represented the man Shelton accused of raping her. And under Clinton’s counsel, the accused man only served 10 months in jail.
In Trump’s characterization — and in the conservative movement over the past two years, where Shelton’s case has become a cause célèbre — Clinton’s involvement in the case is evidence that she approves of rapists.
That’s not the case at all. At heart, it’s an attack on Hillary Clinton for doing what the Constitution ordered her to do.
Thomas Alfred Taylor was charged with raping Kathy Shelton in 1975
At 4:50 am on May 10, 1975, 12-year-old Kathy Shelton walked into a hospital emergency room in Washington County, Arkansas, in psychological distress and saying she had been raped.
A medical investigation found (according to a local prosecutor) that “the victim herein had, in fact, had sexual relations consistent with the time stated by her wherein she was attacked.” (Shelton later claimed she spent five days in a coma after the attack, though the court documents associated with the case don’t mention this.)
Shelton accused a 42-year-old man named Thomas Alfred Taylor of the rape. Taylor had been with her that night, as had two other men. (This Glenn Thrush piece from 2008 in Newsday goes through the details of Shelton’s allegations of what happened.) Taylor claimed he hadn’t committed the crime, but was charged with first-degree rape — a charge that carried with it a sentence of 30 years to life.
What happened next isn’t covered in court documents, but has been recounted by Hillary Clinton and by others involved in the case: Taylor requested that he have a female defense lawyer to represent him. The prosecuting attorney in the case recommended Clinton, then a young lawyer named Hillary Rodham; the presiding judge requested that she take on Taylor as a client.
Clinton didn’t want the case, she wrote in her 2003 memoir Living History. “I told Mahlon (Gibson, who was prosecuting the case) I really didn’t feel comfortable taking on such a client, but Mahlon gently reminded me that I couldn’t very well refuse the judge’s request.” Gibson, for his part, has backed this up: “Hillary told me she didn’t want to take that case, she made that very clear,” he told Newsday.
But the Constitution requires a right to adequate council, and she had been called to serve. So she defended Taylor. And she defended him aggressively.
How Taylor got a plea bargain — and a prison sentence of under a year
Clinton didn’t get Taylor off. He pled guilty before the case had a chance to go to trial. But he pled guilty to a much less serious crime — fondling of a minor — and only served 10 months in jail.
That’s a big difference from first-degree rape. The court documents tell some of the story about how this happened; Clinton, in an interview with journalist Roy Reed conducted sometime in the mid-1980s (and uncovered by the conservative news site the Washington Free Beacon in 2014), tells the rest.
Clinton did many of the standard things that a defense lawyer does to help her client. She got the judge to order the prosecution to turn over any evidence that might help the defendant’s case. She tried to keep the statements Taylor had made to police from being entered as evidence, arguing that law enforcement had violated the constitution in getting them. And she asked that a court psychologist evaluate Shelton — writing in an affidavit, “I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fantasizing.”
Taylor himself, meanwhile, passed a polygraph test (something Clinton told Reed in the 1980s interview “forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs,” apparently as a joke).
But the biggest development in the case was the result of the prosecution’s error. The main piece of DNA evidence, a scrap from pair of underwear with semen on it, was accidentally thrown away by the crime lab.
Clinton told Reed that she called a New York forensics expert, who agreed to testify that what remained of the underwear didn’t include enough semen to test — and then went back to the prosecutor and showed him the forensics expert’s Who’s Who listing. (When she told Reed about this back-and-forth, in the 1980s, she burst into laughter.)
Faced with this, the prosecutor agreed to a plea deal: The charge would be reduced to fondling, and Taylor would plead guilty. The judge then sentenced him to five years, with four of those years suspended — and an additional two months taken off for time already served in county jail.
That sentence is inconceivable today — both because sexual abuse of children is taken extremely seriously by society (Taylor would have been registered as a sex offender were he convicted today) and because of various laws that increased criminal sentences over the last 40 years. But in 1975, it’s what the prosecutor, the judge, and defense attorney Hillary Rodham agreed was appropriate.
The Taylor case become a conservative talking point as evidence that Clinton doesn’t really support sexual assault survivors
The case wasn’t forgotten during Clinton’s first run for president in 2008 (that’s when Glenn Thrush wrote his Newsday piece). But it was in the runup to her 2016 run that it — and Shelton herself — became a conservative cause célèbre.
In 2014, the Free Beacon posted the court documents, as well as the interview tapes from Clinton’s 1980s interview with Roy Reed. The Free Beacon and the Daily Beast both spoke to Shelton, still anonymous at the time; Shelton expressed her anger at Clinton, alleged that she’d “lied on me,” and accused her of laughing about Taylor’s guilt (which is an uncharitable characterization of the conversations of the Reed tape).
In August 2016, Shelton came forward in public in an interview with the Daily Mail. By October, she’s appearing alongside Donald Trump in a pre-debate press conference alongside three women who’ve accused Bill Clinton of sexual misconduct.
The original appeal of the Shelton case to conservatives was partly a traditional tough-on-crime attack that she represented bad people, and partly that it reflects their prevailing sense of Clinton: that she has no principles and has contempt for the law.
But she’s become an especially important element in the response to accusations of Donald Trump’s misogyny. While Trump’s other validators aren’t directly connected to Hillary Clinton, Shelton is.
Furthermore, some of Clinton’s tactics in defending Taylor sound similar to tactics that feminists attack today — “victim-blaming” Shelton by testifying about her “tendency to seek out older men,” getting Taylor off on a “technicality” by discrediting the forensic evidence. That makes the Shelton case ripe for use by trolls: If Clinton really cares about sexual assault victims, why did she do these things to one?
This is an attack on Hillary Clinton for fulfilling a constitutional duty
The right to counsel is a constitutional guarantee. Period. It’s right there in the Sixth Amendment (emphasis added):
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
The Supreme Court hasn’t always agreed on the scope of the right to counsel: Only in the mid-20th century did it decide that defendants who couldn’t afford to hire lawyers had the right to public defenders. But the basic fact of it is pretty inviolable. There is no crime so heinous in the US court system that a lawyer is not permitted — even obligated — to speak in its defense.
It’s ironic that Clinton is being attacked for taking an assignment she didn’t even want. But she took it because someone had to, and the judge asked her to be that someone. Then she did her job as well as she had to: She ensured that her client got the due process of law.
She made sure that evidence that wouldn’t have passed scientific muster wasn’t introduced; she asked that a psychological expert evaluate the accuser to make sure she was making a credible claim. These are things that are important to ensure justice gets served — in rape or any other case.
In advance of the vice presidential debate, Republicans attacked Clinton’s running mate, Tim Kaine, for representing convicted murderers in their death-penalty appeals. Now they’re attacking Clinton for representing a rapist. Both are really attacks on the idea that people accused of terrible things deserve competent legal representation — which is to say, attacks on the Constitution itself.
http://www.vox.com/2016/10/9/13221548/k ... rape-trump
On women:
Donald Trump: "You have to treat 'em like shit."
New York magazine, November 9, 1992
by Luther Blissett » Sun Oct 16, 2016 11:11 am
by Iamwhomiam » Sun Oct 16, 2016 12:31 pm
by Wombaticus Rex » Sun Oct 16, 2016 12:35 pm
8bitagent » Sun Oct 16, 2016 12:14 am wrote:As a life long progressive liberal(least since high school), is it wrong there's a little part of me that wants to see Donald Trump win just to piss
off the smug hoity toity rich big city MSNBC elites and yuppies (and GOP neverTrumpers) and marinate in their twitter tears?
by brainpanhandler » Sun Oct 16, 2016 12:52 pm
Wombaticus Rex » Sun Oct 16, 2016 11:35 am wrote:8bitagent » Sun Oct 16, 2016 12:14 am wrote:As a life long progressive liberal(least since high school), is it wrong there's a little part of me that wants to see Donald Trump win just to piss
off the smug hoity toity rich big city MSNBC elites and yuppies (and GOP neverTrumpers) and marinate in their twitter tears?
Yes, because that's so petty in the face of the consequences.
Be ready to roll your sleeves up if you're gonna romance the darkness, bud.
Michael Moore wrote:The Jesse Ventura Effect. Finally, do not discount the electorate’s ability to be mischievous or underestimate how any millions fancy themselves as closet anarchists once they draw the curtain and are all alone in the voting booth. It’s one of the few places left in society where there are no security cameras, no listening devices, no spouses, no kids, no boss, no cops, there’s not even a friggin’ time limit. You can take as long as you need in there and no one can make you do anything. You can push the button and vote a straight party line, or you can write in Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck. There are no rules. And because of that, and the anger that so many have toward a broken political system, millions are going to vote for Trump not because they agree with him, not because they like his bigotry or ego, but just because they can. Just because it will upset the apple cart and make mommy and daddy mad. And in the same way like when you’re standing on the edge of Niagara Falls and your mind wonders for a moment what would that feel like to go over that thing, a lot of people are going to love being in the position of puppetmaster and plunking down for Trump just to see what that might look like. Remember back in the ‘90s when the people of Minnesota elected a professional wrestler as their governor? They didn’t do this because they’re stupid or thought that Jesse Ventura was some sort of statesman or political intellectual. They did so just because they could. Minnesota is one of the smartest states in the country. It is also filled with people who have a dark sense of humor — and voting for Ventura was their version of a good practical joke on a sick political system. This is going to happen again with Trump.
http://michaelmoore.com/trumpwillwin/
by American Dream » Sun Oct 16, 2016 4:43 pm
On banter, bonding and Donald Trump
In my last post I argued that gossip–personal, judgmental talk about absent others–is not the peculiarly female vice our culture would have us believe. Both sexes gossip. But one common form of male gossip, namely sexualised talk about women, is made to look like something different, and more benign, by giving it another name: ‘banter’.
A week after I published that post, along came That Video of Donald Trump doing the very thing I was talking about–and trying to excuse it, predictably, by calling it ‘locker room banter’.
There are many things I don’t want to say on this subject, because they’ve already been said, sometimes very eloquently, in countless tweets and blog posts and columns. I don’t need to repeat that Trump is a misogynist (which we already knew before we heard the tape). I don’t need to upbraid the news media for their mealy-mouthed language (the Washington Post described the recording as containing ‘an extremely lewd conversation’, while the Guardian has referred to it as a ‘sex-boast tape’–as if the issue were the unseemliness of bragging or the vulgarity of using words like ‘tits’). But what I do have something to say about is banter itself: what it does and why it matters.
A lot of the commentary I’ve read about the tape does not, to my mind, get to the heart of what’s going on in it. So, that’s where I want to begin. Here’s a (quick and very basic) transcription of the start of the recorded conversation: Trump, the Hollywood Access host Billy Bush and a third, unidentified man are talking on a bus which is taking them to the set of a soap opera where Trump is making a guest appearance.
THIRD MAN: she used to be great. she’s still very beautiful
TRUMP: you know I moved on her actually you know she was down in Palm Beach and I moved on her and I failed I’ll admit it
THIRD MAN: woah
TRUMP: I did try to fuck her she was married
THIRD MAN: [laughing] that’s huge news there
TRUMP: and I moved on her very heavily in fact I took her out furniture shopping she wanted to get some furniture and I said I’ll show you where they have some nice furniture. I took her out furniture– I moved on her like a bitch [laughter from other men] but I couldn’t get there and she was married. then all of a sudden I see her and she’s now got the big phony tits and everything she’s totally changed her look
In this sequence Trump is not boasting about having sex: he’s telling a personal anecdote about an occasion when he didn’t manage to have sex (‘I failed I’ll admit it’). He then returns to what seems to be the original topic, how to assess the woman’s physical attractiveness. The first speaker’s turn suggests that this has diminished over time (‘she used to be great’), but whereas he thinks ‘she’s still very beautiful’, Trump’s reference to her ‘big phony tits’ implies that he no longer finds her as desirable.
What’s going on here is gossip. Like the young men’s gossip I discussed in my earlier post, this is judgmental talk about an absent other which serves to reinforce group norms (in this case, for male heterosexual behaviour and for female attractiveness). It’s also male bonding talk: by sharing intimate information about himself–and especially by admitting to a failed attempt at seduction–Trump positions the other men as trusted confidants.
It’s not clear whether the discussion of the woman’s appearance has reached its natural end, but at this point, as the bus nears its destination, Billy Bush intervenes to point out the soap actress Trump is scheduled to meet, and she becomes the next topic.
BUSH: sheesh your girl’s hot as shit. In the purple
THIRD MAN & BUSH: woah! yes! woah!
BUSH: yes the Donald has scored. Woah my man!
TRUMP: look at you. You are a pussy.
[indecipherable simultaneous talk as they get ready to exit the bus]
TRUMP: I better use some tic-tacs in case I start kissing her. You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful–I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet just kiss I don’t even wait [laughter from other men] and when you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything
BUSH: whatever you want
TRUMP: grab them by the pussy [laughter] do anything.
Trump’s contribution to this extract looks more like the ‘sex boast’ of the news headlines. But we shouldn’t overlook the fact that this too is an enactment of male bonding. Trump, the alpha male of the group, takes centre stage, but the other men support him throughout with affiliative responses–saying ‘woah’ and ‘yes’, echoing his sentiments (‘Trump: you can do anything’/ ‘Bush: whatever you want’), and above all, greeting his most overtly offensive remarks with laughter. They laugh when he says he doesn’t wait for permission to kiss a woman; they laugh again when he mentions ‘grab[bing] [women] by the pussy’. (You can listen for yourself, but my assessment of this laughter is that it’s appreciative rather than embarrassed, awkward or forced.)
The transgressiveness of sexual banter–its tendency to report markedly offensive acts or desires in deliberately offensive (or in the media’s terms, ‘lewd’) language, is not just accidental, a case of men allowing the mask to slip when they think they’re alone. It’s deliberate, and it’s part of the bonding process. Like the sharing of secrets, the sharing of transgressive desires, acts and words is a token of intimacy and trust. It says, ‘I am showing that I trust you by saying things, and using words, that I wouldn’t want the whole world to hear’. It’s also an invitation to the hearer to reciprocate by offering some kind of affiliative response, whether a token of approval like appreciative laughter, or a matching transgressive comment. (‘I trust you, now show that you trust me’.)
When a private transgressive conversation becomes public, and the speaker who said something misogynist (or racist or homophobic) is publicly named and shamed, he often protests, as Trump did, that it was ‘just banter’, that he is not ‘really’ a bigot, and that his comments have been ‘taken out of context’. And the rest of us marvel at the barefaced cheek of these claims. How, we wonder, can this person disavow his obvious prejudice by insisting that what he said wasn’t, ‘in context’, what he meant?
What I’ve just said about the role of transgressive speech in male bonding suggests an answer (though as I’ll explain in a minute, that’s not the same as an excuse). Public exposure does literally take this kind of conversation out of its original context (the metaphorical ‘locker room’, a private, all-male space). And when the talk is removed from that context, critics will focus on its referential content rather than its interpersonal function. They won’t appreciate (or care) that what’s primarily motivating the boasting, the misogyny, the offensive language and the laughter isn’t so much the speakers’ hatred of women as their investment in their fraternal relationship with each other. They’re like fishermen telling tall tales about their catches, or old soldiers exaggerating their exploits on the battlefield: their goal is to impress their male peers, and the women they insult are just a means to that end.
As I said before, though, that’s not meant to be an excuse: I’m not suggesting that banter isn’t ‘really’ sexist or damaging to women. On the contrary, I’m trying to suggest that it’s more damaging than most critical discussions acknowledge. Banter is not just what commentators on the Trump tape have mostly treated it as–a window into the mind of an individual sexist or misogynist. It’s a ritualised social practice which contributes to the maintenance of structural sexual inequality. This effect does not depend on what the individuals involved ‘really think’ about women. (I have examples of both sexist and homophobic banter where I’m certain that what some speakers say is not what they really think, because they’re gay and everyone involved knows that.) It’s more a case of ‘all that’s needed for evil to flourish is for good men to go along with it for the lolz’.
You might think that in Trump’s case a lot of men have chosen to do the decent thing. Since the tape became public, male politicians have been lining up to condemn it. A formula quickly emerged: after Jeb Bush tweeted that, as a grandfather to girls, he could not condone such degrading talk about women, there followed a steady stream of similar comments from other men proclaiming their respect for their daughters, sisters, wives and mothers.
But to me this rings hollow. Some of it is obvious political score-settling, and far too much of it is tainted by what some theorists call ‘benevolent sexism’ (no, Paul Ryan, women should not be ‘revered’, they should be respected as equal and autonomous human beings; and no, they aren’t just deserving of respect because they’re ‘your’ women). But in addition, I’d bet good money that all the men uttering these pious sentiments have at some point participated in similar conversations themselves. When Trump protested that Bill Clinton had said worse things to him on the golf course, I found that entirely plausible (though also irrelevant: Trump can’t seem to grasp that Bill’s behaviour reflects on Bill rather than Hillary). Whatever their actual attitudes to women, as members of the US political elite these men have had to be assiduous in forging fraternal bonds with other powerful men. And wherever there are fraternal bonds there will also be banter.
Feminists generally refer to the social system in which men dominate women as ‘patriarchy’, the rule of the fathers, but some theorists have suggested that in its modern (post-feudal) forms it might more aptly be called ‘fratriarchy’, the rule of the brothers, or in Carole Pateman’s term, ‘fraternal patriarchy’. Banter is fraternal patriarchy’s verbal glue. It strengthens the bonds of solidarity among male peers by excluding, Othering and dehumanising women; and in doing those things it also facilitates sexual violence.
Male peer networks based on fraternal solidarity are a common and effective mechanism for informally excluding women, or consigning them to second-class ‘interloper’ status, in professions and institutions which no longer bar them formally. Whether it’s city bankers socialising with clients in strip clubs, or construction workers adorning the site office with pictures of topless models, men use expressions of heterosexual masculinity–verbal as well as non-verbal, the two generally go together–to claim common ground with one another, while differentiating themselves from women. Sometimes they engage in sexual talk to embarrass and humiliate women who are present; sometimes they spread damaging rumours behind women’s backs. These tactics prevent women from participating on equal terms.
I said earlier that when Trump and his companions on the bus talked about women, the women were not the real point: they were like the fish in a fishing story or the faceless enemy in a war story. But that wasn’t meant to be a consoling thought (‘don’t worry, women, it’s nothing personal, they’re just bonding with each other by talking trash about you’). When you talk about people it should be personal–it should involve the recognition of the other as a human being with human feelings like your own. Heterosexual banter is one of the practices that teach men to withhold that recognition from women, treating them as objects rather than persons.
When you objectify and dehumanise a class of people, it becomes easier to mistreat them without guilt. And when you are part of a tight-knit peer group, it becomes more difficult to resist the collective will. According to the anthropologist Peggy Reeves Sanday, rape culture arises where both these conditions are fulfilled–where men have strong fraternal loyalties to each other, and at the same time dehumanise women. In her classic study of fraternity gang-rape, Sanday argues that what motivates fraternity brothers or college athletes to commit rape in groups is the desire of the men involved both to prove their manhood and to feel close to one another. These are typically men whose conception of masculinity will not permit them to express their feelings for other men in any way that might raise the spectre of homosexuality, which they equate with effeminacy and unmanliness. Instead they bond through violence against someone who represents the despised feminine Other.
Heterosexual banter is a regular feature of life in many fraternities, and Sanday identifies it (along with homophobia, heavy use of pornography and alcohol) as a factor producing ‘rape-prone’ campus cultures. One man who was interviewed for her study recalled the way it worked in his fraternity, and how it made him feel:
By including me in this perpetual, hysterical banter and sharing laughter with me, they [the fraternity brothers] showed their affection for me. I felt happy, confident, and loved. This really helped my feelings of loneliness and my fear of being sexually unappealing. We managed to give ourselves a satisfying substitute for sexual relations. We acted out all of the sexual tensions between us as brothers on a verbal level. Women, women everywhere, feminists, homosexuality, etc., all provided the material for the jokes.
Of course there’s a difference between ‘acting out on a verbal level’ and committing gang rape. It’s not inevitable that one will lead to the other. But Sanday suggests that one can help to make the other more acceptable, or less unthinkable. What the man quoted above says about the social and psychological rewards of fraternal bonding also helps to explain why men may be prevailed on to join in with a group assault, even if they wouldn’t have initiated it alone; and why they don’t intervene to stop it.
Whenever I talk or write about male sexual banter, I always hear from some men who tell me they’re deeply uncomfortable with it. I believe them. But my response is, ‘it’s not me you need to tell’. They risk nothing by expressing their discomfort to me. What would be risky, and potentially costly, would be for them to put their principles above their fraternal loyalties, stop engaging in banter and challenge their peers to do the same.
Similarly, it’s pretty easy–assuming your politics lean left of fascism–to criticise the behaviour of Donald Trump. But as necessary as that may be in current circumstances, on its own it is not sufficient. We need to acknowledge that the kind of banter Trump has been condemned for is more than just an individual vice: it is a social practice supporting a form of fraternity that stands in the way of women’s liberty and equality.
by barracuda » Sun Oct 16, 2016 6:27 pm
Luther Blissett » Sun Oct 16, 2016 8:11 am wrote:Barracuda that is an unbelievable find. I would tend to agree with your analysis. What does it mean?
by seemslikeadream » Sun Oct 16, 2016 6:34 pm
Bin Laden’s Brother Lived In Trump Tower, Gave Millions To The Donald
http://addictinginfo.org/2016/09/05/bin ... he-donald/
Lest we forget, one day before the 9/11 attacks, the dad of the sitting President of the United States of America, George Herbert Walker Bush was meeting none other than Shafig bin Laden, the brother of terror mastermind Osama bin Laden. It was a routine business meeting on September 10-11, no conflict of interest, no relationship to the 9/11 attacks which allegedly were carried out on the orders of Shafiq’s brother Osama.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/george-w-b ... ct/5436650
by JackRiddler » Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:16 pm
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 170 guests
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Site design by Likely Arts based on "Deluxe" by Artodia.
