It is currently Tue Sep 19, 2017 4:25 pm

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 199 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Ta-Nehesi Coats spittin' fire
PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 1:54 pm 
God

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am
Posts: 11493
Dr. Shades wrote:
First, since when is requiring the poster (as opposed to the reader) to do the "heavy lifting" idiosyncratic as opposed to courteous? Second, how is this policy either silly or inconsistent?


It's idiosyncratic because it's a rule that contradicts how most online discussion forums have operated for 2-3 decades. It necessarily cuts off common types of sarcastic, surprising, and teasing thread starting. I think you know this and see your rule as improving upon faults in other forums, but that would be agreeing that it's idiosyncratic. Ordinarily, the credibility of a linker and whatever information they offered allows people to decide to click a link or not. It's just clicking a link, after all.

I called it silly precisely because it unnecessarily cuts off interesting ways of having a conversation. When "link and running" gets out of hand, we call that spamming and it can be addressed as a specific example of that on its own merits.

I called it "inconsistent" because it's arbitrary how much information needs to be in the first post in order for you to think that's enough. For example, I thought my initial post was plenty and you're telling me it isn't. Part of that seems to be that you have no idea who Ta-Nehisi Coates is, but I think the same post would've passed muster if it was, say, a Mormon apologist or famous politician readers are implicitly expected to be familiar with. I've seen some posts with more information get warned over some posts with less information.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Ta-Nehesi Coats spittin' fire
PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 2:08 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 6:50 am
Posts: 8652
Location: Your mother's purse
EAllusion wrote:
Dr. Shades wrote:
First, since when is requiring the poster (as opposed to the reader) to do the "heavy lifting" idiosyncratic as opposed to courteous? Second, how is this policy either silly or inconsistent?


It's idiosyncratic because it's a rule that contradicts how most online discussion forums have operated for 2-3 decades. It necessarily cuts off common types of sarcastic, surprising, and teasing thread starting. I think you know this and see your rule as improving upon faults in other forums, but that would be agreeing that it's idiosyncratic. Ordinarily, the credibility of a linker and whatever information they offered allows people to decide to click a link or not. It's just clicking a link, after all.

I called it silly precisely because it unnecessarily cuts off interesting ways of having a conversation. When "link and running" gets out of hand, we call that spamming and it can be addressed as a specific example of that on its own merits.

I called it "inconsistent" because it's arbitrary how much information needs to be in the first post in order for you to think that's enough. For example, I thought my initial post was plenty and you're telling me it isn't. Part of that seems to be that you have no idea who Ta-Nehisi Coates is, but I think the same post would've passed muster if it was, say, a Mormon apologist or famous politician readers are implicitly expected to be familiar with. I've seen some posts with more information get warned over some posts with less information.

I love how now you arguing that "tradition" is justification enough....not to mention the juvenile implications of "everyone does it this way".
Nevertheless, is it not most reasonable to expect the person walking into the room to give context for whatever they blurb out? To expect the audience to be informed about your intentions and your presumed backstory is the sort of tradition perpetuated by by boobs and charlatans, my good sir.

_________________
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty
I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them
what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Ta-Nehisi Coates spittin' fire
PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 2:10 pm 
God

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am
Posts: 11493
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
EAllusion wrote:
I said multiple times on this thread alone that I don't think everyone who voted Trump is racist.


And I believe you even though you implied otherwise, only because it's statistically impossible. I have a feeling you believe a good majority of them are racists, or harbor some sort of white supremacist feeling. Which, honestly, I don't know why you're threatened by that since you're clearly a crypto-racist and surround yourself with white people. Maybe you feel guilt and this is somehow your penance. I dunno.

- Doc


I didn't "imply." I said.

I also don't surround myself with white people unless, again, you are referring to the fact that I live in Madison, WI in a majority white neighborhood.

I linked multiple articles covering a range of studies. I could've linked more. Your response was to dismiss one of them because it was conducted by a majority of white people and therefore racially biased. That's about as classic ad hominem as exists. But let's say it was the case that it was instead conducted by a majority of racial minorities and they found that racial resentment correlated well with Trump support. Could you claim they were racially biased to find that result with just as much evidence as you offered in this case too? Why, yes, yes you could. No matter what, you apparently can dismiss findings by claiming, without evidence, that they are racially biased. Perhaps you see this as a parody argument for times that you've been dismissed for citing explicitly racist sources. Who knows? I don't. What I do know is that's a broke reply.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Ta-Nehesi Coats spittin' fire
PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 2:12 pm 
God

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am
Posts: 11493
subgenius wrote:
I love how now you arguing that "tradition" is justification enough....not to mention the juvenile implications of "everyone does it this way".


I'm defending my description of it as "idiosyncratic" by pointing out how unusual it is.

Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Ta-Nehisi Coates spittin' fire
PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 2:17 pm 
God

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am
Posts: 11493
EAllusion wrote:


Here's the most useful graph for the "What about Romney voters?" argument:

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/ ... png&w=1484

And that's with Romney running against Obama after some racial sorting had already occurred.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Ta-Nehesi Coates spittin' fire
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 12:34 am 
God

Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 12:17 am
Posts: 4063
Location: California
beastie wrote:
EAllusion wrote:
Coates' arguments don't rely on thinking there is a monolithic white culture among white people. That's not what "whiteness" refers to. Because you are so richly educated and don't live in an echo-chamber, perhaps you might instead to choose to actually address what he's talking about? There are weaknesses in the cultural studies conception of whiteness, but I think that is secondary to the thrust of his argument. Your criticism is just off base, though.

Regarding Obama having to work 2x as hard, you decided to attack that by pointing out that Obama working 2x as hard would be hard to quantify in an exact mathematical sense. That's of course just a figurative way of saying that Obama, a man who once was crushed for wearing a tan suit, had to be thoughtful, eloquent, and squeaky clean in his personal life to be acceptable as a candidate, but Trump obviously does not. The talent gap and contrast in personal lifestyle between the two is large. Trump is a buffoon and a ethical train-wreck right out in the open.

The way to attack this is not to point out that "lol. What is 2x?!" It's to point out that the media biases hold Democrats and Republicans to different standards and Obama simply got caught up in this dynamic under the full maturation of right-wing media. That likely explains some of this inconsistent standard. Moreoever, Trump has continued to benefit from being so awful that people have a hard time focusing on any one thing, and this explains part of the wild swing in standards. It doesn't explain all of it though, and I think Coates is correct that Obama could only be acceptable as the first black president by being as personally impressive as he was and Trump's election is a thumb in the eye showing that someone who is white has no such standard. The people who got Trump elected - the people who showed up to his rallies and placed their lot with him early on in the primaries - had a lot of excitement about his clownish persona and reveled in it in a way that they would destroy Obama for. There is a racial component to that as much as a partisan one.

That is nothing if not a display of white privilege.


It boggles the mind that anyone could even contest this.

But here's a clip from Bill Maher in case anyone lacks imagination:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swcJzacZkWU

(around 2:25)

I think some posters here misunderstand his primary point - or perhaps I do. My take-away was that no non-white candidate for the presidency of the US would ever have won if he/she had said or did the things that Trump did.

He had to be white to win.

How can anyone contest this with a straight face?

This post best sums up how I feel about why Trump was elected. I'm not sure I agree with every single point Coates made in his essay, but I certainly agree with that much of it.

_________________
No precept or claim is more deservedly suspect or more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.

“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.”
― Harlan Ellison


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Ta-Nehisi Coates spittin' fire
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 6:38 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:02 am
Posts: 12424
Once again, name me one other white man that could've pulled that off.

- Doc

_________________
In the anointed we find a whole class of supposedly ‘thinking people’ who do remarkably little thinking about substance and a great deal of verbal expression. - Dr. Thomas Sowell, Harvard, Columbia, University of Chicago


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Ta-Nehisi Coates spittin' fire
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 7:26 am 
Regional Representative
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 1:50 pm
Posts: 646
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
Once again, name me one other white man that could've pulled that off.

- Doc

I don't know who else could have done it, I don't know any in a similar situation as Trump's that have tried. Is your argument that because Trump was exceptionally good at tapping into that racial animosity that he didn't actually do it? I'm really not following how your question clarifies anything here but I'm interested in what you think it shows.

_________________
"If you consider what are called the virtues in mankind, you will find their growth is assisted by education and cultivation." -Xenophon of Athens


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Ta-Nehisi Coates spittin' fire
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 8:05 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:02 am
Posts: 12424
Xenophon wrote:
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
Once again, name me one other white man that could've pulled that off.

- Doc

I don't know who else could have done it, I don't know any in a similar situation as Trump's that have tried. Is your argument that because Trump was exceptionally good at tapping into that racial animosity that he didn't actually do it? I'm really not following how your question clarifies anything here but I'm interested in what you think it shows.


No. I've made my argument regarding Trump over and over again. I think he's tapped into all sorts of things with no thought, no real strategy. I think you're giving him way too much credit if you think he really thought about how to approach his campaign. It was just ad hoc off-the-cuff unmitigated bull ____. I think he pandered to anyone that would give him a microphone. You can see him pandering to black people blaming the Democrats for '40 years of failure' so on and so forth.

I don't know why some of you guys, maybe so much you Xenophon, have such a hard time with the idea that he's a populist just spouting off whatever comes into his dumb, dull, narcissistic mind. IMO, he'll say whatever comes to mind at the moment creating strawmen for the crowd he's addressing and then move onto whatever his ADD mind ____ out.

There is not one other white man, in the world, that could've done what he did. None. I think what got him a lot of votes was populism, the economy, his success, and selling an economic dream. I'm not going to deny he tapped into racial fears because I've already stated on a few occasions that I think he's probably a racist to some degree, but y'all can't see the forest for the trees.

People are working harder for less. Globalization has gutted our manufacturing sector. You have massive amounts of people who go into massive debt to get a scam of a college degree for tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars, just to get to the place where they can be considered for barely middle class income, and that's no guarantee they'll get it.

People are terrified because the see the reality of poverty and economic disparity setting in and if you have a rich guy coming in and framing the narrative that everyone else is ____ ing you over that's easier to accept than being savvy and figuring out your way ahead. A way ahead that's going to be tough. It's going to be hard work. It's going to be a lifetime of continuing education, job hopping, and career switching. The middle class is the smallest it's been since WWII and if you're sowing fear then that's an easier way to get elected than saying, "You have to get your ____ together and dedicate yourself to a lifetime of struggle because the world doesn't give a ____ about you and whether or not you have a house."

On the flipside if you have a political party that telling you, YOU, that you had it better because you're white and you should pay more taxes and you see your purchasing power diminish, you see drug addiction soar, you see an unsecured border, you see welfare recipients getting free housing, a bit of money, and free medical coverage and you're getting jack ____... Of course you're going to feel resentment.

IMO, it's about economic uncertainty, economic insecurity, and Trump had a seductive message of, "Let's Make America Great Again." It's not like politicians aren't prone to sloganeering. Kind of like, "CHANGE." People buy into bull ____ because they don't have to take individual responsibility for themselves, OR, the people who do bust their asses want to be able to keep what they're earning, because the dollar buys less every year, and they think so-and-so can get more people employed so they don't have to carry them.

Anyway. Shaming and demonizing the white electorate is starting to backfire. They feel under fire and defensive and when someone comes along and says that's bull ____ and it's someone else's fault they're going to listen because someone is finally talking to them and not making them feel like dog crap for just existing.

For example:

is to accept whiteness as an existential danger to the country and the world.

If you agree with this above statement you're mentally ill.

That's not an anomaly. That's straight up political doctrine and it's no wonder white people are turning away from the political party that accepts that as a truism.

- Doc

_________________
In the anointed we find a whole class of supposedly ‘thinking people’ who do remarkably little thinking about substance and a great deal of verbal expression. - Dr. Thomas Sowell, Harvard, Columbia, University of Chicago


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Ta-Nehisi Coates spittin' fire
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 8:19 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 6:50 am
Posts: 8652
Location: Your mother's purse
the only person tapping into racial animosity is Hillary Clinton, because book sales du jour.

_________________
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty
I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them
what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Ta-Nehisi Coates spittin' fire
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:45 am 
God

Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 10:51 pm
Posts: 6066
Drumpf ran on his racism.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Ta-Nehisi Coates spittin' fire
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 10:04 am 
Regional Representative
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 1:50 pm
Posts: 646
Thanks for taking the time to write that up, Doc. I can agree with you on several points. We agree that talking about white privilege can alienate some people, although we might disagree with why. In my experience this is primarily born of a fundamental misunderstanding of what privilege is and just means we need to tweak how we talk about it and communicate the ideas better. I think your problem with the "existential danger" line is a pretty good example of this and also a misunderstanding of what Coates meant by whiteness. This has been suggested to you by others and I doubt I can change your mind on the subject.

I think most of the posters on this thread would agree with your general sentiment that there were many factors to consider in Trump's success (almost all the posters have said something to that affect). I feel we mainly just disagree on what the primary cause is. EAllusion/Chap have provided some excellent data that shows how important racial anxiety was in supporting various programs, changing viewpoints on ideas and a principle indicator of who you would vote for. Given all we now know looking back, I've seen nothing to change my stance on this.

You say I give too much credit to Trump, but I think underestimating him is part of his strength (it is probably more accurate to say I give the credit to the voices around him). He was better able to tap into racial fears than almost any contemporary; it is hard to believe this is blind luck. It is probably worth noting that Bannon admitted that he tried to keep that "nationalism theme" front and center of his campaign.Going so far as to tell Trump that the "p**** grabbing" line could be washed away by that message. Trump may be a bungling oaf but he did stick to that message for the most part and it rang loud and clear to his supporters. How that message was tinged with racist sentiments has already been highlighted on this board and throughout the internet so I'm not going to rehash it as I think everyone knows whether they agree with that idea or not.

There is only one other point I want to question you on. I have seen you post something along this line of thinking a couple of times:

DoctorCamNC4Me wrote:
Globalization has gutted our manufacturing sector.


Are you just saying this was central to Trump's campaign or are you suggesting that this is a true statement? You are aware that automation/technology has accounted for roughly 85% of job loss for that sector in the US? This is why production is at an all-time high while employment is so low. The idea that globalization is the problem is part of that nationalistic pipe dream Trump was selling. We can make all the wonderful promises in the world but manufacturing is not coming back. Instead the idea is to focus on concepts like expanded higher education, job growth in sectors that are growing, like clean energy, and setting up America to be a pioneer in new technology (which party is it again that supports those ideas?).

_________________
"If you consider what are called the virtues in mankind, you will find their growth is assisted by education and cultivation." -Xenophon of Athens


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Ta-Nehisi Coates spittin' fire
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 10:23 am 
God

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am
Posts: 11493
Coates is using the term "whiteness" like a feminist might use "toxic masculinity." It doesn't mean what you seem to think it does.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Ta-Nehisi Coates spittin' fire
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 10:26 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:02 am
Posts: 12424
X,

At gym right now so short answer. Post-WWII circumstances created the 50s, 60s, and most of the 70s. Boomers win.

00s, 10s world has or is catching up with infrastructure and trained population. Xers and Ms feel the squeeze.

Brown people like USA. Come to USA because movies.. Boomers like wtf, not used to this and Xers and Ms are lazy.

Xers & Ms are like, Booms be racists & get summa dat sweet Boomer loot.My rent is too high, 2.

Trump be like, Make America Great Again 'member?

Booms like ____ yeah. Da 50s.

Xers n Ms like Hillary Clinton gon take yo ____.

Xers n Ms like, oh fuk. i wish bernie wuz prez.

Booms like, FUK YO TAXES LOLOL. They raise rent.

Black people, lik dis if white pe0ple da worst.

Libs like, we totes r 4 real. ____.

Poor whitss r like, stop callin' me racist! #keepourstatues cuz dey make me feel sumtin

Poor white libz, burn it all down, down to da groun, imma punch other poor whites in da face.

Boomers be like, see? Lazy good4nuthjns. #raisedarent, need more ____

Blacks be like, #takeaknee #whitesrgreedy #deyhateme

Latinos b like, #y'allloco. gotta go to work, k bye

Asians b like, You are morons. I'm going after my dreams.

- Doc

_________________
In the anointed we find a whole class of supposedly ‘thinking people’ who do remarkably little thinking about substance and a great deal of verbal expression. - Dr. Thomas Sowell, Harvard, Columbia, University of Chicago


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Ta-Nehisi Coates spittin' fire
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 10:45 am 
Regional Representative
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 1:50 pm
Posts: 646
Perhaps I'm just dense but I don't really see how that was a response to anything I said. Nice hashtags though. #lift4lyfe

_________________
"If you consider what are called the virtues in mankind, you will find their growth is assisted by education and cultivation." -Xenophon of Athens


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Ta-Nehisi Coates spittin' fire
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 10:59 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 3:24 pm
Posts: 3429
Location: La Mancha
Either this Ta-Nehisi Coates guy doesn't know even the most basic uncontroversial facts of American history (such as the fact that George Washington was a president and was white), or he can't even count to 1. He thinks Trump is the first white president? There were 43 white presidents before Trump, give or take.

_________________

"Don't they know that the soul is made of harmonies and that harmonies are not created but by the concurrency or by the properties of the objects that are seen and heard?"
- Leonardo da Vinci

All religion is obviously silly, like all sports.
-Symmachus


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Ta-Nehisi Coates spittin' fire
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 11:04 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:02 am
Posts: 12424
Xenophon wrote:
Perhaps I'm just dense but I don't really see how that was a response to anything I said. Nice hashtags though. #lift4lyfe


I was addressing the globalization issue with one finger tapping on my tablet while ellipticalling. Give a guy some credit.

- Doc

_________________
In the anointed we find a whole class of supposedly ‘thinking people’ who do remarkably little thinking about substance and a great deal of verbal expression. - Dr. Thomas Sowell, Harvard, Columbia, University of Chicago


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Ta-Nehisi Coates spittin' fire
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 11:04 am 
God

Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 10:51 pm
Posts: 6066
It has been claimed that Bill Clinton was the first black President.
SEE https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video ... ident.html


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Ta-Nehisi Coates spittin' fire
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 11:04 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:02 am
Posts: 12424
Analytics wrote:
Either this Ta-Nehisi Coates guy doesn't know even the most basic uncontroversial facts of American history (such as the fact that George Washington was a president and was white), or he can't even count to 1. He thinks Trump is the first white president? There were 43 white presidents before Trump, give or take.

And more than a few of them were worse for Black people than the Cheeto in Chief.

- Doc

_________________
In the anointed we find a whole class of supposedly ‘thinking people’ who do remarkably little thinking about substance and a great deal of verbal expression. - Dr. Thomas Sowell, Harvard, Columbia, University of Chicago


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Ta-Nehisi Coates spittin' fire
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 11:05 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 4:23 am
Posts: 11814
Location: On the imaginary axis
Xenophon wrote:
... I have seen you post something along this line of thinking a couple of times:

DoctorCamNC4Me wrote:
Globalization has gutted our manufacturing sector.


Are you just saying this was central to Trump's campaign or are you suggesting that this is a true statement? You are aware that automation/technology has accounted for roughly 85% of job loss for that sector in the US? This is why production is at an all-time high while employment is so low. The idea that globalization is the problem is part of that nationalistic pipe dream Trump was selling. We can make all the wonderful promises in the world but manufacturing is not coming back. Instead the idea is to focus on concepts like expanded higher education, job growth in sectors that are growing, like clean energy, and setting up America to be a pioneer in new technology (which party is it again that supports those ideas?).


Indeed yes. The modern steel industry, for instance, will never ever again offer a large number of jobs for not very well educated but physically tough men who can learn to work in teams to do demanding and potentially dangerous work. It can produce all it needs to produce with more sophisticated technology and a much smaller staff of people with high skill levels who can understand how the new machines work. Same for coal, and auto making.

That's a whole group of men who have been deprived of a major element in their personal masculine identity, quite apart from their loss of economic role.

Potentially next up: the truckers. That's one of the last remaining employment opportunities for the kind of guys who used to provide the manpower for old-style moderate tech industries. It was possible to tell the steelmen and miners that they would still all have old-style jobs if only China would stop 'raping the economy'. It won't work when the trucks go self-drive.

_________________
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Ta-Nehisi Coates spittin' fire
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 11:05 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:02 am
Posts: 12424
The CCC wrote:
It has been claimed that Bill Clinton was the first black President.
SEE https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video ... ident.html


Once again you prove that you don't actually read the back and forths on this forum.

- Doc

_________________
In the anointed we find a whole class of supposedly ‘thinking people’ who do remarkably little thinking about substance and a great deal of verbal expression. - Dr. Thomas Sowell, Harvard, Columbia, University of Chicago


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 199 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Black Moclips and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group