Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Donald Trump and the Coronavirus

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    You would hope so, and yet tt is amazing how during the latter part of Feb and well into March there was plenty of push back against Trumps refusal to wake up and respond - yet here we keep getting the line that Trump's response we the best that could have been expected. Maybe it's because they all were only watching fox or only reading breitbart. They still clearly think this 'really isn't so bad'. The rest of us know exactly how irresponsible Trump was during February and March. Basically, there is still a large part of the country that only sees what the president wants them to see because his 'Fake news' mantra has insulated them from the truth. Not sure how long it will take to overcome that.
    Personally, I think it will take generations. The indoctrination of Fox and Brietbart and their ilk has sunk it's roots deeply. And the feedback loop that existed between Trump and Fox is absolutely sign that it has become a propaganda outlet for the Trump administration. Trump himself confirmed this when he went on a tweet storm against Fox (specifically Cavuto) because Cavuto dared to challenge his position on Hydroxycholoquine. In his rant against the entire network and how it was slipping and how he misses Ailes was this interesting line: "Looking for a new outlet.". I do not recall ANY president, in my lifetime, aligning themselves with a particular news source and considering them "their outlet." But Fox, and most notably Hannity, have served exactly that role for Trump, with each one amplifying the other and spewing propaganda into the ears of their listeners.

    Getting Trump out of that office on 11/3 will help - but it will not solve the problem. People have to reject Fox and their mantra of divisiveness outright, and that will take generations - if it can happen at all. Or it will take someone with big bucks buying Fox and changing their focus. That would require someone with deep pockets willing to lose a lot of money, at least at first.

    And the right is not alone in this. There are far-left outlets with the same problem. But the dynamic on the left is different. Studies clearly show that people on the left are far more likely to be willing to range widely and get information from sources across the political spectrum - but people on the right are more likely to be entrenched and seldom move outside their bubble.
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

    Comment


    • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
      Personally, I think it will take generations. The indoctrination of Fox and Brietbart and their ilk has sunk it's roots deeply.
      Propaganda through media seems to be a massive problem in democracies. Solutions are clearly needed, but it's not totally clear to me what those solutions are, or whether they would ever be viewed as acceptable (esp in the US with 1st Amendment etc). The two countries most impacted by Rupert Murdoch's lying media empire, the US and the UK, are currently paying the death toll. And I'm increasingly seeing propaganda outlets influence election outcomes around the world.

      Three possible suggestions at solutions I've seen:

      1. More government-funded instructed-to-be-neutral-and-factual media. Government-funded outlets such as BBC, C-Span etc, that are under clear legal requirement to operate in way that is neutral, impartial and factual, are some of the most-trusted and most-reliable media outlets in the world. Obviously governments can do propaganda, and can choose to run their state news network in a propagandistic way (e.g. China, Russia etc) but in cases where the media entity (1) is separate from the government and merely funded by it, and (2) under a clear legal framework requiring impartiality and not able to be made to do propaganda by the governing party, such as entities like the BBC and C-Span, they provide some of the world's best media outlets. They can then be very effective in competing for market share, due to their neutrality and fact-based approaches.

      2. The Fairness Doctrine. Many countries legally require their media outlets to be fair, or give equal time and weight to both sides. The US implemented this from 1949-1987 as the FCC Fairness Doctrine. It "required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was—in the FCC's view—honest, equitable, and balanced." This puts the onus on private media companies to be truthful and balanced and puts enforcement of that in place. Of course, today, Trump would just sabotage the FCC by filling it with cronies and bootlickers, so even if this rule still existed it would be circumvented through corruption. And though SCOTUS upheld this rule during that earlier era, the SCOTUS of today might reject it on first amendment grounds, as the interpretation of the first amendment was massively broadened over the latter half of the 20th century.

      3. Require truthfulness. Most countries have legal requirements that commercial advertisements be truthful, and have existing law enforcement agencies who will provide some form of enforcement if companies lie about their products to consumers through false advertising. This principle could be extended to news broadcasting. In a sense this would be a weaker version of #2, with the only enforced part of the Fairness Doctrine being the "honest" part. One way to implement this would be to have broadcasters pay a small tax which funded an independent agency to which people would complain if a broadcaster aired a factually false claim and the agency would fact check it with 24 hours and the broadcaster would have to issue an public correction the next day and pay a small fine (perhaps escalating with repeated offences, or leading to a suspension of the broadcasting licence after too many offences). Again, it's possible today's SCOTUS would strike it down on 1st amendment grounds, proclaiming a right to lie... (although it's hard to see how they could justify keeping existing laws against businesses lying to customers in adverts.)
      "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
      "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
      "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
        Propaganda through media seems to be a massive problem in democracies. Solutions are clearly needed, but it's not totally clear to me what those solutions are, or whether they would ever be viewed as acceptable (esp in the US with 1st Amendment etc). The two countries most impacted by Rupert Murdoch's lying media empire, the US and the UK, are currently paying the death toll. And I'm increasingly seeing propaganda outlets influence election outcomes around the world.

        Three possible suggestions at solutions I've seen:

        1. More government-funded instructed-to-be-neutral-and-factual media. Government-funded outlets such as BBC, C-Span etc, that are under clear legal requirement to operate in way that is neutral, impartial and factual, are some of the most-trusted and most-reliable media outlets in the world. Obviously governments can do propaganda, and can choose to run their state news network in a propagandistic way (e.g. China, Russia etc) but in cases where the media entity (1) is separate from the government and merely funded by it, and (2) under a clear legal framework requiring impartiality and not able to be made to do propaganda by the governing party, such as entities like the BBC and C-Span, they provide some of the world's best media outlets. They can then be very effective in competing for market share, due to their neutrality and fact-based approaches.

        2. The Fairness Doctrine. Many countries legally require their media outlets to be fair, or give equal time and weight to both sides. The US implemented this from 1949-1987 as the FCC Fairness Doctrine. It "required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was—in the FCC's view—honest, equitable, and balanced." This puts the onus on private media companies to be truthful and balanced and puts enforcement of that in place. Of course, today, Trump would just sabotage the FCC by filling it with cronies and bootlickers, so even if this rule still existed it would be circumvented through corruption. And though SCOTUS upheld this rule during that earlier era, the SCOTUS of today might reject it on first amendment grounds, as the interpretation of the first amendment was massively broadened over the latter half of the 20th century.

        3. Require truthfulness. Most countries have legal requirements that commercial advertisements be truthful, and have existing law enforcement agencies who will provide some form of enforcement if companies lie about their products to consumers through false advertising. This principle could be extended to news broadcasting. In a sense this would be a weaker version of #2, with the only enforced part of the Fairness Doctrine being the "honest" part. One way to implement this would be to have broadcasters pay a small tax which funded an independent agency to which people would complain if a broadcaster aired a factually false claim and the agency would fact check it with 24 hours and the broadcaster would have to issue an public correction the next day and pay a small fine (perhaps escalating with repeated offences, or leading to a suspension of the broadcasting licence after too many offences). Again, it's possible today's SCOTUS would strike it down on 1st amendment grounds, proclaiming a right to lie... (although it's hard to see how they could justify keeping existing laws against businesses lying to customers in adverts.)
        Of these, #1 seems the most feasible - but I frankly think none of them is likely to occur or have any impact. There are three reasons for this opinion.

        First: the skew that arises from polarization. While the BBC and C-SPAN are "some of the most-trusted and most-reliable media outlets in the world," they are largely dismissed as "left-wing" by many on the right. The reason? IMO, it is because if you are far enough to the right, the center looks "left." And if you are far enough to the left, the center looks "right." It is basically the reason why the right has long talked about our "left-leaning" supreme court when we actually had four liberals, four conservatives, and one moderate, which I considered a pretty well-balanced court. I would prefer 3-3-3, of course, but that will never happen. And now that the moderate was replaced with a conservative, the court leans right and will lean even further right if Trump wins a second term. The bottom line is, with the absence of a middle, neutral outlets have little traction and a diminishing audience (though I have to admit I say that last thing without actually knowing what the audience profiles for these outlets actually is, so I may have a wrong perception).

        Second: Money and the power of divisiveness. Most media outlets are now funded by advertising and backed by powerful corporations. These corporations have learned the power of "picking a side" and fostering division. I think it began with Ailes and Fox, but it has spread far and wide from there. That dynamic creates a feedback loop with the audience. We now have such a massively polarized electorate, I don't think it will ever be possible for it to depolarize. It's one of the reasons I expect to leave this country this fall. I'm hungry for a place that shows less polarization and great cohesiveness. Differences of opinion are more than acceptable. Turning those who disagree into "the enemy" and waging continuous war is just exhausting. I want something different.

        Third: The decreasing importance of truth. We now live in a society where the value of truth has been erased. Indeed, "facts" have become "any claim I can make that supports my position," without regard for whether it is actually true. If the facts don't support the position, just make up "alternative facts." We even had a spokesperson for the current administration use that exact phrase publicly, and never walk it back that I am aware of. And there are massive groups, not to mention governments, intentionally swamping the media-scape with falsehoods - which the main stream media then magnifies by giving them airtime in order to "debunk" them. The flood is sometimes done for money, and sometimes done to achieve a social/political end. But it doesn't change the fact that we are awash in misinformation.

        Personally, I think we are looking at the end of the democratic experiment. We are in the early days of the end of our countries as we know them. I hope the coming generations prove me wrong and rescue this democratic experiment from the trash heap, but I am doubtful. I think we have gone too far down this path to turn back.
        Last edited by carpedm9587; 05-24-2020, 07:56 AM.
        The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

        I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

        Comment


        • I don't know, the BBC news hasn't exactly covered itself in glory, especially since the 2016 referendum.

          Firstly, theres the issue that their funding is entirely down to the government- not parliament.

          But the problem the BBC have is this editorial interpretation and strive for 'balance'. In an attempt to present opposing (and broad spectrum of) views they actually lose the impartiality they seek and skew the truth; failing to properly challenge unsupported/unqualified views. It often is shown as a 'he said, she said' version of reporting, which miserably fails to challenge any misinformation put forth by any politician.

          It used to be that the BBC interviewers interviewed people by asking them hard questions, and they made documentaries that showed the facts and analysed them, we've now descended to the lowest common denominator of "debate".

          I forget who to attribute, but remember the quote 'just keep repeating the facts. Stop giving equal time to lies'.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by EvoUK View Post
            I don't know, the BBC news hasn't exactly covered itself in glory, especially since the 2016 referendum.

            Firstly, theres the issue that their funding is entirely down to the government- not parliament.

            But the problem the BBC have is this editorial interpretation and strive for 'balance'. In an attempt to present opposing (and broad spectrum of) views they actually lose the impartiality they seek and skew the truth; failing to properly challenge unsupported/unqualified views. It often is shown as a 'he said, she said' version of reporting, which miserably fails to challenge any misinformation put forth by any politician.

            It used to be that the BBC interviewers interviewed people by asking them hard questions, and they made documentaries that showed the facts and analysed them, we've now descended to the lowest common denominator of "debate".

            I forget who to attribute, but remember the quote 'just keep repeating the facts. Stop giving equal time to lies'.
            Trump has the opposite apprach, he just keeps repeating the lies until people begin to believe them.

            Trumps message concerning the media comes right out of George Orwells 1984 which reads:

            "The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears".

            Trump: "Just remember what you are seeing and reading is not what's happening."

            Comment


            • Originally posted by JimL View Post
              Trump has the opposite apprach, he just keeps repeating the lies until people begin to believe them.

              Trumps message concerning the media comes right out of George Orwells 1984 which reads:

              "The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears".

              Trump: "Just remember what you are seeing and reading is not what's happening."


              You're missing the vital difference that in quite a few cases, it's very clear that the media is lying or manipulating the facts to present a narrative.

              Skepticism of news media is warranted and wise, news reports should be investigated and confirmed before being believed.


              The media - those sections of it that do from time to time (being generous here) present 'fake news' play into Trump's hands. Maybe you should expect and insist on a higher standard from them, too?
              ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

              Comment


              • Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
                You're missing the vital difference that in quite a few cases, it's very clear that the media is lying or manipulating the facts to present a narrative.

                Skepticism of news media is warranted and wise, news reports should be investigated and confirmed before being believed.

                The media - those sections of it that do from time to time (being generous here) present 'fake news' play into Trump's hands. Maybe you should expect and insist on a higher standard from them, too?
                So I have seen places where the media got out ahead of a story and ended up being wrong. And I have seen instances where individuals in a media outlet got something into print without it having gone through all of the usual checks. In both cases, I have seen other media outlets catching them - steps were taken and retractions were made.

                Do you have a particular instance in mind here of a news outlet intentionally distorting the news and/or publishing fake news and standing behind it? AFAIK, Fox News is the only major news outlet that has been caught doing that.
                The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                Comment


                • Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
                  You're missing the vital difference that in quite a few cases, it's very clear that the media is lying or manipulating the facts to present a narrative.
                  Well, if you are talking about conservative talking heads, like Hannity, Limbaugh, Ingraham, Carlson and the like, who pretend to be presenting truth to their credulous audience, I would agree. But, though the MSM doesn't always get the story right, they are for the most part principled jounalist.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                    Well, if you are talking about conservative talking heads, like Hannity, Limbaugh, Ingraham, Carlson and the like, who pretend to be presenting truth to their credulous audience, I would agree. But, though the MSM doesn't always get the story right, they are for the most part principled jounalist.
                    The Fox talking heads are NOT the news. Neither are the CNN talking heads. I'm assuming Max is referring specifically to news outlets.
                    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                      The Fox talking heads are NOT the news. Neither are the CNN talking heads. I'm assuming Max is referring specifically to news outlets.
                      But they masquerades as news, fair and balanced, irony of all ironys. It is organizations like FOX and Breitbart that most conservatives seem to get what they believe to be the news as is made evident by many of the conservatives of this forum.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                        But they masquerades as news, fair and balanced, irony of all ironys. It is organizations like FOX and Breitbart that most conservatives seem to get what they believe to be the news as is made evident by many of the conservatives of this forum.
                        Funny how they were the ones who were shown to be right on the big stories of our day like the Collusion Delusion and the Ukraine Shakedown.

                        Just sayin'

                        I'm always still in trouble again

                        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                        "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                          But they masquerades as news, fair and balanced, irony of all ironys. It is organizations like FOX and Breitbart that most conservatives seem to get what they believe to be the news as is made evident by many of the conservatives of this forum.
                          That is true of all of the "talking heads." They have been arranged at "news desks" and have news-like backdrops. But they are little more than Last Wee Tonight with none of the humor and a lot of anger. It is this "news-like look" that confuses a lot of people into thinking of them as "news." But anyone who is getting their "news" from one of these talking heads is simply living in their bubble. These folks are under no requirement to adhere to journalistic norms and often do not. And some of them simply follow the Limbaugh model and spew as much hatred as they can into the airwaves to attract an audience. Unfortunately, they are highly successful at it. They can say amazingly racist, derogatory, inflammatory, untrue things and there is nothing and no one to hold them accountable. As long as they rake in the advertising dollars, they will continue to do so. Unfortunately, there is almost half the country not only willing - but actually happy - to listen and support their advertisers, so a boycott is essentially impossible.

                          As I said earlier - we are well past the point of no return on populism and a polarized electorate. I have come to believe we are in the final days of our democracy. I used to think I would at least not be around to see it fall. Now I begin to wonder. We now have our former enemies supported by, and strongly influencing, half of our population in an amazing symbiotic relationship. And whenever that is pointed out - it is "fake news." Russia and China and other enemies don't need to defeat us with armies anymore. They can just foster discord within our country and then sit back and watch us destroy ourselves.

                          New Zealand and Canada are looking better and better every day.
                          The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                          I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                            That is true of all of the "talking heads." They have been arranged at "news desks" and have news-like backdrops. But they are little more than Last Wee Tonight with none of the humor and a lot of anger. It is this "news-like look" that confuses a lot of people into thinking of them as "news." But anyone who is getting their "news" from one of these talking heads is simply living in their bubble. These folks are under no requirement to adhere to journalistic norms and often do not. And some of them simply follow the Limbaugh model and spew as much hatred as they can into the airwaves to attract an audience. Unfortunately, they are highly successful at it. They can say amazingly racist, derogatory, inflammatory, untrue things and there is nothing and no one to hold them accountable. As long as they rake in the advertising dollars, they will continue to do so. Unfortunately, there is almost half the country not only willing - but actually happy - to listen and support their advertisers, so a boycott is essentially impossible.

                            As I said earlier - we are well past the point of no return on populism and a polarized electorate. I have come to believe we are in the final days of our democracy. I used to think I would at least not be around to see it fall. Now I begin to wonder. We now have our former enemies supported by, and strongly influencing, half of our population in an amazing symbiotic relationship. And whenever that is pointed out - it is "fake news." Russia and China and other enemies don't need to defeat us with armies anymore. They can just foster discord within our country and then sit back and watch us destroy ourselves.

                            New Zealand and Canada are looking better and better every day.
                            Exactly. You've articulated the problem we're facing much better than I ever could. Hard to believe what's happening though, isn't it? The Senate just confirmed a new head of National Intelligence that has no background in intellgence which goes against the exact stipulations required for the position. Another Trump loyalist confirmed by a loyalist, self interested, Senate. I think if Trump is not ousted in November this Republic experiment is over. "If you can keep it" said Ben Franklin.
                            Last edited by JimL; 05-24-2020, 02:03 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                              Exactly. You've articulated the problem we're facing much better than I ever could. Hard to believe what's happening though, isn't it? The Senate just confirmed a new head of National Intelligence that has no background in intellgence which goes against the exact stipulations required for the position. Another Trump loyalist confirmed by a loyalist, self interested, Senate. I think if Trump is not ousted in November this Republic experiment is over. "If you can keep it" said Ben Franklin.
                              Maybe you'll find this report about Fox News viewers interesting.
                              The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                              I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                                So I have seen places where the media got out ahead of a story and ended up being wrong. And I have seen instances where individuals in a media outlet got something into print without it having gone through all of the usual checks. In both cases, I have seen other media outlets catching them - steps were taken and retractions were made.

                                Do you have a particular instance in mind here of a news outlet intentionally distorting the news and/or publishing fake news and standing behind it? AFAIK, Fox News is the only major news outlet that has been caught doing that.


                                Well obviously all media outlets are biased to at least some degree. And there are a bunch of ways they can (intentionally or sometimes, not) manipulate or influence our perception of what's happening. I'll use Trump as he's the one in the news a lot right now. But others get similar treatment.


                                What gets reported at all is one big way news media can distort our perception of things. An example I saw once was in a political campaign where one party accused another of something that made them look bad, and the media ran with that and never acknowledged the rebuttal. But it could be a simple as reporting lots of negative news about a politician's policies, and not reporting positive news. Result - -we think the politician is doing a bad job.

                                Another way commonly used is various techniques in presenting a viewpoint - cutting in someone talking about their policy (for example) with an expert pointing out problems etc. This makes the first person look a lot less credible, and lacks the balance of allowing them to respond to the expert, or call on other experts who support their position.

                                In the same vein, use of lighting, music, framing the item by the presenters (using negative or skeptical language to introduce the piece), portraying the person in a negative light 'right-wing nationalist/ mysogynist / racist / homophobe / sexist' using simplistic labels that don't encompass the complexities of a person's beliefs and so on can influence our initial perception of someone before we've heard what they have to say.

                                Something commonly used in print media online is the negative language headline, that creates a perception before we've seen the article ' Trump rants...' 'Press Secretary storms out..' , 'As death toll reaches X thousand, Trump does Y' when there is no actual logical connection between the death toll and Trump doing whatever. It's simply a way of making Trump look bad.


                                Actual 'fake news' events include the reporting of the Covington kids thing; the reporting of Trump's comments on Charlottesville; the thing about Trump releasing carp in Japan or something (I forget the exact details); the 'drink Clorox' thing off the top of my head are 'events' where sections of the media persisted in a false narrative.

                                I'm fairly confident that you have also seen things reported - on topics where you have personal expertise or direct personal knowledge - that are plainly false or simply extremely sloppy, lacking basic fact-checking. An example from long ago that springs to mind is an article published in a newspaper about the danger of the 'MRSA virus' - when MRSA is a bacteria, and the journalist had interviewed a doctor - a medical microbiologist - about it. At the time I was working in the field and personally knew the doctor interviewed. It's the equivalent of a journalist talking about the new "Ford pickup helicopter" having engine problems - an error so basic that to make it shows no familiarity with the field, and not even a minimum effort to understand or get the facts correct...

                                I've also seen news media publish and use damaging material obtained under completely false pretenses by a third party in an 'ambush interview' right before an election. The interviewee was invited on, ostensibly to talk about his novel policy in an area where he had considerable experience and expertise, and instead the 'interview' was him being attacked with 'quotes' from a long-ago off-the-record interview by people who misrepresented themselves to him. The whole thing was simply a mendacious smear attack to discredit a politician the media disliked.

                                So, yeah, I don't take anything important reported by the media at face value.
                                ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                6 responses
                                45 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                230 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                24 responses
                                104 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                32 responses
                                176 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                73 responses
                                286 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X