Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Clinton Demands For Pataki to Repudiate Rove

Politics Karl Rove Senator Clinton Gov. Pataki New York Liberal Mis-Characterization

  • Please log in to reply
55 replies to this topic

#21 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,302 posts

Posted 24 June 2005 - 01:49 PM

Spectacles, on Jun 24 2005, 02:46 PM, said:

As for the rest of your statement, I agree. This kind of tit-for-tat, neener-neener-ness from both sides isn't doing this country a bit of good, and frankly those who engage in it are sounding more and more moronic to me every day. It's all about "my team" vs. "your team" which is fine for sports, but these aren't recreational issues we're dealing with here. This country has some serious problems confronting it. There are surely some effective solutions out there. And the people in charge of making decisions and taking action in this country damned well better quit playing liberal vs. conservative and get busy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


I concur.  Especially with the parts I highlighted.

Sadly - those people in charge would be us, but we seem to have forgotten that in the haze of finger-pointing and namecalling.

QT

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#22 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 24 June 2005 - 01:59 PM

Quote

QT: Sadly - those people in charge would be us, but we seem to have forgotten that in the haze of finger-pointing and namecalling.

Well, we're in charge on election days. But as long as we're divided by propaganda from this side and that, we can be easily fooled into electing people from either party whose main goal is re-election, which has come to mean appealing to their bases' desire to finger-point and namecall. Once elected, unfortunately, these representatives are the ones who set and enact policy. I sure would like to see them rolling up their sleeves and getting to work rather than preening for the camera and spouting the divisive rhetoric that sadly enough seems to help them get elected.
"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#23 Zwolf

Zwolf
  • Islander
  • 3,683 posts

Posted 24 June 2005 - 02:44 PM

Quote

from a chapter in Dude, Where's My Country?
and I quote:

Dear "Mr. President," who attacked the United States on September 11th? -- a guy on dialysis from a cave in Afghanistan, or our friends, the Saudi Arabians?

******* The fact is, it's both.  Saudi Arabia is the #1 funder of Al Quada and other America-hating Islamic terrorists.  Bin Laden is a Saudi, as were most of the 9/11 hijackers.  I have zero problem with the war with Afghanistan - they had a chance to turn Bin Laden and his cohorts over, and they didn't, so they got bombed, and good for 'em.  But the Saudis hands are far from clean.  But they get a pass because we're stuck on their teat... and they know it.  We are - literally - over a barrel with those creeps.   I don't see Moore saying that we shouldn't have gone into Afghanistan in that statement; he's just pointing out that there's another larger problem that is not being addressed at all.


Quote

And from some interview http://www.commondre...04/0128-10.htm:

"You know the question a lot of people were asking after Sept. 11 -- 'Why do they hate us?' The question I want to ask is, 'Why DON'T they hate us?' -- and then take my camera around the world a bit and show what's done in our name," Moore says.

******** That's not my approach (like I said, I'm not a big Moore fan - he's too leftie for me), but it's not an unworthy question, either.   If someone gets cancer, and wants to find out why they got it, it's not because they hate themselves, but because they want to prevent a reoccurance in the future.    Again, he's not saying we shouldn't go after the Taliban.  

Quote

Terrorism is wrong, he says. But when he has finished cataloguing misdeeds by the U.S. government and corporations, viewers will feel lucky their country hasn't drawn more attacks.

And why, he continues, are Americans so obsessed with terrorism in the first place? Sept. 11 was horrific. But the typical citizen has almost no chance of encountering terrorists.

******** I'm not particularly scared of terrorists, because that would be playing into their hands.  That's why they're called terrorists - their main weapon is terror.   Moore's statement is stupid if he thinks we shouldn't be concerned about it, but the fact is we shouldn't be scared of these shmucks - we should coldly and efficiently kill them all.  

Quote

He accuses the Bush administration of exaggerating the danger to frighten voters into giving the president another term: "It is one of the most successful lies ever perpetrated upon a people."


******* Well, that part's pretty accurate.  Ever notice that the terror alert system hasn't been raised even once since the election?  It used to bounce up and down like a superball in the hands of a kid jonesing for Ritalin, but for the past 6 months or so it's so level you could play pool on it.  That attempting to manipulate the public is one of my main beefs with Bush.


Quote

I'm sure Stupid White Men is rife with such musings as well.

******* It's got enough crap in it to inspire me not to buy his next book... :)

Cheers,

Zwolf
"I've moved on and I'm feeling fine
And I'll feel even better
When your life has nothing to do with mine."
-Pittbull, "No Love Lost"

"There are things that I'd like to say
But I'm never talking to you again
There's things I'd like to phrase some way
But I'm never talking to you again

I'm never talking to you again
I'm never talking to you
I'm tired of wasting all my time
Trying to talk to you

I'd put you down where you belong
But I'm never talking to you again
I'd show you everywhere you're wrong
But I'm never talking to you again

I'm never talking to you again
I'm never talking to you
I'm tired of wasting all my time
Trying to talk to you

I'm never talking to you again
I'm never talking to you
I'm tired of wasting all my time
Trying to talk to you."
- Husker Du, "Never Talking To You Again"

#24 Call Me Robin

Call Me Robin

    red-haired and proud

  • Islander
  • 970 posts

Posted 24 June 2005 - 05:20 PM

Someone should explain to Karl "De Facto President" Rove that the Americans who were harmed most by 9/11 were the blue staters.  Steve Gilliard has a BLISTERING response to Rove's defenders.

Quote

Well, birdman, the 42nd ID is now in Iraq. A division largely made up of New Yorkers. If you've noticed John Kerry won New York handily. One could extrapolate (big word, I know, but it means conclude from facts) that many of those same Guardsmen were and are Democrats. That they vote for Democrats and that many might well be liberals serving their country. What the gutless turd Rove said is that these people didn't exist and only conservatives wanted to stop Osama.

As a New York, I find this the equvilient of blood libel. (You know, the lie that the Jews used Christian babies blood for matzoh). No one asked what party 343 firemen belonged to when they died, or the 34 policemen. No one asked what party nine members of the 69th Regiment, New York City's own infantry regiment with a lineage going back to WW I, were when they were killed in Iraq, two of whom were immigrants, one a Pakistani muslim. No one asked and no one cared.

To say that New Yorkers, who are 5-1 Democrats, are shirking from the service of their country is an insult to them and their service. No one asked for party enrollment when they took their oath and it is wrong to suggest that it matters now. Many New Yorkers, and Califonians as well, have died in the service of their country in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And the Mahablog weighs in, too:

Quote

Words cannot express the contempt I feel for Karl Rove and for the chorus of brainless little yappers applauding his recent remarks on liberal reactions to 9/11.

I'd like to ask Karl and his puppies to stand anywhere in the vincinity of Ground Zero and repeat Karl's fatuous, lying remarks to a crowd of New Yorkers.

Whole lotta liberals in New York. Whole lotta those liberal New Yorkers lost someone in the towers. Whole lotta liberal New Yorkers who lost someone in the towers might want to break Karl's jaw today. Karl would be well advised to keep his sorry ass out of New York from now on.

Junior got less than a quarter of the New York City vote last November, as I recall. Yeah, the people most closely affected by 9/11, who are most intimate with it, are less than impressed with Junior and his war on terra.

You have to go away from New York City, to places where people barely remember watching the towers collapse on television, to find people still willing to listen to the crap that spews out of Karl's mouth. All 9/11 means to them is an excuse to advance their  hard right agenda and pound the stuffing out of Muslims. And any Muslims will do.

Justice for the dead of 9/11 went on the back burner as soon as Bush decided to invade Iraq. (9/12?)

I want Karl to apologize. Hell, I want him to apologize to me. Personally. Sincerely. And I want the yappy little puppies to look me in the eyes and say, Sorry, I guess we don't know you very well. We misjudged you. We take back what we said.

Edited by Call Me Robin, 24 June 2005 - 05:28 PM.

Of all the varieties of virtues, liberalism is the most beloved.
--Aristotle

The fanatic is not really a stickler to principle. He embraces a cause not primarily because of its justness or holiness but because of his desperate need for something to hold onto.
--Eric Hoffer

#25 MuseZack

MuseZack

    132nd S.O.C.

  • Demigod
  • 5,432 posts

Posted 24 June 2005 - 05:54 PM

Oh, and a piece of unsolicited advice to the New York and New Jersey Democrats-- stop tearfully demanding apologies and retractions.  It makes you all look like whiny victims who can't stick up for yourselves-- which, I suspect, is the point.  Instead, they should be daring Rove to come to New York City and say it to their faces.  Go ahead, challenge pigboy to a fistfight or a duel or something.  Politically non-affiliated Americans would respect that a lot more than tears and foot-stomping, and it's a more authentically "New York" reaction to boot.
"Some day, after we have mastered the wind, the waves, the tides, and gravity,
We shall harness for God the energies of Love.
Then, for the second time in the history of the world,
we will have discovered fire."
--Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

#26 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,302 posts

Posted 24 June 2005 - 07:09 PM

^^Danged straight! :)

QT

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#27 Call Me Robin

Call Me Robin

    red-haired and proud

  • Islander
  • 970 posts

Posted 24 June 2005 - 07:10 PM

MuseZack, on Jun 24 2005, 10:54 PM, said:

Oh, and a piece of unsolicited advice to the New York and New Jersey Democrats-- stop tearfully demanding apologies and retractions.  It makes you all look like whiny victims who can't stick up for yourselves-- which, I suspect, is the point.  Instead, they should be daring Rove to come to New York City and say it to their faces.  Go ahead, challenge pigboy to a fistfight or a duel or something.  Politically non-affiliated Americans would respect that a lot more than tears and foot-stomping, and it's a more authentically "New York" reaction to boot.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


I agree, Zack, which is why I posted the links to blogs saying, in effect, "Wanna piece of me?"  Especially the part where Rove risks a broken jaw if he comes back.

But if I'd lost a loved one on 9/11, I'd feel differently.  There was a response by one 9/11 widow in The Huffington Post, actually, that was smart and heartfelt.
Of all the varieties of virtues, liberalism is the most beloved.
--Aristotle

The fanatic is not really a stickler to principle. He embraces a cause not primarily because of its justness or holiness but because of his desperate need for something to hold onto.
--Eric Hoffer

#28 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,302 posts

Posted 24 June 2005 - 07:13 PM

double post

Edited by QueenTiye, 24 June 2005 - 07:16 PM.

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#29 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 24 June 2005 - 08:03 PM

Anybody catch Hardball tonight? Matthews' guest host interviewed Kay Bailey Hutchinson, who defended Rove's remarks with the apparent talking points that the spin machine sputtered out this morning: Karl was just pointing out the difference between responses to terror, contrasting the liberals' desire to negotiate and litigate with The President's determination to take decisive action against Saddam and fight the terrorists over there instead of over here.

The guest host left that garbled mess of revisionism hanging in the air and moved on to the next question, perhaps lest he be accused of having a "liberal bias."

I would have loved to have seen some follow up questions. Like, but Karl Rove was talking about the response to 9/11. What does that have to do with Iraq? And what about the fact that in our response to 9/11, liberals and conservatives were pretty much united behind taking action against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan?

Immediately after 9/11, this country was as united as I have ever seen it. We shared the horror, the fury, the pain of that day. We were united in our desire to see Al Qaeda and bin Laden pay.

Sure, a fringe on the Far Left were engaged in their usual America-bashing.  (To this day I want to spit when I see Noam Chomsky's name because I think he made a thorough, Ward Churchillian ass out of himself.) But that fringe no more represents the sentiments of liberals than Michael Savage represents all conservatives.

So for Rove and others to revise our history of those days of mourning and unity in the aftermath of 9/11 in an effort to portray liberals in general as being reluctant to take any military action against the perpetrators of 9/11 is pretty dang low. And the utter illogic of it is apparent when Hutchinson has to refer to Iraq, which had nothing to do with the attacks on 9/11, to defend him.

Sorry, the more I hear about this, the more ticked off I am. I remember the trauma of 9/11 too clearly, as do we all. I think that what Rove did was purely scummy. I hope he goes back behind the curtain and stays there until the end of Bush's presidency 'cause I don't care for him any more than I care for Ward Churchill. That day should not be used as an ideological political football.
"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#30 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 24 June 2005 - 10:42 PM

Spectacles, on Jun 24 2005, 08:03 PM, said:

I would have loved to have seen some follow up questions. Like... what about the fact that in our response to 9/11, liberals and conservatives were pretty much united behind taking action against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why do liberals keep making this claim? We were there at the time too, and we saw for ourselves the resistance you keep saying wasn't there. Do you just think nobody else can remember past a couple of years?

Edited by Delvo, 24 June 2005 - 10:42 PM.


#31 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 24 June 2005 - 10:55 PM

Delvo, on Jun 24 2005, 10:42 PM, said:

Spectacles, on Jun 24 2005, 08:03 PM, said:

I would have loved to have seen some follow up questions. Like... what about the fact that in our response to 9/11, liberals and conservatives were pretty much united behind taking action against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why do liberals keep making this claim? We were there at the time too, and we saw for ourselves the resistance you keep saying wasn't there. Do you just think nobody else can remember past a couple of years?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Speaking for myself, I make the claim because that is my recollection. Very, very few people were opposed to our response in Afghanistan, and those were on the fringe.

What resistance to the war in Afghanistan did you see?
"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#32 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 24 June 2005 - 11:04 PM

Quote

Poll: Support For War Stays Strong

NEW YORK, Jan. 23, 2002



(CBS) As the war in Afghanistan continues, so does public support for it. 87% of Americans support the military attacks on Afghanistan - a number that has not wavered since the start of the attacks in October. And with the recent capture and transport of 80 Taliban and al-Qaida prisoners to the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, nearly all feel the war is going well for the United States.

Nine in 10 Americans now say the war is going well for the United States; only 8% feel the war is going badly. However, the number who say the war is going very well has dropped somewhat. Currently, 40% say the war is going very well compared to 51% who felt this way in early December, just weeks after the fall of Kabul.

http://www.cbsnews.c...ain325303.shtml
"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#33 MuseZack

MuseZack

    132nd S.O.C.

  • Demigod
  • 5,432 posts

Posted 24 June 2005 - 11:04 PM

Spectacles, on Jun 25 2005, 03:55 AM, said:

Delvo, on Jun 24 2005, 10:42 PM, said:

Spectacles, on Jun 24 2005, 08:03 PM, said:

I would have loved to have seen some follow up questions. Like... what about the fact that in our response to 9/11, liberals and conservatives were pretty much united behind taking action against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why do liberals keep making this claim? We were there at the time too, and we saw for ourselves the resistance you keep saying wasn't there. Do you just think nobody else can remember past a couple of years?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Speaking for myself, I make the claim because that is my recollection. Very, very few people were opposed to our response in Afghanistan, and those were on the fringe.

What resistance to the war in Afghanistan did you see?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


I agree.  Stop with the vagueness and provide examples.  And some obscure college professor doesn't cut it, either.  Neither does Michael Moore-- a filmmaker/author who supported Nader in 2000 and spends nearly as much time blasting the Democrats as the Republicans.  

How big were the street protests against attacking Al Qaeda in Afghanistan?  How many members of the House and Senate voted against authorization?
"Some day, after we have mastered the wind, the waves, the tides, and gravity,
We shall harness for God the energies of Love.
Then, for the second time in the history of the world,
we will have discovered fire."
--Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

#34 eloisel

eloisel

    Non-sequitur

  • Islander
  • 1,998 posts

Posted 24 June 2005 - 11:51 PM

Is there a difference between Democrat and Liberal?

#35 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,302 posts

Posted 25 June 2005 - 12:40 AM

^^Excellent question, eloisel.

QT

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#36 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 25 June 2005 - 06:50 AM

Quote

Eloisel: Is there a difference between Democrat and Liberal?

Yep, and that's part of the problem. Thanks to talk radio (Hannity, Limbaugh, etc.), the terms are interchangeable. And not only that, but the Hannitys, Limbaughs, and Coulters have made a living off of portraying liberals in general as having the same characteristics as the Far Left (which is the mirror image of the Far Right). And furthermore, anyone who disagrees with Bush is generally portrayed as a Liberal--even those who are actually moderates or conservatives. They've managed to define Liberal very loosely, make it sound really icky, and slap it like a cussword on anyone they want the hordes to dislike.

So it's been a nifty trick and oft-employed. That's exactly what Karl Rove was doing. This kind of simplistic "you're with us (Bush administration and America) or you're against us" is the main theme of the propaganda.

When you look at the polls during the Afghanistan War, you see across-the-spectrum support. 87%. As I noted up there somewhere, there were some protestors on the Far Left, but they were a small minority and not representative of liberals, who by and large supported that war and saw its necessity. But Rove wants people to equate those on the far left with liberals, the better to villify political opponents, which is his trade.

So, in short, Rove told a big fat lie and did so to try to rev up his base with the "us vs. them" rhetoric that has helped make him a very powerful guy.
"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#37 waterpanther

waterpanther
  • Islander
  • 1,944 posts

Posted 25 June 2005 - 09:22 AM

Quote

Is there a difference between Democrat and Liberal?

Some Democrats are liberals, and some liberals are Democrats, but the two are not synonymous.  Many liberals are Greens or libertarians; just personally, every time I take that "political compass" test, I wind up further into the left-libertarian corner.  

Once upon a time, there were conservatives, moderates and liberals in both major parties.  The Democratic Party included both the Hubert Humphreys and the Zell Millers, and still does to some extent.  Unfortunately, there don't seem to be any Republicans left on the moderate-to-liberal side:  no John Lindsays, no Edward Brookeses, no Nelson Rockefellers.  When the Republicans adopted Nixon's "Southern Strategy," most of the conservative and/or segregationist Democrats such as Trent Lott jumped the fence and joined them.  

So, yes, "liberal" and "Democrat" overlap, but are not the same.  There's a greater overlap between "Republican" and "conservative," in that Republicans are almost exclusively conservatives.  Not all conservatives, however, are Republicans; some cons who are cast in the old-fashioned mold of Barry Goldwater are distancing themselves from the current Party, and more and more seem to be mounting a campaign to get their organization back from the neo-cons and religious radicals who have come to dominate it.
Posted Image

#38 eloisel

eloisel

    Non-sequitur

  • Islander
  • 1,998 posts

Posted 25 June 2005 - 10:03 AM

Has anyone found a transcript of Rove's actual speech?  What I heard read over the radio mentions specifically "liberals" MoveOn.org, Michael Moore, and Howard Dean.  I don't necessarily agree that Rove was wrong about how those particular liberals and their associates responded to 911.  Don't know about Howard Dean, but MoveOn.org and Michael Moore both opposed the Afghanistan war.  MoveOn.org did get up a petition with more than 700,000 signatures requesting that the response to 911 not be war but instead to solve the problem of terrorism with education and feeding their poor.  Michael Moore was very vocal about being anti-war with respect to Afghanistan - at least at the very beginning.  After watching his "Bowling for Columbine" documentary and discovering how he totally manipulates any shred of truth to support his viewpoint, I quit paying any attention to him.  (That part about the six-year old shooting another six-year old being all Dick Clark's fault because he owns interest in a store the murder's mother worked in was about as ridiculous as it can get.)

As for Democrats, there were many pro-war with Afghanistan.  Kerry himself was pro-war.

#39 Mr.Calgary

Mr.Calgary

    Has left.

  • Islander
  • 1,348 posts

Posted 25 June 2005 - 10:05 AM

eloisel, on Jun 24 2005, 09:51 PM, said:

Is there a difference between Democrat and Liberal?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ultimately, yes.


From an outside perspective, in the U.S. context, the Democrats are still the political vehicle for Liberals and Liberals likely control the heart of the Democrats, that's how the terms tend to end up be interchanged so readily.

For instance, Ted Kennedy and Howard Dean, their afflilation is Democrat, but I see them as much more Liberal and much less Democrat.  

I've read the transcript of Rove's speech and I have no problem with what he said.  On a "Howard Dean" scale, it's 5, maybe 10% as 'offensive' as the stuff coming out of Dean's mouth.

I have no problem with Dean giving the Republicans "a bit of the stick", but come on Howard, do it in a way that will move your party forward, not backwards.  

What's the record, 7 out of 10 Republican Presidential wins?  Take away the Perot factor and it would be 8 or 9 out of 10.  

That's a call to do some soul-searching.  Should the Democrats make moves to be less Liberal? (and not just the appearance of being less Liberal)

Is there a Democrat soul-searching thread here on EI, or is it just 'lets bash Bush....and Cheney....and Rove...... and Ogami........

My view is that one of the major characteristics of modern Liberalism is a gleeful willingness to dish it out, but when it comes back at them, its "how dare you say those things about us".

Edit for Link

http://www.washingto...5062400097.html

spelling edit

Edited by Mr.Calgary, 25 June 2005 - 03:05 PM.

Favourite Coda thread quotes.....

(1)  Yes. Bad Trance! Wicked, Evil Trance!

(2)  Stayed purple.   (3)  Bad, bad Trance!

(4)  Love and Blowing Things Up continue forever. The universe wins

#40 eloisel

eloisel

    Non-sequitur

  • Islander
  • 1,998 posts

Posted 25 June 2005 - 10:26 AM

It sounds more to me that both the Far Right and the Far Left need to be dragged back to the center.  Both spew so much garbage over the whole.  Neither solves any problems.  These people are elected officials or are hired or appointed by elected officials.  They have jobs to do which should be more than stirring up resentment among the citizens.  We never all have to agree, but we could at least try to work together to achieve common goals.



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Politics, Karl Rove, Senator Clinton, Gov. Pataki, New York, Liberal Mis-Characterization

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users