RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

Joe Biden Speaking Gaffes Thread
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 8111



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/24/20 10:33 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

PUmatty wrote:
GlennMacGrady wrote:
Does a black woman VP in those states help him more than a well-credentialed white or Hispanic woman whose home is in a battleground state?


How interesting that you label the potential white or Hispanic candidates as "well-credentialed" but not the potential black candidates.

MAGA World is so transparent.


Wouldn’t he have only put well-credentialed in front of white for it to meet the Democratic characterization of MAGA world? Never heard the left say that MAGA people only like whites AND Hispanics. But I don’t think it can be assumed that he was saying the black candidate would not be well-credentialed. The hypothetical non-black candidate should be someone that the Biden campaign can defend as a “non-black choice” versus picking someone that Biden likes personally and would typically be OK.


pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 61471
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/25/20 6:29 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I can't imagine why a Trump voter would consider "well credentialed" to be of importance when selecting a candidate



_________________
The power of the police to fulfill their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behavior, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 8111



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/25/20 9:06 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
tfan wrote:
Quote:
12.01.19 - For a third consecutive year, President Trump omits any mention of the LGBTQ community during his presidential proclamation recognizing December 1st as World AIDS Day.

He did mention the LGBTQ community during his Republican convention speech which surprised most of us. The list is with regard to Trump Administration, not Trump comments as I expected. Was there a list for the Bush Administration? It seems like standard Republican fare done for or by the religious part of the party.

What. Is. The. Existential. DIFFERENCE Question


You said Trump/Hitler Gays/Jews. You were making analogy with Hitler to Trump. Trump doesn't care about LGBTQ while Hitler had great concerns about Jews. He is not religious and he was have-dinner-at-his-house friends with gay Roy Cohn. But Trump is aware that he has to allow the religious right something to get them out to the polls.

Quote:
His "administration" does not operate in a vacuum. *They* could not espouse these policies if HE did not approve it.


I didn't look at the entire list, but it wasn't exactly top level stuff. How much of it do you think Trump is aware of? And trying a bit hard. Hiring Kayleigh McElheny as press secretary made it. McElheney got a position of "Trump surrogate" on CNN and was a frequent Fox News guest. She is a lawyer by education and used that to fight for Trump and is also fairly young and fairly attractive. That was why Trump picked her and he and most people, if any, aren't aware of any statements she made about LGBTQ issues.

Quote:
Now. I don't give a rat's ass about his AIDS Day address. It's about more direct, far-reaching policies.
Here's a point from the GLAAD article you conveniently overlooked: (and this single one alone diminishes any defense of what you say on the matter)
Quote:
•05.13.19 - President Trump declares his opposition to the Equality Act,[b] a direct flip flop from his previous stance on the issue more than a decade ago. [/b]

In the remote event you've forgotten what the Equality Act IS:
Quote:
The Equality Act extends protections for LGBTQ people by amending the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995, the Civil Service Act of 1978, the Fair Housing Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and title 28 chapter 121 (juries) to include sex, sexual orientation and gender identity as protected categories from discrimination or segregation for purposes of:
•Public accommodations
•Public facilities
•Public funding
•Federal funding
•Private and public employment
•Access to housing
•Access to loans and credits
•Jury selection

The bill also authorizes the Department of Justice to bring civil action when it receives claims of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, and allows the Department to step in during equal protection actions in federal court.


But you have to also include how it was opposed:
Quote:
“The Trump administration absolutely opposes discrimination of any kind and supports the equal treatment of all," the official stated. "However, this bill in its current form is filled with poison pills that threaten to undermine parental and conscience rights.”


But without a mention of the poison pills, we can't analyze them. If we say that the "poison pill" argument is not genuine, then his flip-flop to me just means he is letting the religious right have their way so they will show up at the polls in 2020.

Quote:
tfan wrote:
Trump ultimately answered that he would strongly consider appointing judges who would overturn gay marriage. I don't find him making any other comments about gay marriage in the 2016 campaign. I guess "campaign based on" has a flexible definition, but the basis wasn't Trump condemning gay marriage and talking about overturning it in speeches or debates.


Again, I don't give a rat's ass about what he said in his campaign speeches. He lies -- all of 'em DO, but he's the BIGGEST Liar of 'em all. My argument is predicated on what he's done to the detriment of the LGBTQ community since he's been elected.

And frankly, I don't think he REALLY hates gays, himself. But if limiting their rights gets him votes, he's all for it. Is that an indirect form of hatred?


I didn’t include that with reference to what you just said here. I noticed that and pulled it out because it seems that every Trump critic, despite sounding like they have an incredible amount or quality of material, still feels the need to embellish.

I don't think lack of concern on some issues is hatred. If he had hatred of LGBTQ folks he never would have said anything about them at the Republican convention because eliminating that from the speech would not have been hard to do. And he wouldn't have put Rick Grinnell temporarily as acting Director of National Intelligence - the first openly LGBTQ person to hold a cabinet-level position.

Quote:
I still say, any gay voting for Donald is like a Jew voting for Hitler.
NOT a perfect analogy, but....it's a bit akin to saying "Hitler might not have actually hated Jews, cuz he never actually KILLED any of them himself."


It makes more sense if you say "any gay voting for a Republican president" because Trump is no more concerned about LGBTQ issues than any other Republican president or candidate and probably a lot less. But the Hitler analogy doesn’t work at all to me.


Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 13031
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/25/20 12:37 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:
It makes more sense if you say "any gay voting for a Republican president" because Trump is no more concerned about LGBTQ issues than any other Republican president or candidate and probably a lot less. But the Hitler analogy doesn’t work at all to me.


Wrong. But....fine by me....you're entitled to be as concrete as you wish. Not a single one of your 'excuses' works for ME, either. Laughing

My analogy works beautifully for those of us with a deeper sense of history: Hitler didn't just start executing Jews one day. He had a subtle, insidious agenda that he cultivated toward that end (which included executing Gays and Romanis, too). One that encouraged the general citizenry to accept his 'plan'. You clearly don't see that happening these days, but....I DO.

ALL Republicans? Why divert attention from Donald? THIS ELECTION IS ABOUT TRUMP. Get it? Yes, Republicans have a bad history with 'us': That's common knowledge. But for 2020, may we focus on the head of a most ugly serpent.



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
mercfan3



Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 18808



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/25/20 7:33 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:
PUmatty wrote:
GlennMacGrady wrote:
Does a black woman VP in those states help him more than a well-credentialed white or Hispanic woman whose home is in a battleground state?


How interesting that you label the potential white or Hispanic candidates as "well-credentialed" but not the potential black candidates.

MAGA World is so transparent.


Wouldn’t he have only put well-credentialed in front of white for it to meet the Democratic characterization of MAGA world? Never heard the left say that MAGA people only like whites AND Hispanics. But I don’t think it can be assumed that he was saying the black candidate would not be well-credentialed. The hypothetical non-black candidate should be someone that the Biden campaign can defend as a “non-black choice” versus picking someone that Biden likes personally and would typically be OK.


Read the context of what he said.

"Black" vs. "Well credentialed white or hispanic"

The obvious implication is that the black candidate won't be well credentialed.



_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie
Iluvacc



Joined: 11 Jun 2005
Posts: 3084



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/25/20 7:38 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

mercfan3 wrote:
tfan wrote:
PUmatty wrote:
GlennMacGrady wrote:
Does a black woman VP in those states help him more than a well-credentialed white or Hispanic woman whose home is in a battleground state?


How interesting that you label the potential white or Hispanic candidates as "well-credentialed" but not the potential black candidates.

MAGA World is so transparent.


Wouldn’t he have only put well-credentialed in front of white for it to meet the Democratic characterization of MAGA world? Never heard the left say that MAGA people only like whites AND Hispanics. But I don’t think it can be assumed that he was saying the black candidate would not be well-credentialed. The hypothetical non-black candidate should be someone that the Biden campaign can defend as a “non-black choice” versus picking someone that Biden likes personally and would typically be OK.


Read the context of what he said.

"Black" vs. "Well credentialed white or hispanic"

The obvious implication is that the black candidate won't be well credentialed.


Say it louder Merc for the uninformed or intentionally obtuse


Luuuc
#NATC


Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 20514



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/25/20 8:18 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I assume the implication was that a well-credentialed black candidate being preferable to a well-credentialed white/hispanic candidate was a no-brainer, and therefore the idea was to compare the relative values of blackness vs credentials. But maybe that's just my failure to dig for outrage talking.



_________________
Is there gas in the car?
Yes there's gas in the car.
J-Spoon



Joined: 31 Jan 2009
Posts: 5695



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/25/20 10:44 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I could be wrong but the subtext I read is

Abrams vs Klobochar or Whitmer

I do think there was a dig in the statement but it was targeting a specific person. Also not saying I agree with the dig just giving my read on the statement.


GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 6327
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/25/20 11:53 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

PUmatty wrote:
GlennMacGrady wrote:
Does a black woman VP in those states help him more than a well-credentialed white or Hispanic woman whose home is in a battleground state?


How interesting that you label the potential white or Hispanic candidates as "well-credentialed" but not the potential black candidates.


I didn't "label" any person or group, and you know it.

I was saying that, as a general proposition, a white or Hispanic VP candidate who is from a battleground state and who is perceived as shovel-ready to be president -- which Biden has said is his most important requirement -- may pull more votes from the battleground state(s) than a black VP candidate who is not from a battleground state, no matter what her credentials are.

If I'm implying anything, it's that a white or Hispanic VP candidate won't help Biden if she is either (1) not from a battleground state or (2) not perceived by voters to be shovel-ready. One could argue the very same things about a black VP candidate, or any VP candidate, but it's my sense that a lot of Democrats believe that blackness, all by itself, would be a vote attracting quality for the Biden ticket.

The crucial independent and swing voters in the battleground states -- the one's who will decide this likely close electoral election -- are not knee-jerk, left wing, social justice, identity politics, TDS-outraged ideologues. (Biden has all those voters deep in his pocket no matter who his VP is.) The battleground swing voters are moderate, relatively non-partisan, practical, lunch pail, main street, ordinary folks. They are people who flip-flop voted for Reagan, Clinton, Bush, Gore, Obama, McCain, Romney, Clinton and Trump. If the VP candidate will attract their vote at all -- which is a matter long debated in politics -- that vote-attracting effect will come from a strong feeling that the VP candidate is either highly qualified to take over for the doddering Biden, or is a very trusted member of their home state/region family, or both.

That's my current opinion, which could be wrong.
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 8111



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/26/20 3:14 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
tfan wrote:
It makes more sense if you say "any gay voting for a Republican president" because Trump is no more concerned about LGBTQ issues than any other Republican president or candidate and probably a lot less. But the Hitler analogy doesn’t work at all to me.


Wrong. But....fine by me....you're entitled to be as concrete as you wish. Not a single one of your 'excuses' works for ME, either. Laughing

My analogy works beautifully for those of us with a deeper sense of history: Hitler didn't just start executing Jews one day. He had a subtle, insidious agenda that he cultivated toward that end (which included executing Gays and Romanis, too). One that encouraged the general citizenry to accept his 'plan'. You clearly don't see that happening these days, but....I DO.


What is your best example of something Trump has done to get the general citizenry to accept his plan with regard to LGBTQ?


Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 13031
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/26/20 10:05 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:
What is your best example of something Trump has done to get the general citizenry to accept his plan with regard to LGBTQ?

....and....
tfan wrote:
Trump ultimately answered that he would strongly consider appointing judges who would overturn gay marriage.


There. You've provided one of many responses to your own question.

Howz 'bout directly banning Trans people from military service?

Quote:
In the year since the Trump administration banned transgender individuals from serving in the military, a number of advocacy groups have challenged the policy and many active service members say they’ve been forced to choose between continued service and their dignity and basic health care needs.


These things are all undermining the recently-earned rights of the LGBTQ community, sending clear messages from The Top that it's okay to discriminate. And hate.

Hope that clarifies my point. If yer still confused, I can't help you any further. Cool



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 8111



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/26/20 4:05 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
tfan wrote:
What is your best example of something Trump has done to get the general citizenry to accept his plan with regard to LGBTQ?

....and....
tfan wrote:
Trump ultimately answered that he would strongly consider appointing judges who would overturn gay marriage.


There. You've provided one of many responses to your own question.

Howz 'bout directly banning Trans people from military service?

Quote:
In the year since the Trump administration banned transgender individuals from serving in the military, a number of advocacy groups have challenged the policy and many active service members say they’ve been forced to choose between continued service and their dignity and basic health care needs.


These things are all undermining the recently-earned rights of the LGBTQ community, sending clear messages from The Top that it's okay to discriminate. And hate.

Hope that clarifies my point. If yer still confused, I can't help you any further. Cool


If Trump is slowly indoctrinating people to be against LGTBQ such that they will “accept his ‘plan’” which leads to something bad enough to deserve a Hitler analogy, he is not very good at it. He only decided to make one statement in one interview about gay marriage (after being questioned about it) with “strongly considering” as a qualifier and instead of a condemning LGBTQ or even gay marriage, he says that it should have been a “states rights issue”.


pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 61471
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/05/20 11:11 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/04/us/politics/joe-biden-not-good-people.html

Quote:
Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. told a group of black supporters on Thursday night that most Americans were good people who think the nation can be improved, while also declaring that “there are probably anywhere from 10 to 15 percent of the people out there that are just not very good people.”



_________________
The power of the police to fulfill their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behavior, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect
Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 13031
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/05/20 12:05 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/04/us/politics/joe-biden-not-good-people.html

Quote:
Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. told a group of black supporters on Thursday night that most Americans were good people who think the nation can be improved, while also declaring that “there are probably anywhere from 10 to 15 percent of the people out there that are just not very good people.”


Well, that IS a *gaffe*, if ever I heard one: it's gotta be WAY more than 10-15% Exclamation



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8270
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/05/20 1:21 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

How is that a gaffe at all? 10-15% is a fair assessment of the number who would associate themselves as being "alt-right" or "nationalist" or just outright capital "r" racist.

Though Howee has a very good point that in all reality it's almost certainly a higher percentage than that.



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 61471
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/05/20 1:28 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
How is that a gaffe at all? 10-15% is a fair assessment of the number who would associate themselves as being "alt-right" or "nationalist" or just outright capital "r" racist.

Though Howee has a very good point that in all reality it's almost certainly a higher percentage than that.


In the same way "deplorable" was. It may be true, but people don't want to hear it so bluntly.



_________________
The power of the police to fulfill their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behavior, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 8111



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/05/20 11:23 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/04/us/politics/joe-biden-not-good-people.html

Quote:
Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. told a group of black supporters on Thursday night that most Americans were good people who think the nation can be improved, while also declaring that “there are probably anywhere from 10 to 15 percent of the people out there that are just not very good people.”


Why is he being vague? The context must mean he is saying that 10 to 15% don't like black people. I wonder if he feels 10 to 15% of all non-black races or just whites? Seems like it is always assumed that Chinese, Mexicans, etc are not racist, only whites.


Stonington_QB



Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 598
Location: Your safe space


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/15/20 2:07 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

On NBC affiliate News 12 in Phoenix, Biden called Arizona "an important city" when asked about the state being in play during the 2020 election:

“Arizona is very much in play in 2020, so we appreciate you taking some time and talk to the people of our state,” anchor Mark Curtis said.

“Oh, you’re an important city. You guys are going through hell right now, are ya?” Biden responded.


PUmatty



Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 15432
Location: Chicago


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/15/20 2:31 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Stonington_QB wrote:
On NBC affiliate News 12 in Phoenix, Biden called Arizona "an important city" when asked about the state being in play during the 2020 election:

“Arizona is very much in play in 2020, so we appreciate you taking some time and talk to the people of our state,” anchor Mark Curtis said.

“Oh, you’re an important city. You guys are going through hell right now, are ya?” Biden responded.


You mean he talked to someone in Phoenix on the Phoenix news about the city of Phoenix?

Is this seriously what passes for MAGA Land news after Trump's hour of rambling rants yesterday?


Stonington_QB



Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 598
Location: Your safe space


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/15/20 11:54 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

PUmatty wrote:
Stonington_QB wrote:
On NBC affiliate News 12 in Phoenix, Biden called Arizona "an important city" when asked about the state being in play during the 2020 election:

“Arizona is very much in play in 2020, so we appreciate you taking some time and talk to the people of our state,” anchor Mark Curtis said.

“Oh, you’re an important city. You guys are going through hell right now, are ya?” Biden responded.


You mean he talked to someone in Phoenix on the Phoenix news about the city of Phoenix?

Is this seriously what passes for MAGA Land news after Trump's hour of rambling rants yesterday?


No I don't mean that because he was being asked about the state of Arizona.

Is this seriously how America Sucks land tries to deflect attention in a thread about Joe Biden speaking gaffes?


PUmatty



Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 15432
Location: Chicago


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/16/20 10:35 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Stonington_QB wrote:
PUmatty wrote:
Stonington_QB wrote:
On NBC affiliate News 12 in Phoenix, Biden called Arizona "an important city" when asked about the state being in play during the 2020 election:

“Arizona is very much in play in 2020, so we appreciate you taking some time and talk to the people of our state,” anchor Mark Curtis said.

“Oh, you’re an important city. You guys are going through hell right now, are ya?” Biden responded.


You mean he talked to someone in Phoenix on the Phoenix news about the city of Phoenix?

Is this seriously what passes for MAGA Land news after Trump's hour of rambling rants yesterday?


No I don't mean that because he was being asked about the state of Arizona.

Is this seriously how America Sucks land tries to deflect attention in a thread about Joe Biden speaking gaffes?


There's no gaffe there. That's the point.

If these are the kinds of straws you people want to reach for, it says a lot more about you than about anything else.


pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 61471
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/16/20 10:44 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I thought about starting a thread for Trump gaffes, but I doubt Reb has sufficient bandwidth for that



_________________
The power of the police to fulfill their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behavior, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect
PUmatty



Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 15432
Location: Chicago


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/16/20 10:48 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
I thought about starting a thread for Trump gaffes, but I doubt Reb has sufficient bandwidth for that


That's a cute joke, but it's also really indicative of the double standard that has been applied to Trump since he came down that elevator.


Stonington_QB



Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 598
Location: Your safe space


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/18/20 5:47 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

PUmatty wrote:
Stonington_QB wrote:
PUmatty wrote:
Stonington_QB wrote:
On NBC affiliate News 12 in Phoenix, Biden called Arizona "an important city" when asked about the state being in play during the 2020 election:

“Arizona is very much in play in 2020, so we appreciate you taking some time and talk to the people of our state,” anchor Mark Curtis said.

“Oh, you’re an important city. You guys are going through hell right now, are ya?” Biden responded.


You mean he talked to someone in Phoenix on the Phoenix news about the city of Phoenix?

Is this seriously what passes for MAGA Land news after Trump's hour of rambling rants yesterday?


No I don't mean that because he was being asked about the state of Arizona.

Is this seriously how America Sucks land tries to deflect attention in a thread about Joe Biden speaking gaffes?


There's no gaffe there. That's the point.

If these are the kinds of straws you people want to reach for, it says a lot more about you than about anything else.


It's not a gaffe to YOU because you are triggered by anything anti-Biden. Your immediate response was to take a cheap shot like you do with everyone else you disagree with in this forum. Which tells me you can dish it but can't take it. Says a lot about you.

Do you see me getting all butthurt over every Trump comment you make? No. Because it doesn't get to me. You, on the other hand, get your panties so wadded up over eveything you don't like that you have to resort to name calling.

Go ahead and start a Trump gaffe thread. Let's see how people react.


mercfan3



Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 18808



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/18/20 6:39 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Stonington_QB wrote:


It's not a gaffe to YOU because you are triggered by anything anti-Biden. Your immediate response was to take a cheap shot like you do with everyone else you disagree with in this forum. Which tells me you can dish it but can't take it. Says a lot about you.

Do you see me getting all butthurt over every Trump comment you make? No. Because it doesn't get to me. You, on the other hand, get your panties so wadded up over eveything you don't like that you have to resort to name calling.

Go ahead and start a Trump gaffe thread. Let's see how people react.


I honestly don't understand why this is a problem.

Can you explain how it is a gaffe?



_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51 All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Page 8 of 9

 
Jump to:  
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
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin