Jump to content

WhipGate - Demmies Briefly Pay Attention to the Border When it Suits Their Narrative


Recommended Posts

On 10/4/2021 at 6:31 PM, Scott Mayers said:

Good luck, Comrade! As long as there are misinformants out there attempting to gaslight the meek and gullible citizens of our Western democracies by doing whatever it takes to destroy the credibility of trustworthy facts and logic in an attempt to divide us by pushing  our people's governments and corporations to censor content  for such overt online deception and abuses, I too will have to keep on fighting! ?

There was no whipping of illegals by by the border patrol agents on horseback but CNN, MSNBC and the rest of the usual suspects were promoting a falsehood in order to promote their slanted narrative and of course to jazz up the ratings. FOX covered this story truthfully.

I am pleased that you are against governments and corporations censoring content or to be more specific, the current practice of censoring conservatives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How scary is it that CNN and the Demmies are the ones leading the charge for government oversight of social media?

The people who promoted whipgate, Russian collusion, Bimbogate, and who told us that the intel community determined that "Hunter's laptop was Russian disinformation", all in the last 4 years, want to be the fact checkers for social media?

Talk about the inmates running the asylum.... There are no bigger liars in NA than CNN and the Demmies. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ironstone said:

There was no whipping of illegals by by the border patrol agents on horseback but CNN, MSNBC and the rest of the usual suspects were promoting a falsehood in order to promote their slanted narrative and of course to jazz up the ratings. FOX covered this story truthfully.

I am pleased that you are against governments and corporations censoring content or to be more specific, the current practice of censoring conservatives.

I've been just as censored by conservatives as to liberals throughout my life. The WAYS each does it is distinct but no one is 'innocent' in this.

As to media, just be sure to watch as much variety of sources before judging AND this includes EACH concerned issue. It helps to actually know the logical philosophical background on political ideologies because no single ideal exists for all people. 

I take some issue with how many on the Left and Center interpret letting in immigrants without respecting those at home who suffer with priority. The reality is that when we let people in as though they are all innocent refuges of countries who are troubled, we set a precedence to permitting the source countries of immigrants to KEEP their home country in disrepair and put MORE pressure on those isolated here and in need.

But the conservatives have not presented this case with their own precedence of arguing for fears of 'crime' as though this is uniquely impossible by themselves. As such, they do not use logical means to argue with priority but prioritize SENSATIONALISM and emotional appeals. It was not the case prior to the creation of Fox with its overt favoritism to ONLY the Republican side that the rest of the media outlets were considered 'liberal'. That is, all networks favor the conservative wealth to operate. The poor almost universally, for instance, would appeal to more socialist progressive ideals where such programs could enable them to survive and hopefully progress out of their conditions. But these people definitely do not own ANY media and they get trivial notice outside of government mandated networks, such as the CBC (Canada) or BBC (Britain). As such, it is RIDICULOUS that the Fox fans seem to think all other media is bunk unless they are the same types who would be gullible enough to fall for a cult where the cult leader(s) are assumed puritanical truthsayers with EXCLUSIVE VALIDITY while all outsiders are pure evil. 

As to the way media will caricature the men on horses as though they represent the imagery of violators against slave traders of the past, this is only reflecting some the countercultural beliefs of those who are most unusually sensitive on the on all but the extremes on the Right. All media other than government mandated ones would not dare to favor those 'liberal' views they are collectively accused of or they would risk a means to profit by the advertisers such corporations rely on for profit. But the traditional media companies had not thought to deliberately be so strictly 'conservative' in their ethics of reporting. Only until Fox came about has this absurd deliberate use of favoring the conservative ONLY news existed. And of course, to lock in their flock only requires feeding doubt about all other media outlets as being 'liberal' commies.  

The Fox philosophy of its founders literally based the idea for their network on the sensationalism of 'Hard Copy' (the most extreme rag magazine analogue on television.)  The rag magazines' outsell the actual news and this suggested to the founders of Fox that this could be a sincere means to PROFIT upon the most gullible. What better example of "capitalism" it is for a company to take opportunistic advantage of a market that assures the maximum profits knowing that their followers would act like members of a cult who would NOT trust any outsider and be PERFECTLY LOYAL just as a devout cult member would. 

This doesn't mean that those of us who know this wouldn't find value in watching Fox. The problem is the we would generally know not to trust any one source of news because we are not 'faith-based' thinkers. The faith-based thinkers do not seem to notice the strong presence of commentators' use of rhetoric to REPORT the news rather than just using rhetoric to SUPPORT what is reported distinctly elsewhere. The news prior to those like Fox was dull reporting and commentators only existed in documentary type programs we used to call, "investigative reporting".  

If anyone wants to argue the logical concerns regarding immigration risks, not even the supposed 'liberal' media seem to be willing to do this these days precisely for seeing how the powerful successes of Fox has 'cultivated' their viewers to a specific party ideal. You certainly cannot argue that only Democrats existed in government when there was only the traditional media Fox labels, "liberals". That is, if the traditional media sources were strictly 'liberal' liars, how EVER did a Republican win an election without Fox? 

 

 

Edited by Scott Mayers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

How scary is it that CNN and the Demmies are the ones leading the charge for government oversight of social media?

I thought the debate questions scandal was a good one. It wasn't only that CNN's Donna Brazile gave Hillary the questions beforehand, but that she accepted them.

Yes that is a little concerning...

And yet, did it make any difference? Not really. There was no impact or fallout. She almost won the election. Great swaths of dunderheads are too partisan to see the corruption where it resides. Of course, my corruption, your corruption...

....

It's like my pappy used to say, at least if you are gonna be corrupted, get it right!

;)

Edited by OftenWrong
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

I've been just as censored by conservatives as to liberals throughout my life. The WAYS each does it is distinct but no one is 'innocent' in this.

As to media, just be sure to watch as much variety of sources before judging AND this includes EACH concerned issue. It helps to actually know the logical philosophical background on political ideologies because no single ideal exists for all people. 

I take some issue with how many on the Left and Center interpret letting in immigrants without respecting those at home who suffer with priority. The reality is that when we let people in as though they are all innocent refuges of countries who are troubled, we set a precedence to permitting the source countries of immigrants to KEEP their home country in disrepair and put MORE pressure on those isolated here and in need.

But the conservatives have not presented this case with their own precedence of arguing for fears of 'crime' as though this is uniquely impossible by themselves. As such, they do not use logical means to argue with priority but prioritize SENSATIONALISM and emotional appeals. It was not the case prior to the creation of Fox with its overt favoritism to ONLY the Republican side that the rest of the media outlets were considered 'liberal'. That is, all networks favor the conservative wealth to operate. The poor almost universally, for instance, would appeal to more socialist progressive ideals where such programs could enable them to survive and hopefully progress out of their conditions. But these people definitely do not own ANY media and they get trivial notice outside of government mandated networks, such as the CBC (Canada) or BBC (Britain). As such, it is RIDICULOUS that the Fox fans seem to think all other media is bunk unless they are the same types who would be gullible enough to fall for a cult where the cult leader(s) are assumed puritanical truthsayers with EXCLUSIVE VALIDITY while all outsiders are pure evil. 

As to the way media will caricature the men on horses as though they represent the imagery of violators against slave traders of the past, this is only reflecting some the countercultural beliefs of those who are most unusually sensitive on the on all but the extremes on the Right. All media other than government mandated ones would not dare to favor those 'liberal' views they are collectively accused of or they would risk a means to profit by the advertisers such corporations rely on for profit. But the traditional media companies had not thought to deliberately be so strictly 'conservative' in their ethics of reporting. Only until Fox came about has this absurd deliberate use of favoring the conservative ONLY news existed. And of course, to lock in their flock only requires feeding doubt about all other media outlets as being 'liberal' commies.  

The Fox philosophy of its founders literally based the idea for their network on the sensationalism of 'Hard Copy' (the most extreme rag magazine analogue on television.)  The rag magazines' outsell the actual news and this suggested to the founders of Fox that this could be a sincere means to PROFIT upon the most gullible. What better example of "capitalism" it is for a company to take opportunistic advantage of a market that assures the maximum profits knowing that their followers would act like members of a cult who would NOT trust any outsider and be PERFECTLY LOYAL just as a devout cult member would. 

This doesn't mean that those of us who know this wouldn't find value in watching Fox. The problem is the we would generally know not to trust any one source of news because we are not 'faith-based' thinkers. The faith-based thinkers do not seem to notice the strong presence of commentators' use of rhetoric to REPORT the news rather than just using rhetoric to SUPPORT what is reported distinctly elsewhere. The news prior to those like Fox was dull reporting and commentators only existed in documentary type programs we used to call, "investigative reporting".  

If anyone wants to argue the logical concerns regarding immigration risks, not even the supposed 'liberal' media seem to be willing to do this these days precisely for seeing how the powerful successes of Fox has 'cultivated' their viewers to a specific party ideal. You certainly cannot argue that only Democrats existed in government when there was only the traditional media Fox labels, "liberals". That is, if the traditional media sources were strictly 'liberal' liars, how EVER did a Republican win an election without Fox? 

 

 

It's not a stretch to say FOX has a conservative slant but I find they simply report the news more fairly. And for you to not mention how utterly dismal CNN, MSNBC and the rest of the MSM are is astonishing. Brian Stelter of CNN is sadly typical of how the MSM carry water for the Democrats. Maybe it's why their ratings are lower than FOX?

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, ironstone said:

It's not a stretch to say FOX has a conservative slant

When I think of a slant, I think of a tilt of anywhere from 1-5 degrees. I'm pretty sure that Fox is tilted more than that lol.

Quote

but I find they simply report the news more fairly.

If you're talking about Brett Baier, I couldn't agree more. He's the best in the business right now at delivering the news without lies, notable omissions or extreme bias.

Quote

And for you to not mention how utterly dismal CNN, MSNBC and the rest of the MSM are is astonishing. Brian Stelter of CNN is sadly typical of how the MSM carry water for the Democrats. Maybe it's why their ratings are lower than FOX?

I'd say the term "carrying water" doesn't go nearly far enough.

CNN are outright liars, and it's not like they just do it once in a while. Every program aired on CNN is a confluence of lies, omissions, baseless accusations, and more lies.

Whipgate, Russian collusion, Ukrainian collusion, Dr Ford, the Afghan withdrawal, the BLM riots, January 6th, Trump's foreign policy, Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, the FBI, Hillary, etc. There's not a single storyline there that's not twisted to the point of being an outright lie, but they all contain key lies at their very core and they're rife with omissions as well. 

If there was any journalistic scrutiny at all applied in the US then CNN and MSNBC would be scuttled immediately. 

The scary thing is that the Dems and their MSM are so powerful that they're the ones who are deemed to be the fact checkers. A perfect example is the NYPost laptop story.

The MSM completely censored and disavowed the Hunter laptop story, they claimed that more than 50 former intelligence officials believe that the laptop story is Russian disinformation (does that remind you of "all climatologists agree" and "the covid science says...."?). FB squashed the story and banned users for posting about it, the NYPost itself was banned from Twitter for covering it, and anyone who mentioned it was a QANON nutjob. After the election was over it was acknowledged to be 100% legitimate, but the MSM won by that point, and their credibility was unaltered because the people who watch CNN and the MSM know that they're being lied to, they're just addicted to being on the virtue signalling team. 

But let's just think about the fact that the NYPost was banned from social media for telling the truth.... the NYPost was banned from social media for telling the truth... the NYPost was banned from social media for telling the truth.

Does the NYPost have a long history of being associated with lies? 

How many times has CNN been caught lying and how many times have they been banned from social media? 

We actually live under the Soviet system with Tass/Pravda. Any semblance of journalistic integrity in NA is an illusion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, ironstone said:

It's not a stretch to say FOX has a conservative slant but I find they simply report the news more fairly. And for you to not mention how utterly dismal CNN, MSNBC and the rest of the MSM are is astonishing. Brian Stelter of CNN is sadly typical of how the MSM carry water for the Democrats. Maybe it's why their ratings are lower than FOX?

 

Why do I require spelling out faults of other networks when the problem that I'm pointing out is that the Trump-loving fans have faith in the Fox News with an extreme exclusivity? It is irrational to blindly trust ANY news at all if you believe there exists some 'binary' black-or-white political biases that define your faith. You morons falsely believe that the rest of the secular society is equally as religious as you when it comes to taking strict sides. And this only backfires because you will get what you assume is 'true' by doing whatever it takes to assure it happens regardless of the actual truth because you rely on begging facts about your outside opponents without concern for logic nor integrity....which leads to the opponents' necessity to counteractively compete by using the same methods of hate that you espouse. 

How can you respond, for instance, to someone who accuses you of some set of absurd behaviors knowing that they do not care for requiring actual means of proof against you but by instead appeals to the mere emotional hatred they have of you by maligning you to their own 'friends' emotional connections to you alone? When this occurs, no amount of countering such charges using the best of skills in one's logic or reputation  would ever be able to compete because the degree of accusations against you would suffice to the accuser's crowd when they believe in absolute fidelity to demonstrate loyalty of their own kind? [Like how one's young children would blindly trust their parents' to tell the 'truth' even if their parents were the worst liars and haters of others.] 

What you like about Fox is its 'sensationalism' that strictly defines reality in caricatured extremes. As such, it appeals to the emotionally religious minds like children who appeal to watching toy commercials that intentionally act to manipulate them when they are co-associated with the cartoons they love so much. The fact is, NO Network is absolutely trustworthy. And IF you presume the non-Fox networks are ALL in one conspiracy against YOU or your kind, then you act like the children who cannot understand why their parents who try to tell them that the commercials targeting them are dubious and manipulative: they sulk and throw tantrums should their parents NOT comply with their desires regardless.

And what do you do when such chldren simply continue to behave this way? If you cannot reason with them to stop them from their tantrums, all you can do is to take the reins by being more assertive and strictly authoritative by sending them to their rooms.

The responses of the non-Fox media is to either ignore the intentional deception or confront them with reflective violence. The Fox media spends most of its reporting time disrespecting the integrity of all their non-Fox competitors using VERY AGRESSIVE bullying tactics that have nothing to do with truth nor integrity. Why SHOULD all other media accept the strict political bias being accused of them simply because Fox chose to be strictly loyal to one particular bias? Even IF your views were somehow true, it would still only prove that BOTH Fox and non-Fox news is identically biased and thus NONE should be trusted! Why trust ANY media that takes ONLY one side's politial view? Two wrongs wouldn't make either side correct. The only solution should be to demand your Fox media NOT be strictly biased to the conserative Republican perspective. 

 

Edited by Scott Mayers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

Why do I require spelling out faults of other networks when the problem that I'm pointing out is that the Trump-loving fans have faith in the Fox News with an extreme exclusivity? It is irrational to blindly trust ANY news at all if you believe there exists some 'binary' black-or-white political biases that define your faith. You morons falsely believe that the rest of the secular society is equally as religious as you when it comes to taking strict sides. And this only backfires because you will get what you assume is 'true' by doing whatever it takes to assure it happens regardless of the actual truth because you rely on begging facts about your outside opponents without concern for logic nor integrity....which leads to the opponents' necessity to counteractively compete by using the same methods of hate that you espouse. 

How can you respond, for instance, to someone who accuses you of some set of absurd behaviors knowing that they do not care for requiring actual means of proof against you but by instead appeals to the mere emotional hatred they have of you by maligning you to their own 'friends' emotional connections to you alone? When this occurs, no amount of countering such charges using the best of skills in one's logic or reputation  would ever be able to compete because the degree of accusations against you would suffice to the accuser's crowd when they believe in absolute fidelity to demonstrate loyalty of their own kind? [Like how one's young children would blindly trust their parents' to tell the 'truth' even if their parents were the worst liars and haters of others.] 

What you like about Fox is its 'sensationalism' that strictly defines reality in caricatured extremes. As such, it appeals to the emotionally religious minds like children who appeal to watching toy commercials that intentionally act to manipulate them when they are co-associated with the cartoons they love so much. The fact is, NO Network is absolutely trustworthy. And IF you presume the non-Fox networks are ALL in one conspiracy against YOU or your kind, then you act like the children who cannot understand why their parents who try to tell them that the commercials targeting them are dubious and manipulative: they sulk and throw tantrums should their parents NOT comply with their desires regardless.

And what do you do when such chldren simply continue to behave this way? If you cannot reason with them to stop them from their tantrums, all you can do is to take the reins by being more assertive and strictly authoritative by sending them to their rooms.

The responses of the non-Fox media is to either ignore the intentional deception or confront them with reflective violence. The Fox media spends most of its reporting time disrespecting the integrity of all their non-Fox competitors using VERY AGRESSIVE bullying tactics that have nothing to do with truth nor integrity. Why SHOULD all other media accept the strict political bias being accused of them simply because Fox chose to be strictly loyal to one particular bias? Even IF your views were somehow true, it would still only prove that BOTH Fox and non-Fox news is identically biased and thus NONE should be trusted! Why trust ANY media that takes ONLY one side's politial view? Two wrongs wouldn't make either side correct. The only solution should be to demand your Fox media NOT be strictly biased to the conserative Republican perspective. 

 

Morons? Clearly you're having a difficult time making your point without resorting to insults.

I still think FOX is head and shoulders above CNN and the rest. FOX has some less than stellar personalities(Cavuto, Chris Wallace) but most of their shows are pretty well done. As I have pointed out before, they do have Democratic contributors as well. CNN is probably the worst of the worst overall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, ironstone said:

Morons? Clearly you're having a difficult time making your point without resorting to insults.

I still think FOX is head and shoulders above CNN and the rest. FOX has some less than stellar personalities(Cavuto, Chris Wallace) but most of their shows are pretty well done. As I have pointed out before, they do have Democratic contributors as well. CNN is probably the worst of the worst overall.

[I thought about not using that word (moron) given I figured that this would be noticed by me regardless of the continuous insults being presented by you guys. But unlike you guys, the term is only a rhetorical addition to the logic, not dependent upon it.]

I like a bit of everyone and so cannot disagree with your right to favor something regarding personalities. But I don't interpret others as worthy of absolute faith (nor absolute disfaith) even where they may have personalities that I may agree with most of the time (or disagree with most of the time). I also interpret commentary as 'entertaining' of their subjective minds based upon their personalities. The facts they believe in should be caveated as representing their own view in light of possibly being incorrect. The actual 'facts' though, have to be presented without emotional interpretation and why the concept of neutality is essential when reporting. 

I did mention that Fox declared their philosophy to be strictly for the conservative Republican bias, right? Their choice to to be exclusively and openly biased does not mean that all the others ARE also equally biased exclusively against the conservative view as they are though. 

The expectation of many of those favoring Fox with such overt extremes is to demand utter faith in them or risk being threatened by false and obscene perversions in the way the Mafia might prove how one needs to pay for their protection by becoming the very threat should you not choose their exclusive services. 

Note that there is something called the "projection principle" from social-psychology that asserts that we tend to project onto others that which is actually about ourselves. So those who jump to some oddly extreme conclusion about someone else is projecting who they are reflectively. The ones accusing all who is not like them as being biased is thus reflecting that they themselves are the ones' being most irrationally biased. For example, the paranoid drug addict might accuse others as being 'high' without apparent warrant when they are attempting to deflect that they themselves are high. This is only most prevalent where one is invested in extreme accusations that lack foundations. 

How, for instance, did Hillary Clinton get accused of running or being a part of some child pedaphile ring through some restaurant (Pizzagate)? Strict conservative 'news' personalities (on the internet) wanting to throw out false news in order to get others to disprove the charge PROJECTS upon themselves that they are most likely reflecting their declared certainty as possible because of what they themselves must interpret as probable about their own perversions.

Here are some samples of the 'extreme' accusations that Fox intentionally fed out as 'true' and why people have to interpret such behavior as reflecting who Fox is by projection [https://www.thewrap.com/bill-maher-teases-more-lies-fox-news-will-report-as-true-but-then-retract-video/] :

“Fauci: Babies in the womb must wear masks.” 

Bill Maher Anthony Fauci HBO

“National anthem before NASCAR to be replaced by acknowledgement of privilege.”

Bill Maher NASCAR HBO

“Looting to be renamed ‘justice shopping.'”

Bill Maher Joe Biden HBO

“Dems: In all depictions of Jesus, crown of thorns to be replaced with pussy hat.”

Bill-Maher-Pussy-Hat.jpg

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

Here are some samples of the 'extreme' accusations that Fox intentionally fed out as 'true' and why 

Those aren't "samples of 'extreme' accusations that Fox fed out as true", they're jokes ffs, and they are actually funny as hell. But no one thought that any of that was actually news. I think that there's only 1 person in all of North America who believes that those were actual stories from Fox News.

I can't even believe the way you interpreted that. That's just way, way, way beyond anything that I've ever seen before. Unimaginably.....

Quote

“Fauci: Babies in the womb must wear masks.” 

 HBO

“National anthem before NASCAR to be replaced by acknowledgement of privilege.”

 HBO

“Looting to be renamed ‘justice shopping.'”

 HBO

“Dems: In all depictions of Jesus, crown of thorns to be replaced with pussy hat.”

 

l

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read some of the Bill Maher article, the things that Fox had to retract were:

Quote

a thing about Kamala Harris's book  being given to kids at the border, and Fox News provided the following statement from Roberts on Monday: “On Friday, we told you about a study from the University of Michigan to give some perspective on President Biden’s ambitious climate change goals. That research from 2020 found that cutting back how much red meat people eat would have a drastic impact on harmful greenhouse gas emissions. The data was accurate, but a graphic and the script incorrectly implied it was part of Biden’s plan for dealing with climate change. That is not the case.”

Oooh, that's big news, hey?

How big is that compared to whipgate, Dr Ford's testimony is credible, Russian collusion is bigger than watergate, Hunter's laptop is Russian disinformation, Ukrainian collusion, BLM's peaceful riots, Jan 6th was the worst thing since the civil war, the Afghan withdrawal was a remarkable success, etc?

Only a total fuckin idiot watches CNN and NBC and walks away thinking: "That was the news". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A more deserved name for the "fake news" media may well be the "arbitrary news" media.  A more deserved slogan for "all the news that's fit to print" may well be "all the news that's fit to print (but are reluctant to print due to the negative affects on our political interests and market share)".  Which pretty much sums up cnn, msnbc, and the NYT.  The big difference between fox and its rivals is that fox openly admits its bias in its reporting and commentary, while it would be like pulling teeth in getting  others (or their viewers/listeners) to admit to any such thing. THEY are the phonies who pass themselves off as "real news".  What's killing the US today is the political polarization of its citizens, the two  political parties, as well as the mainstream news sources.  Whereas at one time when voters would look at party policy with a reasonably sound mind they now fall blindly into lockstep with whatever the party or their favoured media giant says. As for "real news" (if there was such a thing), I would think that without commentary or opinion it would be terribly boring.  Not a good way to jack up market share or increase advertising revenue. 

Edited by suds
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, suds said:

What's killing the US today is the political polarization of its citizens, the two  political parties, as well as the mainstream news sources.  Whereas at one time when voters would look at party policy with a reasonably sound mind they now fall blindly into lockstep with whatever the party or their favoured media giant says. As for "real news" (if there was such a thing), I would think that without commentary or opinion it would be terribly boring.  Not a good way to jack up market share or increase advertising revenue. 

I think that the way the leftists are polarizing everyone is the worst part.

They aren't talking in terms of political differences, they say the GOP are racists, religious bigots, misogynists, etc. 

They're disgusting, hideous people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,713
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...