Jump to content


Brit Hume: The GOP only needs white votes to win


137 replies to this topic

#21 AnBr

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 14029 posts

Posted 09 July 2013 - 12:14 PM

View Postdsp, on 09 July 2013 - 12:00 PM, said:

I'm talking about explicit, wide-open to appeals to whites as whites, not implicit appeals or code-speak.
But that does not change the numbers. Not all whites are afraid of "the others". Blue states are not blue because no whites vote in them. Not all whites are driven by racial hatred.
“Trump’s a stupid man’s idea of a smart person, a poor man’s idea of a rich person & a weak man’s idea of a strong man.”

— Fran Lebowitz


“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It's simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”

— Carl Sagan


Pray for Trump: Psalm 109:8

"Science is more than a body of knowledge; it is a way of thinking. I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time - when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the key manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers arc in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness.

— Carl Sagan
The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
1995


“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”

— H.L. Mencken
On Politics: A Carnival of Buncombe


“The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.”

— Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Second inaugural address January, 1937

#22 LFC

    Fiscal Conservative

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 31793 posts
  • LocationPennsylvania

Posted 09 July 2013 - 12:46 PM

One thing the Republicans would be forced to balance here is the fact that a whites-specific appeal is more likely to connect with older white voters from another time and alienate younger ones. A much higher percentage of young whites have grown up much more racially accepting than their parents and especially grandparents did. If they've accepted black, latino, mixed race, and even foreign born kids as friends their entire lives, why would they suddenly become huge fans of white advocacy?

So maybe you pick up some 50+ year old white voters, but how many younger voters do you piss off for the next 50+ years? A perfect example of this is the acceptance of marriage equality by age bracket. The GOP's current attitude will bear bitter fruit for decades since the majority of younger Americans reject their view as immoral, petty, and just mean spirited. You can disagree with their views all you want, but that won't get them to vote for you.
" 'Individual conscience' means that women only get contraceptives if their employers, their physicians, their pharmacists, their husbands and/or fathers, pastors, and possibly their mayors, Governors, State Secretaries of Health, Congressmen, Senators, and President all agree that in that particular case they're justifiable." --D.C. Sessions

"That's the problem with being implacable foes - no one has any incentive to treat you as anything more than an obstacle to be overcome."

"The 'Road to Serfdom' is really all right turns." --Progressive Whisperer

""The GOP ... where every accusation is also a confession." --Progressive Whisperer

#23 J-CA

    Probably in one of my drunken stupors..

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4768 posts

Posted 09 July 2013 - 12:50 PM

View Postdsp, on 09 July 2013 - 12:00 PM, said:

I'm talking about explicit, wide-open to appeals to whites as whites.. Potentially, it's almost all white folks, since all white folks have ethnic interests that presently aren't being protected by either party... This is purely theoretical of course. The GOP won't do this...
If this is your answer to my question I find it kind of disappointing. I was asking the theoretical question about an "ideal" platform, I think if you are pushing this as a legitimate political strategy you have to have some idea about how it will push and pull your target demographics, just saying it is "potentially almost all" white folks is pretty shallow. You specifically indicate that Democrats target Latinos with explicit messages (on which you would model you white strategy) but Obama took only 69-71% of the Latino vote, that is a lot, but also a lot lower than "almost all". Bush II took 35-40%! Until Obama's candidacy increased the enthusiasm of black voters D's were stuck in the high 80's - that is pretty close to "almost all" (and I expect next election the numbers will fall back to the 80%+ range) but in the much larger white population that is still leaving a lot of votes on the table.

I think you will have a hard time defining "white" issues in the same way politicians have a hard time defining "latino" issues in the modern US political landscape. African Americans occupy a different place in the political arena because of the legacies of slavery and the CRM that make them unique. I am sure you know that I think the idea that Democratic support comes from the same place in the latino community as it does in the black community and that that lesson can be transferred to the white population is incorrect, but I am interested in the model of politics you have that leads you to these conclusions.
I am the burrito until someone hands me to a philosopher.

#24 D. R. Tucker

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1131 posts

Posted 09 July 2013 - 02:22 PM

Ed Kilgore: Why the GOP is so resistant to change

http://www.washingto...oison045721.php

#25 D. C. Sessions

    I don't have to pretend to be an adult any more

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10399 posts
  • LocationCentral New Mexico

Posted 09 July 2013 - 04:25 PM

View PostAnBr, on 09 July 2013 - 12:14 PM, said:

Not all whites are driven by racial hatred.

Of course not. Some are motivated by stark terror, others by jealousy [1], still others by avarice, etc.

[1] Remember, white guys can't jump. Not to mention dancing. And the less said about penis size the better.
The way a lot of catastrophes happen is that X doesn't occur because there are safeguards in place, therefore people assume X isn't a worry and they remove the safeguards. Then X happens.
— Nate Silver
"Robots aren't the problem. Capitalism is." -- Last words of Stephen Hawking.
These days, "libertarian" is just a euphemism for a Nazi who's afraid to commit.
"If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention." -- Heather Heyer
"I'd rather have my child, but by golly, if I gotta give her up, we're gonna make it count." -- Her mother
"Your purpose, then, plainly stated, is that you will destroy the Government, unless you be allowed to construe and enforce the Constitution as you please, on all points in dispute between you and us. You will rule or ruin in all events." -- some RINO

#26 Raskolnik

    Brainwashed Bigot

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1661 posts
  • LocationSukhāvatī

Posted 09 July 2013 - 04:49 PM

I think the point DSP is trying to express is that for liberal "multiculturalists" all cultures are created equal except for rural/white/Christian/European culture, which is The Enemy.

Obviously(?) I don't think the GOP's electoral woes can be solved through appeals to white voters. That said, I think DSP has a point here, however clumsily expressed.

#27 D. C. Sessions

    I don't have to pretend to be an adult any more

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10399 posts
  • LocationCentral New Mexico

Posted 09 July 2013 - 05:04 PM

View PostRaskolnik, on 09 July 2013 - 04:49 PM, said:

I think the point DSP is trying to express is that for liberal "multiculturalists" all cultures are created equal except for rural/white/Christian/European culture, which is The Enemy.

Around here, we're still in a condition of extreme fire danger. I would be very, very careful around that straw man.
The way a lot of catastrophes happen is that X doesn't occur because there are safeguards in place, therefore people assume X isn't a worry and they remove the safeguards. Then X happens.
— Nate Silver
"Robots aren't the problem. Capitalism is." -- Last words of Stephen Hawking.
These days, "libertarian" is just a euphemism for a Nazi who's afraid to commit.
"If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention." -- Heather Heyer
"I'd rather have my child, but by golly, if I gotta give her up, we're gonna make it count." -- Her mother
"Your purpose, then, plainly stated, is that you will destroy the Government, unless you be allowed to construe and enforce the Constitution as you please, on all points in dispute between you and us. You will rule or ruin in all events." -- some RINO

#28 Zen

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 476 posts

Posted 09 July 2013 - 06:30 PM

View PostRaskolnik, on 09 July 2013 - 04:49 PM, said:

I think the point DSP is trying to express is that for liberal "multiculturalists" all cultures are created equal except for rural/white/Christian/European culture, which is The Enemy.


I'd agree that there's a certain classist prejudice against rural whites (partly deserved, partly not), but the idea that liberalism is hostile to European culture is nonsense. Multiculturalism and liberalism are uniquely products of European culture that cannot be found anywhere else on the planet or in any other culture.

#29 dsp

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3654 posts

Posted 09 July 2013 - 06:52 PM

J-CA,

"was asking the theoretical question about an "ideal" platform, I think if you are pushing this as a legitimate political strategy you have to have some idea about how it will push and pull your target demographics, just saying it is "potentially almost all" white folks is pretty shallow. "

Do you mean you want me to list specific proposals that would make up a theoretical platform?

#30 dsp

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3654 posts

Posted 09 July 2013 - 07:01 PM

View PostZen, on 09 July 2013 - 06:30 PM, said:


I'd agree that there's a certain classist prejudice against rural whites (partly deserved, partly not), but the idea that liberalism is hostile to European culture is nonsense. Multiculturalism and liberalism are uniquely products of European culture that cannot be found anywhere else on the planet or in any other culture.

It's class, cultural, religious and race bias against non-liberal whites. Why else would they (liberals inclined to make race/ethicity and issue) go out of their way to harp on the fact that the GOPs voters are white? They always bring race into it, and always in a derogatory way.

As for liberalism, there are different strains of it. The dominant strain today is definitely hostile to Europe, Christianity and Western civilization. Today's liberalism ain't the liberalism of Jefferson, Mill or FDR.

#31 D. C. Sessions

    I don't have to pretend to be an adult any more

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10399 posts
  • LocationCentral New Mexico

Posted 09 July 2013 - 07:52 PM

View Postdsp, on 09 July 2013 - 06:52 PM, said:

Do you mean you want me to list specific proposals that would make up a theoretical platform?

No, the question assumes a "perfect" policy platform with no explicit racial appeals -- whatever "perfect" means.

That assumed, please tell us your electoral calculus for your advocated explicit racial appeal. J-CA lists some of the tradeoffs that would be part of that calculation.
The way a lot of catastrophes happen is that X doesn't occur because there are safeguards in place, therefore people assume X isn't a worry and they remove the safeguards. Then X happens.
— Nate Silver
"Robots aren't the problem. Capitalism is." -- Last words of Stephen Hawking.
These days, "libertarian" is just a euphemism for a Nazi who's afraid to commit.
"If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention." -- Heather Heyer
"I'd rather have my child, but by golly, if I gotta give her up, we're gonna make it count." -- Her mother
"Your purpose, then, plainly stated, is that you will destroy the Government, unless you be allowed to construe and enforce the Constitution as you please, on all points in dispute between you and us. You will rule or ruin in all events." -- some RINO

#32 J-CA

    Probably in one of my drunken stupors..

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4768 posts

Posted 09 July 2013 - 08:59 PM

D.C. has captured exactly the intent of my question, my apologies for my poor writing and gratitude to D.C. acting as an interpreter. Let us assume you have your perfect platform in all matters except that of the ethnic strategy...
I am the burrito until someone hands me to a philosopher.

#33 D. C. Sessions

    I don't have to pretend to be an adult any more

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10399 posts
  • LocationCentral New Mexico

Posted 09 July 2013 - 09:52 PM

View PostJ-CA, on 09 July 2013 - 08:59 PM, said:

D.C. has captured exactly the intent of my question, my apologies for my poor writing and gratitude to D.C. acting as an interpreter.

There was nothing wrong with your writing -- it merely lacked the artifacts of a career spent writing in an environment where anything that can be misunderstood, will be misunderstood. I'm not convinced that those artifacts are in any regard virtuous.
The way a lot of catastrophes happen is that X doesn't occur because there are safeguards in place, therefore people assume X isn't a worry and they remove the safeguards. Then X happens.
— Nate Silver
"Robots aren't the problem. Capitalism is." -- Last words of Stephen Hawking.
These days, "libertarian" is just a euphemism for a Nazi who's afraid to commit.
"If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention." -- Heather Heyer
"I'd rather have my child, but by golly, if I gotta give her up, we're gonna make it count." -- Her mother
"Your purpose, then, plainly stated, is that you will destroy the Government, unless you be allowed to construe and enforce the Constitution as you please, on all points in dispute between you and us. You will rule or ruin in all events." -- some RINO

#34 Raskolnik

    Brainwashed Bigot

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1661 posts
  • LocationSukhāvatī

Posted 10 July 2013 - 02:57 AM

View PostZen, on 09 July 2013 - 06:30 PM, said:

I'd agree that there's a certain classist prejudice against rural whites (partly deserved, partly not), but the idea that liberalism is hostile to European culture is nonsense. Multiculturalism and liberalism are uniquely products of European culture that cannot be found anywhere else on the planet or in any other culture.

Oh please. Have you honestly never heard the railing against "Dead White European Males" in progressive multicultural circles? Do you honestly not know that Jesse Jackson was at the front of a mob chanting "Hey Hey Ho Ho Western Civ Has Got to Go" in order to change Stanford's curriculum in 1988?

I agree with you that European high culture is the theoretical basis of contemporary leftist liberalism, but the only thing that proves is that leftists are ignorant of the intellectual provenance of their ideas.

#35 Zen

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 476 posts

Posted 10 July 2013 - 04:05 AM

View PostRaskolnik, on 10 July 2013 - 02:57 AM, said:

Oh please. Have you honestly never heard the railing against "Dead White European Males" in progressive multicultural circles?

Being overly critical or being awash with mostly nonsensical white guilt is not the same as being 'anti-European'.

Quote

I agree with you that European high culture is the theoretical basis of contemporary leftist liberalism, but the only thing that proves is that leftists are ignorant of the intellectual provenance of their ideas.

This is flatly untrue. Most left liberals can properly trace and contextualize their ideology in the wider context of European civilization, and seem to have no problem referring to influential European thinkers.

As I mentioned before, nowhere else in the world that I can think of, is multiculturalism or race/ethnic blindness taken seriously, like it is in Europe. You may not like it, but it's quite clear that left liberal ideology is a part of and a child of European civilization.

#36 Raskolnik

    Brainwashed Bigot

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1661 posts
  • LocationSukhāvatī

Posted 10 July 2013 - 04:22 AM

View PostZen, on 10 July 2013 - 04:05 AM, said:

Being overly critical or being awash with mostly nonsensical white guilt is not the same as being 'anti-European'.

Errrr.... yes it is.

Quote

This is flatly untrue. Most left liberals can properly trace and contextualize their ideology in the wider context of European civilization, and seem to have no problem referring to influential European thinkers.

Left liberals are generally Marxists. Late 20th/early 21st century Marxist criticism by and large disowns European intellectual history up to and including Hegel. In other words, the occasional name-checking of Freud and Nietzsche among left liberals 1) does not count as cognizance of European intellectual history and 2) reinforces my point. That said, we may be talking past each other a bit here because I am referring primarily to "high" left-liberal discourse. However neo-hippies and their ilk are, if anything, even more hostile to classical European intellectual history, so...


Quote

As I mentioned before, nowhere else in the world that I can think of, is multiculturalism or race/ethnic blindness taken seriously, like it is in Europe

I have no idea what this sentence means... can you restate/elaborate?

Quote

You may not like it, but it's quite clear that left liberal ideology is a part of and a child of European civilization.

Haha who said I didn't like it? You're preaching to the choir, here. I would actually go a step further: left liberal ideology would be literally unthinkable without Christian ethics.

#37 Zen

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 476 posts

Posted 10 July 2013 - 05:17 AM

Quote

Left liberals are generally Marxists.

And this I cannot take with any seriousness. I can only imagine you're redefining Marxism to suit your political purposes in order to slander liberals. It's really no different than the people who call Obama a neo-Marxist/Hitler. It's just exploiting the fact that Marxism has a negative connotation in modern discourse, it's a 'bad word', and you're simply trying to throw any and all bad words at left liberals. Even a cursory examination of Marxism would reveal that it has nothing to do with left liberalism (unless of course you want to start talking about 'cultural Marxism' and the Frankfurt School :rolleyes: ). When left liberals start talking about the dictatorship of the proletariat, class warfare, revolution, the dialectic, materialism, the bourgeoisie etc, then you can accuse them of being closet Marxists, not before. Most left-liberals have probably never even read any introductory texts to Marxism, much less any actually Marxist texts. Perhaps they just stumbled onto those obscure, arcane, and verbose Marxist views by accident one day.

The only closet or ex-Marxists that I can think of in the American mainstream are the neocons who are mostly ex-Trotskyists and ex-Stalinists.

Quote

I have no idea what this sentence means... can you restate/elaborate?

Liberal obsession with multiculturalism, assimilation, or civic nationalism, race/ethnic blindness is mainly a Western/European obsession. Other countries and other people reject multiculturalism, and tend to regard their ethnicity, culture, and race with much seriousness.

Quote

Haha who said I didn't like it? You're preaching to the choir, here. I would actually go a step further: left liberal ideology would be literally unthinkable without Christian ethics.

Funny, you don't seem too enamored with left-liberalism, you never have.

#38 Raskolnik

    Brainwashed Bigot

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1661 posts
  • LocationSukhāvatī

Posted 10 July 2013 - 06:23 AM

For what it's worth I think there's a lot to recommend Marxist economic analysis, where I diverge from Marx is mainly in the metaphysical assumptions and the political prescriptions.

That said, watered-down Marxism is still Marxism. I find it hard to believe that you don't understand what I'm talking about. Contemporary leftist discourse has essentially replaced economic status with gender, "sexual orientation," and to a lesser extent ethnicity as the major elements of the class system. Which is to say, 1) males, 2) heterosexuals, and 3) white people are all the oppressor class... white heterosexual males being the prime enemy. It's "class warfare" except the factions are cultural rather than economic. So left liberals might not use the exactly correct Marxist words like "false consciousness" to describe, for example. a homosexual like Eve Tushnet who is opposed to SSM, but that is precisely their point. (Also, it's not as though Rich People Are Evil has entirely disappeared as a rhetorical strategy from the leftist playbook, though again it's less important than 1-3 supra; wealthy white male homosexuals are fellow travelers in a way that wealthy white male heterosexuals, even at their most groveling to the liberal pantheon, can never be). As for this:

View PostZen, on 10 July 2013 - 05:17 AM, said:

Funny, you don't seem too enamored with left-liberalism, you never have.

My point is that the intellectual roots of the kind of egalitarian humanism leftists play lip service to lie precisely in the Christian ethical tradition. That doesn't mean I like left liberalism, it means I think leftists who pretend that their ideology would be comprehensible in the absence of Christian thought, or enforceable in a society that eschews the Christian basis of their ethical system, are kidding themselves.

#39 J-CA

    Probably in one of my drunken stupors..

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4768 posts

Posted 10 July 2013 - 09:18 AM

Raskolnik: You seem to be mixing up Marx and John Stuart Mill. Marx gets all the press but Mill is the real deal when it comes to liberal traditions. (He was even the godfather to Bertrand Russel, the original source of the right-wing crazies' ideas that all leftists want to install a supreme world government!) If you acknowledge Mill as the source then you do not need to engage in all these intellectual gymnastics of how somehow all these economic-to-cultural substitutions were made - which also have the side effect of making your argument sound not particularly credible. (He also drank half a case of shandy and became particularly ill.)

Confusing the use of "Dead White European Males" as a thinking tool to examine what might be missing from history and philosophy because it was written for long time by people in a specific group with a likely set of bias and agendas with some sort of intellectual crusade against European culture is silly. It is no different than bearing in mind that "the victors write history". This was literally how the topic was briefly discussed (and mostly dismissed) when I briefly studied political history.
Can you find marginal figures who want to abuse this idea? Of course you can, but it is like branding all conservatives monarchists, it is dishonest and disingenuous. (I am often irked by the fact that some folks of the conservative persuasion seem to regard any reexamination of the past as some sort of attack on tradition, why can't it just be an intellectual endeavour with no particular agenda?)
I am the burrito until someone hands me to a philosopher.

#40 Zen

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 476 posts

Posted 10 July 2013 - 04:53 PM

View PostRaskolnik, on 10 July 2013 - 06:23 AM, said:

For what it's worth I think there's a lot to recommend Marxist economic analysis, where I diverge from Marx is mainly in the metaphysical assumptions and the political prescriptions.

That may be so, and indeed I have seen quite a few intelligent Marxists, but left liberals are absolutely nothing like them. A left liberal wouldn't know 'Marxist analysis' if it bit them in the ass. In fact, I actually visit an international forum which is populated by a variety of ideologues, including everyone from mainstream discourse (your American/European liberals, conservatives) to even extremists such as fascists and communists. The forum has a rather high standard of discussion (even quasi-academic), so these people are rather well-read and intelligent. I actually know what Marxists actually think, so you won't be able to throw labels around me around quite easily the same way you could as if you were at some Republican convention and everyone decided to throw every extreme label at Obama in order to slander him.

Quote

That said, watered-down Marxism is still Marxism.

No, your bogeyman caricature is still a bogeyman caricature.


Quote

Contemporary leftist discourse has essentially replaced economic status with gender, "sexual orientation," and to a lesser extent ethnicity as the major elements of the class system.Which is to say, 1) males, 2) heterosexuals, and 3) white people are all the oppressor class... white heterosexual males being the prime enemy. It's "class warfare" except the factions are cultural rather than economic. So left liberals might not use the exactly correct Marxist words like "false consciousness" to describe, for example. a homosexual like Eve Tushnet who is opposed to SSM, but that is precisely their point. (Also, it's not as though Rich People Are Evil has entirely disappeared as a rhetorical strategy from the leftist playbook, though again it's less important than 1-3 supra; wealthy white male homosexuals are fellow travelers in a way that wealthy white male heterosexuals, even at their most groveling to the liberal pantheon, can never be)


Your whole argument is like "well they totally threw out Marx, but they are still Marxists!" Leaving aside the fact that most of these people were never Marxists to begin with.

It's like some ridiculous reductionist view, like the ones found in Tea Party/Libertarian circles when they try to use Newspeak in order to redefine liberalism to be socialism. When one explains the differences to them, they get all indignant, and just reiterate all their ignorant nonsense and add something like this "Well, they are both collectivist ideologies, so they are the same thing!".Most left liberals never talk about class in a Marxist sense, they usually can never get past "rich, poor, middle class". They seem to have forgotten the word "working class completely", and their class analysis to the extent that it even exists is pitiful. They don't really have any, but even if I were to say they have class analysis (for argument's sake), their 'class analysis' is completely alien to Marxism. So you pull the old TP/Liberatian Newspeak trick, and go all "Yeah, well they both have class analysis, who cares if they are entirely different, they're both still Marxists".

Marx had little to say about sexual orientation or race/ethnicity (aside from a few homophobic and racist comments) -- if you're into identity politics rather than class, then you aren't a Marxist, it's that simple.

You simply want to bring Marx into the discussion in order to weaponize it and slander social liberalism. The only problem with this is that there are still Marxists around and they have very little in common with left liberalism; most are explicitly anti-liberal.

Quote

My point is that the intellectual roots of the kind of egalitarian humanism leftists play lip service to lie precisely in the Christian ethical tradition. That doesn't mean I like left liberalism, it means I think leftists who pretend that their ideology would be comprehensible in the absence of Christian thought, or enforceable in a society that eschews the Christian basis of their ethical system, are kidding themselves.

I am aware that left liberalism has certain roots which might be traced to Christianity (for instance, universalism), but that's irrelevant. They have long split off and evolved away from that tradition. Also, left liberals routinely make references to Pacifist-Hippie Jesus and make a distinction between him and Organized Christianity (so they seem to be aware of their Christian roots).

As for enforcement, left liberals, despite certain Christian roots, have secularized their message and tend to make their case on that basis. Thus, it isn't necessary for them to explicitly or even implicitly reference Christian ethics anymore. People have learned to treat them as separate things.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users