Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Yes, The Real The New Awesome Primary Thread
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 737 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 376 of 478 (782761)
04-28-2016 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 358 by NoNukes
04-28-2016 3:11 AM


Textbook case of quote mining staring NoNukes.
Entire message 358 of NoNukes
quote:
[selective quote of LamarkNewAge]
Not bad considering he had already suffered having to deal with 11 southern states.
[NoNukes]
That's right. Southern states are a Democratic party plot designed to keep Sanders from winning the primary.
[selective quote of LamarkNewAge]
Now it is 17-12 for Bernie outside the south and he is down 23 to 17 in 40 states total.
[NoNukes]
Because southern states don't count despite the fact that southern democrtatic voters represent a diverse cross section of the population that is generally not found in the states Bernie has tended to win. Let's count up victories in Alaska and Wyoming and claim that those wins mean more than victories in Georgia or North Carolina.
I know we like to think that southern states are just redneck red states, but the population that gives southern states that reputation is not the population that Sanders and Clinton are appealing to and competing for in southern states. Or for that matter even in states like New York, Pennsylvania, or Delaware.
I like Bernie, and I appreciate that he has not gotten a fair shake from the Democratic party. But some arguments should not be used by creationists or anyone else.
Now for my actual post (which was #357).
quote:
Superdelegates "have never been a determining factor in who our nominee is since they've been in place since 1984."
Debbie Wasserman Schultz on Monday, March 21st, 2016 in an interview on Fox Business News
They sure did influence the media coverage. Bernie was defeated from the start with Hillary and her big super delegate tallies frequently used as a yardstick.
After Wisconsin, Bernie needed 55% of the remaining (non-superdelegate) delegates to lead Hillary among voter chosen delegates. Not bad considering he had already suffered having to deal with 11 southern states. He actually had (post-Wisconsin) beaten her 16 to 7 in non southern states. Now it is 17-12 for Bernie outside the south and he is down 23 to 17 in 40 states total.
But the media kept saying he needed around 70% of remaining delegates. Because of the supers.
My point is that from the beginning, the media has assured us that Hillary has a "500" delegate lead" and "can't be stopped". After Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada Bernie had gotten more votes but the media was talking like it was nearly over because she has 450 or so more delegates. Then she crushed him in South Carolina and they talked about how Bernie needed 60% of all remaining delegates to win even though there were only 4 states (with 3% of the population) having voted.
Then came Super Tuesday.
Bernie won Oklahoma, Vermont, Colorado, and Minnesota.
Hillary won 7 states (6 southern ones plus Massachusetts).
15 states voted. With about 30% of the population.
Hillary won 10 (Iowa and Massachusetts very narrowly)
Bernie won 5 by at least 11 points each.
But Hillary had this big lead of something like 1000/1100 to 400 because of a 465 to 25 or something lead among the super delegates.
"Bernie needs like 65% of remaining delegates to win, the revolution is over".
It is over they tell us.
Now the nation thinks "silly old Bernie can't win" (people were saying that from the start) Before the race began (way back in September 2015), everybody had been saying the same thing. "He is too old, I'm supporting Trump." "Sanders isn't bad, just too old, I'm voting for Trump". "Only Trump can take on the establishment". "Sanders ain't going to win". "He will die in office". I heard that a trillion times way back before 2016! And all through January.
As soon as the voting started, the Democratic establishment (and the media) was ready to invoke the "Big Hillary delegate lead" and call the race.
Compare this to what Fowler jr. said back in 2011.
quote:
My father Don Fowler is a superdelegate. I love my father, and I trust my father. And I gave up letting my father dictate my life since he determined how late I got to stay up at night.
So, as much as I love and respect him, I don’t trust him and his fellow superdelegates to decide for me and the American people who should be the Democratic nominee.
Truth is, they won’t.
There is a tremendous amount of discussion and even paranoia suggesting that a group of party insiders are already at work cutting some backroom deal to pick the nominee they want ... damn the will of the voters and damn the democratic process.
That’s pretty much hogwash when one looks at who these superdelegates actually are.
Half of them are superdelegates precisely because of the will of the voters all Democratic House members, all Democratic senators (except Lieberman), and all the Democratic governors. The other half are the 450 or so members of the Democratic National Committee a sort of oversized board of directors for the national party. These folks come from every state and represent every wonderful, vibrant piece of cloth that makes up the Democratic electoral quilt.
Establishment, you say? These very same DNC members are the reason Howard Dean is Chairman of the Party ... despite the vocal, aggressive, even nasty opposition of the establishment. One very powerful establishment leader said of Governor Dean’s chase for the chairmanship after Kerry’s 2004 loss, I don’t care who the Chairman of the DNC is, it just can’t be Howard Dean. Oops. That was not a lonely sentiment coming from DC. Yet it was the 450 DNC members superdelegates all who put him exactly where he needed to be.
Let’s take this superdelegate analysis even further. At the end of this nomination process when the voters have spoken, the superdelegates will want what is best for the party (meaning a victory in November) and will almost all resist any temptation to overturn any decision made by a clear majority of voters in the states
....
So the superdelegates are, in fact, super because of their commitment to the Democratic Party and its ideals. And most were elected to that position in one way or another. They are not super because they have extra votes or because one presidential campaign controls them.
....
Why are the superdelegates there, then? They provide a sense of perspective and wisdom and, if ever needed, they could slow down the rise of an unfortunate and dangerous insurgent candidate like a Lyndon Larouche or David Duke. Just to be extra special clear, neither Senator Obama nor Senator Clinton are what the national party leadership had in mind over twenty years ago when the superdelegates came into being.
....
My Father the Superdelegate and Why There's Nothing to Fear | HuffPost Latest News
How can anybody, no matter how smug, claim that the super delegates didn't slow down (if not trample all over) Bernie Sanders?
This Democratic primary has been about the biggest joke of a "democratic" process one can imagine.
They gave 15% of the delegates (or at least a net of 10% anyway) to Clinton right from the start. The media was happy to sell the narrative (big shock). And even more convenient that the primaries were front loaded with southern states (one can offer a straw-man joke about whether that was a deliberate conspiracy, but understand that the issue should be one of perspective - that being the media preferred perspective is to say "it's all over for any Bernie momentum after Hillary clobbered him early down south" and the non-corrupt perspective that less favorable, to Hillary, non-southern states should have their say without this "it's all over" b.s.)
Fowler claimed that superdelegates would change their minds based on the eventual pledged delegate (Democratic primary/caucus voter decided) outcome, but the media coverage has been to mock Bernie when he suggests that he only needed (till recently) around 55% , and not 73% of remaining delegates because, as he argued, he could get the Hillary supporting (unelected)Super Delegates to change their minds if he won their states (which would essentially be evening the superdelegates and relegating them to a complete wash and neither a net benefit or loss for either candidate).
Here is my google link which shows media reaction to the suggestion of Bernie that the Super Delegates would change their minds.
Google
I guess Bernie was the "unfortunate and dangerous insurgent candidate" Fowler jr. warned us about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 358 by NoNukes, posted 04-28-2016 3:11 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 377 by NoNukes, posted 04-28-2016 4:33 PM LamarkNewAge has replied
 Message 379 by AZPaul3, posted 04-28-2016 6:09 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 377 of 478 (782763)
04-28-2016 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 376 by LamarkNewAge
04-28-2016 4:16 PM


Re: Textbook case of quote mining staring NoNukes.
Textbook case of quote mining staring NoNukes.
Wrong. My characterization of your post was dead on. According to your post, which described "suffering through" southern states, and then emphasized the count that Bernie had absent the southern states conveyed exactly the message I attacked in my post. I have yet to see any explanation of why your statements, placed in any context, are justifiable.
My point is that from the beginning, the media has assured us that Hillary has a "500" delegate lead" and "can't be stopped".
Then you made a bad point on your way to trying to make your point. I could say the same thing about the media telling us about Bernie winning 8 of 9 tiny states as being some threat to Hilary despite the fact her performance so far has been pretty much as expected.
Yes there has been some over hyping of Hilary and some media favoring of her over Bernie, but talking about 11 losses in southern states as though that kind of performance is somehow excusable or not worthy of comment is simply wrong. It certainly does not make your point about any media excesses or downplaying of Bernie. It was just bogus.
Bernie appeals to people whose mindsets are most like my own. But the fact that such appeal is not sufficient to win the democratic primary is not much of a surprise to me. Nor is it much of a surprise that the Democratic establishment feels the same way.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 376 by LamarkNewAge, posted 04-28-2016 4:16 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 378 by LamarkNewAge, posted 04-28-2016 6:08 PM NoNukes has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 737 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 378 of 478 (782771)
04-28-2016 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 377 by NoNukes
04-28-2016 4:33 PM


Re: Textbook case of quote mining staring NoNukes.
There was just a Pew poll that showed that 45% of Bernie supporters and 38% of Trump supporters felt that our international involvement made the world worse.
Only 28% of Hillary supporters did.
The nation was 34%. (60% on the opposite end)
Hillary supporters are more hawkish than the national average.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 377 by NoNukes, posted 04-28-2016 4:33 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 382 by NoNukes, posted 04-29-2016 12:44 AM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 379 of 478 (782772)
04-28-2016 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 376 by LamarkNewAge
04-28-2016 4:16 PM


Re: Textbook case of quote mining staring NoNukes.
This Democratic primary has been about the biggest joke of a "democratic" process one can imagine.
Except it was never intended to be a "democratic" process in the extreme sense you are trying to make it. The process is intended to offer up the nominee of the Democratic Party not the nominee of the American people writ large. And the Democratic Party is the leadership of the party put in their positions by the party base not the American people writ large.
The sooner people understand what a political party really is the sooner this conspiracy tripe can end.
Edited by AZPaul3, : tighpoe

This message is a reply to:
 Message 376 by LamarkNewAge, posted 04-28-2016 4:16 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 380 by LamarkNewAge, posted 04-28-2016 6:25 PM AZPaul3 has replied
 Message 383 by NoNukes, posted 04-29-2016 1:30 AM AZPaul3 has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 737 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 380 of 478 (782773)
04-28-2016 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 379 by AZPaul3
04-28-2016 6:09 PM


Superdelegates defended again.
15% of the vote is rigged.
Might as well say Sanders needs to win 50% out of the remaining 85%.
Or 59% to 41% of the voters.
Democratic voters need to vote nearly 3 to 2 to defeat the "one whose turn it is" as decided by an out of touch bunch of elites.
One person equals one vote in the democratic primary.
But. But. But.
You need to win 1.5 to 1 to win.
This wasn't what Fowler jr. told us back in 2011 (see article). Unless one ones to assume that Sanders fit the mold of that dangerous insurgent candidate. Like Larouche, he is anti-war (not quite as much as the strict pacifist Larouche), so that makes him a dangerous radical.
We were not sold this super delegate bowl of goods on the notion that Sanders was unfit to be President according to the all-knowing Democratic elites. And they called Larouche a "right-wing fascist" anyway (aside from his odd stance on HIV in the 1980s, nothing could be further from the truth), so who knows what the standard is?
I want to know what exactly made Sanders unfit for a simple majority of Democrats to be trusted?
Why does he need a super majority of (Democratic - Capital D) voters to win?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 379 by AZPaul3, posted 04-28-2016 6:09 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 381 by AZPaul3, posted 04-28-2016 6:48 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 381 of 478 (782775)
04-28-2016 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 380 by LamarkNewAge
04-28-2016 6:25 PM


Re: Superdelegates defended again.
I want to know what exactly made Sanders unfit for a simple majority of Democrats to be trusted?
Why does he need a super majority of (Democratic - Capital D) voters to win?
First, Bernie, and I really like Bernie, is too far to the left of the Democratic Party to garner the support needed to win the nomination of the party. Second, Hillary has that support and will skate into Philadelphia to accept the nomination based on pledged delegates alone.
15% of the vote is rigged.
Conspiracy nut.
15% are super delegates. They are all the Democratic Party members of the Senate and the House of Representatives, all serving Democratic Party Governors of states, the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Democratic Party in each state and the members of the Democratic Leadership Council and the Democratic Party National Committee.
They were chosen because of their position. They are not chosen because they like Hillary. That is not "rigged".
They are free to support anyone they so chose. That is not "rigged".
This is the leadership of the party exercising some modicum of control over who best represents the philosophy and agenda of the Democratic Party. That is not "rigged"'
Because of her philosophy, her history, her work and her strength, a majority of those supers are supporting Hillary.
That's not "rigged". That is the party voice.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 380 by LamarkNewAge, posted 04-28-2016 6:25 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 423 by LamarkNewAge, posted 05-05-2016 3:29 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 382 of 478 (782791)
04-29-2016 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 378 by LamarkNewAge
04-28-2016 6:08 PM


Re: Textbook case of quote mining staring NoNukes.
There was just a Pew poll that showed that 45% of Bernie supporters and 38% of Trump supporters felt that our international involvement made the world worse.
Only 28% of Hillary supporters did
The nation was 34%. (60% on the opposite end)
Hillary supporters are more hawkish than the national average.
The response is not solely about wars. In fact some of the people who complain about Obama complain about his failure to fight wars. This particular question may be more nuanced than you are letting on. I'm not saying that Hilary supporters are not more hawkish, but this question may not probe that directly.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 378 by LamarkNewAge, posted 04-28-2016 6:08 PM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 383 of 478 (782797)
04-29-2016 1:30 AM
Reply to: Message 379 by AZPaul3
04-28-2016 6:09 PM


Re: Textbook case of quote mining staring NoNukes.
The sooner people understand what a political party really is the sooner this conspiracy tripe can end.
Given this reality, I think it is interesting to think about what the GOP might do at the convention if Trump falls short of 1200 delegates. Is it really a forgone conclusion that the GOP would pick Cruz given the ability to avoid Trump? How much of the party actually embraces Cruz? Is the answer none of the Senate, only the tea party faction of the House, and a paltry few Governors?
Just how did the GOP allow their house to get into such an order?
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 379 by AZPaul3, posted 04-28-2016 6:09 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 384 by AZPaul3, posted 04-29-2016 3:40 AM NoNukes has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 384 of 478 (782807)
04-29-2016 3:40 AM
Reply to: Message 383 by NoNukes
04-29-2016 1:30 AM


Bouncy, bouncy, bouncy.
Is it really a forgone conclusion that the GOP would pick Cruz given the ability to avoid Trump? How much of the party actually embraces Cruz?
Just how did the GOP allow their house to get into such an order?
What is it with the hard questions? Haven't you got any easy questions that don't take a massive tome to answer? Good lord, where to start.
Start with the last one.
Just how did the GOP allow their house to get into such an order?
The quick and woefully understated easy answer to that has to do with the conservative realignment in the party in the 70-80's. From there the evangelicals grew into the leadership positions in the party with no thought to keeping a moderate base energized. The Republican liberal wing had all but disappeared by 1990 and the moderate center has been on the ropes since 2000. At this point the party is flirting with the extremes of the American right. Romney may be the last of the moderate conservatives we see from the Republicans unless the center can reassert itself after this 2016 disaster. Don't count on it.
Is it really a forgone conclusion that the GOP would pick Cruz given the ability to avoid Trump? How much of the party actually embraces Cruz?
The Republican's may be in for an unpleasant surprise come June 7. Looking at the poll numbers for Indiana (primary May 3), Trumps lead is not large but may be solid. If he can keep up this lead and win Indiana then, come California and New Jersey, June 7, he may have the 1237 delegates needed going into Cleveland. This scenario is looking more likely than it did just a week ago.
This leads, then, to a battle royal in the convention where we will see the leadership try to exert its influence (a bit late there, guys) with major rules changes coming off the rules committee to be fought (maybe literally) on the convention floor.
At that point, yes, I think the Republican leadership would rather hold their collective noses and embarrassingly, grudgingly, accept Cruz.
If the leadership can hang the convention after the blood dries and the walkouts occur there is always the slim chance of a compromise candidate. Paul Ryan has said not just no, but hell no, leaving Rich Perry licking his lips and Jeb Bush kinda bouncing on the balls of his feet.
The thing is the Republican leadership does not have the level of control it once did just a few years ago with so many staunch partisans on the convention floor. Because of this I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the leadership, stripped down by those abandoning the party altogether, Trump or Cruz doesn't matter, just accepted the fact that Hillary will be our next president.
Fuck me, I don't know.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 383 by NoNukes, posted 04-29-2016 1:30 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 388 by NoNukes, posted 04-29-2016 1:32 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
Shield
Member (Idle past 2861 days)
Posts: 482
Joined: 01-29-2008


(1)
Message 385 of 478 (782809)
04-29-2016 5:14 AM


I'll never understand the way you choose your party candidates in the US.
Basically any one can run for whatever party he or she wants to, and if they win the primaries, theyll represent that party..
That just does not make any sense.
In DK, and most other countries, the leader of the party is the candidate for president/prime minister. They have usually worked their way up through party ranks to get to that position.
The current primeminster of DK, begun his political career in the youth branch of his party in '86. 12 years later he held his first political office as mayor, then minister of health, then minister of finance. He was active in the party for 23 years before becomming leader of the party.
That just makes sense imo.
Trump doesnt really represent the republican party, neither does Cruz. Why not an actual tea party, instead of shanghaiing the republican party?
Edited by Shield, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 392 by nwr, posted 04-29-2016 3:43 PM Shield has seen this message but not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 386 of 478 (782810)
04-29-2016 6:33 AM


How It All Works
I haven't done the most excellent job of explaining the US Presidential Primary system. I found this on the net and think this does a much better job than I could possibly do.

  
Big_Al35
Member (Idle past 799 days)
Posts: 389
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 387 of 478 (782831)
04-29-2016 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 367 by AZPaul3
04-28-2016 10:54 AM


Re: The Primaries Continue
AZPaul3 writes:
If you were any candidate’s supporter I wouldn’t want you anywhere near the campaign because you are a trolling dunderhead who would piss everyone off with your insults and conspiracy tripe and lose us the good people that would otherwise support us.
Did I touch a nerve? You sound like one of the Caucus coercers that I mention in an earlier post.
Link --> Clinton Condemns Alleged Coercion of Caucusgoers - CBS News

This message is a reply to:
 Message 367 by AZPaul3, posted 04-28-2016 10:54 AM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 390 by AZPaul3, posted 04-29-2016 2:26 PM Big_Al35 has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 388 of 478 (782848)
04-29-2016 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 384 by AZPaul3
04-29-2016 3:40 AM


Re: Bouncy, bouncy, bouncy.
What is it with the hard questions?
Sorry about that. Here is a softball question. Just what is accomplished by picking Fiorina as a running mate? Just what constituency does that tap into?

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 384 by AZPaul3, posted 04-29-2016 3:40 AM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 389 by jar, posted 04-29-2016 1:36 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied
 Message 391 by AZPaul3, posted 04-29-2016 2:58 PM NoNukes has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 389 of 478 (782849)
04-29-2016 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 388 by NoNukes
04-29-2016 1:32 PM


Re: Bouncy, bouncy, bouncy.
NN writes:
Just what is accomplished by picking Fiorina as a running mate? Just what constituency does that tap into?
It will appeal to the constituency that is looking for a candidate that has exhibited the ability to run a functioning organization into the ground while protecting their own ass(ets) other than il Donald.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 388 by NoNukes, posted 04-29-2016 1:32 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 390 of 478 (782853)
04-29-2016 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 387 by Big_Al35
04-29-2016 11:34 AM


Re: The Primaries Continue
Did I touch a nerve?
No, no, no, not at all. It's just that there are some people in this world that do not play well with the rest of humanity and are more prone to chaff then soothe. That's you. Like Big_TO. Terrell Owens was a great receiver, but was poison to every locker room he ever walked into, destroying team morale and cohesion wherever he went. There are just some people you never want anywhere near your team because they destroy the spirit, undercut your efforts, and lose you the game. That's you.
Now, I really think it would be best if you got off the computer and attended to those three kids. And, for god's sake, clean up your house!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 387 by Big_Al35, posted 04-29-2016 11:34 AM Big_Al35 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024