+ Reply to Thread
Page 251 of 854 FirstFirst ... 151 201 241 249 250 251 252 253 261 301 351 751 ... LastLast
Results 5,001 to 5,020 of 17077

Thread: Random News Article Discussion II

  1. #5001

    Default Re: Random News Article Discussion II

    Because, really, doing horrific things to certain groups is perfectly fine so long as you don't do them to other groups.
    Complicating things since 2009.

  2. #5002

    Default Re: Random News Article Discussion II

    Quote Originally Posted by WalrusGuy View Post
    The Alawites, whom the Assad family belongs, have been the targets of Sunni slaughter and brutality for many centuries. They were, in fact, used as soldiers for the French mandate government after being promised a seperate state of their own. Prime Minister Leon Blum stabbed them in the back by rescinding that agreement. They bid their time for a while and launched a coup in 1963, which was a success and gave them the power they still hold to this day.

    So honestly, I can sympathize very much with them.



    He's not killing his people, because he isn't a Sunni. He's a Alawite, he's fighting to PROTECT his people from genocide.



    It's well known to anyone who has more than a cursory knowledge of this conflict that the Christian minority are supporting Assad. They don't want a repeat of what happened in Iraq.

    Well, the thing is that Assad really hasn't been doing anything to deal with ISIL the past few years. He basically allowed them to bloom so that the western world would have to deal with them and he only protect regions of his own personal interest. Otherwise he would have made deals with the iraqis a long time ago and not just let the kurds carry the heavy load. For all the talking about christians being killed by ISIS, he is doing an extremely poor job in defending them. The thing with him protecting religious minorities, well that's basically just a strategy that the baath party in Iraq and Syria has done in their respective country and the reason for that is that they are minority groups and need support. Saddam killed thousands of kurds and shiites and Assad has likewise treated his own people like crap. Even if Syria historically has been more stable and less open in it's bloodbaths. A few years back, I would have agreed with you on Assad, while I never liked him, I recognized him as the lesser of two evils as foreign jihadists began pouring into Syria at the dawn of the war. But the truth of the matter is that Assad, precisely like Saddam before him is fanning terrible flames and is the true definition of a political snake who will gladly grasp for whatever straws he can to remain in power.

  3. #5003

    Default Re: Random News Article Discussion II

    Quote Originally Posted by WalrusGuy View Post
    The Alawites, whom the Assad family belongs, have been the targets of Sunni slaughter and brutality for many centuries.
    Which hasn't been the case for at least a century, the table has since completely flipped and now Alawis dominate the government, military, and economy. Which has been the case for something like a half century now.
    The rebellion against Assad was neutral in character, and to fight it he deliberately played up sectarian conflict in order to drive wedges between the population and ensure loyalty of Alawis and other smaller groups. Which makes him a key factor in the instability, and makes his continued control of the country not an option because a sectarian leader cannot peacefully rule a diverse country.

    If you want to actually option keeping Assad in even the slightest "realistic" sense you would have to advocate partition and leave Assad in control of Alawi and maybe Christian/Druz majority areas.
    Prime Minister Leon Blum stabbed them in the back by rescinding that agreement. They bid their time for a while and launched a coup in 1963, which was a success and gave them the power they still hold to this day.
    The 1963 coup was Baathist, which was a weird form of Arab Nationalist Socialism (no not Nazi). It involved military officers of diverse backgrounds aside from all being Arab of some sort....
    Then there was another coup in 66 of a younger Baathist element that pushed out the older one. And later another in 70 that directly put Assad's dad in control.
    It so happened that Baathism in Syria mostly fell among minority groups, and over time as people stopped caring about Baathism, it became more clearly a sectarian divide between government and majority population.

    It was not an Alawi coup, that's a ridiculous description. Also you still seem to come to the conclusion that the Alawi's are in power and have been for nearly 50 years and your point is...? That they can do no wrong to other groups? Yeah no.

    So honestly, I can sympathize very much with them.
    You're saying you can sympathize with the concentrated slaughter of thousands of people?

    He's not killing his people, because he isn't a Sunni. He's a Alawite, he's fighting to PROTECT his people from genocide.
    Hi, please pick a consistent position!

    1. Assad is a solid choice to hold Syria together.
    2. Assad is a justified ethnic protector protecting a minority of Syria's population.

    These are mutually exclusive! If you have chosen to move the goalposts by all means let us know!

    Also: If you think Assad hasn't killed Alwais opposed to his rule you're naive.
    If you think Assad gives a shit about the sectarian element beyond using it to maintain control you're naive.
    If you think the sectarian element existed in the start of the revolution OR war, you are badly misinformed and/or forgetful.
    That Assad forced it into reality for manipulative purposes sure casts a crap on your claim of his defender position.

    Oh and this supports a defensive war from a shrunk sized Syria rather than ...Syria.

    Also he is committing the genocide here. But it's ok because there might be a genocide!
    It's well known to anyone who has more than a cursory knowledge of this conflict that the Christian minority
    Anytime you'd like to discuss the Druz or Kurds would be nice, but again it seems like Christians are like ...more important or something.

    are supporting Assad. They don't want a repeat of what happened in Iraq.
    Let me go through this with you again.
    -Protests against Syrian dictatorship starts in same style as Egypt/Libya/Tunisia
    -Syrian government fights back with obscene violence, much as happened in Libya
    -Population begins to fight back like in Libya
    -Assad however has a card to play that Gaddafi did not! Sectarian conflict!
    -Assad stirs up ethnic hatreds and mistrust to help control some of the country and weaken the opposition.

    Say let's use this fancy pants logic you got goings on here to justify ISIS.
    In Iraq Sunnis are scared of the Shia government! In Syria the Sunnis are scared of the Shia (Alawi) government! They're afraid of genocide and discrimination!
    Along comes a monster who is good at fighting, between monster and survival they must choose.

    We should support ISIS to ensure a stable Syria!

  4. #5004
    Sweet Home Chicago Cyan D. Funk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Huxley U.

    Default Re: Random News Article Discussion II

    It's a good thing the English were in control of India, otherwise the native Indians might genocide the English!

  5. #5005

    Default Re: Random News Article Discussion II

    I know this sort of thing should go without saying, but do not read the comments on that article.

  6. #5006

    Default Re: Random News Article Discussion II

    Quote Originally Posted by Panda Bear View Post
    I know this sort of thing should go without saying, but do not read the comments on that article.
    That's true of pretty much any article.
    Complicating things since 2009.

  7. #5007

    Default Re: Random News Article Discussion II

    3DS FC: 0516-7666-3837
    SW-4128-8032-0729

  8. #5008
    The Nice Guy Outerspec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Home away from home.

    Default Re: Random News Article Discussion II

    Quote Originally Posted by maxterdexter View Post
    I love John Green's Crash Course series! Brief, informative, and fun.
    Everything's Eventual...


  9. #5009

    Default Re: Random News Article Discussion II

    My take away from his thoughts in that video is perhaps the problem in Western Democracies comes down more to political parties in the US, and not actually being culturally or politically united in the EU.
    China has a level of efficency going on...sort of...but that aspect doesn't sound like authoriatarianism as it does a sort of lack of football team style factionalism.

    A one party state rids that problem, and of course in exchange you have a dictatorship. Which in Singapore's de facto case survives I think more on comfort and size (I also think it's laughable to assume Singapore couldn't handle democracy lol).

    So why not abolish out and out parties? No lazy factionalism, and no dictatorship! Yay?

    At the same time...I kinda hate to say this, but to some extent a working authoritarian state in the post-Mao Chinese model may actually be a decent way to emerge from absolute poverty. When I look at India and China I see one mess and one success.
    But that important distinction is between types of authoritarianism. Deng Xiaoping's China is the one we have these days, it's a sort of council led meritocracy yeah. It's gone on to be copied by the communist parties in Vietnam and Laos. Iran kinda has this too.
    Even though it hasn't always produced economic success, it seems to at least breed stability yes even in Iran's case (which under a Putin model would likely be far far far worse and as dangerous as people make it out to be). Some degree of consensus government even involving some degree of people power exists and likely has moderated things time and time again.

    But the ego driven authoritarian model is pretty much disaster waiting to happened, working by luck when it does, and more likely failing. Basically the modern version of monarchies to some extent. Russia is like this, most such countries are. Syria, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, Belarus. And the countries people talk about as backsliding away from democracy? Well they ain't sliding toward council run consensus driven meritocracy, lookin' at you Venezuela and Turkey.
    And for evidence of that? Just look at Mao's China. The two massive traumas it endured were direct results of ego and fear driven politics. The Great Leap Forward became a race to impress the great leader, and be afraid to question any issues it might have because it was his neat idea! Wham, worst famine in world history.
    The Cultural Revolution was....well the cultural revolution if anything was Mao getting old and noticing the bastards who ranked under him were actually trying to build the results oriented council meritocracy thing, and uh, turned the country upside down entirely with the power of his ego and personalit cult.
    Which brings me to something I think John Green is overlooking about modern China.
    We look at the way things are there and think "Oh they're worried about democracy ruining things.". And wellllll, yeah that's part of it.
    But Deng and Chen Yun and the other dudes in the politburo who drove the whole "Fuck Marx let's make cash" thing were survivors of the Cultural Revolution, which is the greatest exercise in the disaster of ego driven authoritarianism short of the major genocides and famines.

    Modern China is a product of RUNNING AWAY from large parts of the authoritarian experience as much as it is about national pride being restored or being skeptical of western democracy. Nor do I even think many of the Chinese dudes including Deng were necessarily all gung ho about authoritarianism.
    Among the highest members of the party during the Tiananmen Square events you had a near 50/50 split between the dudes who were like "Put the fuckers down", and guys who were generally interested in engaging with the students and strikers.
    I just think it's skepticism! Like down the road I bet there's a sense that political reform will be ready, but not yet. And yeah, maybe not exactly democracy in the western form, but certainly not endless authoritarianism.
    Last edited by Monkey King; April 4th, 2015 at 08:00 PM.

  10. #5010

    Default Re: Random News Article Discussion II

    Well the thing about India is that it isn't really a country so much as it's a conglomeration of different races, religions, and linguistic groups who prior to being united by the Mughal Empire and later the British East India Company had no history of being together. It's natural that such a place would be fundamentally less stable that an ancient nation like China.

  11. #5011

    Default Re: Random News Article Discussion II

    Well, i still haven't watched all the video but the cornerstone of "holy shit, we are not dying!" is a pretty powerful tool for governments and China, for example, is a country that goes into really terrible periods of "Holy shit, we are all dying" and "I have to eat human hair to not die" to "Holy shit,we are not dying" and "Man, this dishwasher is convenient. I would like more things like this" so people will support governments as long as they gave them peace of mind.

    Bottom line, people move on the compass of stability but this concept isn't the same for everyone. Some define it as just being able to live while others have even a whole outline of their dream society. Of course, if we follow how history has worked out after the minimum stability (variable span of time) we see the rise of an educated class that intends to rock the current government (Which can go from "We hell-a want better living" to "We hell-a gonna topple you") and promotes changes in variable scale (The government can go from "We hell-a listen you" to "We hell-a murder you").

    Or something. I'm watching Empire of the sense so i'm sorry if a lewd word ended up there.

    Quote Originally Posted by WalrusGuy View Post
    Well the thing about India is that it isn't really a country so much as it's a conglomeration of different races, religions, and linguistic groups who prior to being united by the Mughal Empire and later the British East India Company had no history of being together. It's natural that such a place would be fundamentally less stable that an ancient nation like China.
    I think i'm having a stroke.
    Last edited by Prismeru; April 4th, 2015 at 08:04 PM. Reason: YOU'RE KILLING ME TAINTHE...i mean, WALRUSGUY
    Working thru some stuff. Dunno how long i will be here.

  12. #5012
    The English Avenger Satsuki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Well hidden

    Default Re: Random News Article Discussion II

    *steeples fingers* Yeeessss . . . . . . .

    In sort-of-similar news: What happens when a Republican senator preaches abstinence? His teenage daughter gets pregnant, of course.
    http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/07...r-is-pregnant/

    Have they learned NOTHING from Sarah Palin?

  13. #5013

    Default Re: Random News Article Discussion II

    Quote Originally Posted by Prismeru View Post
    Well, i still haven't watched all the video but the cornerstone of "holy shit, we are not dying!" is a pretty powerful tool for governments and China, for example, is a country that goes into really terrible periods of "Holy shit, we are all dying" and "I have to eat human hair to not die" to "Holy shit,we are not dying" and "Man, this dishwasher is convenient. I would like more things like this" so people will support governments as long as they gave them peace of mind.

    Bottom line, people move on the compass of stability but this concept isn't the same for everyone. Some define it as just being able to live while others have even a whole outline of their dream society. Of course, if we follow how history has worked out after the minimum stability (variable span of time) we see the rise of an educated class that intends to rock the current government (Which can go from "We hell-a want better living" to "We hell-a gonna topple you") and promotes changes in variable scale (The government can go from "We hell-a listen you" to "We hell-a murder you").
    Yeah that's the other part of the China story.
    In East Asia the process has seen three stories.
    1:Japan: When revived after WW2 as a democracy Japan found immense success.
    2:SouthKorea/Taiwan: Built their current first world status during periods of results oriented authoritarianism, but as they became middle class reforms happened and resulted in democracies (though in very different ways).
    3:China/Singapore: Authoritarian or at least benign one party rule for the latter building up results oriented success.

    Couldn't China just be walking the road walked by South Korea or Taiwan? Eventual democracy when things economically stabilize broadly enough? South Korea protested and rocked the boat until it's leaders gave in, and in Taiwan's case the leaders began reforms themselves. China could go both ways couldn't it?


    I think i'm having a stroke.
    There's some errors and flaws in that post, but I think the basic idea isn't wrong. And it a nice way to counterbalance the idea that INDIA IS EVIDENCE DEMOCRACY SUCKS, CHINA IS EVIDENCE AUTHORITARIANISM ROCKS. China is a politically historical idea, India has only ever been geographical aside from a few instances.
    It's also a bit odd when you consider pieces of the India region have been variously broken off in the independence process and seen wildly different fates.

    Nepal: Absolute shithole that is quite quite backwards even for the region, ruled by a deeply conservative monarchy that eventually fell apart.
    Bangladesh: Seething mass of people on terrible geography.
    Pakistan: So you break off from India on religious grounds, but retain the ethnic instability
    Sri Lanka: Defying the entire region and their own 25 year civil war, a success that might become first world in our lifetimes or even the next 20 years. Seriously, they're about as nice a place as Mexico is. Which for South Asia is INCREDIBLE.

    Soooo the picture there is like...if the Indian states became independent would it even work? The pieces that broke off show such wildly different stories. Some would probably thrive, some would fall apart. So break up India and you'd bless some, and hurt others.

  14. #5014

    Default Re: Random News Article Discussion II

    Quote Originally Posted by Monkey King View Post
    Yeah that's the other part of the China story.
    In East Asia the process has seen three stories.
    1:Japan: When revived after WW2 as a democracy Japan found immense success.
    2:SouthKorea/Taiwan: Built their current first world status during periods of results oriented authoritarianism, but as they became middle class reforms happened and resulted in democracies (though in very different ways).
    3:China/Singapore: Authoritarian or at least benign one party rule for the latter building up results oriented success.

    Couldn't China just be walking the road walked by South Korea or Taiwan? Eventual democracy when things economically stabilize broadly enough? South Korea protested and rocked the boat until it's leaders gave in, and in Taiwan's case the leaders began reforms themselves. China could go both ways couldn't it?



    There's some errors and flaws in that post, but I think the basic idea isn't wrong. And it a nice way to counterbalance the idea that INDIA IS EVIDENCE DEMOCRACY SUCKS, CHINA IS EVIDENCE AUTHORITARIANISM ROCKS. China is a politically historical idea, India has only ever been geographical aside from a few instances.
    It's also a bit odd when you consider pieces of the India region have been variously broken off in the independence process and seen wildly different fates.

    Nepal: Absolute shithole that is quite quite backwards even for the region, ruled by a deeply conservative monarchy that eventually fell apart.
    Bangladesh: Seething mass of people on terrible geography.
    Pakistan: So you break off from India on religious grounds, but retain the ethnic instability
    Sri Lanka: Defying the entire region and their own 25 year civil war, a success that might become first world in our lifetimes or even the next 20 years. Seriously, they're about as nice a place as Mexico is. Which for South Asia is INCREDIBLE.

    Soooo the picture there is like...if the Indian states became independent would it even work? The pieces that broke off show such wildly different stories. Some would probably thrive, some would fall apart. So break up India and you'd bless some, and hurt others.
    China has historically had various attempts at moving in a "Smooth" transition towards democracy. All of them have ended in bloodshed or worse (Tiananmen, The struggle before the communist party advent and i think there was one during...dunno if it was Tang o Qing dynasty). They have the problem of being too big of a country and that they vary too greatly to move politically towards one goal (well, my opinion i guess).

    And the part that gave me the stroke is that that definition of India that Tainty gave might as well apply to China in a different time period. They've had a long history filled with contempt towards other ethnicities on their territory. A few years ago they had that huge problem with the Uguir and they are not the only ones. At times it seems only the money and the Putonghua (Well, more like putongbun i guess?) is the thing keeping them together. China had at one time the problems India Currently has.
    Last edited by Prismeru; April 4th, 2015 at 08:43 PM. Reason: Empire of the senses is a really good movie even if these subtitles suck
    Working thru some stuff. Dunno how long i will be here.

  15. #5015

    Default Re: Random News Article Discussion II

    Quote Originally Posted by Monkey King View Post
    Soooo the picture there is like...if the Indian states became independent would it even work?
    It probably would for the countries that had access to the coast; they have sizable populations and access to outside resources. The landlocked ones would probably be boned though.
    Complicating things since 2009.

  16. #5016

    Default Re: Random News Article Discussion II

    Tamil Nadu would be fine, because it's already a mostly homogenous state with a sucessful economy. Some northeastern states would probably join with Burma, so they'd be okay.

    The rest would be a mess. Any breakup of India would cause many wars and result in enormous ethnic cleansing.

  17. #5017

    Default Re: Random News Article Discussion II

    Quote Originally Posted by Prismeru View Post
    China has historically had various attempts at moving in a "Smooth" transition towards democracy. All of them have ended in bloodshed or worse (Tiananmen,
    The only time in history China actually attempted to pull off democracy it wasn't smooth, it was in the aftermath of the downfall of the monarchy.
    Which lead to one of the guys involved in the revolution pulling a coup and sort of pushing himself to be the new monarch.
    Which exactly happened in France with Mexico's one time nemesis Napoleon III! And as we all know France went on to not be a democracy?

    That's it! Just the Xinhai revolution! Which assuredly was not smooth.
    The Tiananmen Square incident was not an organized or specifically democratic movement, it was many things gathered together and challenging the status quo among which interest in democracy existed. But it wasn't an attempt at transitioning democracy of any kind, let alone smooth. It was a bunch of unsatisfied students and urban strikers gathering spontaneously.
    The struggle before the communist party advent
    Nope. Chiang Kai-Shek was noooo democratic leader. He also didn't really control all of China so much as controlled some of it and variously influenced warlord run areas. China was in hell of chaos between the fall of the monarchy and Communist control. The one true good thing Mao achieved was unifying China again (aside from Taiwan).
    and i think there was one during...dunno if it was Tang o Qing dynasty).
    The Xinhai revolution against the Qing. The only actual example.
    They have the problem of being too big of a country
    In what sense? Geography or population?
    China is remarkably stable and whole across the board given both factors. Tibet and Xinjiang are large geographically but have very little contribution to China's population. Especially Tibet. Not to mention the restive Uyghur area is only really southern Xinkiang. The north part was uh...emptied awhile back of most of the natives.
    and that they vary too greatly to move politically towards one goal (well, my opinion i guess).
    I can't think of any example of this in the Han population, which is 92% of China. Like even less than the US has lol. Like in spite of several civil wars in the past 200 years nothing was so geographically/culturally divisive as the American Civil War.
    Like sure North and South China have cultural and other such differences, but not in that sort of way of having a thorn like that between them.

    --- Update From New Post Merge ---

    Quote Originally Posted by WalrusGuy View Post
    Tamil Nadu would be fine, because it's already a mostly homogenous state with a sucessful economy. Some northeastern states would probably join with Burma, so they'd be okay.
    Minority ethnicities joining Burma, is it opposite day?

    The rest would be a mess. Any breakup of India would cause many wars and result in enormous ethnic cleansing.
    The entire southern part is much more successful than most of the north, not just Tamil Nadu. Kerala is the frontrunner by a longshot.
    Ethnicity is a confusing topic in India in the north, it gets very blurred where one ends and another begins. In the north central plains I don't even know what to call the people. A big bunch of Hindus who speak Hindi dialects?
    I'm not sure on what fracture lines you expect ethnic cleansing, depends on what lines you expect a split.
    Instead of states, what if India downsized and split along the Indo-European/Dravidian border?
    Not sure the Indo-Europeans would be thrilled, the Dravidians would probably be happy though.

  18. #5018

    Default Re: Random News Article Discussion II

    Quote Originally Posted by Monkey King View Post
    The only time in history China actually attempted to pull off democracy it wasn't smooth, it was in the aftermath of the downfall of the monarchy.
    Which lead to one of the guys involved in the revolution pulling a coup and sort of pushing himself to be the new monarch.
    Which exactly happened in France with Mexico's one time nemesis Napoleon III! And as we all know France went on to not be a democracy?

    That's it! Just the Xinhai revolution! Which assuredly was not smooth.
    The Tiananmen Square incident was not an organized or specifically democratic movement, it was many things gathered together and challenging the status quo among which interest in democracy existed. But it wasn't an attempt at transitioning democracy of any kind, let alone smooth. It was a bunch of unsatisfied students and urban strikers gathering spontaneously.


    Nope. Chiang Kai-Shek was noooo democratic leader. He also didn't really control all of China so much as controlled some of it and variously influenced warlord run areas. China was in hell of chaos between the fall of the monarchy and Communist control. The one true good thing Mao achieved was unifying China again (aside from Taiwan).


    The Xinhai revolution against the Qing. The only actual example.


    In what sense? Geography or population?
    China is remarkably stable and whole across the board given both factors. Tibet and Xinjiang are large geographically but have very little contribution to China's population. Especially Tibet. Not to mention the restive Uyghur area is only really southern Xinkiang. The north part was uh...emptied awhile back of most of the natives.


    I can't think of any example of this in the Han population, which is 92% of China. Like even less than the US has lol. Like in spite of several civil wars in the past 200 years nothing was so geographically/culturally divisive as the American Civil War.
    Like sure North and South China have cultural and other such differences, but not in that sort of way of having a thorn like that between them.
    -Man, that's why i put quotations on smooth and aftewards talked about bloodshed. I guess it wasn't obvious. My bad.

    -I wasn't referring to Chiang but to some reforms that were proposed during The Boxer rebellion (Of course, calling them a step towards democracy it's too big a generalization and my main souce of info there is Gene Lueng Yang). I refer to big geographically as in "The development of the country isn't totally uniform"
    Working thru some stuff. Dunno how long i will be here.

  19. #5019

    Default Re: Random News Article Discussion II

    Quote Originally Posted by Prismeru View Post
    -I wasn't referring to Chiang but to some reforms that were proposed during The Boxer rebellion (Of course, calling them a step towards democracy it's too big a generalization and my main souce of info there is Gene Lueng Yang). I refer to big geographically as in "The development of the country isn't totally uniform"
    China's un-uniform development really has more to do with ocean/river access than anything else.

    Are you talking about the Hundred Days Reforms? Those were before the Boxer rebellion and like a tiny grain of suggestion among them that never even got anywhere was sort of democratic.

  20. #5020

    Default Re: Random News Article Discussion II

    http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/specia...750_reform.htm

    Saying they never got anywhere is kinda losing a lot of what happened.


    Edit: Oh wait, let me add disclaimers. "As i said previously this is one of the times something resembling of a transition to democracy was tried. I'm not affirming it was a succesfel or devoid of problems movement of reforms. I am only pointing towards a movement in history that can be used as an example of a movement that had democracitic tendencies of some sort (in the same way i'm not saying all players in this tended to what we are calling democracy Nowadays. Lego Figurines should only be played by children accompanied by adults since it can containt small pieces that can be swallowed and cause asphyxia. All Characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons,living or dead, is purely coincidental. This ride can't be accesed if you aren't at least 1.20 m in height. Caution, this toy may contain sharp edges. Jay-z Is an Illuminati. Happy Endings shouldn't have been cancelled. Treehouse of horror III is the best Halloween episode.
    Last edited by Prismeru; April 4th, 2015 at 10:06 PM.
    Working thru some stuff. Dunno how long i will be here.

+ Reply to Thread

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)

     

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts