Dr Sagacious
Joined: 01 Mar 2009
Posts: 1842
Location: Redford |
|
 |
|
futuristxen wrote:
Jesse wrote:
futuristxen wrote:
Remember Hope and Change? Lol.
I am just totally unable to put my mind into the same postal code as one that doesn't recognize what "Change" was represented by the change between the previous US president and the current one.
Whereas I can totally understand how someone could buy into the false notion that there is even a difference between the two.
One ivy league secret society money made robot for another. We're at a point now where on several issues Ronald freaking Reagan and Richard Nixon could run as democrats.
From George Bush Sr. through Obama there is no appreciable difference between how these cats govern, and the difference they make in people's lives.
At the end of the day that you think there is this huge life important difference between these candidates, just shows that you run in a world where your primary concerns can be serviced by a candidate from one of two parties chosen based upon their ability to raise the most money. I do not share that privilege. Nor do I have the possibility of gaining it through my vote.
My life is it's own advocacy, and maybe if enough people meet me and decide I'm a human being, then a president can get up there and talk about how their opinions have evolved because of that, and they're prepared to be an advocate for my rights. But I do not expect that to happen in my lifetime. And I'm not going to break myself up over minimal differences in bad healthcare plans, tax rates for the wealthy, and lord knows what other "major" difference applies.
I am voter apathy I guess.
This.
I guess it's nice to believe in the system. If you think the system is right and fair and is workable, than you believe the execution of it is wrong. I'd argue that the execution of it all can't really be any different, and if you think a vote for Obama or any other Democrat is going to help change that, then I'm afraid you're ignoring history. If you believe defeating the Right requires voting in a Democrat, it's not really anyone else but you being short-sighted. It really just perpetuates the fight between the two parties, without bringing up any sort of change, and thus, perpetuating all the problems that result in it.
The point of this government is to remain as stable as possible, protect business interests, and soothe class rage. It cannot be ignored how well and brutally efficient the U.S. government has been at this for over two hundred years. From Jacksonian Democracy to Reaganomics, this government has blatantly shown who it represents regardless of your vote.
Mark, you make the point about Supreme Court justices, and that a Democrat ought to remain at the helm of the Executive office in order for Left-of-center Justices to get on the Court. I will argue that the Court acts not unlike the rest of the government, in that it only acts from external pressure. For instance, some of the judges that heard the case of Roe v Wade also deemed Japanese internment constitutional. It does not matter what side of the spectrum they were on, and that also applies to the Justices today. Doesn't matter. What matters is pressure by force or by money (or by moneyed force, depending on the circumstance).
The problem you guys are having is you are looking at all of this in a microscope, specifically the differences between Romney and Obama. I'd argue that it is futile, because the Global markets and those who control it are those that determine things: especially governments. When you apply the scale that you judge Politicians and their differences in, which is a very American way of defining political differences, you're essentially focusing on four squares at the center of a grid with a thousand squares. Obama and Romney might look different once you zoom in, but zoom out, and you'll get a better idea of the bigger picture.
I'd argue that this debate you're having on the small little nuanced differences between the two, is more of a distraction in the long run than two people venting about the system. At least, you've bought into a debate that in the conclusion, could only lead to putting bandaids over struggles.
Also, as a quick aside: Bill Clinton cut Welfare, increased spending in the military, signed in NAFTA.
Eisenhower built the American highway system.
All change is contingent on external pressure. Pressure by force or by money (or by moneyed force). Voting has pressure, but within our current system, it's relatively weak, not nearly as powerful as you think it is. This is probably due to our system, not because voting is not powerful, because it could be. Restrictive democracy makes voting for the masses not unlike the spectacle that is American Idol. Which means that protesting is the best way to pressure the government. Big movements have changed the country, not Politicians individually or through political coalition.
An important way to look at things is to depart from the belief that government and business are in a struggle with each other. It's not true. It has to be viewed from a class perspective. It is the people, the masses, that are in a struggle with the ruling class that is represented by and through government and business hand-in-hand. |
Tue May 15, 2012 8:10 am |
|
|
Jesse
Joined: 02 Jul 2002
Posts: 6166
Location: privileged homeless |
|
|
|
Ironically, I actually think the position I'm in is too privileged for my daily life to be affected very much by the subtle differences between a conservative federal government and a centrist federal government in the US or Canada.
(I have some scrap of faith left that the NDP in Canada would be a more discernible change, but still a far cry from revolutionary.)
I'm an adult minimum wage worker who can't quite keep my head above water financially, but I'm not the product of generations of disenfranchisement or a member of a specifically marginalized group, so I think things will stay the same for me, or get worse at the same rate, either way. I just believe communities of colour when they tell me they find themselves dying in higher numbers under certain types of government than others.
Things like how different aid departments are funded seem like window dressing to people who don't rely on government assistance to get medical supplies to their northern communities, or to keep their discrimination challenge in the courts, or... I don't know, lots of important things that I'm not the best candidate to articulate.
I don't think fx is stupid. I don't think Dr S is stupid, either. I do feel strongly about the importance of ameliorating the likely harm done by a government, and I think there are important ways in which that is still possible no matter how much we can't actually believe in a Superman candidate who will make our own lives more bearable within a month. |
|
Tue May 15, 2012 10:31 am |
|
|
Dr Sagacious
Joined: 01 Mar 2009
Posts: 1842
Location: Redford |
|
|
|
I understand the point you're trying to make, and you definitely have the best of intentions. The biggest hindrance for marginalized minority groups or, let's just say, the oppressed is that their political voice, like everyone else's, has been channeled into the two-party system that feigns interest in them. A system that has said, and continues to say, "You're equal now, we've freed you up from the chains. Stop bugging us. Do it yourself." Ignoring hundreds of years of governments that passed laws that were blatantly racist and used to divide the "rabble" (i.e. Laws that prohibit interracial marriage, even just friendship).
And while Obama is certainly better than Romney when it comes to looking like/talking about caring for the downtrodden, there continues to be evidence contrary to all of that. Look at the wave of deportations in the South, not to dismiss State-level anti-immigration laws by Southern states, but the federal government has a lot to do with all that. You could point to one oppressed group, and say Obama is taking care of them, then point to another, and say the opposite. It is not fair whatsoever, and people justify it by talking about budgetary issues. Perhaps, if we close shut the money-burning furnances known as the Department of Defense and Bourgeois tax cuts, oppressed groups would be less oppressed. But now we're talking about Socialism, a different system, and roaming off-topic. We all know Capitalism strives on new markets that are had by military conquest. But, I'm running off on a tangent.
Edit: Also, I apologize for being crass to both you and Granther. I was stressed out the past couple of days, and often times I'll let my temper and anxiety get the best of me. It wasn't fair to take it out on you guys especially when I voluntarily jumped into this debate half-assedly. I'm sorry. |
|
Tue May 15, 2012 11:21 am |
|
|
GrantherBirdly
D&D addict
Joined: 05 Jun 2004
Posts: 3122
|
Just came across this article that seems pertinent to our discussion, and probably does a good job of articulating the views of those who plan to abstain from voting this year. I don't agree with it, but it makes its points:
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/05/barack-obama-the-great-deceiver.html |
|
Wed May 16, 2012 12:23 am |
|
|
Dr Sagacious
Joined: 01 Mar 2009
Posts: 1842
Location: Redford |
|
|
|
The problem I'm having with this article is that it highlights the age-old misconception that the market and government are in a struggle with each other, pretty much dismissing that idea without overtly stating it, and then at the end says in a way "If you care about Law, ECONOMIC protection of the oppressed, freedom, etc, we should band together like the Populists did!"
While I definitely agree with the sentiment, it falls back into the same loop of Americanized political commentary that focuses purely on the figurehead of a state and dismisses class perspective. The perspective in this article seems to be of the system has the potential to act as harbinger of the people. This is a misconception, of course, because it completely contradicts Capitalist values and ignores the history surrounding the Capitalist revolution out of Feudalism. Historically, the only governments (besides the few worker's states that popped up) that stood in struggle with the Capitalist class was the Monarchy. Once the Monarchy was effectively neutralized, the Capitalist class had no one above them to struggle with.
Economic protection can only go so far before the Capitalist class wants to revoke that protection, it has the power to do so. Again, I point to the Clinton administration cutting Welfare, and even the point Smith made in that above article about Obama cutting programs. These protections only go so far and for so long.
Obama is no more a deceiver than any other president was. The only difference between him and, say, Reagan is that Obama has the ability to ensnare minorities and youth. Clinton proved effective at this strategy, too. Jacksonian democracy set the precedent for hundreds of years.
"Please, please! Come sit on Pep-pep's lap, workingman! Tell Pep-pep why you're so blue, you know I'll take care of you." |
|
Wed May 16, 2012 8:25 am |
|
|
Sarcastro
Joined: 27 Sep 2002
Posts: 3273
|
I say this every time there's an election in Canada or the US, and a lot of times I get ripped on for it, but I don't understand why people have such a hard time just voting for the lesser of two evils. Sure it's not ideal, but the world's not ideal and it never will be, so go for the one that will cause you less pain, don't get caught up in every single minute detail. |
|
Wed May 16, 2012 8:56 am |
|
|
Dr Sagacious
Joined: 01 Mar 2009
Posts: 1842
Location: Redford |
Because I disagree with that line of thought. The conception that the world will never be harmonious is fallacious and cannot be proven, it simply is not worth thinking about.
I'm not sure what tiny details you seem to be casually dismissing, but no matter how small the detail is, if it leads to inequality or oppression of any kind, it's worth talking about. |
|
Wed May 16, 2012 9:47 am |
|
|
Captiv8
Joined: 25 Aug 2006
Posts: 8195
Location: Third Coast |
|
|
|
Dr Sagacious wrote:
Because I disagree with that line of thought. The conception that the world will never be harmonious is fallacious and cannot be proven, it simply is not worth thinking about.
I'm not sure what tiny details you seem to be casually dismissing, but no matter how small the detail is, if it leads to inequality or oppression of any kind, it's worth talking about.
I'm nitpicking, but a fallacy can be shown, demonstrated, or proven. And I think the line of reasoning (that the world can never be harmonious) is worth worrying about. It's not a matter of whether the ideal can be reached, but whether or not the ideal is worth approximating. Questions of philosophy aside, is it better to strive for the ideal and improve the current system or is it better, as some anarchists believe, to let the system get so bad that it collapses and is replaced? Furthermore, a completely harmonious world, in which everything was equal and in balance, would be a utopia (which literally means "There is no place," incidentally). Politically and economically speaking, the closest semblance of this is communism. While reaching such a state is theoretically possible, all it takes is one person to set the entire thing into disequilibrium. This is why communism has never fully taken hold anywhere. The capitalist mentality is insidious and cannot be eradicated without some rather drastic and massive measures. |
|
Wed May 16, 2012 10:57 am |
|
|
Mark in Minnesota
Joined: 02 Jan 2004
Posts: 1899
Location: Saint Louis Park, MN |
|
|
|
It's undeniable that the United States Supreme Court is influenced by various forms of external pressure both privileged and populist. However, I strongly disagree with the suggestion that this dynamic means that the political/ideological composition does not have a significant influence on the substance of the Court's decisions. I've read too many dissenting opinions to believe otherwise. I think it's irresponsible for someone supposedly concerned with the rights of the oppressed underclass to suggest otherwise.
I mentioned Brown v. Plata earlier in this thread, but I think it's a recent and instructive case. Justice Scalia's dissent in particular paints a picture of a very different approach to the power judges have to grant prisoners relief under 8th Amendment protections--he was chiefly concerned in his dissent with the outrage of releasing prisoners as a remedy to the issue, completely failing to acknowledge that California had every opportunity to build additional facilities and simply refused to do so because raising the required money was not politically acceptable. Scalia would never have ordered that the states find the money to remedy the overcrowding without releasing prisoners, and so he was implicitly arguing that the state's desire to control the costs of imprisonment should outweigh the rights of those prisoners to humane treatment and sufficient access to lifesaving medical care. Had John McCain won the Presidential election in 2008, this dissenting worldview would almost certainly have won the day. Courts acknowledged that had the overcrowding which was being allowed to continue was resulting in an average of one unnecessary death per week.
Taking the roughly 25 years between those Japanese internment cases and the Roe v Wade ruling as the appropriate time scale, we'd be talking something on the order of 1300 prisoners dead due to overcrowding; the relief the Supreme Court approved on a 5-4 margin with two Obama appointees in the majority was specifically aimed toward improving those conditions. Not only that, but the majority decision which put a limit on the overcrowding was widely unpopular with the public in polls.
The kinds of dynamics Dr. Sagacious is arguing for here happen at a relatively glacial pace and in the meantime there are real and relatively immediate differences in the quality of life for people alive in the meantime. Taking the position that these differences are strategically unimportant because they don't go far enough in correcting broader class injustices is letting the perfect become the enemy of the good--at least from my perspective. Certainly the idea that the need for strategic action demands tactical inaction requires some justification of any resulting collateral damage. |
|
Wed May 16, 2012 11:17 am |
|
|
Dr Sagacious
Joined: 01 Mar 2009
Posts: 1842
Location: Redford |
|
|
|
Captiv8 wrote:
I'm nitpicking, but a fallacy can be shown, demonstrated, or proven. And I think the line of reasoning (that the world can never be harmonious) is worth worrying about. It's not a matter of whether the ideal can be reached, but whether or not the ideal is worth approximating. Questions of philosophy aside, is it better to strive for the ideal and improve the current system or is it better, as some anarchists believe, to let the system get so bad that it collapses and is replaced? Furthermore, a completely harmonious world, in which everything was equal and in balance, would be a utopia (which literally means "There is no place," incidentally). Politically and economically speaking, the closest semblance of this is communism. While reaching such a state is theoretically possible, all it takes is one person to set the entire thing into disequilibrium. This is why communism has never fully taken hold anywhere. The capitalist mentality is insidious and cannot be eradicated without some rather drastic and massive measures.
Because our current system can never be harmonious nor can it be fixed for long. The profit system creates overproduction which creates financial crises which leads to violent or cultural conflict in some form, and the effort to expand markets.
There is no such thing as "improving the system" when the core is built upon competition and individualism and accumulating as much wealth as possible. It's just not foreseeable.
As for the path to Communism, it won't be easy whatsoever. The biggest thing is for the working class, and especially, the middle class to develop class consciousness. Major cultural changes take a while to happen and usually take dramatic world events such as another world war to ignite any sort of change.
I don't advocate letting the system going to shit voluntarily, because the system is built to do that itself. The point of Capitalism is to be as efficient as possible in production of commodities. Efficiency requires little to no manned labor, supplanting it with machines and computers. Which would mean millions stacked on millions of unemployed workers, empty homes, fully stocked groceries with no one able to afford food, and a multitude of other horrible things.
There aren't many places on Earth left to expand on, really. China is the biggest target for Capitalists, look at some of the World Bank's most recent reports "China: 2030". What's happening in China is a capitalist counterrevolution, which aims to take hold of the vast profits that can be reaped by liberalizing the country.
Depending on what happens in China, whether the World Bank is successful in it's mission (and it has key allies in the "Communist Party" in Wen Jiabao and his assorted cronies) to liberalize it will play an important factor. Essentially, it will give the system a new lease on life, the same that occured after the fall of the Soviet bloc. But also looming is the impending Euro-zone collapse, the next financial crises in America (the Student loan bubble), and the Iranian/Israeli conflict.
/endrant
And also, Sarcastro's line of thought isn't necessarily troubling per se. It's just your average cynicism.
"Get over it, guys. The world sucks, it always has and always will."
It just ignores the obvious progress throughout history of civilization and culture. |
|
Wed May 16, 2012 11:34 am |
|
|
Dr Sagacious
Joined: 01 Mar 2009
Posts: 1842
Location: Redford |
|
|
|
Mark in Minnesota wrote:
It's undeniable that the United States Supreme Court is influenced by various forms of external pressure both privileged and populist. However, I strongly disagree with the suggestion that this dynamic means that the political/ideological composition does not have a significant influence on the substance of the Court's decisions. I've read too many dissenting opinions to believe otherwise. I think it's irresponsible for someone supposedly concerned with the rights of the oppressed underclass to suggest otherwise.
I'm not denying that ideology has significant influence on rulings. I'm saying that external pressure is heavier than personal ideology, especially on such a big stage. For example, while the President's personal ideology may matter to a degree, the ideology from the source of pressure exerted on him matters more. That's all I'm saying.
Quote:
The kinds of dynamics Dr. Sagacious is arguing for here happen at a relatively glacial pace and in the meantime there are real and relatively immediate differences in the quality of life for people alive in the meantime. Taking the position that these differences are strategically unimportant because they don't go far enough in correcting broader class injustices is letting the perfect become the enemy of the good--at least from my perspective. Certainly the idea that the need for strategic action demands tactical inaction requires some justification of any resulting collateral damage.
I'm not talking about complete political inaction, brother. I advocate protesting. I feel more can be gained from protesting than voting EVER has, at least voting by itself. Sometimes protesting and voting go hand-in-hand. For example, protesting a city mayor who is corrupt, recalling/impeaching them, and voting in a new mayor.
I think in the grand scheme of things, you advocating to vote for lesser of the two evils is more harmful than saying "There is no difference between Obama and Romney" or any other criticism I have. Because, at the end of the day, you're still openly advocating evil, when you and I both know that there are alternatives. It takes a lot of time and effort, though. And no one really has that anymore. |
|
Wed May 16, 2012 11:51 am |
|
|
Captiv8
Joined: 25 Aug 2006
Posts: 8195
Location: Third Coast |
I didn't mean improving the capitalist system in terms of efficiency. I meant revising the system to redistribute wealth in a way that is more equitable, through things like higher taxes for the rich and an increased investment in socialist programs like free healthcare and education. If these things happen there is a strong likelihood, at least according to Marx, that the system will progress into socialism and then communism. But I do not think that has to happen, necessarily. It is possible for the capitalist system to remain intact by administering (re: controlling) social programs that meet the greater needs of non-elites. In other words, instead of just dangling the carrot the government can let the the little guy have a nibble from time to time. It's a fine line, of course, and one that I don't necessarily think is best in the long run. But it is an accommodation that reinforces the social contract. Time will tell. |
|
Wed May 16, 2012 12:40 pm |
|
|
Mark in Minnesota
Joined: 02 Jan 2004
Posts: 1899
Location: Saint Louis Park, MN |
|
|
|
Dr Sagacious wrote:
I'm not denying that ideology has significant influence on rulings. I'm saying that external pressure is heavier than personal ideology, especially on such a big stage. For example, while the President's personal ideology may matter to a degree, the ideology from the source of pressure exerted on him matters more. That's all I'm saying.
Okay, but to what end were you saying it? I was under the impression that you were responding to my argument that the extreme duration of Supreme Court appointments means that Presidential elections are a bad time to play the small ball game of using low turnout by progressive voters to drive candidates to the left in future elections.
We agree that external pressure on the Court influences opinions to a greater degree than the personal ideologies of the Justices, and we also seem to agree that the personal ideologies of the Justices also influence outcomes in ways that can affect individual lives for as much as a generation. So why bring up external pressure at all, if you're not suggesting that a couple of decades of personal ideological influence is too small to concern ourselves with?
Dr Sagacious wrote:
I'm not talking about complete political inaction, brother. I advocate protesting. I feel more can be gained from protesting than voting EVER has, at least voting by itself. Sometimes protesting and voting go hand-in-hand. For example, protesting a city mayor who is corrupt, recalling/impeaching them, and voting in a new mayor.
I think in the grand scheme of things, you advocating to vote for lesser of the two evils is more harmful than saying "There is no difference between Obama and Romney" or any other criticism I have. Because, at the end of the day, you're still openly advocating evil, when you and I both know that there are alternatives. It takes a lot of time and effort, though. And no one really has that anymore.
I didn't mean to say you were talking about complete inaction. I meant to say that you were talking about tactical inaction on a particular front: not voting in the Presidential election, rather than casting a vote that would push the outcome of the election toward the more preferable of two likely but flawed outcomes. The question in my mind for you with respect to the Presidential election is not "protest or vote", it's "protest and vote, or protest only."
It certainly isn't reasonable to say that I'm openly advocating evil--or at least I don't think that follows from the arguments I've put forward so far. I'm not arguing to preserve the status quo, and I'm not endorsing the regressive and authoritarian aspects of Obama's administration. I'm simply suggesting that a second term for Obama in spite of these issues is a preferable outcome to a first term for Romney, and suggesting that in making the decision about what vote (if any) to cast we should be weighing those two possible outcomes in a relative vacuum.
If you're going to say that I'm advocating for evil, you really need to demonstrate how what I've done or advocated makes me complicit with the evil the Obama administration has does--and you should probably also demonstrate how what you've done or advocated saves you from being complicit in either that same evil or in the greater fraction of evil we both seem to believe a Romney administration would do.
At any rate, I'm not saying anywhere that we should end our efforts at reform there, with a single ballot cast. I believe I've been clear throughout this thread that I'm advocating for an integrated approach that uses voting in this upcoming general election in an attempt to create limited positive influence on an immediate scale, while using other action including both direct activism and participation in future nomination contests to create broader influence on a longer-term scale. The only place where I've offered an either/or is in the relative priority we place on the two discussions, suggesting that we should hold off discussion of harder, more ambitious changes until we have arrived at a consensus on easy, immediate actions to be taken.
I understand that you believe casting a vote is not sufficient action to improve conditions, but I do not believe you have done a good job of explaining why voting (in this election) and taking direct action is inferior to taking direct action only.
The fact that I am not going to join you in direct action following the election is a result of the fact that our goals are not perfectly aligned over the longer term scale. Our goals are aligned over the near-term scale of the election, though--which is why I don't understand why you would be unwilling to cast a vote even as you continue advocating for the adoption of preferable alternatives.
I get that on an emotional/personal level, you find Obama's actions in office reprehensible and have a moral objection to voting for him that you did not have before his hands were soiled by actual service in office. That's fine and if those are your reasons for not voting I have no real quarrel with you: again, brand affiliation is a personal choice. But if on a tactical level you feel that not voting at all for President is the best available option to advance your long term strategic goals, I question your reasoning.
Again, please do not come back and note your plans to protest as justification for your decision not to vote; you've spent a lot of time arguing for reasons that big, systemic change matters more, but I don't think you've done enough to explain why the relative imbalance in value means that small, incremental change in the existing system (to be made by voting for either the "lesser of two evils" or the "marginally better of two insufficient goods") doesn't matter at all. Can we not walk and chew gum at the same time? |
|
Wed May 16, 2012 1:20 pm |
|
|
Dr Sagacious
Joined: 01 Mar 2009
Posts: 1842
Location: Redford |
|
|
|
I'm sorry. I keep getting lost in my own tangents and jumping over points.
Basically, short term changes only last so long, swept under the rug, and the problem rises again. It's just a constant loop. I am not necessarily against small changes over time, but history tells us that those changes are often reversed. One thing to look at is the union-busting sweeping the nation and Right-to-Work legislation. Small improvements are often regarded as monumental achievements (i.e., the New Deal), or they become forgotten, or they are just completely disregarded by both the private sector and the government. Incremental change is theoretically possible and preferable if the proletariat cannot unite, but I fear it is nearly impossible in the system that historically gives some then takes back double.
I think the "reforming" option that Marx talks about is heavy duty reform, not small chump-change reform in the vein of Obama's "Wall Street reform" or even "Obamacare". What must be remembered is the ruling class will not just simply give up control, and they certainly do not want long-term social programs (i.e., Welfare). It is against their ideology to socialize programs that would be beneficial to both the people and their pocketbooks. |
|
Wed May 16, 2012 2:15 pm |
|
|
Captiv8
Joined: 25 Aug 2006
Posts: 8195
Location: Third Coast |
|
|
|
The ruling class' fear of losing control is precisely what can be leveraged against them by the ruled. An actual revolution threatens the entire system and ultimately replaces the powers that be, whereas the threat of evolution can be used as a bargaining chip. While the government may not want to fund long-term social programs, doing so is clearly better than losing their authority. The key is to create enough of a groundswell and dissenting inertia that a large-scale revolution is imminent. Indeed, it may be necessary to actually launch a revolt to remove notions of fucking around and empty threats.
That said, the only way a revolution transitions from thought to action is if enough people are oppressed, reach a feeling of nothing left to lose, or realize that a change is for the greater good in the long run. This is relatively easy to do with this that are already disenfranchised and disillusioned. What such a movement hinges upon is convincing comfortable middle class and higher citizens to risk their material comforts for a more equitable society. How do you persuade people that the community is greater than the family or self? I don't know. This is where the republican ideals of rugged individualism and liberty are harmful. They promote a way of thinking that is selfish and therefore will inherently affect an imbalance. So maybe something truly radical needs to happen. I'm not talking the finale of Fight Club here, but it really would be nice to eradicate the monetary and credit systems. |
|
Wed May 16, 2012 2:55 pm |
|
|
 
|
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... , 9, 10, 11 Next
All times are GMT - 6 Hours. The time now is Wed Jun 19, 2013 3:58 am
|
|
|
|
| |
