It is currently Mon Jun 17, 2019 11:06 pm

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 72 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Bernie Sanders Question
PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2018 5:58 pm 
God

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am
Posts: 15817
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:

Electoral Vote: 304 to 227


That's not an impressive electoral vote victory even on the raw numbers and he achieved it by winning three states by less than 1% while losing the popular vote by 3 million. He also relied on a leftwing candidate to split the Democratic vote in those states to get that very slight margin. The only election that's been closer in the past 100 years was Bush vs. Gore and Bush's victory wasn't quite as dependent on electoral college quirks as Trump's was. By any standard, he just eeked out a victory. Your refutation of winning an election where almost 130 million votes were cast by winning by a little under 100k more votes in just the right states as a very narrow victory by pointing to the raw electoral vote count is obtuse.

Quote:
I forgot about the perfect and fawning coverage Trump received throughout the campaign! :lol:


Clinton wasn't actually in the middle of Watergate, you know. The fact that she was covered like she was undeniably helped Trump. Trump's coverage, as bad as it was, wasn't as bad as it should have been. We know all of this in retrospect. For the most famous example, the Comey letter (which turned out to be nothing, mind you) almost certainly cost Clinton the election. Meanwhile, right around the same time, the media (New York Times, etc.) reported that the FBI saw no link between the Trump campaign and Russia to help clear the cloud over that right before the election. Spoilers: There was a link.

The man had a lot of wind at his back and still limped to the finish line. If we're describing him as a strong candidate, then we're probably describing every presidential winner by default as a strong candidate. The reality is that people were so expecting Trump to lose that his victory has messed some people's heads and led them to overcorrect by thinking he's far more potent than he is.

Quote:
Perfect EAllusion form. Just making ____ up out of whole cloth. I wonder if he's going to refute his own argument...


I'm responding to the idea that Democrats need to nominate a very strong candidate to win. Describing this is as "Jesus Christ" is called hyperbole.

Hyperbole.

You'll note that this is the thing being discussed.

I responded to the idea that Trump is a strong candidate, hence the need to Democrats to have to nominate a "rockstar" to hope to defeat him, which you've now apparently decided no one is arguing even though that's the entire chain of conversation. I'd advise you to read, but I know that's not going to help the situation. So carry on.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Bernie Sanders Question
PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2018 7:25 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2012 5:29 pm
Posts: 4162
Location: The Yukon Hotel - 1187 Hunterwasser Los Angeles
If we're concerned about appealing to both sexes, how about fielding a hermaphrodite?

_________________
"The great problem of any civilization is how to rejuvenate itself without rebarbarization."
- Will Durant
"We've kept more promises than we've even made"
- Donald Trump
"Of what meaning is the world without mind? The question cannot exist."
- Edwin Land


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Bernie Sanders Question
PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2018 7:39 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:02 am
Posts: 18435
EAllusion wrote:
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:

Electoral Vote: 304 to 227


That's not an impressive electoral vote victory even on the raw numbers and he achieved it by winning three states by less than 1% while losing the popular vote by 3 million. He also relied on a leftwing candidate to split the Democratic vote in those states to get that very slight margin. The only election that's been closer in the past 100 years was Bush vs. Gore and Bush's victory wasn't quite as dependent on electoral college quirks as Trump's was. By any standard, he just eeked out a victory. Your refutation of winning an election where almost 130 million votes were cast by winning by a little under 100k more votes in just the right states as a very narrow victory by pointing to the raw electoral vote count is obtuse.

Quote:
I forgot about the perfect and fawning coverage Trump received throughout the campaign! :lol:


Clinton wasn't actually in the middle of Watergate, you know. The fact that she was covered like she was undeniably helped Trump. Trump's coverage, as bad as it was, wasn't as bad as it should have been. We know all of this in retrospect. For the most famous example, the Comey letter (which turned out to be nothing, mind you) almost certainly cost Clinton the election. Meanwhile, right around the same time, the media (New York Times, etc.) reported that the FBI saw no link between the Trump campaign and Russia to help clear the cloud over that right before the election. Spoilers: There was a link.

The man had a lot of wind at his back and still limped to the finish line. If we're describing him as a strong candidate, then we're probably describing every presidential winner by default as a strong candidate. The reality is that people were so expecting Trump to lose that his victory has messed some people's heads and led them to overcorrect by thinking he's far more potent than he is.

Quote:
Perfect EAllusion form. Just making ____ up out of whole cloth. I wonder if he's going to refute his own argument...


I'm responding to the idea that Democrats need to nominate a very strong candidate to win. Describing this is as "Jesus Christ" is called hyperbole.

Hyperbole.

You'll note that this is the thing being discussed.

I responded to the idea that Trump is a strong candidate, hence the need to Democrats to have to nominate a "rockstar" to hope to defeat him, which you've now apparently decided no one is arguing even though that's the entire chain of conversation. I'd advise you to read, but I know that's not going to help the situation. So carry on.


What year is this again? 2016? I swear we're stuck in a time loop right now.

It's 2018. Trump just kicked the Democrats' ass again. He's an incumbent. You put Tom Perez in as the DNC nominee and we're locked into another 4 years of Trump.

But. Hey. Whatever. Mr. Perez has a pulse and Trump is insanely bad at winning things like the Presidency and Supreme Court nominations. Lol.

____ EAllusion. Jesus.

- Doc

_________________
https://youtu.be/IdTMDpizis8


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Bernie Sanders Question
PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2018 8:15 pm 
God

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am
Posts: 15817
Quote:
It's 2018. Trump just kicked the Democrats' ass again.


Are you posting from the future? Was there a presidential election I was not aware of? You appear to be referring to the confirmation of Kavanaugh, but that doesn't make any sense at all. That's not even an election, must less an election that Trump is involved in.

Quote:
But. Hey. Whatever. Mr. Perez has a pulse and Trump is insanely bad at winning things like the Presidency and Supreme Court nominations. Lol.
Man, I remember just the other day voting against Trump for the Supreme Court and losing. I gotta find a new acid dealer.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Bernie Sanders Question
PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2018 8:17 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:02 am
Posts: 18435
It's Trump's pick. He twittered up a storm. He rallied the GOP. But yeah, keep saying incredibly snarky and equally obtuse things. Maybe we can seat Biden as the Democrats' nominee for the 2019 Presidential run. He's got a pulse.

:lol:

eta: I thinks it's incredibly important Democrats don't fall into EAllusion's mindset come 2019. We thought Hillary Clinton could walk all over the Weakest Candidate Ever. She ran a pretty uninspiring campaign, but we were sure she'd win against Trump. And we underestimated him. I'm simply arguing that we need to overestimate Trump and his handlers so we don't just field someone with a pulse. I want to be very alert, and pragmatic when entering 2019, and get someone in the Presidency who can defeat the Republicans by taking the wind out their electorate's sail. That ain't gonna happen by using a plug-n-play candidate.

- Doc

_________________
https://youtu.be/IdTMDpizis8


Last edited by Doctor CamNC4Me on Fri Oct 05, 2018 8:32 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Bernie Sanders Question
PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2018 8:31 pm 
God

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am
Posts: 15817
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
It's Trump's pick. He twittered up a storm. He rallied the GOP. But yeah, keep saying incredibly snarky and equally obtuse things. Maybe we can seat Biden at the Democrats' nominee for the 2019 Presidential run. He's got a pulse.

:lol:

- Doc


A vote in the Senate that is controlled by a Republican majority that resulted in a Republican outcome is a Trump election victory that bears on the strength of Trump as candidate? Whatta hobby you have.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Bernie Sanders Question
PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2018 9:09 pm 
God

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:44 pm
Posts: 12753
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
eta: I thinks it's incredibly important Democrats don't fall into EAllusion's mindset come 2019. We thought Hillary Clinton could walk all over the Weakest Candidate Ever. She ran a pretty uninspiring campaign, but we were sure she'd win against Trump. And we underestimated him. I'm simply arguing that we need to overestimate Trump and his handlers so we don't just field someone with a pulse. I want to be very alert, and pragmatic when entering 2019, and get someone in the Presidency who can defeat the Republicans by taking the wind out their electorate's sail. That ain't gonna happen by using a plug-n-play candidate.
- Doc


You seem to be forgetting Natasha. Do you really expect her to make another miraculous appearance in 2020?

Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Bernie Sanders Question
PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2018 9:23 pm 
God

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am
Posts: 15817
If there's a recession in 2020, Democrats could nominate Satan and Satan will win comfortably assuming the election is free and fair. Trump is very unpopular for as good as the underlying fundamentals are for him currently. That's a glaring red flag that he is a very weak candidate. He's like 20 points underwater for where he should be. Imagine if "where he should be" was a negative starting point.

Clinton performed about as good as the fundamentals said she should. They way we got there was bananas and probably involved weaknesses cancelling each other out, but the Trump/Clinton split was within the normal error range of prediction modeling. My contention is simply that differences between typical party nominees aren't a major factor in presidential election outcomes. It's mostly, though not entirely a referendum on how persuadable people feel about the party in power. This is a popular view in political science. Knowing that, we can infer that it is unreasonable to think only a "high quality" candidate stands a chance at beating Trump. By 2020, it's plausible that Trump's election chances are poor enough that marginal differences between candidates won't matter and they'll all beat him. It's also plausible that Trump's election chances are good enough that no one will beat him. You want to nominate the best candidate possible, because any increase in odds is better than no increase in odds, but that doesn't mean that's a needed step in winning.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Bernie Sanders Question
PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2018 12:23 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:54 am
Posts: 6911
subgenius wrote:
inconclusive, and most people lean towards the fact that she never exhibited signs of having a pulse....but she 100% had her finger nowhere near the pulse.

Context just isn’t something you process well, it appears.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Bernie Sanders Question
PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2018 12:32 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:54 am
Posts: 6911
Gunnar wrote:
canpakes wrote:
Tulsi Gabbard would be an interesting candidate.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsi_Gabbard
Yes indeed! If she runs and wins in 2020, she will not only be the first female President in history, but the youngest.
EAllusion wrote:
I'd think her hardcore support of Bashar al-Assad would make her about as bad of a Democratic candidate as you're likely to find.

I’ll disagree. I don’t see this issue as significant for a candidate in a duel with Trump, and I don’t interpret likely Democratic voters to be negatively swayed by her particular stand on it enough to lose their support.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Bernie Sanders Question
PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2018 1:37 am 
God

Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 12:17 am
Posts: 4956
Location: California
canpakes wrote:
Gunnar wrote:
Tulsi Gabbard would be an interesting candidate.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsi_Gabbard

Yes indeed! If she runs and wins in 2020, she will not only be the first female President in history, but the youngest.

canpakes wrote:
EAllusion wrote:
I'd think her hardcore support of Bashar al-Assad would make her about as bad of a Democratic candidate as you're likely to find.

I’ll disagree. I don’t see this issue as significant for a candidate in a duel with Trump, and I don’t interpret likely Democratic voters to be negatively swayed by her particular stand on it enough to lose their support.

Considering her reasoning for leaving Assad alone, you may be right:
Quote:
In the first session of the 115th Congress on January 4, 2017, Gabbard introduced bill H.R. 258 to prohibit the use of United States Government funds to provide assistance to Al Qaeda, Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and to countries supporting those organizations directly or indirectly.[62][63][64] Announcing the legislation, she said: "If you or I gave money, weapons or support to al-Qaeda or ISIS, we would be thrown in jail. Yet the U.S. government has been violating this law for years, quietly supporting allies and partners of al-Qaeda, ISIL ... and other terrorist groups with money, weapons and intelligence support, in their fight to overthrow the Syrian government."[65]


Quote:
Gabbard opposes the US removing Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad from power.[124] She has cited US "regime-change" involvement in Syria as a source of the Syrian refugee crisis.[125]

In 2013 Gabbard opposed the Obama administration's proposed military strikes in Syria, arguing that intervention in Syria would go against America's national security, international credibility, economic interest, and moral center.[126] She later introduced legislation to block U.S. military action against the Assad regime.[127] She has described US involvement in the Syrian Civil War as "our counterproductive regime-change war", and said that it is this "regime-change war that is causing people to flee their country".[125]

Gabbard was one of three members of Congress to vote against House resolution 121, which condemned the government of Syria and "other parties to the conflict" for war crimes and crimes against humanity,"[128] saying that though Assad is a "brutal dictator," the resolution was "a War Bill—a thinly veiled attempt to use the rationale of 'humanitarianism' as a justification for overthrowing the Syrian government". She explained that the resolution "urges the administration to create 'additional mechanisms for the protection of civilians', which is coded language for the creation of a so-called no-fly/safe zone." Gabbard has rejected suggestions for the creation of a no-fly zone in Syria, stating that it would cost "billions of dollars, require tens of thousands of ground troops and a massive U.S. air presence, and it won't work", and that such a move would risk confrontation with Russia.[129][130]

_________________
No precept or claim is more deservedly suspect or more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.

“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.”
― Harlan Ellison


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Bernie Sanders Question
PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 6:22 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:54 am
Posts: 6911
canpakes wrote:
Tulsi Gabbard would be an interesting candidate.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsi_Gabbard

Image



This just in:

Quote:
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard said Friday she will run for president in 2020.

"I have decided to run and will be making a formal announcement within the next week," the Hawaii Democrat told CNN's Van Jones during an interview slated to air at 7 p.m. Saturday on CNN's "The Van Jones Show."

Gabbard, an Iraq War veteran, currently serves on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. She is the first American Samoan and the first Hindu member of Congress.

"There are a lot of reasons for me to make this decision. There are a lot of challenges that are facing the American people that I'm concerned about and that I want to help solve," she said, listing health care access, criminal justice reform and climate change as key platform issues.

"There is one main issue that is central to the rest, and that is the issue of war and peace," Gabbard added. "I look forward to being able to get into this and to talk about it in depth when we make our announcement."

Rania Batrice, who was a deputy campaign manager for Bernie Sanders in 2016 and is now a top aide to Gabbard, will be the campaign manager, Batrice says.

In 2015, Gabbard, then a vice-chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, was sharply critical of its then-chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz for scheduling just six presidential debates during the 2016 primary election cycle. She later resigned her post as DNC vice chair to become one of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders' highest-profile supporters, aligning herself with his populist economic message.

Gabbard has staked out anti-interventionist foreign policy positions in Congress. Her 2017 meeting with Syrian dictator Bashar Al-Assad drew widespread criticism. "Initially, I hadn't planned on meeting him," Gabbard told CNN's Jake Tapper in January of 2017. "When the opportunity arose to meet with him, I did so because I felt it's important that if we profess to truly care about the Syrian people, about their suffering, then we've got to be able to meet with anyone that we need to if there is a possibility that we could achieve peace, and that's exactly what we talked about."

Gabbard joins a quickly growing field of Democrats eager to take on President Donald Trump for the presidency.
Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren announced on New Year's Eve that she was forming an exploratory committee for a presidential run. Former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julian Castro also formed an exploratory committee and is expected to announce his 2020 plans Saturday.

A number of other potential Democratic candidates, including heavyweights like former Vice President Joe Biden and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, are currently weighing whether to run for president and are expected to announce their decision soon.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Bernie Sanders Question
PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2019 2:09 am 
God

Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 12:17 am
Posts: 4956
Location: California
Tulsi Gabbard would indeed be an interesting candidate. I would definitely prefer her to Trump and any other Republican candidate that I currently know anything about. I admire her position on a number of important issues. I also prefer her over a number of Democrat potential candidates, including Joe Biden and Cory Booker, both of which seem to me to be too beholden to the corrupting influence of some wealthy corporate donors.

I would definitely support a Bernie Sanders/Tulsi Gabbard ticket. There are a number of very impressive female candidates who are seriously considerin running for President. It is quite conceivable that we could wind up with a democrat ticket featuring two females, and even possible that the eventual Republican ticket could both be females.

_________________
No precept or claim is more deservedly suspect or more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.

“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.”
― Harlan Ellison


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Bernie Sanders Question
PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2019 10:03 am 
God

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am
Posts: 15817
Tulsi Gabbard has so many weird, extremist positions on issues most people aren't even aware exist.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Bernie Sanders Question
PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2019 10:09 am 
God

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am
Posts: 15817
Let's boot the white supremacist out of office by electing a Hindu supremacist! - some really good drugs, probably.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Bernie Sanders Question
PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2019 10:09 am 
Charlatan
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 10:04 pm
Posts: 4104
EAllusion wrote:
Tulsi Gabbard has so many weird, extremist positions on issues most people aren't even aware exist.


I know nothing about her...what are they?

_________________
The days that I keep my gratitude higher than my expectations, I have really good days.
Ray Wylie Hubbard


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Bernie Sanders Question
PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2019 10:29 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 5:37 pm
Posts: 8546
Location: On walkabout
Markk wrote:
EAllusion wrote:
Tulsi Gabbard has so many weird, extremist positions on issues most people aren't even aware exist.


I know nothing about her...what are they?


She’s taken pro-Assad positions on Syria.

_________________
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Bernie Sanders Question
PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2019 11:05 am 
God

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am
Posts: 15817
Markk wrote:
EAllusion wrote:
Tulsi Gabbard has so many weird, extremist positions on issues most people aren't even aware exist.


I know nothing about her...what are they?


She's in bed with Hindu nationalism, which is roughly speaking the Indian equivalent to white nationalism. That's where her Islamophobic tendencies have a natural home, which itself is related to her support of Assad and extremely pro-Isreal stances. I'll find an article or two on some of her more out there views.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Bernie Sanders Question
PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2019 11:25 am 
Charlatan
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 10:04 pm
Posts: 4104
I read this in one article...and if true and she got elected it would be interesting to see how the media spins it.
Quote:
“I’m personally concerned about her support for Russian military action in Syria while excusing Assad’s murderous regime,” Tanden wrote. “But she has positions on other issues that are admirable, like campaign finance reform.”


Gunnar, you don't have a problem with her support for the Russians, if true? She went to Syria and supports Assad, at least from my brief reads, to at the least stay in power. Is there collusion here?

I have no idea if the next link is true, but I find it amazing how people justify who we support, and what and how we justify things in regards to our ideology.

http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/Articles ... Check.aspx

_________________
The days that I keep my gratitude higher than my expectations, I have really good days.
Ray Wylie Hubbard


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Bernie Sanders Question
PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2019 12:18 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:54 am
Posts: 6911
Markk wrote:
I have no idea if the next link is true, but I find it amazing how people justify who we support, and what and how we justify things in regards to our ideology.

http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/Articles ... Check.aspx


“I have no idea if the next link is true” is an excellent way to admit that you are not interested in doing your due diligence as opposed to merely repeating a story. You might have kept that in mind before following up with the next part of your sentence.

Hawai’i Free Press is not without an agenda, so that might paint their commentary. Check into the links and let that help you to decide.

Per an article in the Honolulu Civil Beat about that paper’s editor:

Quote:
The post on Ige is typical of many of Walden’s writings on local politics. They have just enough of a veneer of authority to make some readers take them to be credible, and they often do raise legitimate questions about issues like conflict of interest.

But the articles can also be misleading. The links Walden provides in the Ige story — to a “small-time jewel smuggler” and “Larry Mehau protectee” — raise old, largely unsubstantiated rumors about Mehau being a criminal “Godfather” and make Ariyoshi, a three-term governor, somehow guilty by association.

The link to the “Conflict of Interest” story, meanwhile, is to a 1988 article in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin article that is much less of an indictment on Ige than Walden suggests. The actual headline for the story — “Sen. Ige now a GTE lobbyist: He says he will avoid a conflict of interest and not lobby his peers” — is far more benign the the accusatory headline Walden provides.


Last edited by canpakes on Sun Jan 13, 2019 1:07 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Bernie Sanders Question
PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2019 12:24 pm 
God

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am
Posts: 15817
Gabbard has supported Russisa's military action in Syria and has criticized people for criticizing it, though. One of the main through-lines of her political leadership is supporting anything that she perceives to hurt Muslims.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 72 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group