Welcome to one of the most active flamenco sites on the Internet. Guests can read most posts but if you want to participate click here to register.
This site is dedicated to the memory of Paco de Lucía, Ron Mitchell, Guy Williams, Linda Elvira, Philip John Lee, Craig Eros, Ben Woods, David Serva and Tom Blackshear who went ahead of us.
We receive 12,200 visitors a month from 200 countries and 1.7 million page impressions a year. To advertise on this site please contact us.
|
|
|
RE: Divisive ignorance
|
You are logged in as Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic: none
|
|
Login  | |
|
   
Richard Jernigan
Posts: 3430
Joined: Jan. 20 2004
From: Austin, Texas USA
|
 RE: Divisive ignorance (in reply to BarkellWH)
|
|
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BarkellWH
The pundits will earn their pay over the next few days attempting to explain Trump's victory and why it was such a shock. As someone who will remain unpaid, I would like to offer my thoughts herewith. There are several reasons for the election results, not the least of which is the baggage Hillary carried with her. But I think one of the main reason's for Trump's victory and Hillary's defeat is the rebellion of the white working class. It had a much larger effect on the election than anyone imagined.
Bill
From two rather large extended families in rural Texas (father's side) and rural Oklahoma ( mother's side) my perspective on class division has a generational aspect.
My grandparents on both sides lived in the country and made their living in agriculture. On my father's side, Texas ranchers; on my mother's, relatively prosperous family farmers: 320 acres in Oklahoma wheat country, when you could make a pretty good living off that.
Only a few of my generation still live in the country, those who manage the ranch which is organized as a family corporation. The rest of the owners have been city people for two generations. During my grandparents' tenure on the ranch, it was practically a subsistence operation, before the discovery of oil, and before irrigation made a big difference in year-round agricultural productivity.
During my childhood and young adult years, the grandparents' generation were still a big part of family life. The extended family's common origins were obvious to all. In my parents' generation most members of the family were urban working class, some (like my father and my mother's older sister) moved into the urban middle class.
For example, my father rose to high rank as a military officer: middle class. One of his brothers-in-law was a union man, business agent for the painters' union in the big oil and chemical plants on the Texas coast. The union man came up through the ranks, working as a painter.
Though their class membership and political views had diverged, my father and my uncle were clearly aware of their common origins. They hunted quail as part of the same family group. Uncle Mac was a better wing shot than Dad. Dad was the best sport fisherman of the whole bunch. They enjoyed their friendly competition at sports that originated in rural life. After the conservative wing of the Democratic party morphed into the Texas Republican party, Dad was an active Republican, Uncle Mac was a Democrat. At family gatherings they often discussed politics, even teased one another a little, but the tone remained friendly and respectful.
Members of my generation didn't really share the common class origins of my parents' generation. In my case we lived in middle class neighborhoods, or on military bases, had air conditioned houses, and rode in Cadillacs. We went to college. Some of my cousins had similar lives. Their parents were professionals or business owners.
Many other cousins lived in working class neighborhoods, and rode in Fords or Chevrolets. But the 1950s were the paradise of the working class. America was the only industrialized country left standing after WW II. Working as a master painter, a certified welder, a master carpenter, you could afford to buy a house, a decent car, and send a couple of kids to university. Several of my working class cousins went to college and became chemists, engineers, college professors, etc., and moved into the middle class. Others followed their fathers into the trades.
My children's generation, now in their 40s and 50s had separate class identities. Middle class kids and working class kids lived in different neighborhoods, went to different schools, inherited different political views. Some retained their parents' political identities, others changed, but none of them had personal experience of the other class's lives.
In the 1980s two high school football teams in Austin competed for the state championship in the largest population division. The captains of the two teams were jointly interviewed on local TV. It was so spectacular the clip went nationwide. The co-captains of the team from my kids' school wore button down dress shirts, chinos, penny loafers and yuppie haircuts. The captains from south Austin wore cowboy shirts, big hats, Levis, big belt buckles and cowboy boots. They even spoke with very different accents. One side looked down upon the others, and the others resented it. The rich kids won.
They have been winning ever since, and the working class kids have been losing. No longer can a working man buy a nice house, a new car, and send a couple of kids to college. They are barely hanging on financially. A single hiccup, an illness, getting laid off work, any serious bump in the road, tips them over into financial disaster.
Meanwhile my middle class generation retires with a nice house, a late model luxury car, and a nice nest egg of investments. Our kids are doctors, lawyers, luxury real estate agents, business owners....and many of them look down their noses at their working class cousins. The extended family, in the present generation of young adults, has divided into working class and middle class segments that have little to do with each other.
Elsewhere in America, the class divisions run even deeper. Almost all white native Texans of my generation hark back to rural, agricultural roots. In other parts of the country the class divisions go back many generations, often to the time ancestors immigrated to America.
The pressure built up by the deepening class division boiled over last night.
The media were artfully exploited by Trump. The more outrageous his antics, the more free coverage he got.
When the press were in control of public discourse, they developed an ethic of "fairness." This amounted to giving equal time to all sides of an issue. This worked kind of OK when discourse was civil. TV changed that. The "issues" became less important than the candidate's image. Kennedy was more glamorous than Nixon. Nixon was more forceful than Humphrey. Carter was more virtuous than Ford, who pardoned Nixon, who was crucified for our sins as well as his. Reagan was stronger, warmer and more reassuring than Carter, etc. And as rudeness and arrogance became more acceptable on "entertainment" TV and shock jock radio, the tolerance for the same began to stain politics.
Trump's campaign fooled the experts by correctly intuiting that the limits of acceptable public behavior were a very long way past the limits of middle class decorum, especially when deployed to express working class, ethnic and religious resentment. He was right all along, and those who tried to make him "pivot" to be more "presidential" after he sewed up the nomination were wrong.
Now we will see what comes next.
RNJ
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Nov. 9 2016 23:46:57
 |
|
Richard Jernigan
Posts: 3430
Joined: Jan. 20 2004
From: Austin, Texas USA
|
|
RE: Divisive ignorance (in reply to Leñador)
|
|
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Leñador
I have very little sympathy for white working class americans. I grew up very poor and was able to slide myself up one or two socioeconomic classes without college. The large majority of white working class americans I grew up with and that I encounter through working as a general contractor are proud of how uncultured they are and this is in the center of Los Angeles, not some town of 100 in a square state.
One of Larisa's martial arts instructors is a white ex-marine. He is not proud of his ignorance. In fact he is one of the few people who know the earth is flat, and the lie that it is round is propaganda that enables government control of the population. He supports his position by linking to a large collection of websites that promote this view. He is absolutely, one-hundred percent impervious to experimental data, like watching a ship come up over the horizon with binoculars, or to rational discussion. When I bring up the fact that my brother was part of the leadership of the Apollo moon landing program, he changes the subject. I guess he's too polite to call me a fool or a liar.
On the other hand, five of my good friends are white working class guys with no college education. All are intelligent, hard working, self reliant, and far more financially successful than the average white working class male. One has a 100-ton, All Oceans Captain's license. Others got certifications as HVAC techs, nuclear power plant operators, electronic techs, high tech welders and so on. They took overseas jobs when they saw the financial advantages, and they liked the adventurous aspects of it too. Two of them worked for me, and were among my very best employees. One of them was my regular dive buddy for years, and I would literally trust him with my life.
They all voted for Trump. Two of them said it was more because they hated Hillary than because they particularly liked Trump. I never discussed politics with any of them, for fear of endangering friendships.
My daughter is a successful defense lawyer, former prosecutor, former Assistant Attorney General, as well qualified as anyone in the state of Texas in criminal appellate law. She probably makes more than Hillary's $250,000 per year threshold for raising tax rates. She voted for Trump.
In 2012 she voted for Romney, and was seriously pissed off that I voted for Obama. I expressed my sympathy for her candidate's loss, since, like Carl Rove and most of the rest of the Republicans, she was sure he would win. We no longer discuss politics.
RNJ
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Nov. 10 2016 0:24:53
|
|
Piwin
Posts: 3559
Joined: Feb. 9 2016
|
|
RE: Divisive ignorance (in reply to estebanana)
|
|
|
It's hard to imagine how the police could have any more "power" than it already does.
The few encounters I've had with US police officers have been tense, mainly because as a French person I have very little respect for authority as such and the officers I encountered seemed to automatically demand it. Of course it probably didn't help when I told one officer who was barking at me sumthin sumthin respect sumthin sumthin that if by respect he meant "do what I tell you to" I would comply, but if by respect he meant respect him as a person, he would have to earn that respect by treating me decently. His colleagues got a good laugh when they realized that all that had happened is that I suggested it was common courtesy to say hello before yelling licence and registration at someone. I remember thinking that if it could go off-tracks that quickly simply because someone, while fully complying with what was asked of him, merely asked for a bit more courtesy, then how dangerous it must be for someone who is part of a minority or when there are actual stakes like in a protest.
Some of it might just be cultural since, as I mentioned, the rapport to authority in France is quite different and I am more accustomed to that. The most violent interaction I've ever witnessed involving the police was about 10 years ago when the firemen were on strike in Paris. They had brought a lot of their own gear, including fire trucks. When they hosed down the line of police officers who were barring their way, well, it got messy. It looked like a mix between a bar fight and a wet T-shirt contest. And I don't think it'll surprise anyone that the firemen came out victorious with the police quickly retreating. Those guys are badass. In other words, if BLM or other protestors want to keep the police at bay, they should seriously look into recruiting the fire department. Even their new remote-controlled death robots won't stand against a good hosing. 
_____________________________
"Anything you do can be fixed. What you cannot fix is the perfection of a blank page. What you cannot fix is that pristine, unsullied whiteness of a screen or a page with nothing on it—because there’s nothing there to fix."
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Nov. 10 2016 9:42:22
|
|
estebanana
Posts: 9351
Joined: Oct. 16 2009
|
|
RE: Divisive ignorance (in reply to Escribano)
|
|
|
Piwin,
What I meant earlier about police becoming more militarized was not totally about more legal reach under the law, although Trump campaigned on the old search and seizure method, commonly known as "stop and frisk" used in NY in the 1970's and 80- basically a form of racial profiling which if he moved on it would incite untold numbers of lawsuits from groups like the American Civil Liberties Union ACLU and the Southern Poverty Law Center- What I was getign at is that there is a trend towards city, county level law enforcement agencies to stock upon military grade riot and battle gear. This has been promoted by the state and national level police unions and associations.
The police in suburban and urban areas are increacingly supplied with military equipment like armored vehicles and heavy gear by city councils who are influenced by police lobby organizations. The actual legal power the police have remains level, more or less, but what concerns me more and more are these essentially small armies. The trouble is many of these police forces are under the command of city mayors who are not qualified to be in command of such force. In the cases of civil disobedience that have been happening the last few years I think the police have done very well to stay disciplined, by and large. A few bad actors, but the ramp up in the kind of gear they use now has an effect on the public and the officers themselves. It creates a dehumanizing factor for both sides which makes it more difficult for the public to understand the police point of view, and makes the police look more intimidating and less human to protesters. On the other hand there is a kind of psychological state brought on by wearing military dress and gear that makes it more difficult for police to retain a sense of citizenhood, and not be lulled into a kind of power by owning big military toys.
The town of Davis CA was the site of a student protest four years ago that led to students being pepper sprayed by a cop and it caused a furor on both the side of law enforcement in Davis and student and citizen. Davis is the location of a big important University of California campus that is a heavy science school. As a result the police chief secured a massive armored riot tank and the mayor objected and said no battle tank in a college town. The budgets for police acquisition of military gear usually has to be approved by some civic body like city council or mayor or some other oversight committee.
The citizens, I feel , should have a stake in what kind of military hardware their local law enforcement bodies decide to acquire, to a certain extent. The should have the right to through elected officials decide if their city acquires things like tanks. I am concerned because the Trump platform was about "law and order"; When I hear that coming from someone who's speech and demeanor are so filled with a charismatic power that embraces a demogogue legal agenda, I think martial law. I think it is not unreasonable that instances of martial law could be implemented in certain American towns, and that the citizens would not have much recourse.
I'm hesitant to trust that Trump has the peoples best interest at heart in terms of civil safety. I think he will be a biased and instable arbiter should some incident like Kent State should come about in the event that the over militarization of local police forces gets out of control.
You can appreciate I'm sure that America is divided into two tribes on the law enforcement issues as fa as public discourse is happening. The tribal point of view I just expressed and the opposing point of view that might makes right. There is not much breathing room for a more inclusive subtle dialog in between as long as there is a presence in the air like Trump. This validates the police point of view in the incorrect manner, in my opinion.
This is why I think Trump was a very bad idea. Tribally speaking I think that a "mother figure" perceived by half as crooked could effect more national soothe of sore feelings of each side than a "angry dad" figure who wants to punish, but is not willing to follow his own rules. At a very primal level and psychologically speaking I think it boils down to just that. White males over a certain age and tribal group are not willing to be ruled by a woman. Whether they know this about themselves consciously or unconsciously it does not matter, it's there and it's deep in the psyche of the country. They see an alpha male that they can vicariously live through, rule their living room and garage through, and who also has nothing in common with them.
___________________________________________________________
As for ISIS ect. I'm not too worried about them, I'm worried more about his paranoia hurting folks at home. ISIS knows Trump will inflict more pain on the country than they ever could. And then the NATO allies will have to step up and deal with what he does not do. No amount of closing your borders can stop something like San Bernardino, my home town. He just used that to freak people out. If I were a conspiracy nut I would say he funded it. But I'm not even that crazy.
There's only one hitch to that, trump may have called for a retribution attack with his rhetoric against Muslims. In that sense those who voted for him played into ISIS's hands. Clinton on the other hand is able to differentiate and has good ties to the Middle East. She brokered a cease fire when missiles were being fired into Israel from Gaza- Trump on the other hand has no track record in these kinds of issues an other than vague kind of cavemanish proddings did not elucidate how he will deal with other countries- his twin brother Duterte is is eager to have a pow-wow. About the only good I can see coming from that bromance is convincing the Philippines not too join the Asian Chinese based version of a trade development bank. And if they do, meh. But I digress from he topic.
You have to remember that outside of 911 the biggest terrorist attack on American soil was carried out by Timothy Mc Veigh- and that during the 1970's radical socialist groups that were domestic carried out thousands of small bombings or attempted bombings all over the country. The other thing is that the "lone wolf" style attacker over the years has collectively killed more innocent people that Timothy M Veigh-Gabby Gifford's and all the innocent people attacked at schools and movie houses by independent actors have killed more innocent people that terrorists from overseas after 911.
I for one would like to know as Trump says what the hell is going on with that? But here's the thing, the gun lobby influences Congress to block the funding to federal government health divisions to study the causes of gun violence. Whether guns laws are just or not, whether you are pro or anti gun rules legislation, the tribal disagreement is fueled by high dollar lobbies. The other usual annoying thing about rank and file Republican polictians, which causes much tribal friction, is that they flog the American public with the falacious notion that liberals will repeal the second amendment which ensures that private citizens can own firearms. Too many liberals love their guns A. and B. it takes an act of God Almighty and 2/3 rds majority of both houses to change strike down an amendment. The total fallacy that Democrats want ban guns is one of the major tribal rifts.
_____________________________
https://www.stephenfaulkguitars.com
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Nov. 10 2016 23:02:19
|
|
Piwin
Posts: 3559
Joined: Feb. 9 2016
|
|
RE: Divisive ignorance (in reply to estebanana)
|
|
|
That makes a whole lot of sense.
As far as Trump being a "biased and instable arbiter", I think he showed us yesterday what it's going to be all about...
His Tweet: "Just had a very open and successful presidential election. Now Professional protesters, incited by the media, are protesting. Very unfair!"
The elections went from being rigged to being open and successful. This is the most basic form of the egocentric troll, not even a child, a baby. If it goes your way, it's all good. If it doesn't, it's unfair and someone must be cheating... This is already an indication that he will not side with the people who protest, nor will he even listen, unless it suits his own agenda. It's so very easy to imagine civil rights being gleefuly trampled in this type of situation.
As for ISIS and that lot, I agree as well. I'm not too worried either. I just think it should give people pause that they are celebrating this election with them. This was the case in France when municipalities started banning burkinis. Isis was ecstatic. Precisely because they want to bring out the worst in us, they want us to go after moderate Muslims. Just like Trump, they're trolls. Fortunately our equivalent to the Supreme Court ruled that the burkini bans were unconstitutional. But without them, we just might have struck down our own civil liberties merely because we're afraid, playing right into the hands of terrorists.
_____________________________
"Anything you do can be fixed. What you cannot fix is the perfection of a blank page. What you cannot fix is that pristine, unsullied whiteness of a screen or a page with nothing on it—because there’s nothing there to fix."
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Nov. 11 2016 7:42:48
|
|
estebanana
Posts: 9351
Joined: Oct. 16 2009
|
|
RE: Divisive ignorance (in reply to Escribano)
|
|
|
As far as the anger, I'll control it,but I must say it's not like any other presidential transition to me. Bush Dubya, did some things I did not like, but he was part of a narrative the Republican party put forth to be socially inclusive and I think they meant it, even if ti was voiced clumsily. I never really warmed up to Bush during his 8 years, but I witnessed him growing as he progressed. at the end I think he had learned something. But presidents are not there for us to watch them develop into more complex or nuanced human beings, but it happens.
They Bush admin. played on racial stereotypes, but in those days John Mc Cain stood up and said to a woman putting down Obama, "He's a muslim." McCain said begging your pardon but he's a good American and it was Mc Cain finest moment, a great moment in our history when n a competing presidential candidate defended his rival for a just reason. That was in 2008, not too long ago. When Obama took office that tenor changed, and there were many political attacks on him, but not really anything that we had not seen before. Business as usual in nasty political talk. Enter Donald Trump and we witness a person who harnesses the media to make hos own self serving side show. He claimed Obama was a Muslim and harped on for 7 years doing anything he could to undermine his authority, and then prosecuted a war like racially biased campaign against his likely successor, flawed as she was to some folks, and in an oblique way continued to take down Obama.
The thing I can't stomach.and frankly should not have to, is that after an assault that lasted 7 years and a campaign in which Trump demonstrated racially biased hate speech as a central theme of his program that I am supposed to drop all reservations and accept that he deserves a try? This is just not happening. When we are kids in the US we're told the bully shall not prevail, that to be honest and fair is hwo we must act.
To a see man, I can't call him a man really, act as he did to acquire an important seat of government makes me loose faith in our system. Politics is dirty, but winning at the expense of the trust of an opponents supporters is a bad sign. Not that politicians don't do this, but the petty name calling, the bratty behavior the attitude, and we really don't know this person. Allegations of child rape, no tax returns forwarded, a possible trial for racketeering- I was talking to a friend who is a law professor and he said there is almost enough to impeach him before he is sworn in. Racketering charges and Old Bill C al he did was get a hummer in the side room of the Oval office. Who cares? We're going to install a president who has scores of pending lawsuits, that is supposed to happen while you are in office and a victim of rabid partisan ship.
And there is the small problem of conflict of interest with his business, even if he has hands off to his kids to run it's still a conflict. Right, and Hillary was crucified in advance over the Clinton Foundation. And an FBI that can't keep it in its pants. The Klu Klux Klan is going to throw a thank you bash /occult ceremony in honor of Trump in December.
THE KU KLUX KLAN IS CELEBRATING A PRESIDENT ELECT OF THE UNITED STATES.
At least someone offers him a blessing, but not me.
_____________________________
https://www.stephenfaulkguitars.com
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Nov. 11 2016 10:31:39
|
|
Piwin
Posts: 3559
Joined: Feb. 9 2016
|
|
RE: Divisive ignorance (in reply to estebanana)
|
|
|
quote:
there is almost enough to impeach him before he is sworn in
My mind has wandered there as well over the last two days. I wouldn't get my hopes up though.
There is a simple solution to all of this, it'll just require some persistence. Over the next 4 years we have to flood his Twitter account all day with comments about his small hands. He will be unable to resist and will spend his entire term engaging in a Twitter war instead of trying to enact any of his plans.
Alternately, we put all of our weight behind his wife's plan to do something about bullying. Maybe it will lead to some kind of law against bullying, which in turn could provide grounds to impeach Trump.
Or we just wait until he does something to limit freedom of the press, which is bound to happen, and tackle him for lying under oath when he took the oath of office in which he swore to uphold the US Constitution.
As far as him "deserving a try", I think you're right. He doesn't. There might however be an argument, a fatalistic one but perhaps of some value, for saying that now that the harm is done, we have to make do and try to make his presidency "work". At this point I'm still very emotional about it and I have this primal desire that he will crash and burn and bring his electors down with him. But somewhere in the back of my head I know that if that happens, we're going down with them all. My (much) younger sister told me that she was upset, that she saw it at a setback, but when everything is said and done "you guys are going to die off soon enough". I got a good laugh out of it, all the more that it's fair game, given that this was not at all the millennial's vote and they have been taking crap from all sides over the last few years, mainly from people whose generation didn't vote when they were under 30 any more than the millennials do today (and for those who would dispute that, I would encourage you to look up the Stanford Social Innovation Review that went through the data on this very topic).
_____________________________
"Anything you do can be fixed. What you cannot fix is the perfection of a blank page. What you cannot fix is that pristine, unsullied whiteness of a screen or a page with nothing on it—because there’s nothing there to fix."
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Nov. 11 2016 11:46:40
|
|
BarkellWH
Posts: 3458
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC
|
|
RE: Divisive ignorance (in reply to Piwin)
|
|
|
Having spent my entire career in foreign affairs and national security, and continuing to do so as a consultant with the State Department and the Defense Department, I have sworn to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States....and bear true faith and allegiance to the same." The Foreign Service officer's oath is not to swear allegiance to the President, or to any other individual or entity. It is to the Constitution alone.
As disappointed as I was in the election's outcome, and as wary as I am (like so many others) of the President-Elect's glaring deficiencies, ignorance of America's national interest in fostering trade, maintaining our defense and other treaties with our allies, and his apparent praise of Vladimir Putin and other authoritarian figures, I think it incumbent on us to do what we can to keep the ship of state as steady as possible. In some cases that may mean attempting to influence policy by inter-acting with Trump Administration officials. I have no problem with that, as long as one offers advice without being co-opted by the Administration. I fail to see where conscious avoidance or an outright desire to see the Administration self-destruct accomplishes anything.
On a separate but related topic, this morning's "Washington Post" carried two articles that, juxtaposed against each other, tell an interesting story about personalities, substance vs. non-substance, and the election. Several "celebrities" who prior to the election said they would move out of the country (to Canada, Europe, etc.) if Trump won have apparently reconsidered. They include Amy Schumer, Lena Dunham, some rapper called Ne-Yo, Bryan Cranston, the ever-predictable Barbra Streisand, Samuel Jackson, Snoop Dogg, Cher, and Miley Cyrus. This reminds me of the 2008 election when Alec Baldwin mouthed off that he would move out of the country if George W. Bush won. Bush won and Baldwin didn't. These "celebrities" are about as shallow and transparent in their "pronouncements" as one can be. They exhibit nothing but the solipsistic, self-absorption that is the cornerstone of their insulated lives.
On the other hand, there was an OP-ED piece by a gentleman named Manu Saadia, a French citizen who has been a U.S. Permanent Resident for 20 years. He penned the piece entitled, "Resisting Trump by Becoming a U.S. Citizen." In his piece, Saadia writes:
"I will become an American. It is a small act of defiance and resistance. I owe a debt of loyalty to my American friends, to the city where I live and to the amazing, crazy, troubled, quirky and always surprising country that has welcomed me with arms wide open."
Saadia ends his piece as follows:
"And so I will become a U.S. citizen at long last. I will be a hyphenated American, a proud French-American, an immigrant. I will take my rightful, if minuscule, place in the ranks of President Trump's loyal opposition. And to paraphrase the gracious words of former Senator Bob Dole, I will do my utmost to defeat him and his party as an opponent, not an enemy."
Would that our "celebrities" demonstrate such class.
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white,
With the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here,
Who tried to hustle the East."
--Rudyard Kipling
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Nov. 11 2016 16:27:32
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts
|
|
|
Forum Software powered by ASP Playground Advanced Edition 2.0.5
Copyright © 2000 - 2003 ASPPlayground.NET |
0.125 secs.
|
Printable Version
. I have no doubt estabanana could've spraypainted one of his beautiful works of art and added an anti-trump message to it and it would've looked much better than whatever these kids did. 
