Page 20 of 95 FirstFirst ... 1018192021223070 ... LastLast
Results 381 to 400 of 1885

Thread: Political Correctness

  1. #381
    Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is. jpx7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    11,903
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    47,591
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6,441
    Thanked in
    3,830 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by sturg33 View Post
    Yeah... in this thread we were told a white man having the exact same stance on something that a black woman had would be "woefully selfish"

    We were told that people who are complaining about the PC culture are just simply racists

    We were told that saying "working men and women" are codewords for racism.

    Doesn't it get old?
    I said that a white dude sitting in a room mostly full of white, male faces, and therein complaining about a lack of white, male voices, would be "woefully selfish". I stand by that.
    "For all his tattooings he was on the whole a clean, comely looking cannibal."

  2. #382
    Co-Owner, BravesCenter
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    10,516
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    4,345
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4,305
    Thanked in
    2,446 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by 57Brave View Post
    Are you speaking for Mexican-Americans? and deciding what and when they should and shouldn't feel insulted.

    That was Sly's point
    I am just saying there’s a difference between “racist undertones” and cultural appropriation. Unless you believe eating Taco Bell is some kind of dog-whistle ... hence the reason why I asked you to expand (which you dodged). You seem to be the one speaking for Mexican-Americans, which is fine, but perhaps you should also heed Sly’s good advice.

  3. #383
    A Chip Off the Old Rock Julio3000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    15,038
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    6,273
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9,790
    Thanked in
    5,155 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Hawk View Post
    What were the comments, Julio?
    Today?

    Asking if "the darkness" in the neighborhood made things difficult for me. Suggested that the neighborhood was like Somalia and ten years ago he wouldn't come here without a platoon of marines (now that it's in the process of gentrification and they're building $500K condos which are 100% white-occupied next door I guess it's ok).

    So, am I being hypersensitive, or is that horrifically dehumanizing? Particularly in light of the fact that I've been there for ten years and my neighbors have never been anything other than neighborly, albeit poor and black.

    But I've heard variations on those comments for years from folks who assume I'm in their club, up to and including the "n."


  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Julio3000 For This Useful Post:

    jpx7 (10-20-2017)

  5. #384
    It's OVER 5,000! Jaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    7,309
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    8,202
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,344
    Thanked in
    1,625 Posts
    https://www.lifesitenews.com/pulse/d...e-pregnant-too

    Denmark to UN: ‘Pregnant woman’ is transphobic term. Men can be pregnant too
    Denmark recommended that the United Nations Human Rights Committee not use the term “pregnant woman” because it excludes “transgender people.” The small European country also said its interpretation of the “right to life” includes the right to abortion.

    The Human Rights Committee is accepting countries’ comments on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in particular the section that addresses the “right to life.”
    .....
    “Although States parties may adopt measures designed to regulate terminations of pregnancy, such measures must not result in violation of the right to life of a pregnant woman or her other rights under the Covenant,” meaning her right to a “safe” abortion, especially if her baby is disabled, the document says.

    This doesn’t go far enough for Denmark because “in using the term ‘pregnant woman’ the Committee may inadvertently be restricting the application of this paragraph to exclude transgender people who have given birth.”

  6. #385
    It's OVER 5,000! 57Brave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    22,800
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,682
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,889
    Thanked in
    1,420 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Hawk View Post
    I am just saying there’s a difference between “racist undertones” and cultural appropriation. Unless you thing eating Taco Bell is some kind of dog-whistle ... hence the reason I asked you to expand (which you dodged). You seem to be the one speaking for Mexican-Americans, which is fine, but perhaps you should also heed Sly’s good advice.
    I try to

    Mexican Americans are the example here. We could insert any number of other ethnicity's.

    Ever watched old movie where native Americans are portrayed as people that could only grunt or African natives portrayed as people with a vocabulary of "uga booga"
    Or told a joke where the Greek male is forever chasing young boys ?
    Or an American President couldn't possibly be legit because ... reducing people to a characterture.

    I gotta go
    The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make sure he doesn’t get a gun.

  7. #386
    Co-Owner, BravesCenter
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    10,516
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    4,345
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4,305
    Thanked in
    2,446 Posts
    But the question here is ... what message do you think President Trump eating Taco Bell on Cinco de Mayo sends?

  8. #387
    It's OVER 5,000! Jaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    7,309
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    8,202
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,344
    Thanked in
    1,625 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Julio3000 View Post
    Today?

    Asking if "the darkness" in the neighborhood made things difficult for me. Suggested that the neighborhood was like Somalia and ten years ago he wouldn't come here without a platoon of marines (now that it's in the process of gentrification and they're building $500K condos which are 100% white-occupied next door I guess it's ok).

    So, am I being hypersensitive, or is that horrifically dehumanizing? Particularly in light of the fact that I've been there for ten years and my neighbors have never been anything other than neighborly, albeit poor and black.

    But I've heard variations on those comments for years from folks who assume I'm in their club, up to and including the "n."
    Nope.

  9. #388
    I <3 Ron Paul + gilesfan sturg33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    52,587
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,018
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    8,096
    Thanked in
    5,758 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Julio3000 View Post


    So, that led me to wonder: how many of you/us who are talking up this resentment of so-called PC culture are actually confronted with it, in person, on a regular basis? How does it affect your life directly? Do you regularly get accused of racism, or told that your achievements are invalid because you're a white male?

    .
    Yes.

    I work on a team of exclusively women. My boss is white. I have two black colleagues. And I have two direct reports that are female.

    I have been told several times -and I emphasize several - that my opinion is less valuable bc I am a white man. That I need to understand my priveledge.

    Hell, my boss has flat out told me it's her goal to get more women in our overall team. What's the problem with that? We were in tech, and 75% of applicants are men.

    Yet we are force feeding candidates into the door to get to a 50/50 split.

    And if I object to it, I will likely suffer the same date as the Google guy

  10. #389
    Co-Owner, BravesCenter
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    10,516
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    4,345
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4,305
    Thanked in
    2,446 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Julio3000 View Post
    Today?

    Asking if "the darkness" in the neighborhood made things difficult for me. Suggested that the neighborhood was like Somalia and ten years ago he wouldn't come here without a platoon of marines (now that it's in the process of gentrification and they're building $500K condos which are 100% white-occupied next door I guess it's ok).

    So, am I being hypersensitive, or is that horrifically dehumanizing? Particularly in light of the fact that I've been there for ten years and my neighbors have never been anything other than neighborly, albeit poor and black.

    But I've heard variations on those comments for years from folks who assume I'm in their club, up to and including the "n."

    So this is you coming home:



    You know, the sad thing is, that guy (I know the type) probably thought he was being delicate by using "the darkness" instead of just saying "black people".

  11. #390
    A Chip Off the Old Rock Julio3000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    15,038
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    6,273
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9,790
    Thanked in
    5,155 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Hawk View Post
    So this is you coming home:



    You know, the sad thing is, that guy (I know the type) probably thought he was being delicate by using "the darkness" instead of just saying "black people".
    Oh, yeah, I don't doubt that at all. Except he wouldn't say "black people." Just "the blacks" if he were a more genteel sort and something else if not.

    But, it's worth repeating this guy was not elderly.

  12. #391
    Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is. jpx7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    11,903
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    47,591
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6,441
    Thanked in
    3,830 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaw View Post
    I won't say this as eloquently as it needs to be said, but hopefully it's understood that I mean it constructively.

    There comes a point where trying to force and mandate the proper level of diversity in all things becomes counterproductive. The things we are discussing, and often mocking, in this thread is the type of stuff that got us Republican nominee and President Trump. Call it dog whistling, code words, or whatever you like, but the man picked up on and then spoke to a growing resentment of these issues in his campaign.

    Yes, I know conventional wisdom is the Van Jones 'whitelash' theory that this was all due to having a black president. That theory falls apart under the lightest scrutiny. Why didn't the whitelash occur in 2008 to prevent the black man from reaching the highest position, if we as a nation are really so racist? Why didn't it occur in 2012 when Republicans nominated their most electable candidate since Reagan, and were still soundly beaten? The idea that the racists popped out to protest the black guy after he was no longer a candidate is just hogwash. Anecdotally, I know several genuine rednecks that Obama 08 because "we need change," and Obama 12 because "Republicans won't work with him." Then they voted Trump in the primary and the general because "he isn't afraid to tell it like it is."

    That vague sentiment is rampant today, and it wasn't caused by the guy they helped elect. It's caused by the people telling them they are racist despite their vote for him, it's caused by hearing about colleges using formulas that give priority to a racial mix instead of merit, by being told that straight dudes should be attracted to other dudes who dress up as chicks as long as that "chick" wants to be a chick, by being told their accomplishments don't count because white privilege, that their perspective is worth less due to their skin color. In a nutshell, they are mad because they are treated exactly as they are told they should not treat others, judged as part of a group instead of as an individual. Now people can try to justify that in any top lofty social justice academia equality way that they want, but it won't change the result. At some point, if we want society to prove itself worthy, we have to trust it to be worthy. Remove the training wheels, let go of the handlebars, and let us find balance.
    I think you make some very good points, and I have been and will be the first to say that politics—institutionally and generally, as a relating to fellow human—is a lot more than the sum of easily-negotiated identity categories. And, for instance, I myself have argued against viewing Trump's ascendancy as pure "whitelash" on dozens of occasions.

    But I do have to quibble with a few points in your final paragraph. I'm going to bullet-point because I'm feeling formally-lazy today:

    • Just as you can have voted for Trump and not be racist, you can have voted for Obama and still have racist tendencies. To me, this is the "black friend" defense writ ballot. You're seeking nuance; I'm asking you to consider that racist energies run deeper than simply who you vote for, or how you feel about Joe from HR, and can even surprise us when they suppurate forth in our lives.
    • College acceptance, like job solicitation, is a complicated question: What if these colleges feel a diverse background/perspective is a component of merit. Look, I'm not unsympathetic: I remember feeling some frustration, as a high-school senior, when I saw, amongst the college-hunt, some kids with more cultural bona fides beat out some kids with more classroom bona fides. But I also sympathize with universities that are wary of creating a monoculture, even if they feel they have to engineer their way out of that possibility. I'm willing to say that this is not an easy issue to adjudicate.
    • If you're being told that you have to be attracted to transgender folk—not just that you have to tolerate their choices and accept their presence in society—then you're associating with some folk who are simply doing it wrong. And I think most trans- folk would agree me with there.
    • It's not about discounting current white, male accomplishment because of white privilege. It's about accounting for it in where you, and where we collectively, are today. And it's about making sure we laud accomplishment across our cultural history by non-white and non-male actors, who usually accomplished what they did in spite and not because of the power structures at play.

      For myself, I'm well certain that there were advantages given, mistakes more easily forgiven, and things greeted with less suspicion, simply because I'm white. I can both confess and accept that, and also not let it define me.
    • I think you're misreading my comments (albeit more charitably than sturg) and comments like mine when it comes to the "worth" of perspectives. Whatever "lessening" is there is from upgrading the voices of non-white, non-male actors, not from degrading white, male voices. However, there's a complicated history of white, male voices being privileged—being given greater benefit of doubt, given the last word (or only word that mattered), given rarefied status—and that still bears down on our present moment, and thus still must be negotiated day-to-day. As white men, we have to be vigilantly conscious of how our words might seem or come across—even if that's outside our intent—if we want to ensure our intent is what's recognized and received, and not the bloated history of dismissal that came before us.

      I agree this is another uneasy area of negotiation, but just as I do my best not to view those disconcerted or discomforted with these negotiations monolithically—as uncaring, at best, and hateful, at worst—it's necessary for the discomforted to recognize that folks like me (and even those a little angrier about it) aren't a monolithic horde hoping to neuter the hopes, dreams, and voices (if not the literal appendages) of all white males. But I'll also admit we've got some neuterers on the fringes, just as some of those folk feigning discomfort are just straight-up racists and misogynists.

    To end: you may be right about the training-wheels and handlebars, but—given the deep history of structural oppression in this country—I just don't think we're there yet. I think we have a lot more worthiness-training to do before we want to "test" that. (And, of course, I have other, deeper suspicions related to how globalized capital manipulates these categories and markers of race, gender, class, sexuality, et cetera.)
    Last edited by jpx7; 10-20-2017 at 02:08 PM.
    "For all his tattooings he was on the whole a clean, comely looking cannibal."

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to jpx7 For This Useful Post:

    Runnin (10-21-2017)

  14. #392
    Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is. jpx7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    11,903
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    47,591
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6,441
    Thanked in
    3,830 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by sturg33 View Post
    Yes.

    I work on a team of exclusively women. My boss is white. I have two black colleagues. And I have two direct reports that are female.

    I have been told several times -and I emphasize several - that my opinion is less valuable bc I am a white man. That I need to understand my priveledge.

    Hell, my boss has flat out told me it's her goal to get more women in our overall team. What's the problem with that? We were in tech, and 75% of applicants are men.

    Yet we are force feeding candidates into the door to get to a 50/50 split.

    And if I object to it, I will likely suffer the same date as the Google guy
    You don't have some bootstraps you could use to pull yourself up out of that situation?

    But seriously: I'm trying to figure out where this complaint comes from, and/or what it hopes to do, given your ideological predilections. Is the apparatus of the state coercing these companies into prioritizing diversity? Conversely, I would assume you'd be distinctly against any legislation that would attempt to correct this perceived imbalance? So what's your game here? Or are you just all about letting the markets dictate, and companies do, whatever they want unless/until it inconveniences or negatively impacts you?
    "For all his tattooings he was on the whole a clean, comely looking cannibal."

  15. #393
    A Chip Off the Old Rock Julio3000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    15,038
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    6,273
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9,790
    Thanked in
    5,155 Posts
    I would advise you to stand strong, sturg, because what you seem to be suggesting is that there is a less-than-meritocratic process going on, which will ultimately result in poor job performance which will ultimately result in loss of shareholder value, which will ultimately result in changes being made, because of the unerring wisdom of the market.

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to Julio3000 For This Useful Post:

    Runnin (10-21-2017)

  17. #394
    I <3 Ron Paul + gilesfan sturg33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    52,587
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,018
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    8,096
    Thanked in
    5,758 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by jpx7 View Post
    As white men, we have to be vigilantly conscious of how our words might seem or come across—even if that's outside our intent—if we want to ensure our intent is what's recognized and received, and not the bloated history of dismissal that came before us.

    Will respond to the whole post when I have more time. But I think we have gotten ourselves into a situation where today, so many people are actively looking for racial or prejudices intent... when oftentimes it's simply not there.

    Let me quickly give you an example. The other day, a white broadcaster on Fox baseball pregame show was sitting in between 2 black guys on both sides of him. At some point, he made a joke about being the cream in the middle of the oreo.

    Of course, the internet exploded with their anger. Prominent sports journalists condemned him, and talked about how insensitive it was.

    But my question is, what was insensitive about it? What was racial about it? What was prejudice about it? Wasnt it just a fun joke between friends? Why are we seeking racism?

    We'll never get past this if half the country is looking for offenders.

  18. #395
    I <3 Ron Paul + gilesfan sturg33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    52,587
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,018
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    8,096
    Thanked in
    5,758 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by jpx7 View Post
    You don't have some bootstraps you could use to pull yourself up out of that situation?

    But seriously: I'm trying to figure out where this complaint comes from, and/or what it hopes to do, given your ideological predilections. Is the apparatus of the state coercing these companies into prioritizing diversity? Conversely, I would assume you'd be distinctly against any legislation that would attempt to correct this perceived imbalance? So what's your game here? Or are you just all about letting the markets dictate, and companies do, whatever they want unless/until it inconveniences or negatively impacts you?
    The complaint comes from the fact that I'm being told by own damn boss that my opinion is worth less on certain issues because I'm a white guy.

    What if I told a black person that his/her opinion meant less on banking because he/she was black? That would disgusting and wrong and overtly racist.

    But when it happens the other way, it's all fine and you can mock me for complaining about it. I don't get it.

    I'm so tired of all the "but this is just the market speaking!" comments you guys consistently think you "got me" with. Yeah - this is what the market is calling for simply because they are loud and violent if you don't. That doesn't make it right. The market called for slavery back in the day. That didn't make it right.

    I can respect the legality of something and liberty to do something while still disagreeing with the motives and reasons behind it.

  19. The Following User Says Thank You to sturg33 For This Useful Post:

    acesfull86 (10-20-2017)

  20. #396
    I <3 Ron Paul + gilesfan sturg33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    52,587
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,018
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    8,096
    Thanked in
    5,758 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Julio3000 View Post
    I would advise you to stand strong, sturg, because what you seem to be suggesting is that there is a less-than-meritocratic process going on, which will ultimately result in poor job performance which will ultimately result in loss of shareholder value, which will ultimately result in changes being made, because of the unerring wisdom of the market.
    Speaking up in this market gets you fired, sadly. The lefts attack on free speech has absolutely been successful.

  21. #397
    Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is. jpx7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    11,903
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    47,591
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6,441
    Thanked in
    3,830 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by sturg33 View Post
    I'm so tired of all the "but this is just the market speaking!" comments you guys consistently think you "got me" with. Yeah - this is what the market is calling for simply because they are loud and violent if you don't. That doesn't make it right. The market called for slavery back in the day. That didn't make it right.

    I can respect the legality of something and liberty to do something while still disagreeing with the motives and reasons behind it.
    The market doesn't make justice is music to my ears, but it is hard for me to situate in your worldview as I've understood it through your history of commentary here.

    Let's use your example: The market called for slavery. Slavery was morally wrong. An imposition on the market was made as slavery was made illegal. You don't like impositions on the market: you "respect the legality of [unimpeded action] and liberty to [act unimpeded]" even when you disagree "with the motives and reasons behind" that activity.

    Squaring all these sides, I'm going to walk out on a ledge and venture that you're happy with the end of slavery but unhappy with the means of ensuring that end (legal abolition). I'm going to further venture that you believe that the market—statically wrong in moments, but (with a Heraclitus-like faith in the wisdom of flow) ever-moving towards rightness—would have eventually dispensed with slavery on its own, if left to its own devices.

    So my question is: what if it didn't? At what point do we say an imposition needs to be made?
    Last edited by jpx7; 10-20-2017 at 03:12 PM.
    "For all his tattooings he was on the whole a clean, comely looking cannibal."

  22. #398
    I <3 Ron Paul + gilesfan sturg33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    52,587
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,018
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    8,096
    Thanked in
    5,758 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by jpx7 View Post
    The market doesn't make justice is music to my ears, but it is hard for me to situate in your worldview as I've understood it through your history of commentary here.

    Let's use your example: The market called for slavery. Slavery was morally wrong. An imposition on the market was made as slavery was made illegal. You don't like impositions on the market: you "respect the legality of [unimpeded action] and liberty to [act unimpeded]" even when you disagree "with the motives and reasons behind" that activity. Squaring all these sides, I'm going to walk out on a ledge and venture that you're happy with the end of slavery but unhappy with the means of ensuring that (legal abolition); I'm going to further venture that you believe that the market—statically wrong in moments, but (with a Heraclitus-like faith in the wisdom of flow) ever-moving towards rightness—would have eventually dispensed with slavery on its own, if left to its own devices.

    So my question is: what if it didn't? At what point do we say an imposition needs to be made?
    Slavery is a poor example because it impedes the liberty of others... And I would always support the government to step in to protect the individual liberty of every person and private business

  23. #399
    Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is. jpx7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    11,903
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    47,591
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6,441
    Thanked in
    3,830 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by sturg33 View Post
    Slavery is a poor example because it impedes the liberty of others... And I would always support the government to step in to protect the individual liberty of every person and private business
    I was just using your example, but I'm fine with rejecting US chattel slavery as a good example—even if I feel like you could make a fair point that abolishing slavery restricts the liberty of an individual or private business to own its workers outright, which problematizes your "always support" somewhat.

    But what about my core question: At what point do we say an imposition needs to be made? I mean, for example, one could argue that—in an era of increasing automation and narrow specialization—some form of UBI is necessary to protect the liberty of unspecialized labor to merely exist. It sure sounds like you're willing to concede that it's a spectrum, and there are tradeoffs that have to be negotiated and litigated—as opposed to bowing to an unfettered relationship to The Market. So what I'm asking is for a hermeneutic that's more functional than just "step in to protect the individual liberty of every person and private business", because that line too is mutable and negotiable, and one private business' liberty is another individual person's abrogation of liberty.
    "For all his tattooings he was on the whole a clean, comely looking cannibal."

  24. #400
    Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is. jpx7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    11,903
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    47,591
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6,441
    Thanked in
    3,830 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Hawk View Post
    I saw it, I could sympathize with it, but I was never compelled by the argument(s) made here on that particular score.

    And I’m extremely reasonable and often far too easily persuaded.

    The same general feeling is applicable to the assertions half-assedly made in this thread. I understand the underlying components of the base argument being made - I just want to read someone actually put it all together in an honestly substantive and constructive way.
    To take a page from your book: Expound on this.
    "For all his tattooings he was on the whole a clean, comely looking cannibal."

Similar Threads

  1. Political safe space thread.
    By weso1 in forum LOCKER ROOM TALK
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 09-20-2017, 11:03 AM
  2. Replies: 16
    Last Post: 07-22-2014, 12:30 AM
  3. Income Inequality and political polarization?
    By zitothebrave in forum LOCKER ROOM TALK
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 06-03-2014, 09:30 AM
  4. Political Conspiracy Theories.
    By The Chosen One in forum LOCKER ROOM TALK
    Replies: 92
    Last Post: 03-21-2014, 10:49 AM
  5. We need a new political board contrarian...
    By weso1 in forum LOCKER ROOM TALK
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 09-11-2013, 07:38 AM

Posting Permissions

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