FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Eight fake scandals. What next for FOX / GOP / right wing?





handfleisch
Here's a nice list made by Rachel Maddow of recent, totally false news stories created by FOX/Republicans and the right wing in the USA. I count about eight separate fake scandals in there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9KjQUSZXqE
Quote:
Republicans are faking their outrage over the stimulus. You can tell because when they go to their home districts, they admit that it's working great...

The anti-ACORN crusade was BULL. Climategate was BULL. Repealing health reform was BULL. The lawsuits against health reform are BULL. The death panels - BULL. The President's secretly foreign and doesn't have a death certificate? BULL. Fear of the census is BULL. Supposed threats to end the second amendment? BULL. The claim that thousands of armed IRS agents are going to be storm troopers to enforce health reform. It's BULL. The administration taking away the right to go fishing? It's BULL. Scott Brown saying I'm running against him is even BULL. It's made up. It's bull.

It's bull. It's not real politics. Let them eat fake. These are not real problems to worry about and work on as a country, right? But there's more bang for the political buck to make stuff up like this than to try to debate real problems in the real world, so just go with the bull.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports today that billboards against Obama are popping up in the Atlanta area, right now. They say things like 'Stop Obama's Socialism!' and 'Now, It's Personal.'


She didn't mention "death panels" in the rant.

But no need to go back into the past (WMD) or recreate the list of "Things only a Republican could believe" -- the question is, what next? What will be the next fake controversy that FOX, talk show hosts and other media start lying about just to get political points?
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:

She didn't mention "death panels" in the rant.

O Really?
Quote:

Quote:
The anti-ACORN crusade was BULL. Climategate was BULL. Repealing health reform was BULL. The lawsuits against health reform are BULL. The death panels - BULL. The President's secretly foreign and doesn't have a death certificate? BULL. Fear of the census is BULL. Supposed threats to end the second amendment? BULL. The claim that thousands of armed IRS agents are going to be storm troopers to enforce health reform. It's BULL. The administration taking away the right to go fishing? It's BULL. Scott Brown saying I'm running against him is even BULL. It's made up. It's bull.


Is it too much to ask that you read your own quotes?
handfleisch
ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:

She didn't mention "death panels" in the rant.

O Really?
Quote:

Quote:
The anti-ACORN crusade was BULL. Climategate was BULL. Repealing health reform was BULL. The lawsuits against health reform are BULL. The death panels - BULL. The President's secretly foreign and doesn't have a death certificate? BULL. Fear of the census is BULL. Supposed threats to end the second amendment? BULL. The claim that thousands of armed IRS agents are going to be storm troopers to enforce health reform. It's BULL. The administration taking away the right to go fishing? It's BULL. Scott Brown saying I'm running against him is even BULL. It's made up. It's bull.


Is it too much to ask that you read your own quotes?

Another useless "gotcha" from you. So I missed this phrase in her summary, big deal. If you have nothing to add to the subject, some intelligent point about the issue, then give it and everyone a break. Otherwise you're a waste of time.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:

Another useless "gotcha" from you. So I missed this phrase in her summary, big deal.

True. I just thought it was hilarious that you missed a part of your own quote.
Quote:
If you have nothing to add to the subject, some intelligent point about the issue, then give it and everyone a break. Otherwise you're a waste of time.

Well, I might point out some 'BULL' from the other side, but that would also be a waste of time.

So, why not spend the time pointing out something funny, rather than counter-accusations that will be ignored?
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
Another useless "gotcha" from you. So I missed this phrase in her summary, big deal. If you have nothing to add to the subject, some intelligent point about the issue, then give it and everyone a break. Otherwise you're a waste of time.
Not useless, nor a waste of time. I appreciate Ocalhoun's clarity of thought and brevity of statements. A good act to follow for all of us.

handfleisch wrote:
But no need to go back into the past (WMD) or recreate the list of "Things only a Republican could believe" -- the question is, what next? What will be the next fake controversy that FOX, talk show hosts and other media start lying about just to get political points?
Do we really need all these unsavoury quotes and continuing references to Fox News and the Republicans, all in one breath? Surely it has to be common sense that not all Republicans are supporters of Fox? Just as not all Democrats are supporters of Obama? Both Parties contain a a variety of left, right, middle etc, none of it is simple and straightforward. The Democrats are even more complicated in their mix than the Republicans are. Both Dems and Republicans are negotiable (like prostitutes), such as the Health Care Reform Bill has just shown to us. Votes can be bought. Who cares about the quality of the Health Care Reform Bill, the campaign was completely political and one Party pitted against another. While proverbial Rome was burning, the Dems and Republicans were fiddling. Now that is a real scandal worth noting.
handfleisch
handfleisch wrote:
Here's a nice list made by Rachel Maddow of recent, totally false news stories created by FOX/Republicans and the right wing in the USA. I count about eight separate fake scandals in there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9KjQUSZXqE
Quote:
Republicans are faking their outrage over the stimulus. You can tell because when they go to their home districts, they admit that it's working great...

The anti-ACORN crusade was BULL. Climategate was BULL. Repealing health reform was BULL. The lawsuits against health reform are BULL. The death panels - BULL. The President's secretly foreign and doesn't have a death certificate? BULL. Fear of the census is BULL. Supposed threats to end the second amendment? BULL. The claim that thousands of armed IRS agents are going to be storm troopers to enforce health reform. It's BULL. The administration taking away the right to go fishing? It's BULL. Scott Brown saying I'm running against him is even BULL. It's made up. It's bull.

It's bull. It's not real politics. Let them eat fake. These are not real problems to worry about and work on as a country, right? But there's more bang for the political buck to make stuff up like this than to try to debate real problems in the real world, so just go with the bull.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports today that billboards against Obama are popping up in the Atlanta area, right now. They say things like 'Stop Obama's Socialism!' and 'Now, It's Personal.'


She didn't mention "death panels" in the rant.

But no need to go back into the past (WMD) or recreate the list of "Things only a Republican could believe" -- the question is, what next? What will be the next fake controversy that FOX, talk show hosts and other media start lying about just to get political points?


Looks like I have to answer my own question. The latest fake scandal for FOX / GOP / right wing: That Obama's nuclear reduction treaty with Russia is radical and threatens the safety of America. They even lie about Reagan to do it, since this nuke deal reduces arms by about what Reagan proposed. The Daily Show does a nice job on this one: http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/stewart-blasts-foxs-coverage-of-nuke-treaty-throw-off-your-fact-shackles.php (Sad when a comedy show is doing the best journalistic expose out there).

The scandal factor is pretty low, I think because most think deals like this are acommon sense good idea. But this faux outrage qualifies mainly because of the total reversal of reality that Gingrich and his cohorts are engaging in.
coolclay
It seems the only discussion that can be made with handfleisch is that of republican/conservative bashing, and anything related. It's really getting kind of old.
handfleisch
coolclay wrote:
It seems the only discussion that can be made with handfleisch is that of republican/conservative bashing, and anything related. It's really getting kind of old.

Actually, this thread is about something quite new. Never before has a political party and its political allies with a TV network, in this case the GOP and FOX news, engaged in such a steady campaign of blatant reversal of reality and major lies.

It's perfectly normal in debate and in politics to slant things, to stress the facts you prefer while minimizing the ones you don't. But to have such huge lies presented as fact to the public on a regular and routine basis is new. New since FOX and the invasion of Iraq, I would say. What's more, this process seems to be an end to itself, not for any specific goal (like lying so yo can invade Iraq), but just to keep a cloud of illusion and fantasy going on at all times. It's incredibly damaging to the American public, and as the original thread shows, it's happening more often and in great magnitude.
Moonspider
[quote="handfleisch"]Here's a nice list made by Rachel Maddow of recent, totally false news stories created by FOX/Republicans and the right wing in the USA. I count about eight separate fake scandals in there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9KjQUSZXqE
Quote:
Republicans are faking their outrage over the stimulus. You can tell because when they go to their home districts, they admit that it's working great...

The anti-ACORN crusade was BULL. Climategate was BULL. Repealing health reform was BULL. The lawsuits against health reform are BULL. The death panels - BULL. The President's secretly foreign and doesn't have a death certificate? BULL. Fear of the census is BULL. Supposed threats to end the second amendment? BULL. The claim that thousands of armed IRS agents are going to be storm troopers to enforce health reform. It's BULL. The administration taking away the right to go fishing? It's BULL. Scott Brown saying I'm running against him is even BULL. It's made up. It's bull.

It's bull. It's not real politics. Let them eat fake. These are not real problems to worry about and work on as a country, right? But there's more bang for the political buck to make stuff up like this than to try to debate real problems in the real world, so just go with the bull.


handfleisch wrote:
The anti-ACORN crusade was BULL.


How so? Hidden camera stings are not uncommon. Heck, 20/20 and other news magazine shows make them common fare. But because this was done against ACORN it is somehow not newsworthy and “fake?” Nonsense.

handfleisch wrote:
Climategate was BULL.


Once again, how so? If I had done some of things in grad school that some of these scientists did, I’d have been kicked out of the graduate program. And rightly so! I’m not saying there’s no global warming (I do dispute the anthropomorphic causality and certainly dispute the urgency or even need of trying to stop it, but that’s another debate), however “climategate” revealed poor academic behavior on the part of some of the scientists, and arguably a predisposition that clouded their scientific neutrality. In any event, even if the whole thing was proven wrong (which it wasn’t) the story is newsworthy.

handfleisch wrote:
The lawsuits against health reform are BULL.


Why? Because you agree with bill? At my last count 16 states were suing over the bill. How is that not newsworthy!? Who cares what side of the bill you’re on. That’s news! Now you may claim that the lawsuits themselves are bull, but you can’t claim that the news is fake!

Some of the later stuff I don’t get, (“fishing,” “Scott Brown,” “fear of the census,” “armed IRS agents”). Maybe I don’t watch enough news. However, none of the former are fake news stories. It’s real news. Miss Maddow may disagree with the positions of those on one side of the stories, but they are still newsworthy.

Respectfully,
M
Bikerman
Moonspider wrote:
Once again, how so? If I had done some of things in grad school that some of these scientists did, I’d have been kicked out of the graduate program. And rightly so! I’m not saying there’s no global warming (I do dispute the anthropomorphic causality and certainly dispute the urgency or even need of trying to stop it, but that’s another debate), however “climategate” revealed poor academic behavior on the part of some of the scientists, and arguably a predisposition that clouded their scientific neutrality. In any event, even if the whole thing was proven wrong (which it wasn’t) the story is newsworthy.
Hold on a mo. Much though I don't particularly want to enter another thread right now, this cannot stand unchallenged.
I think you need to qualify exactly what it is you mean here. The 'offences' I have seen (and I have read most of the leaked material - say about 80%) are errors of judgement, not 'sacking' offences. There was, to my eye, no fraud, no unwarranted 'fiddling' or rigging. All I see is a few scientists fed up with freedom of information requests and making self-important and foolish 'threats', and striking a few macho poses. That's it. IE exactly the same sort of thing you will find in any university common-room, corporate board-room or, for that matter, corner pub.
Jones was stupid to put on 'paper' the stuff about 'getting their papers withdrawn'. Anyone who has looked into it realises the background is quite interesting. Jones refers obliquely to another peer-reviewed journal that printed some shockingly bad stuff and finally closed when members of its own editorial and reporting team walked out in disgust. Jones doesn't have the power to close an independent journal or get a paper thrown out - and he knows it - he was just being petulant and a tad self-important. I dare-say if you trawl my email archive there are things in there I wish I hadn't posted, or phrased in exactly that way. I dare-say the same applies to many people if they are honest. Even my work email archive contains comments such as 'kill the little blighter' and even more personal and easily misinterpreted stuff. Now I tend to be pretty careful with even my public postings, as I hope you would agree, so you can imagine that my professional ones are normally pretty considered. Even then.....

Has anyone actually managed to demonstrate that the much hated Mann is actually wrong? I've seen three subsequent temperature reconstructions (1 by Mann himself) which actually agree pretty closely with his much abused 'hockey-stick' graph - without any hint of the disputed data from tree-rings.

Has anyone (worth listening to, that is) even suggested that Jones was behaving in any way dishonestly or (worse to me) unscientifically? I think not. The worst accusation is that they were disorganised. Well, I don't know about you, but this desk in front of me is pretty disorganised too, but I'd be pretty angry to see thousands of ignorant blogers queuing up to denounce me as a cheat, liar and fraud. I've debated many of them in various forums and my honest and considered opinion is that most (by which I mean a very very large majority - 90%(ish) in my own experience) of them are breathtakingly ignorant of even the most basic science, let alone the complex and extremely mathematical discipline of temperature analysis and reconstruction.
Moonspider
Bikerman wrote:
Moonspider wrote:
Once again, how so? If I had done some of things in grad school that some of these scientists did, I’d have been kicked out of the graduate program. And rightly so! I’m not saying there’s no global warming (I do dispute the anthropomorphic causality and certainly dispute the urgency or even need of trying to stop it, but that’s another debate), however “climategate” revealed poor academic behavior on the part of some of the scientists, and arguably a predisposition that clouded their scientific neutrality. In any event, even if the whole thing was proven wrong (which it wasn’t) the story is newsworthy.
Hold on a mo. Much though I don't particularly want to enter another thread right now, this cannot stand unchallenged.
I think you need to qualify exactly what it is you mean here. The 'offences' I have seen (and I have read most of the leaked material - say about 80%) are errors of judgement, not 'sacking' offences. There was, to my eye, no fraud, no unwarranted 'fiddling' or rigging. All I see is a few scientists fed up with freedom of information requests and making self-important and foolish 'threats', and striking a few macho poses. That's it. IE exactly the same sort of thing you will find in any university common-room, corporate board-room or, for that matter, corner pub.
Jones was stupid to put on 'paper' the stuff about 'getting their papers withdrawn'. Anyone who has looked into it realises the background is quite interesting. Jones refers obliquely to another peer-reviewed journal that printed some shockingly bad stuff and finally closed when members of its own editorial and reporting team walked out in disgust. Jones doesn't have the power to close an independent journal or get a paper thrown out - and he knows it - he was just being petulant and a tad self-important. I dare-say if you trawl my email archive there are things in there I wish I hadn't posted, or phrased in exactly that way. I dare-say the same applies to many people if they are honest. Even my work email archive contains comments such as 'kill the little blighter' and even more personal and easily misinterpreted stuff. Now I tend to be pretty careful with even my public postings, as I hope you would agree, so you can imagine that my professional ones are normally pretty considered. Even then.....

Has anyone actually managed to demonstrate that the much hated Mann is actually wrong? I've seen three subsequent temperature reconstructions (1 by Mann himself) which actually agree pretty closely with his much abused 'hockey-stick' graph - without any hint of the disputed data from tree-rings.

Has anyone (worth listening to, that is) even suggested that Jones was behaving in any way dishonestly or (worse to me) unscientifically? I think not. The worst accusation is that they were disorganised. Well, I don't know about you, but this desk in front of me is pretty disorganised too, but I'd be pretty angry to see thousands of ignorant blogers queuing up to denounce me as a cheat, liar and fraud. I've debated many of them in various forums and my honest and considered opinion is that most (by which I mean a very very large majority - 90%(ish) in my own experience) of them are breathtakingly ignorant of even the most basic science, let alone the complex and extremely mathematical discipline of temperature analysis and reconstruction.


Okay. I'll concede that. I have no knowledge from which to argue otherwise and trust you on the matter. I've seen very little in the news about it since the story broke.

However I'll still argue that it was newsworthy when the story broke, even if the errors of judgment were shown to have not altered the science and opinions of most climatologists.

Respectfully,
M
Bikerman
Well, aside from the obvious point that the hack was almost certainly illegal (Computer Misuse Act 1998), then I'm not going to be stiff-necked and cry foul. In fact other than the massive damage to Jones personally - I really believe him when he says he has contemplated suicide - then it has probably been positive on the whole. The trouble is that the extremely vociferous 'deniers' are constantly looking to personalise it. First Mann, now Jones. Some of the allegations on the BBC forums have to be read to be believed. It requires such a low opinion of scientists to propose some sort of conspiracy that it never fails to amaze me when I see otherwise apparently intelligent people falling into the 'conspiracy gutter' (not you, but certainly many others).
The real history is that a couple of Bloggers were pestering Jones at the CRU for some time with freedom of information requests. Pure harrassment because most of the stuff they wanted was already available pretty freely. Jones and his team then got trenchant which is where it started to go bad. He made various comments about 'destroying the data' before handing it over to people he knew fine well were set on destroying his reputation and work. Was he serious? Of course not. We all say silly things sometimes - particularly when annoyed or pressurised. What the conspiracy theorists never seem to mention is that for some years ANY publication by Jones (or Mann) not only has to pass peer-review, it is then subjected to forensic dissection by the deniers in the hope of abstracting something useful. I don't think there has every been a scientist as thoroughly reviewed as either Jones or Mann, yet despite all the efforts the picture we have now is almost unchanged from the earlier one. The IPCC has tightened up a bit - previously they talked about unprecedented in thousands of years, now they confine it to the last 1000, which is actually what Jones has been saying for some time. The proxy data is inherently problematic - like trying to reconstruct the path of a man who once walked down a footpath by analysing the effect of his shadow on mosses and lichen, the trace deposits of materials from the shoe soles and the slight raise in ambient temperature from his body heat. Very indirect and no single method is every likely to be close to accurate. The climate scientists DO actually know this - which never seems to occur to the more strident voices.
Jones has repeatedly stated his position - and it is almost identical to my own and just about every scientists I know. That is:
Yes, there has been significant warming this century and the chances of it NOT being largely anthropogenic are very remote. He doesn't predict temperatures into the future and doesn't speculate about catastrophe and doom. In short he does his science. I just wish he could have been left to continue doing so.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
Actually, this thread is about something quite new. Never before has a political party and its political allies with a TV network, in this case the GOP and FOX news, engaged in such a steady campaign of blatant reversal of reality and major lies.
Since when has FOX news become the official voice of the Republican Party? I'm almost certain quite a large number of members of the Republican Party would not wish to be identified with Fox News and would take exception to your statement.
MYP415
A lot of those "fake" controversies are not really fake. Acorn has troubles with election fraud and the likes which run much deeper than what O'Keefe may have done, climategate emails showed the actual conversations the scientists had and those emails were authenticated, so you can't exactly deny them. You can always come out and say it was real, but in reality those words and that manipulation still existed. As for the outrage Maddow speaks of, that outrage is not there simply for political reasons. The tea party is a clear example to the grassroots support that is there and not just the politics.

Handfleisch, I have a question for you though. Have you ever thought that maybe both sides have agendas? That both sides will lie to your face for what they want? That maybe Maddow is the one that could be "BULL"? Until you accept that there are political interests on every side, crazies on every side, and self interest everywhere, you will continue to follow one group blindly as they bash the other groups. Every group has its bad and its good and every group has its politics. Why not look at the individuals and what they are for and have done instead of collectivizing everyone into these groups? The only reason that this sort of bash is so popular is that those under the umbrellas of these groups just eat it up and it ends up showing on election day unfortunately. It is the status quo and I really think it needs to change. Look at the individuals, not the parties, the groups, or whatever.

On a side note, I try to stay away from both FOX and MSNBC because both those stations have turned into bashing fests towards the other- this video being a great example.
handfleisch
Moonspider wrote:
I have no knowledge from which to argue otherwise


This could apply to your whole post.

Quote:
Some of the later stuff I don’t get, (“fishing,” “Scott Brown,” “fear of the census,” “armed IRS agents”). Maybe I don’t watch enough news.
Respectfully, I think you don't get any of it. If you did, you would know the scandal about the smear campaign against ACORN was not at all about "Hidden camera stings".

Quote:
Hidden camera stings are not uncommon. Heck, 20/20 and other news magazine shows make them common fare. But because this was done against ACORN it is somehow not newsworthy and “fake?” Nonsense.

Really, this shows complete ignorance on the subject, which is about perhaps the most egregiously successful smear campaign in recent memory, involving right wing activists with their deceptive editing of film, blatant lying in reporting (on FOX of course), then innocent people being fired, Congress voting to defund based on the lies, and in the end a total vindication of ACORN that came much too late. Just a quick look around this site would get you enough info so you'll know something next time you want to label something "nonsense".

Quote:
Why? Because you agree with bill? At my last count 16 states were suing over the bill. How is that not newsworthy!? Who cares what side of the bill you’re on. That’s news! Now you may claim that the lawsuits themselves are bull, but you can’t claim that the news is fake!


If 16 states were suing to legally maintain that the earth were flat, the headlines would not be The Earth is Flat. The news would be that some nuts were in positions in 16 states to carry out such a thing. Same with these lawsuits -- except replace nuts with partisan hacks who will sue despite the frivolous nature of the claim. The ratio of bad politics to legal merit is about 10 to 1. (Not to mention the millions of tax dollars and government employee time that will go into the frivilous lawsuit. Why isn’t the Tea Party screaming about what bad wasteful government this is? It's a rhetorical question -- we know the answer.)
handfleisch
MYP415 wrote:
A lot of those "fake" controversies are not really fake. Acorn has troubles with election fraud and the likes which run much deeper than what O'Keefe may have done, climategate emails showed the actual conversations the scientists had and those emails were authenticated, so you can't exactly deny them. You can always come out and say it was real, but in reality those words and that manipulation still existed. As for the outrage Maddow speaks of, that outrage is not there simply for political reasons. The tea party is a clear example to the grassroots support that is there and not just the politics.


No, the fake controversies were all fake. Scroll up for info about ACORN and Climategate -- those so-called scandals turned out to be smear jobs.

The Tea Party "grassroots" are fake, too, since the whole thing has been created and promoted by powerful corporate interests.

MYP415 wrote:
Handfleisch, I have a question for you though. Have you ever thought that maybe both sides have agendas? That both sides will lie to your face for what they want? That maybe Maddow is the one that could be "BULL"? Until you accept that there are political interests on every side, crazies on every side, and self interest everywhere, you will continue to follow one group blindly as they bash the other groups. Every group has its bad and its good and every group has its politics. Why not look at the individuals and what they are for and have done instead of collectivizing everyone into these groups? The only reason that this sort of bash is so popular is that those under the umbrellas of these groups just eat it up and it ends up showing on election day unfortunately. It is the status quo and I really think it needs to change. Look at the individuals, not the parties, the groups, or whatever.


Thank you for your question. Of course you are right, both sides have agendas. And twisting facts or stressing some points over others is standard stuff in politics by both sides. The point of the OP, however, is as I said before
Quote:
this thread is about something quite new. Never before has a political party and its political allies with a TV network, in this case the GOP and FOX news, engaged in such a steady campaign of blatant reversal of reality and major lies.

It's perfectly normal in debate and in politics to slant things, to stress the facts you prefer while minimizing the ones you don't. But to have such huge lies presented as fact to the public on a regular and routine basis is new. New since FOX and the invasion of Iraq, I would say. What's more, this process seems to be an end to itself, not for any specific goal (like lying so yo can invade Iraq), but just to keep a cloud of illusion and fantasy going on at all times. It's incredibly damaging to the American public, and as the original thread shows, it's happening more often and in great magnitude.
gandalfthegrey
It is ashamed that Fox News and conservative activists brought down ACORN. While I had criticisms myself of the organization, I think overall the organization did more good and did not deserve its fate.
deanhills
gandalfthegrey wrote:
It is ashamed that Fox News and conservative activists brought down ACORN. While I had criticisms myself of the organization, I think overall the organization did more good and did not deserve its fate.
You are giving Fox News and the conservative activists much more power than they really have. ACORN had to have contributed at least something for things to have progressed as far as they have. Remember, Obama was once a supporter of ACORN but while ACORN was with its back towards the wall, there was not a single Dem standing up for them. The Dems have in effect abandoned ACORN.
handfleisch
deanhills wrote:
gandalfthegrey wrote:
It is ashamed that Fox News and conservative activists brought down ACORN. While I had criticisms myself of the organization, I think overall the organization did more good and did not deserve its fate.
You are giving Fox News and the conservative activists much more power than they really have. ACORN had to have contributed at least something for things to have progressed as far as they have.

That's called "blaming the victim". ACORN's problems stemmed almost totally from the right wing smear campaign against them.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:
ACORN's problems stemmed almost totally from the right wing smear campaign against them.

Well, that's not exactly a universally agreed upon fact, now is it?
Related topics
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.