New Gillette commercial "not an indictment on manhood"

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
 

erttheking:
Elections not going the way you want is imperialism now?

When it's regional? Yes.

The States of the United States are effectively countries with their own governments and representatives to the federal branch. Just because the United States (claims to be) is a democracy does not mean it is not effectively an empire.

If a state wishes to leave the union, force will be used to keep them in it. That is imperialism to a T... or an I.

Gethsemani:
Because slaves are expensive? Especially in a theoretical world where the CSA is the only major slave owning nation and the output of slaves from Africa has died down to a trickle due to the Colonial enterprises of the European powers. The harsh truth is that even if the CSA had won the civil war and established themselves as a separate state, their economic system relied on a steady supply of slaves from Africa and that supply was dwindling even by the 1860's and would be all but gone in the 1890's at the latest. So even had they survived and industrialized, they would have been forced to either abolish slavery due to slave shortage or radically change their treatment of slaves because slaves would become a very precious commodity.

I'm a little late to this party, but there is something I feel compelled to clear up. First, the slaves in the antebellum U.S. were not really imported in numbers from Africa. In fact, the expansion of slavery in the American South happened AFTER the international slave trade had already been shut down, both by England and the agreement ending the importation of slaves by 1808 (the slave system of the South took off after 1820). Almost all slaves in the U.S. were born and raised here. And the slave population was growing. Now, the price of slaves WAS rising and putting the possibility of ownership out of the average person's reach, but that was why a growing number of slave-owners were trying to get the trans-Atlantic trade opened back up. (In order to protect their own trade to western states from their home-grown stocks, Virginia repeatedly blocked those attempts. If the price of slaves had dropped, they would have lost a great deal of money.)

Secondly, slaves had been used in a variety of work-types in the South before the Civil War. Mines, factories and other positions could be, and were filled by slaves. However, the profit return was higher when those slaves were used in the production of cash crops. The profit motive drew more slave-owners to plantations even though a growing number of politicians, economists and slave-owners were all talking about diversifying the Southern economy (esp. from 1845 to 1860). They were ignored by most slave-owners and history went on as we know it.

Third, one of the major issues that increased the tensions leading up to the Civil War was the attempts by the South to strip certain rights from Northern states. Specifically, the Northern states were to be made unable to enforce their own local laws concerning runaway slaves. States' Rights were to be limited to slave-owning states. Irony is one of the fundamental forces of the universe it would seem.

Now, none of this changes the reality that the long-term growth of industrialization in the late 1800's and early 1900s would have put massive strains on the slave-system in the American South. But, thankfully, we will never know how that particular alternate timeline would have played out.

My apologies for butting in, but I'm a historian and I keep seeing the myth of slave importation keep cropping up all the time. At any rate, thank you for that brief moment of your time.

Abomination:

erttheking:
I really don?t care. A passionate trantrum is still a tantrum. They wanted to throw the entire system out the window because it didn?t go their way. That?s the mindset of a self entitled brat.

Oh and let?s not forget how non slave owners basically ended up doing all the fighting while slave owners got an exemption halfway through, see the 20 Negro law.

And let's ESPECIALLY not forget two interesting words. Southern. Unionists. Southerners who were opposed to breaking away from the Union. So if I'm getting you right, we have the North who didn't want the south to break away, parts of the south who didn't want to break away, but you seem to not care about anyone except the southern secessionists.

They wanted to throw it out the window because it was an example of imperialism. Law makers from other regions who do not have their current economic model were about to make said model illegal. Had slavery not been the economic method, the South's reaction would have been considered reasonable.

Of course Slave Owners got exemptions, they were the aristocrats. Same in the North, landowners got the same exemption. The South had no hypocrisy in doing so, they were pro slavery.

And yes, there were unionists in the South, but they were not the majority in the South.

Saelune:
What did the slaves vote for?

They didn't vote, because they did not have the right to vote. Just like how women didn't vote.

You think I am excusing slavery here. I am not. It is a horrible practice. But the Civil War was the cost paid to end it in the US, and even then it didn't end racism, just moved the battlefield.

I just find it hilarious how the nation that contributed the most to ending slavery was the very nation America rebelled against for very similar reasons the South rebelled against the Union, and would have been the nation that would have made slavery obsolete for the South anyway without needing the war.

That's the full circle here, a decision was made without accounting for the cost. Nobody wanted to think long term solutions and threw the nation into a massive war. End slavery in one country at the cost of half a million people, many of which were effectively slaves anyway.

Stop pretending the South was justified in trying to 'democratically secede' when they were not doing democracy at all.

Ending slavery was a justified reason to go to war. I only wish it happened sooner and more thuroughly.

Abomination:

erttheking:
Elections not going the way you want is imperialism now?

When it's regional? Yes.

The States of the United States are effectively countries with their own governments and representatives to the federal branch. Just because the United States (claims to be) is a democracy does not mean it is not effectively an empire.

If a state wishes to leave the union, force will be used to keep them in it. That is imperialism to a T... or an I.

So democracy not going the way you want is imperialism now if you have a decentralized government? Really? Well then, if we're going by that logic, the southern states were practicing imperialism when they forced the fugitive slave act on the northern states.

See, this is why the southern states that broke away deserve nothing short of a middle finger. They were more than happy to do everything that they complained about and did it totally gung go. Whiny, hypocritical, children.

Also I'm pretty sure you're pulling this definition of imperialism right out of your ass. I mean, do you have any scholarly sources that describes the north's actions as imperialistic?

Also you replied to a third of my post at most, you gonna fix that?

erttheking:
So democracy not going the way you want is imperialism now if you have a decentralized government? Really? Well then, if we're going by that logic, the southern states were practicing imperialism when they forced the fugitive slave act on the northern states.

Yes, it would be. Or rather it was an attempt at a coup.

Also I'm pretty sure you're pulling this definition of imperialism right out of your ass. I mean, do you have any scholarly sources that describes the north's actions as imperialistic?

A federation of states forcing states that wish to leave to remain in the federation. That is imperialism.

Also you replied to a third of my post at most, you gonna fix that?

Nothing to fix.

Abomination:
Snip

....You know I'm starting to get the feeling you're just using whatever words you feel like using. Do you have anything to back any of these claims up besides "I say so?" Because the definition of Imperialism "1 policy of extending a country's power and influence through colonization, use of military force, or other means." as according to Oxford doesn't really fit. It's not Imperialism if you're maintaining the existing status quo. So what do you have to back up your claim?

Also, that's fair game then? Ok, I think I'm going to start selectively ignoring your arguments if it's kosher.

Abomination:

erttheking:
So democracy not going the way you want is imperialism now if you have a decentralized government? Really? Well then, if we're going by that logic, the southern states were practicing imperialism when they forced the fugitive slave act on the northern states.

Yes, it would be. Or rather it was an attempt at a coup.

Also I'm pretty sure you're pulling this definition of imperialism right out of your ass. I mean, do you have any scholarly sources that describes the north's actions as imperialistic?

A federation of states forcing states that wish to leave to remain in the federation. That is imperialism.

Also you replied to a third of my post at most, you gonna fix that?

Nothing to fix.

Stop trying to justify the South trying to secede solely to maintain slavery. You can claim imperialism all you want, but the truth is the South wanted slavery, they wanted to maintain that a whole population of human beings are not human and are to be owned and used like cattle.

erttheking:
policy of extending a country's power and influence through colonization, use of military force, or other means."

Yes, literally what the Unionists were doing. Consolidating and empowering the influence of the federal branch of government. The South attempted to resist it.

I mean come on, the United States even today is an empire in structure. Sure, it has a democracy, but every state presents representatives to the senate just as any other empire would operate. Collect their own and federal taxes, and the emper-- sorry, PRESIDENT is the official head of the military. Just has different means of producing dukes and earls than a monarchy.

Saelune:
Stop trying to justify the South trying to secede solely to maintain slavery. You can claim imperialism all you want, but the truth is the South wanted slavery, they wanted to maintain that a whole population of human beings are not human and are to be owned and used like cattle.

Oh they still thought they were humans, they just didn't want to treat them the same. They believed you could own other humans, that's all slavery was. Sort of like cattle, really smart cattle that talked and could perform complex tasks and raise your kids and do your laundry and you could have little bastards with. So just humans with less rights than them, sort of like lesser wives when you think about it.

Not justifying anything about slavery. As I said earlier, if it were any other economic model that the federal government was attempting to make illegal the South would be lauded as righteous. Just so happened, during this time, there was the belief that slavery was okey-dokey. Rebellion was bound to happen when you threaten the economic stability of the aristocracy.

Shame so many "serfs" had to die until that mess got sorted out. Probably would have saved over half a million lives rather than jumping the gun on the political situation, or offering suitable alternatives to slavery. Buy the slaves their freedom like the UK did.

Abomination:

erttheking:
policy of extending a country's power and influence through colonization, use of military force, or other means."

Yes, literally what the Unionists were doing. Consolidating and empowering the influence of the federal branch of government. The South attempted to resist it.

I mean come on, the United States even today is an empire in structure. Sure, it has a democracy, but every state presents representatives to the senate just as any other empire would operate. Collect their own and federal taxes, and the emper-- sorry, PRESIDENT is the official head of the military. Just has different means of producing dukes and earls than a monarchy.

Saelune:
Stop trying to justify the South trying to secede solely to maintain slavery. You can claim imperialism all you want, but the truth is the South wanted slavery, they wanted to maintain that a whole population of human beings are not human and are to be owned and used like cattle.

Oh they still thought they were humans, they just didn't want to treat them the same. They believed you could own other humans, that's all slavery was. Sort of like cattle, really smart cattle that talked and could perform complex tasks and raise your kids and do your laundry and you could have little bastards with. So just humans with less rights than them, sort of like lesser wives when you think about it.

Not justifying anything about slavery. As I said earlier, if it were any other economic model that the federal government was attempting to make illegal the South would be lauded as righteous. Just so happened, during this time, there was the belief that slavery was okey-dokey. Rebellion was bound to happen when you threaten the economic stability of the aristocracy.

Shame so many "serfs" had to die until that mess got sorted out. Probably would have saved over half a million lives rather than jumping the gun on the political situation, or offering suitable alternatives to slavery. Buy the slaves their freedom like the UK did.

No, they literally viewed slaves as property. Don't try to sugar coat this, even with sugar as bitter as that.

They weren't seceding over something justified. I do think there are justified reasons to secede, such as the American Colonies seceding from Great Britain. This wasn't that.

The South could have just said 'ok, lets free the slaves and work with the rest of the US to find a solution'. You are putting the blame on the wrong side here. You're pulling the same kind of bullshit where you blame the victim of the bully for not trying to befriend their bully.

Saelune:
No, they literally viewed slaves as property. Don't try to sugar coat this, even with sugar as bitter as that.

Abomination:
They believed you could own other humans, that's all slavery was.

They weren't seceding over something justified. I do think there are justified reasons to secede, such as the American Colonies seceding from Great Britain. This wasn't that.

The South could have just said 'ok, lets free the slaves and work with the rest of the US to find a solution'. You are putting the blame on the wrong side here. You're pulling the same kind of bullshit where you blame the victim of the bully for not trying to befriend their bully.

Slaves were property. People were being demanded to give up their property. When the government attempts to steal stuff from its population, that population typically gets upset.

Slavery is bad. So is theft. The people who were having their property being stolen from them did not believe that slavery was bad.

Other nations bought slaves from their owners and freed them that way, observing the property rights of its subjects. No rebellion. No massive civil war. No half million deaths.

Abomination:

erttheking:
policy of extending a country's power and influence through colonization, use of military force, or other means."

Yes, literally what the Unionists were doing. Consolidating and empowering the influence of the federal branch of government. The South attempted to resist it.

I mean come on, the United States even today is an empire in structure. Sure, it has a democracy, but every state presents representatives to the senate just as any other empire would operate. Collect their own and federal taxes, and the emper-- sorry, PRESIDENT is the official head of the military. Just has different means of producing dukes and earls than a monarchy.

EXTENDING. The key word here is EXTENDING. They were not conquering new lands. They were preventing their old territory from breaking away.

Modern United States is an empire? *Sigh* Have you ever heard the joke about the Holy Roman Empire? It wasn't holy, it wasn't Roman, and it wasn't an empire. There are definitions of what an empire is. The HRE didn't meet them, because it wasn't a singular power reaching out and utilizing unrivaled power to rule over others. It was a collection of smaller powers that elected a leader from within. You claiming that the United States is an empire when A. there is no overwhelming nation or power being used to force its will on a less empowered peoples, no supreme authority, (this is KEY for an empire) really, nothing that indicates an empire now that our little imperialism experiment is long over.

If you think the United States is an empire, you don't know what an empire is. People who lived in a time of empires said that nations more like the United States weren't actually empires. Please don't throw sensationalist terms around without understanding what they mean. Particularly when it's all Confederate apologism and advocating for why, when faced with grave injustice, good men should just sit on their asses and do nothing, hoping everything will solve itself in the future.

EDIT: Oh, and the people who owned slaves thought that their property was being stolen. Question. Are we defending every last shitty opinion in history now? Romans thought they were better than everyone because of where they were born, we defending that now? The Christians who slaughtered Jews in the Crusades, we defending how they thought they were doing the right thing? Everyone "believes" they're in the right, it's not a novel concept. Whether they actually are is the thing that matters.

Abomination:

Saelune:
No, they literally viewed slaves as property. Don't try to sugar coat this, even with sugar as bitter as that.

Abomination:
They believed you could own other humans, that's all slavery was.

They weren't seceding over something justified. I do think there are justified reasons to secede, such as the American Colonies seceding from Great Britain. This wasn't that.

The South could have just said 'ok, lets free the slaves and work with the rest of the US to find a solution'. You are putting the blame on the wrong side here. You're pulling the same kind of bullshit where you blame the victim of the bully for not trying to befriend their bully.

Slaves were property. People were being demanded to give up their property. When the government attempts to steal stuff from its population, that population typically gets upset.

Slavery is bad. So is theft. The people who were having their property being stolen from them did not believe that slavery was bad.

Other nations bought slaves from their owners and freed them that way, observing the property rights of its subjects. No rebellion. No massive civil war. No half million deaths.

Cancer is bad, paper cuts are bad. They are not equally bad things.

The people who did not think slavery was bad...are bad people.

You claim you are not defending slavery, but you are. Slavers were owed literally nothing. They are villains and it is not a crime to liberate slaves.

erttheking:
EXTENDING. The key word here is EXTENDING. They were not conquering new lands. They were preventing their old territory from breaking away.

The number of rebellions empires have to put down to ensure members of the empire remain members of the empire is greater than the number of wars empires have fought in. Suppression of regions attempting to secede is the equivalent of a Tuesday for empires.

Modern United States is an empire? *Sigh* Have you ever heard the joke about the Holy Roman Empire? It wasn't holy, it wasn't Roman, and it wasn't an empire. There are definitions of what an empire is. The HRE didn't meet them, because it wasn't a singular power reaching out and utilizing unrivaled power to rule over others. It was a collection of smaller powers that elected a leader from within. You claiming that the United States is an empire when A. there is no overwhelming nation or power being used to force its will on a less empowered peoples, no supreme authority, (this is KEY for an empire) really, nothing that indicates an empire now that our little imperialism experiment is long over.

If force is being used to ensure member states do not leave then it is functioning as an empire. A democratic empire, but still an empire. It does have a singular power, it's called the President, who the armed forces report to directly.

If you think the United States is an empire, you don't know what an empire is. People who lived in a time of empires said that nations more like the United States weren't actually empires. Please don't throw sensationalist terms around without understanding what they mean. Particularly when it's all Confederate apologism and advocating for why, when faced with grave injustice, good men should just sit on their asses and do nothing, hoping everything will solve itself in the future.

Yeah, it's not like the US attempts to extend its sphere of influence over other nations using the powers in its tool-belt beyond just military might. Come on, just because there's not a big SPQR on American banners does not mean it's not effectively an empire. It behaves like one, it retains its members like one, and its starting to fail like one.

Saelune:
Cancer is bad, paper cuts are bad. They are not equally bad things.

I never said they were equally bad. I said that they were both bad. But the people who had slaves did not think that slavery was bad, but they did think that theft was bad.

The people who did not think slavery was bad...are bad people.

Yes, they were.

You claim you are not defending slavery, but you are. Slavers were owed literally nothing. They are villains and it is not a crime to liberate slaves.

It WAS a crime to steal someone's property. Slaves were peoples' property. It was law. And then the government wanted to change the law, making it so that people who legally owned slaves had to give up their property, which is the same as government mandated theft and retroactive legislation.

Yes, they were dicks for owning slaves... but they still OWNED their slaves. Bought and paid for. Now the government wants to steal them from you. Your livelihood is built around this commodity that you legally purchased with your own money. Now that money you spent is going to disappear with no compensation. That type of thing causes revolts.

Abomination:

Saelune:
Cancer is bad, paper cuts are bad. They are not equally bad things.

I never said they were equally bad. I said that they were both bad. But the people who had slaves did not think that slavery was bad, but they did think that theft was bad.

The people who did not think slavery was bad...are bad people.

Yes, they were.

You claim you are not defending slavery, but you are. Slavers were owed literally nothing. They are villains and it is not a crime to liberate slaves.

It WAS a crime to steal someone's property. Slaves were peoples' property. It was law. And then the government wanted to change the law, making it so that people who legally owned slaves had to give up their property, which is the same as government mandated theft and retroactive legislation.

Yes, they were dicks for owning slaves... but they still OWNED their slaves. Bought and paid for. Now the government wants to steal them from you. Your livelihood is built around this commodity that you legally purchased with your own money. Now that money you spent is going to disappear with no compensation. That type of thing causes revolts.

You are seriously undercutting how absolutely awful slavery is.

The laws of slavery were immoral. Breaking them was absoultely justified and should have happened more and sooner. Just because a Law is a Law does not mean it is justified, does not mean it is defendable. Stop it, just seriously stop it!

And what even is your line for what is law and what is breaking it? Cause you robotically defend an immoral law then claim that changing the law is immoral, that is a weird double standard. If you really want to push the idea that the law is the law regardless, then you cannot then turn around and claim the new law to fix the old one is somehow too immoral to follow!

Slavery is evil, law or no. Everyone who ever broke the law to oppose slavery is a hero, not a villain, and the South got what they deserved, an ass kicking. The lives of racists are worth less than the slaves they oppressed and murdered through decades of labor and abuse.

Abomination:
Snip

That's only relevant if you're claiming that putting down an internal rebellion or attempting to influence other nations automatically marks you as an empire. Again, you seem to be going off of a homebrewed definition of Empire. By your definition, basically any nation with the power to influence others is an empire.

And, to repeat myself, this is all Confederate apologism and advocating for why, when faced with grave injustice, good men should just sit on their asses and do nothing, hoping everything will solve itself in the future.

Are you trying to do a "oh, we ALL suck so we can't pick on the Confederates" thing?

erttheking:

Abomination:
Snip

That's only relevant if you're claiming that putting down an internal rebellion or attempting to influence other nations automatically marks you as an empire. Again, you seem to be going off of a homebrewed definition of Empire. By your definition, basically any nation with the power to influence others is an empire.

And, to repeat myself, this is all Confederate apologism and advocating for why, when faced with grave injustice, good men should just sit on their asses and do nothing, hoping everything will solve itself in the future.

Are you trying to do a "oh, we ALL suck so we can't pick on the Confederates" thing?

They didn't sit on their asses. They literally went to kill Unionists in battle over Slavery. It's not the South being lazy or apathetic. They are actively enforcing slavery.

And being treasonous. And breaking the law becuase even in 1858 there were still a few thousand slaves coming across the Atlantic.

And I'd also point out that Lincoln was a Free Soiler. He too thought that African Americans shouldn't be in the job force but slavery was hurting white poeple getting jobs. In otherwords, Trump is copying Lincoln's thinking. Get rid of the other to protect the White's jobs

trunkage:

erttheking:

Abomination:
Snip

That's only relevant if you're claiming that putting down an internal rebellion or attempting to influence other nations automatically marks you as an empire. Again, you seem to be going off of a homebrewed definition of Empire. By your definition, basically any nation with the power to influence others is an empire.

And, to repeat myself, this is all Confederate apologism and advocating for why, when faced with grave injustice, good men should just sit on their asses and do nothing, hoping everything will solve itself in the future.

Are you trying to do a "oh, we ALL suck so we can't pick on the Confederates" thing?

They didn't sit on their asses. They literally went to kill Unionists in battle over Slavery. It's not the South being lazy or apathetic. They are actively enforcing slavery.

And being treasonous. And breaking the law becuase even in 1858 there were still a few thousand slaves coming across the Atlantic.

And I'd also point out that Lincoln was a Free Soiler. He too thought that African Americans shouldn't be in the job force but slavery was hurting white poeple getting jobs. In otherwords, Trump is copying Lincoln's thinking. Get rid of the other to protect the White's jobs

I was talking about Abomination advocating doing nothing about slavery when I talked about people ?sitting on their asses.? Because I kinda feel like he?s the type of person that seems to prefer a negative peace that is the lack of tension than a positive peace that is the presence of justice.

Abomination:
A federation of states forcing states that wish to leave to remain in the federation. That is imperialism.

I think, at the very best, that's stretching the concept of imperialism to breaking point. At worst, it's just wrong.

Abomination:
It WAS a crime to steal someone's property. Slaves were peoples' property. It was law. And then the government wanted to change the law, making it so that people who legally owned slaves had to give up their property, which is the same as government mandated theft and retroactive legislation.

Yes, they were dicks for owning slaves... but they still OWNED their slaves. Bought and paid for. Now the government wants to steal them from you. Your livelihood is built around this commodity that you legally purchased with your own money. Now that money you spent is going to disappear with no compensation. That type of thing causes revolts.

No no no. "Theft" in this respect is an inaccurate term to create an emotive justification for being wronged.

It is not theft; no-one is stealing property by making slavery illegal - the government is not taking the slaves and transferring their ownership to someone else. The government decides the very nature of property; your property only exists in any form because the government says so. The government most certainly has the power to decide and change what property is.

Thus it's a change in rules that makes a certain form of economic enterprise unviable. If you invest in something that legal changes make effectively impossible to use, the answer is really... tough shit. If you invest in manufacture of gallows, and the government bans the death penalty... tough shit. If you own a gas-guzzling car and the government passes pollution regulations that make it unfit for use... tough shit. If you invest in Ruritania and your country declares war on Ruritania and bans doing business with it... tough shit.

You're absolutely right that they could resent the prospect, and resent it to the point of armed resistance. But their strength of feeling doesn't make it theft.

erttheking:

trunkage:

erttheking:

That's only relevant if you're claiming that putting down an internal rebellion or attempting to influence other nations automatically marks you as an empire. Again, you seem to be going off of a homebrewed definition of Empire. By your definition, basically any nation with the power to influence others is an empire.

And, to repeat myself, this is all Confederate apologism and advocating for why, when faced with grave injustice, good men should just sit on their asses and do nothing, hoping everything will solve itself in the future.

Are you trying to do a "oh, we ALL suck so we can't pick on the Confederates" thing?

They didn't sit on their asses. They literally went to kill Unionists in battle over Slavery. It's not the South being lazy or apathetic. They are actively enforcing slavery.

And being treasonous. And breaking the law becuase even in 1858 there were still a few thousand slaves coming across the Atlantic.

And I'd also point out that Lincoln was a Free Soiler. He too thought that African Americans shouldn't be in the job force but slavery was hurting white poeple getting jobs. In otherwords, Trump is copying Lincoln's thinking. Get rid of the other to protect the White's jobs

I was talking about Abomination advocating doing nothing about slavery when I talked about people ?sitting on their asses.? Because I kinda feel like he?s the type of person that seems to prefer a negative peace that is the lack of tension than a positive peace that is the presence of justice.

I was trying to emphasize your point. Because people seem to forget... America went to war over slavery of all things. They killed people so they could own other people. WTF. I can at least understand the North protecting its borders

I would say that's stupider than most wars, but most wars are fighting over resources or ideology. So...

Abomination:
Yes, they were dicks for owning slaves... but they still OWNED their slaves. Bought and paid for.

In addition to everyone else's points, might I add the point that these slaves who were bought and paid for...Were kidnapped from their tribes in africa and forced to come over the Atlantic?

So even if you want to REALLY push the point that in the eyes of the Confeds, they were "things" that were "bought and paid for", essentially the confederacy was buying "stolen goods" knowing full well that they were stolen. Something that's generally frowned upon by the law, no?

This is on top of the sheer grossness of considering human beings as less-than-human work fodder, raping them and lynching them, and working them to death.

Finally, considering several of the Letters of Secession make a point to namedrop slavery as something essential to the southern way of life...I really don't know how much offering to buy the slaves freedom would have worked. Seeing blacks as subhuman was pretty ingrained into the culture down there.

I'm laying the entire blame for the whole debacle on the rich elites in the south.

trunkage:
Snip

My bad. Misunderstood.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here