Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page
TribalWar Forums
Page 115 of 4375

TribalWar Forums (https://www.tribalwar.com/forums/index.php)
-   TWHOF (https://www.tribalwar.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=275)
-   -   [Mega] MAGA Super Trump Mega Thread (https://www.tribalwar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=686285)

MC Hamster 01-08-2017 05:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by [MD5]Hash (Post 18700491)
Who leaked the DNC E-mails doesn't matter. What matters is what's revealed in those E-mails, and there's a lot of evidence that there's a lot of skeletons in their closet. It only showed when the DNC staffers/HRC and Podesta were sending and receiving. Nothing was appended to it, altered, or injected into the leaked data.

Who leaked them doesn't matter? That's mental. I'm not trying to dismiss the content of them and what they reveal, but it's every bit as important to understand why they were released - particularly when they were. Who did the hack and passed along the information goes absolutely towards that.

Someone out there very deliberately released information during an election cycle which would seriously damage the reputation of one candidate. That's influencing the election, plain and simple. Not necessarily deliberately, but it certainly does influence it. The possibility that that same someone had similar information about the other candidate, that they did not release... that points at a deliberate intent to influence it toward a specific candidate.

That's rigging the election. There's no need to talk about 'hacking voting booths' or anything to do with the actual vote itself. If you do the work beforehand, there's no need for that ****.

I'm not saying it's all Putin and some mastermind plot, but if all three leading intelligence agencies in the country say there's something to check out, it's not something you should dismiss off-hand, and certainly not something the country's leader should publicly deride.

To be clear here: I'm not suggesting Wikileaks is witholding anything, or that Assange isn't telling the truth in his interview. Again, that doesn't change things. They're only passing along what they've been handed. If they haven't been given any info from the RNC, they have nothing to release.

motoxbudd 01-08-2017 05:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by OneManArmy (Post 18700483)
Is it bad that I still believe Wikileaks/trump over CIA/FBI/NSA?

nope

MC Hamster 01-08-2017 05:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by motoxbudd (Post 18700512)
nope

Yep.

Note though that Assange's statements don't actually contradict the possibility that there has been deliberate tampering in the democratic process of your country.

So you're not believing Wikileaks over the intelligence community, you're just believing Trump over them, and believing a word that guy says is monumentally stupid. For the record, ditto for Hillary.

Nash 01-08-2017 05:18

Goddamn Hamster.. you're one giant ass retard :picard:

Dangerdoggie 01-08-2017 05:22

I bet the hacked emails made up 1% of peoples decision not to vote for hillary, most of the people interviewed at Trump rallies were supporting him because of jobs, unaffordable obamacare and wanting to secure the border.

The guy that recorded hillary having a stroke and being tossed into a van like a side of beef did more to influence the election than anything russia could have managed. I guess he was a russian agent, well thanks russia!

MC Hamster 01-08-2017 05:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nash (Post 18700516)
Goddamn Hamster.. you're one giant ass retard :picard:

Well thought-out, rational response there dude.


NO U!

Nash 01-08-2017 05:40

NO U

Denver 01-08-2017 05:54

It's not like your intelligence agencies have a history of being wrong on big issues.
... oh wait :D

(WMDs in Iraq cough)

MC Hamster 01-08-2017 05:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denver (Post 18700524)
It's not like your intelligence agencies have a history of being wrong on big issues.
... oh wait :D

(WMDs in Iraq cough)

...except that was more the political administration cherry-picking than the actual intel agencies themselves.

Denver 01-08-2017 05:59

I remember seeing a speech to UN where colin powell stated that all 16 agencies were uniform in there being wmds.

Nash 01-08-2017 06:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by MC Hamster (Post 18700525)
...except that was more the political administration cherry-picking than the actual intel agencies themselves.

There was no cherry picking... it was literally 100% BS.

MC Hamster 01-08-2017 08:33

https://news.vice.com/article/the-ci...-iraq-invasion

Ofn, but there's a nice example in there of "they've probably renovated a vaccine manufacturing facility to produce biological weapons, but we have no idea if research has resumed.. also we don't think they have enough material to make nukes." Which became "they're making biological weapons and have nukes."

They ignored intelligence that didn't suit their narrative in order to support and pursue their own agenda. Sound familiar? That kicked off a war whose effects are still very much alive fifteen years later, which triggered the rise of IS and a whole new breed of international terrorist activity.

I wonder what effects this **** will have...

-SS- 01-08-2017 08:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nash (Post 18700527)
There was no cherry picking... it was literally 100% BS.

No, they had WMDs, the US (and others: Frans van Anraat - Wikipedia) gave them to him.

Ask the Kurds.

It's the *capabilities* that were greatly exaggerated.

JoMo 01-08-2017 08:45

Remember that time Bill Clinton blew up an Aspirin factory in Sudan based on 'intel'? Or that time the US bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade on accident based on 'intel'?

MC Hamster 01-08-2017 08:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dangerdoggie (Post 18700518)
I bet the hacked emails made up 1% of peoples decision not to vote for hillary, most of the people interviewed at Trump rallies were supporting him because of jobs, unaffordable obamacare and wanting to secure the border.

The guy that recorded hillary having a stroke and being tossed into a van like a side of beef did more to influence the election than anything russia could have managed. I guess he was a russian agent, well thanks russia!

Trump rally attendees are already welded on. Trump could have started eating babies and they'd still find a way to justify it. Same for the Hillary ones. They're not the important ones. It's the undecided middle ground where it's won or lost, especially there with non compulsory voting... and the results of the election were close enough even if the influence is as small as you suggest, that could be enough.

Nash 01-08-2017 08:54

There was no "hacking". The DNC emails were LEAKED by Seth Rich and they killed him for it.
Did they influence the election? Damn right they did.. and thats a good thing.

-SS- 01-08-2017 08:59

Change gears.

For you statists, this is what over-regulation does to small businesses and expresses the symptoms of why the US economy has sucked ass during owebama's reign:

Quote:

“The climate for small businesses like ours in New York have become such that it’s difficult to justify taking risks and running — nevermind starting — a legitimate mom-and-pop business,” read a letter posted by the owners in the restaurant’s front door.

“The state and municipal governments, with their punishing rules and regulations, seems to believe that we should be their cash machine to pay for all that ails us in society.”

“When we started out in 1991, the lunch special was $4 a plate,” he recalled. “Now it’s $10, $12. The cost of doing business is just too onerous.”

“In a one-restaurant operation like ours, you’re spending more time on paperwork than you are trying to run your business,” he griped.

“For smaller businesses like China Fun, each little thing that occurs makes it harder,” said Malpass. “Each regulation, each tax — you put it all together and it’s just a hostile business environment.”
NYC culinary staple China Fun shutters, blaming over-regulation - NY Daily News

Nothing like making sure the American Dream is crushed by the boot of Big Gvt.

Good job.

JoMo 01-08-2017 09:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by MC Hamster (Post 18700534)
Trump rally attendees are already welded on. Trump could have started eating babies and they'd still find a way to justify it. Same for the Hillary ones. They're not the important ones. It's the undecided middle ground where it's won or lost, especially there with non compulsory voting... and the results of the election were close enough even if the influence is as small as you suggest, that could be enough.

The fact is that the US media had more influence. When your shows and panels are stacked 6-1 against Trump..... that's an influence much greater than wikileaks, which only the hardcore supporters really paid attention to.

The whole "Russian" scare is nothing more than the media's excuse for not admitting that it's just an arm of the DNC.

-SS- 01-08-2017 09:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by MC Hamster (Post 18700534)
Trump rally attendees are already welded on. Trump could have started eating babies and they'd still find a way to justify it. Same for the Hillary ones. They're not the important ones. It's the undecided middle ground where it's won or lost, especially there with non compulsory voting... and the results of the election were close enough even if the influence is as small as you suggest, that could be enough.

Have you lost your mind?

Mass communications, aka The Media, has way more influence than some damn email. Just look at how they protected hillary for all of her bull**** and the fact that so many in the media were being shills for her and the DNC as revealed in the emails. If you dont think they did, then you are one narrow minded idiot.

While I dont care for trump, it doesnt change the fact I could see the pile on attempt to make sure he would lose... and lose bad.

I'm just glad the People didnt get suckered like they did with the outgoing piece of **** and that the DNC has been finally exposed as one of the most corrupt organizations ever. Only sycophantic ****tards will toe their party line since they have no credibility.

Lord Elessar 01-08-2017 09:54

When does truthful information or even info in general become "rigging"? We don't consider political adds rigging or grandstanding half truths at "debates" rigging. This cycle we simply go extra insight into a candidate's true views or, as she called it, her private stance.

-SS- 01-08-2017 10:00

One more thing:

While I have no love for republicans, if I were them, I would be hammering the dog**** out of the Dems for all their lies and deceit. The national message would be asking rank and file democrats why they are part of an org that lies, cheats, and steals. Anyone with any decency wouldnt want to be part of that -use the same guilt trips democrats use.

They are on the ropes. Now is the time to strike and splinter their party into as many pieces as possible. Otherwise it will be a lost opportunity.

MC Hamster 01-08-2017 10:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by -SS- (Post 18700547)
Have you lost your mind?

Mass communications, aka The Media, has way more influence than some damn email.

Gee, ya think? Where exactly do you suggest people heard about the emails? How many of them do you think actually read through them and formed their own opinion on them? How many of them just tuned in to wherever they already got their filtered news and opinion pieces from and fell into agreeing with whatever they said?

Of course the media has influence. The email leak is the ammunition, the media the weapon.

It disturbs me that people are so willing to trivialize something like this. The mere possibility that a foreign power (and a not-especially-friendly one at that) may have targeted and altered the course of your democracy should be causing utter outrage in the freedom lovin US of A

Fool 01-08-2017 10:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by MC Hamster (Post 18700511)
Who leaked them doesn't matter? That's mental. I'm not trying to dismiss the content of them and what they reveal, but it's every bit as important to understand why they were released - particularly when they were. Who did the hack and passed along the information goes absolutely towards that.

Someone out there very deliberately released information during an election cycle which would seriously damage the reputation of one candidate. That's influencing the election, plain and simple. Not necessarily deliberately, but it certainly does influence it. The possibility that that same someone had similar information about the other candidate, that they did not release... that points at a deliberate intent to influence it toward a specific candidate.

That's rigging the election. There's no need to talk about 'hacking voting booths' or anything to do with the actual vote itself. If you do the work beforehand, there's no need for that ****.

I'm not saying it's all Putin and some mastermind plot, but if all three leading intelligence agencies in the country say there's something to check out, it's not something you should dismiss off-hand, and certainly not something the country's leader should publicly deride.

To be clear here: I'm not suggesting Wikileaks is witholding anything, or that Assange isn't telling the truth in his interview. Again, that doesn't change things. They're only passing along what they've been handed. If they haven't been given any info from the RNC, they have nothing to release.

I'm curious to hear how you think the Trump tapes were any different as a means of influence or election rigging. No election is influence free, that's the whole point of having them. I suppose you would suggest that the Trump tapes were different because they were released by an American corporation, but I haven't seen anyone from the Democrats accuse NBC of attempting to influence the election, not even when several of their executives were quoted literally saying they wanted to influence the election. Those same tapes were covered, on average, for 4 and a half hours a day on the major news networks. That's in comparison to Hillary and the DNC getting a combined 30 minutes of coverage regarding emails, on average. That 9:1 ratio certainly gives an impression of influence, just not the one that you want to think about.

Yet here we are. Suddenly after a loss, those emails and the 30 minutes a day that the media bothered to give them to at least try to maintain some semblance of journalism are now suddenly the most influential part of the election cycle. Trump at least owned it. He admitted to saying those things, apologized, and moved on even under massive scrutiny. Democrats and Hillary are doing everything possible to not own anything. It wasn't their terrible security. It wasn't backroom influence peddling. It wasn't rigging their system against Bernie Sanders from the start. Not our fault, not our fault, not our fault.

They have been completely exposed and published to the entire world, and that can't possibly be allowed. And so the ironic attempts at influencing your perception begins. First they ensured that the media did not cover it. Then they deny the legitimacy of the evidence. Then they question how it was obtained. Then they accuse a foreign government who is certainly not themselves for daring to try to influence an American with truth. It's absolutely hypocritical, hysterically ironic, and intellectually dishonest. The same Democrats who scoffed and laughed and mocked about "rigging" and "influence" are now red-faced and blustering about it.

The good news for the Democrats is that they're absolutely wrong. The Emails had virtually no influence on the majority of their voting base. Ask a majority of Americans what was in the emails and they couldn't tell you a single specific. Every single one of them knows that Trump grabs women by the ***** though. Of course if Democrats keep trying to virtue signal that they're innocent and haven't ever done anything wrong, that it's some evil faceless bad guy from the 80s, they will lose more and more of the people's trust. Own it and move on.

MC Hamster 01-08-2017 10:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord Elessar (Post 18700548)
When does truthful information or even info in general become "rigging"?

When it's released selectively and other similar information pertaining to "the other side" is withheld. Though I wouldn't call it "rigging", I'd call it "influencing". You effectively have a foreign state running a campaign for a specific party or candidate. That's an outright attack on your sovereignty and something that really should be a concern.

Fool 01-08-2017 10:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by MC Hamster (Post 18700553)
It disturbs me that people are so willing to trivialize something like this. The mere possibility that a foreign power (and a not-especially-friendly one at that) may have targeted and altered the course of your democracy should be causing utter outrage in the freedom lovin US of A

It does cause outrage. That's why so many people were outraged and disturbed that 25% of Hillary's campaign contributions came from Saudi Arabia and Qatar, a number high enough to be demonstrably more influential in the political arena than email hacks that nobody paid real attention to.

KingSobieski 01-08-2017 10:39

[Mega] MAGA Super Trump Mega Thread
 
Could someone tell me what 'leaked' information was damaging? Where did trumps '***** grab' video come from? Won't the pundits denounce that video for influencing the election???

This was the year of anti establishment candidates. If the DNC wasn't out of touch they could've seen Bernie would've locked up the youth and minority vote. People just want jobs and money and less crime. Easy win vs trump. Only self hating liberals would vote for a woman denouncing half the country as racist misogynists. Even having the debates rigged for Hillary's favor, she still performed poorly against trump.

If the DNC field was the same as the GOP, Bernie was trump and Hillary was Jeb bush. Blood bath


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Fool 01-08-2017 10:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by MC Hamster (Post 18700557)
When it's released selectively and other similar information pertaining to "the other side" is withheld. Though I wouldn't call it "rigging", I'd call it "influencing". You effectively have a foreign state running a campaign for a specific party or candidate. That's an outright attack on your sovereignty and something that really should be a concern.

Perhaps it's a matter of perspective. What you're accusing Russia of (without any proof) is quite literally what the media perpetrated this entire election cycle. Selective presentation of information. Only what you're wrong about is who was on the receiving end of negative coverage. 9:1. That's the ratio. That's how badly the American Media wanted Trump to lose. Now the Russian government might have attempted to influence the election, every foreign body does as they want someone favorable for their own interests, but I have seen no actual evidence provided to justify those claims. I have, however, seen undeniable proof that the Media attempted to influence this election with outright lies, lies by omission, intentional misinformation, and actual evidence of collusion. Which of these should I be more outraged by in your mind? The shadowy foreign government who may or may not have done something somewhere to someone to try somehow to influence me, or the actual organizations caught red-handed with publicly available EVIDENCE?

MC Hamster 01-08-2017 10:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fool (Post 18700555)
That 9:1 ratio certainly gives an impression of influence, just not the one that you want to think about.

That media agencies have their own agenda and biases isn't something that should surprise any adult. There's a difference though in a biased domestic media and a campaign by a hostile foreign power. That's basically a form of warfare.

Quote:

Yet here we are....Not our fault, not our fault, not our fault.
I'm not defending the Democrats, not in the least. I agree they're a basically corrupt organisation. I'd suggest the Repubs really aren't any better though, maybe just a little better at hiding it, and to be blunt - maybe their supporters just don't really care so much. I'm not trying to attack Trump, either. Well.. that's not entirely true, but not in the way you're suggesting.

I'm suggesting that you as citizens, and your government (which is where Trump comes in) should be extremely concerned about the possibility that you've been attacked, particularly when the people whose lifetimes have been dedicated to learning these sorts of things and figuring out if they're true or not tell you as much. Democrat or Republican, your intelligence agencies are saying your nation has been attacked, and the guy who's going to be President seems to be suggesting he knows better than them.

Fool 01-08-2017 11:00

I don't disagree, and if actual evidence is presented to me about Russian involvement and not conspiracy angled stories of such, I will address it accordingly. When politically motivated agency leaders present things without evidence, claiming that evidence cannot be presented because it's classified or otherwise dangerous, that causes me to doubt it's validity. I have no reason to trust them. Why should I? People should always be skeptical of their governments. Eternal vigilance against all enemies, foreign AND domestic.

So again I'll say it's clearly a matter of perspective. I've seen the evidence of the attacks made by Democrats and our media against the people of the United States. I've seen no evidence of Russian tampering other than the claims made by Democrats and our media. I am greatly concerned by the potential attack of foreign governments, but not at the expense of my intelligence.

MC Hamster 01-08-2017 11:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fool (Post 18700562)
I have seen no actual evidence provided to justify those claims. I have, however, seen undeniable proof that the Media attempted to influence this election with outright lies, lies by omission, intentional misinformation, and actual evidence of collusion. Which of these should I be more outraged by in your mind? The shadowy foreign government who may or may not have done something somewhere to someone to try somehow to influence me, or the actual organizations caught red-handed with publicly available EVIDENCE?

As with every adult out there, you should be aware that everyone has biases, and that any and everything you hear should be treated with an eye of skepticism and a desire to identify what biases have gone in to the statements you're seeing - and that includes every media agency out there, from Fox and CNN to the BBC to Al Jazeera.

As to not having seen evidence.. The three top intelligence agencies in your country have taken the extraordinary measure of releasing a public statement to the effect that it's happened. I presume the classified release they've briefed Trump on has more detail, but again - we're not going to be privileged to that. Sure, you may not trust your intel guys entirely (which again, isn't a bad thing), but when it comes to this sort of thing I'd rate their statements as more reliable than someone playing politics - particularly someone who plays the game like Trump does.

lemon 01-08-2017 11:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by MC Hamster (Post 18700570)
words

before the election news of election hacking was #fakenews according to the dems

what's up with that?

Flash 01-08-2017 11:20

If you can't wrap your head around what fool is saying you are a lost cause. You have completely lost your ability to think objectively.

lemon 01-08-2017 11:21

mc hamster is a foreign agent trying to affect the outcome of our election and influence public perception

I've alerted the FBI, CIA, and Google.

Zulu 01-08-2017 11:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by MC Hamster (Post 18700570)
The three top intelligence agencies in your country have taken the extraordinary measure of releasing a public statement to the effect that it's happened.

Yes, it is extraordinary. Extraordinary in that they left out 14 other intelligence agencies as is typical when something of this magnitude is asserted.

Quote:

the declassified report represents the views of only three intelligence agencies, not seventeen. Hoekstra also questioned why the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) did not co-author or clear the report and why it lacked dissenting views.
More than the assertion that foreign nationals where influencing the election, I find the following more believable

Quote:

the entire purpose of this report and its timing was to provide President Obama with a supposedly objective intelligence report on Russian interference in the 2016 election that the president could release before he left office to undermine the legitimacy of Trump***8217;s election
The entirety of this sounds like absolute ****. With people like you screaming the sky is falling and ready to launch into full scale cold war.

**** that.

JoMo 01-08-2017 11:27

US influencing other countries elections:

Here's Obama influencing the Israeli election:
Obama admin. sent taxpayer money to campaign to oust Netanyahu - Washington Times

Here's Obama trying to influence Brexit:
President Obama;s Brexit Intervention Backfires | National Review


Foreign countries trying to influence the US election:


Here's Australia trying to influence the US election:
Foreign Leaders Condemning Trump. Australian Parliament Passes Motion Calling Him 'A Revolting Slug'

Here's Saudi Arabia, Mexico, UK, Turkey, and Pope Francis trying to influence the US election:
Here***8217;s What World Leaders Say About Donald Trump

Here's the UN trying to influence the US election..
Donald Trump Is ***8216;Dangerous***8217; for Global Stability, U.N. Rights Chief Says

MasterGnr 01-08-2017 11:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by MC Hamster (Post 18700563)
That media agencies have their own agenda and biases isn't something that should surprise any adult. There's a difference though in a biased domestic media and a campaign by a hostile foreign power. That's basically a form of warfare.

but you are missing the point - they didnt have their own agenda - they forwarded the DNC's agenda. They played a much much bigger role than whoever leaked the emails. Borrowed from the interweb: "In the United States, the media is often called the fourth branch of government (or "fourth estate"). That's because it monitors the political process in order to ensure that political players don't abuse the democratic process."

But here the media did the abusing. That is the real travesty. I agree with the others that the content of the emails probably influenced people very little, other than pissing off Bernie supporters when they found out the DNC is so crooked that it ****ed over their own people. But seeing that the DNC leadership colluded with media, which the media barely covered, was the real revelation that sticks. Those undecideds, along with educated white women, decided that the email server fiasco, the corruption of the DNC, and Hillary's reaction (ignorance is bliss...shut up and vote for me) were too much to justify voting for her and she (and the DNC) needed to be taught a lesson.

Those who focus more on the delivery than the content (forget child molestation...we were attacked!) are simply looking for someone to blame and punish. Oh, and can we somehow delegitimize the winner please?

China hacks US companies for technology, and we do not like it - we spend billions every year to enhance our cyber security. We understand why we spend that money. No tax dollars could have prevented Seth Rich from sending Wikileaks an external hard drive.

Kerosene31 01-08-2017 11:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by -SS- (Post 18700550)
One more thing:

While I have no love for republicans, if I were them, I would be hammering the dog**** out of the Dems for all their lies and deceit. The national message would be asking rank and file democrats why they are part of an org that lies, cheats, and steals. Anyone with any decency wouldnt want to be part of that -use the same guilt trips democrats use.

They are on the ropes. Now is the time to strike and splinter their party into as many pieces as possible. Otherwise it will be a lost opportunity.

All the GOP congress needs to do is actually practice some conservative economics that aren't just tax cuts for the very rich.

Most people are actually in the common sense middle, and the first party to actually cut some spending would win over a ton of people. People aren't brainwashed, they know that supply side economics is a load of crap and that the trickle down never comes.

lemon 01-08-2017 11:52

mc gerbil - foreign agent is furiously checking with his higher ups

his campaign has taken an unexpected turn and his cover may be blown

stay tuned for the next episode

WarBuddha 01-08-2017 11:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord Elessar (Post 18700548)
When does truthful information or even info in general become "rigging"? We don't consider political adds rigging or grandstanding half truths at "debates" rigging. This cycle we simply go extra insight into a candidate's true views or, as she called it, her private stance.

Spot on. Let's say Russia released the emails, so what? It still is up to the American people to look at what was in the emails and decide if it was damaging to Clinton. But no one wants to talk about the emails themselves, just where they came from. You know why? Because they CONFIRMED what people who were voting for Trump already knew, Clinton is a pathological liar who is the epitome of the "elite" problem that we have in this country. She's a terrible human being who cares about power and power alone.

Validuz 01-08-2017 12:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by -SS- (Post 18700550)
One more thing:

While I have no love for republicans, if I were them, I would be hammering the dog**** out of the Dems for all their lies and deceit. The national message would be asking rank and file democrats why they are part of an org that lies, cheats, and steals. Anyone with any decency wouldnt want to be part of that -use the same guilt trips democrats use.

They are on the ropes. Now is the time to strike and splinter their party into as many pieces as possible. Otherwise it will be a lost opportunity.

Too many Republicans are corrupt neo-cons, like Rubio who said that we shouldn't be looking into the leaks, but WHO did them, because "we might be next."

He's basically just admitting he's a corrupt piece of **** and doesn't want his emails released.


Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 00:37.
Page 115 of 4375

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2003, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
All Content Copyright 1999-2020 Tribalwar.Com, LLC