Democrats, dost thou know where thou art?

Manwë was known for many things, but wisdom and power are two that lead the rest of his attributes. Join the Councils and discuss the more weighty matters of Tolkien Fandom.

Postby shiftenter » Fri Jun 18, 2010 7:41 am

Bombadillo..... I think you are onto something with that latest post. However, libertarian pamphlets are soooo 1990's and yesterdays outdated mode of attack. Today the preferred tactic is internet message boards and blogs.
shiftenter
Rider of the Mark
 
Posts: 750
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 8:38 am
Top

Postby JewelSong » Fri Jun 18, 2010 7:58 am

shiftenter wrote:libertarian pamphlets are soooo 1990's and yesterdays outdated mode of attack. Today the preferred tactic is internet message boards and blogs.


I hope you're not insinuating that only libertarians use message boards and blogs as a "tactic." Almost every "cause" today uses messageboards and blogs as their "mode of attack" if you will.
User avatar
JewelSong
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 4634
Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 6:31 am
Top

Postby Cenedril_Gildinaur » Fri Jun 18, 2010 3:14 pm

First the business:

The Democratic Party of South Carolina rejected the appeal of Vic Rawl in the Senate Primary and confirmed Alvin Greene as their candidate.

Alvin Greene to face off against Jim DeMint after party rejects Vic Rawl challenge
Green light for Alvin Greene's senate run


Now the tangents and derails:

Bombadillo says that I'm saying "they are the same" yet the news items I posted were all about Democrats.

Shift's just upset that written mediums are better suited towards libertarian thought than other ideologies. A message board is primarily a written medium, which enables responders to dissect arguments, illustrate logical fallacies, and simply wave off naked appeals to emotion.

"Somebody think about the children" doesn't work as well in text as it does on camera. Television brought us JFK. His debate against Nixon set the standard. A new standard is being set and he doesn't like it.
User avatar
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 11197
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2003 7:35 pm
Location: The Real World
Top

Postby TheEllipticalDisillusion » Fri Jun 18, 2010 6:26 pm

Bombadillo says that I'm saying "they are the same" yet the news items I posted were all about Democrats.


And yet nothing you posted is significant about Democrats as a group, only three particular individuals and one notably crazy state. Or is this a logical fallacy that your libertarian thought conveniently ignores when it doesn't suit your objectives?

Shift's just upset that written mediums are better suited towards libertarian thought than other ideologies. A message board is primarily a written medium, which enables responders to dissect arguments, illustrate logical fallacies, and simply wave off naked appeals to emotion.


Be wary that hubris doesn't leak into the page. The written medium is better suited to thoughtful, well-reasoned arguments whether they be libertarian, democratic, Jewish, etc., etc.
User avatar
TheEllipticalDisillusion
Mariner

 
Posts: 6454
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2001 7:42 pm
Top

Postby JewelSong » Sat Jun 19, 2010 12:00 am

The written medium is better suited to thoughtful, well-reasoned arguments whether they be libertarian, democratic, Jewish, etc., etc.


Word. :D
User avatar
JewelSong
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 4634
Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 6:31 am
Top

Postby Bombadillo » Sat Jun 19, 2010 12:18 am

Bombadillo says that I'm saying "they are the same" yet the news items I posted were all about Democrats.

You're attempting to be contrarian since conventional wisdom tells us that right wingers (ie: People who consistently vote against Democrats... And occasionally kill them) are the violent ones while the left is full of peacenik doves.

Alvin Greene and an angry old man do not a contrarian argument make.
User avatar
Bombadillo
Mariner

 
Posts: 5190
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 8:41 pm
Top

Postby Cenedril_Gildinaur » Sat Jun 19, 2010 7:35 am

Well, the worry was that the violence would be against Democrats.

Nancy Pelosi heckled by Code Pink

"Ma'am, they're throwing stuff, we need to leave"

At 2 minutes in a Secret Service Agent is heard saying that to Nancy Pelosi. Apparently Code Pink was upset at her.
User avatar
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 11197
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2003 7:35 pm
Location: The Real World
Top

Postby vison » Sat Jun 19, 2010 7:37 am

Cenedril_Gildinaur wrote:Well, the worry was that the violence would be against Democrats.

Nancy Pelosi heckled by Code Pink

"Ma'am, they're throwing stuff, we need to leave"

At 2 minutes in a Secret Service Agent is heard saying that to Nancy Pelosi. Apparently Code Pink was upset at her.


C_G, please check your pms.
User avatar
vison
Ringbearer


 
Posts: 12696
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 6:15 pm
Top

Postby Cenedril_Gildinaur » Sat Jun 19, 2010 7:42 am

Bombadillo wrote:You're attempting to be contrarian since conventional wisdom tells us that right wingers (ie: People who consistently vote against Democrats... And occasionally kill them) are the violent ones while the left is full of peacenik doves.


It's true that is the party line. Yet the most violent Tea Party event was when the Congressional Black Caucus failed to get racial epithets hurled at them.
User avatar
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 11197
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2003 7:35 pm
Location: The Real World
Top

Postby Bombadillo » Sat Jun 19, 2010 10:00 am

It's true that is the party line. Yet the most violent Tea Party event was when the Congressional Black Caucus failed to get racial epithets hurled at them.

You're discounting the guys that yelled at and tried to intimidate the Parkinson's victim. While not outwardly violent it underscored the classiness of the movement, as did the whole incident with the Congressional Black Caucus.

At 2 minutes in a Secret Service Agent is heard saying that to Nancy Pelosi. Apparently Code Pink was upset at her.

a) It was not Code Pink. It was a group concerned about the rights of the disabled to be able to continue to live at home with government assistance. Many of them were in wheelchairs.

b) Notice that Nancy faced her hecklers and gave her speech anyways. That little lady has some spine.
User avatar
Bombadillo
Mariner

 
Posts: 5190
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 8:41 pm
Top

Postby TheEllipticalDisillusion » Sun Jun 20, 2010 3:21 pm

I can't wait for C_G to post something worth discussing. 0-4 so far.
User avatar
TheEllipticalDisillusion
Mariner

 
Posts: 6454
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2001 7:42 pm
Top

Postby Cenedril_Gildinaur » Sun Jun 20, 2010 5:04 pm

TheEllipticalDisillusion wrote:I can't wait for C_G to post something worth discussing. 0-4 so far.


Of course, bad or embarrassing news about Democrats is always not worth discussing. Now if I were to post stories like that about Republicans you'd reverse the score, simply because they are about Republicans.

But that's just you.
User avatar
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 11197
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2003 7:35 pm
Location: The Real World
Top

Postby ILvEowyn » Mon Jun 21, 2010 6:37 am

It's true that is the party line. Yet the most violent Tea Party event was when the Congressional Black Caucus failed to get racial epithets hurled at them.


The Caucus members didn't hear the epithets? That's news to them I guess. I know you don't believe their word, but you can't say there's no evidence for bad behavior from the Right.
User avatar
ILvEowyn
Ringbearer


 
Posts: 12836
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2000 11:39 am
Location: lovely Western NY
Top

Postby ILvEowyn » Mon Jun 28, 2010 6:21 am

I guess this is the default Democrats thread for now?

Well, there's some big news out this morning. Sen. Byrd of West Virginia has passed away. RIP to him (hoping that he has sufficiently attoned for some of the negatives in his past, like the KKK) and condolences to his family. There are some really interesting political questions presented by the vacancy, which 538 has been covering.

West Virgina Democratic governor Joe Manchin will appoint an interim successor for Byrd once a vacancy is declared. The question is what happens after November. Yesterday, we identified the relevant West Virginia statute, which stipulates that when a Senate vacancy occurs more than two years and sixth months prior to the end of a Senator's term, a special election will be held at the upcoming general election to select the candidate's successor. Because Byrd passed away this morning -- two years, six months and six days prior to the end of his current term on January 3, 2013 -- that would seem to imply the likelihood of an election later this year. Democrats might not be favored in such an election, although their odds would be buoyed if Manchin, a popular incumbent who will be term-limited in 2012, decided to run for the seat himself.


So we have a state that has become very conservative, but a Democratic governor likely to appoint a Democrat replacement for Byrd. Byrd died a mere 6 days before the law would have guaranteed that the appointed successor served through 2012. But it is not apparently certain that that won't still be the case:

Note also that a vacancy has not been declared yet. West Virginia's statutes for U.S. House seats actually provide the governor with a 10-day window to declare a vacancy -- however, it is not clear that the same procedure applies for U.S. Senate seats.


So the governor could potentially delay officially declaring a vacancy in order to trigger the aforementioned law.

edit: whoops, I just realized I posted the same link twice :oops:
Last edited by ILvEowyn on Mon Jun 28, 2010 8:48 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
ILvEowyn
Ringbearer


 
Posts: 12836
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2000 11:39 am
Location: lovely Western NY
Top

Postby Xhen » Mon Jun 28, 2010 8:15 am

So the governor could potentially delay officially declaring a vacancy in order to trigger the aforementioned law.


It's almost a given that a desperate and corrupt Democratic party will attempt to game the system in order to retain the seat.
User avatar
Xhen
Mariner


 
Posts: 8440
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2000 8:41 am
Top

Postby Cenedril_Gildinaur » Mon Jun 28, 2010 8:50 am

So, if any prominent elected Democrats say anything nice about Byrd at his funeral, will that cause the same uproar as when Lott tried to say something nice about Thurmond at his retirement?
User avatar
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 11197
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2003 7:35 pm
Location: The Real World
Top

Postby ILvEowyn » Mon Jun 28, 2010 9:01 am

Cenedril_Gildinaur wrote:So, if any prominent elected Democrats say anything nice about Byrd at his funeral, will that cause the same uproar as when Lott tried to say something nice about Thurmond at his retirement?


If they try to say something nice about his time in the KKK, then there will be an uproar. Otherwise, the comparison is irrelevent.
Last edited by ILvEowyn on Mon Jun 28, 2010 9:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
ILvEowyn
Ringbearer


 
Posts: 12836
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2000 11:39 am
Location: lovely Western NY
Top

Postby Entmooting » Mon Jun 28, 2010 9:08 am

Xhen wrote:
So the governor could potentially delay officially declaring a vacancy in order to trigger the aforementioned law.


It's almost a given that a desperate and corrupt Democratic party will attempt to game the system in order to retain the seat.
Without gainsaying your description of the Democratic party as desperate and corrupt, Xhen, but would you claim that the Republican party is any less desperate and corrupt, and if you would, what is your evidence for this, other than sectarian preference?
User avatar
Entmooting
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1690
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 8:49 pm
Location: More There Than Here
Top

Postby ILvEowyn » Mon Jun 28, 2010 10:52 am

More interesting stuff from 538. This is the kind of politics I like.

UPDATE: 11:50 AM. I'm now hearing from a well-placed source that the Secretary of State's office is very likely to interpret the law as requiring a special election in 2012, rather than in November, because the candidate filing period for this year has already passed and because there is a court precedent on the books which supported this interpretation.

If this scenario comes to transpire, there would actually be both a special election and a general election on the ballot in November 2012 -- although the winner of the special election would only serve during the lame duck period between the elections and when the new Congress convened in January, 2013.

The West Virginia Secretary of State will hold a press conference at 4:30 today at which an official decision is announced.
User avatar
ILvEowyn
Ringbearer


 
Posts: 12836
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2000 11:39 am
Location: lovely Western NY
Top

Postby Cenedril_Gildinaur » Mon Jun 28, 2010 12:47 pm

Aww, the world just lost another racist. Goodbye racist. We won't miss your racism.
User avatar
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 11197
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2003 7:35 pm
Location: The Real World
Top

Postby portia » Mon Jun 28, 2010 6:28 pm

ILvEowyn wrote:
Cenedril_Gildinaur wrote:So, if any prominent elected Democrats say anything nice about Byrd at his funeral, will that cause the same uproar as when Lott tried to say something nice about Thurmond at his retirement?


If they try to say something nice about his time in the KKK, then there will be an uproar. Otherwise, the comparison is irrelevent.


Depends on what someone tries to say. Lott got in trouble because of what he said, not because he said something.

Many Southern public figures were members of the KKK and later repented; many believably. The KKK was (amazingly) a mainstrean "civic" organization in many places, and people who wanted to be public figures joined it.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Postby TheEllipticalDisillusion » Tue Jun 29, 2010 6:31 am

Cenedril_Gildinaur wrote:
TheEllipticalDisillusion wrote:I can't wait for C_G to post something worth discussing. 0-4 so far.


Of course, bad or embarrassing news about Democrats is always not worth discussing. Now if I were to post stories like that about Republicans you'd reverse the score, simply because they are about Republicans.

But that's just you.


:rofl: Whatever you say. I can tell you what I would actually do, but I don't want to spoil that strawman you dolled up and knocked right over.

It's almost a given that a desperate and corrupt Democratic party will attempt to game the system in order to retain the seat.


I'd imagine either party would game the system to retain their seat, or are the Democrats the only corrupt party in the two-party system of the United States of America? I have no idea what West Virginia's law says--and not being from West Virginia I don't particularly care--but I hope they interpret it as fairly to both parties as possible.

from ILE's post wrote:If this scenario comes to transpire, there would actually be both a special election and a general election on the ballot in November 2012 -- although the winner of the special election would only serve during the lame duck period between the elections and when the new Congress convened in January, 2013.


Is this the act of the corrupt party?
User avatar
TheEllipticalDisillusion
Mariner

 
Posts: 6454
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2001 7:42 pm
Top

Postby ILvEowyn » Tue Jun 29, 2010 6:57 am

Depends on what someone tries to say. Lott got in trouble because of what he said, not because he said something .


That's sort of what I was getting at. C_G seemed to be saying (though I could be wrong) that Lott was criticized for saying anything at all nice about Strom Thurmond, as opposed to being criticized for specifically praising Thurmond's 1948 Presidential run (on a segregationist platform), which is how I saw it.
User avatar
ILvEowyn
Ringbearer


 
Posts: 12836
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2000 11:39 am
Location: lovely Western NY
Top

Postby Xhen » Tue Jun 29, 2010 7:20 am

Without gainsaying your description of the Democratic party as desperate and corrupt, Xhen, but would you claim that the Republican party is any less desperate and corrupt, and if you would, what is your evidence for this, other than sectarian preference?


The Obama administration is filled with insiders from Chicago's Democratic political machine which is probably the most corrupt in the country. You want an example of this type of corruption? Let's start with the refusal of Holder's DOJ to prosecute members of the New Black Panther Party. These armed thugs were caught on videotape outside a Philadelphia polling place intimidating white voters who attempted to enter and vote. It's as open-and-shut case of voter intimidation you will ever see, yet the Obama administration refuses to prosecute the case. Why? In part it's because of the identity politics that dominates liberal thinking, and in part because the New Black Panther Party thugs were foot soldiers for the Obama campaign and had used the same intimidation tactics on Hillary Clinton voters during the primaries. As with ACORN, lawlessness is excused as long as it is in service to the Democrat cause.

Here's an article by one of the DOJ lawyers who have resigned as a result of this refusal to prosecute.

On the day President Obama was elected, armed men wearing the black berets and jackboots of the New Black Panther Party were stationed at the entrance to a polling place in Philadelphia. They brandished a weapon and intimidated voters and poll watchers. After the election, the Justice Department brought a voter-intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party and those armed thugs. I and other Justice attorneys diligently pursued the case and obtained an entry of default after the defendants ignored the charges. Before a final judgment could be entered in May 2009, our superiors ordered us to dismiss the case.

The New Black Panther case was the simplest and most obvious violation of federal law I saw in my Justice Department career. Because of the corrupt nature of the dismissal, statements falsely characterizing the case and, most of all, indefensible orders for the career attorneys not to comply with lawful subpoenas investigating the dismissal, this month I resigned my position as a Department of Justice (DOJ) attorney.

The federal voter-intimidation statutes we used against the New Black Panthers were enacted because America never realized genuine racial equality in elections. Threats of violence characterized elections from the end of the Civil War until the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965. Before the Voting Rights Act, blacks seeking the right to vote, and those aiding them, were victims of violence and intimidation. But unlike the Southern legal system, Southern violence did not discriminate. Black voters were slain, as were the white champions of their cause. Some of the bodies were tossed into bogs and in one case in Philadelphia, Miss., they were buried together in an earthen dam.

Based on my firsthand experiences, I believe the dismissal of the Black Panther case was motivated by a lawless hostility toward equal enforcement of the law. Others still within the department share my assessment. The department abetted wrongdoers and abandoned law-abiding citizens victimized by the New Black Panthers. The dismissal raises serious questions about the department's enforcement neutrality in upcoming midterm elections and the subsequent 2012 presidential election.

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has opened an investigation into the dismissal and the DOJ's skewed enforcement priorities. Attorneys who brought the case are under subpoena to testify, but the department ordered us to ignore the subpoena, lawlessly placing us in an unacceptable legal limbo.

The assistant attorney general for civil rights, Tom Perez, has testified repeatedly that the "facts and law" did not support this case. That claim is false. If the actions in Philadelphia do not constitute voter intimidation, it is hard to imagine what would, short of an actual outbreak of violence at the polls. Let's all hope this administration has not invited that outcome through the corrupt dismissal.

Most corrupt of all, the lawyers who ordered the dismissal - Loretta King, the Obama-appointed acting head of the Civil Rights Division, and Steve Rosenbaum - did not even read the internal Justice Department memorandums supporting the case and investigation. Just as Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. admitted that he did not read the Arizona immigration law before he condemned it, Mr. Rosenbaum admitted that he had not bothered to read the most important department documents detailing the investigative facts and applicable law in the New Black Panther case. Christopher Coates, the former Voting Section chief, was so outraged at this dereliction of responsibility that he actually threw the memos at Mr. Rosenbaum in the meeting where they were discussing the dismissal of the case. The department subsequently removed all of Mr. Coates' responsibilities and sent him to South Carolina.

Mr. Perez also inaccurately testified to the House Judiciary Committee that federal "Rule 11" required the dismissal of the lawsuit. Lawyers know that Rule 11 is an ethical obligation to bring only meritorious claims, and such a charge by Mr. Perez effectively challenges the ethics and professionalism of the five attorneys who commenced the case. Yet the attorneys who brought the case were voting rights experts and would never pursue a frivolous matter. Their experience in election law far surpassed the experience of the officials who ordered the dismissal.

Some have called the actions in Philadelphia an isolated incident, not worthy of federal attention. To the contrary, the Black Panthers in October 2008 announced a nationwide deployment for the election. We had indications that polling-place thugs were deployed elsewhere, not only in November 2008, but also during the Democratic primaries, where they targeted white Hillary Rodham Clinton supporters. In any event, the law clearly prohibits even isolated incidents of voter intimidation.

Others have falsely claimed that no voters were affected. Not only did the evidence rebut this claim, but the law does not require a successful effort to intimidate; it punishes even the attempt.

Most disturbing, the dismissal is part of a creeping lawlessness infusing our government institutions. Citizens would be shocked to learn about the open and pervasive hostility within the Justice Department to bringing civil rights cases against nonwhite defendants on behalf of white victims. Equal enforcement of justice is not a priority of this administration. Open contempt is voiced for these types of cases.

Some of my co-workers argued that the law should not be used against black wrongdoers because of the long history of slavery and segregation. Less charitable individuals called it "payback time." Incredibly, after the case was dismissed, instructions were given that no more cases against racial minorities like the Black Panther case would be brought by the Voting Section.

Refusing to enforce the law equally means some citizens are protected by the law while others are left to be victimized, depending on their race. Core American principles of equality before the law and freedom from racial discrimination are at risk. Hopefully, equal enforcement of the law is still a point of bipartisan, if not universal, agreement. However, after my experience with the New Black Panther dismissal and the attitudes held by officials in the Civil Rights Division, I am beginning to fear the era of agreement over these core American principles has passed.

J. Christian Adams is a lawyer based in Virginia who served as a voting rights attorney at the Justice Department until this month. He blogs at electionlawcenter.com.
User avatar
Xhen
Mariner


 
Posts: 8440
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2000 8:41 am
Top

Postby Bombadillo » Tue Jun 29, 2010 8:12 am

The New Black Panthers? ACORN? Really? That's all you got?

How many members in this New Black Panthers group? Five? Ten? Isn't ACORN gone already? C'mon Xhen, you can do better than these petty little incidents. You used to be a powerful commentator from the right side of things around here, but lately you're just sounding like a conspiracy-minded crank.

We talk about the Tea Partiers here a lot because they are a powerful force in American politics. Same with FOX NEWS and El Rushbo. The New Black Panthers are most assuredly not. Neither is ACORN or so many of the other non-players you tend to bring up as iron clad proof of the dastardliness of Democrats. It would be the same as me linking non-stop to Stormfront stories as evidence that the Republicans are all evil.

You're just not making much sense anymore.
User avatar
Bombadillo
Mariner

 
Posts: 5190
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 8:41 pm
Top

Postby Cenedril_Gildinaur » Tue Jun 29, 2010 8:35 am

Yes, anything that used to be powerful but isn't anymore cannot be mentioned even as something that used to be powerful. Come on Xhen, don't you know that history is dead and gone and cannot be used to defend any point you make?
User avatar
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 11197
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2003 7:35 pm
Location: The Real World
Top

Postby ILvEowyn » Tue Jun 29, 2010 8:50 am

Yes, anything that used to be powerful but isn't anymore cannot be mentioned even as something that used to be powerful.


When were the New Black Panthers or ACORN ever all that powerful?
User avatar
ILvEowyn
Ringbearer


 
Posts: 12836
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2000 11:39 am
Location: lovely Western NY
Top

Postby Bombadillo » Tue Jun 29, 2010 9:00 am

THEY are the ones who threw Pennsylvania for Obama and ruined everything, dontcha know? :lol: :lol:

Got to have a conspiracy behind it all because the truth that you and your views are legitimately in the minority is too tough a pill for a lot of people to swallow.
User avatar
Bombadillo
Mariner

 
Posts: 5190
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 8:41 pm
Top

Postby vison » Tue Jun 29, 2010 10:59 am

Given the appalling mess the Mr. Bush left the country in, it is so much easier for the "right wingers" to get their little selves worked up into a frenzy of annoyance over ACORN, etc., than to look in the mirror and face up to the truth that they were just plain wrong. Bush had the reverse Midas touch: everything he touched turned to dogpoop. If there was a wrong way to do something, he did it.

It wouldn't have been any different if Mrs. Clinton was president. She would have stepped into the same steaming pile and would be faced with the same lack of shovels with which to clean it up. Had Mr. McCain won? Omigod, I can't go there . . . . :shock:

I am always aghast (but sometimes amused, in a cruel way) at the miniscule, wee, tiny, insignificantly short attention span of the "voting public".
User avatar
vison
Ringbearer


 
Posts: 12696
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 6:15 pm
Top

Postby Xhen » Tue Jun 29, 2010 11:25 am

As usual the mob has tried to change the subject instead of addressing what I wrote. Please defend the Obama administration's decision not to prosecute a blatant case of voter intimidation. I'd like to hear it.
User avatar
Xhen
Mariner


 
Posts: 8440
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2000 8:41 am
Top

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy: Councils of Manwë

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron