|
meristem posted:Well, without making hay, how are you guys to know that it gets really, really rage-inducing after a time? 😀 Not everyone has a wife to point that out to them! Yes, this is one of one million reasons we desperately needed (and still need more) women hosting these shows.
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 16:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 17:16 |
|
|
it's terrible optics as evidenced by the reaction but i really can't even figure out how to interpret it in a way where you could even consider it rude, let alone sexist.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
A lot of people have latched on to the "finger wag" moment. It seems to have seriously struck a nerve. I can't speak for Sam Bee but I'm pretty sure it wasn't throw-away joke fodder to her. Watching liberal hero Bernie get called out for it, and Bernie-loving liberal men try to hand-wave it away, is very interesting. His comment on race was another moment like this that's getting a similar reaction. I mean, as a white male who voted for Bernie, I was also really annoyed about the finger wag controversy at first. "Oh, she got interrupted? At a debate!!??? That's never happened to anyone before, especially never to any MALE candidates!!" But it's stupid to dismiss something that has struck a nerve the way this did. Like, yeah, interrupting people at debates is how things go, but when Bernie does it to Hillary it has an extra meaning layered on top of it. You can't just stick your head in the sand and ignore that. It's always weird to catch yourself doing something that you're constantly attacking others for.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
I'm more annoyed with Bernie for dodging questions and just repeating his talking points like a...a republican.  He did it more than just the time Sam called him out for, he also did it when asked why he didn't vote to bail out the auto industry. By the way, what did that nutty lady throw at Sam's face?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
Bass Bottles posted:A lot of people have latched on to the "finger wag" moment. It seems to have seriously struck a nerve. I can't speak for Sam Bee but I'm pretty sure it wasn't throw-away joke fodder to her. i assumed he had done something stupid or tone-deaf because he's Bernie Sanders when i heard about it but after watching it i seriously cannot figure out what he did wrong. he's entirely right to interject when he's being interrupted and his tone and body language is the same "grouchy old man" that it is when talking about anything to anybody at any time. like i said, it wasn't even rude. it's tense-feeling because its a debate and everyone is on edge when it comes to these two but it's not out of line. i haven't watched the episode yet so i'm not really commenting on what she had to say about it but in the broader context this is more of a head-scratcher of a controversy to me than why everyone is talking about Donald Trump's dick Dutchy fucked around with this message at 22:18 on Mar 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 22:15
|
|
|
Bass Bottles posted:A lot of people have latched on to the "finger wag" moment. It seems to have seriously struck a nerve. I can't speak for Sam Bee but I'm pretty sure it wasn't throw-away joke fodder to her. Yeah, and I think it's great that Samantha Bee covered it like this. When I saw the show live, I kinda just laughed because everything to that point had been really funny and her delivery was good even if the point of that wasn't completely clear to me. But I ended up reading a bit of the discussion here in the thread and talking to my girlfriend and sister about it to get their opinions, and I think I'm personally better for it. I really didn't realize the finger wag was a thing. So if Bee's purpose is to tell jokes and educate some people, then mission accomplished. The other thing that you point out is the nasty reaction from the Bernie Bros. Every politician (read: person) has flaws, and it is a disservice to everyone to pretend otherwise. The fact that some of his supporters are so vocal about believing Bernie can do no wrong or that he is immune from bias highlights a lot the problem among "well meaning liberals." (I'm including myself in this group, I'm confident I have done this myself even if I have not been aware of it.) They seem to think that being aware of and sympathetic to some of the salient components of social justice puts someone above racism or above sexism or above heteronormativity or whatever the case may be. In addition, they seem to think that a history of Doing The Right Thing (such as Bernie's past activism) means that you will always be right. I don't think these "well meaning liberals" would agree with that exact phraseology, but that is what they portray.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
Finger wagging is certainly a faux pas in 2010s America. It's enough of an issue that Bernie should have avoided it, since he should be aware that his progressive credentials will be scrutinized to hell by a hostile media ready discredit him on social issues (and of course the Berniebro narrative) He needs to find handlers to tell him what not to say and how not to say things, preferably ones as good as the staffers who coached Hillary. I do think it's unfortunate that the political center has able to posture themselves very well with some socially progressive causes. I have a hard time telling the difference between Silicon Valley libertarians and Silicon Valley liberals.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 01:02
|
|
|
I didn't realize, growing up in NJ, that Intruder Drills were so uncommon. However, here in NJ, we have them in addition to having some of the strictest gun regulations in the country, and some of the lowest gun ownership. As a result, we're in the bottom five for gun violence.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 07:48
|
|
|
Laverna posted:I don't really follow any of that debate stuff so I don't know what it's normally like but she did say that she was pointing it out "as a woman" and as a woman I can totally identify with the whole being interrupted by men thing. It was probably one of my favourite jokes on this episode, yay having a female comedy show presenter! But the thing is, he didn't interrupt her, she was interrupting him. Right before that moment, it was her turn to speak and she said that he didn't vote for the auto industry bailout. This was of course a misrepresentation, because that particular vote was for Wall Street bailout money, with some for the auto industry attached. On his turn to speak, he tried to explain that and she cut in, which then lead to this clip. The optics aren't great, especially if you cut out the context, but he wouldn't be Bernie if he didn't get pissed that she was trying to claim the Wall Street bailout vote was a vote about the auto industry. I'm also fairly certain that he would have acted the exact same way if it was Bill Clinton standing on that stage instead of Hillary.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 10:52
|
|
|
Wait. A bill was introduced to make proposing stricter gun control a felony?! Are you loving kidding me?!
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 14:20
|
|
|
RedneckwithGuns posted:I'm actually surprised she didn't make a bit about the "white people don't know what it's like to be poor and live in a ghetto" thing I've seen a bunch of Bernie Bros over at reddit losing their poo poo about. Dutchy posted:his tone and body language is the same "grouchy old man" that it is when talking about anything to anybody at any time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 14:57
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:I assume that if you produce one of these shows you have to be thinking about what the others will cover. In this case "The Nightly Show will definitely go for racism angle, The Daily Show might go for the racism angle or sexism angle (and will probably expect us to go for the sexism angle), Last Week Tonight probably won't bother with either, so the sexism angle is the best one to take." That's a crazy calculating answer when it's probably just the aspect of the situation that has the most direct emotional connection for Sam.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 16:05
|
|
|
Rabbi Raccoon posted:Wait. A bill was introduced to make proposing stricter gun control a felony?! Are you loving kidding me?! Yeah dude that's some seriously hosed up totalitarian poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 16:30
|
|
|
Bass Bottles posted:Watching liberal hero Bernie get called out for it, and Bernie-loving liberal men try to hand-wave it away, is very interesting. His comment on race was another moment like this that's getting a similar reaction. She didn't get interrupted, she got asked to wait her turn, just like she would do if Sanders started trying to steamroll her during her time (which Hillary was doing repeatedly). I don't get it, he did what any politician at a debate would do to any other that tried to jack their time. I understand the lens this show is making jokes through, but I can't figure out how you frame this as anything other than, you know, poo poo that happens in a debate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
IRQ posted:She didn't get interrupted, she got asked to wait her turn, just like she would do if Sanders started trying to steamroll her during her time (which Hillary was doing repeatedly). I don't get it, he did what any politician at a debate would do to any other that tried to jack their time. I understand the lens this show is making jokes through, but I can't figure out how you frame this as anything other than, you know, poo poo that happens in a debate. Well the specific imagery of the finger wag and the phrasing (EXCUSE ME, I'M TALKING) is pretty condescending, especially coming from a man to a woman. It's also apparently a very common thing for women to hear, which is why it struck a nerve.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 17:12
|
|
|
What's the proper phraseology for "cram it butthole, this is my time"?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 17:13
|
|
|
IRQ posted:She didn't get interrupted, she got asked to wait her turn, just like she would do if Sanders started trying to steamroll her during her time (which Hillary was doing repeatedly). See, I have no problem accepting that "wait your turn" is going to sound a little more loaded towards a woman than a man, even if I totally think Bernie didn't mean anything sexist by it. It's really just a matter of recognizing that something you said or did bothered a bunch of people and instead of fighting and telling them they're wrong taking a step back and asking if maybe there's something there you just aren't seeing and if it's really worth fighting against. Adjust and move on.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 17:20
|
|
|
Bernie has some crazy rear end hands and he tends to do a lot of pointing in general, so I think it is possible this was an honest case of misinterpretation. That said, as Bass Bottles points out, politics is all about appearances, and Bernie should have someone coaching him not to do that. The fact that this moment has resonated with so many people (and women in particular) makes it clear there is something to this. Maybe this isn't the clearest example ever of the finger wag as a tool to demean someone, but in my opinion it's wrong to tell people their perceptions were inaccurate. That is just gaslighting, and in doing so, we don't actually address why the finger wag is inflammatory. The fact that debates are usually aggressive in general does not exclude the possibility of sexist aggression in particular. I see this as one of those instances where people in positions of power hear the complaints of the people they're oppressing and try to explain it away rather than doing some self-reflection and asking themselves what led to this moment. It's analogous to telling the proverbial camel to toughen up, it's just a piece of straw after all.  edit: Agreed with all of the above.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 17:22
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:See, I have no problem accepting that "wait your turn" is going to sound a little more loaded towards a woman than a man, even if I totally think Bernie didn't mean anything sexist by it. But they are objectively wrong, is the thing. It was not Hillary's turn to speak, and debates are a fight for time as much as anything else. I'm all for taking this poo poo into account in most situations, but when the actual facts and context of the matter don't support the reaction in the least then no poo poo folks are going to have a hard time taking it seriously and little gut reactions shouldn't trump the actual reality of the situation - Hillary was trying to steamroll him, and Sanders put a stop to it in the same way he would have done to basically anyone. Also, frankly, a lot of folks remember the 2008 primaries, and a lot of what rubbed people the wrong way with HRC back then has reappeared this year. Hillary's pretty much allowed to smear the poo poo out of her opponent, and if they respond with anything other than the most demure reaction possible, the "sexist" label starts getting doled out. It's grating and largely disingenuous, with legitimate feelings being latched onto and co-opted to push a political narrative. Hell, this same poo poo happened with the last debate as well, with Sanders responding to yet another smear with an annoyed voice tone and folks were gnashing their loving teeth over it and telling him to watch his tone. It was ridiculous. I'd honestly be curious as to what a lot of Bernie's female supporters thought of it, without the lens of "he's attacking my candidate! and thus attacking me!" Oh Snapple! fucked around with this message at 18:11 on Mar 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 17:52
|
|
|
Oh Snapple! posted:But they are objectively wrong, is the thing. No, they are wrong subject to your opinion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
Oh Snapple! posted:But they are objectively wrong, is the thing. It was not Hillary's turn to speak, and debates are a fight for time as much as anything else. I'm all for taking this poo poo into account in most situations, but when the actual facts and context of the matter don't support the reaction in the least then no poo poo folks are going to have a hard time taking it seriously and little gut reactions shouldn't trump the actual reality of the situation - Hillary was trying to steamroll him, and Sanders put a stop to it in the same way he would have done to basically anyone. Let's not pretend Hillary isn't constantly smeared for benign "mannerism" stuff, especially with regard to her gender. Claiming that she has the REAL privilege is some "all lives matter" BS. It also seems really silly for people in this thread to try and write-off this joke as filler. Regardless of whether you agree with the message, it seemed pretty clear (though I could be wrong, obviously) that Sam Bee feels very strongly about this. The punchline had a photoshop AND an f bomb you guys............ Admit that you disagree with the Bee, don't try to handwave her message as "filler." Bass Bottles fucked around with this message at 18:37 on Mar 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
Pillow Hat posted:No, they are wrong subject to your opinion. You can be objectively wrong but still react to a situation in an understandable manner. Do the objective facts around the situation support the reaction? Nope. Are there plenty of valid personal reasons, many related to history, that would still make those reactions understandable? Yup. It's a nuanced situation, one colored heavily by conflicting home team biases seeking to push or stop a narrative. Bass Bottles posted:Let's not pretend Hillary isn't constantly smeared for benign "mannerism" stuff, especially with regard to her gender. Claiming that she has the REAL privilege is some "all lives matter" BS. It's real lame that Hillary basically isn't allowed to show emotion, yeah. But getting mad when Bernie shows it is dumb. But what I'm referring to is also not really a matter of privilege - it's one of campaign tactics. And this has been a pretty consistent one for HRC's two presidential campaigns to the point that it's pretty transparent. I...don't recall saying anything about filler? - nvm, misread Oh Snapple! fucked around with this message at 18:56 on Mar 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
Oh Snapple! posted:You can be objectively wrong but still react to a situation in an understandable manner. You keep talking about these objective facts like they're in a peer-reviewed scientific journal somewhere, but my sense is that this whole thing is subjective. You cannot objectively show that Bernie was not motivated by sexism in the recesses of his brain. All men are sexist, whether we want to be or not. The best we can do is try to be self-aware enough to respond to this kind of criticism when we hear it. Learn from it and move on, as someone else said. I'm a firm Bernie supporter by the way.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
Pillow Hat posted:You keep talking about these objective facts like they're in a peer-reviewed scientific journal somewhere, but my sense is that this whole thing is subjective. You cannot objectively show that Bernie was not motivated by sexism in the recesses of his brain. All men are sexist, whether we want to be or not. The best we can do is try to be self-aware enough to respond to this kind of criticism when we hear it. Learn from it and move on, as someone else said. This is exceptionally silly and a ridiculous loving bar to set. The fact of the matter is that no part of the actual context of the situation - again: Clinton smearing Sanders during her allotted time, him rebuking it during his time and then stopping her from taking over and dictating the remainder of that time as she attempted to do - points to sexism. There is 0 reason whatsoever to believe that Bernie would not have responded in the exact same way to, say, O'Malley using the same tactics, or that a woman trying to steamroll him is the straw that broke the camel's back, but that seems to be the implication at work. Oh Snapple! fucked around with this message at 20:22 on Mar 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
Oh Snapple! posted:This is exceptionally silly and a ridiculous loving bar to set. The fact of the matter is that no part of the actual context of the situation - again: Clinton smearing Sanders during her allotted time, him rebuking it during his time and then stopping her from taking over and dictating the remainder of that time as she attempted to do - points to sexism. There is 0 reason whatsoever to believe that Bernie would not have responded in the exact same way to, say, O'Malley using the same tactics, but that seems to be the implication at work. I'm not setting that standard. I'm simply disagreeing that there is an objectively correct analysis here as you suggest. The fact that an argument is subjective does not make it unimportant. In fact, the most important arguments are subjective. But you have to recognize that that is the case and not claim to be the sole purveyor of objectivity in this nuanced topic that everyone will interpret differently. I agree with you that Bernie was probably not motivated by sexism, but that's not really the important takeaway here. The important takeaway is that finger wagging has frequently been used by those in positions of power to demean others, and we should avoid it going forward.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
Actually let me state this because I think I've done an exceptionally poor job communicating my view: The subjective analysis is not unimportant. Not in the least - it is very important, as you more or less noted. My general issue was this tendency to want to push the actual context of the situation - which is also important - to the wayside to give overall precedence to the subjective, which in turn leads to a lopsided narrative about a moment that can't do anything but look bad when full context has been devalued or expunged from the story altogether. It artificially restricts the potential reactions a person can have to it when they hear about it. Pretty much the best course of action for folks in the Bernie camp is to acknowledge the validity of why folks might feel the way they do about what happened while still pointing to the context in which it occurred as to why they personally don't agree.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
Oh Snapple! posted:This is exceptionally silly and a ridiculous loving bar to set. The fact of the matter is that no part of the actual context of the situation - again: Clinton smearing Sanders during her allotted time, him rebuking it during his time and then stopping her from taking over and dictating the remainder of that time as she attempted to do - points to sexism. There is 0 reason whatsoever to believe that Bernie would not have responded in the exact same way to, say, O'Malley using the same tactics, or that a woman trying to steamroll him is the straw that broke the camel's back, but that seems to be the implication at work. You're right that he would have responded to O'Malley the same way, but it doesn't matter. "Excuse me, a man is talking" is an old trope. Bernie doesn't have to be intentionally invoking it to benefit from the privilege of it. The narrative exists in people's minds that a woman interrupting a man makes her a bitch, and his phrasing played right into it, intentional or not. (Probably not intentional, obviously.) He could have tried to be the bigger person and let her finish all of her sentences, then made his point. Pivot to make the moderators be the bad guys if they wouldn't let him finish. Yeah, maybe that's unfair. Maybe that would make him look weak. Maybe he wouldn't get to make his points fully. But the playing field has never been equal, and reverting to the status quo is always the favored tactic of the privileged. EDIT: Just looked in the mirror and saw a Doctor Who gif. Am I....... Tumblr????? Bass Bottles fucked around with this message at 20:52 on Mar 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
Yes, you're tumblr. I feel like this is the kind of dragged out argument about semantics that makes idiots froth at the mouth ranting about "Social Justice Warriors". (EDIT: oh cool, there's a weird forums censor for the abbreviation.) But you gotta love how Democratic debates have people going THIS granular in their discussions, whereas Republican debates are "poop fart lie" and it's par for the course. What a loving joke.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
Mane I'm not tumblr, maybe I'm Doctor Who!!!!!!!! 🙊🙉
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 21:16
|
|
|
Bass Bottles posted:You're right that he would have responded to O'Malley the same way, but it doesn't matter. This stuff is why the right is getting so much traction banging the old "political correctness gone amok" drum again.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
I think we're basically in agreement. The following statement is not addressed in response to what you said, Oh Snapple!, but rather toward the conversation in general: I think people tend to be more afraid of being called racist or sexist than they are of actually being those things. I wish people could recognize that we will all do racist/sexist things. I rarely if ever hear someone respond to allegations of prejudice by saying, "You know what, you're right. What I did was sexist, and I apologize. I will do better in the future." So if no one is willing to admit to being prejudiced, then who's doing all the prejudicial stuff? I think of myself as someone who is very open-minded and progressive, but here's something that happened the other day where I had to recognize my bias: I was riding in the car with my girlfriend when we heard that the new Beyonce song was out. I didn't react much and my wife was sort of flabbergasted that I didn't play the song (we weren't listening to anything). This had come just in the wake of talking about Macklemore's song "White Privilege II." I'm not a Macklemore or Beyonce fan really, but I listened to Macklemore's song just because I was interested in what he would say since I knew it was a song with a social commentary. But when Beyonce's song (also with a clear social commentary) came out, I didn't care enough to listen to it. Ultimately, I realized my wife (a black woman, by the way) was right. If it had been a Macklemore song that had just been released, I would have put it on to check it out. But since it was a black woman, I wasn't as interested. That's a really small thing, but it was important for me to recognize, and I'm glad she pointed it out to me. It would have been easy to deny this since, as I mentioned, I'm just not really a Beyonce fan anyway. And there's really nothing objective there for her to argue the point. But instead I turned it into a moment of personal growth. I actually find Beyonce's new song really catchy and I listen to it regularly. Edit: The right will ALWAYS argue political correctness run amok, and it will ALWAYS have traction. They're very invested in protecting their right to say lovely things. They claim to be every bit as opposed to racism as the left, but I've yet to see a GOP politician criticize an instance of racism against pushback from the left. Pillow Hat fucked around with this message at 21:27 on Mar 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
I'm glad queen bey brought you and your wife closer together pillow hat But don't tell her you were driving around with your girlfriend when you heard it
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 21:33
|
|
|
Ha ha ha ha actually she's my fiancee, but I just think that's a really awful and cheesy word (see: Seinfeld) so I typically either say wife or girlfriend.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
I might be making assumptions here but all the controversy over the finger joke could be related to the fact that up until now all these comedy shows have been run by men, so now Samantha Bee has one she's going to include some jokes that just aren't going to be funny for you guys? Women's jokes aren't all "haha, periods am I right??" there are some like this finger-pointing one which we never really noticed were different until now. So yeah, instead of calling it a filler or objectively untrue just realise that maybe it wasn't for you and laugh at the other funny ones she made. It's a comedy show, of course things are going to be taken out of context for the sake of humour and rage! Anyway, nobody's saying that Bernie's a bad person for interrupting her. Look at the other side's debates, they were acting like a group of angry toddlers and made both Bernie and Hillary look like patient saints in comparison.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 00:01
|
|
|
I'm disappointed that no one's talking about how great the "six degrees of wall street" bit was. I want to like Bernie, but Jesus loving Christ, would you find a way to talk about something else for, like, a full goddamn minute without bringing up wall street and campaign finance.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 05:00
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I'm disappointed that no one's talking about how great the "six degrees of wall street" bit was. I want to like Bernie, but Jesus loving Christ, would you find a way to talk about something else for, like, a full goddamn minute without bringing up wall street and campaign finance. Meh. Every politician does this. I agree that it's tiresome to listen to, but I don't think it's a problem unique to Bernie.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 05:11
|
|
|
Pillow Hat posted:Meh. Every politician does this. I agree that it's tiresome to listen to, but I don't think it's a problem unique to Bernie. Maybe it's that it was almost 10 god damned years ago (jesus christ where did the time go) but I don't remember it being as big a problem for Obama back in '08. Bernie has the tendency to sound like a broken record sometimes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 06:46
|
|
|
RedneckwithGuns posted:Maybe it's that it was almost 10 god damned years ago (jesus christ where did the time go) but I don't remember it being as big a problem for Obama back in '08. Bernie has the tendency to sound like a broken record sometimes. I listened to a lot of Obama back then because I found his voice so soothing during a tough time (those long-form commercials...perfect) and I honestly couldn't tell you what he actually said.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
Pinky Artichoke posted:I listened to a lot of Obama back then because I found his voice so soothing during a tough time (those long-form commercials...perfect) and I honestly couldn't tell you what he actually said. "Make america great again" but with less racism and xenophobia. He didn't live up to expectations, but I only half blame him for that. RedneckwithGuns posted:Maybe it's that it was almost 10 god damned years ago (jesus christ where did the time go) but I don't remember it being as big a problem for Obama back in '08. Bernie has the tendency to sound like a broken record sometimes. Obama's speeches were all mainly the same if you actually watched them, right down to which folksy sob story he was going to trot out for healthcare, mortgage poo poo, jobs, etc. All politicians do it for sure. Bernie is catching more poo poo for it, I don't know, because he's so angry and passionate about big money fuckery and income inequality? Honestly if you aren't, you're not paying attention.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 17:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 17:16 |
|
|
I think it's because he brings up Wall Street EVERY 5 SECONDS. No matter how irrelevant it is, or what question he's asked, he'll take a hard turn halfway through and yell "WALL STREET" really loud!!! I like Bernie but as far as politicians with talking points go.... Bro, you're supposed to have more than one!!
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 17:52
|
|