Conquer Club

Did conservative pundits con their base?

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Did they?

 
Total votes : 0

Did conservative pundits con their base?

Postby Symmetry on Wed Nov 07, 2012 9:46 pm

How Conservative Media Lost to the MSM and Failed the Rank and File


Link

On the biggest political story of the year, the conservative media just got its ass handed to it by the mainstream media. And movement conservatives, who believe the MSM is more biased and less rigorous than their alternatives, have no way to explain how their trusted outlets got it wrong, while the New York Times got it right. Hint: The Times hired the most rigorous forecaster it could find.

It ought to be an eye-opening moment.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
User avatar
Sergeant Symmetry
 
Posts: 9255
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:49 am

Re: Did conservative pundits con their base?

Postby Night Strike on Wed Nov 07, 2012 10:29 pm

The MSM won because they promoted and protected their preferred candidate. If they had even spent 10% of the time covering one event (Benghazi and its coverup) that conservative media covered, Obama would not have won. And that was only the most recent protection they have offered Obama. I'm curious to know what will happen these next 4 years now that they don't have to protect his reelection chances. Although I doubt they'll actually become the media that actually asks tough questions like they did under Bush.
Image
User avatar
Major Night Strike
 
Posts: 8512
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:52 pm

Re: Did conservative pundits con their base?

Postby Metsfanmax on Wed Nov 07, 2012 10:32 pm

Night Strike wrote:Although I doubt they'll actually become the media that actually asks tough questions like they did under Bush.


Funniest quote of the week.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm

Re: Did conservative pundits con their base?

Postby Symmetry on Wed Nov 07, 2012 10:35 pm

Night Strike wrote:The MSM won because they promoted and protected their preferred candidate. If they had even spent 10% of the time covering one event (Benghazi and its coverup) that conservative media covered, Obama would not have won. And that was only the most recent protection they have offered Obama. I'm curious to know what will happen these next 4 years now that they don't have to protect his reelection chances. Although I doubt they'll actually become the media that actually asks tough questions like they did under Bush.


Meh- Nate Silver was spot on on all 50 states for the NyTimes just by doing the maths. He predicted the Tea Party success in 2010, and got all but one state wrong in 2008.

The conservative media were the wrong pundits.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
User avatar
Sergeant Symmetry
 
Posts: 9255
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:49 am

Re: Did conservative pundits con their base?

Postby Metsfanmax on Wed Nov 07, 2012 10:49 pm

The answer is yes. I saw absurd claims by conservative pundits saying Romney would get as many as 320 electoral votes. These people fail at basic statistics and should stop making predictions.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm

Re: Did conservative pundits con their base?

Postby Bones2484 on Wed Nov 07, 2012 10:54 pm

I was ridiculed by a few "friends" when I sent them links to fivethirtyeight on Monday evening. The 50 for 50 made my day.
User avatar
Major Bones2484
 
Posts: 2307
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 11:24 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA (G1)

Re: Did conservative pundits con their base?

Postby thegreekdog on Wed Nov 07, 2012 10:55 pm

The article is accurate, except when it refers to the conservatives mentioned in the article as the "conservative media." Symm got it right by referring to these people as "conservative pundits." The article lists, for example, Dick Morris, George Will, Michael Barone, Joe Scarborough, Peggy Noonan, and Karl Rove. All of these people are pundits or editorialists, not "reporters." Their ultimate goal is to make a biased argument. He refers to Morris as an "ideological hack" and Noonan as an "anecdotal impressionist." Good adjectives, but evidence that these people are pundits. It's like if we criticize Phatscotty's predictions as woefully inaccurate and identify him as a member of the media.

In any event, the same could be said of the liberal pundits (the Rachel Maddows of the world) on the other side. Except they got it right in the end.

What is troublesome (if you're a conservative) is the blind following the pundits have for Romney. The only "conservative" pundit I listened to that took a more realistic approach to Romney was Mike Church, who most conservatives don't even know. Everyone else was solidly in the bank for Romney. It was like they could hear no criticism. After Romney was nominated, I decided to listen to some conservative talk radio for a couple of days. I heard conservatives call in and get lambasted when they were not supportive of Romney. That's a problem.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7245
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Did conservative pundits con their base?

Postby patrickaa317 on Wed Nov 07, 2012 11:00 pm

thegreekdog wrote:
What is troublesome (if you're a conservative) is the blind following the pundits have for Romney. The only "conservative" pundit I listened to that took a more realistic approach to Romney was Mike Church, who most conservatives don't even know. Everyone else was solidly in the bank for Romney. It was like they could hear no criticism. After Romney was nominated, I decided to listen to some conservative talk radio for a couple of days. I heard conservatives call in and get lambasted when they were not supportive of Romney. That's a problem.


Mike Church is a great voice. I cancelled my Sirius a couple years ago and have almost started back up several times so I could listen to him.
taking a break from cc, will be back sometime in the future.
User avatar
Sergeant patrickaa317
 
Posts: 2269
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2009 5:10 pm

Re: Did conservative pundits con their base?

Postby Ray Rider on Wed Nov 07, 2012 11:31 pm

Symmetry wrote:
How Conservative Media Lost to the MSM and Failed the Rank and File


Link

On the biggest political story of the year, the conservative media just got its ass handed to it by the mainstream media. And movement conservatives, who believe the MSM is more biased and less rigorous than their alternatives, have no way to explain how their trusted outlets got it wrong, while the New York Times got it right. Hint: The Times hired the most rigorous forecaster it could find.

It ought to be an eye-opening moment.

I don't find it too surprising that the professional forecasters would get it right as opposed to generally uneducated (at least in the field of statistics) pundits. However I do wonder how so many of them could've gotten it so wrong. One of my main sources for conservative viewpoints when I get tired of only seeing one side of issues in the MSM is PJTV online. I checked out their predictions just before the election and was surprised to see that nearly all of their main commentators were forecasting a Romney win, and most were guessing it would be by a large margin. I was quite disappointed with them and they're going to be eating crow now.

However to throw in the other side of the story, I do believe the media continued to go easy on Obama while hammering Romney on the smallest details, and this too had an effect on the the election. One clear example of this (imho) was the criticism the Romney campaign faced regarding the lack of details in his plan. Now I'm not saying it wasn't justified; however Obama had much fewer details in 2008 and yet wasn't hammered hard about it. Another example would be the economy; George W. Bush was criticized over the economy in 2004 twice as much as Obama in 2012 even though the economy was much better back then. Other examples would be what appears to be a cover-up on Benghazi, glossing over the Fast and Furious scandal, California's unemployment stats not being included in the latest jobs report, etc. Now I'll freely admit that I don't know how true these stories are; or if if they are, who should shoulder most of the blame; however that's largely because I've hardly heard anything about them from the major media outlets. They aren't doing their job. In addition, some of the largest issues facing America weren't brought to the forefront of the debate; issues such as the NDAA, the Patriot Act, the action in Libya without a declaration of war or congressional approval, etc. These are major issues which were almost entirely avoided throughout the whole election.

thegreekdog wrote:The article is accurate, except when it refers to the conservatives mentioned in the article as the "conservative media." Symm got it right by referring to these people as "conservative pundits." The article lists, for example, Dick Morris, George Will, Michael Barone, Joe Scarborough, Peggy Noonan, and Karl Rove. All of these people are pundits or editorialists, not "reporters." Their ultimate goal is to make a biased argument. He refers to Morris as an "ideological hack" and Noonan as an "anecdotal impressionist." Good adjectives, but evidence that these people are pundits. It's like if we criticize Phatscotty's predictions as woefully inaccurate and identify him as a member of the media.

In any event, the same could be said of the liberal pundits (the Rachel Maddows of the world) on the other side. Except they got it right in the end.

What is troublesome (if you're a conservative) is the blind following the pundits have for Romney. The only "conservative" pundit I listened to that took a more realistic approach to Romney was Mike Church, who most conservatives don't even know. Everyone else was solidly in the bank for Romney. It was like they could hear no criticism. After Romney was nominated, I decided to listen to some conservative talk radio for a couple of days. I heard conservatives call in and get lambasted when they were not supportive of Romney. That's a problem.

I agree with everything you said here. I was pretty surprised when it seemed like all the conservatives jumped on the Romney bandwagon even though he was the last-ditch nominee after every other candidate had been tried and failed. He carried with him a lot of baggage and was a big-government politician same as Obama, and yet many conservatives didn't seem to blink an eye when jumping to support him (we all witnessed the transformation of PS before our very eyes). I personally think a huge opportunity was missed here; when faced with two disappointing presidential candidates, if those dissatisfied with the status quo (especially conservatives, libertarians, and small government advocates as a whole) had thrown their support behind a 3rd party candidate, that could've had a game-changing effect on the next election down the road. Instead, two billions dollars and months of campaigning went down the drain with absolutely no change on the horizon. This election (and the opportunity for change in the next election) was completely wasted. How long must this continue?
Image
Image
Highest score: 2221
User avatar
Major Ray Rider
 
Posts: 422
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 9:21 pm
Location: In front of my computer, duh!

Re: Did conservative pundits con their base?

Postby thegreekdog on Wed Nov 07, 2012 11:35 pm

Ray Rider wrote:I agree with everything you said here. I was pretty surprised when it seemed like all the conservatives jumped on the Romney bandwagon even though he was the last-ditch nominee after every other candidate had been tried and failed. He carried with him a lot of baggage and was a big-government politician same as Obama, and yet many conservatives didn't seem to blink an eye when jumping to support him (we all witnessed the transformation of PS before our very eyes). I personally think a huge opportunity was missed here; when faced with two disappointing presidential candidates, if those dissatisfied with the status quo (especially conservatives, libertarians, and small government advocates as a whole) had thrown their support behind a 3rd party candidate, that could've had a game-changing effect on the next election down the road. Instead, two billions dollars and months of campaigning went down the drain with absolutely no change on the horizon. This election (and the opportunity for change in the next election) was completely wasted. How long must this continue?


I agree completely.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7245
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Did conservative pundits con their base?

Postby Symmetry on Wed Nov 07, 2012 11:41 pm

I'm generally sceptical of media bias, not quite so paranoid as to call the MSM inherently liberal- when conservatives have the biggest cable news network with Fox, the biggest newspaper with the WSJ, and dominate radio, it's tough to complain about liberal media as the problem.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
User avatar
Sergeant Symmetry
 
Posts: 9255
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:49 am

Re: Did conservative pundits con their base?

Postby MegaProphet on Thu Nov 08, 2012 12:23 am

Symmetry wrote:I'm generally sceptical of media bias, not quite so paranoid as to call the MSM inherently liberal- when conservatives have the biggest cable news network with Fox, the biggest newspaper with the WSJ, and dominate radio, it's tough to complain about liberal media as the problem.

If conservative media were a check for liberal media maybe it'd balance itself out, yet even the conservative faction won't report on this...

Ray Rider wrote:However to throw in the other side of the story, I do believe the media continued to go easy on Obama while hammering Romney on the smallest details, and this too had an effect on the the election. One clear example of this (imho) was the criticism the Romney campaign faced regarding the lack of details in his plan. Now I'm not saying it wasn't justified; however Obama had much fewer details in 2008 and yet wasn't hammered hard about it. Another example would be the economy; George W. Bush was criticized over the economy in 2004 twice as much as Obama in 2012 even though the economy was much better back then. Other examples would be what appears to be a cover-up on Benghazi, glossing over the Fast and Furious scandal, California's unemployment stats not being included in the latest jobs report, etc. Now I'll freely admit that I don't know how true these stories are; or if if they are, who should shoulder most of the blame; however that's largely because I've hardly heard anything about them from the major media outlets. They aren't doing their job. In addition, some of the largest issues facing America weren't brought to the forefront of the debate; issues such as the NDAA, the Patriot Act, the action in Libya without a declaration of war or congressional approval, etc. These are major issues which were almost entirely avoided throughout the whole election.
User avatar
Corporal MegaProphet
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 1:12 pm

Re: Did conservative pundits con their base?

Postby Symmetry on Thu Nov 08, 2012 1:16 am

I suspect the they have a higher bullshit filter than the conservative media wants when accusing them of being too liberal. Loud complaints about liberal media really don't explain the cognitive dissonance that saw the conservative media predict Romney winning by a landslide.

Ray going back to Fox news in his quote- dude- it's an example of a man going back to his unreliable source for more unreliable analysis. They predicted a bunch of unreliable analysis, then blame smaller news channels for being accurate.

What's going on there? Did they think that innacurate reporting might have swing?
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
User avatar
Sergeant Symmetry
 
Posts: 9255
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:49 am

Re: Did conservative pundits con their base?

Postby Night Strike on Thu Nov 08, 2012 7:47 am

Metsfanmax wrote:The answer is yes. I saw absurd claims by conservative pundits saying Romney would get as many as 320 electoral votes. These people fail at basic statistics and should stop making predictions.


And if Romney had done ~2 percent better in Florida, Virginia, Ohio, and 1 or 2 other states, he would have been over 300 electoral votes. It wasn't like Obama won these states by as large of margins as in 2008; he squeaked them out and the electoral college made his victory look more decisive than the reality of it.

Furthermore, most of the conservative pundits believed the 2008 demographics were outliers, especially since those demographics returned to past levels in the 2010 election, so they had based their predictions on averaging the past several elections together, accounting for the big change in 2008 but not giving it heavy weight. It turned out that 2008 wasn't an outlier, which is why Obama narrowly won.
Image
User avatar
Major Night Strike
 
Posts: 8512
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:52 pm

Re: Did conservative pundits con their base?

Postby thegreekdog on Thu Nov 08, 2012 9:22 am

I read an editorial (I think from Fox) on how the mainstream media cost Romney the election. While I think this is mostly about putting their heads in the sand, it is interesting to read the thoughts.

For example, there were two weeks of regular news commentary on the 47% comment. And I think that's valid. But, as a counterpoint, there was virtually no mention at all of the Benghazi fiasco, which I think is reportable news that shows poorly on the president.

As another example (and something I've brought up a number of times on this form), there was a lot of focus on the lack of detail (or "lies") of Romney/Ryan regarding their fiscal and tax plans. There was no focus on the Obama fiscal and tax plans, which were similarly lacking in detail.

I tended to watch more mainstream media than not, and I didn't see a lot of reporting on any of the negative Obama items. I suspect a study will be done in the near future that shows that the mainstream media was more in bed with Obama, similar to what was done in 2008.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7245
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Did conservative pundits con their base?

Postby oVo on Thu Nov 08, 2012 10:05 am

Night Strike wrote:The MSM won because they promoted and protected their preferred candidate. If they had even spent 10% of the time covering one event (Benghazi and its coverup) that conservative media covered, Obama would not have won. And that was only the most recent protection they have offered Obama. I'm curious to know what will happen these next 4 years now that they don't have to protect his reelection chances.

Total BS and not why Obama prevailed. The conservative media "hoped" the Benghazi attack would be a bigger story and they did all they could to blow it out of proportion.

Night Strike wrote:Although I doubt they'll actually become the media that actually asks tough questions like they did under Bush.

Bush wasn't even held accountable for his actions,
so what tough questions were there?

In fact, where has the GOP been hiding Bush this entire election season? and why?
User avatar
Major oVo
 
Posts: 3864
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 1:41 pm
Location: Antarctica

Re: Did conservative pundits con their base?

Postby thegreekdog on Thu Nov 08, 2012 10:29 am

oVo wrote:
Night Strike wrote:The MSM won because they promoted and protected their preferred candidate. If they had even spent 10% of the time covering one event (Benghazi and its coverup) that conservative media covered, Obama would not have won. And that was only the most recent protection they have offered Obama. I'm curious to know what will happen these next 4 years now that they don't have to protect his reelection chances.

Total BS and not why Obama prevailed. The conservative media "hoped" the Benghazi attack would be a bigger story and they did all they could to blow it out of proportion.

Night Strike wrote:Although I doubt they'll actually become the media that actually asks tough questions like they did under Bush.

Bush wasn't even held accountable for his actions,
so what tough questions were there?

In fact, where has the GOP been hiding Bush this entire election season? and why?


Bush wasn't held accountable? You'll have to explain that one to me.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7245
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Did conservative pundits con their base?

Postby Metsfanmax on Thu Nov 08, 2012 10:36 am

Night Strike wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:The answer is yes. I saw absurd claims by conservative pundits saying Romney would get as many as 320 electoral votes. These people fail at basic statistics and should stop making predictions.


And if Romney had done ~2 percent better in Florida, Virginia, Ohio, and 1 or 2 other states, he would have been over 300 electoral votes. It wasn't like Obama won these states by as large of margins as in 2008; he squeaked them out and the electoral college made his victory look more decisive than the reality of it.


OK, but he didn't, and the people who understood the statistics made clear that doing 2 percent better in enough states to win was unlikely. Doing 2 percent better in Florida? If that was all Romney needed to win, they would have been more justified. But doing better than polls predicted in 4-8 swing states? Statistically, that's an outlier. I don't blame conservatives for saying Romney had a chance of winning; I blame conservatives like George Will, who actually predicted on Monday that Romney would get 321 electoral votes. There's no reasoning in that. Just punditry.

Furthermore, most of the conservative pundits believed the 2008 demographics were outliers, especially since those demographics returned to past levels in the 2010 election, so they had based their predictions on averaging the past several elections together, accounting for the big change in 2008 but not giving it heavy weight. It turned out that 2008 wasn't an outlier, which is why Obama narrowly won.


The problem with the pundits is that time and again, their gut feelings on how things will turn out end up being proven for what they are, which is just a hunch with no scientific basis behind it. They don't get it right more than half the time.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm

Re: Did conservative pundits con their base?

Postby AndyDufresne on Thu Nov 08, 2012 10:44 am

I think David Brooks (Of the NY Times, of PBS Newshour) spoke pretty clearly since the start of the election season, and even in the years before, about his thoughts regarding the direction and possibilities of the Republican Party.

In one of his most recent editorials he came back to a line he wrote a while ago, I think due to the changing demographic and social views of America:

Writing from South Carolina last January about the race for the Republican presidential nomination, New York Times columnist David Brooks observed:

“Republican audiences this year want a restoration. America once had strong values, they believe, but we have gone astray. We’ve got to go back and rediscover what we had. Heads nod enthusiastically every time a candidate touches this theme.

“I agree with the sentiment, but it makes for an incredibly backward-looking campaign. I sometimes wonder if the Republican Party has become the receding roar of white America as it pines for a way of life that will never return.”


--Andy
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class AndyDufresne
 
Posts: 24919
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 8:22 pm
Location: A Banana Palm in Zihuatanejo

Re: Did conservative pundits con their base?

Postby thegreekdog on Thu Nov 08, 2012 10:46 am

AndyDufresne wrote:I think David Brooks (Of the NY Times, of PBS Newshour) spoke pretty clearly since the start of the election season, and even in the years before, about his thoughts regarding the direction and possibilities of the Republican Party.

In one of his most recent editorials he came back to a line he wrote a while ago, I think due to the changing demographic and social views of America:

Writing from South Carolina last January about the race for the Republican presidential nomination, New York Times columnist David Brooks observed:

“Republican audiences this year want a restoration. America once had strong values, they believe, but we have gone astray. We’ve got to go back and rediscover what we had. Heads nod enthusiastically every time a candidate touches this theme.

“I agree with the sentiment, but it makes for an incredibly backward-looking campaign. I sometimes wonder if the Republican Party has become the receding roar of white America as it pines for a way of life that will never return.”


--Andy


I wonder if white people who voted Democrat ever get offended by things like this.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7245
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Did conservative pundits con their base?

Postby AndyDufresne on Thu Nov 08, 2012 10:47 am

I don't know. I've never really seen people mad at David Brooks. He's too calm and cool and collected. Ha.


--Andy
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class AndyDufresne
 
Posts: 24919
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 8:22 pm
Location: A Banana Palm in Zihuatanejo

Re: Did conservative pundits con their base?

Postby comic boy on Thu Nov 08, 2012 12:01 pm

The problem is not media bias , it is that too many of the electorate seek confirmation bias rather than a balanced appraisal . For the past year I followed US politics via the BBC ( left leaning ) and balanced it out by reading the very right wing Mail and Telegraph , as a check I kept an eye on the bookmaker odds because they have zero bias .
As a result I predicted early on that Romney would win the Republican nomination but fail to become President , the later was purely a deductive process based as much as anything on the blindingly obvious fact that the Republican party was hugely divided.
Im a TOFU miSfit
User avatar
Brigadier comic boy
 
Posts: 1738
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 3:54 pm
Location: London

Re: Did conservative pundits con their base?

Postby oVo on Thu Nov 08, 2012 12:08 pm

Night Strike wrote:And if Romney had done ~2 percent better in Florida, Virginia, Ohio, and 1 or 2 other states, he would have been over 300 electoral votes. It wasn't like Obama won these states by as large of margins as in 2008; he squeaked them out and the electoral college made his victory look more decisive than the reality of it.


Mitt Romney lost his home state of Massachusetts 60% to 40% (as well as the NE states by similar margins). Ryan won his House seat but lost the presidential vote in his hometown & state.

Still conservative groups promote BS like this.
User avatar
Major oVo
 
Posts: 3864
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 1:41 pm
Location: Antarctica

Re: Did conservative pundits con their base?

Postby InkL0sed on Thu Nov 08, 2012 12:29 pm

Night Strike wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:The answer is yes. I saw absurd claims by conservative pundits saying Romney would get as many as 320 electoral votes. These people fail at basic statistics and should stop making predictions.


And if Romney had done ~2 percent better in Florida, Virginia, Ohio, and 1 or 2 other states, he would have been over 300 electoral votes. It wasn't like Obama won these states by as large of margins as in 2008; he squeaked them out and the electoral college made his victory look more decisive than the reality of it.


Just because Obama won by a couple percentage points in those states doesn't mean the race could have easily gone the other way. He had a lead by a couple percentage points in most swing states for the entire campaign. Those marginal percentage points, in most elections but especially this one, are the hardest to get.
User avatar
Lieutenant InkL0sed
 
Posts: 2370
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2007 4:06 pm
Location: underwater

Re: Did conservative pundits con their base?

Postby Army of GOD on Thu Nov 08, 2012 12:39 pm

THE ELECTIONS OVER STOP WITH THE GOD DAMN POLITICAL THREADS
mrswdk is a ho
User avatar
Lieutenant Army of GOD
 
Posts: 7187
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 4:30 pm

Next

Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users