Home

The silence is deafening
  Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 6, 7, 8 ... 12, 13, 14  Next  Last >>
 
Post new topic       Forum -> In the News -> Politics

Report offensive ad

View latest: 24h 48h 72h


Fox









  


Post  Thu, Nov 08 2018, 1:50 pm
amother wrote:
I find it interesting that Republicans keep bringing up the fact that Democrats hit the streets after Trump got elected and protested and seem to be suggesting that is proof of not being able to accept a loss.

Do you think there would have been such protests if a 'normal' republican like John McCain or another Bush would have won?

Do you really honestly not see the difference? Trump was never a normal candidate and he isn't a normal president. He is extreme. He is populist and nationalist and propagates views that are not mainstream, to put it mildly. So this sparks off a more extreme response. People hit the streets because they want to be on the right side of history. In 50 years they want to be able to tell their grandchildren that when he got elected, they did not stay silent. They were not complicit.

Your post affected me deeply, Burgundy Amother, and reminded me why I voted for President Trump, despite misgivings and concerns at the time, and why I'm so thankful I did.

Let me start by saying that I will be using the term "the left" both carefully and specifically. I do not consider all Democrats to be leftists, and I do not necessarily consider everyone who identifies as liberal to be a true leftist. Unfortunately, I find that a great many Democrats and liberals are willing to overlook the repressive, totalitarian tendencies of those who embrace a true leftist ideology, which advocates for extensive government control and regulation of individuals along with socialist economic principles.

Yes, I remember quite well how the left behaved when confronted with "normal Republicans."

Starting during the early 90s, the left abandoned the idealistic liberalism of the 60s and 70s and became progressively angrier, shriller, and more prone to violent rhetoric. The left stopped making arguments and began to take the short-cut of name-calling.

Aside from a brief spate of unity after 9/11, President Bush (43) wasn't just someone with whom leftists disagreed. He was a murderer, a liar, a racist, a war-monger . . . I remember people being infuriated with me -- and calling me some of the same names -- when I refused to get incensed over John Kerry's defeat.

Many of the people who recently eulogized John McCain as a voice of reason piled on similarly during his candidacy. Apparently he was a racist, sexist, homophobic blankety-blank, too, as was Mitt Romney, another docile Republican candidate.

And then we merited President Obama. I am partially to blame for that. I actually voted for him in 2008 because he promised to address health care, and I figured any action was better than inaction.

I overlooked his bigoted remark about people "clinging to guns or religion or antipathy toward people not like them." I even overlooked his association with Bill Ayers, a terrorist whom I blame indirectly for the early death of one classmate and the dysfunction of several more. I realize now that I was wrong when I cast that vote.

Just how wrong I was became abundantly clear.

There was little need for compromise when President Obama could simply sign executive orders. The "free press" was of little use. Those that weren't sycohantically on board, like Fox News, were quietly excluded, as the article I posted upthread documents.

Where were Jim Acosta's and CNN's outrage then? Where were all the high-minded leftists and liberals who are now so troubled by President Trump yelling at an obnoxious reporter?

For that matter, where were all the kind people who now wring their hands over border separations and immigrants escaping violence . . . back when President Obama's administration was turning pre-teens into cartel informants and sending them back to their deaths? Or arming and enabling the cartels that are at the root of so many problems?

I'll tell you where they were. They were busy accusing anyone who uttered a peep of dissent of racism, etc. They were busy claiming that Republicans wanted to economically disenfranchise people. They were busy passing local laws that increased homelessness. They were busy regulating small businesses out of existence. They were busy dismissing any criticism or argument as a right-wing conspiracy.

But most of all, they were busy being increasingly disrespectful to a large swath of their fellow citizens. They were busy normalizing hatred against white men; people in "flyover country"; and most of all, sincerely religious people.

It's impossible and foolishly arrogant to try to predict "the right side of history." We learn throughout Jewish history that actions have consequences that ripple through generations, and what seems obviously correct in a particular situation may ultimately cause destruction.

I completely understand why you, Burgundy Amother, and others might find President Trump disagreeable and perhaps even repugnant. But I would caution any observant Jew against identifying too closely with those most opposed to Trump. You may interpret their disdain for "Bible thumpers" to refer to Evangelical Christians, but I assure you, they do not. They put us in the same category as those conservative, rural white men.

As the late columnist A. M. Rosenthal wrote about the reaction of secular Jews to the Crown Heights pogrom in 1990,

Quote:
Sweethearts, by you, you are Park Avenue, by your wife you are Park Avenue, but by an anti-Semite you are a Hasid.


By you, Burgundy Amother, you are a progressive who is motivated by your good heart, your innate sense of chesed, and your desire for a better, more just world. To the left and its apologists, you are a backward religious nut who represents everything that's wrong with the world.

It is true that we should be careful not to idealize President Trump or forget that we're in galus, but we neither should we gloss over the ideological hatred that his most vocal opponents have for us.
Back to top

Fox









  


Post  Thu, Nov 08 2018, 1:56 pm
marina wrote:
Quote:
Now, in other freedom of speech news, we have @SmashRacismDC, an Antifa-affiliated "activist" group that organizes on Twitter. They're outside Tucker Carlson's home, chanting "Tucker Carlson, we will fight. We know where you sleep at night."


Fox, the very fact that you juxtaposed this with the Trump administration's revocation of Acosta's press credentials worries me that you don't really understand the constitutional difference between government and non-government actors. Plse assure me that you do.

Please assure me that you understand "in other freedom of speech news."

Let's go over this again:

1. You brought up the point that actions short of imprisonment or murder can have a "chilling effect" on freedom of speech.

2. I then pointed out -- specifically using the word "other" to make it clear that I was not making a direct comparison -- that anyone who is concerned about "chilling effects" on freedom of speech would also be concerned about non-government actors attempting to intimidate journalists.

However, now I see why the murder of journalists in Mexico gets a big yawn from the left -- it's apparently not relevant to freedom of speech unless they're being killed by the government of Mexico. Cartels? Fire away!
Back to top

Fox









  


Post  Thu, Nov 08 2018, 2:01 pm
SixOfWands wrote:
Its not "black" vs "African American."

There's an article "Why Every Racist Mentions Their Black Friend" that explains the point better than I can.

Oh, let's not go there. I remember you specifically mentioning your "middle-class" black or AA friends. I didn't say anything at the time because I figured it was too petty, but calling out someone else on that is really not cool.
Back to top

marina









  


Post  Thu, Nov 08 2018, 2:03 pm
Fox wrote:
Please assure me that you understand "in other freedom of speech news."

Let's go over this again:

1. You brought up the point that actions short of imprisonment or murder can have a "chilling effect" on freedom of speech.

2. I then pointed out -- specifically using the word "other" to make it clear that I was not making a direct comparison -- that anyone who is concerned about "chilling effects" on freedom of speech would also be concerned about non-government actors attempting to intimidate journalists.

However, now I see why the murder of journalists in Mexico gets a big yawn from the left -- it's apparently not relevant to freedom of speech unless they're being killed by the government of Mexico. Cartels? Fire away!


It's like I wrote about a teacher smacking a child and you take the time to note that in other safety news, one kid beat up another. And then when I call you out on your comparison, you're like Uh, so you leftists don't care about safety unless it's actually the teachers who are violent.

In short, no, I'm afraid you don't really see the import of the difference between government and non-government actors, even if you logically understand the difference.
Back to top

Fox









  


Post  Thu, Nov 08 2018, 2:20 pm
marina wrote:
I don't believe that statistic for a minute. Laughable.
https://www.newsweek.com/donal.....ns-1078598

I agree that 40 percent approval is probably high, but bringing Nate Silver's rating as some kind of proof is hardly any better.

However, I think you're missing the point.

Months, maybe years ago now, I made a point about the increase in the number of conservative or at least anti-Democrat blacks. I carefully made the point that even if the shift is small, it can make a big difference in certain districts or in hotly contested races.

Predictably, instead of discussing or refuting my point, I just got mocked. "Keep telling yourself that, Fox!"

But let's look at the Cruz-O'Rourke contest in Texas. Depending on what poll you believe, 13-17 percent of black men voted for Ted Cruz. 90-95 percent of black women voted for Beto O'Rourke. And that's a state-wide contest where an enormous amount of money was spent by O'Rourke to court voters.

Historically, we would expect no more than 10-11 percent of black men to vote Republican. So even if we take the lower figures, we're looking at 2 percentage points. That didn't change this particular election, but there were plenty of Congressional and state races where 2-4 percentage points determined the winner.

If I were a Democratic strategist, I wouldn't care whether Trump's true approval rating among blacks was 1 percent, 10 percent, 40 percent, or 100 percent. I would look at those tiny changes in state and local elections and be very, very concerned.
Back to top

Fox









  


Post  Thu, Nov 08 2018, 2:27 pm
marina wrote:
In short, no, I'm afraid you don't really see the import of the difference between government and non-government actors, even if you logically understand the difference.

Then explain to me, in my woeful ignorance, why you are only concerned about government infringement on freedom of the press.

Frankly, that seems to me to be a complete cop-out. "Oh, let's talk about 'chilling effects' on freedom of the press, but let's limit the debate to a specific legal definition, thereby cutting off any discussion not directly related to statute."

That would be appropriate if we were adjudicating something in a court of law, but you can't insist that conversations on Imamother restrict themselves to legal parameters.
Back to top

marina









  


Post  Thu, Nov 08 2018, 3:40 pm
Fox wrote:
Then explain to me, in my woeful ignorance, why you are only concerned about government infringement on freedom of the press.

Frankly, that seems to me to be a complete cop-out. "Oh, let's talk about 'chilling effects' on freedom of the press, but let's limit the debate to a specific legal definition, thereby cutting off any discussion not directly related to statute."

That would be appropriate if we were adjudicating something in a court of law, but you can't insist that conversations on Imamother restrict themselves to legal parameters.


This thread is about Trump. People are defending him and justifying his tactics, explaining away his first amendment violations and downplaying his treatment of the press. So I am arguing about that to highlight how awful it is.

No one in this thread - or any other one - is justifying, explaining, defending what the mobs did at Tucker Carlson's home. If you find a thread like that, you go ahead and point it out to me and then I will share what I think about those people.

Your post kind of sounds like if I do not condemn every single leftist crazy person then I am condoning them. Is that really what you mean to say? Are there lists of Fox condemning every single right wing nutjob? Did you condemn the bombs sent to political figures and entertainers who opposed Trump? If you didn't condemn them, does that mean you are not concerned about such crimes?
Back to top

Fox









  


Post  Thu, Nov 08 2018, 5:29 pm
marina wrote:
This thread is about Trump. People are defending him and justifying his tactics, explaining away his first amendment violations and downplaying his treatment of the press. So I am arguing about that to highlight how awful it is.

This is the problem, then.

There are two logical directions for your criticisms of Trump's handling of the press:

1. If your argument is that Trump is objectively more awful than other Presidents, your case falls apart rather quickly. Obama abused his governmental privileges far more egregiously than Trump has. Yelling at a reporter; calling certain outlets names; and revoking a specific reporter's credentials may not be decorous behavior, but it's not as serious as using government resources to spy on reporters and their families. Feuding with Jim Acosta may be infantile, but it's nowhere near as problematic as turning down record numbers of FOIA requests from journalists.

2. If your argument is that you care deeply about 1A and the press, then you will be open to discussing a wide variety of potential threats to press freedom -- not just what Trump or governmental actors do.

But there is a third direction, and I suspect this is the most accurate one:

3. You want to complain about how awful you find Trump, and therefore any comparisons or related information that doesn't contribute directly to this goal are irrelevant.

Since it's a little embarrassing to admit that you simply want to vent, people have developed the accusation of "whataboutism," as if comparing one President to another is somehow an illegitimate form of argumentation.

Actually, this thread is not specifically about Trump. It started out about midterm elections, and there was a brief moment where it looked like we might be able to enjoy discussing the political strategies and outcomes without getting dragged into the endless cycle in which every political thread deteriorates into "Trump: Isn't He Awful?! Now Amother Enabled!"

Oh, well! I guess that's what Twitter and Gab are for.
Back to top

sushilover









  


Post  Thu, Nov 08 2018, 5:44 pm
Fox wrote:
This is the problem, then.

There are two logical directions for your criticisms of Trump's handling of the press:

1. If your argument is that Trump is objectively more awful than other Presidents, your case falls apart rather quickly. Obama abused his governmental privileges far more egregiously than Trump has. Yelling at a reporter; calling certain outlets names; and revoking a specific reporter's credentials may not be decorous behavior, but it's not as serious as using government resources to spy on reporters and their families. Feuding with Jim Acosta may be infantile, but it's nowhere near as problematic as turning down record numbers of FOIA requests from journalists.

2. If your argument is that you care deeply about 1A and the press, then you will be open to discussing a wide variety of potential threats to press freedom -- not just what Trump or governmental actors do.

But there is a third direction, and I suspect this is the most accurate one:

3. You want to complain about how awful you find Trump, and therefore any comparisons or related information that doesn't contribute directly to this goal are irrelevant.

Since it's a little embarrassing to admit that you simply want to vent, people have developed the accusation of "whataboutism," as if comparing one President to another is somehow an illegitimate form of argumentation.

Actually, this thread is not specifically about Trump. It started out about midterm elections, and there was a brief moment where it looked like we might be able to enjoy discussing the political strategies and outcomes without getting dragged into the endless cycle in which every political thread deteriorates into "Trump: Isn't He Awful?! Now Amother Enabled!"

Oh, well! I guess that's what Twitter and Gab are for.


Brilliant!

I wish we could have discussions like your choice number 2. I'd love to hear from people on both sides of the aisle.
But whenever a topic gets interesting, it automatically deteriorates into a Worshipping or Hating Trump Fest.
Back to top

sushilover









  


Post  Thu, Nov 08 2018, 6:03 pm
marina wrote:
Quote:
Now, in other freedom of speech news, we have @SmashRacismDC, an Antifa-affiliated "activist" group that organizes on Twitter. They're outside Tucker Carlson's home, chanting "Tucker Carlson, we will fight. We know where you sleep at night."


Fox, the very fact that you juxtaposed this with the Trump administration's revocation of Acosta's press credentials worries me that you don't really understand the constitutional difference between government and non-government actors. Plse assure me that you do.


That is so unfair.
Fox specifically said "in other freedom of speech news" before talking about a member of the press being harrassed. To say that her bringing this up in this thread at all means she is ignorant of the constitution is such a low blow.
Is not being allowed to bring up related stories another new rule? I'm having such a hard time keeping up.

With all due respect, if you think the Tucker story was irrelevant, you could have said, "Yeah, I think it's bad. But I think that revocation was worse" and you could have had a very entertaining conversation. No need to start insulting her intelligence just for the sin of bringing up another story of a journalist.
Back to top

marina









  


Post  Thu, Nov 08 2018, 7:02 pm
Fox wrote:
This is the problem, then.

There are two logical directions for your criticisms of Trump's handling of the press:

1. If your argument is that Trump is objectively more awful than other Presidents, your case falls apart rather quickly. Obama abused his governmental privileges far more egregiously than Trump has. Yelling at a reporter; calling certain outlets names; and revoking a specific reporter's credentials may not be decorous behavior, but it's not as serious as using government resources to spy on reporters and their families. Feuding with Jim Acosta may be infantile, but it's nowhere near as problematic as turning down record numbers of FOIA requests from journalists.

2. If your argument is that you care deeply about 1A and the press, then you will be open to discussing a wide variety of potential threats to press freedom -- not just what Trump or governmental actors do.

But there is a third direction, and I suspect this is the most accurate one:

3. You want to complain about how awful you find Trump, and therefore any comparisons or related information that doesn't contribute directly to this goal are irrelevant.

Since it's a little embarrassing to admit that you simply want to vent, people have developed the accusation of "whataboutism," as if comparing one President to another is somehow an illegitimate form of argumentation.

Actually, this thread is not specifically about Trump. It started out about midterm elections, and there was a brief moment where it looked like we might be able to enjoy discussing the political strategies and outcomes without getting dragged into the endless cycle in which every political thread deteriorates into "Trump: Isn't He Awful?! Now Amother Enabled!"

Oh, well! I guess that's what Twitter and Gab are for.


You can argue that Trump is not worse with free press violations than Obama, and I think that would be a relevant discussion point. But you’d have to bring citations to reputable sources and you’d have to explain why calling journalists the enemy of the people isn’t as totalitarian as it sounds. It’s a pretty weak position, but at least it would be abt government actors.
Back to top

Cheiny









  


Post  Thu, Nov 08 2018, 7:29 pm
[quote="amother"]I love debating with you. All these brilliant comeback and one liners. Smart as a whip.[/quote

You’re quite right about that, indeed I am smart, and also courageous and honest enough to post under my real screen name.
Back to top

Cheiny









  


Post  Thu, Nov 08 2018, 7:32 pm
Fox wrote:
No, she tried to take the microphone away. She didn't grab him.

Now, for what it's worth, I don't think the people who are accusing him of "assaulting" her are being entirely fair. Yes, he got a little physical, but it doesn't look premeditated or done with particular malice. It just looks like he's a jerk -- disrespectful to everyone there, most of all his fellow journalists.

There were plenty of journalists who asked tough, aggressive questions, but didn't attempt to hog the mic or ask more than a single question and a brief follow-up. This is not new behavior for Acosta, who nearly always finds a way to make the story about him.



Now, in other freedom of speech news, we have @SmashRacismDC, an Antifa-affiliated "activist" group that organizes on Twitter. They're outside Tucker Carlson's home, chanting "Tucker Carlson, we will fight. We know where you sleep at night."



I agree with you, and even if he hadn’t pushed her arm away, as he did, he had no right to hold onto the mic when she was doing her job, trying to take it and move on to the next questioner. But everything he does is calculated and designed to draw attention to him so he can make news. Fake news, that is. What a shameless and transparent lowlife he is.
Back to top

Cheiny









  


Post  Thu, Nov 08 2018, 7:34 pm
amother wrote:
Oh please. He did not get physical. No one, anywhere, not even his supposed annoyed colleagues, are saying he got physical. The only one touting the story is Sarah Sanders, and everyone knows it’s a lie. Trump just needs a reason to revoke his pass and he and his WH are lying about this in order to do that. No person with correct vision is saying he was physical with her.


Indeed the very same people who pushed a completely fabricated story about Justice Kavanaugh having supposedly gang raped numerous women at age 17, are the same ones now poo-pooing away a sleazy reporter like Acosta putting his hands on a woman in front of the entire world. Not surprising at all...double standards are their middle name.
Back to top

Cheiny









  


Post  Thu, Nov 08 2018, 7:36 pm
Fox wrote:


I don't see anyone -- anyone at all -- denying that Acosta touched her. The only debate is whether it was a big deal or not. I'm in the camp that says it....


Just read “Lavendar’s” posts, she does indeed claim he didn’t touch her.
Back to top

Cheiny









  


Post  Thu, Nov 08 2018, 7:36 pm
Squishy wrote:
I reported you. Your level of nastiness as amother is vile as amother.


Lol Love ya, Squish!
Back to top

Cheiny









  


Post  Thu, Nov 08 2018, 7:39 pm
sushilover wrote:
Using amother to insult another poster is cowardly and mean.


Indeed when someone doesn’t have facts to back up their positions, they must resort to personal insults. Exactly what Pres Trump is subjected to...
Back to top

Cheiny









  


Post  Thu, Nov 08 2018, 7:41 pm
Fox wrote:
Or, for those of you who are concerned about the chilling effect of President Trump's treatment of the press, here's Becket Adams in the Washington Examiner, back on September 7, 2018:

Quote:
Former President Barack Obama is right when he says his administration’s attacks on the press can't be compared to President Trump's current crusade against the news media.
The Obama White House was far worse for press freedoms.

The former president spoke Friday afternoon at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, urging students to get involved in the November midterm elections. He dedicated a good deal of his address to drawing contrasts between his administration and the administration of President Trump. It was the regular sort of material from Obama. There was a lot about optimism, hope, change, etc.

The real whopper of a lie didn’t come until later in his address when he criticized Trump for routinely attacking the press.

“It shouldn’t be Democratic or Republican to say that we don’t threaten the freedom of the press because they say things or publish stories we don’t like,” the former president said. “I complained plenty about Fox News, but you never heard me threaten to shut them down or call them enemies of the people.”

This is some grade-A, primo historical revisionism.

When it comes to being anti-media, Trump only talks a big game. And, boy, does he talk. Obama, on the other hand, is a man of action. As president, he did much more than complain about Fox News. His administration spent eight long years curbing the press freedoms of journalists of every stripe. Obama was a pro at this.

Trump’s war against the press is indeed ugly and often over-the-top. But let that criticism come from someone who’s not guilty of far worse.

In 2009, for example, the Obama White House intentionally excluded Fox News’ Chris Wallace from participating in a round of interviews pertaining to the president’s push for healthcare reform. Later that same year, the administration officials tried to block Fox reporters from interviewing “pay czar” Kenneth Feinberg. The White House initially lied about this, and many in the press went along with it. It wasn’t until 2011 that the public learned the truth of the Feinberg episode. An internal email dated Oct. 22, 2009, showed the White House director of broadcast media told Treasury officials specifically, “We’d prefer if you skip Fox please.”

The bigger point is that Feinberg was not the only administration official to have his network appearances limited by the White House.

The Obama White House communications director, Anita Dunn, said at the time, “We’re going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent. As they are undertaking a war against Barack Obama and the White House, we don’t need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave.”

That language about "legitimate news organizations" and "opponents" is only different from the things Trump says by degree, not by kind.

In 2010, the Obama administration renewed the bogus Bush-era subpoena against the New York Times' James Risen in a prolonged attempt to determine whether the reporter was the recipient of leaked CIA information. In February 2011, federal investigators were revealed to have spied on Risen. Federal investigators pored over Risen's credit reports and his personal bank records. The feds even tracked his phone logs and movements.

Later, in 2012, Fox was mysteriously excluded from a White House conference call pertaining to the terrorist attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Fox was also excluded from an all-network CIA briefing regarding the attacks.

In 2013, the Obama Justice Department labeled then-Fox News reporter James Rosen a “criminal co-conspirator” under the Espionage Act of 1917. And all because the reporter used a State Department contractor as a source for a story. Rosen was also labeled a "flight risk."
The Justice Department seized the records of at least five phone lines connected to Fox News. The federal law enforcement agency even seized the phone records of Rosen’s parents. The FBI also got a warrant to search Rosen's emails from 2010.

In May 2013, the Associated Press revealed that the Justice Department had secretly collected two months' worth of personal and work-related phone calls made by AP reporters and editors.

Federal officials secretly obtained records on incoming and outgoing calls made by specific AP journalists, as well as general news staff, the news group reported, potentially compromising many sources totally unrelated to the investigation. Federal investigators even collected data on calls made by AP reporters in the House of Representatives press gallery.

In 2014, the Obama administration set the record for denying the most Freedom of Information Act requests of any administration. It topped this feat in 2015.

There are only two actions that the Trump administration has taken that can be compared to the Obama-era war on the press. First, the Trump White House barred a CNN reporter in July from a Rose Garden event. Second, the Trump Justice Department seized electronic correspondences between New York Times reporter Ali Watkins and her ex-lover, former Senate Intelligence Committee aide James Wolfe.

Other than the fact that Obama has an extraordinarily ugly legacy of anti-press behavior, he made some great points Friday. He never actually called the news media the “enemy of the people.” He and his lieutenants simply prosecuted and spied on reporters, all while claiming Fox is "an opponent" and not “really a news station.”

Obama is right to draw a contrast between himself and Trump. One of them has been an actual clear and grave threat to the press, and the other one has an orange tan.


And to quote the OP, the silence from the liberal side is deafening. Double standards abound.
Back to top

Squishy









  


Post  Thu, Nov 08 2018, 7:42 pm
Squishy wrote:
A question for liberals:

Should there be any consequences for Acosta not yielding the mic when repeatedly told to do so? Or should his disorderly behavior be accepted ?


Interesting. I have to assume that liberals believe that it is ok to be disruptive and disorderly at The White House since no one answered.
Back to top

Cheiny









  


Post  Thu, Nov 08 2018, 7:55 pm
Squishy wrote:
A question for liberals:

Should there be any consequences for Acosta not yielding the mic when repeatedly told to do so? Or should his disorderly behavior be accepted ?


Just imagine the uproar if it had been reversed, and a Fox reporter had pulled a stunt like that while disrespectfully hounding Obama with endless inflammatory questions!
Back to top
  Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 6, 7, 8 ... 12, 13, 14  Next  Last >> Recent Topics

Page 7 of 14 View latest: 24h 48h 72h


Post new topic       Forum -> In the News -> Politics

Related Topics Replies Last Post
Lyrics to song 'children of silence', London boys- Yigal Cal
by amother
3 Mon, Jan 22 2018, 2:31 pm View last post
by iyar
Silence, by shusaku endo
by amother
5 Thu, Mar 16 2017, 9:43 pm View last post
Mayor De Blasio's silence/neutrality re Klinghoffer Opera
by Mevater
4 Mon, Oct 20 2014, 7:36 pm View last post
by Kfar
Do YOU want a minutes silence at the Olympics? 2 Fri, Jul 20 2012, 3:52 pm View last post
Movie/ trapped in silence 1 Thu, Jul 07 2011, 9:32 pm View last post

Jump to:  





Report offensive ad