The Glade 4.0

"Turn the lights down, the party just got wilder."
It is currently Mon May 20, 2019 7:28 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 64 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Aug 15, 2017 6:15 pm 
Offline
I got nothin.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 7:15 pm
Posts: 11160
Location: Arafys, AKA El Müso Guapo!
We can agree that "**** Nazis" is still a thing right?

I mean, that's still a universal sort of thing right?

_________________
Image
Holy shitsnacks!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 15, 2017 8:17 pm 
Offline
Not a F'n Boy Scout
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 12:10 pm
Posts: 5186
Sure, as long as "**** Nazis" doesn't include nullifying their rights to speech and assembly, nor revoking their right to remain free of assault for expressing their views.

I get the feeling you disagree though.

_________________
Quote:
19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Ezekiel 23:19-20 


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 15, 2017 9:42 pm 
Offline
I got nothin.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 7:15 pm
Posts: 11160
Location: Arafys, AKA El Müso Guapo!
Well, I guess that answers my question.

It apparently isn't.

_________________
Image
Holy shitsnacks!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 15, 2017 10:05 pm 
Offline
Deuce Master

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:45 am
Posts: 3062
Image

_________________
The Dude abides.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 15, 2017 10:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 11:59 am
Posts: 3846
Location: 63368
Sure, **** Nazi's. I'm good with that. Just don't violate their rights. That would make you virtually indistinguishable from those you hate.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 15, 2017 11:01 pm 
Offline
Rihannsu Commander

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:31 am
Posts: 4704
Location: Cincinnati OH
False equivalence.
Wanting to silence someone for espousing policies of genocide, ethnic cleansing or enslaving minorities is not the same as advocating these same policies.

Put another way: Shooting someone for trying to shoot you, (self defense) is not the same as trying to shoot them without provocation (murder)

Furthermore persecuting people for their ethnicity is utterly dissimilar to persecuting people for their actions or the policies they espouse. You can jail people for their threatening to hang someone. You cannot do so because of the color of their skin.

So stop trying to equate the two sides. They are not, nor ever will be, on the same moral ground.

That said, I agree they should be allowed to march, as long as the are subject to the same scrutiny that other marchers are. An armed force of marchers is not a peaceful protest. It's a threat.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 9:32 am 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15603
Location: Combat Information Center
TheRiov wrote:
False equivalence.
Wanting to silence someone for espousing policies of genocide, ethnic cleansing or enslaving minorities is not the same as advocating these same policies.



Actually, yes it is. First of all, it's fundamental in this country that repugnant views can be publicly expressed. Second, the people claiming to oppose policies of "genocide, ethnic cleansing or enslaving minorities" are, themselves, a bunch of violent thugs. We've had various forms of rioting, violence, some of it fatal, by the left for several years now and especially since the election. Every time this happens, it's minimized or excused. The left has been begging for something like an incident on Saturday so they can excuse their own violent thuggery.

Quote:
Put another way: Shooting someone for trying to shoot you, (self defense) is not the same as trying to shoot them without provocation (murder)


Except that we're not talking about actual harm here - we're talking about expressions of views.

Quote:
Furthermore persecuting people for their ethnicity is utterly dissimilar to persecuting people for their actions or the policies they espouse. You can jail people for their threatening to hang someone. You cannot do so because of the color of their skin.


You can throw someone in jail for making a specific threat against a specific person - you cannot jail them for a generalized expression that they think that certain types of people "ought to be hanged".

Furthermore, neither the left nor minorities have any self-referential authority to declare that what their opponents are saying is "threatening", whether that opponent is the KKK or someone of the flavor of John Kasich. If we are going to jail someone for threats, there is a police force to arrest that person, and a court system to determine guilt. When you instead take it upon yourself to show up with a club and attack them, then claim it was all their fault for saying what they said in the first place, you are equivalent to them - you're a thug. There is no false equivalence here, there's a real equivalence.

These sorts of white power nincompoops would not be getting the sort of attention and attendance they're getting if the left and the media weren't pushing such an obvious double standard, and "defense" of minorities that has devolved into outright racism by the standards they claim to adhere to.

Quote:
So stop trying to equate the two sides. They are not, nor ever will be, on the same moral ground.


Except that they are on the same moral ground.

Quote:
That said, I agree they should be allowed to march, as long as the are subject to the same scrutiny that other marchers are. An armed force of marchers is not a peaceful protest. It's a threat.


Aside from the fact that just having weapons isn't a threat (despite all the hand wringing over assault rifles at Tea Party rallies, no one was ever shot) so is an armed force of counter protestors.

If there's an armed group of protestors, there's police to deal with that. If you show up armed to counter protest, and violence breaks out, you're just as at fault.

I don't for a moment believe the left is actually disgusted by this. The left absolutely loves this. This sort of thing is just the distraction needed to get the media to activate it's double standard and completely forget about the violent leftist rioting we've had over and over for the last couple years and get politicians eagerly distancing themselves from neo-nazis and KKK members in a way that liberal politicians never seem to need to do from violent, bigoted thuggery like BLM.

A bunch of Republican politicians get shot, and the media shamelessly publishes reason-defying op-eds about how it was really their own fault. You will find no similar article in The National Review. In fact, what you find is a conservative author both excoriating and ridiculing the idiots that think it's a good idea to march around giving Nazi salutes. But this will get neither attention nor credit - and the next time the left commits some excess, you will find a dearth of similar self-policing.

Conservatives don't want these people around and wish they'd go away for much the same reason people don't like MRAs. MRAs and the alt right have some points about feminists and the left respectively, and bring up some legitimate issues about the problems men face and the anti-white hysteria of "civil rights" people respectively, but we do not need a bunch of reverse feminists, nor do we need an incoherent white nationalist movement that, as Williamson correctly points out, barely knows what it wants.* Rights and advocacy groups on the left have a long history of manufacturing new problems to solve and agitating people into opposing them so they can continue crusading; the right does not need MRAs or an alt right engaging in the same sort of crap.

The left loves this, because now it has fresh "racism" and "bigotry" to combat. Any future leftist violence will be excused now with "b..b..but Charlottesville!" Blame is not a zero-sum game. The appalling behavior of the right at Charlottesville in no way diminishes the blame of the left, and the left has no moral high ground to cry "false equivalence" from. Stop trying to take up the cause of rights for <insert group here>. It's not necessary and hasn't been for decades. All you're doing is manufacturing opposition to the hypocrisy so you can claim there's a need for it. It's political rent-seeking, and nothing else.

*Williamson's characterization of these people as wealthy and middle class is probably not accurate, but while Williamson is pretty good at calling out the nonsense, he isn't the best author at TNR if you're looking for any real depth of analysis.

_________________
"Kind-hearted people might of course think there was some ingenious way to disarm or defeat an enemy without too much bloodshed, and might imagine this is the true goal of the art of war. Pleasant as it sounds, it is a fallacy that must be exposed" - On War


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 9:35 am 
Offline
Grrr... Eat your oatmeal!!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 11:07 pm
Posts: 5073
Freedom of speech is protected, Inciting violence is not. (Brandenburg v. Ohio)

And the Nazi's are generally trying to incite violence.

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 9:54 am 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15603
Location: Combat Information Center
Müs wrote:
Well, I guess that answers my question.

It apparently isn't.


So, if mobs of thugs are not allowed to beat Nazis in the streets, we apparently don't oppose Nazis.

Hmmm

Yeah, this totally doesn't end in the left just beating up anyone they slap the label Nazi on.

Oh wait... that's being going on for over a year, and now when you find a protest with a few actual Nazis and a bunch of other people that just say "well, if we just get called Nazis no matter what, may as well be Nazis" if you can't go hog wild on those people, I that means everyone you disagree with sympathizes with them, right?

This is how it works:

You can say "**** Nazis" all you want.

You do not get to do the actual ****. I get to do the actual ****. That's because I work for the government - in lines of work that potentially involve **** -, and the actual **** of Nazis is for the government to do, not for you to do. If you want to **** Nazis too, take your fat *** down to the recruiting station, or put in an application at the police department. In fact, there are options to do either of these part time if you just want to **** Nazis in emergency **** situations, or maybe just want some extra income and think practicing **** part time would be a fun way to earn it.

You see, we have these things called "laws" and they don't go away just because you don't like someone's views. When the law gets broken by Nazis, we have the police to do the ****. We have courts to decide if the **** was, in fact, justified. (Incidentally, that goes for everyone else as well, when they aren't being held back by people scared of the press's pretense that there's a "peaceful" protest and only a few people burning down CVSs and rioting, while mysteriously not applying the same standard to the Nazis.)

When the Nazis in question live in other countries and do objectionable things like massacre people in camps, invade France, and make alliances with people that sink our battleships and then declare war on us, then the government goes and **** those Nazis as well.3

Either way, there is a process for getting those Nazis properly ****. That process is there for several reasons. One is to make sure we **** the Nazis so they don't **** us. Another is to make sure that the Nazis are, in fact Nazis and need ****. We do not **** Nazis just because some people who studiously avoid the actual work involved in **** have decided certain other people are Nazis and need **** and that any respect for the process or the rights of others means one is a Nazi sympathizer.

_________________
"Kind-hearted people might of course think there was some ingenious way to disarm or defeat an enemy without too much bloodshed, and might imagine this is the true goal of the art of war. Pleasant as it sounds, it is a fallacy that must be exposed" - On War


Last edited by Diamondeye on Wed Aug 16, 2017 10:46 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 9:57 am 
Offline
I got nothin.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 7:15 pm
Posts: 11160
Location: Arafys, AKA El Müso Guapo!
That brings up a good point...

Where the **** were the police when this **** broke out?

_________________
Image
Holy shitsnacks!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 10:02 am 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15603
Location: Combat Information Center
darksiege wrote:
Freedom of speech is protected, Inciting violence is not. (Brandenburg v. Ohio)

And the Nazi's are generally trying to incite violence.


Inciting violence has specific requirements. You cannot make an end run around free speech rights by saying that some group "generally" incites violence.

The case you cite struck down a law for an overly broad prohibition on advocacy of violence in general.

I can just as easily say that BLM or Antifa is "generally trying to incite violence" and not be inaccurate. Frequently, they are. It doesn't become illegal until it's an advocacy of imminent lawless action.

_________________
"Kind-hearted people might of course think there was some ingenious way to disarm or defeat an enemy without too much bloodshed, and might imagine this is the true goal of the art of war. Pleasant as it sounds, it is a fallacy that must be exposed" - On War


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 10:15 am 
Offline
Grrr... Eat your oatmeal!!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 11:07 pm
Posts: 5073
Diamondeye wrote:
I can just as easily say that BLM or Antifa is "generally trying to incite violence" and not be inaccurate. Frequently, they are. It doesn't become illegal until it's an advocacy of imminent lawless action.


And I can just as easily say "I would agree with your statement on BLM or Antifa"

Now I do have a question. I am discussing this with Mus, and I am looking to see if someone knows the legality of this:

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-cha ... story.html
Quote:
“Before the attack occurred, we chased the Nazis out of their park, removing their platform.


Is that Legally permitted since both the protesters and counter protesters had permits?

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 10:31 am 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15603
Location: Combat Information Center
Müs wrote:
That brings up a good point...

Where the **** were the police when this **** broke out?


Standing around not getting involved so that no one could complain they were "having their first amendment rights trampled on".

Perhaps they'd have been more involved if in so many previous violent protest situations we hadn't seen so many people trying to claim that the police were "brutalizing peaceful protestors" as if the people waving signs and screaming totally had nothing to do with the drug store burning down behind them.

_________________
"Kind-hearted people might of course think there was some ingenious way to disarm or defeat an enemy without too much bloodshed, and might imagine this is the true goal of the art of war. Pleasant as it sounds, it is a fallacy that must be exposed" - On War


Last edited by Diamondeye on Wed Aug 16, 2017 10:44 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 10:38 am 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15603
Location: Combat Information Center
darksiege wrote:
And I can just as easily say "I would agree with your statement on BLM or Antifa"


Ok, fine, but in neither case will our generalizations hold up in court.

Quote:
Now I do have a question. I am discussing this with Mus, and I am looking to see if someone knows the legality of this:

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-cha ... story.html
Quote:
“Before the attack occurred, we chased the Nazis out of their park, removing their platform.


Is that Legally permitted since both the protesters and counter protesters had permits?


A permit (and my understanding was that only the "Nazis" had permits, but lets assume both sides had them) doesn't make it legal to stop someone else from engaging in conduct they have a legal right to engage in.

The beliefs of either group are not material, and the characterization of one group by the other is even less so. You can't show up to counter-protest something, attack the other side, then when they retaliate claim it was all their fault for having a repugnant protest in the first place.

_________________
"Kind-hearted people might of course think there was some ingenious way to disarm or defeat an enemy without too much bloodshed, and might imagine this is the true goal of the art of war. Pleasant as it sounds, it is a fallacy that must be exposed" - On War


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 10:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 10:49 pm
Posts: 3441
Location: St. Louis, MO
Diamondeye wrote:
Aside from the fact that just having weapons isn't a threat (despite all the hand wringing over assault rifles at Tea Party rallies, no one was ever shot) so is an armed force of counter protestors.

If there's an armed group of protestors, there's police to deal with that. If you show up armed to counter protest, and violence breaks out, you're just as at fault.
I think it also bears noting that the main weapon of mayhem used in this past weekend's fiasco was a perfectly legal and licensed Dodge Challenger. So maybe ***** about "teh gunz0rs" (I don't know if that has the same ring to it as "teh gayz0rs", but I thought I'd try it out) is missing some relevance.

On another note, why is this guy driving a grey Dodge Challenger, instead of an orange Dodge Charger? It was, ostensibly, a protest with some connection to a statue of General Lee.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 11:01 am 
Offline
Grrr... Eat your oatmeal!!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 11:07 pm
Posts: 5073
Diamondeye wrote:
A permit (and my understanding was that only the "Nazis" had permits, but lets assume both sides had them) doesn't make it legal to stop someone else from engaging in conduct they have a legal right to engage in.

The beliefs of either group are not material, and the characterization of one group by the other is even less so. You can't show up to counter-protest something, attack the other side, then when they retaliate claim it was all their fault for having a repugnant protest in the first place.


As I understand it:
The Nazi shit-stains has a permit to be in Freedom park, and the Counter-Protesters had a permit for Justice Park.

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 11:34 am 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15603
Location: Combat Information Center
darksiege wrote:
Diamondeye wrote:
A permit (and my understanding was that only the "Nazis" had permits, but lets assume both sides had them) doesn't make it legal to stop someone else from engaging in conduct they have a legal right to engage in.

The beliefs of either group are not material, and the characterization of one group by the other is even less so. You can't show up to counter-protest something, attack the other side, then when they retaliate claim it was all their fault for having a repugnant protest in the first place.


As I understand it:
The Nazi shit-stains has a permit to be in Freedom park, and the Counter-Protesters had a permit for Justice Park.


That would explain it then, since if the counter-protestors were chasing the "Nazis" out of Freedom Park, they were obviously there and not in the park they had a permit to be in.

_________________
"Kind-hearted people might of course think there was some ingenious way to disarm or defeat an enemy without too much bloodshed, and might imagine this is the true goal of the art of war. Pleasant as it sounds, it is a fallacy that must be exposed" - On War


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 11:36 am 
Offline
I got nothin.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 7:15 pm
Posts: 11160
Location: Arafys, AKA El Müso Guapo!
shuyung wrote:
On another note, why is this guy driving a grey Dodge Challenger, instead of an orange Dodge Charger? It was, ostensibly, a protest with some connection to a statue of General Lee.


The General Lee was a Challenger. The Charger is a 4 door.

_________________
Image
Holy shitsnacks!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 11:37 am 
Offline
I got nothin.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 7:15 pm
Posts: 11160
Location: Arafys, AKA El Müso Guapo!
Diamondeye wrote:
darksiege wrote:
Diamondeye wrote:
A permit (and my understanding was that only the "Nazis" had permits, but lets assume both sides had them) doesn't make it legal to stop someone else from engaging in conduct they have a legal right to engage in.

The beliefs of either group are not material, and the characterization of one group by the other is even less so. You can't show up to counter-protest something, attack the other side, then when they retaliate claim it was all their fault for having a repugnant protest in the first place.


As I understand it:
The Nazi shit-stains has a permit to be in Freedom park, and the Counter-Protesters had a permit for Justice Park.


That would explain it then, since if the counter-protestors were chasing the "Nazis" out of Freedom Park, they were obviously there and not in the park they had a permit to be in.


It looks like the *cops* pushed the nazis out of the park from what I've seen.

_________________
Image
Holy shitsnacks!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 11:39 am 
Offline
Rihannsu Commander

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:31 am
Posts: 4704
Location: Cincinnati OH
Diamondeye wrote:
TheRiov wrote:
False equivalence.
Wanting to silence someone for espousing policies of genocide, ethnic cleansing or enslaving minorities is not the same as advocating these same policies.



Actually, yes it is.

The fact that you feel these are morally equivalent tells me everything I ever needed to know about you.

Legally they may be, but morally they are not. Luckily morals and the law are fairly divorced these days.

But in the end I Agree they legally and should have the right to protest. That does not make their message equally valid, just equally protected.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 12:04 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15603
Location: Combat Information Center
TheRiov wrote:
The fact that you feel these are morally equivalent tells me everything I ever needed to know about you.


You're not in any position to know anything, or make any judgments in that regard. Your viewpoints are not the enlightened or tolerant things you imagine them to be. This sort of behavior is being incited by leftist hypocrisy and attempts to dress up minority favoritism as equality. People like you are creating this stuff and then engaging in a bunch of chest-beating by opposing it. They are most definitely on the same level, and the self-referential excuses of the left don't change that.

Quote:
Legally they may be, but morally they are not. Luckily morals and the law are fairly divorced these days.


Morally, when you show up with clubs to beat up people because you don't like their views, you lower yourself to the level you imagine them to be at whether your ideas about their view are correct or not.

Quote:
But in the end I Agree they legally and should have the right to protest. That does not make their message equally valid, just equally protected.


Given the actual message of the other side, rather than what you imagine it to be, they are, in fact, equally valid. The fact that the left has identified some idiots that are engaging in bigoted conduct does not mean the left is either standing up against bigotry, nor free of its own. It's neither - and it's often, and publicly, just as bad as what it's cirticiszing.

_________________
"Kind-hearted people might of course think there was some ingenious way to disarm or defeat an enemy without too much bloodshed, and might imagine this is the true goal of the art of war. Pleasant as it sounds, it is a fallacy that must be exposed" - On War


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 12:19 pm 
Offline
Rihannsu Commander

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:31 am
Posts: 4704
Location: Cincinnati OH
Keep digging DE.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 12:38 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15603
Location: Combat Information Center
TheRiov wrote:
Keep digging DE.


It's cute how you say this as if you're in a position to do so.

Or are you making some sort of veiled doxxing threat? I hear your kind is into that sort of thing.

_________________
"Kind-hearted people might of course think there was some ingenious way to disarm or defeat an enemy without too much bloodshed, and might imagine this is the true goal of the art of war. Pleasant as it sounds, it is a fallacy that must be exposed" - On War


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 12:43 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15603
Location: Combat Information Center
Müs wrote:
It looks like the *cops* pushed the nazis out of the park from what I've seen.


If you saw that, then why were you just asking "where were the cops?" :psyduck:

_________________
"Kind-hearted people might of course think there was some ingenious way to disarm or defeat an enemy without too much bloodshed, and might imagine this is the true goal of the art of war. Pleasant as it sounds, it is a fallacy that must be exposed" - On War


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 12:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 10:49 pm
Posts: 3441
Location: St. Louis, MO
Müs wrote:
The General Lee was a Challenger. The Charger is a 4 door.

You know you can look these things up before you post, right?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 64 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group