You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 08, 2016, 10:21:26 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: In your honest opinion, who do you think has the best chance of becoming POTUS?  (Read 26865 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline TaintedAndDelish

Among those other points, how much does her being a Clinton play a part? How much does the idea that she might be part of a "political dynasty" figure into it? Is that something people talk about, something that influences people's opinions of her, or does that pale before other problems people might have with Hillary Clinton? I thought that might come up more often, but perhaps it is still early days and/or I just missed a few things.

For me personally, it was a bit turn off, bit not necessarily a show stopper. This was also one of the reasons why I didn't want Jeb Bush in office (but there were many other reason why I didn't want him). Hillary's case is unique in that when her husband served as president, she supposedly had a major hand in working with him. Some argued at the time that she was the unelected "co-president". Using today's parlance one might say, "she got in through a back door".

Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
We've had strong/influential First Ladies before.  Roosevelt, Wilson (not-so-jokingly referred to as 'Madame President' at least once if the stories are true) - even recently with Reagan, (Barbara) Bush, and Obama.

The fact that she may have had influence over decisions in the Oval Office during her husband's tenure isn't what bothers me at all.  To be honest, I think that looks much better than a First Lady who is little more than someone who picks out the china pattern and attends functions 'because it looks good'.

It's how one uses their influence that is going to affect my vote.

Offline Beguile's Mistress

  • Time flies like an arrow ~ Fruit flies like a banana ~ Elliquiy's Fair-E Godmother
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2009
  • Location: Faeleacanvald ~ The Steeler Nation ~ Home of Lord Stanley's Cup 2016 ~ She won't stay throwed! ~ 48\22-5\1\11-5\7
  • Gender: Female
  • Perpetual Notion Machine ~ 'What if...?'
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Look back to the six terms Bill Clinton spent as Governor of Arkansas and see how much she did for the State she adopted as her home.  She left things better than she found them.  Examine what she did for New York following 911.  She left things better than she found them.  One consistent opinion among many is that Hillary Clinton is a tireless worker who doesn't sit idly by when things need done.  She seldom waits to be asked but jumps in and does what needs done.

You knock her down and she gets right back up!

Now matter how many times she's told it can't be done, no matter how many times people throw her down:  "She won't stay throwed!"Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.)

You don't have to like her.  You don't even have to agree with her.  When it comes right down to it though the race is between Clinton and Trump, no one else.  I'd rather have someone who can be irritating and still get the job done because she has proven time after time after time that she can do it than someone who, as my grandfather used to say, doesn't know shit from Shineola when it comes to doing what is right for this country.  Put 25 years of making things better for children, families and women up against a creepy who ridicules children, families and women and if you want to agree with him and vote for him that is your choice.  History is littered with dictators and tyrants that people thought were great men until they got power and began running things.

She won't stay throwed!

Offline ReijiTabibito

  • Gatecrasher
  • Lord
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2009
  • Location: Titanian Autonomous University, Gate Studies Dept.
  • Gender: Male
  • There cannot be another Fall.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 2
Does anyone remember a guy by the name of Gary Hart?

For those that insist on making me feel old, he was a Presidential candidate from a few runs back.  Told the press 'I've got nothing to hide, go on and follow me around.'  Got caught with someone who wasn't his wife in his townhouse.  Seen his political career lately?  No.  He basically disappeared from the scene for a couple of decades.  (He got appointed to an ambassador position in 2014, and that's the extent of things.)

Now, look at the stuff being reported about the current election.  The reports in the news should have torpedoed a number of careers, and I'm not even limiting this to one particular person.

All The Truth Is Out - go and Google that, and give it a read.  For a quick rundown on it, it's a book by Matt Bai (one of my more favorite Stewart-era Daily Show guests) that talked about the Gary Hart scandal and how it changed dealing with politics in America.  The quick and dirty thesis is that before it happened, personal foibles and other such things only came to light in the press when they were unavoidably public - such as an incident where the police pulled over a Congressman and a stripper jumped out of his car.  That changed with Hart.

What is it that really makes people dislike Clinton?

There's three things for me.

A is something I mentioned already.  She's a habitual (if not compulsive) liar.  I can understand her lying about scandals like what happened with her private e-mail server.  But she's lied, lied repeatedly to the American people, and lied about things that don't matter.  Her name origin.  The state of her finances.  The length of the Benghazi investigation (she said it was the longest Congressional investigation in history).  Between that and her tendency to flip-flop, I don't trust her to do what's in the interest of America more than I can throw the Capitol Building.

B is...I would like to say Bill, but that would be inaccurate.  Technically, it's the fact that both the Clintons are walking scandal machines.  Monica Lewinsky.  Paula Jones.  Whitewater.  Benghazi.  Hillary's private server.  Bill's use of the IRS to attack groups and persons that opposed his policies.  Hillary's theft of White House property (just because you returned them does not mean you did not steal them, Hillary!).  The Clinton Foundation.  I can go on.  To use the phrase that Bill did back in the 90s, you get two for the price of one.  The list of scandals that trail both the Clintons is longer than the Keystone Pipeline, when just one or two would be enough to destroy nearly any other candidate!  Gary Hart and John Edwards were forced out - both their election cycle and public life in general - as a result of theirs.  Do we really want the possibility of an administration that spends more time in front of the Senate trying to answer for their questionable actions than fixing the problems facing the American people?

C is that Hillary's entire career feels fake.  She was the First Lady of both a former governor and a former President - yes, technically true, but she wouldn't have had that experience if Bill hadn't gotten elected.  It wasn't like she went out and got the positions herself, they were gotten for her on behalf of another person.  But I tend to be on the laxer side of writing off people who criticize me for saying this, so let's go post-First Lady days. 

Her Senatorial position in New York:  Daniel Moynihan announced later in 1998 that he would be retiring and thus would not seek re-election.  Candidates started coming out of the walls looking for the job - the presumptive Republican nominee was Rudy Giuliani, since he'd hit his term limit as mayor of NYC.  Now, keep in mind that his position is considered the second toughest governance position in the US, only superseded by the President.  Rick Lazio (the guy who ended up in the actual election), who had served in the House for the entire Clinton administration, ended up being the 'other guy' for the Republicans.  On the Democratic side, you had Nita Lowey and Carolyn Maloney, both NY House Reps (Lowey since 1989, Maloney since 1993, both still there today); Andrew Cuomo, who at the time was Secretary for Housing & Urban Development; and Carl McCall, NY state comptroller under Mario Cuomo (Andrew's Dad) and George Pataki.

Four months after Moynihan announced his retirement - and four days after Bill's impeachment proceedings ended - Hillary announced that she was considering running for the position, and most of the rest of the Democratic field cleared out of the way for her, principally because state party officials worried that nobody had the 'star power' to match Giuliani.  This despite the fact that Hillary had never lived in NY, nor had ever been involved in NY state politics.  In order to address these charges, a house in Chappaqua was bought - costing $1.8 million (this house is half of why I consider any statements about Hillary being 'broke' when she left bull), and she moved in January of 2000.

The campaign was pretty pitched, up until Giuliani had to drop out in May of 2000 for mostly medical, but also some personal issues.  Lazio became his replacement in the race, and we all know the story from there.  It's worth nothing that in the year leading up to Giuliani's dropout, Quinnipiac polls had them within single digits - usually within margin of error - of each other.  Given that Hillary won with only 55% of the vote against the relatively unknown Lazio, it was quite possible that if Giuliani hadn't dropped out, he could have won.

Jump forward to 2008, where she loses in the nomination campaign to Obama, who then elects to make her his Secretary of State, in an obvious move to prepare her for this very race, 8 years later.  In short - every position that Hillary has managed to claim in her political career has been claimed because of, to use the Tennessee Williams line, "the kindness of strangers."  First Lady - lucked into because she married Bill.  NY Senate seat - was considered for the job primarily for her celebrity, which she wouldn't have had without being a Clinton.  Secretary of State - given a cabinet position by the nominee.

There's plenty of ways to interpret this particular chain of events, but knowing what I know now, I'm leaning towards calling it 'returns on dues paid' by the Democratic establishment.

Offline Beguile's Mistress

  • Time flies like an arrow ~ Fruit flies like a banana ~ Elliquiy's Fair-E Godmother
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2009
  • Location: Faeleacanvald ~ The Steeler Nation ~ Home of Lord Stanley's Cup 2016 ~ She won't stay throwed! ~ 48\22-5\1\11-5\7
  • Gender: Female
  • Perpetual Notion Machine ~ 'What if...?'
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
I hope you can face all the people who have praised her and thanked her for her help and tell them they are fakes, too.

Online Cassandra LeMay


... In order to address these charges, a house in Chappaqua was bought - costing $1.8 million (this house is half of why I consider any statements about Hillary being 'broke' when she left bull), and she moved in January of 2000.
It's possible to be low on cash and still buy a house. That's what loans mortgages are for - as happened in this case. It's not like the Clintons showed up with a suitcase full of money to buy the house.

Offline TaintedAndDelish

I hope you can face all the people who have praised her and thanked her for her help and tell them they are fakes, too.

? How does that makes her followers fakes?

A quick google for "hillary clinton net worth forbes" shows this:

Quote
Hillary Clinton's net worth is $31.3 million. Our Hillary Clinton net worth number comes from analyzing her 2015 U.S. Public Financial Disclosure Reports. Bill Clinton has an estimated net worth of $80 million. That gives a combined Bill and Hillary Clinton net worth of $111 million dollars.4 days ago

Gee, I wish I was that poor.  :)



Offline ReijiTabibito

  • Gatecrasher
  • Lord
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2009
  • Location: Titanian Autonomous University, Gate Studies Dept.
  • Gender: Male
  • There cannot be another Fall.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 2
It's possible to be low on cash and still buy a house. That's what loans mortgages are for - as happened in this case. It's not like the Clintons showed up with a suitcase full of money to buy the house.

I can't believe the Times keeps articles from that far back on its active website...still, two things to point out.

A: the down payment on the house, paid by the Clintons, came to $350,000.  The article notes that the money was drawn from their blind trust - which is an asset - but that amount comes to over a year and a half of what Bill was making as President at the time.  This is anecdotal, but in the past I've talked to bankers and real estate persons about buying a house, and I was cautioned that I shouldn't spend more than half of what I would make yearly on a down payment.  Now, this was for your more traditional fixed mortgage, and the article shows that the loan the Clintons got was an atypical type - pay back $1.35 million in five years (or refinance) - so I'm not 100% sure on the rules for that. 

Also, to point out: the terms of the loan basically came out to the Clintons needing to pay back about $270,000 a year minimum to satisfy the loan agreements.  At the time that they bought the house, the only active income was Bill's paycheck at the White House, which was $200,000 a year.  That's not to say that they didn't have other assets - like the previously mentioned blind trust - and investments on hand, but they would have to sell off those investments in order to get the money.

So yes, you are right, they did not show up to the house with a suitcase full of money in order to buy it, but my point still stands - they were not helping their financial situation by buying this house.

B: They did not have to buy this house.  It probably wasn't the only house on sale in NY at the time, they could have purchased a less pricey house.  The whole reason behind buying the house was to help establish residency in NY and deflect the carpetbagging accusations directed at them.

A quick google for "hillary clinton net worth forbes" shows this:

Gee, I wish I was that poor.  :)

That's now.  I was talking about late 2000-early 2001, when they were just coming out of the White House and claimed that they were not only broke but in debt, primarily because of all the investigations done during their administration.  Now they've had a dozen plus years of taking money from giving speeches, book deals, etc.

Online Cassandra LeMay

Reiji, you may have a point about the house and the Clintons' finances. Took me a bit of digging to find an article on Politifact that I only vaguely remembered until now.

I guess this goes back to my earlier impression of Hillary as someone who tends to stay within the letter of the law and the literal meaning of what she says. It's possible she was correct when she said they were broke at the time, if you only look at assets minus liabilities, but I guess that does not tell the whole story.

I am also looking into some of the controversies from the Clinton area (read through the Wikipedia article on Whitewater, currently looking into Travelgate), but looking back at the 90s also reminded me that the 90s weren't just the Clinton years. They were also very much the Gingrich years. Is it possible the Clintons don't just come across the way they might do because of their own shortcomings, but also because Gingrich was pretty good at stirring the partisan pot? As far as I can tell, painting everyone and everything Democrat as corrupt or dysfuntional whenever he could (instead of advertising Republican strengths) was pretty much his MO.

Offline TaintedAndDelish


More info on the the Clinton's finances from 2000, 2001 here:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/06/12/dead-broke-a-deep-dive-into-the-clintons-finances/

Yes, they were broke - they had a paltry 2 million dollars and about 10 million in debt - but they made about 15 million combined after about a year. This kind of "Dead Broke" is not quite the same as what most Americans would call "Dead Broke". I highly doubt they ever had to send Chelsea to bed hungry or collect bottles and cans to pay for their bus ticket to work.  :p

Offline mannik

At this point, I'm pulling for Gary Johnson. So far he's the only candidate that makes any sort of since in this fiasco of an election cycle. In his own words, 'financially conservative, and socially don't give a fuck'

Basically his stance on abortion and gay rights is that its the business of the individuals involved, and no one else's. He thinks the best way to solve many of the problems plaguing the government now is to simply reduce the scope of the national government and let state governments work toward their own solutions...in that way you'd essentially have 50 different labs working and experimenting with solutions to the same problem. Some are bound to fail, but some are bound to achieve a breakthrough that can then be utilized by everyone else.

He wants to cut spending on pointless regulation, end the drug war, and impose term limits on all elected officials to forcibly end the current cycle of politicians selling their souls and doing anything just to get re-elected.

Offline Hannelore Stormbane

(I'm not sure if unapproved people can post in the forum, sorry if I'm not allowed to.)

Setting aside the dubious merits of a 23% flat sales tax replacing all federal taxation; privatizing Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and pretty much everything else; funding private school voucher programs instead of investing in public education or college loans; an opposition to any campaign finance reform; and wholesale support for private prison contractors Gary Johnson's views on civil rights matter a lot less than his views on federal enforcement of those rights.

Offline Vekseid

Posting here is fine. : ) If it wasn't you wouldn't be able to.

Prison privatization is a third rail to me. It is modern day state-sanctioned slavery.

It's one of those things that belongs in the constitution.

No private entity should be given the authority to hold another individual for profit.

Ever. Under any circumstances.

End of story.

Offline ReijiTabibito

  • Gatecrasher
  • Lord
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2009
  • Location: Titanian Autonomous University, Gate Studies Dept.
  • Gender: Male
  • There cannot be another Fall.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 2
Gary Johnson is one of those guys who gets things half-right, half-wrong...and the half-wrong things (to me) far outweigh the benefit of the things he would get right.

We're seeing right now the effects of prison privatization: John Oliver has done a number of videos (Prisons, Municipal Violations, Bail) that touch on this subject.

Justice must not, cannot, be for sale.  For those of you out there who play the game, Shadowrun is a perfect example of what happens when you privatize not just prisons, but the criminal justice apparatus altogether.

Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Throw in stuff like 'mandatory minimums' and 'three strike laws', and it gets incredibly biased as well.  I remember back in the days when crack cocaine was a new drug.  Penalties for using, selling, getting caught with, possessing paraphernalia, etc., were implemented that were much harsher than the corresponding penalties with regard to powdered cocaine.  Now, consider the stereotype of the 'coke snorter/dealer':  Rock stars, business men, people who had no objection to rolling up a $100 bill and stuffing one end of it up their nose.  (Think about that image next time you see a Benjamin.)  And now, the stereotype of the 'crack user/dealer':  Inner city.  Probably African American.  Got a Bic lighter under a spoon in some dingy apartment.  Seems kind of funny how a 'rich man's' drug is judged less punishable than a 'poor man's' drug. 

It's only recently (within the Obama administration) that the sentencing gap has been reduced.


Offline ReijiTabibito

  • Gatecrasher
  • Lord
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2009
  • Location: Titanian Autonomous University, Gate Studies Dept.
  • Gender: Male
  • There cannot be another Fall.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 2
The irony of the difference between regular cocaine and crack is that the damage done to the black community was a bit self-inflicted.

If you go back and look at the various laws that were passed surrounding the harsher punishments of drugs, you'll find that they were supported quite readily by groups like the NAACP and other prominents within the black community.  This makes a bit of sense - let's talk about cocaine vs crack, and the image that Oniya (correctly) used for their typical users.

Powder cocaine users tend to be higher on the socioeconomic scale - her line about taking a $100 and shoving it up your nose is quite correct.  These are people with a lot of disposable income (emphasis on disposable), which for quite some time has been majority white.  The reason for powder cocaine's cost is its purity - when someone does a line of cocaine, that's what they're snorting.

Flip to crack.  Crack is a lot cheaper to manufacture, because it's cocaine cut with other materials (the common one is baking soda, which you can get by the box-full for cheap).  You use only a fraction of what you actually purchase, and (sad to say) you can probably make it with the materials you have in your kitchen, so being Walter White and having a chemistry set is not necessary for it.  For this reason, you can sell it for cheaper.  A lot cheaper.

Jump to the inner city.  If a person there has $100 to spend on drugs, what's he going to buy with that money?  A $100 worth of coke?  Or $100 worth of crack rocks?  More likely, the thing that will last longer before it runs out.  Throw on top of that that the impoverished want to escape the inner cities; with jobs drying up even doing things like flipping burgers, crime looks like a better and better way to do that.  All you have to do is not get caught.

When blacks supported harsher penalties for things like crack, and mandatory minimums and three strike laws, they were trying to do a good thing - keep addictive drugs out of their neighborhood (the Substance Abuse Manual notes that crack is the most addictive form of cocaine), and clamp down on crime via the deterrent method (make the punishment of a crime high enough and nobody will do it).

The problem was that these laws in and by themselves were insufficient to deal with the problems, to answer the causes.  What needed to happen in conjunction with harsher penalties for drugs available in the inner city was a course of action to address the economic factors that motivate people to pursue crime for a living.  (You'll never get everyone to give up crime, for some people just the thrill of going against 'the system' is enough, but you can get those who get involved because they see no other way to earn an income.)  More jobs needed to be made available to those that lived in these areas, but that didn't happen.  Reasons for why vary, but I tend to blame private industry, which basically demanded that crime in the inner city reach levels like that in the suburbs before they showed up, under the guise of protecting their investment (IE, I'm not gonna open a McDonald's in the ghetto if it's getting constantly shot up and robbed).

It's reasonable.  It's also totally bollocks.  People dealing drugs for their income are not simply going to give up their income for a few years so that McDonald's can decide whether or not it's a worthwhile investment to build a franchise there.  The drug war is not a criminal justice problem - the last two or three decades have shown us the error of thinking it so.  No, it's an economic problem, and like most of those within the United States, the only way to solve it is for business to get proactive.  But they won't get proactive, as long as the corporate culture of profit above all else remains intact.

Offline TaintedAndDelish

I was with you up until this point:

Quote
More jobs needed to be made available to those that lived in these areas, but that didn't happen.  Reasons for why vary, but I tend to blame private industry, which basically demanded that crime in the inner city reach levels like that in the suburbs before they showed up, under the guise of protecting their investment (IE, I'm not gonna open a McDonald's in the ghetto if it's getting constantly shot up and robbed).

On the government's side ( whether it be federal or local ), we need to ensure that the right incentives for businesses to operate are supplied. We can't have businesses moving out because it's cheaper to operate elsewhere. On the community side, people can create gigantic disincentives for businesses to operate in their neighborhoods - disincentives that could outweigh an government provided incentives.

Businesses are going to chase the money - that's what they do, and that's why they are there. You can't force them to operate in bad neighborhoods. They are going to set up shop in places that they feel are beneficial to them.

As for "Making jobs", I never really understood this phrase. You can't just "make jobs".  Jobs are the result of a demand for workers. If there's no demand for workers in a given area, then there are no jobs in that area.

Offline gaggedLouise

  • Quim Queen | Collaborative juicy writer
  • Champion
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2011
  • Location: Scandinavia
  • Gender: Female
  • Bound, gagged and unarmed but still dangerous.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
A "You did not eat that" moment. Trump poses on board his private jet dining on a KFC takeaway meal...and using his silverware, not his fingers.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/760299757206208512

Ten to one that once the pic had been snapped, they cleared out the takeaway and the real dinner got in place. (Not snubbing anyone going to KFC but it's just too obvious that the Donald is trying hard to look like "hey, I'm eating the same stuff as you folks" here).  :D

Offline Hannelore Stormbane

I hate that hashtag.  -_- But in this context, yeah, that is a pretty gimmicky photo!

The Trump bump has disappeared in a post-convention poll.

Offline CuriousEyes


Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
To be fair, I had a friend growing up whose grandfather would eat Big Macs with a knife and fork.  And it was seriously funny watching a roommate of mine back in Virginia try to eat hard-shell crabs and barbecued ribs while crooking her pinky like a Victorian at high tea.

I like the Taco Salad picture best, though.  Taken in Trump's office, posted on May 5, when Trump was nowhere near his office, trying to 'get in' with the Hispanic voter block with a dish that is as far from Hispanic as Chicago pizza is from pizza in Italy. 


And he built a wall around his taco.

Offline Beguile's Mistress

  • Time flies like an arrow ~ Fruit flies like a banana ~ Elliquiy's Fair-E Godmother
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2009
  • Location: Faeleacanvald ~ The Steeler Nation ~ Home of Lord Stanley's Cup 2016 ~ She won't stay throwed! ~ 48\22-5\1\11-5\7
  • Gender: Female
  • Perpetual Notion Machine ~ 'What if...?'
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
I was wondering which voters he is trying to court with his fried chicken display and should we send him some information on falafel carts in NYC?

Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Dang it, now I'm craving tzatziki.

I could hazard a guess, considering Trump's love of cultural stereotypes.

Offline Hannelore Stormbane

I was wondering which voters he is trying to court with his fried chicken display
Maybe he's hoping Colonel Sanders will win back military voters disaffected by his treatment of the Khans.  C:)

Offline Beguile's Mistress

  • Time flies like an arrow ~ Fruit flies like a banana ~ Elliquiy's Fair-E Godmother
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2009
  • Location: Faeleacanvald ~ The Steeler Nation ~ Home of Lord Stanley's Cup 2016 ~ She won't stay throwed! ~ 48\22-5\1\11-5\7
  • Gender: Female
  • Perpetual Notion Machine ~ 'What if...?'
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Would that be the Crispy Colonel with the extreme tan doing the commercials from the beach?