FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » The "Fox Candidates"

   
Author Topic: The "Fox Candidates"
Sterling
Member
Member # 8096

 - posted      Profile for Sterling   Email Sterling         Edit/Delete Post 
"With the exception of Mitt Romney, Fox now has deals with every major potential Republican presidential candidate not currently in elected office. (See: Romney treads lightly in New York)"-Yahoo News

In other news, if you persist in believing that Fox News is just another news outlet, just tipped the other way politically, and really no different in its maneuvers and justifications than any other news source, you are officially a fungus.

Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SoaPiNuReYe
Member
Member # 9144

 - posted      Profile for SoaPiNuReYe           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
he matter is of no small consequence, since it’s uncertain how other news organizations can cover the early stages of the presidential race when some of the main GOP contenders are contractually forbidden to appear on any TV network besides Fox. (See: Poll shows rocky road ahead for Obama)
C-SPAN Political Editor Steve Scully said that when C-SPAN tried to have Palin on for an interview, he was told he had to first get Fox’s permission — which the network, citing her contract, ultimately denied. Producers at NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN and MSNBC all report similar experiences.

Ugh. This will only serve to split the media between the left and the right even more. How can you expect an outlet like CNN (which is at least somewhat respectable) to cover a GOP candidate with the least bit of fairness when she isn't even allowed to appear on their station. This is just going to result in even more mudslinging by both sides if you ask me.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
I didn't see it mentioned in the article, but two questions: 1. How many Democrats or even more so, high profile previous or potential office holding Democrats, does Fox News employ? 2. How does this compare with MSNBC, CNN, and the others?

Scale is everything here. If they match up with other networks in their employment of high profile figures, then this isn't as big a deal, or for that matter if they individually employ some Democrats to even it out.

I suspect the answers are 1. Zero, and 2. Insanely and utterly tilted more towards conservatives than all the others. But I at least have to ask it.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
James Tiberius Kirk
Member
Member # 2832

 - posted      Profile for James Tiberius Kirk           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
What worries some in the political and media community, though, is that behind Palin’s incessant attacks on what she calls “the lamestream media” is a strategy to de-legitimize traditional news outlets so as to avoid ever facing any accountability beyond Fox.
Well, duh.

--j_k

Posts: 3617 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
Little of this is a surprise, but let's also add Newscorp's million dollar donation to the Republican governorship's association.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geraine
Member
Member # 9913

 - posted      Profile for Geraine   Email Geraine         Edit/Delete Post 
I don't really see how this is a big deal. Why are people so mad about this? I'm sorry, that whole report you linked sounded like a kid on a playground that throws a fit because another kid got the toy he wanted to play with.

People are going to go where they get favorable press. It's that simple. Palin, Gingrich, and the rest of them are going to a network that is known for being friendly to conservatives. They are also appearing on the network with the most viewers.

Why would I appear on Larry King Live when Hannity gets around triple the amount of viewers every night? Why would I appear on Nancy Grace when O'Reilly gets six times as many viewers?

Lyrhawn brings up a good point though. I can't think of any high profile democrats that Fox News employs. Probably because they are all currently in office. [Razz]

Here are the cable news numbers from last week:

http://tvbythenumbers.com/category/ratings/top-news/cable-news

Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
People are going to go where they get favorable press.
But that press doesn't usually employ them. People are concerned because Fox News is an echo chamber that produces dumb people.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
We like to pretend that there is at least a little objective distance between the press and the government.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
And in case there's any particular interest over that last point: media research consistently showed that out of all the news sources across multiple mediums (tv/cable news, radio, etc), Fox News viewers were consistently the most factually challenged.

It was found both that viewers of Fox News had the lowest factually correct account of recent events AND that watching Fox News was, verifiably, a way to cause someone's account of recent events to become more incorrect. Both of these have been methodologically verified from multiple sources.

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Strider
Member
Member # 1807

 - posted      Profile for Strider   Email Strider         Edit/Delete Post 
Samp, do you have any links? Intuitively I'd agree, but I'd like to have some valid sources if I ever try to use that statistic in conversation.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Geraine:
I don't really see how this is a big deal. Why are people so mad about this? I'm sorry, that whole report you linked sounded like a kid on a playground that throws a fit because another kid got the toy he wanted to play with.

People are mad because being employed by a particular news outlet while also continuously campaigning for elected office presents a number of very real concerns over conflict of interest. It may not in all cases be strictly illegal, but binding yourself to one news source as a candidate for public office in order to add legitimacy to a plan to disrupt the ability of competing information sources to report on a political campaign would not, I think I am safe in suggesting, be ethical. Normally one would hope that the public outrage over even the possibility of such conflicts of interest would keep a network or the candidates themselves from attempting to make such a deal, but the situation proves that it hasn't, and your lackadaisical response to the news that it is happening gives some indication of why that is.

I do often wonder for how long Fox can push their false equivalencies on their viewership before the bulk of them take notice of what Fox has actually become. But knowing the kind of training in accepting this tripe the public has been given in recent years, I wouldn't be surprised by the response: "yeah, Fox pushes false equivalencies, but the other side does a lot of things that are just as bad."

Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Both of these have been methodologically verified from multiple sources.
Yeah, but those multiple sources are left wing academic elites, so you can't trust anything they say.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geraine
Member
Member # 9913

 - posted      Profile for Geraine   Email Geraine         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:
Originally posted by Geraine:
I don't really see how this is a big deal. Why are people so mad about this? I'm sorry, that whole report you linked sounded like a kid on a playground that throws a fit because another kid got the toy he wanted to play with.

People are mad because being employed by a particular news outlet while also continuously campaigning for elected office presents a number of very real concerns over conflict of interest. It may not in all cases be strictly illegal, but binding yourself to one news source as a candidate for public office in order to add legitimacy to a plan to disrupt the ability of competing information sources to report on a political campaign would not, I think I am safe in suggesting, be ethical. Normally one would hope that the public outrage over even the possibility of such conflicts of interest would keep a network or the candidates themselves from attempting to make such a deal, but the situation proves that it hasn't, and your lackadaisical response to the news that it is happening gives some indication of why that is.

I do often wonder for how long Fox can push their false equivalencies on their viewership before the bulk of them take notice of what Fox has actually become. But knowing the kind of training in accepting this tripe the public has been given in recent years, I wouldn't be surprised by the response: "yeah, Fox pushes false equivalencies, but the other side does a lot of things that are just as bad."

Wow Orincoro. I must be really uninformed! You accuse me of giving a lackadisical response regarding people that are not candidates for any current election? I want to know where you get your insider information, because as far as I know, none of them have filed paperwork to run in any current election. If they are not a current candidate, there is no conflict of interest. I have yet to see one of them say on the air that they are going to run for office, nor have I seen them use the platform to campaign. They may use it to talk about their views, but that is it.

By your standard Senator Al Franken should have never run since he was on the radio for who knows how many years campaigning! He never went onto Hannity, Limbaugh, or Beck's radio shows. The outrage!!!

I'm not saying Fox is not biased, which they are, but I find it hilarious that liberals don't want to admit that MSNBC is also biased.

Rachel Maddow said last year on her show "“When you get called racist by the guy who says the assassin of Martin Luther King, Jr. should get the Medal of Honor, consider yourself honored. Also, nauseated.” referring to Rush Limbaugh. The only problem was that Rush Limbaugh never said such a thing.

Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
Geraine: You completely missed the point. We already know that news organizations have biases. But it's a step up to actually buy the exclusive rights to report on news worthy people. If Fox were granting plenty of interviews with these people, then it wouldn't be nearly a big deal.

Lets say Obama for whatever reason doesn't run for reelection and MSNBC purchases exclusivity through a hefty donation to the Democratic Party. Now when people want to hold presidential debates what happens? Fox decides they want the venue so they refuse to allow the candidates to appear, MSNBC does the same thing. Both sides say the other is trying to do the American people wrong, and all the sycophants scream and rail at each other. Reasonable discourse becomes that much more difficult.

Think of it this way. What is gained by Fox News refusing to allow the top Republican Presidential candidates to appear on other networks?

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
By your standard Senator Al Franken should have never run since he was on the radio for who knows how many years campaigning! He never went onto Hannity, Limbaugh, or Beck's radio shows. The outrage!!!
Geraine, I don't think you really even understand what the issue is — this response is nigh nonsequitorial. :/


quote:
Originally posted by Strider:
Samp, do you have any links? Intuitively I'd agree, but I'd like to have some valid sources if I ever try to use that statistic in conversation.

There's plenty you can get just by noodling around in Google; it's a trend I noticed since the 2004 election when surveys noted that people who listed 'fox news' as their primary news input were frighteningly likely (over 50%) to misattribute bush and kerry positions.

That said, I'll see if I can't delve into some academic sourcing for this one.

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
By your standard Senator Al Franken should have never run since he was on the radio for who knows how many years campaigning! He never went onto Hannity, Limbaugh, or Beck's radio shows. The outrage!!!
Geraine, I don't think you really even understand what the issue is — this response is nigh nonsequitorial. :/

It dovetails nicely with my prediction of his response actually. I said he'd come up with some false equivalency in the face of actually admitting the Republicans are doing wrong, and he did. But of course Geraine, the fact that the two cases have some of the same elements does not make them even similar. They are not similar. In one case you have a media figure who decides to run for office, in the other you have previous and likely future office seekers making exclusive deals with a media outlet.

In fact, a media personality who decides to run for office *does* run into a lot of danger concerning conflicts of interest, however the fact that he was a media figure before running is not a conflict. He was a media figure, he was not campaigning through his entire career. You might again attempt to draw a false equivalence between Frankin and Palin, since she was in the media before she was an elected official. However, she did not rise to her current level of notoriety through her media role, but as an office seeker and a potential future office seeker. I do not believe prospective office seekers can in good conscience seek out media deals, especially exclusive ones, as a means of raising their profiles in order to get elected. Writing a book is one thing- a book comes out with your name on it, not Fox's, and your publisher campaigns to sell your books as a product, not to sell you. I would have been against Bill Clinton taking the $50 million deal he supposedly asked for from CNN (or was it msnbc?) years ago for the same reason- his wife was looking to run for higher office. In the end that didn't happen, and I'd hope it was partly because Clinton knew it wasn't the right thing to do, or that CNN did, at the very least.

Networks and politicians will do what they do if we allow them to. We should simply state clearly and with confidence what it is we find acceptable. If your definition of acceptable is: "whatever it takes for my guy/gal to get elected," then you're necessarily dealing with a breed that doesn't have much a compass by which to lead.

Since Fox seems to be free to stoop to any level, and it gains more viewers as it marches toward greater levels of inanity childishness than ever before, I'd say that's a fairly good sign that it has no real vision, represents nobody with any real vision, and is gaining that following by appealing to anyone it can get to listen, in any way possible. That's the definition of an organization without a moral or ethical compass. Its popularity is not proof of its efficacy, but of its wanton aimlessness. It's rather the same phenomenon that rightly worried conservatives about the widespread support for Obama's election two years ago- the difference being, I think, that there was the aimless popular movement, and also a very clear and crystalline sense of duty, mission, and ethical responsibility among the people at the core- riding a wave of dubious popular support for the mere idea of something Obama only sort of kind of resembled. There are elements of that same duality in the Republican party, and more so in the conservative movement, but the steers are leading the pack right now- the movement has no intelligible or intelligent voice- only mouthpieces that spew all imaginable garbage to the yelping of their fans.

Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
It dovetails nicely with my prediction of his response actually.

Well, hmm

quote:
I wouldn't be surprised by the response: "yeah, Fox pushes false equivalencies, but the other side does a lot of things that are just as bad."
followed summarily by

quote:
I'm not saying Fox is not biased, which they are, but I find it hilarious that liberals don't want to admit that MSNBC is also biased.
... yeeahhhhhhhhhhh ...
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Occasional
Member
Member # 5860

 - posted      Profile for Occasional   Email Occasional         Edit/Delete Post 
You all have CNBCABCBSCNN for your Democrat talking points. Finally we conservatives have at least FOX (one stinking station out of the many) and liberals can't stand it! Oh the HORROR! How dare a station doesn't bow to the superior platform of Liberal Democratic pooh and lick it off the ground.

So a bunch of Republicans would rather work for a Right Leaning organization rather than the worthless Lame Steaming Piles of Media. You don't like Republicans or Fox news anyway so go watch your own propaganda since you have it everywhere.

Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
1. The idiots who get their news from television deserve what they get.

2. If they haven't actually filed for election to something, they aren't candidates.

3. I'm actually wondering why Romney is a hold out - is it reluctance on his part, or on Fox's? His, right? Because I don't see Fox letting religious bigotry get in the way.

So...I'm waiting for the credit and accolades heading Romney's way for holding on. Go on - I'll wait.

Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SoaPiNuReYe
Member
Member # 9144

 - posted      Profile for SoaPiNuReYe           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Occasional:
You all have CNBCABCBSCNN for your Democrat talking points. Finally we conservatives have at least FOX (one stinking station out of the many) and liberals can't stand it! Oh the HORROR! How dare a station doesn't bow to the superior platform of Liberal Democratic pooh and lick it off the ground.

So a bunch of Republicans would rather work for a Right Leaning organization rather than the worthless Lame Steaming Piles of Media. You don't like Republicans or Fox news anyway so go watch your own propaganda since you have it everywhere.

Thank you for this constructive commentary.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Occasional:
You all have CNBCABCBSCNN for your Democrat talking points. Finally we conservatives have at least FOX (one stinking station out of the many) and liberals can't stand it! Oh the HORROR! How dare a station doesn't bow to the superior platform of Liberal Democratic pooh and lick it off the ground.

So a bunch of Republicans would rather work for a Right Leaning organization rather than the worthless Lame Steaming Piles of Media. You don't like Republicans or Fox news anyway so go watch your own propaganda since you have it everywhere.

I don't like any of those networks. Fox gets singled out for doing things that are especially dirty such as misidentifying party identification when a scandal breaks. Giving firebrands and radicals a soap box to scream on, and often.

But I do agree with katharina, if you get your news from television these days, you aren't actually getting the news.

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Teshi
Member
Member # 5024

 - posted      Profile for Teshi   Email Teshi         Edit/Delete Post 
Oh my, America. You are screwed.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rollainm
Member
Member # 8318

 - posted      Profile for rollainm   Email rollainm         Edit/Delete Post 
That's it. I'm moving to Canada! For realz this time.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
I would like to continue to state that I generally support a Romney Presidency maybe not over Obama for sure but I figure Romney is more likely then any other republican to turn the US around.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Occasional:
You all have CNBCABCBSCNN for your Democrat talking points. Finally we conservatives have at least FOX (one stinking station out of the many) and liberals can't stand it! Oh the HORROR! How dare a station doesn't bow to the superior platform of Liberal Democratic pooh and lick it off the ground.

So a bunch of Republicans would rather work for a Right Leaning organization rather than the worthless Lame Steaming Piles of Media. You don't like Republicans or Fox news anyway so go watch your own propaganda since you have it everywhere.

What's sad about this post is that it comes right after I'm pointing out directly that another user is also falling into the false equivalence hole, occasional.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by katharina:

2. If they haven't actually filed for election to something, they aren't candidates.

Do you appreciate the distinction between "candidate" and "prospective candidate?" Would you entertain the notion that someone may work towards and prepare for running for a national office long before registering to do so? If so, could you comment upon the ethics of someone planning to run for office entering into business dealings with media outlets such as these? It's a hypothetical- none of these people are necessarily *going* to run. I am only concerned about the possibility that they may be planning to run, and that they might be entering into these deals with that purpose in mind. If you find that an unreasonable worry, I would love to hear why. Do you find it unlikely that any of these people will run?

quote:

So...I'm waiting for the credit and accolades heading Romney's way for holding on. Go on - I'll wait.

I don't agree with Romney's policies, especially his social policy platform, but if he is holding out because he feels it would be an ethical violation to enter into such a deal, I applaud him. I think he would be right to do so.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
Sure, to all of the above. But I hope you can appreciate the distinction between "possible" and "actual."

Until they declare candidacy, they cannot fundraise. Once they declare candidacy, they must sever all conflicting economic ties, including that one.

Anyway, my opinion of television news in general is that it is our civil responsibilities and life being used for sheer entertainment, and all of it has as much dignity and worth as Jersey Shore.

However, there's no denying that politicians use the media and media figures turn into politicians, and it certainly seems to me that imposing some of "but you MIGHT run someday" embargo is a spectacularly bad idea, open to thought policing and abuse. You can be a paid media mouth and you can be a candidate, but you can't be both at the same time, and that's good enough. Unless you want to start a huge protest over the political career of Al Franken. I'll wait.

To sum up:

1. Television news is trash anyway, packaged only for the most eyeballs. Why are you watching it? Please tell you're not actually taking it seriously.

2. The line between political wonk and politico has been blurring since 1959. Possibly earlier.

3. "Either or both, but not at the same time" works fine.

4. Exposure will most certainly help them if they run, if they manage not to embarrass themselves. Just like candidates from famous families are helped by their relatives' accomplishments. And former generals are helped by the fame brought from their military careers. And actors and comedians are helped by their exposure. Declaring some forms of exposure morally suspect without going after all of them is more than a little suspect in itself.

---------

Personal hopeful opinion of why Romney is a hold out: He keeps his dignity, since he can't gain any from being a television wonk.

Personal cynical opinion: He doesn't need the money (Palin, et. al. do), not even a little bit, and what he's got is a veneer of authority. He would lose that by the populist appeal and gain nothing, because he's a bit stiff and half of Americans are raging religious bigots.

quote:
you are officially a fungus.
Dude, really? I think political objections are more convincing and more dignified when made by strong arguments and evidence instead of namecalling.

[ October 03, 2010, 08:25 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]

Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geraine
Member
Member # 9913

 - posted      Profile for Geraine   Email Geraine         Edit/Delete Post 
Look, I don't like any of the people that have signed contracts with Fox, nor would I vote for any of them if given the choice. Katharina is right on the money though in that these people are not candidates yet. I would be interested in seeing if the contracts with Fox indicate what would happen if and when one of these people declared their candidacy to an office. Right now they are paid consultants and they have every right to be.

Will it help them? It certainly gets their name out there. It allows people to get to know them a bit better and recognize them. It could be an effective tool to raise name recognition. It turns me off, but I am sure there are other people that think it is a great way to get to know the views of people they may have to vote on in the future.

Sam, maybe you should email MSNBC telling them they are guilty of falling in that false equivalence hole you talk so much about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=MSNBC

Pay special attention to the "Criticism and Controversy" section of the entry, where an MSNBC VP agrees with the observation that MSNBC is the antithesis of Fox News.

Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
The antithesis of Fox News would be an organization dedicated to quality reporting. MSNBC is not that. [Frown]
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Geraine:
Sam, maybe you should email MSNBC telling them they are guilty of falling in that false equivalence hole you talk so much about.

I'm sure that the VP of MSNBC would like to claim that they are the antithesis of fox news, much like a high-ranking exec at Fox News would like to claim that Fox News is 'fair and balanced.'

The statement is full of it. certainly doesn't make anything true; it's just a claim. An incorrect claim, at that. If MSNBC was antithetical to Fox News, it would rank on the opposite end of the tendency towards being a purposefully biased and ideologically loaded channel, and it would be a good quality news network that informs competently as opposed to spearheading misinformation for the benefit of their 'chosen side.'

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2