Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Tue Sep 22 15:54:41 2020

Utopia Talk / Politics / Americans confuse Norway wit Confederate
Paramount
Member
Sat Aug 01 10:08:35
Norwegian flag on St. Johns inn mistaken for Confederate flag. Owners take it down

ST. JOHNS - The owners of a massive Civil War-era mansion turned bed and breakfast have removed a Norwegian flag that's hung outside its main entrance for two years because they say too many people have mistaken it for the Confederate flag and confronted them about it.

The couple, still new in town, was visiting a shop in the city's downtown when the owner told them a customer had mentioned their bed and breakfast to him.

"I was so happy at first," Kjersten Offenbecker said. Then he told her the customer thought we were flying the Confederate flag out front.

"I don’t see it because I grew up with the Norwegian Flag," Kjersten Offenbecker said "To me they are two distinct flags."

"It bugs me as far as the stupidity of people," Greg Offenbecker said.

http://eu....ate-flag-confusion/5502297002/
Habebe
Member
Sat Aug 01 10:30:43
Well, These are generally Hillary voters.
Habebe
Member
Sat Aug 01 10:31:16
Trump voters know there racist flags
Rugian
Member
Sat Aug 01 12:00:51
Manufactured outrage mixed in with gross ignorance. A Confederate flag shouldn't be a problem in the first place, but if you're going to bitch about it then you should at least know what it looks like.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sat Aug 01 12:46:08
I shouldn’t be a problem, but it is because the people who cling on to it are inbred mouth breathing racists. That does not mean they shouldn’t be able to celebrate their racist past, if that is what you meant I agree. But it is a problem, just not one that can be easily solved.
hood
Member
Sat Aug 01 14:35:25
"A Confederate flag shouldn't be a problem in the first place"

"What's so wrong with flying the Union Jack?" - rugian, the red-headed step child founding father that nobody wants to remember.
Rugian
Member
Sat Aug 01 14:46:58
I guarantee you I can find at least two Union Jack's being flown within ten minutes of my current location.

It's almost like such flags are used to herald ancestry rather than national allegiance.
hood
Member
Sat Aug 01 15:29:04
There is no ancestry from the Confederacy.
kargen
Member
Sat Aug 01 18:27:01
They should be run out of town for displaying the US flag wrong. The US flag is supposed to be displayed to the flags right of other countries flags. The two flags should have been switched.

And the Norwegian flag is basically a pushed over cross. It isn't an upside down cross so maybe they don't worship Satan but still heathens in any case.
Forwyn
Member
Sat Aug 01 18:44:54
"A Confederate flag shouldn't be a problem in the first place"
"What's so wrong with flying the Union Jack?"

One invaded the US to conquer it and the other didn't, so that's an easy distinction
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sat Aug 01 18:50:48
Yea they only started an insurgency, rebellious terrorists. You think eye brows would be raised in Basra if someone raised an Islamic State banner?
Forwyn
Member
Sat Aug 01 20:50:34
Except IS is the Union Jack, you're looking for the SDF
Dakyron
Member
Sat Aug 01 20:57:43
Norwegian flag looks nothing like the confederate flag. You have to some kind of stupid to confuse them.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sun Aug 02 05:42:59
I think IS is better, because they have been physically defeated and, they had slaves. No example if perfect, but the point is made and understood I believe. It is the flag of an entity that rebelled against the United States of America.
Rugian
Member
Sun Aug 02 05:47:32
"because they have been physically defeated and"

Half the planet has been defeated by the US at one point or another. That's not a particularly distinctive trait.

"they had slaves"

So did the North (in border states).

Let's stop pretending that having legalized slavery in the 19th century makes you comparable to ISIS. That's just ridiculous.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sun Aug 02 06:55:01
^autistic
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sun Aug 02 07:14:11
So let me explain again, because I like you so much. Raising a confederate flag, is KIND of like raising the IS banner in Mosul or Tikrit or Basra. Because they both rebelled against their country, they had slaves and they were both defeated physically, but clearly not ideologically.

Any rebellious state with questionable moral and ethical foundation would due, I just can’t think of any.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sun Aug 02 07:22:31
Do*
Rugian
Member
Sun Aug 02 07:31:20
"they both rebelled against their country"

I wouldn't consider Syria to be IS's "country." More like a major theater of operations.

"they had slaves"

So did the Roman Empire. Also, this has already been covered.
Rugian
Member
Sun Aug 02 07:37:04
Really, the entire slavery comparison is dumb for multiple reasons. Aside from the North having slaves during the Civil War, your comparison would require slavery being legal in Syria before the SCW as well. Also, slavery as an institution has existed for like 99% of human civilization, so treating the CSA as some sort of ultra-evil entity out of time because they had slavery is ridiculous.

Can we stop doing this?
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sun Aug 02 07:45:09
Anyway, your autism aside, it is a problem that backwards ideologies will not die and keep surving among idiots under the umbrella of nominally educated people who be like ”the civil war was about state right”. Well the Islamic state was to protect Muslim rights, their right to have slaves among others. It was quite integral to their way of life, they even said prayers before raping the Yazidi girls.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sun Aug 02 07:46:33
You are barking up the wrong tree. You wanted to go down this rabbit hole, despite fully understanding the point I made.
Rugian
Member
Sun Aug 02 07:51:40
I understood that your goatfucking honor code got triggered by the mention of the SDF and your Kurd wife-loving ass felt a need to counter with a comparison to the IS. None of which I would have a problem with, except for the fact that the comparison is retarded.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sun Aug 02 07:57:58
The SDF are not in Iraq you imbecille. The Islamic state started in Iraq. The SDF are an improvement by ME standards. They are not defeated physically and they do not have slavery as an institution. I have no problem pointing out the backwards aspect of Kurdish culture, I am an expert Kurds on this forum. Again, wrong tree, all my bases are covered. I am one of the least hacky people on this board, I shit on everyone when they deserve it. I am Eminem at the end of 8 Mile. There is NOTHING you can say about ”my people” that I have not already articulated better than you.

Suck it, deeep you hack.
Rugian
Member
Sun Aug 02 08:06:49
I think I gave you too much credit here. Someone who thinks that IS is a secessionist movement against Iraq is probably not even worth dealing with.

Cheers, mate.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sun Aug 02 08:08:50
And by the way FYI, these little racist tantrums you always have are tacit admissions of intellectual inferiority.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sun Aug 02 08:18:06
I didn’t say they where a ”secessionist movement” I said both they rebelled against their country and started and insurgency. I specifically used these general terms.

I didn’t say they were exactly the same, I said they are close enough on certain key things, hence why people would find their banners problematic.

And yes everyone had slaves at some point, but as I said from the start, the problem is that almost all the people who cling to this flag are racist scum. i.e the ideology survives in them in some form. If the racism of the south had died with the CSA and the flag had NOT been the banner of the KKK I wouldn’t (personally) find it problematic. DESPITE finding it problematic I think it is your right Rugian to proudly raise it and signal to the world you sre a racist scumbag. I actually prefer it in the open.

Forwyn
Member
Sun Aug 02 12:18:37
Why would racism have died with the Confederacy? The supposedly noble and anti-racist North regularly rioted and lynched blacks. The anti-slavery President wanted to ship them back to Africa.

But back to your initial comparison, again, IS spawned with major outside assistance and attempted to conquer at least two nations.

The Confederacy was simply a band of states that democratically (or as close to it as you could get in 1860) voted to leave the union. Ergo, closer to the umbrella of the SDF.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sun Aug 02 12:29:27
The ”racism of the south” is a specific issue in the context.

I know I know, we can obsess over the irrelevant details such as the manner and process that started the rebellion, it is unintetesting to me and irrelevant to the problem with the flag. The fact that Hitler was elected democratically does nothing for the swastika.
Forwyn
Member
Sun Aug 02 12:58:47
The "irrelevant details" are important, if we're going to try to draw asinine comparisons to Nazis.

Nazis and IS and the like set themselves apart pretty distinctly with war crimes and civilian butchering.

Confederates...ah...um...they seceded?
They ah...had slaves?

Yeah, neither of those really set them apart from a few dozen other flags currently in use.
hood
Member
Sun Aug 02 13:09:54
Who is comparing the southern terrorists to Nazis? All nim said was that democratic decisions doesn't mean shit and used Hitler as an example. Regardless of how it came to be, the Nazi flag stands for Nazi ideology. Regardless of how the southern terrorists came to rebel, the confederate flag stands for the ideology of treason to the US and the idea that skin color inherently dehumanizes a certain group of people.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sun Aug 02 13:22:31
That^
And out of curiousity, what other flags with a legacy relevant in 2020? What are the analog to the KKK, Jim Crow, red lining and black slave descendanats to that flag? Union jack, is not the flag we are looking for, obviously.

And uhm, they didn’t only have slaves, but they went to war to keep them. Keep in mind most of the arab and muslim countries that we laugh at for doing it so late, at least didn’t have to have the slavery beaten out of. I think that counts for something.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sun Aug 02 13:35:35
Scratch red lining, I got a little carries away. It was the evil federal government doing that. Sue me.
Dakyron
Member
Sun Aug 02 14:41:37
IS is a terrible comparison because there was no organized IS government. They did not rebel, they were an outside organization that came in and seized power. IT WAS NOT A REBELLION, unless you consider Crimea a Russian led rebellion or Tibet a Chinese led rebellion or Noriega era Panama a US rebellion.

There really isn't a good modern day example of a change in leadership fomenting a part of the country to rebel and declare independence. The best I could do is maybe the Tuareg rebellion, which started after the military overthrew the president of the country, and featured a force of questionable ethics in the MOJWA.
hood
Member
Sun Aug 02 14:57:45
Also, I should note that when I brought up the Union Jack, I also mentioned founding fathers to suggest that the flag was being waved during or soon after the American Revolution. Obviously by 2020 the US and Britain are allies, so waving their flag around is little more than "I'm British!" But in 1785? Kinda treasonous.
Forwyn
Member
Sun Aug 02 15:12:05
"Who is comparing the southern terrorists to Nazis? All nim said was that democratic decisions doesn't mean shit and used Hitler as an example."

1. "southern terrorists" lol, what a retarded take
2. "democratic decisions doesn't mean shit" is also a retarded take, when the earlier comparison was IS, a violent conquering attempt at a regime, versus a democratic vote of secession

"they went to war to keep them."

No, they seceded to keep them.

Secession does not immediately necessitate war, unless you're the kind of violent idiot that tosses voters down stairs in Catalonia.

Ending slavery, that's a valid reason for war, but the Union didn't do that, and the Union would have gone to war regardless of the South's reasoning.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sun Aug 02 15:13:20
Yes, it was a "rebellion", an insurgency. Islamic state of Iraq and ultimately the Islamic State in its' higher echelon was predominately former Saddam military, even if they had more foreigners among them than the CSA, it is irrelevant. The central element in both cases is the moral battle, the good vs evil aspect of 1850-70 "culture war" if you will. It isn't somehow peripheral. The American civil war had a very important ideological component to it, which at its' core was: should you be able to hold slaves? Without this component there would be no war. And the republicans had chosen that hill to die one, there would be no compromise.
Forwyn
Member
Sun Aug 02 15:19:00
The American civil war had a very important ideological component to it, which at its' core was: can a state unilaterally secede, without the consent of Congress and the executive?* Without this component there would be no war.

*fixed
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sun Aug 02 15:30:06
Forwyn
Ok, they "seceded" to keep their slaves, so technically they were de facto sovereign when the war began. ok I guess the confederate flag is more like the Nazi flag, because germany was sovereign nation? These are all immaterial technicalities. Likewise how many northerners actually supported abolition and the nuances of Lincolns actual opinions about black people. The fact of the matter is that confederate flag was the flag of a country, culture and ideology that really liked having slaves. In hind sight, it was a mistake to not completely crush the south and execute all their leaders like the Nazis and Baathists. Let them feel defeated and shameful for 50 years.
Forwyn
Member
Sun Aug 02 15:41:26
You're missing the point - it isn't about sovereignty, it's about what the average person can justify in their mind.

Why would the average person in Raqqa or Mosul be offended by an IS flag? Because their home was torn apart, they probably lost family members, as a direct result of the brutality of the invasion and occupation.

Why would the average person in South Carolina be offended by a Confederate flag? They can point to dozens of flags of nations that had slavery and still existed, the Confederacy never sought to conquer the Union, any brutality directed at their ancestors was done so by invading Northerners that said they weren't allowed to secede - "Oh, we were really just saying you can't own slaves" - we can dig into statistics of slave owners; we know the Confederates seceded to protect slavery, but in 1865 when Sherman was burning everything to the Atlantic, he wasn't sparing poor Southerners who had never owned a slave, which accounted for the vast majority of the population.
earthpig
GTFO HOer
Sun Aug 02 17:07:23
Point of clarity.

- The Confederate States of America and the British Empire did, in fact, BOTH invade the United States of America. The Battle of Gettysburg was in the United States, wherein the United States successfully repulsed a Confederate invasion.

- The United States of America did, in fact, invade BOTH the Confederate States of America, as well as the British Empire. The Battle of Quebec was in the British Empire, wherein the British Empire successfully repulsed a United States invasion.
obaminated
Member
Sun Aug 02 22:35:19
if the world was filled with paramounts a lot of monsters would have broken the door.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Aug 03 02:11:48
"You're missing the point - it isn't about sovereignty"

Really? ;)

"it's about what the average person can justify in their mind."

No kidding, it is about more than the process and technicalities surrounding the rebellion? There are moral issues at stake, I said.

"Because their home was torn apart, they probably lost family members, as a direct result of the brutality of the invasion and occupation."

I will grant you that the example of IS is more recent, but I chose it because it is more visceral for most of us that followed it. However apart from the first order pain and suffering, there also is something called "legacy". Perhaps then the example of the swastika is better to convey the same point. It is a closed chapter, but no one is going to rescue the swastika from the Nazi taint at this point.

The CSA was a slave holding society centered around a white ethnic nationalism and while they where physically defeated, the ideas and sense of nostalgia is still around. The legal entity as well as the ideology are symbolized by the flag, but more importantly because there is a pervasive sense of nostalgia among the people who still raise it. That is why anyone should care.

>>They can point to dozens of flags of nations that had slavery and still existed<<

What are the analog to the civil war, KKK, Jim Crow and slave descendants to these flags? i.e are they culturally and socially relevant in 2020?
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Aug 03 02:28:29
Forwyn
I feel like there is an uphill battle here regarding the central issue: There would be no civil war without the issue of slavery. There would be no cessation, no nothing. So while you corrected my post to the proximate cause (cessation) the cause for cessation and ultimately the civil war was slavery. It was very much a moral battle against a perceived evil for the abolitionist and republicans. So no matter how hard we squint and try, that issue can not be separated from the war or the flag itself.

The fact that other countries also had slaves, is not relevant in the context of American culture and why people would find the CSA flag problematic.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Aug 03 05:24:22
Forwyn
I think it is important to clear this up.

”All nim said was that democratic decisions doesn't mean shit and used Hitler as an example."

It was response to the ”CSA were a democratic government that voted to leave the union” [so they could keep slaves]. Nazis were a democratic government [that wanted to exterminate jews]. The way in which they came to power, all interceding steps and the prologue leading up to that, does nothing to salvage the Swastika as some bening symbol of german patriotism.

There are many hills to fight what we both probably agree is insidious, and I see the sliver of that fight that exists in this flag. But this isn’t that hill, imho.
Dakyron
Member
Mon Aug 03 10:59:30
"Yes, it was a "rebellion", an insurgency. Islamic state of Iraq and ultimately the Islamic State in its' higher echelon was predominately former Saddam military, even if they had more foreigners among them than the CSA, it is irrelevant. The central element in both cases is the moral battle, the good vs evil aspect of 1850-70 "culture war" if you will. It isn't somehow peripheral. The American civil war had a very important ideological component to it, which at its' core was: should you be able to hold slaves? Without this component there would be no war. And the republicans had chosen that hill to die one, there would be no compromise. "

No, it was not a rebellion. The majority of people in IS territory did not want IS ruling them. The CSA was completely different. All those hillbillies flocked to join the army when the secession happened. Even the poor ones who could barely afford food, let alone slaves. Also, lets not forget ISIS was founded by a guy from Jordan, not Iraq. IS' goal was to conquer world and subject everyone to Islamic law. It was not to just secede from Iraq and live under their own rules.

IT IS A TERRIBLE COMPARISON. I think even Jar-Jar would think its a stupid comparison.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Aug 03 11:23:37
Obviously the Islamic state example triggered a lot of people to start explaining all the technical details differentiating it from the CSA. But consider that to me this discussion sounds something like this.

We are all at a party and on the table there is a punch bowl filled with delicious punch, but in the bowl there is also a big turd floating around. I point this out and how unsanitary it is to drink it, saying ”this is kinda like a toilet bowl”. And you guys go ”no no, this bowl is made of glas, toilet bowls are made of porcelain, they are connected to the sewer, they have a ring and a button for flushing”. Another one chimes in ”sometimes it’s a lever you pull!” You explain how the punch was made what other ingredients it has, the book that had the recipe, the people who mixed it. You continue: ”Sure these bowls may have turds in common, but who hasn’t put a turd in an inappropriate place?”

I nod and agree, your rational is water tight, but there is still a turd in THIS punch bowl. Even worse, it wasn’t an accident that it ended up in the bowl in the first place. If you read the recipe, it clearly states, ”add 6 tablespoons of fecal matter.”
Dakyron
Member
Mon Aug 03 11:40:54
Nimatzo - "blah blah blah, I'm a fucktard who can't see the difference between an organized rebellion of a local government and an outside group invading and seizing power due to the local government incompetence".

Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Aug 03 11:46:10
*shrugs*
earthpig
GTFO HOer
Mon Aug 03 22:17:23
@nima - The primary motivation for the south was the preservation of slavery. They said as much, in their own words. Cornerstone speech. Not much room for debate here.

For the north, you will have a hard time making the argument that the war started primarily as a morality thing pertaining to slavery. I think you'd be giving northerners too much credit.

Were there abolitionists, sure.

Were you going to get anywhere trying to recruit white people in New York City into the Army with a banner that read "Join the army, risk life and limb to free slaves and undercut your own wages!"? No, and that's why no one did it.

Early in the war Lincoln, again in his own words, repeatedly indicated that the union was more important to him than slavery EITHER way.

Keep in mind that the emancipation proclamation did not free a single slave in any of the slave-owning union states. Slavery was lawful in BOTH the south AND the north, at the federal level and in some cases the state level, for the duration of the war. The emancipation proclamation only being applicable to states in rebellion is consistent with emancipation being a strategic military choice (to permanently harm the economy in captured areas, even if you later lose that area), not a moralistic choice. This is also consistent with General Sherman's March to the Sea - "we may or may not hold this land, but we sure as shit are going to ensure it's not economically productive once recaptured."

In both cases - emancipation and Sherman's march - you could argue that it was punitive with 'militarily expedient, to hurt their economy' argument slapped on, sure, but in neither case can you make the argument that it was purely or even primarily about moralistic this or that.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Aug 04 11:13:25
EP
I have no illusions about the North, people are inspired to go to war for many different reasons. The same way I have no illusions about what drove the Allies to fight Germany. If all there was was the killing of Jews, there would be no ww2. Yet in both cases the moral high ground was firmly held by one side, even before the victors had emerged.

There was a moral aspect to the civil war and even though it was not shared by the majority of northerners, it was there and certainly in the political arena it was there. The Republicans political goal of containment was central.

Forwyn
Member
Tue Aug 04 11:25:51
Murdering people for seceding isn't noble. There isn't a vast moral gulf between that and chattel slavery, in fact.
Dakyron
Member
Tue Aug 04 11:32:36
South Carolina started the war by seizing federal property and firing on Fort Sumter.
hood
Member
Tue Aug 04 11:39:57
Facts aren't relevant to Forwyn's argument. Get those dirty things out of here.
Forwyn
Member
Tue Aug 04 11:44:52
1. Pretending Lincoln wouldn't have escalated without Sumter is retarded.
2. If Iraq had asked us to leave the country, and instead of turning over Qayyarah to them on Mar 26th, we dumped another 1k troops there on Mar 25th and said Fuck You, that's an act of war.
Forwyn
Member
Tue Aug 04 11:48:48
Rednecks got jebaited, and now 160 years later retards pretend like the Feds were just unfortunate victims of Confederate aggression
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Aug 04 12:10:47
Forwyn
Ok I will grant you that, but seceding to be able to have slaves, is even less noble. There isn't a vast moral gulf between that and genocide.

"Feds were just unfortunate victims of Confederate aggression"

Nobody has argued that, but that the confederate flag symbolizes a specific ideology that exists to this day. The norther ideology whatever the nuances, were on the right side of a moral battle. By chance or happenstance? Who knows, but the facts about the confederate flag however, those remain.
Forwyn
Member
Tue Aug 04 12:20:59
"seceding to be able to have slaves, is even less noble."

Absolutely. Lincoln should have marched South, argued that the citizens of the neighboring state weren't subject to Constitutional protections, forcibly freed the slaves, and gone home.

But he was always out to reconquer them.

"Nobody has argued that"

Daky and hood are pretty clearly pretending the Civil War only happened because of the Sumter provocation
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Aug 04 12:36:34
You are pointing to the proximate cause, but not the glaringly obvious ultimate cause. There would be no move to secede if there had been agreement on slavery (either way, I grant you).

Lincoln maybe have had other ambitions, but these issues are immaterial to the point I made way back up the thread about why the confederate flag is problematic today. Obviously the French and British colonial powers were not some saints, neither is the Iranian Satrap of Babylon.

You can't wash the slavery out of the rebel flag, since the only reason it even exists was the direct result of a desire to keep slaves!
Dakyron
Member
Tue Aug 04 12:38:54
"Daky and hood are pretty clearly pretending the Civil War only happened because of the Sumter provocation "

Not "only", but clearly there was a *chance* that war could have been avoided if not for the South Carolina militia deciding to fire on a US Army base.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Aug 04 12:43:32
That is more than I knew. Interesting. There is chance the confederate flag could have been an even a worse symbol, provided the CSA had survived to this day, presumably abolishing slavery later. Alternate history is fun. Has anyone watched
C.S.A.: The Confederate States of America alt. history mockumentary?

Free on youtube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exnwTWfFRM8
hood
Member
Tue Aug 04 13:07:11
"But he was always out to reconquer them."

There was nothing to reconquer. The land and people never ceased to be part of the US. Secession was a bargaining tool that the south threw out of the window when they attacked Sumter.
Forwyn
Member
Tue Aug 04 13:43:23
"There would be no move to secede if there had been agreement on slavery"

Absolutely:
"they seceded to keep them."

It would be silly to try to deny why the Confederates seceded - they made it abundantly clear in the various articles of secession.

Only when they were on the brink did Southern ambassadors begin to lobby for foreign aid by promising to end slavery in exchange.

"Secession was a bargaining tool"

Lol. They all seceded, called in their militias, and formed a loose regional government. They were past bargaining about slavery or domestic issues. Where they sought to bargain was how to recompense the Union for federal properties.

Lincoln refused to meet with them and sent troops and munitions to reinforce these properties.

And rednecks got jebaited.
Dakyron
Member
Tue Aug 04 16:41:33
"You can't wash the slavery out of the rebel flag, since the only reason it even exists was the direct result of a desire to keep slaves! "

This is true. And the reason why only racist redneck retards fly it on the back of their trucks.

You never see a college educated professor/engineer/doctor flying the rebel flag. Its also some gun toting racist wearing fake camouflage.
earthpig
GTFO HOer
Tue Aug 04 23:24:08
"
C.S.A.: The Confederate States of America alt. history mockumentary?

Free on youtube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exnwTWfFRM8
"

Oldie but a goodie.

Reminds me of this series: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Victory
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Aug 05 05:55:52
EP
I really love "what if" stories taken to the extreme. I think you were the one who made me aware of the Domination of the Draka series. That story really goes off the rails to put it mildly. I never thanked you :)
show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message:
Bookmark and Share