Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Nov 9, 2012, 10:23 PM   #1
jnpy!$4g3cwk
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Too old-white-male, or, too right-wing?

So, with thousands of articles and blog entries out there worrying about the GOP, everyone seems to be coming to the same demographic conclusion. Male, pale, and stale, or, too old, too white, too male, and so on and so forth:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories...472.html?hp=l4

What nobody seems to want to talk about is whether the GOP is too right-wing. Too socially-conservative. Too threatened by single heterosexual women and married gay men. Too fundamentalist. Too much for a more moderate society. Maybe it is just the people I know but even the admitted Romney supporters (rare) were embarrassed by the Akinses and Mourdocks and Bachmanns and Palins.

I find it very odd that everyone is worried about "demographics" rather than policies, platforms, and beliefs.

Last edited by jnpy!$4g3cwk; Nov 9, 2012 at 10:24 PM. Reason: typo
jnpy!$4g3cwk is online now   6 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 9, 2012, 11:54 PM   #2
AlaskaMoose
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Alaska
Quote:
Originally Posted by jnpy!$4g3cwk View Post
So, with thousands of articles and blog entries out there worrying about the GOP, everyone seems to be coming to the same demographic conclusion. Male, pale, and stale, or, too old, too white, too male, and so on and so forth:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories...472.html?hp=l4

What nobody seems to want to talk about is whether the GOP is too right-wing. Too socially-conservative. Too threatened by single heterosexual women and married gay men. Too fundamentalist. Too much for a more moderate society. Maybe it is just the people I know but even the admitted Romney supporters (rare) were embarrassed by the Akinses and Mourdocks and Bachmanns and Palins.

I find it very odd that everyone is worried about "demographics" rather than policies, platforms, and beliefs.
There is no difference between the Republicans and the Democrats. Both are just as corrupt. We get four to eight years of one, followed by four to eight years of the next. The US is on its course like the Titanic with two captains: one steers the boat while the other sleeps. That's all.
__________________
iMac, and MacBook Pro.
Canon.
AlaskaMoose is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10, 2012, 12:10 AM   #3
citizenzen
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlaskaMoose View Post
There is no difference between the Republicans and the Democrats.
There are key policy differences between the two parties. And it's the policies of the right that are turning off a majority of the electorate.

I know it comforts you to not believe that.

But as the OP suggests, it's time that Republicans understood that their policies lost them the last election. And it's time for them to shift back towards the center, or be left behind.
citizenzen is offline   16 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10, 2012, 12:21 AM   #4
Andeavor
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlaskaMoose View Post
There is no difference between the Republicans and the Democrats. Both are just as corrupt. We get four to eight years of one, followed by four to eight years of the next. The US is on its course like the Titanic with two captains: one steers the boat while the other sleeps. That's all.
What exactly makes the Dems corrupt? I've yet to be produced any democratic policies to support this notion.
Andeavor is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10, 2012, 01:21 AM   #5
Ugg
macrumors 68000
 
Ugg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Penryn
Send a message via AIM to Ugg
Demographics more or less dictate policy. During the Reagan years, it was ok to pander to the older white male because there were a lot of them who voted. Now, there are fewer of them so the repubs have no choice but to change gears. That's why we've heard so much about the repubs embracing Hispanics. They have no demographic alternative. They'll never win much of the black vote or the gay vote or the environmental vote or the single mother vote but they do have a chance at the Hispanic vote.

TBH, I think they need to leave the social conservatives behind. They'd pull in a good percentage of the independents and democrats if they stuck to fiscal conservatism. Unfortunately, the party has been hijacked.
__________________
Check out <Peter's family tree!
Ugg is offline   7 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10, 2012, 02:35 AM   #6
AlaskaMoose
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Alaska
Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenzen View Post
There are key policy differences between the two parties. And it's the policies of the right that are turning off a majority of the electorate.

I know it comforts you to not believe that.

But as the OP suggests, it's time that Republicans understood that their policies lost them the last election. And it's time for them to shift back towards the center, or be left behind.
But see...the Democrats lost two elections to Republicans (President Bush). Now the Republicans have lost two elections to Democrats (President Obama). As I mentioned before we have either four or eight years of one political party, then the same with the other one. This is the way it has been for a long time.
__________________
iMac, and MacBook Pro.
Canon.
AlaskaMoose is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10, 2012, 02:56 AM   #7
thekev
macrumors 603
 
thekev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlaskaMoose View Post
As I mentioned before we have either four or eight years of one political party, then the same with the other one. This is the way it has been for a long time.
The electoral college all or nothing per state system tends to stifle smaller parties from even gaining a foothold. It doesn't mean all of them are great simply due to being an alternative. It's just that the nature of our system allows for a somewhat comfortable duopoly.
__________________
world's largest manufacturer of tin foil hats, none of that aluminum foil crap.
thekev is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10, 2012, 04:54 AM   #8
Scepticalscribe
Contributor
 
Scepticalscribe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Kite flying
Quote:
Originally Posted by jnpy!$4g3cwk View Post
So, with thousands of articles and blog entries out there worrying about the GOP, everyone seems to be coming to the same demographic conclusion. Male, pale, and stale, or, too old, too white, too male, and so on and so forth:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories...472.html?hp=l4

What nobody seems to want to talk about is whether the GOP is too right-wing. Too socially-conservative. Too threatened by single heterosexual women and married gay men. Too fundamentalist. Too much for a more moderate society. Maybe it is just the people I know but even the admitted Romney supporters (rare) were embarrassed by the Akinses and Mourdocks and Bachmanns and Palins.

I find it very odd that everyone is worried about "demographics" rather than policies, platforms, and beliefs.
Demographics feed into policy, and vice versa; certain policies attract a certain demographic, just as certain demographics (in this case, older white males, both white collar and, to some extent, blue collar) feel attracted to and reassured by certain policies (such as those which reaffirm the 'traditional' family as postulated as an ideal in the 1950s, where the man was head of household, women and children in their divinely ordained subordinate place, gays invisible, blacks and Latinos still second class citizens).

Specific demographics feed into, influence and respond to certain policies; what was interesting about this election was the manner in which the Republicans not just faithfully replicated and embraced the prejudices of their lunatic fringe (and it is always instructive to note on which particular fringe the lunatics break out when studying a particular society), but how the expression of these policies served to actively alienate those (women, blacks, gays, Latinos) who were not a part of this demographic.

This went well beyond expressing the preferences and prejudices of a specific part of the electorate; such policies, if implemented, would have undone decades of reform, and reduced the rights of significant sections of the electorate.



Quote:
Originally Posted by AlaskaMoose View Post
There is no difference between the Republicans and the Democrats.
I beg to differ. Actually, there are huge policy and attitudinal differences (on women, gays, minorities....) between the two political groups, and this election served to highlight them in ever greater graphic detail.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ugg View Post
Demographics more or less dictate policy. During the Reagan years, it was ok to pander to the older white male because there were a lot of them who voted. Now, there are fewer of them so the repubs have no choice but to change gears. That's why we've heard so much about the repubs embracing Hispanics. They have no demographic alternative. They'll never win much of the black vote or the gay vote or the environmental vote or the single mother vote but they do have a chance at the Hispanic vote.

TBH, I think they need to leave the social conservatives behind. They'd pull in a good percentage of the independents and democrats if they stuck to fiscal conservatism. Unfortunately, the party has been hijacked.
Exactly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thekev View Post
The electoral college all or nothing per state system tends to stifle smaller parties from even gaining a foothold.
There is truth in that observation, but the significant difference between the parties - attitude, outlook, policies - remains.

Last edited by Scepticalscribe; Nov 10, 2012 at 05:00 AM.
Scepticalscribe is offline   5 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10, 2012, 10:19 AM   #9
samiwas
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Atlanta, GA
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlaskaMoose View Post
There is no difference between the Republicans and the Democrats. Both are just as corrupt.
Fiscally, maybe. But you can't be serious if you're suggesting that they are the same on social issues.
__________________
A lack of planning on your part should not constitute an emergency on mine.
samiwas is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10, 2012, 10:32 AM   #10
dscuber9000
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Indiana, US
Living in Nowhere, Indiana, I've seen a lot of white males absolutely stunned that America "voted for social issues over the economy." I think that's the problem for Republicans. They're overwhelmingly white and male and can't comprehend that "legitimate rape" is a deal-breaker for women, absurd immigration laws are deal-breakers for latinos, homophobia is a deal-breaker for gays, etc. If Republicans had the very conservative candidate they wanted who was also able to distance him/herself from the liberty-invading crazies in their party, they probably would have beaten Obama.
__________________
MacBook Pro 13" (Mid-2009) 2.26GHz | 320GB, 7200RPM | 4GB RAM
16GB iPhone 4S
dscuber9000 is offline   8 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10, 2012, 10:43 AM   #11
citizenzen
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by dscuber9000 View Post
If Republicans had the very conservative candidate they wanted who was also able to distance him/herself from the liberty-invading crazies in their party, they probably would have beaten Obama.
I agree. Obama was quite beatable.

But think back to the Republican debates. Which one of those prospective nominees could have distanced "him/herself from the liberty-invading crazies in their party"?

That person simply didn't exist.

The Republicans need to rebuild their leadership from scratch. Because it's promoting candidates who are unelectable to the the majority of Americans.

That party needs a major overhaul.
citizenzen is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10, 2012, 10:43 AM   #12
Sydde
macrumors 68000
 
Sydde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ugg View Post
TBH, I think they need to leave the social conservatives behind. They'd pull in a good percentage of the independents and democrats if they stuck to fiscal conservatism. Unfortunately, the party has been hijacked.
Fiscal conservatism? You mean like that Republican who erased the budget deficit (Clinton)? "Fiscal conservatism" is, unfortunately, laced with the absinthe of deregulation, and a side of military expansionism. These fundamental aspects of Republican policy AFAICT do more harm than good and then when it comes to addressing the budget they pass blame on to the anonymous horde of legislators who fatten up the measures with candy and toys to appease the folks back home. They tell us the system is broken, yet they offer no solutions.

So, when you say the Republicans are the party of fiscal conservatism, I must call you on it. They do not even have that.
__________________
You got to be a spirit. You can't be no ghost.
Sydde is online now   9 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10, 2012, 11:29 AM   #13
vega07
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sydde View Post
Fiscal conservatism? You mean like that Republican who erased the budget deficit (Clinton)? "Fiscal conservatism" is, unfortunately, laced with the absinthe of deregulation, and a side of military expansionism. These fundamental aspects of Republican policy AFAICT do more harm than good and then when it comes to addressing the budget they pass blame on to the anonymous horde of legislators who fatten up the measures with candy and toys to appease the folks back home. They tell us the system is broken, yet they offer no solutions.

So, when you say the Republicans are the party of fiscal conservatism, I must call you on it. They do not even have that.
Agreed. When people tell me they're fiscally conservative and socially liberally (a phrase that is regurgitated by so many people who think they know politics) and were thus contemplating a vote for Romney, I have to call them out because Romney's platform was so far from being fiscal.
vega07 is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10, 2012, 11:59 AM   #14
jnpy!$4g3cwk
Thread Starter
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by vega07 View Post
Agreed. When people tell me they're fiscally conservative and socially liberally (a phrase that is regurgitated by so many people who think they know politics)
Hey, I resemble that remark.

Quote:
and were thus contemplating a vote for Romney, I have to call them out because Romney's platform was so far from being fiscal.
Romney was neither fiscally conservative nor socially liberal. Nor fiscally liberal and socially conservative, either. He was on both sides of every issue, except for one: no tax increases for the rich. Romney was a throwback to 100 years ago in that regard.

Back to demographics: not a majority, but, lots of older white males voted for Obama, too. I'm guessing that not every older white male wants to return to the era of racism, homophobia, "legitimate rape" and "barefoot and pregnant". For some older white males, all the hate is indeed a dealbreaker.

"Fiscally conservative" tends to mean at least two different things. To one group, it means cutting their own taxes, period. Let's call that "Group 1".

To another group, it means a mostly balanced budget, low inflation, low debt (public and private), and a bias towards generating enough investment to sustain the economy and keep most people employed. "Group 2".

"Group 1" often claims that cutting taxes automatically brings about the "Group 2" results. History shows otherwise.
jnpy!$4g3cwk is online now   7 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10, 2012, 12:10 PM   #15
vega07
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by jnpy!$4g3cwk View Post
Hey, I resemble that remark.
Sorry, let me clarify. I was referring to people who said that but were in fact, grossly low-informed about Romney's platform.

I think nearly everyone in here is socially liberal and fiscally conservative (in the right ways, of course), including me.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by jnpy!$4g3cwk View Post

"Fiscally conservative" tends to mean at least two different things. To one group, it means cutting their own taxes, period. Let's call that "Group 1".

To another group, it means a mostly balanced budget, low inflation, low debt (public and private), and a bias towards generating enough investment to sustain the economy and keep most people employed. "Group 2".

"Group 1" often claims that cutting taxes automatically brings about the "Group 2" results. History shows otherwise.
I would like to think that fiscal conservatism means your second definition and nothing else. The first group is not fiscally conservative, and I didn't need an econ textbook to tell me that.
vega07 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10, 2012, 02:00 PM   #16
AlaskaMoose
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Alaska
Quote:
Originally Posted by samiwas View Post
Fiscally, maybe. But you can't be serious if you're suggesting that they are the same on social issues.
No, that's not what I am saying. Both are the same in relation to things that affect our nation economically, corruption, dirty politics, ad such.
__________________
iMac, and MacBook Pro.
Canon.
AlaskaMoose is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10, 2012, 02:33 PM   #17
Scepticalscribe
Contributor
 
Scepticalscribe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Kite flying
Quote:
Originally Posted by vega07 View Post
Sorry, let me clarify. I was referring to people who said that but were in fact, grossly low-informed about Romney's platform.

I think nearly everyone in here is socially liberal and fiscally conservative (in the right ways, of course), including me.[COLOR="#808080"]
"Nearly everyone in here" are not necessarily 'socially liberal and fiscally conservative'. Granted, many of those from the US most certainly are, but there are those from other places on the political spectrum.

Me, I'm a classical European social democrat, veering towards what we term 'socialism' in the Old World. In other words, I am 'socially liberal and fiscally liberal', too. Thus, I see a significant role for Government in (proactive) public policy, but that is a debate for a different thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlaskaMoose View Post
No, that's not what I am saying. Both are the same in relation to things that affect our nation economically, corruption, dirty politics, ad such.
Actually, no, not really, they are not , in fact, the same'. Believe it or not, you have had the great good fortune to live in a country where a genuine alternative was on offer during the recent election campaign, and where the election was contested between two candidates who represented two strikingly different world views, buttressed by the respective policies which informed those world views. Not many countries - outside of the First World - get to have the luxury of a genuine choice between parties and candidates.
Scepticalscribe is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10, 2012, 03:22 PM   #18
AlaskaMoose
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Alaska
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scepticalscribe View Post
"Nearly everyone in here" are not necessarily 'socially liberal and fiscally conservative'. Granted, many of those from the US most certainly are, but there are those from other places on the political spectrum.

Me, I'm a classical European social democrat, veering towards what we term 'socialism' in the Old World. In other words, I am 'socially liberal and fiscally liberal', too. Thus, I see a significant role for Government in (proactive) public policy, but that is a debate for a different thread.



Actually, no, not really, they are not , in fact, the same'. Believe it or not, you have had the great good fortune to live in a country where a genuine alternative was on offer during the recent election campaign, and where the election was contested between two candidates who represented two strikingly different world views, buttressed by the respective policies which informed those world views. Not many countries - outside of the First World - get to have the luxury of a genuine choice between parties and candidates.
Yes, we indeed have alternatives, but that's not what I have referred to. What I am referring to is that the outcome of their actions (Republican/Democrat leaders) is the same. That's why I said that our nation is like The Titanic being steered by two captains; one steers the boat while the other sleeps. We are at the brink of an economic collapse (hitting an iceberg).

Both the Republicans and Democrats engage in dirty politics, both tax us all day and spend all night, both work deals under the table to their own benefit instead of the nation's, both engage in war, both get in trouble with the law and at the same tame create laws to protect themselves (insiders trading, for example), both offer military contracts to family members and friends, both create our tax laws and the loopholes attached, both create the laws that allow for job outsourcing and turn around and accuse each other of doing it, and so on...
__________________
iMac, and MacBook Pro.
Canon.

Last edited by AlaskaMoose; Nov 10, 2012 at 03:39 PM.
AlaskaMoose is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10, 2012, 03:27 PM   #19
MadeTheSwitch
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenzen View Post
The Republicans need to rebuild their leadership from scratch. Because it's promoting candidates who are unelectable to the the majority of Americans.

That party needs a major overhaul.
I somewhat agree with a little modification....it's not the party leaders that are promoting unelectable candidates. It's the right wing media. What were once fringe crazy ideas, have now become accepted as valid in the right wing. This is because people listen to non-stop crackpots on Fox News or on the radio like Rush Limbaugh and start buying the notion that these outlandish extreme candidates are the same as Ronald Reagan or Republicans of the past, when they just aren't. They are still fringe, still extremist in their party. But they have been allowed to take center stage by an electorate that has been fed a steady diet of extremism themselves.

This is where the Republican leaders come in. They need to push back against that. But they are afraid to. Afraid that they themselves will be replaced by an extreme candidate in the next election. And therein lies the problem.
MadeTheSwitch is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10, 2012, 03:49 PM   #20
AlaskaMoose
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Alaska
Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenzen
The Republicans need to rebuild their leadership from scratch. Because it's promoting candidates who are unelectable to the the majority of Americans.

That party needs a major overhaul.
I do agree with you on this. As an independent voter for numerous years now, the Republican leaders, including Karl Rove, have brought forward very weak candidates. The Republican Party "handlers" have been out of touch with the people for quite awhile, and voters go along the party lines to the ballot box by habit or just choosing the lesser of two evils.
__________________
iMac, and MacBook Pro.
Canon.
AlaskaMoose is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10, 2012, 08:55 PM   #21
NickZac
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Social conservatism has no place in politics unless it is the traditional conservative view that the government has absolutely no right to mandate how you choose to live. Fiscal conservatism, however, is a necessity if we are ever going to get out of debt. The problem is that social conservatism is, in addition to hindering the progression of basic human rights, also hindering fiscal conservatism.
__________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher.
If you can read this in ENGLISH, thank a Veteran.
NickZac is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 11, 2012, 03:09 AM   #22
avro707
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
They lost because they weren't conservative or hard-line enough.

Come on, be more socially conservative next time, even more hard-line. You know you want to.... The Democrats want you to be more conservative too.


Kidding aside, this is a problem that the American public needs to fix. You need to govern yourselves. And part of that is switching off from these far-right wing media sources (eg the Limbaughs and FOX).

They understand one thing, money! And when it starts drying up because people aren't listening or watching, that's when they'll start to change.

The scary thing is that if Reagan was running at the moment as a Republican candidate, he'd be too Liberal for the Republican party.

Social conservatism of the Republicans is getting in the way of sensible, rational policy. They need a middle of the road candidate who is basically normal, and has centre political ideas. (ie, not left-wing, not right-wing, but a little bit of both in moderation).
__________________
Website
Mac Pro 5,1 | iMac | iPhone 5 64gb | Nikon D800e | Nikon D3s
avro707 is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 11, 2012, 03:41 AM   #23
thekev
macrumors 603
 
thekev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scepticalscribe View Post


There is truth in that observation, but the significant difference between the parties - attitude, outlook, policies - remains.
I get that they send different messages yet remain generic enough to appeal to large groups of people. The point I wanted to make was that other parties aren't able to display a big enough impact under the current system to really make a statement or gain any leverage. Given that they can't carry any specific states, people regard such votes as wasted. It allows the current parties to become too comfortable in their positions. The knowledge that a party has to carry the majority of votes in a state to impact the electoral college results dissuades most people from voting for even researching them. You can't really have successful third parties when such votes are regarded as wasted.
__________________
world's largest manufacturer of tin foil hats, none of that aluminum foil crap.
thekev is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 11, 2012, 04:36 AM   #24
Coleman2010
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: NYC
Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenzen View Post
I agree. Obama was quite beatable.

But think back to the Republican debates. Which one of those prospective nominees could have distanced "him/herself from the liberty-invading crazies in their party"?

That person simply didn't exist.

The Republicans need to rebuild their leadership from scratch. Because it's promoting candidates who are unelectable to the the majority of Americans.

That party needs a major overhaul.
It's not the candidate. It's Republican policies which are ass backwards. It doesn't matter what face you slap on the front. They're still lame worn over Bush policies.
Coleman2010 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 11, 2012, 10:00 AM   #25
jnpy!$4g3cwk
Thread Starter
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by avro707 View Post

They lost because they weren't conservative or hard-line enough.
Here is a right-wing website where that exact view is expressed:

http://www.rightsidenews.com/2012111...ayed-home.html

Quote:
The punditocracy ó which is more of the ruling class than an eye on the ruling class ó has naturally decided that this is because Republicans are not enough like Democrats: They need to play more identity politics (in particular, adopt the Leftís embrace of illegal immigration) in order to be viable. But the story is not about who voted; it is about who didnít vote.
The author, by the way, is Andrew McCarthy of the National Review Institute.

A related blog post (by someone else):

Quote:

They USE US -- and I am fed up with it.

Now, every time anyone brings up the idea of a separate political party, a conservative political party, a "third" party all hell breaks lose and I/we are barraged with every excuse in the world as to why a "third" party won't work.

Let's be clear here. I'm not talking about a "centrist" third party. We already have that. It's called the Republican Party. What I'm interested in is a "CONSERVATIVE" party -- a political party of the right, conservative to the core, and unapologetic as hell about it, too.


So, yes, there are a bunch of people who think this way. My estimate is about 20% of voters overall, although I would be interested in seeing this quantified. And, I do think they should have their own party.
jnpy!$4g3cwk is online now   0 Reply With Quote


Reply
MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
3.5 mm male to male cable with track & volume control Jason Garza iPhone 7 Nov 29, 2012 09:25 AM
Wing Commander Saga Dr. McKay Mac and PC Games 5 Aug 17, 2012 11:48 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:58 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC