|
What will the Nightly Show be like? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| A news parody, like the Daily Show |
|
15 | 13.27% |
| A pundit satire, like the Colbert Report |
|
7 | 6.19% |
| Something else entirely |
|
91 | 80.53% |
| Total: | 113 votes | ||
|
Hazo posted:I just found out a friend of mine is anti-abortion-rights. This gets particularly grating for me. Now, its not impossible to see where the conflation comes from, but its one of those annoying 'correlation implies causation' arguments. The fact of the matter is, if a woman solidly, no doubts whatsoever, wishes to keep her pregnant child - whatever the circumstances in which it was created, as every person reacts to these things separately - then it wouldn't matter whether or not abortion is available, she is gonna have that baby (though this can get into issues of what rights the potential father should have in such discussions, but that's a point for another time). The people who primarily want the option open to them are those that are actually considering it anyway, because they are the ones who otherwise have their choice actively suppressed. And, you know, of course people when presented with the choice they have desired for so long will act on it. So the notion that pro-choice 'encourages' people to have abortions, rather than simply consider the matter freely, is like saying having the option of going to university 'encourages' people to seek higher learning. There are circumstances around it that may do so, but the option simply existing is not the actual cause (the perceived effects, both adverse and beneficial, are). Narcissus1916 posted:I can understand the pro-life position. raditts posted:The problem with the pro-life position is that it ranges from "none of your goddamn business" and "total hypocrisy because they typically don't give a poo poo about the Innocent Life once it's out of the womb," as the guy in that interview so clearly demonstrated. Chalk this up to Abrahamic fundamentalism in most cases, mixed with the imagery of the innocent babe, and a very nebulous grey area as far as science is concerned. In this particular scenario (common throughout America, though with equivalents in other nations and religious cultures), you start with two base notions - that sex is for the purposes of procreation and the union of a couple, and that until discounted by way of a sufficiently dreadful crime all life is sacred. So in that perspective, the idea of having sex without it being explicitly to have and raise a child with your spouse (however much the critics may themselves indulge) is itself sinful. And because we have yet to precisely pin down what exactly it is that makes life tick and develop a consciousness out of chemical impulses, the interpretation is left open enough that many will take the easy option and just say that life begins right from the first step. So a potential mother has not only sinned by having a child she did not necessarily intend to have (again, whatever the actual circumstances surrounding that), but she'll be digging her hole even deeper by trying to abort it, and thus as 'good christians', people will try to stop them. Really though, its because its an easy high horse to mount I think, that gives it a certain appeal to some. There's no necessary commitment to 'preventing' someone getting pregnant in the same way you might try to get people off smoking or alcohol. It doesn't really require financial or physical investment like say, assisting the poor or participating in community welfare programmes. They don't have to travel far or gather in truly massive rallies - just pop down to the local clinic. They get to be heroes standing up for the children by just saying 'no, you can't have abortions', rather than, you know, acting on what the rest of their faith tells them to do. Shorter version: "I like your Christ, but not your Christians."
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2015 22:55
|
|
Ironically she volunteers at a rape crisis center and is fairly pro-feminism. She's just pretty naive and her dad is a typical bigoted religious South Carolina conservative. I don't want to belabor the issue but I keep trying to figure out how to explain to her that being pro-choice has nothing to do with "pro-abortion," it's about giving women access to have the procedure safely instead of severely risking their lives when they do it anyway.
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 10:20 |
|
|
Haven't been able to view the episodes yet, though based on comments, I'm gonna ask: The States wouldn't happen to have any kjnd of equivalent to Have I Got News For You or Mock the Week, would it? Because panel formats for satire actually have a set precedent over here.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2015 09:45
|
|
|
Okay, so, got around to watching... I'm kinda intrigued by Larry's take and angle on things, but then I am literally a White British Male Catholic, so this kinda thing is more news to me than it might be to others. Mind you, I can see how the panel segment kind of... goes on a bit, especially with the guests. Keep it 100 was actually kinda interesting, and I think it could work as long as it kept with the notion of trying to answer comedically - perhaps with more touches of Burr's black comedy (in more ways than one I suppose) - rather than seriously. Generally I'd say give it the usual few weeks to find its footing, but I'd agree with the sentiment that its weakness right now is trying to find some sort of balance in its main panel segment. I suspect that unlike the earlier examples I referenced - Mock the Week and Have I Got News For You - Wilmore doesn't want it to be one long sketch, but at the same time, he hasn't quite got the tone, time, or I'd even say contrast of viewpoints to make it quite so effective. Probably the bit where I listened most was when Burr raised the seeming paradox around protesting as a means of affecting change.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2015 18:36
|
|
|
So I decided to take a look at this 'Amendment 1' from Alabama. Its actually kinda hilarious because its written in a technically secular way. Technically, elements of Sharia law (itself not universally defined anyway) could still be legal so long as they were made part of Alabama's actual law. Plus, its entirely redundant, since, you know, one can't legally apply the law of one country in another country - unless they're planning to give Alabama citizens immunity from international law (so long as it can be established that such is violating their US based rights).
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
raditts posted:Oh hey, someone on TV is finally paying attention to Boko Haram in Nigeria. It's kind of shameful that it has to be the Daily Show. It got some coverage by the BBC a week or so back, but this was after an Arch-Bishop called out the sheer lack of coverage when there was the possibility (and there still is, though the reported numbers vary wildly) of two thousand dead. Pretty much everywhere outside of Africa has kinda dropped the ball with regards to the massacre.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2015 16:00
|
|
|
So... Am I the only one who saw Rick Perry catch himself before he said 'Iowa'? Because it sure as hell looked like he was gonna say Texas before remembering he's trying to gain support for being President here. Also the thought of Donald Trump labouring to build his dream fence in the desert amuses me.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
That anti-vaccine stuff especially pisses me off because gently caress you I'm autistic. People seem to have developed this notion that autism, rather than a spectrum of varying degrees of social disorder, is a singular disease that inherently cripples a child to the point its worth risking measles over. Not as if the parents could somehow be a goddamn parent and try to actually support their children, than expose them to viruses and bacteria that may actually kill them. I have come to appreciate how freaking lucky I was growing up. Having parents and teachers who actually gave a drat makes it all the more stunning to see and hear of those who don't.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2015 20:21
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:Not to mention, when people deliberately refuse to get their kids immunized, it's not just their kids that suffer. That punches a hole in the pack immunity. Your kid gets sick with some hosed up weird disease that was mostly wiped out 100 years ago that the human body has lost its natural immunity to, and that leads to other kids who did get immunized potentially getting sick too. It's not a "personal matter", it's a safety risk. And the inverse - some people can't be vaccinated, because their immune systems are inherently too weak, or they have particular allergies, or whatever. Having everyone around them vaccinated gives infections a far harder time of reaching them, for lack of ability to spread. But no, people like that don't see themselves as part of a wider social unit - not when it comes to 'family' anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
Well, apparently Youssef is going to be at Harvard as a Resident Fellow for the spring semester, so he's up the coast if Jon ever needs him again.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
There's no way they won't keep the show. They'll almost certainly have the 'I'm not Jon Stewart' gags again for a while too... But Christ, glad I started watching when I did, which honestly was only from... late 2012, I think? Certainly when the election was still news. Like, I'd seen the show a few times before that, but it was sporadic and I didn't know how to find it again after it disappeared. But then someone exposed to me to 'CHAOS, on BULLSHIT MOUNTAIN' and I was hooked. Even when his coverage hasn't been so relevant (living on the other side of the Atlantic and all) to me, it was still interesting to see a dissection of news coverage in general, since we didn't have quite the same equivalent over here, to my knowledge (honestly the closest would be Russel Howard's Good News, and that's purely for taking the piss).
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2015 01:01
|
|
|
Narcissus1916 posted:I do think that Stewart's whole "Everyone would get along if we just talked calmly" centrism feels dated. Not always, and I certainly don't want him to wag the Democratic or progressive flag day in and day out, but I get why TDS is criticized for that. In a way, it kinda makes one maybe someone roughly the same politically, but stronger in their stance about it. I realise its perhaps more popular than ever to embrace the left/right divide, but one of the things one can appreciate about Stewart, during his finer moments, is that he won't just entirely ignore the government's wrongdoings, or what differences he does have with their policy, just because he has a generally left leaning slant. You basically want someone who'd be able to superbly take both sides to town when either of them screw up.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2015 02:45
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:You try explaining thermodynamics to someone and their eyes gloss over like trying to explain how '11' is a meaningless number on a guitar amp. The problem really is that for a non-insignificant portion of the population, its still popularly known as 'global warming', which has potentially easier (and thus more easily misunderstood) implications than the more general and nuanced 'climate change'. Add in that people often prefer things in absolute terms (particularly politicians), and the gradual, complex, uneven processes of climate change falls out of their understanding. That and well, smug idiots like to prove themselves 'smarter' than scientists so they don't have to admit to changing their lifestyles (individualism and capitalism and all that) for the sake of the greater population (eeeevil communism).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2015 13:26
|
|
|
Narcissus1916 posted:His African American standup has plenty of strong bits that would "shock" the mainstream. Even when he takes on the oft-mocked topic of airport security he turns it into a riff on concentration camps, middle eastern prejudice, and American paranoia. I'd partly attribute this to the nature of British comedy as well, which has influences in the commonwealth and well, Noah's been around the scene over here. We can be more... deliberately offensive, I would say, compared to some other cultures in terms of comedy, and it can get kinda baffling determining what is or isn't okay as a result. The underlying factor tends to be tone though, ie, we all know these are silly stereotypes so don't worry about it, but there are still cases where people can see it as too far. Noah's audience is either going to have to learn to adapt, or he is.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2015 23:23
|
|
|
So, a friend of mine wound up watching Trevor Noah's documentary on Netflix, and it actually managed to have him go from hating the guy (having gotten mad in the twitter mess and all) to actually liking him, because it made him realise why Trevor's background and mindset is. Hopefully, once he's hosting, others will be able to go through roughly the same process.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2015 23:41
|
|
|
raditts posted:As much as tumblr would have you believe otherwise, it's really not an issue that gets a lot of mainstream coverage. Outside of the internet, the only place I've really heard it discussed in depth is the Human Sexuality course I took in college. So I mean it's not that ridiculous even if you're assuming he's not playing the clueless guy for the sake of educating the audience. And even then, within the internet (particularly from the rageshits you mention), the issue can often appear to be a quagmire that dissuades people from trying to read up on it and try to better understand things. Not helped that there's not always much consistency between even transgender people with regards to terminology and application beyond the concept that someone's personal identity does not necessarily align with what their biology, or the social ideas tied to said biology, might otherwise indicate. So you might see one transgender person still see, understand and explain things in terms of the typical gender binary (ie, they say they are currently/physically a girl but plan to have a sex change to become a boy) whilst others try to define themselves as outside that as they find the terms too heavily loaded, and well, that's a practically infinite playing field for possible terms and definitions. Part it comes down to being a relatively invisible and unclear issue, compared to say, someone's ethnic origin or choice of romantic/sexual interest, and it subsequently hasn't also got the weight of centuries of clear oppression/double standards that other issues have seen. Also re: Baltimore. Its really interesting and/or kinda sad to look at and examine the issues involved, compared to what we've seen over here in Britain. We've had a few riots over the last few years, mostly in Northern Ireland (of course), but there was also the 2011 England Riots after the shooting of Mark Duggan. That had a lot of the same broad social issues and context about it, and seeing what's going on there makes me wonder if the fact we've not really had another incident like that, or certainly of that scale at least, is indicative of Britain's social dynamic since then, or more of the lack of catalysts for people to use as a means of venting their grievances (since the police shooting someone at all tends to be a bit of a shocker around here).
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
Decided to watch TNS tonight after people said its actually been good twice now, and man, I agree. The bit with Felonious was probably my favourite, because it really highlights one of the more problematic and murky areas of history with regards to racial divides - the usage and implication of derogative terms. Even the words we consider unacceptable today were not necessarily considered an issue (for a non-English equivalent, Sudan derives from 'bilad as-Sudan', or 'land of the Blacks'), but they became problematic because they were used as a negative shorthand to reinforce discriminatory attitudes, and since can't distance themselves from that context. And unlike say, the vandals, those that are the subject of such terms are still around to object when they feel the shorthand is too blatantly referring to them/
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2015 16:04
|
|
|
Dr Christmas posted:Dammit Britain, you looked over at what Republicans are doing in America, and thought, "I want that?" It's kinda complicated. The Conservatives technically won no more than 40% of the vote, and Labour had only 2 million behind them (11 and 9 million respectively), but our first past the post system that Conservatives just had to win where the labour votes weren't, and thus the Conservatives had their majority. This did help the SNP though in getting their near-total dominance in Scotland, even though they got less votes than UKIP, and were just .3 million higher than the Green Party, both of whom only got 1 seat. Mind you, if our system were proportional, then UKIP (think kinda like the Tea Party as its own separate thing) would have had a pretty healthy portion, and likely would have made a coalition with the Conservatives anyway. So I guess, yes, people did rather want the right wing (annoyingly).
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
Neeksy posted:If you use a proportional representational system without the FPTP system, the results are inherently a lot different because the forms of strategic voting change entirely. Instead you have a lot more going into different parties and it's about forming coalitions. You can't just take the numbers from the current UK election and say "well if they had a system like Sweden, it'd be the Tories + UKIP" because the numbers would have been wildly different to start. That's actually true, thinking about it (and apologies for not thinking about it earlier). If we'd gone into the election knowing that voter percentages themselves would actually matter, then people would have been more willing to invest in actually getting those up, rather than aiming at marginal seats in an attempt to make the vote in those particular places swing their way. UKIP I think admittedly would have still done well because they were being seen as an alternate option, but a lot of the 'tactical' voting that does rather fuel the Labour and Tory camps might have spread out more. Mind you, if we did switch to PR, you'd have people up in arms in how that doesn't represent them at a local level, especially since one of the fuels for the Scottish independence drive is that the Secretary of State sent back from Westminster to oversee Scotland, if they were ever Conservative, did not reflect what people had actually voted for north of the border.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2015 11:54
|
|
|
So I just got caught up on last week's Daily Show episodes. Rick Perry has a rap?!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
kayakyakr posted:Though Monday's show will probably be dominated by the gay marriage decision. Perhaps they were waiting so they could do a whole show on this round of supreme court. They are going to have a buffet of right wing outrage to pick from, and its going to be delicious.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2015 15:30
|
|
|
Back to Daily Show stories... I admittedly didn't 'grow up' with Stewart as many others did, and indeed, its only with hindsight that I realise I actually once used to watch him on TV during the evenings - but back then my family and I just saw it as a quirky show about American politics that very quickly disappeared from the evening schedule (guess it moved channels or something, since I live in the UK). I more deliberately discovered him in 2012, during the run-up to the elections. Specifically, I heard from some friends I spoke with online about his 'chaos on bullshit mountain' segment, or something close to that event, and thus I sought his videos out. The show subsequently hooked me, and I even introduced it a couple of my offline friends. Its been a regular part of viewing experience thereafter, as one of the few series - and certainly only thing in terms of political satire (or either of its components) I actually followed week in and week out, alongside Colbert. I mostly appreciate it for the additional insight it provided when looking at politics across the pond, since I'm now old enough to vote and have to consider my place both within my own country but also as part of a wider global community, in an age where near-instant communication across the planet is a reality. When I speak to Americans online, thanks to Stewart, I have a much better understanding of what they're actually talking about, than I would have had otherwise (though obviously with some certain biases). As mentioned above, I do hope that Trevor Noah actually gets his chance, since whilst I can scarcely comprehend it, the Daily Show clearly does matter to a lot of people, and I do wonder how a 'black' (in the American cultural perspective) foreigner taking over the show seen as the voice of liberal America is going to be received.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2015 13:30
|
|
|
Get ready. Looks like they're giving him his own desk and backdrop.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
pentyne posted:The reviews made it seem like Trevor Noah was barely competent at it. After watching it I'm trying to figure out wtf they were watching instead. The whole "everyone has aides" jokes was criticized for him explaining it but the fake "aids" shock from the audience seemed the entire point of the joke. Same sentiment here. fart blood posted:Trevor has a little bit more venom in his jokes than Jon. The Whitney Houston and California jokes were kinds I wouldn't think to hear Jon say. And I wonder if this has anything to do with it. What I've gradually gathered from interactions online is that a lot of people in the States don't particularly like 'punching down' humour, and whilst that's generally understandable (certainly, doing that exclusively is just being an rear end in a top hat), I think such a mindset does rather exclude stuff that, whilst shocking and/or horrible to linger on, can be pretty drat funny in the moment. Otherwise British comedy wouldn't exist.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2015 12:49
|
|
|
Y-Hat posted:That's complete bullshit (why do you think Family Guy is still popular?), but I can see why you'd think that from talking to people online. Don't let the most easily offended of us color your perception of what we like in our comedy. Comedy should be funny first and foremost, I don't give a poo poo where it punches. I do think that you have to do more work with "punching down", but almost anything can be funny if you put your mind to it. My point was more that said 'lot of people' also end up covering a number of reviewing circles, and thus well, here we are.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2015 15:20
|
|
|
So, Trevor might have his first real challenge in terms of stories breaking the same day.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
The Trump segment is a beautiful blend of greater global political awareness and keeping it local to the United States. I do hope to see more like it in future - make people better aware that certain issues are not in fact particular to certain continents and cultures, so they can better understand their own local variants.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2015 16:39
|
|
|
swickles posted:Carson spoke at my graduation and its so strange to see him now. Aside from crazy view points, the way he speaks is drastically different. He was very passionate and engaging, telling stories about the first time attempting various surgeries (not his first time, the first time anyone had attempted!) and about his life and career. He only briefly mentioned his faith, and more as a secondary thing, not a preachy thing (I think it was something about how he got over some difficulty, that he reflected and prayed). So to see him now, speaking in such a mundane, almost bored fashion and looking drugged half the time espousing crazy non-sense that you would think a renowned surgeon would find ridiculous, its like a completely different person. I guess its the transformation of becoming a politician (or whatever encouragement he received on becoming more politically active)? So going from a profession he was personally passionate about (being a Doctor does typically require dedication and all) and well informed by experience, to someone who kinda has to wring together something out of what he vaguely knows so as to appeal to perceived demographics.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2015 00:06
|
|
|
Roy Wood is quickly becoming one of my favourites. Otherwise though, one of the first times I've actually sat through an interview. I knew of Coates prior due to his associations with some of the people I follow on Twitter, as well as his recent placement as writer of the Black Panther comic, and though I don't directly follow him, he's demonstrated some fairly interesting and nuanced thoughts.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2015 12:39
|
|
|
zakharov posted:That's an understatement, he's probably the leading thinker on racial justice (or lack thereof) in America today. That was probably lost on me, due to being British and not keeping as up to date on this stuff outside of what makes the news (and subsequently, gets mocked on stuff like the Daily Show). Interesting to learn though.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
Klepper really manages naivete in every flavour, so when he appears you just know something is gonna be terrible. Its a nice little game of political dread. The Fox News/Captain America controversy is hilarious on several levels though. First is that they're probably gone and given the issue a bunch of free publicity. Second is that it just exposes how lacking their awareness of the character really is. The Sons of the Serpent aren't 'new' enemies in any sense of the word, and have been racist towards foreigners since their inception. I bet they only knew about the Hitler punching cover due to watching the film.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2015 14:58
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Personally, I found it much more interesting when I learned that instead of slaves the pyramids were built by paid laborers. Most likely idle farmers and the like in the off season of Nile flooding and harvesting. Part of their pay being beer and they probably got free healthcare while doing it. Sure it was ancient healthcare, so yikes, but better than nothing probably. One thing to be careful about there is that Egypt gets kinda touchy about even suggesting that slave labour was involved, so its not exactly a perspective that's free of ideological influence (then again, few things in archaeology are). Not helped that whilst we call them 'the pyramids' because, well, that's what they physically are, as a collective group they span just short of two thousand years at the most, and even narrowing to the bulk of constructions, that's still most of a millennium. So there's a lot of ways societal and political practices could have gone back and forth in that time - so even if one pyramid was built by slaves, that wouldn't mean all of them were, especially with over two dozen dynasties across Egypt's history. As a bonus, assuming any kind of historical Joseph did actually exist, the first of the possibilities is late to the Great Pyramid's construction by about, oh, 700 years? Also, I feel amused and horrified to realise that devices used for elections in the United States are about as protected as the save files for a first or second generation Pokemon game.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2015 15:25
|
|
|
So, Trevor is going to have quite some poo poo to process on Monday.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2015 23:37
|
|
|
Drifter posted:With regards to Paris, or what? Aye. The actual attacks, the media response; christ.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2015 00:57
|
|
|
Drifter posted:What's been the media response? Beyond the reporting of the bombings and hostages and whatever? Fair few people annoyed with American news media reacting to numerous rumours and speculating before things were confirmed by sources like the AFP, and right-wingers on social media citing it as proof for their beliefs about foreigners and what America 'needs' to do. Sorry if I'm not clarifying right - kinda drained by watching this unfold.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2015 01:41
|
|
|
Ra Ra Rasputin posted:Trumps went from something to laugh at to something to be disgusted by, it's stuff you'd expect to be happening in 1815 not 2015. Mixed, I think. In some places he's been outpaced by other Republicans (including, of course, Ben Carson), whilst in others... I now know nothing about New Hampshire except it likes proving weird in US polling.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2015 14:11
|
|
|
So that segment on getting a hidden carry license was interesting. On the one hand the NRA guy seemed keen to stress that were general responsibilities that should be kept in mind when handling a firearm... But good god is it really just that easy to get a license? Did Klepper even have to pay for that, because I've spent a minimum of £85 (more due to retakes) trying to get my driving license - and any lethal incidents with the article involved would be hopefully be unintentional (and non-existent).
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2015 13:36
|
|
|
M_Gargantua posted:I'm a strong supporter of the second amendment, but I hate how the "good guy with a gun" people try to defend it. Well the thing is, a lot of the time, what the GGWAG crowd are spouting isn't really defending the right to have a gun, which is what the 2nd Amendment largely concerns, and are instead advocating for the active possession of a gun, often at all times. Not that you can, but that you should. Also a point I realised today - whilst its technically true that a GGWAG is probably the most effective response to an active shooter, the GGWAGs tend to be the police.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2015 02:03
|
|
|
People like Ted Cruz make we wish there was some kind of libel law regarding scientific data. Though that does remind me - exactly how much of a challenge has ratifying the agreement got in the houses of Congress?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2015 16:29
|
|
|
...I realise a lot of people, both in office and out, don't really understand how global politics work... but jesus. It says something when one of the more sane remarks is utterly wrong on who they'd be speaking to. I'm morbidly curious as to what would happen, and how fast poo poo would fall apart globally, if one of them did get in.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 10:20 |
|
|
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/17/politics/russia-putin-trump/ Tonight could be a really fun night.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2015 19:48
|
|