Political: *Now* I have a choice

Automatic Washer - The world's coolest Washing Machines, Dryers and Dishwashers

Help Support AutomaticWasher.org:

J

jasonl

New member
Joined
Jan 19, 2024
Messages
0
Location
Cookeville, TN
I don't get into any of the political discussions here but now I need y'alls help.

One favor: Please don't let this thread become a bashing thread. I need honest opinions here.

OK, now that I am FINALLY free from my parents (after 36 years mind you). I can now vote in the way that I want to vote.

Let me back up a little and give you the situation. I know VERY LITTLE about politics. Very little. Basically what I was told from my parents (and some of you might call them "Christianist" or whatever) was that:

Republicans = Good
Democrats = Bad

All this is based on "morals" meaning the Repubs/Conservatives believed it what is right, ie: str8 marriage, abortion is murder, etc. And of course the really extreme ones are against homosexuality and the really bad ones don't like blacks and women. I'm not like that but I'm just giving you a taste of what I grew up with.

On the other side of the coin are the (sarcasm) filthy, evil, perverted, nasty liberals who kill babies, give welfare to lazy people, marry same-sex couples, etc.

This is what I was taught by my parents and basically from when I was able to vote, I was TOLD to vote for Bush, (whoever it was in 1996), George W Bush (both times), or else. Put it this way, after my mom got through telling me how bad Bill Clinton, Al Gore & John Kerry was, my dad would follow up with "If you vote for that ...., I'm going to a) kick your ass b) kick you out of the house c) all of the above"

What they didn't know was I DID listen to what Clinton, Gore, & Kerry had to say. And now I'm listening to what Obama is telling us.

Even today, my best friend Henry is all for McCain for the same reasons he was for Bush back then... because of the "morals" thing and how "evil" Obama is... Whatever.

Enter Helen (and no comments from the peanut gallery)

Now that I'm married and free of the parents, Helen and her kind, angelic ways has slowly and patiently showed some of the truth in what's going on in this country. She's helped me overcome this brainwashing I've had over the years. This country's in BAD shape because I (stupidly) and lots of others voted Bush in, and he did nothing but run this damn place into the ground, and NOW at the end of his term wants to put us into more debt to "fix" the problem. She has shown me how Bill Clinton got this country righted financially by the time his term was up and now hat I look back on it, you know what? The 90s was a party compared to what we have now.

So here I am in 2008 trying to make a decision. I want to do what is right and what will be best for this country. I don't want another 8 years of war and high gas prices. I don't want to spend the next few years working temp jobs and trying to figure out how I'm going to get me, Helen, and the 3 cats fed and hope we can pay the mortgage. What we really need (and I don't want to sound like a commercial) is CHANGE. Can we have the 90s back? Can we have the peace and love that people wanted so bad in the 60s? I don't think McCain is going to bring that to us. Obama might do it but it might take lots of time and more than 8 years to clean this mess up.

We vote because we have a choice. And 2008 (20 years after I registered as a "republican") is the year to make a real honest to God choice on who I think should run the country.

I'm not telling anyone how they should vote but I'm pretty sure I think I know where I'm headed in November.

Obama '08.
 
Opinions are like @$$ holes. Everyone has one and some reall

Interesting. Never discussed politics with partners, parents, siblings, family.
 
My mother is a cradle republican but is starting to question those beliefs now more than ever. With the recent market losses, their retirement accounts are worth far less than they were and it's likely they won't see those losses recovered in their lifetime.

The hard part of politics is filtering out the "noise" of the campaign and getting down to issues. If you hunt for it, it's out there. My advice is to not watch the TV machine or listen to the talking dough-heads on the radio, but to just read. Read everything you can. Online newspaper publications are a great start. The more real news you read, the more you'll start to understand just how the government impacts your life and this country as a whole.
 
I grew up as a "Yellow Dog" democrat. My dad would do to me what your threatened to do to you if I had ever voted Republican. Having gays in my family I was taught that Republicans are busy body do-gooders who want to kill my some of my uncles and cousins and destroy American business for the rest of us.

Now that I'm older (and definately not wiser), I find that I agree with the dems on most issues.

Find a variety of sources, get informed and make your own choice. I would avoid Fox News, I used to watch them for my "counterpoint", but I have caught them in too many lies to trust them.

I admit my sources are slanted towards dems, but I use:
Stephanie Miller,
Randy Rhodes,
Mike Malloy,
Huffington Post,
CNN, and
Keith Olberman

Good Luck, vote for who you want, but vote informed.
 
BTW, I was a Hillary supporter too. I grew up in Little Rock Arkansas, and I love the Clintons.
 
Well at least President Clinton could multi-task. He was working the interns, enjoying cigars AND running the country.

It would appear that the current buffoon can't do even ONE thing (right).

Speaking of that family, didja know that in Manhattan Clinton is on top (north of) of Chelsea? The neighborhodds, I mean the neighboroods!
 
jax - Steph Miller just exploded onto my XM radio a couple of months ago and I love her show! It's slanted but oh so entertaining! Randi is amazing too - bounce those boobies ;-) Do you listen to the Rachel Maddow show on Air America as well? She's my favorite of them all - probably a tie with Steph and Ed Shultz but my son and I really enjoy the "Ask Dr. Maddow" segment.
 
Well Jason, I don't think you're going to see gas prices go down a whole lot no matter who gets elected. The current financial meltdown should put the brakes on the reckless behaviors we've seen since deregulation started this whole mess about a decade ago. So the undoing of everything Bush and the republican-controlled congresses (including those before he was elected--remember Newt Gingrich thwarting everything he could manage of Clinton's agenda--is about to begin, as long as Mc Cain doesn't get in there and allow more of the same. It's going to take more than a new broom to clean out Washington D.C.. This is going to require a high colonic.

I've been avoiding the political stuff here since it's way too divisive and erodes the friendly atmosphere this site is famous for. But you're asking for our input, so there was mine.
 
Actually, president Clinton started this financial mess. He amended the fair housing act to require loans to be made to low-income people that didn't have enough money to pay back the loans. The result was bad loans. The banks sold these bad loans as mortgage back securities, and when the homeowners foreclosed...here we are!

While I'm not much of a supporter Bush, and I think he pissed away lots of money and made many bad decisions. Clinton was not too bad...he balanced the budget, and was rather fiscally conservative. I still would like to see a more Regan type republican that lets the economy do what it does best.

You can name pretty much any problem that is affecting this country nowadays, and you will find not only is the government NOT solving the problem and wasting our tax money, but they are CAUSING it! The democrats have traditionally been the cause of this, as their quick knee-jerk reaction is to regulate and throw money at the problem...this ends up not fixing the original problem, but creating new problems where they previously weren't. Now the republicans are getting in on the same act with Pres. Bush leading the way! There's no real alternative. I am getting so sick of all these politicians buying votes. We can be partially to blame for this, as the general American public is too lazy to fix problems themselves, and instead turns to the government and whines "fix it".

A perfect example of this is FEMA. Instead of properly preparing for a storm, we sit around and wait for the government to give a handout and take care of our laziness
 
> Actually, president Clinton started this financial mess. He amended the fair housing act to require loans to be made to low-income people that didn't have enough money to pay back the loans. The result was bad loans.<

I've heard some revisionist history in my 40+ years, but I think the above tops it all. Simply astonishing ignorance.

We can thank one man for this housing mess, and his name is Phil Gramm ("Foreclosure Phil"), not Bill Clinton.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/07/foreclosure-phil.html
 
Jason,

I do not mean to hijack your thread. I certainly am very happy that you are now able to feel 'free' within your own decision for whom you will vote for on November 4th. I remember the first time I voted, and will show my age when I say I voted and was able to make the decision for myself, and not based on the input of family and friends back in 2000.

To briefly touch on the subject of the bad mortgages to low-income people:

Tonight I had a lovely discussion with a very lovely friend from work, I'll call her Sally. We were discussing the current economic crisis, and we discussed mortgages and what their current role has been in the crisis, and a brief lending history within the last 25 years. I had mentioned that say 30 years ago when my folks bought a house, they probably had a difficult time getting a note without a substantial down payment, plus the 30 percent rule of income to debt on the note. I took her to current times then when her and I both bought a house. We both thought it was awfully strange that each of our lenders said we were 'approved' for amounts WAY beyond any responsible purchasing amounts should ever be. Herself - 250k, myself, 90k, on SINK incomes. We both understood what our goals were, with her buying a house well below her 'approved' cap, and myself following suit. Her bank even said that they would 'fudge' numbers if she needed a few 5 or 10k more. Her remark to me was, "why wouldn't I believe what my lender was telling me? Aren't they supposed to be looking out for me?"

My answer to her? "Absolutely not. You and I were smart enough to understand our fiscal boundaries - but can you imagine what the hundreds of thousands of other individuals and couples heard the same line in the last 10 years and bought it? Banking is business. If they are able to make more, and they will, on the interest of a 250k note instead of a 100k note, which one do you think they'll push off the most, regardless if they think the person can afford it or not?"

I would certainly believe that it was more of the middle class and upper middle class that fell within these malpractices than anything.

Ben
 
The line I stated is more or less a 1-line history of the financial mess....yes, I left out a lot of details in the effort to condense, including Phil Graham's role, while he is a great contributor to the mess, is contribution to it is sort of "after the fact" In other words, the runaway train was already rolling down the tracks, he just fed more coal into the boiler!

Still, I don't think regulation is the answer, primarily because of the fact we tend to regulate the wrong things. The American public says "do something, regulate it" and the government responds by throwing some feel-good, looks pretty legislation at the issue that only ends up wasting our money and time, all the while the problem never gets solved, and the fat cats that caused the problem continue to do damage.

If you want more detail on how Bill Clinton started this mess, do some research on the Community Reinvestment act. He revised and strengthened it in 1995. Part of that revision was a minimum requirement that banks had to give mortgages to low-income home and business loans. If you want to *really* look back at the roots of the Community Reinvestment act, it goes all the way back to the Carter administration...yet another democrat.

The CRA is yet another one of those feel-good, sounds-nice legislations that came about from people whining to the federal government to "fix" something. Yea, it certainly looks good on paper, but spells disaster in the real world.

Like I said in a previous post, the US constution does not guarantee happiness, but only protects your right to PERSUE happiness!...you gotta take care of that part yourself!

Here's a site with some more details on the CRA, which also explains how Bill Clinton was involved in it....I didn't re-write history...only condensed it into a single sentence!

http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_1_the_trillion_dollar.html
 
I hope I'm staying on-topic...

Hey Jason. I don't think you're alone in your situation. As adults many of us make decisions based on belief systems that were established during our upbringing. For example, many who identify with a particular religion do so because they were raised in that religion. They didn't choose their faith on their own; instead they were told from an early age that it was the correct faith. And politics aren't so different.

There are exceptions, of course, but many peoples' political beliefs echo their parents' beliefs. Again, it comes down to believing in what one is told to believe. But what happens when we start to think independently and consider different schools of thought?

I applaud that you're challenging the political principles you were raised to believe in. Whether one is brought up liberal or conservative, it's so important that they explore what is truly important to them regardless of society's or family’s influence. And it appears that what you're discovering about yourself--and maybe you always knew it--is that you're more of a liberal than the conservative you were raised to be.

The beauty in all of this is that you’re poised to cast a vote that is no one else's but yours. And now, when your vote is more important than it has probably been at any time during your life, you can vote with convictions that you needn't justify to anyone. Relish that. Whether you vote for a candidate you believe in, a candidate who is the lesser of two evils, or a prop/measure that’s near and dear to you, it doesn’t matter. Your vote belongs to you and only you, and you can cast that vote in any way that you please.

In a way, it’s a voyage of self-discovery. So bon voyage! Learn about yourself, maybe enjoy a perspective you’ve never considered, and bask in the realm of new possibilities. And no matter what, you’re never wrong about your beliefs when you feel passionately about them.

Best,
David
 
Comment of the Day

"Wow, too bad we didn't privatize Social Security when Bush wanted us to. We'd really be rolling in it now, wouldn't we?"
 
....actually, the exact opposite is happening according to your article. Yes, you are right The president wants to sieze wall street! Like you said, I don't want "Bush and his henchmen seize Main Street and give it away to their friends on Wall Street. "

The nice thing is that Congressional republicans do NOT want this bailout to go through they are bucking the president on the plan, which I am certainly glad of. I don't want me and fellow taxpayers to be saddled with over a trillion dollars of debt, and a conversion of our economy to socialism, and it looks like the republicans in congress recognize this sentiment of the public too. I do not want any wall-street welfare! Yes, correcting this may hurt for a while, but I say let these banks fail, failure is part of capitalism. The cream will rise to the top. They made bad decisions. Yes, it may be a rough ride, but in the long term, we should come out in the better....better than straddled with more debt that we already cannot even pay!
 
Here's an interesting twist...Obama is getting a bump in the polls because McCain went to Washington and stopped the bailout. Now, from what I have been hearing, and the word of mouth around my circle, the American public does not want their tax money going to bail out Wall street. McCain apparently is stopping this from happening (obviously, this is a perfect demonstration that he's not a "Bush" cronie)

So what gives with these polls?!??! In the simplistic sense, it sounds like McCain did what people wanted, you gotta give 'em credit for that!
 
McCain stopped the bailout? Who told you that?

Wait, I bet it's the same people who told you Bill Clinton is responsible for the housing meltdown.

You really need some new sources for news.
 
Greg,
I haven't listen to Rachel outside of her being on Keith O's show. I like her when she is on Keith O's show. Plus, she is HOT HOT HOT (I know, I know, but one can dream). I think her show's audio (like Keith's) is available as a podcast. I will check it out.

Stephanie is my favorite. She keeps it funny enough so you don't cry over all that is going on. Sirius cut her show down to one hour so I have to get her through the podcast (only $4.95 a month if you buy a year in advance, *ding*). Same with Randy, there is no progressive talk radio in the conservative cesspool of Tennessee.

BTW, did you hear "The Ex-Beauty Queen has Got a Gun" on Stephanie's Thursday Show? It has to be one of the funniest things I have ever, ever heard.
 
Take a look...

Hi Jason!

Doesn't matter how you vote, just vote intellegently! Here's some info for you to take a look at verified by Snopes.

The importance of voting this year continues to be more visible.........




According to Snopes.com, Princeton was requested to put a 'restriction' on distribution
of any copies of the thesis of Michelle Obama (a/k/a/ Michelle laVaughn Robinson) saying
it could not be made available until November 5, 2008 but when it was published on a
political website they decided they would lift the restriction.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/thesis.asp
Subj: Thesis - Michele Obama aka Michelle LaVaughn Robinson
OBAMA'S MILITANT RACISM REVEALED

In her senior thesis at Princeton, Michele Obama, the wife of Barack Obama
stated that America was a nation founded on 'crime and hatred'.
Moreover, she stated that whites in America were 'ineradicably racist'. The
1985 thesis, titled 'Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community' was
written under her maiden name, Michelle LaVaughn Robinson.
Michelle Obama stated in her thesis that to 'Whites at Princeton , it often
seems as if, to them, she will always be Black first...' However, it was reported
by a fellow black classmate, 'If those 'Whites at Princeton ' really saw Michelle
as one who always would 'be Black first,' it seems that she gave them that
impression'.
Most alarming is Michele Obama's use of the terms 'separationist' and
'integrationist' when describing the views of black people.
Mrs. Obama clearly identifies herself with a 'separationist' view of race.
'By actually working with the Black lower class or within their communities as
a result of their ideologies, a separationist may better understand the desperation
of their situation and feel more hopeless about a resolution as opposed to an
integrationist who is ignorant to their plight.'
Obama writes that the path she chose by attending Princeton would likely lead to
her 'further integration and/or assimilation into a white cultural and social structure
that will only allow me to remain on the periphery of society; never becoming a full
participant.'
Michele Obama clearly has a chip on her shoulder.
Not only does she see separate black and white societies in America , but
she elevates black over white in her world.

Here is another passage that is uncomfortable and ominous in meaning:
'There was no doubt in my mind that as a member of the black
community, I am obligated to this community and will utilize
all of my present and future resources to benefit the black
community first and foremost.'
What is Michelle Obama planning to do with her future resources if she's first
lady that will elevate black over white in America ?
The following passage appears to be a call to arms for affirmative action
policies that could be the hallmark of an Obama administration.
'Predominately white universities like Princeton are socially and academically
designed to cater to the needs of the white students comprising the bulk of
their enrollments.'

The conclusion of her thesis is alarming.
Michelle Obama's poll of black alumni concludes that other black students
at Princeton do not share her obsession with blackness. But rather than
celebrate, she is horrified that black alumni identify with our common
American culture more than they value the color of their skin. 'I hoped that
these findings would help me conclude that despite the high degree of
identification with whites as a result of the educational and occupational
path that black Princeton alumni follow, the alumni would still maintain a
certain level of identification with the black community. However, these
findings do not support this possibility.'
Is it no wonder that most black alumni ignored her racist questionnaire?
Only 89 students responded out of 400 who were asked for input.
Michelle Obama does not look into a crowd of Obama supporters and see
Americans. She sees black people and white people eternally conflicted
with one another.
The thesis provides a trove of Mrs. Obama's thoughts and
world view seen through a race-based prism. This is a very
divisive view for a potential first lady that would do untold
damage to race relations in this country in a Barack Obama
administration.

Michelle Obama's intellectually refined racism should give all
Americans pause for deep concern.
Now maybe she's changed, but she sure sounds like someone with an axe to
grind with America . Will the press let Michelle get a free pass over her obviously
racist comment about American whites? I am sure that it will.
PS: We paid for her scholarship, and one more thing. Pres. Bill Clinton appointed he head of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae in the late 90's. Their greedy, crooked leadership created this economic meltdown that has finally caught up with all of us.

Mark Lightedcontrols
 
> Michelle Obama's intellectually refined racism should give all Americans pause for deep concern.

What gives me pause for concern is the mortally wounded and increasingly desperate far right-wing in America:

"Much scrutiny and discussion has been focused on a single phrase contained within the thesis, the statement that "blacks must join in solidarity to combat a white oppressor." This phrase has repeatedly been quoted out of context and presented as if it reflected Michelle Obama's own philosophy, but in its full context it is clearly her speculation about what she thought some of the respondents she surveyed for her thesis (i.e., students who had attended Princeton in earlier years) might have been feeling.."

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/thesis.asp
 
JeffG

So that things would not be taken out of context, I posted the link to her Thesis. Read it for yourself. You can read. No?
 
And to correct Mark's outrageous misinformation, for anyone intereted in truth as opposed to right-wing lies:

Her senior thesis doesn't say that

A chain e-mail about Michelle Obama purports to be excerpts from a senior thesis she wrote while at Princeton University.

It's true that Obama, then Michelle Robinson, attended Princeton and wrote a thesis titled "Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community."

In Obama's thesis, she sought to quantify how the attitudes of black Princeton alumni changed after graduation in regard to race relations and social change. Obama was especially interested in the attitudes of Princeton alumni in regard to improving the lives of lower-income blacks.

To document the change in attitudes, Obama devised an 18-question survey and mailed it to black alumni. Her thesis is a discussion of her methodology and an analysis of the results. It contains a limited amount of personal opinion in the introduction.

But the thesis did not say that the United States was founded on "crime and hatred" and that whites in America are "ineradicably racist." This appears to be a complete fabrication.

The thesis is available on the Internet; the politics news site Politico reported on it in February 2008 and posted a copy it had obtained from Princeton University.

We downloaded a copy, which appears to be complete with no numbered pages missing. We read it, but we did not find the phrases the e-mail describes.

We took the additional step of scanning the document through optical character recognition software so we could search its text electronically. An automated search did not find the words "crime," "hatred," "hate," "ineradicably," or "racist" in the document.

The e-mail goes on to list some accurate quotes from the thesis, but its initial accusations are fiction. The words "crime and hatred" and "ineradicably racist" are inventions of whoever penned the e-mail, not words that appeared in Obama's thesis. Because of that fabrication and the e-mail's intention to defame the Obamas, we rate this claim Pants on Fire!

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/504/
 
Maybe you're the problem?

This is Your Nation on White Privilege
September 13, 2008, 2:01 pm
This is Your Nation on White Privilege
By Tim Wise

For those who still can't grasp the concept of white privilege, or who are constantly looking for some easy-to-understand examples of it, perhaps this list will help.

White privilege is when you can get pregnant at seventeen like Bristol Palin and everyone is quick to insist that your life and that of your family is a personal matter, and that no one has a right to judge you or your parents, because 'every family has challenges,' even as black and Latino families with similar 'challenges' are regularly typified as irresponsible, pathological and arbiters of social decay.

White privilege is when you can call yourself a 'fuckin' redneck,' like Bristol Palin's boyfriend does, and talk about how if anyone messes with you, you'll 'kick their fuckin' ass,' and talk about how you like to 'shoot shit' for fun, and still be viewed as a responsible, all-American boy ( and a great son-in-law to be) rather than a thug.

White privilege is when you can attend four different colleges in six years like Sarah Palin did (one of which you basically failed out of, then returned to after making up some coursework at a community college), and no one questions your intelligence or commitment to achievement, whereas a person of color who did this would be viewed as unfit for college, and probably someone who only got in in the first place because of affirmative action.

White privilege is when you can claim that being mayor of a town smaller than most medium-sized colleges, and then Governor of a state with about the same number of people as the lower fifth of the island of Manhattan, makes you ready to potentially be president, and people don't all piss on themselves with laughter, while being a black U.S. Senator, two-term state Senator, and constitutional law scholar, means you're 'untested.'


White privilege is being able to say that you support the words 'under God' in the pledge of allegiance because 'if it was good enough for the founding fathers, it's good enough for me,' and not be immediately disqualified from holding office--since, after all, the pledge was written in the late 1800s and the 'under God' part wasn't added until the 1950s--while believing that reading accused criminals and terrorists their rights (because, ya know, the Constitution, which you used to teach at a prestigious law school requires it), is a dangerous and silly idea only supported by mushy liberals.


White privilege is being able to be a gun enthusiast and not make people immediately scared of you.


White privilege is being able to have a husband who was a member of an extremist political party that wants your state to secede from the Union, and whose motto was 'Alaska first,' and no one questions your patriotism or that of your family, while if you're black and your spouse merely fails to come to a 9/11 memorial so she can be home with her kids on the first day of school, people immediately think she's being disrespectful.


White privilege is being able to make fun of community organizers and the work they do--like, among other things, fight for the right of women to vote, or for civil rights, or the 8-hour workday, or an end to child labor--and people think you're being pithy and tough, but if you merely question the experience of a small town mayor and 18-month governor with no foreign policy expertise beyond a class she took in college--you're somehow being mean, or even sexist.


White privilege is being able to convince white women who don't even agree with you on any substantive issue to vote for you and your running mate anyway, because all of a sudden your presence on the ticket has inspired confidence in these same white women, and made them give your party a 'second look.'


White privilege is being able to fire people who didn't support your political campaigns and not be accused of abusing your power or being a typical politician who engages in favoritism, while being black and merely knowing some folks from the old-line political machines in Chicago means you must be corrupt.


White privilege is being able to attend churches over the years whose pastors say that people who voted for John Kerry or merely criticize George W. Bush are going to hell, and that the U.S. is an explicitly Christian nation and the job of Christians is to bring Christian theological principles into government, and who bring in speakers who say the conflict in the Middle East is God's punishment on Jews for rejecting Jesus, and everyone can still think you're just a good church-going Christian, but if you're black and friends with a black pastor who has noted (as have Colin Powell and the U.S. Department of Defense) that terrorist attacks are often the result of U.S. foreign policy and who talks about the history of racism and its effect on black people, you're an extremist who probably hates America.


White privilege is not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is when asked by a reporter, and then people get angry at the reporter for asking you such a 'trick question,' while being black and merely refusing to give one-word answers to the queries of Bill O'Reilly means you're dodging the question, or trying to seem overly intellectual and nuanced.


White privilege is being able to claim your experience as a POW has anything at all to do with your fitness for president, while being black and experiencing racism is, as Sarah Palin has referred to it a 'light' burden.


And finally, white privilege is the only thing that could possibly allow someone to become president when he has voted with George W. Bush 90 percent of the time, even as unemployment is skyrocketing, people are losing their homes, inflation is rising, and the U.S. is increasingly isolated from world opinion, jus t because white voters aren't sure about that whole 'change' thing. Ya know, it's just too vague and ill-defined, unlike, say, four more years of the same, which is very concrete and certain…


White privilege is, in short, the problem.
 

Similar threads

phillymatt53
The Home Entertainment Industry
2
Replies
57
Views
2K
rinso
rinso
W
Why are my crisper drawers so cold?
Replies
4
Views
460
wendy
W
S
Whirlpool Washer WTW5000DW3
Replies
9
Views
712
whirlpool862
W
V
A strange question about refrigerators
Replies
4
Views
172
repairguy
repairguy
Renso Brite
FOCA in a TL HE??
Replies
9
Views
572
user 12105
U

Latest posts

Back
Top