House Of Evil / Seed Of Peace - Page 27 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-19-2010, 10:44 AM   #391
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Canadiens1131's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,363
Local Time: 07:00 AM
Yenta estrogen gangbang. It's as close to the Crossfire-style clusterfuck as a mainstream womens' show can get, apparently.
__________________

__________________
Canadiens1131 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2010, 09:30 PM   #392
Refugee
 
A stor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: U.S.A. East Coast
Posts: 2,464
Local Time: 11:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
There has been much dispute and debate as to the definition of "jihad," even in the Muslim community. According to a conservative interpretation, the acts of the 9/11 hijackers would be in line with the ultimate act of self-sacrifice in the service of a holy war. Their hope would likely be that Allah would overlook their transgressions in light of their greater committment/submission to His ways. (Though there is no guarantee of Paradise in the Muslim religion for anyone, according to some interpretations, jihad may be the only such way to Paradise.)

And shoot, if I were doing what they were doing the morning after, I would do whatever the hell I wanted the night before.

Also, referring to these terrorists (and the many who cheered their actions around the globe) minimizes their humanity and their deeply-held convictions, which allows us to avoid dealing with the very real challenges of Islamofascism around the globe. As Bono said, "we cannot underestimate the sex appeal of a Hitler."
I agree. There is much dispute.

I think it depends on the muslims you personally know. I asked my two family members as to what jihad means to them. They are American born, non-middle eastern disent. Moderate Muslim. They said for them it means "personal struggle." To obey God. They do not in any way agree with the mass murder which occured on 9/11. They feel it was too horrible for words and a "hijacking" of everything they believe in.
__________________

__________________
A stor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2010, 10:54 PM   #393
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 06:00 AM
To be frank, mass killing in the name of God is not new nor is it unique to the Muslim faith.

There are more than a few OT stories in our own Bible that make it pretty clear what should happen to those who tangle with God's people.

If we can interpret those stories in a moderating way, then I don't see why Muslims can't be afforded the same privilege to do the same with their scriptures.
__________________
maycocksean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2010, 09:33 AM   #394
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,430
Local Time: 11:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean View Post
To be frank, mass killing in the name of God is not new nor is it unique to the Muslim faith.

There are more than a few OT stories in our own Bible that make it pretty clear what should happen to those who tangle with God's people.

If we can interpret those stories in a moderating way, then I don't see why Muslims can't be afforded the same privilege to do the same with their scriptures.
No doubt. At the same time, the separation of church and state affords a great deal of religious freedom, while refusing to codify church or religious law as something binding on its citizens. Sharia as implemented thus far in the UK has had a different effect.

I'm all for moderation. But as the UK grapples with the rapid influx of immigrants who come from less-moderate countries, the balance between affording them religious protection without codifying more extreme laws becomes a more difficult one to navigate.
__________________
nathan1977 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2010, 11:06 AM   #395
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 06:00 AM
foxnews.com

National Public Radio fired Fox News contributor Juan Williams on Wednesday after a Monday night appearance on Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor" in which Williams said that it makes him nervous to fly on airplanes with devoutly-clad Muslims.

"I mean, look, Bill, I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country," Williams told host Bill O'Reilly during a discussion on the dilemma between fighting jihadists and fears about average Muslims.

"But when I get on a plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they're identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous," Williams said.

Williams also commented on remarks by Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad warning Americans that the fight is coming to the U.S.

"He said the war with Muslims, America's war is just beginning, first drop of blood. I don't think there's any way to get away from these facts," Williams said.

NPR issued a statement saying that it was "terminating" Williams' contract over the remarks.

"Tonight we gave Juan Williams notice that we are terminating his contract as a senior news analyst for NPR News," CEO Vivian Schiller and Senior Vice President for News Ellen Weiss said in a statement.

"Juan has been a valuable contributor to NPR and public radio for many years and we did not make this decision lightly or without regret. However, his remarks on 'The O'Reilly Factor' this past Monday were inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR," they said. "We regret these circumstances and thank Juan Williams for his many years of service to NPR and public radio."

The conversation with O'Reilly stemmed from a well-publicized argument the previous week between O'Reilly and "The View" hosts Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg, who walked off their own set when O'Reilly said, "Muslims killed us on 9/11."

The comment had been an explanation by O'Reilly why the majority of Americans don't want a mosque housed in an Islamic cultural center built near Ground Zero.

The women, who argued that Oklahoma City bomber Tim McVeigh wasn't a Muslim, returned after O'Reilly said that he was -- perhaps inartfully -- talking about Muslim extremists.

The conversation has been fodder for both shows. Goldberg appeared Wednesday night on "On the Record With Greta Van Susteren," and said when she cursed at O'Reilly on air -- a word that was bleeped for broadcast -- she knew she was beyond reason and had to leave.

"He wasn't thoughtful and he knew he wasn't thoughtful and once he said, 'if I offended someone I apologize' ... it showed me that he recognized it," she said.

"But he knew that for us it was not ok. ... He got what he wanted and I don't feel bad about doing it. Should I have sat and just bit my tongue? I don't think I could because it was too much like all the things I heard about black folks and women," Goldberg said, adding that she has no hard feelings and planned to appear on O'Reilly's show in a few weeks..

Williams, a liberal African American commentator who has written extensively on civil rights in America, previously got in trouble with NPR for comments he made while appearing on "The O'Reilly Factor" in February 2009. At that time, he described first lady Michelle Obama as having a "Stokely Carmichael in a designer dress thing going."

His position at NPR was changed from staff correspondent to national analyst.

He has declined to comment since his dismissal.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2010, 11:09 AM   #396
has a
 
kramwest1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Not a toliet wall
Posts: 6,939
Local Time: 05:00 AM


I haven't liked Juan Williams for a while now.
__________________
Bread & Circuses
kramwest1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2010, 08:05 PM   #397
Refugee
 
A stor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: U.S.A. East Coast
Posts: 2,464
Local Time: 11:00 AM
This is the first time I have heard of him.
__________________
A stor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2010, 08:09 PM   #398
Refugee
 
A stor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: U.S.A. East Coast
Posts: 2,464
Local Time: 11:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean View Post
To be frank, mass killing in the name of God is not new nor is it unique to the Muslim faith.

There are more than a few OT stories in our own Bible that make it pretty clear what should happen to those who tangle with God's people.

If we can interpret those stories in a moderating way, then I don't see why Muslims can't be afforded the same privilege to do the same with their scriptures.
I agree.
__________________
A stor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2011, 02:54 AM   #399
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 12:00 PM
Salon, Feb. 26
Quote:
Last week in Tennessee, a Republican legislator introduced a bill that would make following sharia--Islamic law--a felony, punishable by up to 15 years in prison. How such a law would be enforced is not clear; furthermore, it's probably unconstitutional. It is clear, though, that an anti-sharia movement is growing in the United States. Last year Oklahoma voters approved a measure that bars courts from considering sharia. Similar measures have now been introduced or passed in at least 13 other states. Indeed, anti-Muslim political operatives have been warning of "creeping sharia" and "Islamist lawfare" for years, though the anti-sharia efforts have gained new prominence in recent months.

But even basic facts about sharia--what is it? how is it used in American courts?--are hard to come by. So I decided to talk to Abed Awad, a New Jersey-based attorney and an expert on sharia who regularly handles cases that involve Islamic law. He is also a member of the adjunct faculties at Rutgers Law School and Pace Law School. He recently answered my questions via e-mail.


[Salon:] Can you define sharia--is it a specific body of laws?

[Awad:] Sharia is more than simply "law" in the prescriptive sense. It is also a methodology through which a jurist engages the religious texts to ascertain divine will. As a jurist-made law, the outcome of this process of ascertaining divine will is called fiqh (positive law), which is the moral and legal anchor of a Muslim's total existence. Sharia governs every aspect of an observant Muslim's life.

The sharia juristic inquiry begins with the Quran and the Sunna. The Quran is the Muslim Holy Scripture--like the New Testament for Christians or the Old Testament for the Jews. The Sunna is essentially the prophetic example embodied in the sayings and conduct of the Prophet Mohammed. After the two primary sources of Islamic law, the Quran and the Sunna, the two main secondary sources of Islamic law are: (1) ijma (consensus of the scholars and jurists, and sometimes the entire community), and (2) qiyas (reasoning by analogy to one of the higher sources). Other secondary sources of Islamic law are juristic preference, public interest and custom.

Sharia is extremely flexible and subject to various interpretations. In the 19th century, Western colonialism decimated the sharia legal system, replacing it with Western codes. This caused a serious decline in the community of jurists. In addition, there is today a debate that revolves around the failure of the modern jurists--not the system of sharia--to develop the sharia to adapt with the current circumstances of modernity.


How often does sharia come up in U.S. courts? Has there been an uptick recently?


It comes up often because the American-Muslim community is growing. With an estimated 8 million Americans who adhere to Islam, it is only natural to see a rapid increase of Muslim litigants before American courts where sharia may be an issue--especially in family matters. 



Can you give a couple examples of when sharia has come up in cases that you've handled?



In the past 12 years as an attorney, I have handled many cases with an Islamic law component. US courts are required to regularly interpret and apply foreign law--including Islamic law--to everything from the recognition of foreign divorces and custody decrees to the validity of marriages, the enforcement of money judgments, probating an Islamic will and the damages element in a commercial dispute. Sharia is relevant in a US court either as a foreign law or as a source of information to understand the expectations of the parties in a dispute.

Suppose a New York resident wife files for divorce in New York; her husband files for annulment in Egypt claiming the parties were never validly married. A New York judge must determine whether he has jurisdiction and whether state law governs this dispute. If the conflict of laws of New York requires that Egyptian law govern the issue of validity, the court would require expert testimony about Egyptian law that is based on Islamic law.

Another common use of sharia in American courts is in the enforcement of Muslim marriage contracts. Like the majority of Americans, Muslims opt for a religious marriage ceremony. In every Muslim marriage, the parties enter into a Muslim marriage contract. The contract includes a provision called mahr, which is a lump sum payment from the groom to the bride that, unless otherwise agreed, would be due at the time of the husband's death or the dissolution of the marriage. An American court would require expert testimony to understand what a mahr is, what a Muslim marriage contract is, and to better understand the expectations of the parties at the time of the contract. All of this would be necessary for the court to determine whether the contract is valid under state law.


Is sharia used in US courts any differently than other foreign or religious systems of law?

No, it is utilized the same way as Jewish law or canon law or any other law.


A lot of critics of sharia have cited a case in New Jersey in which a husband cited sharia to argue that he did not rape his wife. What happened in that case?

The case is S.D. v. M.J.R. It's not about sharia as much as it is about a state court judge who failed to follow New Jersey law. In this case, the plaintiff-wife sought a restraining order against her husband, alleging that his nonconsensual action constituted physical abuse. She testified that her husband told her repeatedly that, according to his religion, she was obligated to submit to his sexual requests. The trial judge refused to issue the restraining order, finding that the defendant was operating under a religious belief that he was entitled to have marital relations with his wife whenever he wanted. Thus, he did not form the criminal intent to commit domestic violence. But, of course, the appellate court reversed the trial court decision, holding that the defendant's nonconsensual sexual intercourse with his wife was "unquestionably knowing, regardless of his view that his religion permitted him to act as he did." The appellate ruling is consistent with Islamic law, which prohibits spousal abuse, including nonconsensual sexual relations. A minority of Muslims mistakenly believe that a husband can discipline his wife with physical force in the interest of saving the marriage and avoiding divorce.


What about stoning, which critics also claim is part of sharia?

The Quran does not provide for the stoning of adulterers. The punishment prescribed in the Quran is lashing. However, there is a prophetic tradition that adopted the Jewish custom of stoning adulterers. Many people describe the American legal system as having a Judeo-Christian heritage. Does that mean that we will stone adulterers as required in the Bible? No. As long as a provision in Jewish law, canon law or sharia does not offend our constitutional protections and public policy, courts will consider it. Otherwise, courts would not consider it. In other words, foreign law or religious law in American courts is considered within American constitutional strictures.


What do you make of these state-level efforts to ban consideration of sharia in American courts?

Other than the fact that such bans are unconstitutional--a federal court recently held that a ban would likely violate the Supremacy Clause and the First Amendment--they are a monumental waste of time. Our judges are equipped with the constitutional framework to refuse to recognize a foreign law. In the end, our Constitution is the law of the land.

The only explanation is that they appear to be driven by an agenda infused with hate, ignorance and Islamophobia intent on dehumanizing an entire religious community. That a dozen states are actively moving to adopt anti-sharia laws demonstrates that this is part of a pattern. This is not haphazard. Someone--a group of people--is trying to turn this into a national issue. I believe this will become an election issue. Are you with the sharia or with the U.S. Constitution? It is absurd.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2011, 07:42 PM   #400
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,271
Local Time: 05:00 AM
Quote:
Many people describe the American legal system as having a Judeo-Christian heritage. Does that mean that we will stone adulterers as required in the Bible? No. As long as a provision in Jewish law, canon law or sharia does not offend our constitutional protections and public policy, courts will consider it. Otherwise, courts would not consider it. In other words, foreign law or religious law in American courts is considered within American constitutional strictures.
THANK YOU. I'm glad that this was clarified, though unfortunately the people who need to hear this probably won't, and if they do, they won't care.

I still find it incredibly funny how the very same people who think Christianity should be a part of our law-making process are freaking out over the idea of Islam having any ties to that same process. The hypocrisy and ignorance never fail to astound me, seriously.

Quote:
Other than the fact that such bans are unconstitutional--a federal court recently held that a ban would likely violate the Supremacy Clause and the First Amendment--they are a monumental waste of time.
Again, the Constitution is only a buzzword to some people. They don't understand it and it means nothing to them. This is proof of that right here.

And agreed on the waste of time thing, too. I mean, I've never been to Tennessee, and the last time I was in Oklahoma was when I was 3 or 4 and we were driving through there on a family trip, so how big the Muslim population is in those states, I don't know...but the idea of those states getting all bent out of shape about sharia law cracks me up. Is this really THAT big an encroaching threat to those states?

So good to see more politicians trying to divert attention from the legitimate issues at hand by dealing with crap like this instead . Speaking of which...

Quote:
Someone--a group of people--is trying to turn this into a national issue. I believe this will become an election issue. Are you with the sharia or with the U.S. Constitution?
... Ugh, I sincerely hope not. *Wishes we could fast-forward to the end of 2012 all of a sudden*.

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2011, 02:16 PM   #401
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 06:00 AM
That Terry Jones allegedly did a Koran burning last month (well, he "supervised" while someone else did it)

U.N. Staffers Killed Over Terry Jones Koran Burning, U.N. Says - ABC News

Eleven people were killed, including some United Nations officials, today in Afghanistan, apparently in response to Florida pastor Terry Jones burning of the Koran last month, Afghan police and U.N. said.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2011, 02:50 PM   #402
has a
 
kramwest1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Not a toliet wall
Posts: 6,939
Local Time: 05:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen View Post
That Terry Jones allegedly did a Koran burning last month (well, he "supervised" while someone else did it)

U.N. Staffers Killed Over Terry Jones Koran Burning, U.N. Says - ABC News

Eleven people were killed, including some United Nations officials, today in Afghanistan, apparently in response to Florida pastor Terry Jones burning of the Koran last month, Afghan police and U.N. said.
Hurray for tolerance on both sides.

__________________
Bread & Circuses
kramwest1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2011, 04:48 PM   #403
Refugee
 
The_Pac_Mule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Vermont
Posts: 1,342
Local Time: 06:00 AM
I can't even begin to describe how appaling and insane that is.

Quote:
Hurray for tolerance on both sides.
Sides? This was two people who did this. Versus thousands of people who go homocidal in Afghanistan over the burning of a FUCKING BOOK. I don't give a shit if it's your holy book. Sure, it's "intolerant," but killing people who have absolutely nothing to do with it (not that that should matter) is far more intolerant. Hell, he should be able to burn as many as he fucking wants (sorry if this offends anyone). Next time Marilyn Manson wipes his ass with a Bible onstage I'll be sure to go shoot up one of his concerts!




I'm not defending Terry Jones though, and I'd be a lot more likely to be openly denouncing this burning if 11 people weren't dead right now.
__________________
The_Pac_Mule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2011, 10:39 PM   #404
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 09:00 PM
I wonder if the good pastor will move onto the hard targets again.
Quote:
Book-burning shelved, it's time to commit atheists to the flames

The Texan pastor's moved on from the Koran to a pyre of The God Delusion.


IN SCENES of calm bemusement not seen in the lower United States since John Scopes taught innocent schoolchildren evolution, it was reported yesterday that Pastor Terry Jones had given up on his plans to burn 200 Korans and was instead planning to incite atheists by soaking a gross of Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion in moonshine and putting a match to them.

Atheists, who hadn't been expected to come out in pick-up trucks with gun racks on their rear windows and circle his church with their engines revving like goaded Rottweilers, didn't.

Advertisement: Story continues below
''Well,'' said Billy-Bob Huxley, a leading Texan non-believer, ''look on the bright side; Dawkins will be happy for the royalties. And we figure the book is filled with truths that can't be burnt.'' *

A spokesman for the Atheist Brotherhood in Australia was quoted as saying: ''We feel strangely unaffected and will seek revenge by raising our eyebrows and shrugging our shoulders. I've already sent Pastor Terry a message wishing him good luck with his ecclesiastical grandstanding, and I feel sure he can grab a TV slot on a Baptist network with a weekly conflagration of tomes he hasn't read and doesn't agree with.''

In Britain and France, countries that remember the Enlightenment, and in Russia, with her seven decades of secularism still befuddling her, nobody burnt Uncle Sam in effigy and mobs of unbelievers didn't riot and burn churches, nor were believers flogged or beaten. So far the body count is nil. Atheists have turned the other cheek. Christians have called this a nasty plagiarism.

President Barack Obama, despite objecting to the burning of the Koran, has been burnt in effigy in Kashmir, where the American flag is also being burnt and 15 people have so far been killed in street battles with police.

When asked about Pastor Jones's new plan to torch Dawkins's magnum opus, the President said: ''It's sweet with me. Let reason be fuel for the bonfires of the faithful. As long as atheists aren't going to whomp on us from the ridge tops with AK47s, let the Pastor light up a complete set of Hitchens and Sam Harris as well.''

Across vast areas of the Middle East and in Pakistan and Afghanistan, where people had rioted and been killed at the mere threat to burn the Koran, nobody stirred.

Emboldened by the pastor's book-burning, in a move calculated to make further trouble by a gross act of free speech, Queensland lawyer Alex Stewart tore a page from Darwin's The Descent of Man, saying he could make neither head nor tail of the thing by reading it and thought it might make more sense when smoked.

He lit up on YouTube, claiming it his right in a free and open society to commit this symbolic act and saying: ''Dudes, it's just a book. Get over it.'' Leading atheists called for calm … and atheists everywhere delivered it, showing themselves to be compliant minions. (Though a rumour persists that as the global supply of effigies is being monopolised by Kashmir and Iran, atheists were powerless to smoke the Queensland lawyer in retribution.)

Professor Dawkins himself, when asked about the burning of his book, said: ''It seems a little old-fashioned and pointless to burn a book in the age of the internet. Like knee-capping a town-crier. Still, the burning of a book is as much a freedom as is the reading of one. It is, to be sure, insensitive and provocative and perhaps foolhardy. But if freedom of speech were not, at times, all of these, it wouldn't need protection by law.''

Religious leaders responded by saying Dawkins was a dangerous appeaser whose forgiveness of Pastor Jones could be seen as an apologia for the burning of all books, and while they weren't troubled by the burning of his, there was no need to extend the privilege to authors more divine.

Meanwhile, Effigies 'R' Us in Faisalabad has announced it is making a new Pastor Jones model of yak hair and hypocrisy that gives off an unholy stink when ignited.

Salman Rushdie, from a safe-house in Greenland, has called for calm and offered Pastor Jones a truckload of his novel The Satanic Verses to burn in place of the other texts. He said this should just about satisfy all parties, and if he can't win the Nobel Prize for literature, then he might as well get it for peace.

''My books have been smoked in both hemispheres,'' Salman said, ''so I'm not as easy to upset as some of these one-off authors like Mohammed and God.''
Book-Burning Shelved, It's Time To Commit Atheists To Flames

I think that the right to burn books or more importantly write criticisms deserves strong protections. At the same time there is the issue of restraint; it was foreseeable that lives would be lost through the actions of this bigot and more importantly the clerics and political leaders who invariably incite people to riot.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2011, 10:26 AM   #405
has a
 
kramwest1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Not a toliet wall
Posts: 6,939
Local Time: 05:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Pac_Mule View Post
I can't even begin to describe how appaling and insane that is.



Sides? This was two people who did this. Versus thousands of people who go homocidal in Afghanistan over the burning of a FUCKING BOOK. I don't give a shit if it's your holy book. Sure, it's "intolerant," but killing people who have absolutely nothing to do with it (not that that should matter) is far more intolerant. Hell, he should be able to burn as many as he fucking wants (sorry if this offends anyone). Next time Marilyn Manson wipes his ass with a Bible onstage I'll be sure to go shoot up one of his concerts!




I'm not defending Terry Jones though, and I'd be a lot more likely to be openly denouncing this burning if 11 people weren't dead right now.
I said tolerance on both sides. I'm not stating anything about the violence. It's a separate issue. There's no point in arguing degrees of tolerance because at the end of the day there is none on either side. What they do beyond that is reaction.
__________________

__________________
Bread & Circuses
kramwest1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com