How would you tweak your country's government? - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-12-2011, 01:10 AM   #31
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Standing on the shore, facing east.
Posts: 18,894
Local Time: 06:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
So you wish to discard this portion of the First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

As well as the No Religious Test Clause:

..."no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

Which completely secular government are you wishing us to emulate? I mean, who has this whole "self-governance" figured out so much better than us?

And by which measure do you assume an opinion informed by religion to be less valid than say that of a 20 year-old raised on video games and MTV?
Oh, I don't give a shit what your religion is. There is no religious test. You just don't get to put religious argument on the Congressional record. Exercise your religion all you want. Just don't use your position in government to force it on other people.

By taking religion out, you force people to base their opinions on fact or be ignored. Religiously informed thinking is the only non-factual line of thinking that people can get away with.
__________________

__________________
PhilsFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2011, 01:57 AM   #32
Babyface
 
WideAwakeInNZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Auckland
Posts: 19
Local Time: 12:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Axver View Post
Both Australia and New Zealand need to become republics. Immediately. I cannot actually fathom how any intelligent, thinking individual can disagree, it's such an absolute no-brainer.

New Zealand should adopt the Single Transferable Vote (as used by Australia's Senate) in lieu of Mixed Member Proportional representation, or at least incorporate Instant Run-off Voting into the local member aspect of MMP. I mean, MMP is good, but it's frustrating whenever I go to vote in New Zealand and can't rank the candidates in order of preference like I can when I vote in Australia. I'll fucking despair if we vote for a return to First Past The Post in this year's referendum though.

As for the Australian House of Representatives, I keep tossing and turning on whether to allow voters under IRV to only preference as far as they want to rather than rank ALL candidates (as is already done in some states). I can see the argument both ways.

And the Australian Senate? I'd like to assume the population is intelligent and informed enough that we can abolish above the line voting and make everybody vote below the line, but I suspect that assumption is too misplaced to make it workable, especially with compulsory voting.

Speaking of compulsory voting, although New Zealand's high voluntary turn-out sometimes approaches Australia's compulsory turn-out, I would nonetheless make voting compulsory in New Zealand like it is in Australia.
I am definitely a supporter of STV in NZ, but it won't happen. There are 8 unions and 2 political parties in support of MMP and only one small organisation which opposes it and this movement hasn't adopted an alternative.
The main reason we will see no change however is that John Key says he likes MMP -the people love Key too much to disagree with him.
I also agree that NZ should be a republic, and our flag should be the silver fern. If this does happen it will happen after Queen Elizabeth is no longer Queen.

I am however, against compulsory voting. Firstly, if you need voting to be compulsory for some people to vote - I fear for who those people might vote for! Secondly, forcing people to vote against their will forces them to condone and endorse a certain politician or party - and I don't think you should vote if you don't think what a party or candidate does is OK with you
__________________

__________________
WideAwakeInNZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2011, 03:09 AM   #33
Vocal parasite
 
Axver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: 1853
Posts: 151,054
Local Time: 10:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by WideAwakeInNZ View Post
I am definitely a supporter of STV in NZ, but it won't happen. There are 8 unions and 2 political parties in support of MMP and only one small organisation which opposes it and this movement hasn't adopted an alternative.
The main reason we will see no change however is that John Key says he likes MMP -the people love Key too much to disagree with him.
I also agree that NZ should be a republic, and our flag should be the silver fern. If this does happen it will happen after Queen Elizabeth is no longer Queen.
Oh yeah, I've no hope in hell STV will get up in the referendum, though I'm certainly going to do my best to advocate it to anybody who will listen (i.e. about two people, and a few walls).

Totally with you on the flag thing.

I've no comprehension of New Zealand's attachment to the Queen or the popularity of that bland schoolboy John Key, but I suppose those are getting beyond the scope of structural changes in this thread and much more onto contemporary politics ...

Quote:
I am however, against compulsory voting. Firstly, if you need voting to be compulsory for some people to vote - I fear for who those people might vote for! Secondly, forcing people to vote against their will forces them to condone and endorse a certain politician or party - and I don't think you should vote if you don't think what a party or candidate does is OK with you
I'm not particularly hung up either way on whether the vote should be compulsory or voluntary, but as somebody who is active in both Australian and New Zealand politics, I feel like it works well in Australia. Primarily, it reduces all the cost and fuss associated with "getting out the vote" and compelling people to care enough to show up in the first place. Parties and campaigners can get on with campaigning rather than having to pause and encourage people to vote all the time. New Zealand is lucky that we traditionally record high voluntary turn-outs, but we need only look to the US to see how bad it can be.

Moreover, I would consider voting a civic duty akin to paying tax, and voting requires far less effort to do. It reduces problems associated with access to the vote, and quite importantly means people show up even when the weather is bad (seriously, compare the turn-out at any Kiwi election on a nice day to any election on a miserable one; it's lower at the latter). And, of course, if somebody really doesn't want to vote, nobody is stopping them from getting their name ticked off the roll, getting their ballot, intentionally spoiling it while in the polling booth, and dropping it in the ballot box. Just look at the high number of protest informal votes at last year's Aussie federal election.

There are abstract arguments that compulsory voting generates greater political awareness (people have to vote, so they are more likely to take time out and learn something, anything) and gives the victor more legitimacy. I'm not sure if any major studies have been done for or against those propositions though.

But I'm certainly sympathetic to some of the arguments against - as you say, god knows who some non-voters may vote for out of sheer ignorance or apathy (I like to play a game at election time to see what totally unknown people with "cool" names poll better than equally unknown people with commonplace names), that there should be a freedom to chooe not to vote if unsatisfied with any of the options, and that compulsory voting potentially benefits large parties to the detriment of smaller ones as uninformed voters vote on the basis of name recognition. But given the arguments in favour of compulsory voting, and the fact third parties are very much alive and well in Australia, I nonetheless incline towards it. Though it's probably not an urgency at the present in New Zealand - maybe if turn-out nosedives, it's worth more consideration.

Phew! Did I really write that much on something I tacked on as an afterthought? Forgive me.
__________________
"Mediocrity is never so dangerous as when it is dressed up as sincerity." - Søren Kierkegaard

Ian McCulloch the U2 fan:
"Who buys U2 records anyway? It's just music for plumbers and bricklayers. Bono, what a slob. You'd think with all that climbing about he does, he'd look real fit and that. But he's real fat, y'know. Reminds me of a soddin' mountain goat."
"And as for Bono, he needs a colostomy bag for his mouth."

U2gigs: The most comprehensive U2 setlist database!
Gig pictures | Blog
Axver is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2011, 05:06 AM   #34
Babyface
 
WideAwakeInNZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Auckland
Posts: 19
Local Time: 12:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Axver View Post
I'm not particularly hung up either way on whether the vote should be compulsory or voluntary, but as somebody who is active in both Australian and New Zealand politics, I feel like it works well in Australia. Primarily, it reduces all the cost and fuss associated with "getting out the vote" and compelling people to care enough to show up in the first place. Parties and campaigners can get on with campaigning rather than having to pause and encourage people to vote all the time. New Zealand is lucky that we traditionally record high voluntary turn-outs, but we need only look to the US to see how bad it can be.

Moreover, I would consider voting a civic duty akin to paying tax, and voting requires far less effort to do. It reduces problems associated with access to the vote, and quite importantly means people show up even when the weather is bad (seriously, compare the turn-out at any Kiwi election on a nice day to any election on a miserable one; it's lower at the latter). And, of course, if somebody really doesn't want to vote, nobody is stopping them from getting their name ticked off the roll, getting their ballot, intentionally spoiling it while in the polling booth, and dropping it in the ballot box. Just look at the high number of protest informal votes at last year's Aussie federal election.
Certainly would reduce costs of the campaigns to get people to vote - and perhaps a good measure of dissatisfaction with the field would be intentionally spoiled protest votes!
But then you have these people who are politically unaware voting for the worst parties or the familiar names (the media hogs) or the candidates whose last names begin with "A" as they are on top! (this happens for council elections in NZ!).
But as you say - not a big issue in NZ - I don't know anything about Australia!

[OFF TOPIC: - Thank you so much for U2gigs! - I went there every day during 360!]
__________________
WideAwakeInNZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2011, 06:00 AM   #35
Vocal parasite
 
Axver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: 1853
Posts: 151,054
Local Time: 10:40 PM
Can I just say that I think it's great we've had some New Zealand discussion in this thread? That's become increasingly rare on FYM ... I remember when we used to have a thread for Kiwi elections, and threads on Aussie politics too. I guess Kiwi and Aussie topics are in some ways now covered by the Australia/NZ thread on Lemonade Stand though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WideAwakeInNZ View Post
Certainly would reduce costs of the campaigns to get people to vote - and perhaps a good measure of dissatisfaction with the field would be intentionally spoiled protest votes!
But then you have these people who are politically unaware voting for the worst parties or the familiar names (the media hogs) or the candidates whose last names begin with "A" as they are on top! (this happens for council elections in NZ!).
But as you say - not a big issue in NZ - I don't know anything about Australia!

[OFF TOPIC: - Thank you so much for U2gigs! - I went there every day during 360!]
It's interesting that you bring up the local council elections. Only once have I chosen to not vote in an election - for the last Kapiti Council elections. I'm registered to vote on the Kapiti Coast, but I've spent only about a month of the last few years there; lately, my time in New Zealand has been spent elsewhere. I felt like it was almost impossible to find out anything meaningful enough about the candidates for me to cast a vote that was informed in any way. The little blurbs I could find all basically said the same thing, "I've lived on the Kapiti Coast for x-amount of decades and I love it here and I'll make it better, for real", so I opted not to cast a completely uninformed vote for the guy with the coolest name. The local health board component of that election seemed even more meaningless.

However, since voting in local elections is compulsory in Victoria (it's not in all Aussie states), there seemed to be much more of an effort by candidates to make themselves known and to differentiate themselves from the pack. I was able to cast an informed vote, and felt confident I had chosen the best candidates, even though I had actually spent most of my time leading up to that election in New Zealand. So there's a perk of compulsory voting.

[Thank you! I really need to run some new articles on the site ... got a few ideas, but honestly just have a bit of post-tour burnout and haven't quite got around to it yet.]
__________________
"Mediocrity is never so dangerous as when it is dressed up as sincerity." - Søren Kierkegaard

Ian McCulloch the U2 fan:
"Who buys U2 records anyway? It's just music for plumbers and bricklayers. Bono, what a slob. You'd think with all that climbing about he does, he'd look real fit and that. But he's real fat, y'know. Reminds me of a soddin' mountain goat."
"And as for Bono, he needs a colostomy bag for his mouth."

U2gigs: The most comprehensive U2 setlist database!
Gig pictures | Blog
Axver is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2011, 07:05 AM   #36
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 05:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
So you wish to discard this portion of the First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

As well as the No Religious Test Clause:

..."no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

Which completely secular government are you wishing us to emulate? I mean, who has this whole "self-governance" figured out so much better than us?

And by which measure do you assume an opinion informed by religion to be less valid than say that of a 20 year-old raised on video games and MTV?
Are you just pretending not to understand?
__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2011, 07:18 AM   #37
Paper Gods
Forum Administrator
 
KhanadaRhodes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: a vampire in the limousine
Posts: 60,609
Local Time: 05:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Axver View Post
lately, my time in New Zealand has been spent elsewhere
can't bring yourself to say where, huh?

now that i'm living in nz i should contribute tweaks for them too, but i'm not familiar enough with nz politics to say much. i do know the gst is too high and john key is a plonker.
__________________
KhanadaRhodes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2011, 07:41 AM   #38
Babyface
 
WideAwakeInNZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Auckland
Posts: 19
Local Time: 12:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Axver View Post
Can I just say that I think it's great we've had some New Zealand discussion in this thread? That's become increasingly rare on FYM ... I remember when we used to have a thread for Kiwi elections, and threads on Aussie politics too. I guess Kiwi and Aussie topics are in some ways now covered by the Australia/NZ thread on Lemonade Stand though.
Maybe I'll start an election thread after the Rugby World Cup, but I don't think it will get much discussion! Especially as it doesn't look like it will be much of a contest.
__________________
WideAwakeInNZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2011, 06:02 PM   #39
Vocal parasite
 
Axver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: 1853
Posts: 151,054
Local Time: 10:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by KhanadaRhodes View Post
can't bring yourself to say where, huh?

now that i'm living in nz i should contribute tweaks for them too, but i'm not familiar enough with nz politics to say much. i do know the gst is too high and john key is a plonker.
Though I've spent a decent amount of time in Wellington and Nelson the last few years as well as on the North Shore. I tried to get some time on the Kapiti Coast last year but only managed a couple of days.

I think New Zealand, structurally speaking, is doing fairly reasonably. A lot of our past decisions have worked out quite well. Obviously our whole "let's give women the vote before any other country" idea has done pretty damn well for itself. The abolition of the provinces in 1876 probably happened earlier than it should've, but only by a couple of decades; they would have become unnecessary by 1900 and unworkable by the 1930s. The abolition of the Legislative Council by Sidney Holland's "suicide squad" in 1950 hasn't had dire consequences either; while I can see why some people argue for restoring the upper house, New Zealand's functioning quite alright as a unicameral state. The Maori seats - despite some controversy and a somewhat awkward historical origin - are a pretty good way of having a truly bicultural parliament.

And so on and so forth. Most of the changes I would make would not be structural, but policy-related; gay marriage, re-nationalising a couple of industries, greater public transport investment, that sort of thing. I would absolutely restore the restriction on road freight. We used to have a requirement that for any goods travelling more than 50 kilometres, if there was a railway, it had to go by rail rather than clogging the roads with trucks. The distance was gradually extended until it was abolished altogether in the 1980s. Bringing that back would be a boon for New Zealand's eco-credentials, give KiwiRail a valuable injection of funds, and get trucks off some of the nation's most worn down and dangerous roads.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WideAwakeInNZ View Post
Maybe I'll start an election thread after the Rugby World Cup, but I don't think it will get much discussion! Especially as it doesn't look like it will be much of a contest.
I'll be active in it, if nothing else! I'm kind of excited, since - all going to plan - this will be the first time I will actually vote IN New Zealand; at all previous elections, I've had to cast my vote in Australia. But yeah, the result looks like being a disappointing non-event ...
__________________
"Mediocrity is never so dangerous as when it is dressed up as sincerity." - Søren Kierkegaard

Ian McCulloch the U2 fan:
"Who buys U2 records anyway? It's just music for plumbers and bricklayers. Bono, what a slob. You'd think with all that climbing about he does, he'd look real fit and that. But he's real fat, y'know. Reminds me of a soddin' mountain goat."
"And as for Bono, he needs a colostomy bag for his mouth."

U2gigs: The most comprehensive U2 setlist database!
Gig pictures | Blog
Axver is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2011, 07:14 PM   #40
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
mobvok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,433
Local Time: 03:40 AM
Quote:
The abolition of the Legislative Council by Sidney Holland's "suicide squad" in 1950 hasn't had dire consequences either; while I can see why some people argue for restoring the upper house, New Zealand's functioning quite alright as a unicameral state.
Oh, that sounds like an interesting story, I did not know NZ was unicameral. In the states we only have, weirdly, Nebraska that decided to do the unicameral thing. I too was half-drunk while starting this post so that's why #1 in the OP is written a little loosely.

Quote:
I'm sure if the panhandle of Oklahoma wanted to secede from the rest of Oklahoma to form their own state and send 2 conservative senators to D.C. Democrats would have no qualms, right?
Considerations about geographical representation should exist; that's why as long as we accept the notion of Alaska being a state, its relative underpopulation I find far more acceptable. Ditto for Montana. The flipside is a place like Rhode Island, which, as long as we're at it, is also probably too tiny and should be merged elsewhere.

This sort of arbitrary Oklahoma split is part of what I thought happened with North and South Dakota? It's not that there are substantial geographic or cultural issues that would be addressed by the split (the logic behind splitting Washington state, for example, along the Cascade Mountains into a liberal wet coastal west and conservative dry inland east), it's solely about packing the Senate.

As far as practical considerations the simplest and most direct method appears to be straight up D.C. Statehood. This is because (I think) neither Virginia or Maryland wants the D.C voters, so the ideal retrocession may be impossible. At that point, what's left? The status quo, or a good solution with flaws?
__________________
mobvok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2011, 07:29 PM   #41
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
the iron horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: in a glass of CheerWine
Posts: 3,252
Local Time: 06:40 AM
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.

~Thomas Jefferson
__________________
the iron horse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2011, 07:32 PM   #42
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
mobvok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,433
Local Time: 03:40 AM
T Jeff also thought the future of America lay in agriculture

Quote:
Generally speaking, the proportion which the aggregate of the other classes of citizens bears in any state to that of its husbandmen is the proportion of its unsound to its healthy parts, and is a... barometer whereby to measure its degree of corruption. While we have land to labor then, led us never wish to see our citizens occupied at a workbench, or twirling a distaff. Carpenters, masons, smiths, are wanting in husbandry; but, for the general operations of manufacture, let our workshops remain in Europe. It is better to carry provisions and materials to workmen there than bring them to the provisions and materials, and with them their manners and principles. The loss by the transportation of commodities across the Atlantic will be made up in happiness and permanence of government. The mobs of great cities add just so much to the support of pure government, as sores do to the strength of the human body. It is the manners and the spirit of a people which preserve a republic in vigor. A degeneracy in these is a canker which soon eats to the hearts of its laws and constitution.
__________________
mobvok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2011, 07:39 PM   #43
Vocal parasite
 
Axver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: 1853
Posts: 151,054
Local Time: 10:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mobvok View Post
Oh, that sounds like an interesting story, I did not know NZ was unicameral. In the states we only have, weirdly, Nebraska that decided to do the unicameral thing. I too was half-drunk while starting this post so that's why #1 in the OP is written a little loosely.
Basically, when New Zealand was granted self-government in 1852 by the UK, the legislation bestowed upon us a provincial system (six provinces initially; a total of ten existed but never more than nine at once) and a bicameral General Assembly. Since then, we've quite significantly simplified things. The House of Representatives was elective, on what was a very liberal franchise for the 1850s and subsequently became one of the most liberal in the world (New Zealand now allows permanent residents to vote as well as citizens), but the Legislative Council was made up of lifelong nominees - despite the original intention to make it elective too. Both the provinces and the nominated Council proved quite controversial. The provinces were abolished in 1876 amidst a lot of political bickering, but the Council hung on much longer. In 1891, the nominations were at least cut from lifelong to seven years by a new government in response to the outgoing government staking the Council with its mates.

There were various attempts made to reform the Council in the 20th century, the most promising of which was put on hold by WWI and never revived post-war. By the 1940s, the Council was seen as basically obsolete; it rarely debated bills sent up from the House and had become something of a rubber-stamp authority. Both of the major parties thus agreed on its abolition. In 1950, Sidney Holland, the Prime Minister at the time, thus expanded the Council's numbers from 34 to 54 and appointed twenty politicians at the end of their political careers to vote for the abolition of the Council - the "suicide squad". He dangled a huge carrot in front of them: some of the money saved through abolition would be put towards a retirement fund for the ex-Councillors. That persuaded a sufficient number of the existing 34 to join the suicide squad in voting themselves out of existence, and that was that. It ceased to exist in 1951.

At least some politicians at the time perceived this as an interim measure and that, in due course, a new upper house would be established with more power and influence, but it never happened. When we switched our electoral system from First Past The Post to Mixed Member Proportional in the mid-1990s, there were some proposals to restore the upper house - either in conjunction with or as an alternative to the electoral reform.

(Incidentally, in Australia, Queensland did a similar thing to abolish their upper house in 1922 and remains Australia's only unicameral state to this day, but I am not familiar with the history in that case. Both of Australia's territories, the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory, are also unicameral.)
__________________
"Mediocrity is never so dangerous as when it is dressed up as sincerity." - Søren Kierkegaard

Ian McCulloch the U2 fan:
"Who buys U2 records anyway? It's just music for plumbers and bricklayers. Bono, what a slob. You'd think with all that climbing about he does, he'd look real fit and that. But he's real fat, y'know. Reminds me of a soddin' mountain goat."
"And as for Bono, he needs a colostomy bag for his mouth."

U2gigs: The most comprehensive U2 setlist database!
Gig pictures | Blog
Axver is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2011, 07:40 PM   #44
Vocal parasite
 
Axver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: 1853
Posts: 151,054
Local Time: 10:40 PM
Oh, and for the Canadians on FYM, some Canadian politicians in the late 19th century looked favourably upon New Zealand's abolition of its provinces and considered doing something similar in Canada. Obviously that never quite got off the ground ...
__________________
"Mediocrity is never so dangerous as when it is dressed up as sincerity." - Søren Kierkegaard

Ian McCulloch the U2 fan:
"Who buys U2 records anyway? It's just music for plumbers and bricklayers. Bono, what a slob. You'd think with all that climbing about he does, he'd look real fit and that. But he's real fat, y'know. Reminds me of a soddin' mountain goat."
"And as for Bono, he needs a colostomy bag for his mouth."

U2gigs: The most comprehensive U2 setlist database!
Gig pictures | Blog
Axver is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2011, 02:05 AM   #45
Paper Gods
Forum Administrator
 
KhanadaRhodes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: a vampire in the limousine
Posts: 60,609
Local Time: 05:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Axver View Post
I would absolutely restore the restriction on road freight. We used to have a requirement that for any goods travelling more than 50 kilometres, if there was a railway, it had to go by rail rather than clogging the roads with trucks.
yes! even america needs this. there's a spot in memphis where if you're travelling southeast (so towards atlanta, alabama, etc.) it is just gridlock. bumper-to-bumper traffic, because it's two lanes in each direction and traffic lights, so the trucks get up to a decent speed, then have to stop all over again for a red light. this is just one example and it is slowly getting better, but the number of trucks (here too) on the road day in, day out everywhere is nuts. i could go on for ages but i don't want to derail the thread or anything.
__________________

__________________
KhanadaRhodes 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 06:40 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