The argument against conservatism - Page 6 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-08-2010, 10:47 PM   #76
The Fly
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 115
Local Time: 12:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
I'm pretty surprised at this argument from an intelligent poster. The basics of economics can be learnt in a few hours good tuition. With the internet, ot's pretty easy. People have a responsibility not to live beyond their means, and to learn the basics of economics. If people are in large debt it is usually at least partially their own stupid fault. Liberals want personal responsibility to be devolved and contracted to government all the time.

Earlier in the thread, conservatives were told they were 'unempathetic' because they don't agree with financing the unproductive lifestyles of junkies and similar ne'er do wells and leaches off society. I'd say the opposite - I'd say the real lack of empathy consists in the left liberal tendency to advocate a welfare state for all, all the time. A welfare state for junkie ne'er do wells is a form of moral evil, and largely, it's left-liberals, and not conservatives that advocate it.
Financeguy, you obviously disagree with liberals. We get it. But you haven't given detailed reasons with evidence why your position is better. You are simply stating the conservative belief that people's position in life is due mainly to their own making. I'll explain again why this is not always true. We live in an age of tremoundous financial insecurity. How can you deny that all across America skilled jobs (even those like computer programming) are dissapearing overseas leaving peoples skills obsolete? How can you deny that hard working famililies are sometimes ruined by health disasters? How can you deny poor neighborhoods have underfunded schools? The only possible way you could ever financially prepare for the first things I mentioned is if you saved literally ever extra penny you had by only spending on bare essentials. Even that might not be enough in some cases. But you know what this would do if we all did this? There would be a huge depression if no one spent money beyond bare essentials for things that may not happen. You simply are not seeing the whole picture or accepting it. Yes; social insurances have a cost in that they do have some moral hazzard associated with them. I get it. ALL insurances create at least some moral hazzard! But I am simply arguing based on the evidence that the benefit outweighs the cost. You would certainly say that is true as far as many other insurances go, like car insurance, malpractice insurance for doctors, etc..They all create at least some moral hazard yet without them most ecomomic activity would be too risky! (For example, what doctor would want to operate). Without social safety nets, such as EI, job training programs (things to help people get back on their feet) who is going to want to invest in their future by going to college knowing their job could dissappear overseas or due to automation leaving them out of luck? Who is going to want to invest in a home in a good neighborhood with good schools? Do you see my point? You have to get over the liberalism = hand outs to lazy welfare bumbs = everyone else accept them loses and society degenerates. Yes, some people abuse the system. No system is perfect. Any system always has some cost. But we already explained how it fits into empathy in that: conservatives would rather see a few inocent people starve to make sure NO ONE cheats the system while a liberal is willing to accept the chance a few may cheat to make sure no innocent people starve. I don't think conservative lack empathy, I just think they put strictness before empathy, as a higher priority in other words.

So a final question. Do you deny your system has costs? (i.e. hard working people doing right by their families ending up in ruin because they can't get help). Again, I've acknowleged the costs of liberalism that you speak of - I just think the welfare cheat thing is over exagerated and benefits > cost. I'd like to hear your take on the costs of conservatism (and their are many beyond social/economic policy such as the environment).
__________________

__________________
pcfitz80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2010, 10:17 AM   #77
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,237
Local Time: 10:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
They are just doctors and social workers that try and nudge you towards more cheaper therapy.
THAT'S a death panel??? I'm amazed you could type that with a straight face. And this:

Quote:
Government has to ration against those that they think don't have a future. For example they may not want to do costly surgery to improve a person's quality of life if they have another more debilitating disease that is thought to be terminal.
Is nothing but unsubstantiated conjecture on your part.

Quote:
EPA looks at CO2 as a pollutant. It's already been proven the opposite and the IPCC 2007 report EPA based their decision on is full of holes. The AGW point of view is embarrassing now.
According to you. According to most scientists, it's not.

Quote:
BTW if we only used green energy products we would have to deindustrialize. Good luck selling that to the electorate!
Here you go arguing against something no one is arguing for in the first place. No one here is suggesting we should quit petroleum-based energy cold turkey and switch instantly to green energy. Or are you actually saying that diversifying our energy sources is a bad thing?

Quote:
I don't think the Republicans will remove MedicAid, Medicare and this new entitlement all at once.
You're absolutely kidding yourself if you think Republicans are going to touch MedicAid and Medicare. Or do you forget the rally cries from their base of "No government health care - get your hands off my Medicare!"

Quote:
Well Van Jones was a communist
I'm going to pull a muscle trying not to roll my eyes. You're going to need to do better than that. Simply because someone is in favor of social programs you're opposed to does not make them a communist.
__________________

__________________
Diemen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2010, 10:29 AM   #78
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 10:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
According to you. According to most scientists, it's not.
Last week on NPR they were talking about a study done on where scientist stood.

Two things stuck out to me:

The "non-consensus" that the ultra-right like to point out is only 92% of scientists agree on climate change.

Of all the universities around the globe that have climate research programs, guess how many believe man plays no part in climate change or that it's not occuring?

















Not one.

But we all know higher learning is communism, so please discredit everything I say.
__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2010, 02:42 PM   #79
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 09:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Last week on NPR they were talking about a study done on where scientist stood.

Two things stuck out to me:

The "non-consensus" that the ultra-right like to point out is only 92% of scientists agree on climate change.

Of all the universities around the globe that have climate research programs, guess how many believe man plays no part in climate change or that it's not occuring?

Not one.

But we all know higher learning is communism, so please discredit everything I say.
Look I'm done with this discussion. My points are echoed by many conservatives. If you think they are all crap and that 92% consensus on AGW is even an accurate number and even is a scientific argument then we will get nowhere. I don't have faith in AGW. It has to be proven and it has not. Faith that AGW proponents have is just that FAITH. As time goes by more and more claims are proving to be false by skeptics (including the hallowed peer-reviewed journals) and the public is not stupid enough to follow this financial fiasco.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
THAT'S a death panel??? I'm amazed you could type that with a straight face. And this:
If you like that kind of "service" by all means move over here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
Is nothing but unsubstantiated conjecture on your part.
Is anything substantiated enough on this site for you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
According to you. According to most scientists, it's not.
Again this isn't proof. It's in the interest of many scientists who want to have funding to support this point of view. If politicians give into this the taxpayer is in deep trouble. Technocrats will claim "consensus" for all kinds of things and use the appeal to authority to smash skeptics. We know this MO and it's not fooling anymore.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
Here you go arguing against something no one is arguing for in the first place. No one here is suggesting we should quit petroleum-based energy cold turkey and switch instantly to green energy. Or are you actually saying that diversifying our energy sources is a bad thing?
Okay then so James Hansen and Obama don't have to call for closing down coal plants. x1,000,000. Developing technology is cheaper than rolling it out with a massive energy tax. It would have to be massive in order stop CO2 from increasing in the atmosphere which is the entire point if it's an emergency, right? If it's not an emergency then funding research is cheaper and smarter and end of the world propaganda isn't necessary.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
You're absolutely kidding yourself if you think Republicans are going to touch MedicAid and Medicare. Or do you forget the rally cries from their base of "No government health care - get your hands off my Medicare!"
You misread me or I didn't write it clear enough. I don't think they will remove all entitlements. That's what I meant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
I'm going to pull a muscle trying not to roll my eyes. You're going to need to do better than that. Simply because someone is in favor of social programs you're opposed to does not make them a communist.
The New Face of Environmentalism | Feature | East Bay Express

Quote:
Jones had planned to move to Washington, DC, and had already landed a job and an apartment there. But in jail, he said, "I met all these young radical people of color -- I mean really radical, communists and anarchists. And it was, like, 'This is what I need to be a part of.'" Although he already had a plane ticket, he decided to stay in San Francisco. "I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary." In the months that followed, he let go of any lingering thoughts that he might fit in with the status quo. "I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then the verdicts came down on April 29th," he said. "By August, I was a communist."
He changed his politics to a typical progressive green style but obviously this guy is far left and was perfect to support green jobs which in turn requires worldwide cap and trade which is supported by communists. Squirming around Marxism and pretending to be otherwise doesn't fool me. The right knows that the left hate the terms communist and socialist because they don't want to be labelled so they try to invent different terms and avoid other terms all the while supporting massive statism.

I'm sure if a conservative was a NAZI once he wouldn't have a political career either. He also signed himself with the 9/11 truthers so he's obviously finished as a politician and a total HACK.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2010, 03:08 PM   #80
Self-righteous bullshitter
 
BoMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Soviet Canuckistan — Socialist paradise
Posts: 16,665
Local Time: 12:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
They are just doctors and social workers that try and nudge you towards more cheaper therapy. My Mom was so far gone at that point it didn't matter but they are there. Government has to ration against those that they think don't have a future. For example they may not want to do costly surgery to improve a person's quality of life if they have another more debilitating disease that is thought to be terminal.
I don't mean this as a personal attack, but have you ever done anything other than do a lot of reading on various subjects from the comfort of your parent's basement in Fort McMurray? Any life experience in other parts of Canada?

Because a lot of what you say does not really happen in the outside world. An example is the excerpt that I quoted above. Is our system perfect? No. Do people sometimes fall through the cracks? Yes. Is this par for the course for any health system in the world? Yes.

The fact of the matter is, if this was the case with your mother, then I'm sorry. But for every example you trot out here, I know 10 people - family and friends - who have, as you put it "no future" because of existing pre-conditions, and yet have had "costly" surgery done in a timely manner. Again, it's not perfect, but I know many older folk, my grandmother, for example, who had a terminal illness yet still received quality health care relatively quickly and was not referred to cheaper therapy.
__________________

BoMac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2010, 04:22 PM   #81
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 10:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Look I'm done with this discussion. My points are echoed by many conservatives.
You're right, you don't understand science, therefore you don't have "faith" in it and this conversation is useless. But just know it's sad that an adult has your kind of grasp on science. The world WILL progress around you.


Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
If you like that kind of "service" by all means move over here.
And you don't think this occurs in the free market solution? Really? Are you this sheltered?

That very example you gave. I used to see it all the time but worse when patients had one of the major player insurance companies.
__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2010, 03:22 PM   #82
The Fly
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 115
Local Time: 12:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pcfitz80 View Post
Financeguy, you obviously disagree with liberals. We get it. But you haven't given detailed reasons with evidence why your position is better. You are simply stating the conservative belief that people's position in life is due mainly to their own making. I'll explain again why this is not always true. We live in an age of tremoundous financial insecurity. How can you deny that all across America skilled jobs (even those like computer programming) are dissapearing overseas leaving peoples skills obsolete? How can you deny that hard working famililies are sometimes ruined by health disasters? How can you deny poor neighborhoods have underfunded schools? The only possible way you could ever financially prepare for the first things I mentioned is if you saved literally ever extra penny you had by only spending on bare essentials. Even that might not be enough in some cases. But you know what this would do if we all did this? There would be a huge depression if no one spent money beyond bare essentials for things that may not happen. You simply are not seeing the whole picture or accepting it. Yes; social insurances have a cost in that they do have some moral hazzard associated with them. I get it. ALL insurances create at least some moral hazzard! But I am simply arguing based on the evidence that the benefit outweighs the cost. You would certainly say that is true as far as many other insurances go, like car insurance, malpractice insurance for doctors, etc..They all create at least some moral hazard yet without them most ecomomic activity would be too risky! (For example, what doctor would want to operate). Without social safety nets, such as EI, job training programs (things to help people get back on their feet) who is going to want to invest in their future by going to college knowing their job could dissappear overseas or due to automation leaving them out of luck? Who is going to want to invest in a home in a good neighborhood with good schools? Do you see my point? You have to get over the liberalism = hand outs to lazy welfare bumbs = everyone else accept them loses and society degenerates. Yes, some people abuse the system. No system is perfect. Any system always has some cost. But we already explained how it fits into empathy in that: conservatives would rather see a few inocent people starve to make sure NO ONE cheats the system while a liberal is willing to accept the chance a few may cheat to make sure no innocent people starve. I don't think conservative lack empathy, I just think they put strictness before empathy, as a higher priority in other words.

So a final question. Do you deny your system has costs? (i.e. hard working people doing right by their families ending up in ruin because they can't get help). Again, I've acknowleged the costs of liberalism that you speak of - I just think the welfare cheat thing is over exagerated and benefits > cost. I'd like to hear your take on the costs of conservatism (and their are many beyond social/economic policy such as the environment).
No conservatives wish to rebute my latest post quoted above?
__________________
pcfitz80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2010, 05:06 PM   #83
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 05:24 AM
Quote:
The other positive feedback loop approaching runaway levels is the Entitlement/Welfare State, both the Corporate Welfare and the bread-and-circuses welfare State. Both serve the Power Elites, of course, the first by diverting the national income to the Elites and the second by rendering the disenfranchised passively complicit in the status quo.

Correspondent Doug K. recently outlined how this co-option and complicity works:

The social safety net is not there to "catch you if you fall", it was put in place to prevent the Elites from getting trampled. The ostensible "excuse" for the "social safety net" is not valid. It doesn't help those struggling, it uses them.
A fellow I know was a successful tradesman. With the downturn in construction he couldn't make ends meet, so he asked for help (only available if you *can't* work). To qualify he has to repeatedly *prove* he can't work for "medical" reasons. No shortage of medical "professionals" anxious for a piece of the public pie! End result being to get $1500 a month of "assistance" he has to be constantly undergoing some "necessary" treatment or procedure. As soon as he's "cured" of one "problem" another pops up. He was in better shape than I am before he got "help" and he's now in worse shape than he was before.

The "social safety net" primarily benefits those who don't need help by at least ten to one! Not just doctors and drug companies, there's also a few lawyers "helping" with his "condition". I've pointed out how he's being used, he says it's OK because they're paying him.
Quote:
In my area, the cash housing subsidy is over $1,400 a month. Medicaid and free healthcare for Mom and the kids is worth as much as $1,000 a month were you to buy it on the open market as individuals. Food stamps (SNAP) are worth at least $600 per month, and then there are all the other entitlements: free after-school child care, free school lunches and so on, plus the possibility of cash payments to moms with two kids and no income for a few years.

The private-economy value of these cash benefits is about $3,500 - $4,000 a month. Those of us who pay 15% self-employment taxes and 15% Federal and state income taxes must earn about $65,000 a year to take home the cash value of these entitlements.
Quote:
These two runaway feedback loops--the self-reinforcing concentration of wealth/power and the erosion of trust, honesty and accountability in a culture of entitlement and gaming-the-system--are also reinforcing each other. The more that citizens see the Power Elites getting away with financial thievery, the greater their own temptation to sell their own soul for a piece of the swag.

That's how you get stories like this: Gonzalo Lira On The Coming Middle-Class Anarchy (Zero Hedge)

Runaway feedback loops do not end well. As they gather momentum, then the unpredictability of the system also rises quickly. Those claiming that it will all pan out just fine cannot know that; their confidence/faith is itself a higher-order deception/delusion.

We have a living example of what happens when these runaway feedback loops finally smack into reality: Greece.

charles hugh smith-Runaway Feedback Loops, Wealth Concentration and Gaming-The-System
__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2010, 05:47 PM   #84
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 05:24 AM
Quote:
The depth of our own pathology can be measured by our resistance to admitting the systemic fraud, lying, entitlement and narcissistic pathologies in whatever slice of American society we value. For example, Liberals experience an overwhelming urge to excuse or deny welfare fraud and indeed, all the pathologies of the "underclass."

That is a direct measure of their own internal normalization of social pathologies.

Conservatives experience an overwhelming urge to excuse or deny Corporate Welfare and the partnership/collusion of the Central State (which they fear) and Crony Capitalism (which they revere, even though it is only a simulacrum of classic free-market capitalism).

To the degree that an individual dismisses cheating on tests in school, fabricated resumes, bogus balance sheets and dishonest mortgage applications and tax returns because "everybody does it," the sociopathologies have been fully absorbed as not just normal but as beneficial and acceptable.

Though we like to favor ourselves as autonomous entities brimming with individuality, most of our worldview and behaviors are programmed by our social-economic status and conditioning.
charles hugh smith-Weblog and Essays
__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2010, 05:53 PM   #85
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 05:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pcfitz80 View Post
Financeguy, you obviously disagree with liberals. We get it. But you haven't given detailed reasons with evidence why your position is better. You are simply stating the conservative belief that people's position in life is due mainly to their own making. I'll explain again why this is not always true. We live in an age of tremoundous financial insecurity. How can you deny that all across America skilled jobs (even those like computer programming) are dissapearing overseas leaving peoples skills obsolete? How can you deny that hard working famililies are sometimes ruined by health disasters? How can you deny poor neighborhoods have underfunded schools? The only possible way you could ever financially prepare for the first things I mentioned is if you saved literally ever extra penny you had by only spending on bare essentials. Even that might not be enough in some cases. But you know what this would do if we all did this? There would be a huge depression if no one spent money beyond bare essentials for things that may not happen. You simply are not seeing the whole picture or accepting it. Yes; social insurances have a cost in that they do have some moral hazzard associated with them. I get it. ALL insurances create at least some moral hazzard! But I am simply arguing based on the evidence that the benefit outweighs the cost. You would certainly say that is true as far as many other insurances go, like car insurance, malpractice insurance for doctors, etc..They all create at least some moral hazard yet without them most ecomomic activity would be too risky! (For example, what doctor would want to operate). Without social safety nets, such as EI, job training programs (things to help people get back on their feet) who is going to want to invest in their future by going to college knowing their job could dissappear overseas or due to automation leaving them out of luck? Who is going to want to invest in a home in a good neighborhood with good schools? Do you see my point? You have to get over the liberalism = hand outs to lazy welfare bumbs = everyone else accept them loses and society degenerates. Yes, some people abuse the system. No system is perfect. Any system always has some cost. But we already explained how it fits into empathy in that: conservatives would rather see a few inocent people starve to make sure NO ONE cheats the system while a liberal is willing to accept the chance a few may cheat to make sure no innocent people starve. I don't think conservative lack empathy, I just think they put strictness before empathy, as a higher priority in other words.

So a final question. Do you deny your system has costs? (i.e. hard working people doing right by their families ending up in ruin because they can't get help). Again, I've acknowleged the costs of liberalism that you speak of - I just think the welfare cheat thing is over exagerated and benefits > cost. I'd like to hear your take on the costs of conservatism (and their are many beyond social/economic policy such as the environment).
Hi PcFitz80. I didn't see your post before. However, I am at a loss as to know how to respond to it as there is a little in your post which contradicts my own views. You seem to have decided that I am an identikit hard right conservative.

I do advocate curtailing welfare to heroin addicts and replacing it with compulsory rehab, which I admit could be seen as strict. But nowhere have I made any argument against denying unemployment benefit to jobseekers.
__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2010, 07:41 AM   #86
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Canadiens1131's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,363
Local Time: 12:24 AM
I agree with a lot of traditional Republican values. Efficient government spending, and states deciding more on their own, for instance.

However, the modern Republican party represents almost nothing compared to traditional Republican values. They are able to be very mobilized due to having a more focused (read: simplistic, black and white) world view, and an excellent PR machine (not to mention an entire news network backed by foreign interests speaking to their base). You have a Republican party who champions a cost-cutting healthcare initiative as the communist boogieman, and wasteful government spending, when it actually is a cheaper option than continuing the current path. The Republican party will prevent you from marrying your same-sex partner, then try to slide it in the back door when you're not looking. They will tell you they are all about conservative Christian values and then cheat on you repeatedly.

The Democrats are at a major disadvantage simply because they have too diverse a range of opinions. Viewing issues of debate in Technicolor results in not having a single, lockstep movement you can mobilize to the polls.

The modern Republican party ran the US into the ground during the 00s, and is now asking to be voted back into office, and the general public is going along with it.

It's really sad. Washington is fundamentally broken when a party with the Presidency, and both houses cannot legislate effectively.

In my best case scenario, all the baby boomers will die soon. That's pretty much what I'm looking forward to. The ghosts of the Cold War need to be exorcised, the minorities need to inch closer to being the majority in this country (2050ish), and the US will inch closer to modernity.

And get some fucking high speed rail. Seriously, high fucking speed rail. It's embarrassing.
__________________
Canadiens1131 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2010, 07:50 AM   #87
ONE
love, blood, life
 
indra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,689
Local Time: 12:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1131 View Post
In my best case scenario, all the baby boomers will die soon. That's pretty much what I'm looking forward to.
You're looking forward to my death? That's not very nice.
__________________
indra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2010, 08:11 AM   #88
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Canadiens1131's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,363
Local Time: 12:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by indra View Post
You're looking forward to my death? That's not very nice.
I'm sorry
__________________
Canadiens1131 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2010, 08:26 AM   #89
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 12:24 AM
We boomers are going to live FOREVER. Turns out, acid was also a preservative. Deal with it.
__________________
BonosSaint is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2010, 08:33 AM   #90
Paper Gods
Forum Administrator
 
KhanadaRhodes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: a vampire in the limousine
Posts: 60,609
Local Time: 10:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1131 View Post
The modern Republican party ran the US into the ground during the 00s, and is now asking to be voted back into office, and the general public is going along with it.
this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1131 View Post
And get some fucking high speed rail. Seriously, high fucking speed rail. It's embarrassing.
and this.
__________________

__________________
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 11:24 PM.


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