Make your case to the undecided - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 05-29-2004, 12:43 PM   #16
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,357
Local Time: 01:33 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon
Why I will vote for Kerry:

Bush and the GOP leadership represent full and unabashed reactionary conservatism. I will not paint all GOP members with the same brush; there are many fine GOP politicians that I do not mind, such as Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-RI), and even Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). I particularly appreciate McCain's sincerity of beliefs over politics, which he has demonstrated over his years in office, even though I disagree with his decision to campaign for the Bush Administration. I do not believe that Bush deserves his help, after he and his reactionary conservative allies worked very hard to smear the more moderate McCain in the 2000 GOP primary.

But I digress. For those reasonable, fiscal conservative "Barry Goldwater" Republicans, Bush is not your candidate. His tax cut plans were completely lacking in any common sense; he created them with the projection that the record prosperity and surplus during the Clinton Administration would continue another decade, which not even the most optimistic economist agreed with. And, yes, an unforseen terrorist attack came in 2001, but, terrorist attack or not, his projection was made out of a complete disregard for any sound economic policy.

Ultimately, my choice for Kerry is about "reading between the lines." A vote for Bush is a vote for reactionary Christian extremism. This man has repeatedly forsaken the facts, in favor of a "faith-based" approach to the presidency. Bush has proven, too, that he will lie or string us along on circumstantial evidence to get his agenda through. Did anyone ever doubt that Bush II would eventually take out Saddam Hussein to finish his father's embarrassment the minute he was elected? 9/11 just turned out to be neoconservatism's greatest boon since the Cold War, allowing them to push through any amount of offensive legislation they want, while deriding any critics as "terrorist sympathizers" or "traitors" that walk in their path. Ask FOX News what they think of any liberal, and ask the Bush Administration which news network they interview on the most.

A vote for Kerry is a vote to end this executive tyranny, and to close a chapter on a generation of extremist Republicans that have dogged down the party since the Reagan Administration. A vote for Kerry is a vote against the worst elements of the United States.

Melon
fine... you've made plenty of good points as to why bush isn't the right man for the job. i disagree with some, agree with others. but you didn't make one point as to why kerry is the right man for the job.

and your hatred for fox news is bordering on just plain sillyness. you said in another post that fox news is the worst thing to ever happen to america. that is one of the most absurd statements i have ever heard. do they lean to the right? of course they do... i don't think anyone thinks they're actually "fair and balanced." but do the new york times and the washington post, papers who set the standard for all other papers in the nation, and who have syndicated articles printed throught the nation, lean to the left? you're damn right they do... yet i never hear one complaint about that. fox leans to the right, the times leans to the left. why is one worse than the other?
__________________

__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is offline  
Old 05-29-2004, 03:33 PM   #17
War Child
 
BluberryPoptart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 532
Local Time: 06:33 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon
A vote for Kerry is a vote to end this executive tyranny, .. A vote for Kerry is a vote against the worst elements of the United States.
I am not at all convinced Who knows what kind of asswipe he could be once he gets in there? You're being far too optimistic, and stating as a fact something you may hope for but have no proof of.
__________________

__________________
BluberryPoptart is offline  
Old 05-29-2004, 03:59 PM   #18
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 01:33 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Headache in a Suitcase
why is one worse than the other?
Because FOX News borders on being the American equivalent of Soviet "agitprop." They lie or grossly embellish to smear prominent liberal figures, then bitch loudly about how the "liberal media" ignores such "important news." Over time, it filters through other conservative news sources, some from the ridiculous, such as conservative talk radio, and some from the more "distinguished," such as the Washington Times. Then, in time, the mainstream media is forced to address it as "real news," solely because of how much it has repeated. It is little different than how the Soviet Union used to propagate fake news during the Cold War, except they used to plant it in obscure third-world countries, knowing that news eventually travels. There is no other "news network" that I hate more than FOX News; and who would expect anything "fair and balanced" from a network led by a former RNC head?

I base my support for Kerry solely on the fact that *anyone* would be a better president than Bush. The man stands for nearly everything that I'm against, and while Kerry isn't the most liberal individual, he's the only chance we have against Bu$h.

But it may be too late to recover the mess that this country is in from social conservatives. I hate watching this nation die a slow death into religious fanaticism, not so different from the Iranian pseudodemocratic theocracy. If I have to read anymore news about homophobic politicians and presidents trying to "defend marriage," I really will have to move to Canada. That's what these bigots want anyway, as homosexuals cannot disappear through legislation. So, barring the GOP creating concentration camps, we'll all have to move to other nations just to live with some sort of dignity. Why would I want to live in a nation that works very hard to enshrine discrimination against me?

That is why I cannot stand Bush in every fiber of my being. His stupidity, unabashed religious fundamentalism, and aggregious "the end justifies the means" lying, not to mention his equally fanatical administration and political party, makes me believe that absolutely anyone would be better than this joke for a president. Any true, principled fiscal conservative (i.e., "libertarian"-leaning) would have abandoned Bush a long time ago. But I know how party allegiances go, and I might as well contribute to the party opposite the party of warmongering, ethnocentric bigots. Since Kerry won the Democratic nomination, he's got my vote.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 05-29-2004, 08:42 PM   #19
War Child
 
Seabird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: with 2 kids in high school they tell her that she's uncool, but she's still preoccupied with 1985
Posts: 906
Local Time: 01:33 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Headache in a Suitcase


i don't think anyone thinks they're actually "fair and balanced." but do the new york times and the washington post, papers who set the standard for all other papers in the nation, and who have syndicated articles printed throught the nation, lean to the left? you're damn right they do... yet i never hear one complaint about that. fox leans to the right, the times leans to the left. why is one worse than the other?
Why? Because the people who complain agree with the left leaners and hate the right leaners, therefore, whatever disagrees with them is not okay. It's the biggest paradox of politics, liberals are often the most judgemental and most likely to shut the door on someone or something because they hate what it stands for so much, though they accuse the right wing of being that way. So when it comes down to it at the end of the day, everyone's tail is tarred and feathered with the same brush, only from a different point of view.
__________________
Seabird is offline  
Old 05-29-2004, 09:12 PM   #20
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 01:33 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Seabird
Why? Because the people who complain agree with the left leaners and hate the right leaners, therefore, whatever disagrees with them is not okay. It's the biggest paradox of politics, liberals are often the most judgemental and most likely to shut the door on someone or something because they hate what it stands for so much, though they accuse the right wing of being that way. So when it comes down to it at the end of the day, everyone's tail is tarred and feathered with the same brush, only from a different point of view.
Yes, that's the burden of liberalism. People take the word "tolerance" and stretch it to an unrealistic degree, so as to make it impossible to live up to. Even Jesus couldn't live up to the conservative mockery of the word "tolerance." Just like how they mocked the word "liberal" in the 1980s to make it bad word. That's too bad, as well, because, while "liberal" is a hollow word, "tolerance" is what this nation was founded on; it's the only reason this pluralistic nation didn't devolve into religious warfare on the moment of its creation, IMO. But who cares about that, right? It's all about taking out those nasty pinko commie baby-eating "liberals."

Conservatives, on the other hand, make no secret that their nothing more than stubborn bigots, so when they make racist, homophobic, or misogynist comments, people look the other way. After all, "that's what conservatives do!" Or they bury their intolerance under the cloak of "religious freedom." That excuse only goes so far, and it does appear that, while former Sen. Jesse Helms got carte blanche to be as racist as he wanted, upon his retirement, it suddenly became taboo there too, and former speaker, Rep. Trent Lott, got the ax first. But, really, it was more of a passing of an era. While anytime Sen. Helms was losing an election, all he had to do was air a scathingly racist campaign commercial, and his poll numbers would jump. Now the GOP doesn't need to imply that Democrats would encourage more *sarcastic gasp* "interracial marriages" to get votes. Now, instead of the archaic "race card," they just play the "gay card," conjuring up images of Democrats "promoting homosexuality / gay marriage" and the public, just like in c. 1990, eats it up. So much for an act of penance.

There's a saying that the "nice guy finishes last" and that's probably why the Democratic Party has floundered since 1968 (not to mention having all their heroes assassinated during that decade). Maybe the Democratic Party should have more of a spine and be scathingly and openly intolerant against any conservative ideals, much like how the Republican Party paints liberals as "terrorists" and homosexuals as "dangerous to families." After all, the Bible does say "an eye for an eye," and conservatives have gouged a few too many eyes over the decades. Anyone remember the "Red Scare?"

I have zero compassion left for the GOP, particularly after their fearless leader made the word "compassionate conservatism" an oxymoron, and, as a result, my own tolerance has run out. It's every man for himself and a dog-eat-dog world. Predator capitalism. Social Darwinism. The GOP declared war on America a long time ago, and it is ultimately too bad that Democrats have all but let them win. Now they can remold America and its history in their pseudoimage.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 05-29-2004, 09:27 PM   #21
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 06:33 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Seabird


Why? Because the people who complain agree with the left leaners and hate the right leaners, therefore, whatever disagrees with them is not okay. It's the biggest paradox of politics, liberals are often the most judgemental and most likely to shut the door on someone or something because they hate what it stands for so much, though they accuse the right wing of being that way. So when it comes down to it at the end of the day, everyone's tail is tarred and feathered with the same brush, only from a different point of view.
You're right, liberals can be intolerant. We're (finally) having our state primary elections Tuesday. A dispute has broken out on a local leftist list between Kucinich and Kerry supporters. It's ugly, full of personal attacks and such. I'm disgusted. I really don't see why people have to make asses out of themselves when it's supposed to be a debate of ideas.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 05-29-2004, 09:42 PM   #22
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 01:33 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by verte76
You're right, liberals can be intolerant. We're (finally) having our state primary elections Tuesday. A dispute has broken out on a local leftist list between Kucinich and Kerry supporters. It's ugly, full of personal attacks and such. I'm disgusted. I really don't see why people have to make asses out of themselves when it's supposed to be a debate of ideas.
Yeah, how disgusting, but what you observed is quite typical, really. It's too bad. I often think that politics generally attracts a certain dysfunctional personality type--one that is more interested in defeating one's opponent, rather than issues. It's kind of like a bad case of "American Idol," where "fan(atics)" gather around their favorite "idol" and become scarily loyal, no matter if that person has a bad performance one day or just plain sucks to non-fans. That's what politics are all about: people gather around their "idol" and make excuses for their behavior, no matter how good or bad it is. And both Democrats and Republicans are guilty of this; that I am mindful of.

It's nothing short of disillusioning for me. I often wish I had never studied the media; it's given me great insight to how the masses are manipulated, whether it be by political candidates or media outlets, but it is very disheartening to actually see it in action, and realize that, as an individual, there is really nothing you can do about it...but watch.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 05-29-2004, 09:52 PM   #23
War Child
 
Seabird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: with 2 kids in high school they tell her that she's uncool, but she's still preoccupied with 1985
Posts: 906
Local Time: 01:33 AM
Melon your hatred for the GOP and religious right is about to eat you up. Get a grip, man.

Since when was this country founded on 'tolerence?' Only white men who owned property over age 21 were even considered people at that point.
__________________
Seabird is offline  
Old 05-29-2004, 10:12 PM   #24
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 01:33 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Seabird
Since when was this country founded on 'tolerence?' Only white men who owned property over age 21 were even considered people at that point.
Both the colonies of Maryland and Rhode Island were founded on some sense of religious freedom. The Constitution, as well, was grounded on a sense of secular tolerance and equality. After all, if it weren't, we'd be in a hell of a lot of trouble today with our court system otherwise!

Granted, compared to today, the 18th century is grossly intolerant. But I would tend to say that, 100 to 200 years from now, we'll appear exactly the same. That shouldn't diminish their accomplishment for the day, nor should it diminish our resolve to improve on the present.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 05-30-2004, 10:38 AM   #25
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 06:33 AM
Melon, I think you're right, there are many dysfunctional personalities in politics, and they're mostly interested in bashing an opponent, not talking about their ideas. This gives me a big case of the blahs. It's frustrating, because you can't change this. You can change the office-holders but you can't change the people who gang up on you based on your choice! The notion that politics is a competition of *ideas* is lost on alot of people, both liberals and conservatives. There are also conservatives who claim liberals screw up everything and are only interested in screwing up everything. This is the same mentality. It's fundamentally undemocratic as hell. I'm not interested in these stupid disputes.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 05-31-2004, 07:08 AM   #26
War Child
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 940
Local Time: 06:33 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Vote for Bush, I wan't the AUS/US FTA!
Vote for Kerry. I don't want Clear Channel in this country.
__________________
TylerDurden is offline  
Old 05-31-2004, 06:45 PM   #27
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
sue4u2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: hatching some plot, scheming some scheme
Posts: 6,628
Local Time: 01:33 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by verte76
Melon, I think you're right, there are many dysfunctional personalities in politics, and they're mostly interested in bashing an opponent, not talking about their ideas. This gives me a big case of the blahs. It's frustrating, because you can't change this. You can change the office-holders but you can't change the people who gang up on you based on your choice! The notion that politics is a competition of *ideas* is lost on alot of people, both liberals and conservatives. There are also conservatives who claim liberals screw up everything and are only interested in screwing up everything. This is the same mentality. It's fundamentally undemocratic as hell. I'm not interested in these stupid disputes.
I so agree with this statement, Verte. All that's being discussed in the media, in this portion of the state anyway, is who is a bigger supporter of Roy Moore and removing the ten commandments debacle. What the f***do they actually stand for. Don't tell me you support family values and go to church or how many grandkids you have, I want to know what your big picture is. I have already decided who I will not be supporting in the election tomorrow, just based on their own commercials and ad's and some of the polling calls I've received. Between now and in the morning I'll decide who to vote for. Problem is I sometimes feel like it's just a string of paper figures all cut in the same manner. It's the one thing I do hate about this state, the lack of choice's.

Edited to say: on the national front, the only way to get Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove and Ashcrof out of office is to remove Bush. That means electing Kerry, which I don't have any problem with.
and, Melon there is so much of what you've said that I agree I can't begin to improve upon. Bush has to go. Besides the people in the US who want him out, most of the rest of the world does as well. There is a great deal of mending that will have to be done overseas, and I think Kerry can achieve this.
__________________
sue4u2 is offline  
Old 05-31-2004, 09:45 PM   #28
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,357
Local Time: 01:33 AM
if the left's main argument for voting for Kerry is "he's not bush," then something very drastic will have to happen in this country between now and election day for bush to lose. the average american is not struggling... just like the average american wasn't booming durring the clinton-tech stock days. the average person is just that... average. and if the economy is stable, it's gonna take more than "he's not bush" to vote out an incumbent president.
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is offline  
Old 05-31-2004, 09:48 PM   #29
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 06:33 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by sue4u2


I so agree with this statement, Verte. All that's being discussed in the media, in this portion of the state anyway, is who is a bigger supporter of Roy Moore and removing the ten commandments debacle. What the f***do they actually stand for. Don't tell me you support family values and go to church or how many grandkids you have, I want to know what your big picture is. I have already decided who I will not be supporting in the election tomorrow, just based on their own commercials and ad's and some of the polling calls I've received. Between now and in the morning I'll decide who to vote for. Problem is I sometimes feel like it's just a string of paper figures all cut in the same manner. It's the one thing I do hate about this state, the lack of choice's.
And, tomorrow we Alabama voters head to the polls. This is the Frustrating Election From Hell. I feel like I have a choice between Idiot A, Idiot B, and Idiot C at the polls tomorrow. Moore has been a disaster for this state.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 05-31-2004, 11:59 PM   #30
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:33 AM
Re: Make your case to the undecided

Quote:
Originally posted by U2Kitten
Okay Bush and Kerry and Nader supporters, here's your chance. Tell us why you support your candidate, why you are against the other guy, and why your choice would be the best thing for America. Go on, we're listening!
1. I support Bush because I support his policies on Defense, Foreign Policy, Most International Trade issues, and most economic issues including at least half of the tax cuts.

a. On Defense, the Bush administration has reversed the decline in defense spending from the 1990s and is doing more to help modernize the military than anything done in the prior 8 years. The Bush administration has instituted the largest overall pay increase for military personal in 20 years! Doing these things are vital to keeping the US military the best in the world and will help to reduce casualties in future conflicts. Military forces that are better trained and equiped suffer smaller casualties than Military forces not as well trained and equiped. Better trained and equiped military forces are able to accomplish objectives quicker and resolve conflicts and other problems quicker than military forces that have less training and worse equipment. The Bush administration has shown that it is willing to provide the military with the funds necessary to have the best equiped and well trained force possible.

b. On Foreign Policy, the Bush administration has taken several major steps to improve national and global security. No other President in history has done more to combat terrorism worldwide than George Bush.

1. The Bush administration successfully responded to 9/11 by removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan. NATO is currently involved in rebuilding and hunting down remaining terrorist in Afghanistan. All across the world, the Bush administration has helped lead the effort to track down members of Al Quada where ever they may be. Thousands of them have been captured or killed with the help of a wide variety of countries. No other administration has been as successful as the Bush administration in tracking down, capturing and killing terrorist worldwide. No other leader in history has helped give Afghanistan a better chance at attaining democracy and prosperity than the Bush administration.

2. The Bush administration successfuly removed Saddam's regime from power when Saddam failed to verifiably disarm of all WMD per multiple UN resolutions and the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement. By removing Saddam, the Bush Administration removed the largest threat to global energy supply, the global economy, and global security. Iraq now has the best opportunity in its history to develop a democratic and prosperous country. It is free from the Brutality of Saddam's regime that murdered 1.7 million people in Iraq, and countries in the region and around the world. In addition, resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules of the United Nations have finally been enforced as they should have been earlier. Resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules are the most serious of resolutions and authorize the use of military force in order to bring about compliance. These actions have strenthened international security and the importance and meaning of the UN resolutions. The opposite would have been the case if Saddam had remained in power.

c. On international trade and the economy, the Bush administration has worked hard to get the US economy out of a recession that started at the end of the Clinton administration. Most of the Bush tax cuts have helped in this process. Unemployment has been reduced from 6.4% to 5.6%. The economy continues to grow at an average rate of 4.5% compared to growth in Europe which a mere .4% on average. The Unemployment rate is one of the 6 lowest recorded umemployment rates in the past 30 years! It is now projected that unemployment will fall to around 5.2% by election day. The Bush tax cuts and low interest rates have been important in bringing about this improving economic situation in the country. For the most part, the Bush administration continues to support free trade which helps to open up new markets to US products and increase US exports which creates jobs in the United States.








KERRY

1. I do not support Kerry for a number of reasons which include his record on Defense, Foreign Policy, and to a lesser degree International Trade and economics because of his reversal on some of these issues in order to gain support from labor Unions and other anti-capitialist, globalism, free trade groups in the democratic party.

a. On defense, John Kerry started his 1984 campaign for Senate by anouncing his proposal to cancel the development and production of weapon systems that would later become vital weapon systems for are military that were used to help win wars quickly and keep casualties to a minimum. In that 1984 campaign, John Kerry proposed doing away with the M1 Tank, M2 Bradley Fighting Vehicle, Patriot Missile System, and Apache Attack Helicopter, just to name a few weapon systems. These weapon systems were crucial in the military buildup of the 1980s that gave the US military its first real modern military and gave it the best equipment in all area's for the first time in its history. These weapon systems are so good that they are still in use today and second to none despite their age now.

This is how John Kerry's time in the Senate began, and for most of his time in the Senate, his policies on defense have either followed the above, or have not been significantly active in trying to increase defense spending. There is much dispute about how Kerry voted for this or for that, but the fact remains that Kerry is on record as being one that proposed canceling multiple weapon systems, rather than being a Senator that called for and fully embraced a significant build up in defense spending. Kerry was not considered a "Reagan Democrat" at all.

b. On Foreign Policy, John Kerry voted in 1991 to continue to only use sanctions in order to remove Saddam from Kuwait. He did not support the use of military force to remove Saddam from Kuwait. He did not support the UN resolutions that called for the removal of Saddam's forces from Kuwait with military force. He called the coalition that George Bush Sr. built a sham in the 1991 Gulf War.

Sanctions obviously were never going to remove Saddam from Kuwait and in fact were incapable of changing any policies by Saddam. Bush Sr. understood that Saddam only understood the language of force. Kerry failed to understand that and was unwilling to take the action necessary to effectively protect US and Global security at that time.

While Kerry supported Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003, he would later attempt to waterdown that support and attempt to recast his vote as something other than what it was. In addition, he voted against the funding of 87 Billion dollars for operation in Afghanistan and Iraq for our military as well as funds for the Afghan and Iraqi people.

Kerry's failure to support the first Gulf War is obvious, his support and idea's for the current war in Iraq are muddled and subject to his winning his parties nomination and perhaps the election.

Kerry has jumped on the liberal bandwagon that absurdly claims that Bush administration policies have been unitlateral and have failed to get support from other countries. Kerry has failed to explain his plans for Iraq and US foreign policy and only seems capable of pointing out what he sees as failures in the Bush administrations foreign policy without having a detailed plan of his own to accomplish undefined goals and reverse percieved policy failures of the current administration. He has yet to explain how his policy in Iraq and elsewhere would be truely different from the Bush administrations. Would Kerry really be able to get more countries involved in Iraq than there are now? If so, how many and how many troops per country?

c. On International Trade and the economy, Kerry in the past has been a free trader and he has supported cutting taxes at least for the middle class. But his recent moves towards more protectionism and other ideas supported by labor unions and other anti-trade, anti-globalist groups have only caused me to doubt how he would stand on these issues if elected President.





NADAR

I'll save some space here and just say that if the election were just between Kerry and Nadar, I would vote for Kerry easily. Nadar is very far to the left of Kerry when it comes to the above issues.




To sum up, George Bush is the best candidate for President because he has done and excellant job on defense, foreign policy, and has helped get the economy moving after a recession and 9/11. Kerry has a poor record on Defense and Foreign Policy and has flip flopped on supporting free trade and tax cuts.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
 

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 01:33 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