No Wonder You Young Folks Are So Liberal - Page 5 - 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 03-30-2005, 08:26 PM   #61
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 09:07 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Teta040
That was a figure of speech. I will state that I will NOT descend to the level of the crackpots getting arrested outside Terri's hospice...they are a disgrace to the nation, and I don't see what they are trying to prove.

I meant "fight to the death" in a legal sense...everything within my voting or petitioning power.

Nobody has answered my question though. Do I fit into a "party:, or just how weird AM I?

If I were a judge, I'd look at cases case by case.The Letter of the Law is not that important.

(You know, it just occurred to me that the Homeland Security Police might be reading this. Personally, I couldn't give a frig

And Melon, in case you're wondering, I read yr Libertarian post and nope, I don't support that stuff. I favor Bog Gov't, but ONLY as a foil to Big Business. Big Govt civilizes things these days....or should. Historically, the two have been at odds. The problem is that Dubya has combined the two, in a new and lethal way.

I'll tell you though..this comes to me from a thread in another of my favorite sites....a site called Americablog.com is reporting some chatter, rumors, right now that Jeb has called in the National Guard to remove Terri from the hospice by force..see if I can find a link for this, that's prob not right....

Back in a sec.
Government and business traditionally at odds? What about the Cold War millitary industrial complex? There is often a mutual interest between what government desires and what big business desires.

You favour censorship of things you disagree with or find offensive, you favour the government to have greater control over peoples lives and choices, you are opposed to gun ownership, support different rights for different people, support government control over business. You sound left and slightly authoritarian to me.

I am not a total anarchist, I do not think that we can count on the altruism of individuals or companies to help. I do however think that peoples individual liberties must be preserved; part of that freedom is things like freedom of speech, right to bear arms and to not have unwaranted interference from government; so minimal censorship, minimal welfare, freedom of speech and expression, lower taxation. There is a fine balance, you can have a government with a more hands off approach and it will not end in chaos.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 03-30-2005, 09:06 PM   #62
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 07:07 AM
Oh, no. I'm getting drawn into a liberal-conservative discussion again. I think your ideology is determined by where you think you belong. Conservatives with traditional values think a conservative ideology will benefit them--hold their status in society. The same with liberals, many of whom lead nontraditional lives. A liberal ideology benefits them. I can see why each side fears the other. They view the other side as wanting to take away status, rights, anything they consider important. Conservatives will deny liberals, liberals will deny conservatives. There will always be a cultural war when what you value is endangered. Perhaps we are lucky we are so divided. The fringe on both sides will get all the attention and the rest of us can live our lives. It's not like either side really cares about us anyway.

There are a million and one unfairnesses in life that no ideology will solve. Fight for yourself, because very few will fight for you in spite of all the happy horseshit we all spew now and again. I used to believe more than I believe now.

Irvine, good luck on your adoption attempt. Sounds like you would make a great parent.
__________________

__________________
BonosSaint is offline  
Old 03-30-2005, 09:10 PM   #63
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 09:07 PM
Conservatives think Liberals are stupid, Liberals think Conservatives are evil.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 03-30-2005, 09:37 PM   #64
Refugee
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,435
Local Time: 11:07 AM
Wait a minute....just how do "left" and "authoritarian" mix? Those ARE fine labels.

I was looking for more of a historical "party" term.
__________________
Teta040 is offline  
Old 03-30-2005, 09:43 PM   #65
Refugee
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,435
Local Time: 11:07 AM
The problem, Bono'sSaint, is that these days, gov't is NOT letting us live our lives.

Passing one law about ONE person? Changing the textbooks and taking out all refs to STD's and condoms and birthcontrol and favorable statements about Islam? Someone trying to deny funding to colleges that teach certain things?

It's like Pastor Niemoeller said....they came for the communists, and I was not a communist, I didn't speak out. Then they came for the trade unionists, but I was not a trade unionist, so I did nothing. They came for the Jews, and the same.

Then they came for me, and there was no-one left to speak out for me. (I parphrased that, I know.)

How much should we just be content to sit back and left things "sort themselves out"? B/c these days, they're NOT. All 4 branceshare in control by the radical elemnts of 1 party. This has not happened before..even FDR had to deal with a Repub congress.
__________________
Teta040 is offline  
Old 03-30-2005, 09:43 PM   #66
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 09:07 PM
Left and Authoritarian mix perfectly well, taken to the absolute extreme you get Soviet Communism and Nazism ~ state controls, centralised economy; things that are economically hard left. You also have censorship, repression and police states which are authoritarian. Hence hard left authoritarian.

Now I said that you were left and slightly authoritarian; you subscribe to the concept of big government which is soft left. And you also advocate censorship of things that you deem unacceptable and oppose gay marriage and adoption which are soft (very soft) authoritarian.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 03-30-2005, 09:52 PM   #67
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 09:07 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Teta040
[B]The problem, Bono'sSaint, is that these days, gov't is NOT letting us live our lives.

Passing one law about ONE person? Changing the textbooks and taking out all refs to STD's and condoms and birthcontrol and favorable statements about Islam? Someone trying to deny funding to colleges that teach certain things?
I would disagree here, if anything removal of negative statements about Islam seems to be a problem. National Review just stopped advertising two books after CAIR put pressure on it's advertisers. Fox has do back down over using Muslim terrorists on 24. Institutions that host Daniel Pipes are threatened with boycotts. Genuine criticism of Islam and more specifically political Islam (not just bigots screaming Muslims = Terrorists) is labelled as Islamophobia and real discussion of the issues in a free and open setting is subverted.

Can you give me a single example where a positive representation of Islam has been banned in schools or in the media by the government?
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 03-30-2005, 09:52 PM   #68
Refugee
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,435
Local Time: 11:07 AM
WHOA. When did I say I was for censorship???

Is fining by the FCC censorship?? If you go through American hsitory, you'll find "self-censorship" practiced a disturbing number of times. The Hays code was a start. And the MPASS rules are another. I oppose this personally, but the fines are a nice gesture. As long as it goes no further.

And who says, BTW, that authoritarian is the central tenant of the Left? Censorship falls under left and right.

Since when, also, does opposing gay adoption make me authoritarian? This falls under the gray area of opinion, and saying this is persecution. It all comes down to whether you think gays are a group like people of color who were historically persecuted like the slaves etc. I don't. Denial of the right to A;dopt" children to me is not the same as being attacked by police dogs or fire hoses--or sold into chains.

This is a harsh statment to make, and many will be offended, but I stand by it. If they were rounded up like Hitler did and phyically abused or tolf where to live, etc, that is different...that is not denying them a lifestyle choice, that is abusing them as PEOPLE, not gays. That was a mythology largely created beginning with Harvey Milk. You forgot that as long as kids are not involved, I support civil gay unions. Which means I am more tolerant than a LOT of folks on the issue.

Maybe you can go point by point, what I said, and clarify how I am a Communist. This is interesting.
__________________
Teta040 is offline  
Old 03-30-2005, 10:01 PM   #69
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 09:07 PM
I never said that authoritarianism was a tenent of the left. It is seperate from left and right. I defined you as left leaning on the basis of your support for big government.

And I said that you were soft left; which is not communist, it is moderate. And I also said very slight authoritarian which would be slight restrictions on rights.

Individual rights must be for all people regardless of race, sex or sexual preference. By advocating different rights for people because of sexual preference it is a very soft form of authoritarianism ~ just like censorship and fines for decency standards. Your authoritarian measurement is probably less than this administrations.

Soft left, very slight authoritarian, take one of those "where do you stand politically" quizzes and you would probably get that type of result.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 03-30-2005, 10:27 PM   #70
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Se7en's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: all around in the dark - everywhere
Posts: 3,531
Local Time: 06:07 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Left and Authoritarian mix perfectly well, taken to the absolute extreme you get Soviet Communism and Nazism ... Hence hard left authoritarian.



nazism...far left? good one.


__________________
Se7en is offline  
Old 03-30-2005, 10:35 PM   #71
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 09:07 PM
Laugh away, but Nazism does share a significant similarity with the hard left both in theory and practice. Can you justify to me how fascism is distinctly right-wing.

Whatever crushes individuality is despotism, by whatever name it may be called.
- John Stuart Mill
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 03-30-2005, 11:07 PM   #72
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Se7en's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: all around in the dark - everywhere
Posts: 3,531
Local Time: 06:07 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Laugh away, but Nazism does share a significant similarity with the hard left both in theory and practice. Can you justify to me how fascism is distinctly right-wing.

Whatever crushes individuality is despotism, by whatever name it may be called.
- John Stuart Mill
i will do my best to justify it. i'm sure you won't listen, but that is beside the point.

first, a definition:

Quote:
Fascism - A philosophy or system of government that advocates or exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with an ideology of belligerent nationalism.
some nice points i was able to find (they are written far better than i could express):

-----

Fascism is an extreme measure taken by the middle classes to forestall lower-working class revolution; it thrives on the weakness of the middle classes. It accomplishes this by embracing the middle-class' love of the status-quo, its complacency and its fears of:
1. Generating a united struggle within the working class
2. Revolution

Religion -
Governments in*fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric*and terminology is common from government leaders, even*when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.

Corporate Power is Protected -
The industrial and business*aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the*government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial*business/government relationship and power elite.


Labor Power is Suppressed -
Because the organizing power*of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor*unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.

-----

as we all know, and can surely agree on, the fundamental importance of leftist ideology (try and think further left than u.s. democrats) is the labor movement. any structure than inhibits workers organization and democracy, regardless of its title, is not leftist by any means. fascism does just this.

the real kicker for putting fascism on the right wing is its unbridled corporatism. when big business and government see eye to eye, i'm not sure how you can call yourself "left wing." fascism is a centralized economy insofar as the ceo's of the companies control the leaders of the state. the state and business work hand in hand. the state sees that businessmen operate as they desire, pumping up those profit margins, and in return the businessmen make sure the leaders stay in control.

also, any ideology that serves to protect the status quo is not far left. reaction and revolution do not go hand in hand i'm afraid.

you can bad mouth soviet communism all you want, i will join in if you'd like me to. i think your mistake is trying to throw fascism into the left rather than throwing soviet "communism" into the right. yes i said it. you can dress it up in red flags and talk about karl marx but if it looks like state capitalism, smells like state capitalism, well by god it must be state capitalism. i can call a rabbit a turtle but its still a fucking rabbit.

correct me if i'm mistaken, but your quote at the end of your post (a dramatic declaration if i do say so myself) seems to be an attempt to imply the left is the only bastion of despotism. of course it is! capitalism could never be accused of despotism! give it a rest. you slag socialism and any other left wing ideology at every chance you get. of course most of your statements and grandiose diatribes are full of bias, stereotypes, and misleading phrasings. i really don't like to debate online, or in person even. i find i have a hard time expressing what i'm thinking when topics become complex. but i felt this needed to be addressed. fascism is not a left wing ideology.
__________________
Se7en is offline  
Old 03-30-2005, 11:43 PM   #73
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 09:07 PM
From the begining of your post your definition of fascism defines it as a right-wing ideology.

The other plausibility is that when you go too either extreme it melds into the same totallitarian position.
>Centralised industry, either through direct state control or through a melding of state
>Government control of economy
>Big government
>Removal of the rights of the individual.

Fascism emerged in the 20th Century, it began in Italy under Benito Mussolini. Mussolini himself was a socialist in his early years. The formation of fascism as an ideology was a third way, he was not a Bolshevik ~ he did not ahere to the view that revolution could deliver socialism, he supported the Mensheviks view that in order to achieve such a state a nation had to evolve through a bourgeois stage to get there.

The group itself staked it's claim to power in turf wars against Communists and Anarchists ~ busting up rallies, strikes and organisations. Once in power many policies could be considered left wing. Controlling the exchange rate to make the country self-sufficient, declared a "corparate state" where Italian industry was divided up into corparations where the workers and managers cooperated under Fascist guidelines. Placing state controls over industry. Funding large public works and increasing welfare to a high level. Musolini was fiercely nationalistic and expoused the importance of patriotism, but is this merely a trait of the right? I don't think so, you have many examples of hard left dictatorships using nationalism to achieve their goals ~ the great patriotic war for instance. Fascist created governments that pacified the populations by both supplying their every need and creating a dependence and by enforcing police statism on those that dissented.

The right wing that I am talking about believes in the free market ~ without strong state controls. Minimal role of government (something that you do not see in fascist parties or with most conservative parties; be it the liberal party in Australia or the Republicans in the US), The right of the individual above the government ~ be it in property rights, civil liberties or freedom of speech. When you take that right wing to the extreme level you will create a laissez faire anarcho-capitalist condition. This is not what fascism is, fascism is centralised government with strong controls over the economy ~ it is pretty much the exact opposite. So when we are talking about right wing I suspect that we are thinking about different things.

The thing that we may be able to agree on is that fascism is not left wing. I think that it is not right wing. I think that it is a "third way" ~ a hodge podge of ideas to deliver a workable system that was not Bolshevik or Liberal (liberal in the classical sense of the word ~ for liberty and free trade); combining state control and corparatism, nationalism and big government. I was pointing out the elements of the left that were adopted into fascist systems and I may have overlooked the elements taken from the liberal system (capitalism and materialism).

And furthurmore the JSM quote represents exactly what I believe ~ which is that individual liberty is supreme and any system which robs people of their liberty is despotism and will share common tendancies ~ be the system Fascism (trading individual liberty for economic security from the state), Communism (sacrifice in the name of the greater good) or Political Islam (it is a political system, it crushes the rights of the individual so that they must be in submission to God and the ruling clerical class). And not two posts ago I explicitly said that authoritarianism was not the exclusive domain of the left or the right.

Quote:
also, any ideology that serves to protect the status quo is not far left. reaction and revolution do not go hand in hand i'm afraid.
And why not? why do you say that far left must be about reaction and revolution? once that revolution has occured to they cease being what they were? Once you have an entrenched regime that is hard left does it cease to be itself?

Quote:
Labor Power is Suppressed -
Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.
But labor power is supressed all too often under communist regimes, the unions become a tool of the government and loose independence, they do not represent the interests of the workers. It seems that functional labor power only works in free societies ~ both communism and fascism are authoritarian and both supress that power.

Quote:
i think your mistake is trying to throw fascism into the left rather than throwing soviet "communism" into the right.
And why should soviet communism be put on the right? What makes Soviet Communism right wing and not hard left?

the logic could be

Fascism opposes Free Unions.
Soviet Communism Opposes Free Unions.
Therefore Soviet Communism is Fascism.

which would be like a fallacious argument.

And for the record I don't like socialism because I don't think that we should have to force equality through taxation. I think that some groups of people become dependent on the government and you get a class of dole bludgers who live off welfare their whole lives and don't contribute at all, they have kids and their kids are left to suffer the same fate and suffer because of it. I think that overall services suffer and quality of education and healthcare decline. I think that it makes it harder for people to conduct business, the increased taxation stagnates the economy and you get less innovation and investment. I think that by handing greater power to governments and beurocrats it makes it that little bit easier to be abused and for that abuse not to be revealed.

I am not saying that any system is perfect but I do think that less economic controls and less government will make for a more vibrant and prosperous society. I am not saying go nuts anarchy but I am saying that we don't need 50% income tax and large taxes on business with full cradle to grave healthcare for every man, woman and child to have a workable system.

And for the last sodding time I am not saying that capitalist systems are incapable of authoritarianism. I am saying that if your system limits the degree of control a government can excercise of it's citizens then it is less likely to be open to abuse. You will never ever see an libertarian dictatorship because it is a contradiction in terms.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 03-31-2005, 03:16 AM   #74
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 09:07 PM
And let me state explicitly I am not throwing around words like Nazi or Communist to vilify anybody. Not once did I call anybody either of those terms, although it seems that some assumed I did without reading the post. Not once did I call Teta a communist. You assume too sodding much and then stick up me the straw-man who slags of all left wing ideologies at every chance, uses misleading phrases (such as?), stereotypes (where?), assume that I won't listen and then state that in an argument; were it a more pronounced element it could be considered ad hominem.

You bring in an uncited definition; which in itself defines fascism as part of the extreme right ~ but then states that the state and business are merged and the aspect of nationalism. Both points which could legitimately be argued are not inherently right-wing and are features found in hard-left regimes.

Then the emergence of fascist regimes is attributed to a middle class love of the status quo and fear of a workers revolution ~ Von Mises certainly had a different view of where the Nazis had support.
Quote:
"Unless we are utterly oblivious to the facts, we must realize that the German workers are the most reliable supporters of the Hitler regime. Nazism has won them over completely by eliminating unemployment and by reducing the entrepreneurs to the status of shop managers (Betriebsfuehrer). Big business, shopkeepers, and peasants are disappointed. Labor is well satisfied and will stand by Hitler, unless the war takes a turn which would destroy their hope for a better life after the peace treaty. Only military reverses can deprive Hitler of the backing of the German workers.

The fact that the capitalists and entrepreneurs, faced with the alternative of Communism or Nazism, chose the latter, does not require any further explanation. They preferred to live as shop managers under Hitler than to be "liquidated" as "bourgeois" by Stalin. Capitalists don't like to be killed any more than other people do"
link

The issue is not cut and dry, the Nazi's were able to attract working class members to the SA right from the beginning and just like the communists the leaders were often bourgeois as too were the staunchest supporters. The workers don't have the education or the connections that you find in the middle class ~ that is why any reactionary group will be injected with a significant element of bourgeois leadership.

Then you raise religion and religious themes as issues in fascism. Now this gets interesting because while Italian and Spanish fascism used religion strongly the Nazi's were opposed to many churches, some in their own upper echelons subscribed to a more pagan tradition. Just look at the 'Reich Church' where Nazism replaced Christianity or the hostility towards the major churches.
Quote:
the fuhrer is deeply religious, though completely anti-Christian; he views Christianity as a symptom of decay. Rightly so. It is a branch of the Jewish race.”
from an entry in Joseph Goebbles diary.

Then you had Hitler telling his top aides that
Quote:
“Christianity is the prototype of Bolshevism: the mobilisation by the Jew of the masses of slaves with the object of undermining society.”
The Nazi's barely used the existing religion rather than attempt to reshape a new one in their image. But the point about religion is a relevent one, most hard left states are atheist ones and that distinguishes them from states where particular forms of worship are encouraged or forced. But forcing people to not worship at all directly contradicts freedom of religion ~ this makes both systems equally authoritarian in that regard.

You then go on to state how corparate power is protected; now I would disagree, because the corparations and the state are entwined they have no freedom to act in a manner different than that the state desires, the entire system becomes centralised and run by the same group. It ceases to be a free market and becomes a state controlled one.

Then the point is made about unions, here the point is that unions, free associations of workers is also banned in authoritarian communist states, once the revolution has occured power never goes to the proletariat, they simply become slaves to the state rather than the industrialists. The labor movement ceases to be the driving force of the revolution once a regime is in place that commands a large number of guys with guns.

Then point raised about ideologies designed to serve the status quo. Now I disagree, Nazism was not adopted to preserve the status quo, it was adopted because the middle class was suffering and it offered a way out, it changed things; it changed unemployment, it changed the economy and brought the country out of the depression, it was truly revolutionary in it's vision to create a 1000 year reich, overthrowing the liberal system that came before.

I don't understand what you mean by labeling the USSR as a state capitalist beast, or right wing for that matter. The USSR had a bit of focus on international socialism whereas fascist sytems delivered socialism for their people on a national level. The times when it crossed over would probably be under Stalin when the USSR abandoned any goal of inspiring global revolution and consolidated within it's own borders. But the Soviet Union was hardly capitalist, it may have had a monetary system but it lacked the property and trading rights that would make a system inherently capitalist.

All points raised are debatable in a calm and considered manner; you may refute any element of my argument if you so wish. I am maintaining that there are similarities between Fascism and Soviet Communism (the distinction between communism as an untested state of humanity and soviet communism as the USSR both Leninism and Stalinism). These similarities do not contradict my statement that Fascism was considered to be an alternative third way system and do not mean that I am saying that Fascism is Soviet Communism. Just because each of them share similar (not identical) aspects does not mean that they have to be the same.

I have been refering to specific political movements in the 20th Century which have each caused a lot of death and destruction. I think that if someone walk around wearing a T-Shirt with Hitler on it (in the context of a pro-Nazi shirt) then they are either a useful imbecile or somebody who has a misguided faith in an evil ideology, I think the same thing about someone who walks around in a Che Guevarra shirt.

I would consider myself a liberal but thanks to the American definitions that is a useless word around here and thanks to those that claimed the mantle I wouldn't like to be part of it ~ so free market libertarian seems to fit the bill closest.

And in consideration towards the radical left I find that the anti-Israel attitudes and sympathy towards the goals of Islamist groups among a few in the radical left is one reason that I abhor what they stand for. When you have a "progressive" defending the Taliban as a legitimate government something is seriously fucked up. Some support the "resistance" in Iraq ~ even when those groups are fanatical Islamists. A nihilistic embrace of barbarity for the "greater good" (just look at Lynn Stewart). There are not many of them out there, I can hardly think of anybody on this forum who has expoused such views but on that edge around Pilger etc. there is a very sickening and harmful worldview that would desire crack a few eggs to get their totalitarian result. I do slag off these types because they are dangerous zealots. I am not going to go around calling every green voter a communist or say that if somebody votes Democrat in the US then they are a pinko-freak.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 03-31-2005, 03:20 AM   #75
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 07:07 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Conservatives think Liberals are stupid, Liberals think Conservatives are evil.
Actually the Liberals think the Conservatives are both stupid and evil

Teta, I understand your point. But I think with the country evenly divided, neither side gets to go too far hopefully. Sure, we have to speak out when we see what we perceive as wrong. Sure, we have to monitor. Sure, we have to be outraged. But assuming our voting booths have integrity , I think an evenly divided country will vote the other way when things go too far. And maybe now the country will recognize the Conservatives are maybe going too far here.
__________________

__________________
BonosSaint 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 06:07 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