61% of historians agree: W. Bush is worst ever - 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 05-07-2008, 12:36 PM   #81
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 02:30 AM
Quote:
As for budget and the economy, dont bother to crunch phony numbers, I will do the real ones for you:
Quote:
We have a $415 billion projected deficit and a $9 trillion national debt. Your claim about Clinton is laughable re: national debt and GDP. http://uspolitics.about.com/od/thef...-Comparison.htm ^

Here is a good website with plenty of information on US defense spending, other spending, as a percentage of GDP as well as the annual budget per year since 1940:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget...6/pdf/hist.pdf

Here is a chart of US public debt from 1791 to 2006:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:U..._1791-2006.svg

Here is US unemployment rate by year:

http://www.miseryindex.us/urbyyear.asp

Here is US inflation rate by year:

http://www.miseryindex.us/irbyyear.asp

Here is the US poverty rate per year:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/pover...v/hstpov2.html






Quote:
The national debt increased under both administrations (in today's dollars). But under Clinton the debt rose more slowly and GDP rose faster than under Bush. The result is that the ratio of debt to GDP went down an average of 3.89 percent per year during the Clinton years, but has gone up an average of 0.94 percent per year during the Bush years.
Bush has had to fight two wars and deal with the terrorist attack of 9/11 and the economic difficulties that caused. Clinton had an easy peaceful period of time in office relative to Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. Those factors account for the decreasing debt as a percentage of GDP in Clinton's 2nd administration and the rise during the Bush administration.

But the fact remains that when you take the average level of debt for all the Clinton years vs. all the Bush years as a percentage of GDP, it is has been lower under Bush.

The Average National Federal Debt as a percentage of GDP:

Clinton Years 64.5%

Bush Years 61.9%



Quote:
It is true that debt as a percentage of GDP was higher in 1993 than any Bush yr, but that was before Clinton's first budget and deficit reduction, a gift from Reagan-Bush, who had the largest peacetime real debt and debt as a percentage of GDP.
Thats actually false, debt as percentage of GDP continued to rise during all four years of Clinton's first administration. The highest peacetime debt as a percentage of GDP was in 1996 when it reached 67.3%. Bill Clinton is the one that has the record, not Bush Sr. and Reagan when looking at the highest national debt as a percentage of GDP in a given year.

Quote:
You cant have your own facts, no matter how hard you try. You are just making yourself sound more ludacris by the second.
Well, when it comes to the facts, you've been misinformed. The highest peacetime debt level as a percentage of GDP was not under Bush Sr. or Reagan, it was under Bill Clinton 4 years after he was elected President. In 1996, the national debt as a percentage of GDP was 67.3%. That is higher than any other peacetime year in the history of the United States.


Quote:
Of course we have spent more militarily before than we have on this war, but that does not mean we do not have record deficits and debt for no reason whatsoever, or that we do not have more pressing issues to deal with in terms of spending money. Whether it be infrastructure, health care, rebuilding our military, taking care of our veterans, securing loose nukes in Russia, increasing homeland security, the list goes on. All of this is drawn from scarce resources, and historical context can do nothing to justify squandering what will be 2 trillion for nothing when there are other needs.
When you adjust for inflation, current Debt and Budget Deficit levels are not records, not even close. Helping to stabilize and secure the Persian Gulf area is a necessity for the United States. Nothing would harm the US economy and the rest of the world more than the seizure and sabotage of Persian Gulf Oil supply by Saddam. With the containment regime in shambles and every other method to remove him tried and failed, and with Saddam in violation of 17 UN Security Council Resolutions, it was not tolerable to let him remain in power. It was a necessity for US security to remove him. All of the pressing issues you site, would be in far worse shape if the United States failed to do what was necessary to secure and protect the Persian Gulf. The siezure and sabotage of Persian Gulf oil would cause a worldwide economic depression which would cause industrial society to collapse. As the price of Oil sky rockets, so would the price of food people buy as well as all kinds of other products. Business would fail, unemployment sky rockets. Millions of people lose their income those that still have money can't afford to buy the basics. There would be no money in such a situation for rebuilding infrastructure in the United States, the US military, providing Health Care and any of the other items that you site. Only a United States that has its interest at home and abroad secured can tackle these other issues you list. Security comes first, because the United States and other countries around the world need a secure global economy and energy supply in order to maintain their current wealth, standard of living, and society. Without those things, it would be impossible to address the issues you were listing.


Quote:
We absolutely had to fight WW II, needed to contain the Soviet Union as they were the other superpower. Now, we dont have such a superpower, again, apples to oranges.
The United States still has other threats to its security that it has to resolve or contain. Protecting Persian Gulf Oil supply has been in the national security interest of the United States for over 60 years now. Protecting global energy and the global economy will always be in the vital interest of the United States regardless of whether the United States is fighting a World War or facing a Super Power.

Quote:
We have never borrowed like this to pay for a war, we actually increased taxes like we should to finance World War II and Vietnam and has a result had less money added to the national debt as a result. And we paid it off quicker. Since Reagan, this has not been a concern.
Thats absolutely false. The national Debt as a percentage of GDP was at its highest during World War II. National Debt currently under Bush involved in two wars is still less than the high point of the peacetime Clinton era in 1996 when it stood at 67.3%. Whats important is to keep the economy growing since Government revenue actually increases faster when the economy grows fast than when you increases taxes which eventually hurts economic growth there by actually reducing the amount of money that they government gets.


Quote:
Whatever, when the economy collapses in a few years, more jobs are lost and interest rates or inflation skyrocket, the dollar falls even more and oil is $250 per barrell, keep telling yourself deficits dont matter.
When you don't do what is necessary to secure Persian Gulf Oil supply as well as protecting other US security interest around the world, you make the economic collapse you speak of more likely. All of those things become more likely when you fail to secure the vital area's of the world that the global economy is dependent upon.



Quote:
Jobs: 23 million under Clinton, compared to a total of around 3 million for Bush. Unemployment rate 1.1 percentage points higher than when he took office, at 5% and rising. It got to 6.8% in 2003 and it is on its way back there, in case you havent been following the news. He is the first president since Nixon to have presided over 2 recessions. Clinton inherited unemployment of 6.9% and got it down to 3.9%. The average means very little, one inherited a very low unemployment rate and made it worse and never got it back down to where he inherited it. The other inherited a high 6.9% and consistently reduced it. Who did better? Besides, the average for Clinton was 5.2%, which is probably the exact average during Bush's term, and it may wind up being higher because of this yr. We dont have a full comparison yet, and it is meaningless.100-200,000 per month was his job creation rate until he went back to losing them this yr. That is not even enough to keep up w/ population growth. Previous expansions saw 300-400,000 jobs created each month. In addition, wages fell for the average American Clinton-median household income +1.45%, Bush -1.15%. When did you have more money in your pocket?
Yes, Clinton did improve the economy during the relative peaceful time in office. Its easy to balance the budget an do such things when you don't have to fight two wars. I never stated that Clinton did not do good things for the economy. At the same time, if your being honest and objective, you have to acknowledge that what Bush has done with the economy is excellent given the wars, Terrorist attacks and economic slow downs he has had to deal with.

Bush's Unemployment rate is roughly equal or actually better than Clintons average unemployment rate:

Average Annual Unemployment Rate:

Clinton Years 5.21%

Bush Years 5.20%



Average Inflation rate during the Bush years is almost as good as the Clinton years:

Average Annual Inflation Rate:

Clinton Years 2.60%

Bush Years 2.69%



The average poverty rate during the Bush years has been much better than it was during the Clinton years:

Average Annual Poverty Rate:

Clinton Years 13.3%

Bush Years 12.3%


Clinton did have a better GDP growth rate, but not by much:

Average GDP growth rate:

Clinton Years 5.4%

Bush Years 4.8%


And as I have already stated before, Debt as a percentage of GDP has been lower under Bush than it was under Clinton despite the fact that Bush has been fighting Two wars while during the Clinton years, the country was primarily at peace.

The Average National Federal Debt as a percentage of GDP:

Clinton Years 64.5%

Bush Years 61.9%


Both US real GDP and real GDP per capita have grown during the Bush administration. US Standard of living as measured by the UN Human Development Index is higher now than it was during the Clinton administration.

If your objective and honest in your research, you'll find that Bush has maintained an impressive economy despite harder times. His numbers in terms of average debt as a percentage of GDP and the average rate of poverty beat the Clinton numbers. Those are facts that cannot be disputed. Even in the area's where Clinton did better on GDP growth, Inflation or about the same in Unemployment, Bush's numbers by any historical standard are very good.


Quote:
Strongbow: Your ingorance on the Condi Rice/Colin Powell quotes is shocking, as is the Iraq military and national debt/economy stuff. The people with the most to say often have no idea what they are talking about.
I already explained the Condi Rice/ Colin Powell quotes above. That the Iraqi military had not ability to launch an attack on Kuwait is just grossly incorrect. Colin Powell has already stated that those Cherry picked qoutes were mis-interpreted. Colin Powell to this day still supports the removal of Saddam from power. The qoutes you report also have plenty of what can only be viewed as mis-statements or an error in reporting. The idea that the United States was preventing Iraq from using its arms or its military equipment is simply, laughably false. If any of these things were true, the United States would not have had to rush over 100,000 troops to the Persian Gulf in late 1994 in response to two Republican Guard Divisions moving close to the border with Kuwait.

Everything I explained on the debt and economy are supported by factual indisputable numbers.



Quote:
All of your line by line responses are meaningless and dont rebut anything with facts, just speculation and putting words in people's mouths.
Only trying to make the reading and response easier for you. If you carefully look at my response you'll find that there are plenty of facts you seem unwilling to acknowledge or consider. In addition, some of your own "facts" statements, and sources, actually have ended up contradicting what you had to say like claiming that the US military is broken and then siting a source in which the Army's top General says the Army is "far from being broken".

Quote:
Bosnia is a perfect example- we of course were 90% of that very small peacekeeping force that was deployed to the region, yet you try and sell this as something on par with our full scale military invasion of Iraq. Pathetic.
The conflicts are similar in the sense that they involved nation building and resolving sectarian conflicts which in this case involved a real civil war. Its rather contradictory to be supporting US policy in Bosnia and Kosovo yet challenging the same methods being used and looking at the some of the similar problems of nation building and claiming it can't be done or that its not in the US interest to do it. I NEVER stated that the numbers of troops involved or the money spent was the same.

Quote:
Then your Iraq military strength BS-- would only fly if the rest of the middle eastern militaries consisted of speed boats and handguns. You make Saddam out to be the next Alexander the great, he was far from that and you are crazy for putting forth Iraq as a even a regional, never mind a global military threat.
If you were to actually objectively look at Iraqi military strength consider not only the types of equipment they have, but their numbers, training, combat experience, geographic location, close proximity to the world energy supplies, you might begin to understand what I'm talking about. Everyone in the US military and intelligence community recognized Saddam as both a regional threat, and a global threat do to his potential ability to sieze or sabotage where the world gets the majority of its energy supplies from. You don't have to have a continent conquering military to be able to threaten the planet, when your military is more than large enough to overrun a few hundred miles of flat sand that possess the vital energy reserves that the world depends on for the global economy.

Iraq's number of 430,000 men, 2,800 tanks, 2,100 artillery pieces and 120 Helicopters exceed any single Persian Gulf country south of Iraq in the Gulf Cooperation Council or even when you combine the military forces of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emarites.

[QUOTE]I will not be entering this thread again or responding to your posts, because you obviously are so blinded by your love for Bush that you can not see facts and have to turn factual rebuttals offered by others into 'liberal fantasy.' In your world, speculation is fact and facts are liberal conspiracies. QUOTE]

I've listed plenty of facts and have explained how they are relevent to the conclusions that the US military and many in the intelligence community as well as the President have made about Saddam, the threat from Saddam, and the need to remove him from power. Unfortunately, you do not appear in acknowledging these facts, and your above qoute seems to show your more interested in wild speculation about another member of the forum rather than a thoughtful discussion on the thread topic.

Quote:
The FACTS, as have been verified by our own intelligence are that Bush has not made us safer, Al Qaeda is stronger and we are bogged down in a quagmire in Iraq.
Few people are claiming that the world would be safer with Saddam still in power. The intelligence and facts show that Kuwait and Saudi Arabia no longer face the larged armed threat from Iraq that they did prior to the March 2003 invasion. They no longer face a dicator who had invaded and attacked four different countries, used WMD more times than any leader in history and threatened the planets key oil reserves with siezure and sabotage. Al Quada had its main base destroyed in Afghanistan, has had thousands of its followers either killed or captured around the world. The Taliban is out of power in Afghanistan, and Al Quada's resurgence in Iraq has been rolled back by the US military surge of 2007-2008. US military intervention in both Iraq and Afghanistan has made the United States, the region and the world safer, but removing two violent and threatening regimes who were bent on either dominating their neighbors and causing problems to the rest of the world.

Quote:
Economically, our own executive office of budget and management confirms the numbers I have spoke of. You can have your own opinion but not your own facts.
If you look at those numbers, you would find my statements about the average debt as a percentage of GDP during the Clinton administration was higher than during the Bush administration. Bush also had better average numbers on poverty, unemployment, and similar numbers on GDP growth and inflation.
__________________

Strongbow is offline  
Old 05-07-2008, 02:58 PM   #82
you are what you is
 
Salome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,056
Local Time: 04:30 AM
I thought even the people who voted for Bush thought he was an idiot with a group of smart people around him

don't know about which bit they were wrong
__________________

__________________
“Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe.”
~Frank Zappa
Salome is offline  
Old 05-07-2008, 05:12 PM   #83
Refugee
 
Bluer White's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Maine
Posts: 2,380
Local Time: 10:30 PM
Strongbow, your analysis in this thread has been very interesting and informative. Thanks for taking the time to post.
Bluer White is offline  
Old 05-14-2008, 02:54 AM   #84
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,601
Local Time: 06:30 PM
Quote:
Bush: I quit golf over Iraq war


WASHINGTON (AFP) — US President George W. Bush said in an interview out Tuesday that he quit playing golf in 2003 out of respect for the families of US soldiers killed in the conflict in Iraq, now in its sixth year.

"I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal," he said in an interview for Yahoo! News and Politico magazine.

"I don't want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the commander-in-chief playing golf," he said. "I feel I owe it to the families to be in solidarity as best as I can with them."
If the average American knew how much he sacrificed for some mom whose son may have recently died
his poll numbers would be much higher.
deep is offline  
Old 05-14-2008, 08:13 PM   #85
Refugee
 
MadelynIris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Craggy Island
Posts: 1,504
Local Time: 09:30 PM
I plan to play lots of golf while Im in Iraq.
MadelynIris is offline  
Old 05-14-2008, 10:21 PM   #86
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
ntalwar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 4,903
Local Time: 10:30 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Strongbow



The Average National Federal Debt as a percentage of GDP:

Clinton Years 64.5%

Bush Years 61.9%
That's really misleading - Reagan/Bush #s spiked after Carter, and Clinton was flat to down.



ntalwar is offline  
Old 05-15-2008, 01:31 PM   #87
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,856
Local Time: 10:30 PM
i suppose that when you're totally deranged, then all those who take an even slightly different approach than you are all knock-kneed, simpering Nevil Chamberlins?

Bush at the Knesset:

[q]Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is – the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.[/q]



it's always 1939, isn't it? everyone bad is Hitler. the only solution is to kill them before they can start.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 05-15-2008, 01:45 PM   #88
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,601
Local Time: 06:30 PM
Obama loses big here
when he says he wants to meet with this guy.






Quote:
Wipe Israel 'off the map' Iranian says

New leader revives an old rhetorical tack
By Nazila Fathi


TEHRAN: Iran's conservative new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said Wednesdaythat Israel must be "wiped off the map" and that attacks by Palestinians would destroy it, the ISNA press agency reported.

Ahmadinejad was speaking to an audience of about 4,000 students at a program called "The World Without Zionism," in preparation for an annual anti-Israel demonstration on the last Friday of the holy month of Ramadan.
deep is offline  
Old 05-15-2008, 02:39 PM   #89
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 09:30 PM
It's pretty sad when anti-Obama left leaning folks are jumping on this and even Tucker Carlson said Bush was out of line and that talks with leaders like this have been done in the past by both liberals and conservatives.

This election is getting pathetic.
BVS is offline  
Old 05-15-2008, 02:47 PM   #90
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 03:30 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by ntalwar


That's really misleading - Reagan/Bush #s spiked after Carter, and Clinton was flat to down.



Strongbow caught out bullshitting again, quel surprise.
financeguy is offline  
Old 05-16-2008, 09:15 AM   #91
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,856
Local Time: 10:30 PM
wise words from Peggy Noonan, former Reagan speechwriter, and possibly the sharpest, smartest voice writing from a conservative perspective today:



[q]Many are ambivalent, deep inside, about the decisions made the past seven years in the White House. But they've publicly supported it so long they think they . . . support it. They get confused. Late at night they toss and turn in the antique mahogany sleigh bed in the carpeted house in McLean and try to remember what it is they really do think, and what those thoughts imply.

And those are the bright ones. The rest are in Perpetual 1980: We have the country, the troops will rally in the fall.

"This was a real wakeup call for us," someone named Robert M. Duncan, who is chairman of the Republican National Committee, told the New York Times. This was after Mississippi. "We can't let the Democrats take our issues." And those issues would be? "We can't let them pretend to be conservatives," he continued. Why not? Republicans pretend to be conservative every day.

The Bush White House, faced with the series of losses from 2005 through '08, has long claimed the problem is Republicans on the Hill and running for office. They have scandals, bad personalities, don't stand for anything. That's why Republicans are losing: because they're losers.

All true enough!

But this week a House Republican said publicly what many say privately, that there is another truth. "Members and pundits . . . fail to understand the deep seated antipathy toward the president, the war, gas prices, the economy, foreclosures," said Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia in a 20-page memo to House GOP leaders.

The party, Mr. Davis told me, is "an airplane flying right into a mountain." Analyses of its predicament reflect an "investment in the Bush presidency," but "the public has just moved so far past that." "Our leaders go up to the second floor of the White House and they get a case of White House-itis." Mr. Bush has left the party at a disadvantage in terms of communications: "He can't articulate. The only asset we have now is the big microphone, and he swallowed it." The party, said Mr. Davis, must admit its predicament, act independently of the White House, and force Democrats to define themselves. "They should have some ownership for what's going on. They control the budget. They pay no price. . . . Obama has all happy talk, but it's from 30,000 feet. Energy, immigration, what is he gonna do?"[/q]
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 05-29-2008, 03:21 PM   #92
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 03:30 AM
Extract from a speech made by Richard W. Fisher, president and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.

Quote:
Eight years ago, our federal budget, crafted by a Democratic president and enacted by a Republican Congress, produced a fiscal surplus of $236 billion, the first surplus in almost 40 years and the highest nominal-dollar surplus in American history. While the Fed is scrupulously nonpartisan and nonpolitical, I mention this to emphasize that the deficit/debt issue knows no party and can be solved only by both parties working together. For a brief time, with surpluses projected into the future as far as the eye could see, economists and policymakers alike began to contemplate a bucolic future in which interest payments would form an ever-declining share of federal outlays, a future where Treasury bonds and debt-ceiling legislation would become dusty relics of a long-forgotten past. The Fed even had concerns about how open market operations would be conducted in a marketplace short of Treasury debt.

That utopian scenario did not last for long. Over the next seven years, federal spending grew at a 6.2 percent nominal annual rate while receipts grew at only 3.5 percent. Of course, certain areas of government, like national defense, had to spend more in the wake of 9/11. But nondefense discretionary spending actually rose 6.4 percent annually during this timeframe, outpacing the growth in total expenditures. Deficits soon returned, reaching an expected $410 billion for 2008—a $600 billion swing from where we were just eight years ago. This $410 billion estimate, by the way, was made before the recently passed farm bill and supplemental defense appropriation and without considering a proposed patch for the Alternative Minimum Tax—all measures that will lead to a further ballooning of government deficits.
Storms on the Horizon - Richard Fisher Speeches - News & Events - FRB Dallas
financeguy is offline  
Old 05-29-2008, 05:35 PM   #93
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 08:30 PM
Quote:
But nondefense discretionary spending actually rose 6.4 percent annually during this timeframe, outpacing the growth in total expenditures.
The shame of the Bush years and one of the reasons even conservatives answer 'no' to the question "Is the country on the right track?"
But, show of hands, who really believes non-defense discretionary spending is in-any-way-shape-or-form going to be reined in under the leadership of Reid, Rangel, Pelosi, Obama or, God bless him, Ted Kennedy?
INDY500 is offline  
Old 05-29-2008, 05:45 PM   #94
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 09:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
The shame of the Bush years and one of the reasons even conservatives answer 'no' to the question "Is the country on the right track?"
But, show of hands, who really believes non-defense discretionary spending is in-any-way-shape-or-form going to be reined in under the leadership of Reid, Rangel, Pelosi, Obama or, God bless him, Ted Kennedy?
It's not so much a question of will it be reined in as much as it is will they continue to bury their collective heads in the sand and act like it's not happening, like Bush and Co.?
BVS is offline  
Old 05-29-2008, 11:23 PM   #95
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,856
Local Time: 10:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
The shame of the Bush years and one of the reasons even conservatives answer 'no' to the question "Is the country on the right track?"
But, show of hands, who really believes non-defense discretionary spending is in-any-way-shape-or-form going to be reined in under the leadership of Reid, Rangel, Pelosi, Obama or, God bless him, Ted Kennedy?


could they be any worse than Bush, Cheney, Lott, McConnell?

you can say "yes," but are you drawing on anything other than stereotypes?

and are they going to pour $3trillion down a ravine in the Middle East?

genuine conservatives have never had more compelling reasons to vote Democrat -- and for a calm, measured, clear thinking, pragmatist Democrat -- than they have in years.
__________________

Irvine511 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 09:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×