GOP Nominee 2012 - Who Will It Be?, Pt. 4 - 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 02-19-2012, 01:18 AM   #21
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 09:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
On a more serious note--what are other medications that employers should have the right to deny coverage out of religious freedom?
Under the terms of Senator Blunt's proposed amendment, some examples might include blood transfusions (opposed by Jehovah's Witnesses), any form of mental health care (opposed by Scientologists), and pretty much everything is opposed by many Christian Scientists. There are also numerous smaller religious sects which oppose various forms of medical care, from vaccinations to chemotherapy, for various reasons. Blunt's bill also would allow health plans to decline coverage for specific services "contrary to" the "moral convictions" of the employer; it wouldn't even have to involve a religious belief as such. Well, at least he's consistent even if his timing is suspect.


Re: Santorum--to be fair, he has said repeatedly he wouldn't support banning contraception, and I don't see any highly compelling reason to doubt that; he has voted for federal funding for birth control services in the past. The oft-cited quote about "the dangers of contraception in this country" came from an interview with a Christian blogger, and his remarks did seem to be aimed primarily at that audience ("Many in the Christian faith have said..."). On the other hand, he also said "One of the things I will talk about that no president has talked about..." (concerning "the dangers of contraception") and "these are important public policy issues" (ditto), so I don't find some skepticism unwarranted, either. It's quite possible to chip away at a right (and access to contraception is a right; see Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965 and Eisenstadt v. Baird, 1972) until it's effectively nonexistent for the majority, particularly when there's some sort of stigma associated with it.
__________________

__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 02-19-2012, 01:43 AM   #22
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,390
Local Time: 04:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yolland
Under the terms of Senator Blunt's proposed amendment, some examples might include blood transfusions (opposed by Jehovah's Witnesses), any form of mental health care (opposed by Scientologists), and pretty much everything is opposed by many Christian Scientists. There are also numerous smaller religious sects which oppose various forms of medical care, from vaccinations to chemotherapy, for various reasons.
hmm, well, all these things could well affect men, so I guess that has nothing to do with religious freedom. That's science and medicine.
__________________

Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-19-2012, 06:38 AM   #23
Vocal parasite
 
Axver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: 1853
Posts: 152,977
Local Time: 06:51 PM
From an Aussie/Kiwi perspective, the debate in this thread about contraception is actually mindboggling. I feel like I've walked into a time warp.
__________________
"Mediocrity is never so dangerous as when it is dressed up as sincerity." - Søren Kierkegaard

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

U2gigs: The most comprehensive U2 setlist database!
Gig pictures | Blog
Axver is offline  
Old 02-19-2012, 07:52 AM   #24
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,892
Local Time: 03:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
It isn't.

The Obamacare Trifecta - Charles Krauthammer - National Review Online

(a summary, I recommend reading the entire column)



No wonder Democrats and their mouthpieces in the media would like to frame this as about contraception.
But Krauthammer isn't framing the issue at all. . .
maycocksean is offline  
Old 02-19-2012, 09:50 AM   #25
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,390
Local Time: 04:51 AM
What was lame about the So-called MSM is that they originally tried to spin this as a "religious freedom" issue and a bad move by Obama.

I don't think they realized that for the crowd now in control of the GOP it really was about birth control, and specifically about female sexuality.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-19-2012, 10:44 AM   #26
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 04:51 AM
More offensive crap from Santorum:

Quote:
"One of the things that you don't know about ObamaCare in one of the mandates is they require free prenatal testing," Santorum began telling about 400 people here. "Why? Because free prenatal testing ends up in more abortions and, therefore, less care that has to be done, because we cull the ranks of the disabled in our society. That too is part of ObamaCare -- another hidden message as to what president Obama thinks of those who are less able than the elites who want to govern our country."
Obama wants to kill the disabled!
anitram is offline  
Old 02-19-2012, 08:10 PM   #27
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 20,715
Local Time: 03:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Axver View Post
From an Aussie/Kiwi perspective, the debate in this thread about contraception is actually mindboggling. I feel like I've walked into a time warp.
It's mind-boggling to me, too, and I live in the States.

I don't get how we're still discussing this issue like we are in 2012. I don't get how people like Santorum can still exist in this day and age. Call me crazy, but my health is much more important to me than Santorum's warped religious views.
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 02-20-2012, 08:00 AM   #28
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 28,170
Local Time: 04:51 AM
COLUMBUS, Ohio (Reuters) - Sporting his signature sweater vest and telling stories of his coal miner grandfather, Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum has struck a chord in the Rust Belt that is helping propel his once long-shot candidacy.

Although he is a millionaire, Santorum has found a common touch that has helped put him atop opinion polls in the industrial states of Michigan and Ohio and raised serious doubts about whether longtime front-runner Mitt Romney can win the Republican nomination to take on President Barack Obama in the November 6 election.

Santorum's portrayal of himself as the blue-collar Republican has managed to overshadow Romney's jobs message in a part of the country troubled by unemployment.

In conversations with nearly a dozen voters preparing to cast ballots for the former Pennsylvania senator in the Ohio and Michigan primaries, not one person volunteered that Santorum was the best candidate to revive American industry.

Instead, voters said they were coming to Santorum's side because his everyman style and Christian faith reminded them of themselves.

"He's basically down-to-earth," said Janice Thomas, 56, of Pickerington, Ohio, who is retired.

"Maybe I think he is more like me," said David Diyani, 58, a pastor at the Vineyard Church in Etna, Ohio. "I feel like I can relate to him."

Santorum's life, though, is far from ordinary.

He spent 12 years in the Senate, known as the "world's most exclusive club," and earned degrees in law and business. He purchased a luxury Audi sedan and earned hundreds of thousands of dollars as a consultant in recent years. Santorum's 2010 salary - $923,000 - placed him squarely within the top 1 percent of income earners in America.

Yet he can still draw a sharp contrast to Romney, a former Massachusetts governor whose fortune is estimated at up to $270 million and who often makes gaffes that show a lack of familiarity with ordinary Americans' struggles.

"I do my own taxes," Santorum said at the Detroit Economic Club on Thursday. "Heck, Romney paid half the taxes I did. He doesn't do his own taxes. Maybe I should hire an accountant in the future."

Santorum's previous criticism of the government bailout of the auto industry in 2009 might be a problem in Michigan where millions of people rely on the car companies. But Romney was a more vocal opponent of the rescue, leaving his rival's opposition to it largely overlooked.

A Detroit News poll, released last week, showed Santorum leading Romney 34 percent to 30 percent in Michigan, the state where Romney was born and where his father was governor. A Quinnipiac poll had Santorum leading Romney 36 percent to 29 percent in Ohio. Michigan's primary is on February 28 and Ohio votes on March 6.

GINGRICH DEFECTORS

Part of the Santorum surge can be accounted for by disaffected supporters of Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives.

"I decided to support him three weeks ago. Before that, I was for Gingrich," said Steve Izev, 34, of Westerville, Ohio. "The more popular he got, the more I liked him."

Santorum's rise in the polls is also fueled by the same phenomenon that successively lifted Texas Governor Rick Perry, former pizza magnate Herman Cain, and Gingrich to the front of the pack: He is not Romney.

In a Pew Research Center poll released last Monday, 50 percent of Republican and Republican-leaning respondents nationwide said Romney was not a strong conservative.

"They are the 'anybody-but-Romney' people. They are the 'un-Romney' people," said Bill Ballenger, editor of the "Inside Michigan Politics" newsletter. "There is no reason in Michigan that they should be for Santorum. They don't really know who he is really."

A political climate featuring renewed debate over religious freedom, contraception and gay rights has benefited the devoutly Catholic Santorum among evangelical Republicans.

In the Inside Michigan Poll, Michigan voters who said social issues were most important to them chose Santorum over Romney by 64 percent to 19 percent.

Faith is never far from the Santorum campaign. At a phone bank for Santorum in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, the Ten Commandments were nailed to the wall. Paintings of Jesus and Mary hung in a back room.

Supporters of the conservative Tea Party movement praise Santorum for his frequent references to the U.S. Constitution. Santorum campaigns with a pocket-sized version that he removes from his coat for emphasis on the campaign trail.

In a MRG/Inside Michigan Poll released on Wednesday, Santorum bettered Romney among Tea Party supporters by 51 percent to 22 percent.

Female voters are the most resistant to Santorum. In Michigan polls, where Santorum leads Romney among a number of groups, the two are neck and neck in support among women.

In recent weeks, Santorum has drawn controversy with comments about working women and women in the military.

On the campaign trail, Santorum stokes voters' outrage that they are underappreciated by people in power.

"You are not being talked to as adults," Santorum told a Tea Party rally in Columbus on Saturday. "You are being treated as mindless, fly-over-country rubes who don't need to know the truth."

"We used to be called the Silent Majority," said Terry McGiffin, 69, a retired management trainer from Westerville, Ohio, describing Santorum's supporters.

Many supporters confess a lack of familiarity with Santorum's policy prescriptions but say they find him to be the Republican field's most likable entrant.

"I don't know a lot about him," said Gary Henson, 32, the owner of a medical supply company in Columbus. "I like his demeanor. I like his personality."
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 02-20-2012, 09:23 AM   #29
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 28,170
Local Time: 04:51 AM
So now he's honestly going to imply that Obama doesn't care about disabled children, even that he wants to eliminate them somehow?

I don't think there's any man without Earth either. That's a head scratcher. Paranoid much?

abcnews.com


Rick Santorum sought to clarify and contextualize his charge that President Obama operated under a “phony theology,” saying today that he was not suggesting the president was not a Christian. Santorum said he was condemning Obama’s “world view” not his religion.

“I accept the fact that the president is a Christian,” Santorum said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” “But when you have a world view that elevates the earth above man and says we can’t take those resources because its going to harm the Earth, it’s just all an attempt to centralize power and give more power to the government.”

Santorum said that while Obama believes “man is here to serve the Earth,” he believes “Earth is not the objective. Man is the objective.”

The rising GOP presidential candidate also said that Obama is promoting abortion by forcing insurance companies to provide co-pay-free pre-natal testing under the new health care law.

Santorum said that because the “purpose” of the test is to “identify deformities,” it leads to more abortions because more often than not doctors recommend that parents terminate the pregnancy if the child is disabled.

“Almost 100 percent of Trisomy 18 children are encouraged to be aborted, so I know what I’m talking about,” Santorum, whose daughter has the genetic and often fatal disorder Trisomy 18, said after a heated exchange with host Bob Schieffer.

Scheiffer asked Santorum if he thought the Obama policy discriminated against people with disabilities by trying to prevent them from being born.

“I think the president has a very bad record on abortion and children who are disabled in the womb and are a continuation of that,” the former Pennsylvania senator said.
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 02-20-2012, 02:08 PM   #30
Blue Crack Distributor
 
corianderstem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 64,498
Local Time: 01:51 AM
Yes, because every woman who discovers they are carrying a disabled child will rush to have an abortion.

No way would they take that information and then use the remainder of their pregnancy to determine how best to care for and live with a child with whatever disability they have. Because don't you know, every woman just really wants to abort everything in sight.

Does Santorum think it's better for families to be surprised with that information instead of having the benefit of time to help deal with the information?
corianderstem is offline  
Old 02-20-2012, 02:29 PM   #31
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,390
Local Time: 04:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by corianderstem View Post
Yes, because every woman who discovers they are carrying a disabled child will rush to have an abortion.


to be fair, some sluts are going to wait until they are, like, 7 months pregnant and have time to get around to it. often, women are so ruled by emotions that they simply forget to have an abortion, and its not until Planned Parenthood reminds them of what an inconvenience babies are that they finally get around to killing it.

that's why men must be included in these decisions.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-20-2012, 03:22 PM   #32
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 04:51 AM
Let's not forget that pre-natal testing doesn't just cover identifying genetic issues like the various trisomies but also screens for gestational diabetes (deadly to mother and baby), low amniotic fluid (mandatory bedrest), etc which have are not at all problems associated with increased abortion rates but most certainly are necessary for the health and safe delivery of the baby.
anitram is offline  
Old 02-20-2012, 07:07 PM   #33
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 09:51 AM
USA Today, Feb. 20
Quote:
While most Republicans wish they had different choices in the party's presidential field, a nationwide USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds overwhelming resistance to the idea of an old-styled brokered convention that would pick some new contender as the nominee. By 66%-29%, the Republicans and Republican-leaning independents surveyed say it would be better if one of the four candidates now running managed to secure enough delegates to clinch the nomination. Most are happy to see their roller-coaster campaign continue: 57% say the battle isn't hurting the party.

Meanwhile, President Obama's standing against two potential Republican rivals has ebbed a bit. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney leads the president 50%-46% among registered voters, Romney's strongest showing against him to date. Obama edges former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum by a single percentage point, 49%-48%.

The poll, taken Thursday through Sunday, illustrates the battle between head-and-heart for many GOP voters: Santorum is the current favorite, leading Romney 50%-44% in a one-on-one contest...But Romney is seen as the stronger competitor against Obama and as the likely nominee. By nearly 2-1, 58%-32%, GOP partisans say Romney has a better chance of winning in November than Santorum does...There is undeniable dissatisfaction with the field. A 55% majority of Republicans say they wish someone else was running; 44% say they're pleased with the selection of candidates.

...At the moment, 38% of all Americans predict Obama definitely will win in November; 22% say the Republican will win. In the middle, 32% say November's outcome depends on whom the Republicans nominate. Republicans are especially inclined to believe their choice matters: a 43% plurality say the results in the general election depend on who gets nominated. Another 40% say the GOP definitely will win. Among Democrats, more than two-thirds predict an Obama victory.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 02-20-2012, 07:19 PM   #34
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 20,715
Local Time: 03:51 AM
Quote:
Instead, voters said they were coming to Santorum's side because his everyman style and Christian faith reminded them of themselves.

"He's basically down-to-earth," said Janice Thomas, 56, of Pickerington, Ohio, who is retired.

"Maybe I think he is more like me," said David Diyani, 58, a pastor at the Vineyard Church in Etna, Ohio. "I feel like I can relate to him."

....

"We used to be called the Silent Majority," said Terry McGiffin, 69, a retired management trainer from Westerville, Ohio, describing Santorum's supporters.

Many supporters confess a lack of familiarity with Santorum's policy prescriptions but say they find him to be the Republican field's most likable entrant.

"I don't know a lot about him," said Gary Henson, 32, the owner of a medical supply company in Columbus. "I like his demeanor. I like his personality."


Quote:
Female voters are the most resistant to Santorum.
Gee, I wonder why that could be.

That latest article about the prenatal care and stuff-wow. It must be interesting to live in a world where you're THAT paranoid that seemingly every single thing a woman does at the hospital somehow has some sort of connection to the evil Planned Parenthood/abortion industry.

Quote:
"You are not being talked to as adults," Santorum told a Tea Party rally in Columbus on Saturday. "You are being treated as mindless, fly-over-country rubes who don't need to know the truth."
And we're sure glad you're here to stop perpetuating the stereotype of middle America as a bunch of backwards-thinking ignorant Bible-thumpers .
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 02-20-2012, 07:33 PM   #35
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 09:51 AM
Washington Post, Feb. 20
Quote:
In a speech at a megachurch [in suburban Atlanta] Sunday night, former senator Rick Santorum used some of his direst imagery yet to describe what’s at stake in this year’s presidential election, drawing an extended World War II analogy that seemed to suggest that the United States faces a threat that is on par with what the world faced in the 1940s. The Republican candidate told more than 3000 supporters at the First Redeemer Church:
“Your country needs you. It’s not as clear a challenge. Obviously, World War II was pretty obvious. At some point, they knew. But remember, the Greatest Generation, for a year and a half, sat on the sidelines while Europe was under darkness, where our closest ally, Britain, was being bombed and leveled, while Japan was spreading its cancer all throughout Southeast Asia. America sat from 1940, when France fell, to December of ’41, and did almost nothing. Why? Because we’re a hopeful people. We think, ‘Well, you know, he’ll get better. You know, he’s a nice guy. I mean, it won’t be near as bad as what we think. This’ll be okay.’ Oh yeah, maybe he’s not the best guy, and after a while, you found out things about this guy over in Europe, and he’s not so good of a guy after all. But you know what? Why do we need to be involved? We’ll just take care of our own problems. Just get our families off to work and our kids off to school, and we’ll be okay. It’s sort of the optimistic spirit of America but sometimes, sometimes it’s not okay. It’s going to be harder for this generation to figure this out. There’s no cataclysmic event. It’s going to be hard. You understand it—you’re here. You wouldn’t be here if you didn’t get it. But what about the rest of America, do they understand what’s happening? Is anybody telling them what’s happening? Is anybody reminding us who we are, what made us great, and what these assaults are all about—to clear the way?”
The provocative comparison comes one day after Santorum created a stir when he told a tea party rally in Columbus, Ohio, that President Obama supports a “phony theology — not a theology based on the Bible.” Santorum has since clarified that he thinks Obama is a Christian and was not describing his religious beliefs as “phony.” A Santorum spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the latest remarks Sunday night.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 02-20-2012, 07:45 PM   #36
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 20,715
Local Time: 03:51 AM
What...the hell...?

Quote:
Obviously, World War II was pretty obvious.
Redundant comment is redundant.
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 02-20-2012, 08:31 PM   #37
Blue Crack Distributor
 
corianderstem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 64,498
Local Time: 01:51 AM
Ha!
corianderstem is offline  
Old 02-20-2012, 10:06 PM   #38
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 02:51 AM
Quote:
We know, Bob, that ninety percent of Down syndrome children in America are aborted. So to suggest where does that come from? I have a child who has trisomy 18. Almost a hundred percent of trisomy 18 children are encouraged to be aborted. So, I know what I'm talking about here.
Sarah Palin and Rick Santorum have a person side to this issue but they also provide a view that is sorely missing today. That science and technology are not immune from moral decisions and I think it's time we, as a society, take a deep look at what we are doing with the information we gain from amniocentesis prenatal testing. Do we really want to go down the eugenics path again?

Quote:
But, Senator, do you not want any kind of prenatal testing? I mean would we just turn our back on science that this is something that expectant mothers should not go through, that it's best not to know about these things ahead of time? I mean is that what you're saying here?

RICK SANTORUM: No, I'm not saying. Look, people have the right to do it but to have the government force people to provide it free, just as to me, has a has is-- is a bit loaded. There are all sorts of prenatal testing which should be provided free. I have no problem with that if the-- if the insurance companies want to. I'm not for any of these things to be forced. Just let me-- just step back and say I don't believe any of these procedures, anything in insurance should be forced. So let me-- let me just start from there.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Okay.

RICK SANTORUM: But the idea of having, for example, sonograms and other types of prenatal care, absolutely, if-- if I think that is-- that is a wise thing to do. And If I was an employer, I would certainly encourage that. But not all prenatal testing, amniocenteses basically are used for the purposes of identifying children who are disabled and in most cases end up as a result with abortions. It's the bottom line.
These are very complicated, emotional issues and frankly I'm embarrassed that some of you so eagar to turn them into sound bite issues.
INDY500 is offline  
Old 02-20-2012, 10:15 PM   #39
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,390
Local Time: 04:51 AM
i am troubled by the fact that 90% of DS babies are aborted. i also know someone who has stated that had she known that her baby would have had DS she would have terminated. and she's glad every day that she didn't. she adores her son.

this also leads to troubling questions about, say, the gay gene. while it might never be so crude as to be boiled down to one gene, i am troubled by the reality that you could one day test for a baby's sexual orientation.

however, i don't think outlawing our even using the government to coerce women into not having something as basic and potentially life-saving as an amnio -- and, let's face it, the only people who wouldn't pay out of pocket for one of these would be poor women -- is not the way to go.

let women make their own decisions. i know these are complicated, emotional issues, but yet they aren't, really. if you trust women that is.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-20-2012, 10:22 PM   #40
Blue Crack Distributor
 
corianderstem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 64,498
Local Time: 01:51 AM
I hadn't heard that figure until I caught a bit of the nightly news tonight, and it shocked me. My first thought was "that can't be right." But I can't judge - I haven't been in those families' shoes.

Of course it's a complicated issue. Just because some of us choose to express our anger or frustration via sarcasm on the internet doesn't mean we don't have any deeper thoughts.
__________________

corianderstem 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 03:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×