The Real McCain - Page 8 - 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 04-10-2008, 09:00 PM   #141
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,327
Local Time: 05:34 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Strongbow


I said ACTIVE MILITARY SERVICE! Murtha was in the reserves for most of his time in the military. He is a House Representitive and far from being as well known with most of the military as McCain.

Joe Biden, John Warner, Dick Lugar, Sam Nunn, Ike Skelton, Rush Holt don't have the 50+ years of experience that John McCain has on National Security. Sam Nunn and Joe Biden voted AGAINST the 1991 Gulf War to remove Saddam's military forces from Kuwait. EVEN the French sent troops, a light armored division, to help remove Saddam from Kuwait in 1991, but Sam Nunn, Joe Biden, John Kerry, and the vast majority of Democrats voted against it. Sorry but Gary Hart, Lee Hamilton and many of the others you mentioned are not on par or ahead of McCain on these issues nor are they as well respected.
All of the guys I mentioned are highly respected, and Murtha is widely known as the most respected among the military brass. All of these guys are at least on par, and all have had plenty of military endorsements. The point is not to count them and see who has more endorsements or experience, it is just to say that there are plenty of people in public life who have served honorably and are well respected by military and national security officials- career military guys are Democrats, Republicans and independents. Career officers, generals, all good leaders have endorsed all candidates in this race. John McCain is one of the most prominent, but not the only.

Voting against the 1991 Gulf War has nothing to do with whether you are qualified on National Security. Were did that get us? First, he was Reagan and Daddy's pal, then April Glaspie, Bush's ambassador to Iraq gives Saddam the green light to invade Kuwait, all of a sudden Bush has a problem with it and has to go and defend Kuwait and Saudi Arabias rightful dictators? The reason we went to war, supposedly, was that Saddam threatened Saudi Arabia- did he, no absolutely not, he never amassed any troops on the border(google st petersburg times satellite photo). Then because we are over in Saudi defending the most violent and radical muslim financier of terrorism anywhere, the royal family, our friend at the time Osama turns against us and declares war. Then Bush cheerleads the Shiite uprising and does nothing to aid it, leading to a brutal slaughter and resentment that continues among the Shiites in Iraq to this very moment in Basra and Sadr City. He goes in, does not finish the job, leaves Saddam in power and then gets Al Qaeda off the ground. I am glad they voted against it, Kuwait, Israel, Saudi, all those very wealthy militarily capable countries are NOT OUR PROBLEM. Let me know when Nunn or Biden or Kerry vote against a necessary war- they all supported Afghanistan and still do.
__________________

U2387 is offline  
Old 04-10-2008, 09:05 PM   #142
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,327
Local Time: 05:34 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 2861U2


Actually, he did win. I know it's still hard for liberals to accept.





You don't know history, then, because that isn't true at all.
No, he filed the biggest frivolous lawsuit that even his own supreme court had to cover their ass and say dont expect this reasoning to be used to stop future recounts. Gore won, not only the popular vote in nationally, but the popular vote in FLORIDA. I understand and accept what the electoral college is, my point is not to get rid of that, it is that Gore won that as well.Before you accuse me of being a 'liberal' I dont even know what that means - Bush has spent us into oblivion and he calls himself a conservative , have you read Bush v Gore?? Any legal expert will tell you it was a joke- alleging a violation of the voting rights act because procedures differed across Florida counties. That is such BS- by that logic, all voting is a violation of the voting rights act, because the differences were punch card vs machine vs lever that exist everywhere! It was a COMPLETE and UTTER JOKE and the court even admitted that.

I dont know history?? Show me an election decided by a narrower margin than 2004? Maybe 1876, but I doubt it.
__________________

U2387 is offline  
Old 04-10-2008, 09:11 PM   #143
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
2861U2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: watching the Cubs
Posts: 4,277
Local Time: 04:34 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2387


I dont know history?? Show me an election decided by a narrower margin than 2004? Maybe 1876, but I doubt it.
I'm not sure how you define close, but I'll give you 3 examples:

Electoral College:
2004: 286-251
2000: 271-266

Popular Vote:
2004: 62,040,610 vs. 59,028,111
1960: 34,220984 vs. 34,108, 157

Percent:
2004: 50.7% vs. 48.3%
1968: 43.4% vs. 42.7%
2861U2 is online now  
Old 04-10-2008, 09:14 PM   #144
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,327
Local Time: 05:34 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2387


No, he filed the biggest frivolous lawsuit that even his own supreme court had to cover their ass and say dont expect this reasoning to be used to stop future recounts. Gore won, not only the popular vote in nationally, but the popular vote in FLORIDA. I understand and accept what the electoral college is, my point is not to get rid of that, it is that Gore won that as well.Before you accuse me of being a 'liberal' I dont even know what that means - Bush has spent us into oblivion and he calls himself a conservative , have you read Bush v Gore?? Any legal expert will tell you it was a joke- alleging a violation of the voting rights act because procedures differed across Florida counties. That is such BS- by that logic, all voting is a violation of the voting rights act, because the differences were punch card vs machine vs lever that exist everywhere! It was a COMPLETE and UTTER JOKE and the court even admitted that.

I dont know history?? Show me an election decided by a narrower margin than 2004? Maybe 1876, but I doubt it.
A little bit of help- 1976 and 1876 were all slightly bigger wins percentage wise for Tilden and Carter than Bush over Kerry. Good luck finding any that were closer, we'll see who doesnt know history.
U2387 is offline  
Old 04-10-2008, 09:30 PM   #145
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,327
Local Time: 05:34 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 2861U2


I'm not sure how you define close, but I'll give you 3 examples:

Electoral College:
2004: 286-251
2000: 271-266

Popular Vote:
2004: 62,040,610 vs. 59,028,111
1960: 34,220984 vs. 34,108, 157

Percent:
2004: 50.7% vs. 48.3%
1968: 43.4% vs. 42.7%
I already took care of 2000- it has been proven that the only reason Bush won was the political leanings of the Supreme Court. Just read the decision. 2000 is out, Bush only beat himself in 2004. 1968 results were not the same- they were not head to head as a significant amount of Southerners distrusted Nixon and the Republicans and went for Wallace. 2004 was head to head.As for the popular vote in 1960, I concede that, it was much closer than 2004, so was electoral and percentage. I should have said he won RE ELECTION by smallest margin ever, as the point was he was elected twice, sorry. I was wrong.

My original point stands, however: he lost in 2000, was reelected narrowly in 2004, claimed a mandate only to have his presidency collapse shortly thereafter. There was never a clear mandate for any of his policies or traits, he lost the congress in 2006 and even his own party's primary candidates took pains to stay the hell away from him in 2007/08. Republicans have won despite the unpopularity of their policies- no one supports the deficit, not too many support social security privitization, 70% want an increase in the minimum wage and some kind of gun control, etc. It is just the media has no understanding of economics and the Republicans use that to their advantage. More credit to them, the Democrats dont do the same. Remember them all evoking Reagan and not their current two term president? Funny thing is W was their hero four short years ago.

Sorry again for being wrong on the 1960 part, Kennedy was probably into some shady stuff re: IL and TX and thats why he eeked out a win.
U2387 is offline  
Old 04-11-2008, 01:49 AM   #146
War Child
 
Inner El Guapo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 609
Local Time: 03:34 PM
Every vote must count!!!!!!
This is a Democracy!!!!!!!
Especially in Florida!!!!!!!!!!!

That is unless you are Barack Obama.
Whatever benefits you, right?
That's all it's ever been about.

The Real McCain is the Real Hillary is the Real Obama.

They all want the power.

I err on the side of counting all the votes but what do I know?
Inner El Guapo is offline  
Old 04-11-2008, 01:58 AM   #147
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 07:34 AM
Who is the real McCain



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Tigh
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 04-11-2008, 03:12 AM   #148
War Child
 
Inner El Guapo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 609
Local Time: 03:34 PM
Is that the Battlestar dude?

Speaking of geeks like us, Wanderer, which Buffy writers did you like so much?

Did the one, Goddard end up on Lost?

Also, did you hear The Dark Tower was optioned by JJ Abrams?

/geekness out
Inner El Guapo is offline  
Old 04-11-2008, 04:37 AM   #149
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 07:34 AM
Jane Espenson, Tim Minear and David Fury for the buffyverse writers.
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 04-11-2008, 02:50 PM   #150
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 04:34 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2387


I already took care of 2000- it has been proven that the only reason Bush won was the political leanings of the Supreme Court. Just read the decision.
How has that been proven?

I say if you can't work a fucking butterfly ballot your vote should not count.

The real reason Bush won is Al Gore could not carry his home state. If he had, FLORIDA would not have even mattered.
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 04-11-2008, 02:56 PM   #151
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 05:34 PM
^

That is absolutely true.

Having said that, I think it is astounding that Scalia was allowed to issue out that shameful judgment without there being more reaction. Some of the things he wrote are really quite incredible.
anitram is offline  
Old 04-11-2008, 03:11 PM   #152
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,856
Local Time: 05:34 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox

I say if you can't work a fucking butterfly ballot your vote should not count.



i understand this emotionally, but think about it rationally.


Quote:
The real reason Bush won is Al Gore could not carry his home state. If he had, FLORIDA would not have even mattered.
can't argue with this one.

but then, i know a lot of politically irrational people in TN.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-12-2008, 12:48 AM   #153
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,327
Local Time: 05:34 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


How has that been proven?

I say if you can't work a fucking butterfly ballot your vote should not count.

The real reason Bush won is Al Gore could not carry his home state. If he had, FLORIDA would not have even mattered.
LOOK at the decision for how it has been proven!! They stopped a recount on laughable constitutional grounds, a legitimate recount that had nothing to do with the butterfly ballots. The butterfly ballots emerged just as a symptom of how screwed up the process was- no one in the Gore attorneys group was arguing for butterfly ballots that were marked "Buchanan" to be legally counted as Gore, that is irrelevant. The votes that were clear Bush or clear Gore were still being counted, and Bush sued to stop. The Supreme Court issued a decision that they even said was not to be takenseriously as any kind of precedent. GET INFORMED.

Not winning Tennessee was an embarassment for Gore, and if he had got it, he would not have needed Florida- of course this is true, but you make no point here whatsoever. The point is that Gore won Florida, if the recount had been allowed to continue, that is what the outcome would have been. Just because he lost his own state does not mean he should not have been given Florida and with it, the electoral college. The point: Both in popular votes and in the electoral college, Al Gore was the rightful winner of the 2000 election. The Supreme Court lost whatever legitimacy it ever had in overturning that.
U2387 is offline  
Old 04-12-2008, 06:59 AM   #154
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 04:34 PM
You miss the point. That's OK. If you want to live in 2000, be my guest. We have laws and a court system there for a reason. If memory serves me Gore filed suit as well. It was decided fairly. It is over.
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 04-12-2008, 09:05 AM   #155
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 02:34 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2387


LOOK at the decision for how it has been proven!! They stopped a recount on laughable constitutional grounds, a legitimate recount that had nothing to do with the butterfly ballots. The butterfly ballots emerged just as a symptom of how screwed up the process was- no one in the Gore attorneys group was arguing for butterfly ballots that were marked "Buchanan" to be legally counted as Gore, that is irrelevant. The votes that were clear Bush or clear Gore were still being counted, and Bush sued to stop. The Supreme Court issued a decision that they even said was not to be takenseriously as any kind of precedent. GET INFORMED.

Not winning Tennessee was an embarassment for Gore, and if he had got it, he would not have needed Florida- of course this is true, but you make no point here whatsoever. The point is that Gore won Florida, if the recount had been allowed to continue, that is what the outcome would have been. Just because he lost his own state does not mean he should not have been given Florida and with it, the electoral college. The point: Both in popular votes and in the electoral college, Al Gore was the rightful winner of the 2000 election. The Supreme Court lost whatever legitimacy it ever had in overturning that.
Bottom line, Americans should take the voting process more seriously, it's a right many take for granted-that others are dying for in their countries abroad right now.

Second point the Left always cries if things don't fall their way, immediately going to the victimization or disenfranchisement card. It's old hat and makes onpenminded Independents veer to the Right.

That's why most Independents are leaning McCain if Hillary gets the nomination because Hillary goes to the victim card more than Obama when in reality -fairminded ppl feel Obama has been much more victimized taking all things fairly into consideration and in their totality.

<>
diamond is offline  
Old 04-12-2008, 03:09 PM   #156
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,676
Local Time: 04:34 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond
Second point the Left always cries if things don't fall their way, immediately going to the victimization or disenfranchisement card.
You know, your arguments would hold a lot more weight if you stayed away from vast (and incorrect) generalizations like this.

Diemen is offline  
Old 04-12-2008, 04:53 PM   #157
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 04:34 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2387


LOOK at the decision for how it has been proven!! They stopped a recount on laughable constitutional grounds, a legitimate recount that had nothing to do with the butterfly ballots. The butterfly ballots emerged just as a symptom of how screwed up the process was- no one in the Gore attorneys group was arguing for butterfly ballots that were marked "Buchanan" to be legally counted as Gore, that is irrelevant. The votes that were clear Bush or clear Gore were still being counted, and Bush sued to stop. The Supreme Court issued a decision that they even said was not to be takenseriously as any kind of precedent. GET INFORMED.
Yes get informed - The Court STOPPED the ballot counting by a vote of 7-2. It was stopped because the method of counting that was being used was UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

That was hardly partisan.

The Florida Law that was upheld 5-4 was that the Secretatry of State must certify the election within seven days.

Sounds like the rule of law was succesfully enforced.

Your trivilaization of Tennesee is quite funny.

---------------------------------------------

But what does all of this have to do with President McCain?

Nothing!
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 04-12-2008, 05:12 PM   #158
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 02:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Diemen


You know, your arguments would hold a lot more weight if you stayed away from vast (and incorrect) generalizations like this.

Well then why are Independents and some Deomcrats ready to abandon their ticket and vote McCain if Hillary gets the nomination?

<>
diamond is offline  
Old 04-12-2008, 07:48 PM   #159
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,327
Local Time: 05:34 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


Yes get informed - The Court STOPPED the ballot counting by a vote of 7-2. It was stopped because the method of counting that was being used was UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

That was hardly partisan.

The Florida Law that was upheld 5-4 was that the Secretatry of State must certify the election within seven days.

Sounds like the rule of law was succesfully enforced.

Your trivilaization of Tennesee is quite funny.


The 7-2 meant absolutely nothing. 7 said it 'might be' unconstitutional, that was all. Again, it is all well and good for you to claim that this method was unconstitutional, but if so, be consistent and say that EVERY state's election rules are unconstitutional. No state has the same standards/methods of voting or counting votes across counties. There is no federal standard either. It differs by county everywhere, so it is unconstitutional everywhere. Why do you think that the court covered their asses by saying this is not to be a precedent for anything?? They were 100% aware of what they were doing and would not have made up the law as much as they did and taken such unprecedented steps if they did not know Gore was the winner and that they had to do everything in their power to make sure the recount is stopped. There was no constitutional basis for any of it. Everything that mattered was decided by the 5-4 majority. It was 5-4 ruling for Bush that ultimately gave him the election. Just because 7 said the method was unconstitutional does not mean that they did not differ on what the remedy was- could a constitutional recount be fashioned? The answer, by 5-4 was NO. Of course, the constitutional recount would have been a statewide recount, the deadline of 7 days was arbitrary and it was funny to have the 5 refer to it as a reason for stopping a recount- they had already ordered it delayed, by the same 5-4, 3 days before the deadline because they knew Gore was going to win. So basically, that part was window dressing, no more, no less. They just used a typical attorney tactic-element of delay, because they knew the deadline was approaching and hopefully, if they ride that out, they can use it as a reason to order the count not to be resumed. Besides, time is not important when something as serious as the right to have your vote counted is at stake. The Florida Supreme Court had already determined that the recount was to go on, that the deadline did not matter here(in fact, it has been extended plenty of times before) and Bush's pals on the Supreme Court stepped in and overruled a state election issue. So much for Republicans and states rights, so much for Republicans and frivolous lawsuits. They made the biggest trampling on states rights ever and filed the biggest frivolous lawsuit ever. Another thing, the 5-4 was not just a party line vote- 2 Republicans, Souter and Stevens dissented along w/ the 2 Democrats. The reason it shows the political motivations of all of it is because only the 5 most partisan Republicans on the court were in favor of Bush.

I love how you keep making Tennessee out to be important- it was not, the only thing that mattered was that Gore won Florida, should have been given Florida's electors, and should have had the presidency. If the Supreme court had done its job and the votes were counted, Gore would be President, that is what matters. Stop changing the subject to Tennessee because you cant defend what happened in Florida. I love how you Republicans keep trying to rationalize this decision and then change the subject, it will not work, it is not legally sound and just be happy they gave your guy the election and that is it.

One more thing: HUMAN NATURE, connect the dots here: if only 5 of the most partisan hacks on the court keep trying to twist things every which way, taking their cues from attorneys on the ground in FL monitoring the count for their candidate Bush, make a decision in his favor, then cover their asses by saying 'dont take this seriously' what does that tell you? It should tell you, if you check your politics at the door for a second, that they were desperately worried about what would happen if the recount continued. So they know they lost and they know the decision was not legitimate. Just me talking?? No, they said as much themselves.
---------------------------------------------

But what does all of this have to do with President McCain?

Nothing!
U2387 is offline  
Old 04-12-2008, 08:30 PM   #160
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,327
Local Time: 05:34 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond


Bottom line, Americans should take the voting process more seriously, it's a right many take for granted-that others are dying for in their countries abroad right now.

Second point the Left always cries if things don't fall their way, immediately going to the victimization or disenfranchisement card. It's old hat and makes onpenminded Independents veer to the Right.

That's why most Independents are leaning McCain if Hillary gets the nomination because Hillary goes to the victim card more than Obama when in reality -fairminded ppl feel Obama has been much more victimized taking all things fairly into consideration and in their totality.

<>
I think we who vote take the right to vote seriously enough. We have low turnout, but that is a whole different issue. Like I do not understand people in other countries are dying for it- people died for it here, pal. Women, blacks, etc. America is different, we have always prided ourselves on individual rights/democracy. Bringing other countries in does not change the fact that we protect the right to vote, and is not an excuse for it not being upheld. If Bush has been in the same position as Gore was and votes were not counted, you would not be saying get over it, Kenya and Pakistan have it a lot worse. We expect to vote in this country, and that is not tantamount to crying when things do not go your way. Under your reasoning, a court not sending a murderer to jail for killing someone is ok and we just take the rule of law for granted in this country- after all, people kill with impunity in Haiti, so too bad. The victims family should just stop crying when they did not get their way, right?

Do some on the left resort to the victim card all the time, say in Ohio 2004?? Of course, but that was only a small group of wackos on the far left fringe. Do some on the right do the same thing and blame everything on an evil, liberal Hillary conspiracy to outlaw Christianity, bring in communism, disenfranchise conservatives, let Hollywood run the agenda, etc, all while victimizing those 'real Americans' who vote Republican- bet your ass they do. However, they are a few wackos on the far right fringe. There are nutjobs on both sides. Not too many people listen to either. 2000 was completely different than the claims made by said nutjobs, thats why there was so much controversy/coverage.

The left always cries when things dont fall their way?? 2000 was a perfect example of the right crying and having their Supreme Court overturn an election that was not going to go their way. Bush lost, so being the spoiled, never take no little brat he is, he files a frivolous lawsuit, or more accurately, Daddy's friends file it for him, and he gets it handed to him. This was not trivial 'playing the victim' by the left, it was an UNPRECEDENTED and legally baseless overturning of an election that deserved to be criticized. Coming from you, all this is just making me laugh- how much did the right bitch and cry and moan and stamp their feet to try and get their way after Clinton won in 1992 and 1996. Where were you when they shut down the govt twice for not getting their way? Where were you then, when they tried to impeach him for nothing? Your reasoning is just crazy here- what you accuse the left of doing is EXACTLY what Bush did. If a 5-4 supreme court did the same thing and put a Democrat in the White House, the right would have gone absolutely nuts, claimed we live in a dictatorship, etc, etc, and do not even pretend they would not have. They called Clinton illegitimate and some even called for his 'violent overthrow' (the founders of Blackwater, the religious right,etc) because he could no longer be accepted by the people as legitimate. That was AFTER he won election 2 times, once with a convincing margin.

So, my friend, find another reason why independents were going toward the right, that was not it. Independents in 2006 and now largely favor the Democrats. Do not hit me with anything about Hillary to try and make a point, you know I dont support her. The reason independents will not vote for her: 1.)she is the establishment, old news, the opposite of what independents look for 2.)Divisive personality, spins things, only cares about big states 3.)They like Obama, see him as an outsider who seriously wants to change things. Independents are also younger voters, many of whom are inclined toward Obama anyways as a generational thing. Plus, many independents like McCain anyway for many of the reasons they like Obama(not a typical politician, etc) and that is why they will vote for him over Hillary. That will change when his support for Iraq gets more play, though.

Also, I love how you changed the subject when I explained exactly how the ruling of the Supreme Court was invalid. Instead of disputing that, you accuse me of being some kind of cry baby who did not get my way and then generalize out to something that is absolutely ridiculous w/ the 'victim card.'

You never cease to amaze me- first it was the whole crazy Gone idea and flipping that around into me having to write principle management or turn by back on U2 about something they would never accept as it was your idea only. Then I make factual points about how we spent frivolous money on investigating Clinton's cock and you just come back by calling me a hot head, not rebutting anything factually, Republicans never expect to do that. I have never met a group of people so obsessed with the sex life of a middle aged white male from Arkansas. Get over it. Now you give these stupid, indefensible generalizations in response to another reasoned explanation of the 2000 Bush v Gore decision. Thats ok, keep changing the subject every time, it just shows the weaknesses of your arguments.
__________________

U2387 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 04:34 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
×