United States of Entropy - Page 6 - 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 02-15-2013, 02:03 PM   #101
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 11:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean View Post
It's not just that the right-wing media and associated mouthpieces are biased--it's that they are just blatantly untruthful.
And none of that, from the perspective of the brass at the NRA (including LaPierre) is about the 2nd Amendment or the horseshit in that article.

The 2nd Amendment posturing and that kind of tripe is for the the Shaun Hannity's and the Ted Nugents of the world to ignorantly ape.

The LaPierre position is actually that of gun manufacturers and retailers.
And this is why it is so baffling to so many people. #politics101

All lobbies/special interests work like this.
Does anybody really, truly believe that Grover Norquist is just a principled 'small government proponent'? Hell no. He gets big money FROM big money in order to posture that argument so that he can keep their taxes low.

Otherwise, why give that money to him and Americans for Tax Reform? Why not give it to...any random conservative politician that also wants to keep taxes low? It's because Norquist has a specific charge and a boatload of cash.

The NRA works the same way. The Tobacco lobby works the same way.
The Health Insurance industry (see: the mandate) works the same way.

And they all have a public posture (always plausibly denied) that they can take. That they are somehow doing this for some...convoluted BS reason.

To sum, they prey on the ignorant. And it certainly works. Because people do love their guns. It's not as if they had to try hard to foster that belief.
__________________

U2DMfan is offline  
Old 02-15-2013, 07:34 PM   #102
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: 20,722
Local Time: 11:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LJT View Post
I do not understand how the success of an economy or nation or culture is tied to it's morals. And I know you have mentioned these yourself Indy: Was slavery not part of the US' early success? How about what was done to the native Americans? Was the war with Mexico that gained the US California etc an example of being a morally superior economy and nation or just a stronger one? The Japanese American Internments?

Were the British successful because they were superior morally as a culture at the time of Empire?

At what point do any of these things make a culture morally superior?

It really is a dumb conclusion to draw.
*Applauds* Thank. You.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LJT View Post
You might as well say the poor deserve to be poor because they are immoral, sinful, while the rich are God's shining beacon unto the world. Can success not be attained through wrongful means?
Not according to the Republicans, apparently. The first sentence of yours there has been their mantra for a long time now.

Also, LaPierre is both scary and a total dumbass.
__________________

Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 02-19-2013, 09:24 PM   #103
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 11:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitize View Post

What also has a negative impact on job creation? Lack of demand. Corporations create jobs to satisfy demand, and if there is cyclically depressed demand, job creation isn't helped either. So there's a careful balancing act to play.
I'm a supply-sider, so I believe that demand is met with capital and entreprenuial risk-taking based on reward vs risk. High taxation and regulations cut into profits and sucks capital out of the private economy as government doesn't create wealth (only the conditions). They along with mandates such as Obamacare and wages set by forces other than the market (min wage, unions) also reduce profits which increases the risk of failure. There was plenty of demand for potatoes in the Soviet Union but no free market to set the price, allocate resources, provide quality labor, provide profit incentives or allow private property to be use wisely. And demand is also created through innovation, expansion into new territories, advertising, price marketing, etc.
Quote:
. The Affordable Care Act brings a new long-term semi-structural, semi-cyclical dynamic into play. Inequality of opportunity is sorely lacking in this country, and it will probably help with that. Like I said, all things equal, mandates on businesses and whatnot hurt job creation. But so does inequality. A society of better equality of opportunity is one that can create new ideas, new products, new demand, and new opportunities that create new jobs. So, like I said, it's a balancing act.
Well, I certainly believe in equality of opportunity but you can't guarantee equality of outcome, it wastes money and can only be accomplished through a larger and larger government. And markets develop to serve people of different economic circumstances. Plasma TVs and cellphones may start off sold only in specialty stores but eventually they become affordable to all at Wal*Mart. Same with healthcare for all but the most expensive procedures.

Quote:
Interest rates being low... that's something that I disagree with in strong times, and agree with in not-so-strong times. Now is clearly the latter, although I do worry about the Fed's promises to keep rates this low into 2015. But you and I probably fully agree that expansionary monetary policy and acts like the Community Reinvestment Act that are in effect when the economy is booming can have... rather negative consequences.
It would be nice if Americans began to be rewarded again for saving by earning actual interest on money in the bank. Interest rates at this point are being kept low for one reason, the debt would explode with anything approaching a typical interest rate.

Quote:
It's silly to doubt that, all things equal, stimulus creates jobs and economic activity in a recession. Would we have gone into absolute depression without it? Maybe not, but it's hard to say. However, stimulus is historically quite useful for battling down cyclical components of recessions, when recession is more or less happening because money vanished.
Well that presupposes responsible government spending prior to the downturn but we have been in serious deficit spending (stimulus) since 2001 and what is silly is to doubt that after 4 years of Obama's hyper-spending you can, as they say, spend and tax your way to prosperity. You can't and we aren't.

And what are getting for all this stimulus? As mark Steyn and others pointed out:
Quote:
the Golden Gate cost at the time $35 million — or about $530 million today. So, for the cost of Obama’s 2009 stimulus bill alone, we could have had 1,567 Golden Gate Bridges. Where are they?
No great bridges, dams, interstate systems or moon landings just an economy in which an $80 billion reduction in federal spending over 10 years (the sequester) is called by the president "economically damaging."

Quote:
The recovery does not teter on government spending, anymore at least. Government employment is down as of late. Government stimulus helped create private sector employment, yeah, but stimulus isn't happening anymore.
Then why did the president tell us during his State of the Union that the sequester (mandatory spending cuts) would likely stop the recovery (what there is of one) dead in its tracks? Why all the doom and gloom from economists, Dems and some GOPers? And why isn't annual trillion dollar debts considers stimulus if we're talking government spending?

Quote:
Amnesty is a rather conservative economic position, Indy. It is economically much the same as free trade; anything else is protectionism.
It's quite true there are those on the right (WSJ, Chamber of Commerce) that want open borders and cheap labor. But that is different than citizenship and conservatives believe in the preservation of the culture (language, customs, rule-of-law, assimilation) and one can argue for open borders or argue for a large Welfare State but to have both, to me, seems suicidal. (see California)
What benefits the country should guide immigration policy, not electoral college maps. Economical skills should be given priority, not the reunification of extended families.
Quote:
Its long-term impacts (a new base of workers to support our aging population, a new group of people hungry for success who can grow our economy, cheaper labor allows company to invest more in products that take more expensive labor to engineer and develop) are probably very good, and similar to the effects of free trade. I don't see you rushing out for protectionism, and for good reason. Lump of labor is a fallacy.
I'm sorry but you can't argue that jobs aren't coming back because of structural changes in our economy (less manufacturing, automation) and argue that we can never have enough low-skill labor. We already have enough low-skill labor (see youth and non-college educated unemployment rates) and more will only further depress low-end wages and decrease the labor participation rate.

Quote:
If the value of our money is decreasing so much, why is everything (expect for oil and gold) not seeing its price soar?
Higher energy prices add to the cost of everything and food prices reflect that. High energy costs also affect lower income families disproportionately but this president's response would be for more government subsidies and programs, not more drilling on federal lands or offshore.

Quote:
It goes in both directions. Obviously, a government that values liberal democracy and generally free markets over theocracy, fascism, communism, or whatever, is going to produce a stronger economy (and a society that I would much rather live in) than a government that values autocracy. I am more interested in why societies adopt certain beliefs. I hope we are beyond Social Darwinism here... you are probably smart enough to believe that there is not some sort of gene in non-white peoples that makes them inherently inferior to white people. So where are we left?
We could start with basic beliefs when it comes to the role of government and free enterprise. America was founded on the principle of limited government and from Alexis de Tocqueville to Ronald Reagan the stark difference between how Americans solve problems with free associations compared with Europeans that expect government to provide solutions has been noted and celebrated as "exceptional" and beneficial. For example America has ten times more non-profits and private charities than the leading European country in that category, Great Britain. The last survey I read pointed out that free enterprise was viewed with favor in Germany, 35% or something, and went steady down in other European countries. Americans viewed free enterprise by double Germany or 60 some percent. That sadly is changing here now. "You didn't build that" and so on. I could write for an hour on that subject.

When you get time I look forward to hearing from you where I got it wrong.
INDY500 is offline  
Old 02-19-2013, 09:30 PM   #104
ONE
love, blood, life
 
digitize's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: New York / Dallas / Austin
Posts: 14,076
Local Time: 11:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
When you get time I look forward to hearing from you where I got it wrong.
It was a fantastic response that I enjoyed reading. But I'll need a few days to adequately respond.
digitize is offline  
Old 02-19-2013, 10:37 PM   #105
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 11:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BEAL View Post
Yes. In God We Trust....only took nearly 200 years for America to realize what the Founders wanted right? (And only took nearly half century after to put it on our coins first).
No it only took until the Declaration of Independence and its language of Natural Law and unalienable rights given by God (or the Creator if you're a Deist) to realize what the Founders saw as necessary for this union. Or the first Inauguration speech in 1789 to know what our first president meant:

Quote:
Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station, it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes, and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own, nor those of my fellow-citizens at large less than either. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency; and in the important revolution just accomplished in the system of their united government the tranquil deliberations and voluntary consent of so many distinct communities from which the event has resulted can not be compared with the means by which most governments have been established without some return of pious gratitude, along with an humble anticipation of the future blessings which the past seem to presage. These reflections, arising out of the present crisis, have forced themselves too strongly on my mind to be suppressed. You will join with me, I trust, in thinking that there are none under the influence of which the proceedings of a new and free government can more auspiciously commence.
He said this, mind you, after placing his hand on the Bible and saying the oath of office, adding "so help me God" and then kissing the Bible. Funny custom this placing the hand on the Bible for oaths, courtrooms, etc for a secular society don't you think?

Quote:
Take the treaty of tripoli "the gov of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" and signed by George Washington
And what was the context of that? Who was the audience? Well the audience was the Muslim governments of N Africa who we were trying to persuade not to pirate our vessels. We were explaining that we were not like the Christian Church-ruled states of previous centuries. We were not a Christian nation then nor now but have always been a nation of Christians. An important distinction.
Quote:
Please stop trying to rewrite history. A majority of the founders appeared to be deists and not Christian. And had atheism been a term then, it's fair to say a few would have adapted it.
OK, let's play is it true. Is that true? Who has walked around the buildings and monuments of Washington D.C., read the arguments for and guiding principles of, our nation... and concluded atheists were behind it?

Show of hands.

Quote:
The original constitution had one reference to religion and it was "no religious test shall be required".
Yes a secular government and a religious society, that was what was envisioned.
Quote:
All this under god stuff was adapted by congress many, many years later (1954) and its primary reason was to combat the fear of communism
I think maybe you are thinking of "under God" and the pledge. In God We Trust goes back much further than the 50's. Maybe you'd prefer the Great Seal and its Eye of Providence or the Liberty Bell's Bible verse or perhaps the Laus Deo "Praise be to God" on the cap of the Washington Monument.


I don't understand atheists that are so intolerant, so insecure in their beliefs that they feel the need to scrub history of its religious heritage and remove it presently from the public square.

And you accuse me of rewriting history. Oh well.
INDY500 is offline  
Old 02-19-2013, 11:39 PM   #106
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 01:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
We were not a Christian nation then nor now but have always been a nation of Christians
What does this even mean? The US has always been a nation of Christians? Interesting.

When do you suppose people starting using the catch-all phrase "Christians" in modern times?
Jive Turkey is offline  
Old 02-19-2013, 11:54 PM   #107
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 01:40 AM
Still waiting to hear about "Judeo-Christian" values too

(speaking of neologistic catch-alls)
Jive Turkey is offline  
Old 02-20-2013, 07:42 AM   #108
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BEAL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: San Diego
Posts: 6,516
Local Time: 05:40 AM
Indy I'm not sure what's your point? Are you saying the USA should strictly be a religious society, ie Christian only?

Or are you willing to accept other faiths and non religious?

Your statement about secular government and religious society doesn't seem to add up. Shouldn't it be secular for both?

And our country's motto for the longest time was E.Pluribus Unum...out of many, one. We didnt adapt In God We Trust until the 1950s.

And no atheist is saying that the all founding fathers were atheist, but many of them were not as die hard religious as you want. If they wanted us to be a strictly religious country then they could have made it clear and you wouldn't have us secularists even talking back.

This country is great in that you can have your belief and not face prosecution. No one is stopping you from practicing your belief, that's what your churches and home are for.
BEAL is offline  
Old 02-20-2013, 08:51 AM   #109
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,468
Local Time: 01:40 AM
Is there any evidence whatsoever that atheists, agnostics, and/or other non-Christian Americans are somehow deficient at citizenship and therefore proof that we ahould be "a religious people with a secular goveremt"? If we simply look at red states vs blue states and assume that red states are more Christian than the blue, it's thuddingly obvious that the blue states are vastly superior by nearly every measure of human development (public health, education, income). Take secular Massachusetts and compare it to religious Mississippi. It's not even close.

On a global scale, seems the more secular a people become (Canada, the UK, Scandinavia) the more successful it becomes especially when compared to highly religious societies (Iran, the Middle East).

So why else assert the inherent superiority of American Christians? Other than cultural insecurity?

What's really being asserted in INDY's posts is pretty ugly.
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 02-20-2013, 09:06 AM   #110
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Pearl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,741
Local Time: 01:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
Is there any evidence whatsoever that atheists, agnostics, and/or other non-Christian Americans are somehow deficient at citizenship and therefore proof that we ahould be "a religious people with a secular goveremt"? If we simply look at red states vs blue states and assume that red states are more Christian than the blue, it's thuddingly obvious that the blue states are vastly superior by nearly every measure of human development (public health, education, income). Take secular Massachusetts and compare it to religious Mississippi. It's not even close.

On a global scale, seems the more secular a people become (Canada, the UK, Scandinavia) the more successful it becomes especially when compared to highly religious societies (Iran, the Middle East).

So why else assert the inherent superiority of American Christians? Other than cultural insecurity?

What's really being asserted in INDY's posts is pretty ugly.
I agree.
Pearl is offline  
Old 02-20-2013, 06:25 PM   #111
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,468
Local Time: 01:40 AM
just look at these American Christians:

John McCain uses compassion to defend immigration in explosive fiesty town hall meeting - YouTube

at 1:40 McCain states, "we're a Judeo-Christian nation" which is why you can't deport people and their children who have been here for 50 years. and the response! well, i can guarantee you this isn't a room full of atheists.

true fact: i was in PHX this weekend, and McCain was on my flight. he slept most of the way, mouth wide open. i'm sure he knew he was going to need it.
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 02-20-2013, 06:37 PM   #112
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 01:40 AM
Judeo-Christian...

There's that non word again. At least we know where Indy is parroting it from
Jive Turkey is offline  
Old 02-20-2013, 06:44 PM   #113
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 11:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
If we simply look at red states vs blue states and assume that red states are more Christian than the blue, it's thuddingly obvious that the blue states are vastly superior by nearly every measure of human development (public health, education, income). Take secular Massachusetts and compare it to religious Mississippi. It's not even close.
Which explains in no way why there is a migration from Blue to Red states occuring. Massachusetts lost an electoral vote in the 2010 census. In fact, didn't you yourself move from solid blue D.C. to Red or at least purple Virgina?
Quote:
On a global scale, seems the more secular a people become (Canada, the UK, Scandinavia) the more successful it becomes especially when compared to highly religious societies (Iran, the Middle East).
Which explains in no way why they (Europe anyway) now needs massive immigration from Muslim countries (since you brought them up) to fund their "successful" cradle-to-grave Welfare States.
Quote:
So why else assert the inherent superiority of American Christians? Other than cultural insecurity?
I think you misunderstand me on purpose. It's the value system not the theology or the citizenship of the individual. And as displayed in this thread they are hardly inherent... they must be taught, practiced and passed-down from generation to generation.

Quote:
What's really being asserted in INDY's posts is pretty ugly.
To a cultural relativist I would imagine so.
INDY500 is offline  
Old 02-20-2013, 07:03 PM   #114
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 01:40 AM
"value system", you see, Irvin. Something vague that is never defined, so you can't ask any questions about. Except that they're mysterious "Judeo-Christian" values. A bullshit phrase that I can only see as being beneficial to the Christian side, if not a bit patronizing to the Judeo side. And a term that he clearly doesn't understand the history of, much like his use of the term "Christian". And those pathetic Europeans and their immigration. You won't find any pansy ass phrases in American history supporting no dirty immigration. But anyway, no questions, please. Move along
Jive Turkey is offline  
Old 02-20-2013, 07:18 PM   #115
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 11:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BEAL View Post
Indy I'm not sure what's your point? Are you saying the USA should strictly be a religious society, ie Christian only?

Or are you willing to accept other faiths and non religious?
I believe in the promise of the First Amendment and freedom of religious conscience. That's includes freedom of no religion.

Quote:
And no atheist is saying that the all founding fathers were atheist, but many of them were not as die hard religious as you want. If they wanted us to be a strictly religious country then they could have made it clear and you wouldn't have us secularists even talking back.
I have never said that all of them practiced Christianity, believed in the Trinity or were morally perfect humans. I do say that none of them were atheists and all were Bible literate, believed in a judging God and felt America could not survive without a God-based values system.

The Founders never accepted the Enlightenment (secular) theory that man is basically good. They instead believed the Bible's teaching that man is flawed and, in a free society especially, need God to make a moral society. Man's heart could not be trusted and they certainly didn't want the tyranny of a government imposed value system.

Quote:
This country is great in that you can have your belief and not face prosecution. No one is stopping you from practicing your belief, that's what your churches and home are for.
Churches and home!! In other words, freedom to worship yes... freedom to practice religion, not so much.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... I believe in both clauses, do you?
INDY500 is offline  
Old 02-20-2013, 07:27 PM   #116
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 11:40 PM
Just for fun and to add context to my own thread. I saw this at a flea-market over the weekend. It's from 1963. Before Vietnam, "Is God Dead" on Time, Roe v Wade, racial tensions of the 60's, Watergate, AIDS, waterboarding and other issues that made people question the nation's morals, i.e., the Good ol' days.



Also from 1963. Extremists taking over the GOP, where have I heard that before?

INDY500 is offline  
Old 02-20-2013, 07:46 PM   #117
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 01:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post

The Founders never accepted the Enlightenment (secular) theory that man is basically good. They instead believed the Bible's teaching that man is flawed and, in a free society especially, need God to make a moral society. Man's heart could not be trusted and they certainly didn't want the tyranny of a government imposed value system.
I can't imagine how tormenting it must be to go through life believing you're a natural born shitbag, if not for the bible to tell you how to act
Jive Turkey is offline  
Old 02-20-2013, 07:53 PM   #118
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 01:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Which explains in no way why there is a migration from Blue to Red states occuring. Massachusetts lost an electoral vote in the 2010 census.
You are mistakenly assuming that the changes in populations are attributable entirely to migration.

When in fact the largest reason for the change in population in a number of red states (like Arizona and Texas, both of which gained congressional seats) is due to Hispanic population increases. Great news for the GOP longterm...

Frankly we looked at buying up property in a red state because it's so unbelievably cheap. True story - I could buy a private island in the Florida Keys (with a lovely house on it) for the same amount as the house we bought in Toronto this winter. Or we could buy 2 or 3 enormous oceanfront homes there. I won't even get to what you can buy in places like Georgia or South Carolina.
anitram is offline  
Old 02-20-2013, 07:56 PM   #119
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 01:40 AM
On an entirely separate note, I am still completely baffled by how much stock some Americans put into the founding fathers or their intentions. These were men of their time, who operated within the confines of their time. That is it.

Who cares what their intentions were centuries later? Who cares whether they envisioned America to be religious or not, Christian or Judeo-Christian or wiccan or whatever? What bearing does that have on the here and now? Are we all supposed to worship what some band of old white men wanted or intended hundreds of years ago? Great, let's go to the back of the line for most of us.
anitram is offline  
Old 02-20-2013, 08:00 PM   #120
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,468
Local Time: 01:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post

Which explains in no way why there is a migration from Blue to Red states occuring. Massachusetts lost an electoral vote in the 2010 census. In fact, didn't you yourself move from solid blue D.C. to Red or at least purple Virgina?

Which explains in no way why they (Europe anyway) now needs massive immigration from Muslim countries (since you brought them up) to fund their "successful" cradle-to-grave Welfare States.

I think you misunderstand me on purpose. It's the value system not the theology or the citizenship of the individual. And as displayed in this thread they are hardly inherent... they must be taught, practiced and passed-down from generation to generation.

To a cultural relativist I would imagine so.


Do you think I have bad values, INDY?
__________________

Irvine511 is online now  
 

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 12:40 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
×