All times are UTC-05:00


Phinfever Home Page

Phinfever Chatroom

Phinfever FAQ




Reply to topic  [ 34 posts ] 

Which Party Do You Want to Control Congress?
Democrats 29%  29%  [ 2 ]
Republicans 71%  71%  [ 5 ]
Total votes: 7
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Oct 22, 2010 3:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar
2016 Post Game Blog Writer
2016 Post Game Blog Writer

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 9:59 am
Posts: 25178
Location: Miami, FL
Please vote and give a reason for your vote.

_________________
Image


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Oct 22, 2010 5:07 pm 
Offline
2016 MVP Donor!
2016 MVP Donor!

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 5:10 pm
Posts: 8535
Location: MA
I voted Republican and it would take a novel for me to explain the problems I have with where the Democrats have and are taking this country. If people need an explanation I'm happy to provide one.


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 7:44 am 
Offline
User avatar
2016 MODERATOR
2016 MODERATOR

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 6:53 pm
Posts: 5244
Location: Palm Beach County, Florida
That term lesser of 2 evils is an understatement of extreme proportions here. As a liberal on social issues but someone who leans more towards the conservative side on fiscal issues I really dont know. I can really say however I never voted for someone because of their party affiliation.
I do know that with the 2 party system it is all cyclical. The Dems took control 2 years ago & boasted about it. The repubs will do the same in November. They all should realize that whoever is in power , they are not gonna help anyway , the people will get fed up want change , vote the other party in & then will get no change once again. So their victory is short lived & only provides amunition to the media. I do know however that it is not a good thing to have 1 party control all 3 branches of the govt. I do know that some of these tea party people scare me because of their extremists views but I also get that the people are fed up & that is a good thing. How nice it would be to once again be in times when jobs were abundant , your home had value , poverty was low & people were generally nicer.

_________________
GASE IS ON THE CASE!!! 2016 SB CHAMPIONS.


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 8:38 am 
Offline
Phinfever Legend
Phinfever Legend

Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 2:05 pm
Posts: 2575
Location: NSW, Australia
Unfortunately, neither.
And I'm really not sure which one is the lesser of the evils


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 2:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar
2016 Post Game Blog Writer
2016 Post Game Blog Writer

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 9:59 am
Posts: 25178
Location: Miami, FL
degs wrote:
Unfortunately, neither.
And I'm really not sure which one is the lesser of the evils


Would you consider a split government less evil than one party rule?

_________________
Image


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 2:23 pm 
Offline
Phinfever Legend
Phinfever Legend

Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 2:05 pm
Posts: 2575
Location: NSW, Australia
Rich wrote:
Would you consider a split government less evil than one party rule?


Not sure exactly what you mean by split government. I'll assume it's 50/50 GOP/Dem.

If that would mean they have to work together and make intelligent compromises to pass any legislation, then yes. But they way the parties have been polarized, I doubt they can work together and accomplish anything. More likely, nothing of substance would get done. Definately no reform would be made.


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 2:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar
2016 Post Game Blog Writer
2016 Post Game Blog Writer

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 9:59 am
Posts: 25178
Location: Miami, FL
degs wrote:
Not sure exactly what you mean by split government.


It means that the parties share power. Not having one party control the legislative and executive branch.

Quote:
But they way the parties have been polarized, I doubt they can work together and accomplish anything. More likely, nothing of substance would get done. Definately no reform would be made.


Two very polarized parties shared power from 1994 to 2000 and managed to reform welfare, balance the federal budget and oversee a 5 year period of economic expansion.

_________________
Image


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 8:59 am 
Offline
Phinfever Legend
Phinfever Legend

Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 2:05 pm
Posts: 2575
Location: NSW, Australia
Rich wrote:
Two very polarized parties shared power from 1994 to 2000 and managed to reform welfare, balance the federal budget and oversee a 5 year period of economic expansion.


IMO, the polarization now if FAR more than it was just 5-10 years ago.

Let's look at the unilateral health care "reform" and the non-existent immigration reform as examples of how well our two parties compromise to reach intelligent results.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 9:52 am 
Offline
2016 MVP Donor!
2016 MVP Donor!

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 5:10 pm
Posts: 8535
Location: MA
FINesse wrote:
T The Dems took control 2 years ago & boasted about it.


Actually the Dems took over Congress in 2006, so they have four years of accountability they don't want to discuss.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 9:59 am 
Offline
2016 MVP Donor!
2016 MVP Donor!

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 5:10 pm
Posts: 8535
Location: MA
degs wrote:
Rich wrote:
Two very polarized parties shared power from 1994 to 2000 and managed to reform welfare, balance the federal budget and oversee a 5 year period of economic expansion.


IMO, the polarization now if FAR more than it was just 5-10 years ago.

Let's look at the unilateral health care "reform" and the non-existent immigration reform as examples of how well our two parties compromise to reach intelligent results.


Not sure that is true. Clinton tried to govern from the far left and was forced to compromise. People were at each other's throats over issues like abortion, gay rights, welfare, a bad economy, etc. 10 Years ago Bush was elected and the US couldn't have been more polarized by that election. I don't recall Democratic leadership cutting him a break or endorsing his ideas.

Clinton became centrist, what he ran on, and with a Republican Congress passed the reforms Rich mentioned. Now just imagine what Obama the uniter, (the one who just told voters, Latino voters in particular, to punish their enemies) could accomplish if he reached across the aisle and set ineffective ideology aside for pragmatic solutions with the Republicans.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:21 am 
Offline
Phinfever Legend
Phinfever Legend

Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 2:05 pm
Posts: 2575
Location: NSW, Australia
jammer wrote:
Now just imagine what Obama the uniter, (the one who just told voters, Latino voters in particular, to punish their enemies) could accomplish if he reached across the aisle and set ineffective ideology aside for pragmatic solutions with the Republicans.


I haven't seen either party reach across, hence my use of the examples I mentioned above where one was a completely partison vote and the other is something everyone knows is a broken system, but neither party will compromise at all so absolutely nothing has gotten done and the problem only gets worse.

Both parties are to blame. Not just Obama. Not just the Republicans.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 11:03 am 
Offline
User avatar
2016 Post Game Blog Writer
2016 Post Game Blog Writer

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 9:59 am
Posts: 25178
Location: Miami, FL
degs wrote:
Rich wrote:
Two very polarized parties shared power from 1994 to 2000 and managed to reform welfare, balance the federal budget and oversee a 5 year period of economic expansion.


IMO, the polarization now if FAR more than it was just 5-10 years ago.

Let's look at the unilateral health care "reform" and the non-existent immigration reform as examples of how well our two parties compromise to reach intelligent results.


I don't think it is that different.

Republican hatred for Clinton ran pretty deep. Democrats took a lot of unilateral steps in regards to Keynesian spending back then as well.

_________________
Image


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 11:04 am 
Offline
User avatar
2016 Post Game Blog Writer
2016 Post Game Blog Writer

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 9:59 am
Posts: 25178
Location: Miami, FL
degs wrote:
Both parties are to blame. Not just Obama. Not just the Republicans.


Only one party has access to the levers of power right now. One party rule is the greatest of all evils.

_________________
Image


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 11:24 am 
Offline
Phinfever Legend
Phinfever Legend

Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 2:05 pm
Posts: 2575
Location: NSW, Australia
Rich wrote:
I don't think it is that different.


You are allowed your opinion. I am allowed mine.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 11:26 am 
Offline
Phinfever Legend
Phinfever Legend

Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 2:05 pm
Posts: 2575
Location: NSW, Australia
Rich wrote:
degs wrote:
Both parties are to blame. Not just Obama. Not just the Republicans.


Only one party has access to the levers of power right now. One party rule is the greatest of all evils.


We had one party ruling for too long under Bush as well. This is an inevitable shift to the other polar end. That is really why Obama was elected. It wasn't his personality, charm, experience or money.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 12:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar
2016 Post Game Blog Writer
2016 Post Game Blog Writer

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 9:59 am
Posts: 25178
Location: Miami, FL
degs wrote:
Rich wrote:
I don't think it is that different.


You are allowed your opinion. I am allowed mine.


And you are allowed to state the obvious, though I don't understand why you feel the need to do so again like you did in the other thread.

_________________
Image


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 12:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar
2016 Post Game Blog Writer
2016 Post Game Blog Writer

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 9:59 am
Posts: 25178
Location: Miami, FL
degs wrote:
Rich wrote:
degs wrote:
Both parties are to blame. Not just Obama. Not just the Republicans.


Only one party has access to the levers of power right now. One party rule is the greatest of all evils.


We had one party ruling for too long under Bush as well. This is an inevitable shift to the other polar end. That is really why Obama was elected. It wasn't his personality, charm, experience or money.


Oh I don't know about that. I think all those things were a factor.

1. People tired of Bush and Republicans
2. Obama's charisma and ability to read well
3. Obama's message that has gone counter to everything he has actually done
4. Obama foregoing public funds and using half a billion dollars

Throw in:

5. The inept McCain campaign

All those things played a factor.

_________________
Image


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 12:48 pm 
Offline
Phinfever Legend
Phinfever Legend

Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 2:05 pm
Posts: 2575
Location: NSW, Australia
Rich wrote:
degs wrote:
Rich wrote:
I don't think it is that different.


You are allowed your opinion. I am allowed mine.


And you are allowed to state the obvious, though I don't understand why you feel the need to do so again like you did in the other thread.


While it may be obvious, it does not seem like certain members around here respect other people's valid opinions.

I won't name names.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 12:51 pm 
Offline
Phinfever Legend
Phinfever Legend

Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 2:05 pm
Posts: 2575
Location: NSW, Australia
Rich wrote:
Oh I don't know about that. I think all those things were a factor.

1. People tired of Bush and Republicans
2. Obama's charisma and ability to read well
3. Obama's message that has gone counter to everything he has actually done
4. Obama foregoing public funds and using half a billion dollars

Throw in:

5. The inept McCain campaign

All those things played a factor.


There were plenty of factors. IMO the biggest was that the economy was so bad and a LOT of people blamed Bush and the Republicans. It wasn't Obama people were voting for, it was the hope of change. And Obama was campaigning that he would "change the face of politics in Washington blah blah blah".

We can all see that he's done such a great job of that. Ha!

I really don't think if McCain had a billion dollars it would have changed anything.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 1:00 pm 
Offline
2016 MVP Donor!
2016 MVP Donor!

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 5:10 pm
Posts: 8535
Location: MA
The immigration issue is about votes. That is why a guy like John McCain has flip flopped. The health care issue was about wanting to get in the history books without realizing the consequences of the legislation. I haven't seen any Republicans change positions on health care but you now have Democrats campaigning against it.

I agree with you to an extent on crossing the aisle. Its not going to happen consistently. The point was that Clinton was heading down a road of failure before he moved more to the center. It wasn't a blissful marriage with that Republican Congress, but at least some things got done. Obama would be wise to take a page from that playbook and stop getting mad that people won't blindly follow him. And I do think the country has been this polarized for a long time, its just now the right is getting louder so it seems more relevant.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 1:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar
2016 Post Game Blog Writer
2016 Post Game Blog Writer

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 9:59 am
Posts: 25178
Location: Miami, FL
degs wrote:
While it may be obvious, it does not seem like certain members around here respect other people's valid opinions.

I won't name names.


What is seems like to you may not be the reality. Perhaps you should clarify first before assuming.

Just because I am responding to you with a differing viewpoint does not mean I am not respecting your right to have your own.

I shouldn't have to qualify every post in response to your viewpoint with "IMO" or "I respect your viewpoint but".

That should go without saying.

Hope that clarifies things for you.

_________________
Image


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 1:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar
2016 Post Game Blog Writer
2016 Post Game Blog Writer

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 9:59 am
Posts: 25178
Location: Miami, FL
degs wrote:
I really don't think if McCain had a billion dollars it would have changed anything.


Maybe money wouldn't have changed anything, but McCain really screwed himself with the conservative base when he sat idly by as Bush rolled out TARP.

McCain missed a perfect opportunity to oppose TARP and associate Bush and Obama, who both supported it.

Instead, he tried to pull a stunt by saying he may need to cancel a debate to handle serious business and then sat quietly as everyone else gave their opinion on the impending financial crisis.

Right before all this happened. McCain had a lead in the polls outside the margin of error. Right after, he fell behind and never got within 5 points again.

_________________
Image


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 3:27 pm 
Offline
Phinfever Legend
Phinfever Legend

Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 2:05 pm
Posts: 2575
Location: NSW, Australia
Rich wrote:
degs wrote:
I really don't think if McCain had a billion dollars it would have changed anything.


Maybe money wouldn't have changed anything, but McCain really screwed himself with the conservative base when he sat idly by as Bush rolled out TARP.

McCain missed a perfect opportunity to oppose TARP and associate Bush and Obama, who both supported it.

Instead, he tried to pull a stunt by saying he may need to cancel a debate to handle serious business and then sat quietly as everyone else gave their opinion on the impending financial crisis.

Right before all this happened. McCain had a lead in the polls outside the margin of error. Right after, he fell behind and never got within 5 points again.


The conservative base wasn't his biggest group of supporters and he needed to be perfect in every other way in order to have them behind him. That's why he brought in that idiot Palin. He took her to try and appeal to them, even if she wasn't experienced enough or intelligent enough to impress anyone else.

You are correct though. McCain blew what little chance he had.


And you are definately correct here.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 3:46 pm 
Offline
Phinfever Legend
Phinfever Legend

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 5:11 pm
Posts: 9554
Location: Fargo, ND
FINesse wrote:
That term lesser of 2 evils is an understatement of extreme proportions here. As a liberal on social issues but someone who leans more towards the conservative side on fiscal issues I really dont know. I can really say however I never voted for someone because of their party affiliation.
I do know that with the 2 party system it is all cyclical. The Dems took control 2 years ago & boasted about it. The repubs will do the same in November. They all should realize that whoever is in power , they are not gonna help anyway , the people will get fed up want change , vote the other party in & then will get no change once again. So their victory is short lived & only provides amunition to the media. I do know however that it is not a good thing to have 1 party control all 3 branches of the govt. I do know that some of these tea party people scare me because of their extremists views but I also get that the people are fed up & that is a good thing. How nice it would be to once again be in times when jobs were abundant , your home had value , poverty was low & people were generally nicer.

:yay:


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 4:06 pm 
Offline
Phinfever Legend
Phinfever Legend

Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 2:05 pm
Posts: 2575
Location: NSW, Australia
Rich wrote:
I shouldn't have to qualify every post in response to your viewpoint with "IMO" or "I respect your viewpoint but".


I think most any reasonable person would think a comment like

I'm sure there's a relevant point in there somewhere.

was just plain obnoxious, even if it had an IMO in front of it.

Hope that clarifies things for you.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 4:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar
2016 Post Game Blog Writer
2016 Post Game Blog Writer

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 9:59 am
Posts: 25178
Location: Miami, FL
degs wrote:
Rich wrote:
I shouldn't have to qualify every post in response to your viewpoint with "IMO" or "I respect your viewpoint but".


I think most any reasonable person would think a comment like

I'm sure there's a relevant point in there somewhere.

was just plain obnoxious, even if it had an IMO in front of it.

Hope that clarifies things for you.


Image

I find "That's your opinion" equally obnoxious, not to mention pretentious... as if you're informing me of something I didn't know.

I'll get myself back on topic now.

_________________
Image


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 6:05 pm 
Offline
2016 MVP Donor!
2016 MVP Donor!

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 5:10 pm
Posts: 8535
Location: MA
FINesse wrote:
I do know that with the 2 party system it is all cyclical. The Dems took control 2 years ago & boasted about it. The repubs will do the same in November. They all should realize that whoever is in power , they are not gonna help anyway , the people will get fed up want change , vote the other party in & then will get no change once again. So their victory is short lived & only provides amunition to the media. I do know however that it is not a good thing to have 1 party control all 3 branches of the govt. I do know that some of these tea party people scare me because of their extremists views but I also get that the people are fed up & that is a good thing.


Democrats had control of Congress for 50 years before 1994. Not very cyclical.

I'd say overhauling the health care system, financial regulation, and massively increasing the size of government in serious change in less than 2 years.

Which extremist views are you referring to? Not being sarcastic, but the tea party has a diverse crowd so I'm interested to see which wing you think is extremist.

[/quote]How nice it would be to once again be in times when jobs were abundant , your home had value , poverty was low & people were generally nicer.[/quote]

Which period of US history was this?


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 7:05 pm 
Offline
Phinfever Legend
Phinfever Legend

Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 2:05 pm
Posts: 2575
Location: NSW, Australia
Rich wrote:
I find "That's your opinion" equally obnoxious, not to mention pretentious... as if you're informing me of something I didn't know.

I'll get myself back on topic now.


I would too. It's a good thing I never actually said that.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Oct 28, 2010 3:50 am 
Offline
User avatar
2016 Post Game Blog Writer
2016 Post Game Blog Writer

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 9:59 am
Posts: 25178
Location: Miami, FL
degs wrote:
Rich wrote:
I find "That's your opinion" equally obnoxious, not to mention pretentious... as if you're informing me of something I didn't know.

I'll get myself back on topic now.


I would too. It's a good thing I never actually said that.


degs wrote:
Rich wrote:
degs wrote:
If they want me to vote for their candidates, they have the task (responsibility) to make me think they have the best candidate.


In several, probably most, of the races, they do have the best candidate. They can't have the best one in every race.


that is always a matter of opinion


degs wrote:
Rich wrote:
In this case a substantiated opinion. They are running to get rid of people who voted for all the crap we've been handed over past couple of years.


Opinion is still just opinion, whether you, I or anyone else agrees with it.
It's not written in the Constitution, but we do have freedom of opinion in this country still.

_________________
Image


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Oct 28, 2010 4:01 am 
Offline
Phinfever Legend
Phinfever Legend

Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 2:05 pm
Posts: 2575
Location: NSW, Australia
When you put it in quotes, it means that is EXAXTLY what you said.
Saying something else with a different meaning is not a quote.
There are all sorts of laws on that. I would expect you know that.

Now, back on topic.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Oct 28, 2010 4:06 am 
Offline
User avatar
2016 Post Game Blog Writer
2016 Post Game Blog Writer

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 9:59 am
Posts: 25178
Location: Miami, FL
degs wrote:
When you put it in quotes, it means that is EXAXTLY what you said.
Saying something else with a different meaning is not a quote.


However you want to qualify it, what you said was obnoxious and pretentious. It served absolutely no purpose other than to just antagonize. And it was the reason you received the same in kind.

Quote:
There are all sorts of laws on that. I would expect you know that.


And now condescending.

You're on a roll. Treat others the way you want to be treated or don't complain when they treat you in kind, child.

_________________
Image


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 4:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar
2016 MODERATOR
2016 MODERATOR

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 6:53 pm
Posts: 5244
Location: Palm Beach County, Florida
Quote:
Which extremist views are you referring to? Not being sarcastic, but the tea party has a diverse crowd so I'm interested to see which wing you think is extremist.


No sarcasm taken , in fact I like the discussion , maybe I can learn something because Politics & Politicians is something I loathe. I guess what scares me when it comes to tea party is the non beleif of separation of church & state. I get the pro life stance & I respect it but in cases of rape & incest I cannot see why anyone should be forced into having that baby , getting rid of social security , the whole 2 parents working is a bad theory. And other things. If I am misinformed than let me know but some of these views worry me.
It hits close to home with me ....
I had a friend for a long time , never discussed political or religious views with him , when my wife could not get pregnant & we turned to IVF & had our twin girls he said he could not support this decision because he deemed it as un natural & not gods way. Not to mention what he said about the girls ... I guess this is the extremeism that worries me.
I just want people who we elect to govern but not from the pulpit. Have the peoples interest in mind , feed the hungry , help the poor , improve quality of life ... pretty good concepts.
I am sure there are good people out there from both parties , ones who really care. Its just a shame you have to be a millionaire to win an election.

_________________
GASE IS ON THE CASE!!! 2016 SB CHAMPIONS.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 5:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar
2016 Post Game Blog Writer
2016 Post Game Blog Writer

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 9:59 am
Posts: 25178
Location: Miami, FL
Mitch, where did you get that the Tea Party is pushing social issues? The core of the Tea Party sprung from the Ron Paul campaign, they tend to be very libertarian and are focused on the economy and exhorbitant federal spending. Yes, unfortunately segments of the social conservative wing of the Republican Party are latching on but for the most part they are focused on economic issues.

_________________
Image


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 5:35 pm 
Offline
2016 MVP Donor!
2016 MVP Donor!

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 5:10 pm
Posts: 8535
Location: MA
I have to agree with Rich in that the Tea Party really isn't based on social issues. There may be some within the movement who back a more religion based approach, but I don't think they are vocalizing those issues.

There are some social issues that get lumped in, espeically immigration. I'm sure race plays a factor for some, but I think many view it as an economic problem. It was just reported here in MA that 41 million dollars were spent on aid to illegal immigrants last year. Meanwhile the state is has a 2 billion dollar defecit and last 21,000 jobs in September alone. Obama's aunt, an illegal immigrant living in South Boston, gets 700 dollars per month and free housing. She was recently interviewed and said she deserves it because America owes it to the less fortunate (paraphrasing of course). That didn't exactly garner a great response from the public.

Point is that I don't think the social issues are driving the movement, but when they are tied into economic problems its hard to separate the two. I think most in the Tea Party just want to lower taxes and spending, and many have been told for decades that if they oppose certain things they are every ism under the sun. They are finally being as vocal as the liberals on the left.

Shame on your friend for not being open minded to your situation.


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 34 posts ] 

All times are UTC-05:00


Phinfever Home Page

Phinfever Chatroom

Phinfever FAQ


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited | Chopped and modified by Coots | Original design by Prosk8r