Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 45

Thread: Another crazy FDR 'right'

  1. #1
    Elite Member JamieElizabeth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    San Jose, California, United States
    Posts
    2,895

    Default Another crazy FDR 'right'

    Another Crazy FDR 'Right'

    Opinion Editorial by Tibor Machan - Dec 29, 2006
    Over the last couple of years I have explored FDR’s Second Bill of Rights because recently some heavy hitters in politics and legal theory (e.g., Cass Sunstein) have made a point of championing these ultimately phony rights.
    With the Democrats back in power in Washington, it is not unreasonable to suppose that securing and expanding FDR’s list of rights — as distinct from those laid out by the American founders in the Declaration of Independence — will once again dominate the federal government’s agenda. Not that Republicans put up much of a fight against the Democrats but the Republicans’ version of statism focuses less on wealth redistribution and more on soul craft.
    FDR’s list included some lulus, I must say, but among them what’s worth discussion in our day are the so-called economic rights. Take, for example, “The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment.”
    Notice immediately that to secure any such alleged right, what would be required is for those who supposedly have them to gain the willing or unwilling services of other people.
    Of course, virtually anyone who is getting old could have made the effort to provide for his or her “protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment.” But that has nothing to do with rights. Rights are what others must respect and what governments are instituted to secure for us.
    So it is clear that what FDR’s list involves is involuntary servitude by others who are to provide for us, along with coercion of those not ready to be prudent as the government insists we must be.
    FDR wasn’t urging people to make sure they take good care of themselves in their old age, far from it. That would have been an exercise in the sort of leadership that would be just right for Americans, leadership that would have been consistent with the individualism the American founders tried to promote with their list of genuine, bona fide individual rights.
    The idea behind those rights is that in human communities what’s most important to gain from other people is their abstention from intrusive conduct, from aggression — assault, murder, kidnapping, robbery, trespass, and other more complicated sorts of invasion.
    Once the peaceful conditions obtain because no one violates our rights to our lives, liberties, and property, we can go about our various tasks, for better or for worse. We can form families, fraternities, communities, churches, corporations, and teams and by means of these voluntary associations live more or less flourishing lives.
    The government is merely there to make sure that no one does violence to another, not to take over the tasks that we need to perform.
    But tyrannies have always pretended to be there so as to help us out — “We are from the government and we are here to help!” Only then they turn around and use their power to promote goals of their own.
    Because it is evident to most that their so-called help causes more harm than good, those championing such interventionist governments insist they need more resources to get the job of helping us done.
    This produces a spiraling of greater and greater power, more and more expansive government involvement. The resulting mess is incalculable but the official remedy is always, “We need more resources and more power.”
    The sorts of rights FDR and his followers promote are instruments of more or less Draconian tyranny. Because they are peddled as well intentioned efforts to do us good, resistance to them is difficult to articulate without seeming to be mean.
    But resistance to them is nonetheless imperative — it is a large measure of the vigilance that’s the price of liberty.
    When you look at it this way, the prospects for a truly free society appear to be utterly hopeless. (That is just what follows from the famous public choice theory some economists have developed, showing that politicians and bureaucrats simply will not relinquish their power!)
    But against this pessimism one needs to keep in mind that the very idea that your life is yours, not the king’s or the tsar’s or the collective’s, is revolutionary. And revolutionary ideas, however sound and beneficial, are difficult to spread rapidly.
    Tibor Machan is the R. C. Hoiles Professor of Business Ethics & Free Enterprise at Chapman University's Argyros School of B&E and is a research fellow at the Pacific Research Institute (San Francisco, CA) and the Hoover Institution (Stanford University, CA).
    http://www.theatlasphere.com/columns...machan-FDR.php

  2. #2
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,372

    Default

    *yawn*

    Where do you find these people? All that guy needs to do is scream "Commies! Pinkos! Socialists!" and wail about the 'evils' of those societies in the place of making any realistic point.

    Again, I would like to point him, and his chocolate brothers to each and every single scandinavian country that, due to some socialist leanings, have a much higher quality of life than the good ol US of A.

    End of story. I'll just point to Sweden/Norway/Holland next time.

    SOME collectivism is GOOD for the SOCIETY. That's just a fact. Fucking neocons need to get over it.
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  3. #3
    Elite Member JamieElizabeth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    San Jose, California, United States
    Posts
    2,895

    Default

    The article points out where FDR had applied collective policies against the "freewill" of the American people, and calls them "phony rights".That is ridiculous to think that a person would never need this kind of service from another person or govn't though.

    "Take, for example, “The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment.”
    Notice immediately that to secure any such alleged right, what would be required is for those who supposedly have them to gain the willing or unwilling services of other people."


    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    he argued that the second bill of rights was to be implemented politically, not by federal judges. Roosevelt's stated justification was that the "political rights" granted by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights had "proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness." Roosevelt's remedy was to create an "economic bill of rights" which would guarantee:
    • A job with a living wage
    • Freedom from unfair competition and monopolies
    • Homeownership
    • Medical care
    • Education
    • Recreation
    Roosevelt stated that having these rights would guarantee American security, and that America's place in the world depended upon how far these and similar rights had been carried into practice.
    Last edited by JamieElizabeth; December 29th, 2006 at 06:29 PM.

  4. #4
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,372

    Default

    ^ Yeah, can't have that!
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  5. #5
    Bronze Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grimmlok View Post
    *yawn*

    Where do you find these people? All that guy needs to do is scream "Commies! Pinkos! Socialists!" and wail about the 'evils' of those societies in the place of making any realistic point.

    Again, I would like to point him, and his chocolate brothers to each and every single scandinavian country that, due to some socialist leanings, have a much higher quality of life than the good ol US of A.

    End of story. I'll just point to Sweden/Norway/Holland next time.

    SOME collectivism is GOOD for the SOCIETY. That's just a fact. Fucking neocons need to get over it.
    IIRC, Sweden would be something like the 45th best US state in economic development. Norway floats on a pool of oil, but if you look at their disposable income after taxes, their standard of living is much worse than the US. If you've ever been to Norway, just compare the parking lots. Norway is full of old used cars, the US parking lots are full of new imports.

    I'm amazed that you mentioned Holland after the Van Gogh murder.

    Now, as to your last point, there is no doubt that some collectivism is good for society. However, the difference between liberals and conservatives is the amount and the exactly what is collectivized. You can't go from "some collectivism is good" to "liberal collectivism is best". Details obviously matter.

    Conservatives would prefer lower taxes, lower social spending and higher defence spending. Defence spending is collectivist. As a liberal, are you prepared to have higher defence spending at the expense of social spending? After all, both are forms of "collectivism".

    The debate isn't whether or nor collectivism is necessary (it obviously is). The debate is over how much of each kind of collectivism is best.

  6. #6
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,372

    Default

    Overall, given UN standards, the scandinavian countries generally come out on top for overall standard of living. They have been that way for a couple decades at least. Lower crime, better access to education, health care, and other nebulous things like "happiness".

    I'm amazed you would discount Holland's standard of living due to 1 murder. Come on, the US has thousands yearly.

    Collectivism is good for society... generally reigned in liberal collectivism. You cant obviously have bleeding hearts spending every dollar out there. Conservative collectivism, in theory, mentions all the things you said. Unfortunately, those items in question lead to a state of social decay. A massive military industrial complex with runaway costs, coupled with ideological foreign policies that end up getting the nation entangled in expensive wars combined with lower taxes is a recipe for fiscal disaster.

    The US could do with much much less defense spending.. its a pork barell industry. Social programs improve the fabric of society, as we as spending on education. That's basic.
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  7. #7
    Bronze Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grimmlok View Post
    Overall, given UN standards, the scandinavian countries generally come out on top for overall standard of living. They have been that way for a couple decades at least. Lower crime, better access to education, health care, and other nebulous things like "happiness".
    The reason I reject UN standards for "standard of living" is that the UN standards are left wing to begin with. Not surprisingly, according to left wing UN standards, Scandanavian countries come out on top.

    hxxp://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/8Comparison.htm

    It is a myth that the Scandanavian countries have a higher living standard than the US. I've been to most countries in Europe and seen it first hand. The relative standing of European countries to the US in the above chart is correct, IMO. When you live in the US, incomes are higher, expenses are lower and overall your standard of living is better.

    I remember visting some relatives in NYC not too long ago. I was stunned to discover that they paid less for food than I did in Toronto and that their housing expenses were much lower. And that's in NYC.There's a reason why so many people want to live in the US and leave Europe. Do a google search, you'll find that Holland has a net outflow of people. If Holland was such a great place to live, why are more people leaving than staying?

    Quote Originally Posted by Grimmlok
    I'm amazed you would discount Holland's standard of living due to 1 murder. Come on, the US has thousands yearly.
    The Van Gogh murder wasn't one murder compared to thousands of US murders. It was a significant symbolic event that has started to change Holland's attitudes to immigration and reassess their committment to multiculturalism.

    The amazing thing to me is, Van Gogh was a prototypical left winger, in the Michael Moore category.

    I'm quite curious, as a left winger, why do you attempt to downplay the Van Gogh murder as insignificant? For that matter, why do you have icons making fun of US evangelicals when it is Muslims who persecute gays in Islamic nations and murder liberals in Europe? If you wanted to do something brave and daring, why not include icons making fun of bin Laden and Ahmadinejad? Surely they deserve mockery as well.

    My question isn't rhetorical, that's something that has confused me about liberals ever since 9/11. Muslims really truly harm liberals and gay people in their home countries, and yet I've never, ever, seen a liberal protest or even complain about that kind of treatment.

    If Van Gogh had been murdered by a US soldier, or anyone connected with the any conservative movement, would you have then said "it's only one murder compared with thousands in the US"?

    I sincerely doubt it, but I'm curious about what you say.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grimmlok
    Collectivism is good for society... generally reigned in liberal collectivism. You cant obviously have bleeding hearts spending every dollar out there. Conservative collectivism, in theory, mentions all the things you said. Unfortunately, those items in question lead to a state of social decay. A massive military industrial complex with runaway costs, coupled with ideological foreign policies that end up getting the nation entangled in expensive wars combined with lower taxes is a recipe for fiscal disaster.
    Where we disagree is that I consider some forms of spending on education pork barrel as well. I've had lots of contact with teachers, it's a pretty cushy, high income lifestyle. Months off in the summer time and if they've set up their course work properly, pretty much shake and bake in the classroom.

    University and college professors are even worse, basically a repository of left wing thought. I've also had lots of contact with engineering and computer professors. IMO, the saying that "Those who can do, do and those who can't, teach" is true. It's a waste of human time and talent.

    The US could do with much much less defense spending.. its a pork barell industry. Social programs improve the fabric of society, as we as spending on education. That's basic.
    I disagree that military spending is as wasteful as you said. Much of the technological progress (like the very Internet we're using to communicate, as well as jet aircraft, computer, satellite and communications technology) came right out of US military R+D. Nothing remotely similar has come out of liberal social spending on multiculturalism or welfare.


    Besides, do a google search and compare US military spending (which I think is under 5% of the US economy) to what is spent on welfare, or education, or medical expenses. Military spending is a fraction of overall US expenditures, when you add in city and state expenditures on social programs. Given the post 9/11 challenge, I'd say the US needs to spend more, not less on the military.

    I've had first hand experience with government contracts and closely observed military spending contracts. There is no doubt that costs generally are higher than expected, but no more so than compared to liberal expenditures. That's the key thing. Spending on social housing in Toronto, or socialized medical expenditures, or welfare costs, rise at least as much as, or more than, overrun costs in military contracts.

    IMO, the root problem is that government spending, of all kinds, defence or social spending, tends to run higher than expected. That happens in private business as well, but never to the same degree as government spending.

    So if you're arguing that military spending is especially out of control or wasteful compared to liberal expenditures, IMO, you are dead wrong.

    But there is no doubt that military expenditures have resulted in enormous technological progress. You can't seriously think otherwise, if you've read anything about technical progress in the 20th century.

    I'm curious, but can you make any claim that liberal government spending policies have resulted in similar technological advances? I can believe that some liberal expenditures for university research has certainly resulted in some medical progress, but I'd also claim that more progress has come out of private corporate research.

    IMO, liberalism is the main source of entropy and decay in Western society. Conservative thought is the method society has used to make progress and fight against entropy. Whether that continues in the future is the one of the great issues of this era.

  8. #8
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,372

    Default

    LOL

    Ahh finally the neocon genie comes out of the bottle and shows all his colors.

    *yawn*

    I'll pick apart all of this tomorrow night (unless someone feels free to do it for me before then), but my god you're making it easy.

    p.s. I like how you left out the part where I took your extremes and tossed them to the curb. Couldn't quite defend that eh?

    *chuckles*
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  9. #9
    Bronze Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grimmlok View Post
    LOL

    Ahh finally the neocon genie comes out of the bottle and shows all his colors.

    *yawn*

    I'll pick apart all of this tomorrow night (unless someone feels free to do it for me before then), but my god you're making it easy.

    p.s. I like how you left out the part where I took your extremes and tossed them to the curb. Couldn't quite defend that eh?

    *chuckles*
    Unfortunately, we're carrying on this discussion in two different threads. That makes it all too easy for you to claim a false temporal discontinuity. Obviously I can't write two posts at the same time. You should have known that I'd respond to your post in the other thead at some point in time.

    In that other thread, you claimed that I (again) ignored your Scandanavian examples, when in fact I hadn't read this very thread until after I had posted my original thread. With two simultaneous threads, it's a mistake to try to claim a "failure to address" issue.

    My immediate question is, why have you done this?

    Why claim victory when it's incredibly obvious the discussion has just begun? Of all the things that you could have brought forward, the instant lack of a response has got to be the weakest counterargument I can imagine.

    The nature of message board discussions always implies high response latency. This isn't a chat room, or an IRC discussion. It's very likely, as you yourself just said when you stated you'd write a response tomorrow, that this discussion will work around a 24 hour cycle, as virtually every message board discussion I've been involved with has done in the past.

    After 13,000 posts, surely you know that. So why the surprisingly, well, no offense intended, stupid/ignorant response on your part? What was your idea?

    IMO, I've brought forward some very large counter examples to your statement that conservative policies have "NEVER WORKED". I'm very interested in your countering arguments.

    .........

    Now, onto the specific examples you've brought forward.

    hxxp://www.slate.com/id/2108873/

    That link illustrates why Norway, one of your examples supporting liberal policies, cannot be used in any discussion about conservative vs liberal policies.

    That article states that Norway has a population of 4.5M people but has an oil trust fund that is currently $147 billion dollars, or about $32,000 per person.

    Using Norway as an example of successful liberal policies is incorrect. Obviously, Norway's economic success comes down to one thing, huge oil revenues coming into a small population. It's no wonder that Norway has a high standard of living. But that has nothing to do with their economic policies, liberal or conservative.

    As an example, I could use Alberta, a very conservative province, as an example of how conservative policies succeed. But I can't and I won't, because the tar sands and other oil revenues would skew any result. By the same standard, you'll have to drop Norway from your list of liberal/socialist success stories.

    .......

    Now, onto my own conservative/liberal beliefs. You'll notice that I've very scrupulously kept out of this discussion whether or not I'm liberal, conservative, neocon, libertarian or independent. Nor have I discussed my previous history of what I believe. I will say this though, I'm definitely not a neocon.

    I can't imagine why anyone would be interested in my political/philosophical/economic beliefs, or how I came about to what I believe today. I long ago grew out of the narcissicism that anyone would care what I believe. But if you're interested (and I can't see why you would be), we can pursue that in another thread on another day.

    I've entered into this discussion with you because, from what I've read of your posts, you appear to be a very leftwing liberal.

    There are some questions I've been meaning to ask an extreme liberal, about recent economic history and especially about liberal attitudes towards Islam. I don't know anyone who is as liberal as you appear to be.

    Since you have over 13,000 posts (an astonishing number BTW, by far the most I've ever seen anyone post since I started using the Internet (or ARPANET as it was called back then) decades ago) I concluded that you'd be more than willing to discuss your beliefs.

    I highly doubt that either of us will be persuaded to change sides, that's something, in my own experience, you must do for yourself. Either you'll see the world for what it is and come to the proper conclusions, or you won't. IMO, no one can change your mind when it comes to the basic assumptions that underpin a liberal or conservative system of beliefs.

    However, if it happens that you can, at some point, explain to me, certain puzzling aspects of liberal beliefs, then I'll be quite grateful.

    BTW, as you probably know by now, I've had many discussions with liberals in the past. I have to admit that you've used the *yawn* and *chuckles* device very early. For some obscure reasons, liberals always seem to do the same thing, over and over again.

    I guess I should run down the things liberals always seem to do in text based, impersonal discussions.

    .........
    The "yawn*, *chuckle*, "LOL*, *Various ASCII text images* thing. You've done that already.

    The "I only read the first four lines of your post (when it's obvious you've read the whole thing)" thing.

    The "Freedom of speech!, I have the right to freedom of speech!" thing.

    The "You are a <insert perjorative label here>, this discussion is over".

    The "You misspelled a word!! You're an <insert perjorative label here>".

    The "You edited your post! That's not fair!". I'll edit posts until you post a reply. I'm not perfect, I can't get all my thoughts in order all at once. Too many thoughts, I guess. ;->
    ............

    Please, Grimmlok, let's keep this discussion at the highest possible level. Let's exchange ideas, facts and opinions and leave out the non epistemic trash talk. There are some explanations I'd like to elicit from you. If you're willing, we can discuss things.

    What you have to be careful of is the Skunk vs Grizzly Bear syndrome.

    I can be pretty sure that in the history of encounters between skunks and giant bears, the skunk has won every time, in the sense that the bear runs away, each and every time.

    By resorting such childish devices as *yawn*, you're laying the groundwork for a skunk victory. I guarantee you that if you persist in that behaviour, I will leave this discussion and I suppose you could claim some kind of victory.

    But just as there is no way a skunk could ever defeat a bear, you would be mistaken. For some odd reason, liberals always seem to resort to the skunk defence, lowering the level of discourse until a reasonable person invokes the Mark Twain quote "Never argue with a fool for you will be mistaken for one".

    One other thing. We are not engaged (or at least I'm not) in a contest, or fight, or even debate. So please don't get your hackles up thinking that you have to defend yourself to the cyberdeath. What will happen is that ideas that we both put forward will be examined, weighed and we will each come to conclusions. Perhaps some existing beliefs will be modified or discarded, perhaps they will be reinforced. But at no time is anyone's ego or self image at stake. At least not for me. IMO, if you correct a bad idea or fact in my head, you will have done me an enormous favour. Hopefully you will take the same attitude.

    So, lets keep things at a high level. I promise you no one will get hurt. ;->
    Last edited by weblurker; January 3rd, 2007 at 01:07 AM.

  10. #10
    Elite Member Lobelia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    a backwards hillbilly state
    Posts
    20,801

    Default

    Well, this is getting interesting!!!
    "I've cautiously embraced jeggings"
    Emma Peel aka Pacific Breeze aka Wilde1 aka gogodancer aka maribou

    Yip, yip, yip in your tiny indignation. Bark furiously on, lady dog.

  11. #11
    Hit By Ban Bus! pacific breeze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    in the wild blue yonder
    Posts
    15,479

    Default

    I find conservatives also do the same things, predictably. One thing they ALWAYS do is pretend they're not conservatives. But they are.

  12. #12
    Bronze Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pacific breeze View Post
    I find conservatives also do the same things, predictably. One thing they ALWAYS do is pretend they're not conservatives. But they are.
    I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't discuss whether I'm liberal, conservative, gay or straight in these kinds of discussions. I don't see why it's relevant.

    But the other reason is to avoid the temptation to resort to name calling, as Grimmlok as already tried to do by attempting to pigeonhole me as a "neocon". IMO, that's an extremely bad thing to do during a discussion, because it instantly degrades the level of discourse to that of a schoolyard fight. If that's what Grimmlok, or anyone else wants to do, I'll exit the thread.

    I really don't care if anyone is a liberal or conservative, other than the fact that someone believes in liberalism at this moment in time. Once that's been established, right now I have certain questions to ask of an extreme liberal.

    I don't understand why any liberal would care to know that I'm a <fill in whatever you don't like>.

  13. #13
    Hit By Ban Bus! pacific breeze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    in the wild blue yonder
    Posts
    15,479

    Default

    Who said I was a "liberal?"

  14. #14
    Bronze Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pacific breeze View Post
    Who said I was a "liberal?"
    No one. Sorry, I meant liberals in general, not you in particular.

    But having thought about it, you have brought up an interesting point.

    Conservatives, in my experience, do hide the fact that they're conservatives. It's not because they're trying to hide anything or that they're lying about their beliefs, but that whenever a conservative shows his true colours, some crazy liberal invariably tries to persuade him to change.

    I've seen so many of those arguments, both in real life and on the Internet, that I can understand why conservatives choose to hide. It's just too tiring and annoying to have to pull out the same arguments over and over again, only to be met with a stony silence and/or one of the non rational discussion ending techniques I mentioned in my previous post.

    It usually boils down to an axiomatic belief that neither side can explain. No one ever changes their minds. One or both participants just get mad and stomp off. It's a pointless, fruitless, stupid, idiotic exercise in futility. It's much easier just to avoid the whole thing. But it's always liberals who start the argument, conservatives just don't care enough about liberals to try to persuade them of anything. For some reason, that enrages liberals even more. ;->

    I suspect this discussion will end that way some some observers. But my curiosity about liberal thoughts about China, India and Islam have made me enter this thread in hopes of learning something new.

  15. #15
    Elite Member Lobelia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    a backwards hillbilly state
    Posts
    20,801

    Default

    I can't help you with your quest for knowledge because I am a) to my knowledge, neither decidedly conservative or liberal, and b) woefully ignorant of economic & political matters.

    I do concur with your observations about the dynamics of arguing, but I find that it works both ways. Especially on this board. I guess it's human nature to hold on to what you believe, in what makes sense to you, because unfortunately, most of us aren't really looking for new information - we're looking for validation of what we already believe.

    Many times on this board I've felt as if I were shouting to a brick wall, and that my incredibly profound & intelligent points were falling on stupid deaf ears.

    However, I've probably been the owner of some stupid, deaf ears a time or two, myself
    "I've cautiously embraced jeggings"
    Emma Peel aka Pacific Breeze aka Wilde1 aka gogodancer aka maribou

    Yip, yip, yip in your tiny indignation. Bark furiously on, lady dog.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Lindsay Lohan goes crazy!
    By Nerissa in forum Miscellaneous
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: September 27th, 2006, 07:13 AM
  2. Replies: 51
    Last Post: March 9th, 2006, 06:42 PM
  3. Crazy Laws
    By Tiara in forum Laughs and Oddities
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: January 12th, 2006, 05:00 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •