UPNetwork  

Go Back   UPNetwork > General Forums > Debate

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 09-16-2012, 01:52 PM   #26
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Next quiz:
"In Western societies today, big business is a persecuted minority group."
Oh ho, that's rich! I like that phrasing. Quite amusing.

"The authority of parent over child, husband over wife, learned over simple is an inherent part of reasonably ordered human society (even if it should be limited because of its potential for abuse)."
Very true.

"Vigorous social authority—embodied in the family, church, and other mediating institutions—is a bedrock of the good society."
Couldn't be anything but true.

Unfortunately, this quiz is not currently rendering results....
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2012, 01:53 PM   #27
deoxys
Fog Badge
 
deoxys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
Oh, this is interesting.



It would appear that I am a Left-Libertarian.
deoxys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2012, 02:04 PM   #28
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Concept View Post
>UM

You must have some view on what powers it is an isn't appropriate for any government to wield. You mentioned federal government "protecting citizens from some few gross appropriations by the states", which suggests that there are certain things you don't believe even the state governments should be allowed to decide, and you must have some way independant of the constitution of working what they should and shouldn't be able to decide - if there wasn't, there'd be no way of deciding what goes in a constitution to start with. How would you go about putting together a new constitution? What things would your ideal constitution allow a government to do or not do? And most importantly;

What principle(s) is behind these choices? And if more than one principle, give us a way of determining which take precedence over which when they inevitably conflict.
I'll get to this later tonight, as it's about time for me to go to church right now.

In the meantime, here's a sample:

Highest Priority Principle: Freedom of Individual Choice/AKA Free Agency
Exception: When the choice is harmful to another citizen, or to society in general (in order words, a question of morality)

Last edited by unownmew; 09-16-2012 at 02:15 PM.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2012, 02:20 PM   #29
Loki
The Path of Now & Forever
 
Loki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,304
I got ERROR LOADING YOUR PAGE for my results.

Does that mean I win?
Loki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2012, 02:48 PM   #30
Concept
Archbishop of Banterbury
 
Concept's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Nipple-Hunting with Elsie and Kairne
Posts: 7,030
Send a message via Skype™ to Concept
Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
In the meantime, here's a sample:

Highest Priority Principle: Freedom of Individual Choice/AKA Free Agency
Exception: When the choice is harmful to another citizen, or to society in general (in order words, a question of morality)
Surely the highest priority principle would have no exceptions - any exception can and will be boiled down into a principle :p. In this case, the principle behind your exception would seem to be "avoiding harm to society, remembering that society is just a term for the sum of all individuals", unless I'm misinterpreting you. Not trying to trick you or trap you here, that obviously leaves plenty of room for arguing that free agency is avoiding harm to society in most cases.

EDIT the first: Oof, just noticed this;

Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
"Without believing in a higher power, it is not possible to establish a plausible system of values."
So true.
This is well established as a logical fallacy, the argument going like this;

1. Either a system of values is entirely unarbitrary, or it contains at least one arbitrary element.
2. A system of values that contains at least one arbitrary element cannot be held as a perfect system of values.
3. Any element that exists exclusively as the whim of the creator of said system is an arbitrary element.
4. Any element that does not rely on the whim of the creator of said system was reached independantly of the whim of that creator.
5. Therefore any perfect system of values cannot contain any element that cannot be reached independantly of the whim of the creator of said system.

Which basically means even if there is a God and he created a perfect system of values, believing in him is entirely unnecessary for reaching it.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by PTerry
What can the harvest hope for, if not the care of the reaper man?

Last edited by Concept; 09-16-2012 at 04:38 PM.
Concept is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2012, 04:24 PM   #31
Amras.MG
Not sure if gone...
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Or just lurking.
Posts: 2,709
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raptor Jesus View Post
I got ERROR LOADING YOUR PAGE for my results.

Does that mean I win?
I'm not there are any winners in this game.
Amras.MG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2012, 09:29 PM   #32
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Concept View Post
Surely the highest priority principle would have no exceptions - any exception can and will be boiled down into a principle :p. In this case, the principle behind your exception would seem to be "avoiding harm to society, remembering that society is just a term for the sum of all individuals", unless I'm misinterpreting you. Not trying to trick you or trap you here, that obviously leaves plenty of room for arguing that free agency is avoiding harm to society in most cases.
Touche`. In that case, I'm forced to declare Morality is the highest principle. Second next to it is Free Agency. Unfortunately, that's a bit of a complication which requires thought...

Quote:
EDIT the first: Oof, just noticed this;
This is well established as a logical fallacy, the argument going like this;

1. Either a system of values is entirely unarbitrary, or it contains at least one arbitrary element.
2. A system of values that contains at least one arbitrary element cannot be held as a perfect system of values.
3. Any element that exists exclusively as the whim of the creator of said system is an arbitrary element.
4. Any element that does not rely on the whim of the creator of said system was reached independantly of the whim of that creator.
5. Therefore any perfect system of values cannot contain any element that cannot be reached independantly of the whim of the creator of said system.

Which basically means even if there is a God and he created a perfect system of values, believing in him is entirely unnecessary for reaching it.
And what if one of this God's Perfect System of Values, includes belief in Him? And God, being an unchanging and perfect being, is not subject to whim therefore nothing he says can be said to be arbitrary.

I could expound upon this if you so desire.


But, back to your original question:
"You must have some view on what powers it is an isn't appropriate for any government to wield. You mentioned federal government "protecting citizens from some few gross appropriations by the states", which suggests that there are certain things you don't believe even the state governments should be allowed to decide, and you must have some way independant of the constitution of working what they should and shouldn't be able to decide - if there wasn't, there'd be no way of deciding what goes in a constitution to start with. How would you go about putting together a new constitution? What things would your ideal constitution allow a government to do or not do? And most importantly;

What principle(s) is behind these choices? And if more than one principle, give us a way of determining which take precedence over which when they inevitably conflict."

After a bit of thought, I've been able to determine the actual highest principles:

1. Self Government/Government by the People
2. Morality, Justice, and Safety
3. Personal Choice/Limited Government
4. Responsible and Honest Government

So, what powers are inappropriate for a government to touch? Any powers that have not been granted it by the people through it's Constitution. Where something conflicts with the powers a government has been granted, and any social goal or political design desired by the government or the people, the government has no authority, unless the people amend it to provide for such power. No government has power to constrict the people beyond that which they allow it, and no government has the authority to govern over a people who reject it.
-Powers retained by the people under the first principle are: Bearing arms, petitioning for a redress of grievances, a republican/democratic form of government, the ability of any citizen to vote, and hold public office, and to amend their Constitution, and a Government that adheres to it's Constitution.

Within any powers granted to the government, it's second responsibility (after ensuring it is a government of the people), is the safety and morality of the society it governs, as well as the establishment of justice accordingly. Within such constraints, government has all "necessary and proper" power over the preservation of morals within society, all "necessary and proper" power to protect the nation from aggression, foreign or domestic, and all "necessary and proper" power to prosecute and penalize criminals according to the law, as set forth by the people. This also includes morality in criminal punishment, such as prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment, and unreasonable searches and seizures.
-Powers granted to the government by this principle are: taxation, raising an army, declaring war, hiring officers of the law, establishing courts, codifying criminal action and punishment, and codifying basic morality (defining marriage, don't kill, don't adulterate, don't abuse others, don't steal, don't slander, don't assault, prohibiting slavery and discrimination by age, religion, gender, and race, business ethics etc.)

These next two are more guiding principles of how government should be set up as, by the people, rather than telling what a government can and can not do.
Personal Choice and Limited Government should be the key goal of a peoples' Constitution. It is the people's choice how much power a government should have over morality, but ideally, strong moral values should be encouraged through the government's laws, and power granted to government to make such laws. Where morality and personal choice do not conflict however, as a rule, more power should be granted to the people, than to the government. This limitation of the government, protects the people from future oppression by the government, and it is wise to prevent any special interest parties (like religion, business, or unions), from having any direct say in how government is run. Rather, let the citizens, independently of their various factions, choose where their government goes.
Powers retained by the people should include: honest speech and press, property ownership, peaceable assembly, religion and worship, free enterprise and trade, travel, pursuit of happiness/dreams/goals, and all minor freedoms of choice.

Responsible and Honest Government, should also be a key goal of a constitution. Methods to prevent a government from becoming corrupted in the future, and usurping the power of governance from the people, should be prevalent in a constitution. Assurances that public officers will be honest and true to their word (via impeachment and election), should be included, as well as codifying ethics to be followed while in office.
Mandates on government should include: impeachment, frequent elections, election of all major public offices, codified ethics, swears to uphold and follow the constitution, separate branches of government, checks and balances in power, interdependency of branches, federal government, federal checks and balances, and federal interdependency.

Edit; Edited some stuff.

Last edited by unownmew; 09-16-2012 at 10:26 PM.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2012, 10:14 PM   #33
Rangeet
Foot, meet mouth.
 
Rangeet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Beyond the Wall
Posts: 4,362
Send a message via MSN to Rangeet Send a message via Skype™ to Rangeet
Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
"The authority of parent over child, husband over wife, learned over simple is an inherent part of reasonably ordered human society (even if it should be limited because of its potential for abuse)."
Very true.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is the person who loves the country with a motto of "Every man created equal."
__________________
Spoiler: show
Rangeet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2012, 10:24 PM   #34
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rangeetsuper View Post
Ladies and gentlemen, this is the person who loves the country with a motto of "Every man created equal."
It's a statement of fact, not an affirmation of support. -.-

No matter what one does, those little unbalances will always occur. That doesn't mean they are not equal under the law, or born as equal humans, nor does it mean they are not worthy of equal respect as every other human being. It's just the way society will always balance itself out.

Are you like, deliberately on the lookout for things you can try to use against me or something? Here, take a bite:

Yes, I support parental authority over a child while the child is still being supported by the parents.

Families are distinctly patriarchal, have been, and should be, but that doesn't mean the father should have any authority over the mother as a human person, they should be unified in all things.

Those who have less merit (for whatever reason) will always be below those who have more merit (for whatever reason), but they are still deserving of equal respect and opportunity and equal citizenship under the law.

Last edited by unownmew; 09-16-2012 at 10:36 PM.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2012, 10:27 PM   #35
Rangeet
Foot, meet mouth.
 
Rangeet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Beyond the Wall
Posts: 4,362
Send a message via MSN to Rangeet Send a message via Skype™ to Rangeet
Then I'm sorry to say your idea of a society does not belong in any country that calls itself free.
__________________
Spoiler: show
Rangeet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2012, 03:37 AM   #36
Emi
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
 
Emi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 12,068
Send a message via Skype™ to Emi
So, I took the first test, and I am a social democratic Cosmopolitan.

You are a social democratic Cosmopolitan. 13 percent of the test participators are in the same category and 25 percent are more extremist than you.

Spoiler: show


The second site says Left Libertarian.
Spoiler: show
__________________

Last edited by Emi; 09-17-2012 at 03:45 AM.
Emi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2012, 07:16 AM   #37
Mercutio
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 14,729
Protip: Political Compass is bloody useless. Do not use it or take its opinion particularly seriously. It's very old and not well written. A group of my more politically minded friends and I have noted this for years. Over the last five or so years I've verged through various centre left/left lib positions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lonely Cubone View Post
Why does every single one of these online polls make everyone out to be very left wing indeed? Seriously, where's Kush, why is this? Clearly people aren't rampantly left wing on average as there aren't that many seriously left wing governments in the developed world.
Mostly phrasing. I mean, I find myself writing 'strongly disagree' and 'agree in part' for many of these issues, not because of differences in my depth of feeling but because the test is written to steer you in particular ways.

Having now finished the test, I got Authoritarian Socialist. Frankly this is not remotely true. That said, I think this test (which I remember doing before but don't remember my result) is better than the PC. I never have much time for these sorts of tests but it's not bad.

So much abuse of phrasing though. So very much.
Mercutio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2012, 08:20 AM   #38
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rangeetsuper View Post
Then I'm sorry to say your idea of a society does not belong in any country that calls itself free.
Well, aren't you being reactionary.

People who get better education get better jobs.
People who work less get less money.
The severely mentally handicapped will not attain social or business success.
Police officers have authority over others.
Legislators have authority over others.
The President has authority over others.
The Supreme Court has authority over laws.
Teachers have authority over their students.
Business owners have authority over their employees.
The Principle has authority over the Vice Principle, and the teachers, and the students.
The Police Chief has authority over the other police officers.
The Fire Chief has authority over the other firemen.
Managers have authority over the people they manage at work.
Team leaders have authority over the rest of the team.
The people have authority over their government.
Those who choose to follow directions choose to place someone in authority over themselves.
Doctors have authority over Nurses, and people.
A Driver has authority over all those riding in their car.
A Property owner has authority over their property.
Senior care-givers have authority over seniors.
Customers have authority over businesses they hire.
The Courts have authority over criminals.
In Prisons, social dominance appears.
Generals have authority over footsoldiers.
The Commander-in-chief has authority over all armed services.
All military has a chain of command where officers have authority over others.
When you get drunk, or high, you choose to remove from yourself authority over yourself for a period of time.


Now, tell me again what you said about a free society?

Get used to it, equal outcome is not a free society, and a meritocracy (the freest form of free society) provides for people of merit to have positions of authority.

Last edited by unownmew; 09-17-2012 at 08:24 AM.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2012, 08:27 AM   #39
Rangeet
Foot, meet mouth.
 
Rangeet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Beyond the Wall
Posts: 4,362
Send a message via MSN to Rangeet Send a message via Skype™ to Rangeet
Equal opportunity and equal outcome are completely different things. Doctors have authority over Nurses because Nurses or Interns chose to be mentored by them. In any case, your entire argument loses what little water it held when you chose prisons, of all places, as your ideal society.
__________________
Spoiler: show
Rangeet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2012, 08:30 AM   #40
Slash
Silver LO
 
Slash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Tokyo Underground Sewage Facility
Posts: 6,760
Send a message via Yahoo to Slash Send a message via Skype™ to Slash
> The severely mentally handicapped will not attain social or business success.

That's offensive, and just plain wrong. As well, extremely insulting to me personally.
__________________
--- ---
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sneezey12 View Post
KAIRNE I WILL RIP OFF YOUR SCROTUM AND FEED IT TO YOU THROUGH A FUCKING SWIRLY STRAW.

Slash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2012, 08:32 AM   #41
Mercutio
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 14,729
Actually UM's diatribe there isn't bad. If one believes in the concept of a meritocracy, you've got to have equal opportunities (currently lacking in America) and the ability to take leaps of faith. However, it is a mistake to believe that a lack of government intervention will lead to a meritocracy. America has never been a meritocracy both because of a lack of equality of opportunities and because of a lack of intervention at the highest level. When large companies can destroy so much of the society around them, there's no hope.
Mercutio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2012, 09:51 AM   #42
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rangeetsuper View Post
Equal opportunity and equal outcome are completely different things. Doctors have authority over Nurses because Nurses or Interns chose to be mentored by them. In any case, your entire argument loses what little water it held when you chose prisons, of all places, as your ideal society.
Or choose to be hired by the medical firm the doctor works at... but you just eliminated your argument by ceding that there are positions of authority.

Also, prisons are a necessary institution in a free society. I never said prisons themselves were ideal societies, neither do I agree that Hospitals and Businesses are ideal societies, but simply institutions that present themselves within a free society. Now you're just grasping at straws.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kairne View Post
> The severely mentally handicapped will not attain social or business success.

That's offensive, and just plain wrong. As well, extremely insulting to me personally.
Having a few mental disorders myself, I can say it. Though perhaps I may not have said it in the best manner.

Please list for me one vegetable person who's attained social or business success. I was not referring to adaptable handicaps like schizophrenia, ADHD, or AS, and while I may be incorrect about autism, I doubt it.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2012, 10:07 AM   #43
Mercutio
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 14,729
A vegetative state is not quite the same as a mental health issue. While there are of course some mental health issues which affect a person's capacity to succeed, many do not, and many that are extremely profound can be in evidence of people who are successful in their own ways.

I have worked with quite a few people with autism and similar handicaps. While there were individuals who were not particularly likely to make a great deal of money or power, some had great promise. In general, provided that certain provisions are made, people with severe mental health issues can contribute positively to society. There is no reason why someone with severe autism could not conceivably rise to become a CEO in medical terms. However, because of social stigma, this is difficult to imagine happening.

Also remember that one person's definition of success is not the same as another's. I personally would not be unhappy if at the end of my life I was not wealthy. I would want to have made a positive difference to the world and had an impact on society, though. No reason why a guy with Downs Syndrome can't do that. Similarly, a guy with severe autism requiring constant care could happily invent a revolutionary device or make some other fantastic contribution to society.
Mercutio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2012, 10:35 AM   #44
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Touche`
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2012, 12:04 PM   #45
deoxys
Fog Badge
 
deoxys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
UM just listed a whole bunch of reasons why he believes a husband has authority over his wife, and essentially just proved he has sexist and backwards ways of thinking. And no one is pointing it out.



I'm not arguing it though because I'm done caring
__________________





MAL - Fizzy Bubbles - Twitter



deoxys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2012, 12:10 PM   #46
Tyranidos
beebooboobopbooboobop
 
Tyranidos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Krusty Krab
Posts: 3,800
Send a message via AIM to Tyranidos Send a message via MSN to Tyranidos
Tyranitar

Quote:
Originally Posted by deoxys View Post
UM just listed a whole bunch of reasons why he believes a husband has authority over his wife, and essentially just proved he has sexist and backwards ways of thinking. And no one is pointing it out.



I'm not arguing it though because I'm done caring
Yeah, why hasn't anyone pointed it out? Don't you people realize that pointing out the beliefs that we don't agree with will get him to change his mind?
__________________
Tyranidos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2012, 12:33 PM   #47
Talon87
時の彼方へ
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by deoxys View Post
UM just listed a whole bunch of reasons why he believes a husband has authority over his wife, and essentially just proved he has sexist and backwards ways of thinking. And no one is pointing it out.



I'm not arguing it though because I'm done caring
Here's something I'll point out:

You are incredibly weak-willed when it comes to no longer reading his posts. ^_^;

Come on, Deo. For your own sake, put the guy on block and do not, I repeat do not then click "View Post" to view his posts. Just put him on block and completely ignore his posts. You clearly aren't up to the task without the block list so just use it and let's be done with this. Please. You are letting him troll you far too easily.
Talon87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2012, 12:35 PM   #48
Firewater
Volcano Badge
 
Firewater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 4,727
Send a message via Skype™ to Firewater
More or less, I know UM's kind of offensive, but I just don't care what he thinks at this point, that's not part of the discussion at large though.

took the tests, this is what i got

You are a social democratic Cosmopolitan. 13 percent of the test participators are in the same category and 36 percent are more extremist than you.

I'm too lazy to get the chart working, but

46% Cosmopolitan
53% Secular
23% Visionary
26% Anarchist
33% Communistic
19% Militaristic
39% Anthropocentric

is what I got, seems a little bit right, though I do see the concerns, I don't see myself as an anarchist or communist at all really.


http://www.politicalcompass.org/face...5.75&soc=-3.85

yeah, sounds a bit weird here too, but the questions weren't quite as bad as the first one.

did the other 2 tests, was a libertarian liberal or some shit, but those seemed more accurate. The point is that some of these poll questions are pretty bad, but it is somewhat accurate sometimes.
__________________
PASBL: Record: 61-55-8, 361.5 TP, 174 KO, 2.5 SP, Trainer Level 5
My ASB pokes
Firewater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2012, 01:14 PM   #49
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by deoxys View Post
UM just listed a whole bunch of reasons why he believes a husband has authority over his wife, and essentially just proved he has sexist and backwards ways of thinking. And no one is pointing it out.

I'm not arguing it though because I'm done caring
Why do I bother? -.-

Having authority does in no way automatically make the other person inferior, thus, no sexism.
Husband and Wife should be unified in all things, 100% given to each other. This is what I believe, and what my religion believes. They are equal as human beings, but each have different roles. Having different roles does in no wise make them unequal.
Here, take a gander.

Last edited by unownmew; 09-17-2012 at 01:20 PM.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2012, 01:38 PM   #50
deoxys
Fog Badge
 
deoxys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
Why do I bother? -.-

Having authority does in no way automatically make the other person inferior, thus, no sexism.
Husband and Wife should be unified in all things, 100% given to each other. This is what I believe, and what my religion believes. They are equal as human beings, but each have different roles. Having different roles does in no wise make them unequal.
Here, take a gander.
Having authority over someone or something automatically implies inferiority to the person or subject being overruled. A husband and a wife shouldn't have one rule over the other, but rather have equal roles in their marriage. Neither the man or the woman have the final say over the other, implying inferiority.

There's no point in arguing this. None whatsoever. And you know... I think Talon is right. I'm done. I've held out because I felt it mean, but for my own sake, I'm blocking you. I come to debate every now and then just to see what's going on and talk about things, but when I see your posts, I'm incredibly weak willed to resist responding nearly every time. So, I'm done. Sorry.
__________________





MAL - Fizzy Bubbles - Twitter



deoxys is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   UPNetwork > General Forums > Debate


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

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

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:31 AM.


Design By: Miner Skinz.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.