-->
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
November 20, 2019, 05:18:45 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
News: Endless Summer Quarterly
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
+  The Smiley Smile Message Board
|-+  Non Smiley Smile Stuff
| |-+  The Sandbox
| | |-+  Republicans vs. Democrats
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Republicans vs. Democrats  (Read 6406 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
SBonilla
Guest
« Reply #25 on: June 15, 2012, 08:08:57 AM »

I remember Captain Delta!  And there was another guy - I think on Channel 40 for awhile - named Cap'n Mitch. He had a treasure chest.
Same man.
Logged
Danimalist
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 142


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: June 15, 2012, 10:12:45 AM »

What about people who like Brian Wilson but appreciate what Mike Love did for the band?  Or people who kind of feel sorry for Mike even if they don't like some of the things he's done in private or as a member of the Beach Boys?  Or who feel the same way about Brian, that he hasn't always been perfect and has done cheesy/bad music at times in the Beach Boys and a solo and also isn't an angel in private?  I don't all fans are that polarized by the Mike versus Brian thing the way some fans are. 

I'm sure there are even Democrats who enjoy Kokomo and right-wing Republicans who like Smile.

You are undoubtedly correct, KK; however, in the social sciences we deal in probabilities, not certainties. I'm suggesting a higher probability of Mike and Bruce being more conservative than Brian and Al (and their respective supporters) given given demonstrated biological and psychological impacts on ideology. Ideology extends well beyond politics to our daily preferences and responses. What is interesting is the reactionary responses of some, here (not you), further demonstrating my point.

What I'm suggesting in now way precludes a Smile fan digging the Almost Summer Soundtrack. In fact, that would describe me.
Logged
Alex
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2624


Yes, I do dig worms.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #27 on: June 18, 2012, 01:05:47 AM »


If you want to divide people up, how about the Constructive Class (those in the free market voluntarily exchanging goods and services) and the Parasite Class (those in government jobs who use force in the form of taxes to make people do as they wish), 'cos at least there is a difference between them, unlike the D and R example..

How 'bout the Proletariat and the Bourgeoisie?
Logged

"I thought Brian was a perfect gentleman, apart from buttering his head and trying to put it between two slices of bread"  -Tom Petty, after eating with Brian.
MBE
Guest
« Reply #28 on: June 18, 2012, 01:59:55 AM »

I just have lost faith in both sides and think there needs to be a shake up. Since my mom died a few months ago I just lost all feeling for either party. Basically if she had been allowed a kidney and pancress transplant ten years ago when she was in good health she would still be here today and would have seen me get married. Also instead of mild pain medicine like pot she was given heavy duty pain killers when she broke her hip five years ago. She got unwittingly addicted, had mild strokes as a result. Though she bravely battled her addiction and got clean, my mom was gone most days from then on.

Ron Paul would have been great but the general public settles for sh*t in every arena. I just don't know if I want to vote any more. Obama's a joke. Romney's too mainstream, we really need someone who would be a good leader for all of America. I love this country, but people like my mom are going to keep dying and living in pain if things don't radically change. I'm no extremest either way, never have been, but over the last four years since she got terminally ill, I lost all hope for the big parties both of which had people I foolishly thought would make a difference. 

I mean right now my friend Mickey Jones needs a kidney. He's an actor and one of the finest drummers of the sixties and seventies. He played with Trini Lopez, Johnny Rivers, Bob Dylan (on the 1966 tour) and The First Edition. He's a great guy but by the time he comes up on the waiting list he will be one year too old. People are playing God by not taking kidney patients on a case by case basis. He's basically being told "sorry but you'll have to die" when he could live another twenty years. It's sad because he's done so much charity work over the years and this is how he's repaid. Where is all the progress we have been promised? The big drug companies don't care and neither do the people pandering to them. By now we should have artificial kidney's. Some say it can't be done but I say it can. Anything's possible in life and science if people would just give a damn.

Sorry to rant but I feel I can share my personal stories here and not be attacked. The sandbox is number one!
Logged
Wrightfan
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1603



View Profile
« Reply #29 on: June 19, 2012, 08:40:25 AM »

I really can't tell the difference. They're really similar in most aspects.

Nobody will admit it of course though  LOL
Logged
Danimalist
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 142


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: June 19, 2012, 03:35:31 PM »

I really can't tell the difference. They're really similar in most aspects.

Nobody will admit it of course though  LOL

Given this and all the above posts about the two parties' similarities, I thought I would give the polisci explanation for this. Duverger's "law" explains why a plurality single member district system (as we have for most elections in the US) will lead to two parties, as voters ignore their first preference, if he/she has little chance of gaining the needed plurality, and choose a candidate that has a shot at winning. The median voter theorem then suggests why these two parties will run towards the ideological center (closer to each other ideologically), as they seek to gain the support of the median voter in the general election. The two party dominance and their ideological similarity are an artifact of our electoral system, plain and simple.

If you want more parties, push for a proportional system.
Logged
GreatUrduPoet
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 27


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: June 20, 2012, 11:55:47 AM »

Comparing Republicans to Democrats is like comparing red apples to green apples; they're basically the same smelly apple but one has a different color. Truthfully, the United States has a one-party system - the "Big Government" party. There is a Democratic wing that hates the idea of personal liberty and a Republican wing that hates the idea of civil liberty. People who play partisan politics are wasting their time and only making themselves look like idiots in the process.

The big one today is "gay marriage". Personally, I'm all for it. Marriage is a contract that two people enter into by voluntary association. I would also argue for polyamorous/polygamist marriage, too. If all parties are willing participants, there should be NO ARGUMENT. I think government involvement in marriage complicates the issue to a great extent; I believe government should recognize all contracts or recognize none at all. Same with marriage. The government has no business taking any kind of stand or position with regard to the definition of marriage. All manner of civil unions and marriages should be done privately and without government regulation or oversight; I go against the libertarian grain who claim that it's a states' rights issue. Get the government out of marriage. Now, a few weeks ago, President Barry Soetoro made public his "support" of gay marriage. All well and good if it wasn't such an obvious f***ing political ploy to get the LGBT vote; I found his stance so sickeningly disingenuous that it was a wonder so much of the LGBT community took him seriously (I know of a few gay folks who thought he was blowing steam out of his ass). That should be proof positive that Democrats don't care any more about legalizing gay marriage than Republicans do about banning abortion.

People go on and on about how Obama is not Dubya and thank the maker for it; I honestly can't tell much of a difference between the two except for the respective (D) and (R) after their names (although I've jokingly referred to Obama as "Bush 3.0"). Both are complete warmongers (and they're in good company with every president since 1945, who should all be tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity and promptly hung for it), both are welfarists, both refuse to let the free market work, both insist on legislation to address social issues that could be resolved with LESS legislation, and both are Zionists sending this country even further into the toilet with their anti-freedom, anti-liberty, and corporatist plutocracy. In short, two sides of the same coin.

Now it's down to Dear Leader Barry Soetoro, Dear Leader Candidate Mittens R. Money, and Libertarian Presidential Candidates Ron Paul and Gary Johnson. The first two should be kept as far away from the presidency as possible; the latter two are most qualified to hold the office. I'm an anarchist; if you can't eliminate government, make it as small as possible. Ron Paul and Gary Johnson are the only two candidates who have the drive to actually get the process rolling more than it already has.

Ron Paul is too old to govern
Gary Johnson is too stoned to govern
Logged
Mikie
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5887



View Profile
« Reply #32 on: June 20, 2012, 12:43:16 PM »

I remember Captain Delta!  And there was another guy - I think on Channel 40 for awhile - named Cap'n Mitch. He had a treasure chest.
Same man.

Never watched Cap'n Mitch, just read about him.  He came later I think. Didn't know he was the same guy.
Logged

I, I love the colorful clothes she wears, and she's already working on my brain. I only looked in her eyes, but I picked up something I just can't explain. I, I bet I know what she’s like, and I can feel how right she’d be for me. It’s weird how she comes in so strong, and I wonder what she’s picking up from me. I hope it’s good, good, good, good vibrations, yeah!!
Alex
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2624


Yes, I do dig worms.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #33 on: June 20, 2012, 11:09:04 PM »

Comparing Republicans to Democrats is like comparing red apples to green apples; they're basically the same smelly apple but one has a different color. Truthfully, the United States has a one-party system - the "Big Government" party. There is a Democratic wing that hates the idea of personal liberty and a Republican wing that hates the idea of civil liberty. People who play partisan politics are wasting their time and only making themselves look like idiots in the process.

The big one today is "gay marriage". Personally, I'm all for it. Marriage is a contract that two people enter into by voluntary association. I would also argue for polyamorous/polygamist marriage, too. If all parties are willing participants, there should be NO ARGUMENT. I think government involvement in marriage complicates the issue to a great extent; I believe government should recognize all contracts or recognize none at all. Same with marriage. The government has no business taking any kind of stand or position with regard to the definition of marriage. All manner of civil unions and marriages should be done privately and without government regulation or oversight; I go against the libertarian grain who claim that it's a states' rights issue. Get the government out of marriage. Now, a few weeks ago, President Barry Soetoro made public his "support" of gay marriage. All well and good if it wasn't such an obvious f***ing political ploy to get the LGBT vote; I found his stance so sickeningly disingenuous that it was a wonder so much of the LGBT community took him seriously (I know of a few gay folks who thought he was blowing steam out of his ass). That should be proof positive that Democrats don't care any more about legalizing gay marriage than Republicans do about banning abortion.

People go on and on about how Obama is not Dubya and thank the maker for it; I honestly can't tell much of a difference between the two except for the respective (D) and (R) after their names (although I've jokingly referred to Obama as "Bush 3.0"). Both are complete warmongers (and they're in good company with every president since 1945, who should all be tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity and promptly hung for it), both are welfarists, both refuse to let the free market work, both insist on legislation to address social issues that could be resolved with LESS legislation, and both are Zionists sending this country even further into the toilet with their anti-freedom, anti-liberty, and corporatist plutocracy. In short, two sides of the same coin.

Now it's down to Dear Leader Barry Soetoro, Dear Leader Candidate Mittens R. Money, and Libertarian Presidential Candidates Ron Paul and Gary Johnson. The first two should be kept as far away from the presidency as possible; the latter two are most qualified to hold the office. I'm an anarchist; if you can't eliminate government, make it as small as possible. Ron Paul and Gary Johnson are the only two candidates who have the drive to actually get the process rolling more than it already has.

Ron Paul is too old to govern
Gary Johnson is too stoned to govern

C'mon Ralph Nader, it's time to throw your hat in the ring yet again!
Logged

"I thought Brian was a perfect gentleman, apart from buttering his head and trying to put it between two slices of bread"  -Tom Petty, after eating with Brian.
Jason
Guest
« Reply #34 on: June 21, 2012, 11:09:48 AM »

As far as I'm concerned, a vote for Dear Leader Obama or Potential Dear Leader Mittens R. Money is a vote against the American people, not to mention the world. I don't like having an American equivalent of the Israeli war criminal Ariel Sharon in the presidency. Obama and Bush 2.0 fit that category perfectly. Ron Paul or you can all stick your heads between your legs and kiss your asses goodbye.
Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2869


View Profile
« Reply #35 on: June 21, 2012, 01:01:28 PM »

As far as I'm concerned, a vote for Dear Leader Obama or Potential Dear Leader Mittens R. Money is a vote against the American people, not to mention the world. I don't like having an American equivalent of the Israeli war criminal Ariel Sharon in the presidency. Obama and Bush 2.0 fit that category perfectly. Ron Paul or you can all stick your heads between your legs and kiss your asses goodbye.

As you know, I would argue the same could be said for Ron Paul. I think the best you could ultimately say about Ron Paul is that he doesn't know what he's talking about. He doesn't understand the economy nor does he undestand how people exist in the world. First of all, he hasn't the slightest knowledge about libertarianism, because if he did, he would know enough not to use the name of a political-economic philosophy that is completely at odds with his own ideological position. Furthermore, if he was serious about his own so-called libertarian beliefs (he isn't), he wouldn't be consistently praising Ronald Reagan who presided over an uncontroversially large government. Reagan, and given what Paul has said I can only conclude that this goes for Paul too, believed in an enormous welfare state specifically geared towards concentrated wealth and the corporate class. THe difference between Reagan and Paul is that at least Reagan believed that the public should be protected to a small degree from the tyrannical rule of corporate power. Paul does not believe that - he presumably believes not only in gearing government weight towards protecting the ownership class, but also in letting them do whatever they want by tearing apart the enormous achievements made by activist culture throughout the 20th century, which basically means further environmental degradation, less protection for workers rights and all that entails (typically that means more dangerous workplace environments, workers being worked to death, and so on).
« Last Edit: June 21, 2012, 01:05:43 PM by rockandroll » Logged
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8757


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #36 on: June 21, 2012, 01:44:36 PM »

As far as I'm concerned, a vote for Dear Leader Obama or Potential Dear Leader Mittens R. Money is a vote against the American people, not to mention the world. I don't like having an American equivalent of the Israeli war criminal Ariel Sharon in the presidency. Obama and Bush 2.0 fit that category perfectly. Ron Paul or you can all stick your heads between your legs and kiss your asses goodbye.

As you know, I would argue the same could be said for Ron Paul. I think the best you could ultimately say about Ron Paul is that he doesn't know what he's talking about. He doesn't understand the economy nor does he undestand how people exist in the world. First of all, he hasn't the slightest knowledge about libertarianism, because if he did, he would know enough not to use the name of a political-economic philosophy that is completely at odds with his own ideological position. Furthermore, if he was serious about his own so-called libertarian beliefs (he isn't), he wouldn't be consistently praising Ronald Reagan who presided over an uncontroversially large government. Reagan, and given what Paul has said I can only conclude that this goes for Paul too, believed in an enormous welfare state specifically geared towards concentrated wealth and the corporate class. THe difference between Reagan and Paul is that at least Reagan believed that the public should be protected to a small degree from the tyrannical rule of corporate power. Paul does not believe that - he presumably believes not only in gearing government weight towards protecting the ownership class, but also in letting them do whatever they want by tearing apart the enormous achievements made by activist culture throughout the 20th century, which basically means further environmental degradation, less protection for workers rights and all that entails (typically that means more dangerous workplace environments, workers being worked to death, and so on).

The question still lingers: Why gear the notion of "government weight" toward *anything* other than what the entity of "government" in the United States was originally established to do?

I don't understand why many who would agree with portions of the anarchist philosophy would vote for a political party who has shown over the past five decades of American history a stated goal of establishing and empowering an even larger central government charged with even more responsibilities and even more controls than were ever considered within their realm of power when the whole thing was designed and established. Yes, it's fair game to name-check Reagan and whatever disagreements may exist with his record, but if there is a concern or fear of a totalitarian, all-encompassing government rule taking over the country, perhaps the party and those politicians who are more often calling for more government regulation and more centralized power should be questioned in a more vigorous way.

The unresolved issue of anarchist philosophy in the US in 2012 could be asking who if not a strong, centralized government would be able to enact then enforce notions such as wanting greater environmental controls, greater protection of workers' rights, etc.? And would a true anarchist be able to support a Democrat if that politician supports the notion of "more and bigger" in a centralized, federal government? Some might argue that the idea of giving more power to corporations coming from some in the right in the US is along the same lines as giving more power to a bigger federal government coming from some on the left in the US.

We, as voters and taxpayers, need a "none of the above" option, and soon. I'm sick of the "lesser of two evils" choice.

People laugh at the reaction to Bloomberg's ban on selling large sodas in NYC, but it's a symptom of the larger disease for a lot of people. At what point should the notion of any government agency suddenly banning something legal without coming to a popular ballot vote start concerning people of all ideologies?
Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2869


View Profile
« Reply #37 on: June 22, 2012, 08:47:03 PM »

Quote
The question still lingers: Why gear the notion of "government weight" toward *anything* other than what the entity of "government" in the United States was originally established to do?

I’m not sure what you think that is. As far as I am aware the US government today does pretty much what it was doing when it was established, that is protect the interest of the ownership class. This conception of US government goes all the way back to the framers of the US constitution. People like John Jay noted that “The people who own the country ought to govern it.” James Madison likewise suggested that the government should “protect the minority of the opulent against the majority.” Indeed, these beliefs held by central framers of the US state system were pretty much immediately put into practice with the economic policies carried out by Alexander Hamilton, whose policy was essentially interventionist and protectionist when it came to business. The role of the US government then has always been, centrally and most prominently, to protect the interests of the opulent at the expense of the 'ignorant', 'stupid' masses who are meant to be kept away from the important issues. This, in fact, is not surprising. The economic history of the world suggests that you simply can’t be a major economic global power without a severe degree of massive intervention and protectionism and indeed violence that is certainly targeted at others, but also targeted to a very large degree against the internal population.

Quote
I don't understand why many who would agree with portions of the anarchist philosophy would vote for a political party who has shown over the past five decades of American history a stated goal of establishing and empowering an even larger central government charged with even more responsibilities and even more controls than were ever considered within their realm of power when the whole thing was designed and established. Yes, it's fair game to name-check Reagan and whatever disagreements may exist with his record, but if there is a concern or fear of a totalitarian, all-encompassing government rule taking over the country, perhaps the party and those politicians who are more often calling for more government regulation and more centralized power should be questioned in a more vigorous way.

Remember that I mentioned Reagan, not to illustrate him as a special example, but merely to explain how Ron Paul is either disingenuous or misinformed in his beliefs. Indeed Reagan was not all that different from other Presidents. In fact, the Kennedy and Bush II Administrations were far more extreme. But from Reagan onward, the role of the President is more symbolic than anything else so it's hard to draw comparisons with any real clarity.

The point you raise, though, is an important one and I believe an important one especially within the genuine libertarian movement (not the Ron Paul/Ayn Rand bastardization). Anarchism, as I understand it, is not simply concerned with a society free of government control. Rather, the anarchist vision from Bakunin to Rocker, and so on, is typically concerned with a society that is liberated entirely from power structures. Now, of course, the state or the government, can be a power structure and in some cases, like in say Nazi, Germany or the Soviet Union, the central, and ruling power structure that basically organizes people’s lives, controls the overall day-to-day existence of the majority of the population and so on. But the government, of course, is not the only power structure and certainly not always the central, ruling power structure. This is why anybody with even a small amount of libertarian spirit in the 19th century were not only concerned with government, but in fact, were very much concerned with religious institutions and the power that they held in European societies at the time (Bakunin has an unfinished book devoted to the subject), and that includes elements of the Lincoln administration.

Now if the anarchist movement’s central aim today remains the same – that is to eliminate the power structure - it seems to me, that the central, ruling power structure in the Western world now is not the government but, rather the power of concentrated wealth. Remember that at the height of anarchist philosophy, the insidious role of the government, according to Emma Goldman, was explained as a dominion over “human conduct.” Beginning in the 20th century and continuing until now, that dominion has uncontroversially been taken over by corporate power whose function is to reduce the overwhelming majority of the population to a subordinate role. As far back as the beginning of the 20th century, Woodrow Wilson recognized that “power and control over the wealth and business opportunities in the country” was no longer achieved through “individual opportunity, and individual achievement.” Rather, power in the country was held by “small groups of men in control of great corporations.” Concentrated wealth is essentially what designs our day-to-day existence. The decisions over what happens over investments, production, distribution, and so on, are in the hands of a relatively small and concentrated network of major corporations, conglomerates, and investment firms – not the government. Moreover, it is concentrated power who staff the major executive positions in the government (it is impossible to gain an important role in a major election without an enormous amount of capital and that typically comes from corporate power), and they own the media. Concentrated wealth controls the way that life happens in the country, the way life is understood in the country and it severely limits what can happen in the political and ideological structure. The fear then amongst left wing people is not that, in your words, “a totalitarian, all-encompassing government rule” is “taking over the country.” Rather, the left implicitly understands that the country has long been under the thumb of concentrated wealth.

Now, the question at this point becomes, if concentrated wealth is the dominant power structure of our time, how do we undo it? Well, the answer to this has been widely understood since the 19th Century. So, for example, Marx understood that in a democratic society or in a society that has a democratic system (either functioning or non-functioning) the way you undo the power of the ruling class is through the government. And when you consider this, it is, of course elementary. In fact, it is so elementary that we are basically indoctrinated from birth to believe otherwise – that government is the great evil. The reason we are taught to believe that government is the great evil is because it is through using the instruments of government that people can actually attain some genuine form of liberation. But that’s not supposed to happen – so there’s always a load of bunk about scandals or what have you – comparatively trivial stuff when one takes into account the deeply inhumane and tyrannical structure of corporate power. Now I’m not saying this is particularly easy – one has to overcome ideologically-driven notions of what democracy even means, which in the United States simply means pushing a button every couple of years. If that is one’s conception of democracy, then the kind of control I’m talking about will continue. If real change is to occur, people must understand that democratic change must take place from the ground, not simply by putting a check next to someone's name who is above the ground (this is why Ron Paul and his advocates are not truly as revolutionary as they make themselves out to be - to be honest, this is why Paul is basically a status quo option that has the manufactured allure of being some kind of substantive change). But in the United States and in most of the industrialized world, there exists a system where the vast majority of the population can exert some kind of power and control but their likelihood of doing so is reduced considerably the more you chip away from the options of public power. In the Western world, reducing public power typically means reducing the size of government, which is simply code for expanding the role of private power, which is already the dominant power structure in our social world. Remember that the democratic government is participatory or it can be, while the corporation is not participatory under any circumstance. So if the public is going to have the kind of power to achieve a society that anarchists envision, it cannot happen in our current political environment by reducing government because the sole consequence of that is to expand the population’s role as a subordinate class beholden to the interests of the small minority.

Quote
The unresolved issue of anarchist philosophy in the US in 2012 could be asking who if not a strong, centralized government would be able to enact then enforce notions such as wanting greater environmental controls, greater protection of workers' rights, etc.?

I can’t see why the population as a whole couldn’t attend to these matters themselves. But, anyway, in an anarchist society, I would find it difficult to believe that these would be serious issues that would come up. These are only issues that arise in societies that are driven by wealth and power.

Quote
And would a true anarchist be able to support a Democrat if that politician supports the notion of "more and bigger" in a centralized, federal government? Some might argue that the idea of giving more power to corporations coming from some in the right in the US is along the same lines as giving more power to a bigger federal government coming from some on the left in the US.

The goal of the left, or most of the left, is not to have a big federal government. It is, rather, to have a society with no political power whatsoever. However, any anarchist with a brain understands that you don’t have an ultra-right wing capitalist society one day, and a free liberated society the next. In societies where anarchist principles were successfully put into practice, like in Aragon and Catalonia, for example, it took decades and this was in the 1930s, well before corporate power reached the privileged position it has today. What people on the left understand is that if this sort of thing is going to work, it’s going to take a very, very long time and it will probably have to happen in stages. In fact, I can’t see it working if it doesn’t happen in stages.

But apart from one’s ultimate goal, there are also short term goals and they are important as well. And it’s ultimately nice to be very airy-fairy about one’s ideals but if one actually cares about people and believes themselves to be some kind of moral agent, then they have a moral responsibility to do what’s best for the people. And I think that a “true” anarchist (whatever that means) if he or she cared about working people and the masses (which, by their own philosophy, they should) would accept that in the short-term a Democratic party candidate (probably unintentionally) is better than a Republican party candidate. Of course, both parties are pretty much the same in representing the interests of concentrated power, but they are not always entirely the same interests of concentrated power – there are marginal differences and those differences can mean a lot to people living in poverty, and so on. These short-term interests are important and no idealism no matter how noble one makes it out to be, should override completely the needs of the short-term, such as the needs of struggling families, etc.
« Last Edit: June 23, 2012, 10:44:36 AM by rockandroll » Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 1.015 seconds with 21 queries.