Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/public/Sources/Load.php(225) : runtime-created function on line 3
[BLOG] Pity the conservatives
I Read This
September 20, 2018, 05:35:32 EDT *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: New here? Read our voting instructions and rules
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9
  Print  
Author Topic: [BLOG] Pity the conservatives  (Read 29119 times)
wodan46
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1469


« Reply #105 on: December 18, 2008, 11:30:41 EST »

Quote from: Heresy Corner
Davis (like many instinctive Tories) is a liberal authoritarian: that is, he believes that society is generally self-policing, and is best regulated by families and communities; and that the role of the police and the courts is to come down hard on criminals, as far as possible leaving law-abiding people alone.
That sounds a lot more like a conservative, or even more so like a libertarian.  Current, you and your buddies have emphasized the importance of families and communities, while giving the government limited but powerful authority to deal with crime.

Quote from: Heresy Corner
New Labour ministers tend to be authoritarian liberals: their vision of society is one of generally incompetent and unevolved people who need to be coralled, controlled and told what to do in order to produce a re-engineered society that more closely resembles their ideal.
Once you remove the weasel words, that comes out as politicians concluding that because they are smarter than the average citizen, they should tell the citizen what to do and not the other way around, which is why the citizen elected the politician in the first place.

Quote from: Heresy Corner
Which is currently that of a tolerant egalitarian wonderland in which diversity of appearance is matched to a uniformity of behaviour and even thought. Right-wing authoritarians want to be tough on criminals; left-wing authoritarians want to be tough on everyone.
I think you are confusing France, and its equality through conformity attitude of lacite, with the US.  We are kinda the exact opposite there, and Obama himself is clear proof of that.
Logged

The plural of "anecdote" is "anecdotes". Not "data".
Current
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3141


« Reply #106 on: December 18, 2008, 12:35:38 EST »

Quote from: Heresy Corner
Davis (like many instinctive Tories) is a liberal authoritarian: that is, he believes that society is generally self-policing, and is best regulated by families and communities; and that the role of the police and the courts is to come down hard on criminals, as far as possible leaving law-abiding people alone.
That sounds a lot more like a conservative, or even more so like a libertarian.  Current, you and your buddies have emphasized the importance of families and communities, while giving the government limited but powerful authority to deal with crime.
Remember this is a British writer.  Liberal does not mean Social Democrat in Britain.  In this article the writer is using "liberal" to mean something like "liberal attitude", the attitude that people should not have their actions interfered with without a very good reason.

Quote from: Heresy Corner
New Labour ministers tend to be authoritarian liberals: their vision of society is one of generally incompetent and unevolved people who need to be coralled, controlled and told what to do in order to produce a re-engineered society that more closely resembles their ideal.
Once you remove the weasel words, that comes out as politicians concluding that because they are smarter than the average citizen, they should tell the citizen what to do and not the other way around, which is why the citizen elected the politician in the first place.
Well yes, I agree with you and I think the author would too.  Neither I nor the author though think this is a particularly good thing.  What the author is doing in this trying to show how left wing views (and especially modern left wing views) do not tally with personal liberty.

Quote from: Heresy Corner
Which is currently that of a tolerant egalitarian wonderland in which diversity of appearance is matched to a uniformity of behaviour and even thought. Right-wing authoritarians want to be tough on criminals; left-wing authoritarians want to be tough on everyone.
I think you are confusing France, and its equality through conformity attitude of lacite, with the US.  We are kinda the exact opposite there, and Obama himself is clear proof of that.
We shall see.  But, I don't really see why you disagree here.  You have just said that you think that politicians are smarter than their electorates and should order those electorate around.  Why then would you oppose it if they order them into whatever form those politician believe is best?

Also, why bother about the Magna Carta, the rights of man and all that guff?
Logged
wodan46
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1469


« Reply #107 on: December 18, 2008, 12:59:18 EST »

Remember this is a British writer.  Liberal does not mean Social Democrat in Britain.  In this article the writer is using "liberal" to mean something like "liberal attitude", the attitude that people should not have their actions interfered with without a very good reason.
I think we have differing perspectives on what qualifies as a "very good reason", in part because we have differing perspectives on the risks/gains of government interference.

Well yes, I agree with you and I think the author would too.  Neither I nor the author though think this is a particularly good thing.  What the author is doing in this trying to show how left wing views (and especially modern left wing views) do not tally with personal liberty.
I think we have differing perspectives on what qualifies as personal liberty, and which aspects of personal liberty are more important.  Also remember that I'm willing to compromise, I'm willing to give the corporations much freer rein if the public is given a proper safety umbrella of welfare.  No welfare, no free rein either.

We shall see.  But, I don't really see why you disagree here.  You have just said that you think that politicians are smarter than their electorates and should order those electorate around.  Why then would you oppose it if they order them into whatever form those politician believe is best?
Politicians are given mandates by the people to carry out the people's will.  They can't do anything that the people do not want them to do.  If the people want to believe that they can't make a difference, if the people want to sit on their asses and ignore the world around them, if people do not encourage the media to watch the politicians for misdoings, then the people will get what they deserve, and no system of government or lack thereof will save them if they retain such an attitude.
Logged

The plural of "anecdote" is "anecdotes". Not "data".
Current
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3141


« Reply #108 on: December 18, 2008, 13:52:01 EST »

Oh come on!  You are a reasonably smart guy.  There is loads of crime that you could commit without ever getting caught.  Are we seriously to believe that you decide not to commit crime only for the reason that you may be caught and punished?
Well, that's not my ONLY reason, but its the primary one, by far.  Many crimes have a relatively low risk of getting caught, but a very large consequence if you are caught.  There is a reason why most criminals tend to be less smart and less capable than the average citizen.  Sure there are criminals, but those people are definitely not winners in our society, and that's why most people are smart enough not to commit crimes to begin with.
Can't say I really agree with you.  Certainly I think that many crimes have a low risk of getting caught, but serious consequences if that happens.  I'm not convinced though that the risk-reward situation is that bad.  Certainly where I live the police (the Gardi) are not too sharp.  Had I no morals I would become a criminal, the possible repercussions simply aren't bad enough to be worth worrying about.

Certainly most criminals are not very smart or capable.  I think this though has a much simpler explanation.  Those who are smart and capable have much less reason to commit crime.  They can achieve their aims at lower risk.

Also, I think that capable people tend to be more moral.  Since, most types of morality put some emphasis on working.  And people who work generally become more capable.

If you truly do not care for morals then why do you debate things on this forum?  There is nothing in it for you.  Why do you hold opinions on the subject?
The same reason I do anything, to make myself happy.  Winning arguments is enjoyable.  While in theory converting you to my perspective might make society run an iota better and give me a return, but mainly, its winning the argument, or at least learning to refine my own arguments.
Oh, for sport.  Fair enough.  To be honest though when I've talked to you in the past you don't seem like you do it for sport.

because it requires additional regulation on companies to monitor them to see if they are committing such, or to prohibit them from certain actions that make it easy for them to commit such.

Frankly, I think that White Collar crime should be treated much, much, more harshly, as the harm it inflicts is often in excess of things like murder and mugging, even if it is more indirect.  People should be made to understand that ruining a dozen people's lives via fraud for a few cheap bucks is going to put them in jail for a LONG time.
I certainly agree with you that law enforcement should deal with white collar crime.  I have never taken any other position.

Regulation is quite a different matter.  I don't agree with this modern idea where certain "regulatory bodies" make up huge amounts of rules and also deal with enforcing them.  That is not law enforcement it is a mockery of law enforcement.

I agree with laws which make it an offence to commit the sort of fraud that Bernard Madoff recently committed.  However the sort of rules that regulate every detail of how business is done are counterproductive.
A company like Enron would not have been able to commit crimes (for long) had there been proper oversight of their actions.  Companies have proven that they can't be trusted to obey the law.  If they believe they are unlikely to be caught, they are likely to commit the crime, as it results in a net gain that outweighs the risk.
Fair enough.

The law has no teeth unless there is oversight.
Yes.  I'm not proposing "no oversight" though.

For preventing shoplifting, you have video cameras and tagged products.  For preventing white collar crime, you have regulations that either look at what actions the company is doing, or forbid the company from doing suspicious actions.  The latter is for the shoplifting example equivalent to someone walking into the store with a bulky coat while a hat obscures their face.
Those two things are not at all similar.  A shop takes steps to stop shoplifting within its own premises.  The customers decide whether or not they enter that shop.  This is an example of a market participant, the shop, taking steps to prevent another market participant from potentially thieving from them.

This is not what the regulations I'm complaining about concern.  They concern a third party, the regulator, stepping in and saying that the transaction must proceed in a particular way.  There is no good reason for this in my view.  If the two parties have come to another arrangement about how the trade can be made why should they be stopped?  If there is a potential externality perhaps there is an argument.  Also, it is reasonable that there should be default terms, so if certain things are left out of an agreement then the law still indicates what is permissible.

Many occurrences of corporate fraud are helped by this sort of regulation not prevented by it.  Most US companies are incorporated in Delaware.  Delaware have setup their laws to make shareholders weak and management strong.  If shareholders were permitted scope to negotiate contracts with their boards of directors then it is likely they would not permit their position to be as weak as it is.  Thankfully Delaware company law has been revised quite a bit recently.
Logged
wodan46
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1469


« Reply #109 on: December 19, 2008, 01:35:24 EST »

Can't say I really agree with you.  Certainly I think that many crimes have a low risk of getting caught, but serious consequences if that happens.  I'm not convinced though that the risk-reward situation is that bad.  Certainly where I live the police (the Gardi) are not too sharp.  Had I no morals I would become a criminal, the possible repercussions simply aren't bad enough to be worth worrying about.
I seriously doubt it would work to your benefit.

Certainly most criminals are not very smart or capable.  I think this though has a much simpler explanation.  Those who are smart and capable have much less reason to commit crime.  They can achieve their aims at lower risk.
I'm confused.  You seem to be proving my point.  Is that your intent?  The question was whether or not the prisoner's dilemma showed that its consistently to your benefit to work with society.  Seeing as those who work with society tend to be winners, I say that answer is yes.  Perhaps you are trying to say that defect is a better choice than cooperate for sufficiently stupid or incapable people.  I find that extremely doubtful to be true, and the only reason the people who make the choice to defect in that case think otherwise is because they are stupid and incapable.  Note that such adjectives do not have to remain true, it is in society's power to change that, they can't, because of the problem of them already having said adjective.

Also, I think that capable people tend to be more moral.  Since, most types of morality put some emphasis on working.  And people who work generally become more capable.
This, combined with your previous statement, is rather disturbing.  It seems, like much of Randian philosophy, an excuse to ignore those less fortunate, saying that they are immoral and foolish and brought it upon themselves.  In actuality, many of these people were never given a chance, and simply sank into the bog at the bottom of society.  At this point, they will tend to continue to ensure their own doom, but that was not their fault nor their choice.  Society was the one that gave them the raw deal, and it is society that has the power to pull them back out.


The same reason I do anything, to make myself happy.  Winning arguments is enjoyable.  While in theory converting you to my perspective might make society run an iota better and give me a return, but mainly, its winning the argument, or at least learning to refine my own arguments.
Oh, for sport.  Fair enough.  To be honest though when I've talked to you in the past you don't seem like you do it for sport.
In debate, you are generally supposed to advocate your points with vigor.  Also, I'm probably going to end up doing arguing/information gathering for a career, so I better be putting my energies into it.

A company like Enron would not have been able to commit crimes (for long) had there been proper oversight of their actions.  Companies have proven that they can't be trusted to obey the law.  If they believe they are unlikely to be caught, they are likely to commit the crime, as it results in a net gain that outweighs the risk.
Fair enough.
The law has no teeth unless there is oversight.
Yes.  I'm not proposing "no oversight" though.
Stop dancing around terms.  The thing needed to stop Enron was oversight, and oversight would logically come in the form of regulation/bureaucracy.  What exactly did you think bureaucrats do?  They oversee things, that's what.  Unless they spot violations of the law, law enforcement won't even know they need to do something.  Unless you want the policeman to start watching the corporations themselves.  That sounds really orwellian awesome.  I'd rather keep the bureaucratic and police powers separate, rather than end up with a setting where the choices are Judge Dredd, Oligarchy, Anarchy, or any of them paired.

For preventing shoplifting, you have video cameras and tagged products.  For preventing white collar crime, you have regulations that either look at what actions the company is doing, or forbid the company from doing suspicious actions.  The latter is for the shoplifting example equivalent to someone walking into the store with a bulky coat while a hat obscures their face.
Those two things are not at all similar.  A shop takes steps to stop shoplifting within its own premises.  The customers decide whether or not they enter that shop.  This is an example of a market participant, the shop, taking steps to prevent another market participant from potentially thieving from them.

This is not what the regulations I'm complaining about concern.  They concern a third party, the regulator, stepping in and saying that the transaction must proceed in a particular way.  There is no good reason for this in my view.  If the two parties have come to another arrangement about how the trade can be made why should they be stopped?  If there is a potential externality perhaps there is an argument.  Also, it is reasonable that there should be default terms, so if certain things are left out of an agreement then the law still indicates what is permissible.
However, while the enforcement may be different, the problem is the same, and I find the white collar criminal remaining unwatched no more palatable than the shoplifter, and will perhaps lead to significantly worse consequences.  Unless you have another solution, I think that it is pretty clear that the customer being left with a few safe choices is better than the customer being left with many dangerous ones.  Given the clear facts that without action being taken, their will be dangerous choices, and we know the customer will often pick them, causing a ton of damage.  Sure you could say this could be taken to extremes as the government takes ever greater control over what the customer is allowed in an attempt to protect, but we have no choice but to plant our flag on the icy slope.

For example, would you say that because some Torts are frivolous and wasteful, that people should be banned from filing Torts?  I just read a Libertarian not long ago who basically said just that, for a paper I was writing on Wyeth v. Levine.  Which I find odd given that a second ago Libertarians were about the freedom of the people, but it seems as though it keeps turning into freedom of corporate douchbags to stomp on the people as much as they want.  Getting offtrack there, the main point is that just because Torts can be taken to extremes doesn't mean they should be banned altogether, it is necessary for us to find a compromise on it, even if it could potentially slip out of balance.  It is the same thing for government regulation.  You will never be able to find a clean solution with neat dividing lines ensuring the limitation of government power.  It just isn't going to happen.

Many occurrences of corporate fraud are helped by this sort of regulation not prevented by it.  Most US companies are incorporated in Delaware.  Delaware have setup their laws to make shareholders weak and management strong.  If shareholders were permitted scope to negotiate contracts with their boards of directors then it is likely they would not permit their position to be as weak as it is.  Thankfully Delaware company law has been revised quite a bit recently.
That just shows that there should be universal rules across all states regarding companies made by the federal government.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2008, 12:46:20 EST by wodan46 » Logged

The plural of "anecdote" is "anecdotes". Not "data".
boring7
Political Analyst
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 292


« Reply #110 on: December 21, 2008, 00:36:23 EST »

For example, would you say that because some Torts are frivolous and wasteful, that people should be banned from filing Torts?  I just read a Libertarian not long ago who basically said just that, for a paper I was writing on Wyeth v. Levine.  Which I find odd given that a second ago Libertarians were about the freedom of the people, but it seems as though it keeps turning into freedom of corporate douchbags to stomp on the people as much as they want.  Getting offtrack there, the main point is that just because Torts can be taken to extremes doesn't mean they should be banned altogether, it is necessary for us to find a compromise on it, even if it could potentially slip out of balance.  It is the same thing for government regulation.  You will never be able to find a clean solution with neat dividing lines ensuring the limitation of government power.  It just isn't going to happen.
I love this argument, because I have an analogy I really like to use for it.  (obviously, because it is inflammatory and hateful)

It goes, "What is the difference between this:

and this:
?

Both are tools, both can destroy lives, both are sources of power, so why do you support one and not the other?"

Unsurprisingly it angers both Gun-control advocates and Lawyer-haters. 
Logged
Medivh
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3466


Power-mad elf


« Reply #111 on: December 21, 2008, 03:23:22 EST »

Because one can be used equally for either ruining lives or helping them. This is on the same level as "if guns should be banned, does that mean you should ban knives?" No, because a knife is otherwise useful.

In short: your analogy fails. Epically.
Logged

And if i catch you comin' back my way
I'm gonna serve it to you
And that ain't what you want to hear
But that's what I'll do
-- "Seven Nation Army", The White Stripes

So what you're telling me is that LTV's fudge factor means more than it's independent variable?
Yes...
wodan46
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1469


« Reply #112 on: December 21, 2008, 11:24:59 EST »

Correct, the analogy is flawed for the reasons Medivh suggests.  It is plainly obvious that the gun has more potential for ruining lives than helping them, while a lawyer is more likely to help lives than hurt them.  In regards to necessity and rights, it is clear that a society having law and legal protections is more important than a society allowing people access to a particularly dangerous and unpredictable form of self defense.
Logged

The plural of "anecdote" is "anecdotes". Not "data".
Ihlosi
Political Analyst
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 232


« Reply #113 on: December 21, 2008, 12:57:16 EST »

Because one can be used equally for either ruining lives or helping them.

Also, compare the requirements for getting one of the two. One requires several years of study, the other requires ... well, depends on what country you're in.
Logged
Heq
Trouble
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1391



« Reply #114 on: December 21, 2008, 13:34:09 EST »

You can use the first to resolve the problem with the second, then you will have no need of the first.
Logged

"No common man could believe such a thing, you'd have to be an intellectual to fall for anything as stupid as that."-Orwell
boring7
Political Analyst
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 292


« Reply #115 on: December 21, 2008, 16:23:40 EST »

Because one can be used equally for either ruining lives or helping them. This is on the same level as "if guns should be banned, does that mean you should ban knives?" No, because a knife is otherwise useful.

In short: your analogy fails. Epically.
Why do you think a law degree any less capable of defending someone than a gun?  Or did you mean the other way around...?  Because that's even sillier.  If lawyering comes into play it is because someone needs to be ruined, or at the very least deterred, if a gun comes into play its because someone needs to be shot, or at the very least scared off by superior firepower. 

But thank you for demonstrating my second point, that it is a *very* effective analogy for the purposes of irritating people who are refusing to see other sides of things anyway. 
Logged
wodan46
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1469


« Reply #116 on: December 21, 2008, 19:42:46 EST »

Why do you think a law degree any less capable of defending someone than a gun?  Or did you mean the other way around...?  Because that's even sillier.
A Law Degree is more commonly used, and is more likely to be a viable tool, then a Gun is.  The odds of needing a gun for self defense is far less than needing a lawyer for legal recourse.

If lawyering comes into play it is because someone needs to be ruined, or at the very least deterred
Actually, the ruining is done by the person who the lawyers target, in order to seek either containment to prevent future crimes,  compensation for the damages, or both.

If a gun comes into play its because someone needs to be shot, or at the very least scared off by superior firepower. 
Actually, a gun is likely to come into play because you want to murder someone, commit suicide, or otherwise cause problems. 

But thank you for demonstrating my second point, that it is a *very* effective analogy for the purposes of irritating people who are refusing to see other sides of things anyway. 
The proportion of guns used harmful uses rather than helpful uses is far higher than that of the law degree.  As such, it is a poor analogy, seeing how it is easy to establish differences between the two.

Logged

The plural of "anecdote" is "anecdotes". Not "data".
Medivh
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3466


Power-mad elf


« Reply #117 on: December 21, 2008, 19:47:35 EST »

Because one can be used equally for either ruining lives or helping them. This is on the same level as "if guns should be banned, does that mean you should ban knives?" No, because a knife is otherwise useful.

In short: your analogy fails. Epically.
Why do you think a law degree any less capable of defending someone than a gun?  Or did you mean the other way around...?  Because that's even sillier.

Did I say anything about defense? While I could argue your point, I wont bother because it would give your argument false legitimacy.

In the words of Gene Wilder: You LOSE. Good DAY sir.
Logged

And if i catch you comin' back my way
I'm gonna serve it to you
And that ain't what you want to hear
But that's what I'll do
-- "Seven Nation Army", The White Stripes

So what you're telling me is that LTV's fudge factor means more than it's independent variable?
Yes...
Kaerius
Political Commentator
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 30


« Reply #118 on: December 23, 2008, 13:37:36 EST »

Why do you think a law degree any less capable of defending someone than a gun?  Or did you mean the other way around...?  Because that's even sillier.
A Law Degree is more commonly used, and is more likely to be a viable tool, then a Gun is.  The odds of needing a gun for self defense is far less than needing a lawyer for legal recourse.
Depends on where you live, and how you live. Chances of me needing a lawyer are miniscule, chances of me needing a gun for defense, also miniscule, put probably slightly higher.

If lawyering comes into play it is because someone needs to be ruined, or at the very least deterred
Actually, the ruining is done by the person who the lawyers target, in order to seek either containment to prevent future crimes,  compensation for the damages, or both.
Or just divorce proceedings.

If a gun comes into play its because someone needs to be shot, or at the very least scared off by superior firepower. 
Actually, a gun is likely to come into play because you want to murder someone, commit suicide, or otherwise cause problems.
I take exception to this. You are stereotyping gun owners as criminals. While criminals will fairly often have guns, it doesn't mean banning guns is good, criminals will still have them(by definition, being people who do not obey the law), while law abiding citizens will be left defenseless. Also see people finally realizing that gunfree zones are actively targeted by mass-murderers, helpless target rich enviroment.

But thank you for demonstrating my second point, that it is a *very* effective analogy for the purposes of irritating people who are refusing to see other sides of things anyway. 
The proportion of guns used harmful uses rather than helpful uses is far higher than that of the law degree.  As such, it is a poor analogy, seeing how it is easy to establish differences between the two.
I'd say they're close to equal. And legal gun carry actually works as a better violent crime deterrant than the law does(see Chicago vs Dallas murders by firearm rate, for example).
Logged
wodan46
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1469


« Reply #119 on: December 23, 2008, 14:19:22 EST »

If lawyering comes into play it is because someone needs to be ruined, or at the very least deterred
Actually, the ruining is done by the person who the lawyers target, in order to seek either containment to prevent future crimes,  compensation for the damages, or both.
Or just divorce proceedings.
Boring7's strawman had no specific mention of what the law degree was used for.  In Divorce proceedings, its hardly the lawyer's fault that the people couldn't come to an agreement, and that the lawyer receives a share of money in return for helping the agreement benefit their side more.  Hell, people should know by now that's how it works.

If a gun comes into play its because someone needs to be shot, or at the very least scared off by superior firepower. 
Actually, a gun is likely to come into play because you want to murder someone, commit suicide, or otherwise cause problems.
I take exception to this. You are stereotyping gun owners as criminals. While criminals will fairly often have guns, it doesn't mean banning guns is good, criminals will still have them(by definition, being people who do not obey the law), while law abiding citizens will be left defenseless. Also see people finally realizing that gunfree zones are actively targeted by mass-murderers, helpless target rich enviroment.
Once again, it's boring7's strawman at work.  I support gun ownership, but only with sufficient regulation.  Also, I was countering boring7's statement that if a gun comes into play its because someone needs to be shot while law degrees only come into play to ruin someone.  I was countering by arguing that guns often come into play as the problem as well as being solutions to such problems, whereas law degrees almost always come into play as the solution to a problem, though it differs as to whether it is a good one.

But thank you for demonstrating my second point, that it is a *very* effective analogy for the purposes of irritating people who are refusing to see other sides of things anyway. 
The proportion of guns used harmful uses rather than helpful uses is far higher than that of the law degree.  As such, it is a poor analogy, seeing how it is easy to establish differences between the two.
I'd say they're close to equal. And legal gun carry actually works as a better violent crime deterrant than the law does(see Chicago vs Dallas murders by firearm rate, for example).
However, gun carry is more likely to cause a violent crime than a law degree is.  Note that in Boring7's example there is no mention of legal carry with the gun, while the law degree is itself a legal document.  Granted, even legal carry is more likely to cause a violent crime than a law degree is, seeing as its near impossible for a law degree to cause such.
Logged

The plural of "anecdote" is "anecdotes". Not "data".
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!