Jump to content

And so it Begins...


rhett
 Share

Recommended Posts

quote:

Ghandi said - "an eye for an eye can only make you blind".

I believe the actual quote is "An eye for an eye only makes the world go blind."

quote:

I have to tell you something about human rights. It's a great concept but

sometimes it gets twisted and confused.

Here is a simple definition. All human beings, no matter what their race, religion, political beliefs, legal status etc., have fundamental rights.

quote:

Police can't do their job because if they arest too many people of a certain race then they get investigated (what if they patrol an area that is predominatly of a certain race, will they not arest people of that race?) For example Sacramento has a population that is almoust 80% Russian, do you hear complaints that mostly Russian people get arested there?

I don't know of any present investigations regarding disproportionate arrests based on race, at least here in Australia, but there are a lot of investigations regarding disproportionate deaths in custody. For example, in the Northern Territory, a disturbingly high percentage of deceased in custody are Australian Aborigines. Considering that the Aboriginal population is less than 1 percent of the entire national population, it's no wonder that many people smell a rat.

quote:

Also what about the lawsuits that criminals can file against the police for using excessive force, it might work if they were arested and found innocent, but what if you were arested and found guilty? You still have the right to file a lawsuit for excesive use of force.

Guilt does not make human beings less human.

quote:

in my eyes you give up your human rights and freedom when you decide to do something illegal and should not have any rights, an animal should have more rights then criminal and convicts do.

There are big differences between human rights and civil rights. When someone breaks the law, some or all of their civil rights can be taken away, but human rights must always remain intact. No exceptions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 83
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Alright Menchise, the 8 years of attrition was because America's hands were tied and we were unable to bring the full weight of our military forces to bear. If Congress had said "go at it" and given the troops what they required and instead of fighting a defensive war, do like we did in Korea and whip ass - as long as the Chinese didn't get involved we would have been fine. Instead, public opinion kept us pretty much restricted to operating in South Vietnam.

As for being Marxist, you could always follow the path of Karl Marx himself and declare "I am not a Marxist!"

As far as criminals losing human rights, depends. If I was our leader, rapists, child molesters, murderers would all recieve death in different ways. Rapists would be hung, child molesters get the guillotine, and murderers get a firing squad. That's my opinion. Those people who take away someone else's right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness should lose those same rights. I do not advocate torture, though child molesters should have a special place in hell.

As far as drugs, I don't care one way or the other if someone does drugs unless they become a direct threat to someone else, then you should arrest them and put them on rehab for about 6-8 months. Then probation and if they refuse to remain drug free then arrest them again and keep them in jail for awhile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

As for being Marxist, you could always follow the path of Karl Marx himself and declare "I am not a Marxist!"

What are you talking about? Since when did Marx declare that he wasn't Marxist?

By the way, I'm not sure what I am at the moment. Marxists are only one group of Socialists. Others include the Leninists, the Trotskyites (sp?), and the reform-oriented Socialists (Social Democrats).

Despite popular belief, Social Democrats are not the same as Social Capitalists. Social Democrats believe in the parliamentary reform of Capitalism into something resembling Socialism. Social Capitalists, aka Keynesians, believe in keeping Capitalism, but with some level of state intervention to help the poor.

[ 10-10-2001: Message edited by: Menchise ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once a movement began, Karl Marx issued that statement in addition to letting everyone know it was just an idea but it wouldn't work.

direct quotes by KARL MARX

"I am not a Marxist." -- Karl Marx

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." -- Karl Marx

"Catch a man a fish, and you can sell it to him. Teach a man to fish, and you ruin a wonderful business opportunity."

http://www.cp-tel.net/miller/BilLee/quotes/Marx.html

ALSO SEE HERE: http://www.theglobalist.com/nor/readlips/2001/01-30-01.shtml

HERE: http://www.warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/History/teaching/sem10/

EACH of those pages carries the quote, from personal research page to educational history pages, to political communist page.

As for liberals, Social Democrats, Social Reformists, whatever, I leave you with this quote from Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership:

"Understand, too, that there's no such thing as a "liberal". It's a word socialists use to evade being properly identified. And no wonder: socialism is nothing more than a cheap attempt, philosophically and politically, to justify rape, robbery, and murder on a scale Attila the Hun never dreamed of.

In a way, that's good. To those who don't think much about it, taking guns away from everyone but the army and police may sound like a fine idea. The Germans who elected Hitler thought it was. But it's harder for the other side, the socialist side, to make rape, robbery and murder attractive to the average individual.

Since the Soviet collapse, the new world center for socialism is the United Nations, no less an enemy of everything worthwhile in the western world than Hitler and Stalin were. The UN admits openly that it wants to obliterate the American Constitution -- especially the Bill of Rights, with emphasis on the Second Amendment. What it wants to substitute for it is a dictatorial world government.

Sovereign nations are like watertight compartments in a ship. When one becomes "flooded" by dictatorship, victim disarmament, and the mass killings that inevitably follow, others remain free, provided their geographical and psychological "bulkheads" remain sound. They act as a refuge for those who escape the "flooded" compartments. Socialists know this, of course. That's why they strive to establish a world government nobody can escape from.

Why do we tolerate the presence of this declared enemy of liberty on American soil? Without a doubt, that will become one of the most important political questions of the 21st century.

Defenders of the Bill or Rights have always been too polite. It's one reason we're in this mess. Victim disarmament causes thousands of injuries and deaths a year, many times the number of injuries and deaths claimed for the weapons themselves. Victim disarmers know this, and therefore must be evil, stupid, insane, or unbelievably mentally lazy to go on demanding it.

Privately-owned guns are used to take 30,000 lives a year (some in perfectly justified acts of self-defense, three quarters of them suicides). Guns are used to save more than 2,500,000 people from injury or death every year. Socialist victim disarmers would sacrifice the 2,500,000 in a futile effort to save the 30,000. That's crazy -- and there are mental health experts who agree. Victim disarmers are people, largely, who project their own mental and emotional shortcomings onto others. They would never trust themselves with a gun, but they can't admit that, so they convert their mistrust of themselves into mistrust of others.

Rosie O'Donnel, one of the country's foremost advocates of victim disarmament -- who has demanded that anyone who owns a gun should be locked up, yet travels with heavily-armed bodyguards -- recently admitted that she's fought severe depression for decades, and is medicated for it. Yet she believes that everybody else ought to be forced to accept her dictatorial and demented judgement.

What about those who parrot Rosie's sentiments? Do they also have mental problems? Should people who have mental problems be making public policy that negatively impacts your ability to save your life or the lives of your loved ones?

Whatever they are, victim disarmers are not concerned neighborhood moms with whom you've amiably agreed to disagree. They're 50-year-old white males, mostly, more than a third of whom own guns themselves. They're enemies of freedom who don't mind if you're beaten up, jailed, and murdered "under color of law" for exercising your rights. Their government representatives are criminals who took a solemn oath to uphold the Constitution, including the Second Amendment, but violate it every day, every hour they scheme to assault the Bill of Rights. They're the badguys, lying, thieving parasites who'd rather see a woman raped in an alley and strangled with her own pantyhose than see her with a gun in her hand. They can't be argued with or made to see the truth. They can't be reasoned out of beliefs they were never reasoned into. They can only be defeated.

This is not the polite democratic debate socialists would have us believe it is. We're the goodguys, legitimate heirs of the Founding Fathers. If we win, for the most part nothing will change. You'll keep your guns. All government records of them will be destroyed. It'll be easier to buy more if you want, in the kind of anonymity the Founders regarded as essential (freedom isn't secure if government knows who has all the guns) for the Second Amendment to work.

If the socialists win, thousands of innocents will be assaulted, imprisoned, and killed -- along with thousands of their would-be oppressors -- as government attempts to enforce unconstitutional laws. Thousands more will die because they no longer have the means to defend themselves against ordinary criminals. "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me answer your question with a question Paddy Gregory. What if you were caught with drugs and beaten sensless? What if that happened twice or 3 times, would you still cary drugs, or would it take 5 times to make you understand that drugs are illegal. Now, all the punishment the drug dealers and abusers get is a slap on the wrist, and that obviously doesn't work, if they were slammed down hard then it would make a buyer think twice before going out on the street and buying them especially if they have a family or someone who depends on them.

Now if drugs should be illegal or not is another question which I am not going to discuss but just say that Norsterdam (spelling?) has the lowest drug related crime rate in the whole world and drugs are legal there. So that raises some questions.

But anyway, from the very first paragraph you can see that if you want something to stop you make the punishment harsher untill it stops.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Norsterdam (spelling?) has the lowest drug related crime rate in the whole world and drugs are legal there. So that raises some questions.

A Libertarian argument, the only thing may be that there are lower crimes there because what we call crimes aren't prosecuted there?

That's a point to think on. Although I agree with Drug legalization, I don't think it would better society, I think that many drug problems can be helped by rehab, but at the same time I think that what a person does on their own time is their business. So long as they are hurting themselves only and no one else, I don't have a problem with it. If someone commits a crime that hurts no one financially, socially, physically, etc. it shouldn't be a crime. Doesn't matter if they "could" or "would" until they DO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boy, and I thought that I was the warmonger!! LOL

I think that drugs should be legal as well, and then taxed beyond belief, just like cigarettes and Alchohol is now.

Victimless crimes, like Drugs and prostitution, yes I said prostitution, should be legal. To legislate morality is a stupid plan and costs more money then it's worth. It's gonna happen anyway, may as well tax it and regulate it and get the country out of debt!! LOL

That's neither here nor there, I think what we are doing in Afghanistan is about to move to other places around the globe, do not be surprised if Iraq tries to get involved and gets its butt kicked again, and do not be surprised if Sudan gets a few down thier chimney as well. Things are just getting hot, and then they'll be on fire!!

I hope the defense industry can keep up with the amount of ordinance we are going to be dropping on things!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I lived and traveled throughout the mid-east for a year. 99.9% of the people I met and encountered were average joes like you and me - just spoke a different language and have a different culture. I like the phrase that Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, and Kuwait have on their immigration/customs form:

WARNING - Drug dealers will be executed!

Only problem is that alchohol is a drug and Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are dry countries - aka no booze. However; there are more stills and breweries in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait then there are hiden in Hillbilly country here in the States.

TTFN

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I agree about prostitutions too. America has a double standard on it right now. I mean what do you call a woman in a porn movie? She gets paid for sex too but that's all legal, what is the difference? The only difference I see is one is on camera the other is off camera.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

"Understand, too, that there's no such thing as a "liberal". It's a word socialists use to evade being properly identified. And no wonder: socialism is nothing more than a cheap attempt, philosophically and politically, to justify rape, robbery, and murder on a scale Attila the Hun never dreamed of.

That statement is total rubbish. Here's why:

1. Liberals are anti-socialist.

2. Liberals are pro-capitalist.

3. The US constitution was written by Liberals.

4. Liberalism is a cheap attempt to justify poverty, division of human beings into classes, and war.

5. Liberalism is the foundation of capitalist propaganda.

6. Both of America's major parties, Republicans and Democrats, are liberals.

7. Stalin and Mao (the ones who ordered most of the murder in the name of socialism) were not socialist: they were despots who used communist rhetoric to make them look different from the fascist dictators they were fighting against (Stalin vs Hitler, Mao vs Jiang).

Try looking up the word Liberalism in a dictionary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I sounded grumpy in my previous post, I apologize. I've just spent four hours handing out leaflets and trying to talk people into voting at a student election campaign. It was the first time I'd done something like this, so I was inexperienced, thus I was figuratively mowed down by two gangs of right wing parties, both of which are led by two groups of people. One group rorts the budget and spends it on parties at the pub, the other group doesn't show up for work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Herbert

quote:

Originally posted by Tac:

Actually, most US carriers and submarines carries tactical nukes. They've been there since day one in every modern conflict.

Tac, I think you will find that they were removed a few years ago, and currently only SSBN's carry any nuclear weapons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"1. Liberals are anti-socialist."

Not according to many college professors you will find around here who advocate taking money from people who make more and redistributing it to those who make less.

"2. Liberals are pro-capitalist."

Liberals in the US want power. Right now, money gives them power so they keep as much as they can in their hands.

"3. The US constitution was written by Liberals."

But you don't take into account that the definition of liberalism has changed in 200 years. liberal used to mean simply devoted to change, while today it is a regressive instead of progressive movement in the USA

"4. Liberalism is a cheap attempt to justify poverty, division of human beings into classes, and war."

True. Not only that they attempt to make government policy out of their *BS

"5. Liberalism is the foundation of capitalist propaganda."

As I said, it has taken on a whole new meaning with the political climate here.

"6. Both of America's major parties, Republicans and Democrats, are liberals."

In the classic definition, not in actual practice here.

"7. Stalin and Mao (the ones who ordered most of the murder in the name of socialism) were not socialist: they were despots who used communist rhetoric to make them look different from the fascist dictators they were fighting against (Stalin vs Hitler, Mao vs Jiang)."

The communist rhetoric probably came from lenin for Stalin, and same for Mao. Stalin I agree was only a dictator, and Mao was a pervert. Mao raped 12 yr old girls and Stalin killed 10 million of his own people.

That's what communism has been defined by, not to mention Pol Pot, the NVA, etc.

Find me a good example of communism NOT on a local but national level. It's good in theory but not in practice, but so was Fascism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

The communist rhetoric probably came from lenin for Stalin, and same for Mao.

Stalin wrote his own rhetoric, and so did Mao. They took Marxist principles and twisted them around.

Stalin wrote about "Socialism in one country", which effectively contradicts with everything Marx wrote about the proletarian revolution. He also brought the entire country's industrial power under his control and started using it to compete with businesses in the West instead of supporting the struggle of workers. In other words, state capitalism.

Mao adopted communism as a platform because the ideology was the exact opposite of Jiang's pro-capitalist position, but in reality, Mao was an authoritarian nationalist who wanted to expel Jiang Kaishek and the string-pulling "foreign devils" from China (given the circumstances, I can't say I blame him). China is also state capitalist.

quote:

That's what communism has been defined by, not to mention Pol Pot, the NVA, etc.

I don't know much about Pol Pot or the Khmer Rouge, but from what I've heard, he was a total nutcase who wanted to restart the calendar, literally (not sure about this, but I think it was Pol Pot who started the whole "Year Zero" thing).

quote:

Find me a good example of communism NOT on a local but national level.

If you're looking for examples of economic success, it's not gonna happen. Socialist nations cannot prosper in a capitalist world because they're not geared for competition, just as a capitalist nation would not prosper in a socialist world because the workers in that country could find better jobs with much better pay elsewhere.

If you're looking for examples of communist countries that did not use violence against its own people, the best example would be Chile between 1970 and 1973 when Allende was in power. In fact, Allende was the first (and probably the only) Marxist who became the leader of a nation by electoral means. It's very ironic that the freedom-loving USA supported Pinochet's coup against a democratically elected government, and continued supporting him afterwards despite the increasing violence against the Chileans.

[ 10-11-2001: Message edited by: Menchise ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of my old friends is a self proclaimed Communist so I usually get to beat his ass in arguments all the time, but he uses the same thing you said about Communist Economies not being able to stand up against Capitalist ones. Your reason is flawed. What is the incentive in a communist economy? No matter how hard you work, your extra effort goes towards compensating someone who did much less work than you do.

Capitalism rewards initiative and brains. People who favor Communism are usually themselves unable to compete in a Capitalist economy. Not by lack of anything but effort.

Stalin attempted to bring the means of production under state control, as Lenin envisioned as a road to pure communism. It was known even during the Red Revolution in Russia that human beings cannot be trusted to look out for others. That's why true Communism will never happen. Because until human nature evolves to the point where self isn't as important as others, it will not work.

It's a good idea, and as I've said many times about as feasible as trying to bring about world peace.

I take the belief that you should get back what you put into the system. If you work really hard and long, you get taken care of completely, but if you don't work at all you should starve. Now I know that there are exceptions like handicaps, and such so don't take it the wrong way. If someone is ABLE to work, they should be made to or starve - never should be able to draw other people's money.

This crap about us all needing to help each other, you shouldn't force people to do things they don't want to. If you want to give money to some charity, that's your business, but it isn't right to make EVERYONE give to it because a few think it's a good cause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by herbert:

Tac, I think you will find that they were removed a few years ago, and currently only SSBN's carry any nuclear weapons.

The "Official" response, when asked of ANY US Sailor serving aboard Cariers should, and always WILL be "I cannot confirm NOR deny the presence of Nuclear Weapons aboard United States Combatants!" We agreed to tailor down our arsenal of Nuclear Arms, not disband our capabilities. Let's put it in a way that I think you can get the underlying meanings. If I were a Tactical Commander in theatre, I wouldn't leave home without that American Express Card. Would YOU? And Tactical Nukes aren't carried aboard SSBN's for the record. Them babies are Strategic. Now where and who would carry the smaller, Tactical versions? You be the judge.

"Uncle Rattler"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by $iLk:

If you work really hard and long, you get taken care of completely

Tell that to a non-union factory worker who gets laid off after twenty years when the production facility gets moved to Mexico.

[Edit: Rattler! Good to see you, chief. Hope you're around for awhile.]

[ 10-11-2001: Message edited by: pkzip ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't get me started on unions. Havn't seen a damn good thing come of unions in the 10 years I've been in the workforce, other than a lot of wages garnished without the permission or the desire of the worker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Advil,

good to see you in the regular forum!! And I couldn't agree with you more.

Unions had thier place at one time, but now they are just legal extortion!!

I refuse to work for any company that REQUIRES me to join and/or pay union dues!!

The market should set wages, not some goons!!

Uh, oh, I better get my flame gear on, I am gonna get jumped!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to agree I haven't been part of a union for years and have been quite happy all you seem to hear over here is another union going on strike. It was rampant last year more people were on strike every week. Unions did have there place once but now they just show the greed of a lot of people out there, I have never demanded a pay rise from anybody I work for I have always got one at regular intervals though.

I believe if people are happy with your work you will be rewarded accordingly and don't believe in demanding more than I deserve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

What is the incentive in a communist economy? No matter how hard you work, your extra effort goes towards compensating someone who did much less work than you do.

That statement is based on the assumption that socialists and/or communists want a system where everyone gets the same amount of pay without exception (eg worker #1 works 10 hours for $100, #2 works 15 hours for $100). There are probably some Socialists who do believe in that, but I'm not one of them, and I believe the majority of Socialists who revise the works of people like Marx and Engels don't believe in that either.

There is a difference between equal payment and an equal rate of payment. Obviously, if someone works longer, they get paid more. I don't believe that Marx wrote anything to the contrary, and if he did, then that's another reason why I may not be Marxist.

The "incentive to work" is one of the common anti-socialist arguments out there, so I will reply to it with a common rebuttal. In capitalism, there is no such thing as an incentive to work. What many people call the "incentive to work" is more accurately described as the "threat of starvation". Therefore, I find it difficult to digest (no pun intended) that anyone could say socialism is wrong because it tries to prevent people from starving to death.

quote:

Capitalism rewards initiative and brains. People who favor Communism are usually themselves unable to compete in a Capitalist economy. Not by lack of anything but effort.

A very common pro-capitalist argument, with a very common socialist rebuttal. The "lack of initiative" argument is a euphemism for unemployment. It essentially blames unemployment on the unemployed, claiming that they either don't try hard enough or they're not smart enough.

The reality is that even the most prosperous of capitalist economies are totally incapable of sustaining enough jobs for everyone, which is why full employment is impossible within the current system.

Another, more disturbing reality is that big businesses generally don't want governments to help reduce unemployment because the unemployment rate provides another so-called "incentive to work".

quote:

Stalin attempted to bring the means of production under state control, as Lenin envisioned as a road to pure communism. It was known even during the Red Revolution in Russia that human beings cannot be trusted to look out for others. That's why true Communism will never happen. Because until human nature

evolves to the point where self isn't as important as others, it will not work.

Ahh, the infamous "humans are inherently selfish" argument. I could give a detailed description about how capitalist society teaches people that it is natural to be selfish, but instead, I'll just give you one example of why it's not true (even I was surprised by this).

A long time ago, some colonists in North America were studying the behaviour of the Sioux people. One of the things they tried to do was put a small group of Sioux Indians through a series of IQ tests. The colonists were astonished to discover that the Sioux could not understand why they weren't allowed to help each other figure out the answers to the questions. The concepts of selfishness and competition were totally alien to them.

quote:

I take the belief that you should get back what you put into the system.

Exactly! That's what capitalism does not do. In fact, Marx wrote three volumes explaining how capitalism does not do exactly that. That's what the whole concept of Surplus Value is about.

When you're a worker in a capitalist system, you never get back what you put in. If you did, then there would be no such thing as billion dollar profits. The capitalist mode of production is founded on the idea that workers perform all of the labour, the owner of the means of production gets all of the profit, and gives back as little as possible to the workers in order to keep them at the same location.

The key to this entire issue is that labour generates value. This is not a concept that's exclusive to Socialism, nor did it originate from Marx. It was written by one of the pioneering capitalist economists, Adam Smith, so it's ironic that such an important piece of knowledge is totally ignored by today's so-called economists, who tend to view working people as commodities instead of human beings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

What many people call the "incentive to work" is more accurately described as the "threat of starvation".

see?...Incentive!

quote:

Therefore, I find it difficult to digest (no pun intended) that anyone could say socialism is wrong because it tries to prevent people from starving to death.


Survival of the fittest I believe it's called. Socialism is well intentions at their worst. Maybe everyone has a job in Communism, yet so did everyone in Nazi Germany - does that make it a good system? I don't think so IMHO. Hitler had good intentions too (he was just psychotic).

quote:

The reality is that even the most prosperous of capitalist economies are totally incapable of sustaining enough jobs for everyone, which is why full employment is impossible within the current system.

Sad but true, however it isn't up to the state to make jobs in our society. Free market economy allows for people to govern their own trade. And anyone who isn't working for someone has the opportunity to go into business themselves, or refuse to work and become a liability to taxpayers. I don't think you find many starving people over here thanks to these socialist welfare state practices, but I think a majority of them are abusing the system because they can get something for free. Human nature. If someone were to tell you that all of us here had to pool our money and buy BCM for the less fortunate I'm sure you would agree!

quote:

When you're a worker in a capitalist system, you never get back what you put in. If you did, then there would be no such thing as billion dollar profits. The capitalist mode of production is founded on the idea that workers perform all of the labour, the owner of the means of production gets all of the profit, and gives back as little as possible to the workers in order to keep them at the same location.

Of course if you are working for someone, you can't expect to make the same thing they are making. No one is saying you can't go back into business for yourself and set your own prices. As far as giving back as little as possible, that's a pessimistic Communist argument. I guess human nature is driving that factory owner or something...

In the end your entire argument is based on how great it could be, and sadly I feel that anyone like you would follow the first "despot" preaching Communism no matter what their true intentions.

It's all well and good, but with the way people are - if everyone went Communist today I'm sure that there would be no more crime and everybody would be happy and there would be no bigotry and no one would starve, and nobody would have to worry because Big Brother is running one huge freaking Red Commie Utopia.

I don't buy it personally, I'm not usually drawn in by schemes that sound and look good but don't deliver.

I mean seriously, let's be honest - it wouldn't work would it? Truthfully and totally the economic model sounds good, and maybe you can even argue it to where it sounds good - but we both know that it would never work - though I agree it would be nice if it could.

Next time: perhaps we can have a nice gun control debate since I'm pretty sure I know where you stand on the issue.

I'm so glad you were proven innocent so I've got someone here to keep me aware and on guard and my skills honed against Commies... hehe

Have you ever seen that picture America's view of the world?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Advil:

Don't get me started on unions.

I don't want to. That's why I specifically stated non-union in my example.

[Edit:When it comes to most unions these days, I would agree with Jag's term: goons.]

[ 10-12-2001: Message edited by: pkzip ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...