Zappa.com

The Official Frank Zappa Messageboards
It is currently Mon Dec 22, 2014 6:20 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1316 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 ... 53  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Gun Control?
PostPosted: Wed Aug 21, 2013 3:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 6:54 pm
Posts: 5533
Location: Birthplace of Grand Funk Railroad & Mr Don Preston
KAPT.KIIRK wrote:
SPACEBROTHER wrote:
Again...why the fuck should I, as a non-gun owner be forced to pay higher taxes and insurance rates on behalf of and for the benefit and/or the result of those who do own/misuse guns?

Could it be the same reason why you pay highway/transportation taxes even if you don't own a car, train or airplane and you don't abuse any of them, never been in an accident, etcetera? :|


Same is true of the electric car which doesn't use gas or oil of which the the car owner would pay a tax. Because it doesn't use oil or gas, a new electro-tax is being drawn up.

Let's try this:
Every time BP has a month long oil spill we should get better roads as a result. Ya dig?

_________________
*********************************************************************



I signed on the line for seven long years.


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gun Control?
PostPosted: Thu Aug 22, 2013 12:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 5858
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
That's a good point about highway/transportation and train/airplane taxes. The difference between those are that even if you don't drive, fly or ride trains/buses, chances are that you still consume products that were delivered by one and/or more of the forms of transportation on those roads. Making everybody pay, whether it's for security/police protection, and/or higher health care and insurance rates for what is essentially a hobby is like being charged for a fishing pole tax, or a baseball tax or a finger painting tax? Other peoples hobbies and entertainment don't directly enhance the quality of my life.


In Michigan, there recently was a no helmet law passed for motorcyclists. Less people wearing helmets = more casualties = higher car insurance premiums for non cyclists. It was inevitable that as a non-cyclist, my rates increased so others could feel the wind on their face. It's a non-essential hobby, just like guns.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gun Control?
PostPosted: Thu Aug 22, 2013 5:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 9:11 am
Posts: 3690
What insurance of yours has gone up due to guns and to what monetary degree? One increase you have is due to the present political climate, ie the epa .

_________________
A government Bureau is the closest thing to eternal life on earth that you will ever see


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gun Control?
PostPosted: Thu Aug 22, 2013 12:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 5858
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
Everybody in Michigan has seen our state tax rates and insurance premiums increase across the board, except for millionaires and billionaires who all got tax and rate cuts. My states government also happens to be entirely controlled by one party in every branch of government. Look it up. Apparently the taxed enough already folks don't practice what they preach. Also, my states unemployment rates are on the increase again, while much of the rest of the country is seeing their rates decrease. It was a completely predictable scenario that I called here on the forum years ago. Look that up too.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gun Control?
PostPosted: Thu Aug 22, 2013 2:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 3:22 am
Posts: 1018
I would think that tax rates and insurance rates have gone up in just about every state , except maybe North Dakota . :wink:

I would also think that those millionaires and billionaires might create a few jobs and the people in those jobs just might require the services of someone like you.

Of course , if you don't want those evil millionaires and billionaires to create jobs , well , there's always your hero in the WH.
I've heard that he's created millions of part time jobs for everyone and once we get rid of all the private job creators , we can all live at the Obummer Camp, coming soon to your town.

:lol:

Gee , I wonder how many politicians are million and billionaires ? :wink:

_________________
http://www.ssimfg.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gun Control?
PostPosted: Thu Aug 22, 2013 10:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 5858
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
You would think those millionaires and billionaires in my state would be creating jobs here, after all of the free handouts they got from the former CEO of Gateway governor, but in fact, unemployment is on the rise, and the government in Michigan is entirely controlled by Republicans in every branch, with filibuster proof majorities. - http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/index.ss ... 5d63672307

Michigan Republican policies have a success rate comparable to the Detroit Lions. Speaking of Detroit...yep, the bankruptcy happened on their watch and under their control with the governors unelected and specially appointed, against the overwhelming majority of voters wishes, emergency manager. Right to Work is a failed experiment here a the increasing unemployment rate jobs numbers is the proof in the pudding.

Need I also mention that they are the ones who passed the "no helmet" law, thus raising my insurance rates as a non-cyclist significantly since the law passed last year, and they approved "right to carry" in a state that has two cities considered the murder capitols of America, thus causing our tax rates for police protection to increase significantly, since the law passed a couple of years ago? All for fucking hobbies? Kiss my ass... :evil:


You two can blow all of the smoke up each others asses that you want. I see and live in the bullshit every single day of my life and have first hand, hands on real life experience.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gun Control?
PostPosted: Fri Aug 23, 2013 3:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 3:22 am
Posts: 1018
Hmm Bro , you sound kinda bitter.
Maybe you should get back to where you're from.

:lol:

_________________
http://www.ssimfg.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: GOV control?
PostPosted: Fri Aug 23, 2013 4:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 5:29 pm
Posts: 174
pedro2 wrote:
I would think that tax rates and insurance rates have gone up in just about every state , except maybe North Dakota . :wink:


hi pedro2, you might think first, but then you would not state what you have. Nat'l tax rates and many states rates have gone down in the last several years. The truth is out there. You just have to look for it and not just 'believe' what you hear on the tv/radio. Insurance rates have gone up, but only marginally, according to a survey published by the nyt, two days ago.

pedro2 wrote:
I would also think that those millionaires and billionaires might create a few jobs and the people in those jobs just might require the services of someone like you.


Only if hiring improves their business model projection, which apparently, only sees growth in service sector work. So no, not really.

pedro2 wrote:
Of course , if you don't want those evil millionaires and billionaires to create jobs , well , there's always your hero in the WH.


The president doesn't create jobs. Congress is the branch of gov that has the power of the purse, which could create jobs. But the R party says NO. So people suffer instead.


pedro2 wrote:
Gee , I wonder how many politicians are million and billionaires ? :wink:


If you want credibility or to be seen as a credible source, you have to act that way. Like this courageous woman. If you 'don't care', continue as you have been. People 'get it'.

_________________
"... gonna jump outta the subcommittee and get ya!"


Last edited by simplex II on Fri Aug 23, 2013 5:47 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gun Control?
PostPosted: Fri Aug 23, 2013 5:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 9:11 am
Posts: 3690
WOW short attention span I asked how gun violence raised your insurance rate, now then ,detroit has had a DEMOCRATIC mayor for forty years, fed income tax is the highest for mill,and billionaires you look it the fuck up, that said quit your fucking whining and move to where you feel comfortable in these united states that IS the beauty of the USA.

_________________
A government Bureau is the closest thing to eternal life on earth that you will ever see


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gut Control?
PostPosted: Fri Aug 23, 2013 6:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 5:29 pm
Posts: 174
Awww BS, BS. If you wish to be seen as credible, you have to act that way. Not BS, BS.
Have a great life, anyway! :mrgreen:

_________________
"... gonna jump outta the subcommittee and get ya!"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gun Control?
PostPosted: Fri Aug 23, 2013 8:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 9:11 am
Posts: 3690
Back at ya

_________________
A government Bureau is the closest thing to eternal life on earth that you will ever see


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gun Control?
PostPosted: Fri Aug 23, 2013 9:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 3:22 am
Posts: 1018
simplex II wrote:
pedro2 wrote:
I would think that tax rates and insurance rates have gone up in just about every state , except maybe North Dakota . :wink:


hi pedro2, you might think first, but then you would not state what you have. Nat'l tax rates and many states rates have gone down in the last several years. The truth is out there. You just have to look for it and not just 'believe' what you hear on the tv/radio. Insurance rates have gone up, but only marginally, according to a survey published by the nyt, two days ago.


Study: Small businesses pay higher effective tax rates

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/d ... z2cobjOaqK


pedro2 wrote:
I would also think that those millionaires and billionaires might create a few jobs and the people in those jobs just might require the services of someone like you.


simplex II wrote:
Only if hiring improves their business model projection, which apparently, only sees growth in service sector work. So no, not really.

Small Businesses Fuel Private Sector Hiring in July

Read more: http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/227 ... z2cocBaoCr
pedro2 wrote:
Of course , if you don't want those evil millionaires and billionaires to create jobs , well , there's always your hero in the WH.


simplex II wrote:
The president doesn't create jobs. Congress is the branch of gov that has the power of the purse, which could create jobs. But the R party says NO. So people suffer instead.


U.S. Job Creation by President/Political Party
http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/http:/t ... cal-party/


pedro2 wrote:
Gee , I wonder how many politicians are million and billionaires ? :wink:


simplex II wrote:
If you want credibility or to be seen as a credible source, you have to act that way. Like this courageous woman. If you 'don't care', continue as you have been. People 'get it'.


Are you a credible source ?? :wink:

_________________
http://www.ssimfg.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gun Control?
PostPosted: Fri Aug 23, 2013 10:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 9:11 am
Posts: 3690
Good lord another person who apparently does not believe the IRS tax code that is on the web for everyone to see just try not paying, where exactly has the fed tax rate gone down? For billionaires like buffett they pay what 18% on investment income , that is after they pay the corporate rate on the income to start with , obama wants to raise the investment rate making it even more of a gamble for low level investors to get in for fear your investment tanks. simplex is simpleminded.

_________________
A government Bureau is the closest thing to eternal life on earth that you will ever see


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gun Control?
PostPosted: Fri Aug 23, 2013 10:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 5858
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
Eh....To get back to my point and the subject...

Gun Violence Costs U.S. Health Care System, Taxpayers Billions Each Year
Firearms-related deaths cost the U.S. health care system and economy $37 billion in 2005, the most recent year for which the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention attempted an estimate. The cost of those who survive gun violence came to another $3.7 billion that year, according to the CDC.
...
For a patient with a gunshot wound, a single surgery followed by two days in the intensive care unit runs about $100,000...


Gun Deaths Cost U.S. Billions Each Year While Firearms Makers Thrive
Two years ago, 30,470 people died from homicides or suicides using firearms, according to data compiled by the CDC. Guns were the most common means of homicides and suicides, the latter of which accounted for nearly two-thirds of the deaths. Suicide by firearm was the leading cause of violence-related injury deaths in 2010, followed by homicides with firearms, the CDC reported. Together, they made up 57 percent of violent deaths.

Gun-related fatalities are on pace to surpass deaths from automobile collisions by 2015, Bloomberg News reported Wednesday.

The CDC attempts to put a price tag on gun violence in an earlier report. Combining the direct medical costs of treating fatal gun injuries with the economic damage of lost lives, firearms-related deaths cost the United States $37 billion in 2005, the most recent year for which a CDC estimate is available. Non-fatal gun injuries cost an additional $3.7 billion that year, according to the agency.

Guns and ammunition manufacturers will make a projected $993 million in profits on sales of $11.7 billion this year, according to a report issued by the market-research company IBISWorld. Revenues have grown 5.7 percent since 2007, the report says, and the murders in Newtown have sparked a surge in gun sales in recent days.




This is a step in the right direction...

Bill would hugely expand tax burden on gun owners, to finance their oppressors
Writing for Ammoland, Max McGuire, of Sanity Politics, informs us that early this month, Congressman Danny K. Davis (D-IL), along with co-sponsor Rep. Bill Pascrell, Jr. (D-NJ), introduced H.R. 3018, the "Gun Violence Prevention and Safe Communities Act of 2013." This bill, according to the text, would impose a whopping new 20% tax on all firearms purchases, and a 50% tax on ammunition. National Firearms Act (machine guns, suppressors, sawed-off shotguns and rifles, etc.) transfer fees would also go way up, as would licensing fees for gun dealers, manufacturers and importers--and these taxes and fees will automatically rise with inflation.


...but doesn't go far enough. Gun owners and manufacturers should have to cover the entire $40 billion+ gun related tax and health cost tab.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Source Control?
PostPosted: Fri Aug 23, 2013 11:02 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 5:29 pm
Posts: 174
hi pedro2.
In order to be credible, for one thing, it helps to refrain from misquoting or misleading due to misquoting.

pedro2 wrote:
Study: Small businesses pay higher effective tax rates

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/d ... z2cobjOaqK


You misquoted the substance there, even though the title does too... The very first sentence of that article says, and I quote, "Certain types of small businesses pay a higher effective tax rate than their corporate counterparts, according to a new study prepared for small business groups."

I'll agree that to say 'higher tax rate than' means a comparison is being made. But the comparison, in this article you linked to, to refute my claim, is with larger companies, not higher than what they used to pay, which is what you imply. Perhaps you should have read the article yourself that you linked to. In fact, I agree with the Hill, that larger corps should have to pay a higher effective tax rate than smaller business. But it does not say that small businesses pay a larger effective tax rate than they used to, as your statement implies. I still say the nyt article is right and now I know the Hill has a writer that thinks corporate taxes are unfair.

Again, to be credible, you have to put forward your best argument. Not the argument that scores points for the other side of the debate. You might notice that, when you say,

pedro2 wrote:
Small Businesses Fuel Private Sector Hiring in July

Read more: http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/227 ... z2cocBaoCr


that article you link to actually says what I said, that the growth happens mostly in service sector - read: low paying jobs. And again, I quote it, "...with the service sector continuing to account for much of the job growth."

In your next link, charts are supplied which make the argument that more private and public sector jobs occur while Dem's are in the WH, as compared to when R's are in the WH. Regardless of what you may have thought they said.

pedro2 wrote:
U.S. Job Creation by President/Political Party
http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/http:/t ... cal-party/


For clarity, it does not compare Congresses, the charts use the WH inhabitant and their party as time-markers only. They don't show what effect the ones with the government purse strings - Congress has along the timeline that is lain out there. Which would be a better comparison, since presdients do not 'make jobs' - they don't sign the checks... and unfortunate for you, still does not make the argument your words imply.

So, "do your own homework" can be added to the list of what helps in making you more credible. Or maybe, you never learned that... were you one of those who gave it to some cheerleader to "... let her do all the work and maybe later you'll rape her,"?

Somehow, I feel I have to repeat myself again for you. In order to be credible, means, among other things, providing your own argument, scoring points for your debate team, not the other, and using sources that support your arguments, not the ones you pretend to refute. It also helps to be honest, not deceptive, transparent, not hiding behind others work and, try to be helpful, rather than merely denigrating.

In short, sorry to have to do this, but you are being directed to go to the back of the line, behind BS :mrgreen:

SB: was wondering when you'd get back to the gun-related death ticker. Please tell them the good news as well as the bad.

_________________
"... gonna jump outta the subcommittee and get ya!"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gun Control?
PostPosted: Fri Aug 23, 2013 11:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 9:11 am
Posts: 3690
Simplex to you if you think this admin and economy for which they are responsible is good then great, SB, you still have not said how much extra YOU are paying in insurance do to gun violence.

The both of you have made up your minds so lets just move on to the next rant.

_________________
A government Bureau is the closest thing to eternal life on earth that you will ever see


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nut Control?
PostPosted: Fri Aug 23, 2013 11:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 5:29 pm
Posts: 174
BRAVO SIERRA wrote:
Simplex to you if you think this admin and economy for which they are responsible is good then great,

The both of you have made up your minds so lets just move on to the next rant.


You don't speak for me BS. Nor do I need your permission. Understand?

Go back to the end of the line :mrgreen:

_________________
"... gonna jump outta the subcommittee and get ya!"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gun Control?
PostPosted: Fri Aug 23, 2013 2:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 3:22 am
Posts: 1018
simplex II wrote:
In short, sorry to have to do this, but you are being directed to go to the back of the line, behind BS :mrgreen:



I'm sorry to see such narrow minded tunnel visioned spewage from you , but I'll accept it as a sign of the times and your age , BUT , I have to question your ability and authority to tell me where to go.

simplex II wrote:

You don't speak for me BS. Nor do I need your permission. Understand?

Go back to the end of the line :mrgreen:


I don't need or want your permission , either.

Understand ?

_________________
http://www.ssimfg.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Spud-gun Control?
PostPosted: Fri Aug 23, 2013 3:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 5:29 pm
Posts: 174
hahahha
next time, bring a spud-gun
that spews out mashed potatoes,
instead of the one where the barrel
is pointed back at yourself!
hahahaha
too bad, so sad, bye bye
:mrgreen:

_________________
"... gonna jump outta the subcommittee and get ya!"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gun Control?
PostPosted: Fri Aug 23, 2013 10:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 5858
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
More current gun related costs that society is forced to pay, even if you don't own one...

http://www.ncdsv.org/images/CSN_CostOfG ... e_2013.pdf

Firearm injuries cost $174 billion in the United States in 2010 and the government's firearm injury bill alone exceeded $12 billion. PIRE researcher Ted Miller estimates annual firearm injury costs average $645 per gun in America. The costs include medical and mental health care costs, criminal justice costs, wage losses, and the value of pain, suffering and lost quality of life. Violence - assaults and suicide acts - dominated the costs. These estimates are based on the latest injury data from the Centers for Disease Control and unit costs from the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation's (PIRE) widely cited injury cost model. Data was developed by Ted R Miller, PhD, Principal Research Scientist, Children's Safety Network Economics and Data Analysis Resource Center, at Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, December 2012. All incidence data are from CDC's WISQARS web query system, accessed December 2012.

...at a cost of $645 per gun annually, that is what gun owners should have to pay as a mandatory tax to cover the costs of their own hobby. I shouldn't have to pay a single dime for the benefit of their hobby. If you are one of the 1/3rd of the population in the United States who own firearms, the costs should be entirely on you and nobody else. It's your fucking hobby. Not mine.

If forced with the option of having to face paying that bill, I wonder how many responsible gun owners, who should be solely responsible for ALL gun related costs, would suddenly embrace Obamacare?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gun Control?
PostPosted: Sat Aug 24, 2013 6:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 10:57 pm
Posts: 783
Location: Atlanta
BRAVO SIERRA wrote:
The both of you have made up your minds so lets just move on to the next rant.


Doesn't this pretty much sum up this entire thread?

_________________
“The power of pop music to corrupt and putrify the minds of world youth are virtually limitless."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gun Control?
PostPosted: Mon Sep 09, 2013 10:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 5858
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
More gun related idiocy by wackos who own guns.....

Toddler shot to death in Yellowstone was killed by father's pistol
...The death comes three years after enactment of a federal law that lifted a decades-old ban on the possession of firearms by visitors to most national parks, including Yellowstone.

It marks the first fatal shooting in Yellowstone since 1978, and the first shooting death of a child in the park since 1938, when the 13-year-old son of the park's master mechanic accidentally shot himself in the head with a rifle, Nash said...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns- ... 2693.story


US police kill 107-year-old suspect in home shootout
A 107-year-old man was killed in a shootout with police, after he held two people at gunpoint in the US state of Arkansas, authorities said.
...
US media has reported that the violence began when Mr Isadore's daughter approached him about moving house.

Pauline Lewis, who lived with Mr Isadore and accompanied his daughter on Saturday when she asked him to consider moving to an apartment, said he became increasingly confused and irate and began brandishing a hand gun.

"He was very angry. He got hostile. He was gonna kill somebody," Pauline Lewis told KTHV.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24011751

Miami grandma shot during fight over cellphone
...The Miami Herald reports Marian Hall was trying to break up a fight Sunday between grandsons, 28-year-old Robert Hill and 23-year-old Kenneth Smith.

Miami-Dade police say the younger grandson pulled a gun. As the three struggled, the gun went off,...

http://www.ajc.com/news/ap/florida/miam ... one/nZqxW/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gun Control?
PostPosted: Mon Sep 09, 2013 12:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 11:58 pm
Posts: 13142
Location: Home of The Mondavi Center.
...and the hit's just keep on comin'.

_________________
I'm getting larger as I walk away.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gun Control?
PostPosted: Mon Sep 09, 2013 2:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 5858
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
KAPT.KIIRK wrote:
...and the hit's just keep on comin'.


If by hits you mean being hit with bullets, then yes, it's an epidemic plague upon our country that needs to be eradicated like smallpox.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gun Control?
PostPosted: Mon Sep 09, 2013 3:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 3:22 am
Posts: 1018
SPACEBROTHER wrote:

If by hits you mean being hit with bullets, then yes, it's an epidemic plague upon our country that needs to be eradicated like smallpox.



The cheezy alarmist boy that cries woof is kinda like the train that ain't never late. :roll:

Definition of EPIDEMIC

1: affecting or tending to affect a disproportionately large number of individuals within a population, community, or region at the same time <typhoid was epidemic>
2a : excessively prevalent
b : contagious 4 <epidemic laughter>
3: characterized by very widespread growth or extent : of, relating to, or constituting an epidemic <the practice had reached epidemic proportions>
— ep·i·dem·i·cal adjective
— ep·i·dem·i·cal·ly adverb
— ep·i·de·mic·i·ty noun


BIG letters for those that spew BIG distortions .

:P

_________________
http://www.ssimfg.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1316 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 ... 53  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group