Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Invisusira's playground

Moderators: Aergis, Invisusira

Re: Election 2012

Postby Brekkie » Thu Jul 05, 2012 11:02 am

So, speaking of greedy rich people, I can't wait until the Libor scandal breaks in the Rolling Stone. This is going to absolutely ROCK the banking industry on it's hinges.
Over 50 trillion dollars stolen over the years due to blatant lying, enabled by the deregulation of wall street by the GOP in the 2000s.
Theckhd wrote:big numbers are the in-game way of expressing that Brekkie's penis is huge.
Brekkie
 
Posts: 918
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 7:44 pm

Re: Election 2012

Postby Shyrtandros » Thu Jul 05, 2012 12:10 pm

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

Not politics.. :|


anything but politics!
"Warning: AA posts may cause severe urges to buy or rent games you may not have been interested in, known about or would normally consider playing. If you experience sudden urges to purchase said games please consult your wallet, bank account or significant other to see if these games are right for you and your budget."
User avatar
Shyrtandros
 
Posts: 630
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 7:54 am

Re: Election 2012

Postby Fivelives » Thu Jul 05, 2012 10:16 pm

God forbid someone be discussing politics in a thread titled "Election 2012".
- I'm not Jesus, but I can turn water into Kool-Aid.
- A Sergeant in motion outranks an officer who doesn't know what the hell is going on.
- A demolitions specialist at a flat run outranks everybody.
User avatar
Fivelives
 
Posts: 2804
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:55 pm

Re: Election 2012

Postby Jabari » Fri Jul 06, 2012 1:03 pm

Fivelives wrote:God forbid someone be discussing politics in a thread titled "Election 2012".

Yeah, who's dumb idea was that anyway??!

Nanny Government at it again: http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/07/06/a-judge-just-broke-the-internet/

Brekkie wrote:So, speaking of greedy rich people, I can't wait until the Libor scandal breaks in the Rolling Stone. This is going to absolutely ROCK the banking industry on it's hinges.
Over 50 trillion dollars stolen over the years due to blatant lying, enabled by the deregulation of wall street by the GOP in the 2000s.


While I appreciate what Taibbi does (and he does do good work on this stuff), you really need to take off your Democrat-colored glasses. Who, exactly, is in charge of the Department of Justice at the moment? You know, the folks who are supposed to prosecute this kind of crap? How many people do you think would try this kind of fraud if they were given an immediate life sentence when caught?

http://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/documents/Barclaysagreement.pdf

(Alternatively: What would the banks look like if the penalty for armed robbery was just returning half of what you stole?)

Fraud is just a business model now, and penalties are simply a slap on the hand (aka: cost of doing business) instead of any kind of actual deterrent.

Neither party seems to be even remotely interested in stopping the fraud, so we're either going to have to live with it or start throwing banksters off the tops of their skyscrapers. *shrug*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TYezSrzUUs

(YouTube is blocked at work - hopefully this is the right link. If not I'll correct it later...)
Last edited by Jabari on Fri Jul 06, 2012 3:48 pm, edited 2 times in total.
... the fact that more potential voters are swayed by a few trivial comments 10 years ago than a candidate literally collapsing is not a good sign and tends to indicate that even if Trump wins, it won't matter.

No electorate that stupid is going to survive long, one way or another.
Jabari
 
Posts: 762
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 8:46 am

Re: Election 2012

Postby Fridmarr » Fri Jul 06, 2012 3:24 pm


That ruling, and to a lesser degree, the article that you linked reeks of a fundamental confusion about how the internet works.  Even if this ruling were to hold, I don't think the vast majority of websites would have to do anything.  The reason is because (for the most part) a website is merely a stream of bits, how those bits are rendered as an interface is actually in control of the end user.  There are browsers that have ADA settings large fonts, high contrasts, voice readers etc.  You could even write an "app for that" if you want to overlay a text version of streaming audio.

Netflix is slightly different in that they have a bit of a thick client running in the browser so they are controlling both ends to a degree.  That doesn't stop you from looking up the subtitles in various online sources though, there are even some that are timed so that you can sync them, plus the capability of the aforementioned app. Unlike a brick and mortar store that you can not physically modify, you can easily change the rendering of digital content. The onus for this ought to be at the client where possible.

Edit: Also given the sheer numbers of customers you can reach with the distance equation removed, a rather fundamental difference when compared to a physical store, does the judge really think that Netflix would not add CC to their movies if they could? The free market solution seems to be the best solution here.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Election 2012

Postby Jabari » Fri Jul 06, 2012 3:46 pm

Oh sure, but since when did not understanding something ever stop the government? It would be ignored except for a few "special" cases anyway.

Put another way: "It would give the government the ability to selectively enforce this on anyone they want to beat down." (source: Ticker thread)


"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. When there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws." - Ayn Rand (Atlas Shrugged)
... the fact that more potential voters are swayed by a few trivial comments 10 years ago than a candidate literally collapsing is not a good sign and tends to indicate that even if Trump wins, it won't matter.

No electorate that stupid is going to survive long, one way or another.
Jabari
 
Posts: 762
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 8:46 am

Re: Election 2012

Postby Brekkie » Fri Jul 06, 2012 5:59 pm

Jabari wrote:
Brekkie wrote:So, speaking of greedy rich people, I can't wait until the Libor scandal breaks in the Rolling Stone. This is going to absolutely ROCK the banking industry on it's hinges.
Over 50 trillion dollars stolen over the years due to blatant lying, enabled by the deregulation of wall street by the GOP in the 2000s.


While I appreciate what Taibbi does (and he does do good work on this stuff), you really need to take off your Democrat-colored glasses. Who, exactly, is in charge of the Department of Justice at the moment? You know, the folks who are supposed to prosecute this kind of crap? How many people do you think would try this kind of fraud if they were given an immediate life sentence when caught?

http://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/documents/Barclaysagreement.pdf

(Alternatively: What would the banks look like if the penalty for armed robbery was just returning half of what you stole?)

Fraud is just a business model now, and penalties are simply a slap on the hand (aka: cost of doing business) instead of any kind of actual deterrent.

Neither party seems to be even remotely interested in stopping the fraud, so we're either going to have to live with it or start throwing banksters off the tops of their skyscrapers. *shrug*


Oh I don't disagree, but what this boils down to is that Banks used to be required to provide detailed reports backing up and justifying their numbers. The GOP removed that requirement completely, and allowed them to simply say "take our word for it". No matter how draconian your enforcement is at that point, there is almost certainly going to be corruption.

The historical record shows that the best defense against corruption is not having someone physically looking over your shoulder, it's simply making records...for EVERYTHING. Recording every action and every decision and protecting those records from falsification. The best deterrent is the mindset that everything you do is being recorded somewhere, whereas a designated regulatory agency or law enforcement agency can just be bribed or in on the scum-baggery.

So while the DOJ is certainly incompetent, the fact that a decade or so ago the GOP utterly dismantled this transparency-deterrent is a million times more damning.
Theckhd wrote:big numbers are the in-game way of expressing that Brekkie's penis is huge.
Brekkie
 
Posts: 918
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 7:44 pm

Re: Election 2012

Postby Fridmarr » Fri Jul 06, 2012 7:12 pm

Brekkie wrote:The GOP removed that requirement completely, and allowed them to simply say "take our word for it". No matter how draconian your enforcement is at that point, there is almost certainly going to be corruption.
Do you have a source for that? Not that I would put it past the GOP, but I just can't find anything to back that. As far as I can tell, the process has not changed at all since 1998, and it doesn't look like we really have much of a say in it anyhow since it's mostly occurring across the pond. Several regulatory bodies even investigated after the WSJ study and couldn't confirm those results. On top of that, british gov't has been implicated in this, so I'm not entirely sure what regulations here could have done when groups with real regulatory powers were potentially involved.

All of these processes need transparency, I don't think you'll get any disagreement with that notion. That is especially crucial in a free market sense.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Election 2012

Postby Malthrax » Sat Jul 07, 2012 9:57 am

Brekkie wrote:So, speaking of greedy rich people, I can't wait until the Libor scandal breaks in the Rolling Stone. This is going to absolutely ROCK the banking industry on it's hinges.
Over 50 trillion dollars stolen over the years due to blatant lying, enabled by the deregulation of wall street by the GOP in the 2000s.


Financial Deregulation (specfically the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933) has been a major lobbying point of "Big Banking" since the 1960's. Both sides of the aisle have had their hands in the proverbial cookie-jar and both sides are equally responsible for landing us in this debacle. Greed (and stupidity) knows no political boundaries.

These are the key events that led us to the current situation:

• 1994, Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act – This bill eliminated previous restrictions on interstate banking and branching. It passed with broad bipartisan support.
• 1996, Fed Reinterprets Glass-Steagall – Federal Reserve reinterprets the Glass-Steagall Act several times, eventually allowing bank holding companies to earn up to 25 percent of their revenues in investment banking.
• 1998, Citicorp-Travelers Merger – Citigroup, Inc. merges a commercial bank with an insurance company that owns an investment bank to form the world’s largest financial services company.
• 1999, Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act – With support from Fed Chairman Greenspan, Treasury Secretary Rubin and his successor Lawrence Summers, the bill repeals the Glass-Steagall Act completely.
• 2000, Commodity Futures Modernization Act – Passed with support from the Clinton Administration, including Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers, and bi-partisan support in Congress. The bill prevented the Commodity Futures Trading Commission from regulating most over-the-counter derivative contracts, including credit default swaps.

http://www.openthegovernment.org/sites/ ... 009-07.pdf

All of them had bi-partisan support, and all of them happened under Bill Clinton's watch in the 1990's, not the 2000's.
User avatar
Malthrax
 
Posts: 481
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 11:23 am

Re: Election 2012

Postby Koatanga » Sat Jul 07, 2012 6:28 pm

Not to derail, but to give an example of a Public Health System At Work:

Today my daughter was running around at Sunday School. She tripped and did a face-plant, breaking one of her front teeth at the gum line. She's only 7. We took her to the medics, where she got a temporary cap that should last between 1 and 5 years, which will then be replaced by another, etc. until she's 18, when she'll get a permanent cap.

Because it was an accident, it's completely covered by the government - no out-of-pocket for us now or in the future.

I am pretty sure if I was in the 'States that would only be coverred under a separate dental plan, which few people have anyway.
Un-Retired. Ish. Koatanga, Cutesy, Shapely, Sultry of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1727
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Election 2012

Postby Fridmarr » Sat Jul 07, 2012 7:11 pm

Koatanga wrote:Not to derail, but to give an example of a Public Health System At Work:

Today my daughter was running around at Sunday School. She tripped and did a face-plant, breaking one of her front teeth at the gum line. She's only 7. We took her to the medics, where she got a temporary cap that should last between 1 and 5 years, which will then be replaced by another, etc. until she's 18, when she'll get a permanent cap.

Because it was an accident, it's completely covered by the government - no out-of-pocket for us now or in the future.

I am pretty sure if I was in the 'States that would only be coverred under a separate dental plan, which few people have anyway.

A lot of people opt not to have it, but it's really cheap. By comparison medical bills can easily be hundreds of times more costly than bills you'll generally encounter at a dentist. Plus with proper care you can really cut on those costs, so that's the logic there with people choosing not to have it. Though I think it often backfires because then they choose not to go to their routine dental visits which can come back to bite them.

Assuming you have an income (at least in a US model), while the procedure had no out of pocket cost for you at that moment, you have been and will always be paying for it.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Election 2012

Postby Fivelives » Sun Jul 08, 2012 12:23 pm

Dental plans are kind of ridiculously expensive here. For blue cross/blue shield at my work, I pay $22/paycheck, or $44/month. For my dental plan, I pay $70/paycheck - more than 3 times as much - and I have a higher deductible and co-pay. It also won't cover "elective" procedures. If I want to get implants or even just something simple like bleaching, I have to pay 100% out of pocket. Crowns also aren't covered, but extractions are.

I could pay $221/month and get the "premium" plan that covers everything ($1000 deductible and $100 copay), but that's ridiculous. I could buy a new car for the cost of dental insurance alone.
- I'm not Jesus, but I can turn water into Kool-Aid.
- A Sergeant in motion outranks an officer who doesn't know what the hell is going on.
- A demolitions specialist at a flat run outranks everybody.
User avatar
Fivelives
 
Posts: 2804
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:55 pm

Re: Election 2012

Postby Fridmarr » Sun Jul 08, 2012 12:32 pm

You may want to shop around a bit outside of the plans your work offers, just plugging in an AZ zip code into dentalinsurance.com yields pretty solid coverage for less than $20 per month. Elective stuff is almost never covered on anything, that's why its elective.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Election 2012

Postby Koatanga » Sun Jul 08, 2012 8:10 pm

Fridmarr wrote:A lot of people opt not to have it, but it's really cheap. By comparison medical bills can easily be hundreds of times more costly than bills you'll generally encounter at a dentist. Plus with proper care you can really cut on those costs, so that's the logic there with people choosing not to have it. Though I think it often backfires because then they choose not to go to their routine dental visits which can come back to bite them.

Assuming you have an income (at least in a US model), while the procedure had no out of pocket cost for you at that moment, you have been and will always be paying for it.

Of course I realise that I pay for it. My example was to show that a government healthcare sytem can actually do its job and do it pretty well.

Whether you pay for insurance, or your company pays you less because they pay your insurance, or you pay taxes that pay for your health care, it's all pretty much the same as far as the working man is concerned. Money gets paid out, and health care is there when you need it.

In the private system, a lot of money goes to advertising, redundant overhead, lawsuit payouts, and of course The Bottom Line Profit. In a public system, a lot of money goes to inherent government inefficiency and covering noncontributors.
Un-Retired. Ish. Koatanga, Cutesy, Shapely, Sultry of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1727
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Election 2012

Postby Fridmarr » Sun Jul 08, 2012 9:49 pm

Yeah, I have no delusions that a government healthcare system can't work. There are certainly examples of reasonably effective public health systems out there.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Election 2012

Postby Jabari » Sun Jul 08, 2012 11:00 pm

Probably not completely on topic, but related to political environments and such.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2170677/Caroline-Stern-George-Hess-arrested-dancing-New-York-City-subway-platform.html#ixzz205iPYlIZ

New York City, of course. The government there really wants to control every waking second of every citizen's day.

(Note: "Citizen", not "Subject". Maybe. The King's Enforcers can't have anyone step out of line, I guess.)

As an aside: Why is it that we have to get all our news from either the UK's Daily Mail or from Rolling Stone Magazine? What on earth happened to the media in this country? Was Watergate really THAT long ago?
... the fact that more potential voters are swayed by a few trivial comments 10 years ago than a candidate literally collapsing is not a good sign and tends to indicate that even if Trump wins, it won't matter.

No electorate that stupid is going to survive long, one way or another.
Jabari
 
Posts: 762
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 8:46 am

Re: Election 2012

Postby KysenMurrin » Mon Jul 09, 2012 12:37 am

God, if you're getting your news from the Daily Mail things must be pretty dire.
KysenMurrin
 
Posts: 5215
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:37 am
Location: UK

Re: Election 2012

Postby Fivelives » Mon Jul 09, 2012 3:07 am

Fridmarr wrote:You may want to shop around a bit outside of the plans your work offers, just plugging in an AZ zip code into dentalinsurance.com yields pretty solid coverage for less than $20 per month. Elective stuff is almost never covered on anything, that's why its elective.


Just checked that out. There aren't any providers within 100 miles of me that take any of the discount plans offered through there, but I'll keep digging. I didn't think about shopping around for a discount plan instead of taking the coverage offered through work - thanks for the tip there.
- I'm not Jesus, but I can turn water into Kool-Aid.
- A Sergeant in motion outranks an officer who doesn't know what the hell is going on.
- A demolitions specialist at a flat run outranks everybody.
User avatar
Fivelives
 
Posts: 2804
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:55 pm

Re: Election 2012

Postby aureon » Mon Jul 09, 2012 4:18 am

Koatanga wrote:
Fridmarr wrote:A lot of people opt not to have it, but it's really cheap. By comparison medical bills can easily be hundreds of times more costly than bills you'll generally encounter at a dentist. Plus with proper care you can really cut on those costs, so that's the logic there with people choosing not to have it. Though I think it often backfires because then they choose not to go to their routine dental visits which can come back to bite them.

Assuming you have an income (at least in a US model), while the procedure had no out of pocket cost for you at that moment, you have been and will always be paying for it.

Of course I realise that I pay for it. My example was to show that a government healthcare sytem can actually do its job and do it pretty well.

Whether you pay for insurance, or your company pays you less because they pay your insurance, or you pay taxes that pay for your health care, it's all pretty much the same as far as the working man is concerned. Money gets paid out, and health care is there when you need it.

In the private system, a lot of money goes to advertising, redundant overhead, lawsuit payouts, and of course The Bottom Line Profit. In a public system, a lot of money goes to inherent government inefficiency and covering noncontributors.


Let's analyze data.
European countries have, as a rough figure, 8-10% GDP spending on healthcare (public+private) and are usually ranked in top 10 life expentancy/WHO health ranking.
USA spends 16% and more, and is ranked well in the 30's.

It seems kind of obvious which way is the more efficient one. Government is not ALWAYS less efficient than private enterprises, especially when "call" jobs are in.
I don't know in America, but most med school students here (And figures would get worse if we factor in the costs of med school in both places) don't take the 8+ years of studying for the cash, but for "i want to save lives". (With due exceptions, of course)

And we get away with paying "normal" (and sometimes too low) salaries to doctors and personnel.
6-8% of gdp sinked in substantially no-output ventures is quite awful, isn't it?
User avatar
aureon
 
Posts: 411
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 4:41 pm

Re: Election 2012

Postby Fridmarr » Mon Jul 09, 2012 6:51 am

KysenMurrin wrote:God, if you're getting your news from the Daily Mail things must be pretty dire.

Try researching the libor scandal and see where you end up. You won't find nearly as much from the US media unless you are looking specifically at financial industry rags.

But hey if you want to know why Tom called Katy Kate, we got you covered. Our media is appallingly bad.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Election 2012

Postby Skye1013 » Mon Jul 09, 2012 4:19 pm

That's why I get most of my news from Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. They make it funny and are probably some of the least biased overall...

Granted, they don't cover everything, but it's about the only news I can stand to watch.
"me no gay, me friends gay, me no like you call me gay, you dumb dumb" -bldavis
"Here are the values that I stand for: I stand for honesty, equality, kindness, compassion, treating people the way you wanna be treated, and helping those in need. To me, those are traditional values. That’s what I stand for." -Ellen Degeneres
"I'm not going to censor myself to comfort your ignorance." -Jon Stewart
Horde: Clopin Dylon Sharkbait Xiaman Metria Metapriest
Alliance: Schatze Aleks Deegee Baileyi Sotanaht Danfer Shazta Rawrsalot Roobyroo
User avatar
Skye1013
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 3687
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 5:47 am
Location: JBPH-Hickam, Hawaii

Re: Election 2012

Postby Fivelives » Mon Jul 09, 2012 5:48 pm

I miss the days when reporters were about the news instead of sensationalism and entertainment.
- I'm not Jesus, but I can turn water into Kool-Aid.
- A Sergeant in motion outranks an officer who doesn't know what the hell is going on.
- A demolitions specialist at a flat run outranks everybody.
User avatar
Fivelives
 
Posts: 2804
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:55 pm

Re: Election 2012

Postby Koatanga » Mon Jul 09, 2012 8:07 pm

aureon wrote:Let's analyze data.
European countries have, as a rough figure, 8-10% GDP spending on healthcare (public+private) and are usually ranked in top 10 life expentancy/WHO health ranking.
USA spends 16% and more, and is ranked well in the 30's.

To be fair, not all of those countries have quite the obesity epidemic the US does - yet.

I don't know how the numbers work between the amount paid out of the healthcare budget on advertising, lawsuit settlements, profits, and redundant infrastructure vs. insuring people who aren't paying into the system. I know both systems have large loads placed on them because of those factors.

NZ unemployment is not particularly bad at the moment - 6.7% of New Zealanders are unemployed, and employed people represent 64% of the population. That's a lot of people paying into the healthcare system, so I would expect it to be reasonably healthy.

I can't find concise data for the US, but I am seeing figures of around 47% of the US population being employed. A figure like that makes it more difficult for the employed to cover people who are not paying into the system.
Un-Retired. Ish. Koatanga, Cutesy, Shapely, Sultry of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1727
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Election 2012

Postby Jabari » Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:34 pm

Going back in the thread a bit to expand on something:

Aubade wrote:You're starting to sound a little "Doomsday" there. I think you have some pretty solid points, but Idk if it's THAT bad.


"Doomsday" is a good word, actually. We've gotten a bit sidetracked with the health care ruling and discussion, but that's not the actual problem that the country faces. We're staring "Death by Debt" in the face, and none of the candidates (the "L" included) are saying a damn thing about it.

Please read the following two things, and then go look at the US Debt Clock and you'll see why:
1) I'm so pessimistic, and
2) Why the results of this election don't matter in the least.

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=196155

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=208447
... the fact that more potential voters are swayed by a few trivial comments 10 years ago than a candidate literally collapsing is not a good sign and tends to indicate that even if Trump wins, it won't matter.

No electorate that stupid is going to survive long, one way or another.
Jabari
 
Posts: 762
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 8:46 am

Re: Election 2012

Postby Jabari » Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:43 pm

Fridmarr wrote:
KysenMurrin wrote:God, if you're getting your news from the Daily Mail things must be pretty dire.

Try researching the libor scandal and see where you end up. You won't find nearly as much from the US media unless you are looking specifically at financial industry rags.

But hey if you want to know why Tom called Katy Kate, we got you covered. Our media is appallingly bad.

Yep. For the LIBOR stuff you'll either end up at a UK site or at Zerohedge (which does a reasonable job, even if they get somewhat ... sensationalistic at times). Not a word out of CNN or similar, and maybe a very brief (and often wrong) mention from the WSJ.

Actually, one of the best financial shows around now is called "Capital Accounts with Lauren Lyster". http://rt.com/programs/capital-account/ Well worth following.

(Oh - that rt.com address? That stands for "Russia Today" - how ironic is that?)
... the fact that more potential voters are swayed by a few trivial comments 10 years ago than a candidate literally collapsing is not a good sign and tends to indicate that even if Trump wins, it won't matter.

No electorate that stupid is going to survive long, one way or another.
Jabari
 
Posts: 762
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 8:46 am

PreviousNext

Return to Arkham Asylum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest

Who is online

In total there are 2 users online :: 1 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 380 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:28 pm

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest