Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Invisusira's playground

Moderators: Aergis, Invisusira

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Shoju » Thu May 23, 2013 8:33 am

Man, and I thought I had my dose of crazy for the day.

After looking at those tweets, I'm just.... curious about their logic. Try to follow, this might get a little rambly, and it does infer that they are correct in their assertions for a moment.

If God truly does hate gays, and they are the reason that God sent the tornadoes as a punishment for Kevin Durant supporting Jason Collins
why in the picture they posted is the rainbow flag still standing?
wouldn't it stand to reason if he hates "our idols" as the hashtag says, that he would have made sure his tornado destroyed it?
why didn't god tear the OKC Thunder's arena to shreds?
why didn't god make sure that durant was part of the tragedy?
wouldn't it stand to reason if this were some holy act of vengeance for some dude sticking up for "them" that he would have destroyed his house, and destroyed him?

I mean, in the bible, god destroyed a wicked city, sparing only those who would listen to him
he killed a man because he pulled out before impregnating a woman
he set 10 plagues upon egypt to convince them to let his people go.

But I'm supposed to believe that this tornado was his vengeance for a man speaking in favor of gay rights?

Wooboy... we've got some real winners in the connect the dots race.
User avatar
Shoju
 
Posts: 5069
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 7:15 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Thu May 23, 2013 8:55 am

I'd say God has a terrible aim. If you think about it, hurricans and tornadoes seem to statistically hit bible-belt states rather often than... I don't know... more liberal places?

You'd think if "GodH8sFags", he would actually do it by smooshing San Francisco with his finger, not Moore OK, right smack in the middle of bible-belt.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9500
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Thu May 23, 2013 9:27 am

So, about the whole IRS thing?
http://www.nationalmemo.com/six-facts-l ... s-scandal/

I swear it looks less and less like a scandal every day and more like the IRS just actually doing its job.

Though the 5th Amendment plea looks really really really really really bad in the eyes of public perception.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9500
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Shoju » Thu May 23, 2013 12:36 pm

Klaudandus wrote:So, about the whole IRS thing?
http://www.nationalmemo.com/six-facts-l ... s-scandal/

I swear it looks less and less like a scandal every day and more like the IRS just actually doing its job.

Though the 5th Amendment plea looks really really really really really bad in the eyes of public perception.


BUT HOW WE GUNNA IMPEACH OLABAMA IF WE DUN MAK IT LUK LAK MORE DAN IT WUZ?
User avatar
Shoju
 
Posts: 5069
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 7:15 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Thu May 23, 2013 12:47 pm

Klaudandus wrote:So, about the whole IRS thing?
http://www.nationalmemo.com/six-facts-l ... s-scandal/

I swear it looks less and less like a scandal every day and more like the IRS just actually doing its job.

Though the 5th Amendment plea looks really really really really really bad in the eyes of public perception.


The hypocrisy of that position is staggering.  I think it would be obvious that a government treating political groups unequally (and that article doesn't even attempt to suggest otherwise) on matters of taxation, is more than just a little bit problematic.  That shouldn't depend on who the victims are.

This is the problem with following a political party so blindly, especially here where both parties are really terrible.  It requires a bit of compromising of principles to somehow manage to rationalize this sort of injustice. 
 
The crazy thing is that at this point it's not even necessary.  There's not a whole lot there to suggest that this was politically motivated by some politicians or under any sort of direction by the administration.  That's the politics of the matter and certainly debatable.  The actions of the IRS...not so much.  I'm fairly certain that if the political groups were reversed in this story, the idea that the IRS was just doing its job, wouldn't hold up very well.
 
 
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Koatanga » Thu May 23, 2013 1:51 pm

Got the wife home from the hospital yesterday. All the testing and surgery plus 7 days recovery in hospital plus ambulance plus prescriptions totaled $27 directly out of my pocket. It cost me more in parking to visit her than it cost for everything else.
Un-Retired. Ish. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1687
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Thu May 23, 2013 5:52 pm

Fridmarr wrote:
Klaudandus wrote:So, about the whole IRS thing?
http://www.nationalmemo.com/six-facts-l ... s-scandal/

I swear it looks less and less like a scandal every day and more like the IRS just actually doing its job.

Though the 5th Amendment plea looks really really really really really bad in the eyes of public perception.


The hypocrisy of that position is staggering.  I think it would be obvious that a government treating political groups unequally (and that article doesn't even attempt to suggest otherwise) on matters of taxation, is more than just a little bit problematic.  That shouldn't depend on who the victims are.

This is the problem with following a political party so blindly, especially here where both parties are really terrible.  It requires a bit of compromising of principles to somehow manage to rationalize this sort of injustice. 
 
The crazy thing is that at this point it's not even necessary.  There's not a whole lot there to suggest that this was politically motivated by some politicians or under any sort of direction by the administration.  That's the politics of the matter and certainly debatable.  The actions of the IRS...not so much.  I'm fairly certain that if the political groups were reversed in this story, the idea that the IRS was just doing its job, wouldn't hold up very well.
 
 


Not sure why you think I blindly follow a political party. There are some instances where I favor republicans more (although lately, they've been making it harder and harder for me to do so)

This is the thing, any group that asks to be tax-exempt for social-welfare reasons is also asked by the IRS to stay away from politics. Just asking that raises a flag to begin with, therefore a chance to trigger an audit. I'd welcome an audits on democratic-leaning organizations too.

So here it is, some of these groups said "No, we will not use our money to try to influence politics" and did just that -- which is actually a requirement to obtain tax-exempt status... just saying.
http://www.propublica.org/documents/ite ... p15/a55223
http://www.propublica.org/article/dark- ... ion-on-ads
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9500
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Thu May 23, 2013 6:14 pm

I haven't seen that from you really at all. I mean nothing even close. Pretty much everything I've seen from you in this thread is straight down the party line, regardless of how poor the logic behind the link is.

This has some of that too. Although this article contains interesting information and I can't tell at first glance if it is being deceitful, it basically side steps the point and as a result you are doing the same thing.

Sadly, you are attempting to justify this by suggesting that these groups were not following the law. That may have been the case for some of them, but that's not the point. Liberal groups do the same thing, but they were not targeted. Whether you welcome those audits or not is irrelevant because they weren't nearly as likely to be subjected to them. The conservative groups weren't targeted at random or for anything resembling probable cause, they were targeted because of their political ideology. It was guilt by association, textbook profiling, or whatever other buzzword you want to call it. Buzzwords that you rail against when the victim isn't ideologically opposed to you...just saying.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Shoju » Fri May 24, 2013 7:18 am

The biggest point, and the one that should be the end all be all of this whole conversation about "if" it was appropriate or not, is Point #6 of the article.

6. Some social welfare groups promised in their applications, under penalty of perjury, that they wouldn’t get involved in elections. Then they did just that.


Sorry, I have no love for groups that engage in this behavior. I personally think that they should take it back to the point where a Social Welfare registered entity cannot enter politics at all. Zero. Zilch.

I don't care if they are trying to help Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Tea Party, Communist Party, Socialist Party.

If you register as a Social Welfare Organization, then GTFO and STFO Politics. It's pretty simple.
User avatar
Shoju
 
Posts: 5069
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 7:15 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Fri May 24, 2013 7:22 am

Shoju wrote:The biggest point, and the one that should be the end all be all of this whole conversation about "if" it was appropriate or not, is Point #6 of the article.

6. Some social welfare groups promised in their applications, under penalty of perjury, that they wouldn’t get involved in elections. Then they did just that.


Sorry, I have no love for groups that engage in this behavior. I personally think that they should take it back to the point where a Social Welfare registered entity cannot enter politics at all. Zero. Zilch.

I don't care if they are trying to help Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Tea Party, Communist Party, Socialist Party.

If you register as a Social Welfare Organization, then GTFO and STFO Politics. It's pretty simple.


And I completely agree with that.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9500
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Fri May 24, 2013 8:59 am

Wow, this is amazingly eye-opening.
 
No, I don't agree that that is the biggest issue at all, not even close. I'm, astonished that anyone would. I don't think it's ever appropriate to target a group in this manner.

First of all, just to put that ridiculous idea to bed... according to that article, of the money spent on elections "None came from the Tea Party groups with applications flagged by the IRS.  Instead, a few big conservative groups were largely responsible"  So that argument is dead.  It should have never have been uttered because the side effects are amazingly scary.
 
That argument suggests that it is OK for the government to target, audit, and/or investigate groups for whatever reason it wants as long as "some" of them are not following the law.  /shudder
 
I'd like to think that if some groups are conducting illegal activities from their homes in my neighborhood, that that is not justification for the government to investigate my family without a warrant or probable cause.  Or that, more broadly, all muslims can be targets of investigations because some of them perpetrated 9/11.
 
There are all sorts of reasons why we have protections like warrant requirements and the ability to challenge notions of probable cause, etc.  Now I realize that the IRS isn't a law enforcement agency, and so those notions don't directly translate, but the ethics and principles behind them do.  It's necessary for the IRS to be able to randomly audit records.  It's fine for the IRS to have automated triggers for these audits, as long as they are applied to everyone.  Allowing the IRS to specifically target groups that it feels like is apalling. The consequences of that power are dire, and literally takes us back several hundred years.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Fri May 24, 2013 9:09 am

Fridmarr wrote:It's necessary for the IRS to be able to randomly audit records.  It's fine for the IRS to have automated triggers for these audits, as long as they are applied to everyone.  Allowing the IRS to specifically target groups that it feels like is apalling.  The consequences of that power are dire, and literally takes us back several hundred years.


New Audit Allegations Show Flawed Statistical Thinking
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.co ... &seid=auto

Not really discounting your point, just adding to it.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9500
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Fri May 24, 2013 10:04 am

Yeah their behavior has opened a jar of flies.  I'm not suggesting that the IRS is targeting individuals based on political affiliation.  It would be difficult (aside from the more infamous/high profile) to really do, but you could certainly come up with a point system that on the whole accomplishes that goal. 
 
If the IRS was willing to inappropriately target groups, it's not exactly a quantum leap to believe that the IRS was willing to do that at the individual level either.  That's why the scope of this problem needs to be determined, and we all should require that there is proper transparency and oversight of the process going forward.
 
 
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Sat May 25, 2013 6:58 am

The thing is, you seem to think I'd not bat an eyelash if the IRS had targeted democratic leaning social welfare groups that asked for tax-exempt status.

If they can prove they actively targeted right-leaning groups, then I want whoever authorized that to be held responsible -- but if they got targeted as a routine measure due to applying for TAX-EXEMPT STATUS, well, I find it hard to get outraged.

I mean, what's the schtick with the Tea Party? They are always saying they're being taxed too much.

Anyways, I've always thought that if someone screws up they should be held accountable.

When Jon Stewart (or should I call him Jonathan Leibowitz?) lashes at the current administration, I tend to completely agree with it.

Also, I want Holder out, the guy just keeps screwing up again and again. The whole tap on AP and FOX News does sicken me. That is a scandal IMO.

It is just easier for me to tack on the republicans since when they screw up, they do it in such a fashion it is just easier to pile on them.

And the reason why I don't talk about the parts I agree with republicans is because, according to my friends it makes me a racist and a hater of my own race (being part latino)... yeah, I got really strong words/sentiments towards immigration...

Also... http://www.salon.com/2013/05/24/ted_cru ... the_world/
Image
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9500
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Sat May 25, 2013 9:25 am

No, I think that if liberal groups were unfairly targeted you'd be screaming about it, and if that occurred with a Republican administration you'd likely suspect them. First, all of those left wing sources that you read (based on your many links) that have had you screaming about a lot of other much less significant (or nonexistent) issues, would have exploded. They sure as hell would be trying to pin it on Republicans and reaching as far as they need to do so. I don't think the article that you linked, which again is not suggesting that the IRS was not inappropriate, would have you doubting whether or not this was truly a problem.

I have to seriously laugh when you say "if they can prove they actively targeted right-leaning groups" I mean the reason this story broke is because the IRS admitted to inappropriately, actively (they were specifically searching for specific words like...Tea Party and Patriot in applications) targeting conservative groups. That was like 3 weeks ago. There has never been any doubt (well except for this thread apparently) that the IRS acted inappropriately. Do you think you wouldn't be aware of that fundamental fact, had this exploded on your left wing media/blogosphere sources?
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Sat May 25, 2013 10:20 am

*shrugs* I gotta admit that half of my posts seem trollish and I know you already pegged me as a die-hard bleeding liberal, and I know nothing I do, post or say will change that opinion... So I'll stop giving a flying feather about it... I'll just continue posting as usual without caring.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9500
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Sat May 25, 2013 10:34 am

I only know of you what you post. If you admit that your posts reflect that, then how would I know otherwise? If you made balanced posts or didn't exclusively reference specifically the standard left wing perspective on every topic then my take would change, and I'm more than willing to do so. I don't care if you are a die hard liberal, it's a perfectly acceptable position, but toeing a political party line every single time does require some inconsistency like I called out above.

I think it's unfortunate that you feel intimidated to speak your mind.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Sat May 25, 2013 6:58 pm

To go a different direction, outside of the political parties for a bit. Here's an interesting read about the idea of banning cigarettes. The highlights are essentially that cigarettes kill far more people than pretty much anything else (guns, individual diseases, traffic accidents, etc). Also, options other than a total ban are presented. Cigarettes were not always inhale-able (I didn't know that), and levels of nicotine or the alkalinity of cigarettes can tweaked to decrease their danger and also make them less addictive.

It's a fairly interesting discussion that has a lot of complexity that I don't think will break neatly across party lines.

The article...
http://www.project-syndicate.org/commen ... igarettes-
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby fuzzygeek » Sun May 26, 2013 12:53 am

It is impossible to effectively ban behaviors you don't want. It is far better to incentivize behaviors that you do want.
Image
User avatar
fuzzygeek
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 3447
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 1:58 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Nooska » Sun May 26, 2013 1:53 am

But a little carrot and a little whip goes further than either alone.
*spouting platitudes day*

I think its entirely possible to ban cigarettes completely, as long as the first step is to admit it won't be done overnight, or even in a couple of years. We are talking about changing a behaviour that wa snot only seen as legal, but as cool not so long ago - the first step is of course to limit where you can smoke, and do so in a reasonable manner.
Like "You are not allowed to smoke in a common workplace, due to passive inhalation", and "you are not allowed to smoke 'near' children when working with them profesionally" (passive inhalation, as well as role model), and then tighten the restrictions over time, in a tempo that keeps the ball rolling, but isnt' so fast as to have the "oldtimers" who can't really help that they got addicted to it when it was cool become criminals.

A reasonable timeframe, in my head, is ~50 years from first restriction to final ban, provided the ball is kept rolling.
Main Characters:
Nooska, Blood Elf BM/SV Hunter on Argent Dawn (EU)
Morosin, Bloody freezing orc death knight on Argent Dawn (EU)
Niisca, Shady forsaken "priest" on Argent Dawn (EU)

Keeper Emeritus of the BM hunters guide on Elitist Jerks and the wowhead version untill patch 5.3.
User avatar
Nooska
 
Posts: 1598
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:55 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Sun May 26, 2013 9:01 am

They will never ban them... the taxes on cigarettes are just too tempting to pass on them.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9500
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Sun May 26, 2013 10:05 am

fuzzygeek wrote:It is impossible to effectively ban behaviors you don't want. It is far better to incentivize behaviors that you do want.

Well I don't think you'd ever reach zero use, but with the social stigma associated with cigarettes these days, I think a ban would be pretty effective. There's not much of a redeeming quality to cigarettes that would make them worth any sort of risk, and all the domestic farms would be growing different crops making it that much more of a hassel and expense.

You could phase it in too, starting by requiring lower nicotine levels in existing cigarettes to make them less addictive, keep amping up costs and taxes (which also has been pretty effective), keep putting tighter restrictions on where/when you can smoke etc making it more and more a pain in the ass to keep eroding the public interest.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Nooska » Mon May 27, 2013 6:25 am

Klaudandus wrote:They will never ban them... the taxes on cigarettes are just too tempting to pass on them.

Well, socialized healthcare takes care of that - the taxes made on tobacco producs do not surpass the expenses of treating tobacco caused (related is probably a better word) illnesses.

Not to mention the cost to businesses, with the increased sickdays a smoker will have over a nonsmoker (all other factors being equal), as well as a shorter lifespan (meaning childhood being a nonprovider is a larger part) and a worse health in the end (meaning there isn't actually any 'savings' from the generally decreased lifespan).
Add to that the added expense and recovery time from other health related needs, due to having apoorer health.

Tobacco, as it is available today* provides numerous expenses to society, both state and private sector, and no significant benefit to society (taxes, as said, do not account for costs, there is a net deficit)
Main Characters:
Nooska, Blood Elf BM/SV Hunter on Argent Dawn (EU)
Morosin, Bloody freezing orc death knight on Argent Dawn (EU)
Niisca, Shady forsaken "priest" on Argent Dawn (EU)

Keeper Emeritus of the BM hunters guide on Elitist Jerks and the wowhead version untill patch 5.3.
User avatar
Nooska
 
Posts: 1598
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:55 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Koatanga » Mon May 27, 2013 1:42 pm

Nooska wrote:
Klaudandus wrote:They will never ban them... the taxes on cigarettes are just too tempting to pass on them.

Well, socialized healthcare takes care of that - the taxes made on tobacco producs do not surpass the expenses of treating tobacco caused (related is probably a better word) illnesses.

Not to mention the cost to businesses, with the increased sickdays a smoker will have over a nonsmoker (all other factors being equal), as well as a shorter lifespan (meaning childhood being a nonprovider is a larger part) and a worse health in the end (meaning there isn't actually any 'savings' from the generally decreased lifespan).
Add to that the added expense and recovery time from other health related needs, due to having apoorer health.

Tobacco, as it is available today* provides numerous expenses to society, both state and private sector, and no significant benefit to society (taxes, as said, do not account for costs, there is a net deficit)

Are you certain of your figures? Have you taken into consideration the Social Security and medicare cost of people living full lives instead of dying early from smoking-related illnesses?
Un-Retired. Ish. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1687
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Mon May 27, 2013 2:43 pm

Ohio school district's new curriculum mandates that for controversial issues, "all sides" of the issue are to be presented
http://www.boarddocs.com/oh/scsdoh/Boar ... 240%20.pdf

For purposes of this policy, controversial issues include: religion when not used in a historical or factual context, sex education, legalization of drugs, evolution/creation, pro-life/abortion, contraception/abstinence, conservatism/liberalism, politics, gun rights, global warming and climate change, UN Agenda 21 and sustainable development, and any other topic on which opposing points of view have been promulgated by responsible opinion and/or likely to arouse both support and opposition in the community.

Image

Was tempted to bold evolution, but I find it more WTF worthy that they actually consider teaching Glenn Beck conspiracy theories.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9500
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

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