Anabolics
Search More Than 6,000,000 Posts
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 83
  1. #1
    Anhydro78's Avatar
    Anhydro78 is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    2,439

    So you say you are liberal

    DO you fully support the ACLU and all the cases they take on????

  2. #2
    UrbanLegend's Avatar
    UrbanLegend is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,709
    Quote Originally Posted by Anhydro78
    DO you fully support the ACLU and all the cases they take on????

    Thats an extremist group, that would be like saying the KKK is what represents conservatives. The ACLU is really just plain fascist, they are "Nazi's without the tanks" as Bill O'Riley puts it.

  3. #3
    Pale Horse's Avatar
    Pale Horse is offline F.I.L.F.
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    ACLU headquarters
    Posts
    6,425
    Urbanlegand,

    No!No! The libs call conservatives Nazis so the ACLU needs a different name, Nazis is already taken.......sorry.

  4. #4
    Lozgod's Avatar
    Lozgod is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Philly - Better than you
    Posts
    6,834
    I am middle of the road. I said it 100000 times. I hate labels. I think it is ok to take a murderer where there is absolutely no reasonable doubt, cut off his or her arms and legs, throw them in a pool with baby pirahnas and let them die slowly. However I hate the conservatives veiw on the environment and gun laws. Love their tax laws though.

  5. #5
    Anhydro78's Avatar
    Anhydro78 is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    2,439
    I hear what you are saying but its the best example of extreme liberalism. Id like to hear if anyone actually supports their efforts. I have a few examples of cases that the ACLU takes on.

  6. #6
    Anhydro78's Avatar
    Anhydro78 is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    2,439
    Yeah you have to love the tax breaks. Are you rich??? Im not and can still see the benifits of Bush's tax cuts. Democrates are screaming that the only people that get a tax break is the rich. So that will tell who they consider rich. The 1950's slogan the Republicans are for the Rich and the Democrates are for the poor is somewhat accurate. But we still dont have anyone for the middle class average worrking man. Both partys dick us.

  7. #7
    Lozgod's Avatar
    Lozgod is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Philly - Better than you
    Posts
    6,834
    Quote Originally Posted by Anhydro78
    Yeah you have to love the tax breaks. Are you rich??? Im not and can still see the benifits of Bush's tax cuts. Democrates are screaming that the only people that get a tax break is the rich. So that will tell who they consider rich. The 1950's slogan the Republicans are for the Rich and the Democrates are for the poor is somewhat accurate. But we still dont have anyone for the middle class average worrking man. Both partys dick us.
    I am not even close to rich. I wish I was, but I see a difference in my paycheck depending on if an elephant or a jackass is in office.

  8. #8
    MMC78's Avatar
    MMC78 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,310
    Quote Originally Posted by Lozgod
    I am middle of the road. I said it 100000 times. I hate labels. I think it is ok to take a murderer where there is absolutely no reasonable doubt, cut off his or her arms and legs, throw them in a pool with baby pirahnas and let them die slowly. However I hate the conservatives veiw on the environment and gun laws. Love their tax laws though.
    I think you're living in denial. It's ok, you can come out of the closet here. No one will judge you.

  9. #9
    nickrizz's Avatar
    nickrizz is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    North Jersey
    Posts
    3,189
    ACLU is ridiculous, they want to change every tradition because they need attention.

  10. #10
    chicamahomico's Avatar
    chicamahomico is offline Respected Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Hoss's Moms bedroom
    Posts
    2,993
    The ALCU is excercising it's legal rights. Whether or not you agree with their positions on issues or the cases it takes, you are all better off with them as it is as ooposed to having some framework legislated that prevents such cases from being put forth.

  11. #11
    nickrizz's Avatar
    nickrizz is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    North Jersey
    Posts
    3,189
    but honestly they want to take god out of the pledge, and take god out of every state building. i dont really think it bothers anyone.

  12. #12
    Tock's Avatar
    Tock is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    7,103
    Quote Originally Posted by Anhydro78
    I hear what you are saying but its the best example of extreme liberalism. Id like to hear if anyone actually supports their efforts. I have a few examples of cases that the ACLU takes on.


    That would be me. Long-time supporter of the ACLU, they're gonna get about a third of the vast Tock stock and mutual fund holdings upon my demise.

    ===============

    From www.aclu.org :

    "The ACLU is our nation’s guardian of liberty. We work daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States. Our job is to conserve America’s original civic values - the Constitution and the Bill of Rights."

    "The mission of the ACLU is to preserve all of these protections and guarantees:

    Your First Amendment rights-freedom of speech, association and assembly. Freedom of the press, and freedom of religion supported by the strict separation of church and state.

    Your right to equal protection under the law - equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin.

    Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.

    Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.
    We work also to extend rights to segments of our population that have traditionally been denied their rights, including Native Americans and other people of color; lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgendered people; women; mental-health patients; prisoners; people with disabilities; and the poor."
    ===========


    IMHO, the US Constitution is a pretty good document. I can't imagine how defending the rights it guarantees would be a bad thing.

    But . . . some folks look at some of the slime that the ACLU defends, and confuse the defense of the slime with the defense of their constitutionally guaranteed rights.
    Like the time the American Nazi party wanted to have a parade through the Jewish part of Skokie, Illinois. Seems the town wouldn't grant them a parade permit under any circumstances solely because they were Nazis. Well, since it's a bad idea for the government to stop public assemblies and demonstrations based on the content of their speech, the ACLU went to court for them, not because they like Nazis, but to defend their right to parade just like anyone else.

    Sure, some of the ACLU's clients are justifiably unpopular, but if you look closely, you'll find they are not defending their clients so much as standing up to the government's intrusion on the rights guaranteed by the US Constitution. So, if you dislike the ACLU, at least be clear about what it is that you don't like about them.

    --Tock

  13. #13
    Lozgod's Avatar
    Lozgod is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Philly - Better than you
    Posts
    6,834
    Quote Originally Posted by MMC78
    I think you're living in denial. It's ok, you can come out of the closet here. No one will judge you.
    Well if thinking that homosexuality is a mental and emotional illness doesnt disqualify me as liberal then I might just be.

  14. #14
    Tock's Avatar
    Tock is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    7,103
    Quote Originally Posted by nickrizz
    but honestly they want to take god out of the pledge, and take god out of every state building. i dont really think it bothers anyone.

    The phrase "under God" wasn't put in the pledge until the McCarthyism and communist scare of the 1950's. It was supposed to distinguish the US from the godless USSR as being a "Christian Nation." Well, tough.

    This country was founded on capitallist principles by the British East India Company and other wealthy investors for the purposes of making a profit from their investments in the New World.
    www.beyondbooks.com/ush72/2b_link.asp
    Sure, they sent over lots of religious nuts, but that's becaue that's about all they had to ship over. Witch-burning wasn't uncommon, and the Inquisition was busy torturing and burning heretics, Protestants were warring against Catholics, and for the most part, religious values were pretty bizarre.
    In 1693 the "Billy Graham" of New England, Rev. Cotton Mather, wrote a truly bizarre book titled, "Wonders of the Invisible World"
    http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/mo...c/Bur4Nar.html
    where he pens:
    -------
    "A famous Divine recites this among the Convictions of a Witch; The Testimony of the Party Bewitched, whether Pining or Dying; together with the Joint Oathes of Sufficient Persons that have seen certain Prodigious Pranks or Feats wrought by the party Accused. Now God had been pleased so to leave this G. B. that he had ensnared himself by several Instances, which he had formerly given of a Preternatural strength, and which were now produced against him. He was a very Puny man; yet he had often done things beyond the strength of a Giant. A Gun of about seven foot barrel, and so heavy that strong men could not steadily hold it out with both hands; there were several Testimonies, given in by Persons of Credit and Honour, that he made nothing of taking up such a Gun behind the Lock, with but one hand, and holding it out like a Pistol, at Arms-end. G. B. in his Vindication was so foolish as to say, That an Indian was there, and held it out at the same time: Whereas, none of the Spectators ever saw any such Indian; but they suppos'd the Black man (as the Witches call the Devil; and they generally say he resembles an Indian) might give him that Assistence. There was Evidence likewise brought in, that he made nothing of Taking up whole Barrels fill'd with Malasses or Cider, in very Disadvantagious Postures, and Carrying of them through the Difficultest Places out of a Canoo to the Shore.
    ---------

    Ya, this is the sort of stuff Christians beleived in back then. Some still do, and such things are popular in teenage horror movies, but examination reveals it to be based on religious superstition, heresay, and fear of the unknown. Nevertheless, many lives were screwed up by this sort of thinking, and 20 people in Salem Massachusetts were executed because of it.
    If Cotton Mather's theological descendants had their way, people could be prosecuted for violating Biblical commands, from homosexuality to Sabbath-breaking, and would allow for the Bible's version of slavery.

    Thanks to the US Constitution, Americans live under the principle that the government leaves the churches alone. This includes NOT giving churches taxpayer money, NOT spending tax money to pay for schools for schools to use to spread their religious dogma and opinions, and NOT requiring Americans to be Christians to hold elective office, and NOT requiring American schoolchildren to say "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegience in order to get an education, the right NOT to have their taxes pay for publishing, displaying, and distributing Bible verses with taxpayer money on public property. These are the Constitutional rights the ACLU defends. The ACLU doesn't care what people do on their own private property with their own $$$; they don't care how much parents make their children pray at home or at political pep rallies or in church. It's just unconstitutional for a public school to tell a kid that they MUST pray a prayer to Jesus every morning, or else they can't get an education (which is precisely what Madelyn Murray O'Hair's Supreme Court case was all about).

    So . . . it's not a question of how much government established religion "bothers anyone," it's a question of if it's constitutional or not. Clearly, people cannot be required to endure prayer in school, and government-paid employees cannot (legally, anyway) be paid to lead students in religious activity.

    -Tock

  15. #15
    UrbanLegend's Avatar
    UrbanLegend is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,709
    .....the only reason why the ACLU wins (they rarely do I find out) is because they pester people to the point where its too expensive to keep fighting them. They are Nazis, you are not allowed to disagree with them or they take you to court. They never stop anything important (they accomplished NOTHING in their endeavors with the Patriot Act), they just go after little things to make other peoples lives more difficult. They want to take over the country one court battle at a time.......

    What they did the Boy Scouts will always bother me. The Boy Scouts didn't want to have Homosexual leaders and members for obvious reasons (lawsuits of parents when they find out so-and-so were fulling around in the tent, ect.) The same logic that has been used to keep Girls out of Boy Scouts is the same logic that was explained to keep homosexuals out of Boy Scouts, "But oh no!" says the ACLU "You can't do that, you are "discriminating," despite the fact that you are a private organization and have logical arguements supporting you and are techinically correct, we have to take you to court and make you seem evil and discriminatory for our cause." They lost their case, thankfully, but the liberal media made out the Boy Scouts to be some KKK group for kids, when the reality was they were just trying to keep any lawsuits and problems away.


    IMO anyone who supports them is a Nazi too......

  16. #16
    sin's Avatar
    sin
    sin is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    here
    Posts
    1,085
    im not going to respond to any of the stuff on this thread, because i dont care. but i am going to point out here that i think that the term nazi is getting out of control in this forum. this is the **** that the media and politicians have done forever to galvanize their position, call people the ultimate evil; devil, hitler, nazis etc. if you cant use logic and reasoning to support your arguments, maybe you should simply shut the **** up until you can.

  17. #17
    UrbanLegend's Avatar
    UrbanLegend is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,709
    Quote Originally Posted by sin
    im not going to respond to any of the stuff on this thread, because i dont care. but i am going to point out here that i think that the term nazi is getting out of control in this forum. this is the **** that the media and politicians have done forever to galvanize their position, call people the ultimate evil; devil, hitler, nazis etc. if you cant use logic and reasoning to support your arguments, maybe you should simply shut the **** up until you can.
    I assume you are talking to me.....as I am the only one who has used the term (more than once at that) on this thread.


    And the ACLU are a bunch of Fascists, and Nazi's are Fascist, are they not? And I did use logical arguements to support myself, did I not? If not, feel free to comment on how my arguements lacked logical backing, I will see if I can explain it better......


    On a side note....
    Enjoy your honeymoon

  18. #18
    sin's Avatar
    sin
    sin is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    here
    Posts
    1,085
    really im talking about all of the threads in general, this term has been used a number of times. i think the forum has decayed in the last few weeks to name calling and political party gibberish, so im just in the mood to throw out my opinion.
    on the other point;
    fascist; noun {U}
    a political system based on a very powerful leader, state control and extreme pride in country and race, and in which political opposition is not allowed

    i dont think this is quite the definition of the aclu. fascist would be the extreme of right wing govt, while anarchy would be the extreme left. since the aclu would be considered extremely "liberal" hence left, i dont think they can be considered fascist maybe communist, socialist anarchist would be more fitting. i think your arguments are fine, i just think youve tried to create an extreme view of an organization by using strong language instead of arguing facts.

    ...and thanks, it should be a good time.

  19. #19
    UrbanLegend's Avatar
    UrbanLegend is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,709
    Quote Originally Posted by sin
    a political system based on a very powerful leader, state control and extreme pride in country and race, and in which political opposition is not allowed

    i dont think this is quite the definition of the aclu. fascist would be the extreme of right wing govt, while anarchy would be the extreme left. since the aclu would be considered extremely "liberal" hence left, i dont think they can be considered fascist maybe communist, socialist anarchist would be more fitting. i think your arguments are fine, i just think youve tried to create an extreme view of an organization by using strong language instead of arguing facts.
    Yes, they may not be the EXACT definition of fascist, but they represent practice fascist ideologies. You CANNOT disagree with them, you have to agree with them or they take you to court. Political opposition is allowed by them. They have to have things their way, if you are in their opinion 'violating' someone's rights (whatever they consider that to be) to do whatever, they would bring you to court.

    As Bill O'Reilly calls them ...

    "The ACLU is the most fascist organization I have seen in decades. They want to tell you how to live. They don't want to abide by the Constitution. They want to go AROUND the Constitution. They're intellectual fascists. And they use the courts as their Panzer divisions."

    Panzer, of course, is specifically : a German tank of World War II - M.Websters." So yes, Bill just called them Nazis basically. And he did call them Nazi's on the radio, thats where I got the first quote up at the very top.

  20. #20
    chicamahomico's Avatar
    chicamahomico is offline Respected Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Hoss's Moms bedroom
    Posts
    2,993
    Not even close to facist. From your posts in this thread it seems you haven't the faitest idea what you are talking about. The ACLU makes it's case in a court of law, basing its arguments on provisons in what is arguably the most free and democratic legislation in existence (The American Constition and The Bill of Rights). The ALCU are proponents of protecting (as outlined in the aforementioned documents):

    1.) Freedom of speech, press, etc
    2.) Right to due process
    3.) Right to privacy

    My knowlege of the ALCU is not what it would be if I were an American citizen or resident. Definitely an entity that is good to have around.

    Quote Originally Posted by UrbanLegend
    Yes, they may not be the EXACT definition of fascist, but they represent practice fascist ideologies. You CANNOT disagree with them, you have to agree with them or they take you to court. Political opposition is allowed by them. They have to have things their way, if you are in their opinion 'violating' someone's rights (whatever they consider that to be) to do whatever, they would bring you to court.

  21. #21
    Tock's Avatar
    Tock is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    7,103
    Quote Originally Posted by UrbanLegend
    What they did the Boy Scouts will always bother me. The Boy Scouts didn't want to have Homosexual leaders and members for obvious reasons
    What obvious reasons?
    If you're saying that gays shouldn't be around kids because of sex abuse, you're wrong. It is pederasts who molest kids, and the vast majority of them are HETEROSEXUAL.
    What the Boy Scouts ought to do is screen their volunteers for child molesters, not for gays. And if they've got a gay kid, they shouldn't be telling him that he can't participate either.




    Quote Originally Posted by UrbanLegend
    "But oh no!" says the ACLU "You can't do that, you are "discriminating," despite the fact that you are a private organization
    The Boy Scouts were chartered by the United States Congress back around 1908, and had been getting $$$ from the federal and state governments. The claim was that if a group receives $$$ from the public at large, then it ought to serve the public at large. But it won't serve gay kids, much less accept gays for volunteers.

    Consequently, more and more United Way organizations are dropping the Boy Scouts from its list of beneficiaries, as are most large corporations. Churches and other religous organizations are picking up the slack, which is fine. If the Scouts get all their $$$ from private sources, then they can keep out blacks, Jews, Mexicans, Italians, Puerto Ricans, Mormons, and whoever else they want, as it'll be a privately supported organization at that point.

    But IMHO, any organization that acccepts gov't money should be required to accept the people that $$$ comes from, too.



    Quote Originally Posted by UrbanLegend
    and have logical arguements supporting you and are techinically correct, we have to take you to court and make you seem evil and discriminatory for our cause." They lost their case, thankfully,
    The courts ain't always right. Remember the Dred Scott case?




    Quote Originally Posted by UrbanLegend
    but the liberal media made out the Boy Scouts to be some KKK group for kids, when the reality was they were just trying to keep any lawsuits and problems away.
    Nope, just trying to sustain their bigoted policy.




    Quote Originally Posted by UrbanLegend
    IMO anyone who supports them is a Nazi too......
    Goes to show how wrong you can be.
    I'm about as much a Nazi as I am heterosexual. And let me tell ya, if I had as many sticking out of me as I've had stuck in me, I'd look like a porcupine.

    -Tock

  22. #22
    Lozgod's Avatar
    Lozgod is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Philly - Better than you
    Posts
    6,834
    Quote Originally Posted by Tock
    It is pederasts who molest kids, and the vast majority of them are HETEROSEXUAL.
    If you have sex with a little boy, you fit the definition of a homosexual. Same sex relations. I fail to see your point.

  23. #23
    chicamahomico's Avatar
    chicamahomico is offline Respected Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Hoss's Moms bedroom
    Posts
    2,993
    Off topic but one is a criminal act and the other is an act between consenting adults. If a person of the age of majority has sex with a minor, the law does not differentiate based on the sex of the victim, it's the age which matters.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lozgod
    If you have sex with a little boy, you fit the definition of a homosexual. Same sex relations. I fail to see your point.

  24. #24
    Lozgod's Avatar
    Lozgod is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Philly - Better than you
    Posts
    6,834
    Quote Originally Posted by chicamahomico
    Off topic but one is a criminal act and the other is an act between consenting adults. If a person of the age of majority has sex with a minor, the law does not differentiate based on the sex of the victim, it's the age which matters.
    I know the legal definitions, I am just saying that you cant call a man that sleeps with the same sex no matter what the age a heterosexual, at best you can call him a bi-sexual.

  25. #25
    Tock's Avatar
    Tock is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    7,103
    Quote Originally Posted by Lozgod
    I know the legal definitions, I am just saying that you cant call a man that sleeps with the same sex no matter what the age a heterosexual, at best you can call him a bi-sexual.


    For some strange reason, if a white woman and a black man have a child, the dark-skinned kid is considered to be black, when he's actually both. And if that "black" kid mates with a white, then the resulting dark-skinned kid is still considered black, even though he's 75% white. Makes no logical sense.

    Along the same notion, if a man has had sex with women for 30 years, he's heterosexual. But if he has sex once with a boy, he's all of a sudden "gay." Not even bi-sexual, but flat-out uncompromisingly gay. Again, that makes no sense to me.

    Rant rant rant . . .

    -Tock

  26. #26
    Lozgod's Avatar
    Lozgod is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Philly - Better than you
    Posts
    6,834
    Quote Originally Posted by Tock
    Along the same notion, if a man has had sex with women for 30 years, he's heterosexual. But if he has sex once with a boy, he's all of a sudden "gay." Not even bi-sexual, but flat-out uncompromisingly gay. Again, that makes no sense to me.

    Rant rant rant . . .

    -Tock
    If I take a 1932 Ford Model T that is black and paint it blue, it may have been black for 72 years, but guess what color it is now?????

    Also with race you are talking genetics, with who you place your penis in you are talking about a choice. You can talk all the gayness is a genetic thing all day, but the fact is I make a decision on who I place my big giant schlong in everytime I do it.
    Last edited by Lozgod; 08-14-2004 at 07:13 PM.

  27. #27
    UrbanLegend's Avatar
    UrbanLegend is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,709
    Quote Originally Posted by chicamahomico
    Not even close to facist. From your posts in this thread it seems you haven't the faitest idea what you are talking about. The ACLU makes it's case in a court of law, basing its arguments on provisons in what is arguably the most free and democratic legislation in existence (The American Constition and The Bill of Rights). The ALCU are proponents of protecting (as outlined in the aforementioned documents):

    1.) Freedom of speech, press, etc
    2.) Right to due process
    3.) Right to privacy

    My knowlege of the ALCU is not what it would be if I were an American citizen or resident. Definitely an entity that is good to have around.


    Yes, they do exactly what THEY want, you are not allowed to have have your own rules. They want to stop you from being able to do things as you see fit, you must do it as THEY see fit. They don't wnat you to be able:

    * to drug test residents http://www.civilrightsunion.com/acluwatch/keepclean.htm
    * to have any say about who you let into your private organization, despite any logical reasons you may have http://www.civilrightsunion.com/acluwatch/keepclean.htm

    * to have any control over keeping obscene images away from children http://www.civilrightsunion.com/aclu...ve.htm#library
    * to keep satan out of your life http://www.civilrightsunion.com/aclu...ve.htm#library
    * to keep our Nation (the U.S) safe from terrorists ( the the ACLU do a bad homework job on this one) http://www.civilrightsunion.com/aclu...ll.htm#holiday

    * to be able to prevent voter fraud http://www.civilrightsunion.com/aclu....htm#votefraud

    And I could keep going, but I'm tired......

    They want to control your life, tell you want to do.....in other words, control the system. Totalitarianism is what they seem to want, you cannot do as you see fit unless it complies with the ACLU. Then you go to court.....where they bring out their guns and slaughter you. Again, poetic language, but I am trying to describe how I feel about them. This is a thread based on the opinions that people have on the ACLU, and I am just backing up why I feel the way I do.


    This may sound insulting, but I certainly do not mean it to be: You are Canadian, how can you truly understand what the ACLU does or does not do for America? You don't see the results of what they do, so I don't see where it is fit for you to comment. They want to go AROUND the constitution, you probably got your information of their website or a quick google search. In other words, your only knowledge of what they do is what they told you they do. It would be like me saying that my career is a Hydro-Aluminum Transportation Engineer, when really it is just a summer job where I go to a farm and move pipes for a few hours a day for minimum wage.......There may be more to it than what is being said in a few words.

  28. #28
    Tock's Avatar
    Tock is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    7,103
    Quote Originally Posted by Lozgod
    If I take a 1932 Ford Model T that is black and paint it blue, it may have been black for 72 years, but guess what color it is now?????

    If you put a woman's dress on a man, what sex is the person?
    If you put a couch potato in posing briefs on a stage, is that person suddenly a bodybuilder?
    If someone reads Einstein's "Theory of Relativity," does that make him a physicist?
    -Tock

  29. #29
    Lozgod's Avatar
    Lozgod is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Philly - Better than you
    Posts
    6,834
    Quote Originally Posted by Tock
    If you put a woman's dress on a man, what sex is the person?
    If you put a couch potato in posing briefs on a stage, is that person suddenly a bodybuilder?
    If someone reads Einstein's "Theory of Relativity," does that make him a physicist?
    -Tock
    no, no, and no

  30. #30
    UrbanLegend's Avatar
    UrbanLegend is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,709
    Quote Originally Posted by Tock
    What obvious reasons?
    If you're saying that gays shouldn't be around kids because of sex abuse, you're wrong. It is pederasts who molest kids, and the vast majority of them are HETEROSEXUAL.
    What the Boy Scouts ought to do is screen their volunteers for child molesters, not for gays. And if they've got a gay kid, they shouldn't be telling him that he can't participate either.
    I have always wanted to say this to you: Bitch Please!

    That being said.......
    You are reading what I said wrong. What would happen if two gay male leaders were fulling around in a tent one night, little Timmy goes to ask them if he can borrow a flashlight and sees the love that dare not speak its own name......Can you say LAWSUITE!!! Can you say BYE-BYE Boy Scouts! Worse still (for the organization, I'm not condenming homosexuality) would be if two gay kids were messing around and then the parents of the gay kids found out.....can you say LAWSUIT!!! Can you say BYE-BYE Boy Scouts!

    The same reasons for keeping out Gays is the same reason they don't allow Girls in the Boy Scouts! Can you imagine what would happen: Teenage Girls and Guys in tents in the woods......maybe nothing, but at the same time, maybe something. They want to keep sex out of the program, is that such a bad thing?


    Quote Originally Posted by Tock
    The Boy Scouts were chartered by the United States Congress back around 1908, and had been getting $$$ from the federal and state governments. The claim was that if a group receives $$$ from the public at large, then it ought to serve the public at large. But it won't serve gay kids, much less accept gays for volunteers.

    Consequently, more and more United Way organizations are dropping the Boy Scouts from its list of beneficiaries, as are most large corporations. Churches and other religous organizations are picking up the slack, which is fine. If the Scouts get all their $$$ from private sources, then they can keep out blacks, Jews, Mexicans, Italians, Puerto Ricans, Mormons, and whoever else they want, as it'll be a privately supported organization at that point.

    But IMHO, any organization that acccepts gov't money should be required to accept the people that $$$ comes from, too.
    There is a difference between being black and Gay, I hate when people make these comparisons: Gay is something you choose to be (you have to act on it to be gay), black is something you are. I know so many people that used to be gay but they stopped being gay by choice.....well, only two poeple, but still. If you want to go ahead and be gay thats fine, just don't act like you are some victem of your biology. Victem is probably the wrong word to use, but I'm not a thesaurus.....

    Here is something interesting to think about: If I were a Christian, and there was a bunch of (extremist) Muslims in the area who had a building for their worship (I forget the term, is it synagogue or mausk for them? anyway.....) and they wouldn't let me come to their services because I was an 'evil' christian, is that legal? They said it was to me, despite the fact that I am not a christian (they just assumed I was, but for logical reasons that I don't want to get into....)?



    Quote Originally Posted by Tock
    The courts ain't always right. Remember the Dred Scott case?
    Not off the top of my head, but I can look it up......Courts are a matter of opinion, so lets not go there. IMO they were right on this one, in your opinion they weren't, and they we will not get past that so lets drop it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Tock
    Nope, just trying to sustain their bigoted policy.
    I attend a university in Idaho, and have met a number of skinheads. THOSE guys are biggots, you don't know what you are talking about here. The Boy Scouts had logical reasons for keeping homosexuals out, whether you agree with them or not.



    Quote Originally Posted by Tock
    Goes to show how wrong you can be.
    I'm about as much a Nazi as I am heterosexual. And let me tell ya, if I had as many sticking out of me as I've had stuck in me, I'd look like a porcupine.

    -Tock
    I can be quite wrong, this is true. But the ACLU wants to control the lives of others, they want to be in charge of what you can and can't say and do. Thats totalitarianism. Thats Fascism. And that Nazi's are fascists.....see the connection? If not its because I didn't explain it well enough.....not because I am wrong.

  31. #31
    Tock's Avatar
    Tock is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    7,103
    Quote Originally Posted by UrbanLegend
    Here is something interesting to think about: If I were a Christian, and there was a bunch of (extremist) Muslims in the area who had a building for their worship (I forget the term, is it synagogue or mausk for them? anyway.....) and they wouldn't let me come to their services because I was an 'evil' christian, is that legal? They said it was to me, despite the fact that I am not a christian (they just assumed I was, but for logical reasons that I don't want to get into....)?

    Yes they can. Religious organizations are free to exclude anyone or any group of people. 100% legal.
    The Mormons used to exclude blacks from their priesthood, something about being "cursed by god" . . here are some quotes from Mormon leaders:
    --
    "You see some classes of the human family that are BLACK, UNCOUTH, UNCOMELY, DISAGREEABLE and LOW in their habits, WILD, and seemingly DEPRIVED OF NEARLY ALL THE BLESSINGS OF THE INTELLIGENCE that is generally bestowed upon mankind. The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of any one of the children of Adam. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been KILLED, and THAT WOULD HAVE PUT A TERMINATION TO THAT LINE OF HUMAN BEINGS. This was not to be, and the Lord put A MARK upon him, which is THE FLAT NOSE AND BLACK SKIN. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race -- that they should be the "servants of servants;" and they will be, until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree." LDS "Prophet" Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7, p. 290, 1859, emphasis added.
    --
    "Is there reason then why the type of birth we receive in this life is not A REFLECTION OF OUR WORTHINESS or LACK OF IT IN THE PRE-EXISTENT LIFE? ...[C]an we account in any other way for the birth of some of the children of God in DARKEST AFRICA, or in FLOOD-RIDDEN CHINA, or among the STARVING HORDES OF INDIA, while some of the rest of us are born here in the United States? We cannot escape the conclusion that BECAUSE OF PERFORMANCE IN OUR PRE-EXISTENCE some of us are born as CHINESE, some as JAPANESE, some as Latter-day Saints. ...A CHINESE, BORN IN CHINA WITH A DARK SKIN, and with all the HANDICAPS OF THAT RACE seems to have little opportunity. But think of the mercy of God to Chinese people who are willing to accept the gospel. IN SPITE OF WHATEVER THEY MIGHT HAVE DONE IN THE PRE-EXISTENCE TO JUSTIFY BEING BORN OVER THERE AS CHINAMEN, if they now, in this life accept the gospel and live it the rest of their lives they can have the Priesthood, go to the temple and receive endowments and sealings, and that means they can have exaltation. Isn't the mercy of God marvelous? Think of the Negro, cursed as to the priesthood.... THIS NEGRO, WHO, IN THE PRE-EXISTENCE LIVED THE TYPE OF LIFE WHICH JUSTIFIED THE LORD IN SENDING HIM TO EARTH IN THE LINEAGE OF CAIN WITH A BLACK SKIN, AND POSSIBLY BEING BORN IN DARKEST AFRICA.... IN SPITE OF ALL HE DID IN THE PRE-EXISTENT LIFE, the Lord is willing, if the Negro accepts the gospel with real, sincere faith, and is really converted, to give him the blessings of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. IF THAT NEGRO IS FAITHFUL ALL HIS DAYS, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. HE WILL GO THERE AS A SERVANT, but he will get celestial glory." LDS "Apostle" Mark E. Petersen, "Race Problems - As They Affect the Church," Address delivered at Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, August 27, 1954, as quoted in Jerald and Sandra Tanner's book entitled "The Changing World of Mormonism," p. 294. Note: Allegedly, even "if that Negro is faithful all his days," he will never achieve equality with his "white and delightsome" Mormon brethren. Instead he allegedly will go to the celestial kingdom "AS A SERVANT!"
    --

    but the Head "Prophet" of the Mormon Church had a change of heart in 1978, now they can be missionaries just like white folks. Ain't they lucky?

    I know from personal experience that The Salvation Army kicks out gays, as do many other churches. They could, if they wished, keep out blacks, women, disabled people, etc etc. and can preach that women should "keep their place in the home" and all sorts of weird crap.

    They are even allowed free public services, like fire and police protection, and in some places, free water and sewer from the city. Taxpayers get to pay their share, whether they go to that (or any) church or not.


    Anyway, yes, it is legal for a religious organization to keep you out.

    -Tock

  32. #32
    UrbanLegend's Avatar
    UrbanLegend is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,709
    Quote Originally Posted by Tock
    Yes they can. Religious organizations are free to exclude anyone or any group of people. 100% legal.
    The Mormons used to exclude blacks from their priesthood, something about being "cursed by god" . . here are some quotes from Mormon leaders:
    --
    "You see some classes of the human family that are BLACK, UNCOUTH, UNCOMELY, DISAGREEABLE and LOW in their habits, WILD, and seemingly DEPRIVED OF NEARLY ALL THE BLESSINGS OF THE INTELLIGENCE that is generally bestowed upon mankind. The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of any one of the children of Adam. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been KILLED, and THAT WOULD HAVE PUT A TERMINATION TO THAT LINE OF HUMAN BEINGS. This was not to be, and the Lord put A MARK upon him, which is THE FLAT NOSE AND BLACK SKIN. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race -- that they should be the "servants of servants;" and they will be, until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree." LDS "Prophet" Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7, p. 290, 1859, emphasis added.
    --
    "Is there reason then why the type of birth we receive in this life is not A REFLECTION OF OUR WORTHINESS or LACK OF IT IN THE PRE-EXISTENT LIFE? ...[C]an we account in any other way for the birth of some of the children of God in DARKEST AFRICA, or in FLOOD-RIDDEN CHINA, or among the STARVING HORDES OF INDIA, while some of the rest of us are born here in the United States? We cannot escape the conclusion that BECAUSE OF PERFORMANCE IN OUR PRE-EXISTENCE some of us are born as CHINESE, some as JAPANESE, some as Latter-day Saints. ...A CHINESE, BORN IN CHINA WITH A DARK SKIN, and with all the HANDICAPS OF THAT RACE seems to have little opportunity. But think of the mercy of God to Chinese people who are willing to accept the gospel. IN SPITE OF WHATEVER THEY MIGHT HAVE DONE IN THE PRE-EXISTENCE TO JUSTIFY BEING BORN OVER THERE AS CHINAMEN, if they now, in this life accept the gospel and live it the rest of their lives they can have the Priesthood, go to the temple and receive endowments and sealings, and that means they can have exaltation. Isn't the mercy of God marvelous? Think of the Negro, cursed as to the priesthood.... THIS NEGRO, WHO, IN THE PRE-EXISTENCE LIVED THE TYPE OF LIFE WHICH JUSTIFIED THE LORD IN SENDING HIM TO EARTH IN THE LINEAGE OF CAIN WITH A BLACK SKIN, AND POSSIBLY BEING BORN IN DARKEST AFRICA.... IN SPITE OF ALL HE DID IN THE PRE-EXISTENT LIFE, the Lord is willing, if the Negro accepts the gospel with real, sincere faith, and is really converted, to give him the blessings of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. IF THAT NEGRO IS FAITHFUL ALL HIS DAYS, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. HE WILL GO THERE AS A SERVANT, but he will get celestial glory." LDS "Apostle" Mark E. Petersen, "Race Problems - As They Affect the Church," Address delivered at Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, August 27, 1954, as quoted in Jerald and Sandra Tanner's book entitled "The Changing World of Mormonism," p. 294. Note: Allegedly, even "if that Negro is faithful all his days," he will never achieve equality with his "white and delightsome" Mormon brethren. Instead he allegedly will go to the celestial kingdom "AS A SERVANT!"
    --

    but the Head "Prophet" of the Mormon Church had a change of heart in 1978, now they can be missionaries just like white folks. Ain't they lucky?

    I know from personal experience that The Salvation Army kicks out gays, as do many other churches. They could, if they wished, keep out blacks, women, disabled people, etc etc. and can preach that women should "keep their place in the home" and all sorts of weird crap.

    They are even allowed free public services, like fire and police protection, and in some places, free water and sewer from the city. Taxpayers get to pay their share, whether they go to that (or any) church or not.


    Anyway, yes, it is legal for a religious organization to keep you out.

    -Tock
    Way to only respond to part of my post I'm just messing with ya...... . But seriously, it sounds like you missed the point of how I was comparing it to the Boy Scouts. You essentially are agreeing that it was legal for them to exclude homosexuals....thus you contradict your support of the ACLU, who thought it was ILLEGAl and took them to court. More than likely they just wanted to have it their way yet again.....maybe these guys should just go to Burger King? .


    But this is just uncalled for. You are using those quotes out of context to bash an organization you don't like. You have such a problem with bashing gays (for obvious reaons) but you want to bash Mormons with this BS? There are a lot of LDS haters out there, and a lot of misinformaiton on the religion itself, and thus you cannot just search on google and expect the info to be reliable.

    There really isn't a good "logical" reason that blacks were not allowed to have the priesthood, but it wasn't some white supremist arguement like the way you make it sound. I had an LDS member explain this to me and its not like that at all. It was for religious reasons, they did not discriminate because they hated blacks. Their beliefs may seem bizarre, even more so with me explaining it so poorly, but it was not because they hated blacks. Do not pretend that that is the truth, I would encourage you to have an open mind on this one.

    I bet you don't like the Morons because they believe Homosexuality is a sin. Get over it. Just because they aren't like those other churches that play the role of bad parents, giving into what the masses consider to be righteous does not mean they are some supremacist biggoted organization.

    And FYI - This thread is not about the Mormon Church, so if you want to talk to me more about this issue, keep it to PMs and I'll get back to you when I can.
    Last edited by UrbanLegend; 08-14-2004 at 09:24 PM.

  33. #33
    Tock's Avatar
    Tock is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    7,103
    Quote Originally Posted by UrbanLegend
    Way to only respond to part of my post I'm just messing with ya......
    Too much to respond to . . . It took a bunch just to respond to that one section. Ain't enough time in the day to cover everything . . .



    Quote Originally Posted by UrbanLegend
    . But seriously, it sounds like you missed the point of how I was comparing it to the Boy Scouts. You essentially are agreeing that it was legal for them to exclude homosexuals....thus you contradict your support of the ACLU, who thought it was ILLEGAl and took them to court. More than likely they just wanted to have it their way yet again.....maybe these guys should just go to Burger King? .
    IMHO, if they were a totally private organization and did not offer their services to the general public, and did not take taxpayer money, then I wouldn't have a problem with their policy. I'd still think it was dumb, but I'd have no standing to complain.
    But, since they offer their services to the general public the same way restaurants and amusement parks do, and since they do take government $$ and solicit $$$ from the general public, then they ought to provide services to the people they get their money from, including gays (especially gay kids--and atheist kids, too--they don't accept them either) the same way they are obliged to take racial, ethnic, and religious minorities.




    Quote Originally Posted by UrbanLegend
    But this is just uncalled for. You are using those quotes out of context to bash an organization you don't like. You have such a problem with bashing gays (for obvious reaons) but you want to bash Mormons with this BS? There are a lot of LDS haters out there, and a lot of misinformaiton on the religion itself, and thus you cannot just search on google and expect the info to be reliable..
    I found that site and thought it was interesting, showing a contrast of past thought to present policy. That's all.
    I don't think too much of the Mormon (or any) religion, and wasn't singling them out for special abuse. I suppose I could dig up sermons from Babtist preachers belittleing blacks the same way; they did, after all, defend slavery during the civil war. Mormons, Babtists, Catholics, Muslims, Wiccans, it's all variations on the same nonsense, as far as I'm concerned.





    Quote Originally Posted by UrbanLegend
    There really isn't a good "logical" reason that blacks were not allowed to have the priesthood, but it wasn't some white supremist arguement like the way you make it sound. .
    Gee, all I did was quote their own words. I dunno if Mormons were ever White Supremecists, but I do know that there have been a considerable number of Protestant White Supremicists. Lots of 'em thinking they had God's approval for lynching blacks, too.




    Quote Originally Posted by UrbanLegend
    I had an LDS member explain this to me and its not like that at all. It was for religious reasons, they did not discriminate because they hated blacks. Their beliefs may seem bizarre, even more so with me explaining it so poorly, but it was not because they hated blacks. Do not pretend that that is the truth, I would encourage you to have an open mind on this one. .
    I'm sure they had a palatable rationalization. It doesn't make any difference, really . . . racist or not, they had their thing going, didn't want blacks participating, and the kept 'em out. Water under the bridge, now. They have their track record, and now that they're trying to recruit blacks, they'll have to deal with their past. Their problem, not mine.




    Quote Originally Posted by UrbanLegend
    I bet you don't like the Morons because they believe Homosexuality is a sin.
    .
    Actually, my best friend in the USAF was a Mormon. Nice guy. Helped me through the confusing first days of dealing with being gay. I'll never forget him for that.
    On the other hand, he explained some of the basic tenants of the Mormon faith, and once he got to the part about the talking salamander, I knew I couldn't swallow any more. But we were great friends. Good guy.

    Pretty much, there are beleivers whose faith is primarily a comfort and source of strength to them, and then there are beleivers whose mission in life is to force their religion on as many people as they can. I have no problem with the first group, usually prefer to associate with them, as a matter of fact. But the rest spend too much time interfering with things that are none of their business, spreading distortions of fact and outright lies about gay people, and try to pass laws requiring gays to conform to their way of doing things. It's those people I have no use for.





    Quote Originally Posted by UrbanLegend
    And FYI - This thread is not about the Mormon Church, so if you want to talk to me more about this issue, keep it to PMs and I'll get back to you when I can.
    Ya, well, I just used the Mormon thing as an example. Back to the original topic . . .
    -Tock

  34. #34
    UrbanLegend's Avatar
    UrbanLegend is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,709
    Quote Originally Posted by Tock
    Too much to respond to . . . It took a bunch just to respond to that one section. Ain't enough time in the day to cover everything . . .
    Fair enough. I'm about to do the same thing.....




    Quote Originally Posted by Tock
    IMHO, if they were a totally private organization and did not offer their services to the general public, and did not take taxpayer money, then I wouldn't have a problem with their policy. I'd still think it was dumb, but I'd have no standing to complain.
    But, since they offer their services to the general public the same way restaurants and amusement parks do, and since they do take government $$ and solicit $$$ from the general public, then they ought to provide services to the people they get their money from, including gays (especially gay kids--and atheist kids, too--they don't accept them either) the same way they are obliged to take racial, ethnic, and religious minorities.
    I understand that, and if they were discriminating against blacks, jews, ect, then it would be different as there is no possible justification for those actions, other than "We hate such-and-such group of people." There was a legitament underlying cause for their decision though. I'm sure they would have much rather included gays and avoid those legal and other problems associated with their decision to excluded gays.


    -Tock[/QUOTE]

  35. #35
    saboudian's Avatar
    saboudian is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Michigan State University
    Posts
    1,712
    Quote Originally Posted by chicamahomico
    The ALCU is excercising it's legal rights. Whether or not you agree with their positions on issues or the cases it takes, you are all better off with them as it is as ooposed to having some framework legislated that prevents such cases from being put forth.
    I think this is the point that is being lost. The ACLU is another check on the gvmt. No way would an organization like this have a chance of surviving in a fascist country.

    Did someone actually use a bill o'reilly quote? I have never seen that man make a valid point with valid facts, he is a disgrace to the media. I saw him on CNBC on Tim Russert's show last week, where he was debating with Paul Krugman, a Princeton PhD grad and NY Times columnist, after about 20 min in, when O'Reilly started to realize how outmatched he was, he couldn't even argue one point, and couldn't cut the mic off, O'reilly resorted back to name calling. This man should be taken off the air. But enough about that.


    BTW, I wonder if Tock chose to be gay. I can't remember when I was given the choice to be straight.

  36. #36
    EastCoaster's Avatar
    EastCoaster is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,798
    Quote Originally Posted by saboudian
    BTW, I wonder if Tock chose to be gay. I can't remember when I was given the choice to be straight.


    humm... If TOCK is infact homosexual, I think you should delete or re-edit this post. Direct disparagement is not tolerated on this board in any form.

  37. #37
    Lozgod's Avatar
    Lozgod is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Philly - Better than you
    Posts
    6,834
    Quote Originally Posted by EastCoaster
    humm... If TOCK is infact homosexual, I think you should delete or re-edit this post. Direct disparagement is not tolerated on this board in any form.
    I think everyone involved knew it was out of entertainment and debate, no one was calling each other names or anything.

  38. #38
    EastCoaster's Avatar
    EastCoaster is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,798
    Quote Originally Posted by Lozgod
    I think everyone involved knew it was out of entertainment and debate, no one was calling each other names or anything.

    Oh... I didnt know that. I'm not up-to-date with everybodies relationships on here... and I always have a problem telling when people are joking. Sorry guys.

  39. #39
    chicamahomico's Avatar
    chicamahomico is offline Respected Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Hoss's Moms bedroom
    Posts
    2,993
    As they should. Why should any idividual not act according to his/her wishes or any given private group not act within it's mandate. They put forth arguments in a court of law, which is the most democratic way of exercising, challenging, and protecting rights. The ALCU does not decide sweet FA, they are the last word on nothing, the Supreme Court of the United States makes the decision (in any Constitutional challenge case.....off the top of my head, didn't check this, it's 4AM, too lazy).

    Quote Originally Posted by UrbanLegend
    Yes, they do exactly what THEY want, you are not allowed to have have your own rules. They want to stop you from being able to do things as you see fit, you must do it as THEY see fit.
    No offense taken. Philosophy is philosophy, if you are considering only logical or empirical agruments it doesn't matter where you are from. The only time it matters where you are from is when the argument rests on emotion. There are policy analysts and advisors in every western nation who are not from the country in which they work. Moreover, it is argued that a person detached from a situation will look at it more clearly and with less bias than persons with a vested interest.

    Quote Originally Posted by UrbanLegend
    This may sound insulting, but I certainly do not mean it to be: You are Canadian, how can you truly understand what the ACLU does or does not do for America?

    ....You don't see the results of what they do, so I don't see where it is fit for you to comment.
    My post was off the top of my head but of course I did a fact check at the ACLU site and a quick glance at the Bill of Rights to make sure I wasn't saying something blatantly untrue. (example: I wanted to make sure the things I posted were in fact in the Bill of Rights). The things I outlined are not an American phenomenon, they are the big three issues in democratic coutries.

    Quote Originally Posted by UrbanLegend
    They want to go AROUND the constitution, you probably got your information of their website or a quick google search. In other words, your only knowledge of what they do is what they told you they do.

  40. #40
    nickrizz's Avatar
    nickrizz is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    North Jersey
    Posts
    3,189
    As Dennis miller once said: The ACLU will make schools take down a nativity scene durring christmas, but they will defend the guy that whips his **** out and bangs one of the donkeys.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •