Go Back   Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat
GL4x4 Live! GL4x4 Casino

Politics, Government, or Religion Chat Bring your flamesuit!







Search
View Poll Results: what are your thought on R. Perry's points... You can vote more than once
Point 1 9 90.00%
Point 2 8 80.00%
Point 3 8 80.00%
Point 4 5 50.00%
Point 5 10 100.00%
Point 6 2 20.00%
Point 7 2 20.00%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 10. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old August 20th, 2011, 07:04 PM   #1
MonkeyBiz
Master Cocksman
 
MonkeyBiz's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-06-05
Location: Whitehall
Posts: 7,980
iTrader: (10)
Send a message via Yahoo to MonkeyBiz
7 Points from Rick Perry

Just read this in a news article, of what Rick Perry wants to do if he were elected.

Point 1: Abolish lifetime tenure for federal judges by amending Article III, Section I of the Constitution
I think this is absolutely great!
Quote:
The nation's framers established a federal court system whereby judges with "good behavior" would be secure in their job for life. Perry believes that provision is ready for an overhaul.
"The Judges," reads Article III, "both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."
Perry makes it no secret that he believes the judges on the bench over the past century have acted beyond their constitutional bounds. The problem, Perry reasons, is that members of the judiciary are "unaccountable" to the people, and their lifetime tenure gives them free license to act however they want. In his book, the governor speaks highly of plans to limit their tenure and offers proposals about how to accomplish it.
"'[W]e should take steps to restrict the unlimited power of the courts to rule over us with no accountability," he writes in Fed Up! "There are a number of ideas about how to do this . . . . One such reform would be to institute term limits on what are now lifetime appointments for federal judges, particularly those on the Supreme Court or the circuit courts, which have so much power. One proposal, for example, would have judges roll off every two years based on seniority."
Point 2: Congress should have the power to override Supreme Court decisions with a two-thirds vote.
Checks and Balances, Never giving anybody absolute power is a good thing.
Quote:
Ending lifetime tenure for federal justices isn't the only way Perry has proposed suppressing the power of the courts. His book excoriates at length what he sees as overreach from the judicial branch. (The title of Chapter Six is "Nine Unelected Judges Tell Us How to Live.")
Giving Congress the ability to veto their decisions would be another way to take the Court down a notch, Perry says.
"[A]llow Congress to override the Supreme Court with a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate, which risks increased politicization of judicial decisions, but also has the benefit of letting the people stop the Court from unilaterally deciding policy," he writes.
Point 3: Scrap the federal income tax by repealing the Sixteenth Amendment.
Umm.. Who doesn't love this? I do think that we should have to pay some taxes, but there needs to be a way of limiting how hard they can rape us.
Quote:
The Sixteenth Amendment gives Congress the "power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." It should be abolished immediately, Perry says.
Calling the Sixteenth Amendment "the great milestone on the road to serfdom," Perry's writes that it provides a virtually blank check to the federal government to use for projects with little or no consultation from the states.
Point 4: End the direct election of senators by repealing the Seventeenth Amendment.
Not sure I like this, but I also don't really get it. The only thing I can see this saving is some election monies... I don't know what the original language of the constitution is, so... I dunno...
Quote:
Overturning this amendment would restore the original language of the Constitution, which gave state legislators the power to appoint the members of the Senate.
Ratified during the Progressive Era in 1913 , the same year as the Sixteenth Amendment, the Seventeenth Amendment gives citizens the ability to elect senators on their own. Perry writes that supporters of the amendment at the time were "mistakenly" propelled by "a fit of populist rage."
"The American people mistakenly empowered the federal government during a fit of populist rage in the early twentieth century by giving it an unlimited source of income (the Sixteenth Amendment) and by changing the way senators are elected (the Seventeenth Amendment)," he writes.
Point 5: Require the federal government to balance its budget every year.
I have to balance my budget monthly, the minimum should be annually.
Quote:
Of all his proposed ideas, Perry calls this one "the most important," and of all the plans, a balanced budget amendment likely has the best chance of passage.
"The most important thing we could do is amend the Constitution--now--to restrict federal spending," Perry writes in his book. "There are generally thought to be two options: the traditional 'balanced budget amendment' or a straightforward 'spending limit amendment,' either of which would be a significant improvement. I prefer the latter . . . . Let's use the people's document--the Constitution--to put an actual spending limit in place to control the beast in Washington."
A campaign to pass a balanced budget amendment through Congress fell short by just one vote in the Senate in the 1990s.
Last year, House Republicans proposed a spending-limit amendment that would limit federal spending to 20 percent of the economy. According to the amendment's language, the restriction could be overridden by a two-thirds vote in both Houses of Congress or by a declaration of war.
Point 6: The federal Constitution should define marriage as between one man and one woman in all 50 states.
Even as a Christian, and also believe in the separation of church and state. Can't I 100% agree with this... this should stay at a state level if anything.
Quote:
Despite saying last month that he was "fine with" states like New York allowing gay marriage, Perry has now said he supports a constitutional amendment that would permanently ban gay marriage throughout the country and overturn any state laws that define marriage beyond a relationship between one man and one woman.
"I do respect a state's right to have a different opinion and take a different tack if you will, California did that," Perry told the Christian Broadcasting Network in August. "I respect that right, but our founding fathers also said, 'Listen, if you all in the future think things are so important that you need to change the Constitution here's the way you do it'.
In an interview with The Ticket earlier this month, Perry spokeswoman Katherine Cesinger said that even though it would overturn laws in several states, the amendment still fits into Perry's broader philosophy because amendments require the ratification of three-fourths of the states to be added to the Constitution.
Point 7: Abortion should be made illegal throughout the country.
Even as a Christian, and also believe in the separation of church and state. Can't I 100% agree with this... this should stay at a state level if anything.
Quote:
Like the gay marriage issue, Perry at one time believed that abortion policy should be left to the states, as was the case before the 1973 Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade. But in the same Christian Broadcasting Network interview, Perry said that he would support a federal amendment outlawing abortion because it was "so important...to the soul of this country and to the traditional values [of] our founding fathers."
MonkeyBiz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 20th, 2011, 07:07 PM   #2
MonkeyBiz
Master Cocksman
 
MonkeyBiz's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-06-05
Location: Whitehall
Posts: 7,980
iTrader: (10)
Send a message via Yahoo to MonkeyBiz
Shit.. Can't edit poll, is susposed to say that you agree with his position in each points, and then you could pick which ones you agree/like.
MonkeyBiz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 20th, 2011, 07:19 PM   #3
@_'-'
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 03-20-10
Location: MICHIGAN
Posts: 507
iTrader: (3)
#2 - Lets not put anymore responsibility on the congress, they can barely do their current job.

#3 - Yes. Scrap the Federal Income Tax. Instead, have a federal sales tax on everything you can buy. Food, Clothes, Services, etc. This way, EVERYONE pays their fair share. Cash workers, immigrants, etc.

#6 - Federal government needs to stay out of the marriage scene. This issue is left to the states. Also, any state must honor a marriage from another state.

#7 - Abortions should not be federally funded, period. State level only

Last edited by @_'-'; August 20th, 2011 at 07:28 PM.
@_'-' is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 20th, 2011, 07:26 PM   #4
FlatFender
Tap Tap Splat
 
FlatFender's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Raleigh NC
Posts: 15,666
iTrader: (1)
I just put on my flame suit, so here goes:

6. Marraige should be a religious institution, not regulated by the government. I understand that this opens a can of worms, but I dont feel that a legal marriage makes a whole lot of sense.

7. Abortions should be legal. Now, I'm not saying that everyone should run out and have one, nor am I saying that I agree with abortions, but I dont think the .gov should tell a women that she can, or cannot have an abortion.
FlatFender is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 21st, 2011, 07:50 AM   #5
aber61
Senior Member
 
aber61's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-22-08
Location: Commerce Twp. Michigan
Posts: 5,965
iTrader: (3)
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlatFender View Post
I just put on my flame suit, so here goes:

6. Marraige should be a religious institution, not regulated by the government. I understand that this opens a can of worms, but I dont feel that a legal marriage makes a whole lot of sense.

7. Abortions should be legal. Now, I'm not saying that everyone should run out and have one, nor am I saying that I agree with abortions, but I dont think the .gov should tell a women that she can, or cannot have an abortion.
Why should it be legal to kill a child in the womb? But not in the crib?
It's murder. If a woman does not want the child, carry the baby till term and adopt. There are so many couples that cannot have their own baby and would love to adopt a child.
Adoption is the answer not abortion
aber61 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 21st, 2011, 08:08 AM   #6
dougstephvoor
Supreme Chancelor!
 
dougstephvoor's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-21-10
Location: Saranac/Michigan
Posts: 2,177
iTrader: (3)
ilegal abortion

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlatFender View Post
I just put on my flame suit, so here goes:

6. Marraige should be a religious institution, not regulated by the government. I understand that this opens a can of worms, but I dont feel that a legal marriage makes a whole lot of sense.

7. Abortions should be legal. Now, I'm not saying that everyone should run out and have one, nor am I saying that I agree with abortions, but I dont think the .gov should tell a women that she can, or cannot have an abortion.
Who should dictate if a woman can commit murder. In your opinion we should leave it up to each persons best discretion at the time?
dougstephvoor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 21st, 2011, 09:00 AM   #7
DuffMan
Your Message Here
 
DuffMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: The Ile of Grosse
Posts: 5,831
iTrader: (11)
I'm not too sure about this guy, and his seven points confirm it. Yet another Bible thumper trying to turn the party into their own - when in reality, principle and philosophy-wise the are the party who is best-aligned with the churches (think about it - other than abortion, churches are pretty -leaning).

Point 1: Agree 100%. There needs to be accountability and checks & balances here.

Point 2: Agree 1000%. Liberals have been using "legislation via the court" for decades to create "laws" that wouldn't otherwise make it through the process and insulate themselves from these polarizing topics. This is KEY.

Point 3: Agree - but only after a valid, workable solution is in-place and ready to take over - like a flat-rate tax (hint, hint). As much as I hate income taxes, the recent debt ceiling fiasco shows how poorly-qualified our leadership is to address serious financial issues.

Point 4: I think I see what he's getting at here, and don't agree. Prior to the 17th Amendment, Senators were elected by State Legislatures, rather than popular (citizen) vote. Where I think he's going is that returning power to elect the Senate to the State Houses will increase the level of accountability and "loyalty" of Senators to their home states, rather than the level of fundraising (and thereby "indebtedness") Senators have to outside interests. So it's about more closely tying Senators to their states. I don't like the "national" element of Senate elections, but don't see where putting control of career politicians in the hands of up-and-coming/wannabe career politicians is any better.

Point 5: Agree. Realistically, we need a transition period but need to do it - and stick to it.

Point 6: Disagree 100%. As a conservative (as opposed to ) this is not the purview of the federal government. Marriage is between two people - if various churches want to have thier own interpretations, then so be it - and government likewise has no voice there. If gays & lesbians want to get married let them - it doesn't marginalize or threaten me or my marriage. This is yet another acting like a in wanting to legislate how people live their lives. Real don't want to legislate people's lives - and only do it very sparingly (i.e. that whole banning slavery thing that drove).

Point 7: A perfect example of my thoughts on his Point 2 - Rowe v. Wade allowed the Supreme Court to enact law through the divination and interpretation of intent from the Constitution. I'm pro-choice personally and really hate this issue, since it's what allowed the Bible Thumpers into a controlling position in the . Make the politicians take a stand and craft regulations and then vote for (or against) it - instead of cowering on the sidelines and taking empty positions. Or, even better, leave it it to the states, where the voters can hold their legislatures accountable.

I'd add a couple:

Duffman Point 1: Enact legislation (or a Constitutional Amendment if that's what it takes) prohibiting the federal goverment from intruding into State's business by tying funding to other issues (i.e. "pass seatbelt laws or we'll cut off the return of highway dollars to your state" or "insert our social engineering content into your school cirriculums or we'll reduce the return of education dollars to your state").

Duffman Point 2: Do not allow Congress to exempt itself from laws passed on others. For example, Congress has specifically exempted itself from being subject to OSHA, EEO, Obamacare, among many others.

Duffman Point 3: All members of the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches get the exact same health care and retirement benefits as members (or retirees) of the military. Same levels of coverage/facilities/staffs. Same qualifications and restrictions.

Duffman Point 4: Term limits; the Founding Fathers designed our system for part-time legislators - not career politicians. John Dingell has been in office since 1957 and is preparing for another run at age 85. Really? John Conyers (a truly worthless human being, btw) has been in office since 1965 and is prepping to run again at 82. Wow - his district has really improved since 65 hasn't it? (hint: Detroit). That also eliminates the need for retirement benefits for Congress and the Executive branch - since they won't be careerists...
__________________
This is the Pub. Leave common sense at the door.

Last edited by DuffMan; August 21st, 2011 at 09:04 AM.
DuffMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 21st, 2011, 09:15 AM   #8
Bishop
Senior Member
 
Bishop's Avatar
 
Join Date: 04-12-07
Location: brighton, atlanta, MI
Posts: 3,584
iTrader: (15)
Send a message via AIM to Bishop
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlatFender View Post
I just put on my flame suit, so here goes:

6. Marraige should be a religious institution, not regulated by the government. I understand that this opens a can of worms, but I dont feel that a legal marriage makes a whole lot of sense.

7. Abortions should be legal. Now, I'm not saying that everyone should run out and have one, nor am I saying that I agree with abortions, but I dont think the .gov should tell a women that she can, or cannot have an abortion.

Agreed.
Bishop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 21st, 2011, 07:44 PM   #9
kerryann
German cars are hot
 
kerryann's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: West Bloomfield
Posts: 11,417
iTrader: (3)
I was on board until the last two points.. why do people care so much about what others do?? Mind your own business. I personally do not agree with abortion but I am not simple minded enough to try to force my beliefs on others.
kerryann is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 21st, 2011, 08:06 PM   #10
MonkeyBiz
Master Cocksman
 
MonkeyBiz's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-06-05
Location: Whitehall
Posts: 7,980
iTrader: (10)
Send a message via Yahoo to MonkeyBiz
Quote:
Originally Posted by kerryann View Post
I was on board until the last two points.. why do people care so much about what others do?? Mind your own business. I personally do not agree with abortion but I am not simple minded enough to try to force my beliefs on others.
That was pretty much my opinion.
MonkeyBiz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 21st, 2011, 10:03 PM   #11
Stan
I got a gold chain
 
Stan's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-04-05
Location: Shelby Twp.
Posts: 15,607
iTrader: (7)
Perry's a moron.
Stan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 22nd, 2011, 11:55 AM   #12
kickstand
sHaMoNe!
 
kickstand's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-20-06
Location: fenton
Posts: 30,083
iTrader: (46)
Quote:
Originally Posted by aber61 View Post
Why should it be legal to kill a child in the womb? But not in the crib?
It's murder. If a woman does not want the child, carry the baby till term and adopt. There are so many couples that cannot have their own baby and would love to adopt a child.
Adoption is the answer not abortion
abortion is not the answer
adoption is not the answer
kickstand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 22nd, 2011, 07:42 PM   #13
aber61
Senior Member
 
aber61's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-22-08
Location: Commerce Twp. Michigan
Posts: 5,965
iTrader: (3)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kickstand View Post
abortion is not the answer
adoption is not the answer
Then maybe you could enlighten us with an answer that does not involve murder.
aber61 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 22nd, 2011, 07:49 PM   #14
DuffMan
Your Message Here
 
DuffMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: The Ile of Grosse
Posts: 5,831
iTrader: (11)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan View Post
Perry's a moron.
And was a member of Al Gore's campaign.

Suspecto.
__________________
This is the Pub. Leave common sense at the door.
DuffMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 22nd, 2011, 07:53 PM   #15
WSU JK
Senior Member
 
WSU JK's Avatar
 
Join Date: 04-25-08
Location: Lowering the Per-Capita Income of Bloomfield Hills since 2009!
Posts: 2,477
iTrader: (4)
Quote:
Originally Posted by aber61 View Post
Then maybe you could enlighten us with an answer that does not involve murder.
Wrap it up? Teach the miscreant little shits who are going to fcuk anyway about birth control?
WSU JK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 22nd, 2011, 07:55 PM   #16
kickstand
sHaMoNe!
 
kickstand's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-20-06
Location: fenton
Posts: 30,083
iTrader: (46)
Quote:
Originally Posted by aber61 View Post
Then maybe you could enlighten us with an answer that does not involve murder.
maybe you could enlighten me on your almighty solution?

adoption is not the answer
abortion is not the answer

taking the reproductive organs out of inner city youths and trailer park trash is not the answer

wrapping it up isn't the answer

iq tests for parenthood is not the answer

blah blah blah, what else you got?

instead of being closedminded, and stuck to your religious beliefs, why don't you open your mind and come up with a logical suggestion that would work?

Last edited by kickstand; August 22nd, 2011 at 08:27 PM.
kickstand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 22nd, 2011, 08:19 PM   #17
L4CX
Out for the Summer!
 
L4CX's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-16-07
Location: Hillsdale, MI
Posts: 4,859
iTrader: (5)
5. Agree

6. I think they should come up with a name that isn't marriage and keep marriage as a religious institution. Allow Same sex partners to be miserable just like the rest of us. . Jk

7. It should be illegal unless the life of the mom AND baby are in danger.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aber61 View Post
Why should it be legal to kill a child in the womb? But not in the crib?
It's murder. If a woman does not want the child, carry the baby till term and adopt. There are so many couples that cannot have their own baby and would love to adopt a child.
Adoption is the answer not abortion
What if the mom will die? Should it still be illegal? I think we should value life, totally. If we make it completely illegal we'll loose both the mom and baby. Then nobody wins.
L4CX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 22nd, 2011, 09:46 PM   #18
booblinker
Trailer Trash
 
booblinker's Avatar
 
Join Date: 10-29-06
Location: Leonard, mi
Posts: 9,336
iTrader: (5)
Send a message via AIM to booblinker
Quote:
Originally Posted by kickstand View Post
taking the reproductive organs out of inner city youths and trailer park trash is not the answer
Hey I'm trailer trash and would raise a kid 10x better than the trash I live around. But I also work 55 hours a weeks, and don't do drugs or illegal activity.
__________________
-2001 Tahoe original 5.3 4x4 only 430k
-A Metric Butt ton of three wheelers
-1985 V65 Magna
-1983 Nighthawk 650
-1969 F250 Highboy built 360
booblinker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 22nd, 2011, 10:09 PM   #19
FlatFender
Tap Tap Splat
 
FlatFender's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Raleigh NC
Posts: 15,666
iTrader: (1)
Quote:
Originally Posted by L4CX View Post
5. Agree

6. I think they should come up with a name that isn't marriage and keep marriage as a religious institution. Allow Same sex partners to be miserable just like the rest of us. . Jk

7. It should be illegal unless the life of the mom AND baby are in danger.



What if the mom will die? Should it still be illegal? I think we should value life, totally. If we make it completely illegal we'll loose both the mom and baby. Then nobody wins.
If we make it illegal, more women will die from trying to perform their own abortions in their home. Even more will suffer from nasty infections.

The abortion rate in countries where it is illegal is EXACTLY the same as the abortion rate in the western world. If you truly value life, you would understand that it should remain legal.
FlatFender is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 23rd, 2011, 12:56 AM   #20
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,295
iTrader: (9)
1. No. We already have the other 2 branches of government changing every 2-6 years. Adding the Supreme court to this government shuffle will just further the trend we've been in lately where no progress is ever made on any issue, rather each side just spends it's time undoing what the other has done. Lifetime appointments gives stability to the courts. Limited tenure won't make them more accountable, it will just make them in more of a hurry to push their agenda through.

2. No. I'm all for checks and balances, but giving Congress the ability to override the Supreme Court with a 2/3 majority, while they also can override a Presidential veto with a 2/3 majority would give way to much power to any political party that got a 2/3 majority in both houses. They would be unstoppable, pushing through whatever agenda they wanted. There go your checks and balances. I think a better idea would be to give Congress some control over the front side of the courts operation. Let congress have some control over what cases the court hears, and perhaps limits over the parameters and scope of it's decisions. But they should not have the to completely override a decision.

3. No, at least until I hear what is proposed to replace it. The simple fact is that our government need money to operate. Militarys are expensive. Infrastructure building and maintenance is expensive. Running a country is expensive. I really have to hand it to the Tea Partyers. In an era where the rich have gotten richer, and the poor has gotten poorer, and the middle class is sliding downward, and when the taxes on the wealthy are at historically low levels, they have convinced many people to feel sorry for the wealthy and demand a less progressive tax system. Simply amazing.

4. No. Having politicians decide who represents the people in Washington? Sounds like a bad idea to me. Sounds like the perfect "good old boys club" system, where those in office are stroking each other rather that representing the peoples best interest.

5. No. I'm all for balancing the budget and paying off the deficit, but handcuffing the government this way sounds like a recipe for disaster. Certainly there needs to be limits, but there already are limits. The debt limit that just got debated is one, the requirement of congressional approval of annual budgets is another. Putting something like that in the constitution would make it more difficult for the government to quickly respond to emergencies and changing situations. People keep using the argument "I balance my budget, why should the government". That's a stupid argument. Most of us have at one time or another spent more than we had. Have a car loan? Mortgage? Credit card? Let the government borrow money in bad times, just like all of us might do. But make them pay it off in good times, like all of us should.

6. No. Lets get the government out of the business of defining "marriage". Lets start reviewing all of the laws that concern marriage and decide why they exist and what we are trying to accomplish with them. I can see 2 reasons why government should treat 2 people who are married differently than any other 2 people in the country: 1. To help encourage and support parents raising children, and 2. To enable people that want to plan a life together to be treated as a single unit for various purposes and to make decisions for each other in various situations. Lets then rewrite these laws so that the benefits go to those intended, and leave the churches and people to decide how to define "marriage".

7. No. I am opposed to abortion, but I don't think outlawing it is the answer. The carnage of illegal abortion and more unwanted and neglected children would be worse. Rather than outlawing abortions we should be doing more to encourage birth control, and helping those that do end up with unwanted pregnancies to have their babies and either figure out how to keep them or give them up for adoption.

I guess I know who I won't be voting for.

You didn't include a "none" option in your poll so I couldn't vote.

Last edited by brewmenn; August 23rd, 2011 at 01:09 AM.
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:49 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright 2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2005 - 2012 Cracker Enterprises - Powered by Linux
vB Ad Management by =RedTyger=
Page generated in 0.40624 seconds with 51 queries