|
Korean Job Discussion Forums "The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Unposter
Joined: 04 Jun 2006
|
Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2011 6:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
VisitorQ,
I am just shocked at the sophistry you so readily agree with from Sergio! And, I thought you were a rational and intelligent person.
Anyway, for what it is worth:
Sergio Stefanuto wrote:
Striving to accrue riches from investing personal capital is, indubitably, capitalism. But supposing I pay five thieves $10,000 each, using my own savings, in order to rob a bank and they successfully get away with $10,000,000. Here, the basic theme of capitalism is present - I invested my own personal capital and made a profit. But most people wouldn't be prepared to accept a bank robbery as an instance of capitalism. Or suppose I invested my own savings into a business in Africa that employs slaves.
In these scenarios, there are two actions that occur together: (1) the investment of capital - profit being the goal, (2) bank robbery/slavery. (1) is capitalism, by definition and (2) is not capitalism. And if we wish to make capitalism and the pursuit of riches seem wicked, adding a (2) of sorts is always necessary. This is a trick employed by anti-capitalist propagandists, because quite clearly, there could never be anything remotely wicked about owning and investing capital per se.
Actually, I don't have any idea what Sergio is going on about here but I don't think anyone said that there is anything remotely wicked about owning and investing capital per se unless of course it was done illegally such as robbing a bank or (hopefully illegal) by owning slaves. But, thankfully we do have government, law and law enforcement so that people do not rob banks and own slaves. It seems like a pretty straight forward need for government there.
Sergio wrote:
Quote:
If I am poor, is it better for me to live under considerably worse conditions (such as begging and crime) than those provided by the sweatshops of the evil rich, since I am not making profits for the evil rich?
I would assume A) this would be an individual choice and not everyone would make the choice Sergio's strawman argument presents and B) in most cases, people would have other choices.
First of all, I don't understand why these are the only choices people have. Second of all, people choose or don't choose their occupation for a number of different reasons and "resentment of the rich" is probably pretty far down the list. I am sure morality (it is against many moral codes to engage in crime and even to beg - but I guess morality is not something Sergio generally considers), economic necessity, law (I would rather work for the rich man than risk going to jail by engaging in crime or begging) and hope for the future (even if I resent the rich the profits he or she makes off my labor, in the long run, I will have a better future or better career working in the "sweat shop" than in crime or begging.) Personally, I think few people if any think as Sergio presents. I personally don't think Sergio really understands human behavior at all.
Quote:
If men are wicked, then government, since it is composed of men, is unavoidably wicked. And if government is accountable to voters, who are men, then wicked men in government will strive to satisfy the needs and wishes of wicked men. In other words, if men are wicked, then there could be no greater recipe for disaster than a government. But if men are good, then they need no governance.
Okay, for the first time, we have something interesting.
Now, the first problem with Sergio's strawman argument here is that in reality "wicked" and "good" are not static but dynamic qualities. People are sometimes "wicked" and sometimes "good." And, people change. Sometimes the "wicked" become "good" and sometimes the "good" (maybe in times of weakness) do "wicked" things or even just become "wicked." In fact, it may be government, education or law that makes the difference between a man being wicked or good. Hence, government, education and law help people to be good.
The next problem is that it assumes that the only purpose of government is to regulate the behavior of wicked people but government may have other purposes such as collective action such as building roads, maintaining and repairing infrastructure, collective responses due to natural disasters and funnelling resources to those in need such as in disaster relief and social security. So, yes, there are reasons why good men may choose to have government.
So, once again, we see people blinded and biased by their assumptions they quickly jump on any sophistry that agrees with their highly subjective world view. I still don't know where this gets us in terms of whether social security is a ponzi scheme or not, much less any other problem humans face, including how do we protect our basic liberties, which is something I strongly favor. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
johnnyenglishteacher2
Joined: 03 Dec 2010
|
Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2011 7:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
johnnyenglishteacher2 wrote: |
I'm just saying that it is happening to maximise profit so it cannot be divorced from capitalism. |
Even though profit is the goal of capitalism, we could, quite rightfully, divorce capitalism from many activities in which profit is the goal.
Striving to accrue riches from investing personal capital is, indubitably, capitalism. But supposing I pay five thieves $10,000 each, using my own savings, in order to rob a bank and they successfully get away with $10,000,000. Here, the basic theme of capitalism is present - I invested my own personal capital and made a profit. But most people wouldn't be prepared to accept a bank robbery as an instance of capitalism. Or suppose I invested my own savings into a business in Africa that employs slaves.
In these scenarios, there are two actions that occur together: (1) the investment of capital - profit being the goal, (2) bank robbery/slavery. (1) is capitalism, by definition and (2) is not capitalism. And if we wish to make capitalism and the pursuit of riches seem wicked, adding a (2) of sorts is always necessary. This is a trick employed by anti-capitalist propagandists, because quite clearly, there could never be anything remotely wicked about owning and investing capital per se. |
You can't separate actions from consequences. If a system leads to slavery, then it is either (a) inherently wicked or (b) not inherently wicked, but in need of reform.
Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
Johnnyenglishteacher wrote: |
Also, since capitalism is an INTERNATIONAL system, saying that capitalism has ended slavery when your clothes have been made by 10 year olds in Bangladesh for companies which move to 3rd world countries specifically to take advantage of lax regulations makes very little sense |
If I am poor, is it better for me to live under considerably worse conditions (such as begging and crime) than those provided by the sweatshops of the evil rich, since I am not making profits for the evil rich? |
Well, seeing as we were discussing slavery here, and slavery = coercion, I think we can assume that yes. Otherwise slave-owners/users wouldn't have to coerce them, if they were offering a better life. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
johnnyenglishteacher2
Joined: 03 Dec 2010
|
Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2011 7:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Unposter wrote: |
The next problem is that it assumes that the only purpose of government is to regulate the behavior of wicked people but government may have other purposes such as collective action such as building roads, maintaining and repairing infrastructure, collective responses due to natural disasters and funnelling resources to those in need such as in disaster relief and social security. So, yes, there are reasons why good men may choose to have government. |
+1. This is exactly what I have been trying to get out of libertarians - which functions do they think should belong to the state, and which should not? I really want to hear some concrete proposals rather than theory. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2011 8:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Big_Bird wrote: |
Faith that which system works? Which system are you talking about? The dreadful neoliberal nightmare of a system you've currently got rigged up in the US? It doesn't seem to work very well from where I'm standing. |
Hey, Visitorq, are you pimping the current US system? What about you, ontheway?
Most American libertarians are very unsatisfied with the current American crony capitalist system. No matter what the Guardian tells you.
But nice try seeking to place the neoliberal saddle around VQ's neck.
Quote: |
I don't pretend that I know all the answers. But it's pretty clear to me that the neoliberals, and the "Austrians" are probably more wrong than anybody. |
The Austrians predicted the relative timing and cause of the crash. That puts them ahead of both the Chicago School and the Frankfurt School.
You're right, they are far from perfect. But they are the best we have so far. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
daskalos
Joined: 19 May 2006 Location: The Road to Ithaca
|
Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2011 8:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
visitorq wrote: |
Big_Bird wrote: |
visitorq wrote: |
daskalos wrote: |
ontheway wrote: |
There is an alternative to the capitalism of Marx, Wilson, FDR and Nixon (yes, pretend ole slippery was a big D and you'd be his dream lover).
The alternative can be found in the Sciences of Liberty and Economics - the Libertarian alternative that is growing in popularity all around you. It's new, it's exciting, it has nothing to do with the D or R parties or your 19th century, backward looking fantasy world.
Get some books. Read, study, learn. |
Your historical delusions completely aside, I'll offer some advice. When you start sounding like revival tent preacher, it's time to reassess your palaver, get into counseling to fix whatever damage life has caused you, then put your considerable energy into actually helping the world. But first, seek help. Please. |
I notice you didn't address a single one of his points, however. Now I wonder why that is? |
Perhaps because he knows that it is impossible to reason with a 'True Believer.' |
Nonsense. It's called having a debate. Ontheway has convincingly debunked each argument thrown at him. It has nothing to do with "faith" or whatever nonsensical label you're trying to slap onto us. No, I think the reason daskalos (and now yourself) do not address any of his points is because you don't understand the issue as well as he, and you have no rebuttal. This is pretty clear. In fact, it seems that all you have is misplaced "faith" that the system works, and that everything will be okay (even when it is explained to you why it will not). |
Not nonsense at all. It is nonsense to attempt to refute obvious cant and idiocy. I could do it, it's just not worth my time, especially since my time and effot would convince no one. Tools will be tools, and never anything else, so what's the point of "arguing" with them? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2011 8:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Big_Bird wrote: |
Kuros wrote: |
Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
All societies are artificial...including and especially including capitalist societies. Property is theft. First, the guy with the bigger gun wins the war, then he sets up a system of 'laws' to defend his privilege. He co-opts the brighter kids from the lower class by nudging a few crumbs off the table to pacify the lawyers to defend his privileged position. I get it.
|
I don't understand how one could have watched the 20th century and seen the populist totalitarian alternatives to capitalism and still become more predisposed against capitalism. Fascism and Communism are actually how you describe: the guy with the bigger gun wins the war, rapes the loser's women, and takes the loser's land. Capitalism is almost always accompanied by the rule of law, which protects the loser's family and political rights from depredation and savagery.
I don't mind critiques of capitalism, per se. But please mind the experiments with alternatives. |
What about alternative versions of capitalism? |
The European mixed economy model is a very serious model. But I warn you, it contains within it a very serious flaw. The same flaw that is threatening the US model, actually.
It is unsustainable. The incentives are not powerful enough for couples to have enough children to sustain the system. Even France's replacement birthrate is suboptimal. A proper mixed economy would require (1) frequent paradigm-altering tech advances or (2) a birthrate over 2.14 children/women (moderate immigration allows for rounding up). |
|
Back to top |
|
|
daskalos
Joined: 19 May 2006 Location: The Road to Ithaca
|
Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2011 8:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm not an economist, and so my opinions carry limited weight in this tete-a-tete. But if the Chinese currency had been allowed to float freely over the last several decades, I wonder how the terms of this debate would be changed. I expect to hear interesting things from all the hard-core opportunists on this board. Oops, I'm sorry. Of course, I meant "laissez faire capitalists and economic libertarians," not "hard-core opportunists."
Das |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2011 9:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
daskalos wrote: |
I'm not an economist, and so my opinions carry limited weight in this tete-a-tete. But if the Chinese currency had been allowed to float freely over the last several decades, I wonder how the terms of this debate would be changed. I expect to hear interesting things from all the hard-core opportunists on this board. Oops, I'm sorry. Of course, I meant "laissez faire capitalists and economic libertarians," not "hard-core opportunists."
Das |
So what you're saying is:
(1) inscrutably vague contrafactual about Chinese currency policy
(2) name-calling
Yes, maybe its best you bow out now. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
daskalos
Joined: 19 May 2006 Location: The Road to Ithaca
|
Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2011 9:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
Kuros wrote: |
daskalos wrote: |
I'm not an economist, and so my opinions carry limited weight in this tete-a-tete. But if the Chinese currency had been allowed to float freely over the last several decades, I wonder how the terms of this debate would be changed. I expect to hear interesting things from all the hard-core opportunists on this board. Oops, I'm sorry. Of course, I meant "laissez faire capitalists and economic libertarians," not "hard-core opportunists."
Das |
So what you're saying is:
(1) inscrutably vague contrafactual about Chinese currency policy
(2) name-calling
Yes, maybe its best you bow out now. |
Wait, what? Doesn't the value of Chinese currency against the dollar depend on what the Chinese government says it is, not what the currency market will bear? Have I missed the that much? If so, yeah, I'll bow out. Otherwise, name-calling is still a valid option. Do let me know. Thanks. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2011 9:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
daskalos wrote: |
Kuros wrote: |
daskalos wrote: |
I'm not an economist, and so my opinions carry limited weight in this tete-a-tete. But if the Chinese currency had been allowed to float freely over the last several decades, I wonder how the terms of this debate would be changed. I expect to hear interesting things from all the hard-core opportunists on this board. Oops, I'm sorry. Of course, I meant "laissez faire capitalists and economic libertarians," not "hard-core opportunists."
Das |
So what you're saying is:
(1) inscrutably vague contrafactual about Chinese currency policy
(2) name-calling
Yes, maybe its best you bow out now. |
Wait, what? Doesn't the value of Chinese currency against the dollar depend on what the Chinese government says it is, not what the currency market will bear? Have I missed the that much? If so, yeah, I'll bow out. Otherwise, name-calling is still a valid option. Do let me know. Thanks. |
Yes, the Chinese had their exchange rate pegged to the dollar. But its been free floating (within a daily band limit) for awhile now.
Economist: the Chinese yuan
is now close to its fair value against the dollar
Note that the Economist anchors its analysis on purchase-power parity, so it relies more on real exchange rates than nominal exchange rates.
IOW, the American gov't is full of shit when it grouses about Chinese currency manipulation as a problem (which is one reason why the Obama administration has stopped). Meanwhile, the Fed Reserve continues to print money out of thin air. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2011 12:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
daskalos wrote: |
Not nonsense at all. It is nonsense to attempt to refute obvious cant and idiocy. I could do it, it's just not worth my time, especially since my time and effot would convince no one. Tools will be tools, and never anything else, so what's the point of "arguing" with them? |
And yet you had the time on your hands to offer this thoroughly nugatory response. I bet you even broke a sweat. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2011 12:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
johnnyenglishteacher2 wrote: |
Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
johnnyenglishteacher2 wrote: |
I'm just saying that it is happening to maximise profit so it cannot be divorced from capitalism. |
Even though profit is the goal of capitalism, we could, quite rightfully, divorce capitalism from many activities in which profit is the goal.
Striving to accrue riches from investing personal capital is, indubitably, capitalism. But supposing I pay five thieves $10,000 each, using my own savings, in order to rob a bank and they successfully get away with $10,000,000. Here, the basic theme of capitalism is present - I invested my own personal capital and made a profit. But most people wouldn't be prepared to accept a bank robbery as an instance of capitalism. Or suppose I invested my own savings into a business in Africa that employs slaves.
In these scenarios, there are two actions that occur together: (1) the investment of capital - profit being the goal, (2) bank robbery/slavery. (1) is capitalism, by definition and (2) is not capitalism. And if we wish to make capitalism and the pursuit of riches seem wicked, adding a (2) of sorts is always necessary. This is a trick employed by anti-capitalist propagandists, because quite clearly, there could never be anything remotely wicked about owning and investing capital per se. |
You can't separate actions from consequences. If a system leads to slavery, then it is either (a) inherently wicked or (b) not inherently wicked, but in need of reform. |
Capitalism doesn't "lead" to slavery. This is where your logic fails. Slavery exists independently of capitalism. In fact it is one of the oldest institutions known to man, going back into prehistory. If anything capitalist societies have lessened slavery to an extent never before seen in history. That which does exist is illegal.
Quote: |
Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
Johnnyenglishteacher wrote: |
Also, since capitalism is an INTERNATIONAL system, saying that capitalism has ended slavery when your clothes have been made by 10 year olds in Bangladesh for companies which move to 3rd world countries specifically to take advantage of lax regulations makes very little sense |
If I am poor, is it better for me to live under considerably worse conditions (such as begging and crime) than those provided by the sweatshops of the evil rich, since I am not making profits for the evil rich? |
Well, seeing as we were discussing slavery here, and slavery = coercion, I think we can assume that yes. Otherwise slave-owners/users wouldn't have to coerce them, if they were offering a better life. |
Nice try. Obviously this example was not about slavery. Most sweatshops are filled with people working of their own volition, making more money than they could otherwise. You may not like it, but it's reality: in economic terms most people in poor countries have nothing except their unskilled labor to provide. However, the money they do earn allows them opportunities that were previously unavailable to them. Their lives improve over time. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
johnnyenglishteacher2
Joined: 03 Dec 2010
|
Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2011 12:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
visitorq wrote: |
Capitalism doesn't "lead" to slavery. This is where your logic fails. Slavery exists independently of capitalism. In fact it is one of the oldest institutions known to man, going back into prehistory. If anything capitalist societies have lessened slavery to an extent never before seen in history. That which does exist is illegal. |
I never claimed that slavery didn't exist before capitalism, and I was not offering a historical comparison. You're reading way too much into my words.
visitorq wrote: |
Quote: |
Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
Johnnyenglishteacher wrote: |
Also, since capitalism is an INTERNATIONAL system, saying that capitalism has ended slavery when your clothes have been made by 10 year olds in Bangladesh for companies which move to 3rd world countries specifically to take advantage of lax regulations makes very little sense |
If I am poor, is it better for me to live under considerably worse conditions (such as begging and crime) than those provided by the sweatshops of the evil rich, since I am not making profits for the evil rich? |
Well, seeing as we were discussing slavery here, and slavery = coercion, I think we can assume that yes. Otherwise slave-owners/users wouldn't have to coerce them, if they were offering a better life. |
Nice try. Obviously this example was not about slavery. Most sweatshops are filled with people working of their own volition, making more money than they could otherwise. You may not like it, but it's reality: in economic terms most people in poor countries have nothing except their unskilled labor to provide. However, the money they do earn allows them opportunities that were previously unavailable to them. Their lives improve over time. |
In which case, Sergio's reply to mine makes little sense. I was not talking about people entering into a sweatshop out of choice, I was talking about forced labour. That is why I chose child labour as an example - because slavery is a reality for many, many children throughout the world. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005 Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2011 2:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
daskalos wrote: |
visitorq wrote: |
Big_Bird wrote: |
visitorq wrote: |
daskalos wrote: |
ontheway wrote: |
There is an alternative to the capitalism of Marx, Wilson, FDR and Nixon (yes, pretend ole slippery was a big D and you'd be his dream lover).
The alternative can be found in the Sciences of Liberty and Economics - the Libertarian alternative that is growing in popularity all around you. It's new, it's exciting, it has nothing to do with the D or R parties or your 19th century, backward looking fantasy world.
Get some books. Read, study, learn. |
Your historical delusions completely aside, I'll offer some advice. When you start sounding like revival tent preacher, it's time to reassess your palaver, get into counseling to fix whatever damage life has caused you, then put your considerable energy into actually helping the world. But first, seek help. Please. |
I notice you didn't address a single one of his points, however. Now I wonder why that is? |
Perhaps because he knows that it is impossible to reason with a 'True Believer.' |
Nonsense. It's called having a debate. Ontheway has convincingly debunked each argument thrown at him. It has nothing to do with "faith" or whatever nonsensical label you're trying to slap onto us. No, I think the reason daskalos (and now yourself) do not address any of his points is because you don't understand the issue as well as he, and you have no rebuttal. This is pretty clear. In fact, it seems that all you have is misplaced "faith" that the system works, and that everything will be okay (even when it is explained to you why it will not). |
Not nonsense at all. It is nonsense to attempt to refute obvious cant and idiocy. I could do it, it's just not worth my time, especially since my time and effot would convince no one. Tools will be tools, and never anything else, so what's the point of "arguing" with them? |
Your problem, Daskalos, is that you don't know enough about economic history to discern the relationship. You admit you don't know enough to participate in the economic debate, and you demonstrate that fact convicingly by being unable to decipher my reference. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005 Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2011 2:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
johnnyenglishteacher2 wrote: |
Unposter wrote: |
The next problem is that it assumes that the only purpose of government is to regulate the behavior of wicked people but government may have other purposes such as collective action such as building roads, maintaining and repairing infrastructure, collective responses due to natural disasters and funnelling resources to those in need such as in disaster relief and social security. So, yes, there are reasons why good men may choose to have government. |
+1. This is exactly what I have been trying to get out of libertarians - which functions do they think should belong to the state, and which should not? I really want to hear some concrete proposals rather than theory. |
Kuros wrote: |
Hey, Visitorq, are you pimping the current US system? What about you, ontheway? |
The current system is socialistic in all the areas we now see failing. We need to move to a free market system. This is not the same at all as what people call capitalism.
The immediate necessary actions required are to slash Federal spending to 10% of GDP and balance the budget. Taxes should be cut to 10% of GDP and only be levied on consumption - some form of national sales tax or national VAT. All taxes on income and property should be abolished constitutionally.
The US must go on a 100% gold standard and abolish the Federal Reserve immediately. Sound money is essential. The disasterous consequences of inflation must be quashed. The US dollar has lost nearly 99% of its value since Wilson gave us the Federal Reserve. FDR and Nixon took the biggest steps thereafter to bring us to the situation we are in today. Bush/Obama have contributed, but they and the next few Presidents are reaping what was sown by their evil predecessors.
The current level of debt must be capped. No additional borrowing can be allowed by any level of government.
The SS Ponzi scheme must be terminated along with all other entitlements. It should be phased out so that those now collecting and dependent will not be abandoned - it will become what the Supreme Court has already declared it actually is: a welfare plan for the dependent elderly.
Government Infrastructure programs must end. They have caused some of the greatest long-term economic disasters ever seen. They are so large and so crippling that it will take generations, centuries actually, to overcome the most deleterious effects. Yet, they are too big for most people to even see. It's like seeing the Earth while standing upon it.
At the same time, we must not neglect issues of personal liberty. All laws that infringe on personal liberties must be repealed and the political prisoners released and present and past victims of these laws pardoned. Laws that regulate drugs, gambling, prostitution, alcohol, tobacco, gun ownership etc must be repealed. The death penalty ended. Tax evaders pardoned.
The US empire and wars must be ended. All troops brought home in an orderly manner from around the globe. All alliances terminated. The US should maintain a modest defense force and let the world take care of its own problems.
These are a few of the immediate actions that need to happen.
Over a medium term, we must reduce total government spending at all levels of the government: Federal, State and Local to a constitutionally capped 10% combined with a single tax on consumption shared by the three levels. We must finish the process of recinding and repealing entitlement obligations and eliminate the unfunded national debt and use government assets to retire the remaining bonded indebtedness. Government ownership of property beyond basic land, buildings, equipment, furnishings, monuments etc needed to carry out the core functions of government should be prohibited. Government must be removed from all areas of education and strict separation of education and state established - this is more essential than the need for the separation of church and state. Strict prohibitions on the government interfering in the personal lives of individuals, spying on or collecting information about individuals must end - unless specifically supported by criminal search warrants. Constitutional guarantees must secure these liberties.
From there in the long term we can finally reduce the government to appropriate levels and rely on voluntary funding and end taxation altogether. Government must be reduced to police, courts and national defense roles. These issues are already serious enough and difficult enough to demand the full attention of elected officials. Everything else belongs in the free market which will do the best possible job that can be done by human beings in all areas. In all areas, including education and providing services for the needy, the socialist system of government programs has failed. The free market has proven that it can take care of these same problems better and cheaper without coercion or taxation. Both in theory and in the real world socialism always fails - there are no exceptions. Both in theory and the real world the free market works. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|