|
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 |
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
 Posted: Sat Jan 02, 2010 10:05 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| ontheway wrote: |
Young children love magical solutions and superheros to solve their problems and protect them from the terrors of real life. They look for mommy, daddy, Superman or Harry Potter to save them from reality.
Many individuals never grow up and continue to look for magical solutions, superheros or a mommy or daddy to protect them and solve their problems in adulthood. They become socialists. They live in an ignorant fantasy world and vote for socialistic big government to take care of them and protect them.
Socialists ardently believe in minimum wages laws, national health care, social security and anything else the evil fascist socialist politicians promise will provide magical solutions to their problems. They believe for the same reasons children believe in their fantasy worlds.
Unfortuantely, the outcome of such belief is disaster. Socialism always fails, but the psychological inability of socialistic adults to face this fact leaves their minds numb to reality. They follow as in a lemming like parade into the sea in a fit of mutual addlepated destruction. |
Great stuff. See also:
* hatred of the rich
* primitive ideas of justice and retribution (coercive wealth redistribution)
* willing to use force and violence - temper tantrums - to get their own way (violent overthrow at any cost being the sine qua non of Marxian socialism)
* binary ethics (good v evil)
* inability to consider secondary or unintended consequences (minimum wage ---> unemployment)
* parochial ("British jobs for British people")
* irrational paranoia towards benign phenomena (international free trade, nuclear power, the State of Israel)
* refusal to accept responsibility (Stalin and Pol Pot were fanatical Marxists)
* love of strong father figures
* owed a living regardless of economic performance (strikes) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jaykimf
Joined: 24 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 02, 2010 11:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
Anyways, it's not going to continue. Nobody can afford the progressive dream anymore. We're going to get fiscal conervativism all over the Western world, no matter what the hippies have to say about it. |
So that's what you feel is going to happen? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 02, 2010 4:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes. Less the 'feel'. Bankruptcy is my bread and butter, my industry.
There is going to be a wave of cities, states and nations that default, in one way or the other. Or maybe Texas can bail out the other states and Germany the EU. Maybe not. I guess we'll see. Extend and pretend works until it doesn't. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wesharris
Joined: 10 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 02, 2010 5:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Seriously guys.
Socialism as a whole doesn't work unless there's a VERY successful capitalist economy providing tax money. Look at Europe right now.
Socialism = Death to the economy.
Plus it provides for an entitlement mentality, which simply isn't compatible with most human meme sets. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 02, 2010 7:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| * primitive ideas of justice and retribution (coercive wealth redistribution) |
Coercive wealth redistribution is part of the Libertarian justice system. If someone harms you in some way, justice involves a coercive redistribution of their wealth to compensate you. This is something Libertarians always bring up after all: we don't need regulations, if a business or individual harms you somehow, you can take them to court and get compensation!
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| * willing to use force and violence - temper tantrums - to get their own way (violent overthrow at any cost being the sine qua non of Marxian socialism) |
These days the people suggesting force, violence, and revolution in America are the ones of a Libertarian inclination.
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| * binary ethics (good v evil) |
Ontheway regularly defines Socialism as evil, and seems to speak of Liberty as a good. Libertarianism is clearly no stranger to binary ethics.
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| * inability to consider secondary or unintended consequences (minimum wage ---> unemployment) |
Libertarians do the same thing in the opposite direction. Lack of ecological regulation --> massive deforestation and pollution. I'm sure certain parties would claim otherwise, but it's a lie.
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| * irrational paranoia towards benign phenomena (international free trade, nuclear power, the State of Israel) |
Libertarians screaming about death panels has the exact same ring to it.
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| * refusal to accept responsibility (Stalin and Pol Pot were fanatical Marxists) |
If one person of a certain ideological bent does something, that doesn't push responsibility for said action onto other people who might share similar ideological ideals. If you and Rusty are both Libertarians, and Rusty murders someone, why should you take responsibility for that?
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| * owed a living regardless of economic performance (strikes) |
Strikes aren't about being owed a living regardless of economic performance, they're about attempting to use influence via numbers to gain an advantage. If anything, Libertarians should support strikes as part of a free market, wherein workers can withhold their labor as they choose.
In short, a lot of these are things Libertarians are just as guilty of, and most of the rest don't make any real sense in the context you used them. The only things I'd give you are hatred of the rich and love of strong father figures, and I'd counter those on the Libertarian side with contempt for the poor and hatred of strong father figures.
You're letting your ideology blind you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 02, 2010 8:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| * primitive ideas of justice and retribution (coercive wealth redistribution) |
Coercive wealth redistribution is part of the Libertarian justice system. If someone harms you in some way, justice involves a coercive redistribution of their wealth to compensate you. This is something Libertarians always bring up after all: we don't need regulations, if a business or individual harms you somehow, you can take them to court and get compensation! |
They aren't the same thing. In a Libertarian (for lack of a better word) system, if someone does you an injustice they owe you compensation.
Under a socialist system, equality dictates that if someone is more successful than you, then they owe you compensation.
Totally not the same thing.
| Quote: |
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| * willing to use force and violence - temper tantrums - to get their own way (violent overthrow at any cost being the sine qua non of Marxian socialism) |
These days the people suggesting force, violence, and revolution in America are the ones of a Libertarian inclination. |
Like who? Maybe some of the Tea Part folk, but they are mostly Partisan Republicans who have never heard of classical liberalism.
| Quote: |
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| * binary ethics (good v evil) |
Ontheway regularly defines Socialism as evil, and seems to speak of Liberty as a good. Libertarianism is clearly no stranger to binary ethics. |
This is true. I would really appreciate if I could read a post form where he doesn't say "....evil fascist-socialists."
| Quote: |
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| * inability to consider secondary or unintended consequences (minimum wage ---> unemployment) |
Libertarians do the same thing in the opposite direction. Lack of ecological regulation --> massive deforestation and pollution. I'm sure certain parties would claim otherwise, but it's a lie. |
Bad example. Lack of regulation does not equal deforestation and pollution. You have been educated on this issue but refuse to cede the point. Socialism causes pollution through lack of clearly defined property rights. This is true in most every case but you choose not to accept it.
| Quote: |
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| * irrational paranoia towards benign phenomena (international free trade, nuclear power, the State of Israel) |
Libertarians screaming about death panels has the exact same ring to it.
|
This was mostly Partisan Republicans, again. Classical liberals in no way identify with Sarah Palin (who originally made the death panel remarks). Although, in countries with socialised medicine this does happen through a special formula (how sick is that?) called the Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY).
| Quote: |
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| * refusal to accept responsibility (Stalin and Pol Pot were fanatical Marxists) |
If one person of a certain ideological bent does something, that doesn't push responsibility for said action onto other people who might share similar ideological ideals. If you and Rusty are both Libertarians, and Rusty murders someone, why should you take responsibility for that? |
How many people did socialists killed last century? How many did libertarians kill?
| Quote: |
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| * owed a living regardless of economic performance (strikes) |
Strikes aren't about being owed a living regardless of economic performance, they're about attempting to use influence via numbers to gain an advantage. If anything, Libertarians should support strikes as part of a free market, wherein workers can withhold their labor as they choose. |
Hogwash.
Workers do have the right to with hold labor. It's called finding another job. Govt regulations make this more difficult.
| Quote: |
| In short, a lot of these are things Libertarians are just as guilty of, and most of the rest don't make any real sense in the context you used them. The only things I'd give you are hatred of the rich and love of strong father figures, and I'd counter those on the Libertarian side with contempt for the poor and hatred of strong father figures. |
Freeing up markets (a policy libertarians advocate) is by far the simplest and most likely to be successful method of turning poor people into middle class/rich people. I would hardly call that contempt. More like concern for your fellow man.
| Quote: |
| You're letting your ideology blind you. |
Pot, kettle, black. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 02, 2010 9:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Before resonding to Rusty's post, I want to make something clear. I'm not trying to exhonerate Socialists of the claims Sergio made against them. Rather, I'm trying to point out that most of the things he's talking about aren't Socialist character traits, they're human character traits, which often apply regardless of political ideology.
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| * primitive ideas of justice and retribution (coercive wealth redistribution) |
Coercive wealth redistribution is part of the Libertarian justice system. If someone harms you in some way, justice involves a coercive redistribution of their wealth to compensate you. This is something Libertarians always bring up after all: we don't need regulations, if a business or individual harms you somehow, you can take them to court and get compensation! |
They aren't the same thing. |
Read what he said again: primitive ideas of justice and retribution (coercive wealth redistribution). Justice and retribution are matters for legal courts, and the proposed legal court of Libertarians does deal in coercive wealth redistribution. Based on the words he said, this applies to the Libertarian Justice System.
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| * willing to use force and violence - temper tantrums - to get their own way (violent overthrow at any cost being the sine qua non of Marxian socialism) |
These days the people suggesting force, violence, and revolution in America are the ones of a Libertarian inclination. |
Like who? Maybe some of the Tea Part folk ... |
Yes, like the tea party folks. Their the only major group in America talking violent revolution after all. I certainly don't see constant Socialist threats for violent revolution.
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| ... but they are mostly Partisan Republicans who have never heard of classical liberalism. |
When I hear them saying the same things I hear "classic liberals" talking about on this forum (abolish the Fed, stop taxing us, no national health care, etc), I feel pretty comfortable likening the two groups. They certainly are more Libertarian than Socialist.
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| Bad example. Lack of regulation does not equal deforestation and pollution. |
Before we had regulation, we saw our country deforested and polluted massively. In fact, the only reason it's as forested as it is now is because of efforts to reforest it which can really only be categorized as Socialist in nature.
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| * irrational paranoia towards benign phenomena (international free trade, nuclear power, the State of Israel) |
Libertarians screaming about death panels has the exact same ring to it.
|
This was mostly Partisan Republicans, again. |
Here's the thing though. When I say, "Libertarianism -- or Classic Liberalism if you'd prefer -- has no real support," Libertarians on the forum like to talk about these Tea Partiers and say, "Look, they're our support!" And then when their activity is used as an example of Libertarian behavior, suddenly they don't count anymore? I'd really like to know which it is. Is Libertarianism an extremist, non-supported political movement in America, or are these Tea Party Movements examples of Libertarianism? It can't be both.
I for one suspect that these Tea Partiers do consider themselves Libertarian. They may not be as eduated as yourself, ontheway, et al, but a lot of what they're saying matches up with a lot of what you guys are saying. They just also happen to say a lot of crazy stuff too. Just taking them at their word, I feel like they agree with you far more than they disagree with you. Sure there are some social issues you probably conflict on -- like abortion maybe -- but 100% agreement isn't required to be part of a political group.
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| * refusal to accept responsibility (Stalin and Pol Pot were fanatical Marxists) |
If one person of a certain ideological bent does something, that doesn't push responsibility for said action onto other people who might share similar ideological ideals. If you and Rusty are both Libertarians, and Rusty murders someone, why should you take responsibility for that? |
How many people did socialists killed last century? How many did libertarians kill? |
There are very few Libertarians, and they hold almost no power. They haven't had a chance to kill anyone. So I agree that Socialist politicans are responsible for more deaths than Libertarian politicians, but it's a bit like saying cars in America are more responsible for deaths than lions in America. There really aren't all that many lions, and the ones there are are in no position to harm anyone beyond on a very personal and occasional level.
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| * owed a living regardless of economic performance (strikes) |
Strikes aren't about being owed a living regardless of economic performance, they're about attempting to use influence via numbers to gain an advantage. If anything, Libertarians should support strikes as part of a free market, wherein workers can withhold their labor as they choose. |
Hogwash.
Workers do have the right to with hold labor. It's called finding another job. |
Striking is also an option. From everything I understand about Libertarianism, there's nothing in it that contradicts going on strike.
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| Freeing up markets (a policy libertarians advocate) is by far the simplest and most likely to be successful method of turning poor people into middle class/rich people. I would hardly call that contempt. More like concern for your fellow man. |
I actually largely agree with you. I'm talking about a personal contempt for the poor I see demonstrated by Libertarians quite often, not some sort of systematic attack on them. Remember, based on the arguments of Libertarians here, Socialism helps the rich (especially rich bankers), yet Sergio says hatred of the rich is a trait of Socialists. None the less, I think it's fair to say that Socialists often do have some contempt for the rich. And likewise, even if freer markets can help the poor, I often see some measure of contempt for the poor from Libertarians. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kimchi girl
Joined: 17 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 02, 2010 11:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I've never really looked at the current events forum before.... and wow.
You guys have no idea what you're talking about! You're crazier than that poster who claims Koreans don't spit.
The issue of raising minimum wages has normally been a concern not over the profit margin of small businesses but its effect on inflation.
As to raising the min wage to 10-15-20-25 dollars, the value of the wage depends on the economy in which it is made. Most posters on this board make millions of won a year. We're millionaires! In canada, a province will soon have a 10 dollar min wage. But a 10 dollar min wage in a poor canadian province is far different than a 10 dollar wage in Tokyo where you would be starving and homeless.
calling for a 50-100% increase int he minimum wage is idiocy. Socialist or anything else, I wouldn't attack the idea to an ideology, I would just call it what it is, pure crap. Economics is far from a science, but it doesn't need mathematical certainty to determine that a wage increase of 50-100% would send shock waves throughout an economy, driving inflation and necessitating across the board adjustments that could never actually be accomplished effectively or within a short enough time frame to forego some sort of economic calamity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 03, 2010 12:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kimchi girl wrote: |
I've never really looked at the current events forum before.... and wow.
You guys have no idea what you're talking about! You're crazier than that poster who claims Koreans don't spit.
|
Did you read the thread? Only the troll Olivencia advocated increasing the minimum wage. Even the lefties on this board keep quiet about it now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 03, 2010 8:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Olivencia, please explain how Germany managed to be one of the most prosperous countries in the world, and more egalitarian wage wise than the US, without ever having a minimum wage. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 03, 2010 11:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| If you and Rusty are both Libertarians, and Rusty murders someone, why should you take responsibility for that? |
You're confusing two kinds of responsibility: personal responsibility (causation) and another category of responsibility (nonpersonal/no causation) which ideology-inspired genocides come under.
Using your example, if, in the light of Rusty's murder, I ask him "when are you going to stop killing people?" and he answers "when I have implemented true libertarianism", then I think libertarianism and adherents have some responsibility. If Rusty was a genocidal maniac specifically in the name of libertarianism and I continued to be a libertarian, I would be obliged to acknowledge the responsibility of my belief system's role in such crimes against humanity.
That was actually a quote from Stalin (of course, he said "when I have implemented true socialism" instead). He's just one of many socialist megamurderers. Obviously, individual socialists - people who call for public ownership (which is a euphemism for government-control) of the means of production and coercive programs of wealth redistribution - shouldn't be held personally responsible for Stalin (since there is no personal causation), but they are, I feel, responsible to admit that their most cherished beliefs have inspired the greatest incidents of mass-murder in human history. Christians acknowledge that their beliefs inspired women to be burned to death and for the spread of AIDS in Africa. Whether it is "true" Christianity is a red herring beside the point; the point is that it simply did happen. Muslims admit that their book and prophet continues to inspire the murders of innocent civilians daily - and in many cases cheer them on.
| Fox wrote: |
| most of the things he's talking about aren't Socialist character traits, they're human character traits |
I'm prepared to acknowledge that they are universal human traits applicable of necessity to supporters of capitalism. However, the question is: do some ideologies embody the most base and most uncivilized and most profoundly indecent human traits more than others?
| Fox wrote: |
| There are very few Libertarians, and they hold almost no power. They haven't had a chance to kill anyone |
Libertarians have never had any power thanks to their refusal to take it at gun-point, perhaps. While libertarians were sat around schooling everyone with their superior arguments, socialists prepared their violent revolutions. Had socialists the same respect, they would've never had any power either. Off the top of my head, Hitler was the only 20th century socialist megamurderer to be elected into power. Also, people whose interests are supposedly best served by libertarian political philosophy - the bourgeoisie, the businessmen - are the very victims of socialists' genocidal purges.
| Fox wrote: |
| Strikes aren't about being owed a living regardless of economic performance |
Many have been. 75% of the coal industry in the UK was making losses and, in the light of the Conservatives closing the pits and eventually privatizing the few that were profitable, it was argued, and to this day is still argued, that those communities dependent on coal were, essentially, owed a living for simply gracing us with their presence. We must keep the pits open because those communities lack other skills of use to others. Are you familiar at all with the British working classes? Make no mistake - they are owed a living. And you know what? They're actually receiving one, too. In England, there are almost entire towns and cities on welfare. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 03, 2010 2:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kimchi girl wrote: |
I've never really looked at the current events forum before.... and wow.
You guys have no idea what you're talking about! You're crazier than that poster who claims Koreans don't spit.
The issue of raising minimum wages has normally been a concern not over the profit margin of small businesses but its effect on inflation. |
No.
The minimum wage is opposed by virtually all economists not because of inflation (which is a monetary phenomenon) but because it causes unemployment to those who have labour that is worth less than the minimum wage. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jaykimf
Joined: 24 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 03, 2010 5:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| kimchi girl wrote: |
I've never really looked at the current events forum before.... and wow.
You guys have no idea what you're talking about! You're crazier than that poster who claims Koreans don't spit.
The issue of raising minimum wages has normally been a concern not over the profit margin of small businesses but its effect on inflation. |
No.
The minimum wage is opposed by virtually all economists not because of inflation (which is a monetary phenomenon) but because it causes unemployment to those who have labour that is worth less than the minimum wage. |
Perhaps you should edit the Wikipedia article on Minimum wage because it does not agree with you that virtually all economists oppose minimum wage laws.
"Until the 1990s, economists generally agreed that raising the minimum wage reduced employment. This consensus was weakened when some well-publicized empirical studies showed the opposite, but others consistently confirmed the original view. Today's consensus, if one exists, is that increasing the minimum wage has, at worst, minor negative effects.[66]
According to a 1978 article in the American Economic Review, 90 percent of the economists surveyed agreed that the minimum wage increases unemployment among low-skilled workers.[67]
A 2000 survey by Dan Fuller and Doris Geide-Stevenson reports that of a sample of 308 American Economic Association economists, 45.6% fully agreed with the statement, "a minimum wage increases unemployment among young and unskilled workers", 27.9% agreed with provisos, and 26.5% disagreed. The authors of this study also reweighted data from a 1990 sample to show that at that time 62.4% of academic economists agreed with the statement above, while 19.5% agreed with provisos and 17.5% disagreed. They state that the reduction on consensus on this question is "likely" due to the Card and Krueger research and subsequent debate.[68]
A similar survey in 2006 by Robert Whaples polled PhD members of the American Economic Association. Whaples found that 37.7% of respondents supported an increase in the minimum wage, 14.3% wanted it kept at the current level, 1.3% wanted it decreased, and 46.8% wanted it completely eliminated.[69]
Surveys of labor economists have found a sharp split on the minimum wage. Fuchs et al. (1998) polled labor economists at the top 40 research universities in the United States on a variety of questions in the summer of 1996. Their 65 respondents split exactly 50-50 when asked if the minimum wage should be increased. They argued that the different policy views were not related to views on whether raising the minimum wage would reduce teen employment (the median economist said there would be a reduction of 1%), but on value differences such as income redistribution.[70] Klein and Dompe conclude, on the basis of previous surveys, "the average level of support for the minimum wage is somewhat higher among labor economists than among AEA members."[71]
In 2007, Daniel B. Klein and Stewart Dompe conducted a non-anonymous survey of supporters of the minimum wage who had signed the "Raise the Minimum Wage" statement published by the Economic Policy Institute. They found that a majority signed on the grounds that it transferred income from employers to workers, or equalized bargaining power between them in the labor market. In addition, a majority considered disemployment to be a moderate potential drawback to the increase they supported.[72] "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage#Surveys_of_economists |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 03, 2010 6:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, perhaps I should read wikipedia. Then I'll learn stuff and things.
Anyways, if not "virtually all" or whatever, whoever, who cares. The reason it is opposed is not due to inflation, and if it is, it is a wrong understanding of inflation. A minimum wage sets a floor for wages. You seen The Wire, Jay? At what wage would you employ those kids? 6bucks is too much for me. 15? Forget it. Especially when you can hire a Mexican for below the minimum wage and he'll work his arse off but you've got to pay the min wage to an American who will barely be awake for the first few hours.
Ah, but to discuss the min wage and illegal immigration as they relate to one another has the potential to explode the head of a progressive. So I'll not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jaykimf
Joined: 24 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 03, 2010 6:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
Yes, perhaps I should read wikipedia. Then I'll learn stuff and things.
Anyways, if not "virtually all" or whatever, whoever, who cares. The reason it is opposed is not due to inflation, and if it is, it is a wrong understanding of inflation. A minimum wage sets a floor for wages. You seen The Wire, Jay? At what wage would you employ those kids? 6bucks is too much for me. 15? Forget it. Especially when you can hire a Mexican for below the minimum wage and he'll work his arse off but you've got to pay the min wage to an American who will barely be awake for the first few hours.
Ah, but to discuss the min wage and illegal immigration as they relate to one another has the potential to explode the head of a progressive. So I'll not. |
You claimed that virtually all economists oppose minimum wage and now you say who cares if that is true or not. OK. It's only Dave' s ESL cafe after all. I can believe all your other claims though, can't I? |
|
| 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
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
