It is currently Sat Feb 22, 2025 11:46 pm

View unanswered posts | View active topics


Board index » GENERAL BULLSHIT SECTION » GENERAL DISCUSSION

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]



Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 15 of 15
  [ 449 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message
Harvard Dan
PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2017 9:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2010 7:11 pm
Posts: 3631
Location: Home of Dick Tracy Days
pizza_Place: Georgio's--Crystal Lake
long time guy wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Harvard Dan wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
long time guy wrote:

Quote:
Slavery wasn't prohibited in the new territories before Lincoln was elected,



It was difficult to accomplish this seeing that they weren't states at the time


So not only do you not thoroughly read your own sources, you don't know how dual federalism works?

The Territories were controlled by the federal government. The Missouri Compromise was a federal law which prohibited slavery in any new territories north of a certain point. The Kansas-Nebraska Act rolled that back. The Dred Scott decision negated the Missouri Compromise.


Before Dred Scott the concern of the southern states was keeping a free/slave state balance in the Senate. If slavery were to be restricted in the territories, those territories would come in as free states and upset the balance in the Senate which concerned the slave states as they knew they could never control the House. I hope that answers why a slave state would be concerned why stopping the spread of slavery into a territory might cause (in their mind) the opportunity for slavery to be outlawed.


This is exactly what I have been arguing. They had no particular interest in slavery expanding outside of their ability to preserve the legality of slavery at home.

Others apparently want to argue that Georgia and the like withdrew from the Union simply because there wouldn't be more slaves in new states.



If slave masters in existing slave states were never interested in expanding slavery then why was there significant interest in adding Cuba as a slave state?


I'd say to preserve the institution. Either there would be an equal balance or a slight slave state advantage in the Senate that would have kept slavery protected.

_________________
An unjust law is no law at all--St. Augustine of Hippo

Cause tried and true
I see the light in you
Oh, can you dig in my soul?
Could you smell my whole...
life?--Gener and Deaner


Last edited by Harvard Dan on Sat Feb 25, 2017 9:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
long time guy
PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2017 9:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
There was a political component yes but it wasnt merely about that. Land erosion and the constant need to find fertile land for farming were being considered also.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.
Top
 Profile  
 
Juice's Lecture Notes
PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2017 9:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 23548
pizza_Place: Giordano's
long time guy wrote:
There was a political component yes but it wasnt merely about that. Land erosion and the constant need to find fertile land for farming were being considered also.


So, you're saying Georgia was looking to start Georgia II on the other side of the Mississippi?

You've evaded this question for long enough: Outside of political power, what exactly about Kansas being a slave state would be of vesting interest to, say, South Carolina?
Top
 Profile  
 
long time guy
PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2017 9:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
long time guy wrote:
There was a political component yes but it wasnt merely about that. Land erosion and the constant need to find fertile land for farming were being considered also.


So, you're saying Georgia was looking to start Georgia II on the other side of the Mississippi?

You've evaded this question for long enough: Outside of political power, what exactly about Kansas being a slave state would be of vesting interest to, say, South Carolina?



If you answer the question about Cuba I will answer your question.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.
Top
 Profile  
 
Harvard Dan
PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2017 9:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2010 7:11 pm
Posts: 3631
Location: Home of Dick Tracy Days
pizza_Place: Georgio's--Crystal Lake
long time guy wrote:
There was a political component yes but it wasnt merely about that. Land erosion and the constant need to find fertile land for farming were being considered also.


Well wouldn't the economics issue there be pushing the political component? I mean slavery for the south be their version of, "It's the economy, stupid..." moment?

_________________
An unjust law is no law at all--St. Augustine of Hippo

Cause tried and true
I see the light in you
Oh, can you dig in my soul?
Could you smell my whole...
life?--Gener and Deaner
Top
 Profile  
 
Juice's Lecture Notes
PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2017 9:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 23548
pizza_Place: Giordano's
long time guy wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
long time guy wrote:
There was a political component yes but it wasnt merely about that. Land erosion and the constant need to find fertile land for farming were being considered also.


So, you're saying Georgia was looking to start Georgia II on the other side of the Mississippi?

You've evaded this question for long enough: Outside of political power, what exactly about Kansas being a slave state would be of vesting interest to, say, South Carolina?



If you answer the question about Cuba I will answer your question.


The Ostend Manifesto was an effort to enter another salve state into the union circumventing the Missouri Compromise and the iffy-nature of popular sovereignty brought about by the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Acquiring Cuba would give Southern slave states additional power in the Senate to preserve the legality of slavery and nix any legislative attempts at abolition.
Top
 Profile  
 
long time guy
PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2017 9:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
Harvard Dan wrote:
long time guy wrote:
There was a political component yes but it wasnt merely about that. Land erosion and the constant need to find fertile land for farming were being considered also.


Well wouldn't the economics issue there be pushing the political component? I mean slavery for the south be their version of, "It's the economy, stupid..." moment?


Obviously they are linked. It just seems simplistic to suggest that the Civil War could have been avoided if there had simply been sectional balance. I know it has been states explicitly but it is easy to connect the dots.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.
Top
 Profile  
 
long time guy
PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2017 9:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
long time guy wrote:
There was a political component yes but it wasnt merely about that. Land erosion and the constant need to find fertile land for farming were being considered also.


So, you're saying Georgia was looking to start Georgia II on the other side of the Mississippi?

You've evaded this question for long enough: Outside of political power, what exactly about Kansas being a slave state would be of vesting interest to, say, South Carolina?



If you answer the question about Cuba I will answer your question.


The Ostend Manifesto was an effort to enter another salve state into the union circumventing the Missouri Compromise and the iffy-nature of popular sovereignty brought about by the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Acquiring Cuba would give Southern slave states additional power in the Senate to preserve the legality of slavery and nix any legislative attempts at abolition.



Expanding Slave Markets was always of interests to slave owners. Like any other business it was important to have greater access to expanding markets. That is really a no brainer.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.
Top
 Profile  
 
Juice's Lecture Notes
PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2017 10:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 23548
pizza_Place: Giordano's
long time guy wrote:
Expanding Slave Markets was always of interests to slave owners. Like any other business it was important to have greater access to expanding markets. That is really a no brainer.


I asked about the vested interest of the sovereign states, not private businessmen. Of what value is slavery in Kansas to the sovereign state of Georgia?
Top
 Profile  
 
Harvard Dan
PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2017 10:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2010 7:11 pm
Posts: 3631
Location: Home of Dick Tracy Days
pizza_Place: Georgio's--Crystal Lake
long time guy wrote:
Harvard Dan wrote:
long time guy wrote:
There was a political component yes but it wasnt merely about that. Land erosion and the constant need to find fertile land for farming were being considered also.


Well wouldn't the economics issue there be pushing the political component? I mean slavery for the south be their version of, "It's the economy, stupid..." moment?


Obviously they are linked. It just seems simplistic to suggest that the Civil War could have been avoided if there had simply been sectional balance. I know it has been states explicitly but it is easy to connect the dots.


I don't think it would have been, but at that time it would seem that's what southerners with a vested interest in slavery seemed would keep things alive. Obviously in hindsight you can't keep kicking the can down the road in perpetuity (hello social security, Illinois Pension Issue)...

_________________
An unjust law is no law at all--St. Augustine of Hippo

Cause tried and true
I see the light in you
Oh, can you dig in my soul?
Could you smell my whole...
life?--Gener and Deaner
Top
 Profile  
 
long time guy
PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2017 10:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Expanding Slave Markets was always of interests to slave owners. Like any other business it was important to have greater access to expanding markets. That is really a no brainer.


I asked about the vested interest of the sovereign states, not private businessmen. Of what value is slavery in Kansas to the sovereign state of Georgia?


Probably nothing. Your argument has shifted though. You went from saying that slave owners weren't concerned about expansion to saying they were only concerned because of sectional balance. Regardless of the reasons they still wanted to expand.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.
Top
 Profile  
 
long time guy
PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2017 10:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
Harvard Dan wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Harvard Dan wrote:
long time guy wrote:
There was a political component yes but it wasnt merely about that. Land erosion and the constant need to find fertile land for farming were being considered also.


Well wouldn't the economics issue there be pushing the political component? I mean slavery for the south be their version of, "It's the economy, stupid..." moment?


Obviously they are linked. It just seems simplistic to suggest that the Civil War could have been avoided if there had simply been sectional balance. I know it has been states explicitly but it is easy to connect the dots.


I don't think it would have been, but at that time it would seem that's what southerners with a vested interest in slavery seemed would keep things alive. Obviously in hindsight you can't keep kicking the can down the road in perpetuity (hello social security, Illinois Pension Issue)...



Lincoln was interested in seeing slavery die a slow death. He was content with slavery as it'd previously existed. He was not interested in seeing it expand. That much is evident. I just have a problem with the acclaim he receives for ending slavery.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.
Top
 Profile  
 
Juice's Lecture Notes
PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2017 10:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 23548
pizza_Place: Giordano's
long time guy wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Expanding Slave Markets was always of interests to slave owners. Like any other business it was important to have greater access to expanding markets. That is really a no brainer.


I asked about the vested interest of the sovereign states, not private businessmen. Of what value is slavery in Kansas to the sovereign state of Georgia?


Probably nothing.


Thank you. That makes your argument that the states seceded from the Union because of their desire to expand slavery a pretty silly one.
Top
 Profile  
 
Harvard Dan
PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2017 10:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2010 7:11 pm
Posts: 3631
Location: Home of Dick Tracy Days
pizza_Place: Georgio's--Crystal Lake
long time guy wrote:
Harvard Dan wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Harvard Dan wrote:
long time guy wrote:
There was a political component yes but it wasnt merely about that. Land erosion and the constant need to find fertile land for farming were being considered also.


Well wouldn't the economics issue there be pushing the political component? I mean slavery for the south be their version of, "It's the economy, stupid..." moment?


Obviously they are linked. It just seems simplistic to suggest that the Civil War could have been avoided if there had simply been sectional balance. I know it has been states explicitly but it is easy to connect the dots.


I don't think it would have been, but at that time it would seem that's what southerners with a vested interest in slavery seemed would keep things alive. Obviously in hindsight you can't keep kicking the can down the road in perpetuity (hello social security, Illinois Pension Issue)...



Lincoln was interested in seeing slavery die a slow death. He was content with slavery as it'd previously existed. He was not interested in seeing it expand. That much is evident. I just have a problem with the acclaim he receives for ending slavery.


Well sure since the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in rebellious states (all he could do under Constitutional authority in an Executive Order) and was more done for an at that moment political reason (England wouldn't actively interfere in a war said to be about slavery).

_________________
An unjust law is no law at all--St. Augustine of Hippo

Cause tried and true
I see the light in you
Oh, can you dig in my soul?
Could you smell my whole...
life?--Gener and Deaner
Top
 Profile  
 
long time guy
PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2017 10:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Expanding Slave Markets was always of interests to slave owners. Like any other business it was important to have greater access to expanding markets. That is really a no brainer.


I asked about the vested interest of the sovereign states, not private businessmen. Of what value is slavery in Kansas to the sovereign state of Georgia?


Probably nothing.


Thank you. That makes your argument that the states seceded from the Union because of their desire to expand slavery a pretty silly one.



You are sort of delusional. They stated in their declaration statement that they sought to expand slavery into the territories. Why wouldn't I think that if it weren't explicitly stated?


The other issue which you completely ignore is the vested interest that Anti Slavery advocates had in preventing slavery into territories. The Free Soilers were entirely interested in the economic factors involved in keeping states free.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Last edited by long time guy on Sat Feb 25, 2017 10:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
pittmike
PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2017 10:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 40940
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
Harvard Dan wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
long time guy wrote:

Quote:
Slavery wasn't prohibited in the new territories before Lincoln was elected,



It was difficult to accomplish this seeing that they weren't states at the time


So not only do you not thoroughly read your own sources, you don't know how dual federalism works?

The Territories were controlled by the federal government. The Missouri Compromise was a federal law which prohibited slavery in any new territories north of a certain point. The Kansas-Nebraska Act rolled that back. The Dred Scott decision negated the Missouri Compromise.


Before Dred Scott the concern of the southern states was keeping a free/slave state balance in the Senate. If slavery were to be restricted in the territories, those territories would come in as free states and upset the balance in the Senate which concerned the slave states as they knew they could never control the House. I hope that answers why a slave state would be concerned why stopping the spread of slavery into a territory might cause (in their mind) the opportunity for slavery to be outlawed.


This has all been interesting reading and Harvard Dan brings up my thought train. While some want to use the southern states opposing rules against slavery in territories and beyond as them wanting to expand their own interests to literally expand. My belief it was to not be simply amended out after the balance in government changed. So they had to go to war.

Furthermore I don't see any need to lessen Lincoln's impact.

_________________
Elections have consequences.
Top
 Profile  
 
long time guy
PostPosted: Thu Mar 02, 2017 5:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
Yep. economics played no role in preventing westward expansion of slavery. Sure it didn't.

Free Soil Party - Ohio History Central
http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/w/Free_Soil_Party

Bleeding Kansas
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h84.html

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Last edited by long time guy on Thu Mar 02, 2017 5:49 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
long time guy
PostPosted: Thu Mar 02, 2017 5:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
long time guy wrote:
Yep. economics played no role in preventing westward expansion of slavery. Sure it didn't.

Free Soil Party - Ohio History Central
http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/w/Free_Soil_Party



Wasn't going to let this one continue to roll without clarification.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.
Top
 Profile  
 
good dolphin
PostPosted: Thu Mar 02, 2017 9:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 2:35 pm
Posts: 82995
IT LIVES!

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.
Top
 Profile  
 
Juice's Lecture Notes
PostPosted: Thu Mar 02, 2017 11:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 23548
pizza_Place: Giordano's
What, did Quora contradict you, too?
Top
 Profile  
 
long time guy
PostPosted: Wed Dec 13, 2017 2:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Expanding Slave Markets was always of interests to slave owners. Like any other business it was important to have greater access to expanding markets. That is really a no brainer.


I asked about the vested interest of the sovereign states, not private businessmen. Of what value is slavery in Kansas to the sovereign state of Georgia?


Probably nothing.


Thank you. That makes your argument that the states seceded from the Union because of their desire to expand slavery a pretty silly one.



I will bump it again in order to clear up the requisite ambiguity.

Here are one my not so credible sources that was completely ignored by you.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_geosec.asp

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.
Top
 Profile  
 
Juice's Lecture Notes
PostPosted: Wed Dec 13, 2017 2:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 23548
pizza_Place: Giordano's
long time guy wrote:
I will bump it again in order to clear up the requisite ambiguity.

Here are one my not so credible sources that was completely ignored by you.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_geosec.asp


The Missouri Compromise was deemed unconstitutional 4 years before this was written. Do you remember what the Missouri Compromise was about?
Top
 Profile  
 
long time guy
PostPosted: Wed Dec 13, 2017 2:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
long time guy wrote:
I will bump it again in order to clear up the requisite ambiguity.

Here are one my not so credible sources that was completely ignored by you.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_geosec.asp


The Missouri Compromise was deemed unconstitutional 4 years before this was written. Do you remember what the Missouri Compromise was about?



There was no mention of the Missouri Compromise and it has nothing to do with my point regarding Reasons for Seceding. I just caught you lying again. Let it roll and push on. Missouri Compromise wasn't in the discussion originally. You stated that it wasn't about expansion in the territories and i just provided evidence from one of my inaccurate sources.

Now you're trying to change it on order to be correct.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.
Top
 Profile  
 
long time guy
PostPosted: Wed Dec 13, 2017 2:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
long time guy wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Expanding Slave Markets was always of interests to slave owners. Like any other business it was important to have greater access to expanding markets. That is really a no brainer.


I asked about the vested interest of the sovereign states, not private businessmen. Of what value is slavery in Kansas to the sovereign state of Georgia?


Probably nothing.


Thank you. That makes your argument that the states seceded from the Union because of their desire to expand slavery a pretty silly one.



I will bump it again in order to clear up the requisite ambiguity.

Here are one my not so credible sources that was completely ignored by you.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_geosec.asp



Reasons for secession are clearly stated. You continued on nonetheless.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.
Top
 Profile  
 
Don Tiny
PostPosted: Wed Dec 13, 2017 2:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 11:10 am
Posts: 42094
Location: Rock Ridge (splendid!)
pizza_Place: Charlie Fox's / Paisano's
I would suspect that a salve state would be populated largely by lepers and those with other skin-related diseases.

_________________
Power is always in the hands of the masses of men. What oppresses the masses is their own ignorance, their own short-sighted selfishness.
- Henry George
Top
 Profile  
 
Terry's Peeps
PostPosted: Wed Dec 13, 2017 2:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 6:05 pm
Posts: 68612
pizza_Place: Lina's Pizza
Don Tiny wrote:
I would suspect that a salve state would be populated largely by lepers and those with other skin-related diseases.


Image

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
There is not a damned thing wrong with people who are bull shitters.
Top
 Profile  
 
Don Tiny
PostPosted: Wed Dec 13, 2017 2:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 11:10 am
Posts: 42094
Location: Rock Ridge (splendid!)
pizza_Place: Charlie Fox's / Paisano's
Terry's Peeps wrote:
Don Tiny wrote:
I would suspect that a salve state would be populated largely by lepers and those with other skin-related diseases.


Image

:lol: Hey, blame Harvard Dan for 'salve state', not me!

_________________
Power is always in the hands of the masses of men. What oppresses the masses is their own ignorance, their own short-sighted selfishness.
- Henry George
Top
 Profile  
 
Harvard Dan
PostPosted: Wed Dec 13, 2017 3:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2010 7:11 pm
Posts: 3631
Location: Home of Dick Tracy Days
pizza_Place: Georgio's--Crystal Lake
Don Tiny wrote:
Terry's Peeps wrote:
Don Tiny wrote:
I would suspect that a salve state would be populated largely by lepers and those with other skin-related diseases.


Image

:lol: Hey, blame Harvard Dan for 'salve state', not me!



Was that me? I had enough typing issues in this thread as it was. Good thing I don't have to read my own copy out loud.

_________________
An unjust law is no law at all--St. Augustine of Hippo

Cause tried and true
I see the light in you
Oh, can you dig in my soul?
Could you smell my whole...
life?--Gener and Deaner
Top
 Profile  
 
FrankDrebin
PostPosted: Thu Dec 14, 2017 3:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 11:54 pm
Posts: 13340
pizza_Place: Home Run Inn
Image

_________________
Sherman remarked, "Well, Grant, we've had the devil's own day, haven't we?" Grant looked up. "Yes," he replied, followed by a puff. "Yes. Lick 'em tomorrow, though."
Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 15 of 15
  [ 449 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15

Board index » GENERAL BULLSHIT SECTION » GENERAL DISCUSSION

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 33 guests

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

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group