It is currently Sat Nov 16, 2024 5:35 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2039 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47 ... 68  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Apr 09, 2019 9:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 11:19 am
Posts: 23915
pizza_Place: Jimmy's Place
Algonquin is plenty deplorable.

_________________
Reality is your friend, not your enemy. -- Seacrest


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 09, 2019 9:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2016 3:07 pm
Posts: 7929
Location: A large oak tree.
pizza_Place: Nowhere
Was referring to downstate. Deplorable for Dan is probably pretty inclusive.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 09, 2019 9:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 7:43 pm
Posts: 20537
pizza_Place: Joes Pizza
Drunk Squirrel wrote:
Kirkwood wrote:
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
Douchebag wrote:
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
Is any of that even true? And what is the official dividing line to call people deplorable?

I-80


That's usually dividing line, but it's probably too far south.

Douchebag is correct.

Everything south of I-80 and north of 120 is downstate IL


West of 39 besides galena probably as well. I’m north of I-80 and get told I live downstate all the time.

88.

dekalb is hillbilly


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 09, 2019 10:27 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 79471
Location: Ravenswood Manor
pizza_Place: Pete's
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
I would like to know what he said that makes him so terrible because all I can find is him saying he is against gay marriage and then saying he would never tell anyone who to love. Something I'm missing?

His gun and Obama comments make him terrible but being against the right for gay people to get married is an anti-gay stance.



Not really. It's an anti-gay marriage stance.

You're against my right to knock your teeth out. Is that an anti-JORR stance?

If people who aren't you would be allowed to do it then it would be.

I don't know why this is controversial. God said to deny gays that right. He should be proud to be called anti-gay for it.


I don't care who gets married, but I think an argument can be made against gay marriage without invoking god.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Matthew, Tulsi, and Don


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 09, 2019 10:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 8:10 pm
Posts: 38609
Location: "Across 110th Street"
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
I would like to know what he said that makes him so terrible because all I can find is him saying he is against gay marriage and then saying he would never tell anyone who to love. Something I'm missing?

His gun and Obama comments make him terrible but being against the right for gay people to get married is an anti-gay stance.



Not really. It's an anti-gay marriage stance.

You're against my right to knock your teeth out. Is that an anti-JORR stance?

If people who aren't you would be allowed to do it then it would be.

I don't know why this is controversial. God said to deny gays that right. He should be proud to be called anti-gay for it.


I don't care who gets married, but I think an argument can be made against gay marriage without invoking god.


Please elaborate

_________________
There are only two examples of infinity: The universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the universe.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 09, 2019 10:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 91933
Location: To the left of my post
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
I don't care who gets married, but I think an argument can be made against gay marriage without invoking god.
Well, I was using his excuse.

Still, no matter how you justify it, wanting to deny the right for someone who is gay to marry the person they want is anti-gay.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 09, 2019 11:18 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:45 pm
Posts: 38270
Location: Lovetron
pizza_Place: Malnati's
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
I don't care who gets married, but I think an argument can be made against gay marriage without invoking god.
Well, I was using his excuse.

Still, no matter how you justify it, wanting to deny the right for someone who is gay to marry the person they want is anti-gay.


You should be able to define what a right is before making that claim.

It's been at least three years of waiting for this from you without ever receiving a coherent response.

Because I say so, doesn't make anything a right.

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 09, 2019 11:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32234
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
Getting married is not a right. I am pro-gay marriage simply because they get tax breaks, but I have no issue if a particular religion has specifications regarding their institution. That doesn't make them "anti-gay" in my book. They could be anti-gay, but that alone does not make them that. Stoning gay people to death would be anti-gay, for example.

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 09, 2019 11:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 91933
Location: To the left of my post
Seacrest wrote:
You should be able to define what a right is before making that claim.
I'm pretty sure I have before, but this is the dictionary definition: "a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way."

The government grants the right to get married to those of legal age. I have a government sanctioned marriage. I am sure you do too.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 09, 2019 11:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32234
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Seacrest wrote:
You should be able to define what a right is before making that claim.
I'm pretty sure I have before, but this is the dictionary definition: "a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way."

The government grants the right to get married to those of legal age. I have a government sanctioned marriage. I am sure you do too.


How do you grant that "right"? What if someone can't find a willing participant to marry them? Do we force someone to marry them to grant their "right"?

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 09, 2019 11:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 91933
Location: To the left of my post
leashyourkids wrote:
Getting married is not a right. I am pro-gay marriage simply because they get tax breaks, but I have no issue if a particular religion has specifications regarding their institution. That doesn't make them "anti-gay" in my book. They could be anti-gay, but that alone does not make them that. Stoning gay people to death would be anti-gay, for example.
We aren't talking about what a specific institution wants. We are talking about the concept of gay marriage in regards to the government and actions involving the government. This is just a standard fallback position when you can't deal with the actual argument.

A church can deny someone from getting married in their building for a number of reasons. It could be because of a prior divorce, or a lack of participation in church related activities, or because they aren't Jewish. That's fine. The problem is that religious people almost always believe that it should extend outside the church walls.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 09, 2019 11:30 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:45 pm
Posts: 38270
Location: Lovetron
pizza_Place: Malnati's
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Seacrest wrote:
You should be able to define what a right is before making that claim.
I'm pretty sure I have before, but this is the dictionary definition: "a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way."

The government grants the right to get married to those of legal age. I have a government sanctioned marriage. I am sure you do too.


Our Constitution grants us rights that are not dependent on government sanctioning them

And i bought a marriage license because the government required it, not because I had an interest in sanctioning my marriage.

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 09, 2019 11:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 91933
Location: To the left of my post
leashyourkids wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Seacrest wrote:
You should be able to define what a right is before making that claim.
I'm pretty sure I have before, but this is the dictionary definition: "a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way."

The government grants the right to get married to those of legal age. I have a government sanctioned marriage. I am sure you do too.


How do you grant that "right"? What if someone can't find a willing participant to marry them? Do we force someone to marry them to grant their "right"?
What are you talking about?

I have the right to bear arms. That doesn't mean the government is required to provide me anything else.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 09, 2019 11:33 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:45 pm
Posts: 38270
Location: Lovetron
pizza_Place: Malnati's
leashyourkids wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Seacrest wrote:
You should be able to define what a right is before making that claim.
I'm pretty sure I have before, but this is the dictionary definition: "a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way."

The government grants the right to get married to those of legal age. I have a government sanctioned marriage. I am sure you do too.


How do you grant that "right"? What if someone can't find a willing participant to marry them? Do we force someone to marry them to grant their "right"?


There are literally thousands of people in the US who are not capable of getting married due to personal disabilities. Nor would they even be able to consider the idea themselves.

Marriage is not a right.

But the conversation is helpful in exposing where other rights have been invented over the last 30 years or so such as the right to take wealth and re-distribute it.

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 09, 2019 11:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 91933
Location: To the left of my post
Seacrest wrote:
Our Constitution grants us rights that are not dependent on government sanctioning them
What point are you making here?

Seacrest wrote:
And i bought a marriage license because the government required it, not because I had an interest in sanctioning my marriage.

What do you mean the government required it? You didn't have to get a marriage license to marry the person you wanted. You chose to.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 09, 2019 11:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 91933
Location: To the left of my post
Seacrest EDITED wrote:
There are literally thousands of people in the US who are not capable of (using guns) due to personal disabilities. Nor would they even be able to consider the idea themselves.

(gun ownership) is not a right.

But the conversation is helpful in exposing where other rights have been invented over the last 30 years or so such as the right to take wealth and re-distribute it.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 09, 2019 11:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 40616
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
I would like to know what he said that makes him so terrible because all I can find is him saying he is against gay marriage and then saying he would never tell anyone who to love. Something I'm missing?

His gun and Obama comments make him terrible but being against the right for gay people to get married is an anti-gay stance.



Not really. It's an anti-gay marriage stance.

You're against my right to knock your teeth out. Is that an anti-JORR stance?


Things are heating up.

_________________
Elections have consequences.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 09, 2019 11:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32234
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Seacrest wrote:
You should be able to define what a right is before making that claim.
I'm pretty sure I have before, but this is the dictionary definition: "a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way."

The government grants the right to get married to those of legal age. I have a government sanctioned marriage. I am sure you do too.


How do you grant that "right"? What if someone can't find a willing participant to marry them? Do we force someone to marry them to grant their "right"?
What are you talking about?

I have the right to bear arms. That doesn't mean the government is required to provide me anything else.


It means the government can't stop you. It's a negative right (the only real type of right, in my opinion).

I don't think people who are anti-gay marriage are focusing much on the legal portion. They are focusing on the religious portion. Essentially, one could argue that the government is stepping in and eliminating a religion's right to make their own rules.

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 09, 2019 11:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 40616
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
leashyourkids wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Seacrest wrote:
You should be able to define what a right is before making that claim.
I'm pretty sure I have before, but this is the dictionary definition: "a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way."

The government grants the right to get married to those of legal age. I have a government sanctioned marriage. I am sure you do too.


How do you grant that "right"? What if someone can't find a willing participant to marry them? Do we force someone to marry them to grant their "right"?


Interesting.

_________________
Elections have consequences.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 09, 2019 11:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 8:10 pm
Posts: 38609
Location: "Across 110th Street"
Didn't we have this goofy discussion three years ago?

_________________
There are only two examples of infinity: The universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the universe.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 09, 2019 11:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 91933
Location: To the left of my post
leashyourkids wrote:
It means the government can't stop you. It's a negative right (the only real type of right, in my opinion).
So what is the difference between the government denying a marriage license and that?

leashyourkids wrote:
I don't think people who are anti-gay marriage are focusing much on the legal portion. They are focusing on the religious portion. Essentially, one could argue that the government is stepping in and eliminating a religion's right to make their own rules.
This is completely wrong. The fight in the courts has always been about marriage in the government.

It's not about forcing churches to do anything inside the church. A church can deny a Jewish person from getting married there simply because they are Jewish and no one cares. However, if they started to say that Jews shouldn't be allowed to get married because God told them then things change.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 09, 2019 11:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32234
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
It means the government can't stop you. It's a negative right (the only real type of right, in my opinion).
So what is the difference between the government denying a marriage license and that?

leashyourkids wrote:
I don't think people who are anti-gay marriage are focusing much on the legal portion. They are focusing on the religious portion. Essentially, one could argue that the government is stepping in and eliminating a religion's right to make their own rules.
This is completely wrong. The fight in the courts has always been about marriage in the government.

It's not about forcing churches to do anything inside the church. A church can deny a Jewish person from getting married there simply because they are Jewish and no one cares. However, if they started to say that Jews shouldn't be allowed to get married because God told them then things change.


Well, I don't disagree with the legal part, but I think most of them would opt to get the government out of the business of marriage, and then all these problems go away and the various religions can dictate their own standards.

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 09, 2019 11:48 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:45 pm
Posts: 38270
Location: Lovetron
pizza_Place: Malnati's
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Seacrest wrote:
Our Constitution grants us rights that are not dependent on government sanctioning them
What point are you making here?

You still don't seem to understand where rights are derived from in this country. Or what an actual right is for that matter.

Seacrest wrote:
And i bought a marriage license because the government required it, not because I had an interest in sanctioning my marriage.


You are [b]required by law in Illinois to purchase a marriage license. Is this news to you?
[/b]
What do you mean the government required it? You didn't have to get a marriage license to marry the person you wanted. You chose to.


So, three years later we are back at you granting rights that are not a right by definition, but are derived solely upon personal wishes, and not the Constitution

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 09, 2019 11:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 91933
Location: To the left of my post
leashyourkids wrote:
Well, I don't disagree with the legal part, but I think most of them would opt to get the government out of the business of marriage, and then all these problems go away and the various religions can dictate their own standards.
The problem is they NEVER say that, and they often go to the courts to fight against the government definition of marriage.

With that said, the whole concept of marriage was not created by any current religious institution and they really have no reason to be in control of it. Marriage predates Christ by over a thousand years.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 09, 2019 11:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 40616
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
Regular Reader wrote:
Didn't we have this goofy discussion three years ago?


Probably and people likely ignored my logical solution then. It was no such thing as a government marriage license. There is simply a government “partnership” contract or such registered locally. There is no ceremony by a judge in a government place. Then once that is filed people can go to their place of choice for any ceremony they wish for a “marriage” as they see it. Can be in a church, venue hall or cornfield for all anyone should care.

_________________
Elections have consequences.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 09, 2019 11:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 91933
Location: To the left of my post
Seacrest wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Seacrest wrote:
Our Constitution grants us rights that are not dependent on government sanctioning them
What point are you making here?

You still don't seem to understand where rights are derived from in this country. Or what an actual right is for that matter.

Seacrest wrote:
And i bought a marriage license because the government required it, not because I had an interest in sanctioning my marriage.


You are [b]required by law in Illinois to purchase a marriage license. Is this news to you?
[/b]
What do you mean the government required it? You didn't have to get a marriage license to marry the person you wanted. You chose to.


So, three years later we are back at you granting rights that are not a right by definition, but are derived solely upon personal wishes, and not the Constitution
You are not required by law to get a marriage license. If you want the government to recognize it then you do but nothing would stop you from going to a church and getting married and never getting a marriage license. The church can recognize you as getting married. The government won't but that is your choice and you have to deal with the good and bad things from that.

I'm not even following the rest of your post any more. It just seems like random words.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 09, 2019 11:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 91933
Location: To the left of my post
pittmike wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:
Didn't we have this goofy discussion three years ago?


Probably and people likely ignored my logical solution then. It was no such thing as a government marriage license. There is simply a government “partnership” contract or such registered locally. There is no ceremony by a judge in a government place. Then once that is filed people can go to their place of choice for any ceremony they wish for a “marriage” as they see it. Can be in a church, venue hall or cornfield for all anyone should care.
That's the same thing we have now besides the changing of one word for no reason.

That still assumes that religious organizations somehow own the concept of marriage. They don't and never have.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 09, 2019 11:58 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:45 pm
Posts: 38270
Location: Lovetron
pizza_Place: Malnati's
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
Well, I don't disagree with the legal part, but I think most of them would opt to get the government out of the business of marriage, and then all these problems go away and the various religions can dictate their own standards.
The problem is they NEVER say that, and they often go to the courts to fight against the government definition of marriage.

With that said, the whole concept of marriage was not created by any current religious institution and they really have no reason to be in control of it. Marriage predates Christ by over a thousand years.


They go to court for the right to practice freedom of religion.

Which is an actual right that the Constitution grants to them.

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 09, 2019 12:00 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:45 pm
Posts: 38270
Location: Lovetron
pizza_Place: Malnati's
leashyourkids wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
It means the government can't stop you. It's a negative right (the only real type of right, in my opinion).
So what is the difference between the government denying a marriage license and that?

leashyourkids wrote:
I don't think people who are anti-gay marriage are focusing much on the legal portion. They are focusing on the religious portion. Essentially, one could argue that the government is stepping in and eliminating a religion's right to make their own rules.
This is completely wrong. The fight in the courts has always been about marriage in the government.

It's not about forcing churches to do anything inside the church. A church can deny a Jewish person from getting married there simply because they are Jewish and no one cares. However, if they started to say that Jews shouldn't be allowed to get married because God told them then things change.


Well, I don't disagree with the legal part, but I think most of them would opt to get the government out of the business of marriage, and then all these problems go away and the various religions can dictate their own standards.


You mean like it was until 2010?

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 09, 2019 12:03 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:45 pm
Posts: 38270
Location: Lovetron
pizza_Place: Malnati's
Marriage Licenses
Before getting married in Chicago or suburban Cook County, couples must obtain a marriage license from the Cook County Clerk's office.

https://www.cookcountyclerk.com/service ... e-licenses

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2039 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47 ... 68  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 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