|
Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
foal,
It seems to me that Kucinich or Gravel would be a good match for you. Although, admittedly, I haven't researched their positions very much. thoughts? |
Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
I am with you regarding McCain, JayTee. It annoys me that RP is the one guy who focuses rationally on the issues, and not on criticizing the other guys for who they hired to mow their lawn or even for the inconsistencies in their voting records (which he could have a field day on if he wanted to play those games). And then when he finally gets a chance to speak, McCain can't even lend him the courtesy of a fair rebuttal if he's determined to pick an argument. He literally made a Hitler reference as the crux of his argument, lol.
I mean, a non-intrusive foreign policy is far from some fringe idea. Granted, considering the status quo, I can understand why people might frown upon it the way they do and disagree with us (I used to see it that way too). But to ignore fair debate and instead act like it's some maniacal notion is something I would like to think is "unacceptable" of a leader. But sadly, that's what tends to win political support. |
Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
I think I agree with Kucinich on more issues than any other candidate. But there's a difference between agreeing with someone and thinking they'd make a good president. I'm not sure Dennis would be satisfactorily competent. Plus he's got like < %1 support and has little bi-partisan appeal.
Gravel dropped out, didn't he? |
Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
[ QUOTE ]
Tancredo: All I can remember is that he doesn't like illegal immigrants and also doesn't like legal immigrants. Not a big fan of foreigners apparently. [/ QUOTE ] Also he doesn't like illegal immigrant toys aparently. |
Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
hah
|
Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
My final impressions after all is said and done:
Mitt Romney - Consider this my official 2p2 Politics Forum eating crow statement. He started off slick (too slick for me as I said) and quickly showed how not good he is at straddling the fence. However, I give him full credit for his answer to the Confederate flag question. Good on him for that. But at this point I cant see myself voting for the guy. Maybe he'll convince me but I doubt it. Also, gold star to Borodog for his incredulity at me saying Id vote for Romney. Apparently he knows me better than I know myself. [censored] astrophysicists.. Huckabee - Came off well and obviously a likeable guy. However, I dont buy into his whole compassionate conservativism schtick. Not that I dont think he doesnt believe, I think he does, and thats what scares me. As someone else astutely pointed out, he's kind of the worst combination of a Democrat and Republican. I dont see myself voting for him, even he gets the nod from the GOP. Tancredo - Sort of turned around this guy some. YEah I think he is still primarily a one trick pony and I definitely am not as rabid on immigration as he is. However, I thought he gave some great answers and the one about the mission to Mars was an epic homerun. I think Im going to look at him a little more seriously. Hunter - I agree with whoever said LOL. Thompson - Dont know how to explain this, but I really dont any particular impression. He seemed polished, had some good answers, evinced a bit of a genuine sense of humor, but I'm still kind of meh on him. I'm keeping an eye on him but Im not sure how realistic his chances are. Giuliani - As I said before, I admit I'm biased against him. But I wasnt impressed by him. Decent debator, definitely worked hard to turn everything into a chance to brag about his accomplishments as Mayor but a little too over the top with that particular tactic. And his odd speaking style still gives me that cat with scotch tape on his paws feeling. Paul - First time I've listened to him speak. I was fairly impressed. AlexM needled me about this earlier, but he seriously needs to work on not coming off so bitterly. He definitely pwned some guys, McCain in particular. I'm definitely considering supporting him, but I'm not sold yet. McCain - I agree with whoever said McCain seems tired. I feel sort of bad for him since I consider him somewhat of a hero of mine, but boy did he give some bad answers tonight. He said some good things too but it was definitely overshadowed by some of the other stuff. I hope he makes a good run, but I dont see it happening. And I still havent quite forgiven him for the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform. |
Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
I like Paul as much as many here, but you guys have to stop setting up tar and feather parties whenever anyone questions him. It's not trolling, it's just dissent which, last I checked, is alright.
|
Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
Xorbie,
I forget who originally busted out the T-word. Maybe I shouldn't have played along by agreeing (but I did and still do think it was accurate). I agree though that it's pretty pointless, and generally never use the word, so my apologies if my post is one that you're referring to. But at the same time, are posts like this really necessary? That was a few hours ago, and no one is talking about it anymore. I mean, these things become bigger deals than they are intended to be when everyone and their mother jumps in to claim an opinion on who was right and who was wrong. |
Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
[ QUOTE ]
Huckabee won this debate by a big margin IMO. Seems like a nice guy, too bad he's a religious wacko. Romney comes off like a snake-oil salesman/cyborg. I wasn't impressed by him at all. Republicans really are deathly afraid of Mexicans, aren't they? It seems like most will vote for whoever promises to get the brown people out of their town. [/ QUOTE ] Religious Whacko? I think the Whacko is one who thinks this whole universe was all my randomness. Seems like your bibles are the God Delusion and all that junk and your the one who is whacked out by that spin. Sad sad sad that in this day and age that believing in God is whackish. Man, Satan really is winning the temporal war..... |
Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Huckabee won this debate by a big margin IMO. Seems like a nice guy, too bad he's a religious wacko. Romney comes off like a snake-oil salesman/cyborg. I wasn't impressed by him at all. Republicans really are deathly afraid of Mexicans, aren't they? It seems like most will vote for whoever promises to get the brown people out of their town. [/ QUOTE ] Religious Whacko? I think the Whacko is one who thinks this whole universe was all my randomness. Seems like your bibles are the God Delusion and all that junk and your the one who is whacked out by that spin. Sad sad sad that in this day and age that believing in God is whackish. Man, Satan really is winning the temporal war..... [/ QUOTE ] Hi |
Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
[ QUOTE ]
Xorbie, I forget who originally busted out the T-word. Maybe I shouldn't have played along by agreeing (but I did and still do think it was accurate). I agree though that it's pretty pointless, and generally never use the word, so my apologies if my post is one that you're referring to. But at the same time, are posts like this really necessary? That was a few hours ago, and no one is talking about it anymore. I mean, these things become bigger deals than they are intended to be when everyone and their mother jumps in to claim an opinion on who was right and who was wrong. [/ QUOTE ] I'd agree except that Paul is, needless to say, a rather popular topic in this forum and constantly having to hear people called trolls and idiots and whatever else wears one down. What really bothers me is that even after he makes a really thoughtful, well written post, all he gets is childish, insulting replies. And somehow he gets called the troll. |
Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Huckabee won this debate by a big margin IMO. Seems like a nice guy, too bad he's a religious wacko. Romney comes off like a snake-oil salesman/cyborg. I wasn't impressed by him at all. Republicans really are deathly afraid of Mexicans, aren't they? It seems like most will vote for whoever promises to get the brown people out of their town. [/ QUOTE ] Religious Whacko? I think the Whacko is one who thinks this whole universe was all my randomness. Seems like your bibles are the God Delusion and all that junk and your the one who is whacked out by that spin. Sad sad sad that in this day and age that believing in God is whackish. Man, Satan really is winning the temporal war..... [/ QUOTE ] OK now the T word is totally appropriate. |
Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Huckabee won this debate by a big margin IMO. Seems like a nice guy, too bad he's a religious wacko. Romney comes off like a snake-oil salesman/cyborg. I wasn't impressed by him at all. Republicans really are deathly afraid of Mexicans, aren't they? It seems like most will vote for whoever promises to get the brown people out of their town. [/ QUOTE ] Religious Whacko? I think the Whacko is one who thinks this whole universe was all my randomness. Seems like your bibles are the God Delusion and all that junk and your the one who is whacked out by that spin. Sad sad sad that in this day and age that believing in God is whackish. Man, Satan really is winning the temporal war..... [/ QUOTE ] I believe God exists and had some part in creating the universe. I also believe Huckabee is a religious whacko, and I'd never vote for him, just because of this. It's one thing believing in God, its another basing all of your actions off of that belief, and not believing in evolution as a result. Anyways, I don't know how much religious-hate talk is tolerated here, so I won't say anymore. Just know that not all people who don't want religious whackos in charge of the country are atheists. |
Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
[ QUOTE ]
I like Paul as much as many here, but you guys have to stop setting up tar and feather parties whenever anyone questions him. It's not trolling, it's just dissent which, last I checked, is alright. [/ QUOTE ] STFU TROLL! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] |
Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Huckabee won this debate by a big margin IMO. Seems like a nice guy, too bad he's a religious wacko. Romney comes off like a snake-oil salesman/cyborg. I wasn't impressed by him at all. Republicans really are deathly afraid of Mexicans, aren't they? It seems like most will vote for whoever promises to get the brown people out of their town. [/ QUOTE ] Religious Whacko? I think the Whacko is one who thinks this whole universe was all my randomness. Seems like your bibles are the God Delusion and all that junk and your the one who is whacked out by that spin. Sad sad sad that in this day and age that believing in God is whackish. Man, Satan really is winning the temporal war..... [/ QUOTE ] It's not believing in God that's whacko, it's disbelieving in evolution. Plenty of Christians accept the reality of evolution and don't believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old. Those types of Christians are not whackos. |
Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
Did anyone notice RP leave the stage immediately after the debate? The other candidates were shaking hands and talking.
|
Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I like Paul as much as many here, but you guys have to stop setting up tar and feather parties whenever anyone questions him. It's not trolling, it's just dissent which, last I checked, is alright. [/ QUOTE ] STFU TROLL! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] Racism ban, IMO. |
Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
[ QUOTE ]
I'd agree except that Paul is, needless to say, a rather popular topic in this forum and constantly having to hear people called trolls and idiots and whatever else wears one down. [/ QUOTE ] OK, well, like I said earlier -- I've probably used the T-word twice ever on here, and one of those times I misread something and immediately admitted I goofed. And ojoc (the guy who originally brought up the "drive by trolling") doesn't seem to have a history of doing this either. What I find really tiring is the way so many people lump "ACers/libertarians" into one category, where rather than ask us to necessarily defend the argument at hand and the things we as individuals have actually said, we're routinely hit with arguments and criticisms that involve merely other peoples' perceptions of our collective habits. Even if you think the "troll" allegations were wrong or childish (which I don't entirely agree is the case), at least they were in direct response to what a specific poster actually stated. From there, it's easy enough for him to defend himself (or others to defend him), since the exact criticism is clear and in front of us. But the grouping mentality of "you guys routinely do this" just really bothers me, and is on the verge of driving me away from posting here. It just seems pointless to me to be lumped into some group, where by holding a certain ideology I'll then sometimes have to defend things other than the arguments I've actually made. No hard feelings against you. I realize you're just giving your input as a mod and respectable poster. I just felt like this should be expressed. |
Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
ALaw,
I appreciate the level headed posts. I'm trying to stay conscious of my tendency to group people together and avoid doing so. We have a bunch of intelligent people in this forum (and MidGe), so I get frustrated when we can't seem to have a single reasonable discussion. It seems that this frustation is not just present within me, which is at least promising. |
Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
Also I'm not really a mod here, feel free to view me as just another shmuck [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
|
Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
[ QUOTE ]
Also I'm not really a mod here, feel free to view me as just another shmuck [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] Eh, I lump all you mods together. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] |
Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] no TV, cliffs of the strong end from Paul? [/ QUOTE ] Damn it I missed it. what was the question? [/ QUOTE ] |
Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
It was one of his supporters, asking a question that went something like
"Ron Paul, we all know the republican party won't give you the nomination. Are you going to let the country down, and not run as an independent?" And Ron Paul said something like "I've won 10 times as a republican, i'm a republican. Support? [censored], we made 4 million in one DAY" <something to that extent. |
Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
|
Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
Did anyone else come away from this debate thinking that the republicans are just going to get absolutely slaughtered in the general?
I'll get flamed for this, but I think Paul COULD be the exception. It's not that I don't think it is entirely possible for him to get slaughtered, I just think the dynamics of a Paul vs Hillary campaign would turn this entire election cycle upside down. Again, not saying Hillary wouldn't slaughter him, just saying I have no idea what would happen. |
Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
[ QUOTE ]
I'll get flamed for this, but I think Paul COULD be the exception. [/ QUOTE ] Lol. This forum is a Ron Paul love-fest, stating that you think Ron Paul could have a shot against Hillary or any other Democrat is the last thing that will get you flamed. But I think its hard to say how the election will play out when the parties have chosen their candidate and all get behind him. How the Democrats choose to attack the candidate and whatever negative they have on him is difficult to tell so soon, and I think its really hard to tell how it will play out when its down to 1 Republican vs. 1 Democrat. Right now Hillary is a clear favorite imo, but I dont think it will be impossible for a Republican candidate to win, but it sure wont be easy. A Paul vs. Hillary race would definatly be fun, as they are quite different and the debates would be far better than ever before. |
Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I'll get flamed for this, but I think Paul COULD be the exception. [/ QUOTE ] Lol. This forum is a Ron Paul love-fest, stating that you think Ron Paul could have a shot against Hillary or any other Democrat is the last thing that will get you flamed. But I think its hard to say how the election will play out when the parties have chosen their candidate and all get behind him. How the Democrats choose to attack the candidate and whatever negative they have on him is difficult to tell so soon, and I think its really hard to tell how it will play out when its down to 1 Republican vs. 1 Democrat. Right now Hillary is a clear favorite imo, but I dont think it will be impossible for a Republican candidate to win, but it sure wont be easy. A Paul vs. Hillary race would definatly be fun, as they are quite different and the debates would be far better than ever before. [/ QUOTE ] I listened to Hannity's show a bit on my way home from work yesterday out of morbid curiosity, and a caller said (paraphrased), "I listen to Romney, Giuliani, McCain and Thompson, and as a republican I don't believe that any of these guys have what it takes to make a good showing against the democrats. Yet, we have one guy running who is quickly becoming a rock star (he mentioned no names), and you (Hannity) won't give him the time of day. Neither does the Main stream press or most conservative groups. When are you guys going to admit that this guy's got the momentum, and might be our best bet?" And to my astonishment, Hannity did not go off on this caller. He said (paraphrased), "Ok, look. There's still a good bit of time until the primaries, and we don't know what's going to happen. We'll wait and see how things go in New Hampshire and other states and who knows..." I couldn't believe my ears. Not that Hannity specifically gave him credit....hell, I don't think he even named names. But to even acknowledge that 'anything could happen' within the next couple of months, and to allude to the fact that Paul might actually climb to the top and get some media backing (however unlikely this might be) was surprising to me. It was the very first time I've heard something besides disdain when the subject of Ron Paul came up on his show. |
Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
See drudge report for links to stories on democratic questioners being planted and CNN professing ignorance of same.
|
Jeez.....These Debates Suck
Jeez these debates suck.
The question by the gay general was pathetic. Homosexuality is nor even on the radar screen when it comes to what is most important in this country. Then we find out this catamite is a Hillary campaign plant. Don't tell me CNN couldn't do a google search on this guy before the debate to find out his background. Jeezus....he gave out his name. CNN is a craphole of a news organization. Since the moderators can not choose intelligent questions, then I say let the candidates ask each other questions....and have a REAL debate. The other candidates will go for the jugular and ask questions to expose their opponents weaknesses. Then the mods could referee and make sure the candidates don't weasel out of the questions. Like Tim Russert did to Hillary on her illegals getting driver's license question. |
Re: Jeez.....These Debates Suck
Only skimmed thread, so sorry if this is off.
Re: My Ron Paul comments. Like I said, I'm happy he's running, mainly because he gets people alienated by their party interested in the process, bring up some good points, is well spoken and (tries to) keep the process about politics/policy. The fact that I can say that much about a gun loving, woman hating (aka pro-life) candidate speaks highly of him. I do stand by my comment that his current popularity (compared to his limited profile, non-existent really, on the same platform over the course of the last couple of decades) is happening because of the cynicism fostered by the incompetence of the Bush administration. I don't think he's going to get the nomination, I do think his popularity is in large part an illusion created by the fervor of his internet following (and good for them for creating this ground swell, but when the votes actually count, they'll only get one each like everybody else). I do stand by my comment that his policies, foreign especially but also domestic, are unfeasible and his foreign policy makes a mockery of the advances of the 20th century and, again, its acceptance is a reaction to recent history, to the incompetance of the US gov't in the 21st century. I think pulling out of the UN and being isolationist and solely self-interested to the point of absurdity may be better than the Bush foreign policy, but it isn't the best foreign policy the US can take into the future, not even close. Finally, I think that if he did get the White House he would undertake to dismantle all these programs and foreign ties and immediately find out that the President isn't all powerful, and he wont be able to. So what happens next? he has to preside over them for 4 years, and you've elected someone to run the system who doesn't believe in it. To the person who asked earlier, yes I am Canadian, I don't know if that disqualifies me from being able to speak on the matter. |
Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
|
Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
|
Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
[ QUOTE ]
Post debate speech [/ QUOTE ] Does anyone have a version of this with better sound quality? |
Re: Jeez.....These Debates Suck
[ QUOTE ]
I do stand by my comment that his policies, foreign especially but also domestic, are unfeasible and his foreign policy makes a mockery of the advances of the 20th century and, again, its acceptance is a reaction to recent history, to the incompetance of the US gov't in the 21st century. I think pulling out of the UN and being isolationist and solely self-interested to the point of absurdity may be better than the Bush foreign policy, but it isn't the best foreign policy the US can take into the future, not even close. [/ QUOTE ] There's that word again. [ QUOTE ] To the person who asked earlier, yes I am Canadian, I don't know if that disqualifies me from being able to speak on the matter. [/ QUOTE ] Of course it doesn't disqualify you. |
Re: Jeez.....These Debates Suck
I'm sort of wondering why it matters what the political affiliation of the questioners is? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]I agree its pretty lame that CNN claims not know. But
|
Re: Jeez.....These Debates Suck
[ QUOTE ]
Re: My Ron Paul comments. (snipped for focus on the following) ...I do stand by my comment that his policies, foreign especially but also domestic, are unfeasible and his foreign policy makes a mockery of the advances of the 20th century... I think pulling out of the UN and being isolationist and solely self-interested to the point of absurdity may be better than the Bush foreign policy, but it isn't the best foreign policy the US can take into the future, not even close... To the person who asked earlier, yes I am Canadian, I don't know if that disqualifies me from being able to speak on the matter. [/ QUOTE ] So would you object if the USA were to implement a foreign policy similar to, oh, say, Canada's foreign policy? My impression is that Canada, while retaining membership in the U.NH., does little or nothing in the way of interventionism in its foreign policy (non-intervention is a policy and stance Ron Paul favors). Maybe Canada does a token amount overseas in terms of intervening if and when the U.N. says it should, I don't know. I'd like to know if you would support the USA doing about as little intervening overseas as does Canada. Oh yes, and if you would support the USA having about as many military bases overseas as does Canada. I'm asking because I think those would be the approximate real-world effects if the USA were to implement something akin to Ron Paul's foreign policy. Except for retaining membership in the U.N. (which you favor), the real-world effects would be that the USA would get out of the rest of the world's internal affairs for the most part, just like Canada. Or do you think that that would somehow be unfeasible or that it would be making a mockery of the advances of the 20th century? So, what do you think about this? And thanks for reading, by the way. |
Re: Jeez.....These Debates Suck
[ QUOTE ]
I do stand by my comment that his current popularity (compared to his limited profile, non-existent really, on the same platform over the course of the last couple of decades) is happening because of the cynicism fostered by the incompetence of the Bush administration. [/ QUOTE ] It's not just the President, it's the incompetence of politicians in general. The Dems took over congress and the senate on promises that they would hold the Bush administration accountable and they have done jack [censored]. A lot of people are sick of politician's empty rhetoric and unprinicpled behavior. Ron Paul is a breath of fresh air in an otherwise polluted political landscape. [ QUOTE ] I do stand by my comment that his policies, foreign especially but also domestic, are unfeasible and his foreign policy makes a mockery of the advances of the 20th century and, again, its acceptance is a reaction to recent history, to the incompetance of the US gov't in the 21st century. I think pulling out of the UN and being isolationist and solely self-interested to the point of absurdity may be better than the Bush foreign policy, but it isn't the best foreign policy the US can take into the future, not even close. [/ QUOTE ] This is really just a big *sigh* I don't think you have looked very closely at his policies if you think he is an isolationist. [ QUOTE ] Finally, I think that if he did get the White House he would undertake to dismantle all these programs and foreign ties and immediately find out that the President isn't all powerful, and he wont be able to. So what happens next? he has to preside over them for 4 years, and you've elected someone to run the system who doesn't believe in it. [/ QUOTE ] Another *sigh* Ron Paul understands how our government works better than most people. He has stated that he knows he can't do most of the stuff he wants to right away. He can pull our forces home though and that would save billions of dollars. He is the only Republican candidate that seems to understand that you can't just cut taxes, you have to cut spending as well. [ QUOTE ] woman hating (aka pro-life) candidate [/ QUOTE ] This is just funny to me that you think his reason for being pro life is because he hates women. As an obstetrician I think his views on abortion carry more weight than most people including most women. |
Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
I missed the debate, but LOL that there seems to be a consensus that Huckabee came off the best, given that he's basically admitted to being a complete idiot (by not accepting/understanding very basic scientific theories).
I am distressed to see that Mr. Huckabee is a fellow bass player. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] |
Re: Jeez.....These Debates Suck
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] woman hating (aka pro-life) candidate [/ QUOTE ] This is just funny to me that you think his reason for being pro life is because he hates women. As an obstetrician I think his views on abortion carry more weight than most people including most women. [/ QUOTE ] I disagree with both these points. Characterizing the abortion issue as being gender-specific is overlooking the true meaning of Roe v. Wade. I think Ron Paul actually gets it: abortion is an issue of privacy that is best handled at the state level. |
Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Hmmm, If you are "near Socialist" I don't understand how you can support Ron Paul. Care to explain? [/ QUOTE ] Sure. I don't agree with any candidate on everything. I'm sort of a "libertarian socialist" ... [/ QUOTE ] I'm another one of these crazy "libertarian socialists" (not sure I like that term...) that would vote Ron Paul if nominated but probably Dem or Green party if he's not. I've argued before that many of the worst violations of personal liberty (root word of liberal) are currently from the executive branch: War mongering, domestic spying, drug war, etc. President Paul could immediately have an impact in stopping these things. And would do a better job ending them than most of the democratic candidates. But he would still have a tough time putting an end to public schools, social security, etc. because these would require a democratic or republican congress to pass a bill to be put in front of him. That would be a lot of work to get that many politicians to ignore the popularity of all these programs and put an end to them in 4 or even 8 years. So a Paul presidency is high reward, low risk for social leaning libertarians. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:03 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.