The Nightstar Zoo

Nightstar IRC Network - irc.nightstar.net
It is currently Fri Apr 19, 2019 3:17 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Jul 31, 2004 5:44 pm 
This page from his senate hompage is informative, but I can only find five specific actions of his. (The DOMA was an absolutely blatent attempt to make political hay so Hurrah for his vote against it.)

Google searching John Kerry's campaign homepage for "senator" or "senate" has very few relevant results and at least two dead links.

What has John Kerry accomplished in his nineteen year senate career?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 31, 2004 10:53 pm 
Offline
Knight of Daisies, Tulip Slayer
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 11, 2002 3:03 am
Posts: 1621
Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Vote for John Kerry. "I'm Not Bush!"


Pffft. Otherwise, the only things that I know of that he's actually bothered to show up to vote on is more gun control laws.

_________________
Fandemonium 2010 -- No Boundaries.
http://www.fandemonium.org
Friday - Sunday, August 6th - 8th, 2010
Nampa Civic Center - Nampa, Idaho (Only 20 minutes from the airport!)
(Idaho: It ain't just potatoes anymore.)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 01, 2004 3:56 pm 
Offline
Official Village Idiot
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 11, 2002 3:08 am
Posts: 822
Location: Room L, Hotel Raffles, Luna City
Yay for his vote on Defense of Marriage. Pity he didn't do it twice.

_________________
"Vox populi? Vox humbug!"
- William Tecumseh Sherman
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 01, 2004 9:53 pm 
This might be useful.

http://www.issues2000.org/Senate/John_Kerry.htm


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 05, 2004 9:41 pm 
richardf8 wrote:


Thanks for a very sensible link.

Looking at links like this is something everyone who comments about politician's backgrounds should consider. You will never learn anything detailed about politicians from watching TV. Politicians have been complaining about this constantly since the invention of television: they can talk knowledgeably for hours on end about many subjects, can have written many books and articles on their political specialties, can have thousands upon thousands of man-hours of labor and study put in on their favorite causes, and it all vanishes when they walk in front of the TV cameras. There isn't time to go into it, the politicians themselves aren't trained actors and tend to look wooden presenting themselves, and the reporters tend to be shallow-minded and eaily bored (they didn't get where they are by being intellectual.)

There is also the question of social position: congressmen are very low on the TV social ladder. Pundits, presidential advisors, cabinet members, and celebrity social activists are all much more exciting on TV than politicians.

This social ranking even hinders presidential candidates. Howard Kurtz did some studying a week or so before the Democratic convention: over the course of several days, both Bush and Kerry gave detailed speeches, totally 2 to 3 hours each, laying out their foriegn policy goals. Both of Bush's speeches were front page news in both the Washington Post and the New York Times; Kerry's speeches were barely noted at all, in small stories back around page 5 to 14 (IIRC). Bush's speeches were front in center in CNN new shows. Kerry's speeches were not even mentioned, excpet that one show quoted a line of his to provide a simplistic contrast to a Bush position.

I don't think this is something you can blame on political partisanship, although neither newspaper mentioned likes John Kerry and CNN is routinely pro-Bush these days. Rather, at this moment in time, Bush is the president, and therefore good television, good headlines. Kerry is just a Senator, and doesn't readily qualify for lead TV time or big headlines. Even though he is the Democratic candidate for president.

This situation will, presumably, reverse next January if Kerry wins the election. Either way, the social pecking order in Washington will still be enforced.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Aug 07, 2004 3:34 pm 
Quote:
Vote for John Kerry. "I'm Not Bush!"


More specifically, he's not as bad as Bush. He didn't start a war for personal benefit, silence opposition through coercion, threaten to revoke press liscences of people who didn't say what he wanted them to, sign through laws that limit freedom of speech and press, tell us he supports our soldiers while cutting spending on all the things which would actually benefit the soldiers, support the wholesale destruction of the environment, and tell us he's pro-life while allowing thousands of people to die every month.

Kerry sucks, but he's not as bad as Bush by a long shot.

Quote:
Pffft. Otherwise, the only things that I know of that he's actually bothered to show up to vote on is more gun control laws.


That shows something about your knowledge of what's going on, not about Kerry, doesn't it?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Aug 07, 2004 7:30 pm 
Imagist wrote:
Quote:
Vote for John Kerry. "I'm Not Bush!"

More specifically, he's not as bad as Bush. He didn't start a war for personal benefit, silence opposition through coercion, threaten to revoke press liscences of people who didn't say what he wanted them to, sign through laws that limit freedom of speech and press, tell us he supports our soldiers while cutting spending on all the things which would actually benefit the soldiers, support the wholesale destruction of the environment, and tell us he's pro-life while allowing thousands of people to die every month.

Kerry sucks, but he's not as bad as Bush by a long shot.

Even when the two candidates are advocating similar policies, whether I like the policies or not, an importance difference remains: Kerry is a fundamentally honest and thoughtful man. Bush is not. He runs a government by scam and propaganda, considers the press "just another interest group," and lies pretty much whenever he speaks in public. His official spokesmen are like the propaganda ministers in other countries; if they actually tell something like the truth in a public announcement, it is only because they didn't have time to embellish the story in their favor before putting it out. Bush despises "elites" and intellectuals (he makes no secret of this) and, for the last four years, made it clear that only listens to those who cater to his beliefs. Other than that, he considers scientists and scholars just another interest group to be bullied and surpressed.

Bush's essential weakness of character and shallowness of intellect poison all of his policies, even when he thinks he is doing the right thing. Both Kerry and Bush want to "stay the course" in Iraq (I'm ambivalent about the idea, myself,) but only Kerry has any hope of gaining useful help from outsiders and any credibility in negotiating with the hostile parties inside the country. Amazingly enough, as cynical as most governments are when it comes to foriegn policy, they do expect us to respect their sovereignty to some extent, to live up to at least the letter of their treaty obligations, to provide reasonably accurate intelligence when it is shared, and act with more-or-less honest intent on manners of vital interest.

As an example, the Bush administration got away with scamming and/or bullying both friends and enemies in this country to push forward the Neocons' wet dream fantasy of conquering Iraq, but overseas, away from the output of the Republican media machine, pretty much no one was buying it. Now that Bush is talking about getting international support in Iraq, he is getting almost none because it is obvious that he can't be trusted to hold up his end of any bargain or even to tell the truth about what happens as a result.

The invasion itself might have worked at some level if it had been planned or executed properly, but all of the experienced and educated minds who might have been able to accomplish this were shut out of the process because they lacked ideological purity. If they didn't believe in Bush's vision, they were "elitists" whose advice could be replaced by the bright young minds who formed the lower ranks in the administration's and the Republican party's network of true believers. The True Believers have bungled the job from one end to another; certainly no serious foreign government wants to deal with that crew of inexperienced twerps if they can avoid it.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2004 7:36 am 
Berken wrote:
Even when the two candidates are advocating similar policies, whether I like the policies or not, an importance difference remains: Kerry is a fundamentally honest and thoughtful man.


If he was fundamentally honest he wouldn't lie, and if he was thoughtful he could keep his lies consistent.

Kerry's multiple Cambodia stories demonstrate that he is neither.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2004 11:40 pm 
The fact that official sources deny a cover-up is not generally considered conclusive proof of a lack of cover-up.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:48 am 
Here's a story far more credible than the smear cooked up by that bogus "veterans group." Really, one of them was originally hired to smear Kerry by Richard Nixon and has been doing it as a hobby on and off for thirty years.

Quote:
G.I. Joe is a fake
Veterans group says military hero lied about his record; claims evil villains escaped his clutches during war against Cobra.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Dan Kois

Aug. 14, 2004 | WASHINGTON -- As G.I. Joe, the leader of America's daring, highly trained special missions force, celebrates his 40th anniversary this summer, a group of veterans has aired television advertisements attacking his military record. The ads, purchased by G.I. Joe Veterans for Truth, accuse Joe of lying about his war record and letting villains escape throughout the 1985-86 war against Cobra, Destro and the forces of evil.

In one 60-second ad, veterans of the two-year-long, completely televised war -- in which every weekday afternoon American troops fought Cobra, a ruthless terrorist organization determined to rule the world -- speak out about G.I. Joe. "I served with G.I. Joe," says one veteran, Thomas Ross. "G.I. Joe is no real American hero."

In interviews yesterday arranged by G.I. Joe Veterans for Truth, a nonprofit arm of a little-known think tank called Serpentine Enterprises, the veterans -- low-level G.I. Joe foot soldiers, all code-named "grunts" -- were unanimous in describing Joe as an incompetent leader unfit for command and not worthy of honor. Rogers, a blue laser gunner 1st class, described the ordeal he was put through during the celebrated incident in which the entire male leadership of the Joe team was hypnotized by the Baroness and her Conch of the Sirens.

"Our entire platoon was ordered to attack Cobra base just to free all these addlepated G.I. Joes," Robertson said. "We risked our lives to save the Joes -- not the other way around." During the pitched battle, Robertson disarmed and captured three Cobra soldiers by shooting a nearby tree with his blue laser gun, causing the tree to fall on the enemy, trapping them. "I was dodging red lasers left and right," Robertson added. "G.I. Joe said he'll fight for freedom wherever there's trouble. That was a lie."

Another veteran, G.I. Joe Air Combat pilot Matthew Albers, noted that his squad was called in as air support when G.I. Joe allowed Cobra to take over Fort Knox. "This Zartan fellow disguised himself as the general in charge of the fort," Albers said, "and G.I. Joe was completely fooled. We had to scramble a dozen planes to attack a United States Army base, just because Joe couldn't see through a dime-store mask."

Albers' F-14 was shot down by a Cobra red laser cannon; the pilot and co-pilot had only seconds to eject and parachute to safety before the plane exploded. "Luckily," said Albers, "we escaped with only minor injuries."

His eyes misted up as he recalled the carnage that terrible day. "Eleven American soldiers suffered minor injuries at Fort Knox," he said. "Was it worth it?"

After G.I. Joe retook Fort Knox, Albers added, every major Cobra officer escaped, including Zartan, Buzzer, Maj. Bludd, and Cobra Commander. "Didn't catch a one. We heard them cursing Joe's name, but they drove away in a Hiss tank. Is that never giving up or staying till the fight's won?" he asked. "No, it isn't."

In a press conference today, the public faces of G.I. Joe -- Hawk, Lady Jaye, Flint and Sgt. Slaughter -- assembled outside G.I. Joe headquarters. They were flanked by much of the Joe team, including the mysterious ninja Storm Shadow, silent and brooding, and the Native American tracker Spirit, feeding mice to his eagle Freedom in a dignified manner. (Joe himself resides in seclusion; the few glimpses the public has been offered suggest he is a giant of a man, up to four times as tall as the rest of his soldiers.)

"None of the grunts were present for G.I. Joe organizational meetings," Flint said. "We're grateful to them for all they've done for our country, but they simply don't understand the tough choices G.I. Joe has had to make to keep America safe over the past 40 years. He kept Cobra Commander from carving his face on the moon with a giant laser. He shut down Destro's Texas dude ranch. He stopped the Crimson Guard from replacing all the world's money with Cobra currency. G.I. Joe was there."

Asked about the number of times G.I. Joe let major international terrorists escape, Flint scoffed. "Let them escape? No way. These guys have escape plans, jet packs, submarines constantly at the ready. We're just trying to foil their plans while keeping all our men safe. That's why the 1985-86 Cobra war was the only war ever fought by U.S. troops in which no American or enemy soldiers died."

Flint stepped back as Sgt. Slaughter took the microphone, shouting that two of the veterans in the TV ad bought by G.I. Joe Veterans for Truth were obviously Crimson Commander twins Tomax and Xamot in disguise. Lady Jaye came to the microphone and gently dismissed Slaughter's accusation. "We are, however, worried that the ads might be secretly funded by Cobra," Jaye added. "You reporters should remember that politically motivated advertisements aren't always what they seem. Often, back in the shadows, the people pulling the strings might not be interested in telling the truth."

The reporters at the press conference, surprised, smiled and clapped each other on the back. "Now we know," said Rick Atkinson, a correspondent for the Washington Post.

"And knowing," said Lady Jaye, "is half the battle."

(From Salon: Dan Kois is a writer and a fiction editor of At Length magazine.)


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2004 6:17 am 
Berken wrote:
Here's a story far more credible than the smear cooked up by that bogus "veterans group." Really, one of them was originally hired to smear Kerry by Richard Nixon and has been doing it as a hobby on and off for thirty years.---snip---


Please note that Kerry's multiple accounts of his service in, near, or fifty-five miles from Cambodia were all told by Kerry.

He's contradicting himself, the SwiftVets didn't have anything to do with Kerry changing his stories.

Here is a story that cites other sources. Here and here are two more.

It may (or may not) be interesting that John Kerry's website's after action combat reports don't seem to list anything that happened in December of 1968. His service timeline only has the notation that "Kerry commands PCF-44".

The only person who is responsible for John Kerry's divergent versions of where he was at the time is John Kerry.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2004 12:01 am 
I do not believe that Kerry's being a "fundamentally honest and thoughtful man" gives any basis for voting for him. I would vote for a person who was fundamentally dishonest (though not fundamentally whimsical) if I thought that that person would do what was best for the world. But I do believe that Kerry will act on principle, and I do consider that a plus.

Bush, on the other hand, neither is honest and thoughful nor, more importantly, does he do what is best for the world.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2004 11:01 am 
Oddly enough Imagist, I disagree with you on almost every single point. I believe that George W. Bush is fundamentaly honest man and that whether his principles are right or not, he seems to base his decisions on those principles, not on expediency. While that may also be true for John Kerry, I'm afraid I don't believe it right now.

Your opinion + My opinion = 0. (except that I think I have much less antipathy towards Kerry than you have againt Bush)

But, most importantly, I would vote for an honest man I disagreed with over a dishonest man that said he agreed with me, even if the dishonest one had supported me in the past. I do not believe a fundamentally dishonest person will ever do what is best for the world. I would rather be represented by someone that was occaisionally embarasing than by someone that made me feel like I'd sold my soul to the devil when I voted for him. (Note: I'm not talking about anyone specifically, just a general feeling.)


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2004 1:16 pm 
How "fundamentally dishonest" are we talking about here?

To me, a politician's welcome to embezzle all the money he wants as long as he does a good job in whatever it is he was elected. He could also have a haremfull of mistresses and enough illegitimate children to start a soccer team, I wouldn't care. But I'd balk at things like murders.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2004 2:52 pm 
I would find it very hard to vote for someone who had history of embezzlement, adultery(with or without children), or lying. In each of these there is a breech of trust and/or contract. I believe that people can change though, so having done it sometime in the past may not be an automatic disqualification.

The reason basically comes down to trust. If I vote for someone it says that I trust them to represent me well. A dishonest person cannot be trusted. They may do well, they may not. They may betray you. An honest person may be honestly wrong, but they will try to do the best they know. A dishonest person may know the best thing to do in any situation, but they cannot be trusted to do it.

Honest may not be the best word for the type of person I'm looking for, but it will do for now. Virtuous, someone with integrity, upright, righteous, upstanding are some other terms that might work, but some of them have unneccesary religious conotations.

But a fundamental commitment to telling the truth and honoring trust is a requirement.

I guess one reason that I feel this way is because I am religous, and view this world as a temporary place. Because I do not see this world as the be-all and end-all I am, perhaps, more willing to accept less success or even failure if it leaves me with a clear concience. I would rather fail honorably than succeed dishonorably, in work, family, politics, world affairs, hobbies, or otherwise. Or as the Spartan women used to tell their men going off to war, "Return with your shield, or on it."


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2004 3:10 pm 
Offline
Reptile House Exhibit
Reptile House Exhibit
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2003 10:08 am
Posts: 305
Location: The Great Northern Deciduous Forests
Imagist wrote:
More specifically, he's not as bad as Bush. He didn't start a war for personal benefit, silence opposition through coercion, threaten to revoke press liscences of people who didn't say what he wanted them to, sign through laws that limit freedom of speech and press, tell us he supports our soldiers while cutting spending on all the things which would actually benefit the soldiers, support the wholesale destruction of the environment, and tell us he's pro-life while allowing thousands of people to die every month.

A bit late, but I just couldn't let this failure of logic pass. The undeniable fact that Kerry did none of these things is due solely to the fact that he was not president, and is thus utterly irrelevant to any discussion comparing Bush and Kerry. If you do want to make a comparison, it will have to be between what you think Kerry would have done/what Kerry says he would have done, and what Bush did do.

Henk G.

_________________
Why are canines called canines when feline canines are bigger than canine canines?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2004 11:30 pm 
Actually, my use of the word "didn't" was meant to focus on the fact that Bush did do all those things. To say that Kerry "wouldn't" do something is a matter of opinion, and frankly, I don't know if he would or not. What I do know is that Bush did and therefore probably will do.

So, my logic is not a failure sir. 'Tis the communication that is a failure.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 18, 2004 5:01 am 
Kit the Odd wrote:
---snip---
But, most importantly, I would vote for an honest man I disagreed with over a dishonest man that said he agreed with me, even if the dishonest one had supported me in the past. I do not believe a fundamentally dishonest person will ever do what is best for the world. I would rather be represented by someone that was occaisionally embarasing than by someone that made me feel like I'd sold my soul to the devil when I voted for him. (Note: I'm not talking about anyone specifically, just a general feeling.)


I agree, and I have a specific example.

David Redfield is a co-worker of mine, the mayor of Marquette Heights, and someone I disagree with. I agree with this though.

He has consistantly demonstrated that he is an honest man, and I am confident that he would be willing to change his mind if someone brought him convincing evidence of a better viewpoint. I would vote for him in an instant if he were running for any office covered by my election district.


In terms of honesty and consistancy I believe that Howard Dean would have been a far better candidate than Kerry. It's just sick that his campaign was sunk by a stupid little "yeowrgh".


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 18, 2004 11:36 am 
That alone wouldn't have sunk it. It was that the week before, Dean was talking about fighting media consolidation, and the media, of course, didn't like that. When he did the whole "yeowrgh" thing, the "liberal media" blew the whole thing out of proportion, and screwed his campaign.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 18, 2004 5:40 pm 
Imagist wrote:
That alone wouldn't have sunk it. It was that the week before, Dean was talking about fighting media consolidation, and the media, of course, didn't like that. When he did the whole "yeowrgh" thing, the "liberal media" blew the whole thing out of proportion, and screwed his campaign.


The coverage of Dean's exclamation doesn't demonstrate any particular bias in the media, that wasn't a Democrat vs. Republican situation. It didn't matter who went down, a Democrat was going to be chosen to challange Bush.

If an ulterier motive was needed it would have been self preservation, which also doesn't demonstrate a bias.

IMHO it was covered because it was the most bizzare thing that had happened so far in the process (other than Howard Dean's surprisingly fast rise) and he was very likely to win, so everything from his penchant for fried bologna sandwiches (example may not be true) to his latest speech was news.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 23, 2004 12:45 am 
Quote:
The coverage of Dean's exclamation doesn't demonstrate any particular bias in the media, that wasn't a Democrat vs. Republican situation. It didn't matter who went down, a Democrat was going to be chosen to challange Bush.


It very much mattered who went down; I think that if Dean had not been slammed by the media, he would have a larger lead on Bush than Kerry does.

Quote:
If an ulterier motive was needed it would have been self preservation, which also doesn't demonstrate a bias.


I don't know what definition you're using for bias, but I call that a bias.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 24, 2004 5:05 am 
Imagist wrote:
Quote:
The coverage of Dean's exclamation doesn't demonstrate any particular bias in the media, that wasn't a Democrat vs. Republican situation. It didn't matter who went down, a Democrat was going to be chosen to challange Bush.


It very much mattered who went down; I think that if Dean had not been slammed by the media, he would have a larger lead on Bush than Kerry does.


Yes, it mattered for beating Bush, but it doesn't matter for the purposes of demonstrating a liberal or conservative bias.

Imagist wrote:
Quote:
If an ulterier motive was needed it would have been self preservation, which also doesn't demonstrate a bias.


I don't know what definition you're using for bias, but I call that a bias.


Yes, a bias for self preservation is a bias, but it's not a liberal or conservative bias.

Everything you said was correct but my point still stands.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 29, 2004 3:37 pm 
I don't particularly care what the reasoning behind the bias is- it is the results of the actions resulting from the bias that matter. The media's bias is benefitting the conservatives, whether it is caused by self-preservation or whaatever.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 29, 2004 3:49 pm 
Imagist wrote:
I don't particularly care what the reasoning behind the bias is- it is the results of the actions resulting from the bias that matter. The media's bias is benefitting the conservatives, whether it is caused by self-preservation or whaatever.

Bias for the purpose of "self-preservation," particularly by a bunch of underworked millionaires, goes beyond dishonesty and hypocrisy and adds the vices of cowardice and greed.

My feeling was that the motives involved were much baser than any of this. Humiliating and denigrating political candidates is something TV reporters do in any election. Per the statements of some network reporters writing candidly about the last election cycle, they sometimes do it just because its "fun."

Here's an explanation by Margeret Carlson of Time, GQ, and The Capital Gang:

Bob Sommerby wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2000, Carlson appeared on Imus in the Morning to discuss press coverage of Bush and Gore’s first debate. As she noted, Gore was being slammed as a liar because of a few exceptionally trivial misstatements (. . . most of Gore’s alleged “misstatements” weren’t misstatements at all.) Much larger howlers were being ignored—misstatements by Bush about policy matters. Speaking with Imus, Carlson explained the corps’ double standard. Here was Carlson, explaining why Bush’s groaners were being ignored:

CARLSON: Gore’s fabrications may be inconsequential—I mean, they’re about his life. Bush’s fabrications are about our life, and what he’s going to do. Bush’s should matter more but they don’t, because Gore’s we can disprove right here and now. We can’t disprove that there’s going to be a chicken in every pot.

According to Carlson, the press had focused on what was easy to disprove. She went into gruesome detail:

CARLSON: You can actually disprove some of what Bush is saying if you really get in the weeds and get out your calculator or you look at his record in Texas. But it’s really easy, and it’s fun, to disprove Gore.

It was “easy” and “fun” to disprove Gore’s errors! Carlson took her presentation through one more appalling iteration:

CARLSON: I actually happen to know people who need government, and so they would care more about the programs, and [less] about the things we kind of make fun of…But as sport, and as our enterprise, Gore coming up with another whopper is greatly entertaining to us. And we can disprove it in a way we can’t disprove these other things.

. . . According to Carlson, the press was pursuing Gore’s trivial errors because it was “greatly entertaining” to do so. Meanwhile, they were ignoring Bush’s more serious errors because they weren’t as easy to disprove! According to Carlson, Candidate Gore was being flogged because it was “entertaining” and “fun.” The coverage was “sport,” Carlson said.


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group