Register on the forum now to remove ALL ads + popups + get access to tons of hidden content for members only!
vintage erotica forum vintage erotica forum vintage erotica forum
vintage erotica forum
Home
Go Back   Vintage Erotica Forums > Discussion & Talk Forum > General Discussion & News > Politics, Current Affairs, Religion Threads
Best Porn Sites Live Sex Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Notices
Politics, Current Affairs, Religion Threads Post here for all Politics, Current Affairs, Religion Threads


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 20th, 2017, 07:59 PM   #1
31D1
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Exclamation President Donald Trump's Final Days...




So today, Donald Trump officially became the 45th president of the United States. As is traditional to do in the U.S., all attention will now be paid to his first one hundred days, of his first term, as president.

The guidelines are the same, people measure how successful the new president’s power and influence is during those first one hundred days, to sort of measure or feel out whether or not the new president, and his policies, will have any impact at all, positively or negatively, for the remainder of the next four years, both domestically and abroad. It will also help demonstrate whether or not the president will even be able to get anything done in those first one hundred days, given the make-up of the Congress. In this case, Donald Trump will go in with a Republican dominated House of Representatives and Senate. However, cohesion among the Republicans in Congress and President Donald Trump remains uncertain, based on past actions and rhetoric between the two sides. How well they can behave, whether they (the GOP) will be an automatic rubber stamp for the Trump presidency and his legislation remains to be seen.

Unlike his modern-day predecessors, Donald Trump ran a most unusual campaign, even all up until his inauguration, that focused on brash (his staunchest of opponents would say vitriolic) “straight talk”, twitter wars, and ardent promises he said he would keep (the repealing and replacement of the Affordable Care Act being one of his strongest platforms). He was also the first presidential nominee, in modern time, to run a campaign based on overt skepticism towards American institutions like the FBI and CIA.

Many of Donald Trump’s positions have been impulsive; often times he’d adopt then abandon a position and vice-versa. So what will people (most assuredly the media, but also the American public) be looking for during the first one hundred days? One thing people will be looking for is how he will handle immigration (the whole “wall” rhetoric seeming to die down as time passed since his win), as well as whether or not he truly will have a more heavy hand (i.e. vetting process) when it comes to dealing with immigration from so-called Muslim nations. They will be looking for his overall economic plan (which he has often touted as “great”, but never gone truly in-depth on), how he will deal with the Federal Reserve, NAFTA, The V.A., climate change related legislation and regulations, the still on-going war on terror, his tax plan, the aforementioned so-called Obamacare, trade, manufacturing jobs, and so on and so forth. In terms of other nations, people will be looking at how he deals with China, an often popular punching bag for him during the campaign. Given the shadow that Russia (whether apropos or not, but much talked about, nevertheless) also played, people will look to how he and his administration behave towards Russia, but more specifically Vladimir Putin.

So once again, today, January 20, 2017 begins the first one hundred days of the Trump presidency. It concludes on April 29, 2017. I dedicate this thread to chronicling the many twists and turns of the new administration, that are undoubtedly certain to come with the new president, because much like Guantanamo Bay, President Trump’s mouth will not close. As for his Twitter, we’ll wait and see. Please share any and all opinions, stats, facts, polls, miscellaneous information you’d like on any topic involving the new administration, all throughout these first one hundred days.


NOTE. There are other great political threads on this forum, The Quest For The Presidency threads being one, as well as the Current or Modern U.S. Politics. I don't want to take anything away from those threads, but they are generally more-so to talk about overall politics in the U.S. as well as ideological discussions. I want this thread to focus solely on Trump's first 100 days, his legislation, his actions, and his administration overall. After the 100 days are up, this thread can archive itself away on its own if no one has anything else to lend to the conversation.

  Reply With Quote
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to For This Useful Post:


Old January 20th, 2017, 11:02 PM   #2
tsunamiSD
Veteran Member
 
tsunamiSD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 52,839
Thanks: 630,946
Thanked 638,057 Times in 52,921 Posts
tsunamiSD 2500000+tsunamiSD 2500000+tsunamiSD 2500000+tsunamiSD 2500000+tsunamiSD 2500000+tsunamiSD 2500000+tsunamiSD 2500000+tsunamiSD 2500000+tsunamiSD 2500000+tsunamiSD 2500000+tsunamiSD 2500000+
Default Off to a bad start...

President Trump Is Violating The Constitution -- And It's An Impeachable Offense

Quote:
According to experts, President Donald Trump’s continued ownership interest in the Trump Organization means that he is in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Emoluments Clause, which prohibits the president from personally benefiting from actions taken by foreign governments and their agents.
Quote:
Under the text and purpose of the Emoluments Clause, a “blind trust” in which Mr. Trump’s children manage his assets and run the business is wholly deficient. Payments made (and benefits conferred) by foreign states and their agents would still qualify as “any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever.” And all of the concerns about blurred loyalties animating the Clause would remain fully implicated. Blindness in this context works only if neither side can reasonably conclude that the seemingly opaque “wall” is actually a one-way mirror that the other side can see through.
And of course, by setting this bad example, he is encouraging his proposed cabinet members to also flout the law....
tsunamiSD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 21st, 2017, 03:05 AM   #3
ellias
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 354
Thanks: 6,404
Thanked 1,980 Times in 313 Posts
ellias 10000+ellias 10000+ellias 10000+ellias 10000+ellias 10000+ellias 10000+ellias 10000+ellias 10000+ellias 10000+ellias 10000+ellias 10000+
Default

Every Trump hater has their forum. Where were you when Barry was shitting all over the Constitution?
ellias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 21st, 2017, 01:46 PM   #4
Estreeter
Administrator
 
Estreeter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The 19th hole
Posts: 57,981
Thanks: 448,405
Thanked 894,852 Times in 60,182 Posts
Estreeter 2500000+Estreeter 2500000+Estreeter 2500000+Estreeter 2500000+Estreeter 2500000+Estreeter 2500000+Estreeter 2500000+Estreeter 2500000+Estreeter 2500000+Estreeter 2500000+Estreeter 2500000+
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 31D1 View Post
Take it easy.
Well Put No need for anyone to feel uncomfortable about politics on this entire forum.

Anyway, Trumps 1st 100 days in office, I'm predicting he's gonna be real busy repealing Obamacare and so on, in turn that will give the First Lady a lot of time at home bored and will do housework either that or lot's of dildo workout sessions
__________________



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Estreeter is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 14 Users Say Thank You to Estreeter For This Useful Post:
Old January 22nd, 2017, 07:17 AM   #5
scoundrel
Super Moderator
 
scoundrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 26,167
Thanks: 162,213
Thanked 277,844 Times in 26,113 Posts
scoundrel 1000000+scoundrel 1000000+scoundrel 1000000+scoundrel 1000000+scoundrel 1000000+scoundrel 1000000+scoundrel 1000000+scoundrel 1000000+scoundrel 1000000+scoundrel 1000000+scoundrel 1000000+
Default

Trump's relationship with Britain and PM Theresa May?
I have a feeling this will be another GWB/Tony Blair type thing, in which we British will get an awful lot of "Yo! Blair!" Donald Trump has got very bad manners and Mrs May will be obliged to grit her teeth and be patient. I hope at least that he knows how to use a knife and fork.

Against that, Mr Trump no doubt has things he wants and he believes in the "deal" as a concept, so (going by his track record) he will begin by seeking to find out what it is that Mrs May wants. Then he will calculate values and when he feels ready he will propose a deal. Britain and America have been trading favours like the mafia for over 100 years now; this will continue. It will continue more easily because the British were quick to accept the verdict of the US voters when others were too slow and too eager to give public vent to their wounded feelings.

Mr Trump's relationship with Angela Merkel?
She has been one of the others who were much too slow to accept the new reality. Holding a pre-summit meeting of EU foreign ministers to have crisis talks about how to educate Mr Trump about Europe was not a clever move on the part of the EU and Frau Merkel was unwise to allow her foreign minister to attend and participate. She should have explicitly ordered him not to go.

Now she is in a bit of a bind strategically. The EU is pursuing a sanctions policy against Russia over Ukraine. I think Mr Trump will be against this sanctions policy and will take Mr Putin's side. His take is likely to be that, without paying for the necessary military force themselves, Germany has tried to use NATO as a shield behind which to expand the German economic sphere eastwards. To put it crudely, in this version Ukraine is a bone and two dogs have fallen out over it; but the bone has historically belonged to the Russian dog and the German/EU dog was trying to steal it. Mr Trump will hand the bone to the Russian dog and beat the German/EU dog for trespassing. Frau Merkel was working with a very different US administration and that's all gone; now she needs to trim her sails.

Mr Trump and Mr Putin?
Vladimir Putin is the nearest thing to Count Blofelt that I have ever seen. There are a lot of opportunities opening for him now and he will calculate well in the short run, I do not doubt. But he could easily over-reach and get greedy and what Mr Putin should bear in mind is that Mr Trump has a really evil temper and is emotional, malicious and revengeful, not a calculator.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
scoundrel is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to scoundrel For This Useful Post:
Old January 22nd, 2017, 04:51 AM   #6
LadyLuck
Vintage Member
 
LadyLuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,038
Thanks: 136
Thanked 10,380 Times in 1,231 Posts
LadyLuck 50000+LadyLuck 50000+LadyLuck 50000+LadyLuck 50000+LadyLuck 50000+LadyLuck 50000+LadyLuck 50000+LadyLuck 50000+LadyLuck 50000+LadyLuck 50000+LadyLuck 50000+
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ellias View Post
Every Trump hater has their forum. Where were you when Barry was shitting all over the Constitution?
Welcome to "100 Days Of Trump Bashing".
LadyLuck is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to LadyLuck For This Useful Post:
Old January 21st, 2017, 04:09 AM   #7
ellias
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 354
Thanks: 6,404
Thanked 1,980 Times in 313 Posts
ellias 10000+ellias 10000+ellias 10000+ellias 10000+ellias 10000+ellias 10000+ellias 10000+ellias 10000+ellias 10000+ellias 10000+ellias 10000+
Default

"Shitting" on the Constitution is not subjective when a number of his executive orders were overturned by the courts as unlawful. And as far as the allegedly "Affordable" Care Act, the SC should have declared the entire law as unlawful except for a curious re-interpretation of the law by the chief justice.

And for the record, I was not a huge fan of Bush 43 and there were a number of things Obama did that I did not find fault with. However, unlikely that I will contribute to your discussion as I don't allow politics to eat at my soul either, but I did enjoy the pageantry today as my country celebrated the transfer of power from one to another.
ellias is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 15 Users Say Thank You to ellias For This Useful Post:
Old January 21st, 2017, 04:53 AM   #8
profvolup
Vintage Member
 
profvolup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Skype:profvolup@yahoo.com GChat:profv475@gmail.com Discor:profv475#5888
Posts: 1,084
Thanks: 8,283
Thanked 17,561 Times in 1,067 Posts
profvolup 50000+profvolup 50000+profvolup 50000+profvolup 50000+profvolup 50000+profvolup 50000+profvolup 50000+profvolup 50000+profvolup 50000+profvolup 50000+profvolup 50000+
Default US Healthcare is beyond f'd up, and neither Romneycare nor Obamacare fixes the root problems ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by ellias View Post
"Shitting" on the Constitution is not subjective when a number of his executive orders were overturned by the courts as unlawful. And as far as the allegedly "Affordable" Care Act, the SC should have declared the entire law as unlawful except for a curious re-interpretation of the law by the chief justice.
It's not the job of the courts to interpret the law passed, only judge Constitutionality. That's the whole reason why the SCOTUS was given most power, because it cannot pass laws, only validate if passed laws are not in conflict with the Supreme Laws which were passed by a supermajority of the US States.

In that regard, on the ACA, the SCOTUS ...

- Upheld the right of the 'mandate,' but called it what it is .. 'a tax," which the US Federal goverment is allowed to do

- Struck down the use of the Interstate Commerce Clause to 'pass the buck' on costs to the states, nullifying the rather disingenuous 'no cost' argument by President Obama, which was to make the states pay for it, the reason why over 2/3rds of US states sued, including even those with Democractic party AGs

- Most specifically, the ACA is a US Federal program that must be paid by the US Federal government, by tax, by fees, by whatever means, under the power by, but only of, the US Federal government, without adding any liabilities to the state governments without their consent

That's basically how the SCOTUS ruled, not to 'judge' the 'fairness' or 'goodness' of the ACA terms, but only against the powers and rules of US Federal v. US State v. US Citizen, based on the US Constitution.

Now, if you want to talk about how it failed, just ask anyone objective back in 2009 when it was first being drafted.

- The 'you get to keep your doctor' was always a load of bullshit, because the plan defined 'ACA minimums' which allowed all sorts of games, and made things worse for most people, ranging from losing their doctor to losing their healthcare, especially considering ...

- Several of the new mandates could not be afforded by many smaller employers, and they 'got creative' to just cut off all healthcare for their employees together, making things totally worse for them, but even if they didn't lose it ...

- Many healthy people now had worse healthcare from their employer, many went to 'ACA minimum' programs as premiums rose, but those with employer healthcare who wanted to use the Exchanges, could not without tax penalty (they lost the pre-tax benefit).

For example, a friend of mine had his employer go to 'ACA minimums' plans after a year because premiums skyrocketed to keep costs down, which he didn't want. He was willing to pay more. So he spent $20K/year, 2.5x as much (employer was only $8K/year) to get his own healthcare, not from his employer. But then was taxed on his premiums because the ACA specifies that if your employer has at least 'ACA minimums,' you must take your employers to get pre-tax premiums. So they ended up paying almost 4x as much in the end, after taxes, literally almost $30K/year, including the taxes.

BTW, people wonder why I'm self-employed ... and why I say we do not have 'free market healthcare' at all.

And atop of all that ...

- There is *0* incentive for healthy people to get good healthcare and invest in their future, so ...

- The Exchanges became exactly as self-employed people like myself said they would, only used by really sick and unemployed people, and a spiralling mess that was completely unsustainable, and would cost far, far more than anything we've ever seen.

- And the whole issue of 'pre-existing conditions' is because, well, in the US ... you change your healthcare provider when you change your job! If you don't get healthcare from your employer, you get taxed on your premiums -- my #1 issue with the ACA, it never addressed that simple problem!

McCain suggested in 2008 that we should give everyone a $5,000 tax credit to get their own healthcare, spend as much as you want or as little as you want, and he was demonized for saying 'he'll take away the pre-tax benefit.' Of course he will, because there will no longer be employer-based insurance, and you get a $5K tax credit to get what you want!

Romney had many ideas, but he too was demonized ... quite ironic since much of Obamacare was based on what Romneycare did in MA! Including the individual mandate! One of my clients was MA-based, and I saw all these Democratic voters bitching and moaning that if they made $90K/year, but didn't get the 'Romneycare minimums' (which were much, much higher than ACA), they were penalized several thousand dollars. But when the ACA does it, with much worse terms, suddenly my Democratic colleagues love it?!

This level of political partisan bullshit is what is doing us in. It's bad when Romney does it at a state level (and far better in my view -- I can easily go into the specifics), but good when Obama does it at a federal level (and it was a colossal oversold load of bullshit that even the state AGs sued over). But in the end, neither Romneycare or Obamacare did what is really required, which was what McCain put forth, which the Republicans argued way back in 1993 against Hillary.

Simply put ...

You basic have to outlaw employer healthcare programs, at least (to start) for everyone under 30 years of age (and eventually everyone), to force them into free market ... real, actual free market. That way, young people -- who are statistically far more healthy and a major net positive -- pay premiums and fund the system way more than the benefit they get. That counter-balances those who are older and sick.

Until that happens, no 'plan' will work ... which is why even Democratic staffers who are friends of mine will say it, but only behind closed doors. The ACA was designed to break it all, and make people think the 'exchanges,' which the Republicans countered Hillary Clinton on way back in 1993, 'don't work.' The 'exchange' will never work if we don't outlaw employer healthcare, at least for young people, and force young, healthy people into them.

It doesn't matter if it's funded in free market or in government taxes, someone has to fund it! There is not a magical pool that just makes cheap healthcare.

The idea that Americans can afford the latest procedures for everyone, is something that not even the UK or Canada is able to do. There will be waiting lists ... and the only question is if you make it single payer, and everyone is on those waiting lists, or you make it multi-player, and only government people are on waiting lists while those who can afford to pay $20-50K/year for insurance can take advantage of the latest procedures without waiting lists.

But then you get into really fucked up situations, like the UK taxpayer paying for breast augmentation, and you can often get it faster than some other procedures (look it up).

Then there's the additional problem where many countries just ignore US patents on drugs, so Americans end up paying for R&D of those drugs, which is why drugs costs more in the US. To solve that we'd need to smash patents, but that would also take away all of the incentive for R&D that we have in the US with it. Of course I think a lot of drug companies abuse that too, and I think we should regulate how much they get to spend on marketing free samples, but that's not just the only issue.

These are the realities of healthcare in the US.

I just want someone to fucking solve it. I'm open to socialized medicine, especially preventive, which will keep people having "ER Healthcare" (no insurance) because the go to the ER as Reagan signed the law in the '80s that no one can be denied at the ER. That there is total waste. Then there is simple, preventive medicine that is much cheaper than if people get sick. Then there's the argument that many expensive machines sit unused, and that would bring costs-per-patient down, etc...

But if everyone thinks every American can have the best healthcare for free, think again. It's people willing to pay $20-50K/year in premiums that will always get the best healthcare, because they are subsidizing a lot. Single payer is a major compromise that even other countries don't have for a reason.

Or as every one of my middle aged Canadian friends in the US say, "I love the Canadian healthcare system ... for when I retire. Until then, I have any major procedures done in the US under my company's health insurance."

I'd actually like to try free market healthcare in the US ... for once (we've never had it) ... by outlawing healthcare from our employers, or at least for those under 30, and preventing their parents from covering them after 18. That would be step 1, and one way to start 'refunding' the ACA, with other changes.

The biggest problem is that the Republicans don't have the 60 votes in the Senate to do much, so it's going to only get worse with the Democratic part now being the 'obstructionalists.' Maybe Trump will turn some Senators, but he's got his own issues with Republicans too. Most didn't want him, and many still don't want to work with him.

Maybe he can Twitter them into submission ... maybe.
__________________
Prof Voluptuary - Gen-X American Male - Wide, full, hanging breasts make me hard; But powerful thighs with full, fanging hips holding up her extremely curved, voluptuous hourglass centerpiece make me unload

Last edited by profvolup; January 21st, 2017 at 05:05 AM..
profvolup is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 15 Users Say Thank You to profvolup For This Useful Post:
Old January 21st, 2017, 05:11 AM   #9
profvolup
Vintage Member
 
profvolup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Skype:profvolup@yahoo.com GChat:profv475@gmail.com Discor:profv475#5888
Posts: 1,084
Thanks: 8,283
Thanked 17,561 Times in 1,067 Posts
profvolup 50000+profvolup 50000+profvolup 50000+profvolup 50000+profvolup 50000+profvolup 50000+profvolup 50000+profvolup 50000+profvolup 50000+profvolup 50000+profvolup 50000+
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by haliose View Post
big big mistake u twats
Versus what?

Bernie Sanders? Oh wait, that was way back in the Democratic primary. The same people bitching about the Electoral College doesn't want to talk about papertrail v. no papertrail states in the primary, let alone the superdelegates.

Gary Johnson + Bill Weld? The two, fiscally conservative, socially liberal candidates with the most executive experience re-balancing states, one from a 44% Hispanic, the other from a northeastern left-leaning state, both states with previously huge debts, weren't invited to the debates, despite polling better than Ross Perot.

No ... just Hillary Clinton.

So, given the US media already announced Clinton the winner without asking, and gave Trump 85% of the airtime where they played just 1% of his words and soundbites that fit that agenda ...

What did you expect when 80% of Americans hate the US media?

Trump wasn't a pro-"I believe in him," vote, but an anti-US media, anti-elitist, anti-Beltway vote. That's why Trump enters with the lowest approval ratings of all time!

Although even if Hillary won, she would have been almost just as low as well.

Two very evil options no one wanted, but let be put in place. Could have had Sanders. Or better yet, just having Johnson+Weld in the President+VP debates -- regardless of what you think of them -- would have at least had a 3rd voice that would have stomped on the partisan rhetoric, and made both Trump+Pence and Hillary+Kane actually debate the issues ...

Instead of treating all of us Americans like 8 year-olds.

Heck, one, single SuperPAC spent $50M alone against Johnson+Weld, who had less than $5M total. Two, two term governors that literally were hated by their own party, especially Johnson who vetoed more bills than all other 49 governors ... combined. They were scared if he even got in on the debate what a 3rd party viewpoint would do to the common arguments.

Just like Perot in 1992, who went from 7% to over 20% -- 3x increase -- because he was in the debates!

I don't blame Trump. I don't blame Clinton. I blame all of us for fucking making stupid arguments on why no one else should be heard. The Democratic Party fucked itself by fucking over Sanders. Heck, even Johnson qualified for the 2nd Republican debate in 2012, and the RNC told CNN to keep him out. Republicans still hate him in New Mexico and bitch about him to this day.

Why? All because he was willing to cut funding for things like the annual state rodeo when it cost far more than what it made? That's the type of 'this is not in the taxpayer's interest, we are spending way too much' leader you need!

We'll see what Trump does. He's surrounded himself with non-internventionist generals who went against the brass and a lot of Ayn Rand disciples, which you never see in major cabinet roles. That's actually pretty libertarian-leaning and a shock to the system, so ...

I don't think Trump will get Congress to do shit, and nothing will get done, as a result.
__________________
Prof Voluptuary - Gen-X American Male - Wide, full, hanging breasts make me hard; But powerful thighs with full, fanging hips holding up her extremely curved, voluptuous hourglass centerpiece make me unload

Last edited by profvolup; January 21st, 2017 at 05:20 AM..
profvolup is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 13 Users Say Thank You to profvolup For This Useful Post:
Old January 21st, 2017, 12:36 PM   #10
tsunamiSD
Veteran Member
 
tsunamiSD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 52,839
Thanks: 630,946
Thanked 638,057 Times in 52,921 Posts
tsunamiSD 2500000+tsunamiSD 2500000+tsunamiSD 2500000+tsunamiSD 2500000+tsunamiSD 2500000+tsunamiSD 2500000+tsunamiSD 2500000+tsunamiSD 2500000+tsunamiSD 2500000+tsunamiSD 2500000+tsunamiSD 2500000+
Default On Health Care...

Here’s how Donald Trump could replace Obamacare without courting disaster

Quote:
Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) is Trump’s pick to run Health and Human Services. And back in 2006, he was the co-author of a health care plan that could offer Republicans a way out. (And thanks to Brookings’ Stuart Butler for reminding me of its existence!)
Quote:
The Trump administration could build on the Baldwin-Price legislation and the Section 1332 to let the states replace Obamacare. They could get rid of Obamacare’s essential benefits package so states had more flexibility in designing insurance, and they could lower the percentage of health costs that insurers have to cover to allow catastrophic care plans.
But they could also demand that states show they will cover more people at a lower cost than Obamacare in order to qualify under the program, and they could give grants to states to help them defray the cost of improving their health systems. (How would they pay for those grants? The same way they intend to pay for their tax cuts. Fiscal responsibility is only a constraint when Republicans want it to be.) As for the states that are happy with Obamacare, they could be left alone — if you like your health care system, you can keep it.
tsunamiSD is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to tsunamiSD For This Useful Post:
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT. The time now is 06:02 AM.






vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise v2.6.1 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.