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

Go Back   Vintage Erotica Forums > Discussion & Talk Forum > General Discussion & News

Follow Vintage Erotica Forum on Twitter
Best Porn Sites Meet Our Girls Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Notices
General Discussion & News Want to speak your mind about something ... do it here.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-20-2017, 06:59 PM   #1
31D1
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post President Donald Trump's First 100 Days & Beyond




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 10 Users Say Thank You to For This Useful Post:


Old 01-20-2017, 10:02 PM   #2
tsunamiSD
Veteran Member
 
tsunamiSD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,977
Thanks: 104,508
Thanked 97,110 Times in 6,978 Posts
tsunamiSD 350000+tsunamiSD 350000+tsunamiSD 350000+tsunamiSD 350000+tsunamiSD 350000+tsunamiSD 350000+tsunamiSD 350000+tsunamiSD 350000+tsunamiSD 350000+tsunamiSD 350000+tsunamiSD 350000+
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
The Following 16 Users Say Thank You to tsunamiSD For This Useful Post:
Old 01-21-2017, 01:34 AM   #3
31D1
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Just An Update As To How Trump's Cabinet Is Shaping Up

The following do not require any form of confirmation and are already on Trump's team:
Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, current RNC chair, leaving the position
Chief Strategist Stephen Bannon, former head of Breitbart and Glenn Beck hater
Senior Adviser Jared Kushner, Developer, married to Ivanka
National Secretary Adviser Michael Flynn, retired Army general
Homeland Security Adviser Thomas Bossert, former Bush aide, ran risk management firm
Counselor Kellyanne Conway, Trump's right-hand woman for quite a while now
Regulatory Czar Carl Icahan, Billionaire investor
White House Counsel Donald McGahn, Washington Lawyer
Trade Czar Peter Navarro, professor and critic of Chinese economic policies
Press Secretary Sean Spicer, long-time RNC spokesman and Priebus confidante

Confirmed Nominations:
Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly, retired Marine general
Defense Secretary James Mattis, retired general with a stronger stance on Russia and NATO supporter

Awaiting Nomination:
Secretary of Housing & Urban Development Ben Carson, former neurosurgeon and 2016 presidential candidate
Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao, Labor sec. under W. Bush
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, ex-CEO of Exxon, controversial relationship with Russia and Putin
Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Alabama senator, supportive of Trump's "Law & Order" tactics
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, A.G. of Oklahoma, fossil fuel ally, believes climate change is not a hoax
Heath & Human Services Secretary Tom Price, Georgia Republican representative and orthopedic surgeon, opposes ACA
U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, South Carolina governor, said Russia was guilty of war crimes in Russia, uh oh
Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, former Michigan Republican chairwoman and school choice advocate, pro-guns in school to keep bears away
Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, Montana representative, ex-Navy seal, believes climate change is not a hoax
C.I.A. Director Mike Pompeo, Kansas representative, former Army officer, said he would pursue any Russian interference into the 2016 elections. Right after the swamp is drained.
Labor Secretary Andrew Puzder, CKE Restaurants CEO who has harshly criticized Obama's labor policies
Director of the Office of Management and Budget Mike Mulvaney, South Carolina Republican representative, anti-ACA, strong spending cuts proponent
Small Business Administration Linda McMahon, former chief executive of WWE
Energy Secretary Rick Perry Rick Perry?!
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, former Goldman Sachs executive, home foreclosure company man who used offshore tax havens
Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, investor who has promised massive changes to NAFTA
Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, Indiana representative who served on the Senate intelligence and armed services committees
U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, lawyer who served as trade official under Reagan
Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue, former Georgia governor
Secretary of Veterans Affairs David Shulkin, under secretary for health at the V.A., currently, nominated by Obama in 2015

Barring any trysts with Russian hookers, while massacring newborn babies in the back alley of a Moscow brothel, I think every unconfirmed nominee with eventually get confirmation. But, I could be wrong.
  Reply With Quote
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to For This Useful Post:
Old 01-21-2017, 02:05 AM   #4
ellias
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 106
Thanks: 2,033
Thanked 564 Times in 101 Posts
ellias 2500+ellias 2500+ellias 2500+ellias 2500+ellias 2500+ellias 2500+ellias 2500+ellias 2500+ellias 2500+ellias 2500+ellias 2500+
Default

Every Trump hater has their forum. Where were you when Barry was shitting all over the Constitution?
ellias is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 15 Users Say Thank You to ellias For This Useful Post:
Old 01-21-2017, 02:41 AM   #5
31D1
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
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?
You do realize that the fact that I started this thread means nothing? You and three other supporters of the president can comment and take this thread over and make it pro-Trump. Feel free, I don't let politics eat at my soul enough to care. I like having my fun with President Trump because HE makes it toooo easy. But truth be told, I don't DESPISE the man. I was shockingly more of a supporter of Bush than "Barry". But that's a whole other topic. And forget the VEF forums, where were you when the multitudes of people were criticizing the F out of Obama? I'm from the South, I saw the critique. "Shitting on the Constitution" is all subjective by the way. But thanks for commenting man, please, and I mean this, keep doing it. Set us straight and we can continue the discussion. I'm going to bed for now. Take it easy.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2017, 03:09 AM   #6
ellias
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 106
Thanks: 2,033
Thanked 564 Times in 101 Posts
ellias 2500+ellias 2500+ellias 2500+ellias 2500+ellias 2500+ellias 2500+ellias 2500+ellias 2500+ellias 2500+ellias 2500+ellias 2500+
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 11 Users Say Thank You to ellias For This Useful Post:
Old 01-21-2017, 03:53 AM   #7
profvolup
Vintage Member
 
profvolup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 613
Thanks: 2,946
Thanked 6,999 Times in 597 Posts
profvolup 25000+profvolup 25000+profvolup 25000+profvolup 25000+profvolup 25000+profvolup 25000+profvolup 25000+profvolup 25000+profvolup 25000+profvolup 25000+profvolup 25000+
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; 01-21-2017 at 04:05 AM..
profvolup is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to profvolup For This Useful Post:
Old 01-21-2017, 04:11 AM   #8
profvolup
Vintage Member
 
profvolup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 613
Thanks: 2,946
Thanked 6,999 Times in 597 Posts
profvolup 25000+profvolup 25000+profvolup 25000+profvolup 25000+profvolup 25000+profvolup 25000+profvolup 25000+profvolup 25000+profvolup 25000+profvolup 25000+profvolup 25000+
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; 01-21-2017 at 04:20 AM..
profvolup is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to profvolup For This Useful Post:
Old 01-21-2017, 11:36 AM   #9
tsunamiSD
Veteran Member
 
tsunamiSD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,977
Thanks: 104,508
Thanked 97,110 Times in 6,978 Posts
tsunamiSD 350000+tsunamiSD 350000+tsunamiSD 350000+tsunamiSD 350000+tsunamiSD 350000+tsunamiSD 350000+tsunamiSD 350000+tsunamiSD 350000+tsunamiSD 350000+tsunamiSD 350000+tsunamiSD 350000+
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 7 Users Say Thank You to tsunamiSD For This Useful Post:
Old 01-21-2017, 12:23 PM   #10
grazer
Vintage Member
 
grazer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Berlin
Posts: 427
Thanks: 13,676
Thanked 10,698 Times in 423 Posts
grazer 50000+grazer 50000+grazer 50000+grazer 50000+grazer 50000+grazer 50000+grazer 50000+grazer 50000+grazer 50000+grazer 50000+grazer 50000+
Default

I predict that within 100 days Trump will get into serious catfights with Ryan & Congress. Lets see whether the GOP develops some last-minute backbone & stands up to the old man...
__________________
Do everything for dames with deep impact... **Gr
grazer is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to grazer 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 10:06 AM.






vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise v2.6.1 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.