It is currently Wed Feb 19, 2020 6:11 am

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 261 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: The Tyrannical Minority
PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 10:22 am 
God

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am
Posts: 17275
That unitary executive theory both functions as a defense of Nixonland and took off in movement conservativism after Nixon is not coincidental. Nor is it coincidental that ardent followers of it like Bill Barr assist in fostering Presidential impunity for gross misconduct.

Honor: Whatever qnon conspiracy theorists.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The Tyrannical Minority
PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 10:24 am 
God

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am
Posts: 17275
honorentheos wrote:
I don't think it deserves the time. Turning the proceedings into a subpoena fest for everyone who ever sat in on a call between Trump and pretty much anyone else would be disasterous

Yeah...

How about just the ones he violated the law to conceal with nations that he publicly called on to assist his attempts to manipulate an election. How about those?

I mean, the one of those calls we know the most about, that direct witnesses to remained silent on until called in to testify, just involved the President extorting a vulnerable nation into participating in a electoral disinformation campaign, so I am sure it’s fine.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The Tyrannical Minority
PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 12:33 pm 
God

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am
Posts: 17275
Gates apparently alleged that Manafort had Stone keep him updated on Wikileaks hacks/releases so he could keep the campaign and Trump informed.

That sounds totally legal and totally cool. Good thing Democrats won’t investigate it. It might lead to demonstrating a pattern of working with foreign power cutouts to influence elections with disinformation then engaging in obstruction of justice to cover up the same. That’s far too removed from what happened with Ukraine to look into. Think of the precedent. Future, and current, candidates might have to think twice before doing the same thing.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The Tyrannical Minority
PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 1:18 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 5:37 pm
Posts: 9501
Location: On walkabout
EAllusion wrote:
honorentheos wrote:
I don't think it deserves the time. Turning the proceedings into a subpoena fest for everyone who ever sat in on a call between Trump and pretty much anyone else would be disasterous
Yeah...

How about just the ones he violated the law to conceal with nations that he publicly called on to assist his attempts to manipulate an election. How about those?


If it was a violation of a law passed by Congress, then there would clearly be something to investigate. But is the determination of what goes on the secure server law or is it executive branch policy? If it's just policy, then an investigation would look more like a fishing expedition.

_________________
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The Tyrannical Minority
PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 2:33 pm 
God

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am
Posts: 17275
Res Ipsa wrote:
If it was a violation of a law passed by Congress, then there would clearly be something to investigate. But is the determination of what goes on the secure server law or is it executive branch policy? If it's just policy, then an investigation would look more like a fishing expedition.

It’s a violation of the controlling executive order interpretation of how to execute Congressional legal authorization. Abuse of the classification system in order to conceal politically derogatory information falls within Congressional purview and should be investigated when there is reasonable suspicion, which there is in this case. It should be investigated in an impeachment inquiry when that reasonable suspicion concerns impeachable conduct, which it does in this case. The manner in which the classification system was used to conceal the Ukraine call was an abuse of the public trust. That’s what a high crime is. It is valid and adviseable to see how far that abuse goes given the current state of evidence.

Fishing expedition is a term appropriate for when you attempt to gather as much information as possible to catch wrongdoing you have no evidence of. It is not appropriate for when you attempt to investigate examples of wrongdoing you have evidence of to learn more about it.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The Tyrannical Minority
PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 4:39 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 2:19 pm
Posts: 12472
Location: Multiverse
EAllusion wrote:
Fishing expedition is a term appropriate for when you attempt to gather as much information as possible to catch wrongdoing you have no evidence of. It is not appropriate for when you attempt to investigate examples of wrongdoing you have evidence of to learn more about it.

Whitewater was a fishing expedition. This is not that.

_________________
"God" is the original deus ex machina. --Maksutov


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The Tyrannical Minority
PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 5:15 pm 
Founder & Visionary
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 3:07 pm
Posts: 14014
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
EAllusion wrote:
Ugh, Dr. Shades. Those were different posts. You are ruining the logical separation by combining them.

One should never double-post. One should especially not double-post when a paragraph break will accomplish the same design.

_________________
"Belief is driven by psychology, not intelligence."

--Analytics, 09-11-2019


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The Tyrannical Minority
PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 5:25 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 8:59 am
Posts: 14623
Dr. Shades wrote:
EAllusion wrote:
Ugh, Dr. Shades. Those were different posts. You are ruining the logical separation by combining them.

One should never double-post. One should especially not double-post when a paragraph break will accomplish the same design.

Justify this rule for us. What is your reasoning (assuming it's not some capricious silliness)?

_________________
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The Tyrannical Minority
PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 5:27 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:42 pm
Posts: 21476
Location: Koloburbia
The GOP argument about Trump's state of mind is interesting. Was he too deranged and incompetent to form the requisite intent for a criminal quid pro quo and international extortion? If he was unable to distinguish right from wrong in seeking for Ukraine to manufacture evidence against his opponent, how can he be impeached?

The Senate Republicans can bring in a load of psychiatrists and other mental health professionals to swear to Trump's deficits. How can the Democrats hope to argue against that?

_________________
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The Tyrannical Minority
PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 5:36 pm 
God

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am
Posts: 17275
Dr. Shades wrote:
EAllusion wrote:
Ugh, Dr. Shades. Those were different posts. You are ruining the logical separation by combining them.

One should never double-post. One should especially not double-post when a paragraph break will accomplish the same design.

You too often mistake different posts intended to express different thoughts as being part of the same coherent comment. Paragraph breaks aren't accomplishing what you think.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The Tyrannical Minority
PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 5:41 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 5:37 pm
Posts: 9501
Location: On walkabout
EAllusion wrote:
Res Ipsa wrote:

If it was a violation of a law passed by Congress, then there would clearly be something to investigate. But is the determination of what goes on the secure server law or is it executive branch policy? If it's just policy, then an investigation would look more like a fishing expedition.
It’s a violation of the controlling executive order interpretation of how to execute Congressional legal authorization. Abuse of the classification system in order to conceal politically derogatory information falls within Congressional purview and should be investigated when there is reasonable suspicion, which there is in this case. It should be investigated in an impeachment inquiry when that reasonable suspicion concerns impeachable conduct, which it does in this case. The manner in which the classification system was used to conceal the Ukraine call was an abuse of the public trust. That’s what a high crime is. It is valid and adviseable to see how far that abuse goes given the current state of evidence.


Is there an actual executive order? Or are we talking about practice, custom, or written or unwritten policy?

I disagree with your definition of "fishing expedition." Even bona fide fishing expeditions are based on some kind of evidence. The difference is between the strength of the connection between that evidence and the specific crime being investigated. It's more of a spectrum than a rigid boundary, which is why I said "look more like a fishing expedition." For example, Trump publicly asked China to investigate the Bidens just before a trade dispute negotiation. There is some evidence that he also discussed investigating the Bidens on a call with the leader of China. Requesting the transcript of that call doesn't look like a fishing expedition because it a request for a document that one would reasonably expect to contain evidence of any improper request or pressure from the President.

In contrast, a general request for the transcript of any calls placed on the server is based on a suspicion that the transcript was placed there because Trump did something wrong, but we have no idea what. That looks more like a fishing expedition.

The problem with the current impeachment process is that there is no formal division between the investigation and the evaluation of whether the evidence warrants referral to the Senate for trial. In criminal cases, we have the police investigation and the grand jury/preliminary hearing. In the Nixon and Clinton impeachments, there were special or independent prosecutors that did the investigation. In this case, House committees are doing both. As the term has been used in the past, the opening of "impeachment proceedings" has been a request that the judiciary evaluate the evidence gathered by the independent or special counsel, performing a function similar to a grand jury. The term "impeachment inquiry" has been used as kind of a weasel term - it's never clear whether the "inquiry' means investigation, evaluation, or both. It seems to me to be a mish mash of both, with no clear delineation. (One clearer way of setting this up would be to designate one or two committees as being responsible for the investigation, and the judiciary committee in charge of evaluation. Hearings would be appropriate only by the judiciary committee at the conclusion of the investigation.

As far as the standard for opening a congressional investigation, it may very well be "fishing expeditions" are just fine. Courts have been reluctant to place limits on Congress's oversight powers, and one cannot conduct proper oversight without investigations. But certainly reasonable and articulable suspicion of wrongdoing by the executive branch should justify starting an investigation. I think calling an investigation an "impeachment inquiry" simply because it could lead to the discovery of an impeachable offense is a bad idea. If we are going to use "impeachment inquiry" to refer to the investigative phase of impeachment, then it should be reserved for cases where the House feels there is sufficient evidence to refer to the Judiciary Committee for review. That should be, IMO, a higher standard than that to initiate an investigation. That higher standard would be more like probable cause that an impeachable offense has occurred.

The problem I see with adding investigation of all e-mails stored on the server to the impeachment inquiry is that all we have are anonymous sources who say there were other transcripts placed there. That's nowhere near probable cause of an impeachable offense. It certainly is worth investigating, but combining it with an investigation that, from the beginning, involved an impeachable offense makes no sense from a practical standpoint. We don't have the call transcripts, and getting them would take months, if not years. Arguing that withholding them constitutes obstruction of justice would be weak, considering we really can't identify (with the exception of the transcript of the alleged Chinese call) the bad thing Trump was supposed to have done during the call. Contrast that with instructing material witnesses not to testify when we have more than probable cause that an impeachable offense occurred.

The House already has an impeachment case that is strong enough to send to the Senate. It certainly could put that case on ice while it investigated any other calls placed on the server. That would probably result in an impeachment trial in 2021 if Trump is reelected. Trump handed the House the evidence it needed on a silver platter. He won't make that mistake again. Or, it can open investigations into the other transcripts while proceeding with the Ukraine impeachment process. I don't see including that investigation in the impeachment inquiry as a significantly greater deterrent to election cheating than conducting a separate investigation. Either way, it sends the message that Congress is watching. I think whatever marginal benefit there could be is far outweighed by the invevitable delay that combining the two would cause.

_________________
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The Tyrannical Minority
PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 5:59 pm 
God

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am
Posts: 17275
Res Ipsa wrote:
Is there an actual executive order? Or are we talking about practice, custom, or written or unwritten policy?

There's an actual executive order.

Quote:
Trump handed the House the evidence it needed on a silver platter. He won't make that mistake again.

He's made that mistake repeatedly. I think you are backwards reasoning from what Democrats decided (or were forced to decide) is impeachable conduct with what is, in actuality, impeachable conduct.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The Tyrannical Minority
PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 6:48 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 5:37 pm
Posts: 9501
Location: On walkabout
EAllusion wrote:
Res Ipsa wrote:
Is there an actual executive order? Or are we talking about practice, custom, or written or unwritten policy?

There's an actual executive order.

Quote:
Trump handed the House the evidence it needed on a silver platter. He won't make that mistake again.

He's made that mistake repeatedly. I think you are backwards reasoning from what Democrats decided (or were forced to decide) is impeachable conduct with what is, in actuality, impeachable conduct.

That's not what the New York Times says:

Quote:
Is it an “abuse” to use the NICE system to store a file that is not top-secret code word?

Using the NICE system to curtail access to the record of Mr. Trump’s call with the leader of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, may very well be, as the whistle-blower also wrote, a sign “that White House officials understood the gravity of what had transpired in the call.” But calling it an “abuse” appears to be subjective.

Generally, the national security adviser can decide who can see what files. No rule prohibits putting a file with a lower-level classification into the NICE system in order to take advantage of its greater access restrictions, a former official said.

By contrast, the official said, it would clearly be an abuse — violating a specific prohibition in an executive order governing classified information — to mark something classified at an unjustifiably higher level in order to conceal violations of the law or prevent embarrassment. Here, however, the released call record was merely marked “secret,” a lower level of classification than “top secret.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/01/us/p ... ystem.html

No violation of an executive order. No violation of any rule at all.

If you think I'm somehow reasoning backwards, please describe exactly what you think my chain of reasoning is and why it is backwards.

_________________
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The Tyrannical Minority
PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 7:12 pm 
Founder & Visionary
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 3:07 pm
Posts: 14014
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
Perfume on my Mind wrote:
Justify this rule for us. What is your reasoning (assuming it's not some capricious silliness)?

To cut down on page clutter.

EAllusion wrote:
You too often mistake different posts intended to express different thoughts as being part of the same coherent comment. Paragraph breaks aren't accomplishing what you think.

Did you ever write a letter or an e-mail that contained different thoughts? If so, how did you manage?

_________________
"Belief is driven by psychology, not intelligence."

--Analytics, 09-11-2019


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The Tyrannical Minority
PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 8:38 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 8:59 am
Posts: 14623
Dr. Shades wrote:
Perfume on my Mind wrote:
Justify this rule for us. What is your reasoning (assuming it's not some capricious silliness)?

To cut down on page clutter.

How is it page clutter to add another post right after one you've already written? Somebody has to go next (if the thread is to continue).

Dr. Shades wrote:
Did you ever write a letter or an e-mail that contained different thoughts? If so, how did you manage?

Did you ever write a letter that contained different thoughts without including some kind of segue between thoughts to let the reader know you're moving to another topic?

Guess what: a new post provides a silent segue. It's nice (unless someone comes along and screws that up).

_________________
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The Tyrannical Minority
PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 8:45 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:17 pm
Posts: 10179
Res Ipsa wrote:
I disagree with your definition of "fishing expedition." Even bona fide fishing expeditions are based on some kind of evidence. The difference is between the strength of the connection between that evidence and the specific crime being investigated. It's more of a spectrum than a rigid boundary, which is why I said "look more like a fishing expedition." For example, Trump publicly asked China to investigate the Bidens just before a trade dispute negotiation. There is some evidence that he also discussed investigating the Bidens on a call with the leader of China. Requesting the transcript of that call doesn't look like a fishing expedition because it a request for a document that one would reasonably expect to contain evidence of any improper request or pressure from the President.

In contrast, a general request for the transcript of any calls placed on the server is based on a suspicion that the transcript was placed there because Trump did something wrong, but we have no idea what. That looks more like a fishing expedition.

The problem with the current impeachment process is that there is no formal division between the investigation and the evaluation of whether the evidence warrants referral to the Senate for trial. In criminal cases, we have the police investigation and the grand jury/preliminary hearing. In the Nixon and Clinton impeachments, there were special or independent prosecutors that did the investigation. In this case, House committees are doing both. As the term has been used in the past, the opening of "impeachment proceedings" has been a request that the judiciary evaluate the evidence gathered by the independent or special counsel, performing a function similar to a grand jury. The term "impeachment inquiry" has been used as kind of a weasel term - it's never clear whether the "inquiry' means investigation, evaluation, or both. It seems to me to be a mish mash of both, with no clear delineation. (One clearer way of setting this up would be to designate one or two committees as being responsible for the investigation, and the judiciary committee in charge of evaluation. Hearings would be appropriate only by the judiciary committee at the conclusion of the investigation.

As far as the standard for opening a congressional investigation, it may very well be "fishing expeditions" are just fine. Courts have been reluctant to place limits on Congress's oversight powers, and one cannot conduct proper oversight without investigations. But certainly reasonable and articulable suspicion of wrongdoing by the executive branch should justify starting an investigation. I think calling an investigation an "impeachment inquiry" simply because it could lead to the discovery of an impeachable offense is a bad idea. If we are going to use "impeachment inquiry" to refer to the investigative phase of impeachment, then it should be reserved for cases where the House feels there is sufficient evidence to refer to the Judiciary Committee for review. That should be, IMO, a higher standard than that to initiate an investigation. That higher standard would be more like probable cause that an impeachable offense has occurred.

The problem I see with adding investigation of all e-mails stored on the server to the impeachment inquiry is that all we have are anonymous sources who say there were other transcripts placed there. That's nowhere near probable cause of an impeachable offense. It certainly is worth investigating, but combining it with an investigation that, from the beginning, involved an impeachable offense makes no sense from a practical standpoint. We don't have the call transcripts, and getting them would take months, if not years. Arguing that withholding them constitutes obstruction of justice would be weak, considering we really can't identify (with the exception of the transcript of the alleged Chinese call) the bad thing Trump was supposed to have done during the call. Contrast that with instructing material witnesses not to testify when we have more than probable cause that an impeachable offense occurred.

The House already has an impeachment case that is strong enough to send to the Senate. It certainly could put that case on ice while it investigated any other calls placed on the server. That would probably result in an impeachment trial in 2021 if Trump is reelected. Trump handed the House the evidence it needed on a silver platter. He won't make that mistake again. Or, it can open investigations into the other transcripts while proceeding with the Ukraine impeachment process. I don't see including that investigation in the impeachment inquiry as a significantly greater deterrent to election cheating than conducting a separate investigation. Either way, it sends the message that Congress is watching. I think whatever marginal benefit there could be is far outweighed by the invevitable delay that combining the two would cause.

Well said. I especially appreciate the clarity of the part I underlined.

_________________
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The Tyrannical Minority
PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 8:48 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:17 pm
Posts: 10179
EAllusion wrote:
Conspiracy guy on the internet: That unitary executive theory both functions as a defense of Nixonland and took off in movement conservativism after Nixon is not coincidental. Nor is it coincidental that ardent followers of it like Bill Barr assist in fostering Presidential impunity for gross misconduct.

Honor: Whatever qnon conspiracy theorists.

Theorist, singular.

_________________
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The Tyrannical Minority
PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 9:08 pm 
God

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am
Posts: 17275
honorentheos wrote:
EAllusion wrote:
Conspiracy guy on the internet: That unitary executive theory both functions as a defense of Nixonland and took off in movement conservativism after Nixon is not coincidental. Nor is it coincidental that ardent followers of it like Bill Barr assist in fostering Presidential impunity for gross misconduct.

Honor: Whatever qnon conspiracy theorists.

Theorist, singular.


Yes, because I'm the only person who has ever expressed this idea. You can't at all find it in the work of political historians. What an absolute joke.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The Tyrannical Minority
PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 9:13 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:17 pm
Posts: 10179
EAllusion wrote:
What an absolute joke.

Yup.

_________________
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The Tyrannical Minority
PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 9:18 pm 
God

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am
Posts: 17275
Res Ipsa wrote:

By contrast, the official said, it would clearly be an abuse — violating a specific prohibition in an executive order governing classified information — to mark something classified at an unjustifiably higher level in order to conceal violations of the law or prevent embarrassment. Here, however, the released call record was merely marked “secret,” a lower level of classification than “top secret.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/01/us/p ... ystem.html

No violation of an executive order. No violation of any rule at all.


The last sentence doesn't follow what comes before it. It would be a violation to enhance the classification of material to conceal violations of law or to prevent embarrassment. That it was a lower level of classification than the maximum level doesn't tell you whether or not that occurred. Part of the allegation of the whisteblower complaint, which seems amply backed up, is that this particular call was inappropriately classified to conceal the misconduct contained within. The same complaint, corroborated by independent testimony, is that this is not the only instance of this occurring.

Quote:
If you think I'm somehow reasoning backwards, please describe exactly what you think my chain of reasoning is and why it is backwards.


I believe the President has given rather clear evidence of impeachable offenses on multiple occasions. For one, rampant Presidential self-dealing isn't exactly a secret. By arguing this one time the President was foolish enough give up some evidence it implies that did not occur in other instances. It's hard to see how this evaluation came to be without taking the one example Democrats finally seized on and retroactively declaring its evidence more clear than other cases.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The Tyrannical Minority
PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 9:22 pm 
God

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am
Posts: 17275
honorentheos wrote:
EAllusion wrote:
What an absolute joke.

Yup.


Really, that you compare the not exactly uncommon argument that the Nixon admin's corruption and people cast a long shadow over the behavior of subsequent Republican administrations and can help explain ongoing misconduct from one admin to the next is equivalent to singularly nutty, qanon level conspiracy theory is just pathetic. It suggests you are both poorly read and reacting without even understanding a rather pedestrian interpretation of generational political influence.

EAllusion: Maybe Nixon admin officials who supported Nixon carried their support of Nixon's behavior over when they did Nixonesque things in subsequent government posts and influential public positions and influenced younger people to do the same. That's a common argument.

Honor: Whatever, you lunatic libertarian.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 261 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group