Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

I Totally Support the Occupy Movement...Follow

#152 Oct 23 2011 at 8:07 PM Rating: Good
****
9,526 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Well, you sure are a special snowflake then.

Do you place any value on things that society has created and refined over time?

If your answer is yes, you believe wealth creation exists as a concept. If your answer is no, then go enjoy the simple pleasures of sticks and mud, and dance the dance of futility.


A short term, emotional value doesn't indicate wealth has been created.

Yes, I value my PSP now, but will I value it when it is broken? I paid for the PSP, but who will pay for it to be returned to a valuable state again? We don't even fix broken things most of the time, we just throw them away.

I see televisions and monitors in the alleys and on the the sidewalk with "free" signs on them all the time. Was wealth, in a long term sense, created when that television was made? Its sitting on the side of the road. Eventually the municipal staff will come along and pick it up and take it wherever they take the broken and unwanted things that are "produced" by my city. Is wealth created as junk leeches chemicals into the ground and water? Or as it is burned?

I guess I am thinking more in a sense of absolute wealth, as in more materials to work with or even creating a lasting echo.

I believe in knowledge as wealth, but all the words in the world won't mean anything if there is no one around to read them. If humanity goes extinct before it ever truly contributes to the thinking, living universe, not just as a text book example of a society whose gizmos evolved faster than the worldview necessary to weild them intelligently, but as a leader of discovery -- if we never reach that point - it would be less tragic than us never attaining self referential awareness in the first place.

The number of material artifacts created by humans has increased exponentially. If the creation of material artifacts is what you call wealth, then yes, we are more wealthy than we have ever been in all of history.

I am not convinced that material artifacts trump basic things like clean air, good water, and food that isn't poisoned. We have less clean air and less clean water than we used to have.

So are we more wealthy?



____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.


#153 Oct 23 2011 at 9:34 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,228 posts
Quote:
So are we more wealthy?


Yes.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#154 Oct 24 2011 at 12:23 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
I am not convinced that material artifacts trump basic things like clean air, good water, and food that isn't poisoned. We have less clean air and less clean water than we used to have.

So are we more wealthy?


Obviously. If clean air and water were valuable they would have more demand, so we would supply more of it. Since we have less of it, we must demand less of it, therefor it is less valuable. The invisible hand of the free market ensures it as thus. Capitalism wins another day.

But while we're on the subject, the free market would totally allow for cleaner air and water if it weren't for that pesky EPA, always playing the martyr.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#155 Oct 24 2011 at 7:45 AM Rating: Good
****
6,471 posts
Olorinus wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
no wealth creation could have ever occurred in the course of human history


Has any wealth truly been created? We have certainly gotten better at transforming the earth into objects, and created more garbage, but can anything that ultimately ends up in a dump or an incinerator (and thus into the atmosphere) be called wealth.

Like we "have" more gold than we ever had before, but the sum total amount of gold in and on our planet has not increased. We have dug up more coal and burned it - but the total amount of "coal wealth" (created by more than 300 million years of sunshine and geologic pressure) hasn't measurably increased in the time frames we are talking about.

I am inclined to believe wealth creation is a myth, created by a flawed economics that considers the earth's resources unlimited


Smiley: dubious
#156 Oct 24 2011 at 8:04 AM Rating: Excellent
olo wrote:
I am not convinced that material artifacts trump basic things like clean air, good water, and food that isn't poisoned. We have less clean air and less clean water than we used to have.

So are we more wealthy?
I don't live west of the Rockies, so I can't comment on air, but water quality in the US and Canada has been fine for several decades, and last I checked the food wasn't poisoned.

You have a computer, high speed internet, a psp, and lord knows what else. How can you say you don't have wealth of some sort?

Edited, Oct 24th 2011 10:04am by Lubriderm
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#157 Oct 24 2011 at 8:25 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,518 posts
But, what about, like, spiritual wealth, man? We're all like, totally bankrupt in the cosmic sense.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#158 Oct 24 2011 at 8:35 AM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,049 posts
Debalic wrote:
But, what about, like, spiritual wealth, man? We're all like, totally bankrupt in the cosmic sense.

I invested in spiritual gold and silver. Spiritually speaking, I'm making out like a bandit.
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#159 Oct 24 2011 at 8:39 AM Rating: Good
******
49,745 posts
I do whatever I want whenever I want to, and as long as I say I'm invested spiritually I'm safe.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#160 Oct 24 2011 at 9:07 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
Debalic wrote:
But, what about, like, spiritual wealth, man? We're all like, totally bankrupt in the cosmic sense.

God's too big to fail. Immaculate bail-out incoming.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#161 Oct 24 2011 at 2:40 PM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
I wouldn't call any of that stuff (psp, clothes, etc.) wealth. Only because it strikes me as really weird to do so.

But I would call capital wealth. And capital has most certainly increased over time, as we become able to take advantage of it. For instance, satellite systems certainly constitute capital in our modern society, and they certainly didn't exist in the past. Internet networks, wireless networks, oil adventures, solar energy, etc. are all forms of capital that we couldn't take advantage of hundreds of years ago. Now we can in a meaningful way. Hence, wealth has increased.

(The problem is that it hasn't increased fairly for all classes--the richest man in the world owns telecommunications companies for a reason. :P)

That said, I don't really understand what we are debating here. Marx felt that capitalism would be necessary to establish the systems to properly make use of capital before a society could transition to socialism, so it's hardly something that's controversial on the right or left.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#162 Oct 24 2011 at 2:46 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:

(The problem is that it hasn't increased fairly for all classes--the richest man in the world owns telecommunications companies for a reason. :P)


Those text-messaging rates are **** without the insider discount?
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#163 Oct 24 2011 at 3:06 PM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
You just moved from discussing capitol to commodities. That was my point. Control over capital constitutes wealth, imo. Wealth allows you to take advantage of commodities. But commodities only constitute wealth insofar as they allow you to take advantage of capital.

Though, like I said, the average person is in a much better position with regards to capital than they were 150 years ago. Only the bottom bracket (such as the homeless) are really unchanged.

The telecommunications companies are rich because they have extreme control over one specific form of capital that's become a core part of modernity. What they charge only changes how that wealth scales (and charging nothing would constitute potential wealth). But the people who have a cell phone don't actually have any more wealth than the money they use to make use of the capital. The cell itself is a commodity, not wealth. Well, it's not a large source of wealth (it does have some resale value).
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#164 Oct 24 2011 at 3:11 PM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
Though technically speaking, "wealth" itself lacks a solid definition where economics is concerned. So if we are approaching this from that context, neither side is really right or wrong. In a purely colloquial definition, commodities would be considered wealth (and no less so than cash or capital). I just prefer wealth, in an economic context, as it prefers to capital or a person's ability to make use of it (aka cash or similar).
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#165 Oct 24 2011 at 3:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
You just moved from discussing capitol to commodities.


TBH I was just making a smart-*** remark. Smiley: wink
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#166 Oct 24 2011 at 4:13 PM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
That's definitely your right, lol. This is the Asylum. :P
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#167 Oct 24 2011 at 4:18 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Though technically speaking, "wealth" itself lacks a solid definition where economics is concerned. So if we are approaching this from that context, neither side is really right or wrong. In a purely colloquial definition, commodities would be considered wealth (and no less so than cash or capital). I just prefer wealth, in an economic context, as it prefers to capital or a person's ability to make use of it (aka cash or similar).


This is part of what I'm questioning as well. What does a wealth gap really mean? And is that the most important thing to look at? I don't think so. The fact that a rich person has 1000x as much as a poor person rather than merely having 100x doesn't really affect the poor person at all. What does is whether the poor person can obtain basic necessities and even luxuries. What matters is the relative quality of those things as well. I don't think anyone can honestly argue that the condition of the poor is worse today (in those terms) than in the past.

We have better food (ok, processed is bad, but not-rotten is pretty good), better medicine (even without health insurance), better housing, better transportation, greater comfort, greater luxuries, and frankly a whole lot of things that the rich, much less the poor could not have dreamed of having just a century ago.


Why then insist on focusing on the distribution of wealth within the economy itself? Why does this matter? I just don't get the whole "I'm going to ignore my actual condition and compare it relative to someone else instead" position. It makes no sense to me.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#168 Oct 24 2011 at 4:43 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
That's definitely your right, lol. This is the Asylum. :P


Well I'm sympathetic to both sides and all, I've just lost track of all the debate, etc. going on here. Smiley: rolleyes

It's getting pretty above my head honestly. In my mind a fair society has a way to both ensure the well-being of the less fortunate and reward hard working individuals. How much wealth is too much for one person? I don't know. How much of a safety net is too much? I'm not sure. We seem to have both to some degree, and that's good. I don't feel overly cheated by the wealthy at the moment. I also don't feel I'm giving others a free ride to a better life. We could give or take a some more from either side, and I'd have a hard time believing the system was somehow drastically unfair.

TL:DR = I don't have a dog in this race. Smiley: lol
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#169 Oct 24 2011 at 4:44 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Ok, If it was over your head, you were talking about a zero sum system.


With in the context of "relative wealth". Don't lose sight of the issue being debated here.

Quote:
It's entirely obvious, even without a definition, A + B + C = 0.

You said that industrialism broke this equation to no longer be a zero sum system (A + B + C = X ; A + B + C + X = 0)

This is false because for this to be true, no net economic growth (and therefore, no wealth creation) could have ever occurred in the course of human history prior to the industrial revolution.


Nope. I even explained how net economic growth occurs. My point wasn't that economic growth never occurred, but that it occurred slowly enough and via methods that generally didn't directly impact the relative wealth question we're discussing that it could be largely ignored.

A nobleman who owned title to a large estate and surrounding lands gained control of the bounty of those lands. It could be correctly stated that the whole net sum produced on those lands was relatively fixed. It could thus be argued that if the nobleman takes a larger share of that bounty (makes himself more wealthy), then the consequence was increased poverty for those ho lived on and worked on his lands. This is the state of economics that existed more or less unchanged since man first started building cities and land titles and whatnot (a few thousand years). This was certainly the economic system with which Marx was familiar.

The industrial revolution changed that in one very obvious way: The rich guy who opens up a widget factory can gain a massively greater share of the wealth generated by the factory without actually making the people working in the factory any more poor. He pays them a set wage of $X/hour. Prior to industrialization, each worker produced some number of widgets over that time. Enter industrialization and each worker can be retrained to use the widget making machines and thus produce 10x as many widgets in the same amount of time. He's still paid the same wage, but the owner of the factory makes 10x as much, right?


That's the "problem" with Marx was talking about. He saw the owner gaining 10x more, but the worker making the same. His experience with economics was that such a great disparity, even if it appears on the surface to have no negative for the worker *must* actually have one in some way. The workers wage should become less worth relatively speaking, or some other effect would make his relatively low wage cause him harm. And if we were living in a past age where we just worked the laborers harder or longer hours to increase production, he'd have been right. But industrialization really did change economics in ways which the economists of the day had a hard time predicting.

The biggest change is that due to the increased volume of production now possibly from the same amount of labor, the predicted deflation of the value of wages those economists would expect was more than offset by the decrease in cost and increase in availability of products and services which average working people could not afford prior to that point. Suddenly, finely crafted (well, somewhat finely crafted) furniture was available to average people and not just the rich. Then things like running water, indoor plumbing and toilets, and automobiles, then washing machines, radios, telephones, TVs, computers, the internet, cell phones, and a host of other things became steadily available, not just to the richest people, but to even the modestly salaried workers.


He envisioned a future where capitalism would cause industrialization to focus wealth on the producers and poverty on the workers, with the workers lives getting progressively worse until eventually they would have to rise up as one and reshape the whole system. The reality, however, is that this didn't happen. The condition of the workers did not get worse. It got better. Even in the absence of unions acting on the assumption that if they didn't intervene things would get worse, things didn't get worse. They got better. It didn't happen all at once though. The positives took time.

What did happen is that enterprising people pointed at Marx's warnings, pointed at the dollar wealth gap (while ignoring the quality of life improvements going on all around them), and convinced people that if they didn't take some kind of drastic action, then the inevitable disaster for the working people would occur. They scared the people into supporting unions in some countries, adopting draconian laws in others, and in some into overthrowing their governments in some form of communist revolutions.

All of those things were unnecessary. The danger wasn't real. But it was (and still is) a means to gain power for those who can convince others to fear what might happen and give them power to help fight it. And I can forgive Marx for failing to see the truth. But it still boggles my mind that otherwise intelligent people still fall for the whole "If you don't join with us, those evil rich people will take everything!!!" arguments. The very process makes no sense. The economic system largely requires consumption of that increased production to work. It's in the wealthy's best interest to make sure that there are sufficient people with sufficient buying power in the economy to buy the things their factories make, right? Think about that. They want to employ as many people as possible, but they want them employed making useful things that other people will want to buy.


There's just no logical motive for the players in the free market to take everything away from everyone else and make them poor. I will point out for comparison though, that those who espouse socialist or communist systems absolutely do have a motive to make as many people poor as possible. It's their route to power and control. The free market tends to free those within it. And that's a threat to some people.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#170 Oct 24 2011 at 5:01 PM Rating: Excellent
******
20,020 posts
Quote:
The fact that a rich person has 1000x as much as a poor person rather than merely having 100x doesn't really affect the poor person at all. What does is whether the poor person can obtain basic necessities and even luxuries. What matters is the relative quality of those things as well. I don't think anyone can honestly argue that the condition of the poor is worse today (in those terms) than in the past.


Except where did anyone demand that we transfer wealth from the rich to the poor? Instead of pumping that money into the poor, so they can enjoy more crap (which itself wouldn't be a bad thing at all, since public spending is the absolute best way to stimulate economies), they should pump it into public works.

Do you REALLY think that the life of a poor person wouldn't be radically different than it is now if they had access to free schooling, free health care and didn't need to work every hour of every day just so that they could fall deeper into debt?

Frankly, I don't care if there's a disparity between rich and poor (and Marx didn't either). I care that it's so extreme, and comes at the cost that basic modern (or even biological) needs are denied to people simply because they don't have the money for pay for them.

And there's a whole other aspect to capital-based wealth too which opens up a completely different can of worms.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#171 Oct 24 2011 at 5:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
The fact that a rich person has 1000x as much as a poor person rather than merely having 100x doesn't really affect the poor person at all.
In an immediate sense no. A system that encourages and increases wealth disparity will have a long term negative impact on the people at the low end of the scale, and more importantly will push more people into that low end.

To use the lack of any immediate impact when comparing two people is a strawman, as this is not the problem.

Edited, Oct 24th 2011 6:25pm by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#172 Oct 24 2011 at 5:45 PM Rating: Default
****
9,526 posts
Quote:
The fact that a rich person has 1000x as much as a poor person rather than merely having 100x doesn't really affect the poor person at all.


Clearly this is true
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.


#173 Oct 24 2011 at 6:05 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Debalic wrote:
But, what about, like, spiritual wealth, man? We're all like, totally bankrupt in the cosmic sense.


You joke, but there's something to that. What good is wealth if it doesn't lead to prosperity? How can we have prosperity without happiness? That's why other countries take pride in their "gross national happiness" kicking our GDP in the ***.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#174 Oct 24 2011 at 6:29 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Quote:
The fact that a rich person has 1000x as much as a poor person rather than merely having 100x doesn't really affect the poor person at all. What does is whether the poor person can obtain basic necessities and even luxuries. What matters is the relative quality of those things as well. I don't think anyone can honestly argue that the condition of the poor is worse today (in those terms) than in the past.


Except where did anyone demand that we transfer wealth from the rich to the poor?


Where did this come from? Smells like a strawman to me. My point is that the argument that there's something wrong about a large wealth gap between rich and poor is not necessarily an indication of an economic problem which needs to be fixed is fallacious. The question of what someone might propose in order to fix that "problem" is a whole separate component to the issue. I didn't say it's wrong because the solution off "transfer wealth from rich to poor" is the wrong answer. I said it's wrong because that larger gap doesn't actually equate to the overall conditions for the poor getting worse.


Quote:
Instead of pumping that money into the poor, so they can enjoy more crap (which itself wouldn't be a bad thing at all, since public spending is the absolute best way to stimulate economies), they should pump it into public works.


Kinda splitting hairs though, aren't you? So we're not transferring the "wealth" from rich to poor, we're just taking the wealth from the rich and using it to fund public works, which just happen to be designed mostly to benefit the poor. I'd argue that's worse than a straight wealth transfer, because in the transfer at least the poor person gets a choice as to how the money he's getting is spent.

Your solution infringes liberty in both directions. The rich person loses control over some of the fruits of his labors *and* the poor person has no choice about what benefits the government chooses to provide to him. So maybe he wants one set of things, and would choose to buy those things if he had the money, but the government decides that something else is better for him. No liberty gained there at all, is there?

Quote:
Do you REALLY think that the life of a poor person wouldn't be radically different than it is now if they had access to free schooling, free health care and didn't need to work every hour of every day just so that they could fall deeper into debt?


Striking the assumed conclusion you put in there, then yeah, I agree his life would be radically different. He'd be radically worse off in some cases, and at best no worse off. Or are you magically ignoring countries founded on the same "public works for the people" principles and ended out being horribly authoritarian? You get that it's countries that have only adopted small amounts of those things which have done "ok", right? Those that go further end out badly for most of "the people" they start out wanting to help.

Quote:
Frankly, I don't care if there's a disparity between rich and poor (and Marx didn't either). I care that it's so extreme, and comes at the cost that basic modern (or even biological) needs are denied to people simply because they don't have the money for pay for them.


You've yet to tie any sort of causation from one to the other though. Explain to me how a rich person making more money makes a poor person's life worse? How does this make health care less affordable for him? How does this make basic needs less available? See, I can explain to you very easily how it makes those things better. Most of those "modern needs" are met with modern technology which largely exists because rich people choose to invest in developing those things. And while I'm sure the average guy investing in a company designing new medical devices, or telecommunications technology, or housing materials would like to see those improved things enter the market and become cheap and available for all and improve the lives of his fellow man, if you take away the chance to make a profit while doing so, he's much less likely to invest in them.


That's how greedy rich people make the world a better place for us all. Now, how about you explain to me how they make it worse? Absent those greedy people, we wouldn't have most of those modern necessities you think the poor people are being denied. Kind of a catch-22, isn't it? And what modern necessities might be invented and brought to market in the next century which you would deny to everyone by preventing them from ever being created in the first place if we adopt this idea of taxing the rich more to pay for existing things?


There is a cost to those free things. They really aren't free.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#175 Oct 24 2011 at 6:33 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Quote:
The fact that a rich person has 1000x as much as a poor person rather than merely having 100x doesn't really affect the poor person at all.
In an immediate sense no. A system that encourages and increases wealth disparity will have a long term negative impact on the people at the low end of the scale, and more importantly will push more people into that low end.


This is exactly what Marx believed. But he was demonstrably wrong. That wealth disparity *didn't* cause long term negative impact on those at the low end of the scale. What it actually did was cause absolutely unprecedented prosperity and "real" quality of life gains.

Quote:
To use the lack of any immediate impact when comparing two people is a strawman, as this is not the problem.


And if I hadn't explained in detail how Marx's theories assumed a longer term growing harm which never actually manifested, you'd have a point. This is why I argue that Marx can be forgiven. He could not know for sure what would happen over the next century or so. He can be forgiven for so completely getting it wrong. The question though is what rationale those who have the benefit of having seen a century and a half of the greatest prosperity gain among the poor in human history use to continue to declare that his predictions were right *and* to justify some kind of action to prevent the things which haven't happened from happening?


It's pretty darn ridiculous, right?

Edited, Oct 24th 2011 5:36pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#176 Oct 24 2011 at 6:53 PM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
Quote:

This is exactly what Marx believed. But he was demonstrably wrong. That wealth disparity *didn't* cause long term negative impact on those at the low end of the scale. What it actually did was cause absolutely unprecedented prosperity and "real" quality of life gains.


I can't tell if you are just insane or not... Because that's EXACTLY what happened.

[EDIT]

And because I know you'd be a smart ***, "that" is referring to what Marx thought would happen.

Edited, Oct 24th 2011 8:53pm by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 68 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (68)