Save Our State  

Go Back   Save Our State > General Forum (non official Save Our State business) > The Media

The Media Topics and information relating to the Media (publications, television, press, first amendment issues, etc) of interest to SOS Associates and Users

WELCOME BACK!.............NEW EFFORTS AHEAD..........CHECK BACK SOON.........UPDATE YOUR EMAIL FOR NEW NOTIFICATIONS.........
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-01-2010, 01:38 PM
Jeanfromfillmore's Avatar
Jeanfromfillmore Jeanfromfillmore is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,287
Default George Will Sells Out

George Will Sells Out
In the movie, “The Rainmaker,” about an unscrupulous insurance company refusing to pay a legitimate claim, the young lawyer fighting for justice for his sick client turns to the high-powered and well-paid corporate lawyer across the table and asks, “I’m just wondering, do you even remember when you first sold out?” It is a commentary on how and why people abandon the cause of what is right for financial and other reasons.
I remembered that comment when I was told that conservative columnist George Will had endorsed gays in the military on Sunday’s edition of the ABC show “This Week” and had smeared supporters of the Pentagon’s homosexual exclusion policy as unintelligent. I couldn’t believe it. But I checked the transcript. Indeed, George Will had said those curious things.
Although Will was referring to Republican members of Congress as dummies, it is a fact that the chiefs of all the military services also expressed their opposition to repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” at this time. Are they stupid, too?
Sunday, May 30, marks the day when George Will sold out.
On this occasion, he decided to take a politically expedient viewpoint, which won him plaudits from the other panelists, but the policy position he took is demonstrably fraught with dangers for our troops. It is reckless and dangerous, primarily because Will and other panelists refused to come to grips with the health impact of gays in the military. Instead, they talked about gays they know, or the gays their kids knew, as if the only factor is whether you can interact with them at a cocktail party.
Socializing with gays is not the main issue, although it can be a problem in the close quarters and battlefield conditions that our soldiers are forced to endure. The key problem is that the blood of male homosexuals is contaminated with HIV and other diseases that can cause death.
These infectious agents cannot be effectively screened out of the blood supply. That is why gay males are prohibited from donating blood.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), with jurisdiction over the nation’s blood supply, explains that “MSM [men who have sex with men] have an increased incidence and prevalence of several currently recognized transfusion-transmitted diseases” – Hepatitis B virus, HIV, syphilis, and cytomegalovirus. The FDA also says, “There is a theoretical concern that MSM populations may also be at increased risk for other unrecognized transfusion-transmitted agents.”
That means another infectious agent could be lurking in the blood that they want to have the “right” to donate to the nation’s blood supply.
Whose Rights?
What George Will may not understand is that the gays are already moving beyond the issue of acceptance in the military to demanding that the federal government lift the ban on gay blood, putting all of our lives at risk and in jeopardy.
It was not always this way with Will. Back in 2007 he seemed aware of the authoritarian nature of the gay agenda, noting in a critical column that they were trying to label support for traditional values as homophobic and a hate crime. He wrote a 2009 column defending California’s vote in favor of traditional marriage and criticizing efforts to undo it.
But somewhere along the way, possibly in response to criticism of columns like that, Will decided to give up the fight. Perhaps he started moving this way after the election when he hosted a dinner party for then-president elect Obama. In any case, the drift reached a ridiculous extreme on the ABC “This Week” program, when he was asked why Republicans in Congress were fighting repeal of the homosexual exclusion policy and he replied with the rude comment, “They’re not being very intelligent.” The other panelists chuckled.
Will referred to accepting gays in the military as part of “the evolving standards of decency that mark a maturing society,” ignoring the dangerous “lifestyle” that threatens their own lives, not to mention our lives through contamination of the blood supply.
Will also ignored the wisdom of the founding fathers, who regarded homosexual sodomy as a crime against nature and believed it should be outlawed and punished severely. Indeed, General George Washington himself authorized the expulsion of a solder from the army for sodomy.
McCain Stands Firm
While Senator John McCain demonstrated real courage by demanding that Congress wait until the results of a comprehensive review of the proposed policy change, his colleague, Senator Joe Lieberman, led the charge for the homosexual lobby. Meanwhile, Rep. Ron Paul demonstrated his libertarian bent when he became one of only five Republicans to vote with the liberal bloc in the House to repeal the homosexual exclusion policy.
Lieberman, once considered one of the only Senate Democrats willing to recognize the security needs of the U.S., now stands exposed as just another politician willing to compromise national defense in order to benefit a special interest group. Lieberman must think that his role in this controversy refurbished his liberal credentials. But he cannot be taken seriously in the future when he claims to be concerned about threats to the United States. He went directly against the views of the chiefs of the military services, who had been promised a review of the proposed change in policy before legislative action.
Senator McCain noted, “This vote short circuits the ongoing Pentagon review of the policy and thereby denies our men and women in uniform a chance to have their voices heard on an important issue that affects them and their service. That is why all four Service Chiefs opposed legislative action at this time. The vote today is a de facto repeal of the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ law, and I am concerned that the men and women of our military will view this preemptive political action as a deep sign of disrespect and unwillingness to consider their views.”
He is correct. That is why the policy change – and the manner in which it was voted on – can only demoralize our troops, in addition to jeopardizing military readiness, order and discipline.
The Battle Ahead
The battle is not completely over, however. While some votes have taken place in the Senate Armed Services Committee and in the House of Representatives, repeal of the homosexual exclusion policy is NOT a done deal. A filibuster in the Senate is still possible and the House bill that includes the repeal is facing other difficulties.
Plus, the comprehensive review, which is underway and supposed to be completed by December, can complicate matters by making the accurate and truthful case that active homosexuals on the battlefield would threaten the lives of those now serving. An objective analysis of the gay blood problem could be used to argue against integration of the open and active homosexuals into the Armed Forces.
This is precisely where the homosexuals are now targeting their complaints of “homophobia” and “discrimination.” They are saying that the ban on gay males donating blood should be lifted as well. Congress has no direct role in this because the ban is under the jurisdiction of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). However, liberals Senators John Kerry, Al Franken and others have already pressured the FDA to hold meetings on June 10 and June 11 to consider lifting the ban. The FDA commissioner, Dr. Margaret Hamburg, is a political appointee of the Obama Administration.
Selling Out is Trendy
George Will is just the latest example of a trend by some “conservatives” to surrender on the cultural issues and fight the battle on economic grounds.
When translated into political terms, this becomes the kind of “new” or “progressive” conservatism that we saw in the British Conservative Party, which failed to win a majority of the vote in the recent British elections and now has to exercise power in collaboration with a far-left party. We have called them the fake conservatives. British Prime Minister and Conservative Party leader David Cameron is so much of a panderer to the militant homosexuals in Britain that he told them he wants to rid “homophobia” from the schools, give special funding to the transgendered, and provide tax breaks for homosexual couples.
Does George Will consider this an “intelligent” course for the Republicans that he now spends time insulting?
Editor’s Message
A former CIA officer active during the Cold War has given me his thoughts on how rapidly Obama is moving to transform the U.S. Government and American society. He says:
“Initially he has three obstacles to overcome (assuming he doesn’t want a violent or revolutionary transformation). He has to dominate the executive branch and he does and one can see from his appointment of czars, some of whom are admitted Marxists, others with strong socialist tendencies compatible with the Marxists, so he is essentially in control here. Then he has to transform the judiciary and the legislative branches. He has already made an impact in the judiciary by appointing some judges with very liberal social views. He will soon have two appointees on the Supreme Court. So, in the judiciary, he is developing a cadre that is likely to find in his favor in cases that interest him.
“Another one is legislative. While Obama has the power to appoint in some areas, Congress does have some say about who the appointments are. With a democratic majority that seems largely to be unthinking about what Obama wants to do, or doesn’t care, we are moving in a direction that will be difficult to reverse.”
One key obstacle is the military. “It will be very interesting to see how he maneuvers in this area,” the veteran CIA officer told me. Well, we now see that he is moving quickly to transform the military through repealing the Pentagon’s homosexual exclusion policy. That is why our lead article about George Will is so important. George has sold out to the gay lobby. Dale O’Leary’s important article explains how this sell-out can lead to contamination of the blood supply and death for the rest of us.
Please take a stand with us for our soldiers and our nation.
The Dangers of Gay Blood
By Dale O’Leary*
Those who are lobbying to have the current ban on gay blood (from male homosexuals) changed have focused entirely on improved tests for HIV. They do not mention all the other infectious diseases epidemic among men who have sex with men (MSM), because the gay activists cannot argue that MSM are no more likely to be infected with a blood-borne disease than other populations.
The CDC recently announced a study which found that the rate of new HIV diagnoses among MSM is 44 times higher than among other men and the rate of primary and secondary syphilis 46 times that of other men. In addition, there have been outbreaks of various forms of hepatitis, herpes, drug resistant gonorrhea, cancer-causing human papilloma virus, cytomegalovirus, chlamydia, plus MRSA, and a host of other diseases.
The World Federation of Hemophilia points out that “By their very nature blood donor screening and deferral criteria are discriminatory… they are a method to reduce the risk of known, unknown, undetectable or emerging viruses and/or other disease causing agents being passed to recipients of blood or blood products.”
Randy Shilt’s And the Band Played On, a chronicle of the early days of the AIDS epidemic documents how long it took to protect the blood supply after there was solid evidence that AIDS was a blood-borne disease. The gay community fought the current restrictions, using some of the same rhetoric they are using today.
In 1981, when the first cases were reported, there was already an epidemic of STDs among men who have sex with men. I quote from Randy Shilts:
“Dr. Selma Dritz, the infectious disease specialist for the San Francisco Department of Public Health, was also concerned….she warned, ‘Too much is being transmitted… We’ve got all these diseases going unchecked. There are so many opportunities for transmission that, if something new gets loose here, we’re going to have hell to pay.’”
As Dr. Dritz spoke, HIV was already making its way through the gay community and soon thousands of gay men were dying of AIDS.
In his 1997 book, Sexual Ecology, gay activist Gabriel Rotello predicted a dangerous future:
“Almost every researcher studying the epidemic is convinced of one overarching fact: that if gay men ever re-recreate the sexual conditions of the seventies, the same kind of thing will happen again with other microbes. There are already drug-resistant or incurable diseases circulating in the gay population–things like hepatitis C, antibiotic-resistant gonorrhea, various strains of herpes – and they all stand poised to sweep through the gay population the moment we provide them an opportunity to spread… And, say the experts there are probably many more microbes whose existence we know nothing about, just as we once knew nothing about HIV.”
Now, in 2010, we can see the future Rotello feared. Thousands of gay men attend circuit parties, where sex and drugs are on the program. Millions use the gay social networking site Manhunt to hook up. Crystal meth use among gay men is epidemic and associated with unsafe sex. Another disease could be hiding in their blood or tissues, one with a long incubation period. Or a well-known disease could mutate into a form not recognized by current testing, as happened recently in Sweden where a mutated form of chlamydia was missed in testing.
Although testing for known pathogens has improved dramatically, current methods are not perfect and an increase in donations by MSM would increase the risk of infected blood reaching recipients.
But it is the diseases we don’t know about — and for which we don’t have tests — that we must guard against, and the only way to do that is to “discriminate” against high-risk groups.
MSM are a high-risk group because from the beginning of the AIDS epidemic, gay activists rejected proven public health measures. When the gay activists can prove that the rate of STDs and HIV infection among MSM is no higher than the rate in the general public, then, and only then, should [the federal government] even consider changing the rules on blood donation.
* O’Leary is a writer who has followed the AIDS epidemic since the beginning and written extensively on the subject of sexually transmitted diseases.
Spotlight on the Media
Good Riddance
To Helen Thomas
In a February 2009 AIM Report, Wes Vernon wrote, “If one were to draw a cartoon-like character who embodies all the missteps and bias of the Washington media, he would have to invent Helen Thomas.” Finally, with her comments about how the Jews should “get the hell out of Palestine” and go home to “Poland, Germany … and America and everywhere else,” she was forced to retire.
For 57 years, Helen Thomas reported for United Press International and in her later years she was its Washington Bureau Chief. Only recently had she written a clearly-labeled opinion column for the Hearst newspapers.
Back in 2003, when she openly acted as an advocate for the Arab/Muslim cause in the Middle East, we suggested AIM Report subscribers send her a postcard that went as follows:
“You have become the poster girl of liberal media bias, serving to discredit the notion of a professional and objective press corps. We understand that you are being honored by the Arab American Institute, and there is nothing wrong with being proud of one’s heritage. But this is a political group that opposes U.S. policy… We suggest you quit journalism and become a full-time advocate for the Arab/Muslim cause.”
Last year, at the National Press Club, Thomas introduced socialist Rep. Barbara Lee during an event to release Lee’s book, Renegade for Peace & Justice. In the acknowledgements section of the book, Lee names Thomas as an inspiration behind the book itself.
Some defenders of Thomas tried to blame her comments on her old age, but she has been spouting off that way for many years. She should have quit years ago when we recommended it.

Cliff’s Notes

Despite his “fashionable” statements in favor of gays in the military, George Will is aware of the moral crisis, especially how it is reflected in the acceptance of the hideous practice of abortion on demand in the United States. Will has a child with Down syndrome and he has written about how society is targeting a whole class of citizens with this disability for elimination. With good reason, he finds it morally objectionable.

You may remember Kurt Kondrich of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Kurt and his wife Margie and their Down syndrome daughter, Chloe, met with Sarah Palin during the 2008 presidential campaign. The meeting received national attention.

Kurt has written this following short piece with a new twist on the “profiling” controversy involving the new Arizona immigration law. He writes about the issue of “Prenatal Disability Profiling” and says:

“Since passage of the new Arizona immigration law to curb the flow of illegal aliens into this country there has been a lot of talk about ‘profiling.’ Many people across this nation decry this procedure as outrageous and unacceptable. There is a targeted group of unborn children who are profiled and targeted daily, and none of them have engaged in any type of criminal activity. Their only crime is they do not meet the standards of perfection and beauty a lost culture has deemed necessary to enter this world. The extra chromosome they carry is being genetically profiled, and their unique, angelic traits do not allow the majority of them to secure ‘entry’ into this world.

“When a person is profiled and identified as an illegal alien the most severe penalty can be deportation. When a child is prenatally profiled and identified as having Down syndrome the penalty in 90% plus of the cases is termination…It is frightening how silent the outcry is for this form of profiling, and my prayer is that this nation and world will wake up soon and recognize the true injustice of ‘Prenatal Disability Profiling.’”

Cliff Kincaid is the Editor of the AIM Report and can be reached at cliff.kincaid@aim.org
http://www.aim.org/aim-report/george-will-sells-out/
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-01-2010, 02:24 PM
DerailAmnesty.com DerailAmnesty.com is offline
"SZinWestLA"
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,003
Default

The key problem is that the blood of male homosexuals is contaminated with HIV and other diseases that can cause death.


Assuming this ridiculously overbroad statement is true, why not preclude blacks from military service as well? Their incidence of HIV infection is well above the national average.

Further, wouldn't testing for HIV, of all people entering and remaining in the military, solve this alleged problem?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-01-2010, 03:25 PM
Ayatollahgondola's Avatar
Ayatollahgondola Ayatollahgondola is offline
SOS Associate
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,057
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DerailAmnesty.com View Post
The key problem is that the blood of male homosexuals is contaminated with HIV and other diseases that can cause death.


Assuming this ridiculously overbroad statement is true, why not preclude blacks from military service as well? Their incidence of HIV infection is well above the national average.

Further, wouldn't testing for HIV, of all people entering and remaining in the military, solve this alleged problem?
I think, but am not sure that the rate of infection between gays is consistently higher than between similarly situated black people, and that it's strongly related to the anal method of sexual relations. So gay men practicing anal sex are far more likely to have/infect than black people practicing sex the uh...procreative way?

Aside from that particular issue, I might not have enlisted if I were going to be forced to cohabitiate with gay soldiers the way the military trains and expects a soldier to act during their tour of duty. I would fight alongside most anybody in a pinch, but the closeness that a soldier must adhere to while in the military and within their units can be extreme. I don't believe that gays are any more or any less a person, or a soldier for that matter, but I don't think I'd do well being forced to live so intertwined with them.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-02-2010, 06:46 PM
DerailAmnesty.com DerailAmnesty.com is offline
"SZinWestLA"
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,003
Default

My understanding of the issue is different (although, admittedly, I haven't looked it up recently, and I'm relying upon something I read at least 6 years ago). But the argument this guy made was not about "closeness" and being personally "intertwined," regarding living arrangements. He was arguing about infection.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-02-2010, 07:40 PM
Ayatollahgondola's Avatar
Ayatollahgondola Ayatollahgondola is offline
SOS Associate
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,057
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DerailAmnesty.com View Post
Further, wouldn't testing for HIV, of all people entering and remaining in the military, solve this alleged problem?
It would help a little, but not necessarily be an end. You'd have to test soldiers quite often for it to be somewhat effective, and really, the military doesn't have the funds or inclination to do it. They're still battling with soldiers over PTS and agent orange claims. Soldiers could test on friday, and have contact with HIV over the weekend. In addition, military medical is not really the best thing going. They hire doctors who can't get jobs elsewhere, similar to prisons, and if the top is suspect, and they are the training and management for nurses and staff.....
I think the writer is using hyperbole, when fact would be better. The fact is, the liberal agenda is prone to forcing gays on everyone, and the military is the holy grail of their effort. Get the gays in the army and you've forced one of the last bastions of right wing prone leadership to smile when they say "we're tolerant"

By the way; I spent nearly all day at the Sacramento AIDS clinic today. I had a one day gig removing some stuff, and was in and out of the main floor and lower lobby all day. They've got lots of customers throughout the day. Some are just kids. It's heartbreaking to see a mom comforting a teenage son or daughter while they wait for treatment.
But yes, there's also some of the strange looking male prostitutes, twenty-somethings with more piercings than you can count, and homeless with their gear in shopping carts out front. while I was in the restroom, I saw one of those needle collection boxes nearly full at noon.
AIDS is a big problem still. No real cure yet.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-04-2010, 10:46 PM
DerailAmnesty.com DerailAmnesty.com is offline
"SZinWestLA"
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,003
Default

AIDS has become a treatable disease like diabetes; it isn't a death sentence like it was in the 80's. Further, the risk of infection from a gay soldier would largely come from someone engaging in consenting unprotected sex w/ such an individual. Additionally, it is a minority of homosexuals who have been exposed to HIV.

There is little utility or justifiability for forcibly excluding them from military service. A person doesn't like gays in close quarters? Does that mean we should bar them from movie theatres, hospital rooms, college classrooms and gym locker rooms, as well?

Homosexuals are everywhere around us, and this is nothing new. The requirements of fighting for our country don't necessitate their exclusion from the armed services. Not liking them or feeling uncomfortable around them is not a justification for making an exception to the Equal Protection clause of the Federal Constitution.
__________________

Last edited by DerailAmnesty.com; 07-04-2010 at 10:49 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-05-2010, 07:51 AM
Ayatollahgondola's Avatar
Ayatollahgondola Ayatollahgondola is offline
SOS Associate
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,057
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DerailAmnesty.com View Post
AIDS has become a treatable disease like diabetes; it isn't a death sentence like it was in the 80's. Further, the risk of infection from a gay soldier would largely come from someone engaging in consenting unprotected sex w/ such an individual. Additionally, it is a minority of homosexuals who have been exposed to HIV.

There is little utility or justifiability for forcibly excluding them from military service. A person doesn't like gays in close quarters? Does that mean we should bar them from movie theatres, hospital rooms, college classrooms and gym locker rooms, as well?

Homosexuals are everywhere around us, and this is nothing new. The requirements of fighting for our country don't necessitate their exclusion from the armed services. Not liking them or feeling uncomfortable around them is not a justification for making an exception to the Equal Protection clause of the Federal Constitution.
With all due respect, your comparison to movie theaters and schools is not relevant. The military demands cohesion and harmony the likes of which do not even come close to the examples you posted. Personally, I don't think gays should be excluded from service, however I believe they should be segregated in units similar to the way females are from males. The precedent has already been established for that, and the similarities exist.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-05-2010, 03:45 PM
DerailAmnesty.com DerailAmnesty.com is offline
"SZinWestLA"
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,003
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ayatollahgondola View Post
With all due respect, your comparison to movie theaters and schools is not relevant. The military demands cohesion and harmony the likes of which do not even come close to the examples you posted. Personally, I don't think gays should be excluded from service, however I believe they should be segregated in units similar to the way females are from males. The precedent has already been established for that, and the similarities exist.

You're right, precedent exists for what you suggest. They used to have black-only units, also. The question is (as per the standards you are fleshing out), does integrating homosexuals with straights present a problem so insurmountable that cohesion and harmony can't exist?

So far, based upon the record, I'd say it doesn't bode well for you. The military doesn't separate the Jews and the Muslims, the Catholics and the Protestants or even enlistees who have had ties or family members associated with the Bloods and the Crips. All these disparate groups have largely managed to function together. Further, there are plenty of gays who have put their time in the Armed Forces and been decorated for meritorious and heroic service (and they weren't performing segregated duty at the time they logged their accomplishments).

And of course, Davi, we have now wandered well off the path taken by the guy who wrote the piece, above, who was arguing that gays shouldn't serve for medical-related reasons.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-05-2010, 04:52 PM
Ayatollahgondola's Avatar
Ayatollahgondola Ayatollahgondola is offline
SOS Associate
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,057
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DerailAmnesty.com View Post
You're right, precedent exists for what you suggest. They used to have black-only units, also. The question is (as per the standards you are fleshing out), does integrating homosexuals with straights present a problem so insurmountable that cohesion and harmony can't exist?

So far, based upon the record, I'd say it doesn't bode well for you. The military doesn't separate the Jews and the Muslims, the Catholics and the Protestants or even enlistees who have had ties or family members associated with the Bloods and the Crips. All these disparate groups have largely managed to function together. Further, there are plenty of gays who have put their time in the Armed Forces and been decorated for meritorious and heroic service (and they weren't performing segregated duty at the time they logged their accomplishments).

And of course, Davi, we have now wandered well off the path taken by the guy who wrote the piece, above, who was arguing that gays shouldn't serve for medical-related reasons.
Ha! You wandered from a sexually based theme to one of race and creed. Creed may have some slight credible reason, but race has been ruled out. The precedent I mentioned was male and female soldiers. Here's an excerpt from a Q & A session about the military:

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/joini.../military6.htm

Quote:
The Marines have taken a diffent route. The Marine Corps believes that lower-ranking enlisted Marines living together is essential to discipline, unit cohesion, and espirit de corps. Under the Marine Corps program, junior Marines (E-1 to E-3) share a room and a bathroom. Marines in the paygrades of E-4 and E-5 are entitled to a private room.
They don't require male and female marines to share a room and bunk together as a matter of course.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-09-2010, 07:30 AM
Kathy63 Kathy63 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 380
Default

In many areas of life, not in the military, gays end up segregated. The military will end up segregated as well. But, that's not where the damage will occur with gays openly serving.

Socially, gays end up segregated in bars and yes, even in public gyms. Why are there gay bars? Why are there gay hotels and resorts? Partly it's a result of self segregation, partly it's a result of behavior that others simply do not want to put up with.

The worst of the damage though won't be through the acts or behavior of men and women who are homosexual and simply want to live and love on their own. The worst of the damage will come from the gay activists to whom permission to serve openly won't be nearly enough to meet their demands.
Reply With Quote
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 -8. The time now is 07:43 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright SaveOurState ©2009 - 2016 All Rights Reserved