President "Change", the Socialist - Page 5 - Pirate4x4.Com : 4x4 and Off-Road Forum
 
Pirate4x4.Com : 4x4 and Off-Road Forum  

Go Back   Pirate4x4.Com : 4x4 and Off-Road Forum > Miscellaneous > General Chit-Chat
Notices

Reply
 
Share Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-07-2012, 11:22 AM   #101 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Member # 7762
Posts: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Screwzer2 View Post

Ultimately, he left for Amsterdam for its more tax-friendly treatment of creatives.
That's the American way right there.
Dan_E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2012, 11:38 AM   #102 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Member # 19304
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 829
Send a message via MSN to gipper Send a message via Yahoo to gipper
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckon37s View Post
Why get butthurt?

You havent even tried to provide information. Your just expecting us to believe you because you really know. The rest of us don't.

My sister in law is a partner in a very prestigious tax firm. She has a masters in Tax law. She has told me straight out that she has never seen anyone pay the full 35%. So I guess you know more than her and I should just take your word for it.

We both agree people are overtaxed, and the social engineering is corrupt and aweful, so maybe we just agree to disagree on this.


Of course no ones effective rate can be 35% because there's a standard deduction and some graduated rates. Any cap gains income will also lower total effective rate. Lots of people pay 35% marginal.

Your sister is either a cheat or a liar or talking in effective rates like most planning professionals.

My sister's husbands aunt once said she paid 40%.
__________________
For sale: 1984 CJ7 ... 4.10's, superwinch hubs, more.

Last edited by gipper; 05-07-2012 at 11:38 AM.
gipper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2012, 11:46 AM   #103 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Buckon37s's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Member # 20394
Location: San Diego
Posts: 4,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by gipper View Post


Of course no ones effective rate can be 35% because there's a standard deduction and some graduated rates. Any cap gains income will also lower total effective rate. Lots of people pay 35% marginal.

Your sister is either a cheat or a liar or talking in effective rates like most planning professionals.

My sister's husbands aunt once said she paid 40%.
Wow.
__________________
BUCK Wild Racing
Team 911

Thank you all for your support

Widia Cutting Tools www.widia.com
Sterling Autosport www.sterlingautosport.com/
PSC www.pscmotorsports.com/
Ruffstuff www.ruffstuffspecialties.com
Tom Woods Drive Shafts www.4xshaft.com
www.facebook.com/buckwildracing
Buckon37s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2012, 11:48 AM   #104 (permalink)
Rock God
 
paragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Member # 40266
Location: Jackson, MS USA
Posts: 2,287
Quote:
Originally Posted by gipper View Post


Of course no ones effective rate can be 35% because there's a standard deduction and some graduated rates. Any cap gains income will also lower total effective rate. Lots of people pay 35% marginal.

Your sister is either a cheat or a liar or talking in effective rates like most planning professionals.

My sister's husbands aunt once said she paid 40%.
you've lost this argument.

look. you said people "routinely pay that percentage". "Pay" infers effective. Many people are in the 35% tax bracket but they do not "pay" 35% of their income in federal income tax. What the percentage they pay is determined by the tax code. 35% is just the jumping off point relative to a graduated scale.
__________________
.

...

"For God and country, Geronimo, Geronimo, Geronimo"
paragon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2012, 11:59 AM   #105 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Member # 19304
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 829
Send a message via MSN to gipper Send a message via Yahoo to gipper
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckon37s View Post
Wow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by paragon View Post
you've lost this argument.

look. you said people "routinely pay that percentage". "Pay" infers effective. Many people are in the 35% tax bracket but they do not "pay" 35% of their income in federal income tax. What the percentage they pay is determined by the tax code. 35% is just the jumping off point relative to a graduated scale.

Okay, I give. Let's make the top rate 75% since no one pays it anyway.
__________________
For sale: 1984 CJ7 ... 4.10's, superwinch hubs, more.
gipper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2012, 12:04 PM   #106 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Member # 64230
Location: Sandy Utah
Posts: 821
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckon37s View Post
I hate to do this.

But Cali has a 10% income tax. There are deductions too. But if he is taking home 60% then with SS, unemployment, state, he is paying a lot less than 35% federal income tax.

I'm NOT in any way saying taxes are low or too low. I am just stating a fact that the tax rates are not the taxes that people pay. Just like back when it was 70%, nobody actually paid that.
I'm sure you're right that he isn't paying the full 35% on federal but it's very close. I'll have to ask him tonight, all I know is that it's a hideous amount.

Every time I look at what I'm paying in SS and Medicare it pisses me off since I know for fact I won't be getting a cent of that back, if I were only taking home 60% of what I made I'd probably say fawk it and stop working so hard... oh wait, that's what people are already doing. Atlas Shrugged anyone?

It's unfair for anyone to be taxed that high regardless of what you make. It's also unfair for someone like my brother to pay a much higher effective tax rate than someone like warren buffet regardless of the "providing jobs" argument. The entire system needs a reboot so that it's fair from top to bottom (where at the moment 41% don't pay any federal tax), no loopholes.
Evilwhitey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2012, 12:32 PM   #107 (permalink)
Granite Guru
 
Screwzer2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Member # 38193
Location: Nevada City, CA under a bridge
Posts: 690
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckon37s View Post
So you want the government to be smaller and spend less?
Not sure. What I do know is we are trying to do too much and need to set priorities. Furthermore, there's a hell of a lot of programs that just need to die. Affirmative Action, for one. Right now, I think there's some room temporarily for increasing revenues, but were pretty damn close to the ceiling of what people would tolerate.

The option is to print money and watch inflation rise. As long as no one's willing to give up their slice of the government pie, other than taxes, that's your options.

That said, there's always new issues popping up that at times only a government can fix. Tarriffs, Uncompetitive behavior, and heathcare for the uninsured come to mind. Its a matter of where and how much is appropriate.
__________________
“Preach the gospel, and if necessary, use words.”
—[I]St. Francis[/I]
Screwzer2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2012, 12:36 PM   #108 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Member # 64230
Location: Sandy Utah
Posts: 821
Quote:
Originally Posted by Screwzer2 View Post
Not sure. What I do know is we are trying to do too much and need to set priorities. Furthermore, there's a hell of a lot of programs that just need to die. Affirmative Action, for one. Right now, I think there's some room temporarily for increasing revenues, but were pretty damn close to the ceiling of what people would tolerate.

The option is to print money and watch inflation rise. As long as no one's willing to give up their slice of the government pie, other than taxes, that's your options.

That said, there's always new issues popping up that at times only a government can fix. Tarriffs, Uncompetitive behavior, and heathcare for the uninsured come to mind. Its a matter of where and how much is appropriate.
Agreed with the red, but what percentage of the federal budget really covers the necessities? 50% at best? The problem is the progressive notion that Govt should take care of you from cradle to grave. It's a flawed notion that has ALWAYS failed and always will fail.
Evilwhitey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2012, 12:38 PM   #109 (permalink)
Granite Guru
 
Screwzer2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Member # 38193
Location: Nevada City, CA under a bridge
Posts: 690
Quote:
Originally Posted by paragon View Post
you've lost this argument.

look. you said people "routinely pay that percentage". "Pay" infers effective. Many people are in the 35% tax bracket but they do not "pay" 35% of their income in federal income tax. What the percentage they pay is determined by the tax code. 35% is just the jumping off point relative to a graduated scale.
Keep in mind, to compare to Euros, you must add State, Federal, and SS taxes together.

Pretty sure they have just the single tax (other than VAT) in France.

35 + <11% (Cali)> + 6.2% or 12.4% SS+ whatever your health insurance premium is.

You're over 50% taxed before you even get to health insurance costs in this country.
__________________
“Preach the gospel, and if necessary, use words.”
—[I]St. Francis[/I]
Screwzer2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2012, 12:38 PM   #110 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Member # 7762
Posts: 156
Haha. Arguing about tax codes on the internet. This is hilarious.
Dan_E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2012, 12:43 PM   #111 (permalink)
Granite Guru
 
Screwzer2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Member # 38193
Location: Nevada City, CA under a bridge
Posts: 690
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evilwhitey View Post
Agreed with the red, but what percentage of the federal budget really covers the necessities? 50% at best? The problem is the progressive notion that Govt should take care of you from cradle to grave. It's a flawed notion that has ALWAYS failed and always will fail.
What about the traditional Conservative notion that we need a strong military to fight wars overseas? Try squeezing the defense turnip and see who cries foul. There's at least as much waste in defense spending as there is on any social program. There's dozens if not 100s of DoD projects that need a swift death, yet some Congressman will undoubtably come to the aid of any company in their district facing a cancelation. Lather, rinse, repeat for absolute military bases too.

Last time we tried to close bases it got to be such a hot topic that Congress washed its hands of the matter and appointed a blue ribbon commission so the could rubber stamp it and not lose their constituents.
__________________
“Preach the gospel, and if necessary, use words.”
—[I]St. Francis[/I]
Screwzer2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2012, 12:52 PM   #112 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Member # 64230
Location: Sandy Utah
Posts: 821
Quote:
Originally Posted by Screwzer2 View Post
What about the traditional Conservative notion that we need a strong military to fight wars overseas? Try squeezing the defense turnip and see who cries foul. There's at least as much waste in defense spending as there is on any social program. There's dozens if not 100s of DoD projects that need a swift death, yet some Congressman will undoubtably come to the aid of any company in their district facing a cancelation. Lather, rinse, repeat for absolute military bases too.

Last time we tried to close bases it got to be such a hot topic that Congress washed its hands of the matter and appointed a blue ribbon commission so the could rubber stamp it and not lose their constituents.
I agree completely which is why I said 50%. Defense spending really does need to be cut in half. Bases all over the world should be shut down and the troops brought home. Historic defense spending is simply unsustainable without printing obscene amounts of money. We spend as much on "national defense" as the next 20 countries combined.

We do need to stop policing the world and the best way to do that is to increase drilling and refining capacities domestically. For record I'd be 100% behind massive funding of research into energy creation and storage but I'm completely against building shitty "green" energy plants that require massive subsidies and don't come close to delivering on the promises made surrounding those projects.
Evilwhitey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2012, 01:27 PM   #113 (permalink)
Rock God
 
paragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Member # 40266
Location: Jackson, MS USA
Posts: 2,287
Quote:
Originally Posted by Screwzer2 View Post
Keep in mind, to compare to Euros, you must add State, Federal, and SS taxes together.

Pretty sure they have just the single tax (other than VAT) in France.

35 + <11% (Cali)> + 6.2% or 12.4% SS+ whatever your health insurance premium is.

You're over 50% taxed before you even get to health insurance costs in this country.
but you want taxes to increase in the U.S., no?

what about sales tax, property tax, licenses, ad valorem, excise, etc
__________________
.

...

"For God and country, Geronimo, Geronimo, Geronimo"
paragon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2012, 01:32 PM   #114 (permalink)
Granite Guru
 
Screwzer2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Member # 38193
Location: Nevada City, CA under a bridge
Posts: 690
Quote:
Originally Posted by paragon View Post
but you want taxes to increase in the U.S., no?
I can't remember ever saying that, at least in aggregate. A moderate increase that paid my healthcare premiums would be welcome tho.

Quote:
Originally Posted by paragon View Post
what about sales tax, property tax, licenses, ad valorem, excise, etc
What about 'em? I figured that was pretty much a universal human condition when you got into 1st world countries. No way to compare nations' tax rates, if you lump that crap in as well.
__________________
“Preach the gospel, and if necessary, use words.”
—[I]St. Francis[/I]

Last edited by Screwzer2; 05-07-2012 at 01:33 PM.
Screwzer2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2012, 01:34 PM   #115 (permalink)
Rock God
 
paragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Member # 40266
Location: Jackson, MS USA
Posts: 2,287
Quote:
Originally Posted by Screwzer2 View Post
I can't remember ever saying that
careful
__________________
.

...

"For God and country, Geronimo, Geronimo, Geronimo"
paragon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2012, 01:36 PM   #116 (permalink)
Rock God
 
paragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Member # 40266
Location: Jackson, MS USA
Posts: 2,287
Quote:
Originally Posted by Screwzer2 View Post
What about 'em? I figured that was pretty much a universal human condition when you got into 1st world countries. No way to compare nations' tax rates, if you lump that crap in as well.
you're simply being stupid because you just have to be opposite.

Like I've said before, I can turn you around in circles and have you arguing the conservative view point by simply leaving a crumb trail. You simply need to argue the opposite.

If you want to compare effective tax rates, why would you leave out taxes one country pays just because another doesn't pay that tax? The point of the argument, I thought, was a comparison between what is removed from your actual pay and provided to the government. Just because the U.S. has several layers of taxes does not mean you don't "lump that crap in as well"
__________________
.

...

"For God and country, Geronimo, Geronimo, Geronimo"
paragon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2012, 01:44 PM   #117 (permalink)
Granite Guru
 
Screwzer2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Member # 38193
Location: Nevada City, CA under a bridge
Posts: 690
Quote:
Originally Posted by paragon View Post
If you want to compare effective tax rates, why would you leave out taxes one country pays just because another doesn't pay that tax? The point of the argument, I thought, was a comparison between what is removed from your actual pay and provided to the government. Just because the U.S. has several layers of taxes does not mean you don't "lump that crap in as well"
Actually that's what I did when I added SS, etc. That said, if the comparison is to the income tax rate in France, it doesn't seem to make sense to include property taxes etc., since the French have those as well.

A comparison of total tax burden rate, if you added in sales tax and health care would be interesting. Wouldn't surprise me if our burdens were about the same.

Quote:
Originally Posted by paragon View Post
Like I've said before, I can turn you around in circles and have you arguing the conservative view point by simply leaving a crumb trail. You simply need to argue the opposite.
Meh, you can't lead a moderate. Our natural inclination is to take the opposite side whenever we meet an extremist. You get it easy. You should see me blast the wife when she gets on an Amy Goodman jag (Democracy Now!--a far left TV/radio show).
__________________
“Preach the gospel, and if necessary, use words.”
—[I]St. Francis[/I]
Screwzer2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2012, 02:02 PM   #118 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Member # 19304
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 829
Send a message via MSN to gipper Send a message via Yahoo to gipper
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evilwhitey View Post
I agree completely which is why I said 50%. Defense spending really does need to be cut in half. Bases all over the world should be shut down and the troops brought home. Historic defense spending is simply unsustainable without printing obscene amounts of money. We spend as much on "national defense" as the next 20 countries combined.

We do need to stop policing the world and the best way to do that is to increase drilling and refining capacities domestically. For record I'd be 100% behind massive funding of research into energy creation and storage but I'm completely against building shitty "green" energy plants that require massive subsidies and don't come close to delivering on the promises made surrounding those projects.
The difference being that social programs are 10x defense. It's like trying to fix your household budget while not addressing the entertainment costs that consume 75% of your budget.

Cutting management expenses in defense is fine by me.

This is all pointless jabber as long as we have someone "nudging" us "forward" over the cliff in the oval office.
__________________
For sale: 1984 CJ7 ... 4.10's, superwinch hubs, more.
gipper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2012, 02:31 PM   #119 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Member # 88950
Location: Baton Rouge
Posts: 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evilwhitey View Post
I agree completely which is why I said 50%. Defense spending really does need to be cut in half. Bases all over the world should be shut down and the troops brought home. Historic defense spending is simply unsustainable without printing obscene amounts of money. We spend as much on "national defense" as the next 20 countries combined.

We do need to stop policing the world and the best way to do that is to increase drilling and refining capacities domestically. For record I'd be 100% behind massive funding of research into energy creation and storage but I'm completely against building shitty "green" energy plants that require massive subsidies and don't come close to delivering on the promises made surrounding those projects.
drop defense down to 35% and use that 15% to increase education, double (or triple) nasa's budget, cover some essential entitlements, and put the rest into research grants, not industry/business subsidies
Colicious is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2012, 02:49 PM   #120 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Member # 64230
Location: Sandy Utah
Posts: 821
Quote:
Originally Posted by gipper View Post
The difference being that social programs are 10x defense. It's like trying to fix your household budget while not addressing the entertainment costs that consume 75% of your budget.

Cutting management expenses in defense is fine by me.

This is all pointless jabber as long as we have someone "nudging" us "forward" over the cliff in the oval office.
Social programs AREN'T 10X defense. That's the problem. Defense spending is currently a quarter of our federal budget. I agree that the entitlement/social engineering programs are out of control and need to be cut/scaled way back but it confuses the hell of me when republicans/conservatives ignore a huge piece of the problem.

If I were king I'd make things pretty simple and just say "we're going to reduce the federal budget 10% annually for the next five years and then freeze the budget after those five years for the next five years, figure out how to deal with it people" and then stick to it. EVERY program shrunk by 10% year after year after year and then freeze it after the fifth year. Problem solved. No arguing over what programs are more valuable than others, you're all getting cut, deal with it.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/budget_pie_gs.php

Last edited by Evilwhitey; 05-07-2012 at 02:51 PM.
Evilwhitey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2012, 03:12 PM   #121 (permalink)
Registered User
 
sokoboo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Member # 144859
Location: Elk Grove Ca
Posts: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evilwhitey View Post
Social programs AREN'T 10X defense. That's the problem. Defense spending is currently a quarter of our federal budget. I agree that the entitlement/social engineering programs are out of control and need to be cut/scaled way back but it confuses the hell of me when republicans/conservatives ignore a huge piece of the problem.

If I were king I'd make things pretty simple and just say "we're going to reduce the federal budget 10% annually for the next five years and then freeze the budget after those five years for the next five years, figure out how to deal with it people" and then stick to it. EVERY program shrunk by 10% year after year after year and then freeze it after the fifth year. Problem solved. No arguing over what programs are more valuable than others, you're all getting cut, deal with it.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/budget_pie_gs.php
The problem is 30% of the people want more military spending and 30% want more welfare spending. Those two groups compromise and tell the other 40% of us to fawk off.
__________________
Want to buy a t176 or t150 AMC bell housing.
sokoboo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2012, 04:06 PM   #122 (permalink)
Rock God
 
paragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Member # 40266
Location: Jackson, MS USA
Posts: 2,287
Quote:
Originally Posted by Screwzer2 View Post
Meh, you can't lead a moderate. Our natural inclination is to take the opposite side whenever we meet an extremist. You get it easy. You should see me blast the wife when she gets on an Amy Goodman jag (Democracy Now!--a far left TV/radio show).
can't lead? you just explained how one does it, easily

people like to label themselves as moderate, middle, whatever. the proper label is spineless. being opposite of someone just to be opposite is having no direction.

unfortunately, many of the electorate aren't very different from you
__________________
.

...

"For God and country, Geronimo, Geronimo, Geronimo"
paragon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2012, 04:31 PM   #123 (permalink)
Granite Guru
 
Screwzer2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Member # 38193
Location: Nevada City, CA under a bridge
Posts: 690
Quote:
Originally Posted by paragon View Post
people like to label themselves as moderate, middle, whatever. the proper label is Reasonable.
Fixed it.
__________________
“Preach the gospel, and if necessary, use words.”
—[I]St. Francis[/I]
Screwzer2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2012, 06:07 PM   #124 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Member # 19304
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 829
Send a message via MSN to gipper Send a message via Yahoo to gipper
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colicious View Post
drop defense down to 35% and use that 15% to increase education, double (or triple) nasa's budget, cover some essential entitlements, and put the rest into research grants, not industry/business subsidies



Yes, wasting more money on the department of education will definitely improve education.
__________________
For sale: 1984 CJ7 ... 4.10's, superwinch hubs, more.

Last edited by gipper; 05-07-2012 at 06:07 PM.
gipper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2012, 05:57 AM   #125 (permalink)
A is A
 
Jamtoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Member # 146531
Location: Howland OH
Posts: 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Screwzer2 View Post
What about the traditional Conservative notion that we need a strong military to fight wars overseas? Try squeezing the defense turnip and see who cries foul. There's at least as much waste in defense spending as there is on any social program. There's dozens if not 100s of DoD projects that need a swift death, yet some Congressman will undoubtably come to the aid of any company in their district facing a cancelation. Lather, rinse, repeat for absolute military bases too.

Last time we tried to close bases it got to be such a hot topic that Congress washed its hands of the matter and appointed a blue ribbon commission so the could rubber stamp it and not lose their constituents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gipper View Post
The difference being that social programs are 10x defense. It's like trying to fix your household budget while not addressing the entertainment costs that consume 75% of your budget.

Cutting management expenses in defense is fine by me.

This is all pointless jabber as long as we have someone "nudging" us "forward" over the cliff in the oval office.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colicious View Post
drop defense down to 35% and use that 15% to increase education, double (or triple) nasa's budget, cover some essential entitlements, and put the rest into research grants, not industry/business subsidies
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evilwhitey View Post
Social programs AREN'T 10X defense. That's the problem. Defense spending is currently a quarter of our federal budget. I agree that the entitlement/social engineering programs are out of control and need to be cut/scaled way back but it confuses the hell of me when republicans/conservatives ignore a huge piece of the problem.

If I were king I'd make things pretty simple and just say "we're going to reduce the federal budget 10% annually for the next five years and then freeze the budget after those five years for the next five years, figure out how to deal with it people" and then stick to it. EVERY program shrunk by 10% year after year after year and then freeze it after the fifth year. Problem solved. No arguing over what programs are more valuable than others, you're all getting cut, deal with it.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/budget_pie_gs.php
As measured against GDP which is how it should be, defense is near record low numbers. entitlements/education/health care/pensions are far and away a much bigger chunk.

defense is the common ground for liberals and isolationist. ironic
__________________
"The Founding Fathers knew a government can't control the economy without controlling people."

Ronald Reagan -October 27, 1964

Date added for moron proofing.
Jamtoy is offline   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
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.