Friends of the Secular Café: Forums
Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain
Talk Freethought
Rational Skepticism Forum
EvC Forum: Evolution vs. Creation
Living Nonreligion Discussion Forum
The Round Table (RatPags)
Talk Rational!
Blogs
Blue Collar Atheist
Camels With Hammers
Ebonmuse: Daylight Atheism
Nontheist Nexus
The Re-Enlightenment
Rosa Rubicondior
The Skeptical Zone
Watching the Deniers
Others
Christianity Disproved
Count Me Out
Ebon Musings
Freethinker.co.uk
 
       

Go Back   Secular Café > Intellectual Debate and Discussion Forums > Politics & World Events

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 23 Apr 2012, 07:30 PM   #357946 / #126
laughing dog
Senior Member
 
laughing dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: By the Mississippi River
Posts: 3,249
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ayn R. Key View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by laughing dog View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ayn R. Key View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by laughing dog View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ayn R. Key View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by laughing dog View Post
Another example is the failure of libertarians to address the glaring absence of any modern day libertarian society.
A trait it apparently shares with anyone who isn't a Keynesian.
There are some many ways to intrepret that non-sequitur, so it would be better if you would elaborate.
Just about every country in the world today is a mixed economy, neither free market nor socialist, and most of those mixed economies are Keynesian. Therefore anyone who advocates for anything other than a mixed economy has the glaring absence of what they advocate as a problem.

Oh, and you might want to be more careful with the term "non-sequitur". To quote Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that word..."
That explanation shows you missed the entire point of the observation, so your response was a non-sequitur. Libertarians cannot address why there is a glaring absence of any modern day libertarian society without implying there is no chance for a libertarian society to ever be voluntarily adopted.
Sure. I missed the point of the observation, because I was able to turn it around on you as well. Your observation was a simple argument ad populum, and also a distraction from the point I asked you to elaborate on.
This is just more evidence of the shallowness of libertarian thinking. It is not an argument ad populum. So, I will rephrase it in the slim hopes of getting an on-point reply instead of typical evasive nonsense. If libertarianism is so wonderful, why hasn't it been voluntarily adopted by any modern society? The typical answer is because the populace is too stupid or too ignorant to appreciate the value of libertarianism. That implies that libertarianism is a pipe dream because it will never be voluntarily adopted by a society or that it will require an imposition onto a society which thereby invalidates the notion of liberty.
__________________
I don't care to belong to a club that accepts people like me as members - Groucho Marx
laughing dog is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 23 Apr 2012, 07:55 PM   #357954 / #127
Politesse
Sapere aude
 
Politesse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Laquisimas
Posts: 19,092
Default

Libertarianism, like any economic system, is an ideal, and one would never expect to find it "purely" mapped onto a real society for the same reason no purely capitalist or socialist country could ever exist. Economies are emergent forms of great complexity and constant change, which governments can only influence, and economic models can only generalize. Then, too, since the principles of libertarianism are at odds with the interests of established forms of authority, it is unlikely that a true libertarianism would ever be encouraged by a nation-state with any degree of power over economic transactions.
__________________
"The truth about stories is that's all we are" ~Thomas King
Politesse is online now   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 23 Apr 2012, 09:31 PM   #357995 / #128
Pandora
Chronically Skeptical
 
Pandora's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: The Beautiful Pacific Northwest
Posts: 4,778
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by laughing dog View Post
That explanation shows you missed the entire point of the observation, so your response was a non-sequitur. Libertarians cannot address why there is a glaring absence of any modern day libertarian society without implying there is no chance for a libertarian society to ever be voluntarily adopted.
Socialists cannot address why there is a glaring absence of any modern day socialist society without implying there is no chance for a socialist society to every be voluntarily adopted.

Communists cannot address why there is a glaring absence of any modern day communist society without implying there is no chance for a communist society to every be voluntarily adopted.

You seem to think that a libertarian society is a completely unfettered free-market society with no government involvement at all. You've repeatedly conflated libertarian with anarchist, and you've repeated ignored all the discussion around the distinction between minimal government interference and no government interference.

What you fail to realize again and again, is that a libertarian society is of necessity a mixed market. It is NOT completely unfettered, it is minimally regulated. I don't think a single one of us is against ALL regulations; we are against unnecessary regulations, and we're against regulations that could be better handled by non-governmental means. For example, I know for a fact that I've repeatedly addressed the need for oversight in many industries, including insurance, health care, and finance. But I think that a mixed-body oversight composed of stakeholder representatives would be more effective and more realistic. To have effective oversight, you need to have people involved who actually understand the industry itself - you need to have doctors involved in the oversight of health care. You also need to involved the consumers of the industry - you need to have patients involved. The government should have a seat at the table, certainly. But they shouldn't be the only seats around it.

Yet you repeatedly ignore any discussion and any insight from actual libertarians, in favor of what you think they 'secretly' believe. I don't know if that's stupidity, arrogance, or the arrogance of stupidity.
Pandora is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 23 Apr 2012, 09:33 PM   #357996 / #129
Pandora
Chronically Skeptical
 
Pandora's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: The Beautiful Pacific Northwest
Posts: 4,778
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by laughing dog View Post
If libertarianism is so wonderful, why hasn't it been voluntarily adopted by any modern society? The typical answer is because the populace is too stupid or too ignorant to appreciate the value of libertarianism.
Whose 'typical' response is this? Not any of ours, certainly. I can only assume that it's the 'typical' response that your imaginary libertarian mind-friends give you when you talk to them. Do they also have green antennae and ray guns?
Pandora is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 23 Apr 2012, 10:15 PM   #358014 / #130
laughing dog
Senior Member
 
laughing dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: By the Mississippi River
Posts: 3,249
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pandora View Post
Socialists cannot address why there is a glaring absence of any modern day socialist society without implying there is no chance for a socialist society to every be voluntarily adopted.
That is false.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pandora View Post
Communists cannot address why there is a glaring absence of any modern day communist society without implying there is no chance for a communist society to every be voluntarily adopted.
That is also false.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pandora View Post
You seem to think that a libertarian society is a completely unfettered free-market society with no government involvement at all. You've repeatedly conflated libertarian with anarchist, and you've repeated ignored all the discussion around the distinction between minimal government interference and no government interference.
You should be able to point a particular post that proves your claim (especially if there is a repeated conflation). Otherwise, this is another example of your extraordinary ability to fling bullshit.

In this thread I asked a simple question about the absence of modern libertarian societies of the libertarians here. No one has pointed to one. You cannot possibly adduce what my view of a libertarian society is from that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pandora View Post
What you fail to realize again and again, is that a libertarian society is of necessity a mixed market. It is NOT completely unfettered, it is minimally regulated. I don't think a single one of us is against ALL regulations; we are against unnecessary regulations, and we're against regulations that could be better handled by non-governmental means. For example, I know for a fact that I've repeatedly addressed the need for oversight in many industries, including insurance, health care, and finance. But I think that a mixed-body oversight composed of stakeholder representatives would be more effective and more realistic. To have effective oversight, you need to have people involved who actually understand the industry itself - you need to have doctors involved in the oversight of health care. You also need to involved the consumers of the industry - you need to have patients involved. The government should have a seat at the table, certainly. But they shouldn't be the only seats around it.
You are completely ignorant of my views on this matter. As to the rest of your response in this quote, it is another example of shallow/incomplete thinking. Self-regulation can and does easily turn into rent-seeking (a form of redistribution of income and welfare). And, as I have repeatedly pointed out that even libertarian-approved gov't regulation is likely to redistribute income or well-being to some degree (something you claim to be against).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pandora View Post
Yet you repeatedly ignore any discussion and any insight from actual libertarians, in favor of what you think they 'secretly' believe. I don't know if that's stupidity, arrogance, or the arrogance of stupidity.
Unlike your entire response of straw men and ignorance, I am taking the actual responses literally. So, unless you are saying the libertarians who post in these threads are lying about their view or don't know what libertarianism means, your conclusion is the result of your limited reasoning capability combined with your charming combination of ignorance and arrogance.
laughing dog is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 23 Apr 2012, 10:16 PM   #358015 / #131
laughing dog
Senior Member
 
laughing dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: By the Mississippi River
Posts: 3,249
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pandora View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by laughing dog View Post
If libertarianism is so wonderful, why hasn't it been voluntarily adopted by any modern society? The typical answer is because the populace is too stupid or too ignorant to appreciate the value of libertarianism.
Whose 'typical' response is this? Not any of ours, certainly. I can only assume that it's the 'typical' response that your imaginary libertarian mind-friends give you when you talk to them. Do they also have green antennae and ray guns?
I noticed you have evaded answering the question and chose to fling your usual 3rd grade inane bullshit.

Last edited by laughing dog; 23 Apr 2012 at 10:26 PM.
laughing dog is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 24 Apr 2012, 06:59 PM   #358402 / #132
Pandora
Chronically Skeptical
 
Pandora's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: The Beautiful Pacific Northwest
Posts: 4,778
Default

LD you're an idiot, and am tired of your inane chatter. You're not worthy of any space in my brain.
Pandora is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 24 Apr 2012, 08:58 PM   #358438 / #133
laughing dog
Senior Member
 
laughing dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: By the Mississippi River
Posts: 3,249
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pandora View Post
LD you're an idiot, and am tired of your inane chatter. You're not worthy of any space in my brain.
I see you continue to evade the reality that even the provision of "libertarian approved" goods or services by the gov't will likely involve redistribution of wealth (something that you claim to disapprove of).

Here is a link to an article about libertarians who are trying to create new libertarian societies (http://www.economist.com/node/21541391). It refers to the grandson of Milton Friedman who thinks democracy is rigged against libertarianism.

Instead acting like a petulant 3rd grader and hurling moronic and juvenile jibes, why not surprise everyone and make a relevant and cogent response? Or is that beyond the capability of a libertarian?
laughing dog is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 24 Apr 2012, 09:15 PM   #358444 / #134
BWE
twisting truth since 1957
 
BWE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: one of the unnamed sidestreets of happiness
Posts: 9,514
Default

That is beyond the capability of a libertarian.
BWE is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 24 Apr 2012, 09:20 PM   #358448 / #135
BWE
twisting truth since 1957
 
BWE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: one of the unnamed sidestreets of happiness
Posts: 9,514
Default

Every libertarian I have ever encountered with absolutely no exceptions and to the point of psychotic comedy, asserts that the ideas of all other libertarians don't represent libertarianism. There is absolutely nothing to the philosophy which goes any deeper than an obvious and pathetic attempt to rationalize and justify privilege. Nothing.

Every idea which seems deeper is simply a restatement of the enlightenment ideal of liberal democracy. Which runs counter to the libertarian ideal.

The compartment is ridiculous on its face.
BWE is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 24 Apr 2012, 10:50 PM   #358492 / #136
BWE
twisting truth since 1957
 
BWE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: one of the unnamed sidestreets of happiness
Posts: 9,514
Default

It's pretty easy to expose the inconsistency.

How does a libertarian address monopoly?

ummmmm....
BWE is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 25 Apr 2012, 01:47 PM   #358673 / #137
dismal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,244
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BWE View Post
It's pretty easy to expose the inconsistency.

How does a libertarian address monopoly?

ummmmm....
You seem to be wrapped up in a major false dichotomy.

There are libertarian principles. People who call themselves libertarian have a tendency to to believe in libertarian principles. They may make exceptions to the general belief from time to time, even consciously recognizing they are doing so.

Most people who are libertarian recognize themselves as libertarians later in life than your typical DemoRepublican fanboy. They have certain principles and beliefs and realize after a while that there are other people out there who share a similar set of beliefs who call themselves "libertarians".

But, anyway, it's not an all or nothing thing. Statism isn't either. For example, I have actually met rabid statists who don't think that Rush Limbaugh should be sent to jail for what he says due to their libertarian view of free speech rights.
dismal is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 25 Apr 2012, 03:35 PM   #358698 / #138
laughing dog
Senior Member
 
laughing dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: By the Mississippi River
Posts: 3,249
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ayn R. Key View Post
Sure. I missed the point of the observation, because I was able to turn it around on you as well.
No, you didn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ayn R. Key View Post
Your observation was a simple argument ad populum, and also a distraction from the point I asked you to elaborate on.
It should have been obvious that it was not an ad populum argument even without the subsequent explanation. Just as the point you wished to have elaborated was obvious.

So, let's try this again with even smaller words.

If libertarianism is such a good policy idea, then it should have been adopted by a modern society. Can you point to a modern society that has adopted libertarianism (as you define it) as an acting principle in governance? If you cannot, then how do you expect libertarianism to ever be adopted as an acting principle for governance in a modern society?
laughing dog is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 25 Apr 2012, 07:10 PM   #358751 / #139
Pandora
Chronically Skeptical
 
Pandora's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: The Beautiful Pacific Northwest
Posts: 4,778
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BWE View Post
That is beyond the capability of a libertarian.
You wound me, BWE. And here I thought we were getting along...
Pandora is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 25 Apr 2012, 07:13 PM   #358753 / #140
Pandora
Chronically Skeptical
 
Pandora's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: The Beautiful Pacific Northwest
Posts: 4,778
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BWE View Post
Every libertarian I have ever encountered with absolutely no exceptions and to the point of psychotic comedy, asserts that the ideas of all other libertarians don't represent libertarianism.
This is demonstrably untrue, in this very thread even. There are a number of libertarians on this site, who have spoken up in this thread, and we all tend to agree on *most* topics. We obviously don't think that each other's ideas don't represent libertarianism; in fact we all agree that they do.

Therefore, you're full of shit.

Again.
Pandora is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 25 Apr 2012, 07:18 PM   #358757 / #141
Pandora
Chronically Skeptical
 
Pandora's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: The Beautiful Pacific Northwest
Posts: 4,778
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by laughing dog View Post
If libertarianism is such a good policy idea, then it should have been adopted by a modern society. Can you point to a modern society that has adopted libertarianism (as you define it) as an acting principle in governance?
If socialism is such a good policy idea, then it should have been adopted by a modern society. Can you point to a modern society that has adopted socialism (as you define it) as an acting principle in governance?

If communism is such a good policy idea, then it should have been adopted by a modern society. Can you point to a modern society that has adopted communism (as you define it) as an acting principle in governance?

It's an asinine, false, misleading, and shallow question, and you damn well know it, doggy-boy. All of these social systems are ideals. They are archetypes, and nobody with a real brain in their heads expects any actual society to conform to the ideal completely. No libertarian expects to see a 100% libertarian society. Because it is an ideal. What we strive for, generally speaking, is to have a society that is closer to that ideal than it is today. What we strive for is to approach the ideal.

This has been said to you by several different people repeatedly over a multi-year span of time. I'm pretty sure you've just decided that you're not going to hear anything that doesn't fit with your preconceived notions of how things work. Your narrow-minded stupidity toward this is offensive to me, and it really ought to be shameful to you.
Pandora is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 25 Apr 2012, 07:40 PM   #358765 / #142
BWE
twisting truth since 1957
 
BWE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: one of the unnamed sidestreets of happiness
Posts: 9,514
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pandora View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by BWE View Post
Every libertarian I have ever encountered with absolutely no exceptions and to the point of psychotic comedy, asserts that the ideas of all other libertarians don't represent libertarianism.
This is demonstrably untrue, in this very thread even. There are a number of libertarians on this site, who have spoken up in this thread, and we all tend to agree on *most* topics. We obviously don't think that each other's ideas don't represent libertarianism; in fact we all agree that they do.

Therefore, you're full of shit.

Again.
My apologies. I meant the contradictory ideas. For an example, explain the libertarian POV regarding business monopolies.
BWE is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 25 Apr 2012, 07:46 PM   #358773 / #143
phands
Long term atheist
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Manhattan New York
Posts: 10,967
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BWE View Post
My apologies. I meant the contradictory ideas. For an example, explain the libertarian POV regarding business monopolies.
Is there a libertarian POV on that? Or are we just getting another pile of BWalderdash?
__________________
ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
phands is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 25 Apr 2012, 08:39 PM   #358788 / #144
dismal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,244
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BWE View Post
explain the libertarian POV regarding business monopolies.
A strong libertarian principle is that assocoaitons should be voluntary.

So libertarians are generally against government instituted monopolies.

However, I persoanlly would consider making exception in certain cases where there is a strong natural monopoly (as economists define the term.) Can go into this particular issue in more detail, if you like but since you seem to be opearting at a bumper-sticker-slogan level of depth so far I'm not willing to risk the investment of time at this point.

As far as monoploies resulting from voluntary choices, not government force, I think they are pretty unlikely. A phantom menace.
dismal is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 25 Apr 2012, 08:48 PM   #358791 / #145
BWE
twisting truth since 1957
 
BWE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: one of the unnamed sidestreets of happiness
Posts: 9,514
Default

Oh, natural monopolies is what I meant. I probably don't have as much sophistication in economics as you but I'll try to keep up.
BWE is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 25 Apr 2012, 08:48 PM   #358792 / #146
BWE
twisting truth since 1957
 
BWE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: one of the unnamed sidestreets of happiness
Posts: 9,514
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by phands View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by BWE View Post
My apologies. I meant the contradictory ideas. For an example, explain the libertarian POV regarding business monopolies.
Is there a libertarian POV on that? Or are we just getting another pile of BWalderdash?
We'll see.
BWE is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 25 Apr 2012, 08:50 PM   #358793 / #147
phands
Long term atheist
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Manhattan New York
Posts: 10,967
Default

Explain what is your view of the libertarian viewpoint on that.
phands is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 25 Apr 2012, 08:51 PM   #358794 / #148
BWE
twisting truth since 1957
 
BWE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: one of the unnamed sidestreets of happiness
Posts: 9,514
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dismal View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by BWE View Post
explain the libertarian POV regarding business monopolies.
A strong libertarian principle is that assocoaitons should be voluntary.

So libertarians are generally against government instituted monopolies.

However, I persoanlly would consider making exception in certain cases where there is a strong natural monopoly (as economists define the term.) Can go into this particular issue in more detail, if you like but since you seem to be opearting at a bumper-sticker-slogan level of depth so far I'm not willing to risk the investment of time at this point.

As far as monoploies resulting from voluntary choices, not government force, I think they are pretty unlikely. A phantom menace.
I assume then, that you would call the JP Morgan banking conglomerates forced by government as well as the original standard oil and possibly Carnegie steel etc.

Probably a better way to look at it is the role of antitrust legislation. How does a libertarian view such a thing?
BWE is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 25 Apr 2012, 08:52 PM   #358795 / #149
BWE
twisting truth since 1957
 
BWE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: one of the unnamed sidestreets of happiness
Posts: 9,514
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by phands View Post
Explain what is your view of the libertarian viewpoint on that.
My view is that they will get tangled up regarding the issue.
BWE is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 25 Apr 2012, 08:59 PM   #358798 / #150
laughing dog
Senior Member
 
laughing dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: By the Mississippi River
Posts: 3,249
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pandora View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by laughing dog View Post
If libertarianism is such a good policy idea, then it should have been adopted by a modern society. Can you point to a modern society that has adopted libertarianism (as you define it) as an acting principle in governance?
If socialism is such a good policy idea, then it should have been adopted by a modern society. Can you point to a modern society that has adopted socialism (as you define it) as an acting principle in governance?

If communism is such a good policy idea, then it should have been adopted by a modern society. Can you point to a modern society that has adopted communism (as you define it) as an acting principle in governance?
I am not arguing that either is a good policy idea, so those are simply red herrings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pandora View Post
It's an asinine, false, misleading, and shallow question, and you damn well know it, doggy-boy. All of these social systems are ideals. They are archetypes, and nobody with a real brain in their heads expects any actual society to conform to the ideal completely. No libertarian expects to see a 100% libertarian society. Because it is an ideal. What we strive for, generally speaking, is to have a society that is closer to that ideal than it is today. What we strive for is to approach the ideal.
This response is illogical and evasive. Given the historical apathy towards libertarianism how do you expect to approach this ideal if you cannot convince people of its effectiveness or usefulness?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pandora View Post
This has been said to you by several different people repeatedly over a multi-year span of time. I'm pretty sure you've just decided that you're not going to hear anything that doesn't fit with your preconceived notions of how things work. Your narrow-minded stupidity toward this is offensive to me, and it really ought to be shameful to you.
This response captures perfectly the lack of maturity, openness, willingness to engage in meaningful discussion, reading comprehension and reasoning ability that characterizes your responses and your idea of libertarianism.
laughing dog is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   Secular Café > Intellectual Debate and Discussion Forums > Politics & World Events

Bookmarks

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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What do Non-libertarians believe Libertarians believe? laughing dog Politics & World Events 485 10 May 2012 05:46 PM
Astroturf Libertarians Clivedurdle Politics & World Events 7 28 Dec 2010 03:52 PM
'Year of the Bible' so we can be aware of freedoms Obama's taking away PostMortem Politics & World Events 4 03 Jun 2009 12:40 PM
Question for libertarians Redshirt Politics & World Events 54 16 Apr 2009 12:05 AM


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
 
Ocean Zero by vBSkins.com | Customised by Antechinus