AAR
Click here for full forums index
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
 
How would you rate Obama's performance so far?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    AAR Forum Index -> The Wild Wild West Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
LizE



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 253

PostPosted: Mon May 02, 2011 3:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Can someone explain to me why as a new person in charge, you have to carry through with policies placed by the past person in charge? That doesn't make sense to me. Maybe I have no sense?


I would guess that when a program is funded by congress for a specific period of time, it runs unless congress votes to de-fund it...? Can anyone chime in here?

KarenS, I think it's very cool that you're bringing such interesting films to your community. Michael Moore is beginning to annoy me a little, he's so into pushing his agenda that he can get a little slippery with the truth. And I say this as someone who agrees with a lot of his agenda. I much preferred Inside Job, which I found far more shocking. Hope everyone enjoys it (or whatever it is you do when watching a movie that makes you kinda sick). What other films have you showed/will you show?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
KarenS



Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 870
Location: Florida

PostPosted: Tue May 03, 2011 9:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

bookmark wrote:
While I'm at it, why do we continually cut funding for public schools? That should be one of the last place that should be squandered or have the message be sent that it's not important. You know it's bad when education doesn't rank that highly with a nation.



We're cutting funding so we can "dumb down" the electorate. Uninformed voters can be manipulated so it's in the best interest of the party that depends on emotionalism to win elections to make certain the voters can't see through their lies.

Other countries value education but America has always had a love-hate relationship with bright, intelligent, thoughtful people who look at issues from all the sides before deciding. We often call thoughtful people as being indecisive when they are studying the subject. If you are conscientious you want to have all the facts before making a decision.

What education we want the masses to have and the education the upper class wants for their kids are two different entities. So we play games with the public school system to dilute the education process.

If kids don't want to learn, separate them from the kids who want to learn. If certain kids have learning disabilities provide them with extra help so they can learn. Often the kids with learning disabilities are the most eager to learn but they need extra help. The kids that are the normal, regular students who comprise probably 80% of the classroom should be given every chance to excel and given the best curriculum so they can succeed.

Some of the best alternative schools are the ones where the kids set the curriculum themselves. They study what they are interested in. Of course they are private schools but those kids learn and do very well. It's nice if you can afford those schools and one is near your home.

I don't blame the schools so much as I blame the parents. Don't have kids if you are not prepared to send your kids off to school with a learning attitude and respectful attitude. They have to want to learn or they will be left behind. So parents need to make certain they have kids who have the ability to learn and also know it's their job to learn.

Schools can always do better by making certain the teachers are competent and idealistic enough to want to make a difference in their students lives.

The School Board needs to make certain the education they are providing to their community is progressive. Their curriculum should provide an opportunity for the kids to earn a decent living, learn what it means to be a productive member of society by being good citizens who look after those who come after them.

We should demand better of our educational system. Yet how many of us can agree on the definition of quality. As a progressive I know my views differs from a conservative's. So throw that into the mix and education becomes the battle field for ideology. One example is the teaching of evolution. Evolution belongs in the classroom while creationism should be relegated to Sunday school. That's my feeling on the subject. But a good Christian thinks public school kids should be taught creationism. Who is right and who is wrong?

So some progressive parents find secular private schools that teach their kids their idea of a quality education. Then some religious parents find private schools who re-enforce their values so their kids get what they think is a good education.

So those kids who attend public schools get an education in spite of the bickering and cut-backs. It's to their credit and to the schools as well they are learning when we politicize the educational process.

Our problem is that both sides sees education as a means to influence the hearts and minds of future generations.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bookmark



Joined: 06 Nov 2007
Posts: 332

PostPosted: Tue May 03, 2011 12:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

All I know, KarenS, is that we all better wake up soon and fix our education system. I don't have kids so it's not even about me wanting a better world for my kids, but I do know education is key to growth and improvement to any civilization. I know in the US one doesn't need education to have financial success, but we need to look at education as something beyond a way to make more money or getting rich. It's knowledge. About other worlds and civilizations. About ethics. About different time periods. About literature. About biology. About sociology. On and on. From that we evolve as intellectual, educated people with more opportunities for technological and other advances. Stagnation is not what we should let happen.

You look at some poor countries where the kids would love, love to be educated but they don't have that opportunity. Here we are, with all the education presented on the table, and we don't value it.

Which kids don't hate school? That's natural, but it's incumbent upon the parents to instill in them the value of education. To make them know that it's important and influences all aspects of their lives and it makes them a more rounded individual.

I was on youtube the other day and was reading comments people make. A lot of the grammar is atrocious. All the texts and emails nowadays that comprise of abbreviations and such. I shudder to think in the future with this new language and less education.

Sorry if if seems to anyone like I'm sitting on my high horse looking down, but I just feel like we should all constantly be improving instead of staying the same or deteriorating. I always look at all the beautiful architecture and history of different countries that existed so many years ago when people didn't have as much yet they were able to accomplish so much. Now we have more yet we're not as talented, innovative, etc...as our ancestors, I feel. But, I digress...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
KarenS



Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 870
Location: Florida

PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2011 11:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

LizE wrote:
KarenS, I think it's very cool that you're bringing such interesting films to your community. Michael Moore is beginning to annoy me a little, he's so into pushing his agenda that he can get a little slippery with the truth. And I say this as someone who agrees with a lot of his agenda. I much preferred Inside Job, which I found far more shocking. Hope everyone enjoys it (or whatever it is you do when watching a movie that makes you kinda sick). What other films have you showed/will you show?


We're having fun with the film series! The first movie we showed was "Who Killed the Electric Car." It was well received by the group. One set of friends who attend the series also owns a Smart Car so they were interested in this one. Our second showing was Moore's movie and our third one will be "Inside Job." We just started the film series with those two under our belt. Another couple that we teamed up with to do the movie series are part-time Florida residents who will be away during the summer. They live in Madison, Wisconsin so we are going to miss them. They will be back in October but hubby and I have agreed to keep it going through the summer.

We're trying to show thought provoking movies in order to question what is going on around us. Mostly we are older folks(older than 50) with an interesting perspective of the world. Everyone is welcome to attend.

So we will see how long our run is. We are willing to try it and see what happens. My little town is pretty quirky so interesting folks have turned up for the two movies.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LizE



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 253

PostPosted: Sat May 21, 2011 12:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So much news, so little time! Start with Democrats and Republicans getting together to force a speedy vote on renewing the Patriot Act. Why the rush?

Quote:
The deal between Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker John Boehner calls for a vote before May 27, when parts of the current act expire. The idea is to pass the extension with as little debate as possible to avoid a protracted and familiar argument over the expanded power the law gives to the government.


God forbid we should have a debate on expanded powers given to the government by the Patriot Act, especially now that Osama bin Laden is dead. Given a debate, Americans might start questioning the need for the surveillance state and we can't have that, can we? Where are all the people who recognized the threat under Bush? Can't they see that nothing has changed under Obama?

Next, we have the war in Libya, which as of today is definitely illegal. Some said it was illegal from the start, but defenders of the president claimed he was acting under the War Powers Act. This was a bit of a stretch but whatever, just about everyone decided to give Obama the 60 days granted under the Act to get congressional approval for this war. He needs that approval because our constitution is very clear about the division of power concerning war: the president as commander-in-chief gets to wage the war, but only Congress can authorize it. In fact, Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist #69:

Quote:
The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect, his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces.; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies – all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature.


It is very clear what the framers of the constitution intended here. The system has been abused over the years by congress refusing to actually declare war (in Korea, in Vietnam, in Iraq to name a few) but instead authorizing military action. (Personally, I think this is a disgrace and congress is a bunch of cowards for refusing to stand up and cast a vote for or against war, but that's another story). But call it war or military action, congress still has to authorize it--and they haven't authorized Libya.

Typically, very few in congress are complaining that Obama has apparently declared himself king and committed the US to a war in Libya on his own imperial authority. He didn't use his War Powers Act 60 days to convince congress--he didn't even try. He is just carrying on as if he is perfectly entitled to both declare and wage war...and our craven, pathetic congress is doing nothing to stop him.

So reporters have been asking the Obama White House how they can justify this war, and their answer has been, according to ABC News White House Correspondent, Jake Tapper: "WH today repeatedly insisted it's in compliance with War Powers Act re: Libya but refused to explain how."

As Glenn Greenwald said:

Quote:
Talk about "secret law." You're not even allowed to know the White House's rationale (if it exists) for why this war is legal. It simply decrees that it is, and you'll have to comfort yourself with that. That's how confident they are in their power to operate behind their wall of secrecy: they don't even bother any longer with a pretense of the most minimal transparency.


We are currently engaged in multiple wars, both open and "secret." Our president no longer bothers lying to congress to get authorization for military action, he just goes ahead and does it--and then refuses to explain himself when questioned by the press. This is serious stuff, folks, and coupled with the rubber-stamp renewal of the Patriot Act, we are seeing a fundamental shift in our government.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
thomas86



Joined: 29 Sep 2011
Posts: 3
Location: California

PostPosted: Tue Oct 04, 2011 6:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dick wrote:
@VolFan:
I'm not sure it's possible to compare family finances to government finances, but, in a way, the bailout was much like fixing a leaky roof on one's home. One may not have the money at the moment to repair it, but if it isn't repaired, the entire house will be damaged more and the value and everything else the house represents will be diminished greatly. I would, I think, borrow the money I didn't have in order to keep that from happening, thinking that it's better to be in debt than for the house to be further damaged. Even though I might not get out of that debt for a long time, the house will retain its value and, if circumstances are right,
grow in value. And it serves as collateral for the debt, even if the debt continues. Had I not borrowed to repair the roof, the house would deteriorate and eventually fall and I would lose it and thus lose the potential for collateral as well.

In the case of the bailout, as long as the US exists, its huge wealth and productive power serves as collateral for its debt in the same way the house does for you or me. But that wealth and productive power would have been diminished greatly had the bailout--the debt--not occurred.


This is one of the best analogies I've heard on this... really insightful.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LizE



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 253

PostPosted: Tue Nov 29, 2011 3:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Back in April we talked about McCain's proposed bill that would grant govt. the power to indefinitely detain Americans' without due process. I was upset about the idea, but others thought it was just a tempest in a teacup. markskl had this to say...

maryskl wrote:
I also think John McCain has less power than he did before. His run for the presidency weakened him instead of strengthening him and choosing Sarah Palin for a running mate did not help matters. Bills get introduced all the time that never see the light of day. In fact most bills that are introduced are not passed. The Patriot Act was originally passed when the country was in a state of fear. As that fear subsided, lawmakers began to see that power could be and was abused.


I guess McCain is still kicking--and so is his quest to make due process a government-granted privelege instead of a constitutionally guaranteed right. Ten years into the War on Terror (or whatever they're calling it today), Osama bin Laden is dead, Al Qaeda is dismantled, and yet we still need to declare the world a battlefield--including the U.S.? We have to now take away the right of due process for any American accused--not convicted, but merely accused--of being a terrorist? I hope everyone is paying attention to this debate, which going on in the Senate right now.

Quote:
From DemocracyNow.org: The Senate is set to vote this week on a Pentagon spending bill that could usher in a radical expansion of indefinite detention under the U.S. government. A provision in the National Defense Authorization Act would authorize the military to jail anyone it considers a terrorism suspect — anywhere in the world — without charge or trial. The measure would effectively extend the definition of what is considered the military’s "battlefield" to anywhere in the world, even within the United States. Its authors, Democratic Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan and Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona, have been campaigning for its passage in a bipartisan effort. But the White House has issued a veto threat, with backing from top officials including Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and FBI Director Robert Mueller. “This would be the first time since the McCarthy era that the United States Congress has tried to do this,” says our guest, Daphne Eviatar of Human Rights First, which has gathered signatures from 26 retired military leaders urging the Senate to vote against the measure, as well as against a separate provision that would repeal the executive order banning torture. “In this case, we’ve seen the administration very eagerly hold people without trial for 10-plus years in military detention, so there’s no reason to believe they would not continue to do that here. So we’re talking about indefinite military detention of U.S. citizens, of lawful U.S. residents, as well as of people abroad.”
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LizE



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 253

PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 3:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In case anyone is interested, the bill passed the Senate. Who says Washington can't get anything done?

Quote:
From the NYT: A related provision would create a federal statute saying the government has the legal authority to keep people suspected of terrorism in military custody, indefinitely and without trial. It contains no exception for American citizens. It is intended to bolster the authorization to use military force against the perpetrators of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, which lawmakers enacted a decade ago.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/30/us/politics/senate-approves-military-custody-for-terror-suspects.html?_r=2
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
erhea13



Joined: 01 Nov 2008
Posts: 117
Location: So Cal

PostPosted: Thu Dec 08, 2011 2:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

LizE:

I don't really know much about this bill, but I can say with some confidence that without some exception for American citizens it will not fly constitutionally (regardless of the composition of the Supreme Court).
If it does go into effect, it will be challenged (no way it can go under the radar) as a violation of a citizen's right to due process. So long as there is not a major terrorist attack on American soil close to the time of challenge, SCOTUS would most likely knock it down.
This is not a shadow I would be jumping at quite yet.

Personally, I am more concerned with the monstrosity that is the Patriot Act. I am a conservative who is willing to suspend some of my rights to protect national security, but that willingness definitely has a shelf-life. I do not like the idea of indefinitely granting a degree of authority to the national government that fundamentally augments its role to Big Brother.

I practice a live and let live brand of conservatism (i.e., I live conservatively and as long as your decisions and actions don't personally affect me and mine, you can do whatever you want). Our government, with the Patriot Act and its ilk, has increasingly reached its hand in to our lives and attempted to mandate how we live and interact with each other. This worries and angers me.

We are creeping toward the point where we no longer look inside ourselves to distinguish between right and wrong. Instead we wait and see what the demagogues tell us is right or wrong and how to make decisions. If we, as people, continue to lose the ability and desire to make conscientious decisions, and allow the government to make our choices for us, we cannot expect that the leaders we choose will put our interests as a country ahead of their own. If they lead our decisions, they have no reason to let us decide anything that does not immediately benefit them, regardless of what effect those decisions have on us as individuals and as a country.

Huh . . . this turned into something of a meandering, soapboxy rant.
_________________
"I do not want people to be very agreeable, as it saves me the trouble of liking them a great deal." - Jane Austen
"The person, be it gentleman or lady, who has not pleasure in a good novel, must be intolerably stupid." - Jane Austen
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LizE



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 253

PostPosted: Tue Jan 03, 2012 6:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

erhea13 wrote:
We are creeping toward the point where we no longer look inside ourselves to distinguish between right and wrong. Instead we wait and see what the demagogues tell us is right or wrong and how to make decisions. If we, as people, continue to lose the ability and desire to make conscientious decisions, and allow the government to make our choices for us, we cannot expect that the leaders we choose will put our interests as a country ahead of their own. If they lead our decisions, they have no reason to let us decide anything that does not immediately benefit them, regardless of what effect those decisions have on us as individuals and as a country.

Huh . . . this turned into something of a meandering, soapboxy rant.


Here, here! (Or is that "hear, hear!"?) Whatever, well said.

Unfortunately, I don't have your faith that the Supreme Court will save us any time soon. Just look at Jose Padilla and Anwar al-Awlaki and you'll see that the president has long claimed the power to 1) hold an American citizen for years without charging him with a crime and 2) assassinate an American citizen, also without ever having charged him with a crime, let alone convicted him of one. As far as the assassination went, Obama's justification was a legal memo--which is a state secret so we the people can't know what's in it. So basically, we are now subject to a law that gives the president the power to assassinate us, but we're not allowed to see it.

These aren't shadows, this is already happening, but since it's not happening to old Johnny Smith from down the block (yet) people are content to shrug and say, "Well, if the president said that Anwar guy was a terrorist, then I guess he was." Talk about losing the ability and desire to make conscientious decisions! "Sure, it sounds unconstitutional to assassinate an American who isn't on a battlefield without ever having proven he is actually guilty of a crime, but you know, I'm just gonna trust the government on this one."

I agree with you about the Patriot Act, and I am also totally appalled that this new bill passed, though not that Obama signed it. You can't listen to a word the guy says, you have to watch what he does--covert wars, drone strikes on civilians, fighting the effort to ban cluster bombs. . . And you're dead-on about who is ultimately responsible. When you have a government of, by and for the people, it's our job to pay attention.

So here's hoping for a consciousness-awakening 2012, and a happy and prosperous new year to you all!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
erhea13



Joined: 01 Nov 2008
Posts: 117
Location: So Cal

PostPosted: Tue Jan 03, 2012 9:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

For me, it is not so much about SCOUTUS stepping in to save us, because frankly it does not have that authority. Most of the instances you mentioned have been cashiered out as political questions (SCOTUS's way of punting an issue it does not want to deal with). However, despite what the presidents ultimately have done (Bush or Obama), SCOTUS has consistently upheld due process in a slew of enemey combatant litigation for both citizens and non-citizens - they have allowed detention of "enemy combatants" but not without charges in a "reasonable" amount of time for US Citizens. The fact is, SCOTUS is limited to interpreting the Constitution and is hemmed in by the fact that it cannot enforce its own rulings.

However, in terms of the bill we have been discussing, all it would take is one citizen wrongly detained to cry out and our culture of media will be all over it. That will open the door for American citizens and voters to decide how far they are willing to suspend their liberty (if at all) and bring pressure to bear on the branches of government that wield the greatest authority.

The only time SCOTUS ever successfully stands in the face of the executive and legislature is on the rare occasion that it is ahead of and among public opinion. Ultimatley, it comes down to who is going to pay attemtion and how far we allow ourselves to be pushed. Personally, I feel we are being steamrolled and buffetted about by extreme positions on both sides that are putting ideology (not principles) ahead of practicality. I am in many ways a pragmatist. There are certain things in which I will not compromise (most of those are personal and affect only me) but everthing else is subject to compromise for the betterment of our country. We were founded on principles of debate and disagreement - those often bring more ideas to the table - but we have warped our system into one of vitriolic public discourse and private back door collusion.

Until we, as a country, take the initiative to insist on educating and informing ourselves without adherence to the different factions telling us what to think (in lieu of giving us information and allowing us to come to our own decisions) we will not stand a chance of putting our country and system of gevernment to rights. I do not want anyone to save us, I want us to save ourselves. We are meant to be the stewards of our own lives and our own country. As a country, we have been derelict and we are paying for it.

As an aside, I am in law school and my school's newspaper had an article in it discussing the killing of Al Awlaki. It poses some interesting questions regarding the issue.:
http://www.motionsonline.org/2011/10/23/killing-al-awlaki-was-it-legal-was-it-right/
_________________
"I do not want people to be very agreeable, as it saves me the trouble of liking them a great deal." - Jane Austen
"The person, be it gentleman or lady, who has not pleasure in a good novel, must be intolerably stupid." - Jane Austen
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LizE



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 253

PostPosted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The thing about the Supreme Court is that they only hear cases that get to them, while our government has a way of shutting down litigation by invoking the state secrets privilege. Obama used it to block a lawsuit brought by the ACLU and Anwar al-Awlaki's father, and it has also been used to block cases brought by victims of rendition and torture. Warantless wiretapping was clearly illegal, but that case never made it to court because Congress stepped in and granted retroactive immunity to the telecoms, effectively blocking legal recourse for the victims of the crime.

As for the media being all over anything, I don't agree. The media has been reduced to the position of government stenographer, unquestioningly repeating the "facts" fed to them by anonymous sources.

I don't see these trends as bettering our country--quite the opposite, in fact--but as long as the changes generally affect only minority populations, there won't be much outcry. Trouble is, once those rights are gone, they're gone for all of us.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
erhea13



Joined: 01 Nov 2008
Posts: 117
Location: So Cal

PostPosted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 11:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't disagree with your assessment of SCOTUS's ability to hear cases, but in some special cases SCOTUS can certify cases for review and dare congress to challenge jurisdiction . . . again, this only happens when SCOTUS is alligned with public opinion and congress is in the positon of not wanting to piss the public off (a seriously rare occasion).

LizE wrote:
As for the media being all over anything, I don't agree. The media has been reduced to the position of government stenographer, unquestioningly repeating the "facts" fed to them by anonymous sources.


There is where I must disagree with you. The media . . . every outlet of it . . . has an agenda and pushes that agenda hard. They shape the narratives and embroider the "facts". There is an interesting book that discusses how our modern media has affected the current political landscape. - The Press Effect: Politicians, Journalists, and the Stories that Shape the Political World

Quote:
I don't see these trends as bettering our country--quite the opposite, in fact--but as long as the changes generally affect only minority populations, there won't be much outcry. Trouble is, once those rights are gone, they're gone for all of us.


I am not really a fan of these trends, but in an era where national security is a primary concern I see the necessity for some of it. The biggest problem we have is in achieving the appropriate balance between our security and the rights we hold dear, and identifying and protecting the rights we view as sacrosanct (good luck finding any broad agreement there). Until we make the choice to leave behind our ambitions as the world's governess and nanny, we will always face a heightened concern for national security that leads to the restriction of our rights.

Such is our current condition and I see very little potential for that to change in the near future. Hell, the closest any politician comes to that position is Ron Paul, and he is kind of nutty. Crying or Very sad
_________________
"I do not want people to be very agreeable, as it saves me the trouble of liking them a great deal." - Jane Austen
"The person, be it gentleman or lady, who has not pleasure in a good novel, must be intolerably stupid." - Jane Austen
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
faulgoony



Joined: 19 Apr 2012
Posts: 1

PostPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 4:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

How would you assess Barack Obama's first year in office? How far has he gone in meeting your expectations? US President Barack Obama was elected by a landslide and brought hope to millions not only in America but around the world with his promise of genuine change. How would you assess his first year in office? Has he met your expectations?
_____________________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Teri P



Joined: 27 Apr 2007
Posts: 3
Location: Minnesota

PostPosted: Sat May 05, 2012 11:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="faulgoony"]How would you assess Barack Obama's first year in office? How far has he gone in meeting your expectations? US President Barack Obama was elected by a landslide and brought hope to millions not only in America but around the world with his promise of genuine change. How would you assess his first year in office? Has he met your expectations?
_____________________________


You posted this on Friday April 20, 2012, regarding POTUS's first year in office. Is this a joke? Where have you been? 2012 is election year, so who really cares about Obama's first year in office at this time???
_________________
Teri P
http://www.ladiesofleisurelovebooks.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    AAR Forum Index -> The Wild Wild West Forum All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 5 of 6

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group