Bitcoin Forum
May 26, 2024, 09:20:07 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 »
201  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: i0coin UPDATES on: June 06, 2013, 03:00:37 AM
I have an old blk0001.dat from 10-3-2012. doublec might have later blk and latest client.

http://i0coin.bitparking.com/



202  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bit Notes...... Any demand for them? on: May 31, 2013, 06:47:00 AM
People want a note or coin to be used with bitcoin.  The reality is why do you need it?  You can beam back and forth on portable devices, I guess if you have internet access. But, you go back to a note is only asking for counterfeit notes.   The history of paper notes is not pretty. If you want to trade person to person use silver.
203  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / future concept: simple way to update blockchain on: May 17, 2013, 03:32:17 PM
Suppose in the future there is 19 million coins out and someone comes up with an improvement for a blockchain format or security fixes.  A simple way to fix it is start a new bitcoin with 19 million coins pre-mined and allow anyone to sell their bitcoin for the new coins over a period of a couple years.  This would be done in the official client, basically automatically with a password.  Suppose 18.5 million are exchanged.  The bitcoin team could destroy the .5 million or use a small portion to help run the project.  The address would be observable to everyone.  Thus, the committee could be funded with possibly 10% of lost coins.  Maybe every 10 years you could update the chain.

  
204  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Average Land Rent - Free Land for the average person. on: May 12, 2013, 08:36:45 PM
As I said, your plan is marginally better. But it has the same flaw of all redistributive systems:

It punishes efficiency, and rewards waste.

I think you are mistaken.  Today to rent farmland costs over $250 an acre.  Under this system the farmer that actually does all the farming would see their rents go down.  Maybe $100 per acre.  Thus, the farmer will receive more profit from farming the land and overall the productivity of the United States farmland rises.  It rewards efficiency since land rents don't go to the landowners.  The most efficient farmers will win bids.

There is no redistribution, it says land is free like air and owned by the people of the USA.  If you use more, you pay more.  The current land laws of the United States offers dual ownership, the land is owned by the States and private property.  The States get their share in property tax.  The reason why States want you to build big houses as they cost more and they can charge higher property tax. 
205  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Average Land Rent - Free Land for the average person. on: May 12, 2013, 02:02:37 PM
Read all of the responses, amazing how threads warp.  George wanted a large property tax going to the city.  I think he made a major mistake, he assumed money going to the city was like money going to people it is not.  He does not realize the city unions retire at 40 and collect $100K pensions with Cadillac insurance.  His system you still are paying $5000-410,000 to the city every year.

My tweak, average land rent, in the average city and average lot $0 is going to the city.  You only pay the city for the sewer water parks libraries that you want to use.  They can't force you to pay for them.  They can't tell you what color to paint your house, what size to make your house.   You don't even need a house.  You don't need a permit to build a house.

If you decide to give the beach or farm up for the desert, you can actually collect a check to use substandard land.  So you work in Silicon Valley.  You won't have the rent seekers trying to tap into your wages.  You pay $0 rent there.  You pay for house not rent.

Imagine if you make $50,000 a year and you don't pay $2,000 monthly rent.
206  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Average Land Rent - Free Land for the average person. on: May 10, 2013, 05:40:10 AM
Land is no more free than bitcoins are. You have two means of acquiring bitcoins: mining, or buying. You have two means of acquiring land: first appropriation, or buying. The means of first appropriation are analogous to mining bitcoins: You use your property (your body, tools, etc) to mark out the land as yours. This proves that you are the first appropriator, much like using your hashpower to form a block before the other miners do proves that you mined those coins first.

But with Bitcoin they are just imaginary tokens like pokemon cards.  Land is what is required for life, food, and shelter.  Those that control the land can control ones life.  If you owned 1000 acres of Iowan farmland, you could lease the land for about $250 per acre.  Thus, you could be on the beach in California with $250,000 a year stipend.  Since land is scarce, you can survive by solely owning land.
207  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Average Land Rent - Free Land for the average person. on: May 09, 2013, 06:48:27 PM
Air is not a "good", because it is not scarce. Land is.

You get ownership of land in the same way you get ownership of any other scarce good:
By original appropriation - being the first one to recognize it as a scarce good and mixing it with your hands`labor, i.e. going to antarctica and building fields or dwellings there.
By your own hands` labor (works rarely with land, except for maybe building an artificial island or so).
Or, the most common way, by voluntary transactions with other people.

How do you justify treating land any different than other property? It is not, it has a stock, a demand, and a price like any other.
Property is not distributed equally because people are different, some have high skills, work hard etc.. and some don`t.
If you would redistribute goods absolutely equal among all humans now (which you`d have to do with force, which makes it unethical from the beginning), the next second the distribution would not be equal anymore - because people are not equal.

Trying to treat them otherwise leads to the kind of violence we see all around us today.
Land taxes of any kind would be a violent crime, as are any other taxes or forceful redistribution of goods.

Air is scarce too.  There is more water (maybe even freshwater) on earth than air.  The mexican war stole most land in California from Mexico.  Most land was originally stolen from the Indians.

"Property is not distributed equally because people are different, some have high skills, work hard etc.. and some don`t."  Much of the farmland in the United States is leased to farmers.  The farmers that lease land are the most productive in the country, they are doing the hard work on land they don't even own.  Every plot of land could be leased.  The cities understand this that is why in some areas the property tax is so high.

"If you would redistribute goods absolutely equal among all humans now (which you`d have to do with force, which makes it unethical from the beginning), the next second the distribution would not be equal anymore - because people are not equal"  No goods would be redistributed, you have the right to your labor on the land you rent.  You are allowed to keep every kernel of corn you grow.

The average acre of land in Iowa is leased land were $252 in 2012. If all land was owned by the people the hard working farmer could lease the same land for far less than $252 an acre.  There would be more supply.  the worker gets more benefits.

Using the average land rent system, imho would not be a violent crime.  In fact the opposite, it is the only system that is fair to the workers and labor.  It does not redistribute goods.  There are 300,000,000 million citizens in the country, you are allowed to use your fair share of land, if you use more you can expect to pay a fee to compensate the other people that a force by violence to use less.
208  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Average Land Rent - Free Land for the average person. on: May 09, 2013, 06:44:55 PM
We are not redistributing land, we are saying you can only use your fair share.  If you use more, you pay a fee.

That's exactly what has happened.  Unowned land can be claimed by homesteading (your fair share).  Owned land can be claimed by voluntarily trading for it (pay a fee).

The differences you are advocating are the differences between capitalism and communism.

There have been complaints this is communism, This system does not confiscate people lands by death, it does not organize communes, it does not tell what to plant or how to plant. The rent rather than going to the land owner or government, would go to the median rent pool to be divided equally among all citizens. This would assure the people the land an the land under their feet is free unless you use too much or take the best land.

Russia and China had an extremely bad experience with trying to run farms top down.  Over 100 million people starved to death.  The system proposed is pure capitalism.   There will be more corn produced in Iowa, there will be more more wheat produced in North Dakota.  We probably could eliminate Section 8 housing and food stamps.
209  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Average Land Rent - Free Land for the average person. on: May 09, 2013, 06:22:31 PM
Some people have more Bitcoins than others. Should we redistribute those, to be more "fair"?

No.  bitcoins represent your labor and wealth.  Land is free.  Ever see a picture of teepees on the plains, did the indians pay rent to anyone.  What if some indian decided to claim all the best hunting grounds as his?  The tribe would not believe it.  We are not redistributing land, we are saying you can only use your fair share.  If you use more, you pay a fee.
210  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Average Land Rent - Free Land for the average person. on: May 09, 2013, 06:49:38 AM
George was a tool.

Your system is marginally better, but still fatally flawed, like all redistributive models.

George was a hypercapitalist - he did not believe in income taxes or giving your money to schools.  He thought unions make people less wealthy and less free.  This is not redistributive, it say the owners of land are the members of society.

 http://www.henrygeorge.org/pchp24.htm

You can listen to his book or read it from above. 

Your plan is redistributive:
Quote
The rent rather than going to the land owner or government, would go to the median rent pool to be divided equally among all citizens.

The land rents are distributive.  If an Iowa farmer rents farmland about $250 a acre on average.  Why should he get the $250?

Air is distributive too.  If I owned all the air, would in not seem silly for you to pay me $250 a year to breathe?

I am not distributing income which comes from labor or capital, i am distributing air and land.  In the case of air everyone uses about the same.  However, some people use more land than other people.
211  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Average Land Rent - Free Land for the average person. on: May 09, 2013, 04:37:27 AM
George was a tool.

Your system is marginally better, but still fatally flawed, like all redistributive models.

George was a hypercapitalist - he did not believe in income taxes or giving your money to schools.  He thought unions make people less wealthy and less free.  This is not redistributive, it say the owners of land are the members of society.

 http://www.henrygeorge.org/pchp24.htm

You can listen to his book or read it from above. 
212  Other / Politics & Society / Average Land Rent - Free Land for the average person. on: May 09, 2013, 03:46:25 AM
Here is an idea I have come up to fix Henry Georges book Progress and Poverty.  any comments welcome.

Chapter X - Land Value Tax is a Wrong too - The Problem.

The Land Value Tax (LVT) as proposed by Henry George is a single tax on land, high enough that the value of land would go to zero. If an apartment, a house, a business, and a vacant lot occupy the same amount of land in the same area, they all would pay the same property tax.  The money would go to the city government as the only tax they collect.  The LVT is a major blunder by Mr. George despite a great book overall.  George was from an era when there were no income taxes and small government burden. "We must make land common property." writes George.  LVT does not make land common property, it makes land owned by government.

Murray Rothbard did a review of the land value tax and came up with some good points, it would be extremely hard to find the true site value as even empty land has improvements.  He also claims society does not own the land the State would own the land. It would simply transfer this ownership from producers to bureaucrats.  "A newborn Pakistani baby would have a moral claim to ownership of a piece of Iowa land someone has just transformed into a wheat field" writes Rothbard.

"A government is an institution that holds the exclusive power to enforce certain rules of social conduct in a given geographical area." says Ayn Rand.  "The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breaches or fraud by the others, to settle disputes". In her book Atlas Shrugged, it depicted Taggert Transcontinental a railroad of massive acreage owned by one family.  This railroad denies other people to use the land for their railroad or the government a highway.

In Hong Kong or areas with a land value tax there are certain tenants that can barely afford the land tax.  They live under massive poverty while the real estate tycoons that own the apartments are the richest people in the country.  The cities with the highest property values in the United States often have the highest level of homelessness, just spend a walk in Santa Barbara or San Diego.  These people can not afford the property tax as is.

If poor had the right to live on rent-free land they would be able to use their income to improving their lives by saving and investing. Instead their money is spent support the city workers, mortgage, and real estate industries.  The city requires permits even to install a water heater and your house has to be built their way and their size to boost the property tax.  They collect tax for libraries and parks you don't even use.

Imagine a person living on 1 acre of desert land and the price per acre might be $500.  Another person lives on a lot in Malibu and the lot might cost $500,000 an acre.  How is that fair when the guy in the deserts kid ends up in Vietnam or Iraq, while the kids of the guy living in Malibu sits on the beach with cool breezes all day. Someone living in an apartment should pay the same tax to the city as a house, they use the same amount of police, fire, and water.  According to George, an apartment dweller would get a tax break. You should pay for the services you use.  The services should be independent of the land rent.

The more improvements that are done, the higher the prices are for land.  The poor are priced out of the market, from their fathers that built the trains and roads.  Their only crime, they did not make much money.  Furthermore, the poor must pay the rent, insurance, and property taxes, before they buy anything else. If not they end up on the street.  All the while the land owner is using the rents to accumulate more and more land, once they reach critical mass where their rents exceed their spending all they do is accumulate land.

George was wrong about assuming government property is common property.  Rand and Rothbard were wrong about allowing individuals to own land.  Land is limited and unlike Rembrants is necessary for life, food, energy, and shelter.  A small percentage of individuals and government are not society.  Land under your feet should be free like air.  The question is what are the logistics to make this happen.

Chapter X - Average Rent - The Solution.

If rents should not be collected for government or individuals, who should collect the rents? The land of a country should be owned as if each person was a shareholder. If you use more land than your fair share, you should pay rent to those that use less land.   All property lots are auctioned and leased to the highest bidder as 10 year and 5 year leases.  All money collected from the land lease auctions is placed in a fund called the land rent pool. The pool should be divided equally to residents as a monthly check.  Every person over 18 would receive the identical check.

People that use more than their fair share of land would be paying more in rent than their land check.  A farmer that leases 500 acres might pay $200 an acre or $100,000 a year to lease the land. A homeowner in the desert might rent 1/4 acre for $1 a year.  A 5 acre oil lease might generate millions for the land rent pool. Fishing licenses might generate more money. 50% of all land would be preserved as wilderness, forests, and to protect wildlife. There would be no land locks like the Nature Conservancy.  The Nature Conservancy might now advocate which 50% is to be preserved.  An apartment dweller might not even own land but receive a land check, as a citizen.  People that use less land than their fair share would receive a land check.  Those that use average rent would receive nothing. If the average rent check is $800 per lot per month, if you lease a lot of $1200 a month, your net fee is $400 per month.

All oil leases, timber, fish, and minerals rights meet the George definition of land.  These leases should be added to the total land rent pool, taken from the grips of government.  Today one half of all homes in Palm Springs are built on leased land, farmers rent land in every farm state and most counties, and the government collects oil royalties.  The switch to the new system will be rather painless.  Considering Iowa as a whole, the total amount of bushels per acre and total corn produced in Iowa should increase on a land lease system as the most productive farmers would win bids for farm land.

After the lease is up the property, it is again put up for lease on by auction.  After the new leaser wins the bid, the old leaser has one month to remove their property at the site. The new leaser takes control of the lot.  The cycle is repeated.  You can own as many lots as you want as long as you win the auction and pay the rent.  Movable homes will be the new industry.

Permanent improvements of the land become part of the land as the soil.  To conform to air and water quality laws you most likely would want a septic system.  You could request a grant from the land lease board to install a septic system and water well.  Thus you might get a check of $20,000 to install a well, tank, and septic system, but install it for $19,000 and keep the difference.  If the system is expected to last 100 years you might be billed $40 per month until the lease is up. The goal is the land pool should expect to reap 100% profit on all improvements. You might also request $100,000 to build a house.  If this house has a 50 year lifespan warranty, the expected rent might be $333 monthly.  There are no mortgages, you must meet and pay the rent to live there.  Total improvements are expected to generate profit in the land auctions.  You can put a removable home on the property, to lower your cost of rent. You fail to make rent, you lose your lease.  No problem you move to another area.

The city would still own the streets, the sewers, electric grid, schools, cable lines, possibly even libraries, and the fire department. However, it would be your choice to subscribe to them or not. The only mandatory fee would be for the courts, police, and defense and that would come from sin and income taxes. The streets would be owned as by the people. The roads should be built by volunteer donations. If you decided to do some work on the road it would be legal as long as it met certain standards. In order to get a permit to drive over 10 mph on roads, you might have to be responsible for 500 feet (maybe 50) of road built to ansi standards. Like adopt a road, you can build it yourself, or hire a contractor to build and maintain.  
 
If the people own the land, do the cities, counties, states, or Federal government have any right to it. The only people entitled to free rent are the police, courts, jails, and defense. These are necessary to enforce the law and protect the people. However, when you consider a school or city park it does not meet the criteria for free rent. However schools are a choice. You have the choice to select a $1000 a month school with poor ratings or also have the choice to select a home school for $100 a month. Schools act as businesses and they should collect land rent that goes into the rent pool.  City parks with grass and soccer fields should also pay rent if used for people and picnics. Libraries must pay rent.  City government must bid on parcels for parks, schools, firestations, streets, and libraries. This money goes to the rent pool to be divided among each citizen equally.  However, the government can not force you to use their junk.  They can not put firefighting or school requirements on the property. Dams and water structures must pay a rent as the States, utilities, cities own them to provide water at economy of scale to residents of the city.

Suppose the land causes you injury or the house collapses who do you sue. It would not be possible to seek $1 in damages from the land pool.  The land rent pool is sacred and no scamming or lawsuits can be taken from it.  However, you could sue the homebuilder if the house is defective and causes you damage.

Ayn Rand first jobs when she came to the United States were letter stuffing and waitress. If her books did not sell, she probably would have been doing the same work for the rest of her life. However, there is no reason to live in poverty if you are doing something productive.  You can really start to accumulate wealth not paying rent to government or landlords. Every person in the United States can be wealthy even a letter stuffer.

Apartment buildings, skyscrapers, golf courses, corporations would pay a maximum rent.  It would be high enough such that no one would question the low rent maybe $5000 per acre a year, maybe $1000 an acre a year for golf courses as they offer some wildlife value.  It is the rent where a person could lease the land permanently and the lease could be sold.

There have been complaints this system is  Maoism or communism, This system does not confiscate people lands by death, it does not organize communes, it does not tell what to plant or how to plant. The rent rather than going to the land owner or government, would go to the median rent pool to be divided equally among all citizens. This would assure the people the land an the land under their feet is free unless you use too much or take the best land.

Support the median land rent system.  Support a more productive use of land.  Support free land under your feet.
213  Economy / Economics / Re: Money As Debt - documentary on: May 08, 2013, 12:02:35 AM

Massive..... FAIL!!   That is exactly what they do they dont give you other people deposits the money never exist until you borrow it into existence. All money is created with the issuance of debt.

No the original gold money was not created with issuance of debt this money presently is in the system.  As said before whenever a bank makes a loan, the seller of the goods say a house will deposit the money in the bank.  The debt did not create the money, the money traded in debt did.

If there was a bank where say you deposit $10,000 in a bank and they loan it out say $5,000.  If the bank put $5,000 of savings, and $5,000 in loans on your bank account balance, then no money would be created.

You could say money is created anytime you deposit it in the bank.  When you look at your checking account balance, that is not money that is just numbers on a statement.  However, if you assume your checking account balance is money, then money is created by you when you deposited it at the bank.  Thus you as an individual are just as responsible as the bank in creating money by depositing it there.  Money in your wallet is actually called M0 or monetary base (base money).
214  Economy / Economics / Re: Money As Debt - documentary on: May 07, 2013, 10:55:00 PM

They do, it's called foreclosure in the case of real estate.  It's called repossesion in the case of auto-mobile's and other secured loans.  This is a triple whammy because, the bank which gave you that money mostly out of thin air, has not lost much if any money on the deal, they get to write off the "unpaid" balance as a loss on their profit/loss statement AND they have the property to auction off/rent/lease....


They did not give you that money out of thin air, it came from deposits at the bank.  There is a limit to what banks can loan, generally they have reserve requirements and they usually exceed the amount required by law.  If they fail the requirments the bank fails and is taken over by another bank.

http://www.fdic.gov/bank/individual/failed/banklist.html

If the banks print money out of thin air then why did these banks fail?  The truth is the above videos were made with lack of research.  They are so confident that banks are corrupt they fail to look at the true corruption the people who took out loans with no intent on paying them back and the government who just deficit spends and thinks there is no implications to all this debt.  Yes banks are corrupt, but they go broke.  The federal reserve member banks pay far more in taxes than they receive in dividend payments of the federal reserve system.
215  Economy / Economics / Re: Money As Debt - documentary on: May 07, 2013, 03:03:54 AM
There are fundamental flaws with these films.  First I will critique The American Dream.  People need to really start challenging some of these films put out on youtube.

1. 3:59 Banks don't attempt to loan money to bad credit risks, that is why you have a credit score, they want to be paid back.  It is not free money.  They take collateral if you don't pay it back.  Without collateral and poor credit you can pay 100% interest at some payday loan spots.

2. 4;40 The banbks don't need more, the people want more and they lie on applications to get more loans.  They can always declare bankruptcy.

3. 5:10 refinance your home to lower interest saves you money it is actually bad for the banking system.  Many homeowners pulled money out of their homes for the sole purpose of vacation and spending on toys.

4. 8:20 the fed printing does not involve the treasury, they print money by crediting their account SOMA.

5. 13:50 Every bank loan involves fractional reserve lending.  The seller receives the money from the loan.  This money is deposited at another bank.  If you loan your relative money, your money is transferred to your relative, no new money is created, It is called full reserve lending.

6. 16:15 The people as a choice put their money in the bank.  Even though they receive less than the inflation rate in interest.

7. 21:25 Congress elects the federal reserve chairman. They elected Bernanke 70-30 with Senate vote.

8. 21:35 The interest on most of the debt the government owns is below the inflation rate.  Yes, they pay interest, but the government earns money off it.

9. 23:35 they don't take your property! A 3% loan is way below inflation.  Furthermore, you can write the interest off on your taxes.  Homes are massively subsidized by renters and the poor.  Banks do not even want to hold most mortgage debt.

10. Kennedy's plan to print money is worse.  If backed by silver maybe, but they most likely would be printed out of nothing creating pure inflation.
  



 
216  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Ayn Rand on: April 25, 2013, 05:16:51 PM
Actions speak louder than words.  Ayn Rand may have put on appearances of free-thinking and libertarianism, but the "cult" she organized around her was authoritarian and relied heavily on group think (insofar as, you were OUT if you didn't tow the randian line).  For further reading I'd direct you to this short and entertaining Murry Rothbard essay:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard23.html

+1 - Rothbard doesn't buy her brand of crap. Currently reading his "For a New Liberty".

MANY Randkooks don't really know that much about her. There is also the matter of her diary entries praising a serial killer:
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/08/mark-ames-paul-ryans-guru-ayn-rand-worshipped-a-serial-killer-who-kidnapped-and-dismembered-little-girls.html
You can't make this stuff up.

I believe she said she was investigating the serial killer, she never worshiped a serial killer.  She wrote a book on a polish actress. That what these anti-rand morons always go to.  They will say she collected social security, well duh they offered it to her.  Just so stupid.  They will say Ryan and Rand were followers, they fail to mention Steve Jobs and Mark Cuban are too.
217  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Ayn Rand on: April 24, 2013, 04:28:07 AM
The question was whether there were many Ayn Rand devotees in government.  I provided one famous example.  He happened to be a board member.  I'm sure there are more; the lady has a following and of course there will be many who share her views in government.  

There are very few Rand devotees in government because if they were they would end rule by majority and end the income tax.  My favorite piece of hers is red army, white army, you can listen to it on youtube.
218  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Ron Paul on Bitcoin: "I do not think it fits the definition of money" on: April 24, 2013, 04:19:45 AM
Ron Paul is correct it is not money.  Bitcoin is no different than a pokemon card.  But unlike a pokemon card they are each identical (there is no Charizard).  The only reason bitcoin has value is people give it value.  If it drops to $1 a certain type of person will buy more.  If people use it in a transaction, many will keep a couple coins for later purchases.  These coins are collectibles, as are pokemon cards.

Bitcoin as a collectible give it value.  Once it has any value, it can be traded as a currency.  Everyday bitcoin usually strengthens as a collectible.
219  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: How do you create an altcoin? on: April 19, 2013, 02:34:14 AM
Would it be possible to prevent the block rewards from going to the one who found the block, but to 25 randomly selected IPs connected to the network.  Doing so would pervent the creation of large centralized mining pools.  Would it protect the network?
220  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: How do you create an altcoin? on: April 16, 2013, 06:55:00 AM
I figured it out tonight!!!!!

Mining away on my own alt chain... Cheesy
I'll be posting a guide soon. Now every(computer-literate)one can have their own bitcoin Smiley

Hope so.  Also wonder what is going to happen to bitcoin when people realize a 16-17 year old just figured out how to tweak the source to make a coin after only one day.  So much for bitcoin limited to 21 million (considering alt coins compete with bitcoin users and vendors).   But it was going to happen sooner or later.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!