Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community (https://thetfp.com/tfp/)
-   Tilted Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/)
-   -   Corporate personhood has been challenged in supreme court (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/150494-corporate-personhood-has-been-challenged-supreme-court.html)

Willravel 08-23-2009 10:36 PM
Corporate personhood has been challenged in supreme court
 
Quote:
On August 1st Democracy Unlimited filed a brief in the U.S. Supreme Court challenging “corporate personhood,” the illegitimate and undemocratic legal doctrine which allows courts to overturn democratically elected laws that attempt to control corporate harm and abuse.

Democracy Unlimited joined the Program on Corporations Law & Democracy, the Women’s International League for Peace & Freedom, Shays2: The Western Massachusetts Committee on Corporations & Democracy, and the Clements Foundation in making the legal argument. The brief was drafted and filed by attorney Jeff Clements, who represented all five organizations in the matter.

The groups filed the brief in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, urging the Supreme Court not to overturn laws preventing corporations from making political contributions in federal elections. The amicus curiae, or “friend of the court,” brief argues that corporations do not have the same Constitutional rights as people. As such, democratically enacted regulations of corporations do not violate the Constitution’s guarantee of free speech.

“The notion that corporations have the same speech rights as people under our Bill of Rights is contrary to the words, history, spirit and intent of our Constitution,” said Clements. “The organizations that joined to bring these arguments to the Court have worked with others for many years to empower democratic self-government. They remind us that corporations do not vote, speak, or act as people do, but are products of government policy to achieve economic and charitable ends. As such, corporations need not be allowed to influence our elections if Congress and State governments judge that such influence is detrimental to democracy.”

The Supreme Court is considering overturning federal campaign regulations for corporations, originally enacted in 1907, and may soon overrule previous Supreme Court decisions that have upheld the Constitutionality of legislative restrictions on corporate money in politics.

The case now before the Court began when a tax-exempt non-profit corporation calling itself Citizens United challenged the Constitutionality of a federal ban on expenditures for “electioneering communications” by corporations and labor unions within sixty days of an election. The ban is part of the federal Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. Under the Act, corporations and labor unions may still contribute to Political Action Committees.

Citizens United argued that the restrictions under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act violated the Constitution as applied to the corporation that sought to distribute an anti-Hillary Clinton movie during the 2008 presidential primaries. A panel of three federal district court judges upheld the regulation of corporate expenditures, and agreed that the Federal Election Commission could enforce the law. The District Court relied on a 2003 Supreme Court case, McConnell v. Federal Election Comm’n, 540 U.S. 93 (2003), that had ruled that the corporate expenditure regulation did not violate the free speech guarantees of the First Amendment. Citizens United appealed to the Supreme Court.

If the Supreme Court overrules Austin and McConnell, First Amendment rights claimed by corporations will be significantly expanded, and local, state, and federal governments will be further restricted in the ability to regulate corporations and corporate influence on our democratic processes.

The brief filed by Democracy Unlimited argues that corporations are legal entities created by state or federal law for economic, charitable or other purposes, and were never intended to be included within the Constitution’s Bill of Rights.

The brief also highlights the fact that the doctrine that corporations are “persons” under the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment is doubtful, and an activist federal judiciary should not intervene to prevent elected officials from protecting the integrity of the electoral process.

The Supreme Court will hear further argument in the case in September.

A copy of the amicus brief can be read here: www.clementsllc.com.
Corporate personhood has been challenged in supreme court : politics

FUCKING FINALLY!!!!!

For those that don't know, in the late 1800s, corporate lawyers perverted the Bill of Rights by pushing through the idea that corporations should be allowed the legal status of "person", thus allowing corporations constitutional rights. They gave a thing constitutional rights. Let me put it this way, compared to corporate personhood, George W. Bush was one of the most brilliant and capable defenders of the constitution in history.

Finally, finally, this absurd idea is being challenged in from of the Supreme Court. This is one of those pivotal moments when we find out if the US government is ultimately good or bad. If the SCOTUS upholds coprorate personhood, now would be a great time to check out the Canadian classifieds. If they realize the insanity of the concept and choose to overturn the idea, there may be hope yet.

This is a huge deal, so don't expect to see it on the news.

Charlatan 08-23-2009 10:53 PM
You may not realize this but Corporations have similar rights in Canada as well.

And I agree, it is a strange thing that an entity can have these sorts of rights.

Xerxys 08-23-2009 10:58 PM
It makes sense that a corporation can not be a "person" seeing as you can't make a corporation face trial and put it in prison. You can, however, put a person in trial and make him/her face jail time so I really don't see what the difference will be.

With or without these rights corporations are not separate entities to people financially speaking hence the govt. will continue to run and function to the best of the corporations interests.

I call a waste of time.

Willravel 08-23-2009 11:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlatan (Post 2692902)
You may not realize this but Corporations have similar rights in Canada as well.

And I agree, it is a strange thing that an entity can have these sorts of rights.
I honestly didn't know that. I think we Americans might be at least partially responsible for that, so my bad.

Charlatan 08-23-2009 11:28 PM
Those who are interested in this topic should watch the film, The Corporation. It cover this quite well.

You can also view the film (in 23 chapters) on You Tube -
It's interesting to watch given that it was produced a few years ago during the time of Enron's collapse and given today's economic woes.

SecretMethod70 08-24-2009 02:49 AM
I'm against corporate personhood, but I'm not really sure how this case can be seen as a good thing right now. With the current supreme court, the outcome is practically predetermined, and their eventual ruling in support of corporate personhood will mean it will be decades before the possibility for change comes again. I'd much rather see this happen 10 years from now with (hopefully) a more receptive supreme court.

mixedmedia 08-24-2009 03:02 AM
I can predict how this will turn out...

Tully Mars 08-24-2009 03:29 AM
Reallllly, do tell.

Cimarron29414 08-24-2009 06:31 AM
Let me start by saying, a corporation should not be allowed to give one penny to any political campaign.

Having said that, I do find it amusing that this "... is contrary to the words, history, spirit and intent of our Constitution,” HOWEVER, whenever libertarians use that argument against federally sponsored healthcare, car bailouts, takeover of banks, etc. - somehow the Constitution covers all of that.

roachboy 08-24-2009 09:58 AM
Corporate personhood debate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

this is a good summary of the history and nature of the broader debates over this question.
it's pretty interesting.

Xerxys 08-24-2009 10:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cimarron29414 (Post 2693016)
Let me start by saying, a corporation should not be allowed to give one penny to any political campaign. ...
Just how will this work though? Aren't corporations the backbone of what runs a country? This isn't the 17th century where military might defined a country's development. ECONOMY runs this shit!! If it's not cost effective it won't be done.

Who makes the pennies if not the corporations? Who runs the corporations if not the same people that are in office?

FuglyStick 08-24-2009 10:27 AM
Corporate personhood, more than any other issue, is why I consider myself a liberal rather than a conservative. It is a perversion of the intentions of the founding fathers, and a fucking disgrace.

dksuddeth 08-24-2009 10:45 AM
corporate personhood is all due to the living constitution though, right? it evolves to suit the times? government can alter things in order to govern as societies grow?

roachboy 08-24-2009 10:52 AM
i was rather hoping that the illusion did not take shape in the thread that all arguments concerning what is or is not "in the spirit of the constitution" entail some bizarre-o strict construction/original intent kinda posture.

the language is itself pretty standard ways of arguing.
the strict construction position is only one of a wide range of options that such language can be inserted into.

context. it kinda matters.
sheesh.

Cimarron29414 08-24-2009 11:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy (Post 2693129)
i was rather hoping that the illusion did not take shape in the thread that all arguments concerning what is or is not "in the spirit of the constitution" entail some bizarre-o strict construction/original intent kinda posture.

the language is itself pretty standard ways of arguing.
the strict construction position is only one of a wide range of options that such language can be inserted into.

context. it kinda matters.
sheesh.

Right. The context matters as soon as it suits your views. The article referenced in the OP is the one that brings up the spirit of the Constitution, not us.

---------- Post added at 03:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:55 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xerxys (Post 2693112)
Just how will this work though? Aren't corporations the backbone of what runs a country? This isn't the 17th century where military might defined a country's development. ECONOMY runs this shit!! If it's not cost effective it won't be done.

Who makes the pennies if not the corporations? Who runs the corporations if not the same people that are in office?
A corporation is always a composite of multiple people with differing views. The likelihood that all people in a corporation support this or that is unlikely, so it is unfair that employees must unwillingly support a candidate they would not support personally.

Furthermore: Rather than corporate money going to improve wage, safety or efficiency: it is used to further the corporation politically. This circumvents the free market where the company must survive on its own merits.

That's why I don't believe corporations should be allowed to engage politically as an entity.

roachboy 08-24-2009 11:06 AM
there are the contexts that empirically obtain, like those in this actual case, and those which you mistakenly impute to it.
they're different.
and it's easy to check.
you might, for example, read the wiki page on the debate about corporate personhood i linked above and tell me where the strict construction line enters into it.
or you might look at the press blurb of the amicus brief:

http://www.clementsllc.com/home/What...rporations.pdf

all you have to do is look at the actual context and not rely on your ability to rip a few sentences out of context and impose whatever you like on them.

Cimarron29414 08-24-2009 11:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy (Post 2693140)
all you have to do is look at the actual context and not rely on your ability to rip a few sentences out of context and impose whatever you like on them.
...which is entirely different than when you and other liberals rip "...provide for the general welfare..." out of the constitution and impose whatever you like on it, right?

Xerxys 08-24-2009 11:27 AM
A corporation is not a person, per se, so it can't vote or require healthcare. BUT, following the same bane, won't the "corporations" demand they not be taxed if they are not going to be treated like people?

Derwood 08-24-2009 12:02 PM
They aren't being charged with the same taxes that individuals are (and vice versa)

Cimarron29414 08-24-2009 12:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derwood (Post 2693164)
They aren't being charged with the same taxes that individuals are (and vice versa)
Corporations don't pay taxes - that expense is passed on to the consumer. If you raise taxes on corps, you merely raise taxes on consumers. All taxes land with the individual, ultimately. Not that that makes any difference to the matter at hand.

biznatch 08-24-2009 12:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xerxys (Post 2693112)
Just how will this work though? Aren't corporations the backbone of what runs a country? This isn't the 17th century where military might defined a country's development. ECONOMY runs this shit!! If it's not cost effective it won't be done.

Who makes the pennies if not the corporations? Who runs the corporations if not the same people that are in office?
I don't mean to take France as an example for too many things (I have in Healthcare threads, and other things), but my knowledge of other countries is quite limited, TBH.
In France you don't have lobbies, corporations can't fund campaigns or special interests, and every politician in a political race gets equal airtime/billboard space/exposure in general. That's the law, and in general I think it's applied pretty well.

So it can work, and corporate competition isn't thrown out the window. I'm not saying it's a better system, but I think it's wrong that you can have a louder voice when you have a bigger wallet.
Sorry if this was slightly off topic.

On the issue of corporate personhood, I don't think it should be that way.

Cimarron29414 08-24-2009 12:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by biznatch (Post 2693173)
I don't mean to take France as an example for too many things (I have in Healthcare threads, and other things), but my knowledge of other countries is quite limited, TBH.
In France you don't have lobbies, corporations can't fund campaigns or special interests, and every politician in a political race gets equal airtime/billboard space/exposure in general. That's the law, and in general I think it's applied pretty well.

So it can work, and corporate competition isn't thrown out the window. I'm not saying it's a better system, but I think it's wrong that you can have a louder voice when you have a bigger wallet.
Sorry if this was slightly off topic.

On the issue of corporate personhood, I don't think it should be that way.
Members of congress should have to wear patches on their suits for all their "sponsors", like those nascar jumpsuits. Imagine how much would change if everyone could look on CSPAN and see who they really work for.

roachboy 08-24-2009 12:48 PM
now that. cimmaron, i agree with. a fine idea. i wonder how big the jackets would have to be though. most i expect would be dwarfed by them.

Cimarron29414 08-24-2009 01:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy (Post 2693194)
now that. cimmaron, i agree with. a fine idea. i wonder how big the jackets would have to be though. most i expect would be dwarfed by them.
It has always amused my how corporations want to keep the government out of their business, but do everything they can to inject themselves into government.

dksuddeth 08-24-2009 01:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy (Post 2693140)
there are the contexts that empirically obtain, like those in this actual case, and those which you mistakenly impute to it.
they're different.
and it's easy to check.
any time you attempt to add a vagueness or expressive expansion to an otherwise 'strictly constructed' legal document, things like this will invariably happen. You want people to be able to decipher a difference in empirically obtained contexts vs. mistakenly imputed contexts and it's never going to happen, Especially when giving 550+ government officials an opportunity to stretch an interpretation to a document you claim needs the ability to 'grow with the times'. By doing so, you're indirectly responsible for the results.

Xerxys 08-24-2009 02:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cimarron29414 (Post 2693167)
Corporations don't pay taxes - that expense is passed on to the consumer. If you raise taxes on corps, you merely raise taxes on consumers. All taxes land with the individual, ultimately. Not that that makes any difference to the matter at hand.
I was being a bit direct. The tobacco companies would have a much easier time if their product didn't have the shit kicked out of it in taxes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Derwood (Post 2693164)
They aren't being charged with the same taxes that individuals are (and vice versa)
Learn something new everyday. Don't corporations pay taxes even after profits are tallied? Don't they have to factor everything in including production costs then subtract profit taxes?

I was under the impression squeezing corporations ultimately hurts consumers.

Willravel 08-24-2009 02:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth (Post 2693124)
corporate personhood is all due to the living constitution though, right? it evolves to suit the times? government can alter things in order to govern as societies grow?
"Due to" is tricky. The amendment process and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court allow the Constitution to evolve with the world around it so that it never becomes out of date. The difficulty is that the intent is that we're supposed to maintain most of the original principles while changing it to fit with the modern world. Corporate personhood, however, is more about using the living document as a loophole.

Look at it this way: if the Constitution never changed, black people wouldn't have a full vote. If the Constitution does change (and it does), there's the possibility that the corrupt can change it. That's where the "eternal vigilance" comes into the equation.

dksuddeth 08-24-2009 02:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel (Post 2693236)
"Due to" is tricky. The amendment process and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court allow the Constitution to evolve with the world around it so that it never becomes out of date.
no, it doesn't. the government did not write the constitution, therefore they have zero authority to alter or change it. WE THE PEOPLE wrote the constitution with a very specific set of steps to amend it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel (Post 2693236)
The difficulty is that the intent is that we're supposed to maintain most of the original principles while changing it to fit with the modern world. Corporate personhood, however, is more about using the living document as a loophole.

Look at it this way: if the Constitution never changed, black people wouldn't have a full vote. If the Constitution does change (and it does), there's the possibility that the corrupt can change it. That's where the "eternal vigilance" comes into the equation.
the 'change' you're referring to did not come about on a whim. It came about because the process to amend it was followed. we the people were stymied on it for a time due to that very same government you're talking about having the ability to 'evolve' the constitution.

Derwood 08-24-2009 02:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth (Post 2693240)
no, it doesn't. the government did not write the constitution, therefore they have zero authority to alter or change it. WE THE PEOPLE wrote the constitution with a very specific set of steps to amend it.
O RLY? Thomas Jefferson et. al. weren't the government? Maybe not as they wrote "We the People", but they were the moment it was ratified (or soon thereafter)

Willravel 08-24-2009 02:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth (Post 2693240)
no, it doesn't. the government did not write the constitution, therefore they have zero authority to alter or change it. WE THE PEOPLE wrote the constitution with a very specific set of steps to amend it.
The first thing I mentioned was the amendment process. So "yes it does". The second thing, the jurisdiction of the courts, is a gray area at best. Read Jefferson on the SCOTUS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth (Post 2693240)
the 'change' you're referring to did not come about on a whim. It came about because the process to amend it was followed. we the people were stymied on it for a time due to that very same government you're talking about having the ability to 'evolve' the constitution.
It's not evolution if the SCOTUS does it. The responsibility of the SCOTUS is to interpret the law, and if they interpret it a given way, that's the way we interpret it until the next time it's decided on. What I'm talking about in the OP, and what you often talk about, is that we have opinions that strongly differ from the SCOTUS. You and I both are welcome to our opinion, but they're not more than opinions.

dksuddeth 08-24-2009 02:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derwood (Post 2693245)
O RLY? Thomas Jefferson et. al. weren't the government? Maybe not as they wrote "We the People", but they were the moment it was ratified (or soon thereafter)
the citizens of every state had to vote in order for the state reps to ratify the constitution. I'm fairly certain that you know the history of the constitution and the numerous debates that happened in order to ratify it, yes?

if you know this history, then you know it is a document of, for, and by the people.

---------- Post added at 05:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:52 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel (Post 2693247)
The first thing I mentioned was the amendment process. So "yes it does". The second thing, the jurisdiction of the courts, is a gray area at best. Read Jefferson on the SCOTUS.
I've read Jefferson on SCOTUS and it HAS become the behemoth he predicted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel (Post 2693247)
It's not evolution if the SCOTUS does it. The responsibility of the SCOTUS is to interpret the law, and if they interpret it a given way, that's the way we interpret it until the next time it's decided on. What I'm talking about in the OP, and what you often talk about, is that we have opinions that strongly differ from the SCOTUS. You and I both are welcome to our opinion, but they're not more than opinions.
You say that SCOTUS is the end all be all of law interpretation, but you are wrong. 'we the people' are always the final say in the laws and how they work within the constitution and towards the government.

Willravel 08-24-2009 02:59 PM
No, seriously, that's what they do. The judicial branch is responsible for interpreting the law. The executive enforces, the legislative creates, and we the people vote.

samcol 08-24-2009 04:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth (Post 2693250)
You say that SCOTUS is the end all be all of law interpretation, but you are wrong. 'we the people' are always the final say in the laws and how they work within the constitution and towards the government.
This is the correct answer. The common person has two critical official votes. One to elect reps, senators, and the president, and the 2nd is their vote on the jury. The vote of 'not guilty' on the jury is one of the strongest votes in the country and has the ability to throw out everything the legistlative, executive, and judical department has decided and let a person walk free.

The buck stops at 'the people' and always will. If it doesn't we have the document called the declaration of independence to fall back on and have the obligation to alter or abolish the current system of government.

With that being said I've never been fond of the 'corporate veil'. This system is enabled too easily by the lobbyists and government cooperation. This system goes against the idea of 'free market' in my opinion contrary to most conservatives.

dksuddeth 08-24-2009 04:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by samcol (Post 2693314)
This is the correct answer. The common person has two critical official votes. One to elect reps, senators, and the president, and the 2nd is their vote on the jury. The vote of 'not guilty' on the jury is one of the strongest votes in the country and has the ability to throw out everything the legistlative, executive, and judical department has decided and let a person walk free.
Quoted for Truth. This is what I'm talking about Will. people think that the USSC tells us what the constitution means, but they do not. They tell the government what the constitution means and when they've swayed from that in order to constrain our freedom, we have the ability to override that in the jury box.

Willravel 08-24-2009 05:00 PM
Section 2, Article 3.

dksuddeth 08-24-2009 05:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel (Post 2693333)
Section 2, Article 3.
nm. read wrong.

i'm with samcol on this still. it doesn't change what I said.

samcol 08-24-2009 05:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel (Post 2693333)
Section 2, Article 3.
Can you elaborate? This section still seems to say the jury or 'the people' are supreme in every instance except the case of impeachment.

Willravel 08-24-2009 05:31 PM
Section 2, Article 3 describes the roll of the Supreme Court, and it doesn't seem to fit the description listed here.

dksuddeth 08-24-2009 05:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel (Post 2693347)
Section 2, Article 3 describes the roll of the Supreme Court, and it doesn't seem to fit the description listed here.
and I thought you were a big proponent of jury nullification.

Willravel 08-24-2009 05:54 PM
I'm for both the ability for the Supreme Court to make prudent and up-to-date decisions so long as they fall within an honest interpretation of the law AND the ability of we the people to override laws in the interest of justice as jurors. I don't lose any sleep over it because I don't see the positions as contradictory.

Here's the thing: Roe v. Wade is basically the most known court case in the history of the Supreme Court, right? According to your understanding of the role of the Supreme Court, Roe v. Wade couldn't really happen. We'd need an amendment, but we don't have the votes, which in that case would be tyranny of the majority.

The_Dunedan 08-25-2009 07:46 AM
Quote:
For those that don't know, in the late 1800s, corporate lawyers perverted the Bill of Rights by pushing through the idea that corporations should be allowed the legal status of "person", thus allowing corporations constitutional rights. They gave a thing constitutional rights. Let me put it this way, compared to corporate personhood, George W. Bush was one of the most brilliant and capable defenders of the constitution in history.

Finally, finally, this absurd idea is being challenged in from of the Supreme Court. This is one of those pivotal moments when we find out if the US government is ultimately good or bad. If the SCOTUS upholds coprorate personhood, now would be a great time to check out the Canadian classifieds. If they realize the insanity of the concept and choose to overturn the idea, there may be hope yet.

This is a huge deal, so don't expect to see it on the news.
QFMFT.

Quote:
Members of congress should have to wear patches on their suits for all their "sponsors", like those nascar jumpsuits. Imagine how much would change if everyone could look on CSPAN and see who they really work for.
Likewise.

Glad to see this is finally being challenged. Corprate Personhood is a market distortion of unbelievable scope, and primarily responsible for much, if not most, of the difficulties in which we find ourselves today. Eliminate that, and you eliminate all possibility of these hyper-expensive bailouts, not to mention atrocities such as denounced by Maj. Smedley Butler which have continued from his day to ours, simply by removing the Corporation's ability to interact with the Gov't. and making individual stockholders and company officials personally liable for their malfeasances and malpractices. Can you imagine someone actually being able to sue Halliburton or Blackwater Directors personally, without the shield of Corporate Personhood and the Corporation's deep pockets and Gov't connections to hide behind? No more plausible deniability, Mr. Prince, you murdering mercenary bastard!

Finally.

Cimarron29414 08-25-2009 09:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Dunedan (Post 2693592)
QFMFT.



Likewise.

Glad to see this is finally being challenged. Corprate Personhood is a market distortion of unbelievable scope, and primarily responsible for much, if not most, of the difficulties in which we find ourselves today. Eliminate that, and you eliminate all possibility of these hyper-expensive bailouts, not to mention atrocities such as denounced by Maj. Smedley Butler which have continued from his day to ours, simply by removing the Corporation's ability to interact with the Gov't. and making individual stockholders and company officials personally liable for their malfeasances and malpractices. Can you imagine someone actually being able to sue Halliburton or Blackwater Directors personally, without the shield of Corporate Personhood and the Corporation's deep pockets and Gov't connections to hide behind? No more plausible deniability, Mr. Prince, you murdering mercenary bastard!

Finally.

It is interesting how you follow one side of the symbiotic relationship, but not the other. The existence of the Fed and the FDIC is an even larger distortion of the market. When these companies know that every risky transaction they engage in are insured by the feds, they have no problem giving homes to the unemployed. Hence, the Fed can push a political policy into reality through insuring what stockholders would never insure (through their investments). The normal free market would never take the risk that the Fed affords them. Simply put, it works both way - keep the free market (corps) out of the government and the government out of the free market.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:56 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project


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 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360