IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> UK General Election 2010
Who do you support?
Who do you support?
Conservatives [ 6 ] ** [46.15%]
Labour [ 1 ] ** [7.69%]
Lib Dem. [ 2 ] ** [15.38%]
BNP [ 4 ] ** [30.77%]
Other (specify) [ 0 ] ** [0.00%]
Independents [ 0 ] ** [0.00%]
Total Votes: 13
Guests cannot vote 
Passionate Homo ...
post Apr 10 2010, 11:32 PM
Post #21


Scam Artist
Group Icon

Group: Gold Member
Posts: 222
Joined: 2-August 04
From: Between the Ritz and the Rubble
Member No.: 15



The system used is referred to as a "first past the post" constituency system -- the first to reach x number of votes wins the constituency. The constituency-winning representative becomes a member of parliament. There are 650 constituencies (though it varies) and so 650 seats in the House of Commons, the main legislative body in the country. I won't bore you with the composition of the less important House of Lords...

Strictly speaking though, it's not "first past the post" but "furthest past the post"; the greatest number of votes wins, not the first to get to x. For no good reason, the media don't use this terminology. The point is, the contest is winner takes all, which is a bit too much like 51% of people voting to opress the other 49% for most people.

The voting and counting is done in one round -- there is no room for transferring votes according to a preference system.

Anyway, proportional representation needn't mean the fall of civilisation and rioting in the streets (see:Wiemar). There are perfectly sensible mechanisms for proportional representation (again I won't go into them at length, Wikipedia covers them perfectly adqeuately).

Honestly though, I think there's an argument to be made for weak government...:

"Listen, a couple of years ago Belgium didn't have a government for 196 days. Life, unsurprisingly, went on. Now I'm afraid there are people who'll snort and say that Belgium isn't a proper country. But would you just take a look at us? Would you honestly look at us, probably about to elect a party in the contemptuous grip of a tax avoider, not 10 minutes after convulsing with anger about our rulers' financial abuses? There's nothing remotely proper about us. "A weak government for a weak country." Admit it, it's a helluva slogan. Join me." - Marina Hyde

This post has been edited by Passionate Homo Sapiens Ingester: Apr 10 2010, 11:35 PM


--------------------

QUOTE(LMOZ)
drive carfuly,because every secend a shrak can teleport itself to your car, and try to drive your car (if you have one) with shark in it.
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Passionate Homo ...
post Apr 13 2010, 11:41 PM
Post #22


Scam Artist
Group Icon

Group: Gold Member
Posts: 222
Joined: 2-August 04
From: Between the Ritz and the Rubble
Member No.: 15



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBlDfp85gP8

Smooth and sincere as always...


--------------------

QUOTE(LMOZ)
drive carfuly,because every secend a shrak can teleport itself to your car, and try to drive your car (if you have one) with shark in it.
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
0bs3n3
post Apr 14 2010, 09:20 AM
Post #23


Leece
**

Group: Members
Posts: 207
Joined: 26-September 05
From: Aussie Land
Member No.: 24,792



QUOTE (Passionate Homo Sapiens Ingester @ Apr 14 2010, 09:41 AM) *
Smooth and sincere as always...


Because the left totally don't have a monopoly in that department.
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Passionate Homo ...
post Apr 15 2010, 12:15 AM
Post #24


Scam Artist
Group Icon

Group: Gold Member
Posts: 222
Joined: 2-August 04
From: Between the Ritz and the Rubble
Member No.: 15



Over-arching irrelevant political point-scoring much? Unless you have a reply related to Mr Cameron I would appreciate you didn't try and fight a meta-political battle with me, in this topic at least.


--------------------

QUOTE(LMOZ)
drive carfuly,because every secend a shrak can teleport itself to your car, and try to drive your car (if you have one) with shark in it.
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
0bs3n3
post Apr 15 2010, 11:12 PM
Post #25


Leece
**

Group: Members
Posts: 207
Joined: 26-September 05
From: Aussie Land
Member No.: 24,792



I heard there is a leaders debate soon. I wonder if it will be broadcast on Sky News Australia...otherwise I'll have to YouTube it.
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Passionate Homo ...
post Apr 16 2010, 10:04 AM
Post #26


Scam Artist
Group Icon

Group: Gold Member
Posts: 222
Joined: 2-August 04
From: Between the Ritz and the Rubble
Member No.: 15



Quote of the night was "I agree with Nick".

http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&...agree+with+nick


--------------------

QUOTE(LMOZ)
drive carfuly,because every secend a shrak can teleport itself to your car, and try to drive your car (if you have one) with shark in it.
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pieface
post Apr 16 2010, 10:13 AM
Post #27


Jailbird
Group Icon

Group: Moderators
Posts: 487
Joined: 25-August 05
From: Wirral, England.
Member No.: 23,545



Brown was so bad in the debate, but then, he's always bad in Prime Ministers Questions. He kept throwing a line to Nick, that Nick didn't want, as you wouldn't really want to be associated with Labour really in this election.

The one thing that annoyed me most was how Alistair Campbell and Lord Mandelson were trying to spin that Brown was amazing, much like the Daily Mirror did (Which was just lolworthy). I don't see how we can even allow Mandelson back into working for Government at all, when he himself has been sacked for Fraud TWICE! I hate Mandelson more than I hate Brown, and boy do I hate Brown.


--------------------
YES I don't play Xbox 360 anymore.

Add me on steam BITCHES. Pieface876
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
0bs3n3
post Apr 16 2010, 11:08 AM
Post #28


Leece
**

Group: Members
Posts: 207
Joined: 26-September 05
From: Aussie Land
Member No.: 24,792



Watching it on YouTube now. I heard Brown isn't good at this sort of stuff but wow, just wow.
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Passionate Homo ...
post Apr 16 2010, 08:32 PM
Post #29


Scam Artist
Group Icon

Group: Gold Member
Posts: 222
Joined: 2-August 04
From: Between the Ritz and the Rubble
Member No.: 15



QUOTE (pieface @ Apr 16 2010, 11:13 AM) *
Brown was so bad in the debate, but then, he's always bad in Prime Ministers Questions. He kept throwing a line to Nick, that Nick didn't want, as you wouldn't really want to be associated with Labour really in this election.

The one thing that annoyed me most was how Alistair Campbell and Lord Mandelson were trying to spin that Brown was amazing, much like the Daily Mirror did (Which was just lolworthy). I don't see how we can even allow Mandelson back into working for Government at all, when he himself has been sacked for Fraud TWICE! I hate Mandelson more than I hate Brown, and boy do I hate Brown.
Is there any particular reason why you "hate" Brown, or is it just fashionable?


QUOTE (0bs3n3 @ Apr 16 2010, 12:08 PM) *
Watching it on YouTube now. I heard Brown isn't good at this sort of stuff but wow, just wow.
He's not great, no. From a tactical standpoint, it's not so bad though. It's not the people who see the debate that matter, as Malcolm Tucker once said:

"Frankly, I think you're getting the wrong advice on the debates. As you know, people who saw Nixon and Kennedy on TV thought Kennedy won, and those who heard it on the radio thought Nixon won. But, really, we don't give a flying wad of wet Daily Express about either of these groups. What we need to know is: what about the people who were sitting through JFK-Nixon on the can doodling specs on cartoon-strip pictures of Daffy Duck and making themselves laugh with the sounds of their own farts? Who did they think won? Most people are not going to see these Bestivals of bore. After all, with the 478 debate rules in place they're going to have all the drama of three middle-aged guys fencing with limp dicks. The only ones watching are going to be the pointless bastards who already know what they think." - Jesse Armstrong

For context, Malcolm Tucker is a fictional character based on Labour spin doctor Alastair Campbell, in The Thick of It. He speaks the truth, sadly.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/20...abix-dictaphone the follow-up article, should it interest you.


--------------------

QUOTE(LMOZ)
drive carfuly,because every secend a shrak can teleport itself to your car, and try to drive your car (if you have one) with shark in it.
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
0bs3n3
post Apr 16 2010, 11:25 PM
Post #30


Leece
**

Group: Members
Posts: 207
Joined: 26-September 05
From: Aussie Land
Member No.: 24,792



QUOTE (Passionate Homo Sapiens Ingester @ Apr 17 2010, 06:32 AM) *
"The only ones watching are going to be the pointless bastards who already know what they think."


Very true. But then again, voting is not compulsory in the UK, no?
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pieface
post Apr 16 2010, 11:34 PM
Post #31


Jailbird
Group Icon

Group: Moderators
Posts: 487
Joined: 25-August 05
From: Wirral, England.
Member No.: 23,545



Brown has been a constantly bad chancellor wasting billions of pounds, and lets serveral systems continue to be heavily abused (EMA and Benefits for example). He sells the gold at a record low, yet is breaking the freedom of information act himself by not revealing the figures. And then he becomes a bad PM, with bad policies, and instead of coming up with useful shit to say in his campaign it's always zomg Tories are gonna bring this in, and that in. Not we're going to bring this in, or that in. Look at the party political broadcast by Eddie Izzard which is just full of BS. I mean at least Clegg can appear in his own Broadcast (And it was well done). Brown gets a poor comedian who gains laugh by pretending to be a woman, talking about reasons to try and not vote Tory, not reasons to vote for Labour, and doesn't make an appearance at all.

Best quote of the broadcast, "Now Labour may not be doing that well, but at least they're honest". Why the Death of Sir David Kelly is mysteriously put on hold for 70 years, is being honest. Why the figures on Immigration being honest. Why the little amount of punishment in our crime system is honest I really don't know. Brown resorts to a form of economics which has been proven wrong countless times and just wastes our money in a recession, blames it on America, even though we were/are the last ones going to be out of it, out of the Worlds Major powers. Brown has been nothing but poison for this country. Heck he lied at the Iraq enquiry to the panel.


--------------------
YES I don't play Xbox 360 anymore.

Add me on steam BITCHES. Pieface876
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Passionate Homo ...
post Apr 17 2010, 07:08 PM
Post #32


Scam Artist
Group Icon

Group: Gold Member
Posts: 222
Joined: 2-August 04
From: Between the Ritz and the Rubble
Member No.: 15



QUOTE (0bs3n3 @ Apr 17 2010, 12:25 AM) *
QUOTE (Passionate Homo Sapiens Ingester @ Apr 17 2010, 06:32 AM) *
"The only ones watching are going to be the pointless bastards who already know what they think."


Very true. But then again, voting is not compulsory in the UK, no?
Well yeah, but even still, votes are always decided by largely uninformed people. Not everyone has the time or the inclination to keep up.


QUOTE (pieface @ Apr 17 2010, 12:34 AM) *
Brown has been a constantly bad chancellor wasting billions of pounds, and lets serveral systems continue to be heavily abused (EMA and Benefits for example). He sells the gold at a record low, yet is breaking the freedom of information act himself by not revealing the figures. And then he becomes a bad PM, with bad policies, and instead of coming up with useful shit to say in his campaign it's always zomg Tories are gonna bring this in, and that in. Not we're going to bring this in, or that in. Look at the party political broadcast by Eddie Izzard which is just full of BS. I mean at least Clegg can appear in his own Broadcast (And it was well done). Brown gets a poor comedian who gains laugh by pretending to be a woman, talking about reasons to try and not vote Tory, not reasons to vote for Labour, and doesn't make an appearance at all.

Best quote of the broadcast, "Now Labour may not be doing that well, but at least they're honest". Why the Death of Sir David Kelly is mysteriously put on hold for 70 years, is being honest. Why the figures on Immigration being honest. Why the little amount of punishment in our crime system is honest I really don't know. Brown resorts to a form of economics which has been proven wrong countless times and just wastes our money in a recession, blames it on America, even though we were/are the last ones going to be out of it, out of the Worlds Major powers. Brown has been nothing but poison for this country. Heck he lied at the Iraq enquiry to the panel.
The gold-selling is a famous old straw-man, Thatcher lost much more in real terms by failing to sell it when the price was at its highest. People just love bringing that up because gold sounds like it should be a good thing. In real terms, it was a pragmatic decision, and not even a particularly bad one. The "loss" is all spin and a lack of understanding of the underlying economics.

When things were going well, the Tories were pushing for more deregulation, more of the Bad Stuff that Brown was doing as chencellor. It's opportunistic as Hell to jump up and down shouting about Labour fucking up the economy. No, Labour happened to be in power when a major recession hit Britain. And it hit Britain harder because of the deregulation under Brown, which the Tories would have done more of. This is unquestionable; it is a central tennet of Conservatism to deregulate finance. The economic past argument has been avoided by the Tories, and wisely so. Even cursory research shows that their argument is as thin as their 2001 constitution...

(hahaha that was a joke about David Cameron writing the shortest and woolliest constitution in British political history im funny)

I'm hardly going to quote on the populism of their advertising: neither Labour nor the Tories are "in touch" with the people. Honesty is not a major trope in politics, so I'm not even going to try and compare two completely dishonest parties on "honesty". But again, the economics would hardly be improved under the deregulation champions of Europe.

Brown might not be perfect, but he's not uniquely evil for a major party leader.


--------------------

QUOTE(LMOZ)
drive carfuly,because every secend a shrak can teleport itself to your car, and try to drive your car (if you have one) with shark in it.
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pieface
post Apr 17 2010, 09:12 PM
Post #33


Jailbird
Group Icon

Group: Moderators
Posts: 487
Joined: 25-August 05
From: Wirral, England.
Member No.: 23,545



I'm not saying morely about Labour getting us into recession, but how they tried to get us out. Keynesian economics is just a poor form of economics, and even though it's been proven wrong a few times, Brown still decided to use it. Labour's only real success has been the Welfare state, although now that's getting abused. Too many mirror's of the days of Callaghan happening at the moment, Unions are slowly starting to run the country, and Brown won't stand against the Unions, why? Because the Unions are too close to Labour and he doesn't want to upset them. Oil has been a major problem under Labour again, such as the huge fluctuating price of petrol, which is about 70% tax, and the comapnies actually get very little per litre. Gordon Brown has spent far too much at the recession due to the form of economics I explained, and now the taxes are rising because of this everywhere.

Thatcher didn't sell the gold, as there was no real reason then to sell it, we weren't in such a huge recessio that we are in now. Surely Gordon Brown's projects could be put on hold, as he would see as a chancellor of the Gold being a low value, that these projects could be funded another way. The Gold was kept mainly as a safety net for a recession (Ironically), but Gordon Brown decided to sell it all in no real economic disaster.


--------------------
YES I don't play Xbox 360 anymore.

Add me on steam BITCHES. Pieface876
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
0bs3n3
post Apr 18 2010, 07:15 AM
Post #34


Leece
**

Group: Members
Posts: 207
Joined: 26-September 05
From: Aussie Land
Member No.: 24,792



mello, you do realise there is evidence to suggest that the Keynesian approach to booms and busts actually strengthens the cycle rather than alleviating it right?

With regards to gold, it is cheapest during a boom because everyone moves off gold to derivatives and such, but during a recession people move back into gold as it is obviously much more safer than shares during a downturn (hence raising the price of gold). Not sure on the specifics of the Brown situation but it sounds like he sold it during a boom (poor form).

This post has been edited by 0bs3n3: Apr 18 2010, 11:24 AM
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Passionate Homo ...
post Apr 18 2010, 12:42 PM
Post #35


Scam Artist
Group Icon

Group: Gold Member
Posts: 222
Joined: 2-August 04
From: Between the Ritz and the Rubble
Member No.: 15



QUOTE (pieface @ Apr 17 2010, 10:12 PM) *
I'm not saying morely about Labour getting us into recession, but how they tried to get us out. Keynesian economics is just a poor form of economics, and even though it's been proven wrong a few times, Brown still decided to use it. Labour's only real success has been the Welfare state, although now that's getting abused. Too many mirror's of the days of Callaghan happening at the moment, Unions are slowly starting to run the country, and Brown won't stand against the Unions, why? Because the Unions are too close to Labour and he doesn't want to upset them. Oil has been a major problem under Labour again, such as the huge fluctuating price of petrol, which is about 70% tax, and the comapnies actually get very little per litre. Gordon Brown has spent far too much at the recession due to the form of economics I explained, and now the taxes are rising because of this everywhere.

Thatcher didn't sell the gold, as there was no real reason then to sell it, we weren't in such a huge recessio that we are in now. Surely Gordon Brown's projects could be put on hold, as he would see as a chancellor of the Gold being a low value, that these projects could be funded another way. The Gold was kept mainly as a safety net for a recession (Ironically), but Gordon Brown decided to sell it all in no real economic disaster.
That's a silly analysis. Much as bailing banks out could be seen as a bad idea for straight-up capitalism, what about the people these banks owe money? What about me? RBS go under, I'm out 4,000. It's the lower earners who suffer in the face of your brash capitalism, thank you very much Mrs. Thatcher.

This is all irrelevant anyway. The Conservatives as much as Labour are commited to liberal intervention in finance as much as they are in military affairs. It's a fine spectre to hold up, until you realise that Cameron and his whips are all for the tough decisions that people resent Labour for. Howard tried it with the Iraq war, Cameron is trying it with economics.

Look: Cameron is a man with a first in PPE from Oxford. He has moved the Tories as left as they've ever been (extreme right in world terms, but still). He has renounced many facets of Thatcherism. I'm not getting into a shitfight about theoretical economics, because this is not an area in which the Conservatives are radically different in their management (bar one caveat) of this recession. Further, they are complicit in bringing about this recession.

The caveat is this: Cameron has made a great show of avoiding an NI hike. He says it will cut jobs. He has 100+ signatures from special interests supportiung his claim, where Labour have 100+ signatures from economists. Ignoring the fact that NI contributions have been marked by an increase in employment at every time they've taken place, Cameron continues to appeal to "business leaders" who want to save 1million more for their own salary. The Lib Dems of course point out that taxes will have to come somewhere else is brushed aside by the Conservatives who plan to make 18billion of cuts without making any cuts. Bollocks, bollocks and more bollocks.

The gold was not a great decision, but the implication that it was sold off in some masturbatory display of power is another ridiculous Tory canard. The only reason it became such a big deal was because of the price hike in the recession, which no one in the Labservatives expected.

You're right though, the unions are too close to Labour, just like tax-evading non-doms are too close to Labour. The big two have to maintain their financial and political hegemony some way, and voting Tory is no way to improve the situation.
QUOTE (0bs3n3 @ Apr 18 2010, 08:15 AM) *
mello, you do realise there is evidence to suggest that the Keynesian approach to booms and busts actually strengthens the cycle rather than alleviating it right?

With regards to gold, it is cheapest during a boom because everyone moves off gold to derivatives and such, but during a recession people move back into gold as it is obviously much more safer than shares during a downturn (hence raising the price of gold). Not sure on the specifics of the Brown situation but it sounds like he sold it during a boom (poor form).
An idealistic economic argument is to be avoided, if you want to try and defend anLabservative leader. The way Cameron wants to solve problems are basically by magic -- cutting taxes AND the deficit while raising spending. The extra money will come from "efficiency savings", wasted money that the Tories refuse to identify.

I know perfectly well there's evidence for the strengths and weaknesses of every economic system, but neither party would dare deviate from what is basically Keynesian economics. The only real differences are that the Tories want to give more tax breaks for the very richest (the kind that mostly haven't had to work for about 10 generations) and cut admittedly woolly major IT projects.


--------------------

QUOTE(LMOZ)
drive carfuly,because every secend a shrak can teleport itself to your car, and try to drive your car (if you have one) with shark in it.
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
0bs3n3
post Apr 18 2010, 01:03 PM
Post #36


Leece
**

Group: Members
Posts: 207
Joined: 26-September 05
From: Aussie Land
Member No.: 24,792



QUOTE (Passionate Homo Sapiens Ingester @ Apr 18 2010, 05:08 AM) *
QUOTE (0bs3n3 @ Apr 17 2010, 12:25 AM) *
QUOTE (Passionate Homo Sapiens Ingester @ Apr 17 2010, 06:32 AM) *
"The only ones watching are going to be the pointless bastards who already know what they think."


Very true. But then again, voting is not compulsory in the UK, no?
Well yeah, but even still, votes are always decided by largely uninformed people. Not everyone has the time or the inclination to keep up.


Which do you think is the best system then? Compulsory or non-compulsory?

This post has been edited by 0bs3n3: Apr 18 2010, 01:03 PM
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Passionate Homo ...
post Apr 18 2010, 01:20 PM
Post #37


Scam Artist
Group Icon

Group: Gold Member
Posts: 222
Joined: 2-August 04
From: Between the Ritz and the Rubble
Member No.: 15



I like non-compulsory. It's bad enough, the number of people who decide based on silly things here. I can imagine a Britain where only one in four people that vote do so for any good reason, which could lead to ruin. The kind of people who haven't even heard of Nick Clegg, or who don't know the date of the election, deciding who leads the country? Fuck that.


--------------------

QUOTE(LMOZ)
drive carfuly,because every secend a shrak can teleport itself to your car, and try to drive your car (if you have one) with shark in it.
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
0bs3n3
post Apr 18 2010, 01:26 PM
Post #38


Leece
**

Group: Members
Posts: 207
Joined: 26-September 05
From: Aussie Land
Member No.: 24,792



QUOTE (Passionate Homo Sapiens Ingester @ Apr 18 2010, 11:20 PM) *
I like non-compulsory. It's bad enough, the number of people who decide based on silly things here. I can imagine a Britain where only one in four people that vote do so for any good reason, which could lead to ruin. The kind of people who haven't even heard of Nick Clegg, or who don't know the date of the election, deciding who leads the country? Fuck that.


Something I can agree with you on. It's even worse in Australia, I mean we have to be one of the most politically apathetic nations in the world yet voting is compulsory?
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Passionate Homo ...
post Apr 18 2010, 01:45 PM
Post #39


Scam Artist
Group Icon

Group: Gold Member
Posts: 222
Joined: 2-August 04
From: Between the Ritz and the Rubble
Member No.: 15



I don't know, our voting figures are in the high 50s I think. But that includes people like my mum who once voted Conservative because the nicest leafletter at the polling station was a Tory.

But then, she was approached recently to run as a Conservative MP (TOUGH ON CRIME, being Scotland's leading female serious crimes prosecutor) so I wonder what that says about the parties' treatment of apathy.


--------------------

QUOTE(LMOZ)
drive carfuly,because every secend a shrak can teleport itself to your car, and try to drive your car (if you have one) with shark in it.
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pieface
post Apr 18 2010, 04:05 PM
Post #40


Jailbird
Group Icon

Group: Moderators
Posts: 487
Joined: 25-August 05
From: Wirral, England.
Member No.: 23,545



I know you hate Thatcher, as that's a part of Scotland, but you need leaders who are tough, like she was. Could you imagine the country now if Callghan stayed in power? Unions probably would have pretty much full control, the miners would still be here, even though when they were destroyed, they were already a dying industry. Thatcher got us very close to USA, which has its benefits, she got us near the top of the EU before Labour destroyed that. Labour are just a weak party, who lied to the country, and to the house of commons to get us to enter into an illegal war, as Blair was too weak to say no to Bush. Brown is too weak to say no to the Unions. It seems to be a theme with Labour. Callaghan was weak to the Unions as well, and his predecessor was just weak generally and didn't care for the country (Hence he left at the worst time possible, because of his age). To be honest there is no good party at all in the UK, and as you say the idiotic section of the population are the reason parties get into power. If you watched Have I Got News For You, it proves it with the old man, and Nick Clegg story.

I'm just wondering, with being a student, how do RBS owe you 4k? Surely you should be getting a huge amount of money, to be taxed that much.


--------------------
YES I don't play Xbox 360 anymore.

Add me on steam BITCHES. Pieface876
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 30th October 2014 - 02:44 PM

GTA 5 | GTA San Andreas | Red Dead Redemption | GTA 4