FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Can anyone (preferrably a Republican fan-boy) splane this?





Texas Al
So Bush wanted to not only make the Patriot Act permanent but give himself additional powers through it. He got shot down, luckily, b/c the Republicans in the Senate apparently are smarter than the Republicans who voted him in.

What I'd like to know from the usual crowd of knee-jerk conservatives who will defend everything he does no matter how hypocritical and stupid...

...is what were you planning to do when the rival gang of criminals (i.e. the Democratic Party) got its turn in the White House and all of a sudden all these wonderful domestic spying mechanisms were brought to bear on gun owners, survivalists, militant constitutionalists, promulgators of "hate speech", pro-lifers, Minutemen, and other "potentially subversive elements"?

You can unbalance the executive branch of government all you want but it's only a matter of time before some scumbag you don't like is in control of it again. Remember Clinton?
S3nd K3ys
Texas Al wrote:
So Bush wanted to not only make the Patriot Act permanent but give himself additional powers through it. He got shot down, luckily, b/c the Republicans in the Senate apparently are smarter than the Republicans who voted him in.

What I'd like to know from the usual crowd of knee-jerk conservatives who will defend everything he does no matter how hypocritical and stupid...

...is what were you planning to do when the rival gang of criminals (i.e. the Democratic Party) got its turn in the White House and all of a sudden all these wonderful domestic spying mechanisms were brought to bear on gun owners, survivalists, militant constitutionalists, promulgators of "hate speech", pro-lifers, Minutemen, and other "potentially subversive elements"?

You can unbalance the executive branch of government all you want but it's only a matter of time before some scumbag you don't like is in control of it again. Remember Clinton?



Were you listening to Rush's show ( Shocked ) when he went over the law as was written under Jimmy Carter and was used in the same manner from both Carter and Clinton? Here is the transcripts with the articles citing the legality according to FISA and it's use under previous administrations.

Quote:
RUSH: It's called Article II, it's real simple, it's called Article II. My friend Bill Buckley has a column today. He says, you know, the Constitution oftentimes is said to be so esoteric and so complicated that average people cannot read it and understand it. That's BS. They have lawyers argue the -- like the various elements of the Constitution, we have arguments on both sides, no, it means this, no, it means that. Article II is very plain. There's a reason why the commander-in-chief was given this kind of authority instead of a mindless committee of 535 bubbleheads like Carl Levin. It's real simple. The authority comes from Article II of the Constitution. Let me go to the New York Sun editorial today. Actually, the lead editorial from yesterday. Couple of excerpts here. But contrary to what you may read in some other newspapers, that law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, which, by the way, Jimmy Carter was president then, a Democrat -- that law, the FISA law, does not require that all such surveillance be authorized by a court. Somebody tell Jerry in West Milwaukee. "The law provides at least two special exceptions to the requirement of a court order. As FISA has been integrated into Title 50 of the US Code, chapter 36, subchapter 1, section 1802," blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, one such provision is helpfully headed "electric surveillance authorization without a court order." That's the title of the law, electronic surveillance authorization without a court order. It's in the FISA law from 1978, Jimmy Carter was president, what more do I need to say?


Well, I've got a lot more and I'll do it now. "This 'without court order,' was so clear that even President Carter, a Democrat not known for his vigilance in the war on terror, issued an executive order on May 23rd, 1979, stating, 'pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, the attorney general is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order.'" He said "without a court order" in his executive order. Carter did it. Reagan did it. Ronaldus Magnus did it. Bush did it. Bush needs to be impeached. Now, there is some discussion by the editors at the New York Sun of qualifications and circumstances in section 1802, that's what they go to next in the editorial, and then the argument continues. "If section 1802 isn't enough, regard section 1811 of the same subchapter of the United States Code, authorization during time of war. It states, notwithstanding any other law, the president, through the attorney general, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed 15 calendar days following a declaration of war by Congress." Now, the important thing there is to mark the phrase "without a court order." Then the rest of the editorial, the Sun editorial writers expand on the question of whether Congress has declared war in this circumstance by authorization the use of force in their numerous resolutions, and they conclude that Congress did formalize a state of war against our enemies after September 11th. But note the recurrence in the FISA law of the phrase "without a court order" in the context of intelligence surveillance.

It's all over the place. All of this is moot, folks, all of this is literally nothing. It is legal. It has been done before, as Jamie Gorelick signified and indicated in her testimony in 1994. Carter, Reagan -- it's tiresome. This is like saying, pick any law that has been on the books for a long time that people have utilized, and then say Bush utilized the same law, except when he does, it's illegal. That is essentially what case Democrats -- and this is all a derivative of the New York Times story that ran on Friday that they held for a year. Interesting note about that. The Los Angeles Times has a story that the Times did, the New York Times did hold that story from James Risen for a year to be more closely aligned with the publication of his book. Now, the New York Times is out today with chapter two of this whole thing. "FBI watched activist groups, new files show. Counterterrorism agents at the FBI have conducted numerous surveillance and intelligence gathering operations that involved, at least indirectly, groups active in causes as diverse as the environment, animal cruelty, and poverty relief, newly disclosed records show." So what! This is an ongoing attempt here, folks, to destroy this nation's ability to defeat this enemy. Now, it may not be with that intention. The intention may solely be to destroy George W. Bush. But the net result of this, if they succeed, is the destruction of our ability to conduct war, wage war, against this enemy. And I will lay you a dollar to a doughnut that this information, the news in this story is not new. I will lay you a dollar to a doughnut, we've read it before, it's been out there before. I've been reading these stories about the FBI since the sixties, for crying out loud. They want to make it sound like it's something new, precedent-setting, never been done before, just like that NSA article appeared on Friday, and it's all bunk, it is all lies, it is the New York Times...





But wait, there's more...

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051222-122610-7772r.htm

Quote:
Warrantless' searches not unprecedented

By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
December 22, 2005

Previous administrations, as well as the court that oversees national security cases, agreed with President Bush's position that a president legally may authorize searches without warrants in pursuit of foreign intelligence.
"The Department of Justice believes -- and the case law supports -- that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes and that the president may, as he has done, delegate this authority to the attorney general," Clinton Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick said in 1994 testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
That same authority, she added, pertains to electronic surveillance such as wiretaps.
More recently, the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court -- the secretive judicial system that handles classified intelligence cases -- wrote in a declassified opinion that the court has long held "that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information."
Such warrantless searches have been at the center of a political fight in Washington after the New York Times reported Friday that the Bush administration had a program to intercept communications between al Qaeda suspects and persons in this country, a story whose publication coincided with the congressional debate over reauthorizing the USA Patriot Act.
In a 2002 opinion about the constitutionality of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the USA Patriot Act, the court wrote: "We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."
Indeed, previous administrations have used that same authority.
Now lets break it down just a bit, shall we?
Quote:

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
"...unreasonable searches and seizures..."

To protect American citizens from another attack on US soil from people who want to kill us by surveilling Al Qaeda operatives is not reasonable enough???

Since when is the Constitution there for a non-citizen of the US?

If you really feel strongly about YOUR rights being violated on the actions of the Bush Admin, I suggest you stop collaborating with Al Qaeda and you have nothing to worry about.

Oh, that is right, you're the same people who want to take away my 2nd Amendment rights.


Quote:
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
And the same people who wants to take Christmas out of the FEDERAL holiday and run a public school where you send anyone home for wearing a cross around their neck.


Quote:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


Now please refrain from making a fool of yourself when you obviously know very little of what you're talking about.

mkthks
S3nd K3ys
Not only that...

Quote:
Dereliction of Duty

by Timothy Lynch

Timothy Lynch is assistant director of the Cato Institute's Center for Constitutional Studies.


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

Executive Summary

President Clinton recently put his hand on the Bible and swore an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." He took the same oath in January 1993. As the president embarks on his second term in office, it is an appropriate time to review his record thus far to see how well he has defended our Constitution.

Although President Clinton has expressed support for an "expansive" view of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, he has actually weakened a number of fundamental guarantees, including those of free speech and the right to trial by jury and that against double jeopardy. He has also supported retroactive taxes, gun control, and warrantless searches and seizures. The president's legal team is constantly pushing for judicial rulings that will sanction expansions of federal power. The Clinton White House has, for example, supported the federalization of health care, crime fighting, environmental protection, and education. Clinton also claims constitutional authority to order military attacks against other countries whenever he deems it appropriate. President Clinton's record is, in a word, deplorable. If constitutional report cards were handed out to presidents, he would receive an F.


In Full
Cato.org

The left's attempt to dig up clean dirt on past issues is biting them right on the ass.
Texas Al
[quote="S3nd K3ys"]
Texas Al wrote:

Oh, that is right, you're the same people who want to take away my 2nd Amendment rights.


Like hell I am. I'm proud to be a gun owner and would prefer for all my law-abiding neighbors to be the same.

Somehow you assume that anybody who disagrees with you for any reason is automatically some kind of tree-hugging politically correct hippy.

All you're saying about previous administrations is supporting the point I was making-- both parties attempt to abuse the power of whatever branch of government they control. Therefore, it's foolhardy to keep undermining the system of checks and balances, since there's no guarantee that your party will remain in power forever. Which might be why both sides kind of backed off on the filibustering of nominees issue... the legislative branch at the moment is the non-insane one.

BTW, you'll notice that I never mentioned you by name, but I knew you'd come. Wink Now let's see if the other one takes the bait.
coolclay
Here I am, taking the bait.

What the hell does the patriot act have anything to do with who is in power. It isn't being used to spy on one side of the political spectrum or the other, it is being used to protect our freakin country, and if you don't want to protect our country then somethings wrong.

The patriot act has nothing to do with gaining more power in the white house it has to do with protecting our country from terrorists. How soon people forget about tragedy. Is it that your feeble little mind can't comprehend the magnitude of 9/11 so it just forgets about it or is it that you just don't care.

Because I don't forget 9/11, and thankfully neither does our great president, and he is doing everything in his power to stop it from happening again, and so far he is doing a damn good job. Have you seen any terrorist attacks on US soil lately? Because I haven't and that just proves that he is doing his duty as a president.
S3nd K3ys
Texas Al wrote:


All you're saying about previous administrations is supporting the point I was making--


No, you were trying to toll me into sticking up for Bush on this issue.

Quote:
BTW, you'll notice that I never mentioned you by name, but I knew you'd come.


Problem is, you don't seem to have a) the skill to troll me, and b) enough info on the subject to realize how stupid and childish your post was in the first place, as I had to spell it out for you.

If, indead, that really WAS your point, then you would have spelled it out beforehand, would you not? Lay the facts on the table as they pertain to the subject? Or were you trying to hide them until you needed them? (Highly unlikely, as I seriously doubt you knew about it, or you would have stated it instead of stating something about future administrations.) Wink

And by saying things like

Quote:
What I'd like to know from the usual crowd of knee-jerk conservatives who will defend everything he does no matter how hypocritical and stupid...

...

You can unbalance the executive branch of government all you want but it's only a matter of time before some scumbag you don't like is in control of it again. Remember Clinton?



...you're obviously forgetting who you're talking to... I didn't start supporting Republicans until AFTER Clinton got caught with his trousers down. (That's pretty much when I realized just how idiotic the Democrats really are, and you have only confirmed my beliefs.)

You also don't seem to realize that I don't stick up for Bush no matter what. He has done some things that are completely stupid. But those things are not enough to make me hate him and try to make everything he does out to be crap, even if they're good things done for the right reasons, like so many Democrats do.

My biggest issue with Bush was with his policy (or lack thereof) on illegal immigration, and it appears he is (finally) starting to listen to the people on this very powerful issue. So my support for him is growing.

So like I said, do yourself a favor and don't underestimate me. I've seen both sides of most issues, and given the facts from both sides I make my opinions. I don't blindly follow anybody or any party. If EITHER party is doing something I don't agree with, I will stand up to it. So trying to bait me into some kind of response based on political stance will not bode well for you.
S3nd K3ys
Bush to Dems: STFU




Quote:
As an initial matter, I emphasize a few points. The President stated that these activities are
" crucial to our national security." The President further explained that "the unauthorized disclosure
of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk. Revealing classified
information is illegal, alerts our enemies, and endangers our country." These critical national
security activities remain classified. All United States laws and policies governing the protection
and nondisclosure of national security information. including the information relating to the
activities described by the President, remain in full force and effect. The unauthorized disclosure
of classified infomiation violates federal criminal law. The Government may provide further
classified briefings to the Congress on these activities in an appropriate manner. Any such
briefings will be conducted in a manner that will not endanger national security.
Billy Hill
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Texas Al wrote:


All you're saying about previous administrations is supporting the point I was making--


No, you were trying to toll me into sticking up for Bush on this issue.

Quote:
BTW, you'll notice that I never mentioned you by name, but I knew you'd come.


Problem is, you don't seem to have a) the skill to troll me, and b) enough info on the subject to realize how stupid and childish your post was in the first place, as I had to spell it out for you.

If, indead, that really WAS your point, then you would have spelled it out beforehand, would you not? Lay the facts on the table as they pertain to the subject? Or were you trying to hide them until you needed them? (Highly unlikely, as I seriously doubt you knew about it, or you would have stated it instead of stating something about future administrations.) Wink

And by saying things like

Quote:
What I'd like to know from the usual crowd of knee-jerk conservatives who will defend everything he does no matter how hypocritical and stupid...

...

You can unbalance the executive branch of government all you want but it's only a matter of time before some scumbag you don't like is in control of it again. Remember Clinton?



...you're obviously forgetting who you're talking to... I didn't start supporting Republicans until AFTER Clinton got caught with his trousers down. (That's pretty much when I realized just how idiotic the Democrats really are, and you have only confirmed my beliefs.)

You also don't seem to realize that I don't stick up for Bush no matter what. He has done some things that are completely stupid. But those things are not enough to make me hate him and try to make everything he does out to be crap, even if they're good things done for the right reasons, like so many Democrats do.

My biggest issue with Bush was with his policy (or lack thereof) on illegal immigration, and it appears he is (finally) starting to listen to the people on this very powerful issue. So my support for him is growing.

So like I said, do yourself a favor and don't underestimate me. I've seen both sides of most issues, and given the facts from both sides I make my opinions. I don't blindly follow anybody or any party. If EITHER party is doing something I don't agree with, I will stand up to it. So trying to bait me into some kind of response based on political stance will not bode well for you.


BURN!!!


LMAO!

It's funny how some painfully misinformed individuals here still try to provoke S3nd K3ys, thinking they're going to outfox him. Yet they keep ending up on their keesters.

And this AFTER he handed this guy his ass in the first reply!

Laughing Laughing Laughing

(Word of advice to any future would-be provocateers; do your homework!) Shocked
S3nd K3ys
Thanks. (I think.) Wink

Billy Hill wrote:


(Word of advice to any future would-be provocateers; do your homework!) Shocked


If they pick a political fight with me, they're usually already at a disadvantage because I've fought for both sides.

I notice Al was on last night but didn't stop in here to say 'hi'
Texas Al
I will, after I read all that stuff you posted. I'm a busy guy, you know. Doing my part to keep the civilization we both (I hope) love running and all that.

Kudos, though, for actually disagreeing with Bush on something. There's hope yet.
Scaramanga
coolclay wrote:
What the hell does the patriot act have anything to do with who is in power. It isn't being used to spy on one side of the political spectrum or the other, it is being used to protect our freakin country, and if you don't want to protect our country then somethings wrong.

zOMG, proofs!
Also, I wasnt' aware you worked for the NSA. The problem is that there is NO checks & balances here if the President can, at any time, ignore the FISA courts.

Quote:
Because I don't forget 9/11, and thankfully neither does our great president, and he is doing everything in his power to stop it from happening again, and so far he is doing a damn good job. Have you seen any terrorist attacks on US soil lately? Because I haven't and that just proves that he is doing his duty as a president.

Man, what does your nationalistic grandstanding have to do with ANYTHING in this thread? I don't think a lack of terrorist attacks in the US prove the president is doing a good job. What sort of fallacious argument is THAT?! I mean at least S3nd K3ys made some valid points.

But in that vein, here's what good 'old W, said in 2004:
Quote:
"[T]here are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."

(Link for people who are paranoid delusionals that think I might've made that up.)
Scaramanga
S3nd K3ys wrote:
But wait, there's more...

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051222-122610-7772r.htm

Oh, I'll see your Washington Times article (a bastion of the ultraconservative) and raise you another from the Times by Bruce Fein (former Associate Attorney General under Reagan):
http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/bfein.htm
Scaramanga
S3nd K3ys wrote:
...Title 50 of the US Code, chapter 36, subchapter 1, section 1802...

Has anyone actually bothered to read this, or is this another example of just relying on information from an obviously biased source? Yes, it's called "Electronic surveillance authorization without court order", but the full title is:
§ 1802. Electronic surveillance authorization without court order; certification by Attorney General; reports to Congressional committees; transmittal under seal; duties and compensation of communication common carrier; applications; jurisdiction of court

And there are CHECKS in place to restrict using this sort of unregulated power. Maybe you folks should read it for yourself:
Quote:
(a)
(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and
(C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this title; and
if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the Attorney General determines immediate action is required and notifies the committees immediately of such minimization procedures and the reason for their becoming effective immediately.
(2) An electronic surveillance authorized by this subsection may be conducted only in accordance with the Attorney General’s certification and the minimization procedures adopted by him. The Attorney General shall assess compliance with such procedures and shall report such assessments to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence under the provisions of section 1808 (a) of this title.
(3) The Attorney General shall immediately transmit under seal to the court established under section 1803 (a) of this title a copy of his certification. Such certification shall be maintained under security measures established by the Chief Justice with the concurrence of the Attorney General, in consultation with the Director of Central Intelligence, and shall remain sealed unless—
(A) an application for a court order with respect to the surveillance is made under sections 1801 (h)(4) and 1804 of this title; or
(B) the certification is necessary to determine the legality of the surveillance under section 1806 (f) of this title.
(4) With respect to electronic surveillance authorized by this subsection, the Attorney General may direct a specified communication common carrier to—
(A) furnish all information, facilities, or technical assistance necessary to accomplish the electronic surveillance in such a manner as will protect its secrecy and produce a minimum of interference with the services that such carrier is providing its customers; and
(B) maintain under security procedures approved by the Attorney General and the Director of Central Intelligence any records concerning the surveillance or the aid furnished which such carrier wishes to retain.
The Government shall compensate, at the prevailing rate, such carrier for furnishing such aid.
(b) Applications for a court order under this subchapter are authorized if the President has, by written authorization, empowered the Attorney General to approve applications to the court having jurisdiction under section 1803 of this title, and a judge to whom an application is made may, notwithstanding any other law, grant an order, in conformity with section 1805 of this title, approving electronic surveillance of a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power for the purpose of obtaining foreign intelligence information, except that the court shall not have jurisdiction to grant any order approving electronic surveillance directed solely as described in paragraph (1)(A) of subsection (a) of this section unless such surveillance may involve the acquisition of communications of any United States person.


Yeah, I think that's pretty self-explanatory. Oh yeah and REAL easy to read like Rush said. Rolling Eyes
S3nd K3ys
Texas Al wrote:
I will, after I read all that stuff you posted. I'm a busy guy, you know. Doing my part to keep the civilization we both (I hope) love running and all that.


I'm doing my part too. (Making parts for the F-22 Raptor and JSF)

Quote:
Kudos, though, for actually disagreeing with Bush on something. There's hope yet.


There always has been hope. I'm just usually too busy here trying to defend him for what I believe is right, so I don't have time to bitch about him for what I think is wrong. Wink
S3nd K3ys
Scaramanga wrote:
substantial likelihood



Next?
Scaramanga
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Scaramanga wrote:
substantial likelihood

Next?

Wait, you're trying to tell me that ANY wiretap committed on domestic soil doesn't have a substantial likelihood of involving ANY US person?? Man, what?

I'm not refuting that a president CAN and probably DOES use that code, I'm just positing that I think it's very likely Mr. Bush completely ignored all the safeguards that are in place to make sure this doesn't become some sort of Orwellian nightmare. Hell I'd be questioning circumvention of the FISA courts regardless of what president is in office; that's just some scary stuff man.
S3nd K3ys
Scaramanga wrote:
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Scaramanga wrote:
substantial likelihood

Next?

Wait, you're trying to tell me that ANY wiretap committed on domestic soil doesn't have a substantial likelihood of involving ANY US person?? Man, what?

I'm not refuting that a president CAN and probably DOES use that code, I'm just positing that I think it's very likely Mr. Bush completely ignored all the safeguards that are in place to make sure this doesn't become some sort of Orwellian nightmare. Hell I'd be questioning circumvention of the FISA courts regardless of what president is in office; that's just some scary stuff man.


How do you figure?

He said he used it 30 times. How many millions of people in the US? Seems to me he's been very selective in using that authority.

Don't get me wrong, it DOES make me nervous, but not as nervous as allowing them to do whatever the ****** they want while communicating to/from/thru the US. If they'd have been doing that befoer 9/11, perhaps those terrorists here in San Diego would have been caught before they were able to run that plane into the building and kill all those people.
gonzo
Texas Al wrote:
who will defend everything he does no matter how hypocritical and stupid...


you're confusing Bush Apologists with conservatives.
Related topics
What Anime Series do you like best?
You play "Sonic" sometime?
Degrassi
Can anyone (preferrably a Muslim) 'splane this to me?
does a movie based on a video game have a prayer?
Breaking Benjamins
what is your most favourite theme song for the films??????
New US Season of Survivor (Exile Island)
Permanent Nintendo Fans
Coupling - Either version
PS3 Fails
Computer upgrade
Anyone misses old Nintendo Games?
Google copied Microsoft ...!!!
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> General -> General Chat

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.