Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 47

Thread: A corporation is NOT free market

  1. #1

    A corporation is NOT free market

    They are registrered and heavily regulated by the State, some of them have price controls, some of them are contractors with the government, seek monopolies, they are not owned by a single or few people, and they also get welfare.
    Last edited by dude58677; 10-08-2019 at 06:57 PM.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Corporatism. They could be free market, so I wouldn't say it's wise to label corporations as outside the free market.
    "It's probably the biggest hoax since Big Foot!" - Mitt Romney 1-16-2012 SC Debate

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by tfurrh View Post
    Corporatism. They could be free market, so I wouldn't say it's wise to label corporations as outside the free market.
    They are Government partners by definition..

    Corporations should not exist.. They were created by Government for Government of the corporations.

    State control of the Means.

    You can not possibly have a free market with the existence of Corporations.
    Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
    Ron Paul 2004

    Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
    It's all about Freedom

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by dude58677 View Post
    They are registrered and heavily regulated by the State, some of them have price controls, some of them are contractors with the government, seek monopolies, they are not owned by a single or few people, and they also get welfare.
    That's why we support laws repealing any requirement that they register with the state, regulations, price controls, and government contracts.

    Then corporations would still exist, but it would be in more of a free market.

    But the thread title implies that there is some innate contradiction between corporations and free markets, which is not the case. You could just as easily say, "A human being is not a free market," and give the exact same arguments.
    Last edited by Superfluous Man; 10-10-2019 at 06:09 AM.

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by pcosmar View Post
    You can not possibly have a free market with the existence of Corporations.
    I see no reason to believe this.

  7. #6
    Geez. These threads.

    Yes corporations would and should exist in a free market. The one thing Mitt Romney got right was corporations are people. They are people voluntarily banding together under a contract outlining property rights.

    Government has a role with corporations to enforce contracts. The fact that large corporations are usually owned by more than a few people is a good thing. Large groups of people are able to voluntarily invest with knowledge that there are legal protections which enables business to raise more capital and grow.

    If you didn't have corporations, you would have sole proprietors and maybe a family member or two.
    Last edited by Krugminator2; 10-09-2019 at 06:13 AM.

  8. #7
    While corporations are formed by filing papers with the government, their primary purpose is to protect their shareholders from personal liability for the torts and contracts of the corporation. The same reasoning applies to the other liability-insulating entities, limited liability companies and limited partnerships.

    Absent the liability protection afforded by the government, the owners of these entities would be personally liable for all of the entity's contractual obligations and for all torts committed by the entity's agents within the scope of their authority. Without such protection, people would be extremely reluctant to invest in risky endeavors.

    Is this insulation from personal liability consistent with the notion of a free market? It may be, at least with respect to the entity's contractual obligations because any person dealing with the entity will know that his sole recourse in the event of a breach of contract will be against the entity's assets and that he won't be able to go after the personal assets of the entity's owners. But this isn't the case with tort liability.

    Ambrose Bierce, in his The Devil's Dictionary, had a slightly more cynical view. His definition of a corporation was "An ingenious device for obtaining personal profit without personal responsibility."
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    I see no reason to believe this.
    They can not be held accountable... that is the purpose and intent of "limited Liability"

    They are Protected by the Government that created them.

    Once upon a time they were illegal and considered immoral.

    until graft was legalized.
    Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
    Ron Paul 2004

    Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
    It's all about Freedom



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by pcosmar View Post
    They can not be held accountable... that is the purpose and intent of "limited Liability"

    They are Protected by the Government that created them.

    Once upon a time they were illegal and considered immoral.

    until graft was legalized.
    Limited liability doesn't have to exist to have corporations.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by pcosmar View Post
    They can not be held accountable... that is the purpose and intent of "limited Liability"

    They are Protected by the Government that created them.

    Once upon a time they were illegal and considered immoral.

    until graft was legalized.
    Corporations could be formed by free people voluntarily entering contracts with one another to form them, without any need for government to create them, and they can use voluntary contracts with those they do business with to limit their liability. If the institution of the state did not exist at all, corporations still would exist within a free market because they would serve a purpose that there is demand for. It's true that government interferes in the market and corrupts what corporations would be like in a free market, and it's true that some of government's interferences can benefit corporations and bail them out of accountability that they should bear. But these interferences aren't essential to the existence of corporations.

  13. #11
    Frankly, I've given up on this topic.

    I've explained it over and over again.

    Many "liibertarians" have a special hatred for contractual business arrangements, deep down in their DNA.

    ...if more than, oh, I don't know, 5 people are involved, it's apparently pure evil (for some reason).
    "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

    -H. L. Mencken

  14. #12
    See; East India Company

    and tell me that was not the British Empire.
    Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
    Ron Paul 2004

    Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
    It's all about Freedom

  15. #13
    Call it a corporation, it's good. Call it a government, it's bad.
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul
    They are what they hate.” - B4L


    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by pcosmar View Post
    See; East India Company

    and tell me that was not the British Empire.
    It was. But free people could and would still form corporations even if they didn't have arrangements like that with governments.

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    Call it a corporation, it's good. Call it a government, it's bad.
    Ahh yes. I recognize that line. It's the go-to argument anarcho-communists use against libertarians.

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    Ahh yes. I recognize that line. It's the go-to argument anarcho-communists use against libertarians.
    People are always stealing my best material.
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul
    They are what they hate.” - B4L


    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    It was. But free people could and would still form corporations even if they didn't have arrangements like that with governments.
    NO...

    You have to have an "arrangement" with Government to form a Corporation..

    It makes whatever Govt that allows it,, a Partner..
    Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
    Ron Paul 2004

    Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
    It's all about Freedom

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by pcosmar View Post
    NO...

    You have to have an "arrangement" with Government to form a Corporation..

    It makes whatever Govt that allows it,, a Partner..
    Current law may require you to have an arrangement with the government to form a corporation. Just like current law requires you to have an arrangement with the government to form a marriage (which is really just a specific type of corporation). But absent those laws, corporations and marriages would still be formed.

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    Corporations could be formed by free people voluntarily entering contracts with one another to form them, without any need for government to create them, and they can use voluntary contracts with those they do business with to limit their liability.
    But they would have unlimited exposure to tort liability. It is this insulation from liability that distinguishes corporations, LLC's, and limited partnerships from other voluntary associations.

    Sure, they could theoretically insure themselves against tort liability, but how many insurance companies would there be? Do you think anyone would want to invest in an insurance company and have personal liability for the insurer's contractual obligations?
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    But they would have unlimited exposure to tort liability. It is this insulation from liability that distinguishes corporations, LLC's, and limited partnerships from other voluntary associations.

    Sure, they could theoretically insure themselves against tort liability, but how many insurance companies would there be? Do you think anyone would want to invest in an insurance company and have personal liability for the insurer's contractual obligations?
    It seems to me that you are mixing together different kinds of liability. Your ending question about insurance companies seems more general, and not just about tort liability. The liability of shareholders in insurance companies could be limited by purchasers of the insurance contractually agreeing not to sue individual shareholders for what the corporation owes them. When it comes specifically to torts, the liability for torts should be born by those who commit the torts. And incorporation shouldn't shield guilty individuals from that liability.

    I don't know as much as you about law, so I'm not sure how limitation of liability for corporations treats torts for which individual people can be shown to be guilty and how it may shield them from liability. But I don't think that the removal of laws on the books today that do provide that kind of limitation of tort liability would undermine the entire existence of corporations, the way some anti-corporation arguments claim.

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    It seems to me that you are mixing together different kinds of liability. Your ending question about insurance companies seems more general, and not just about tort liability. The liability of shareholders in insurance companies could be limited by purchasers of the insurance contractually agreeing not to sue individual shareholders for what the corporation owes them. When it comes specifically to torts, the liability for torts should be born by those who commit the torts. And incorporation shouldn't shield guilty individuals from that liability.

    I don't know as much as you about law, so I'm not sure how limitation of liability for corporations treats torts for which individual people can be shown to be guilty and how it may shield them from liability.
    The person who commits the tort isn't protected from liability; the shareholders of the corporations are. It's a basic rule of the law of agency that the principal is liable for any tort committed by his agent if the agent was acting in the course of the principal's business and in the scope of the agent's responsibilities. For example, if you employ a driver to make deliveries to your customers and if the driver injures someone while out making deliveries, you and the driver are both liable. In the corporate context, the officers, employees, and other agents of the corporation are ultimately the agents of the shareholders, so that absent the insulation that current law gives the shareholders they would be liable for the torts committed by their agents.

    All I'm saying is that if the government didn't provide limited liability to the owners of corporations, LLC's, and limited partnerships, I think our economy would look vastly different that it does today and that entrepreneurs would be much more reluctant to engage in risky businesses and would find it much more difficult to attract investors.
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  25. #22
    We've discussed this before, but...

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    The person who commits the tort isn't protected from liability; the shareholders of the corporations are.
    Shareholders aren't liable qua shareholders; but shareholders can certainly be held liable if they actually played a role in the tort.

    It's a basic rule of the law of agency that the principal is liable for any tort committed by his agent if the agent was acting in the course of the principal's business and in the scope of the agent's responsibilities. For example, if you employ a driver to make deliveries to your customers and if the driver injures someone while out making deliveries, you and the driver are both liable. In the corporate context, the officers, employees, and other agents of the corporation are ultimately the agents of the shareholders, so that absent the insulation that current law gives the shareholders they would be liable for the torts committed by their agents.
    Shareholders are treated favorably relative other types of owners because they have less control than other types of owners. I'm not saying that the current system makes perfect sense in detail, but, in general, if there are going to be default rules associating ownership and liability (contra looking at each person individually and seeing whether he actually played any role in the tort), it makes sense for the default rules to assume that (for instance) partners played a role and shareholders didn't, because individual partners are normally in a much better position to influence the operations of the business than individual shareholders.

    All I'm saying is that if the government didn't provide limited liability to the owners of corporations, LLC's, and limited partnerships, I think our economy would look vastly different that it does today and that entrepreneurs would be much more reluctant to engage in risky businesses and would find it much more difficult to attract investors.
    The rules governing torts are necessarily created and enforced by the government. If we tossed all of the existing rules which make distinctions based on type of entity, you'd still find courts more likely to find partners liable than shareholders. Suppose you own 1 of 100,000,000 shares of Exxon. Suppose I am a 1/3rd owner of Gulf. If both of our companies cause oil spills, who (if we throw out the entity rules and just apply normal tort logic) is more likely to be found personally liable, you or me? Me, obviously, because the 1/100,000,000th owner is obviously going to have much less control over business operations than the 1/3rd owner. You shouldn't be held liable simply in virtue of owning a small fraction of the property with which the tort was committed.
    "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

    -H. L. Mencken

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    If we tossed all of the existing rules which make distinctions based on type of entity, you'd still find courts more likely to find partners liable than shareholders. Suppose you own 1 of 100,000,000 shares of Exxon. Suppose I am a 1/3rd owner of Gulf. If both of our companies cause oil spills, who (if we throw out the entity rules and just apply normal tort logic) is more likely to be found personally liable, you or me? Me, obviously, because the 1/100,000,000th owner is obviously going to have much less control over business operations than the 1/3rd owner. You shouldn't be held liable simply in virtue of owning a small fraction of the property with which the tort was committed.
    Legislatures wouldn't simply toss out all liability insulation for owners, because the courts would still be governed by the common law rule of respondiat superior under which principals are liable for the torts of their agents committed within the scope of their authority. Sure, one could argue that a court should differentiate between people who own very small interests in an entity and those who own a large or cotrolling interest, but where is a court to draw the line and how can you make sure that one court doesn't draw it at 51% while another draws it at 35%? This kind of line drawing is best left to the legislature, which can draw an arbitrary line based on the percentage of the entity; more inportant, this line will be known ahead of time instead of being sprung on an unsuspecting defendant after the fact in a civil trial.

    But does that really solve the problem? Forget large publicly-traded companies -- suppose someone has a brilliant idea for a product or service that carries with it a fair amount of risk. He forms a company and like all entrepreneurs who create a startup, he wants control. But if that control is going to subject him to personal liability he may be forced to sell his idea to a publicly-traded company or ditch the idea completely. It seems to me that eliminating liability protection for all controlling owners will have an adverse effect on the creation of new businesses.
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  27. #24
    Purdue Pharma? Should the Sacklers be held liable?



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    Legislatures wouldn't simply toss out all liability insulation for owners, because the courts would still be governed by the common law rule of respondiat superior under which principals are liable for the torts of their agents committed within the scope of their authority. Sure, one could argue that a court should differentiate between people who own very small interests in an entity and those who own a large or cotrolling interest, but where is a court to draw the line and how can you make sure that one court doesn't draw it at 51% while another draws it at 35%? This kind of line drawing is best left to the legislature, which can draw an arbitrary line based on the percentage of the entity; more inportant, this line will be known ahead of time instead of being sprung on an unsuspecting defendant after the fact in a civil trial.
    That's an argument for the distinction between shareholders and partners, for the "privilege" of limited (tort) liability, no?

    Courts could look at individual shareholders and individual partners in each case and try to decide who has enough control to justify liability, but, since shareholders normally have much less control than partners, and since predictability is important, the legislatures have created the rule that partners are liable qua partners and shareholders aren't liable qua shareholders. The same with respondeat superior. The courts could look at each employer individually, or they could apply a predictable rule which makes sense in most situations.

    But does that really solve the problem? Forget large publicly-traded companies -- suppose someone has a brilliant idea for a product or service that carries with it a fair amount of risk. He forms a company and like all entrepreneurs who create a startup, he wants control. But if that control is going to subject him to personal liability he may be forced to sell his idea to a publicly-traded company or ditch the idea completely. It seems to me that eliminating liability protection for all controlling owners will have an adverse effect on the creation of new businesses.
    I'm not sure what a company being publicly traded has to do with it; they also have dominant shareholders.

    ...

    HERE'S the bottom line as to whether corporations are privileged: Let's suppose the current rules do privilege corporations relative other business entities; so what? Anyone can form a corporation. Anyone who has some other form of business (partnership, LLC, etc) can transform that into a corporation. Corporations being privileged over other entities wouldn't privilege any human being over any other.
    "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

    -H. L. Mencken

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    That's an argument for the distinction between shareholders and partners, for the "privilege" of limited (tort) liability, no?
    It's an argument about who should make the distinction.

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Courts could look at individual shareholders and individual partners in each case and try to decide who has enough control to justify liability, but, since shareholders normally have much less control than partners, and since predictability is important, the legislatures have created the rule that partners are liable qua partners and shareholders aren't liable qua shareholders.
    I can't remember the last time I formed a general partnership for a client. With the advent of limited partnerships, limited liability companies, and limited liability partnerships, no business should ever be run in the form of a general partnership.

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    I'm not sure what a company being publicly traded has to do with it; they also have dominant shareholders.
    My point was that imposing personal liability on controlling shareholders may very well have the effect of stifling innovation. Whether this is the price society pays for having minimal governmental interference with the market is debatable.
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    My point was that imposing personal liability on controlling shareholders may very well have the effect of stifling innovation. Whether this is the price society pays for having minimal governmental interference with the market is debatable.
    Now that's really the main argument, isn't it? At least the one I've always heard.

    I want to hear examples where a company was stifled by not being able to grow to international, un-sueable size. I work in IT, and all the examples of innovation I can point to - all of them - were accomplished by a couple guys in a garage... and a large percentage of those innovations were actively killed by the exact same people once they got to mega-corporate size.
    Apple pioneered useful, affordable, user-friendly personal computers... and now they specialize in overpriced hardware that you don't have any control over.
    Google pioneered searches that actually return valid results... and now if you search Google you're tacitly admitting you don't actually want to find anything new.

    The narrative is that innovation wouldn't happen without the allure of becoming a billionaire world-changer, and that's just crap. One only has to look at porn - I mean, not literally, but look at the industry. The porn industry has been the biggest innovator on the web ever since the very beginning, and you can't name a single porn industry company unless you actually watch it. They have always been small and lean, because they don't enjoy (and therefore don't employ) the same legal protections as Facebook and Microsoft. But they keep innovating, long after companies like Microsoft "innovate" primarily by deliberately breaking their interfaces.

    I am one of those people who recognizes that once you kick that leg out from underneath the argument - the leg that says "they wouldn't innovate otherwise" - the argument collapses entirely.
    There are no crimes against people.
    There are only crimes against the state.
    And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by dude58677 View Post
    They are registrered and heavily regulated by the State, some of them have price controls, some of them are contractors with the government, seek monopolies, they are not owned by a single or few people, and they also get welfare.
    And that SCOTUS deciision to turn a "collective" magically into an "individual" didn't help matters. What recourse do average people have at going to bat against a corporation..
    Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect - Mark Twain

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    The courts could look at each employer individually, or they could apply a predictable rule which makes sense in most situations.
    All the previous talk about "they can't just get rid of the laws they have" falls flat with me, too, because a significant part of this is common law, or arose from common law. There is already a process for deciding equitable delineation of liability that has nothing to do with statute. The fact that it hasn't been used in recent history doesn't speak at all to whether or how much it is useful.
    There are no crimes against people.
    There are only crimes against the state.
    And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    all the examples of innovation I can point to - all of them - were accomplished by a couple guys in a garage... and a large percentage of those innovations were actively killed by the exact same people once they got to mega-corporate size.
    Would Michael Dell (who started working out of his dorm room) have gone into the computer business if he knew he had personal liability?

    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    The narrative is that innovation wouldn't happen without the allure of becoming a billionaire world-changer, and that's just crap.
    That wasn't my point. Suppose someone just wants to start a business that is both innovative and risky without necessarily having the dream of someday owning a multi-billion dollar company. Will he do so if he has personal liability?

    It's true that some people won't care, especially if they don't have a lot of personal assets to be put at risk (as Bob Dylan said, "When you ain't got nothin' you got nothin' to lose."). But in such a case he will need outside investors, and it would be very hard to attract them if they knew their personal fortunes were at risk.
    Last edited by Sonny Tufts; Yesterday at 10:30 AM.
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. [VIDEO] The Case for Free Market Intervention (Pro-Market Argument)
    By AlexMerced in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-18-2012, 09:07 AM
  2. Free Market vs. Controlled Market [POLL]
    By eOs in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-10-2010, 03:10 AM
  3. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 12-20-2008, 02:16 AM
  4. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 12-19-2008, 10:26 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •