Beyond AIG: A Bill to let Big Government Set Your Salary

BulletWounD · Apr 1, 2009

TheNextEra said:
Well then you shouldn 't have any problems prosecuting Obama on this, so why don't you personally?

Another veiled appeal to the authority of the Supreme Court... Remember comrade, 2+2=5. It's always been 5. It always will be 5. Oh, and by the way, it's not so much Obama as it is his comrades in Congress.

I mean like I said time and time again the patriot act was unconstiutional, but I couldn't find any lawyer to take the case. So the conservatives said it was legal since I couldn't.

I don't know if it was legal or not. It violated the spirit of what our founders intended. Remember, the PATRIOT Act was passed with overwhelming bipartisan support without any understanding of the actual legislation. I chalk it up to a flaw in the democratic process (herd behavior).

so I lay the same claim to you prosecute or STFU. Put up or shut up. You put up a good word game, but if it is unconsutional you shouldn't have a hard time finding a conservative lawyer that REALLY hates Obama (There are plenty just to let you know) to put the legal paperwork in to prove your claim.

Oh wait, let me guess, no conservative high priced lawyer that would on a pro-bono status to nail that anti-christ Obama (That REALLY REALLY REALLY hates Obama) will take the case. What does that tell you about you pathetic internet claims?

You have NOTHING.

Go read the Constitution... Not just the first 10 amendments they taught you in school. You will be amazed. Have we reached a point where we can no longer read plain text and understand what it means? Have we reached a point where we need the government to tell us what the Constitution means? This is pathetic.

It's exceedingly hard to have the government tried for anything, especially now that they've legitimized their subversion through decades politicizing the Supreme Court.

TheNextEra · Apr 1, 2009

Ethereal said:
There is no difference. They are employing the same specious reasoning as you. Also, you did not answer my question.

So take him to court, oh wait, you won't. You just spout your rhetoric on the internet. Funny.

Ethereal said:
No. Are you saying the Supreme Court Justices are infallible?

Nope they aren't infallible, but however I feel they are the law of the land. As such, noone has ruled what Obama is doing as illegal. Much like I said what bush did was illegal, yet the Supreme court didn't rule on.

Ethereal said:
Translation: I cannot refute your arguments so I'll just make unsubstantiated claims and pass them off as relevant criticisms.

Um your claims are refuted as even the supreme court hasn't recognized to hear on, what does that say about your HIGH VIOLATION CLAIMS lol. You're an internet loud speaker of irrelevance.

Ethereal said:
It is being brought up. I'm bringing it up right now, as have many others.

And yet it isn't heard by any high court.

Ethereal said:
Ad hominem.

you mean truth.

Ethereal said:
I'm not a partisan. You're just extremely confused.

Oh please you aren't partisan like Clinton didn't get a blow job. Save you're rhetoric for someone who "might" believe you.

TheNextEra · Apr 1, 2009

BulletWounD said:
Another veiled appeal to the authority of the Supreme Court... Remember comrade, 2+2=5. It's always been 5. It always will be 5.

It's funny when the Supreme court Rules upon something the conservatives agree with they tout it, but when they don't they say the rhetoric you do.

BulletWounD said:
I don't know if it was legal or not. It violated the spirit of what our founders intended. Remember, the PATRIOT Act was passed with overwhelming bipartisan support without any understanding of the actual legislation. I chalk it up to a flaw in the democratic process (herd behavior).

You conservatives may not have known it was legal or not, but most of you said since it wasn't found illegal by the supreme court it was legal. Amazing that. A ruling by the supreme court made it legal for you.

BulletWounD said:
Go read the Constitution... Not just the first 10 amendments they taught you in school. You will be amazed. Have we reached a point where we can no longer read plain text and understand what it means? Have we reached a point where we need the government to tell us what the Constitution means? This is pathetic.

It's exceedingly hard to have the tried for anything, especially now that they've legitimized their subversion through the politicization of the Supreme Court.

Pretty words, but you conservatives LIVED by the rulings of the supreme court during the Bush Administration when it served your needs. I find it funny that you abandon that concept when it doesn't. Especially since your BOY BUSH APPOINTED TWO of the justices. That's hilarious.

Simple fact, if Obama was doing something illegal, EVERY CONSERVATIVE and ANTI-OBAMA lawyer would be ALL ON IT. They haven't, so take a nice 64oz. glass of STFU and enjoy it at the fireplace LOL.

BulletWounD · Apr 1, 2009

TheNextEra said:
It's funny when the Supreme court Rules upon something the conservatives agree with they tout it, but when they don't they say the rhetoric you do.

You conservatives may not have known it was legal or not, but most of you said since it wasn't found illegal by the supreme court it was legal. Amazing that. A ruling by the supreme court made it legal for you.

Pretty words, but you conservatives LIVED by the rulings of the supreme court during the Bush Administration when it served your needs. I find it funny that you abandon that concept when it doesn't. Especially since your BOY BUSH APPOINTED TWO of the justices. That's hilarious.

Simple fact, if Obama was doing something illegal, EVERY CONSERVATIVE and ANTI-OBAMA lawyer would be ALL ON IT. They haven't, so take a nice 64oz. glass of STFU and enjoy it at the fireplace LOL.

More empty words... Not even worth addressing... Again, go and carefully read the Constitution. If you don't trust your own ability to understand what it means, then there's nothing I can do to help you.

P.S.: I never voted for Bush, nor did I support the PATRIOT Act, even during the post-9/11 uproar.

TheNextEra · Apr 1, 2009

BulletWounD said:
More empty words... Not even worth addressing... Again, go and carefully read the Constitution. If you don't trust your own ability to understand what it means, then there's nothing I can do to help you.

P.S.: I never voted for Bush, nor did I support the PATRIOT Act, even during the post-9/11 uproar.

AGain, you're words are empty, if Obama did something illegal, you have plenty of Anti-Obama Lawyers to string him up.

Why don't you? Because what he is doing is legal.

See you Obama Haters can't distinguish what is illegal and what is wrong.

What Obama is doing is wrong, I will agree with you on the bailouts, but it isn't illegal, no matter how much you want it to be illegal.

BulletWounD · Apr 1, 2009

TheNextEra said:
AGain, you're words are empty, if Obama did something illegal, you have plenty of Anti-Obama Lawyers to string him up.

Why don't you? Because what he is doing is legal.

See you Obama Haters can't distinguish what is illegal and what is wrong.

What Obama is doing is wrong, I will agree with you on the bailouts, but it isn't illegal, no matter how much you want it to be illegal.

I don't hate Obama. I don't hate anybody. I think Obama is a good person. You're just throwing around words now. Remember, the highway to hell is paved with good intentions.

I'm going to say this one more time: GO READ THE CONSTITUTION!!! ALL OF IT!!!

TheNextEra · Apr 1, 2009

BulletWounD said:
I don't hate Obama. I don't hate anybody. I think Obama is a good person. You're just throwing around words now. Remember, the highway to hell is paved with good intentions.

I'm going to say this one more time: GO READ THE CONSTITUTION!!! ALL OF IT!!!

You accuse me of throwing word around? You are saying what Obama did was illegal. I think it is you that is throwing words around.

If it is illegal there isn't one Rush-Bot fan conservative lawyer that would string Obama up if they could, so obviously what he is doing is not illegal, no matter what you say.

Put up or shut up. If it is illegal you should be able to prosecute against it. Show me one prosecutor that is willing to.

Or are you going to go conspiracy nut and say every prosecuting lawyer is a liberal?

BulletWounD · Apr 1, 2009

TheNextEra said:
You accuse me of throwing word around? You are saying what Obama did was illegal. I think it is you that is throwing words around.

If it is illegal there isn't one Rush-Bot fan conservative lawyer that would string Obama up if they could, so obviously what he is doing is not illegal, no matter what you say.

Put up or shut up. If it is illegal you should be able to prosecute against it. Show me one prosecutor that is willing to.

Or are you going to go conspiracy nut and say every prosecuting lawyer is a liberal?

All I'm asking you to do is read the Constitution and decide for yourself. Learn it. Love it. It's what made this nation great in the first place and it's being incrementally destroyed. When one day you wake up and realize that the US is a ****hole, don't come crying to me. I'll be somewhere where the population isn't so sheepishly complacent and apathetic, like Japan or Israel.

TheNextEra · Apr 2, 2009

BulletWounD said:
All I'm asking you to do is read the Constitution and decide for yourself. Learn it. Love it. It's what made this nation great in the first place and it's being incrementally destroyed. When one day you wake up and realize that the US is a ****hole, don't come crying to me. I'll be somewhere where the population isn't so sheepishly complacent and apathetic, like Japan or Israel.

LOL and I am asking you to read the constitution because obviously you are interpreting it differently than EVERY LEGAL CONSERVATIVE LAWYER.

If there was ONE THING Obama was doing illegal they would be on him like white on rice.

You're pathetic internet rhetoric is nothing, but............rhetoric.

Carry on Obama Hater. See how it goes for you. Still waiting for you to put up or Shut up. I'm guessing since you can't find a lawyer to take your case you are just a rhetoric crowd whining.

BulletWounD · Apr 2, 2009

TheNextEra said:
LOL and I am asking you to read the constitution because obviously you are interpreting it differently than EVERY LEGAL CONSERVATIVE LAWYER.

If there was ONE THING Obama was doing illegal they would be on him like white on rice.

You're pathetic internet rhetoric is nothing, but............rhetoric.

Carry on Obama Hater. See how it goes for you. Still waiting for you to put up or Shut up. I'm guessing since you can't find a lawyer to take your case you are just a rhetoric crowd whining.

I seriously doubt you've read the Constitution at all. Otherwise you would have known that slavery was abolished by the 13th and 14th amendment. It's really not your fault. We should be teaching it in school. The problem is the public school staff have a vested interest in the subversion.

So please, you obviously have the time to sit here and throw slander at me ("You Obama Haters"), so why don't you take the time to read the Constitution upon which your very nation is founded, the framework of your government? Do you even care? If not, why are you even on this forum?

TheNextEra · Apr 2, 2009

BulletWounD said:
I seriously doubt you've read the Constitution at all. Otherwise you would have known that slavery was abolished by the 13th and 14th amendment. It's really not your fault. We should be teaching it in school. The problem is the public school staff have a vested interest in the subversion.

So please, you obviously have the time to sit here and throw slander at me ("You Obama Haters"), so why don't you take the time to read the Constitution upon which your very nation is founded, the framework of your government? Do you even care? If not, why are you even on this forum?

Again, you claim what Obama is illegal.

Either get one of the many Conservative Lawyers that would love to crucify Obama or just admit you don't have a legal claim.

I am guessing you won't admit you are wrong yet you can't get ANYONE (Even conservative Obama Haters that are conservative0 to make any case because what he is doing ISN'T ILLEGAL.

That's the problem with you conservatives (And many liberals against bush) You say something is unconstitutional, however, there is NOONE that that will prosecute because it isn't illegal.

Carry on with your rhetoric:2wave:.

BulletWounD · Apr 2, 2009

TheNextEra said:
Again, you claim what Obama is illegal.

Either get one of the many Conservative Lawyers that would love to crucify Obama or just admit you don't have a legal claim.

I am guessing you won't admit you are wrong yet you can't get ANYONE (Even conservative Obama Haters that are conservative0 to make any case because what he is doing ISN'T ILLEGAL.

That's the problem with you conservatives (And many liberals against bush) You say something is unconstitutional, however, there is NOONE that that will prosecute because it isn't illegal.

Carry on with your rhetoric:2wave:.

Lord have mercy... You haven't followed a thing that I've said. I think this one's beyond help.

And just because the unconstitutional bailout hasn't been struck down yet doesn't mean it wont be. I really don't know how one could bring such a case to the courts, but it might be possible.

Most of Roosevelt's New Deal crap was struck down:
United States v. Butler - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I wont pretend to know all the nuances of Constitutional case law. It's exactly this case law which has allowed the spirit of the Constitution to be perverted well past it's original intent.

Now, again, before making all your appeals to lawyers and judges, all that I ask is that you read the damn thing.

Ethereal · Apr 2, 2009

So take him to court, oh wait, you won't.

I'll ask again, perhaps this time you will answer. Since when is winning a lawsuit a determination of proof? Do you consider our judiciary the final arbiter of truth?

Nope they aren't infallible

Then why do you feel merely citing their existence is a sufficient negation of my premise?

but however I feel they are the law of the land.

The Supreme Court Justices are the law of the land? What does this even mean?

As such, noone has ruled what Obama is doing as illegal. Much like I said what bush did was illegal, yet the Supreme court didn't rule on.

So, the Supreme Court is always right. Is that your argument?

Um your claims are refuted as even the supreme court hasn't recognized to hear on, what does that say about your HIGH VIOLATION CLAIMS lol.

Do you worship the Supreme Court or something? Because it seems like you're unwilling to lend credence to any idea which hasn't passed some judicial litmus test.

You're an internet loud speaker of irrelevance.

Ad hominem.

And yet it isn't heard by any high court.

Oh, beloved high court! Sovereign of my mind! Holiest of holies! If thou commands't it, I shall obey with the utmost servility. I shall not falter in the face of logic and reason, I will love and cherish thy infinite wisdom, for thou art sacred!

you mean truth.

It's not true unless the SCOTUS says so; I thought you already knew that.

Oh please you aren't partisan like Clinton didn't get a blow job. Save you're rhetoric for someone who "might" believe you.

First of all, just because someone is a partisan does not mean they are automatically incorrect. Secondly, and more importantly, I am not a partisan. I hold everyone to the same standard, and unless you can demonstrate otherwise you should retract that statement.

TheNextEra · Apr 2, 2009

Ethereal said:
I'll ask again, perhaps this time you will answer. Since when is winning a lawsuit a determination of proof? Do you consider our judiciary the final arbiter of truth?

since those that said what bush did was illegal, both in the Iraq war and Patriot Act.

Conservatives and Republicans have said time and time again since Bush wasn't convicted or tries of violations of implementing of the Patriot Act or Iraq war that he was INNOCENT.

So why is all of a sudden Obama guilty without any trial or even at the most charges being brought against him?

Bring charges against OBama or (like conservatives and Republicans have said in regards to charges against Bush) STFU.

BulletWounD · Apr 2, 2009

TheNextEra said:
since those that said what bush did was illegal, both in the Iraq war and Patriot Act.

Conservatives and Republicans have said time and time again since Bush wasn't convicted or tries of violations of implementing of the Patriot Act or Iraq war that he was INNOCENT.

So far he's innocent under the law, yes.

So why is all of a sudden Obama guilty without any trial or even at the most charges being brought against him?

In my opinion, yes. Some of the leading Democrats are as well.

Bring charges against OBama or (like conservatives and Republicans have said in regards to charges against Bush) STFU.

No u. Seriously, how old are you?

TheNextEra · Apr 2, 2009

BulletWounD said:
So far he's innocent under the law, yes.

Not according to some conservatives/Republicans which is funny considering what liberals/dems they said about Bush.

BulletWounD said:
In my opinion, yes. Some of the leading Democrats are as well.

Well it's good you said "In your opinion" Because it is some people's "Opinion" that Bush knew about 9/11 (SPECIFIC buildings in fact) and he let it happen.

What is the old saying about "opinions"?

BulletWounD said:
No u. Seriously, how old are you?

Going on 46. How about you with your passing judgments on Obama while giving passes to Bush?

BulletWounD · Apr 2, 2009

TheNextEra said:
Not according to some conservatives/Republicans which is funny considering what liberals/dems they said about Bush.

Well it's good you said "In your opinion" Because it is some people's "Opinion" that Bush knew about 9/11 (SPECIFIC buildings in fact) and he let it happen.

I'm sure my opinion enjoys significantly more support than that one. I'm entitled to it, so are they.

What is the old saying about "opinions"?

They're like your mother's phone number?

Going on 46. How about you with your passing judgments on Obama while giving passes to Bush?

Why am I not surprised? It's your generation running ths country into the ground. How about you get off your butt and read the foundational document of your nation?

Why do you think I'm "giving a pass" to Bush? Bush isn't in office right now. And by the way, I'm not judging Obama. In fact I said "I think Obama is a good person. Remember, the highway to hell is paved with good intentions." I'm judging his actions.

TheNextEra · Apr 2, 2009

BulletWounD said:
Why am I not surprised? It's your generation running ths country into the ground. How about you get off your butt and read the foundational document of your nation?

I served my country in the military for 20 years, what have you done?

BulletWounD said:
Why do you think I'm "giving a pass" to Bush? Bush isn't in office right now. And by the way, I'm not judging Obama. In fact I said "I think Obama is a good person. Remember, the highway to hell is paved with good intentions." I'm judging his actions.

So who did you vote for in the 2008 ,2004 election? I voted for Kerry in the 2004 election because I thought he would be better than Bush and I voted for Obama in the 2008 election because I thought he was better than McCain.

I think, given the choice of Obama and McCain, if Ron Paul was a third party (as much as I didn't like him) I still would have voted for him over both candidates if he had run Third Party.

So what did you vote for in 2004, 2008?

BulletWounD · Apr 2, 2009

TheNextEra said:
I served my country in the military for 20 years, what have you done?

Thank you for your service. I find it interesting that you swore an oath to a document you didn't ever read. I haven't done much of anything yet (outside of trying to influence opinion and garner grassroots support). I was planning on joining the Air Force, but a serious health-related crisis prevented me (and still prevents me) from doing that. I regret that I'll never be able to serve.

So who did you vote for in the 2008 ,2004 election? I voted for Kerry in the 2004 election because I thought he would be better than Bush and I voted for Obama in the 2008 election because I thought he was better than McCain.

2004, too young to vote. 2008, too disenfranchised. McCain's foreign policy scared the **** out of me just as much as Obama's socialist tendancies. "Bomb, bomb, bomb - bomb, bomb Iran."

I think, given the choice of Obama and McCain, if Ron Paul was a third party (as much as I didn't like him) I still would have voted for him over both candidates if he had run Third Party.

So what did you vote for in 2004, 2008?

Ron Paul's foreign policy was too unrealistic.... Pulling out of NATO does not serve the best interests of our country at this point in time. Plus, he lacks fundamental leadership skills like Obama. Good congressman, bad president.

TheNextEra · Apr 2, 2009

BulletWounD said:
Thank you for your service. I find it interesting that you swore an oath to a document you didn't ever read. I haven't done much of anything yet (outside of trying to influence opinion and garner grassroots support). I was planning on joining the Air Force, but a serious health-related crisis prevented me (and still prevents me) from doing that. I regret that I'll never be able to serve.

Sorry that will prevent you from joining, but I have read the constitution, it just seems I interpret it different than what you do.

I interpret it as I don't agree with what Obama is doing with the bailout, however the precedent was set with Bush.

It's funny though that Bush stacked the Supreme court with 2 Justices, yet this hasn't been brought before it.

I am against the bailout, yet nothing has been brought against it legally.

2004, too young to vote. 2008, too disenfranchised. McCain's foreign policy scared the **** out of me just as much as Obama's socialist tendancies. "Bomb, bomb, bomb - bomb, bomb Iran."

You didn't say who you voted for in 2008. I said mine and the reasons, are you embarrassed to say yours?

BulletWounD said:
Ron Paul's foreign policy was too unrealistic.... Pulling out of NATO does not serve the best interests of our country at this point in time. Plus, he lacks fundamental leadership skills like Obama. Good congressman, bad president.

Perhaps Paul's concepts were unrealistic, but he had a chance to pave the way for third parties (much like Perot did in 1992) however like Perot, Paul backed out.

While I don't think Paul or Perot would have won, I really think they would have paved the way had they run a legitimate campaign for third party.

Perot failed when he ran, dropped out, then came back in and Paul failed when he wouldn't run as a third party candidate.

Ethereal · Apr 2, 2009

since those that said what bush did was illegal, both in the Iraq war and Patriot Act.

Conservatives and Republicans have said time and time again since Bush wasn't convicted or tries of violations of implementing of the Patriot Act or Iraq war that he was INNOCENT.

So what? Just because some other people use a dumb argument doesn't mean it's okay for you to use a dumb argument.

So why is all of a sudden Obama guilty without any trial or even at the most charges being brought against him?

An accusation of guilt always precedes a determination of guilt.

Bring charges against OBama or (like conservatives and Republicans have said in regards to charges against Bush) STFU.

So, unless I bring a lawsuit against Obama I'm not allowed to criticize him on a political debate forum? Are you suffering from Alzheimer’s?

Wessexman · Apr 2, 2009

TheNextEra said:
Oh you mean interpret the Constitution to how conservatives view it, got it.

No he means interpret it strictly and originally, not redefine it endlessly to suit particular political platforms so it is a written constitution of worth.

As a living document the Constitution would free slaves and make labor laws such as children shouldn't be labor, but we know how you would hate a living document to prevent those things.

As a living document it would be just guidelines, you might as well get rid of it.

You would just like the constitution to remain as is without any amendments and make those things I said to be against possible.

Sorry we couldn't make the consitution static and not change slavery, child laber, etc. so sorry.

A lliving document meant changes could be made but you would rather the consiutution stay as is and cannot be changed with any amendments.

Umm, this doesn't have much to with amendments

BulletWounD · Apr 2, 2009

TheNextEra said:
Sorry that will prevent you from joining, but I have read the constitution, it just seems I interpret it different than what you do.

I interpret it as I don't agree with what Obama is doing with the bailout, however the precedent was set with Bush.

Yes, absolutely. I was categorically against Bush's bailout of the airlines. Have you flown Delta lately? What a horrible, horrible, airline. They don't deserve to be in business. I knew it would set a terrible precedent. Government is like a cancer. It grows and grows and grows until it kills the host.

Here's an article from 2001 regarding the airline bailout. Look at what we're doing today. Think about it.

Airline bailout criticized

It's funny though that Bush stacked the Supreme court with 2 Justices, yet this hasn't been brought before it.

I don't really know enough about his appointments to comment. What I can say definitively is that if what you call "conservative" judges were appointed for the next 10 terms it still wouldn't be enough to roll back the expansion of power that's been wrought through the politicized judiciary.

I am against the bailout, yet nothing has been brought against it legally.

Yet... There may be sufficient grounds for some sort of court case but what good would it do? We can't get that money back.

You didn't say who you voted for in 2008. I said mine and the reasons, are you embarrassed to say yours?

I didn't vote. I was in no position to vote at that time. This goes back to the health problem and I'd rather not get into it. Yes, it is embarrassing.

Perhaps Paul's concepts were unrealistic, but he had a chance to pave the way for third parties (much like Perot did in 1992) however like Perot, Paul backed out.

While I don't think Paul or Perot would have won, I really think they would have paved the way had they run a legitimate campaign for third party.

Perot failed when he ran, dropped out, then came back in and Paul failed when he wouldn't run as a third party candidate.

Well, going back to our isolationist roots might be the best thing that ever happened to this country. But at this point in time, I feel we have too many obligations to free, democratic countries that we either helped create or propped up. (ie South Korea, Taiwan, now Iraq and Afghanistan, even Japan relies on our nuclear umbrella). At what point will these countries be able to stand on their own two feet and resist tyranny? I don't know... I do feel that it's our obligation as the harbinger of freedom to help them while they can't.

TheNextEra · Apr 2, 2009

Ethereal said:
So what? Just because some other people use a dumb argument doesn't mean it's okay for you to use a dumb argument.

Oh so now that a D is in front of the name, let's just forget all the things the Republicans said against Bush and apply them to Obama right?

Ethereal said:
An accusation of guilt always precedes a determination of guilt.

so that somehow makes it right?

Ethereal said:
So, unless I bring a lawsuit against Obama I'm not allowed to criticize him on a political debate forum? Are you suffering from Alzheimer’s?

Again you and others seem to fail in recognizing the difference between criticizing Obama and bringing judgment as some here have.

Much of what has been done is the equivalent of what the left did to Bush in saying he knew about 9/11 and allowed it to happen. That is just as false as those making judgment against Obama.

Hell there is a thread about Obama "INTENTIONALLY de-valuating the dollar".

Yet how many conservatives have come in that thread and said that is flat out wrong?

TheNextEra · Apr 2, 2009

Wessexman said:
No he means interpret it strictly and originally, not redefine it endlessly to suit particular political platforms so it is a written constitution of worth.

Ummm just to let you know what the founding fathers saw in 1700 does not necessarily mean the same thing in the year 2009. That is why they allowed the process of Amendments.

Ethereal said:
As a living document it would be just guidelines, you might as well get rid of it.

Well then we would be Europe wouldn't we?

Ethereal said:
Umm, this doesn't have much to with amendments

It has EVERYTHING to do with Amendments. The founding fathers recognized that what they saw then would not necessarily be the same in later years so they ALLOWED amendments to happen in the constitution. Thus making it a LIVING DOCUMENT that could be changed and added to.

Beyond AIG: A Bill to let Big Government Set Your Salary

BulletWounD

Well-known member

TheNextEra

TheNextEra

BulletWounD

Well-known member

TheNextEra

BulletWounD

Well-known member

TheNextEra

BulletWounD

Well-known member

TheNextEra

BulletWounD

Well-known member

TheNextEra

BulletWounD

Well-known member

Ethereal

TheNextEra

BulletWounD

Well-known member

TheNextEra

BulletWounD

Well-known member

TheNextEra

BulletWounD

Well-known member

TheNextEra

Ethereal

Wessexman

Dorset Patriot

BulletWounD

Well-known member

TheNextEra

TheNextEra