Page 5 of 8 « First<34567>Last »
Topic Options
#13781 - 11/02/08 12:44 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Dan_Dread]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
[quote=Dan_Dread]
 Quote:

It really boils down to this;If you recognize the people that ultimately make your rules for you, tell you what is and isn't ok for you as your legitimate masters, that's fine. Have at it.
Myself, I do not.


What you seem to forget is that it does not matter if you consider them legimate or not. You seem to shout "unfair" and assume it makes you different but eventually it doesn't make a difference at all. You accept what is, not by protesting but, by submitting.

D.

Top
#13782 - 11/02/08 01:24 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Diavolo]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3810
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Of course it matters what I think! My opinion is the only one that ultimately matters. If more people used reason to arrive at a concept of legitimacy rather than accept what is handed down from above we wouldn't be in this mess! I understand that you probably mean it is smarter to deal in what is than what if, and I totally agree. However this is a matter of philosophy. If people ignore the 'could be' altogether very little of any importance would ever be achieved.

I am not sure which orifice you pulled the word unfair from, because fairness is not an idea I deal in whatsoever. But just because I don't believe in equality doesn't mean I have to complacently sit idly by and let the world pass without interfering. I assure you championing any sort of 'fairness' is the exact opposite of what I'm doing. It is the state that mandates and enforces 'fairness' upon us, manufacturing it out of thin air. It disgusts me.

As for being different, and you somehow assuming I care if people approve of my opinions, all I can do is paraphrase the late great Popeye the sailor. I 'yam what I' yam'. I make these posts and say this shit because it is what I actually believe, not because I could give even a turtleheads worth of shit if anyone outside of my circle approves of me. I make these posts because I know I am causing at least a part of my audience to think in the right direction, and knowing that pleases me.

And as for your last sentence, I will assume because English isn't your first language you can't see how the words you chose leave that statement reading as 'beaten dog mentality'. Accept and Submit? Are you fucking kidding?


Edited by Dan_Dread (11/02/08 01:41 PM)
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#13794 - 11/02/08 09:10 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Dan_Dread]
Fabiano Offline
member


Registered: 09/06/08
Posts: 374
I enjoyed reading this thread, the exchange between Dan and Diavolo was very instructive to me. I think it helps me to better refine my position on this.

Interesting also to observe how the dialogue evolved, from apparently radically opposed points of views to some kind of “compromise”. I don’t think their positions changed fundamentally, but other’s opinion was better understood at the end.

I declare to be an anarchist as I share with Dan that view of the ideal society. A society with no ruler but with “natural rules” that will auto-adapt as interactions between a large number of individuals can bring some kind of auto-generated structure that will vanish or transform as soon as the need sustaining it disappears of change.

 Originally Posted By: Dan Dread
I advocate this way of thinking only because i agree with it, not because I think I can make it happen.


But thanks to Diavolo, I saw how it could be hard to see such a society become real. How complex the practical problems could be. He brought the pragmatic side.

This also gave a more concrete view on what could be an anarchist society. I indeed feel Dan’s society as “unfair” in the sense of being hard and rude for the stupid and the weak. Showing no mercy, little altruism. A quite dark picture, but does not Satanism be on the dark side?
I think however it reflects more an extremely individualist society than an anarchist one.
Human is a gregarious animal, even if Satanists should take their decisions on an “as rational as possible” basis, we cannot exclude human feelings, including kindness, solidarity, from the picture. How these “human factors” will influence the anarchist auto-organized society.

 Originally Posted By: Dan Dread
Honestly it is pretty hard to predict exactly HOW it would work, given that the market often gives us solutions we might not expect.


Unless we could realize the experiment Zeph proposed, we’ll not know what such a society could finally result in.

What I retain from all that, what’s my position now?

On a philosophical/conceptual/idealistic perspective I still share Dan’s view.
On the real/pragmatic side, I live in a democracy. Probably the least bad system we have.
Democracy is an illusion. I don’t see revolutions in my day to day life after elections. I don’t see thing radically change when the power goes from left to right.

Whatever you vote, you will always vote for a minority of people struggling for power. The democracy has the advantage that the opposition observes what the majority does. And with the lottery elections, you bring the random factor that will go against monopoly of power.

But is it so important after all? I’m good in all systems. I’m my own god. Whatever the rules are, I’ll stay a good player. I start my life quite “unluckily” but I went over it. I’m now quite happy with what I have… I now have quite big rewards for few efforts. This make me think to a Morgan quote:

 Originally Posted By: Morgan
People tend to be on average, stupid, lazy, mean, and looking to do the least amount of work for the most amount of money.
If you think that your world would change that, I believe you are sadly mistaken.
.

That’s true! But I would not mix up everything. I’m neither stupid nor “mean”. But I’m lazy ! Not that laziness which would make me miss some good opportunity brought by life, but the one that make me always looking to do the least amount of work for the most amount of money.
Yes for sure Morgan, if tomorrow I can have 2 times my salary for the same job I will say YES without any doubt or culpability! It looks to me natural to find the easiest way to achieve my goals. Just a question of efficiency. I’m not stupid, the system is what it is, and the rules are what they’re. But there is always a clever way to use the system for achieving its own goals. It’s just to be in the place you want to be in the system.

Bored paying taxes? Be clever, move your ass and do as Diavolo !


Edited by Fabiano (11/02/08 09:11 PM)

Top
#23499 - 04/19/09 02:19 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: ZephyrGirl]
meateatereater Offline
stranger


Registered: 04/15/09
Posts: 10
 Quote:
though the majority votes for no president, we never win due to political opression. Our vote doesn't count so they go with the number 2 candidate.


OMFG! is this true? I seriously never thought of this. (I'm not being sarcastic, I'm just not politically active/aware.). Is this a valid statistic? If so that is cool as shit; even better than what I thought was going on, evolving from racism! Thanks for typing this. I know this reply doesnt contribute much but maybe it will derive some statistics? Again is this true and does the government display this? Is it U.S. voting-age population -vs- ballots? Damn interesting.

Top
#23923 - 04/30/09 06:18 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affilia [Re: meateatereater]
miriam Offline
pledge


Registered: 03/11/09
Posts: 90
Loc: Seattle, WA
the idea that people will follow tacit rules of good conduct (i.e. not rape, pillage and murder whomever they please), when left to their own devices is naive at best. if satanic philosophy values individuality, the challenging of convenient social morals, and the cultivation of rational egoism and one's natural, most basic self, how are we not able to achieve this under our current government?

presuming everyone's egoism is rational and justified is an invitation for civic chaos. as diavolo said many months ago, meritocracy seems to best fit Satanism. i'd like to echo his idea that if people are well behaved in the first place, anarchy is irrelevant. i agree with social darwinism on a primal level, but when physical evolution precludes intelligence, people who should be surviving and procreating end up brutalized and unheard.

if only a meritocracy were possible! nepotism and the sorry distribution of wealth in the united states will never allow for this. and anyway, who gets to decide who has merit? ceruleansteel's "American Government Competency Exam" is a good start!
theoretically democracy has a great possibility for success in maintaining social order and encouraging personal freedom. that is, if we imagine democracy is incorruptible.

people are corrupt, some would argue inherently evil, some would say a blank slate waiting to be imprinted with bogus norms and values. either way, government allows us a modicum of physical safety and reassurance. as a young woman living alone, i like knowing that there is a police force out there trying to keep rapists off the street. i also take comfort in the fact that if the police force fails to do their job, there is a semblance of a legal system in which i can participate. i can speak and behave as i please within reason, and am glad that there are consequences for those who would harm me.

it is pointless to argue that people would naturally weed out criminals and ill-doers in an anarchic state. in such a "society" i would need a gun, and probably an intimidating male protector. needing a male protector is a return to patriarchy, and is most certainly an infringement on my freedom. without some form of protection, i am not free to live as i please. if i am constantly scrambling for safety, my next meal, etc., i am not free to think what i please. i think about safety, about food, about asserting my human rights in any way i can. the real reason for my existence, to create, think, to separate myself from others, is nullified.

although i place physical freedom and action high on my list, true freedom and luxury is in the mind. read man's search for meaning, by viktor frankl.

while part of me yearns for health care, historically heavily socialist countries have and put constraints on what one can and cannot think or do. and anarchy, as i see it, could be devastating and inefficient. so what does that leave us with? our corrupt "democracy." a democracy that i dearly hope will institute health care and uphold greater social security. there will always be assholes who play the system, and low income hospitals will always suck; but my parents have worked every day of their respective lives and have no retirement or health care. they are educated, free thinking, responsible individuals who just so happen to be poor. my (perhaps unrealistic) wish is that our government will preserve our human and capitalistic rights, while providing for our social rights: the pursuit health, wealth, and happiness (i.e. health care, the ability to retire, and the ability to think and say what we want). naturally this is wishful thinking on my part; if wishes were horses, than beggars would ride.

dan_dread, you can always run for political office you know. if you were a politician, whose interests would you have at heart?

humans are biologically pack animals, and will always gravitate toward some form of leadership, under any circumstance and under any government or lack thereof. i think we've come a long way since malatesta's anarchy.

i suppose in the end i agree with everyone and no one. i want it all. unfortunately, i'm not going to get it.
_________________________
"Your body is the church where Nature asks to be reverenced."

Top
#23927 - 04/30/09 07:40 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affilia [Re: miriam]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3810
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Quote:

the idea that people will follow tacit rules of good conduct (i.e. not rape, pillage and murder whomever they please), when left to their own devices is naive at best.

So if you weren't under the threat of imprisonment, you would rape and murder and pillage? All you are really doing is making a character analysis of yourself. If you believe the threat of violence is all that holds society together I would counter that is you that is naive. Society is beneficial to pretty much everyone, so it exists. But so too do consequences for actions.

So go ahead and rape, murder and pillage, but I'm guessing you wouldn't get too far before someone put a bullet or two in your head.
 Quote:

i agree with social darwinism on a primal level, but when physical evolution precludes intelligence, people who should be surviving and procreating end up brutalized and unheard.

Ridiculous. The clever thrive no matter what. This world you are envisioning, where everyone is reduced to murdering barbarians straight out of 'mad max' is comical at best. People will always desire security, and supply and demand will always provide.

 Quote:

who gets to decide who has merit?

Results always decide merit.
 Quote:

theoretically democracy has a great possibility for success in maintaining social order and encouraging personal freedom.

That's a laugh and a half. In what way does democracy do any of these things better than, say, an iron clad dictatorship or a monarchy?
 Quote:

people are corrupt, some would argue inherently evil, some would say a blank slate waiting to be imprinted with bogus norms and values. either way, government allows us a modicum of physical safety and reassurance.

Corrupt, evil..according to what standard, anyway? People are people. We are not in some 'fallen' state or failing to live up to some magical standard. That is judeo-christian memetics telling you people are not as good as they 'should be' which is sort of silly. Reality is what it is.

People have certain needs, says Maslow, and security is one of the main ones. Market economics tells us that a monopoly never outperforms a free market.
 Quote:

and anarchy, as i see it, could be devastating and inefficient.

I suggest you research Austrian economics at length, especially the writings of Rothbard and Mises. It would be hard to disagree that society would do poorly without the services provided by 'government'. Fires, crime, and medical emergencies will always be a fact of life. People will always need roads(or some viable method of mass transportation). But does having a coercive entity hold an iron clad monopoly really the best solution? I would say not. I would think if the services provided by government were instead absorbed into the free market, the quality of those services would necessarily increase due to competition.
 Quote:

y (perhaps unrealistic) wish is that our government will preserve our human and capitalistic rights, while providing for our social rights: the pursuit health, wealth, and happiness

There is no such animal as altruism. People ultimately represent their own interests, and that is that. The only 'rights' (read, things we are given permission to do by those that hold power over you) that exist exist not to serve your interests, but theirs. These 'rights' of course are subject to change without notice.

 Quote:

dan_dread, you can always run for political office you know.

That made me throw up a little. Why would I feed the beast I want to see starve?
 Quote:

humans are biologically pack animals, and will always gravitate toward some form of leadership, under any circumstance and under any government or lack thereof.

Exactly \:\)

Leaders and followers will always lead and follow. This is really here nor there, however.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#23938 - 04/30/09 11:36 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affilia [Re: Dan_Dread]
miriam Offline
pledge


Registered: 03/11/09
Posts: 90
Loc: Seattle, WA
well, i'll grant you that people often fear that which is reflected in themselves. perhaps i am a dangerous maniac, blindly believing everyone else is out to get me. or maybe when i say that people are unlikely to control their banal urges, i don't mean you personally. i'm sure you're very nice.

in order to get results, don't you have to give someone leadership? what if you elect the wrong person, what if the results are negative? isn't this some form of state? not everyone is as intelligent as you are, you can't really predict what people will do when given blind opportunity. maybe you're right, maybe everyone would work together in harmony and dispatch vigilante justice when necessary, but really this seems less likely to me than a chaotic scenario. at the very least, i admire your faith in humanity. although it's this kind of optimism that makes me throw up. now we've both thrown up. we're even.

democracy, however much it passes over the poor, the weak, the under-privileged, still allows for more personal freedom and expression than a dictatorship or monarchy. you are allowed to think what you choose, live where you choose, write what you choose, participate in whatever social interests you choose, create radical and revolutionary art, walk around on the street late at night; in some states you can marry someone of the same sex and smoke marijuana. you can run for political office, vote, refrain from voting, talk shit about the government. there are countries that seem to run more smoothly than the USA, but on the other hand there are also countries where these things would not be possible.
in a dictatorship or monarchy, these little freedoms that we take for granted are not a given. perhaps a benevolent dictator will allow them, but a dictatorship does not guarantee benevolence.

this doesn't mean i love the USA, it doesn't mean i think americans are absolved from global responsibility. it just means i think that things could be a lot worse.

note that i said "some" would say people are evil, "some" would say a blank slate. i'm not imposing my ideals here, but i did say people are corrupt. is that not true? are people really not corrupt? if people are people, people can be corrupt. i don't understand what "reality is what it is" has to do with this. it doesn't make my assertion any less true, it only means you don't seem to care whether people are corrupt or not. which is fine, you don't have to care. but calling a spade a spade doesn't mean i'm allowing "judeo-christian memetics" to interfere with my opinions. i don't come from a judeo-christian background, so this is impossible, and a big assumption on your part.

maybe i will research rothbard and mises. i don't know much about them in particular. but i'm not sure that economics are the only point in question here. they seem to be the deciding factor for you.
and no, i don't think having a coercive entity holding an iron clad monopoly is the best solution. that should be obvious. the only people who think that is the best solution must be directly benefitting from it.

rights are not only legal and imposed upon us by power mongers. there are also inalienable rights. i will not list what i think these are, i presume you know, since they are your rights as much as mine. it is your right to question the existence of rights, although only your experience will tell you whether you are right or wrong. \:\)
_________________________
"Your body is the church where Nature asks to be reverenced."

Top
#23944 - 05/01/09 02:02 AM Re: I think I finally decided my political affilia [Re: Dan_Dread]
Bacchae Offline
Satan's White Trash Neighbor
member


Registered: 05/13/08
Posts: 438
Loc: los angeles
Dan, please explain Somalia. it is an anarchist heaven, right?
there's a few similar places with no functioning central government, where the people "rule" themselves.

Top
#23945 - 05/01/09 03:45 AM Re: I think I finally decided my political affilia [Re: Bacchae]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Somalia is a prime example of my position and there are many more.

At this moment most of us live in a democracy and it can be seen as a middle ground between anarchism and super-statism -admit, that sounds fancier than fascism-, so we have a degree of freedom and a degree of control. It's also why we can ponder about the options; if we'd live under constant threat and struggle, democracy would already seem like a match made in heaven.
Anyways, what we notice while having the best -or worst- of both, is that humans still rape, kill, dominate, abuse, well show the worst of human nature. They show the best too, occasionally. The same happens in super-statism and of course, in anarchism. What is the problem in this is human nature, as I have said numerous times before.

The argument that under anarchism ALL people will begin raping, killing and murdering is a bit simplistic. Those that act upon their natural urges now, will do the same in anarchism but one should add to those, the ones that now are held in control by rules and repercussions. And that might be a not too small group. To counter the problem, the ones that are not subject to bad behavior under anarchy do have to join forces, prepare and defend themselves against those who are. Basically what they have to do is start organizing themselves and again, form some sort of state, no matter how small. So practical anarchy will be nothing but a fluctuation between order and chaos. True anarchism will however never be possible. It will require all humans involved to be of a similar intellectual, emotional and self-control level. At the level of probabilities, it is close to zero, so I prefer being on the other side of the fence which rationally, to me of course, does seem more probably.

I do see some similarities with the agnostic riddle here. Democracy I see as the agnostic position, you have both options open but don't get anywhere by doing so, super-statism of course being the strong atheistic stance and anarchism, well that's saying there is a god. I'm of course a bitch so I adjust the argument to my preference, as I would do with my environment, society and the world if control and force was not limiting me. ;\)

D.

Top
#23963 - 05/01/09 05:37 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affilia [Re: Diavolo]
miriam Offline
pledge


Registered: 03/11/09
Posts: 90
Loc: Seattle, WA
well, some of us are in agreement.
i didn't mean to say that everyone would rape and pillage, but i did read a study last year of about 10,000 men (i'm trying to find the study again). they were asked whether or not they would commit rape if there were absolutely no consequences. 60-something percent said yes. so not all people would commit crimes, of course, but i think more psychos might come out of the woodwork. there is a higher rate of violent crime in wartime, when the government is busy attending to things other than civilian safety.

and i can turn this question back on myself: would i murder someone if i knew i would get away with it? possibly. especially if it were in retribution. but then someone would avenge my killing and kill me, and so forth. anarchy has its romantic draw... i can see myself channeling tank girl right now- kapow!

diavolo, adjusting your arguments doesn't make you a bitch, it makes you adaptable. social darwinism at work. i'm happy to say i doubt you'll be winning any darwin awards.

on a side note, a friend told me last night that another study postulated that religion was a genetic predisposition; that religion gathered people into communities for the sake of survival.
i can't decide what i think about this. is it saying that in order to survive we should continue to be religious, or is it saying that belief is genetic and that there is no longer a reason for this in our secular society?

any thoughts?


Edited by miriam (05/01/09 05:40 PM)
_________________________
"Your body is the church where Nature asks to be reverenced."

Top
#23965 - 05/01/09 05:53 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affilia [Re: miriam]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
I read an article upon it some time ago and they have a theory that humans have a predisposition for religion. It's partly caused by how our brain works.

Here's a quote out of it, the link I'll provide below.

 Quote:
The origin of religious belief is something of a mystery, but in recent years scientists have started to make suggestions. One leading idea is that religion is an evolutionary adaptation that makes people more likely to survive and pass their genes onto the next generation. In this view, shared religious belief helped our ancestors form tightly knit groups that cooperated in hunting, foraging and childcare, enabling these groups to outcompete others. In this way, the theory goes, religion was selected for by evolution, and eventually permeated every human society (New Scientist, 28 January 2006, p 30)

The religion-as-an-adaptation theory doesn't wash with everybody, however. As anthropologist Scott Atran of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor points out, the benefits of holding such unfounded beliefs are questionable, in terms of evolutionary fitness. "I don't think the idea makes much sense, given the kinds of things you find in religion," he says. A belief in life after death, for example, is hardly compatible with surviving in the here-and-now and propagating your genes. Moreover, if there are adaptive advantages of religion, they do not explain its origin, but simply how it spread.


I don't know if this answers your questions but I found it at least insightful.

Born believers: How your brain creates God

D.

Top
#23970 - 05/01/09 07:32 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affilia [Re: Diavolo]
miriam Offline
pledge


Registered: 03/11/09
Posts: 90
Loc: Seattle, WA
interesting article. i wonder if this is the one my friend was talking about...
_________________________
"Your body is the church where Nature asks to be reverenced."

Top
#23972 - 05/01/09 09:07 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affilia [Re: miriam]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3810
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Quote:

democracy, however much it passes over the poor, the weak, the under-privileged, still allows for more personal freedom and expression than a dictatorship or monarchy. you are allowed to think what you choose, live where you choose, write what you choose, participate in whatever social interests you choose, create radical and revolutionary art, walk around on the street late at night; in some states you can marry someone of the same sex and smoke marijuana. you can run for political office, vote, refrain from voting, talk shit about the government.

This is (mostly) true, and I don't dispute that. But you have to admit that these 'freedoms' can and have been revoked when it serves the interests of the ones you accept as your legitimate masters. And in this a democracy is no different than any other coercive government entity.

 Quote:

in order to get results, don't you have to give someone leadership? what if you elect the wrong person, what if the results are negative? isn't this some form of state?

I guess it depends what sort of results you are talking about. If the desired result is slavery, then yes. The method through which your masters are appointed is really just academic after the fact.
 Quote:

but i did say people are corrupt. is that not true? are people really not corrupt? if people are people, people can be corrupt. i don't understand what "reality is what it is" has to do with this.

In order for 'corruption' to exist there must first exist a 'natural' state from which to be corrupted;corruption implies a change of state from what is 'good and pure' to what is 'tainted'. In order for people to be 'corrupt' they must exist in a fallen state, but fallen from where? Some sort of artificially projected ideal. In order to believe man is corrupt you must first believe that his true nature is something other than what it is. I see no reason to make this assumption.
 Quote:

but calling a spade a spade doesn't mean i'm allowing "judeo-christian memetics" to interfere with my opinions. i don't come from a judeo-christian background, so this is impossible, and a big assumption on your part.

This of course stems from your apparent belief that man is 'corrupted' from his true state(a patently judeo-christian belief). You don't need to subscribe to judeo-christian religion to be effected by that memetics set. It runs much deeper than that.

 Quote:

rights are not only legal and imposed upon us by power mongers. there are also inalienable rights.

Like what? the right to life and liberty? The right to choose? The right to drive a beamer and own a blackberry flip? By what authority do these rights exist? Isn't it a bit odd that someone who believes in inalienable rights would give full support and legitimacy to an organization with the power to take those 'rights' away?

And as for the crux of the issue (at least seemingly, from your perspective):
 Quote:

he idea that people will follow tacit rules of good conduct (i.e. not rape, pillage and murder whomever they please), when left to their own devices is naive at best.

No rulers is not mutually exclusive to no rules. It seems as if you believe a justice system can only exist if it is controlled by a monopoly. I see no reason why a self regulating free market on protection couldn't exist. I would rather have a police force that has incentive to do their job well than one that doesn't.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#23973 - 05/01/09 09:12 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affilia [Re: Bacchae]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3810
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Originally Posted By: Bacchae
Dan, please explain Somalia. it is an anarchist heaven, right?
there's a few similar places with no functioning central government, where the people "rule" themselves.

Well, Somalia was a 3rd world war torn shithole before the regime fell,and remained so for the short time before the next one took over. A paradise? Hardly.

But the fact of the matter is that Somalias economy got better, not worse, when the market opened up for that brief period.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#23993 - 05/02/09 01:03 AM Re: I think I finally decided my political affilia [Re: Dan_Dread]
miriam Offline
pledge


Registered: 03/11/09
Posts: 90
Loc: Seattle, WA
people may be born into a "natural state," but once we've grown into our environment, we become corruptible. otherwise, people are merely instinctual animals fulfilling their most basic needs.

i am not arguing that we are devoid of instinct. i'm just saying that our violent actions imply a cognizance and awareness rarely seen in the animal kingdom. acting despite this awareness is a form of corruption.

and not only do i not subscribe to judeo-christian religious beliefs (why would i be here if i did?), i am not culturally or genetically a product of the judeo-christian ilk.

when i spoke of inalienable rights, i really wasn't referring to the right to own a blackberry flip. i'm personally quite satisfied with my motorola.
_________________________
"Your body is the church where Nature asks to be reverenced."

Top
Page 5 of 8 « First<34567>Last »


Moderator:  Woland, TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.031 seconds of which 0.002 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.