Webmaster Forum

Go Back   Webmaster Forum > The Webmaster Forums > Forum Lobby > Controversial Social Issues

Controversial Social Issues Discussions concerning controversial social issues. Topics include politics, religion, culture, social and economic issues, etc. Respect required at all times.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Share |
  #21  
Old 10-09-2008, 05:06 PM
sitetutor's Avatar
sitetutor sitetutor is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 12-30-03
Posts: 3,542
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by thegamerslink View Post
yes indeed very interesting
 
Reply With Quote

Advertisement

Advertisement

  #22  
Old 10-09-2008, 08:03 PM
Rankenstein's Avatar
Rankenstein Rankenstein is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 11-14-05
Location: Manchester
Posts: 3,140
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Obamacrimes.com? Isn't that the rational, non-judgemental site?
 
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 10-09-2008, 09:04 PM
TechWizard's Avatar
TechWizard TechWizard is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 07-26-07
Location: Georgia
Posts: 6,156
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rankenstein View Post
Obamacrimes.com? Isn't that the rational, non-judgemental site?
Nice innuendo? The domain name aside. All I have seen on the site is a factual following of a single court case. There are the blog comments that are conjecture in both direction, more so opposing Obama I admit. But as for the court case and the listing of the information, that seems to stay non-judgemental, and simply a site for it's reference. Unless I have missed something?
 
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 10-09-2008, 09:08 PM
Bob Barr's Avatar
Bob Barr Bob Barr is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: 05-17-08
Location: San Juan Bautista, California
Posts: 3,186
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rankenstein View Post
Obamacrimes.com? Isn't that the rational, non-judgemental site?
LOL!

That question being posted by anyone who cites thinkprogress.org and the like as authoritative sources for American political information goes well beyond absurd.

Please tell me that you're joking. I was about to take you seriously.
 
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 10-16-2008, 07:22 AM
Rankenstein's Avatar
Rankenstein Rankenstein is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 11-14-05
Location: Manchester
Posts: 3,140
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Barr View Post
LOL!

That question being posted by anyone who cites thinkprogress.org and the like as authoritative sources for American political information goes well beyond absurd.

Please tell me that you're joking. I was about to take you seriously.
I found the thinkprogress site through Google and it showed me that McCain had opposed increased benefits for veterans so I linked to it. Had I come across a site called McCaincrimes it would be obvious it was biased and I would have tried to find something different showing the same information. Or don't you think the site name obamacrimes.com is laughable?
 
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 10-16-2008, 10:52 PM
sitetutor's Avatar
sitetutor sitetutor is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 12-30-03
Posts: 3,542
iTrader: 0 / 0%
We are talking about the arrogance of one candidate not feeling the need to open up his past to the American people. We just want to know who Obama is before we are choosing our President.
 
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 10-23-2008, 03:06 AM
Rankenstein's Avatar
Rankenstein Rankenstein is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 11-14-05
Location: Manchester
Posts: 3,140
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Yeah, sure, because he might be a terrorist, or worse, a muslim, and you know he would have tried to hide his skin colour if he could :rolleyes:

Now have a read of this, a newspaper that proves Obama's birth certificate is real and genuine, and exposes the lies and smears of the Republicans. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...icate-part-ii/

What is it with you Republican guys and all this nonsense you keep claiming? It makes you look really petty and twisted, and that as much as anything is the reason why Obama is ahead right now. All you are doing is showing people why they should be voting for Obama.
 
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 10-26-2008, 08:40 PM
FocalPoint's Avatar
FocalPoint FocalPoint is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 10-26-08
Posts: 381
iTrader: 0 / 0%
An act of desparation..

I see the Republicans are very very desparate as it becomes clearer each day that Obama is about to be elected President. This will be a monumental loss for the Rep party, though a great gain for the country, IMO.

Negative campaigning as practiced by McCain and especially Palin is having a negative campaign effect this time around. The country seems willing to risk a one party rule to get this country back on track.

The Supreme Court will not touch this issue of citizenship. They have already burned themselves in 2000 by ending the vote count which gave Bush the WH.

I think this is a losing issue. Think of the consequences of a decision that Obama is not a U.S. citizen (impossible to prove!) after having been elected by a majority of American citizens!
 
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 10-26-2008, 08:53 PM
sitetutor's Avatar
sitetutor sitetutor is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 12-30-03
Posts: 3,542
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by FocalPoint View Post
I see the Republicans are very very desparate as it becomes clearer each day that Obama is about to be elected President. This will be a monumental loss for the Rep party, though a great gain for the country, IMO.

Negative campaigning as practiced by McCain and especially Palin is having a negative campaign effect this time around. The country seems willing to risk a one party rule to get this country back on track.

The Supreme Court will not touch this issue of citizenship. They have already burned themselves in 2000 by ending the vote count which gave Bush the WH.

I think this is a losing issue. Think of the consequences of a decision that Obama is not a U.S. citizen (impossible to prove!) after having been elected by a majority of American citizens!
I don't care who is President as long as it's someone I trust. You seem to give BO a pass on everything. You make your decision based on anger. Cool down and think.
 
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 10-26-2008, 09:38 PM
FocalPoint's Avatar
FocalPoint FocalPoint is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 10-26-08
Posts: 381
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by sitetutor View Post
I don't care who is President as long as it's someone I trust. You seem to give BO a pass on everything. You make your decision based on anger. Cool down and think.
Oh now, I don't know where you think I'm angry here! Sometimes people see their own anger in others....it's called projection I think...Of course I'm not saying that you do that.....

I'm giving a balanced perspective to all the hoopla about Obama's citizenship. It's really a red herring...or at least it smells like one.

The American public has had a long time to cooly consider the merits of the two candidates...and I think they're about to make their thoughts known....trust me....
 
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 10-28-2008, 10:29 AM
sitetutor's Avatar
sitetutor sitetutor is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 12-30-03
Posts: 3,542
iTrader: 0 / 0%
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?...25&id=39401896
can you guys read this? Otherwise I will paste it here
 
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 10-28-2008, 10:38 AM
Atom's Avatar
Atom Atom is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 10-12-03
Location: Tennessee, USA
Posts: 32,608
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by sitetutor View Post
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?...25&id=39401896
can you guys read this? Otherwise I will paste it here
No.
 
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 10-28-2008, 10:56 AM
sitetutor's Avatar
sitetutor sitetutor is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 12-30-03
Posts: 3,542
iTrader: 0 / 0%
8 Lawsuits Against Obama on His Eligibility for U.S. Presidency
Share
Sun 4:58am
According to Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party upon whom requests for admissions have been served must respond, within 30 days, or else the matters in the requests will be automatically deemed conclusively admitted for purposes of the pending action.

On September 15, as part of his federal lawsuit contending that the Illinois senator is ineligible,pursuant to the U.S. Constitution, to serve as president of the United States, Philadelphia attorney Philip Berg served Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee with just such a request. Soon thereafter, on October 6, Barack Obama and the DNC acknowledged service in their motion for protective order, filed in an attempt to persuade the court to stay discovery. The Federal Rules require that a response to a request for admissions be served within the 30-day time limit, and Barack Obama and the DNC have not done so.

When Barack Obama suspended his campaign for a few days so he can fly to Hawaii to visit his grandmother, who has suddenly fallen ill, Philip Berg filed two motions in district court in Philadelphia:

* A motion requesting an immediate order deeming his request for admissions served upon Barack Obama and the DNC on September 15 admitted by default, and

* A motion requesting an expedited ruling and/or hearing on Berg’s motion deeming the request for admissions served upon Obama and the DNC admitted.

Berg contends that the failure to respond and serve the response within the time limit is "damning," and made two appearances overnight on Rollye James' talk radio program, the second one coming shortly after midnight, during which he disclosed the meat of today's filings and the legal and political ramifications of the defendants' failure to respond.

“They did not file answers or objections or anything else to the request for admissions we served upon them on September 15,” Berg said to me shortly before midnight, noting that Obama and the DNC did in fact acknowledge service of the admission in their motion for protective order. “They knew the admissions were due. They knew they must object or answer specifically in 30 days. Here, they did nothing.”

Typically, requests can be used to ascertain three types of information: (1) the veracity of facts, (2) the authenticity of documents, or (3) the “application of law to fact.” Pretty much anything not privileged is fair game, and while the idea behind such a request is to obtain information, requests for admissions of facts and of the genuine nature of documents are generally not designed as a part of discovery, per se, but rather more of a mechanism used to whittle down proof later in the proceedings.
Obama's Hawaii birth certificate

Unless permitted by the court or allowed pursuant to a written agreement between the parties, the party served with the request must serve a response within 30 days. How serious is a failure to respond? This, from PreTrial, by Thomas A. Mauet:

The automatic provision of Rule 36 makes it a formidable weapon because inertia or inattentiveness can have an automatic, and usually devastating, consequence. Hence, there is one cardinal rule for practice under this provision: Make sure you respond and serve the response within the 30-day period.

Given the "usually devastating" consequence of failure to respond in time to a request for admissions such as those served upon Obama and the DNC on September 15, just what were some of the admissions that Berg asserts Barack Obama and the DNC have, at least procedurally, admitted to?

* Admit you were born in Kenya.
* Admit you are a Kenya “natural born” citizen.
* Admit your foreign birth was registered in the State of Hawaii.
* Admit your father, Barrack Hussein Obama, Sr., admitted Paternity of you.
* Admit your mother gave birth to you in Mombosa, Kenya.
* Admit your mother’s maiden name is Stanley Ann Dunham a/k/a Ann Dunham.
* Admit the COLB [Certification of Live Birth] posted on the website “Fightthesmears.com” is a forgery.
* Admit you were adopted by a Foreign Citizen.
* Admit you were adopted by Lolo Soetoro, M.A. a citizen of Indonesia.
* Admit you were not born in Hawaii.
* Admit you are a citizen of Indonesia.
* Admit you never took the “Oath of Allegiance” to regain your U.S. Citizenship status.
* Admit you are not a “natural born” United States citizen.
* Admit your senior campaign staff is aware you are not a “natural born” United States Citizen.
* Admit the United States Constitution does not allow for a Person to hold the office of President of the United States unless that person is a “natural born” United States citizen.
* Admit you are ineligible pursuant to the United States Constitution to serve as President and/or Vice President of the United States.

This is, however, by no means a slam dunk for Philip Berg, as there are several options for Barack Obama and the DNC at this point. The first, and most obvious, is the seemingly watertight argument that pursuant to Rule 26(f), a request for admission may only be served after the conference for the purpose of planning discovery detailed under that rule, and therefore the 30-day time limit on Berg's request has not yet begun. Here, though, Berg could feasibly argue either that the request for admissions is not a true discovery mechanism and is actually meant to streamline the future need for discovery, or that the defendants' acknowledged service of the request in their October 6 motion for protective order and failed, at that time, to specifically object or answer. The second option for the defense, somewhat related to the first, is that the motion for protective order rendered the requests null and void, but Berg may argue that the protective order effectively staying discovery was never issued by the court. Yet another option, still easily foreseen, is that Obama and the DNC could file a motion to withdraw admissions which have been deemed admitted. In order to file a motion to withdraw admissions deemed admitted by default, a party must show (1) "good cause" regarding why there was no response and (2) that such a motion to withdraw would not cause undue prejudice to the plaintiff. Here, Berg could contend that Obama and the DNC failed to meet those standards, that they cannot show "good cause" for failing to answer or object, and that withdrawing the admissions would cause undue prejudice.
One of the lawsuits

Still, for Berg, the issue is clear. He simply wanted answers or objections, he said, and instead received nothing. Rule 36, according to Berg, is fairly cut-and-dry.

"It all comes down to the fact that there's nothing from the other side," Berg said. "The admissions are there. By not filing the answers or objections, the defense has admitted everything. He admits he was born in Kenya. He admits he was adopted in Indonesia. He admits that the documentation posted online is a phony. And he admits that he is constitutionally ineligible to serve as president of the United States."

Pennsylvania attorney Philip Berg is not alone. There are now currently three lawsuits questioning the eligibility of Illinois Sen. Barack Obama to serve as president of the United States -- the first, of course, is Berg's, while the other two include an action filed in Washington State Superior Court last week and one filed Friday in a Hawaiian state court.

Unlike Berg's case, which names Obama, the Democratic National Committee and Federal Election Commission as defendants (Berg has a pending motion for leave to amend his original complaint which would add California Sen. Dianne Feinstein and the Senate Rules Committee as well), the other lawsuits are geared toward ballot inclusion and document production.

The suit in Washington State, filed against Secretary of State Sam Reed by Fall City, WA resident Steven Marquis, seeks the removal of Barack Obama from the ballot until the candidate provided an answer to what Marquis says are "unanswered questions surrounding Obama's citizenship and background," the answers for which effectively avoid "a 'constitutional crisis and likely civil unrest' which would arise should information come to light after the election which shows that the Illinois senator is ineligible to hold the presidency."

Much like Philip Berg, I would imagine that Steven Marquis will have to show some sort of particularized injury in order to have standing to sue. Two similar challenges against Sen. John McCain have been tossed out for lack of standing, Fred Hollander's case in state-level court in New Hampshire and Markham Robinson's case in northern California Federal Court. I still expect the same fate for Berg's case in Philadelphia, but more on that in a second.

Friday's suit in Hawaii was filed by "Obama: The Man Behind the Mask" author Andy Martin against Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle and Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the state Department of Health and is seeking a court order compelling the state to release Obama's birth certificate and any other related records in the interest of full disclosure.

While Hawai’i statutes call for a balancing or weighing test where production is considered by a court, most respectfully Plaintiff submits that the balance falls entirely on the side of disclosure where the original birth certificate of a presidential candidate is concerned.

Martin describes himself as a "legendary Chicago muckraker, author, Internet columnist, radio talk show host, broadcaster and media critic." He insists that he is not acting as a democrat or republican or on behalf of any campaign. Now, this self-proclaimed "Obama nemesis" is in Hawaii, waiting for a decision from the state circuit court judge.

Judging from the nature of the proceedings in Berg v. Obama, Martin could be waiting for a while.

So, why is it taking so long? What is the judge waiting for?

It has been 59 days since Philip Berg's lawsuit against Barack Obama fell into my lap as I read through the day's civil cases in the Clerk's Office at the USDC Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Hurricane Ike was bearing down on the Gulf coast, the GOP was preparing for their convention in Minneapolis, and John McCain was still a week away from naming Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate and was down in the polls further than he is now.

Service was completed quickly on the Federal Election Commission, but not so quickly on Obama and the DNC due to a mixup on some level. Obama was served at his Washington, D.C. office on September 4. Since then, there have been almost a dozen pleadings filed by both parties and intervenors as well.

And, as the fourth of November looms large, people are wondering why the Hon R. Barclay Surrick--a Clinton appointee and, according to campaign finance records, possibly a republican--has not yet handed down a decision in the case.

Before I get to the conjecture, two quick facts -- first, Judge Surrick is well within his discretion to take as much time as he needs and, second, no judge likes to be overturned. Furthermore, I know a few people who have clerked for Judge Surrick in the past, and by all accounts he is careful, deliberative, extremely fair, and likes to write his own opinions and orders. Perhaps it was that careful and deliberative nature which contributed to his decision not to toss Berg's suit either at the moment it first appeared on his desk or at the hearing for the [denied] temporary restraining order. Regardless, the case is still open, and you want to know why.

Of course, there's the chance that the judge doesn't want to render a decision until after the election so as to avoid media attention. Other than that, I have a few guesses, three of which I'm prepared to share:

My first guess, and possibly the safest, is that these things simply take time. Judge Surrick's reputation for being deliberative and fair is no mistake, and he will likely send down an order soon dealing with all open pleadings at once.

My second guess, still fairly safe, is that Judge Surrick is waiting until after October 21, when the answer to the original complaint is due from the Federal Election Commission (which gets the extended 60 days to file because of its status as a government agency), before handing down a decision on discovery, on the motion to dismiss, or anything else.

My third guess, hardly as safe, is that Judge Surrick knows that it takes a certain amount of time for an appeal to get started in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, and is waiting until past the proverbial point-of-no-return relative to Election Day before handing down a decision on any or all of the pending pleadings. That way, whatever the decision may be, it will be more apt to affect the election in one way or another.

Berg has a couple of options as well.

First, he can wait, which I can only imagine is frustrating and difficult as the primary concern from which his action arose was the avoidance of a "constitutional crisis." Remember, please, that even in the days following the filing of the suit, Berg was hoping to make an immediate impact and was hoping that Obama could be enjoined from campaigning prior to the Democratic National Convention in Denver.

Second, he can file a petition for a writ of mandamus, essentially asking a higher court to order that the district court and Judge Surrick render a decision in the case. He could feasibly file the petition with the Third Circuit or even the U.S. Supreme Court. While this could push things along quickly, I cannot imagine that a judge enjoys having a lawyer go over his or her head.

Personally, while every fiber of my being makes me believe that Berg's case will be dismissed for lack of standing, I get this unexplainable, nagging, sneaking, itching suspicion, like a hair standing up on the back of my neck, that Judge Surrick will come down on Berg's side and grant the motion for expedited discovery. There is a standard for voter standing, of course, but even that standard has undergone some changes over the years, most famously I would imagine in the White Primary Cases.

If rules never changed, the casebooks in my home office-slash-guest room would be a whole lot thinner and I wouldn't be up as late reading. Standards adapt, tests become more and less inclusive. The sneaking suspicion is probably wrong and the feeling on the back of my neck probably nothing, but I won't know for sure until that order comes down.

In the meantime, keep checking here for updates. My contacts at the courthouse should ensure that I--and therefore you--get the information as soon as it becomes available.

By Jeff Schreiber, A Pennsylvania Legal Writer
 
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 10-28-2008, 12:52 PM
FocalPoint's Avatar
FocalPoint FocalPoint is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 10-26-08
Posts: 381
iTrader: 0 / 0%
I also have a guess...it may be that Philip Berg is a very disturbed Hillary supporter who was pushed over the edge when Obama actually defeated her.

It would not be the first time a fanatic filed a frivilous lawsuit...
 
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 10-28-2008, 01:13 PM
Atom's Avatar
Atom Atom is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 10-12-03
Location: Tennessee, USA
Posts: 32,608
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Who in their right mind would even attempt running for president knowing that they weren't even eligible?

So far, this discrepancy makes no sense to me at all.
 
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 10-28-2008, 01:50 PM
Atom's Avatar
Atom Atom is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 10-12-03
Location: Tennessee, USA
Posts: 32,608
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Something doesn't add up. I'm quite put off by this. It's just insane.
 
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 10-28-2008, 11:08 PM
homebizseo's Avatar
homebizseo homebizseo is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 04-21-08
Posts: 1,629
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by EBORG9 View Post
I don't understand the scrutiny of an American citizen. Why is this ?
From His birth certificate, Student Loans, College Apps, Marriage Certificate, Mortgage to buy a Home, Drivers License's, His Children's Birth Certificates, Running for the Senate, Passports, and Secret Service security his citizenship has never been questioned, now someone is actually treating an American citizen like this in his own country ?

Are they questioning the citizenship of his mother as well ?

You should be sickened at the thought. It's McCarthyism.
Come on Big H, Obama should have top prove where he is born. It's not even a big deal. Just produce it and the drama will go away. That is if he was actually born in the United States. Which from Obama failure to produce the document, I tend to believe he is hiding something.
 
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 10-29-2008, 06:52 AM
Rankenstein's Avatar
Rankenstein Rankenstein is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 11-14-05
Location: Manchester
Posts: 3,140
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by homebizseo View Post
Come on Big H, Obama should have top prove where he is born. It's not even a big deal. Just produce it and the drama will go away. That is if he was actually born in the United States. Which from Obama failure to produce the document, I tend to believe he is hiding something.
He has produced it. It's just that some sorry cretins would rather be idiots than look for the truth. Should he carry his birth certificate round and whip it out any time some other cretin asks for a peek?

He produced it on June 13th 2008.

Now find some other conspiracy to occupy what passes for your brain.

The only purpose this thread continues to serve is to highlight the sheeplike blindness to the facts of the average Republican.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama...ertificate.asp

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/20...168/320/534616

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...icate-part-ii/

You guys really are clowns.
 
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 10-29-2008, 07:15 AM
Atom's Avatar
Atom Atom is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 10-12-03
Location: Tennessee, USA
Posts: 32,608
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rankenstein View Post
He has produced it. It's just that some sorry cretins would rather be idiots than look for the truth. Should he carry his birth certificate round and whip it out any time some other cretin asks for a peek?

He produced it on June 13th 2008.

Now find some other conspiracy to occupy what passes for your brain.

The only purpose this thread continues to serve is to highlight the sheeplike blindness to the facts of the average Republican.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama...ertificate.asp

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/20...168/320/534616

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...icate-part-ii/

You guys really are clowns.
Well I probably should have known, Thanks for clearing that up, Rank.
 
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 10-29-2008, 07:31 AM
Zap's Avatar
Zap Zap is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: 01-15-06
Posts: 13,770
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rankenstein View Post
He has produced it. It's just that some sorry cretins would rather be idiots than look for the truth. Should he carry his birth certificate round and whip it out any time some other cretin asks for a peek?

He produced it on June 13th 2008.

Now find some other conspiracy to occupy what passes for your brain.

The only purpose this thread continues to serve is to highlight the sheeplike blindness to the facts of the average Republican.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama...ertificate.asp

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/20...168/320/534616

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...icate-part-ii/

You guys really are clowns.
Now... You see what you done went and did?
You spoiled their fun.
 
Reply With Quote
Go Back   Webmaster Forum > The Webmaster Forums > Forum Lobby > Controversial Social Issues

Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Barack Obama and Partial Birth Abortion.... TechWizard Controversial Social Issues 0 06-25-2008 05:07 PM
How To Produce The PERFECT Viral Ebook Harvey Segal Marketing Forum 3 12-24-2006 05:47 AM


V7N Network
Get exposure! V7N I Love Photography V7N SEO Blog V7N Directory


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:40 AM.
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright 2000-2014 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Copyright © 2003 - 2018 VIX-WomensForum LLC