Home | Community | Message Board


Gaiana.nl
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1
OfflineCoreHard
loser
Registered: 05/09/03
Posts: 22
Loc: Cave
Last seen: 13 years, 1 month
Aren't We the People the Problem?
    #1535501 - 05/09/03 08:12 PM (13 years, 6 months ago)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't mass dissent solve the worlds problems? I mean how many of you don't support corporate America? My guess is none, unless you grow your own food, make your own clothes, etc. You all still pay taxes to support corporate defense contracts, basically every member of society is to blame for their support of the destruction of the planet and human rights. Global (or even national) enlightenment isn't about to happen anytime soon, so until people become strong enough to deal without all those little toys, products, crap food, etc., blame yourself and your neighbors and friends. It's still OK to blame the Masters of Ceremony in the Grand Illusion (corporations and their minions), but they are literally non-existent without your money and mine.

Peace Out Bitch.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineStrumpling
Neuronaut
Registered: 10/11/02
Posts: 7,571
Loc: Hyperspace
Last seen: 5 years, 6 months
Re: Aren't We the People the Problem? [Re: CoreHard]
    #1535530 - 05/09/03 08:22 PM (13 years, 6 months ago)

What are you suggesting we do?


--------------------
Insert an "I think" mentally in front of eveything I say that seems sketchy, because I certainly don't KNOW much. Also; feel free to yell at me.
In addition: SHPONGLE


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineCoreHard
loser
Registered: 05/09/03
Posts: 22
Loc: Cave
Last seen: 13 years, 1 month
Re: Aren't We the People the Problem? [Re: Strumpling]
    #1535544 - 05/09/03 08:26 PM (13 years, 6 months ago)

I'm not suggesting anything, though I would like to see people stop buying huge houses and new cars, new clothes, 300 bucks a week for crap food, live minimally, end the need for money. But this won't happen obviously, so whatever, it's just an opinion.
Let's start a religion or plan a murder.

Later


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinemntlfngrs
The Art of Casterbation
Male User Gallery

Registered: 07/18/02
Posts: 3,937
Last seen: 11 months, 20 days
Re: Aren't We the People the Problem? [Re: CoreHard]
    #1535558 - 05/09/03 08:31 PM (13 years, 6 months ago)

You can blame the 1884 supreme court for the corporate ills of America. And also blame a Court reporter, a former railroad president named J.C. Bancroft Davis, opened the headnote with the sentence: "The defendant Corporations are persons within the intent of the clause in section 1 of the Fourteen Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The court ruled no such thing. A handwritten note from Chief Justice Waite to reporter Davis that now is held in the National Archives said: "we avoided meeting the Constitutional question in the decision." Corporate attorneys began to quote it like a mantra. Soon the Supreme Court itself was quoting Davis's headnote in subsequent cases. While Davis's Santa Clara headnote didn't have the force of law, once the Court quoted it as the basis for later decisions its new doctrine of corporate personhood became the law.

It is on this basis that Nike is stating that they have a constitutional right top free speech and therfore can lie to the public. So much for truth in advertising laws.

Some of this post is paraphrased from...
http://engaged.well.com/engaged/engaged.cgi?c=inkwell.vue&f=0&t=176
which is worth a read.
really!


--------------------
Be all and you'll be to end all


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinemntlfngrs
The Art of Casterbation
Male User Gallery

Registered: 07/18/02
Posts: 3,937
Last seen: 11 months, 20 days
Re: Aren't We the People the Problem? [Re: mntlfngrs]
    #1535571 - 05/09/03 08:38 PM (13 years, 6 months ago)

What to do? Make all the noise you can regarding Corporate staus as a person with rights of a person. Write every elected official and tell them that corporations are artificial entities with privilages not persons with rights.

Corporations have been given the rights of individuals but non of the responsibilities.


--------------------
Be all and you'll be to end all


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: Aren't We the People the Problem? [Re: CoreHard]
    #1535587 - 05/09/03 08:47 PM (13 years, 6 months ago)

You assume far too much. Some of us make our own soap and are as anti-capitalist as you can get.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineCoreHard
loser
Registered: 05/09/03
Posts: 22
Loc: Cave
Last seen: 13 years, 1 month
Re: Aren't We the People the Problem? [Re: mntlfngrs]
    #1535592 - 05/09/03 08:49 PM (13 years, 6 months ago)

Yeah, do that, start a letter writing campaign, and that will make it ok for your money to support the destruction of earth. People have to change in a fundamental way, that's the only solution to all problems.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinemntlfngrs
The Art of Casterbation
Male User Gallery

Registered: 07/18/02
Posts: 3,937
Last seen: 11 months, 20 days
Re: Aren't We the People the Problem? [Re: CoreHard]
    #1535631 - 05/09/03 09:05 PM (13 years, 6 months ago)

Yeah thats it, lets all go back to living in caves and having life spans of 20-40 years. Read that link. If corps. did not have the legal status that they enjoy today this would be a very different world.
consider what Thom Hartmann writes
"While Nike was conducting a huge and expensive PR blitz to tell people
that it had cleaned up its subcontractors' sweatshop labor practices,
an alert consumer advocate and activist in California named Marc Kasky
caught them in what he alleges are a number of specific deceptions.
Citing a California law that forbids corporations from intentionally
deceiving people in their commercial statements, Kasky sued the
multi-billion-dollar corporation.
Instead of refuting Kasky's charge by proving in court that they
didn't lie, however, Nike instead chose to argue that corporations
should enjoy the same "free speech" right to deceive that individual
human citizens have in their personal lives. If people have the
constitutionally protected right to say, "The check is in the mail,"
or, "That looks great on you," then, Nike's reasoning goes, a
corporation should have the same right to say whatever they want in
their corporate PR campaigns.

They took this argument all the way to the California Supreme Court,
where they lost. The next stop may be the U.S. Supreme Court in early
January, and the battle lines are already forming.

For example, in a column in the New York Times supporting Nike's
position, Bob Herbert wrote, "In a real democracy, even the people you
disagree with get to have their say."

True enough.

But Nike isn't a person - it's a corporation. And it's not their "say"
they're asking for: it's the right to deceive people.

Corporations are created by humans to further the goal of making
money. As Buckminster Fuller said in his brilliant essay The Grunch of
Giants, "Corporations are neither physical nor metaphysical phenomena.
They are socioeconomic ploys - legally enacted game-playing..."

Corporations are non-living, non-breathing, legal fictions. They feel
no pain. They don't need clean water to drink, fresh air to breathe, or
healthy food to consume. They can live forever. They can't be put in
prison. They can change their identity or appearance in a day, change
their citizenship in an hour, rip off parts of themselves and create
entirely new entities. Some have compared corporations with robots, in
that they are human creations that can outlive individual humans,
performing their assigned tasks forever.

Isaac Asimov, when considering a world where robots had become as
functional, intelligent, and more powerful than their human creators,
posited three fundamental laws that would determine the behavior of
such potentially dangerous human-made creations. His Three Laws of
Robotics stipulated that non-living human creations must obey humans
yet never behave in a way that would harm humans.

Asimov's thinking wasn't altogether original: Thomas Jefferson and
James Madison beat him to it by about 200 years.

Jefferson and Madison proposed an 11th Amendment to the Constitution
that would "ban monopolies in commerce," making it illegal for
corporations to own other corporations, banning them from giving money
to politicians or trying to influence elections in any way, restricting
corporations to a single business purpose, limiting the lifetime of a
corporation to something roughly similar to that of productive humans
(20 to 40 years back then), and requiring that the first purpose for
which all corporations were created be "to serve the public good."

The amendment didn't pass because many argued it was unnecessary:
Virtually all states already had such laws on the books from the
founding of this nation until the Age of the Robber Barons.

Wisconsin, for example, had a law that stated: "No corporation doing
business in this state shall pay or contribute, or offer consent or
agree to pay or contribute, directly or indirectly, any money,
property, free service of its officers or employees or thing of value
to any political party, organization, committee or individual for any
political purpose whatsoever, or for the purpose of influencing
legislation of any kind, or to promote or defeat the candidacy of any
person for nomination, appointment or election to any political
office." The penalty for any corporate official violating that law and
getting cozy with politicians on behalf of a corporation was five years
in prison and a substantial fine.

Like Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics, these laws prevented
corporations from harming humans, while still allowing people to create
their robots (corporations) and use them to make money. Everybody won.
Prior to 1886, corporations were referred to in US law as "artificial
persons," similar to the way Star Trek portrays the human-looking robot
named Data.

But after the Civil War, things began to change. In the last year of
the war, on November 21, 1864, President Abraham Lincoln looked back on
the growing power of the war-enriched corporations, and wrote the
following thoughtful letter to his friend Colonel William F. Elkins:

"We may congratulate ourselves that this cruel war is nearing its end.
It has cost a vast amount of treasure and blood. The best blood of the
flower of American youth has been freely offered upon our country's
altar that the nation might live. It has indeed been a trying hour for
the Republic; but I see in the near future a crisis approaching that
unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country.

"As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era
of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the
country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the
prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands
and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety than
ever before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions may
prove groundless."

Lincoln's suspicions were prescient. In the 1886 Santa Clara County
vs. Southern Pacific Railroad case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that
the state tax assessor, not the county assessor, had the right to
determine the taxable value of fenceposts along the railroad's
right-of-way.

However, in writing up the case's headnote - a commentary that has no
precedential status - the Court's reporter, a former railroad president
named J.C. Bancroft Davis, opened the headnote with the sentence: "The
defendant Corporations are persons within the intent of the clause in
section 1 of the Fourteen Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Oddly, the court had ruled no such thing. As a handwritten note from
Chief Justice Waite to reporter Davis that now is held in the National
Archives said: "we avoided meeting the Constitutional question in the
decision." And nowhere in the decision itself does the Court say
corporations are persons.

Nonetheless, corporate attorneys picked up the language of Davis's
headnote and began to quote it like a mantra. Soon the Supreme Court
itself, in a stunning display of either laziness (not reading the
actual case) or deception (rewriting the Constitution without issuing
an opinion or having open debate on the issue), was quoting Davis's
headnote in subsequent cases. While Davis's Santa Clara headnote didn't
have the force of law, once the Court quoted it as the basis for later
decisions its new doctrine of corporate personhood became the law.

Prior to 1886, the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment defined human
rights, and individuals - representing themselves and their own
opinions - were free to say and do what they wanted. Corporations,
being artificial creations of the states, didn't have rights, but
instead had privileges. The state in which a corporation was
incorporated determined those privileges and how they could be used.
And the same, of course, was true for other forms of "legally enacted
game playing" such as unions, churches, unincorporated businesses,
partnerships, and even governments, all of which have only privileges.

But with the stroke of his pen, Court Reporter Davis moved
corporations out of that "privileges" category - leaving behind all the
others (unions, governments, and small unincorporated businesses still
don't have "rights") - and moved them into the "rights" category with
humans, citing the 14th Amendment which was passed at the end of the
Civil War to grant the human right of equal protection under the law to
newly-freed slaves.

On December 3, 1888, President Grover Cleveland delivered his annual
address to Congress. Apparently the President had taken notice of the
Santa Clara County Supreme Court headnote, its politics, and its
consequences, for he said in his speech to the nation, delivered before
a joint session of Congress: "As we view the achievements of
aggregated capital, we discover the existence of trusts, combinations,
and monopolies, while the citizen is struggling far in the rear or is
trampled to death beneath an iron heel. Corporations, which should be
the carefully restrained creatures of the law and the servants of the
people, are fast becoming the people's masters."

Which brings us to today.

In the next few weeks the U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether or
not to hear Nike's appeal of the California Supreme Court's decision
that Nike was engaging in commercial speech which the state can
regulate under truth in advertising and other laws. And lawyers for
Nike are preparing to claim before the Supreme Court that, as a
"person," this multinational corporation has a constitutional
free-speech right to deceive.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Exxon/Mobil, Monsanto, Microsoft,
Pfizer, and Bank of America have already filed amicus briefs supporting
Nike. Additionally, virtually all of the nation's largest
corporate-owned newspapers have recently editorialized in favor of Nike
and given virtually no coverage or even printed letters to the editor
asserting the humans' side of the case.

On the side of "only humans have human rights" is the lone human
activist in California - Marc Kasky - who brought the original
complaint against Nike.

People of all political persuasions who are concerned about democracy
and human rights are encouraging other humans to contact the ACLU (125
Broad Street, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10004) and ask them to join
Kasky in asserting that only living, breathing humans have human
rights. Organizations like ReclaimDemocracy.org are documenting the
case in detail on the web with a sign-on letter, in an effort to bring
the ACLU and other groups in on behalf of Kasky.

Corporate America is rising up, and, unlike you and me, when large
corporations "speak" they can use a billion-dollar bullhorn. At this
moment, the only thing standing between their complete takeover of
public opinion or their being brought back under the rule of law is the
U.S. Supreme Court.

And, interestingly, the Chief Justice of the current Court may side
with humans, proving this is an issue that is neither conservative or
progressive, but rather one that has to do with democracy versus
corporate plutocracy.

In the 1978 Boston v. Bellotti decision, the Court agreed, by a one
vote majority, that corporations were "persons" and thus entitled to
the free speech right to give huge quantities of money to political
causes. Chief Justice Rehnquist, believing this to be an error, argued
that corporations should be restrained from political activity and
wrote the dissent.

He started out his dissent by pointing to the 1886 Santa Clara
headnote and implicitly criticizing its interpretation over the years,
saying, "This Court decided at an early date, with neither argument nor
discussion, that a business corporation is a 'person' entitled to the
protection of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific R. Co., 118 U.S. 394, 396
(1886). ..."

Then he went all the way back to the time of James Monroe's presidency
to re-describe how the Founders and the Supreme Court's then-Chief
Justice John Marshall, a strong Federalist appointed by outgoing
President John Adams in 1800, viewed corporations. Rehnquist wrote:

"Early in our history, Mr. Chief Justice Marshall described the status
of a corporation in the eyes of federal law:

"'A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and
existing only in contemplation of law. Being the mere creature of law,
it possesses only those properties which the charter of creation
confers upon it, either expressly, or as incidental to its very
existence. These are such as are supposed best calculated to effect the
object for which it was created.'..."

Rehnquist concluded his dissent by asserting that it was entirely
correct that states have the power to limit a corporation's ability to
spend money to influence elections (after all, they can't vote ? what
are they doing in politics?), saying:

"The free flow of information is in no way diminished by the
[Massachusetts] Commonwealth's decision to permit the operation of
business corporations with limited rights of political expression. All
natural persons, who owe their existence to a higher sovereign than the
Commonwealth, remain as free as before to engage in political
activity."

Justices true to the Constitution and the Founders' intent may wake up
to the havoc wrought on the American political landscape by the
Bellotti case and its reliance on the flawed Santa Clara headnote. If
the Court chooses in the next few weeks to hear the Kasky v. Nike case,
it will open an opportunity for them to rule that corporations don't
have the free speech right to knowingly deceive the public. It's even
possible that this case could cause the Court to revisit the error of
Davis's 1886 headnote, and begin the process of dismantling the flawed
and unconstitutional doctrine of corporate personhood.

As humans concerned with the future of human rights in a democratic
republic, it's vital that we now speak up, spread the word, and
encourage the ACLU and other pro-democracy groups to help Marc Kasky in
his battle on our species' collective behalf. "


--------------------
Be all and you'll be to end all


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinemntlfngrs
The Art of Casterbation
Male User Gallery

Registered: 07/18/02
Posts: 3,937
Last seen: 11 months, 20 days
Re: Aren't We the People the Problem? [Re: mntlfngrs]
    #1535660 - 05/09/03 09:19 PM (13 years, 6 months ago)

More...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

when this nation was founded, the Founders and the Framers
had a very clear and explicit view of the difference between "human
beings" and "human institutions." Human beings were born into the
world with certain inalienable *rights* and these were clearly
acknowledged in the Bill Of Rights (and the Declaration and other
places).

Human institutions, however, had only privileges. And those
privileges were defined by "We, The People" - the sole holders of the
rights. This was true of corporations, unincorporated businesses,
fraternal groups, churches, and even the institutions of government
itself. All had privileges - rights were reserved solely to humans.

What they teach in law schools today, however, is that in 1886, in
the "Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad" case, the US
Supreme Court plucked corporations alone - not unions, not churches,
not governments, not unincorporated businesses, but corporations alone
- out of the "privileges" category and dropped them into the "rights"
category along with individual human beings.

Human rights are, of course, a huge club with which humans could
beat back government. It was intended that way, should governments
ever become oppressive, among other reasons.

And so once corporations got that club, they began to subdue
government and to compete hard against humans. They claimed the First
Amendment right of free speech, and claimed that meant they could give
money to politicians, overturning hundreds (perhaps thousands) of
local, state, and federal laws forbidding such activity. They claimed
the 4th Amendment right of privacy to keep you and me and the
government from knowing what they were doing. They claimed the 14th
Amendment right against discrimination (the 14th was passed to free the
slaves, along with the 13th and 15th), so now it's nearly impossible
to "discriminate" against a Wal-Mart and keep it out of your community,
etc.

And, in the ultimate irony, although in law schools today they teach
that the Court ruled thus in 1886, the court actually ruled the
opposite - they explicitly chose NOT to decide the constitution issue.
But the court's reporter wrote a commentary (headnote) to the case,
and corporations have been pointing to that ever since, even though it
has no precedential status or legal standing.

Here are a few examples:

First Amendment (?freedom of expression?)
Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes noted in the landmark
1919 Shenck v. US case that shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater does
not constitute free speech; the Bill of Rights guarantees that a
person?s opinion can be expressed, not that there are no limits on what
one can do.
But consider how this fundamental freedom has been bent since Santa
Clara. Companies have claimed:

? Freedom to spend what they want on lobbyists: claiming the same
right as everyone else to ?express themselves? to the government
(without limit), companies won approval to spend whatever they want on
lobbyists in Washington. At one point there was a full-time tobacco
lobbyist for every two legislators on Capitol Hill. As of this writing
there are roughly 38 registered lobbyists for every member of Congress,
over 20,000 in total, and 138 of them are former members of Congress.
? Pediatricians ask for restrictions on corporate ads to children;
industry is unmoved: The American Academy of Pediatrics has proposed
that the federal government initiate controls on advertising directed
at children, and recommended that parents educate their children about
how advertising can manipulate them. Business, using their First
Amendment rights to freedom of expression, have instead increased its
spending on ads to children.
? Utility refuses to comply with a government order to notify
customers, because of a First Amendment ?right not to speak?: The
California Public Utility Commission told a public utility that it must
include a statement-stuffer in their bills, to inform consumers on a
key point. In a move that was startlingly reminiscent of the Santa
Clara case, the utility (a government-authorized monopoly) sued the
state that gave it the monopoly, and took the case all the way to the
U.S. Supreme Court ? and won. They asserted that they didn?t have to
comply because they had ?a new corporate First Amendment right ?not to
speak,?? and the Supreme Court, extending the logic of the Santa Clara
case, agreed.
? Lawyers recommend using the First Amendment to invalidate SEC
regulations on truthful disclosures: Lawyers at a 1988 judicial
conference recommended that corporations ?use the First Amendment to
invalidate a range of Federal regulations, including Securities and
Exchange Commission disclosure requirements that govern corporate
takeovers, and rules affecting stock offerings.?
Fourth Amendment
The Fourth Amendment, against unreasonable search and seizure, was
instituted because in pre-Revolutionary America, soldiers were allowed
to burst into anyone?s home for no particular reason. Companies have
used it to push away government regulators is if they were British
dragoons.
Two Supreme Court cases, in 1967 and 1978, affirmed that corporations
don?t have to submit to random inspections because, as ?persons?
under the Fourth Amendment, they?re entitled to privacy and freedom
from unreasonable searches. Corporations have pursued this logic for
many years:
? Antitrust compliance: Referencing the 1886 Santa Clara decision, the
Supreme Court granted Fourth Amendment rights to a corporation in
1906, just 16 years after the Sherman Act had been passed. As William
Meyers notes in The Santa Clara Blues: Corporate Personhood versus
Democracy, ?This ruling made it difficult to enforce the Sherman
anti-monopoly act, which naturally required the papers of corporations
in order to determine if there existed grounds for an indictment.?
? Deterring a health & safety investigation in Idaho: An electrical
and plumbing corporation in Idaho cited the Fourth Amendment and
deterred a health and safety investigation.
? Pollution & safety compliance: Meyers continues that ?Without random
inspections it is virtually impossible to enforce meaningful
anti-pollution, health, and safety laws.? In a 1986 Supreme Court
case, a corporation sued the Environmental Protection Agency because
the EPA hired a professional photographer to fly over the plant with a
camera after the corporation had turned down a request by the EPA for
an on-site inspection of the plant. The Court acknowledged the
corporation?s right to privacy from inspections by the EPA within its
buildings.
Fifth Amendment
Like the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment was written to prevent
a recurrence of government abuses from colonial days. Among other
thngs, it says that a person cannot be compelled to testify against
himself, as often happened under English royal rule, or be tried twice
for the same crime. This was in a time when the balance of power was
definitely in favor of the government; governments could, and routinely
did, execute people.
Today the shoe is on the other foot: the more powerful party,
business, is claiming protection, again to avoid government
investigation of its alleged misdoings. Convicted once of criminal
misdoing in an anti-trust case, a textile supply company used Fifth
Amendment protections and barred retrial.


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


If this isn'r horrifying I don't know what is.
The idea of corporate personhood is entrenched and taken for granted
in the U.S. legal system and culture. It was fascinating to learn how
things got this way and to think about the consequences of the current
system.


--------------------
Be all and you'll be to end all


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: Aren't We the People the Problem? [Re: mntlfngrs]
    #1535673 - 05/09/03 09:29 PM (13 years, 6 months ago)



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Top 10 Corporate Welfare Queens lonestar2004 888 7 07/25/06 01:13 PM
by Silversoul
* When You Say You Hate Corporate America...
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 all )
Anonymous 8,968 140 12/29/02 08:05 PM
by djfrog
* Corporations are not capitalism Evolving 669 4 10/12/04 01:56 AM
by Worf
* 14 worst Corporations
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
DoctorJ 5,777 88 02/18/06 01:12 PM
by wilshire
* The Corporation : The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
Anonymous 4,084 101 12/17/04 09:33 AM
by enotake2
* NAFTA's Investor ''Rights'': A Corporate Dream, A Citizens.. Psilocybeingzz 567 3 06/09/03 12:17 PM
by Anonymous
* reasons TO hate corporate america
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
Psilocybeingzz 3,982 109 01/08/03 11:10 PM
by GazzBut
* Corporate Globalization Fact Sheet Psilocybeingzz 713 7 11/07/03 12:30 PM
by z@z.com

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Prisoner#1, Enlil
635 topic views. 4 members, 2 guests and 6 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
Mycohaus
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2016 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.123 seconds spending 0.005 seconds on 14 queries.