Welcome to the
Marriage Builders® Discussion Forum

This is a community where people come in search of marriage related support, answers, or encouragement. Also, information about the Marriage Builders principles can be found in the books available for sale in the Marriage Builders® Bookstore.
If you would like to join our guidance forum, please read the Announcement Forum for instructions, rules, & guidelines.
The members of this community are peers and not professionals. Professional coaching is available by clicking on the link titled Coaching Center at the top of this page.
We trust that you will find the Marriage Builders® Discussion Forum to be a helpful resource for you. We look forward to your participation.
Once you have reviewed all the FAQ, tech support and announcement information, if you still have problems that are not addressed, please e-mail the administrators at mbrestored@gmail.com
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015
F
Member
Offline
Member
F
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015
Mr. W. - Regardless of who anyone wants to pin the "origins" of the problem on (usually ideologically driven), the FACT remains that both McCain and Bush tried YEARS ago to stop the impending mess by legislation FOR controls and oversight.

It was roundly stopped by the Democrats, of which Barney Frank was probably the biggest opponent to oversight.

While it's just speculation right now, it would appear that the the "long range goal" may have been the take over of much of the Banking industry through manufactured "outrage" and the "idea" that government could do a better job of "owning" business and running it. Next up....the Healthcare system.

There seems to be no question that the goal of the Democrat Party IS the Socialism of much of the country.

Time will tell, but the first "100 days" should be very interesting to watch after Obama's inauguration.

But there IS one segment that I might agree with the government "taking over" and setting the "reasonable fee" schedule for.....Attorneys. Doubt it would ever happen, but it would be an interesting step in Tort Reform.


Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044
Quote
But there IS one segment that I might agree with the government "taking over" and setting the "reasonable fee" schedule for.....Attorneys.

If not, they could always be used to create artificial reefs off the coast of Florida. It would be a tremendous help to the fishing industry. cool

FH, if you are interested in learning about a non profit that I am the executive director of, email me. The purpose of the organization is to improve the way family medicine is delivered in this country.

Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044
It wouldn't change the national results on bit...but this interesting.

108% of registered voters in Montgomery County, PA voted. This is normally a republican stronghold. Obama won it by 30% points. But a review by the Philadelphia Inquirer shows that there were more votes cast than eligible voters.

Shocking...nope.

Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044
Democratic controlled (for the last 60 years) Philadelphia announced MASSIVE cuts today in order to avoid a 1 BILLION dollar deficit. Amazing how the democratic black mayor (the same one that allowed armed black panthers to act as security at polling places) waited until after the election to announce the across the board cuts.

Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,578
P
Member
Offline
Member
P
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,578
Originally Posted by Krazy71
Originally Posted by medc
W2S, I align myself more closely with Dems than Repubs except for the abortion issue (which is a trump card for me). But to pretend that the root of this problem does not stretch back to the Clinton years is absurd. The current administration is not blameless...but they do not carry this load alone.

It started during the Reagan administration.

It was caused by de-regulation, and in some cases a lack of regulation in the first place.

I'd go further back than Reagan...I'm old enough to remember when President Johnson predicted this whole mess.

Johnson was a Roosevelt New Deal advocate--in fact he ran for Congress on New Deal platform in 1937.

The Great Society program became Johnson's agenda for Congress in January 1965: aid to education, attack on disease, Medicare, urban renewal, beautification, conservation, development of depressed regions, a wide-scale fight against poverty, control and prevention of crime and delinquency, removal of obstacles to the right to vote. Congress, at times augmenting or amending, rapidly enacted Johnson's recommendations. Millions of elderly people found succor through the 1965 Medicare amendment to the Social Security Act.


American's were cool with New Deal socialism until Civil Rights Legislations. Then all those southern democrats changed parties--they became republicans. It was all right when white people where the recipients of all this "great society" legislation--but these New Republicans would rather shoot themselves in the foot than let all these black people have a piece of the pie.

It took almost fifty years, but the New Republicans did it--they managed to shoot themselves in the foot!!


Me: 56
H: 61
DD: 13 and hormonal
DS: 20

Oldest son died 1994 @ age 8

Happily married 30+ years
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 810
R
Member
Offline
Member
R
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 810
Some duke or earl being quoted (circa 1935??)-

"Absolute power corrupts absolutely"


Comments on Great Society

Aid to education - that helped who? We have a lonnng way to go.

Attack on disease - hmmm do you think govt control of medicine will increase research and development?

Medicare
- this has been good for everyone - white and black.

Urban renewal
- where ? or better question - where has it been successful without local money and participation? and why should Americans from one area care if Americans in another city do not care enough about their city.

beautification - see above -

conservation - not bad - didn't Nixon pass the Clean Water Act and create the EPA?

development of depressed regions- West Virgina and eastern KY or we talking about Detroit and Philly? Going from an industrialized economy to an information tech economy has been a painful process. Industrial revolution in UK and US were painful as well.

a wide-scale fight against poverty - I can agree that today's pOverty is no where near it was in 1960's.

control and prevention of crime and delinquency - where has that been improved - I seem to remember the 1960's a bit more safer - as a kid. I will admit those were simpler times and might be construed as a generalization.

removal of obstacles to the right to vote - always a good thing.

Perhaps though with the new president - the people will take ownership of the change they want instead of sitting back and complaining. Change has to come from the individual level and cannot be imposed from higher echelons.

This not to be disrespectful. Love to hear opinions of others.

This group has some of the sharpest minds of any board - have to wonder if encountering adultery just makes the senses more acute.

Last edited by rwinger; 11/06/08 02:31 PM.

Me:52
W: 52
Married: 32 yrs
2 Sons (29 & 23)
1 Dtr (20)
1 GDtr (2.5) precious little girl
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044
Spoken like a true Ted Kennedy supporter....hey, is he still alive?

Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,345
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,345
Originally Posted by medc
108% of registered voters in Montgomery County, PA voted. This is normally a republican stronghold. Obama won it by 30% points. But a review by the Philadelphia Inquirer shows that there were more votes cast than eligible voters.

Shocking...nope.

I didn't find a review by Inquirer, do you have a source for this statement?

Here are the results that I saw. Nothing shocking here.

AGG


Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,578
P
Member
Offline
Member
P
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,578
Originally Posted by medc
Spoken like a true Ted Kennedy supporter....hey, is he still alive?

I've been out on the road working on the campaign I am just only back.

Ted Kennedy and I grew up on the same planet. How about You? You from Krypton or something? How old are you anyway???

The middle-class society we grew up in didn’t evolve gradually or automatically. It was created, in a remarkably short period of time, by FDR and the New Deal. Income inequality declined drastically from the late 1930s to the mid 1940s, with the rich losing ground while working Americans saw unprecedented gains.

It was a society without extremes of wealth or poverty, a society of broadly shared prosperity, partly because strong unions, a high minimum wage, and a progressive tax system helped limit inequality. It was also a society in which political bipartisanship meant something: in spite of all the turmoil of Vietnam and the civil rights movement, in spite of the sinister machinations of Nixon and his henchmen, it was an era in which Democrats and Republicans agreed on basic values and could cooperate across party lines.

Since the late 1970s the America I knew has unraveled. We’re no longer a middle-class society, in which the benefits of economic growth are widely shared: between 1979 and 2005 the real income of the median household rose only 13 percent, but the income of the richest 0.1% of Americans rose 296 percent.

Most people assume that this rise in inequality was the result of impersonal forces, like technological change and globalization. But the great reduction of inequality that created middle-class America between 1935 and 1945 was driven by political change; It’s important to know that no other advanced economy has seen a comparable surge in inequality.

You would have expected this rising inequality to produce a populist backlash alot sooner, right? Instead the era of rising inequality has also been the era of “movement conservatism,” the term both supporters and opponents use for the highly cohesive set of interlocking institutions that brought Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich to power, and reached its culmination, taking control of all three branches of the federal government, under George W. Bush.

Because of movement conservative political dominance, taxes on the rich have fallen, and the holes in the safety net have gotten bigger, even as inequality has soared. And the rise of movement conservatism is also at the heart of the bitter partisanship that characterizes politics today.

So now the backlash has finally arrived and it's a doozie! We have a President who is Black. This is the ultimate Backlash--isn't it? I believe it probably would never have happened had the conservative movement not driven the American dream into the toilet.



Me: 56
H: 61
DD: 13 and hormonal
DS: 20

Oldest son died 1994 @ age 8

Happily married 30+ years
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044
Originally Posted by pieta
Originally Posted by medc
Spoken like a true Ted Kennedy supporter....hey, is he still alive?

I've been out on the road working on the campaign I am just only back.

Ted Kennedy and I grew up on the same planet. How about You? You from Krypton or something? How old are you anyway???

The middle-class society we grew up in didn’t evolve gradually or automatically. It was created, in a remarkably short period of time, by FDR and the New Deal. Income inequality declined drastically from the late 1930s to the mid 1940s, with the rich losing ground while working Americans saw unprecedented gains.

It was a society without extremes of wealth or poverty, a society of broadly shared prosperity, partly because strong unions, a high minimum wage, and a progressive tax system helped limit inequality. It was also a society in which political bipartisanship meant something: in spite of all the turmoil of Vietnam and the civil rights movement, in spite of the sinister machinations of Nixon and his henchmen, it was an era in which Democrats and Republicans agreed on basic values and could cooperate across party lines.

Since the late 1970s the America I knew has unraveled. We’re no longer a middle-class society, in which the benefits of economic growth are widely shared: between 1979 and 2005 the real income of the median household rose only 13 percent, but the income of the richest 0.1% of Americans rose 296 percent.

Most people assume that this rise in inequality was the result of impersonal forces, like technological change and globalization. But the great reduction of inequality that created middle-class America between 1935 and 1945 was driven by political change; It’s important to know that no other advanced economy has seen a comparable surge in inequality.

You would have expected this rising inequality to produce a populist backlash alot sooner, right? Instead the era of rising inequality has also been the era of “movement conservatism,” the term both supporters and opponents use for the highly cohesive set of interlocking institutions that brought Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich to power, and reached its culmination, taking control of all three branches of the federal government, under George W. Bush.

Because of movement conservative political dominance, taxes on the rich have fallen, and the holes in the safety net have gotten bigger, even as inequality has soared. And the rise of movement conservatism is also at the heart of the bitter partisanship that characterizes politics today.

So now the backlash has finally arrived and it's a doozie! We have a President who is Black. This is the ultimate Backlash--isn't it? I believe it probably would never have happened had the conservative movement not driven the American dream into the toilet.

It is customary to not plagarize material.. Who are you, Joe Biden???

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/

Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,578
P
Member
Offline
Member
P
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,578
Originally Posted by medc
Originally Posted by pieta
Originally Posted by medc
Spoken like a true Ted Kennedy supporter....hey, is he still alive?

I've been out on the road working on the campaign I am just only back.

Ted Kennedy and I grew up on the same planet. How about You? You from Krypton or something? How old are you anyway???

The middle-class society we grew up in didn’t evolve gradually or automatically. It was created, in a remarkably short period of time, by FDR and the New Deal. Income inequality declined drastically from the late 1930s to the mid 1940s, with the rich losing ground while working Americans saw unprecedented gains.

It was a society without extremes of wealth or poverty, a society of broadly shared prosperity, partly because strong unions, a high minimum wage, and a progressive tax system helped limit inequality. It was also a society in which political bipartisanship meant something: in spite of all the turmoil of Vietnam and the civil rights movement, in spite of the sinister machinations of Nixon and his henchmen, it was an era in which Democrats and Republicans agreed on basic values and could cooperate across party lines.

Since the late 1970s the America I knew has unraveled. We’re no longer a middle-class society, in which the benefits of economic growth are widely shared: between 1979 and 2005 the real income of the median household rose only 13 percent, but the income of the richest 0.1% of Americans rose 296 percent.

Most people assume that this rise in inequality was the result of impersonal forces, like technological change and globalization. But the great reduction of inequality that created middle-class America between 1935 and 1945 was driven by political change; It’s important to know that no other advanced economy has seen a comparable surge in inequality.

You would have expected this rising inequality to produce a populist backlash alot sooner, right? Instead the era of rising inequality has also been the era of “movement conservatism,” the term both supporters and opponents use for the highly cohesive set of interlocking institutions that brought Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich to power, and reached its culmination, taking control of all three branches of the federal government, under George W. Bush.

Because of movement conservative political dominance, taxes on the rich have fallen, and the holes in the safety net have gotten bigger, even as inequality has soared. And the rise of movement conservatism is also at the heart of the bitter partisanship that characterizes politics today.

So now the backlash has finally arrived and it's a doozie! We have a President who is Black. This is the ultimate Backlash--isn't it? I believe it probably would never have happened had the conservative movement not driven the American dream into the toilet.

It is customary to not plagarize material.. Who are you, Joe Biden???

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/

I wanted to hear you disagree with the person who just won the Pulitzer prize in economics.


Me: 56
H: 61
DD: 13 and hormonal
DS: 20

Oldest son died 1994 @ age 8

Happily married 30+ years
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 3
J
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
J
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 3
Originally Posted by medc
It is customary to not plagarize material.. Who are you, Joe Biden???

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/

Is that your best attempt for counterargument?

Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044
Quote
I wanted to hear you disagree with the person who just won the Pulitzer prize in economics.


you passed it off as your own...even editing a bit here and there.

Nice try.


Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 80
B
Member
Offline
Member
B
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 80
Originally Posted by rwinger
Perhaps though with the new president - the people will take ownership of the change they want instead of sitting back and complaining. Change has to come from the individual level and cannot be imposed from higher echelons.

This not to be disrespectful. Love to hear opinions of others.
Systemic change requires both individual and institutional remedies. It's clear that the overarching problem is the plight of the middle class. Often it's cited that people these days are lazy but I don't see it. What I see are families working longer and harder (more than at any time since WWII) just to make ends meet.

Years ago, a single wage earner was able to provide a comfortable middle class lifestyle (with vacations). Isn't it telling that when worker productivity continues to rise wages remain stagnant? The declining purchasing power of the middle class is eroding the affordability of the American dream. The (defining) elements of middle class life that have exploded upwards in affordability are college tuition, medical care, housing and transportation. The products that have stayed the same in price or declined are foreign manufactured goods.

The middle-class is facing a systemic cost structure that has exploded far beyond affordability. If you look at the housing bubble--prices have been so inflated, way beyond any relationship to real wages. The credit derivative markets with their parasitic ties to the mortgage brokerage industry contributed to this bubble. The problem now is titanic--not only b/c people can't make their house payments but b/c they bought at artificially inflated prices and will never be able recoup their investment (at least for many years). When you combine that with skyrocketing medical, educational, transportation and food costs the problem facing the middle class is readily apparent.

The outgoing administration never seemed too empathetic to the plight of ordinary hard working Americans. They got us into an expensive unnecessary war and never focused on the fact that average people feel exhausted from running on a dystopian economic treadmill. There's plenty of blame to go around and neither party has clean hands but clearly, change is needed. Sure, the devil is in the details but at least Obama offers inspirational hope to the middle-class. We will have to see if his rhetoric has substance, but part of a leader's job is to inspire optimism. The past executive appeared too much like a patrician and never seemed to get that hard working people are losing hope.

Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015
F
Member
Offline
Member
F
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015
Originally Posted by Jilldl
Originally Posted by medc
It is customary to not plagarize material.. Who are you, Joe Biden???

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/

Is that your best attempt for counterargument?


Deceit is just that, deceit. More of the "Obama" mantra (gleaned from Alinsky) that "the end justifies the means."

If someone will stoop to plagarism, obviously with the intent to make it seem as thos the plagarizer is "so much more intelligent," then at a minimum one can surmise that there is a combination of BIAS and "lack of esteem of one's own abilities" at play....and then just couched with the "juvenile-like" response of "I just wanted to see what you would say..."

Right.

Anyway, here's an interesting article, if not in rebuttal, in exploring some of the differences between Democrats and Republicans:


"MICHAEL SHERMER

Publisher of Skeptic magazine, monthly columnist for Scientific American; Author, Why Darwin Matters; and How We Believe

The Conscience of the Conservative

Two cheers for Jonathan Haidt's essay. At long last a liberal academic social scientist has recognized (and had the courage to put into print) the inherent bias built into the study of political behavior—that because Democrats are so indisputably right and Republicans so unquestionably wrong, conservatism must be a mental disease, a flaw in the brain, a personality disorder that leads to cognitive malfunctioning. Thus, Haidt is mostly right when he asks us to move beyond such "diagnoses" and remember "the second rule of moral psychology is that morality is not just about how we treat each other (as most liberals think); it is also about binding groups together, supporting essential institutions, and living in a sanctified and noble way. When Republicans say that Democrats 'just don't get it,' this is the 'it' to which they refer."

I allocate two (instead of three) cheers for Haidt's commentary because I think he does not go far enough. The liberal bias in academia is so entrenched that it becomes the political water through which the liberal fish swim—they don't even notice it. Even the question "What makes people vote Republican?" hints at something amiss in the mind of the conservative, along the lines of "Why do people believe weird things?" As Haidt notes, the standard liberal line is that people vote Republican because they are "cognitively inflexible, fond of hierarchy, and inordinately afraid of uncertainty, change, and death." A typical example of this characterization can be found in a famous 2003 paper published in the prestigious journal Psychological Bulletin by the New York University social psychologist John Jost and his colleagues, entitled "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition," in which they argue that conservatives suffer from "uncertainty avoidance," "need for order, structure, closure," and "dogmatism, intolerance of ambiguity," all of which leads to "resistance to change" and "endorsement of inequality."

It is not the data of these scientists that I am challenging so much as it is the characterizations on which the data were collected. We could just as easily characterize Democrats and liberals as suffering from a host of equally malevolent mental states: a lack of moral compass that leads to an inability to make clear ethical choices, an inordinate lack of certainty about social issues, a pathological fear of clarity that leads to indecisiveness, a naïve belief that all people are equally talented, and a blind adherence in the teeth of contradictory evidence that culture and environment determine one's lot in society and therefore it is up to the government to remedy all social injustices. As all conservatives know, liberals are a bunch of sandle-wearing, tree-hugging, whale-saving, hybrid-driving, trash-recycling, peaceniks, flip-floppers and bed-wetters.

This is a crass, unfair, and inaccurate characterization, of course, and that's my point. Once you set up the adjectives in the form of operationally defined personality traits and cognitive styles, it's easy to collect the data to support them. The flaw is in the characterization process itself. Two recent examples can be found in the 2008 book The Political Mind by Berkeley cognitive scientist George Lakoff and the 2007 book The Political Brain by Emory University psychologist Drew Westen. The tropes are familiar: liberals are generous to a fault ("bleeding hearts"), rational, intelligent, optimistic, and appeal to voters' reason through cogent arguments; conservatives are stingy ("heartless"), dour, and dim-witted authoritarians who appeal to voters' emotions through threat and fear-mongering. But conservatives win most elections because of their Machiavellian manipulation of voters' emotional brains.

None of this is true. Although Republicans defeated Democrats 25 to 20 in the 45 Presidential elections from 1828 to 2004, in the Senate Democrats outscored Republicans 3395 to 3323 in contesting 6832 seats from 1855 to 2006, and in the House Democrats trounced Republicans 15,363 to 12,994 in the 27,906 seats contested from 1855-2006.

Further, according to the National Opinion Research Center's General Social Surveys, 1972-2004, 44 percent of people who reported being "conservative" or "very conservative" said they were "very happy" versus only 25 percent of people who reported being "liberal" or "very liberal." A 2007 Gallup poll found that 58 percent of Republicans versus only 38 percent of Democrats said that their mental heath is "excellent." One reason may be that conservatives are so much more generous than liberals, giving 30 percent more money (even when controlled for income), donating more blood, and logging more volunteer hours. And it isn't because conservatives have more expendable income. The working poor give a substantially higher percentage of their incomes to charity than any other income group, and three times more than those on public assistance of comparable income—poverty is not a barrier to charity, but welfare is. One explanation for these findings is that conservatives believe charity should be private (through religion) whereas liberals believe charity should be public (through government).

Why are academic social scientists so wrong about conservatives? It is, I believe, because almost all of them are liberals! A 2005 study by the George Mason University economist Daniel Klein, using voter registrations, found that Democrats outnumbered Republicans among the faculty by a staggering ratio of 10 to 1 at the University of California, Berkeley and by 7.6 to 1 at Stanford University. In the humanities and social sciences the ratio was 16 to 1 at both campuses (30 to 1 among assistant and associate professors). In some departments, such as anthropology and journalism, there wasn't a single Republican to be found. The ratio for all departments in all colleges and universities throughout the U.S., says Klein, is 8 to 1 Democrats over Republicans. Smith College political scientist Stanley Rothman and his colleagues found a similar bias in a 2005 national study: only 15 percent professors describe themselves as conservative, compared to 72 percent who said they were liberal (80 percent in humanities and social sciences).

Why do people vote Republican? Because they believe their lives—and the lives of all Americans—will be better for it. And as often as not they are right."


Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044
Quote
If someone will stoop to plagarism, obviously with the intent to make it seem as thos the plagarizer is "so much more intelligent," then at a minimum one can surmise that there is a combination of BIAS and "lack of esteem of one's own abilities" at play....and then just couched with the "juvenile-like" response of "I just wanted to see what you would say..."

Yep.

Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044

Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015
F
Member
Offline
Member
F
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015
Originally Posted by medc

I guess that Howard Stern has shown (and I can't stand Howard Stern) that Obama supporters are likely to "endorse" and "support" ANYTHING Obama might actually do simply because "he is the annointed one."

"Single issue" voters? How about "no issue" voters?


It's going to be a very interesting ride these next 4 years.


Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,880
K
Member
Offline
Member
K
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,880
Originally Posted by ForeverHers
Originally Posted by medc

I guess that Howard Stern has shown (and I can't stand Howard Stern) that Obama supporters are likely to "endorse" and "support" ANYTHING Obama might actually do simply because "he is the annointed one."

"Single issue" voters? How about "no issue" voters?


It's going to be a very interesting ride these next 4 years.

He isn't the annointed one.

He's the one the American people overwhelmingly selected.

Your boy Dubya is borderline retarded AND corrupt. Obama can do no worse, short of inciting a global thermonuclear war.


Divorced
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,345
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,345
Originally Posted by ForeverHers
Why do people vote Republican? Because they believe their lives—and the lives of all Americans—will be better for it. And as often as not they are right."

Boy, with the "improvements" in quality of life that we have seen in the past 8 years, I'm not surprised that the people finally got smart. Just surprised that it took that long.

AGG


Page 2 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Link Copied to Clipboard
Forum Search
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 1,079 guests, and 45 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
Mike69, petercgeelan, Zorya, Reyna98, Nofoguy
71,829 Registered Users
Building Marriages That Last A Lifetime
Copyright © 1995-2019, Marriage Builders®. All Rights Reserved.
Site Navigation
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5