Dark Lord Potter Forums Dark Lord Potter Forums  
Go Back   Dark Lord Potter Forums > Common Room > Politics
Donate Register Rules Library List IRC Chat FAQ Members List Social Groups Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Notices

Donate to DLP PatronusCharm Banner

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-12-2015, 07:06 PM   #21
Socialist
Professor
 
Socialist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: The root of mt. Olympus
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 401
Quote:
Originally Posted by R. E. Lee View Post
The interesting thing for me at this point is that of everyone we've heard is interested in running from the Republican side, I can't recall any serious religious right candidates. I
My [admitelly limited] understanding of the issue is that young republicans are rapidly developing towards social liberalism. That is, pro gay rights/marriage, pro abortion, climate change is not a myth, drug decriminalization and so on. Their demographic leans a lot more towards strong defence, fiscal responsibility, fixing the economy.

The GOP is slowly but surely changing to reflect this - they still want to be elected.
__________________
Quote:
Your thoughts run and flow like water, molding themselves around you, so that you can think anything rather than think that you are wrong.
Socialist is offline  
Thumbs Up 1 Thumb Up
Old 04-12-2015, 07:09 PM   #22
Pasta Sentient
Disappeared
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Earth
Gender: Male
Posts: 788
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warburg View Post
How do you reconcile this with the idea of separation between church and state? Why do you get to decide what marriage is defined as? Does it harm you or anyone else if two gay people decide to get married? Why do you get to impose your moral beliefs on others if they aren't harming anyone? Is your possible future marriage somehow cheapened by the fact that some other priest that you don't know or attend wedded to gay people? I'm simply baffled by this stance because almost no one in my country takes it.

Ultimately it boils down to the fact that my stance is based on something outside of myself. I believe that God has set these rules and to act outside of these rules is harmful to the human race.

As for separation of Church and State, my view on it is extremely complicated. I believe that the best form of government would be a Theocracy in which God is the Monarch (please note this much different than a human ruler). That said, this is not a government that will come about in the present day.

Therefore, there are two options I consider to be best for government. Either to allow God's law to govern our government or to have a government that stays out of the lives of it's citizens. The secondary is separation of Church and state.

Since the USA government follows the secondary option as opposed to the primary option; I believe it is a fallacy that the government is even allowed to define marriage at all.

Like I said, it's complicated and I'm probably not articulating it in the best manner.

Edit: I will say in addendum that many of the Churches that are being formed and "my generation" of fellow Christians follow my view on homosexuality. We don't hate homosexuals or those who do not follow God's law because we know it's impossible to follow God's law as imperfect humans. What's so great about Christianity, is that God offered a way for people to receive amnesty from His law.

Last edited by Pasta Sentient; 04-12-2015 at 07:12 PM.
Pasta Sentient is offline  
Thumbs Up 1 Thumb Up
Old 04-12-2015, 07:26 PM   #23
Eilyfe
Order Member
 
Eilyfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Posts: 840
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pasta Sentient
I believe that the best form of government would be a Theocracy in which God is the Monarch
I'm sorry, wut? That sentence just blew my mind...

In any case, this will be the first American election I'll follow in real time and I'm curious to see how it'll turn out, and what kind of impact another president will have on Germany (if there is any impact to be had).
__________________
"'Tis now the very witching time of night,
When churchyards yawn, and hell itself breaths out
Contagion to this world."
Eilyfe is offline  
Thumbs Up 1 Thumb Up
Old 04-12-2015, 07:28 PM   #24
Warburg
Seventh Year
 
Warburg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Denmark
Age: 22
Gender: Male
Posts: 278
Alright, I'll just focus on the part I can actually comprehend and respond to:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pasta Sentient View Post
Therefore, there are two options I consider to be best for government. Either to allow God's law to govern our government or to have a government that stays out of the lives of it's citizens. The secondary is separation of Church and state.
Since the USA government follows the secondary option as opposed to the primary option; I believe it is a fallacy that the government is even allowed to define marriage at all.
If you say that you want a government that stays out of people's lives, why are you in favour of intervening in people's ability to get married? If government can't define marriage and only the Christian God can, why should any of your theologically based laws be applied to anyone that doesn't belong to your religion or even just your religious sect? That's the exact opposite of the separation of church and state. If you believe that marriage should be defined based on Christian values and government should apply those values to all of society, you're basically arguing against one of the founding principles of your great republic.(no sarcasm)
Warburg is offline  
Old 04-12-2015, 07:31 PM   #25
Aekiel
Unspeakable
Angle of Mispeling
 
Aekiel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: The Mouth of Ports
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 771
DLP Supporter Donor Star
High Score: 9,373
His ideal form of government is a theocracy. He doesn't want a separation of church and state.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Custer
We're holding out for more SasuNaru goodness.
Because you can't, you won't and you don't stop ~ The Beastie Muppets
Steam Profile
Aekiel is offline  
Thumbs Up 3 thumbs up
Old 04-12-2015, 07:39 PM   #26
esran
Professor
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 456
Fuck, I accidentally clicked thumbs up instead of quote. Is there an undo?
Edit: never mind found it.
esran is offline  
Old 04-12-2015, 07:44 PM   #27
ScottPress
Headmaster
The Horny Sovereign
 
ScottPress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: The Holy Moose Empire
Age: 24
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,138
High Score: 1,826
Can I just say that whenever I see posts like this (or about climate change, or creationism, or any of this wacky stuff) and I realize that there are actual people behind them, I start mentally tripping. I'm talking pink elephants, Dumbo style.

There are people who hold these views running for one of the most powerful political offices in the world. It just baffles me.
__________________
Lesser Evils (current WIP)
WBA | FFN | AO3 | Lesser Evils Beta Group
ScottPress is online now  
Old 04-12-2015, 07:46 PM   #28
Pasta Sentient
Disappeared
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Earth
Gender: Male
Posts: 788
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warburg View Post
Alright, I'll just focus on the part I can actually comprehend and respond to:

If you say that you want a government that stays out of people's lives, why are you in favour of intervening in people's ability to get married? If government can't define marriage and only the Christian God can, why should any of your theologically based laws be applied to anyone that doesn't belong to your religion or even just your religious sect? That's the exact opposite of the separation of church and state. If you believe that marriage should be defined based on Christian values and government should apply those values to all of society, you're basically arguing against one of the founding principles of your great republic.(no sarcasm)


Long story short. Best government is no separation of State and The Bible (different than Church). Next best is government that stays out of people's lives and lets local government decide. Federal government acts as intermediary between local governments.

Since it is unlikely I'll ever see a Theocracy in the USA; I'm content with the other end of the Federal government having little power and local governments being allowed to do what is best for their constituents.

Edit: @Scott Press If you ever have any questions about why I believe what I believe (creationism/my religious views) feel to PM me. This is obviously not the place for that discussion; but there is real thought and cohesion to the reason behind my beliefs.

Last edited by Pasta Sentient; 04-12-2015 at 07:49 PM.
Pasta Sentient is offline  
Old 04-12-2015, 07:56 PM   #29
Warburg
Seventh Year
 
Warburg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Denmark
Age: 22
Gender: Male
Posts: 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pasta Sentient View Post
Long story short. Best government is no separation of State and The Bible (different than Church). Next best is government that stays out of people's lives and lets local government decide. Federal government acts as intermediary between local governments.

Since it is unlikely I'll ever see a Theocracy in the USA; I'm content with the other end of the Federal government having little power and local governments being allowed to do what is best for their constituents.
So you basically want to scrap the constitution, at least the parts that go against your hard-line theological doctrine.
Anyway, why is local government allowed to interfere in people's lives but not the federal government? Is the local government somehow better suited to decide what people are and aren't allowed to do? Again, I'll repeat some of my questions, because I really feel like you haven't answered them: how will it harm you if gay people get married in a different church with a different priest and possibly a different religion. What gives you the moral authority to decide how people of different or no religion are allowed to act. Why should your religious doctrine apply to people who don't follow your religion? Is the answer to all or these more or less "because God said so" then I guess I can't argue with that, despite my vehement disagreement.
Warburg is offline  
Old 04-12-2015, 08:04 PM   #30
Pasta Sentient
Disappeared
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Earth
Gender: Male
Posts: 788
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warburg View Post
So you basically want to scrap the constitution, at least the parts that go against your hard-line theological doctrine.
Anyway, why is local government allowed to interfere in people's lives but not the federal government? Is the local government somehow better suited to decide what people are and aren't allowed to do? Again, I'll repeat some of my questions, because I really feel like you haven't answered them: how will it harm you if gay people get married in a different church with a different priest and possibly a different religion. What gives you the moral authority to decide how people of different or no religion are allowed to act. Why should your religious doctrine apply to people who don't follow your religion? Is the answer to all or these more or less "because God said so" then I guess I can't argue with that, despite my vehement disagreement.

To answer your question, I'm not saying to scrap the constitution. It has been in place and while not perfect has worked. I speak of the ideal I would like even though it would never happen.

As for local versus federal? I fundamentally believe that the farther away you get from a situation the more likely you are to be out of touch with the situation on the ground. The President in Washington DC does not know the best policy for a small little town in Alaska...or a city in Texas...etc.

Our government is based on representation and democracy. When you have millions of people voting, your vote has less power. With local governments having more power, so does the citizen.

And while I'm afraid to disappoint, but ultimately yes. When I speak on morals, I'm speaking from the Bible which is the ultimate moral Authority. I believe that by acting in accordance with the Bible, society itself is happier, more productive, and ultimately better for the whole of humanity.
Pasta Sentient is offline  
Old 04-12-2015, 08:11 PM   #31
esran
Professor
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 456
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pasta Sentient View Post
To answer your question, I'm not saying to scrap the constitution. It has been in place and while not perfect has worked. I speak of the ideal I would like even though it would never happen.

As for local versus federal? I fundamentally believe that the farther away you get from a situation the more likely you are to be out of touch with the situation on the ground. The President in Washington DC does not know the best policy for a small little town in Alaska...or a city in Texas...etc.

Our government is based on representation and democracy. When you have millions of people voting, your vote has less power. With local governments having more power, so does the citizen.

And while I'm afraid to disappoint, but ultimately yes. When I speak on morals, I'm speaking from the Bible which is the ultimate moral Authority. I believe that by acting in accordance with the Bible, society itself is happier, more productive, and ultimately better for the whole of humanity.
I hope you understand that your beliefs are so fundamentally different from mine that productive discussion between us is almost certainly impossible. Your arguments (and presumably my arguments from your perspective) are based on false, potentially dangerous premises, and anything derived from them is less likely to be correct than a random number generator. I feel safe saying that your desiring something to happen is strong evidence that that thing would be bad, and anything you say at this point is likely to convince me of the opposite.
Like, I was planning on voting Republican but the candidate has views at all similar to yours I'll have to vote Democrat.
esran is offline  
Old 04-12-2015, 08:15 PM   #32
Samuel Black
Minister for Magic
 
Samuel Black's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,297
Edit: this was meant for pasta. Got ninja'd.

For you. If society acted in accordance with the Bible, I, personally, would be very unhappy. But you don't see me saying that you can't live your life the way you see fit, as long as it doesn't infringe on other people's rights. What gives you the right to interfere with others? Honestly. I grew up Catholic. But I have never understood why I, or anybody, should force religious beliefs on anybody else. And honestly, the fact that you dress it up as good for society kind of disgusts me. It's good for you, and anyone who shares your beliefs. Id have a lot more respect if you just came out and said, look, I don't agree with what you believe, and I know I'm right, so I'm just going to make you live the way I see fit. I mean, I would still think it's retarded, but at least you'd be honest.
Samuel Black is offline  
Old 04-12-2015, 08:17 PM   #33
Warburg
Seventh Year
 
Warburg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Denmark
Age: 22
Gender: Male
Posts: 278
I'll try to be as nice about this as possible. The fact that you believe that your beliefs are the only truth and that they should be applied to others based on some warped interpretation of an ancient text with no scientific evidence or anything remotely resembling fact to back you up makes you an intolerant extremist.
EDIT: To clarify, I'm fine with you believing that gay people live in sin. I really don't give a crap what religious people think or do in regards to their religion as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else or infringe upon their rights and freedoms. Your religion, however, should be between you and your god. I don't want any part of it and I'm going to call you out when you want to impose your religious beliefs on others.

Last edited by Warburg; 04-12-2015 at 08:27 PM.
Warburg is offline  
Thumbs Up 1 Thumb Up
Old 04-12-2015, 08:19 PM   #34
Pasta Sentient
Disappeared
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Earth
Gender: Male
Posts: 788
@esran

I'm curious as to what premises you believe are false. If you are speaking about my premises being based upon the Bible, I would ask how much of it have you read?

I'm more than willing to agree to disagree. I'm just curious as to which premises you are speaking of. Mainly due to the fact that as I mentioned, I'm still debating on many things myself. I reserve the right to change my mind when presented with evidence that proves me wrong.
@Samuel Black Where did I ever say I would force anyone to follow my beliefs? I've said that I believe it is better to follow them. I've said that I believe humanity as a whole is better off if following those beliefs; but I don't believe that gives me the right to force someone to follow that belief. That's one of the reasons while I support local governments. If a local government for example does not allow gay marriage, people have the ability to move to a local government that does.

I would also ask, how much of the Bible have you read? A proper understanding changes things. It's not, "Don't do this." It's "Accept this gift."

Edited: @Warburg, Do I believe that the Bible is true? Yes, I do. Do I believe I should force others to follow it? To an extent, yes I do. Things like "Do not murder." And "Do not steal" are quite important for society to function don't you think? Does it make me an intolerant extremist for believing that society functions better without murder?

And we have obviously had different educations. There are numerous and plentiful accounts about the factuality of the Bible. You speak of warped interpretation; I would ask what your theology of the Bible is? How do you interpret it?

Last edited by Pasta Sentient; 04-12-2015 at 08:24 PM.
Pasta Sentient is offline  
Old 04-12-2015, 08:26 PM   #35
Samuel Black
Minister for Magic
 
Samuel Black's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,297
I've read the Bible, honestly more times than I can count. Honestly, I've read it more now as an atheist than I ever did as a practicing Catholic.

And you're right, you didn't say that. You just want a society where the laws are based off of that religion, making it so that whether or not I believe in them, I have to live like I do. And it's great to say that people can move if they don't agree, but all that does is make me think you have never been poor.

Also, that do not murder or steal is such a ridiculous argument. You don't have to be religious to know you shouldn't kill people. No one has a problem with things like that. It's when you impede people from marrying who they love, or preventing women from making a choice, or try to stop a child from learning about evolution. That's when people have a problem with religion. Don't trot out thou shall not murder and ask what the problem is. You know what the issue is.

Last edited by Samuel Black; 04-12-2015 at 08:42 PM.
Samuel Black is offline  
Thumbs Up 1 Thumb Up
Old 04-12-2015, 08:44 PM   #36
Warburg
Seventh Year
 
Warburg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Denmark
Age: 22
Gender: Male
Posts: 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pasta Sentient View Post
I would also ask, how much of the Bible have you read? A proper understanding changes things. It's not, "Don't do this." It's "Accept this gift."
Holy hell, the balls on this guy. Hey gay people, you better accept this gift that I offer you and be grateful. I know better than you anyway with your silly sexuality. One day, when you're converted to constantly live in shame of your own desires, you'll thank me for this "gift". Sorry, I think I can do without your gift.
Quote:
Edited: @Warburg, Do I believe that the Bible is true? Yes, I do. Do I believe I should force others to follow it? To an extent, yes I do. Things like "Do not murder." And "Do not steal" are quite important for society to function don't you think? Does it make me an intolerant extremist for believing that society functions better without murder?
No absolutely not, but there are plenty of reasons besides your theological beliefs why murder should be illegal. Our argument is about your belief that something should be law purely based on your religious beliefs.
Quote:
And we have obviously had different educations. There are numerous and plentiful accounts about the factuality of the Bible. You speak of warped interpretation; I would ask what your theology of the Bible is? How do you interpret it?
I'm not saying that Jesus didn't live. However, there isn't any proof that he was the son of God or that God even exists. That's not to say that he doesn't, I'm an agnostic. There's also no proof that the Bible is somehow the word of God, since it was edited for hundreds or years.(Council of Nicaea etc.)
Warburg is offline  
Old 04-12-2015, 08:52 PM   #37
Samuel Black
Minister for Magic
 
Samuel Black's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,297
There isn't any proof, or non disputed proof at least, that says that Jesus even existed. I'll just go ahead and say it. There may, may have been a man who served as inspiration for the myth of Jesus Christ. But Jesus as any religion knows him did not exist.

Edit: this thread is going way off topic. Pasta, if you want to continue this ever, pm me.

Last edited by Samuel Black; 04-12-2015 at 08:55 PM.
Samuel Black is offline  
Old 04-12-2015, 09:18 PM   #38
esran
Professor
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 456
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pasta Sentient View Post
@esran

I'm curious as to what premises you believe are false. If you are speaking about my premises being based upon the Bible, I would ask how much of it have you read?

I'm more than willing to agree to disagree. I'm just curious as to which premises you are speaking of. Mainly due to the fact that as I mentioned, I'm still debating on many things myself. I reserve the right to change my mind when presented with evidence that proves me wrong.
The main premise I think makes debate between us possible is that you believe the bible is the ultimate arbiter of morality, while I believe that morality is derived from human enlightenment, and is liable to change as and become better as humans develop and become wiser.

As to how much of the bible I've read, I've read the entire thing multiple times. Seriously, even the really boring parts. I grew up religious. Reading the bible helped me decide to become atheist.
Unfortunately there is no evidence I can present that will change your mind. Forgive me that I try anyway, knowing that it is a doomed effort.

Humanity was created with the ability to develop moral beliefs. If god expected us to act morally, why would he create us with faulty moral belief systems? Why would he allow people to do wrong while thinking they do right? The bible is in many ways a guide to morality. At the time it was created it described a moral system that was in many ways superior to that of previous systems. However, many of the commandments seem to be without reason.

One such commandment is the one against premarital relationships. At the time, this rule probably stopped a lot of actual issues such as children born to incest or to situations where there is no support structure for them.

However, civilization developed. With the existence of birth control there is no longer any immediately apparent reason why premarital sex is problematic. Certainly in many cases it is, but as a general rule there does not seem to be any problems at all with it.

Another commandment is more egregious, the one against homosexuality. As far as I can tell there was never an immediately apparent reason for it.

So for commandments like this there are three possibilities.

One: At the time of creation the commandment was just, but now civilization has developed past that point and we should therefore revise our moral system to match.

Two: There is a transcendent reason for the commandment that will always be in effect, a reason that makes certain actions bad, but we are not wise enough to see it. I find this absurdly unlikely, and say if this is true we would see evidence of it, and discover reasons to obey the commandments, not the opposite as we in fact observe.

Three: The actions are not intrinsically harmful, rather god dislike them and chooses to make the world worse when he sees them done. But what right does god have to do this? If the actions harm nobody, then why must god harm people for them. Is god not the villain in this scenario, the moral monster that acts as a source of evil and hurt for no reason other than his own personal preference? Is god truly so evil he would create some of us with lust for their own gender and then harm the entire world when they give in?

Therefore, either god's commandments are outdated, unknowable, or outright evil. Humanity has free will and should not be slaves to a higher being made of malice, or one that refuses to explain its reasons. Humanity is wise and through enlightenment can see for itself the difference between right and wrong. Humanity develops and becomes more amazing every day, it should not remain tethered to the words of a book god cannot even bother updating, a book god could easily give a miracle to prove is his, but chooses not to fore reason unclear.

Whether god exists or not, humanity should not obey him. If he truly wished for us to obey him, and believe in his existence, he would prove he exists by lifting a single metaphorical finger of his omnipotent power. That he doesn't is proof he wants us to make our own way through the world, and decide for ourselves how we should live.

So vote your conscience this coming election, not the will of a deity that you never truly comprehended anyway. Wouldn't it be embarrasing if it turned out you had misinterpreted his will this whole time? So do what you think is right based on logical reasoning, and let logic, the nature of the universe, combined with the moral compass that comes from living in an enlightened society, guide your actions.

So there, I can totally do pointless debates. Tell me if any of that hit home but I'm guessing I'm talking right past you.
esran is offline  
Thumbs Up 3 thumbs up
Old 04-12-2015, 09:24 PM   #39
Scott
Seventh Year
 
Scott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: President Paul
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Posts: 299
DLP Supporter Donor Star
@Pasta bro you keep mentioning the wrong Scott I'm getting these emails thinking I'm popular when I'm not.
__________________

Scott is online now  
Old 04-12-2015, 10:15 PM   #40
Banta
The Chosen One
 
Banta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Oregon
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,089
DLP Supporter Donor Star
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pasta Sentient View Post
As for local versus federal? I fundamentally believe that the farther away you get from a situation the more likely you are to be out of touch with the situation on the ground. The President in Washington DC does not know the best policy for a small little town in Alaska...or a city in Texas...etc.

Our government is based on representation and democracy. When you have millions of people voting, your vote has less power. With local governments having more power, so does the citizen.
But that's the point. The President isn't supposed to give a shit about what happens in Podunk, Alaska or Middle of Nowhere, Fly-Over State. His job is to focus on what is best for the country as a whole, not what's best for each little segment of it individually.

Which is why the Constitution provides for the House and Senate, and even then delegate a lot of authority to each state to govern itself, which also delegates authority to local municipalities. The more local the government is, the more it's supposed to care about the little guy. While globalization is changing this, the shift hasn't completely happened yet.

I disagree with your opinion on the power of the vote. The more local the government is, the more power a vote has. Even when you get to national elections, a lot of little votes can make big waves. Organization is key, hence political parties.

Quote:
And while I'm afraid to disappoint, but ultimately yes. When I speak on morals, I'm speaking from the Bible which is the ultimate moral Authority. I believe that by acting in accordance with the Bible, society itself is happier, more productive, and ultimately better for the whole of humanity.
I 100% disagree with you on this, that the Bible is the ultimate moral authority and that if everyone just acted within its bounds then everyone would be happier. Morality existed before the Bible, and it will exist after the last Christian dies; it isn't something you need God to tell you, it's set by the society you live in. And people are so varied in terms of wants and desires that not everyone would be happy and content living by the precepts f the Bible, or any holy book for that matter. Perhaps you're okay with this, but I'm not.
Banta is offline  
Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 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
Twin Peaks 2016 Jibril Movies, Music and TV shows 3 10-07-2014 04:10 AM
Israeli Elections Azira Politics 11 01-25-2013 09:51 PM
Midterm Elections Taure Politics 101 11-05-2010 07:48 PM
Presidential Elections vlad Politics 0 05-15-2010 02:15 PM
Mid-Term Elections Hadoren Politics 27 11-10-2006 04:54 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:39 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright ©2005 - 2016 DLP Group. All rights reserved.
No personal intellectual property on this site may be used without the credit and express permission of the respective authors.