Hey, hey, hey, wait up - Mars is not a country

clark · 2002-07-01 10:08:41

Personally, I think that this is going nowhere. We will always have something to argue about and something to respond with to each other. But whatever. I don't know.

You argue for slavery, I argue against it.

As I said before, a monarch is a person you can:
a. Look up to.
b. BLame for everything and thus take your anger out on him in private (not that is very good, but at least you stop being so unsure of yourself).
c. Praise for everything and thus raising your spirit.

A. Arbitrary- any "leader" can be one that is looked up to, so a Monarchy should not be considered solely for this reason.
B. Blaming someone for something is unproductive- it seems that you are suiggesting that a monarchy would make people feel better since it would absolve them of any responsibility for how they must live their life- how is this sensible?
C. Just as arbitrary as reason A and can be achieved using any type of leader.

Personally, setting aside my monarchist belief, I would not go into to battle yelling "For the president" or "for democracy", but rather "For The King/Czar!" or how the famous Russian saying goes "For the Czar, For the Country, For the Church!"

Personally, I think it is short sighted to choose a form of government based on its potential "rallying cry". "Gee, we are slaves, but at least we have this really cool cheer!"

As for the children part - that is the weakest part of monarchy, I agree, and I cannot say anything against it.

Then how can you legitametly support your position?

True, Peter I, Nicholas I, and Alexander III were tough Emperors, but nevertheless, they weren't tyrannical. Basically, "Bloody Sunday" was the greatest mistake of the last Czar - people started to think of him as a Tyrant, and some even called him "Nicholas the Bloody".

Mistakes can be repeated, why allow for that possibility? The entire system you support works only if the Czar WANTS it to- why are you willing to allow the personality of ONE person dictate tyranny or justice based on their ever changing whims? I understand the historical precedents you cite, but what of the numerous historical precedents that suggest an otherwise unpleaseant expereince with monachies?

As for the church, I don't see why such a separation is needed.

What if I don't belive in the "church" teachings? Should people be forced to support a belief system they do not agree with?

Every monarch was scared of the revolution, because he might loose his power.

We are saying the same thing- however, I am pointing out that the Monarch does not need to fear the revolution if he is able to maintain enough force to quell a rebellion- if he has a willing army, he can indefinitly ignore everybody else EXCEPT those who he relies on to maintain his force- this means that the only people who get represented are the people that allow the monarch to maintain enough force to stay in power. That's why monarchies suck.

Well, in the french "democracy" people can't really do much, except vote. Otherwise, everything is up to the president. And besides, if they elected a president, they would probably elect a party that is a friend of the president.

EXACTLY! The people have the means to have their voces heard- the President can only maintain his power by satisfiying the People who vote for him- democracy in this form empowers the individual and prevents the abuses that we see in a dictatorship/monarchy.

Anton Kuratnik · 2002-07-03 11:42:30

You argue for slavery, I argue against it.

This is getting annyoing.
Slightly constitutional monarchy (Russia in the late XIX and early XX centuries) is as much a slavery as a democracy. I state that and I state that again and I think I already made my point why. You seem to be ignoring it.

A. Arbitrary- any "leader" can be one that is looked up to, so a Monarchy should not be considered solely for this reason.
B. Blaming someone for something is unproductive- it seems that you are suiggesting that a monarchy would make people feel better since it would absolve them of any responsibility for how they must live their life- how is this sensible?
C. Just as arbitrary as reason A and can be achieved using any type of leader.

A. A President has to be always with the people, people he is a leader od a democracy - country ruled by its people. Thus you almost always see everything a President does or doesn't do. A King, on the other hand, can be much more secret, although, of course, he has to reveal himself pretty often. THis makes him more mystical, people start to give him traits that he doesn't have. Some give him bad traits, some good. IF you think of him as sort of a savior, it's much easier to look up to him than to a president.
B. If you give him bad traits, you can blame him for everything. Although it IS unproductive, I'd rather curse at Putin for a few hours and blame him for what Russia is right now than just not do anything and feel sorry for my country. I did curse at him many times, it made me feel better, but that did NOT stop me from making my own movement, and even encouraged me to do so.
C. Again, a King can hide his bad deeds and make it easier to praise him.

Personally, I think it is short sighted to choose a form of government based on its potential "rallying cry". "Gee, we are slaves, but at least we have this really cool cheer!"

It is not a matter of life and death, but it does add a lot to the patriotism, which results in better military AND economy. As for the last part of it, I'm not even going to answer that. Look at the very top of my post.

Then how can you legitametly support your position?

Democracy is not perfect either, but you somehow are able to support your position. Every form of government has its own strengths and weaknesses, and it always has some very strong points and very weak points. The heir thing is one of the very weak points of monarchy. BUT as Peter I has ordered (and what was the rule until the Revolution), the heir is chosen by the Czar, and the age doesn't count anymore. Thus, if one of your sons/daughters is a bad Czar, you can always choose another one.

Mistakes can be repeated, why allow for that possibility?

First of all, the age of assasinations passed. Great rulers are now rarely assasinated, and a fear of that should not be that strong in a ruler of today's world. And besides, if another Bloody SUnday occured today, the ruler of the country will be harshly punished by other countries and will loose the respect they had for him.

What if I don't belive in the "church" teachings? Should people be forced to support a belief system they do not agree with?

First of all, I hardly believe a powerful church will ever be organized on Mars. Second, as I said, today the church is less powerful. Peter I declared that the patriarchal system of the church (where it is ruled by one person: the patriarch) is bad and made a new system where it is ruled by many people (Sinod) and thus makes the church much weaker. By the XX century, the power of the church was feasible, although most of the Russians were very faithful believers. I mean, if your parents believed in the same faith since the IX century, I would think it would be easy for you to believe, too. As for those who believed in other faiths, non-orthodox churches (or other places of worship) were allowed in Imperial Russia.

We are saying the same thing- however, I am pointing out that the Monarch does not need to fear the revolution if he is able to maintain enough force to quell a rebellion- if he has a willing army

Army in Imperial Russia consisted of peasants. If peasants are unhappy, the army is unhappy, and you will never have a willing army with unwilling peasants. Today, the Russian draft rule is this: if you don't go to college one year after graduation from school, you will be drafted. If you did go to college, you can be drafted in times of war. If you're not drafted until you are 27 years of age, you will never be drafted. WHo doesn't go to college? People who have neither money or good education. WHo are those? Peasants, only peasants of the modern world. Thus even today the army consists of peasants, and if they're unhappy, you wll not have a willing army. USA, where there is no draft, is a bad example, since it is a very powerful country by itself and does not need to draft people currently. THus most of the people who go to the army still get a good education.

That's why monarchies suck.

That's offensive. I never said that "democracy sucks", although I certainly feel so. Sometimes.

EXACTLY! The people have the means to have their voces heard- the President can only maintain his power by satisfiying the People who vote for him- democracy in this form empowers the individual and prevents the abuses that we see in a dictatorship/monarchy.

Yes, but in today's world, a monarch will be risking by not satisfying people. And again, he would not be a tyrant while he knows for sure that a revolution will occur if people grow tired of him.

SO to sum this up, you just have to stop being stubborn and acknowledge that Monarchy is not necessarily (sp?) slavery. I know that every person has his own beliefs that he cannot change (I, personally, don't need reasons for why monarchy is good, but I can think of those reasons if needed), but please, believe me, Monarchy is NOT slavery. You are looking at monarchy of the medieval times. Those time passed. It's much different today.

Byron · 2002-07-03 12:58:31

O.K....Time for me to weigh in on this matter of monarchies... First of all, I wholeheartly agree with Clark that monarchies do *suck*...reading your arguments in support of monarchy certainly makes me very, very proud to live in a representative democracy.

Personally, I find it *appalling* that anyone, especially a person of reasonable intelligence, would even advocate a monarchy in the 21st Century. This is an antiquated system whose time has come and gone, and to tell you the truth, if I were to ever to live in a place (like Mars) that was based on a monarchial system, I would do everything in my power to see to it that the king/queen/czar be cut down. For the most part, modern humans DO NOT need a "hero" leader like you suggest...they want to be in charge of their own lives; not to have someone sitting on a guilded throne telling them what to do...even if they aren't "bad."

Mars will be a place where people will be seeking their own destiny, and the idea that a monarchy could be put in place on humanities' second world is absurd at best, atrocious at worst. Sure, there are flaws in every governmental system; this is why I'm an anarchist at heart, but a U.S.-style system of a republic certainly has been far superior to anything that Russia has ever had... The United States enjoys a position of dominant world power and has the world's highest standard of living, as well as the world's most stable form of government. Why would *anyone* suggest a revolution-prone system such as monarchy as opposed to what we have here in the US or Europe is beyond me. Why not just stick with what works??? Russia has *never* enjoyed a period of peace and prosperity like the U.S. has...so using the old Russian system of czars in another place would represent the very pinnacle of human stupidity....

I close with this: Down with any future king/queen/czar, and the PEOPLE will prevail, both here on Earth and on future Mars. Freedom rules!!!!

Byron,

A proud, democracy-supporting American...

Palomar · 2002-07-03 15:21:48

O.K....Time for me to weigh in on this matter of monarchies... First of all, I wholeheartly agree with Clark that monarchies do *suck*...reading your arguments in support of monarchy certainly makes me very, very proud to live in a representative democracy.
Personally, I find it *appalling* that anyone, especially a person of reasonable intelligence, would even advocate a monarchy in the 21st Century. This is an antiquated system whose time has come and gone, and to tell you the truth, if I were to ever to live in a place (like Mars) that was based on a monarchial system, I would do everything in my power to see to it that the king/queen/czar be cut down. For the most part, modern humans DO NOT need a "hero" leader like you suggest...they want to be in charge of their own lives; not to have someone sitting on a guilded throne telling them what to do...even if they aren't "bad."
Mars will be a place where people will be seeking their own destiny, and the idea that a monarchy could be put in place on humanities' second world is absurd at best, atrocious at worst. Sure, there are flaws in every governmental system; this is why I'm an anarchist at heart, but a U.S.-style system of a republic certainly has been far superior to anything that Russia has ever had... The United States enjoys a position of dominant world power and has the world's highest standard of living, as well as the world's most stable form of government. Why would *anyone* suggest a revolution-prone system such as monarchy as opposed to what we have here in the US or Europe is beyond me. Why not just stick with what works??? Russia has *never* enjoyed a period of peace and prosperity like the U.S. has...so using the old Russian system of czars in another place would represent the very pinnacle of human stupidity....
I close with this: Down with any future king/queen/czar, and the PEOPLE will prevail, both here on Earth and on future Mars. Freedom rules!!!!
Byron,
A proud, democracy-supporting American...

*Way to go Byron! Wooo-hooo! :::HIGH FIVE!:::

A happy and safe 4th of July to my fellow USA citizens!

--Cindy

clark · 2002-07-03 16:18:32

Slightly constitutional monarchy (Russia in the late XIX and early XX centuries) is as much a slavery as a democracy. I state that and I state that again and I think I already made my point why. You seem to be ignoring it.

I hear you Anton, but any amount of slavery is still slavery. You suggest a system whereby only one individual makes all of the laws and is also responsible for enforcing the laws. The fundamental problem is that you have one person who is able to pick and choose what the laws are or which ones will be enforce- all based on a whim. Time and time again history has has given us the same lesson, the greater the focus of power, the greater the chance of abuse. A democracy is anthema to a monarchy- incompatiable- either the people make the decisions, or the monarch does- if the people make the decisions, then it is NOT a monarchy, it is a republic whereby the people make their will known and the King is charged with carrying out their will. A monarchy is the will of the king alone, which precludes any involvement by the people- the people are charged with obeying the directives of the king, or revolting.

THis makes him more mystical, people start to give him traits that he doesn't have. Some give him bad traits, some good. IF you think of him as sort of a savior, it's much easier to look up to him than to a president.

Is it wise to worship men as gods?

It is not a matter of life and death, but it does add a lot to the patriotism, which results in better military AND economy.

If it results in a better military, please explain why all the greatest militaries today have democratic governments? Please alos explain why democracy leaning governments have the best economies as well. Reality argues against your statement.

Democracy is not perfect either, but you somehow are able to support your position.

I have never claimed democracy is perfect, but I would love for you to please point out any perceived imperfections.

And besides, if another Bloody SUnday occured today, the ruler of the country will be harshly punished by other countries and will loose the respect they had for him.

Even if the likelyhood is small, why allow the possibility? Furthermore, isn't it short-sighted to rely on other countries who may or may not get involved in what might be deemed an "internal conflict"? Many people in Chechneya would like international assistance in what they view as outside aggression and oppression- yet no on helps becuase it is considered an "internal conflict".

Army in Imperial Russia consisted of peasants. If peasants are unhappy, the army is unhappy, and you will never have a willing army with unwilling peasants.

When a peasant joins the army, he becomes a soldier, and I assume gets paid. Now, if the King makes sure that the peasants who are soldiers are happy, he then no longer has to worry about them- he has made all the peasants with guns happy- since the soldiers are happy, they have something to lose if something happens to the King- they now have a vested interest in preventing the non-soldier peasants from overthrowing the King- that means the King dosen't have to worry about the rest of the peasants becuase he has a certain group of them happy enough to keep the other unhappy peasants at bay. You see, the soldiers implement the will of the King- they do so in exchange for something- as long as the King is able to give them what they want, he dosen't need to consider anyone else becuase they give him nothing he cannot either get for himself or have forced by virtue of his soldiers.

That's offensive. I never said that "democracy sucks", although I certainly feel so. Sometimes.

Explain why you feel democracy sucks.

Monarchy is a form of slavery becuase the monarch is a person ordained by god to rule over other people.

Socrates · 2004-09-02 16:49:01

Kuratink, your an idiot. Democracy is at least ten times better than a traditional monarchy and Mars should be one nation. There are already 192 nations on this planet, we don't need another 192 nations on Mars

smurf975 · 2004-09-03 13:48:29

Perhaps I'd be more satisfied with an elected Chief Executive who serves a decade-long term of office, so they can make plans for more than 4 years in advance. Plus enough pomp and ceremony to make the House of Windsor jealous.

I can life with that but maybe every 5 years referendum, that basically asks: "I'm with the President / Yes" or "I"m against the President / No". If their are more No's then Yes's some procedures must come into action to and a follow up will follow.

Or you can do like the French a President for 5 years but with much more powers then the US one and he can serve as many terms as people vote for him.

Palomar · 2004-09-03 14:27:31

Kuratink, your an idiot.

*Mr. Kuratink hasn't posted to New Mars in a very long time. He hasn't visited in months.

Checking a person's Profile will show when they last logged in and also when they last posted.

That might be good information to have prior to dishing out insults, no?

And sorry to see you apparently feel a need to mix insults in with your comments. Some of us prefer civility.

--Cindy

Socrates · 2004-09-03 17:53:27

Mr.Kuratink hasn't posted to New Mars in a very long time

Your right, My Bad

Some of us prefer civility

Sorry, I'm not very big on civility. But I'll try.

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-03 18:00:57

Sorry, I'm not very big on civility. But I'll try.

Well, pour my pal Socrates a drink!

You know the one. :;):

Socrates · 2004-09-03 18:11:18

What do you mean by

Pour my buddy Socrates a drink

and are you stalking me on every one of the forums I'm on?

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-03 18:49:30

and are you stalking me on every one of the forums I'm on?

Nah, no one seems to much care about the "Martian Politics" forum lately except for Scott Beach and myself, and since he's not here...

And you'll figure out that drink reference one of these days.

John Creighton · 2004-09-03 20:46:04

What do you mean by
Pour my buddy Socrates a drink
and are you stalking me on every one of the forums I'm on?

Nah, no one seems to much care about the "Martian Politics" forum lately except for Scott Beach and myself, and since he's not here...
And you'll figure out that drink reference one of these days.

I don't think I get what Cobra is saying either. However I do know one drink Socrates has. I however, don't get the context. I'll have to do some reading. Maybe Socrates wasn't very civil in his debates. Just a guess. I'll do some reading later.

Crito, when he heard this, made a sign to the servant, and the
servant went in, and remained for some time, and then
returned with the jailer carrying a cup of poison. Socrates
said: You, my good friend, who are experienced in these
matters, shall give me directions how I am to proceed. The
Pharmaceutical Vials Used for Preparing Hemlock
Photo: Steven S. Tigner
117b
man answered: You have only to walk about until your legs
are heavy, and then to lie down, and the poison will act. At
the same time he handed the cup to Socrates, who in the
easiest and gentlest manner, without the least fear or change
of color or feature, looking at the man with all his eyes,
Echecrates, as his manner was, took the cup and said: What
do you say about making a libation out of this cup to any
god? May I, or not? The man answered: We only prepare,
Socrates, just so much as we deem enough. I understand,
he said: yet I may and must pray to the gods to prosper my
journey from this to that other world--may this, then, which
is my prayer, be granted to me. Then holding the cup to his
lips, quite readily and cheerfully he drank off the poison.

from http://socrates.clarke.edu/aplg0190.htm]The Death Scene

Josh Cryer · 2004-09-04 13:50:05

Nah, no one seems to much care about the "Martian Politics" forum lately except for Scott Beach and myself, and since he's not here...

Hah, geez. How could I have missed the ressurrection of dozens of old Martian Politics threads?

Socrates, let old threads alone dude, it's kind of a "netiquette" to let an old discussion go away (if you want to restart it and the last post was a few years ago, by all means).

edit: jesus, Socrates, over half your posts were essentially "I agree/disagree" and less than a paragraph long. I've gone through and deleted each and every one that less than three sentences long (subjective). Don't do that, man, it's called spamming.

Edited By Josh Cryer on 1094328565

Rxke · 2004-09-04 14:18:28

it's kind of a "netiquette" to let an old discussion go away (if you want to restart it and the last post was a few years ago, by all means).

You really serious, Josh?

I thought it was sometimes better to pick up older topics than re-enter a gazillionth variety on a theme, for clarity's sake...

(EDIT:) Whoops, quickly adding a spare sentence here... To get more than one paragraph...

Josh Cryer · 2004-09-04 23:18:33

Rxke, hey, I said it's subjective, one mans spam (me) is another mans enlightened discussion (say... clark, mawh! ). It's just that, really, the older the thread is, the more substantiative your post should be to bring it back, imho.

The primary reason is spam though (you guys know I won't act unless I think something is spam). Resurrecting old threads was bumping down more recent discussions (indeed, still quite a few recent ones are bumped to the second page).

Here's a good Netiquette page: http://www.dtcc.edu/cs/rfc1855.html]htt … c1855.html

John Creighton · 2004-09-05 00:05:43

Anyway, I am with Rxke on this one. Often very high quality more mature discussions get bumped down by the random thoughts of the day. Resurrect what is good and substantive. Of course if it is a junk thread then preference should be given to the newer discussions.

Rxke · 2004-09-05 00:25:21

Ok, thanks Josh. I get it. I took it too literally.

Resurrecting old threads was bumping down more recent discussions (indeed, still quite a few recent ones are bumped to the second page).

Yes, that can be frustrating sometimes... Especially when it's a 'slow-news-week,' a lot of trivial or redundant stuff gets posted sometimes... At the cost of more interesting active topics. Glad you and John feel the same way, heehee.

I didn't follow the boards very closely lately (too busy,) so I don't know whether Socrates is/was spamming or not, I just thought he was really into politics (what with a name like that...) and digging up politics-related stuff to revive some discussions in a meaningful way.

the older the thread is, the more substantiative your post should be to bring it back, imho.

Now THAT sounds good!

Josh Cryer · 2004-09-05 04:49:58

Nah, Socrates is cool, I didn't delete that many, just the short one liners, I'm sure he won't mind. At least, I hope not, as I don't want posters running away from my less-than-benevolency, heh. Hope I didn't go overboard, it's just that we've essentially gotten posts bumped into (effective) oblivion now.

Honestly Socrates, that's the only reason I did it. No hard feelings, eh?

Gennaro · 2004-09-06 00:53:39

Didn't read the whole thread through. Just want to comment on this:

Not quite. In a Monarchy, the Executive of the State is granted his title by God and by the right of Birth. The attitude of the subjects is made meaningless, they exsist for the Monarch to rule. The Monarch is given his title and power based on who he is, not his ability.

I'm not sure this definition of monarchy is true; judging from history in fact I'm sure it's not.
Take Scandinavia for example. In Denmark and Sweden kings were elected until the 1500's (in Sweden heredity was introduced in 1523). Since there wasn't a class of nobles until the late Middle Ages in this country, kings were by definition recruited from the 'peasantry' for centuries, albeit from the rich and powerful of the lot.
And when heredity was finally introduced, it was more in an effort on part of the autocrat to balance the infuence of the aristocracy. The king himself tended to seek support from the people in order to neutralize a truly self serving oligarchy.
One sees this pattern repeating itself throughout history. Rome's shift from the republic to the rule of the ceasars was basically about the same thing.
Neither was the idea that the king got his power from God an original concept in this country. Moreover, the concept of traditional rights for the populace always existed here and in the popular mind, the task of the king was essentially to serve the community, not the other way around.

In fact, I'm not really sure where to draw the line between monarchy and modern dictators like Mussolini or Hitler, apart from in name only. Interestingly, on the other hand, Hitler promoted what he called a republic (which is evident from the table-talks), by which he meant that heredity was bound to corrupt the state, perhaps especially considering the amount of power concentrated in the hands of the führer.

Just my small contribution to the discussion.

Morris · 2004-09-11 11:18:05

How can the idea of equality, and equal application of the law apply exsist in a system that instutionilizes the idea that there are some who are fit to rule, and there are others who are fit only to be ruled?

Yea, Clark. You go, baby!

Morris · 2004-09-11 11:27:24

Yet the whole idea of living in a vacum neccessitates a strong centralized power in order to maintain a stable system. Everything must be generated, created, or transported from somewhere- how much freedom can you allow when a wrong door opened kills everyone? How much local freedom can be allowed if air production, water production, and energy production must all be planned for, coordinated, and implemented into an overall fail-safe system.
Things like public congregation may be limited due to saftey concerns and over-taxing life-support systems. Firearms are a virtual impossibility in a pressurized environment exsisting in vacum. Population growth must be planned and controled, since everything on Mars must be planned in advance out of neccessity- having too many people means EVERYONE dies, so the issue of reproduction now falls into pubblic domain- which requires those individuals to oversee the compliance with the groups decisions (read beaucracy and central government). Then there is the issue of individuals being free to leave whenever they want- what if the stations only water purification expert wants to leave, but in doing so, the base would be denied the expertise neccessary to effect repairs and maintence of water production- since their leaving without a suitable replacement would endanger everyone else, wouldn't that neccessitate governemnt intervention in order to keep everyone else alive? Here again we see limits placed on freedom and liberty due to the environmental constraints imposed by space colonization.

Exactly! And this is why we must be very careful about who we allow to emigrate to Mars. Some types of problems, e.g. untreated ADHD, young antisocial personality disorders, etc. make their possessors too great a risk in critical environments.

Mundaka · 2004-09-11 22:18:29

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2002-07-01 10:08:41

Re: Hey, hey, hey, wait up - Mars is not a country

#27 2002-07-03 11:42:30

Re: Hey, hey, hey, wait up - Mars is not a country

#28 2002-07-03 12:58:31

Re: Hey, hey, hey, wait up - Mars is not a country

#29 2002-07-03 15:21:48

Re: Hey, hey, hey, wait up - Mars is not a country

#30 2002-07-03 16:18:32

Re: Hey, hey, hey, wait up - Mars is not a country

#31 2004-09-02 16:49:01

Re: Hey, hey, hey, wait up - Mars is not a country

#32 2004-09-03 13:48:29

Re: Hey, hey, hey, wait up - Mars is not a country

#33 2004-09-03 14:27:31

Re: Hey, hey, hey, wait up - Mars is not a country

#34 2004-09-03 17:53:27

Re: Hey, hey, hey, wait up - Mars is not a country

#35 2004-09-03 18:00:57

Re: Hey, hey, hey, wait up - Mars is not a country

#36 2004-09-03 18:11:18

Re: Hey, hey, hey, wait up - Mars is not a country

#37 2004-09-03 18:49:30

Re: Hey, hey, hey, wait up - Mars is not a country

#38 2004-09-03 20:46:04

Re: Hey, hey, hey, wait up - Mars is not a country

#39 2004-09-04 13:50:05

Re: Hey, hey, hey, wait up - Mars is not a country

#40 2004-09-04 14:18:28

Re: Hey, hey, hey, wait up - Mars is not a country

#41 2004-09-04 23:18:33

Re: Hey, hey, hey, wait up - Mars is not a country

#42 2004-09-05 00:05:43

Re: Hey, hey, hey, wait up - Mars is not a country

#43 2004-09-05 00:25:21

Re: Hey, hey, hey, wait up - Mars is not a country

#44 2004-09-05 04:49:58

Re: Hey, hey, hey, wait up - Mars is not a country

#45 2004-09-06 00:53:39

Re: Hey, hey, hey, wait up - Mars is not a country

#46 2004-09-11 11:18:05

Re: Hey, hey, hey, wait up - Mars is not a country

#47 2004-09-11 11:27:24

Re: Hey, hey, hey, wait up - Mars is not a country

#48 2004-09-11 22:18:29

Re: Hey, hey, hey, wait up - Mars is not a country

Board footer