Jump to content
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Sign in to follow this  
DAS

2012 American Presidential Election

Cast your vote  

84 members have voted

  1. 1. Who are you for?

    • Obama (US Citizen)
      25
    • Romney (US Citizen)
      25
    • Other Candidate (US Citizen)
      8
    • Not Voting (US Citizen)
      5
    • Obama (Non-US Citizen)
      15
    • Romney (Non-US Citizen)
      1
    • Other Candidate (Non-US Citizen)
      1
    • Don't Care (Non-US Citizen)
      4


Recommended Posts

^^ Answer, I have no f'in idea. I don't think that way, so it's beyond me.

Question, why would anyone illegally tape meetings of another political party when they (the party doing the taping) are already poised for a landslide victory?

Power hungry and/or paranoid is my guess...

Edited by Walter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Supposedly, quite a high proportion of yanks would have a problem voting Mormon.

From my own perspective, it seems somewhat immoral and sexist for a man to be able to take more than one wife, unless the wives are also free to take many husbands.

:rolleyes:

Edited by Anjin-san

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because it was mentioned in the feature. Supposedly, quite a high proportion of yanks would have a problem voting Mormon.

From my own perspective, it seems somewhat immoral and sexist for a man to be able to take more than one wife, unless the wives are also free to take many husbands.

Like I said earlier, MM, DAS put it out there already - because of whom he is running against. That's the only reason the GOP would put up a non-Christian candidate on the ballot for president. Priority #1 is to get Obama out of office, whomever can accomplish that will be a hero.

Edited by Walter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because it was mentioned in the feature. Supposedly, quite a high proportion of yanks would have a problem voting Mormon.

From my own perspective, it seems somewhat immoral and sexist for a man to be able to take more than one wife, unless the wives are also free to take many husbands.

Uhh, the Mormon church discontinued the practice of polygamy over 120 years ago.

Of course, the media continues to feature stories (especially now that a Mormon is running against The Annointed One) of rogue former members (polygamists are excommunicated) who still practice - illegally - polygamy.

Also, polygamy was not based on having sexual license, it was more of a principle of building up the population of the area (Utah) the Mormon pioneers had settled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because it was mentioned in the feature. Supposedly, quite a high proportion of yanks would have a problem voting Mormon.

From my own perspective, it seems somewhat immoral and sexist for a man to be able to take more than one wife, unless the wives are also free to take many husbands.

The Mormons actually did away with that practice years ago. Although it would be funny if Mitt had three first ladies in the White House!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, someone should tell that to the bunch of weirdos Loius Theroux made a docu about a couple of years ago - before anyone had even heard of 'Mitt' (?? lmfao).

Again, they aren't Mormons.

You can't be a member of the Mormon church if you practice polygamy.

Not sure how many "a couple of years ago" is, but "Mitt" has been around some time, and was a candidate in the 2008 primaries as well.

How convenient!

Not particularly.

People like to envision it as a porn film highlight reel.

But in reality i imagine it was more of a psychological horror film.

Multiple wives with multiple bad moods hitting their periods at different times, a shitload of kids running through the house.

Sounds like a helluva great time.

I think Mark Twain described it best - certainly the funniest.

Our stay in Salt Lake City amounted to only two days, and therefore we had no time to make the customary inquisition into the workings of polygamy

and get up the usual statistics and deductions preparatory to calling the attention of the nation at large once more to the matter.

117.jpg

I had the will to do it.

With the gushing self-sufficiency of youth I was feverish to plunge in headlong and achieve a great reform here—until I saw the Mormon women.

Then I was touched.

My heart was wiser than my head. It warmed toward these poor, ungainly and pathetically "homely" creatures, and as I turned to hide the generous moisture in my eyes, I said, "No—the man that marries one of them has done an act of Christian charity which entitles him to the kindly applause of mankind, not their harsh censure—and the man that marries sixty of them has done a deed of open-handed generosity so sublime that the nations should stand uncovered in his presence and worship in silence."

Not to mention the problems associated with gifts for many wives and children...

Mr. Johnson said further, that Mr. Young observed that life was a sad, sad thing—"because the joy of every new marriage a man contracted was so apt to be blighted by the inopportune funeral of a less recent bride."

And Mr. Johnson said that while he and Mr. Young were pleasantly conversing in private, one of the Mrs. Youngs came in and demanded a breast-pin, remarking that she had found out that he had been giving a breast-pin to No. 6, and she, for one, did not propose to let this partiality go on without making a satisfactory amount of trouble about it.

Mr. Young reminded her that there was a stranger present.

Mrs. Young said that if the state of things inside the house was not agreeable to the stranger, he could find room outside.

Mr. Young promised the breast-pin, and she went away.

But in a minute or two another Mrs. Young came in and demanded a breast-pin.

Mr. Young began a remonstrance, but Mrs. Young cut him short.

She said No. 6 had got one, and No. 11 was promised one, and it was "no use for him to try to impose on her—she hoped she knew her rights."

He gave his promise, and she went.

And presently three Mrs. Youngs entered in a body and opened on their husband a tempest of tears, abuse, and entreaty.

They had heard all about No. 6, No. 11, and No. 14.

Three more breast-pins were promised.

They were hardly gone when nine more Mrs. Youngs filed into the presence, and a new tempest burst forth and raged round about the prophet and his guest.

Nine breast-pins were promised, and the weird sisters filed out again.

And in came eleven more, weeping and wailing and gnashing their teeth.

Eleven promised breast-pins purchased peace once more.

"That is a specimen," said Mr. Young.

"You see how it is.

You see what a life I lead.

A man can't be wise all the time. In a heedless moment I gave my darling No. 6—excuse my calling her thus, as her other name has escaped me for the moment—a breast-pin.

It was only worth twenty-five dollars—that is, apparently that was its whole cost—but its ultimate cost was inevitably bound to be a good deal more.

You yourself have seen it climb up to six hundred and fifty dollars—and alas, even that is not the end!

For I have wives all over this Territory of Utah. I have dozens of wives whose numbers, even, I do not know without looking in the family Bible.

They are scattered far and wide among the mountains and valleys of my realm.

And mark you, every solitary one of them will hear of this wretched breast pin, and every last one of them will have one or die.

No. 6's breast pin will cost me twenty-five hundred dollars before I see the end of it.

And these creatures will compare these pins together, and if one is a shade finer than the rest, they will all be thrown on my hands, and I will have to order a new lot to keep peace in the family.

Sir, you probably did not know it, but all the time you were present with my children your every movement was watched by vigilant servitors of mine.

If you had offered to give a child a dime, or a stick of candy, or any trifle of the kind, you would have been snatched out of the house instantly, provided it could be done before your gift left your hand.

Otherwise it would be absolutely necessary for you to make an exactly similar gift to all my children—and knowing by experience the importance of the thing,

I would have stood by and seen to it myself that you did it, and did it thoroughly.

Once a gentleman gave one of my children a tin whistle—a veritable invention of Satan, sir, and one which I have an unspeakable horror of, and so would you if you had eighty or ninety children in your house.

But the deed was done—the man escaped.

I knew what the result was going to be, and I thirsted for vengeance.

I ordered out a flock of Destroying Angels, and they hunted the man far into the fastnesses of the Nevada mountains.

But they never caught him.

I am not cruel, sir—I am not vindictive except when sorely outraged—but if I had caught him, sir, so help me Joseph Smith, I would have locked him into the nursery till the brats whistled him to death.

By the slaughtered body of St. Parley Pratt (whom God assail!) there was never anything on this earth like it!

I knew who gave the whistle to the child, but I could, not make those jealous mothers believe me.

They believed I did it, and the result was just what any man of reflection could have foreseen: I had to order a hundred and ten whistles—I think we had a hundred and ten children in the house then, but some of them are off at college now—I had to order a hundred and ten of those shrieking things, and I wish I may never speak another word if we didn't have to talk on our fingers entirely, from that time forth until the children got tired of the whistles.

And if ever another man gives a whistle to a child of mine and I get my hands on him, I will hang him higher than Haman!

That is the word with the bark on it!

Shade of Nephi!

You don't know anything about married life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice partisan oriented website. :rolleyes:

That's interesting because it's an independent publication...guess it's not self-proclaimed "fair and balanced" like Murdoch's bunch over there at FOX, etc.

:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's interesting because it's an independent publication...

Yeah and sooooo unbiased isn't it? :rolleyes:

guess it's not self-proclaimed "fair and balanced" like Murdoch's bunch over there at FOX, etc.

Yeah fair and balanced just like the alphabet soup of leftist leaning media propaganda outfits (i.e. ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, etc.) out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always been led to believe that if you have a houseful of women living together that they would eventually sync up and start having their periods at the same time. That would be an altogether different kind of hell....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ All you have to do is figure out the schedule on your calendar and you could take a fishing trip every month.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He didn't last year.

Sorry, I have downloaded his 2010 tax return and his tax preparer dated it 10/15/2011 so it was filed under extension.

If you haven't guessed I am a nerdy CPA.

Edited by Janet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah and sooooo unbiased isn't it? :rolleyes:

Yeah fair and balanced just like the alphabet soup of leftist leaning media propaganda outfits (i.e. ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, etc.) out there.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Oooooooh they're all out to get the GOP, yeah right! What kind of BS paranoia logic is that? As I said before, we are never going to change each others opinion, so let the electoral votes fall as they may....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I have downloaded his 2010 tax return and his tax preparer dated it 10/15/2011 so it was filed under extension.

If you haven't guessed I am a nerdy CPA.

I just reviewed it myself and I stand corrected. I thought I had read otherwise, thank you for your correction. A good CPA is worth their weight in gold!

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

guess it's not self-proclaimed "fair and balanced" like Murdoch's bunch over there at FOX, etc.

:rolleyes:

"Fair and Balanced" references the FACT - yes, FACT - that FOX consistently invites avowed liberals on to most every news show to express their opinions.

Sure, they argue it out, but they give them a voice.

Very rarely seen on the likes of CNN, MSNBC, and the networks.

Everyone likes to mock the slogan and assign it instead to the network's overall right-of-center message, but it can't be denied they DO give voice to opposing ideologies.

It's especially ironic that liberals hate FOX so much despite the fact it's the SOLE right-leaning news network out there.

Not like it's the worst of MANY right-leaning news networks, it's the ONLY one.

Bottom line: Liberals despise even a SINGLE opposing voice.

And FOX isn't anywhere near as far from center as MSNBC is.

So it's not the DISTANCE from center Liberals oppose, it's the DIRECTION from center.

Tolerance, indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol:

Knew you'd run with that one...

The original context was about an independent publication, which of course is code for liberal rag, and I wanted to know if FOX was the only acceptable news source to cite. The main news station I watch is CNN and they have a good mix of view points, I do check out FOX from time to time as I find it to be entertaining, plus they usually have a hot chick somewhere in the mix. I don't believe I have ever watched MSNBC, unless it was on in an airport or something. I, as I believe you do, like to hear other points of view - agreeable or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it consistently surprising how many people from all points on the political spectrum continue to invoke "media bias" as a line of argument: "Network/Newspaper ZYX is the only one with the guts to say ABC, therefore ABC is true and right." Huh? Where's the logic there? If no reputable news organization says that Elvis is still alive, does that mean there's a conspiracy of Elvis-haters covering up the fact that Elvis is still alive?

Whoever you support in the US election, it is just not the case that any particular point of view is being suppressed - otherwise, how could people hold that point of view? Going online, on air, or in print to complain about media bias has the same self-disproving contradiction as the statement "I am now asleep." Bias, really, is in the eye of the beholder, and media bias has become every polemecist's best friend by being pilloried as his or her worst enemy. Don't like what you see or read somewhere? Well, that's media bias, so I can discount it. Disagree with some talking head? Of course, they must be biased. Lose an election? Blame the media. Want your opinions reinforced? Find one outlet and stick to it; don't bother challenging yourself.

So please, when talking about issues, let's not rush to discredit opposing views just because of their source. Someone once said that you don't fully understand your own position until you understand its opposite. George Orwell wrote that no case is ever fully proved until it's had a fair hearing. Let's restore fair hearings.

http://www.amazon.com/Dumbing-Down-Dissent-Fallacies-Political/dp/1463690150/ref=la_B001JS6RIG_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1342099566&sr=1-5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it consistently surprising how many people from all points on the political spectrum continue to invoke "media bias" as a line of argument: "Network/Newspaper ZYX is the only one with the guts to say ABC, therefore ABC is true and right." Huh? Where's the logic there? If no reputable news organization says that Elvis is still alive, does that mean there's a conspiracy of Elvis-haters covering up the fact that Elvis is still alive?

Whoever you support in the US election, it is just not the case that any particular point of view is being suppressed - otherwise, how could people hold that point of view? Going online, on air, or in print to complain about media bias has the same self-disproving contradiction as the statement "I am now asleep." Bias, really, is in the eye of the beholder, and media bias has become every polemecist's best friend by being pilloried as his or her worst enemy. Don't like what you see or read somewhere? Well, that's media bias, so I can discount it. Disagree with some talking head? Of course, they must be biased. Lose an election? Blame the media. Want your opinions reinforced? Find one outlet and stick to it; don't bother challenging yourself.

So please, when talking about issues, let's not rush to discredit opposing views just because of their source. Someone once said that you don't fully understand your own position until you understand its opposite. George Orwell wrote that no case is ever fully proved until it's had a fair hearing. Let's restore fair hearings.

http://www.amazon.com/Dumbing-Down-Dissent-Fallacies-Political/dp/1463690150/ref=la_B001JS6RIG_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1342099566&sr=1-5

Bless you sir. The best post yet on this thread. :goodpost:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it consistently surprising how many people from all points on the political spectrum continue to invoke "media bias" as a line of argument: "Network/Newspaper ZYX is the only one with the guts to say ABC, therefore ABC is true and right." Huh? Where's the logic there? If no reputable news organization says that Elvis is still alive, does that mean there's a conspiracy of Elvis-haters covering up the fact that Elvis is still alive?

Whoever you support in the US election, it is just not the case that any particular point of view is being suppressed - otherwise, how could people hold that point of view? Going online, on air, or in print to complain about media bias has the same self-disproving contradiction as the statement "I am now asleep." Bias, really, is in the eye of the beholder, and media bias has become every polemecist's best friend by being pilloried as his or her worst enemy. Don't like what you see or read somewhere? Well, that's media bias, so I can discount it. Disagree with some talking head? Of course, they must be biased. Lose an election? Blame the media. Want your opinions reinforced? Find one outlet and stick to it; don't bother challenging yourself.

So please, when talking about issues, let's not rush to discredit opposing views just because of their source. Someone once said that you don't fully understand your own position until you understand its opposite. George Orwell wrote that no case is ever fully proved until it's had a fair hearing. Let's restore fair hearings.

http://www.amazon.com/Dumbing-Down-Dissent-Fallacies-Political/dp/1463690150/ref=la_B001JS6RIG_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1342099566&sr=1-5

I love this quote:

"I love discourse. I am dying to have my mind changed. I am probably the only liberal who read "treason" by Ann Coulter. I want to know, you understand? I like listening to everybody. This, for me, is the elixir of life."

-Jack Nicholson

Having said that, I certainly do believe there is media bias. I tend to be right leaning politically, but I rarely watch Sean Hannity because I know what he's going to say before he says it. In my opinion, pretty much everyone on MSNBC falls in the same category for liberal-think. No need to watch Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz, Lawrence O'Donnel, or frankly anyone else who airs on that network after Morning Joe, which actually allows for dissenting views.

One difference to me is that Sean Hannity knows his role and is completely honest and transparent about his Republican views. Rachel Maddow recently was confronted by libertarian Nick Gillepie on Real Time and tried to act as if she's not a democrat partisan, and she "reports the news and doesn't give opinion". Um, okay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point isn't that individual outlets and commentators don't offer particular viewpoints one way or another; obviously, they do. But does that mean that the overall public conversation is being steered in a direction the public themselves don't want it to go? I doubt it. Is it only MSNBC or The Huffington Post that's keeping the electorate from seeing the light of Mitt Romney's greatness? Has there ever been a thoroughly de-biased media landscape that accords with every platform or pet cause?

Remember too that how "biased" an individual forum or speaker is depends on the predisposition of the listener. If you're Noam Chomsky, the New York Times promotes a pro-business American imperialism, but if you're Rush Limbaugh, it's an enclave of radical socialists. So the trope of writing off an entire school of thought merely because of the network or magazine or whatever that puts it forward is a pretty flimsy form of rebuttal. (I'll note, too, that books by Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck and other right-wingers all proclaim their status as "New York Times Bestsellers" on their covers, even as the authors insist the Times spews out nothing but liberal distortions.)

To me, most of these celebrity pundits are basically entertainers catering to the prejudices of a specialized audience. If you already know what you think, they'll reinforce it, without ever asking you to reconsider your ideas or acknowledging that their opponents ever make valid points themselves. Michael Moore and Ann Coulter are two halves of the same coin - they're not interested in seriously addressing complex issues and possibly coming up with workable solutions to urgent problems, they're cheap-shot cheerleaders for one or another side.

Somewhere it may be possible to respectfully exchange differing ideas on health care, taxes, foreign policy, etc., without assuming the people you're exchanging with are stupid ("You've just been brainwashed by ...") or cynical ("You're just a front for the ..."). Unfortunately, that place has become very hard to find. The biggest divide in US politics today seems to me to be not Republican versus Democrat or Left versus Right, but Serious versus Shallow.

Uh, Zeppelin rules.

post-12775-0-55422900-1342111731.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it consistently surprising how many people from all points on the political spectrum continue to invoke "media bias" as a line of argument: "Network/Newspaper ZYX is the only one with the guts to say ABC, therefore ABC is true and right." Huh? Where's the logic there? If no reputable news organization says that Elvis is still alive, does that mean there's a conspiracy of Elvis-haters covering up the fact that Elvis is still alive?

Whoever you support in the US election, it is just not the case that any particular point of view is being suppressed - otherwise, how could people hold that point of view? Going online, on air, or in print to complain about media bias has the same self-disproving contradiction as the statement "I am now asleep." Bias, really, is in the eye of the beholder, and media bias has become every polemecist's best friend by being pilloried as his or her worst enemy. Don't like what you see or read somewhere? Well, that's media bias, so I can discount it. Disagree with some talking head? Of course, they must be biased. Lose an election? Blame the media. Want your opinions reinforced? Find one outlet and stick to it; don't bother challenging yourself.

So please, when talking about issues, let's not rush to discredit opposing views just because of their source. Someone once said that you don't fully understand your own position until you understand its opposite. George Orwell wrote that no case is ever fully proved until it's had a fair hearing. Let's restore fair hearings.

http://www.amazon.co...42099566&sr=1-5

You are correct and I agree as far as opinions go.

My complaint about media bias isn't opposing views.

It's the whole ignoring or discounting of negative stories and issues about Obama, and going into full, "get-to-the-bottom-of-this" attack mode on negative stories or issues about his opponents.

The media should never be "on-board" with a candidacy regardless of political ideology.

In other words, I wouldn't favor the media being "on-board" with a conservative candidate, either.

Example: The media did a mind-bogglingly inordinate amount of vetting of Sarah Palin (a VP candidate) in comparison to Obama (Presidential candidate).

Hell, they did way more background research on Joe the Plumber than they did on Obama.

Watch Media Malpractice - it's currently on Netflix - for a good look at how Pravda-like the media became during the 2008 election.

Media figures themselves admitting how biased the reporting had become during the campaign.

The media actually did a lot of the "dirty work" - making or reporting on exceedingly inappropriate comments/remarks/accusations - for Obama to allow his official campaign to "stay above that kind of vicious, negative campaigning".

I have no problem with opposing opinions.

I DO have a problem when the media takes a unified position at the expense of fair reporting.

When you begin hearing specific buzzwords and phrases repeated in stories across many different networks, you begin to get the feeling they are receiving "scripts" for how they want a particular story characterized.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point isn't that individual outlets and commentators don't offer particular viewpoints one way or another; obviously, they do. But does that mean that the overall public conversation is being steered in a direction the public themselves don't want it to go? I doubt it. Is it only MSNBC or The Huffington Post that's keeping the electorate from seeing the light of Mitt Romney's greatness? Has there ever been a thoroughly de-biased media landscape that accords with every platform or pet cause?

Remember too that how "biased" an individual forum or speaker is depends on the predisposition of the listener. If you're Noam Chomsky, the New York Times promotes a pro-business American imperialism, but if you're Rush Limbaugh, it's an enclave of radical socialists. So the trope of writing off an entire school of thought merely because of the network or magazine or whatever that puts it forward is a pretty flimsy form of rebuttal. (I'll note, too, that books by Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck and other right-wingers all proclaim their status as "New York Times Bestsellers" on their covers, even as the authors insist the Times spews out nothing but liberal distortions.)

To me, most of these celebrity pundits are basically entertainers catering to the prejudices of a specialized audience. If you already know what you think, they'll reinforce it, without ever asking you to reconsider your ideas or acknowledging that their opponents ever make valid points themselves. Michael Moore and Ann Coulter are two halves of the same coin - they're not interested in seriously addressing complex issues and possibly coming up with workable solutions to urgent problems, they're cheap-shot cheerleaders for one or another side.

Somewhere it may be possible to respectfully exchange differing ideas on health care, taxes, foreign policy, etc., without assuming the people you're exchanging with are stupid ("You've just been brainwashed by ...") or cynical ("You're just a front for the ..."). Unfortunately, that place has become very hard to find. The biggest divide in US politics today seems to me to be not Republican versus Democrat or Left versus Right, but Serious versus Shallow.

Uh, Zeppelin rules.

There was actually some good discourse on the health care thread I thought. Not all of it of course, but certainly some of it.

Frankly George, I'm much more concerned with the media bias against Jimmy Page, as personified by a certain George Case!:

"However, Case -- like other FAQ authors, also pulls no punches and calls the musicians out where he sees fit. He calls Jimmy Page, who regularly floats near the top of lists of classic's rocks best or most influential guitarists, as "perhaps the least proficient member of the group and the least adventurous after" the band broke up.

He adds "strip away fable and urban legend... and Jimmy Page emerges as a good but seldom brilliant artist." Case goes on to call the guitarist lucky -- with a legend built more by "passive association than deliberate action," then adds he's a better acoustic than electric axe man. Ouch!"

http://blogs.houstonpress.com/rocks/2012/07/mud_sharks_satanism_and_stairw.php

Good luck with the book. Now duck!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick question, Type O: if there's been a coordinated campaign to suppress any and all damaging coverage about Obama, his background, and his policies, how come you and millions of people who share your views don't like him? Oh, right, you're part of the Netflix, Youtube, Fox News underground. You're even brave enough to post your dissent on the message board of an obscure rock band's fan site. Quite the secret rebel movement you've got there. Way to stand up against the monolith!

I'll balance that crack with the observation that, if there was a coordinated campaign to trick the US public into supporting the 2003 Iraq war, how come millions of people demonstrated against it? Oh, right, they were part of the Netflix, MoveOn, Fahrenheit 9/11, In These Times, The Nation, underground. Quite the secret rebel movement they had there. Way to stand up against the monolith!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi mstork - thanks for the heads-up on that review. Yeah, I guess compared to writing about legendary rock 'n' rollers, US politics is a safe and noncontroversial subject!

Rock on, everyone, left or right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...