Jump to content

Recommended Posts

True, some portions of the narrative on the left are abhorrent. Basically everything you said, I agree with. You can’t defund the police, you can’t tell every 30 year old white dude he’s racist and sexist just for existing, and “cancel culture” is doing quite a bit of driving people to be even more partisan than before.

I believe the far right’s attacks on science, the government (intelligence, HHS, etc), and media are more damaging to the country, though. Not far more - but more. This is literally becoming the party that is proud to see evidence and reject it just to reject it - not because there is logic or morality. A literal normalized saying right now is “fake news,” and I know people that are proud to say that to anything that doesn’t align with their current worldview. If you think about it, how can you ever reason with people like this?

 

Edited by Negatory
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 5.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Want to slash American carbon?  Build nuclear power plants.  

When MSNBC announced Trump's win in Iowa, there was an audible grunt from Rachel Madow. By the sound of it, she apparently sat on her sack wrong. Happens to the best of us.

Found this entertaining Because screw that bitch and her "it's my turn" mentality. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Posted Images

Along those lines, I don’t usually watch Bill Maher, but I did happen to see this clip of him calling out some of the delusions of the current Democratic Party and why they didn’t do as well as they thought they would in the elections. I thought this really hit the nail on the head when it came down to what is wrong with “woke” culture.

 

Edited by Negatory
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Prozac said:

Ok, I’ll play. Which one of the claims in the Medium article actually supports the narrative that Hugo Chavez had a hand in the 2020 election? I read the article. It looks to me like a very loose association of “facts” are being used to support a claim that voting machines used in the US “could” be compromised. Much of the information dates back to the early 2000s. So again, which facts, exactly, point to fraud in 2020?

Prozac, are you no longer beating your wife? Invalid question. Why would I frame a question like that unless I was trying to be deceptive? You're asking which article supports the narrative that Hugo Chavez had a hand in the 2020 election. No one said Hugo Chavez had a hand in the 2020 election. I know it's easier to attack your own mischaracterization of what was said than attacking what was actually said. But it's also obvious, and dishonest.

However, I'm not sure if you're intentionally creating a false statement that a narrative exists in which people believe Hugo Chavez interfered in the election, or if you're lazily summarizing what you think was said.

I've provided links to mainstream media sources in 2019 that said electronic voting fraud is possible and probable. If you ignored them earlier, would it change anything if I posted the same ones again, or more of them?

2 hours ago, Prozac said:

Huh? You make whatever deductions you want man. Fact is, if you’re going to make claims about widespread fraud, it’s up to you to prove them. We’ve seen how the courts have treated the Trump campaign’s “evidence” so far and it’s claims have become no less dubious over time. It’s pretty obvious that they’re just saturating the system with garbage at this point in a blatant attempt to delay certification and try and steal this thing in the House of Representatives. The fact that you and about 70 percent of Republicans are rooting for the shit throwing orangutan worries me. 

What were my claims? I have claimed that fraud exists. I've made no indication as to the extent, because I simply do not know. However, I believe it entirely possible, even probable that it could exist in ways that could have changed some of the results.

You seem to be saying election fraud simply does not exist. Am I misunderstanding?

As for the about "70%" of Republicans rooting for the "shit throwing orangutan", your derangement is showing. How is it you expect a civil conversation with regard to election security when you can so easily devolve into profane insults and emotional hysterics? Again, invalid question. You don't expect a civil conversation.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, slackline said:

No, I won't say, "my bad" because what's the difference between you, Sim, Seadogs or anyone else claiming this garbage.  Royal You...

I already discredited your legitimate links because they were 4 years old.  Maybe 1 year old link in there with John Oliver...

Don't play lawyer with the words.  Standard irregularities that happen with every election, not big enough to change results.  Evidence has been posted over and over again of that.  Not my fault if you refuse to acknowledge it.  

Again, does election fraud exist in any form? It's a yes or no. I'm not asking you how much, only if it does.

I posted links to the the New York Times from 2019. You seem to be saying the age of an article is a discredit in itself. It's not. Updated controverting information is. You have none.

Believe me, I fully understand why you have a problem with precise language. If you believed precision was important, you wouldn't have much to say.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, torqued said:

Again, does election fraud exist in any form? It's a yes or no. I'm not asking you how much, only if it does.

I posted links to the the New York Times from 2019. You seem to be saying the age of an article is a discredit in itself. It's not. Updated controverting information is. You have none.

Believe me, I fully understand why you have a problem with precise language. If you believed precision was important, you wouldn't have much to say.

You seem to disregard things people say.  Irregularities can include anything from fraud to a line of coding that made it read the wrong way.  Either way, fraud or not, they exist on a very small scale.  No one ever denied that.  Stop trying to act like anyone on here ever did.  You ignore what other people say that contests your point while sticking to arguments that don't further yours.  

The age of an article is absolutely relevant when the head of election security, a known and respected expert in the field says, as recently as 2-3 weeks ago that this was the most secure election we've had.  Does that negate the possibility of any minor amounts of fraud?  No. Does it negate the conspiracies and lies coming from this admin on fraud on a massive scale?  You bet.

You can make your petty statements and insults on why you "fully understand" your perceived problems of other people, but it doesn't make them true.  Just shows you attack the person instead of the point.  I'm done, you're becoming the new guardian...

 

ETA: and you're clearly not the only one throwing around personal insults.  It's childish and doesn't help anyone's argument.  I'll try to leave that out as much as possible.  I'll fully admit to allowing the ignorance shown on here (both sides) frustrate the crap out of me.

Edited by slackline
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, torqued said:

Prozac, are you no longer beating your wife? Invalid question. Why would I frame a question like that unless I was trying to be deceptive? You're asking which article supports the narrative that Hugo Chavez had a hand in the 2020 election. No one said Hugo Chavez had a hand in the 2020 election. I know it's easier to attack your own mischaracterization of what was said than attacking what was actually said. But it's also obvious, and dishonest.

However, I'm not sure if you're intentionally creating a false statement that a narrative exists in which people believe Hugo Chavez interfered in the election, or if you're lazily summarizing what you think was said.


Here’s what Sydney Powell said at the press conference:

 WHAT WE ARE REALLY DEALING WITH AND UNCOVERING MORE BY THE DAY IS THE MASSIVE INFLUENCE OF COMMUNIST MONEY THROUGH VENEZUELA, CUBA, AND LIKELY CHINA AND THE INTERFERENCE WITH OUR ELECTIONS HERE IN THE UNITED STATES. THE DOMINION VOTING SYSTEMS, SMART-MATIC TECHNOLOGY SOFTWARE AND SOFTWARE THAT GOES IN OTHER COMPUTERIZED VOTING SYSTEMS AS WELL, NOT JUST DOMINION, WERE CREATED IN VENEZUELA AT THE DIRECTION OF HUGO CHAVEZ TO MAKE SURE HE NEVER LOST AN ELECTION AFTER ONE CONSTITUTIONAL REFERENDUM CAME OUT THE WAY HE DID NOT WANT IT TO COME OUT. 
 

She certainly seems to be insinuating that communist money paid for voting software produced in Venezuela at the direction of Chavez to be used in US elections. For proof, she offers, you guessed it, an affidavit from some guy who’s apparently seen this trickery at work. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, slackline said:

You seem to disregard things people say.  Irregularities can include anything from fraud to a line of coding that made it read the wrong way.  Either way, fraud or not, they exist on a very small scale.  No one ever denied that.  Stop trying to act like anyone on here ever did.  You ignore what other people say that contests your point while sticking to arguments that don't further yours.  

The age of an article is absolutely relevant when the head of election security, a known and respected expert in the field says, as recently as 2-3 weeks ago that this was the most secure election we've had.  Does that negate the possibility of any minor amounts of fraud?  No. Does it negate the conspiracies and lies coming from this admin on fraud on a massive scale?  You bet.

You can make your petty statements and insults on why you "fully understand" your perceived problems of other people, but it doesn't make them true.  Just shows you attack the person instead of the point.  I'm done, you're becoming the new guardian...

 

ETA: and you're clearly not the only one throwing around personal insults.  It's childish and doesn't help anyone's argument.  I'll try to leave that out as much as possible.  I'll fully admit to allowing the ignorance shown on here (both sides) frustrate the crap out of me.

Stop trying to act like anyone here ever did? Once again, from the single link you've provided to support your argument: "There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised."

But you're saying that fraud does, in fact, exist. Great. Now that we've made progress agreeing that it does, all that is left is determining to what extent. What constitutes "small"? 1%?

We're no longer disagreeing that there is fraud in the election. Can you provide evidence as to the amount of fraud you're claiming? It cannot be "no fraud" because that doesn't support your argument.

What were the childish insults I've used? I didn't call anyone a shit throwing orangutan, so I'm not sure to what you're referring.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, torqued said:

What were my claims? I have claimed that fraud exists. I've made no indication as to the extent, because I simply do not know. However, I believe it entirely possible, even probable that it could exist in ways that could have changed some of the results.

You seem to be saying election fraud simply does not exist. Am I misunderstanding?

As for the about "70%" of Republicans rooting for the "shit throwing orangutan", your derangement is showing. How is it you expect a civil conversation with regard to election security when you can so easily devolve into profane insults and emotional hysterics? Again, invalid question. You don't expect a civil conversation.

 

Of course fraud exists. It always will. Guess what? The one solid piece of evidence I’ve seen so far in this election was a guy who voted twice in Pennsylvania......for Donald Trump! Of course there are more cases than that, and there will be Democrats who committed fraud as well.
 

The question of whether fraud exists is irrelevant. The question in play is whether widespread fraud exists at a scale that would affect the election. It doesn’t. The Right has claimed it does for a long time and never produced any evidence to back that claim up. This election is no different. The Trump campaign knows widespread fraud didn’t take place. His lawyers are taking great care to avoid claiming actual fraud in court. His endgame is to torpedo America’s faith in the pillar of our democracy without proof that it is broken. He is doing this because he is a petty, pathetic human being. And it is working. The damage being done right now, today, will be felt by our children and grandchildren. 

 

You say I’m deranged for calling him a shit slinging orangutan, but I think that’s probably too good for him at this point. He’s actively subverting our system from the inside. There’s a word far worse than orangutan for people who do that. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Prozac said:


Here’s what Sydney Powell said at the press conference:

 WHAT WE ARE REALLY DEALING WITH AND UNCOVERING MORE BY THE DAY IS THE MASSIVE INFLUENCE OF COMMUNIST MONEY THROUGH VENEZUELA, CUBA, AND LIKELY CHINA AND THE INTERFERENCE WITH OUR ELECTIONS HERE IN THE UNITED STATES. THE DOMINION VOTING SYSTEMS, SMART-MATIC TECHNOLOGY SOFTWARE AND SOFTWARE THAT GOES IN OTHER COMPUTERIZED VOTING SYSTEMS AS WELL, NOT JUST DOMINION, WERE CREATED IN VENEZUELA AT THE DIRECTION OF HUGO CHAVEZ TO MAKE SURE HE NEVER LOST AN ELECTION AFTER ONE CONSTITUTIONAL REFERENDUM CAME OUT THE WAY HE DID NOT WANT IT TO COME OUT. 
 

She certainly seems to be insinuating that communist money paid for voting software produced in Venezuela at the direction of Chavez to be used in US elections. For proof, she offers, you guessed it, an affidavit from some guy who’s apparently seen this trickery at work. 

I see we've stopped accusing anyone of making claims, and are now saying she "seems to be insinuating...." Backpedal much? Still, no one ever claimed Chavez himself interfered in this election. Words matter.

If there were evidence that communist money paid for Smartmatic voting software produced in Venezuela at the direction of Chavez, what evidence would you find acceptable?

Can you think of any government agencies that might provide an official report to that effect that you would find credible? Could you list just a few off the top of your head? Do you think that such a report exists? Would you deny it if were presented to you?

Edited by torqued
effect vs. affect
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Prozac said:

Of course fraud exists. It always will. Guess what? The one solid piece of evidence I’ve seen so far in this election was a guy who voted twice in Pennsylvania......for Donald Trump! Of course there are more cases than that, and there will be Democrats who committed fraud as well.
 

The question of whether fraud exists is irrelevant. The question in play is whether widespread fraud exists at a scale that would affect the election. It doesn’t. The Right has claimed it does for a long time and never produced any evidence to back that claim up. This election is no different. The Trump campaign knows widespread fraud didn’t take place. His lawyers are taking great care to avoid claiming actual fraud in court. His endgame is to torpedo America’s faith in the pillar of our democracy without proof that it is broken. He is doing this because he is a petty, pathetic human being. And it is working. The damage being done right now, today, will be felt by our children and grandchildren. 

 

You say I’m deranged for calling him a shit slinging orangutan, but I think that’s probably too good for him at this point. He’s actively subverting our system from the inside. There’s a word far worse than orangutan for people who do that. 

I think this is fantastic progress. Not only do you agree with both myself and slackline that fraud exists, but you go one step further in specifying that it is committed by Democrats.

How is this fraud perpetrated?

Give one example, please. Just one. Maybe two if you can think of two.

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, torqued said:

I think this is fantastic progress. Not only do you agree with both myself and slackline that fraud exists, but you go one step further in specifying that it is committed by Democrats.

How is this fraud perpetrated?

Give one example, please. Just one. Maybe two if you can think of two.

I think it’s obvious at this point that you and I aren’t going to get each other to budge from our prospective positions. Cheers. 🍻 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Negatory said:

True, some portions of the narrative on the left are abhorrent. Basically everything you said, I agree with. You can’t defund the police, you can’t tell every 30 year old white dude he’s racist and sexist just for existing, and “cancel culture” is doing quite a bit of driving people to be even more partisan than before.

I believe the far right’s attacks on science, the government (intelligence, HHS, etc), and media are more damaging to the country, though. Not far more - but more. This is literally becoming the party that is proud to see evidence and reject it just to reject it - not because there is logic or morality. A literal normalized saying right now is “fake news,” and I know people that are proud to say that to anything that doesn’t align with their current worldview. If you think about it, how can you ever reason with people like this?

 

(Speaking on the bolded part) I mean to be fair, that describes the Democrats as well. The Kavanaugh hearing was one of the most egregious examples of this, but some other fine examples are 4 years of BS Russian collusion and Poland impeachment. The shit volcano is honestly flowing down both sides of the mountain but I still see far more hypocrisy coming from the left. 
 

To segway a little bit here; I do not believe that there was actually widespread election fraud.I think Biden won and this election was a referendum on Trump.  But I find it hilarious that high level democrat politicians as well as normal people I see on social media are now desperately clamoring for unity and saying that those going along with Trump’s election fraud claims are tearing this country apart. All coming from the same people that spent 4 years throwing temper tantrums and essentially trying to overthrow a sitting president all because of some strange orange man bad obsession. 
 

It’s the same level of hypocrisy that leads to people saying “no large gatherings due to covid!”, but then all of a sudden massive BLM protests and Biden election celebrations are okay. 

FWIW I’m actually glad that Trump lost because it removes his polarizing personality from the picture and now the democrats have to stand on their own with a garbage policy and a fractured party that can’t decide if it wants to go back to the mid 90s USA or to mid 60s Cuba. 

Edit: I realize that was a bit rambling and maybe had nothing to do with the current flow of conversation so my apologies. 

Edited by kaputt
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Prozac said:

I think it’s obvious at this point that you and I aren’t going to get each other to budge from our prospective positions. Cheers. 🍻 

Wait a sec... you were all to eager to engage the past few pages. What's changed?

If you believe I cannot budge from my position, that's false. I can and I'd like to. It's just my position hasn't been sufficiently challenged. I'm open minded to reason and logic.

However, if you believe you, yourself, cannot be budged from your position, that says to me that you'll stand by it no matter what. That's closed minded.

Listen, I asked a few easy to answer questions. If you're a smart person, and I'll give you credit and say that you likely are, you see that my line of questioning will yield answers that will follow a path of logic that's detrimental to your position. That's why you're not going to answer them.

Bye, I guess.

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, kaputt said:

(Speaking on the bolded part) I mean to be fair, that describes the Democrats as well. The Kavanaugh hearing was one of the most egregious examples of this, but some other fine examples are 4 years of BS Russian collusion and Poland impeachment. The shit volcano is honestly flowing down both sides of the mountain but I still see far more hypocrisy coming from the left. 
 

To segway a little bit here; I do not believe that there was actually widespread election fraud.I think Biden won and this election was a referendum on Trump.  But I find it hilarious that high level democrat politicians as well as normal people I see on social media are now desperately clamoring for unity and saying that those going along with Trump’s election fraud claims are tearing this country apart. All coming from the same people that spent 4 years throwing temper tantrums and essentially trying to overthrow a sitting president all because of some strange orange man bad obsession. 
 

It’s the same level of hypocrisy that leads to people saying “no large gatherings due to covid!”, but then all of a sudden massive BLM protests and Biden election celebrations are okay. 

FWIW I’m actually glad that Trump lost because it removes his polarizing personality from the picture and now the democrats have to stand on their own with a garbage policy and a fractured party that can’t decide if it wants to go back to the mid 90s USA or to mid 60s Cuba. 

Edit: I realize that was a bit rambling and maybe had nothing to do with the current flow of conversation so my apologies. 

You’ve got some fair points & the Dems certainly have a history of overestimating and overplaying their hand. I think the Kavanaugh thing stemmed from McConnell’s refusal to even give Merrik Garland a hearing. Not saying it’s right, just that the one-upmanship has been going on for a long time and both sides are complicit. As for the impeachment, well it’s hard to argue they didn’t overplay that one too. I think there were some legitimate points regarding the 2016 campaign’s connections to foreign would-be influencers, but they were never going to get the needed buy-in from the other side. Of course they relied heavily on the outrage of their base. They don’t get a free pass from me on that. 

The one thing I’ll say that’s a significant difference, & the thing that has me fired up right now is that the Dems actually conceded in 2016. At that point there were actual serious questions about the security of the election and whether there had been foreign interference in what was a very close race. Clinton would’ve been well within her rights to litigate (and many of her allies pleaded with her to). Yet she didn’t. She didn’t because she knew that the potential damage that could be done to the country far exceeded her own desire for power. Same in 2000 with Al Gore. Same in 1960 with Nixon. Trump has no such compunction. I really believe that he is doing lasting damage to the country right now. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Prozac said:

She didn’t because she knew that the potential damage that could be done to the country far exceeded her own desire for power. Same in 2000 with Al Gore. Same in 1960 with Nixon. Trump has no such compunction. I really believe that he is doing lasting damage to the country right now. 

You had me till there. She quit because she didn't see a path to victory.

 

And Gore didn't concede until December 13th, *after* the supreme court had to weigh in!

 

This is exactly the double standard that the right is constantly whining about, and they're correct.

Edited by Lord Ratner
Link to post
Share on other sites

@torqued perhaps he's losing interest because you're playing stupid semantic games: acknowledging the existence of isolated cases of voter fraud is very different from saying the entire system is compromised. 
 

This is really quite simple. We don't throw out nationwide elections for 1 case of fraud, or 100, or 1000.  If you want the election results invalidated, then prove (with concrete evidence) that fraud happened on large enough scale that it would have changed the outcome.  If you need concrete numbers to hang your hat on, this would mean you need to show fraud numbers in the tens of thousands (for the close states) and fraud numbers in the hundreds of thousands to millions everywhere else. 
 

But we know you can't do that, and neither can the group of accidental comedians trump calls his legal team.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Pooter said:

@torqued perhaps he's losing interest because you're playing stupid semantic games: acknowledging the existence of isolated cases of voter fraud is very different from saying the entire system is compromised. 
 

This is really quite simple. We don't throw out nationwide elections for 1 case of fraud, or 100, or 1000.  If you want the election results invalidated, then prove (with concrete evidence) that fraud happened on large enough scale that it would have changed the outcome.  If you need concrete numbers to hang your hat on, this would mean you need to show fraud numbers in the tens of thousands (for the close states) and fraud numbers in the hundreds of thousands to millions everywhere else. 
 

But we know you can't do that, and neither can the group of accidental comedians trump calls his legal team.

Here we go yet once again. Over and over again. Forum Debate 101: When you can't argue against a point, mischaracterize the point, and argue against that instead. Did I ever say the entire system is compromised?

I don't think you know the definition of semantics. Semantics would be arguing, for example, the differences between a mischaracterization, a falsehood, and a lie.

You want concrete evidence? I bet I can get you to also "lose interest" before we get there. Here's how: I'll ask you to establish what "concrete evidence" is. Give me an example that you wouldn't outright dismiss.

 

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

You had me till there. She quit because she didn't see a path to victory.

 

And Gore didn't concede until December 13th!

 

This is exactly the double standard that the right is constantly whining about, and they're correct.

The final certified margin between bush and gore in Florida was 537 votes.  Gore didn't concede immediately because a state with enough electors to swing the entire election was hanging in the balance by a margin of a few hundred votes. When the legally mandated Florida recount proceedings finished, gore conceded.
 

In contrast, Trump is behind by 10,000+ votes in the closest states.  None of which are large enough on their own to change the overall election outcome. 
 

It's only a double standard if the situations are actually similar. Which they aren't. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, torqued said:

Here we go yet once again. Over and over again. Forum Debate 101: When you can't argue against a point, mischaracterize the point, and argue against that instead. Did I ever say the entire system is compromised?

I don't think you know the definition of semantics. Semantics would be arguing, for example, the differences between a mischaracterization, a falsehood, and a lie.

You want concrete evidence? I bet I can get you to also "lose interest" before we get there. Here's how: I'll ask you to establish what "concrete evidence" is. Give me an example that you wouldn't outright dismiss.

 

I'm not a legal expert but a good start might be the trump team having enough confidence in their own supposed evidence to actually file fraud allegations in court. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Pooter said:

I'm not a legal expert but a good start might be the trump team having enough confidence in their own supposed evidence to actually file fraud allegations in court. 

I'll try another way:

What is a specific example of the fraud you acknowledge exists and what would you say evidence of that fraud would look like?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pooter said:

The final certified margin between bush and gore in Florida was 537 votes.  Gore didn't concede immediately because a state with enough electors to swing the entire election was hanging in the balance by a margin of a few hundred votes. When the legally mandated Florida recount proceedings finished, gore conceded.
 

In contrast, Trump is behind by 10,000+ votes in the closest states.  None of which are large enough on their own to change the overall election outcome. 
 

It's only a double standard if the situations are actually similar. Which they aren't. 

Then why mention it?

And there was no legally mandated recount, the supreme court stopped it before it could finish, and only then did Gore concede.

 

Trump is a fool for what he's doing, but let's not pretend like the others were noble leaders who conceded for the good of the country. They concede when they run out of options. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Then why mention it?
And there was no legally mandated recount, the supreme court stopped it before it could finish, and only then did Gore concede.
 
Trump is a fool for what he's doing, but let's not pretend like the others were noble leaders who conceded for the good of the country. They concede when they run out of options. 

I 100% agree on that last sentence. No honor in those specifically cited examples. They simply didn’t see a way forward, but at least they stopped at the legal ways and didn’t try all of this BS.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not a legal expert but a good start might be the trump team having enough confidence in their own supposed evidence to actually file fraud allegations in court. 

Knock it off. He’s got you playing his game... Pointless.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sua Sponte said:

More than Trump’s legislative achievements as a Senator.

Sooooo your lack of addressing the question and deflecting says being a Senator didn’t qualify/prep Obama to be a president from a leadership and decision making perspective, copy. 

Edited by SurelySerious
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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

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.




×
×
  • Create New...