1. #22846

    Default

    This 1776 Report Commission was released on Martin Luther King Day--

    https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/18/polit...ump/index.html
    Washington (CNN)A commission stood up by President Donald Trump as a rebuttal to schools applying a more accurate history curriculum around slavery in the US issued its inflammatory report on Monday, Martin Luther King Jr. Day.
    Trump announced that he was establishing the commission last fall, following a slew of Black Lives Matter demonstrations across the country. He blamed the school curriculum for violence that resulted from some of the protests, saying that "the left-wing rioting and mayhem are the direct result of decades of left-wing indoctrination in our schools."
    The commission is an apparent counter to The New York Times' 1619 Project, a Pulitzer Prize-winning project aimed at teaching American students about slavery. Trump, speaking last fall, called the project "toxic propaganda."
    A sitting US president typically has the power to dissolve existing presidential commissions and advisory councils, which sometimes provide reports and recommendations to the White House.
    It's not clear what action President-elect Joe Biden will take with the commission once he's in office.
    Trump's presidency has been marked by his racist statements and actions, including his incitement of a mob, which included White supremacists, to storm the US Capitol on January 6 in protest of Biden's victory.
    This is just absolutely abominable.
    All the black supporters of 45 in particular should be ashamed of themselves. This administration is gone but still finds ways to be absolutely atrocious in their policy outlook.

  2. #22847
    BANNED Joker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    5,105

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    but that doesn't mean what he did isn't a coup d'etat.
    It is wild, and I mean, just fucking insane that we're just letting him walk out of office, with a military salute, and on government vehicles. Just ridiculous.

  3. #22848
    Mighty Member TheDarman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,211

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    It's probably a stunt to bait Dems and extort some kind of concessions in exchange for token bipartisan considering of Biden bills (aka stuff he should do as part of his elected job but won't because he's a f--king *******).

    McConnell is aiming for 2022 and plotting with that in mind, so derailing and compromising Biden's agenda and damaging a win is done with that in mind and the upcoming trial is part of his play...and McConnell is keeping cards close to his chest to see what play he can do so that he can move anyway until the last possible moment.
    I don't necessarily know if it is this. Sure, McConnell would like to extract some concessions on what his role in the minority party would be and how to bolster his position. But, honestly, I think he views Trump as little more than a liability to his more vulnerable members now. Ron Johnson has to run for re-election in a state that Trump tried to overturn the results of. Both North Carolina and Pennsylvania have incumbent Republican senators retiring. Trump's approval rating is now in the high twenties or low thirties, which doesn't bode well for a party tied so closely to him in close statewide races.

    If they leave Trump alone and don't bar him from running again, Trump may feel emboldened. At best, he threatens their majority by ensuring primary candidates go against their members in states like Florida and Alaska, pushing their candidates further to the right to defend him and making them liable to lose in a general election setting where white college-educated voters (voters who have moved significantly towards Democrats) have disproportionate impact. Additionally, states that present valid pick-up opportunities by having more moderate candidates, like in Arizona or Georgia, could be compromised by a Trump keen to keep his hold over the party. At worst, Trump drags the rest of the party further down with him, especially if he runs again in 2024.

    Neither of these are winning propositions for McConnell. Trump has a low popularity ranking. He can drive it lower among the Republican base, expel the KKK, and, as he even said, try to rebuild strength among suburban white voters and college-educated folks. Could it work? Maybe. But I think McConnell is willing to give it a shot. After all, Republicans lost both houses of Congress and the White House in just four years. The last president to replicate that was Hoover. Trump is toxic among the voters that they need to win over--and they can't exactly depend on the voters that have come out for him in both 2016 and 2020 to show up when he isn't at the top of the ticket.
    With Great Power, Comes Great Responsibility

    Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

  4. #22849
    BANNED Joker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    5,105

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hypestyle View Post
    This 1776 Report Commission was released on Martin Luther King Day--

    https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/18/polit...ump/index.html


    This is just absolutely abominable.
    All the black supporters of 45 in particular should be ashamed of themselves. This administration is gone but still finds ways to be absolutely atrocious in their policy outlook.
    It's so weird how electing an openly racist man to the office of the Presidency resulted in racism.

  5. #22850
    Mighty Member TheDarman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,211

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    There are a lot of people in the world who would like to be American citizens if there were no barriers in their way.

    I'm curious about what fair and welcoming path to citizenship would not exclude the majority. The current system does favor the chosen few, those who have skills and a background deemed useful (skills based immigration) or those who know the right people (family reunification.)
    Again, I think you might be straw-manning an argument here. There are clear limitations with the kinds of work Visas that are permitted. Honestly, allowing people to work here does help the economy. But uninhibited growth is only going to cause explosions in unemployment and hurt the overall economy, which helps no one, including migrants. So, there need to be some limitations. The issue is what those limitations are. Trump's Administration has prioritized "preferred" immigration from Europe and has routinely condemned "migrant caravans" arriving on our doorstep. Independent of what our policies on refugees should be (probably broader than they are--we have a responsibility to help those in need and, while it should be shared, we take in far less than our fair share versus, say, Germany), this is indicative of how Trump and the Republican Party has viewed immigration as exclusionary.

    It has also been counter-productive. These migrants are trained in the work that we need. Farmers are constantly asking for more skilled agricultural hands. Those Visas were reduced under the Trump Administration despite folks in that industry begging for more workers. The racism was the point; not the efficacy of limiting migration to preserve our economic well-being. Economic considerations are appropriate. Hell, Sanders has argued that plenty of times. But limiting migration from certain areas because of racial resentment and xenophobia? I think we should all be on board with condemning that.
    With Great Power, Comes Great Responsibility

    Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

  6. #22851
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    9,358

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joker View Post
    It is wild, and I mean, just fucking insane that we're just letting him walk out of office, with a military salute, and on government vehicles. Just ridiculous.
    It is. There's a numb inertia operating in place of actual principle in US institutional framework.

    America's been so blinded by its idea of being not like the rest of the world, that it can't happen here that their constitution was never updated to reflect the elevation of a candidate who tramples on everything while still cloaked in the legitimacy of the office.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDarman View Post
    I don't necessarily know if it is this. Sure, McConnell would like to extract some concessions on what his role in the minority party would be and how to bolster his position. But, honestly, I think he views Trump as little more than a liability to his more vulnerable members now. Ron Johnson has to run for re-election in a state that Trump tried to overturn the results of. Both North Carolina and Pennsylvania have incumbent Republican senators retiring. Trump's approval rating is now in the high twenties or low thirties, which doesn't bode well for a party tied so closely to him in close statewide races.

    If they leave Trump alone and don't bar him from running again, Trump may feel emboldened. At best, he threatens their majority by ensuring primary candidates go against their members in states like Florida and Alaska, pushing their candidates further to the right to defend him and making them liable to lose in a general election setting where white college-educated voters (voters who have moved significantly towards Democrats) have disproportionate impact. Additionally, states that present valid pick-up opportunities by having more moderate candidates, like in Arizona or Georgia, could be compromised by a Trump keen to keep his hold over the party. At worst, Trump drags the rest of the party further down with him, especially if he runs again in 2024.

    Neither of these are winning propositions for McConnell. Trump has a low popularity ranking. He can drive it lower among the Republican base, expel the KKK, and, as he even said, try to rebuild strength among suburban white voters and college-educated folks. Could it work? Maybe. But I think McConnell is willing to give it a shot. After all, Republicans lost both houses of Congress and the White House in just four years. The last president to replicate that was Hoover. Trump is toxic among the voters that they need to win over--and they can't exactly depend on the voters that have come out for him in both 2016 and 2020 to show up when he isn't at the top of the ticket.
    Hopefully, you are right. I just don't expect anything from McConnell.

  7. #22852
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    3,453

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDarman View Post
    Again, I think you might be straw-manning an argument here. There are clear limitations with the kinds of work Visas that are permitted. Honestly, allowing people to work here does help the economy. But uninhibited growth is only going to cause explosions in unemployment and hurt the overall economy, which helps no one, including migrants. So, there need to be some limitations. The issue is what those limitations are. Trump's Administration has prioritized "preferred" immigration from Europe and has routinely condemned "migrant caravans" arriving on our doorstep. Independent of what our policies on refugees should be (probably broader than they are--we have a responsibility to help those in need and, while it should be shared, we take in far less than our fair share versus, say, Germany), this is indicative of how Trump and the Republican Party has viewed immigration as exclusionary.

    It has also been counter-productive. These migrants are trained in the work that we need. Farmers are constantly asking for more skilled agricultural hands. Those Visas were reduced under the Trump Administration despite folks in that industry begging for more workers. The racism was the point; not the efficacy of limiting migration to preserve our economic well-being. Economic considerations are appropriate. Hell, Sanders has argued that plenty of times. But limiting migration from certain areas because of racial resentment and xenophobia? I think we should all be on board with condemning that.
    How exactly would you limit immigration though? You can't make a merit-based system, because the economy needs both skilled and unskilled workers, and in fact the latter are arguably MORE valuable to the economy because they don't compete directly with American-born workers. And as sea levels continue to rise, more and more people from the global south will be driven to migrate north to escape catastrophes and the ensuing societal chaos, and given that the blame for global warming falls mostly on our shoulders, what kind of twisted ethics would you need to turn all of these people away? We have reaped the benefits of empire for hundreds of years, the least we could do is extend a hand to all of the people who have to bear the fallout of our actions, not to abdicate our leadership at the exact moment at which it might actually do some good.

  8. #22853
    Ultimate Member Mister Mets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    18,917

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDarman View Post
    Again, I think you might be straw-manning an argument here. There are clear limitations with the kinds of work Visas that are permitted. Honestly, allowing people to work here does help the economy. But uninhibited growth is only going to cause explosions in unemployment and hurt the overall economy, which helps no one, including migrants. So, there need to be some limitations. The issue is what those limitations are. Trump's Administration has prioritized "preferred" immigration from Europe and has routinely condemned "migrant caravans" arriving on our doorstep. Independent of what our policies on refugees should be (probably broader than they are--we have a responsibility to help those in need and, while it should be shared, we take in far less than our fair share versus, say, Germany), this is indicative of how Trump and the Republican Party has viewed immigration as exclusionary.

    It has also been counter-productive. These migrants are trained in the work that we need. Farmers are constantly asking for more skilled agricultural hands. Those Visas were reduced under the Trump Administration despite folks in that industry begging for more workers. The racism was the point; not the efficacy of limiting migration to preserve our economic well-being. Economic considerations are appropriate. Hell, Sanders has argued that plenty of times. But limiting migration from certain areas because of racial resentment and xenophobia? I think we should all be on board with condemning that.
    I have consistently been in favor of increasing legal immigration, so you don't have to convince me of that.

    You could certainly think a problem with Trump's immigration policy is that he favored white immigrants, but the description of what made Trump's political preferences unique where "citizenship is a privilege to be doled out to the chosen few" basically applies to any serious limits on immigration. The argument isn't whether it's the right approach, but which chosen few get to be citizens.

    Quote Originally Posted by PwrdOn View Post
    It hurts your argument because so casually aligning yourself with blood and soil politics simply because you refuse to consider open borders paints you as someone that isn't to be taken seriously. The American economy relies on immigration to function and would collapse if we relied on "real Americans" to supply the bulk of the labor, whether unskilled or skilled. Indeed the whole idea of the American dream was that even the humblest peasant in Europe could live like a aristocrat in the New World because of the abundance of "empty" land and slave labor to work it. So the alternative to creating a pathway to citizenship would be to reinstitute a permanent servile class of "guest workers" that will pay taxes but never be represented in government, reserving citizenship for the privileged few who happen to have it already who, wouldn't you know it, just happen to be mostly white. That couldn't possibly end poorly.
    I've discussed the merits of open borders often on these boards (even if I do ultimately think it is a bad idea), and provided links to arguments in its favor, while also making it clear that I think good people can believe in it.

    https://community.cbr.com/showthread...rs#post4975695

    https://community.cbr.com/showthread...=1#post5000940

    https://community.cbr.com/showthread...rs#post5148227

    https://community.cbr.com/showthread...rs#post4656583

    https://community.cbr.com/showthread...rs#post4306007
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Mets

  9. #22854
    Mighty Member TheDarman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,211

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PwrdOn View Post
    How exactly would you limit immigration though? You can't make a merit-based system, because the economy needs both skilled and unskilled workers, and in fact the latter are arguably MORE valuable to the economy because they don't compete directly with American-born workers. And as sea levels continue to rise, more and more people from the global south will be driven to migrate north to escape catastrophes and the ensuing societal chaos, and given that the blame for global warming falls mostly on our shoulders, what kind of twisted ethics would you need to turn all of these people away? We have reaped the benefits of empire for hundreds of years, the least we could do is extend a hand to all of the people who have to bear the fallout of our actions, not to abdicate our leadership at the exact moment at which it might actually do some good.
    The issue is economic damage from unmitigated immigration will not help anyone. The fate folks are trying to escape by heading here may only be worse as they can't get work or native-born citizens suffer on unemployment lines. There should be room to accommodate people, surely, but we 1) don't want to end up with a "brain drain" for their home countries and 2) we certainly don't want to end up being the only one bearing responsibility. While other countries are frankly doing a lot more than us on the refugee crisis, we could end up shifting too much of the burden on ourselves. It is truly a balance.

    That being said, I think that limitations are fairly easy to figure out. Industries calling out for more workers? Get them the Visa'd folks who want to come to the United States, regardless of if it is "skilled" or "unskilled" labor (I loathe those terms, because all labor is skilled in some way and certainly puts even "unskilled" work out of the realm of possibility for folks who might even end up with college degrees). The issue with the Trump Administration isn't necessarily the limitations imposed. It is what kinds of limitations have been imposed. And those have exposed an administration keen to exhibit racist tendencies.
    With Great Power, Comes Great Responsibility

    Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

  10. #22855
    Mighty Member TheDarman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,211

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    I have consistently been in favor of increasing legal immigration, so you don't have to convince me of that.
    Frankly, then, I don't think you find yourself disagreeing with the mainstream thoughts on immigration, either in the party or even on the board. I think there is a clear limiting principle (i.e. "Do no harm"). That limiting principle, likewise, isn't immoral. If consistent immigration occurs and overwhelms the economy, the draw for immigrants is no longer there. We have to preserve a strong economy at home, not just for ourselves, but for future immigrants as well.

    You could certainly think a problem with Trump's immigration policy is that he favored white immigrants, but the description of what made Trump's political preferences unique where "citizenship is a privilege to be doled out to the chosen few" basically applies to any serious limits on immigration. The argument isn't whether it's the right approach, but which chosen few get to be citizens.
    I think the main problem with this discussion is the kind of meaning we extracted from the phrase. Of course there are limitations to citizenship and who gets it. The issue I have with Trump is that he clearly favored different sets of immigrants over others and attempted to persuade Europeans while vilifying and using stochastic terrorism against other groups.
    With Great Power, Comes Great Responsibility

    Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

  11. #22856
    Ultimate Member Mister Mets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    18,917

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DrNewGod View Post
    So, the My Pillow guy is losing distribution channels for his products over his reported urging of martial law. The other day, I made a comment about Conflix films, which proclaims itself as a haven for talent "denied work," with the subtext being "due to liberal political persecution" of the the talents' extreme conservative views.

    My question: are the divisions Trumpism has inflamed in the US such that we're going to see two near-entirely separate economies begin to spin out of this?
    That's an interesting question. I don't think it'll have much impact, but it could.

    To some extent we do already have entertainment that appeals to different parts of the country.

    There is a Christian Rock culture outside of the standard music industry. Tyler Perry's films and Hallmark movies make a profit without appealing to traditional cinephiles.

    A distinction is that there isn't as much a stigma against people who work in those fields. Katy Perry went from gospel music to pop. No one cares if Taraji P Henson was paid to be in a few Tyler Perry movies. But given Hollywood's progressive lean, anyone joining a conservative media network that is meant to employ cancelled, obnoxious people is going to piss off potential employers. That is going to limit the number of actors, directors, writers, etc. interested in joining the venture.

    If you can get an audience, there is room for profit. 5,000,000 people paying ten dollars a month is more than half a billion dollars an year in revenue. However, the work is likely to suck if the priority is matching the ideological priors of the customers. And you could easily have different outlets splintering the potential audience, preventing any one service from being big enough to compete.

    There may be a balance to get a conservative audience without alienating the mainstream but it's going to be tough. Left-wingers aren't forgiving of mainstream conservatives. See the reaction when Politico had Ben Shaprio guest-write a column (as part of an initiative that also included Don Lemon, and Ryan Lizza.)

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...-went-too-far/

    One should be able to disagree with Ben Shapiro without concluding that he's equivalent to Alex Jones. There is an argument I've seen from the left that there's ample room for free speech, but that any discussion of identity (to which you can map major arguments like affirmative action or abortion) is off-limits, which does serve to exclude conservative arguments. It is worth noting that demanding absolute fealty to progressive positions rules out most Democrats, to say nothing of Republicans.

    https://twitter.com/davidshor/status/855478654264123393

    Much of the right would freak out at any compromise, because they want conservative equivalents of their caricatures of left-wingers. They want a medical drama that is as far to the right as they imagine Grey's Anatomy to be progressive, so they won't be satisfied with a competently produced series where some doctors are conservatives. They want affirmation, stories where Trumpists are always right and progressives (and conservatives who don't fight hard enough) are always wrong. There's a bit of a Megyn Kelly problem, where someone who questions left-wing and right-wing orthodoxy isn't welcome in Fox News, or the mainstream media.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Mets

  12. #22857
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    3,453

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDarman View Post
    The issue is economic damage from unmitigated immigration will not help anyone. The fate folks are trying to escape by heading here may only be worse as they can't get work or native-born citizens suffer on unemployment lines. There should be room to accommodate people, surely, but we 1) don't want to end up with a "brain drain" for their home countries and 2) we certainly don't want to end up being the only one bearing responsibility. While other countries are frankly doing a lot more than us on the refugee crisis, we could end up shifting too much of the burden on ourselves. It is truly a balance.

    That being said, I think that limitations are fairly easy to figure out. Industries calling out for more workers? Get them the Visa'd folks who want to come to the United States, regardless of if it is "skilled" or "unskilled" labor (I loathe those terms, because all labor is skilled in some way and certainly puts even "unskilled" work out of the realm of possibility for folks who might even end up with college degrees). The issue with the Trump Administration isn't necessarily the limitations imposed. It is what kinds of limitations have been imposed. And those have exposed an administration keen to exhibit racist tendencies.
    I don't know what rock you've been living under but the brain drain has been happening for decades, in fact it is likely the primary reason why we can still maintain a competitive, high-tech economy despite our dogshit educational system, since we can free ride off of investments that other countries make in education, skimming the best students off the top and leaving them to deal with all the riff raff. And as for distributing the responsibility, I suppose it's rather fortunate that we're separated by two oceans from where most of the refugees will be coming from, and therefore aren't going to be a priority destination for the 80% or so of people who live on the other side of the planet, so would it really be too much to ask for the world's foremost economic superpower to take into consideration the wellbeing of the other 20% who live on our side?

    Also, if you left it up to companies to decide who they wanted to hire, they would almost always prefer to hire immigrants if possible because you can typically get a better result for less cost, especially now that the internet has helped to break down a lot of the cultural and linguistic barriers that had given Americans a leg up before. But instead of spending money on expensive border security to keep people out, better to invest that money on improving education at home to help American workers be more competitive, or on more social programs that help them cope better with the economic realities.

    At the end of the day, it's always going to be completely arbitrary who "deserves" to be in this country or not. Either we let people in, or we come up with some excuse not to which invariably points back to some kind of racism.

  13. #22858
    Old school comic book fan WestPhillyPunisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    31,195

    Default

    With time running out on Trump’s presidency, I wonder if he’ll issue pardons to Hawley, Cruz, or any of the almost 150 gutless ass Republicans who voted to overturn the results of the election?
    Avatar: Here's to the late, great Steve Dillon. Best. Punisher. Artist. EVER!

  14. #22859
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    9,358

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WestPhillyPunisher View Post
    With time running out on Trump’s presidency, I wonder if he’ll issue pardons to Hawley, Cruz, or any of the almost 150 gutless ass Republicans who voted to overturn the results of the election?
    The question is if Hawley and others can or will accept the pardon?

    A pardon can be rejected. That's an actual legal thing. So if Trump were to offer it, Hawley and Cruz because both are claiming they did the constitutional thing and so on (which is BS) would be compelled to reject it and insist that they are innocent and did nothing wrong.

    Accepting a pardon means admitting to guilt and opening oneself liable to civil damages. Similar to how OJ Simpson was found innocent in his criminal trial but charged and found liable in a civil suit.

    The Putsch is a situation where even a Pardon won't save anyone and might actively harm some people for accepting it.

  15. #22860
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    9,358

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    But given Hollywood's progressive lean, anyone joining a conservative media network that is meant to employ cancelled, obnoxious people is going to piss off potential employers. That is going to limit the number of actors, directors, writers, etc. interested in joining the venture.
    I doubt that very much. Remember that Hollywood's progressive in terms of artists and technicians and above and below the line but actual suits and so on can be conservative.

    In 2020, Beverly Hills voted heavily for Trump.
    https://harpers.org/archive/2021/02/...ies-a-s-hamrah

    By a wide margin, deep-blue Hollywood voted for Joe Biden. One area did not: Beverly Hills, the part of town most associated with movie glamour, with Hollywood as a concept and ideal, where the average house costs $5 million. Beverly Hills went for Trump by a lot, even more so than in 2016. On its face this might seem puzzling: voting for Trump indicates a lack of concern with how long the virus rages on, and the longer the pandemic continues, the longer movie theaters stay closed. It would seem that the wealthy maharajas of the film industry voted against their own interests, since individual asses in seats are what made them their money. Could it be that they have a live-and-let-die attitude toward the audience that paid for those mansions on Laurel Way and in Trousdale Estates? Or have they had the same inklings as Disney?
    https://www.lamag.com/citythinkblog/...-angeles-2020/
    The largest concentration of Trump support in central Los Angeles is located in the affluent residential areas of Beverly Hills and Trousdale Estates. Trump owned a property in the neighborhood until 2019, and has appeared in the area for several fundraisers.

    Beverly Hills precincts that voted for Trump start directly across Santa Monica Boulevard from the Rodeo Drive shopping district which has been the site of frequent pro-Trump demonstrations in recent months. Many businesses in that district had closed and boarded up in advance of Election Day as a precaution against potential unrest.

    Another triangle of red in the East Hollywood-Silver Lake area is the small precinct where the Church of Scientology’s headquarters complex is located. That same precinct was one of just seven that tipped for Trump four years ago; this time his margin in the precinct widened from a lead of three votes in 2016 to 54 votes in 2020.
    So I think conservatives and others can find work in the movie industry provided they have the talent, the right agent, the right connections, and have an appetite for survival.

    Beverly Hills isn't going to be cancelled for sure. I always hated shows on SoCal like 90210 or The OC...it's refreshing to find affirmation that those vapid freaks would vote Trump in time.

    And that's another nail in the so-called 'white working class' myth.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •