Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 101 to 125 of 211
  1. #101
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    90,829
    Boutons' sources and font usages are

    Reeks of unstable incel

  2. #102
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,421
    Boutons' sources and font usages are

    Reeks of unstable incel
    reduced to clowning on the LCD, water finds its own level I guess

  3. #103
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,421
    great Steve Vladeck thread on SCOTUS's shadow docket







  4. #104
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,421
    the Judiciary is co-equal branch of government. It is political in origin and import -- it gets to say what the law is

    Dems need to wake up and smell the coffee.


  5. #105
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    Amy Coney Barrett, Queen Of Gaslighters, Cries Hot Tears Over Being Called 'Partisan Hack'

    Amy Coney Barrett ... complained about mean media bullies calling the Supreme Court's decisions "political."

    Not in an Onion post. Not in an "SNL" sketch. In real life.

    "My goal today is to convince you that this court is not comprised of a bunch of partisan hacks,"

    Barrett has the unmitigated gall to complain that Americans perceive the court as deciding cases first and then back-formulating a justification to suit their political ends — if they can even be bothered to do that much.

    "The media, along with hot takes on Twitter, report the results and decisions,"

    "That makes the decision seem results-oriented.

    It leaves the reader to judge whether the court was right or wrong, based on whether she liked the results of the decision."

    Well, no , lady.

    You just overruled the viability framework of Roe and Casey

    on the goddamn shadow docket, and

    you greenlighted a bounty system on pregnant women to make it happen.

    the chutzpah to dedicate her professional life to the theory of the unitary executive and

    then rule that the
    (Dem) president is powerless

    to set immigration policy and is obligated to
    maintain his (Repug) predecessor's policies indefinitely.

    Barrett was confirmed on a party-line vote

    as the president was openly speculating that she would deliver the White House for him,

    and has quite consistently sided with her more conservative colleagues.

    It's the rankest gaslighting for her to congratulate herself and her fellow jurists on being "hyper vigilant

    to make sure they're not letting personal biases creep into their decisions, since judges are people, too."

    She was nominated explicitly because of her personal biases and

    utter lack of respect for precedent, and she proves it every single day.

    this "The Handmaid's Tale" character is doing exactly what she was hired to do.

    And having a wonderful time trolling the out of the American public, while she's at it.

    https://www.wonkette.com/chief-justice-barrett-queen-of-the-gaslighters-cries-hot-tears-over-being-called-a-partisan-hack


  6. #106
    notthewordsofonewhokneels Thread's Avatar
    My Team
    Los Angeles Lakers
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Post Count
    81,184
    Amy Coney Barrett, Queen Of Gaslighters, Cries Hot Tears Over Being Called 'Partisan Hack'

    Amy Coney Barrett ... complained about mean media bullies calling the Supreme Court's decisions "political."

    Not in an Onion post. Not in an "SNL" sketch. In real life.

    "My goal today is to convince you that this court is not comprised of a bunch of partisan hacks,"

    Barrett has the unmitigated gall to complain that Americans perceive the court as deciding cases first and then back-formulating a justification to suit their political ends — if they can even be bothered to do that much.

    "The media, along with hot takes on Twitter, report the results and decisions,"

    "That makes the decision seem results-oriented.

    It leaves the reader to judge whether the court was right or wrong, based on whether she liked the results of the decision."

    Well, no , lady.

    You just overruled the viability framework of Roe and Casey

    on the goddamn shadow docket, and

    you greenlighted a bounty system on pregnant women to make it happen.

    the chutzpah to dedicate her professional life to the theory of the unitary executive and

    then rule that the
    (Dem) president is powerless

    to set immigration policy and is obligated to
    maintain his (Repug) predecessor's policies indefinitely.

    Barrett was confirmed on a party-line vote

    as the president was openly speculating that she would deliver the White House for him,

    and has quite consistently sided with her more conservative colleagues.

    It's the rankest gaslighting for her to congratulate herself and her fellow jurists on being "hyper vigilant

    to make sure they're not letting personal biases creep into their decisions, since judges are people, too."

    She was nominated explicitly because of her personal biases and

    utter lack of respect for precedent, and she proves it every single day.

    this "The Handmaid's Tale" character is doing exactly what she was hired to do.

    And having a wonderful time trolling the out of the American public, while she's at it.

    https://www.wonkette.com/chief-justice-barrett-queen-of-the-gaslighters-cries-hot-tears-over-being-called-a-partisan-hack

    Boiled down:::

    Coney SCJ.
    Not Garland.

  7. #107
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    Justice Clarence Thomas believes media criticism of decisions ‘jeopardizes any faith’ in the Supreme Court




    complained about the harsh criticism the Supreme Court has received since allowing a controversial anti-abortion law to go into effect in Texas.

    Thomas delivered the 2021 Tocqueville Lecture at the University of Notre Dame fascist Catholic central

    "I think the media makes it sound as though you are just always going right to your personal preference.

    So if they think you are anti-abortion or something personally, they think that's the way you always will come out.

    They think you're for this or for that.

    They think you become like a politician," Thomas said. English mother er do you speak it?

    we may have become the most dangerous," Thomas said. "And I think that's problematic."

    interrupted by protesters who yelled, "I still believe Anita Hill."

    https://www.rawstory.com/clarence-thomas-speech

    CT, no fan of the 1st Amendment, except the "establishment" clause (to be violated) and "free expression" clause (to be weaponized)
    Last edited by boutons_deux; 09-17-2021 at 08:28 AM.

  8. #108
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    Why Stop at Roe?



    Donald Trump will likely go down in U.S. history as one of the worst, if not most corrupt, presidents.

    Sadly, his reactionary legacy will live on much, much longer than his one term in office.

    His three Supreme Court appointments – Neil Gorsuch (2017), Brett Kavanaugh (2018) and Amy Coney Barrett (2020) – have joined with the Court’s two arch conservatives — Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito –

    and one moderate — John Roberts moderate?

    – to forge
    the most conservative Court since the 1930s.
    A quick review of some of these possible decisions suggests just how reactionary an aggressively conservative Court could be.

    Gibbons v. Ogden
    (1824)

    At issue is whether a state can pass laws that challenge the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce. The Court originally ruled that the federal government regulated interstate commerce.
    So, why not “revise” the ruling and give states power over interstate commerce?

    Dred Scott v. Sandford
    (1857)

    The Court ruled that Congress could legalize slavery and prohibit African Americans from suing in federal court.
    So, in an era of gig-work neo-slavery, why not “revise” the ruling and deny rights to those considered “un-American,” whether defined by race, gender, national origin, religion or job.

    Plessy v. Ferguson
    (1896)

    The Court upheld the notion of “separate but equal” segregation laws in states.
    So, in a postmodern world, why not “revise” the notion of “separate” to all those who challenge white, conservative powers-that-be?

    Schenck v. United States
    (1919)

    The Court originally ruled that the concept a “clear and present danger” threatening U.S. security violated the principle of free speech as protected by the First Amendment.
    So, in a nation facing an endless “war on terror,” why not surrender First Amendment protections to defend “national security”?

    Brown v. Board of Education
    (1954)

    The Court overturned Plessy v. Ferguson finding that racially segregated public schools violate the Cons ution’s Equal Protection Clause, ruling “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.”
    So, why, in the postmodern 21st century, can’t “separate educational facilities” be “inherently” equal?

    Cooper v. Aaron
    (1958)

    The Court ruled that states cannot nullify decisions of the federal courts (e.g., Alabama refused to follow the Brown v. Board of Education decision.)
    So, why can’t a state nullify a federal act if a state legislature — backed by state-rights activities — oppose it.

    Mapp v. Ohio
    (1961)

    The Court ruled that illegally obtained material cannot be used in a criminal trial.
    So, given the police’s need to pursue all illegal activities, why shouldn’t all relevant material – no matter how it is obtained — be used in a prosecution?

    Engel v. Vitale
    (1962)

    The Court ruled that prayer in public schools violated the First Amendment.
    So, in schools with parents of students having a strong religious outlook, why not permit prayer in school?

    Baker v. Carr
    (1962)

    The Court ruled that states must meet a Cons utional standard for voting that doesn’t violate the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment, thus ins uting the notion of “one person, one vote.”
    So, why not reconceive voting as a privilege that should be restricted to meet higher standards, whether based on age, literacy, gender, race or personal wealth?

    Gideon v. Wainwright
    (1963)

    The Court ruled that an individual charged with a felony and is unable to pay for a lawyer must be provided representation without charge.
    So, why should a community have to pay for someone’s legal representation?

    Griswold v. Connecticut
    (1965)

    The Cons ution ruled that the personal right to privacy permitted married people to acquire contraceptive devices.
    So, now that Roe had been restricted to protect the fetus, why should couples or individuals have a right to conceptives?

    Miranda v. Arizona
    (1966)

    The Court ruled that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments require police to inform individuals in custody that they have a right to remain silent and to have an attorney.
    So, in order to contain crime, why – for those who’ve been arrested – shouldn’t silence be a sign of guilt and, thus, there’d be no need for a defense attorney?

    Loving v. Virginia
    (1967)

    The Court invalidated state laws prohibiting interracial marriage.
    So, why, under state rights, shouldn’t states prohibit “unacceptable” marriages based on race?

    Tinker v. Des Moines
    (1969)

    The Court held that students do not “shed their cons utional rights to freedom of speech … at the schoolhouse gate.” Thus, students could engage in non-disruptive political actions like wearing black armbands to symbolize anti-war political protest.
    So, why couldn’t the Court restrict all forms of “free” speech to outside the school building?

    United States v. Nixon
    (1974)

    The Court rules that a president cannot use executive privilege to withhold evidence from criminal trial.
    So, why, in a case involving former Pres. Trump’s business practices, should he be granted executive privilege?

    Regents of the University of California v. Bakke
    (1978)

    The Court ruled that universities may use race as part of an admissions decisions so long as “fixed quotas” are not used.
    So, if universities can use race, why can’t they use “unfixed” quotas?

    Texas v. Johnson
    (1989)

    The Court ruled that offensive speech — such as flag burning — is protected by the First Amendment.
    So, what if speech is so offensive – such as calling for the impeachment of a president — that it is not protected by the Cons ution?

    Cruzan v. Missouri Dept. of Health
    (1990)

    The Court ruled that a person had a right to reject life-preserving medical treatment — their “right to die” – allowing the withdrawal of treatment with clear and convincing evidence that this is what the patient would have wanted.
    So, in adhering to the primacy of the living person as codified in the Texas decision to restrict Roe, why should anyone have the “right to die”?

    Lawrence v. Texas
    (2003)

    The Court struck down state laws that prohibited sodomy between consenting adults.
    So, why – in a Christian country – should anyone have a right to engage in sodomy or other -erotic acts?

    Roper v. Simmons
    (2005)

    The Court ruled that it is cruel and unusual punishment to execute persons for crimes they committed before age 18 in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
    So, what if the youth commits a “terrorist” act or a politically-motivated mass murder? Shouldn’t s/he be executed?

    United States v. Windsor
    (2013)

    The Court ruled that the federal government must provide benefits to legally married same-sex couples.
    So, why, if same-sex couples are prohibited from marrying, would benefits be provided?

    Obergefell v. Hodges
    (2015)

    The Court ruled that same-sex marriage is legal in all 50 states.
    So, why, in a Christian America, are same-sex marriage permitted?
    ***
    The reactionary Christian (Catholic papists) right now controls the Supreme Court and will likely continue to do so for the next generation or more.

    Given this power, the face of the American legal system will change and, with it, social life.


    Change in social and personal life could have any number of consequences —

    the reestablishment separate but equal,

    ending of “one person, one vote,”

    blocking criminal safeguards,

    restricting freedom of speech and

    reshaping sexual life and relations (e.g., access to contraceptive, sexual and interracial marriage)


    Today’s most conservative Christians may well envision returning America to a life invoking the glory – gory! – days of the early Puritan colonist.

    Like the days of old, such

    reactionary “originalists” could redefine illegal act to include premarital sex (fornication), extramarital sex (adultery), sodomy ( sexuality) and interracial sex (amalgamation).

    And they could specify the two worst offenses to be bestiality involving young men and sexual witchcraft among older women.


    Other forms of “originalist” law-and-order rules were applied to the newly-settled America.

    In 1662, the Virginia Assembly established the first law against interracial sex.

    In 1691, it passed a much stiffer law banning “negroes, mulattoes and indians intermarrying with English, or other white women, [and] their unlawful accompanying with one another.”

    Other colonies followed with similar bans, as exemplified by the North Carolina colony that, in 1715, adopted laws prohibiting interracial marriages.

    Three-plus centuries later, America elected its first male president of mixed-race origin, followed a few years later by a female vice president, both children of once-scandalous interracial relations.

    Who know how long before such people will, one day, be barred from holding public office.

    https://www.counterpunch.org/2021/09/16/why-stop-at-roe/

  9. #109
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    Legal critics pillory Justice Clarence Thomas for

    ‘speaking out against something he is actively doing’



    he blasted the media for criticizing decisions from the nation's highest court and

    warning federal judges to not wade in to political discussions.

    blasting him for, as Daily Beast editor-at-large Molly Jong-Fast says, "speaking out against something he is actively doing."

    "Clarence Thomas didn't seem too worried about 'destroying our ins utions' when he cast the deciding vote to make Bush president in 2000 or

    to gut the Voting Rights Act in 2013 or

    when he sat silently from 2017-2021 as Trump trashed our ins utions."


    Justice Thomas, saying that

    "claiming that the Supreme Court isn't political is nonsense and we all know it.

    FWIW, whenever I teach Cons utional Law and students go,

    'Who in the would write that opinion??' the answer is invariably Clarence Thomas."

    "Clarence Thomas, whose rulings in key cases mysteriously always conform with his political and partisan preferences,

    says the justices do not make decisions based on politics. Hahahahaha"

    https://www.alternet.org/2021/09/clarence-thomas-court/

  10. #110
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    90,829
    reduced to clowning on the LCD, water finds its own level I guess
    selective outrage

  11. #111
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,421
    selective outrage
    no outrage at all.

    you and boutons deserve each other -- water finds its own level.

  12. #112
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    90,829
    no outrage at all.

    you and boutons deserve each other -- water finds its own level.


    Your side has the LCD. You called it.

    You're just a more verbose version of Boutons. He does Rawstory and you do Twitter. Same basic schtick though... two Americans angry at their lot in life, blaming it on :"the man".

  13. #113
    LMAO koriwhat's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Post Count
    37,901
    You're just a more verbose version of Boutons. He does Rawstory and you do Twitter. Same basic schtick though...
    Ain't that the truth!

  14. #114
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    SCOTUS6

    2 sexual predators

    3 appointed by a Pres who lost the popular election

    1 extremist Catholic who ran a punitive, secretive Catholic fringe cult

    SCOTUS revises oral argument format ahead of blockbuster term


    While the Court will maintain the traditional practice of allowing justices to engage in questioning in no particular order -- the traditional free for all -- there will now be an opportunity, once an attorney's time has expired, for the justices to ask specific questions in order of seniority.

    The hybrid system appears to be an attempt to blend together two approaches from the court's recent history.

    The traditional format produced more lively hearings -- with justices often interrupting each other -- and advocates unable to always respond fulsomely.

    At times, justices seemed to be using the argument session to probe the positions of their colleagues, almost ignoring the attorney who was left on the sidelines with little opportunity to break in.

    Justice Clarence Thomas -- who spent years rarely asking questions from the bench -- was an active participant during the telephonic hearings, giving the public, who could listen via live audio, a much better sense of his jurisprudence and his personality.

    https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/21/politics/supreme-court-oral-arguments-format/index.html

    How will the SOCTUS6 continue to up democracy and enable Capitalist/Christian fascism?

  15. #115
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    Supreme Court Approval Drops as New Term Brings Divisive Issues


    Polls finds public approval at 49%, down from 66% last year

    declining confidence in the court and

    growing concern that it is driven by politics.


    39% view the court as deciding cases mainly on politics,

    the highest percentage in the two years the survey has been conducted.

    The Texas order likely helped drive down Democratic approval, which plunged from 59% in July to 37% in September,

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ivisive-issues

  16. #116
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,421

  17. #117
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,421
    non-partisan victory laps to be hosted at the Heritage Foundation


  18. #118
    notthewordsofonewhokneels Thread's Avatar
    My Team
    Los Angeles Lakers
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Post Count
    81,184
    Supreme Court Approval Drops as New Term Brings Divisive Issues


    Polls finds public approval at 49%, down from 66% last year

    declining confidence in the court and

    growing concern that it is driven by politics.


    39% view the court as deciding cases mainly on politics,

    the highest percentage in the two years the survey has been conducted.

    The Texas order likely helped drive down Democratic approval, which plunged from 59% in July to 37% in September,

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ivisive-issues
    (They) opened their mouths and sullied their charge. They've nobody to blame but themselves. Their regrets are their own. I've no sympathy for them.

  19. #119
    notthewordsofonewhokneels Thread's Avatar
    My Team
    Los Angeles Lakers
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Post Count
    81,184
    SCOTUS6

    2 sexual predators

    3 appointed by a Pres who lost the popular election

    1 extremist Catholic who ran a punitive, secretive Catholic fringe cult

    SCOTUS revises oral argument format ahead of blockbuster term


    While the Court will maintain the traditional practice of allowing justices to engage in questioning in no particular order -- the traditional free for all -- there will now be an opportunity, once an attorney's time has expired, for the justices to ask specific questions in order of seniority.

    The hybrid system appears to be an attempt to blend together two approaches from the court's recent history.

    The traditional format produced more lively hearings -- with justices often interrupting each other -- and advocates unable to always respond fulsomely.

    At times, justices seemed to be using the argument session to probe the positions of their colleagues, almost ignoring the attorney who was left on the sidelines with little opportunity to break in.

    Justice Clarence Thomas -- who spent years rarely asking questions from the bench -- was an active participant during the telephonic hearings, giving the public, who could listen via live audio, a much better sense of his jurisprudence and his personality.

    https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/21/politics/supreme-court-oral-arguments-format/index.html

    How will the SOCTUS6 continue to up democracy and enable Capitalist/Christian fascism?
    ...short answer:::6 ways to Sunday.

  20. #120
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514

  21. #121
    notthewordsofonewhokneels Thread's Avatar
    My Team
    Los Angeles Lakers
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Post Count
    81,184
    Thomas turned out to be THE Godsend after what's his face was tarred, feathered and road out on a rail.

  22. #122
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    Supreme Court Justice Alito publicly condemns Atlantic writer for 'inflammatory' article bashing his work



    singled out Atlantic writer Adam Serwer for writing what he described as an "inflammatory" article about his work.

    Alito attacked Serwer for writing an article about the court's decision

    to allow Texas to go through with its law that allows private citizens to sue anyone who performs or even assists in an abortion.

    Alito took particular umbrage at Serwer's claim that

    "the conservative majority on the Supreme Court was so eager to nullify
    Roe v. Wade,

    the 1973 precedent securing the right to abortion, that it didn't even wait for oral arguments"

    Alito called this statement "inflammatory" and "false."


    Alito then called it "ridiculous" to suggest the court should have held oral arguments for the case,

    even though the Texas law effectively outlawed abortion in the state in direct defiance of the landmark
    Roe v. Wade ruling.

    https://www.rawstory.com/alito-texas-abortion-ruling

    the Catholic SCOTUS6 getting antsy about pushback of their political prejudices, and their 40% approval.


  23. #123
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    How a hard-right Supreme Court is ‘rolling back progress’ on multiple fronts

    "This term, we will see conservatives celebrate the achievement of two long-sought goals they could not accomplish through electoral politics," Mystal explains.

    "We will see broad conservative agreement that

    women should be treated as second-class citizens,

    reduced to the status of incubators with mouth parts, when the Court hears the most direct challenge to abortion rights in a generation.

    And we will see broad conservative agreement that guns have more rights than children."

    "They all agree that

    organized labor should be disempowered, that

    voting should remain a largely White privilege, and

    that religious groups should be able to stop LGBTQ people from adopting children.

    That's not theory; that's the upshot of three decisions the conservatives hung together to make last term.

    The six conservatives agree on the outcomes;

    they disagree only on the best way to go about

    their awful work of reversing the gains of the civil rights and gay rights movements and dismantling the social safety net."

    Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett are the four who are

    prepared to thumb their noses at settled law in order to control women's bodies.

    the High Court "will not only uphold Mississippi's ban, but will also do it in a way that helps the Republican political agenda the most."

    https://www.alternet.org/2021/09/abortion-rights/




  24. #124
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    1 In 3 Americans Might Consider Abolishing Or Limiting Supreme Court


    more than a third of Americans say they might be willing to abolish the Supreme Court or have Congress limit its jurisdiction if the court were to make decisions they or Congress disagreed with.

    38% said that when Congress disagrees with the court’s decisions, “Congress should pass legislation saying the Supreme Court can no longer rule on that issue or topic.”



    https://scienceblog.com/525748/1-in-...g-survey-finds

  25. #125
    notthewordsofonewhokneels Thread's Avatar
    My Team
    Los Angeles Lakers
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Post Count
    81,184
    1 In 3 Americans Might Consider Abolishing Or Limiting Supreme Court


    more than a third of Americans say they might be willing to abolish the Supreme Court or have Congress limit its jurisdiction if the court were to make decisions they or Congress disagreed with.

    38% said that when Congress disagrees with the court’s decisions, “Congress should pass legislation saying the Supreme Court can no longer rule on that issue or topic.”



    https://scienceblog.com/525748/1-in-...g-survey-finds
    & piss, poor Roberts is no longer of importance. Poof!!!

    Now he & MSM can't play the game of (tortured swing vote) any longer. (They) loved doing that . In their glory.

    How, how did it get to this point? Well, kids, let's think about it...tee, hee...I got it...

    Trump President.
    Not Clinton.

    ha, ha.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

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