Page 9 of 36 FirstFirst ... 567891011121319 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 225 of 889
  1. #201
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    83,785
    That worked out so well last time. None of the firearms have magazines, a couple are ROTM, maybe even props.

  2. #202
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    83,785
    147 Democrats in congress did not vote to overturn Trump's election.

    There is no comparison, despite your desperation to find one.
    If they did it would be part of the democratic process our forefathers put into place.

  3. #203
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    72,964
    DMC: did you ever find any receipts for your claim I call everyone who disagrees with me a Trump ?

    Did you even find one?

  4. #204
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Count
    132,560
    DMC going full candy and nuts

  5. #205
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    83,785
    no. first by trying to get it done through an unprecedented number of post-election lawsuits nationwide, by having the president call governors and secretaries of state asking them to find votes for him, by trying to force Pence to unilaterally (and uncons utionally) disregard the electoral votes (see gohmert lawsuit), and then by attempting to block certification of the electoral college on january 6 (both through congress and violent mob)
    How much of it was legal?
    like what? gore wanted hand recount in florida. the court stepped in and stopped it. there were no follow up suits, gore conceded immediately following the SCOTUS ruling, and there were no formal objections to the certification.
    "the court stepped in". That's a bit misleading.. It went to the supreme court. Gore's team kept fighting the results. I don't blame them, there's provisions in the election law to allow it and the courts are there to interpret those laws. It's part of the election process, but it's not really about democracy. It's about who has their people placed in the courts. This is why "pack the court" means anything. Judges are not robots.

    what is this "trying to overturn " that you claim was going on?
    They were trying to overturn the ruling of the canvassing board, then to overturn the ruling of the lower courts. All these rulings were about the results of the election. You can instead say "nuh uh it was about the counts" but it's the same thing.
    again. clinton conceded the day after the election. there were no formal objections during the certification process. people saying there was russian interference is not the same as trying to overturn the election.
    Clinton wasn't the POTUS. (Trump president, not Clinton, etc..)
    Clinton pushed the idea that a duly elected POTUS wasn't duly elected. Others in her party did the same. They called into question the integrity of the democratic process, and in doing so (because they lost), have illustrated that democracy only seems to exist after you've won, as obviously it suddenly began to exist after the 2020 election so that it could be attacked on January 6th. Quite the anomaly.
    were there random celebrities trying to convince the electors to vote against trump? sure. but no real effort by anybody with the power to do so
    No one said anything about celebrities. Lewis was a rep, not a celebrity. Clinton was the dem candidate, not a celebrity. Even Biden said Trump was not a legitimate POTUS. Just face it, when a side loses (and someone always does) the other side claims the process is rigged. It happens in team sports more and more, and it happens in politics. Rigged systems are not democratic. If they aren't rigged, then no one believes the system is democratic so you have to wonder why suddenly they believe a non-existing democracy was attacked.

    first, that's not what democracy means

    second, the investigation wasn't even known to the public until after the election, so it had no impact on votes

    third, please provide a citation that the president launched that investigation
    Never said it affected votes.

    What's True
    Under the Obama administration, the FBI launched an investigation into the Trump campaign's relationship with Russian operatives — a covert operation at the time that required the bureau to request court approval to secretly monitor Carter Page, a former adviser to Trump. -Snopes


    Oh now still ting yellow is going to tell me what his professor said democracy means.

  6. #206
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    83,785
    DMC flailing and making up
    "DMC thinks"

  7. #207
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    72,964
    still waiting for receipts. got any?

  8. #208
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    72,964
    in b4

    "I don't do fetch missions"


  9. #209
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    83,785
    One example will suffice, but you won't find one -- I don't use the T-word.

    "You're an idiot" is more of a DMC bingo square, tbh.
    skin s resentful of the natural superiority of white people; of course.
    wheels falling off derp's idiot wagon
    Skepticism is good, but solipsism is a danger.

    The person who depends exclusively on his own mind to judge the world is ipso facto an idiot.
    "Don't be fooled by the fact that he walks like an idiot, talks like an idiot and acts like an idiot, he really is one."

  10. #210
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    83,785
    in b4

    "I don't do fetch missions"

    You need to put trademark logo on some of those, those are mine. Get your own. Some are Dale's. Stop stealing his . Get your own . I got my own . Stop stealing it.

  11. #211
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    72,964
    so, I called derp an idiot. guilty as charged.

    and I did use the word , not at Nathan89, but restating something he said that included the word .

  12. #212
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    83,785
    so, I called derp an idiot. guilty as charged.

    and I did use the word , not at Nathan89, but restating something he said that included the word .
    Let us proceed

  13. #213
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    72,964
    Ergo, DMC's claim that I call "everyone who disagrees (with me) a Trump " is not only way off base, it's completely mistaken. There's not a single example of me doing so.

  14. #214
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    72,964
    You need to put trademark logo on some of those, those are mine. Get your own. Some are Dale's. Stop stealing his . Get your own . I got my own . Stop stealing it.
    I'm gonna keep making fun of your highly cliched mannerisms.

    Enjoy!

  15. #215
    Savvy Veteran spurraider21's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    85,341
    How much of it was legal?
    none of it. thats why all the lawsuits failed. was trump asking secretaries of states/governors to find him votes legal? right now thats the subject of a criminal investigation. was the jan 6 insurrection legal? no.

    "the court stepped in". That's a bit misleading.. It went to the supreme court. Gore's team kept fighting the results. I don't blame them, there's provisions in the election law to allow it and the courts are there to interpret those laws. It's part of the election process, but it's not really about democracy. It's about who has their people placed in the courts. This is why "pack the court" means anything. Judges are not robots.
    the 2000 election is an incredibly complicated story. under florida law, after the statewide machine recount, because the margin was so thin (less than 600 votes for the state), gore was en led to have manual (hand) recounts on a county by county basis, which he requested from 4 counties. bush sued to stop those recounts in federal court and lost. when it was clear that some of the counties were not going to finish their recounts by the deadline, that went to court and ultimately the florida supreme court ruled that the recounts could continue. after a separate dispute, the florida supreme court made another ruling, this time that the recount results must be made part of the official state results. this is what bush appealed to the supreme court

    in the meantime, the florida secretary of state (who was co-chair of bush's florida campaign) certified the election results even though 2 of the county recounts were incomplete. gore then issued a formal election challenge on those grounds.

    florida' secretary of state then certified bush as the winner before the recounts were concluded and therefore did not incorporate the results from some of the recounts into the election results. gore therefore sought a formal election contest and the florida supreme court ruled that the recounted results must be factored into florida's official count. the florida supreme court ultimately ruled that using only 4 hand recounted counties was inappropriate, and ordered a statewide hand recount for all "undervote" ballots.

    the US supreme court then made 2 rulings. one was a 7-2 ruling that the 4 county-wide recounts were uncons utional because there was no uniform standard of review for ballots between counties. the second was a 5-4 ruling... which ruled that there was no time to set up a state-wide standard and that therefore the recounts must stop.

    this is not remotely similar to trump/biden. trump got literally every recount he was en led to, including full hand recount of georgia, and partial hand recount in wisconsin. bush/gore wasn't about vague allegations of fraud meant to invalidate vote counts, but was an attempt to secure a recount of results

    They were trying to overturn the ruling of the canvassing board, then to overturn the ruling of the lower courts. All these rulings were about the results of the election. You can instead say "nuh uh it was about the counts" but it's the same thing.
    if you are going to claim that a request for a recount is the same as what was sought in 2020 then you are out of your mind. in 2020 trump got all kinds of audits/recounts in various states and counties. bush/gore was literally about trying to recount 4 counties in one state.

    Clinton wasn't the POTUS. (Trump president, not Clinton, etc..)
    never claimed otherwise. weird flex

    Clinton pushed the idea that a duly elected POTUS wasn't duly elected. Others in her party did the same. They called into question the integrity of the democratic process, and in doing so (because they lost), have illustrated that democracy only seems to exist after you've won, as obviously it suddenly began to exist after the 2020 election so that it could be attacked on January 6th. Quite the anomaly.
    clinton conceded the day after the election and never issued any form of election contest or legal action attempting to overturn anything

    No one said anything about celebrities. Lewis was a rep, not a celebrity. Clinton was the dem candidate, not a celebrity. Even Biden said Trump was not a legitimate POTUS. Just face it, when a side loses (and someone always does) the other side claims the process is rigged. It happens in team sports more and more, and it happens in politics. Rigged systems are not democratic. If they aren't rigged, then no one believes the system is democratic so you have to wonder why suddenly they believe a non-existing democracy was attacked.
    lip service is very different from actually objecting to or challenging the results.

    Never said it affected votes.
    then how was the investigation an attack on democracy?

    What's True
    Under the Obama administration, the FBI launched an investigation into the Trump campaign's relationship with Russian operatives — a covert operation at the time that required the bureau to request court approval to secretly monitor Carter Page, a former adviser to Trump. -Snopes
    this does not say that obama, the president, launched any investigation

    Oh now still ting yellow is going to tell me what his professor said democracy means.
    dont need a professor. we can appeal to dictionaries.

    you said the fact there was an investigation launched into a candidate and followed it with "democracy my ass"

    please, tell me how the existence of an investigation contradicts the notion that this is a democracy?

  16. #216
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    83,785
    none of it. thats why all the lawsuits failed. was trump asking secretaries of states/governors to find him votes legal? right now thats the subject of a criminal investigation. was the jan 6 insurrection legal? no.
    So they failed, democracy and the legal system working as expected. Nothing was compromised. Trespassing is never legal but the system was able to absorb it.
    the 2000 election is an incredibly complicated story. under florida law, after the statewide machine recount, because the margin was so thin (less than 600 votes for the state), gore was en led to have manual (hand) recounts on a county by county basis, which he requested from 4 counties. bush sued to stop those recounts in federal court and lost. when it was clear that some of the counties were not going to finish their recounts by the deadline, that went to court and ultimately the florida supreme court ruled that the recounts could continue. after a separate dispute, the florida supreme court made another ruling, this time that the recount results must be made part of the official state results. this is what bush appealed to the supreme court
    I know. Several courts were involved in the process, and each side was trying to do anything in their legal power to win. Democracy was in the hands of the courts.
    in the meantime, the florida secretary of state (who was co-chair of bush's florida campaign) certified the election results even though 2 of the county recounts were incomplete. gore then issued a formal election challenge on those grounds.
    I know the story.
    florida' secretary of state then certified bush as the winner before the recounts were concluded and therefore did not incorporate the results from some of the recounts into the election results. gore therefore sought a formal election contest and the florida supreme court ruled that the recounted results must be factored into florida's official count. the florida supreme court ultimately ruled that using only 4 hand recounted counties was inappropriate, and ordered a statewide hand recount for all "undervote" ballots.

    the US supreme court then made 2 rulings. one was a 7-2 ruling that the 4 county-wide recounts were uncons utional because there was no uniform standard of review for ballots between counties. the second was a 5-4 ruling... which ruled that there was no time to set up a state-wide standard and that therefore the recounts must stop.

    this is not remotely similar to trump/biden. trump got literally every recount he was en led to, including full hand recount of georgia, and partial hand recount in wisconsin. bush/gore wasn't about vague allegations of fraud meant to invalidate vote counts, but was an attempt to secure a recount of results
    Sounds like they all got every recount they were "en led to", per the supreme court.
    if you are going to claim that a request for a recount is the same as what was sought in 2020 then you are out of your mind. in 2020 trump got all kinds of audits/recounts in various states and counties. bush/gore was literally about trying to recount 4 counties in one state.
    Not the same but another indication that democracy only goes as far as you can push it through the judicial process. It doesn't matter what the people vote for, it only matters what you can certify and win in court.
    never claimed otherwise. weird flex
    not a flex, just reminding you that Clinton wasn't in office after the election so did not have the power to do anything.
    clinton conceded the day after the election and never issued any form of election contest or legal action attempting to overturn anything
    She had Jill Stein do it on her behalf. Hillary was too busy licking her wounds and without POTUS power to move mountains, she couldn't do anything. She held no office at the time.

    lip service is very different from actually objecting to or challenging the results.
    Only in how much power they hold to actually do anything. If they are calling the POTUS illegitimate and they do not take action, it's most likely because they lack the power to do so and would like to remain wealthy.
    then how was the investigation an attack on democracy?
    Where did I say it was an attack on democracy? That's not my , that's someone else's .
    The investigation shows that democracy is only a façade. While Hillary was being excused for her email scandal, Trump was being investigated. We don't need to rehash the facts surrounding the events.
    this does not say that obama, the president, launched any investigation
    It's long been held (especially here) that what happens under your watch, especially by your administration, is your doing. You cannot duck out of that.
    dont need a professor. we can appeal to dictionaries.
    Fine, let's use the dictionary:

    democracy

    [ dih-mok-ruh-see ]SHOW IPA


    See synonyms for democracy on Thesaurus.com
    noun, plural de·moc·ra·cies.
    government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
    a state having such a form of government:

    The United States and Canada are democracies.
    a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.
    political or social equality; democratic spirit.
    the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power.

    At any time either elected official acted to do anything, they were acting as "elected agents" so you cannot say that Trump was less of an elected agent than was Obama. The question is whether or not they acted in the best interest of those who elected them (and the country as a whole). When a sitting POTUS uses the power of office to launch an investigation into a presidential candidate (and don't be so naive as to pretend you don't believe the POTUS knew the GOP candidate was being investigated) they are now acting as an agent to their party, not to the people they purport to represent.
    you said the fact there was an investigation launched into a candidate and followed it with "democracy my ass"

    please, tell me how the existence of an investigation contradicts the notion that this is a democracy?
    You can call any ty governing system a democracy if you want to play a game semantical hide and seek.

  17. #217
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Count
    132,560
    DMC

  18. #218
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    83,785
    I'm gonna keep making fun of your highly cliched mannerisms.

    Enjoy!
    Because you don't have your own . You have to tweet other people's . Enjoy being marginal.

  19. #219
    Savvy Veteran spurraider21's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    85,341
    So they failed, democracy and the legal system working as expected. Nothing was compromised. Trespassing is never legal but the system was able to absorb it.
    a failed attack on democracy is an attack on democracy nevertheless

    I know. Several courts were involved in the process, and each side was trying to do anything in their legal power to win. Democracy was in the hands of the courts.

    I know the story.

    Sounds like they all got every recount they were "en led to", per the supreme court.
    if you know the story, then you know that the requests and the scale of the efforts are non-comparable

    Not the same but another indication that democracy only goes as far as you can push it through the judicial process. It doesn't matter what the people vote for, it only matters what you can certify and win in court.
    not necessarily. if republicans controlled congress the certification process would have been a of a lot more contentious. that was the gameplan even after their legal attempts failed. some in congress (and trump himself) were even pushing for pence to unilaterally cancel the election results

    not a flex, just reminding you that Clinton wasn't in office after the election so did not have the power to do anything.
    false. clinton could have sought legal election challenges and chose not to. she conceded then she pouted for a few years.

    She had Jill Stein do it on her behalf. Hillary was too busy licking her wounds and without POTUS power to move mountains, she couldn't do anything. She held no office at the time.
    no. they tried to convince clinton and her team to initiate election contests or recount requests. she declined. stein then sought a recount and paid all the money to get it done. clinton's attorney said that they didnt want to initiate anything because they saw no evidence of hacking or efforts to with vote totals, but they "participated" in the recount to ensure there was no ery.

    suggesting that clinton solicited stein to do so on her behalf is conspiracy-bait

    Only in how much power they hold to actually do anything. If they are calling the POTUS illegitimate and they do not take action, it's most likely because they lack the power to do so and would like to remain wealthy.
    they could have tried issuing formal objections or filing lawsuits the way trumpers did. they didn't.

    Where did I say it was an attack on democracy? That's not my , that's someone else's .
    you didnt use the word attack, but you followed that sentence with "Democracy my ass"

    please explain what you meant by that, then.

    The investigation shows that democracy is only a façade. While Hillary was being excused for her email scandal, Trump was being investigated. We don't need to rehash the facts surrounding the events.
    Clinton was investigated. Trump was investigated. Clinton was exonerated. Trump was exonerated. I'm glad we don't need to rehash those facts. I'm wondering how this demonstrates that democracy is a facade, particularly when you arent claiming that in had any impact on votes or the election

    It's long been held (especially here) that what happens under your watch, especially by your administration, is your doing. You cannot duck out of that.
    long held by who?

    does that mean trump was responsible for the special counsel investigation into trump?

    i also think it would be incredibly ty if a law enforcement agency chose to NOT launch an investigation into somebody just because they were a political candidate. the right thing to do would be to investigate but not in a public manner that would influence a future election. they kept the trump investigation under wraps until after the election.

    Fine, let's use the dictionary:

    democracy

    [ dih-mok-ruh-see ]SHOW IPA


    See synonyms for democracy on Thesaurus.com
    noun, plural de·moc·ra·cies.
    government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
    a state having such a form of government:

    The United States and Canada are democracies.
    a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.
    political or social equality; democratic spirit.
    the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power.

    At any time either elected official acted to do anything, they were acting as "elected agents" so you cannot say that Trump was less of an elected agent than was Obama. The question is whether or not they acted in the best interest of those who elected them (and the country as a whole). When a sitting POTUS uses the power of office to launch an investigation into a presidential candidate (and don't be so naive as to pretend you don't believe the POTUS knew the GOP candidate was being investigated) they are now acting as an agent to their party, not to the people they purport to represent.
    when did i make this claim?

    the first definition you cited says that the power is vested in the people and exercised by their elected agents under a free electoral system. this definition doesnt say anything about acting "in the best interests" of anybody. if people want to elect corrupt heads they can do that. if people want to elect somebody who they believe will act in their best interests, then they should do that. people who thought trump was that... were naive in my opinion.

    You can call any ty governing system a democracy if you want to play a game semantical hide and seek.
    no. i can call a ty governing system a democracy is the power is vested in the people and that power is exercised by them or by elected agents under a free electoral system. as far as i know, in the US, the people do have the power to kick out awful leaders like trump. that trump and other republicans tried to weaken that structure is something to be concerned about, for sure.

  20. #220
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    72,964
    DMC:pure mismemory plus sophistry

  21. #221
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    83,785
    DMC:pure mismemory plus sophistry
    Quite the quandary, Smedley.

  22. #222
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    83,785
    a failed attack on democracy is an attack on democracy nevertheless


    if you know the story, then you know that the requests and the scale of the efforts are non-comparable


    not necessarily. if republicans controlled congress the certification process would have been a of a lot more contentious. that was the gameplan even after their legal attempts failed. some in congress (and trump himself) were even pushing for pence to unilaterally cancel the election results


    false. clinton could have sought legal election challenges and chose not to. she conceded then she pouted for a few years.


    no. they tried to convince clinton and her team to initiate election contests or recount requests. she declined. stein then sought a recount and paid all the money to get it done. clinton's attorney said that they didnt want to initiate anything because they saw no evidence of hacking or efforts to with vote totals, but they "participated" in the recount to ensure there was no ery.

    suggesting that clinton solicited stein to do so on her behalf is conspiracy-bait


    they could have tried issuing formal objections or filing lawsuits the way trumpers did. they didn't.


    you didnt use the word attack, but you followed that sentence with "Democracy my ass"

    please explain what you meant by that, then.


    Clinton was investigated. Trump was investigated. Clinton was exonerated. Trump was exonerated. I'm glad we don't need to rehash those facts. I'm wondering how this demonstrates that democracy is a facade, particularly when you arent claiming that in had any impact on votes or the election


    long held by who?

    does that mean trump was responsible for the special counsel investigation into trump?

    i also think it would be incredibly ty if a law enforcement agency chose to NOT launch an investigation into somebody just because they were a political candidate. the right thing to do would be to investigate but not in a public manner that would influence a future election. they kept the trump investigation under wraps until after the election.


    when did i make this claim?

    the first definition you cited says that the power is vested in the people and exercised by their elected agents under a free electoral system. this definition doesnt say anything about acting "in the best interests" of anybody. if people want to elect corrupt heads they can do that. if people want to elect somebody who they believe will act in their best interests, then they should do that. people who thought trump was that... were naive in my opinion.


    no. i can call a ty governing system a democracy is the power is vested in the people and that power is exercised by them or by elected agents under a free electoral system. as far as i know, in the US, the people do have the power to kick out awful leaders like trump. that trump and other republicans tried to weaken that structure is something to be concerned about, for sure.
    I'm not doing line item responses with you since you like to put words in my mouth and then act like it was accidental. You're a lawyer, it's not accidental that you change someone's wording to suit your argument instead of finding a better argument.

    There was no attack on democracy. At no point in time was democracy ever threatened, regardless of the pearl clutching going on here like Hitler 2.0 was imminent. We had a ty leader with a huge ego. He pushed the limits of the office and stepped over the line on a few occasions. Had democracy been threatened we'd have seen some bills introduced to rid the BoR of Amendments.. oh wait, that's what the democrats do.

  23. #223
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    72,964
    The US government was literally attacked on Jan 6th.

  24. #224
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    72,964
    Trump asked Brad to find votes for him after the state certification. Is that kosher?

  25. #225
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    83,785
    The US government was literally attacked on Jan 6th.
    Yes. This I agree with. You can attack a building of the government but that doesn't mean democracy was attacked. Did the riots attack free commerce?

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
  •