Why we still have Democrats


Vort
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Okay, perhaps we may have common ground here, but first I need to know what you define as political speech.

  • Expressing an opinion.  Any opinion.
  • Expressing support for an idea, religion, political party, etc.
  • Expressing opposition to an idea, religion, political party, etc.
  • Discussing facts.  Any facts.
  • Expressing agreement with someone.  Anyone.
  • Expressing disagreement with someone.  Anyone.
  • Proposing a solution to a problem.  Any solution, any problem.

That's a start.  Maybe I'll think of more things to add later but this should give you a good baseline.

 

Edited by unixknight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Fair question, but I thought I already answered that with my point about pornography. 

I'm not sure what you mean. I assume you're referencing this:

14 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Even those who  claim pornography as free speech, and protect it that way? 

As you pointed out:

5 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Pornography is called to be freedom of speech as well, and I am strongly against that. A handful of states have declared pornography a health crisis (i.e. it's not just a problem for religious people).   Pornography is not covered under freedom of speech. 

So I don't understand how your pornography comment at all answers the question, which (just to be clear) is: If conservatives were to make an open attempt to shut down liberals' exercise of their free speech rights, would you openly condemn that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

How about you @Maureen?  Same question.

I am definitely against censorship unless it falls under the category of hate speech. If someone's speech entices violence against others then I do not support that. Though I would not condemn (attack, berate, revile, etc) those who are for censorship.

M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Maureen said:

I am definitely against censorship unless it falls under the category of hate speech. If someone's speech entices violence against others then I do not support that. Though I would not condemn (attack, berate, revile, etc) those who are for censorship.

M.

Thank you for a straight answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Maureen said:

I am definitely against censorship unless it falls under the category of hate speech. If someone's speech entices violence against others then I do not support that. Though I would not condemn (attack, berate, revile, etc) those who are for censorship.

M.

Hmmm. Liberal that I am, I would not even censor hate speech. I find hate speech as hateful as anyone, but I think it is better expressed, and out in the open, where it can be dealt with by general disgust, than it is suppressed, and secret, where it will fester and infect the social milieu.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Hmmm. Liberal that I am, I would not even censor hate speech. I find hate speech as hateful as anyone, but I think it is better expressed, and out in the open, where it can be dealt with by general disgust, than it is suppressed, and secret, where it will fester and infect the social milieu.

I agree completely with the sentiment here.  It's been said that sunlight is the best disinfectant.  If someone has views that are dumb, immoral or whatever, then by all means let them say it out in the open where those ideas can be challenged in public.

That said, I really don't like the term "hate speech."  It's one of those phrases that gets applied to anything people don't like so that it can be censored in places that already have "hate speech" laws.

Besides, "hate speech" is only one step away form "thought crime."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Hmmm. Liberal that I am, I would not even censor hate speech. I find hate speech as hateful as anyone, but I think it is better expressed, and out in the open, where it can be dealt with by general disgust, than it is suppressed, and secret, where it will fester and infect the social milieu.

Take note: I actually agree with 2RM about something. Unless it's a public incitement to violence or panic or something grossly out of bounds (e.g. pornography, torture videos, harassment, corrupting minors, state secrets, something like that), there should be no laws restricting speech. This is triply true with political speech, which is actually what "free speech" was mainly about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

You mean as it was for the Founding Fathers?  

Their compromises did leave us open to eventual Civil War.  Would they have been better not to compromise and stay fragmented? 

I don't think so, and yet those compromises have left deep wounds in the fabric of our country that still have not healed.  But also lead us to be one of the most powerful nations in the world. So, yes compromise with its inherent weaknesses is the best we can do in a fallen world. 

So, I’m gonna play devil’s advocate for a moment:

—is being a powerful country, a desirable thing?  Is America’s power of the 20th century worth the blood spilt to preserve its union in the 19th?

—would it have been better for the northern colonies to have kept themselves unspotted from slavery from the get-go?

—while slavery was a nasty institution that needed to die—by electing to stick with the northern colonies in 1787, the South wrote the long-term death warrant—in a figurative sense, for some of its distinctive values (such as they were); and in a more literal sense, for their sons and grandsons who would be forced to war when time proved the coalition untenable.  Are we, as conservatives*/liberty-lovers/Latter-day Saints, signing our own or our children’s death warrants  (either figuratively or literally) when we bend over backwards to maintain a political union with a bunch of profligate secular-humanist statists who spend much of their time dreaming about how to compel us Neanderthals to be less conservative/liberty-loving/saintly?

*LP, I consider you “conservative” in this sense insofar as I think that, while your political tendencies are maybe more live-and-let-live on social issues and more interventionist on “social justice” issues than many US Church members; I daresay your lifestyle has several traits—prioritization of faith, emphasis on communal worship, self-denial, recognition of the authority of religious leaders, personal prudence in matters of planning and finance and relationships, a sincere lack of desire to control the personal conduct of people with whom you disagree—that might put you at odds with current secular-humanist/progressive trends.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mirkwood said:

No, you dodged condemnation.  You said it was a concern, but you won't condemn it.  

 

You know, how about you do the same.  Condemn all the Far Right Conservatives' attempts to shut down any one's talk other than their own.  This includes those who are even on the Right who they do not agree with.

For example, what you are doing right now.  Instead of allowing freedom of thought or speech, you are DEMANDING that someone say exactly what you want them to say.  And, because they have not said the exact words you want them to say, you are attacking them...pretty viciously at that.

This is doing something almost EXACTLY what you are claiming those on the left do.

Why would you DEMAND someone say something that you specifically are claiming and wanting them to say.

That's not freedom of speech or thought or action. 

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet
2 hours ago, unixknight said:
  • Expressing an opinion.  Any opinion.
  • Expressing support for an idea, religion, political party, etc.
  • Expressing opposition to an idea, religion, political party, etc.
  • Discussing facts.  Any facts.
  • Expressing agreement with someone.  Anyone.
  • Expressing disagreement with someone.  Anyone.
  • Proposing a solution to a problem.  Any solution, any problem.

That's a start.  Maybe I'll think of more things to add later but this should give you a good baseline.

Those all seem very reasonable to me. We agree on this point. 

2 hours ago, Vort said:

 I don't understand how your pornography comment at all answers the question, which (just to be clear) is: If conservatives were to make an open attempt to shut down liberals' exercise of their free speech rights, would you openly condemn that?

In the fight against pornography, those who are trying to shut it down, or at least limit it, are told, "Nope, you can't ban porn...for example from public libraries...because it's free speech." 

I don't think porn is free speech at all, but SOME Liberals do. So in this case I'm on the Conservative side of free speech.  I'm not condemning conservatives open attempt to shut down liberals exercise of their free speech.

2 hours ago, mirkwood said:

@LiterateParakeet see @Vort's post above.

So now you're the one being evasive.  I'm partially joking. 

59 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

that might put you at odds with current secular-humanist/progressive 

Okay, first I' admit I'm a little confused about the Devil's Advocate thing...you were taking my side for a moment?  It seemed like it. :) And yes, I agree. 

Regarding the portion I quoted....I don't doubt that.  I used to talk about politics on FB, and I lost Liberal friends for being to Conservative and Conservative friends for being to Liberal. I finally realized that online is not the place for these discussions....still wondering how I allowed myself to get drawn into this one. :)

I have found inner peace by only trying to please the Lord. He never misunderstands my intentions or accuses me of being evasive. He never makes me feel like I am less because He is perfect and I am so not.  He is a patient teacher with my weaknesses and appreciates strengths I don't even see in myself. So while my views may not be popular with one side or the other, I don't care. I am convinced that neither Conservatives or Liberals are always right...so I'm searching for my own path. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

You know, how about you do the same.  Condemn all the Far Right Conservatives' attempts to shut down any one's talk other than their own.  This includes those who are even on the Right who they do not agree with.

For example, what you are doing right now.  Instead of allowing freedom of thought or speech, you are DEMANDING that someone say exactly what you want them to say.  And, because they have not said the exact words you want them to say, you are attacking them...pretty viciously at that.

This is doing something almost EXACTLY what you are claiming those on the left do.

Why would you DEMAND someone say something that you specifically are claiming and wanting them to say.

That's not freedom of speech or thought or action. 

Go back to page 3 and you will see I did make that condemnation.  Try reading before posting.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet
17 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

Did you want me to repeat what vort said?  It was faster to say see what he said above.  

Nah, I agree with your choice it was just amusingly ironic to me given our previous conversation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Okay, first I' admit I'm a little confused about the Devil's Advocate thing...you were taking my side for a moment?  It seemed like it. :) And yes, I agree. 

Regarding the portion I quoted....I don't doubt that.  I used to talk about politics on FB, and I lost Liberal friends for being to Conservative and Conservative friends for being to Liberal. I finally realized that online is not the place for these discussions....still wondering how I allowed myself to get drawn into this one. :)

I have found inner peace by only trying to please the Lord. He never misunderstands my intentions or accuses me of being evasive. He never makes me feel like I am less because He is perfect and I am so not.  He is a patient teacher with my weaknesses and appreciates strengths I don't even see in myself. So while my views may not be popular with one side or the other, I don't care. I am convinced that neither Conservatives or Liberals are always right...so I'm searching for my own path. 

What I meant with the “devil’s advocate” bit, is that we’ve all been raised to believe that the preservation of the union in 1787 and 1861-65 was a good thing.  I don’t think anyone seriously doubts that; and because preservation of the union at those historical moments is deemed good and necessary, we assume that preservation of the union in 2019 or 2029 or 2119 is also intrinsically good and necessary.

I acknowledge that this is a radical strain of thought, but lately I’ve been toying with the question:  what if preservation of the union isn’t good or necessary in the near future?  What if it isn’t good or necessary now?  What if it wasn’t good or necessary in 1865?

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

acknowledge that this is a radical strain of thought, but lately I’ve been toying with the question:  what if preservation of the union isn’t good or necessary in the near future?  What if it isn’t good or necessary now?  What if it wasn’t good or necessary in 1865?

By the way I'm prefacing this by acknowledging that you are indulging in a thought experiment, I just had some thoughts in response.☺

Allowing the states to seperate in 1865 would have been an immediate disaster for blacks. While slavery would have eventually died out as it did elsewhere, how long would it have taken? 10 more years, 20, 30? How many additional generations of servitude would there have been without the sacrifice of northern soldiers. And, while blacks were not even close to being treated as equals for at least a century in the South, wasn't even their small level of freedom worth the rest of the country sharing in the guilt of the South?

Furthermore, we were the only ones who could have stood up to global communism. European history would have stayed more or less the same with out our participation ( or our minor participation because we would have been a weak, divided country like so many others) so following the bloodier and longer WW1 and WW2 eventually Soviet armies would have ended up in Berlin with no one who could have stood up to them but a weak UK, a conquered France and who else? The night that would have cloaked the Earth following that kind of victory is terryfying to contemplate. Those are two reasons I believe the preservation of the Union in 1865 (and previously by extension) was vital. 

As to now, you make an interesting case that division is preferable, although I have similiar concerns about China and Russia now as I do about the USSR then. The problem, is that it would involve the spilling of an ocean of blood in the inevitable civil war that followed. For that reason alone I support union, even in the less desirable society we find ourselves in. Seperation would not be done cleanly in this country.

Edited by Midwest LDS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

What I meant with the “devil’s advocate” bit, is that we’ve all been raised to believe that the preservation of the union in 1787 and 1861-65 was a good thing.  I don’t think anyone seriously doubts that; and because preservation of the union at those historical moments is deemed good and necessary, we assume that preservation of the union in 2019 or 2029 or 2119 is also intrinsically good and necessary.

I acknowledge that this is a radical strain of thought, but lately I’ve been toying with the question:  what if preservation of the union isn’t good or necessary in the near future?  What if it isn’t good or necessary now?  What if it wasn’t good or necessary in 1865?

I do not know about good or necessary...  I am expecting us to follow the pattern the Nephites did.  Their government was destroyed by the secret combinations and they broke into tribal groups.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Midwest LDS said:

By the way I'm prefacing this by acknowledging that you are indulging in a thought experiment, I just had some thoughts in response.☺

Allowing the states to seperate in 1865 would have been an immediate disaster for blacks. While slavery would have eventually died out as it did elsewhere, how long would it have taken? 10 more years, 20, 30? How many additional generations of servitude would there have been without the sacrifice of northern soldiers. And, while blacks were not even close to being treated as equals for at least a century in the South, wasn't even their small level of freedom worth the rest of the country sharing in the guilt of the South?

Furthermore, we were the only ones who could have stood up to global communism. European history would have stayed more or less the same with out our participation ( or our minor participation because we would have been a weak, divided country like so many others) so following the bloodier and longer WW1 and WW2 eventually Soviet armies would have ended up in Berlin with no one who could have stood up to them but a weak UK, a conquered France and who else? The night that would have cloaked the Earth following that kind of victory is terryfying to contemplate. Those are two reasons I believe the preservation of the Union in 1865 (and previously by extension) was vital. 

As to now, you make an interesting case that division is preferable, although I have similiar concerns about China and Russia now as I do about the USSR then. The problem, is that it would involve the spilling of an ocean of blood in the inevitable civil war that followed. For that reason alone I support union, even in the less desirable society we find ourselves in. Seperation would not be done cleanly in this country.

Even Brazil gave up slavery by the 1880s.  Up until Dred Scott, most in the North believed slavery would peter out of its own accord so long as it was not allowed to spread.  (That’s arguably why the South was so insistent on spreading it into the western territories and northern free states.  It’s also, I think, what inflamed a thitherto-complacent North; it was their “Holy crap, you Southerners have been lying to us all this time—you don’t just want to be left alone; you want to make us all become like you!” moment.)  

I suspect that a separate south would have probably blundered around the Caribbean and Latin America trying to gobble up land wherever it could, until pretty much everyone in the Western Hemisphere got ticked off enough to form an anti-confederacy alliance  and drove them back within their own borders; maybe with Mexico reclaiming Texas—all this, probably, by the end of the 20th century.  I see your point about whether the immediate freedom of three million slaves was worth roughly half a million Northern lives.  The only people you can really ask to answer that question is the folks who actually laid down their lives; but the trouble is, as it happened, abolition isn’t what most of the rank-and-file Northern soldiers were fighting for, anyways.  Moreover, a split would have put a heavier onus on southern slaves to fight for their own freedom—and one might argue that self-directed freedom movements tend to be the ones with more staying power anyways (see American Revolution; compare Vietnam War, Liberation of Iraq, and Liberation of Afghanistan).  If a slave revolt in 1885 had forced the end of slavery, would Southern whites have been in a position to follow that up with eighty years of Jim Crow?

As for communism and the world wars:  one might argue that US involvement in WW1 led France and Britain to humiliate the Germans in a way they wouldn’t have been able to do without knowing the Americans would have their backs if the war continued; and an earlier more equitable armistice to WW1 may well have prevented the rise of the Nazis and WW2 as well as fundamentally changing the dynamic with Russia (even if the Bolsheviks did manage to take and keep that country).  A relatively stable Europe in the 1930s through 1950s might in turn have checked Communist Russia’s dreams of empire, and left the West with more resources to thwart the rise of Maoism in China (assuming there was a China left after the Sino-Japanese war of the 1930s).

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Even Brazil gave up slavery by the 1880s.  Up until Dred Scott, most in the North believed slavery would peter out of its own accord so long as it was not allowed to spread.  (That’s arguably why the South was so insistent on spreading it into the western territories and northern free states.  It’s also, I think, what inflamed a thitherto-complacent North; it was their “Holy crap, you Southerners have been lying to us all this time—you don’t just want to be left alone; you want to make us all become like you!” moment.)  

I suspect that a separate south would have probably blundered around the Caribbean and Latin America trying to gobble up land wherever it could, until pretty much everyone in the Western Hemisphere got ticked off enough to form an anti-confederacy alliance  and drove them back within their own borders; maybe with Mexico reclaiming Texas—all this, probably, by the end of the 20th century.  I see your point about whether the immediate freedom of three million slaves was worth roughly half a million Northern lives.  The only people you can really ask to answer that question is the folks who actually laid down their lives; but the trouble is, as it happened, abolition isn’t what most of the rank-and-file Northern soldiers were fighting for, anyways.  Moreover, a split would have put a heavier onus on southern slaves to fight for their own freedom—and one might argue that self-directed freedom movements tend to be the ones with more staying power anyways (see American Revolution; compare Vietnam War, Liberation of Iraq, and Liberation of Afghanistan).  If a slave revolt in 1885 had forced the end of slavery, would Southern whites have been in a position to follow that up with eighty years of Jim Crow?

As for communism and the world wars:  one might argue that US involvement in WW1 led France and Britain to humiliate the Germans in a way they wouldn’t have been able to do without knowing the Americans would have their backs if the war continued; and an earlier more equitable armistice to WW1 may well have prevented the rise of the Nazis and WW2 as well as fundamentally changing the dynamic with Russia (even if the Bolsheviks did manage to take and keep that country).  A relatively stable Europe in the 1930s through 1950s might in turn have checked Communist Russia’s dreams of empire, and left the West with more resources to thwart the rise of Maoism in China (assuming there was a China left after the Sino-Japanese war of the 1930s).

You raise some interesting points, and I agree the Dred Scott decision, consistently rated as one of the worst ever made by the Supreme Court, was definitly a catalyst for the war. I disagree with your statement about Southern slaves needing to do more to gain their own freedom though. While hundreds of thousands of white soldiers certainly paid a high price for the eventual abolition of slavery, hundreds of thousands of black soldiers, mostly former slaves, fought in northern armies and tens of thousands of them were killed and wounded. If that's not fighting to gain one's freedom then I don't know what is, so I would argue Southern slaves did strive to overthrow their own yoke. Also, while I agree the South would have eventually collapsed due to their more insane expansionist ideas, would an alliance of foreign nations stopping them be preferable? This is the age when Europe carved up Africa after all. Would you want European armies to come in and stop the South? I could be wrong, but I don't think they would have left.

There are definitely plenty of pro and con arguments about us getting involved in World War 1, but we really did not start affecting the outcome of that war until late 1917 at the earliest. Remove us from the equation, and you still have the Bolshevik revolution. Remove our soldiers and you have 2 possiblities. The German 1918 Spring offensive succeeds, barely, and it's the exhausted allies brought to the negotiating table with the vengeful Germans (an interesting twist that could easily have made a "Hitler" French instead of German) or the Allies finally win after a starving Germany collapses, but without the moderating influence of the US, they impose an even harsher Cartheginian peace on Germany, carve up more of the globe (the allies were not exactly helpful here as we can thank much of the tangled up web of the Middle East on the UK and France today) leaving it more divided not united when Stalin and his hordes start eyeing Europe. Not to mention a Japanese ruled Chinese Empire makes me pale at the knowledge of how many Chinese would have been brutally slain by them. A Nanking massacre across the entire country. For all those reasons I would still argue a strong United States was neccessary.

Edited by Midwest LDS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I see your point about whether the immediate freedom of three million slaves was worth roughly half a million Northern lives.  

 

This is the reasoning I give when I have heard discussions about how several Democrats running for president in 2020 are advocating for slavery reparations. The fact is, "America" already paid them with blood. If any group owes reparations for slavery, it is the Democrat party. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Colirio said:

 

This is the reasoning I give when I have heard discussions about how several Democrats running for president in 2020 are advocating for slavery reparations. The fact is, "America" already paid them with blood. If any group owes reparations for slavery, it is the Democrat party. 

My thoughts exactly. The United States already paid it's reperations in blood for slavery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Even Brazil gave up slavery by the 1880s.  Up until Dred Scott, most in the North believed slavery would peter out of its own accord so long as it was not allowed to spread.  (That’s arguably why the South was so insistent on spreading it into the western territories and northern free states.  It’s also, I think, what inflamed a thitherto-complacent North; it was their “Holy crap, you Southerners have been lying to us all this time—you don’t just want to be left alone; you want to make us all become like you!” moment.)  

I suspect that a separate south would have probably blundered around the Caribbean and Latin America trying to gobble up land wherever it could, until pretty much everyone in the Western Hemisphere got ticked off enough to form an anti-confederacy alliance  and drove them back within their own borders; maybe with Mexico reclaiming Texas—all this, probably, by the end of the 20th century.  I see your point about whether the immediate freedom of three million slaves was worth roughly half a million Northern lives.  The only people you can really ask to answer that question is the folks who actually laid down their lives; but the trouble is, as it happened, abolition isn’t what most of the rank-and-file Northern soldiers were fighting for, anyways.  Moreover, a split would have put a heavier onus on southern slaves to fight for their own freedom—and one might argue that self-directed freedom movements tend to be the ones with more staying power anyways (see American Revolution; compare Vietnam War, Liberation of Iraq, and Liberation of Afghanistan).  If a slave revolt in 1885 had forced the end of slavery, would Southern whites have been in a position to follow that up with eighty years of Jim Crow?

As for communism and the world wars:  one might argue that US involvement in WW1 led France and Britain to humiliate the Germans in a way they wouldn’t have been able to do without knowing the Americans would have their backs if the war continued; and an earlier more equitable armistice to WW1 may well have prevented the rise of the Nazis and WW2 as well as fundamentally changing the dynamic with Russia (even if the Bolsheviks did manage to take and keep that country).  A relatively stable Europe in the 1930s through 1950s might in turn have checked Communist Russia’s dreams of empire, and left the West with more resources to thwart the rise of Maoism in China (assuming there was a China left after the Sino-Japanese war of the 1930s).

 

13 hours ago, Midwest LDS said:

You raise some interesting points, and I agree the Dred Scott decision, consistently rated as one of the worst ever made by the Supreme Court, was definitly a catalyst for the war. I disagree with your statement about Southern slaves needing to do more to gain their own freedom though. While hundreds of thousands of white soldiers certainly paid a high price for the eventual abolition pf slavery, hundreds of thousands of black soldiers, mostly former slaves, fought in northern armies and tens of thousands of them were killed and wounded. If that's not fighting to gain one's freedom then I don't know what is, so I would argue Southern slaves did strive to overthrow their own yoke. Also, while I agree the South would have eventually collapsed due to their more insane expansionist ideas, would an alliance of foreign nations stopping them be preferable? This is the age when Europe carved up Africa after all. Would you want European armies to come in and stop the South? I could be wrong, but I don't think they would have left.

There are definitely plenty of pro and con arguments about us getting involved in World War 1, but we really did not start affecting the outcome of that war until late 1917 at the earliest. Remove us from the equation, and you still have the Bolshevik revolution. Remove our soldiers and you have 2 possiblities. The German 1918 Spring offensive succeeds, barely, and it's the exhausted allies brought to the negotiating table with the vengeful Germans (an interesting twist that could easily have made a "Hitler" French instead of German) or the Allies finally win after a starving Germany collapses, but without the moderating influence of the US, they impose an even harsher Cartheginian peace on Germany, carve up more of the globe (the allies were not exactly helpful here as we can thank much of the tangled up web of the Middle East on the UK and France today) leaving it more divided not united when Stalin and his hordes start eyeing Europe. Not to mention a Japanese ruled Chinese Empire makes me pale at the knowledge of how many Chinese would have been brutally slain by them. A Nanking massacre across the entire country. For all those reasons I would still argue a strong United States was neccessary.

 

I don't care what you call this, historical Elseworlds or fantasia on history, I WANT MORE OF IT!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
 Share