Enjoy an Ads-Free Jets Insider - Become a Jets Insider VIP!
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 108

Thread: Questions you would like one candidate to ask the other candidate in a debate

  1. #41
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    2,375
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by JetPotato View Post
    Before formulating a question, you should probably try to inform yourself on the topic.

    The "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortions Act" was a bipartisan bill introduced by Chris Smith (R- NJ) and Dan Lipinski (D-IL). Your media sources keep ramming down your throat that "Ryan cosponsored this bill along with Akin", yet they somehow leave out the fact that 11 Democrats did also.

    The wording on "forcible rape" was taken directly word-for-word from the age-old, outdated federal definition at the time, but in reality, had nothing to do with the intent of the bill. The bill renewed criticism of the wording, and it was subsequently changed in the federal books as well as in the bill. See in your lib-rag New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/07/us...tion.html?_r=1

    Direct quote from the DEMOCRAT who introduced the bill: "The language of H.R. 3 was not intended to change existing law regarding taxpayer funding for abortion in cases of rape, nor is it expected that it would do so. Nonetheless, the legislative process will provide an opportunity to clarify this should such a need exist."

    People need to grow up, try to get past the rhetoric of candidates and the media, and do some damn research on their own for a change. Far too much public opinion is based on utter bullsh*t.
    Quote Originally Posted by JetPotato View Post
    Again, you clearly display you have no clue on the issue.

    The idea of the bill is not to require anyone to give birth. It isn't about preventing abortion.

    It is about preventing FEDERAL FUNDS FROM BEING USED in paying for them.

    This "War on Women" nonsense works wonders on the weak-minded.
    http://www.politifact.com/new-jersey...bill-limiting/

    "The language of H.R. 3 was not intended to change existing law regarding taxpayer funding for abortion in cases of rape, nor is it expected that it would do so. Nonetheless, the legislative process will provide an opportunity to clarify this should such a need exist."
    Language is important crafting a law, because quite simply, it's not the legislative branch that interprets the law, rather the judicial branch. So the folks that write the bill, and in this case initially proposed an exception for only "forcible rape", are not the ones who will be interpreting that phrase when it comes up in court.

    Secondly, that initial phrase left the door open for no funding of abortion in cases of "non-forcible rape", whatever that is, and therefore would leave the rape victim of that scenario to foot the whole bill of her abortion, should she want one. That leaves poor women who were victims of "non-forcible rape" in, what I and perhaps many others would consider, an unjust situation.

    Lastly, Paul Ryan has admitted he opposes abortion even in cases of rape, Romney believes in a rape exception. It's a fair question to ask the co-sponsor of a bill about the original language he used, as it is to bring up Ryan's pro-life stance in all cases, even rape.

    The "war on women" might have been overplayed initially... right up until Rick Santorum started gaining serious traction in the primaries, along with Michelle Bachman and now, a vice Presidential candidate, that does not personally believe in a rape exception, although he'll "adhere to Romney's views on that now".

  2. #42
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,312
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs View Post
    Charging the person who committed the crime gives no rights to the dead feteous or the murdered women.

    I'm married to the practical notion that until someone is born they aren't a person even though they are human life.
    Sorry, but this doesn't add up logically, nor does it address my question even remotely. How can someone be charged with murder if they haven't killed a "person"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs View Post
    Today women have the right to choice. The Republican platform is about rolling back those rights...
    Um, no, the debate of late has been on the FUNDING of abortion. As I (and most reasonable people who are unswayed by rhetoric see it), the GOP platform and understanding on abortion is:

    1) Not to be funded by taxpayer dollars.
    2) Abortion currently is and should be a state issue only.
    3) In order to end abortion altogether, a Constitutional Amendment will be required stating that because human life begins at conception, then so do rights. The likelihood of this occurring is close to zero.
    4) And like their counterparts, they realize the biggest reason to take any stance at all on the issue is that it is the ultimate emotional wedge issue. Despite little to no change in abortion law anticipated, it does still swing votes.

  3. #43
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,312
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz View Post
    http://www.politifact.com/new-jersey...bill-limiting/
    Language is important crafting a law, because quite simply, it's not the legislative branch that interprets the law, rather the judicial branch. So the folks that write the bill, and in this case initially proposed an exception for only "forcible rape", are not the ones who will be interpreting that phrase when it comes up in court.
    The quality of the language is not the debate. The debate is the misleading assertion that the GOP, in particular Paul Ryan (one of several co-sponsors on both sides of the aisle) seek to "redefine rape". Again, the language was established for decades, and only recently changed this year. It also didn't make it into the final version of the bill. All that, and the fact that it was supported by (D) puts that claim in the "silly" column.

    Quote Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz View Post
    Secondly, that initial phrase left the door open for no funding of abortion in cases of "non-forcible rape", whatever that is, and therefore would leave the rape victim of that scenario to foot the whole bill of her abortion, should she want one. That leaves poor women who were victims of "non-forcible rape" in, what I and perhaps many others would consider, an unjust situation.
    That's your opinion, and statutory rape has been explained to you already here several times. There's a lot of injustice in the world. We're all free to do what we want voluntarily to fix it. But to create one injustice as some means to fix the first doesn't fly with most Americans. The larger injustice in fact, would be making a large portion of the population complicit in an act that they find morally detestable.

    Quote Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz View Post
    Lastly, Paul Ryan has admitted he opposes abortion even in cases of rape, Romney believes in a rape exception. It's a fair question to ask the co-sponsor of a bill about the original language he used, as it is to bring up Ryan's pro-life stance in all cases, even rape.
    Would it be equally fair to ask Barack Obama why the exact same distinction, the exact same language, used to define rape was the official definition of the US Government under his watch for 3 years? If so, why isn't he being asked?

    Quote Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz View Post
    The "war on women" might have been overplayed initially... right up until Rick Santorum started gaining serious traction in the primaries, along with Michelle Bachman and now, a vice Presidential candidate, that does not personally believe in a rape exception, although he'll "adhere to Romney's views on that now".


    Funny how these are presented as extreme positions, when they are the furthest thing from it. Yet we have a sitting President who supports late-term abortion - something 70% of this nation stands against - yet not a peep on this. Not. A. Peep.

  4. #44
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    =JetPotato;4568162]Sorry, but this doesn't add up logically, nor does it address my question even remotely. How can someone be charged with murder if they haven't killed a "person"?
    I believe when the mother is killed a person has been killed.

    Um, no, the debate of late has been on the FUNDING of abortion. As I (and most reasonable people who are unswayed by rhetoric see it), the GOP platform and understanding on abortion is:

    1) Not to be funded by taxpayer dollars.
    2) Abortion currently is and should be a state issue only.
    3) In order to end abortion altogether, a Constitutional Amendment will be required stating that because human life begins at conception, then so do rights. The likelihood of this occurring is close to zero.
    4) And like their counterparts, they realize the biggest reason to take any stance at all on the issue is that it is the ultimate emotional wedge issue. Despite little to no change in abortion law anticipated, it does still swing votes.
    It may well be but why pander? Is it really funding a pro life person is interested in? Maybe but if all this is about money then why all the moral outrage.

  5. #45
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Cape Coral, FL
    Posts
    1,054
    Post Thanks / Like
    I can't seem to rap my head around this, hopefully someone can explain it to me. How is removing government funding for abortion and birth control a "war on women"? It seems if anything the left is running a "war on Christians". They want to forcibly make some people (taxpayers) pay for something they disagree with from the bottom of their heart. Abortion will never be outlawed, the health risk is far to great with back alley clinics. With the economy in the chitter, why is there even a debate over whether taxes should be spent on this. This seems like a no-brainer to me.

  6. #46
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,038
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz View Post
    Little to run on? This election is the GOP's to lose and they're losing it hard. Romney was the best you could do and now you and Bonhomme are defending making a distinction between rape and "forcible rape".
    So you are giving people a hard time for answering your question and then trying to place ownership of the conversation on them as though this was a platform topic chosen by WF and BR and you think this is justified?

    What was the proper answer from resident conservatives or your figurative Romney? Were they supposed to say STFU, what does that have to do with anything?

  7. #47
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by CraigFL View Post
    I can't seem to rap my head around this, hopefully someone can explain it to me. How is removing government funding for abortion and birth control a "war on women"? It seems if anything the left is running a "war on Christians". They want to forcibly make some people (taxpayers) pay for something they disagree with from the bottom of their heart. Abortion will never be outlawed, the health risk is far to great with back alley clinics. With the economy in the chitter, why is there even a debate over whether taxes should be spent on this. This seems like a no-brainer to me.
    I don't think people who are terminally ill should have government funded feeding tubes while I would support hospice care. It's a democracy change it but that doesn't mean the other side has to lie down.

  8. #48
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,312
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs View Post
    I believe when the mother is killed a person has been killed.
    And according to the law, if a pregnant woman is killed, then two people have been killed. This directly conflicts with the law on abortion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs View Post
    It may well be but why pander? Is it really funding a pro life person is interested in? Maybe but if all this is about money then why all the moral outrage.
    I think I already answered "why pander". It's a wedge issue designed and used by both parties to maintain control.

    And yes, this is all about money for many of us, which in this case is highly tied to morality. I find no difference between murder and abortion. They are the same. The law of the land may say otherwise, and I have to accept that, but there is no chance in hell I'm going to sit idly by while you try to take money out of my pocket to fund it for those that make that choice.

  9. #49
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Cape Coral, FL
    Posts
    1,054
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs View Post
    I don't think people who are terminally ill should have government funded feeding tubes while I would support hospice care. It's a democracy change it but that doesn't mean the other side has to lie down.
    Thanks for not answering my question. So are you saying that we should pay for abortion and birth control, and that we should starve terminally ill people to save money? Dude, really?! I mean REALLY?!

  10. #50
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Cape Coral, FL
    Posts
    1,054
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by JetPotato View Post
    And according to the law, if a pregnant woman is killed, then two people have been killed. This directly conflicts with the law on abortion.



    I think I already answered "why pander". It's a wedge issue designed and used by both parties to maintain control.

    And yes, this is all about money for many of us, which in this case is highly tied to morality. I find no difference between murder and abortion. They are the same. The law of the land may say otherwise, and I have to accept that, but there is no chance in hell I'm going to sit idly by while you try to take money out of my pocket to fund it for those that make that choice.
    this guy gets it. Why is it if a liberal doesn't want a gun no one should have one. If they don't want to eat meat it should be illegal? If they want legal abortion then everyone should pay for it?

  11. #51
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,312
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by CraigFL View Post
    this guy gets it. Why is it if a liberal doesn't want a gun no one should have one. If they don't want to eat meat it should be illegal? If they want legal abortion then everyone should pay for it?
    I'll take that hypocrisy and raise you one:

    Seems to be that there is a portion of people in this debate that have extreme vitriol for those of us who respect the lives of children who can never asked about what their choice is. What stems that anger? How many times have we heard "Keep you morality out of my vagina"? There is this belief that we're being "misled by religion".

    Not by the FACT that human life begins at conception. Not that we believe the primary function of government is to protect lives. It's religion. And not any ordinary religion - a religion that breeds a culture of hatred towards women.

    Yet those same exact people are some of the biggest advocates for Obamacare, and most of the rest of the welfare state programs. We're constantly being told how it is our duty to help those that are less fortunate. Really? Says who? Where did you get that idea? Sounds a little like... religion, maybe? The GOP doesn't support these programs because they "don't care about the poor". So we're going to mandate caring. Perform your moral duty or suffer the consequence of law. Yup, sounds very familiar.

    Some day, one of you liberals is going to have to explain to the logical portion of the population exactly where the line is drawn that separates acceptable morality in politics and unacceptable morality in politics. Looking forward to it.
    Last edited by JetPotato; 08-27-2012 at 03:31 PM.

  12. #52
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by CraigFL View Post
    Thanks for not answering my question. So are you saying that we should pay for abortion and birth control, and that we should starve terminally ill people to save money? Dude, really?! I mean REALLY?!
    No I'm saying you can't run a government based on people's individual belief systems. I don't support war, I fund it with my tax dollars. I support Medicaid for the poor but I don't support providing care to them based on my moral judgement.

    If you want to get rid of abortion by all means fight the good fight but don't hide behind government funding that's a can of worms that gets very complex when you start letting people opt out for "Moral" reasons.

    Are you really telling me it's okay for the rich to get abortions because they can afford it but deny it to the poor because of Medicaid?

    I know full well that Potato and others are against abortions and it's not about funding. I respect that fight the good fight convince me and others but hypocrisy has two sides to the coin.
    Last edited by Winstonbiggs; 08-27-2012 at 03:33 PM.

  13. #53
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,312
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs View Post
    No I'm saying you can't run a government based on people's individual belief systems. I don't support war, I fund it with my tax dollars. I support Medicaid for the poor but I don't support providing care to them based on my moral judgement.
    And no one calls you an "extremist", expects you to silence your voice on those topics, or accuses you of "hating women" (I happen to find even the insinuation so inaccurate, misleading and insulting that it makes me want to puke).

    Quote Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs View Post
    If you want to get rid of abortion by all means fight the good fight but don't hide behind government funding that's a can of worms that gets very complex when you start letting people opt out for "Moral" reasons.
    No one is hiding behind anything. They're two entirely different issues, even if that is what (D) is purposely hiding, and (R) fails miserably at pointing out.

    Quote Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs View Post
    Are you really telling me it's okay for the rich to get abortions because they can afford it but deny it to the poor because of Medicaid?
    No, you're being told that in our opinion, it isn't ok for anyone to do it, but if that's what the people want, make it your own business how to pay for it. I'm not interested in subsidizing immorality. Religious freedom is clearly and explicitly defined in the Constitution. Abortion (let alone the free kind) isn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs View Post
    I know full well that Potato and others are against abortions and it's not about funding. I respect that fight the good fight convince me and others but hypocrisy has two sides to the coin.
    You clearly aren't even attempting to step into the shoes of the other side on this issue. I'm pro-life, but I also understand that abortion will never be illegal in this country (again despite the scare tactics of the left). So there really is no fight there worth spending time on. The fight over how it will be funded however, is a much different story. There's nothing hypocritical about it, we're doing what we're supposed to within the construct of our system.

    And we'd like to have an honest discussion about the topic, free of this utter lie of a "War on Women". It's disgusting, childish and ignorant.

  14. #54
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    =JetPotato;4568511]And no one calls you an "extremist", expects you to silence your voice on those topics, or accuses you of "hating women" (I happen to find even the insinuation so inaccurate, misleading and insulting that it makes me want to puke).
    Really interesting POV. Have you walked by a clinic were pro-choice people were protesting? Have you heard or seen the mail that doctors get?

    No one is hiding behind anything. They're two entirely different issues, even if that is what (D) is purposely hiding, and (R) fails miserably at pointing out.
    I think they aren't two totally different issues at all. If you believe that government should provide services to people and those benifits don't come with rights it redifines the entire issue for people who belief in the social contract. From their POV I can see it as a war. The right certainly does as well.

    No, you're being told that in our opinion, it isn't ok for anyone to do it, but if that's what the people want, make it your own business how to pay for it. I'm not interested in subsidizing immorality. Religious freedom is clearly and explicitly defined in the Constitution. Abortion (let alone the free kind) isn't.
    I have never bought into that, I take the pro-life position as seriously grounded in personal belief and not on who pays or doesn't pay for it. I respect people for their beliefs even though I don't share them.


    You clearly aren't even attempting to step into the shoes of the other side on this issue. I'm pro-life, but I also understand that abortion will never be illegal in this country (again despite the scare tactics of the left). So there really is no fight there worth spending time on. The fight over how it will be funded however, is a much different story. There's nothing hypocritical about it, we're doing what we're supposed to within the construct of our system.
    I don't agree. Good bad or indifferent abortion is not as readily available as it once was and I can easily see a day when it will be pushed back into the shadows.

    And we'd like to have an honest discussion about the topic, free of this utter lie of a "War on Women". It's disgusting, childish and ignorant.

    It's clearly a war on some women depending on POV. Services to women and women with children are certainly rationed regardless of whether that service is provided through the free market or the government. We have a very imperfect system and certainly each side is going to try and polarize the other side and when you have polarized sides like this its perfectly natural for those sides to want the debate on their own terms. I don't see where one side really wants to have an honest discussion at all.

    War on religion, war on women it's just nonesense.

  15. #55
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,676
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by JetPotato View Post
    And no one calls you an "extremist", expects you to silence your voice on those topics, or accuses you of "hating women" (I happen to find even the insinuation so inaccurate, misleading and insulting that it makes me want to puke).



    No one is hiding behind anything. They're two entirely different issues, even if that is what (D) is purposely hiding, and (R) fails miserably at pointing out.



    No, you're being told that in our opinion, it isn't ok for anyone to do it, but if that's what the people want, make it your own business how to pay for it. I'm not interested in subsidizing immorality. Religious freedom is clearly and explicitly defined in the Constitution. Abortion (let alone the free kind) isn't.



    You clearly aren't even attempting to step into the shoes of the other side on this issue. I'm pro-life, but I also understand that abortion will never be illegal in this country (again despite the scare tactics of the left). So there really is no fight there worth spending time on. The fight over how it will be funded however, is a much different story. There's nothing hypocritical about it, we're doing what we're supposed to within the construct of our system.

    And we'd like to have an honest discussion about the topic, free of this utter lie of a "War on Women". It's disgusting, childish and ignorant.
    This is a great post.

    Tater, you sell yourself mate. You can write with anyone on this site, as this post exemplifies. Agree or not with the content, this is exceedingly well said IMO.

  16. #56
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,312
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    This is a great post.

    Tater, you sell yourself mate. You can write with anyone on this site, as this post exemplifies. Agree or not with the content, this is exceedingly well said IMO.
    Thanks WF. Much appreciated.

  17. #57
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Cape Coral, FL
    Posts
    1,054
    Post Thanks / Like
    The irony of all this is the left say they are proponents of choice. Yet they are denying choice for some people. The goal is to mandate lack of choice for those that don't agree. This whole diatribe is ridiculous. If you so choose to do what you feel, then so be it... But don't expect me to pay for it. Personally, I'm not uber religious, yet those who are, have a right to abide by what they feel. there should NOT be a mandate that forces them against their beliefs.

    interesting discussion, but no one answered my question.

  18. #58
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,408
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by JetPotato View Post
    Again, you clearly display you have no clue on the issue.

    The idea of the bill is not to require anyone to give birth. It isn't about preventing abortion.

    It is about preventing FEDERAL FUNDS FROM BEING USED in paying for them.

    This "War on Women" nonsense works wonders on the weak-minded.
    Spot on. I'm curious as to why leftists equate "no taxpayer funding for..." to taking away someones rights. If someone wants an abortion they can go to the clinic and purchase it. It is left wing extremists that believe that people have the right to have government pay for their behaviors. Abortion is decided law in this country. Great. Why do liberals constantly want government and by default 50% of the citizenship of this country to pay for things they find sinful or morally reprehensable. This is identical to the obamacare free birth control pills issue as well as stem cell research. Essentially they want to force society as a whole to pay for something that 1/2 find sinful and counter to their religious beliefs. Then when the other side objects you get the straw man arguments about removing peoples rights. No one has the right to free pills or abortions or anything. They have the right to go out and purchase those things on their own. Government not paying for something is not the same as taking away rights. People need to get their fcuking heads on straight.

  19. #59
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Cape Coral, FL
    Posts
    1,054
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by chiefst2000 View Post
    Spot on. I'm curious as to why leftists equate "no taxpayer funding for..." to taking away someones rights. If someone wants an abortion they can go to the clinic and purchase it. It is left wing extremists that believe that people have the right to have government pay for their behaviors. Abortion is decided law in this country. Great. Why do liberals constantly want government and by default 50% of the citizenship of this country to pay for things they find sinful or morally reprehensable. This is identical to the obamacare free birth control pills issue as well as stem cell research. Essentially they want to force society as a whole to pay for something that 1/2 find sinful and counter to their religious beliefs. Then when the other side objects you get the straw man arguments about removing peoples rights. No one has the right to free pills or abortions or anything. They have the right to go out and purchase those things on their own. Government not paying for something is not the same as taking away rights. People need to get their fcuking heads on straight.
    This guys gets it too.... what's up with the left? It really irritates me that my freedoms are considered "holier than thou" but their freedoms are a "right". This might be Espolon talking. But really, why do they have the right to dictate where money is spent irregardless of the beliefs of the people whose ideals are being compromised. Isn't that hypocrisy taken to an art form?

  20. #60
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    nyc
    Posts
    11,481
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by chiefst2000 View Post
    Why do liberals constantly want government and by default 50% of the citizenship of this country to pay for things they find sinful or morally reprehensable. This is identical to the obamacare free birth control pills issue as well as stem cell research. Essentially they want to force society as a whole to pay for something that 1/2 find sinful and counter to their religious beliefs. Then when the other side objects you get the straw man arguments about removing peoples rights. No one has the right to free pills or abortions or anything. They have the right to go out and purchase those things on their own. Government not paying for something is not the same as taking away rights.
    By that measure, all churches should lose their tax exempt status, no? Why should the government subsidize religions that many citizens don't believe in? The lost tax revenue is substantial, to say they least. If someone wants a church experience, they can pay for it, and the church's income, property and fees for services can be taxed, right? You can practice any religion you like of course, but it shouldn't be free of the same taxes that the fast food joints and retail stores are subject to.

    Good thing there isn't a group of citizens that don't believe in medicine at all, or community schooling, or treated water... we'd have to eradicate Medicare and all public medical assistance, schools, most services that we spend on taxpayer dollars to support. Oh, wait...

    What's the number or percentage, by the way, of citizens that you would need to gather that don't believe in or don't care to have their taxes support something before it happens? Majority? Half? A million? A hundred? A dozen? Because I'm not that crazy about what I've heard goes on in some churches and public universities these days, I think we need to get rid of their public assistance.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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

Follow Us