Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 34

Thread: ANOTHER question for dem's

  1. #1
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Middletown Md
    Posts
    673
    Post Thanks / Like
    The more I read the more I'm convinced the tide may be turning against Dean because alot of democrats feel believe he stands little chance of winning the presidency because he's just too far left to be elected so even if they agree with his policies they are looking for a more electable candidate to vote for .

    I've seen articles recently where if the election were held today Dean would lose to Bush by 27 points in New Hampshire { not exactly a hotbed of conservatism } while an unnamed democrat would actually do better and that was before Hussein was captured which I think will further damn the Dean campaign, and, I've seen an increase in articles that went from praising the governor for his passion and positions to comparing him to McGovern, I can personally attest to 3 such Dean euuals McGovern articles I've seen since Thursday and to me those comparisons may well be the beginning of the end for his campaign.

    I thought up until a couple of days ago Dean was gonna win going away but I think democrats are coming to the realization they have to look in a different direction if they want to accomplish their ultimate goal which is to beat Bush and take back the White House.

    So my question is does anyone think Dean overcome the McGovern comparisons and his Iraq stance and win anyway ?...or...will those problems doom his campaign and if so...Who will emerge to ultimately win the nomination ?.........my personal opinion is once the tide begins to really turn against Dean the people will turn to Gephardt and he'll be the one sacrificed up to be slaughtered by Bush { Not trying to be a smartass...but...Bush is gonna be REAL tough to beat }...........Whaddya think ?.

  2. #2
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    This wasn't directed to me, but I've never let somtehing silly like that get in the way of an opinion before, so.... ;)


    I still think Dean will win the nomination. Bush is getting a short-term bump for the recent events, but all that stuff fades and there is still a lot of work to be done in Iraq. Besides, the Bush hatred that Dean has tapped into isn't going to be subdued by stories like Saddam's capture...the Dems who are voting largely want anybody else but Bush. Additionally, Dean can garner a lot of momentum if he manages to win Iowa and NH, and those places are largely populated with anti-war Democrats, as is my understanding.

    That, and Dean has raised more money than the other guys by FAR. I'd say that this weekend's news was music to Lieberman's and to a lesser extent Gephardt's ears, and not exactly what Dean wanted to hear. But still, even though he is polling high and has "front-runner" status, the race is far from over. However, I am betting Dean will become the nominee, only by default, really, since Hillary has decided that 2004 is a loser's game and is staking her chances on 2008. (The Dem establishment, IMO, recognizes that losing in 2004 is likely, and thus is not willing to "sacrifice" a future star...they care little for Dean, so him losing is not a huge deal to them) They can't afford to blow 2008, so sending Hill to the wolves makes no sense in 2004. She knows it. Bill knows it. Smart politicians know it. Gore knows it too. He'll be back, especially if Dean loses in a landslide.

    Your larger point, though, about Dean's 'electability' in a general election bears mentioning. I don't know if I believe the GOP standard stance of, "Dean will have to move so far left to get the nomination, that he'll be totally unelectable in the general" logic, nor do I think Dean being nominated is necessarily the "best-case" scenario for Bush. I think Bush is well-positioned to beat all of the candidates and Dean is not as "leftist" as people think. He is already starting to qualify his statements regarding Iraq, his stance has evolved from simply, "We shouldn't be there!!" to "We still shouldn't be there, but now that we are, we should genuflect to the UN and get out!" (I disagree passionately with him, but at least he's stopped merely shouting)

    I thinK Dean is smart enough to recognize that he needs to hire people who will be straight with him. Those people will try to counter the "loose-cannon factor" Dean seesm to have, which can bite him. (E.G. -Saying he "supposes" removing Saddam is a good thing, inventing a story about treating a teen who was impregnated by her father, bragging about getting out of serving in Vietnam, saying that Putin is the president of the Soviet Union about 10 times in an interview, when he's really the president of Russia, talking about how Bush may have known abot 9-11 beforehand (he said it to NPR first, not Foxnews...this isn't some invented thing)

    None of those are that bad, but it's the kind of stuff his handlers must lose sleep over, similar to Bush mis-speaking, etc.

    In short- yes, I don think Dean will become the nominee. Mostly because the others are so weak and underfunded and the fact that the Dem establishment has yet to rally behind one of the others.

    But, in the general I think the Dem will have a tough time. If the recovery continues throughout the year and things generally stay the same or improve in Iraq, I think it will be a solid victory...like 53% to 44% and a larger disparity in the electoral college. People generally like and trust Bush and think he is trying to protect them. They have little regard for European opinion polls or Chomsky-ite drivel. Bush is a likable guy, and if the economy keeps going and we have a drip, drip, drip of good news from abroad, it's going to be tough for a Dem to get the job, especially a Dem who plans on [b]raising taxes[/b] and appears weak on defense. Bush can just say, "Look, AQ is on the run, Saddam is in custody, Iraq is moving forward, your taxes are low and the economy is going well and the US hasn't been attacked in almost three years. Dean will raise taxes, is soft on defense and supports letting gays marry and 12-years olds have abortions without parental consent." (This is a caricature and is perhaps unfair to Dean, but it's essentially going to be the hill he'd have to climb...it's a tough go)

    Sure, there is a loud and large group that pasisonately hates Bush. But those people ALWAYS vote Dem in elections.

    But, a year is a long time and a lot can change. Personally, I'd be shocked if Dean doesn't get it.

  3. #3
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Middletown Md
    Posts
    673
    Post Thanks / Like
    Great post 5..........We have a difference of opinion about whether or not Dean will get the nomination but time will tell, I wouldn't be shocked if he actually held on to the lead and got it but I just think momentum's { and all the other candidates ] slowly starting to turn against him, however, since the candidate that raises the most ca$h usually triumphs he's gonna be tough to knock off.

    I agree wholeheartedly that he's got to hire people to polish him up a little bit and I think we are seeing the beginnings of that, appearing to be a loose cannon at first may make you seem passionate and get you noticed by a certain segment of the population but after a while it becomes a liability and he's got to tone that act down for fear of appearing to be too volitile and unpresidential and I believe he's getting that message.

    As for the presidential election I think your 53% to 44% is right about where it'll end up for exactly the same reasons you outlined, I realize there's a long way to go but unless something drastic and unforeseen happens I think it's inevitable President Bush will win re-election, I'm also relatively sure Hillary thinks re-election is inevitable as well or else she'd have tossed her hat into the ring but she wisely will wait for '08 where she'll stand a better chance.

    If this play's out like we think it will it's gonna be interesting to see who the republicans are gonna run against her in '08, Cheney obviously isn't up to the task, I personally would love to see J.C Watts or Condi Rice go for it but if they did the democrats would mount a campaign against either one of them like I think this country has never seen, I think they believe they simply cannot allow any black conservative to gain prominence because if they were successful it could undermine the lock the dem's have on the black vote and they'll do anything ethical or unethical to make sure that doesn't occur but we've got a long way to go before any of that could happen so we'll just have to see.

  4. #4
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    Post Thanks / Like
    It's either gonna be Jacques Chirac or Kofi Annan.

  5. #5
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    Maryland -

    I think Jebby may be "the guy" in 2008. Seriously.

    There is also the Colorado governor, Owens, who the GOP establishment seems to be grooming (if the sources I read are to be believed).

    You also cannot rule out Tom Ridge...he comes from a big state, especially in terms of electoral votes. He's pro-choice, though, and that has undermined him in the past with the GOP establilshment. But he has national recognition. I thought that when Bush tapped him as Homeland Chief it was a way to groom him for the 2004 VP nod, if Cheney wasn't up to it, but that is not the case.

    If I were a betting man, I'd say Jeb was the favorite, Ridge second, "Other" third and Owens fourth. A lot can happen though...

    Rudy Guliani is the wild-card...can't forget him!

  6. #6
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Middletown Md
    Posts
    673
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever[/i]@Dec 16 2003, 09:25 AM
    [b] Maryland -

    I think Jebby may be "the guy" in 2008. Seriously.

    There is also the Colorado governor, Owens, who the GOP establishment seems to be grooming (if the sources I read are to be believed).

    You also cannot rule out Tom Ridge...he comes from a big state, especially in terms of electoral votes. He's pro-choice, though, and that has undermined him in the past with the GOP establilshment. But he has national recognition. I thought that when Bush tapped him as Homeland Chief it was a way to groom him for the 2004 VP nod, if Cheney wasn't up to it, but that is not the case.

    If I were a betting man, I'd say Jeb was the favorite, Ridge second, "Other" third and Owens fourth. A lot can happen though...

    Rudy Guliani is the wild-card...can't forget him! [/b][/quote]
    Jebby huh..........That would be very interesting.....The left would go ape$hit if there was a possibility that at the end of the 8 year tunnel of the Dubbya presidency was a light that was actually another Bush.....and it's the one who they claim fixed Florida in 2000 sending Gore down to defeat.....That's too ironic and I love the idea and think that very well may be the way to go.

    Jebby vs Hillary for all the marbles in '08.....that's about as interesting a race as I could imagine, Bush vs Clinton II.....the family rematch.....Jebby out to avenge his fathers defeat.....sounds more like a heavyweight fight promoted by Don King in Vegas than a presidential election, there certainly is no one the republicans want to see go down in flames like Hillary and I imagine the dem's would feel the exact same way about yet another term for ANY Bush..... and the running mates.....Hillary picks the loyal Gen Clark to be the veep trying to balance out her socialist past while Jebby picks Condi Rice to try to offset the advantage Hillary would have with women and minorities.....we'll just have to wait and see but that possibility could be the election to end all elections

    As for Ridge.....I like him but a pro-choice republican would have a real tough go of it trying to win the nomination so I'd have to think he'd be a longshot at best.....I've heard of Owens from Col but really know nothing about his specific positions so I'll reserve comment on him until I'm more knowledgeable about where he's coming from.....as for Rudy.....I like and respect him but I'd have reservations about making him THE man and to be honest I'm not sure why......I think his past accomplishments would make him qualified { certainly more qualified than Hillary } but for some reason my gut tells me to be leery of him running the whole show, however, putting him in charge of homeland defense in the Jebby administration would be ideal, I'd still like to see J.C Watts step up to a more prominent position and be groomed for an eventual run at the big enchalada but that run will have to wait til after Jeb takes his shot.

    I without a doubt think Jeb / Condi...vs...Hillary / Clark would be the most interesting and hard fought election this country has ever seen, hopefully things will fall right so we can all see it.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    Post Thanks / Like
    Guys before you seek to extend the Bush dynasty lets see if Jr. can get re-elected first. I have my doubts that he will.

    Also, I'm pretty sure Condoleeza has had her fill with politics and the Bushes.
    Indications are that if Bush is re-elected that she'll be headed back to Stamford.

  8. #8
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by tailgators[/i]@Dec 16 2003, 10:04 AM
    [b] Guys before you seek to extend the Bush dynasty lets see if Jr. can get re-elected first. I have my doubts that he will.

    Also, I'm pretty sure Condoleeza has had her fill with politics and the Bushes.
    Indications are that if Bush is re-elected that she'll be headed back to Stamford. [/b][/quote]
    I agree with you that Condi may not want to run for office. There is a ton of speculation about it, but I just have my doubts.


    I also agree that Bush is not a lock for re-election...I just simply think it appears as though he;ll probably win at this point. But a lot can happen in a year.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever[/i]@Dec 16 2003, 11:08 AM
    [b] I also agree that Bush is not a lock for re-election...I just simply think it appears as though he;ll probably win at this point. But a lot can happen in a year. [/b][/quote]
    Bush sure got a bounce this weekend and right now it does look good for him.

    As I've said all along though we'll all have a much better idea how November's race will shape up once the Democratic Nomination race shakes out. If the Democrat's nominate the right guy (IMO Sen. Kerry) Bush will struggle in a one on one debate.

    A lot can happen in a year, also a lot may not happen in a year.

  10. #10
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by tailgators+Dec 16 2003, 10:20 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (tailgators @ Dec 16 2003, 10:20 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--jets5ever[/i]@Dec 16 2003, 11:08 AM
    [b] I also agree that Bush is not a lock for re-election...I just simply think it appears as though he;ll probably win at this point. But a lot can happen in a year. [/b][/quote]
    Bush sure got a bounce this weekend and right now it does look good for him.

    As I&#39;ve said all along though we&#39;ll all have a much better idea how November&#39;s race will shape up once the Democratic Nomination race shakes out. If the Democrat&#39;s nominate the right guy (IMO Sen. Kerry) Bush will struggle in a one on one debate.

    A lot can happen in a year, also a lot may not happen in a year. [/b][/quote]
    I agree that the Dems could do better than Dean, but I also don&#39;t think Dean is as unelectable as the GOP would like. Really, who else is going to beat Bush? I know you support Kerry, but you really think a Massachusetts liberal who can&#39;t even out-poll Dean in his own state can carry the South and mid-west?


    Perhaps Bush would "struggle" in a one on one debate with Kerry, perhaps not. Everyone expected Gore to trounce Bush and what actually happened was quite different.

  11. #11
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by tailgators[/i]@Dec 16 2003, 11:04 AM
    [b] Guys before you seek to extend the Bush dynasty lets see if Jr. can get re-elected first. I have my doubts that he will.

    Also, I&#39;m pretty sure Condoleeza has had her fill with politics and the Bushes.
    Indications are that if Bush is re-elected that she&#39;ll be headed back to Stamford. [/b][/quote]
    There are so many things I can debate with that post it would take me forever but let&#39;s start with the obvious....Ms. Rice was the Provost at [b][i]Stanford[/i][/b] not Samford in Alabama or Stamford in Bangladesh.

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Come Back to NY+Dec 16 2003, 11:33 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (Come Back to NY @ Dec 16 2003, 11:33 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--tailgators[/i]@Dec 16 2003, 11:04 AM
    [b] Guys before you seek to extend the Bush dynasty lets see if Jr. can get re-elected first. I have my doubts that he will.

    Also, I&#39;m pretty sure Condoleeza has had her fill with politics and the Bushes.
    Indications are that if Bush is re-elected that she&#39;ll be headed back to Stamford. [/b][/quote]
    There are so many things I can debate with that post it would take me forever but let&#39;s start with the obvious....Ms. Rice was the Provost at [b][i]Stanford[/i][/b] not Samford in Alabama or Stamford in Bangladesh. [/b][/quote]
    Well excuse me for making a spelling error.

    Along those lines have you finally learned how to spell Ronald Reagan&#39;s name? I seem to remember you having repeated trouble with that.

    Nice google search on Stamford University though.

  13. #13
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by tailgators[/i]@Dec 16 2003, 11:04 AM
    [b] Guys before you seek to extend the Bush dynasty lets see if Jr. can get re-elected first. I have my doubts that he will.

    Also, I&#39;m pretty sure Condoleeza has had her fill with politics and the Bushes.
    Indications are that if Bush is re-elected that she&#39;ll be headed back to Stamford. [/b][/quote]
    Tailgators, the only scenario likely to keep Bush reelected is another domestic terrorist attack, the economy to turn around and falter, the unemployment trend reverse course and skyrocket out of control and/or the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to take a turn for the worse.

    Assuming the above is true, do you:

    1) Hope for the one or all of the above events to happen so Bush is voted out of office, or
    2) Hope for events above to not happen thereby ensuring Bush a second term.

    You can only choose one. Curious to hear your bi-partisan answer.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Spirit of Weeb[/i]@Dec 16 2003, 02:40 PM
    [b] Tailgators, the only scenario likely to keep Bush reelected is another domestic terrorist attack, the economy to turn around and falter, the unemployment trend reverse course and skyrocket out of control and/or the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to take a turn for the worse.

    Assuming the above is true, do you:

    1) Hope for the one or all of the above events to happen so Bush is voted out of office, or
    2) Hope for events above to not happen thereby ensuring Bush a second term.

    You can only choose one. Curious to hear your bi-partisan answer. [/b][/quote]
    Nice try at painting me into a corner weeb. It&#39;s rather slick of you.

    First of all I don&#39;t accept your premise regarding Bush&#39;s re-electability. I&#39;m judging Bush on his record and in my opinion his record is remarkably dismal. Therefore, Bush&#39;s re-election is far from assured.

    Furthermore, its appalling that you imply that if a person doesn&#39;t support the re-election of the president that somehow they&#39;re wishing for tragedy to strike the United States.

  15. #15
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Middletown Md
    Posts
    673
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by tailgators[/i]@Dec 16 2003, 11:04 AM
    [b] Guys before you seek to extend the Bush dynasty lets see if Jr. can get re-elected first. I have my doubts that he will.

    Also, I&#39;m pretty sure Condoleeza has had her fill with politics and the Bushes.
    Indications are that if Bush is re-elected that she&#39;ll be headed back to Stamford. [/b][/quote]
    While nothing in life is certain you&#39;ve gotta admit Bush&#39;s chances of getting re-elected are much greater than not, it&#39;s not completely inconceivable he could lose but his popularity was pretty high BEFORE the economy turned around which will further strengthen his re-election bid.

    As for Condi.....It&#39;s one thing to have your fill of politics and quite another to turn down an oppurtunity to be the veep and be one step from the presidency, she could stay on til dubya wins his second term then scratch the collegiate itch she appears to have for a couple of years, then, reappear as the veep to Dubya&#39;s brother, not totally inconceivable.

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by MARYLAND JET[/i]@Dec 16 2003, 03:12 PM
    [b] While nothing in life is certain you&#39;ve gotta admit Bush&#39;s chances of getting re-elected are much greater than not, it&#39;s not completely inconceivable he could lose but his popularity was pretty high BEFORE the economy turned around which will further strengthen his re-election bid.

    As for Condi.....It&#39;s one thing to have your fill of politics and quite another to turn down an oppurtunity to be the veep and be one step from the presidency, she could stay on til dubya wins his second term then scratch the collegiate itch she appears to have for a couple of years, then, reappear as the veep to Dubya&#39;s brother, not totally inconceivable. [/b][/quote]
    Aside from having the usual advantages of being an incumbant, I really don&#39;t think Bush is all that unbeatable.

    I&#39;m waiting to see who emerges as the democratic nominee. If they nominate the right guy Bush will have his hands full.

    As far as the Vice Presidency goes, as former Vice President John Nance Garner once said "The Vice Presidency isn&#39;t worth a bucket of warm spit."

    Or as John Adams who served as the nation&#39;s first vice president once wrote that the vice presidency was "the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived."

  17. #17
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by tailgators[/i]@Dec 16 2003, 02:56 PM
    [b] Furthermore, its appalling that you imply that if a person doesn&#39;t support the re-election of the president that somehow they&#39;re wishing for tragedy to strike the United States. [/b][/quote]
    So why are you supporting the democratic candidates then?

    For any of them to succeed, Bush must fail. If Bush fails (more terror attacks, lousy economy, major setbacks in the wars), America suffers.

    All the things your side harped on GWB for are improving for the better. Making an huge impact on domestic terrorism, improving economy, improving stock market, improving job market and the insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan waning.

    If you want to be appalled, take off your donkey-goggles and really observe some of the shining stars of the party you support.

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Spirit of Weeb[/i]@Dec 16 2003, 03:28 PM
    [b] For any of them to succeed, Bush must fail. America suffers.

    [/b][/quote]
    Bush already has failed, and America has suffered enough.

    Hopefully, on January 20, 2005 John Kerry will take the Presidential Oath of Office and to paraphrase the only other unelected president in our nation&#39;s history "Our long national nightmare will be over."

  19. #19
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Spirit of Weeb[/i]@Dec 16 2003, 02:28 PM
    [b]
    For any of them to succeed, Bush must fail. If Bush fails (more terror attacks, lousy economy, major setbacks in the wars), America suffers.

    [/b][/quote]
    Weeb - I can&#39;t BELIEVE I am about to do this...but, while I agree with the spirit of your logic, making it an either/or proposition IS kind of you just trying to back Tail into a corner that doesn&#39;t necessarily exist.

    Essentially, what you are saying is true of ANY incumbent, regardless of political party or circumstances. If you vote AGAINST an incumbent, naturally you are not satisfied with the way things are going. It doesn&#39;t necessarily mean you wish ill will on America. For example, I agree with you 100% about Bush&#39;s handling of the war on terror and taxes. However, I strongly dislike his spending and propensity for large government, ESPECIALLY the campaign-finance law he is now going to sign, when he PROMISED during his 2000 campaign to veto it. So, if another conservative came out and "Look, I will keep Bush&#39;s policy&#39;s 100% intact with regards to terror, taxes and social issues...but I want to drastically reduce government spending and completely disagree with the McCain-Feingold Act, I&#39;d probably vote for that guy." Yes, it would mean that the things like Saddam&#39;s capture and the like would probably hurt "my guy&#39;s" chances...but it DOES NOT mean I would be rooting for bad news from abroad.

    I think you are just over-simplifying things. Now, in the case of a Howard Dean or a Dennis Kucinich, your point is more tenable, cause those guys are essentially runnin on a fervent anti-war stance. Kerry is trying to have his cake and eat it too on Iraq, IMO. But what you say isn&#39;t true, IMO, for supporters of, say, Lieberman and Gephardt.

  20. #20
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by tailgators[/i]@Dec 16 2003, 03:34 PM
    [b] Bush already has failed, and America has suffered enough.

    Hopefully, on January 20, 2005 John Kerry will take the Presidential Oath of Office and to paraphrase the only other unelected president in our nation&#39;s history "Our long national nightmare will be over." [/b][/quote]
    Do yourself a favor. On January 20, 2005, surround yourself with only blunt objects.

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