echo Posted October 13, 2000 Report Share Posted October 13, 2000 After reading all of this, I am glad my mother had instilled these words of wisdom:Never discuss your beliefs of Religion or Politics in a public forum....Someone will always know more than you, and take offense to your ignorance. I later added the OJ situation to this list. It is obvious that this is a very sensitive subject all over the world. It is also quite sad. I could continue with the flow of this post and insult or defend others thoughts and beliefs. I could continue scrutinizing others intent, or lack of knowledge. I could even add the comment describing me dancing and singing "no woman no cry....." I would rather sit a moment and reflect on what is really going on. The people who have lost their lives. The families that have been shattered. Then as I shed a tear being the sensitive chick that I am......I leave this thread, knowing that mabey for 10 seconds someone else felt like I do. ------------------ Captain Echo ICV Persephone, New America Starstation (Midae) Eversor Fleet ICQ# 31736776 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Schacher Posted October 13, 2000 Report Share Posted October 13, 2000 Again from the radio today:Did you notice that Clinton is sending the FBI to the Cole to investigate?Why the FBI? How about the CIA? What about Naval Intelligence?The FBI is supposed to be for domestic investigation. What are they doing on a warship in the Middle East?Answer: Their are too many loyal Americans in the other investigative branches that I mentioned. Janet Reno controls the FBI, which means that Clinton can control the "spin" that results from the FBI investigation.I've become quite the conspiracy theorist in the last eight years. I hate it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cruis.In Posted October 13, 2000 Report Share Posted October 13, 2000 hey,you know though that because terrorist groups are as you say 75 percent from arabic nations, they give all arabics bad names. Because there are still a lot of good Arabs are there who are ashamed of their people's actions.there is too much hatred for them to see clearly anymore(israel and palastine). Blinded by hatred is the most truthful statement.------------------ Captain Cruis In ICV St. Helens, Sygan Starstation (Sygan) CEO, Sygan Starstation Balor Fleet"You can only love or hate something you truly understand" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rattler Posted October 14, 2000 Report Share Posted October 14, 2000 Steve, although I agree with your statement of "What ever happened to Naval Intelligence", It IS the FBI's Responsibility to conduct the investigation, just as they did on the Battleship incident. US Vessels, particularly "Men/Women of War", US Embassies, et-al, are sovereign soil of the Unites States Of America. No matter where they are in the world, They belong to You and I. By law, CIA May NOT opperate within the confines of the United States. That means those ships as well. The CIA may Visit, but they cannot work there. As a criminal investigation that directly affects US Sovereignity (if that's a word), The FBI has absolute power and athority. Unfortunate, but quite true. So, there ya have it. The conspiracy thing sounds familiar to me too! ------------------ Insurgent One, Rattler ICV Necromancer, Spectre HQ (Antis) Commander-In-Chief, Insurgency Official Tester, Battlecruiser Series [email protected] ICQ 12894104"You can only love or hate something you truly understand" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 14, 2000 Report Share Posted October 14, 2000 2001 is the doomsday year. These incidents are just the beginning. Brace yourselves, its gonna get even worse.------------------ Cmdr. Kron ICV Darkness, Spectre HQ (Antis) Spectre Fleet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest aramike01 Posted October 14, 2000 Report Share Posted October 14, 2000 Heh, Rattler beat me to it. The CIA can't even operate legally within a US embassy (considered US soil). The reason the FBI does these operations is simple: the military is tasked primarily with the defense of our country from other nations. This is more likely a terrorist attack, which would then force it to become a criminal issue.Btw, the CIA may even be involved. So may be Naval Intel. Due to the nature of those agencies, the government doesn't broadcast their actions. Makes sense to me.------------------ Vice Admiral Michael Kristophers ICV-Intrepid, Spectre (Antis) Fleet Leader Spectre Fleet Official Tester, Battlecruiser Series Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Commander Hamblin Posted October 14, 2000 Report Share Posted October 14, 2000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rattler Posted October 14, 2000 Report Share Posted October 14, 2000 I've had just about enough of this crap!Hamblin, I've been watching this thread since it started, biding my time and waiting for it to settle down. I thought that it had made it until your last post. Now you've gone and started calling names! quote:Ever stop being such an arsehole? With that, you've once again invited this forum to hammer you. I'm not going to let that happen though. I'm Locking the thread right after I do the following: 1) Reprimanding every one of you guys that are engaging in this pointless war of the wittless 2) Advising that any such repeats on any thread will result in 30 day suspension of posting priveleges. 3) Notifying all Fleet Commanders of my intentions. 4) Revoking Hamblins Posting Priveleges for the next 7 Days. No discussions, No reprieves.Now Mike, Ron, SpacePhish, Cruis.In, and anybody else out there that even think about this kind of BS again, Get a damned grip on the situation. Do NOT Repeat this again. Please?Done!Rattler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supreme Cmdr Posted October 14, 2000 Report Share Posted October 14, 2000 I'm not here to take sides. When Rattler alerted me over ICQ, I decided to take a quick look. Then I went to the end of the thread to see why he closed it. Then I went back to the top and read every post.Hamblin is herebly banned from posting on the site, indefinitely, and until I find time to discuss the matter further with CAT. If he holds any fleet postions, he is hereby stripped of such responsibilities and ranking. If he's on the Beta test team, he just got himself kicked.Everyone loves a healthy debate - I should know, I'm the industry master of controversy. However, there is no need to call other people names, use profanity or show wanton disrespect to admin personnel.Thats that. The first person to protest or even do so much as to send me email (unless you are in the CAT team), will follow Hamblin.Carry on the debate and keep it civil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cruis.In Posted October 14, 2000 Report Share Posted October 14, 2000 Hello hello Well I was not in the debate about Clinton. Or any other debate really. However, I just have to question one or two things about President ClintonSo for the debate, (as we are allowed to continue) nothing bad, but I don't think that President Clinton is such a bad president...and I don't think that he should have to have served time in an army to qualify for the position of president. President Clinton has advisors, yes he is THE C&C meaning that after all is taken into consideration, and his advisors have given him all available information on the situation, as well as their recommendations, he is then the one who has to make the final descision...that's what his military advisors and generals are there fore. And I'm sure he makes his descisions based heavily on them. ------------------ Captain Cruis In ICV St. Helens, Sygan Starstation (Sygan) CEO, Sygan Starstation Balor Fleet"You can only love or hate something you truly understand" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest aramike01 Posted October 14, 2000 Report Share Posted October 14, 2000 No doubt, Cruisin, however, he selects his advisors, and that's based upon purely political motivations. quote:you know though that because terrorist groups are as you say 75 percent from arabic nations, they give all arabics bad names. Because there are still a lot of good Arabs are there who are ashamed of their people's actions. Again, no doubt. I've worked with many of them on a personal level. The problem arises with the ardant religious following there. Many people will blindly follow their leaders who stipulate the religion for them. And, many Arabic nations fund terrorists groups. In effect, these groups become unofficial armies, allowing a nation to fight a war without have to deal with the political reprisals of such actions. The UN knows this, but cannot act as the nations involved are not officially doing anything. Bureaucracy at its finest.Also, the culture is not just plain violent. It's inherently violent. That's the difference. Whenever the chain of violence breaks, the violence ends. It isn't going to help when children are taught in the ways of war. Unfortunately, that not only dooms the children in the sense of them leading a violent path, but dooms them to suffering at the hands of those who fight for peace. And Echo's wise in her thoughts about open discussion of such things. Even more so in taking that moment to honor those sailors lost. ------------------ Vice Admiral Michael Kristophers ICV-Intrepid, Spectre (Antis) Fleet Leader Spectre Fleet Official Tester, Battlecruiser Series[This message has been edited by aramike01 (edited 10-14-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cruis.In Posted October 15, 2000 Report Share Posted October 15, 2000 well I'm not sure if you'll find any prospective president who wouldn't pick advisors based on solely polictical motivations.------------------ Captain Cruis In ICV St. Helens, Sygan Starstation (Sygan) CEO, Sygan Starstation Balor Fleet"You can only love or hate something you truly understand" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akira Posted October 15, 2000 Report Share Posted October 15, 2000 Yep, Cruise.In, therin lies the problem. A competent leader chooses those that would best perform the job all politics aside. In the case of the President, he is responsible for an entire nation. If he or she can't see beyond politics to the good of the people then he or she need not apply. However, we Americans are solely to blame for what happens as we are the ones that vote fools into office. We ourselves are unable/unwilling to see/understand the issues and therefore those that do vote, rarely vote based on a solid fundation of understanding the true nature of the candidate.Our form of democracy is NOT the best possible. It is merely the best being practiced right now. In this situation, if you don't have strong competant leadership, the sharks in the water smell that and attack.Welcome to the current situation. The lack of competant leadership has led to the Israel problem, the bombing of a Battleship, and now a hijacked airplane.That's not to say a good man makes a good pres. either. I think today that the best asset this country has is Carter. He was/is a very smart man and has done a lot since his term to better foreign relations. Had the current administration not been thinking about politics/legacy, it would have been former pres. Carter at Camp David, not Bill Clinton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cruis.In Posted October 15, 2000 Report Share Posted October 15, 2000 Actually I don't think you use the best system available. I was studying various systems of voting etc...for democratic nations. We've found that the system used by most countries is highly inaccurate and unfair for the losing side.Here's an example, let say that 20,000 people in ohio are lodging their votes. and 12000 vote for Rebublican and 8000 voted for Democrats, now let's that that his happened throughout every state, every state 12000 voted for democrat and 8000 voted for republican, now the democrats get in...people will say "oh look well the democrats won everyone voted for them, every state was won by democrats", but what they will not see are the statistics.When added up, nearly half of everyone that voted in every state voted for the republicans...but they were just edged out by a little bit...and this number of people who voted for the republicans is not sufficiently portrayed in government...there's another system which corrected this oversight. England used it or uses it...but it's too lengthy to go into ------------------ Captain Cruis In ICV St. Helens, Sygan Starstation (Sygan) CEO, Sygan Starstation Balor Fleet"You can only love or hate something you truly understand" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Schacher Posted October 15, 2000 Report Share Posted October 15, 2000 Oh, so much to respond to...Let me start by stating that our form of democracy is not a democracy -- it is a republic. In a democracy, you have one person = one vote. In a republic, you elect representatives who supposedly support your viewpoints, and these representatives meet and vote on the issues. Our one person = one vote is used to elect the representatives. quote:I don't think that President Clinton is such a bad presidentCruis.In, I'm only quoting you because you said it first, not to attack your point of view. Many people in this country feel this way, so please don't take offense at my use of your quotes. They just make good segues into my points.The problem that I have the Clinton is that he has totally ignored the US Constitution. I know that over the years, all branches of government have deteriorated the intent of the Constitution, but as with all things that he does, Clinton has been the most aggregious at it.The very first thing that Clinton did when taking office was to fire all the US Attorneys around the country and replace them with his cronies. Then he systematically politicized EVERY branch of government. We now find ourselves living in a land where the rule of law is trumped by the rule of politics. Serious crimes are being shrugged off as "just politics," as if the actual crimes themselves don't matter any more, as long as they were in the realm of politics. quote:I don't think that he should have to have served time in an army to qualify for the position of president.The liberal media is starting to notice that the military is supporting Bush, and they are complaining: http://www.mrc.org/news/cyberalert/2000/cyb20000926.html#2 Some quotes from the article: quote:The New York Times says, In recent years, people in uniform, particularly in the officer corps, have tilted increasingly toward the Republican party. The tradition of American military leaders, especially generals and admirals considering themselves independent, is weakening, a trend that has raised concerns about the increasing politicization of the military.Serving in the military is not a requirement to be President. We have had many presidents who never served. I'd like to point out the military background of the following Presidents who did serve:George Washington - Commander-In-Chief of the Continental Army Andrew Jackson - Major General Zachary Taylor - Brigadier General Franklin Pierce - Brigadier General Ulysses Grant - Brigadier General, Commander of All Union Armies Rutherford Hayes - Major General James Garfield - Major General (of Volunteers) Benjamin Harrison - Brigadier General William McKinley - Major Theodore Roosevelt - Assistant Secretary of the Navy William Taft - Secretary of War Harry Truman - Captain Dwight Eisenhower - Supreme Allied Commander - Europe Richard Nixon - Lt. Commander Gerald Ford - Lt. CommanderAgain, from the article above: quote:There's no law against it, but the sight of so many former admirals and generals throwing their prestige behind a candidate causes concern among other retired officers. So, the politicians are complaining that the military is throwing their prestige behind the candidates? Remember when the generals WERE the candidates?Have we forgotten what leadership looks like? quote:No doubt, Cruisin, however, he selects his advisors, and that's based upon purely political motivations.This is exactly right. Clinton's cabinet is politically correct, but incompetent. Here's a short rundown:1. Federico Pena (Transportation) - Remember the ValueJet crash? His first comment was to swear on the safety of ValueJet. He's supposed to oversee the airlines, not coddle to them. Switched to Energy after O'Leary resigned.2. Hazel O'Leary (Energy) - She eliminated security ID badges at the National Labs (Los Alamos, anyone?) because they were discriminatory. Her thinking was, since many of the workers at the labs are foreign exchange scientists, wearing ID badges that visibly identified them as low-security people was demeaning to them. Then she cut the security staff in half, allowing the security contractor to pocket the payroll savings as profit. She now sits on the board of directors of that security company.3. Janet Reno (Justice) - Do I really need to say anything here?4. Ron Brown (Commerce) - Selling seats on trade missions to Democratic donors. As Congress was closing in on him, his plane crashed into the mountains.5. Alexis Herman (Labor) - She can't account for millions of dollars spent on trade junkets.6. Bruce Babbitt (Interior) - Indictments for Indian Casino bribes.7. Bill Richardson (Energy) - His first task was to drive Monica Lewinsky to New York for a job interview. Then he had to explain that the Wen Ho Lee spy case was an isolated incident, but that we have a plan to correct it. Then the Los Alamos case erupted and he had to explain that we have a plan to correct it.8. Madeleine Albright (State) - Did you notice that bombs go off whenever she leaves someplace?9. Mike Espy (Agriculture) - Indicted for accepting gifts from Tyson Foods of Arkansas. Acquitted.After eight years, they are all just now putting plans to correct things together. Nobody takes responsibility. Nobody is accountable. quote:I don't think you use the best system available. The system was developed over 200 years ago. Distances were great between the cities and towns.When we vote, we actually vote for members of the Electoral College (another representation). The College then meets and votes for the President (this happens about one month after the general election). You can almost imagine people on horseback traveling from their towns to the meeting place to cast the votes for their state.Each State has electoral votes equal to the total number of representatives and senators. That's why we have "battleground" states -- some are worth more electoral votes than others.Is it a good system? Probably good enough. Is it the best system? Who can say?What gets lost in all this is the fact that we have three CO-EQUAL branches of government. Since Clinton became President, Congress has failed to execute its oversight authority (can you say 900 FBI files?).I've become a strict Constitutionalist in the last eight years. I'd like to see us get back to the basic principles of the Constitution and scale back the Federal government into something more managable, and let the States take back most of the burden. They were quite capable before the Federal government usurped their taxes and then only doled them back if they followed Federal guidelines (but that's another thread).Oh, my... Now I've done it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cruis.In Posted October 15, 2000 Report Share Posted October 15, 2000 I think the US government has been this way since the secret service came about.All through the sixties, everything gets covered up. There will come a time that there will be something they can't cover up.------------------ Captain Cruis In ICV St. Helens, Sygan Starstation (Sygan) CEO, Sygan Starstation Balor Fleet"You can only love or hate something you truly understand" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rattler Posted October 15, 2000 Report Share Posted October 15, 2000 Applause!Great post, and this is finally developing into an informative thread! My compliments! Food for thought! Has anyone ever WON an election by popular vote and was not elected to office because he LOST the electoral vote? The answer is a resounding YES! That is, in my humble opinion, a travesty! We are one nation, elected by the people, for the people. If I were a candidate and I had more votes cast by the people, then I should be elected. Personally speaking, I think the Electoral College is a load of bunk and should be shelved for something better, like a bent trash can! At least I could look at it and say I'm getting something from it! ------------------ Insurgent One, Rattler ICV Necromancer, Spectre HQ (Antis) Commander-In-Chief, Insurgency Official Tester, Battlecruiser Series [email protected] ICQ 12894104"You can only love or hate something you truly understand" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Schacher Posted October 15, 2000 Report Share Posted October 15, 2000 As Clinton heads west to raise money, thoughts center on Mideast http://www.boston.com/dailynews/289/nation...to_raise:.shtml Excerpts:DENVER (AP) President Clinton took a brief break from intense Middle East problems Saturday to head for the Rockies and on to the West Coast, campaigning for Vice President Al Gore and raising dollars for Democrats at political events in Denver and Seattle. [snip]''I'm leaving tomorrow afternoon to go to the Middle East,'' the president said. ''We're going to try to find a way to get the parties to agree to end the violence and get back to the hard business of making peace.'' The president started the weekend at the White House where he announced plans to go to the Egyptian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh for the emergency summit Monday between Palestinians and Israelis. [snip]Then he headed to Colorado, where Texas Gov. George W. Bush has a slight edge over Gore in the polls, and to Washington, still a toss-up state in the race for electoral votes.[snip]The president made a second stop in Denver, a fund-raiser that raised $300,000 for Colorado Democrats and get-out-the-vote campaigns. [snip]Later in the day, Clinton flew to Seattle for political events for four candidates: Washington Senate candidate Maria Cantwell; the president's wife, New York Senate candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton; and Washington Gov. Gary Locke and Rep. Jay Inslee, D-Wash., who are running for re-election.[end excerpt]Isn't he supposed to be hunkered down in some situation room somewhere?[This message has been edited by Steve Schacher (edited 10-15-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest aramike01 Posted October 15, 2000 Report Share Posted October 15, 2000 If anyone disagrees with my statement that the Arabic culture is inherently violent, go take a look at this. Talk about sad.------------------ Vice Admiral Michael Kristophers ICV-Intrepid, Spectre (Antis) Fleet Leader Spectre Fleet Official Tester, Battlecruiser SeriesYou can only love or hate what you truly understand! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cruis.In Posted October 15, 2000 Report Share Posted October 15, 2000 applause to me rattler? thanks Let me expand what I said, I said this because someone listed a number of things pertaining to the administration, but my question to them is when have things been really different, it has always been like that, it's just that in those days of long ago, the media wasn't as prominent, and not "everything" the presidency did was scrutinized by the public...but people today are more aware I believe. Ever since the free-speech movement, which was a great triumph of the american people, boy they went through alot pulling that....clinton is just (unfortunate) that it is this modern day he got to office ------------------ Captain Cruis In ICV St. Helens, Sygan Starstation (Sygan) CEO, Sygan Starstation Balor Fleet"You can only love or hate something you truly understand" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Schacher Posted October 15, 2000 Report Share Posted October 15, 2000 The reason that it wasn't always like the way it is now is that, prior to WWII, Washington DC was a sleepy little swamp town that nobody wanted to go to. In fact, Washington DC was built on land that no other states wanted -- swampland on the mouth of the Potomac River.The city had to grow in order to support the war effort. As the US became more dominant in the war, the bureaucracy had to grow with it. War Department offices were being built in huts on the Mall between the Capitol and the Washington Monument. After the war, Washington DC was too big a bureaucracy for the demands of the government, so they expanded the role of the Federal government. It was also fortunate that the war ended the Great Depression that was underway at the time. So, great works projects were undertaken, like building a national highway system. Inter-State transportation is something that should fall under the jurisdiction of a Federal government. You don't want little city-states forming that taxes people to enter or leave, right? (except that most cities have toll roads in and out)The new roads expanded inter-state commerce, and lo and behold, the Constitution happens to have a "Commerce Clause:" (Section 8, Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes). This is the only mention of the word "Commerce" in the Constitution, but we have an entire Department of Commerce because of it. Theodore Roosevelt was the first president to have a Secretary of Commerce in 1902.Anyway, since WWII, the Federal government has been expanding its power at the expense of the States. With that expansion comes the temptation to profit from it. The more we allow politicians to get away with it, the more brazen they will become.The first "modern" executive-level scandal that I can think of is the Teapot Dome scandal of 1922 under the Harding administration. There are stunning parallels between this and Whitewater ( http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0848032.html ), and between Harding and Clinton ( http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/people/A0822703.html ).So, to summarize, yes it was done before, and yes it was scrutinized by the public, but not to the extent that it is today and not with the arrogance and brazenness that it is done today. I put adherence to the Constitution and the rules of government above the short-term "achievements" of Clinton and his cohorts.p.s. What is the "free speech movement" that you are refering to? We've had free speech back to the days of Thomas Payne and his pamphlet "Common Sense," which turned public opinion against the British in 1776.[This message has been edited by Steve Schacher (edited 10-15-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest aramike01 Posted October 15, 2000 Report Share Posted October 15, 2000 LOL! I think Rattler was referring to Steve's post. quote:Ever since the free-speech movement, which was a great triumph of the american people, What movement are you talking about? Freedom of speech is, and always has been, a constitutional right. I may be forgetting something, but seriously, what are you talking about? quote:clinton is just (unfortunate) that it is this modern day he got to office Clinton would have never made it to office in the older days, I think. He's flying around taking credit for things that have been 20 years in the making. Back then, people were more wise politically, considering that democracy was somewhat in its infancy. People felt more involved then.Addition: quote:What is the "free speech movement" that you are refering to? So I'm not the only American wondering that! LOL! ------------------ Vice Admiral Michael Kristophers ICV-Intrepid, Spectre (Antis) Fleet Leader Spectre Fleet Official Tester, Battlecruiser SeriesYou can only love or hate what you truly understand![This message has been edited by aramike01 (edited 10-15-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rattler Posted October 15, 2000 Report Share Posted October 15, 2000 Firstly, I applauded Steve's post, but this whole thread is now gaining a bit of civility. I most heartily applaud that!Now, Cruis.In, Are you speaking of "The Freedom of Information Act?" If so, then yes that was a good thing IMHO! If you weren't, then Where you been Son? Americans have always had the Fredom of speech! It was written into the Constitution! ------------------ Insurgent One, Rattler ICV Necromancer, Spectre HQ (Antis) Commander-In-Chief, Insurgency Official Tester, Battlecruiser Series [email protected] ICQ 12894104"You can only love or hate something you truly understand"[This message has been edited by Rattler (edited 10-15-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 15, 2000 Report Share Posted October 15, 2000 I would like to stick my oar in about the way elections are organised. In the UK, elections for the "English" government that sits in Westminster are a majority vote. The more votes a candidate has even if it is only a few more than the next person, that candidate wins. This has meant that the two major parties control most of the seats in the house, and the third party who normally gets around 15% of the vote have a lot less seats. In the new National Assemblies of Wales and Scotland, the people are elected via proportional representation, so that the actual political makup of the population dictates who is elected. This has lead to more balanced houses for Wales and Scotland, however the system needs more work cos not that many people actually vote. In Australia, they has a similar system, but you are legally required to vote, even if you are overseas. Non voting means that you go to jail. In this scenario, most ruling parties are made up of coalitions of smaller parties, and the smaller parties, and therfore that section of the population, have a voice.This, in my opinion, makes people work together for the good of the country instead of wining political points in some debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cruis.In Posted October 15, 2000 Report Share Posted October 15, 2000 free speech may have always been a right, but that was never fully allowed.------------------ Captain Cruis In ICV St. Helens, Sygan Starstation (Sygan) CEO, Sygan Starstation Balor Fleet"You can only love or hate something you truly understand" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now