Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest BushBacker

A Win For Bush

Recommended Posts

There STILL is a LIE from YOU!

He was warned about the intelligence being faulty by the CIA before he went ahead and LIED!

"Guest," you don't know what you're talking about.

There were some documents that were forged that had been considered as evidence that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from Niger. The CIA knew of that and the president was aware of that.

However, British Intelligence assured our intelligence agencies that their information was not based on the forgeries.

The CIA can't rubber stamp intelligence that they have not verified, so Bush's speech acknowledged the British as the source of the information.

How do you count that as a lie without doing a triple backflip?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bush is a great man, unemployment is way down under him.

In 2000 it was 4.0% and in 2006 it was 4.6%, that's an increase of only .6%, THAT's way down!  I know that because FOX NEWS said it is.

1) The tech bubble from the Clinton years had gone into decline before Bush took office. That's a downward-trending economy. In essence, you're just picking the lowest unemployment number under Clinton and comparing it to the current numbers under Bush. That seems to qualify as either stupidity or cheating.

http://www.qualityinfo.org/olmisj/ChartVie...art&graph=unemp

2) Whatever the condition of the economy Bush inherited from Clinton, the 9-11 attacks severely damaged the US economy. That doesn't seem to factor into PatRat's calculations at all--though that could make sense if he thinks that Bush orchestrated the 9-11 attacks.

Now that I taught you Kool-Aiders some math we're going to move on to science, starting with the dinosaurs 2000 years ago..................

Uh, yeah, thanks. Maybe you should get back to your Etch-a-Sketch.

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, I couldn't figure out if it was:

A) Spin

:) BullSH*T

C) A AND B

Thise are the ONLY choices.

... thus demonstrating that you very probably didn't understand what I wrote (leaving open the possibility that you get it, but you obfuscate now rather than own up).

Secretary Rice tried to draw the distinction between escalating (increasing) forces in Iraq in terms of number and escalating the conflict itself--two different things.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/11/rice-augmentation/

The opposition favors the term "escalation" for the troop increase since in the minds of certain sheeple it gives the idea of escalating the conflict itself (via the fallacy of equivocation).

It shouldn't be too hard to understand, even for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Uh, yeah, thanks.  Maybe you should get back to your Etch-a-Sketch.

And you can continue your attempted defense of liars.

The POINT is that the ALLEGED Patriot originlly posted a complete lie as fact.

It has nothing to do with possibly, maybe, or because of this or that.

He is a LIAR, plain and simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
"Guest," you don't know what you're talking about.

There were some documents that were forged that had been considered as evidence that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from Niger.  The CIA knew of that and the president was aware of that. 

However, British Intelligence assured our intelligence agencies that their information was not based on the forgeries.

The CIA can't rubber stamp intelligence that they have not verified, so Bush's speech acknowledged the British as the source of the information.

How do you count that as a lie without doing a triple backflip?

And your source of information is what? FOX News?

Talk about triple backflips, the CIA just HAPPENED to have forged documents about an ALLEGED incident that the Brits had real intelligence about.?

I have at least two big problems with that scenario:

1) I don't believe in coincidence in a case like that

2) If we trust foreign intelligence more than our own we're screwed

If you really believe this whole dog & pony show be happy, the Easter Bunny's on the way and Clinron did not have sex with that woman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1)  The tech bubble from the Clinton years had gone into decline before Bush took office.  That's a downward-trending economy.  In essence, you're just picking the lowest unemployment number under Clinton and comparing it to the current numbers under Bush.  That seems to qualify as either stupidity or cheating.

As opposed to ignoring both the numbers and the context and claiming that unemployment went "way down" under Bush?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
There were some documents that were forged that had been considered as evidence that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from Niger.  The CIA knew of that and the president was aware of that. 

However, British Intelligence assured our intelligence agencies that their information was not based on the forgeries.

The CIA can't rubber stamp intelligence that they have not verified, so Bush's speech acknowledged the British as the source of the information.

IF that's actually close to what really happened there's a major question to be answered: WHY oh WHY was there not a MASSIVE ovrhaul of the CIA after such a potentially disastrous intelligence lapse? The lack of action makes the whole story just a little too cut and dry. I also have a big problem he would trust British Intelligence more than the agency his father was so intimately involved with.

There's no doubt Iraq was on the cowboy agenda long before 9/11 and the evidence ( talk of WMDs, uranium, etc. ) all points to him constructing a case to justify his desired course of action.

I guess the real defense will be "He didn't lie, he just believed and told the things that suited his agenda and ignored the rest".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BushFlacker

George W Bush is a great supporter of democracy, in a country of 300,000,000 people he has stated he will spread democracy even if the only support he has comes from his wife and his dog.

If it plays well in Baghdad he may even consider democracy in the US. Rumor has it that even the the dog is turning his leg up at Bush.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
...

It shouldn't be too hard to understand, even for you.

It's very easy for any unbiased, rational person to understand.

If it looks likje BULLSH*T, smells like BULSH*T, and comes from a KNOWN source of BULLSH*T, the odds are overwhelming that it IS BULLSH*T!

What part of that is giving you so much difficulty?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BushFlacker
As opposed to ignoring both the numbers and the context and claiming that unemployment went "way down" under Bush?

In BushWorld that's not lying, it's "Texas Talk"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
... thus demonstrating that you very probably didn't understand what I wrote (leaving open the possibility that you get it, but you obfuscate now rather than own up).

Secretary Rice tried to draw the distinction between escalating (increasing) forces in Iraq in terms of number and escalating the conflict itself--two different things.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/11/rice-augmentation/

The opposition favors the term "escalation" for the troop increase since in the minds of certain sheeple it gives the idea of escalating the conflict itself (via the fallacy of equivocation).

It shouldn't be too hard to understand, even for you.

It must be because I was dizzy from the spin coming from a man who although he claims to zealously believe in democracy has also stated that he's gonns do whatever he wants and they can't stop him, a VERY democratic attitude. Of course this BS is also coming from the few left who don't admit it's reached civil war proportions in Iraq.

I understand what what you wrote perfectly. it was a distorted attempt to defend the indefensible.

Strange world amongst the neo-Nazi-cons, an increase in unemployment means it's way down and sending more troops is descalation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Breaking News

This just in:George W Bush has been diagnosd with a severe case of AWC* Syndrome, it is still not known if he will accept treatment, he appears to enjoy it.

*ArroganceWithoutCause

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As opposed to ignoring both the numbers and the context and claiming that unemployment went "way down" under Bush?

Provide the context and let's see.

Bush had very little effect on economic policy prior to the economic effects of the WTC attacks. Unemployment in the wake of those attacks rose as the economy stayed in a tailspin for at least a year (iirc). As Bush's policies (along with judicious handling of interest rates by the Fed) have been enacted, unemployment has decreased by a full percentage point. That's a strong argument for Bush's policies bringing unemployment way down.

It's up to you to suggest why (specifically) that characterization isn't fair (and balanced!).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IF that's actually close to what really happened there's a major question to be answered:  WHY oh WHY was there not a MASSIVE ovrhaul of the CIA after such a potentially disastrous intelligence lapse?

Because if you fire everybody then you have to start from scratch.

The CIA is chock full of lifetime government employees. It's staff positions in the government that hold a surprising amount of power in our system. The staffers stay year after year to a large degree, while the elected officials come and go--even faster now that term limits are in effect in some areas.

Bush installed Porter Goss to try to clean things up, but the CIA was apparently too big for him to overhaul (Bush is probably at fault to at least some degree for weakening his resolve).

On top of that, the big problem was having intel on the ground--and you can thank Jimmy Carter and the Democrat majorities from the 1970s for emasculating our human-based intelligence abilities.

Saddam Hussein acted like a guy who had WMDs, in part because he felt it strengthened his position with his ME neighbors (like Iran)--and Saddam fully intended to produce WMDs when he got sanctions lifted.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/06/gos...tion/index.html

The lack of action makes the whole story just a little too cut and dry.  I also have a big problem he would trust British Intelligence more than the agency his father was so intimately involved with.

You're talking silly.

Bush has made a good effort to overhaul the CIA. If you expect more from the next president (regardless of party) you're fooling yourself (barring the prompting of catastrophe).

Bush trusted the CIA, but the British had information to which the CIA was not privy.

Is Bush supposed to completely ignore that?

See, you're talking out of both sides of your mouth, chum. On the one hand, Bush is supposed to trust the CIA, and on the other hand he's supposed to fire a bunch of 'em for incompetence.

Make up your mind.

There's no doubt Iraq was on the cowboy agenda long before 9/11 and the evidence ( talk of WMDs, uranium, etc. ) all points to him constructing a case to justify his desired course of action.

Uh--right, and he's so clever that he somehow tricked all of the world's other major allied powers into agreeing with the (incompetent) CIA's assessment of Hussein's capabilities.

Honestly, you've have to try in order to have a less coherent view of the world.

I guess the real defense will be "He didn't lie, he just believed and told the things that suited his agenda and ignored the rest".

The preponderance of evidence supported the idea that Iraq had WMDs. Intelligence is nearly always a mixed bag with evidence supporting multiple interpretations.

Most likely you're doing what you accuse Bush of doing. You have a theory that you prefer (Bush incompetent/evil/whatever) and you make the evidence fit your view by ignoring what doesn't fit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Because if you fire everybody then you have to start from scratch.

The CIA is chock full of lifetime government employees.  It's staff positions in the government that hold a surprising amount of power in our system.  The staffers stay year after year to a large degree, while the elected officials come and go--even faster now that term limits are in effect in some areas.

Bush installed Porter Goss to try to clean things up, but the CIA was apparently too big for him to overhaul (Bush is probably at fault to at least some degree for weakening his resolve).

On top of that, the big problem was having intel on the ground--and you can thank Jimmy Carter and the Democrat majorities from the 1970s for emasculating our human-based intelligence abilities.

Saddam Hussein acted like a guy who had WMDs, in part because he felt it strengthened his position with his ME neighbors (like Iran)--and Saddam fully intended to produce WMDs when he got sanctions lifted.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/06/gos...tion/index.html

You're talking silly.

Bush has made a good effort to overhaul the CIA.  If you expect more from the next president (regardless of party) you're fooling yourself (barring the prompting of catastrophe).

Bush trusted the CIA, but the British had information to which the CIA was not privy.

Is Bush supposed to completely ignore that?

See, you're talking out of both sides of your mouth, chum.  On the one hand, Bush is supposed to trust the CIA, and on the other hand he's supposed to fire a bunch of 'em for incompetence.

Make up your mind.

Uh--right, and he's so clever that he somehow tricked all of the world's other major allied powers into agreeing with the (incompetent) CIA's assessment of Hussein's capabilities.

Honestly, you've have to try in order to have a less coherent view of the world.

The preponderance of evidence supported the idea that Iraq had WMDs.  Intelligence is nearly always a mixed bag with evidence supporting multiple interpretations.

Most likely you're doing what you accuse Bush of doing.  You have a theory that you prefer (Bush incompetent/evil/whatever) and you make the evidence fit your view by ignoring what doesn't fit.

Let me put this very plainly so you ca't accuse me of spin.

YOU are fullf crap.

You are so obviously biased in trying to absolve your liitle cowboy of all guilt while stooping as low to try and blame Carter that it's just ridiculous. I don't see even a HINT that maybe Bush senior shpuld bear some responsibility for the poor performance of the agency he headed.

What are you, the Bush family publicist?

I won't even give you credit for a nice try to explain the BULLSH*T.

I'm talking out of both sides of my mouth? YOU are talking out your A**HOLE CHUM!

Let me reiterate--WHAT a load of biased blameshifting BULLSH*T!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
See, you're talking out of both sides of your mouth, chum.  On the one hand, Bush is supposed to trust the CIA, and on the other hand he's supposed to fire a bunch of 'em for incompetence.

Now you're adding your tilt to it.

Didin't say he's supposed to trust the CI, said he should be ABLE to trust the CIA and if not should be finding out why and correcting it.

Try understanding what you read, that's consistent.

You have a lot in common with the little cowboy, you're arrogant, delusional, and think you know a lot more than you do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Most likely you're doing what you accuse Bush of doing.  You have a theory that you prefer (Bush incompetent/evil/whatever) and you make the evidence fit your view by ignoring what doesn't fit.

A theory? No, it's a FACT that Bush went to war and there's been no credible evidence produced to support the reasons why, only his theories. It's a FACT that Saddam presented no imminent danger and more time could well have been spent to confirm or refute Bush's theories but he was pre-disposed to attacking Iraq.

That's not theory, that's documented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Diogenes
Most likely you're doing what you accuse Bush of doing.  You have a theory that you prefer (Bush incompetent/evil/whatever) and you make the evidence fit your view by ignoring what doesn't fit.

There's a major flaw in that argument. Witness Bush's actions. He opposed the formation of the 9/11 Commission. He refuses to comply with or it seems even consider many of its recommendations, and granted compliance is his option but I think it's owed at least consideration. Witness his statements that he's made up his mind and he's going to do what he wants and nobody can stop him.

Those are not the voice/actions of a man who is interested in learning the truth, they're the work of a stubborn, tunnel-visioned, ideologue. From all reports Colin Powell was banished because he voiced opions that differed from Bush's. I think it was a great disservice to the country and the administration to treat the man that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's very easy for any unbiased, rational person to understand.

If it looks likje BULLSH*T, smells like BULSH*T, and comes from a KNOWN source of BULLSH*T, the odds are overwhelming that it IS BULLSH*T!

What part of that is giving you so much difficulty?

Quite simply, the paucity of thought involved in your analysis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It must be because I was dizzy from the spin coming from a man who although he claims to zealously believe in democracy has also stated that he's gonns do whatever he wants and they can't stop him, a VERY democratic attitude.  Of course this BS is also coming from the few left who don't admit it's reached civil war proportions in Iraq.

I understand what what you wrote perfectly. it was a distorted attempt to defend the indefensible.

Strange world amongst the neo-Nazi-cons, an increase in unemployment means it's way down and sending more troops is descalation.

This is the rhetorical equivalent of you walking up to me after which you vomit all over the front of your own shirt, then self-assuredly saying ...

"Refute that!"

The US of A is a constitutional republic, not a democracy, though "democracy" in common parlance has come to mean a state that features democratic representation. True democracies promote the tyranny of the majority.

Bush has a good argument that his actions in office have been constitutional--not the least of which is the string of high court victories in support of his executive actions.

In the few instances where Bush has lost in court, he has changed his policy--yet for some reason that fact escapes your attempt at description.

Don't forget to eat plenty before your next post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Radagast
Because if you fire everybody then you have to start from scratch.

The CIA is chock full of lifetime government employees.  It's staff positions in the government that hold a surprising amount of power in our system.  The staffers stay year after year to a large degree, while the elected officials come and go--even faster now that term limits are in effect in some areas.

Bush installed Porter Goss to try to clean things up, but the CIA was apparently too big for him to overhaul (Bush is probably at fault to at least some degree for weakening his resolve).

On top of that, the big problem was having intel on the ground--and you can thank Jimmy Carter and the Democrat majorities from the 1970s for emasculating our human-based intelligence abilities.

Saddam Hussein acted like a guy who had WMDs, in part because he felt it strengthened his position with his ME neighbors (like Iran)--and Saddam fully intended to produce WMDs when he got sanctions lifted.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/06/gos...tion/index.html

There are career employees in every department including State and the Pentagon. Why didn't Bush widen his 'resolve' into those departments? Simple, they were, for the most part, telling him what he wanted to hear. The CIA was very widly split on the issue of Iraq in 2002 but you'd never know that by what you hear from the Administration. The only way that the people in the CIA (who turned out to be right) were able to get their positions out for discussion was to leak their findings. That is the reason for the overhaul of the CIA ... to stop opinions that do not agree with Bush from ever seeing the light of day. Just another exercise in paranoia that this Administration is famous for.

You're talking silly.

Bush has made a good effort to overhaul the CIA.  If you expect more from the next president (regardless of party) you're fooling yourself (barring the prompting of catastrophe).

Bush trusted the CIA, but the British had information to which the CIA was not privy.

Is Bush supposed to completely ignore that?

Bush ignored what turned out to be true because he was listening to Chalabi and others who were more interested in lining their pockets than anything else. They spoon fed 'intel' to BushCo. Ahhhh ... and where is Chalabi today? Still wheeling and dealing for oil money. It was all he was ever intereted in. BushCo is paying the price for being narrow minded and I don't feel a damn bit sorry for him.

Uh--right, and he's so clever that he somehow tricked all of the world's other major allied powers into agreeing with the (incompetent) CIA's assessment of Hussein's capabilities.

Who did he convince? The UN? You want intel on the ground? There it was. Blix and his crew found virtually nothing except what we already knew was there. There was not one shred of evidence of a nuclear program. Oh, but of course, that was because they weren't looking hard enough or they were being tricked by the Iraqis blah blah ... the Chalabi noise machine and the Wolfowitz-Pearle lobby for that other Middle-Eastern country, was all Bush wanted to hear

The preponderance of evidence supported the idea that Iraq had WMDs.

That is utter nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest a proud american
Because if you fire everybody then you have to start from scratch.

The CIA is chock full of lifetime government employees.  It's staff positions in the government that hold a surprising amount of power in our system.  The staffers stay year after year to a large degree, while the elected officials come and go--even faster now that term limits are in effect in some areas.

Bush installed Porter Goss to try to clean things up, but the CIA was apparently too big for him to overhaul (Bush is probably at fault to at least some degree for weakening his resolve).

On top of that, the big problem was having intel on the ground--and you can thank Jimmy Carter and the Democrat majorities from the 1970s for emasculating our human-based intelligence abilities.

Saddam Hussein acted like a guy who had WMDs, in part because he felt it strengthened his position with his ME neighbors (like Iran)--and Saddam fully intended to produce WMDs when he got sanctions lifted.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/06/gos...tion/index.html

You're talking silly.

Bush has made a good effort to overhaul the CIA.  If you expect more from the next president (regardless of party) you're fooling yourself (barring the prompting of catastrophe).

Bush trusted the CIA, but the British had information to which the CIA was not privy.

Is Bush supposed to completely ignore that?

See, you're talking out of both sides of your mouth, chum.  On the one hand, Bush is supposed to trust the CIA, and on the other hand he's supposed to fire a bunch of 'em for incompetence.

Make up your mind.

Uh--right, and he's so clever that he somehow tricked all of the world's other major allied powers into agreeing with the (incompetent) CIA's assessment of Hussein's capabilities.

Honestly, you've have to try in order to have a less coherent view of the world.

The preponderance of evidence supported the idea that Iraq had WMDs.  Intelligence is nearly always a mixed bag with evidence supporting multiple interpretations.

Most likely you're doing what you accuse Bush of doing.  You have a theory that you prefer (Bush incompetent/evil/whatever) and you make the evidence fit your view by ignoring what doesn't fit.

For what it's worth, two separate inspection teams went to Iraq. One in the late 90's and the other just prior to the invasion. Both inspection teams stated that there were no weapons of mass destruction. They had searched all of the sights and made un-announced visits to insure the Iraqi's weren't moving them around.

If the President made one mistake (among many) it was putting Rumsfeld in charge of the Pentagon. Rumsfeld had decided that the Military under Clinton had gained too much authority and he was determined to bring them back under civilian control. If there was going to be a war he was ultimately going to be in charge. That coupled with having Cheney as Vice President and the neo-cons from the Heritage Foundation, it was a recipe for disaster.

Had they listened to the Generals in the beginning we would have had enough troops to not only secure victory, but we could have secured the infrastructure. Instead they have done everything backwards. Sending more troops at this point is only going to guarantee more casualties. Bush's father even sent in his fixer Baker to try and bail Bush out with the Iraq study Group but as usual he ignored their report. We are there now in the middle of a civil war. Sending more troops is not the answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Patriot
For what it's worth, two separate inspection teams went to Iraq. One in the late 90's and the other just prior to the invasion. Both inspection teams stated that there were no weapons of mass destruction. They had searched all of the sights and made un-announced visits to insure the Iraqi's weren't moving them around.

If the President made one mistake (among many) it was putting Rumsfeld in charge of the Pentagon. Rumsfeld had decided that the Military under Clinton had gained too much authority and he was determined to bring them back under civilian control. If there was going to be a war he was ultimately going to be in charge. That coupled with having Cheney as Vice President and the neo-cons from the Heritage Foundation, it was a recipe for disaster.

Had they listened to the Generals in the beginning we would have had enough troops to not only secure victory, but we could have secured the infrastructure. Instead they have done everything backwards. Sending more troops at this point is only going to guarantee more casualties. Bush's father even sent in his fixer Baker to try and bail Bush out with the Iraq study Group but as usual he ignored their report. We are there now in the middle of a civil war. Sending more troops is not the answer.

You know what they say about opinions .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For what it's worth, two separate inspection teams went to Iraq. One in the late 90's and the other just prior to the invasion. Both inspection teams stated that there were no weapons of mass destruction.

No, they didn't.

Both teams stated that Iraq was failing to cooperate fully with inspections.

You tell me what sense there is in declaring no weapons of mass destruction when the nation under inspection isn't cooperating fully (the Blix team found missiles with a range far longer than Iraq was permitted--missiles that had been hidden from previous inspections).

Where do people such crazy ideas such as the notion that the inspection teams cleared Iraq?

"The first point, made in paragraph 8 of the report, is that the Commission has not at any time during the inspections in Iraq found evidence of the continuation or resumption of programmes of weapons of mass destruction or significant quantities of proscribed items – whether from pre-1991 or later. I leave aside the Al Samoud 2 missile system, which we concluded was proscribed.

As I have noted before, this does not necessarily mean that such items could not exist. They might – there remain long lists of items unaccounted for – but it is not justified to jump to the conclusion that something exists just because it is unaccounted for."

http://www.unmovic.org/

They had searched all of the sights and made un-announced visits to insure the Iraqi's weren't moving them around.

Evidence suggested that Iraq was being tipped off about the supposedly unannounced visits. Regardless, somehow you got the wrong idea about the reports that came from the inspections.

Ever thought about the money trail between Iraq, France, Germany, and Russia?

If the President made one mistake (among many) it was putting Rumsfeld in charge of the Pentagon. Rumsfeld had decided that the Military under Clinton had gained too much authority and he was determined to bring them back under civilian control. If there was going to be a war he was ultimately going to be in charge. That coupled with having Cheney as Vice President and the neo-cons from the Heritage Foundation, it was a recipe for disaster.

Had they listened to the Generals in the beginning we would have had enough troops to not only secure victory, but we could have secured the infrastructure. Instead they have done everything backwards.

The next comment deserves to stand on its own.

Sending more troops at this point is only going to guarantee more casualties.

According to whom?

Bush's father even sent in his fixer Baker to try and bail Bush out with the Iraq study Group but as usual he ignored their report.

The Baker group was selected and designated by Congress.

http://www.usip.org/isg/about.html

It wasn't really possible to take the report seriously, since it suggested that the US should seek help from Syria and Iran in stabilizing Iraq.

And we should put the fox in charge of the hen house while we're at it.

We are there now in the middle of a civil war. Sending more troops is not the answer.

General Petraeus seems to disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. 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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...