Jump to content

More Republican Hypocrisy


Guest Do As I Say or Do as I Do?
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Do As I Say or Do as I Do?

So the Republican list of officials not living up to the standards they demand of Democrats keeps getting longer -- there's Vitter, Foley, Craig, Ensign and now Gov. Mark (Marco in Argentina) Sanford:

Mark was the self-righteous, Bible-thumping prig who pressed for Bill Clinton’s impeachment; Marco was the un-self-conscious Lothario, canoodling with Maria in Buenos Aires, throwing caution to the e-wind about their “soul-mate feel,” her tan lines, her curves, “the erotic beauty of you holding yourself (or two magnificent parts of yourself) in the faded glow of night’s light.”

Mark is a conservative railing against sinners; Marco sins liberally. Mark opposes gay marriage as a threat to traditional marriage. Marco thinks nothing of risking his own traditional marriage, and celebrates transgressive relationships. He frets to Maria in e-mail that he sounds “like the Thornbirds — wherein I was always upset with Richard Chamberlain for not dropping his ambitions and running into Maggie’s arms.”

Marco, the libertine, wonders how they will ever “put the Genie back in the bottle.” And in the sort of Freudian slip that any solipsistic pol like Mark would adore, Maria protests in Spanglish: “I don’t want to put the genius back in the bottle.”

Mark is so frugal for the taxpayers that he made his staffers use both sides of Post-it notes and index cards, and once brought two (defecating) pigs named “Pork” and “Barrel” into the statehouse to express his disgust with lawmakers’ pet spending projects.

Marco is a sly scamp who found a sneaky way to make South Carolina taxpayers pay for a south-of-the-border romp with his mistress.

Mark is so selfish he tried to enhance his presidential chances by resisting South Carolina’s share of President Obama’s $787 billion stimulus package, callously giving the back of his hand to the suffering state’s most vulnerable — the jobless and poor and black students.

Marco is generous, promising to send a memento of affection that Maria wants to keep by her bed.

Mark hates lying. As he said of Bill’s dalliance with Monica, “If you undermine trust in our system, you undermine everything.”

Marco lies with brio, misleading his family, his lieutenant governor, his staff and his state about his whereabouts, even packing camping equipment to throw off the scent from South America. He told whoppers to his wife, a former investment banker who managed his campaigns and raises his four sons (solo on Father’s Day). She put out a statement quoting Psalm 127 to snidely remind her besotted husband “that sons are a gift from the Lord.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
So the Republican list of officials not living up to the standards they demand of Democrats keeps getting longer -- there's Vitter, Foley, Craig, Ensign and now Gov. Mark (Marco in Argentina) Sanford:

Mark was the self-righteous, Bible-thumping prig who pressed for Bill Clinton’s impeachment; Marco was the un-self-conscious Lothario, canoodling with Maria in Buenos Aires, throwing caution to the e-wind about their “soul-mate feel,” her tan lines, her curves, “the erotic beauty of you holding yourself (or two magnificent parts of yourself) in the faded glow of night’s light.”

Mark is a conservative railing against sinners; Marco sins liberally. Mark opposes gay marriage as a threat to traditional marriage. Marco thinks nothing of risking his own traditional marriage, and celebrates transgressive relationships. He frets to Maria in e-mail that he sounds “like the Thornbirds — wherein I was always upset with Richard Chamberlain for not dropping his ambitions and running into Maggie’s arms.”

Marco, the libertine, wonders how they will ever “put the Genie back in the bottle.” And in the sort of Freudian slip that any solipsistic pol like Mark would adore, Maria protests in Spanglish: “I don’t want to put the genius back in the bottle.”

Mark is so frugal for the taxpayers that he made his staffers use both sides of Post-it notes and index cards, and once brought two (defecating) pigs named “Pork” and “Barrel” into the statehouse to express his disgust with lawmakers’ pet spending projects.

Marco is a sly scamp who found a sneaky way to make South Carolina taxpayers pay for a south-of-the-border romp with his mistress.

Mark is so selfish he tried to enhance his presidential chances by resisting South Carolina’s share of President Obama’s $787 billion stimulus package, callously giving the back of his hand to the suffering state’s most vulnerable — the jobless and poor and black students.

Marco is generous, promising to send a memento of affection that Maria wants to keep by her bed.

Mark hates lying. As he said of Bill’s dalliance with Monica, “If you undermine trust in our system, you undermine everything.”

Marco lies with brio, misleading his family, his lieutenant governor, his staff and his state about his whereabouts, even packing camping equipment to throw off the scent from South America. He told whoppers to his wife, a former investment banker who managed his campaigns and raises his four sons (solo on Father’s Day). She put out a statement quoting Psalm 127 to snidely remind her besotted husband “that sons are a gift from the Lord.”

The man broke a promise to his wife. He did the deed, and now must deal with the consequences. What I find curious is, you liberals delight when a Republican strays and gets caught; you only sense blood in the water. Conversely, if its a Democrat, you come up with a thousand and one excuses to defend the behavior.

Sanford was wrong, no arguments; impossible to take the moral high ground "MOST OF THE TIME." So, if I condemn a Republican for indiscretions, who, exactly is the HYPOCRITE?? You or ME?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Patriot
So the Republican list of officials not living up to the standards they demand of Democrats keeps getting longer -- there's Vitter, Foley, Craig, Ensign and now Gov. Mark (Marco in Argentina) Sanford:

Mark was the self-righteous, Bible-thumping prig who pressed for Bill Clinton’s impeachment; Marco was the un-self-conscious Lothario, canoodling with Maria in Buenos Aires, throwing caution to the e-wind about their “soul-mate feel,” her tan lines, her curves, “the erotic beauty of you holding yourself (or two magnificent parts of yourself) in the faded glow of night’s light.”

Mark is a conservative railing against sinners; Marco sins liberally. Mark opposes gay marriage as a threat to traditional marriage. Marco thinks nothing of risking his own traditional marriage, and celebrates transgressive relationships. He frets to Maria in e-mail that he sounds “like the Thornbirds — wherein I was always upset with Richard Chamberlain for not dropping his ambitions and running into Maggie’s arms.”

Marco, the libertine, wonders how they will ever “put the Genie back in the bottle.” And in the sort of Freudian slip that any solipsistic pol like Mark would adore, Maria protests in Spanglish: “I don’t want to put the genius back in the bottle.”

Mark is so frugal for the taxpayers that he made his staffers use both sides of Post-it notes and index cards, and once brought two (defecating) pigs named “Pork” and “Barrel” into the statehouse to express his disgust with lawmakers’ pet spending projects.

Marco is a sly scamp who found a sneaky way to make South Carolina taxpayers pay for a south-of-the-border romp with his mistress.

Mark is so selfish he tried to enhance his presidential chances by resisting South Carolina’s share of President Obama’s $787 billion stimulus package, callously giving the back of his hand to the suffering state’s most vulnerable — the jobless and poor and black students.

Marco is generous, promising to send a memento of affection that Maria wants to keep by her bed.

Mark hates lying. As he said of Bill’s dalliance with Monica, “If you undermine trust in our system, you undermine everything.”

Marco lies with brio, misleading his family, his lieutenant governor, his staff and his state about his whereabouts, even packing camping equipment to throw off the scent from South America. He told whoppers to his wife, a former investment banker who managed his campaigns and raises his four sons (solo on Father’s Day). She put out a statement quoting Psalm 127 to snidely remind her besotted husband “that sons are a gift from the Lord.”

Just goes to show you, Bubba Clinton is not the only snake, except Bubba committed his crimes in the White House and then lied (I did not have sexual relations with that woman) to Congress about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The man broke a promise to his wife. He did the deed, and now must deal with the consequences. What I find curious is, you liberals delight when a Republican strays and gets caught; you only sense blood in the water. Conversely, if its a Democrat, you come up with a thousand and one excuses to defend the behavior.

How exactly did you conclude that the person you replied to would not condemn both sides' indiscretions similarly? Did his post contain some defense of Democrats' ill deeds that was invisible to me, or was it just an assumption based on a sweeping generalization?

Sanford was wrong, no arguments; impossible to take the moral high ground "MOST OF THE TIME." So, if I condemn a Republican for indiscretions, who, exactly is the HYPOCRITE?? You or ME?

You seem to have missed that he was talking about the hypocrisy of a very specific subset of Republicans, and spoke mostly about just one. Unless you are a recently-in-the-news politician named Vitter, Foley, Craig, Ensign, or Sanford, then he was not accusing you of hypocrisy. I, however, am. Unless what you meant by "you liberals" was something much less general than it appears, then the answer to your question is plainly obvious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
The man broke a promise to his wife. He did the deed, and now must deal with the consequences. What I find curious is, you liberals delight when a Republican strays and gets caught; you only sense blood in the water. Conversely, if its a Democrat, you come up with a thousand and one excuses to defend the behavior.

Sanford was wrong, no arguments; impossible to take the moral high ground "MOST OF THE TIME." So, if I condemn a Republican for indiscretions, who, exactly is the HYPOCRITE?? You or ME?

It has something to do with living by the sword and dying by the sword.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Do as I Say not as I Do?
The man broke a promise to his wife. He did the deed, and now must deal with the consequences. What I find curious is, you liberals delight when a Republican strays and gets caught; you only sense blood in the water. Conversely, if its a Democrat, you come up with a thousand and one excuses to defend the behavior.

Sanford was wrong, no arguments; impossible to take the moral high ground "MOST OF THE TIME." So, if I condemn a Republican for indiscretions, who, exactly is the HYPOCRITE?? You or ME?

The hyprocrites would be Republicans Sanford, Vitter, Ensign, Craig, Foley and the Republican Party because THEY are are the ones who cast stones when Democratic elected officials engaged in relationships outside of marriage. Sanford in particular went to town on Bill Clinton.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

Sanford in particular went to town on Bill Clinton.

Well, if that's true, he must really enjoy irony. However, I think that both are WRONG for the betrayed trust. It's hard to believe any politician can be truthful with their constituents, when they can't be bothered to be honest with their spouse.

But, somehow, I'll bet you defended Clinton at every turn, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill Clinton did not run on a family values platform. Bill Clinton has not (to my knowledge) ever said that extending marriage to same-sex couples would destroy "traditional" marriage. So comparing Bill Clinton to Sanford, Vitter, Ensign, Craig, etc. is inapposite. They all held themselves out as arbiters of "traditional family values." Clinton did not.

And the bigger issue with Sanford is not the adultery, but the fact that his adultery took him out of state incommunicado for nearly a week. He's not a private citizen. He is (for the moment) the chief executive of a state. What if something had happened while he had been gone? His adultery is a private matter up to the point it affects his official duties. At that point, it is public business. So far as anyone can determine, Bill Clinton's private conduct had no impact whatsoever on his performance as President until his adversaries, having failed to convince the voters that it was a problem, decided to try and make it an issue through the courts and impeachment process. (Indeed, p. 63 of the Starr report describes an incident that speaks well of Clinton's powers of concentration.)

Clinton is an adulterer and a scoundrel, but Sanford, Vitter, Ensign, Craig, Gingrich, et. al. are hypocrites. That's the difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 2smart4u
Bill Clinton did not run on a family values platform. Bill Clinton has not (to my knowledge) ever said that extending marriage to same-sex couples would destroy "traditional" marriage. So comparing Bill Clinton to Sanford, Vitter, Ensign, Craig, etc. is inapposite. They all held themselves out as arbiters of "traditional family values." Clinton did not.

And the bigger issue with Sanford is not the adultery, but the fact that his adultery took him out of state incommunicado for nearly a week. He's not a private citizen. He is (for the moment) the chief executive of a state. What if something had happened while he had been gone? His adultery is a private matter up to the point it affects his official duties. At that point, it is public business. So far as anyone can determine, Bill Clinton's private conduct had no impact whatsoever on his performance as President until his adversaries, having failed to convince the voters that it was a problem, decided to try and make it an issue through the courts and impeachment process. (Indeed, p. 63 of the Starr report describes an incident that speaks well of Clinton's powers of concentration.)

Clinton is an adulterer and a scoundrel, but Sanford, Vitter, Ensign, Craig, Gingrich, et. al. are hypocrites. That's the difference.

And what's the difference between "Windy City Attorney", "Kris" and Paul ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest
And what's the difference between "Windy City Attorney", "Kris" and Paul ?

how about answering a point instead of making another personal attack... think you can do that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Do as I Say not as I do
Sanford in particular went to town on Bill Clinton.

Well, if that's true, he must really enjoy irony. However, I think that both are WRONG for the betrayed trust. It's hard to believe any politician can be truthful with their constituents, when they can't be bothered to be honest with their spouse.

But, somehow, I'll bet you defended Clinton at every turn, right?

Yes I did defend Clinton. That's because I don't base my politics on the "sanctity of marriage" or telling consenting adults what relationships are "morally" impermissible. Ensign, Vitter, Foley, Sanford, Gingrich and Craig are all hypocrites. On the bright side for Democrats, that makes Palin the presumptive head of the national Republican Party. Democrats really like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
Yes I did defend Clinton. That's because I don't base my politics on the "sanctity of marriage" or telling consenting adults what relationships are "morally" impermissible. Ensign, Vitter, Foley, Sanford, Gingrich and Craig are all hypocrites. On the bright side for Democrats, that makes Palin the presumptive head of the national Republican Party. Democrats really like that.

Forget the "sanctity of marriage" for a moment. When asked to testify as a witness in a trial (re: Paula Jones) does the President have a responsibility to testify TRUTHFULLY? Don't pontificate, a simple yes or no.

You see, the affair never bothered me that much. Everyone knew he was a womanizer; whether they voted for him or not, they knew. Had he "manned up" and said "Yeah, I did something stupid," at that point it was strictly between him and Hillary, IMO. But, when he tried everything possible to cover it up, that ticked me off. It's always the cover up that's worse than the deed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
The hyprocrites would be Republicans Sanford, Vitter, Ensign, Craig, Foley and the Republican Party because THEY are are the ones who cast stones when Democratic elected officials engaged in relationships outside of marriage. Sanford in particular went to town on Bill Clinton.

Don't forget the hypocritical witch-hunting Resmuglican Newtie-boy :ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 2smart4u
Yes I did defend Clinton. That's because I don't base my politics on the "sanctity of marriage" or telling consenting adults what relationships are "morally" impermissible. Ensign, Vitter, Foley, Sanford, Gingrich and Craig are all hypocrites. On the bright side for Democrats, that makes Palin the presumptive head of the national Republican Party. Democrats really like that.

How convenient, you totally forgot Clinton lied under oath in front of Congress. Oh well, small detail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Do as I Say Not as I Do
How convenient, you totally forgot Clinton lied under oath in front of Congress. Oh well, small detail.

Wrong. Bill Clinton lied in a deposition in a civil law suit brought against him by Paula Jones. He was not accused of lying before Congress. His impeachment accused him of (1) lying before a Ken Star's grand jury about the Jones law suit and of (2) obstructing justice by trying to impede Jones from pursuing her civil case. Clinton was acquitted by the Republican-controlled Senate on both counts, with 10 Republicans acquitting on number (1) and 5 Republicans voting to acquit him of number (2). The Jones law suit was for conduct prior to Clinton becoming President and he was sued in his personal capacity.

And stop avoiding the issue. Lying is wrong and I'd never justify it, period. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of the Republican Party and their leaders. Governor Sanford argued that Clinton shouldn't be president because of the relationship outside of marriage, what he called "moral infidelity." He should live up to his own standard and resign. Then he wouldn't be a hypocrite. The same goes for Republican Party leaders who make the "sanctity of marriage" a platform of their party. They should publicly ask for Sanford's resignation (and that of Vitter, Ensign, Craig).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Do as I Say Not as I Do
Forget the "sanctity of marriage" for a moment. When asked to testify as a witness in a trial (re: Paula Jones) does the President have a responsibility to testify TRUTHFULLY? Don't pontificate, a simple yes or no.

You see, the affair never bothered me that much. Everyone knew he was a womanizer; whether they voted for him or not, they knew. Had he "manned up" and said "Yeah, I did something stupid," at that point it was strictly between him and Hillary, IMO. But, when he tried everything possible to cover it up, that ticked me off. It's always the cover up that's worse than the deed.

You're right, Clinton should not have lied in 1996 and 1997. That doesn't change the point that in 2009 prominent Republican leaders are failing to live up to the "moral" standards that they have argued elected officials must meet. They should either resign or renounce their prior statements. Until then, they and their party reaks of hypocrisy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
How convenient, you totally forgot Clinton lied under oath in front of Congress. Oh well, small detail.

Which is a VERY acceptable action amongst Reagan worshipping Resmuglicans, as in "Well, I don't remember"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 2smart4u
Wrong. Bill Clinton lied in a deposition in a civil law suit brought against him by Paula Jones. He was not accused of lying before Congress. His impeachment accused him of (1) lying before a Ken Star's grand jury about the Jones law suit and of (2) obstructing justice by trying to impede Jones from pursuing her civil case. Clinton was acquitted by the Republican-controlled Senate on both counts, with 10 Republicans acquitting on number (1) and 5 Republicans voting to acquit him of number (2). The Jones law suit was for conduct prior to Clinton becoming President and he was sued in his personal capacity.

And stop avoiding the issue. Lying is wrong and I'd never justify it, period. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of the Republican Party and their leaders. Governor Sanford argued that Clinton shouldn't be president because of the relationship outside of marriage, what he called "moral infidelity." He should live up to his own standard and resign. Then he wouldn't be a hypocrite. The same goes for Republican Party leaders who make the "sanctity of marriage" a platform of their party. They should publicly ask for Sanford's resignation (and that of Vitter, Ensign, Craig).

The only reason I can imagine why the Loonys are frothing at the mouth over Gov. Sanford is they're trying to direct attention away from the drowning annointed one. Drowning in the sense of being way over his head pretending to be POTUS. In the first 6 months of his administration, everything he's touched has turned to shit; he promised 2.5 million new jobs with the stimulus / 35,000 more jobs lost in June, remember a transparent administration /

22 czars now reporting directly to Obama, unemployment at 8% under Bush / 9.5 and rising under Obama, 5 trillion dollars have disapeared into a black hole

with no (repeat, NO) visible effect on anything, ObamaCare is starting to look ugly....and very expensive....better borrow another trillion and cap 'n trade looks like the final straw that will turn the U.S. into a third world country owned by China.

Yeah, you Loonys keep harping away at Sanford, nobody will notice what this comunity organizer that you slobbering Loonys put into office is doing to this once great nation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Keith
The only reason I can imagine why the Loonys are frothing at the mouth over Gov. Sanford is they're trying to direct attention away from the drowning annointed one. Drowning in the sense of being way over his head pretending to be POTUS. In the first 6 months of his administration, everything he's touched has turned to shit; he promised 2.5 million new jobs with the stimulus / 35,000 more jobs lost in June, remember a transparent administration /

22 czars now reporting directly to Obama, unemployment at 8% under Bush / 9.5 and rising under Obama, 5 trillion dollars have disapeared into a black hole

with no (repeat, NO) visible effect on anything, ObamaCare is starting to look ugly....and very expensive....better borrow another trillion and cap 'n trade looks like the final straw that will turn the U.S. into a third world country owned by China.

Yeah, you Loonys keep harping away at Sanford, nobody will notice what this comunity organizer that you slobbering Loonys put into office is doing to this once great nation.

And had he done absolutely nothing you would be bitchin' You also fail to mention that this big ass ball was rolling long before he took office and he's just trying to keep it from rolling over us. We knew that unemployment would continue to rise for a while before it leveled off and began to reverse itself. These things take time. So tell us asshole! How would you fix this mess?

At least he hasn't outed any CIA operatives, started any illegal wars or begun to torture people, etc. etc. etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
And had he done absolutely nothing you would be bitchin' You also fail to mention that this big ass ball was rolling long before he took office and he's just trying to keep it from rolling over us. We knew that unemployment would continue to rise for a while before it leveled off and began to reverse itself. These things take time. So tell us asshole! How would you fix this mess?

At least he hasn't outed any CIA operatives, started any illegal wars or begun to torture people, etc. etc. etc.

See kids, this is why your mom tells you, just say no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
The only reason I can imagine why the Loonys are frothing at the mouth over Gov. Sanford is they're trying to direct attention away from the drowning annointed one. Drowning in the sense of being way over his head pretending to be POTUS. In the first 6 months of his administration, everything he's touched has turned to shit; he promised 2.5 million new jobs with the stimulus / 35,000 more jobs lost in June, remember a transparent administration /

22 czars now reporting directly to Obama, unemployment at 8% under Bush / 9.5 and rising under Obama, 5 trillion dollars have disapeared into a black hole

with no (repeat, NO) visible effect on anything, ObamaCare is starting to look ugly....and very expensive....better borrow another trillion and cap 'n trade looks like the final straw that will turn the U.S. into a third world country owned by China.

Yeah, you Loonys keep harping away at Sanford, nobody will notice what this comunity organizer that you slobbering Loonys put into office is doing to this once great nation.

Bingo !! Distraction is the game. Deflect attention from the nightmare being created by this community organizer and his zombie congress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
And had he done absolutely nothing you would be bitchin' You also fail to mention that this big ass ball was rolling long before he took office and he's just trying to keep it from rolling over us. We knew that unemployment would continue to rise for a while before it leveled off and began to reverse itself. These things take time. So tell us asshole! How would you fix this mess? At least he hasn't outed any CIA operatives, started any illegal wars or begun to torture people, etc. etc. etc.

This question keeps getting asked and none of the right wingers bitching about Obama even tries to come up with an answer. Without Obama and the Dems, unemployment would be at 15% and the stock market would be in the 5000s instead of the 8000s. 2stupid4words is a perfect representative for the Republican party, which is why they're out of office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 2smart4u
This question keeps getting asked and none of the right wingers bitching about Obama even tries to come up with an answer. Without Obama and the Dems, unemployment would be at 15% and the stock market would be in the 5000s instead of the 8000s. 2stupid4words is a perfect representative for the Republican party, which is why they're out of office.

Your stupidity is showing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
The only reason I can imagine why the Loonys are frothing at the mouth over Gov. Sanford is they're trying to direct attention away from the drowning annointed one. Drowning in the sense of being way over his head pretending to be POTUS. In the first 6 months of his administration, everything he's touched has turned to shit; he promised 2.5 million new jobs with the stimulus / 35,000 more jobs lost in June, remember a transparent administration /

22 czars now reporting directly to Obama, unemployment at 8% under Bush / 9.5 and rising under Obama, 5 trillion dollars have disapeared into a black hole

with no (repeat, NO) visible effect on anything, ObamaCare is starting to look ugly....and very expensive....better borrow another trillion and cap 'n trade looks like the final straw that will turn the U.S. into a third world country owned by China.

Yeah, you Loonys keep harping away at Sanford, nobody will notice what this comunity organizer that you slobbering Loonys put into office is doing to this once great nation.

I'll be the first Dem on this board to say I regret voting for Obama. Like most others who voted for him, I believed his promises of transparency, smaller government, middle class tax relief, eliminating all pork (remember that one) from the budget, posting the budget on line, etc.

I see now he was all talk, he would say whatever he needed to say at any given time. Although I didn't care for McCain, had I known what Obama would be like I would have voted for him. I hope everyone will join me in sending Obama back to Chicago in 3 years. Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
I'll be the first Dem on this board to say I regret voting for Obama. Like most others who voted for him, I believed his promises of transparency, smaller government, middle class tax relief, eliminating all pork (remember that one) from the budget, posting the budget on line, etc.

I see now he was all talk, he would say whatever he needed to say at any given time. Although I didn't care for McCain, had I known what Obama would be like I would have voted for him. I hope everyone will join me in sending Obama back to Chicago in 3 years. Thank you.

Yeah, right. Transparent lying Republican scumbag.

Link to comment
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...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...