Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sinn Fein

​ 🏛️ ​Official Supreme Court nomination thread - Amy Coney Barrett

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, Zow said:

In my first and only ever real job interview I forgot the 8th Amendment. Just outright blanked on it. Felt so, so dumb. 

So, yeah, it happens. 

Yeah, but people actually care about the 1st.

And you weren't up for SCOTUS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Biff84 said:

 

2. Establish a deadline for nominations during election years. My preference would be very late in the year. No confirmations during the lame duck period.

 

Totally disagree with this. You don't stop doing your job just because you're about to move on to another or retire. Or at least you shouldn't. (Admittedly, many do stop working before they should)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Snotbubbles said:

Probably because she had just been confirmed to the Federal Court less than a year earlier.  Kavanaugh had an extensive legal history and was a well respected Federal Judge.

Why the thumbs down from the Bar? The assault allegations?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

Interesting. Not a good mark on him. What was the particular reason? And why did he get the nomination over ACB?

Ive forgotten why the ABA wouldnt endorse him (or withdrew it).  I think it may have been due to his conduct at the confirmation hearings.  He was nominated based on high marks from the federalist society and a proven history of conservative rulings, including anti-immigrant and anti-abortion opinions.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, FUBAR said:

Totally disagree with this. You don't stop doing your job just because you're about to move on to another or retire. Or at least you shouldn't. (Admittedly, many do stop working before they should)

I’m talking extreme cases. Spell out a timeframe of nomination to confirmation vote, let’s say 30 days, and if that isn’t able to be completed before the election, then it would be delayed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, -fish- said:

Ive forgotten why the ABA wouldnt endorse him (or withdrew it).  I think it may have been due to his conduct at the confirmation hearings.  He was nominated based on high marks from the federalist society and a proven history of conservative rulings, including anti-immigrant and anti-abortion opinions.

Thanks. I get the partisan reasons why GOP or Dems would choose their judges. I was just curious on more objective measures. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, -fish- said:

Ive forgotten why the ABA wouldnt endorse him (or withdrew it).  I think it may have been due to his conduct at the confirmation hearings.  He was nominated based on high marks from the federalist society and a proven history of conservative rulings, including anti-immigrant and anti-abortion opinions.

Just reviewed this.  They had him rated as “well qualified” but then they urged the senate to delay confirmation hearings so the FBI could investigate sexual assault allegations.  They also were reviewing their rating but once he was confirmed they announced the review was terminated as a matter of policy.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI, I looked up Kavanaugh and he had a top notch rating from the ABA but they scheduled a review of it after the accusations of sexual assault. They dropped the review because he was confirmed and they deemed it no longer applicable.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Stoneworker said:

You're confusing politics in the nomination process with the Senate's Constitutional duty to advise and consent during the confirmation process.

What McConnell did was dirty politics.

The Democrats lost to McConnell at politics...and so now they are (highly likely) abdicate their sworn duty by childishly voting No without any merit-based reason to do so.

Two completely different things.

Man the mental gymnastics...

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oops  Just kind of forgot to disclose the talk to an anti-abortion group where she criticized Roe v. Wade.  But she can't comment on precedent, right?   

Oh, she also "forgot" seven other similar talks.

Edited by -fish-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Biff84 said:

I’m talking extreme cases. Spell out a timeframe of nomination to confirmation vote, let’s say 30 days, and if that isn’t able to be completed before the election, then it would be delayed.

I'd say if they can't complete it before the next Senate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, parasaurolophus said:
6 hours ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

You don't think that there are any voters out there that are pretty sick of "both sides" that will punish their Senator for such a pure partisanship "no" vote such that this will push them to vote against that candidate?  ...

I cant see it. Maybe if Merrick Garland would have been a woman I could see there having been some sort of effect. Like a swing suburban woman thinking that was sexism and that finally pulled her toward the dems(I cant ever see the swing going the other way though, with say Barrett. If sexism is a true factor I dont see how you lean back GOP)

I fully admit I could be wrong here but I just cant convince myself that's a real thing. I guess the variable is that the next nominee from Obama could have been a woman, but now we are really getting into the weeds. 

You might not see it, but did those that do political analysis in 2016 see the possibility?   I think they did.  Maybe your argument could be that since such stuff seemed to make little impact in 2016, in fact it seemed to help GOP candidates that the "risk" for a democrat in a contested race to cast a "no" vote is minimal.  But I don't think it works this way.  What GOP candidates get away tend to bite democrats.  This probably works the other way around also, just we haven't had as many examples lately to consider them.  So maybe we should now suspect that GOP Senator is going to be rewarded for voting no for anything other than a far right nominee.  And it is an unknown as to whether a democrat will be rewarded or punished.  You suspect rewarded or no difference, and I suspect punished (but probably not to a relevant extent).  Maybe!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, -fish- said:

oops  Just kind of forgot to disclose the talk to an anti-abortion group where she criticized Roe v. Wade.  But she can't comment on precedent, right?   

Oh, she also "forgot" seven other similar talks.

I'm sure the senate judiciary committee will get right on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, gianmarco said:

I'm sure the senate judiciary committee will get right on that.

It would have been nice when she was being questioned and claimed that she couldn't provide her opinions of specific cases if she had disclosed (as required by law) that she had not only given 8 talks, but also signed her name to a paid advertisement attacking Roe v. Wade.   

But she isn't hostile to existing precedent.   Not at all.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, -fish- said:

It would have been nice when she was being questioned and claimed that she couldn't provide her opinions of specific cases if she had disclosed (as required by law) that she had not only given 8 talks, but also signed her name to a paid advertisement attacking Roe v. Wade.   

But she isn't hostile to existing precedent.   Not at all.   

What she can comment on now as a judge is indeed different than what she may have done or said as a private citizen. She can no longer comment on that stuff as a sitting judge. Not sure what part of that you’re missing, but you’re missing it repeatedly. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/15/2020 at 6:46 PM, -fish- said:

It would have been nice when she was being questioned and claimed that she couldn't provide her opinions of specific cases if she had disclosed (as required by law) that she had not only given 8 talks, but also signed her name to a paid advertisement attacking Roe v. Wade.   

But she isn't hostile to existing precedent.   Not at all.   

You can disagree with a decision as a professor and still respect precedent.  

Roe v Wade will never be overturned.  I sincerely doubt they'll ever even try.  It'll be one of those Louisianna have to have a hospital next door cases.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/27/2018 at 2:31 PM, Clayton Gray said:

I really like Jeffrey Toobin. I hope he's not secretly a wacko.

Link
I’m afraid I have some bad news for you

 

 

CNN’s Jeff Toobin Suspended From New Yorker After Exposing Penis On Zoom Colleague Call

  • Like 2
  • Laughing 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, HellToupee said:

Link
I’m afraid I have some bad news for you

 

 

CNN’s Jeff Toobin Suspended From New Yorker After Exposing Penis On Zoom Colleague Call

Yeah, but who among us . . . 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
  • Laughing 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, HellToupee said:

Link
I’m afraid I have some bad news for you

 

 

CNN’s Jeff Toobin Suspended From New Yorker After Exposing Penis On Zoom Colleague Call

how do you accidentally expose your junk to your webcam?  :lmao::lmao:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Vice headline has been updated with a new headline describing an activity beyond exposure, and.... wow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, HellToupee said:

Link
I’m afraid I have some bad news for you

 

 

CNN’s Jeff Toobin Suspended From New Yorker After Exposing Penis On Zoom Colleague Call

Toob out instead of Toob in.  :lmao::lmao::lmao:

  • Like 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, AAABatteries said:

how do you accidentally expose your junk to your webcam?  :lmao::lmao:

It was my understanding that most people don't wear pants during Zoom calls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Don Quixote said:

The Vice headline has been updated with a new headline describing an activity beyond exposure, and.... wow.

From vice 

The New Yorker has suspended reporter Jeffrey Toobin for masturbating on a Zoom video chat between members of the New Yorker and WNYC radio last week. Toobin says he did not realize his video was on. 

“I made an embarrassingly stupid mistake, believing I was off-camera. I apologize to my wife, family, friends and co-workers,” Toobin told Motherboard.

“I believed I was not visible on Zoom. I thought no one on the Zoom call could see me. I thought I had muted the Zoom video,” he added.  
 

:mellow:

Wacko ? Confirmed

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Juxtatarot said:

It was my understanding that most people don't wear pants during Zoom calls.

I've not worn pants for most online meetings and I've literally had several hundred in the last 7 months.  Most of the time I was wearing shorts but not always.  Never have I come close to exposing my junk to anyone.  I'm sure someone could argue a scenario where somebody wears boxers and the fly opens up - I'm not really buying it but I guess I wouldn't bet my life on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, HellToupee said:

From vice 

The New Yorker has suspended reporter Jeffrey Toobin for masturbating on a Zoom video chat between members of the New Yorker and WNYC radio last week. Toobin says he did not realize his video was on. 

“I made an embarrassingly stupid mistake, believing I was off-camera. I apologize to my wife, family, friends and co-workers,” Toobin told Motherboard.

“I believed I was not visible on Zoom. I thought no one on the Zoom call could see me. I thought I had muted the Zoom video,” he added.  
 

:mellow:

Wacko ? Confirmed

And moron. Confirmed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, HellToupee said:

From vice 

The New Yorker has suspended reporter Jeffrey Toobin for masturbating on a Zoom video chat between members of the New Yorker and WNYC radio last week. Toobin says he did not realize his video was on. 

“I made an embarrassingly stupid mistake, believing I was off-camera. I apologize to my wife, family, friends and co-workers,” Toobin told Motherboard.

“I believed I was not visible on Zoom. I thought no one on the Zoom call could see me. I thought I had muted the Zoom video,” he added.  
 

:mellow:

Wacko ? Confirmed

Link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, AAABatteries said:
37 minutes ago, Juxtatarot said:

It was my understanding that most people don't wear pants during Zoom calls.

I've not worn pants for most online meetings and I've literally had several hundred in the last 7 months.  Most of the time I was wearing shorts but not always.  Never have I come close to exposing my junk to anyone.  I'm sure someone could argue a scenario where somebody wears boxers and the fly opens up - I'm not really buying it but I guess I wouldn't bet my life on it.

I wear a shirt, tie and shorts or sweatpants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, HellToupee said:

From vice 

The New Yorker has suspended reporter Jeffrey Toobin for masturbating on a Zoom video chat between members of the New Yorker and WNYC radio last week. Toobin says he did not realize his video was on. 

“I made an embarrassingly stupid mistake, believing I was off-camera. I apologize to my wife, family, friends and co-workers,” Toobin told Motherboard.

“I believed I was not visible on Zoom. I thought no one on the Zoom call could see me. I thought I had muted the Zoom video,” he added.  
 

:mellow:

Wacko ? Confirmed

What not to do while bored on a zoom call.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AAABatteries said:

I've not worn pants for most online meetings and I've literally had several hundred in the last 7 months.  Most of the time I was wearing shorts but not always.  Never have I come close to exposing my junk to anyone.  I'm sure someone could argue a scenario where somebody wears boxers and the fly opens up - I'm not really buying it but I guess I wouldn't bet my life on it.

It didn't just slip out. It sounds like he was actively rooting for the Yankees and thought his camera was off.

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Stoneworker said:

Majority of Americans favor ACB confirmation by 51% to 46% margin, according to 10/20 Gallup poll.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/322232/amy-coney-barrett-seated-supreme-court.aspx

 

 

The 46% opposed is by far the highest opposition to any confirmation in the poll results they cite, which go back to Bork.  What's interesting about this poll is only 3% have no opinion.  The lowest prior was 19%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, -fish- said:

The 46% opposed is by far the highest opposition to any confirmation in the poll results they cite, which go back to Bork.  What's interesting about this poll is only 3% have no opinion.  The lowest prior was 19%.

Yes, that is interesting. I have find the older I get, the more I realize I don't know, which leads me to having fewer opinions. However, my anecdotal view of the world is that more people have more and more opinions than they used to. I feel like I'm going in the opposite direction as society on that one. I find it interesting when people express deep, strong opinions on topics that they, IMO, really shouldn't have opinions. Everyone seems to become an expert 10 minutes after a new hot topic hits the news cycle.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, dgreen said:

I find it interesting when people express deep, strong opinions on topics that they, IMO, really shouldn't have opinions. Everyone seems to become an expert 10 minutes after a new hot topic hits the news cycle.

Moreover, the opinions that people hold so strongly about everything are rarely even their own. People just repeat whatever their favorite polemicist says because they think it makes them seem smart. (It typically has the opposite effect, IMO.)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Moreover, the opinions that people hold so strongly about everything are rarely even their own. People just repeat whatever their favorite polemicist says because they think it makes them seem smart. (It typically has the opposite effect, IMO.)

:lmao: Yeah, I've definitely found myself in a tough spot when I spout off some point I heard someone else make and someone provides a solid response to it. I then just respond with :mellow: because I don't know enough about the topic to continue the conversation. I feel like I do that a lot less now that I've probably done that so many times that I realize how little I actually know about most topics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of opinions that people say they hold aren't even their own.  Folks just repeat whatever they hear other people say because they figure it makes them sound smart.  I reckon it has the opposite effect more often than not.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Laughing 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, -fish- said:

The 46% opposed is by far the highest opposition to any confirmation in the poll results they cite, which go back to Bork.  What's interesting about this poll is only 3% have no opinion.  The lowest prior was 19%.

The high number of people having an opinion for ACB vs. prior confirmations can be largely attributed to timing + potential 6-3 conservative tipping point IMO.

Political awareness has been heightened for months due closeness to election, pandemic, riots, stimulus fights, etc.

The high opposition is obviously due to massive paranoia and publicity regarding ACB's religious beliefs and conservatism...plus 6-3 majority representing a tipping point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

A lot of opinions that people say they hold aren't even their own.  Folks just repeat whatever they hear other people say because they figure it makes them sound smart.  I reckon it has the opposite effect more often than not.

:lmao:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet another complete 180 -- GOPs Josh Hawley problem

The Q&A portion of Amy Coney Barrett’s Supreme Court confirmation hearing began Tuesday and went about as you’d expect. Democrats peppered her with inquiries that sought to glean how she would rule on key issues such as abortion and the Affordable Care Act, but Barrett — like many nominees before her — resolutely declined to provide specifics, saying they could be read as prejudging cases that might come before her.

Barrett, whose personal opposition to abortion and criticism of Roe v. Wade have been extensively detailed in recent weeks, testified she has made “no commitment” to either the White House or GOP senators on how she would rule on such cases. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) also asked her whether she agreed with the late Justice Antonin Scalia that Roe was “wrongly decided,” and Barrett declined to weigh in.

No surprise there. This is how these hearings go.

What was particularly interesting, though, was how Republicans sought to drive home the idea that Barrett wouldn’t be a surefire vote for their side against abortion rights. They were essentially arguing, as they have on striking down Obamacare, that Barrett would not necessarily do the thing that they very much would like her to do.

This posture is difficult to square with the comments of one of their very own committee members: Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.).

While Hawley’s fellow Republicans have made a clear strategic decision to cast Barrett as something of a blank slate on these issues, Hawley has gone in a very different direction. Even before Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, Hawley has pushed something unusual: an explicit litmus test.

Hawley has said he would not support any nominee unless he or she clearly said that Roe, the landmark Supreme Court case establishing a right to abortion, was invalid precedent.

“I will vote only for those Supreme Court nominees who have explicitly acknowledged that Roe v. Wade is wrongly decided,” Hawley told The Washington Post’s Robert Costa in July. “By explicitly acknowledged, I mean on the record and before they were nominated.”

Hawley added: “I don’t want private assurances from candidates. I don’t want to hear about their personal views, one way or another. I’m not looking for forecasts about how they may vote in the future or predications. I don’t want any of that. I want to see on the record, as part of their record, that they have acknowledged in some forum that Roe v. Wade, as a legal matter, is wrongly decided.”

Hawley added to NBC News last month: “I’m going to start by asking the question that I articulated before the Senate, which is, does this nominee — has this nominee recognized that Roe vs. Wade was wrongly decided in 1973? … If they can’t beat the test, it doesn’t get further than that — I’m gonna vote no.”

Hawley has since said that Barrett does indeed satisfy his test.

“There’s plenty of evidence, I think, to demonstrate that she understands that Roe is — in my words — an act of judicial imperialism,” Hawley said last week. “And I feel very comfortable with her on that issue.”

So while the GOP is seeking to argue that it does not know how Barrett would rule on these cases, one of its own Senate Judiciary Committee members has effectively said he does.

There’s some nuance here. Hawley’s test required the nominee to have enunciated this position before nomination, not necessarily as part of the confirmation hearing. And Barrett has indeed suggested that she opposes Roe, signing on to a 2006 ad that said it was “time to put an end to the barbaric legacy of Roe v. Wade.” Barrett has also written things that suggest a precedent such as Roe might not be a “super-precedent” and could be overturned.

But it’s not 100 percent clear that Barrett has said Roe was wrongly decided. Something can be both “barbaric” and legal. Abortion rights opponents may believe the best way to get rid of Roe or its companion case Casey v. Planned Parenthood is via legislation or constitutional amendment. And floating the idea of overturning long-standing precedents isn’t the same as saying a specific one was wrong.

Hawley, though, demanded that the nominee would have “explicitly acknowledged that Roe v. Wade is wrongly decided.” And Barrett flatly declined to do so Tuesday:

FEINSTEIN: Do you agree with Justice Scalia’s view that Roe was wrongly decided?

BARRETT: So Senator, I do want to be forthright and answer every question so far as I can. I think on that question, I’m going to invoke Justice [Elena] Kagan’s description, which I think is perfectly put. When she was in her confirmation hearing, she said that she was not going to grade precedent or give it a thumbs-up or a thumbs-down, and I think in an area where precedent continues to be pressed and litigated, as is true of Casey, it would be particularly -- it would actually be wrong and a violation of the canons for me to do that as a sitting judge.

So if I express a view on a precedent one way or another, whether I say I love it or I hate it, it signals to litigants that I might tilt one way or another in a pending case.

FEINSTEIN: So on something that is really a major cause with major effects on over half of the population of this country, who are women, after all, it's -- it's distressing not to get a straight answer. So let me try again -- do you agree with Justice Scalia's view that Roe was wrongly decided?

BARRETT: Senator, I completely understand why you are asking the question but again, I can’t pre-commit or say, “Yes, I’m going in with some agenda,” because I’m not. I don’t have any agenda. I have no agenda to try to overrule Casey. I have an agenda to stick to the rule of law and decide cases as they come.

Hawley’s stance on this makes plenty of sense for him personally. As someone believed to have potential presidential aspirations, it could be a calling card in appealing to religious conservatives in the GOP nomination process. But it puts his allies in a very uneasy situation, which is why many of them have been critical of his approach — or at least said they don’t agree with it.

Hawley will ask Barrett questions later on Tuesday. His past comments suggest this issue will be front-and-center for him. Indeed, how could it not, given its importance to him? But raising this issue would also serve to undercut the argument that the GOP has spent virtually the entire day seeking to drive home.

And as Republicans seek to continue making the case that Barrett wouldn’t be an anti-Roe justice, Hawley’s statement that his litmus test has been satisfied will loom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/20/2020 at 2:43 PM, dgreen said:

:lmao: Yeah, I've definitely found myself in a tough spot when I spout off some point I heard someone else make and someone provides a solid response to it. I then just respond with :mellow: because I don't know enough about the topic to continue the conversation. I feel like I do that a lot less now that I've probably done that so many times that I realize how little I actually know about most topics.

Every high functioning person I have ever gotten to know well enough to have an opinion has had that epiphany. The more you know, the more acute your awareness of how much you lack.

Folks with average intelligence are far more likely to be confident they know more about a subject than the person they are engaging.

Humility and openness are highly underrated leadership characteristics. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

Slim majority now favor comfirmation

Funny how this has been sliding. 

Huh? Your editorial comment makes no sense.

A slim majority of voters now back Senate confirmation of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court — a level of support that has increased by double digits since President Trump nominated her last month

In addition, the 28% voting No to confirmation is far less than the 46% reported in the Gallup poll.

Edited by Stoneworker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Stoneworker said:

Huh? Your editorial comment makes no sense.

A slim majority of voters now back Senate confirmation of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court — a level of support that has increased by double digits since President Trump nominated her last month

In addition, the 28% voting No to confirmation is far less than the 46% reported in the Gallup poll.

I meant opposition sliding.

Sorry, I thought it was on this board I had a debate with somebody about opposition to the nomination. Wrong venue. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/19/2020 at 2:39 PM, AAABatteries said:

how do you accidentally expose your junk to your webcam?  :lmao::lmao:

Ask Chris Cooley. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/19/2020 at 2:58 PM, HellToupee said:

From vice 

The New Yorker has suspended reporter Jeffrey Toobin for masturbating on a Zoom video chat between members of the New Yorker and WNYC radio last week. Toobin says he did not realize his video was on. 

“I made an embarrassingly stupid mistake, believing I was off-camera. I apologize to my wife, family, friends and co-workers,” Toobin told Motherboard.

“I believed I was not visible on Zoom. I thought no one on the Zoom call could see me. I thought I had muted the Zoom video,” he added.  
 

:mellow:

Wacko ? Confirmed

I've done a ton of stuff by Zoom since the start of the pandemic. He must have not had on the "view all screens" option. I make sure I have that on so I can see whether I'm on screen (alas, not because I'm masturbating). What a dumb dumb. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This process -- focused on partisan political gain, needless theatre, and where a nominee isn't really being critically or impartially nominated or reviewed -- is inexorably broken.

This is farce and has nothing to do with ensuring that the very best serve on the highest court of the land.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  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.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.