Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
squistion

******Official SCOTUS Thread******

Recommended Posts

Some interesting dichotomies arising out of all this.

Amy Coney Barrett - her Catholic religion is the basis for The Handmaid's Tale

Joe Biden - How his Catholic religion shapes his politics.

We can see the differences in stark detail - one is pure evil leading to a dystopia of female slaves, one is saintly with references to faith, justice, love with references to Matthew; all based on the same religion.  One a pure hit piece based on a comparison to an imagined dystopian world (Note to Newsweek - Atwood imagined that world, not some Catholic group) and the other a fawning love piece.  Love the images - Biden looks like a devout saint in the front of the church.

If you wanted case A on how the press is wildly left, here it is. 

Not surprising that we start to see ridiculous hit pieces emerge.  Really, this is the best they can come up with?  Responsibility for an imagined world based on her religion?  She must be a super solid pick from a personal point of view.

Edited by Sand

Share this post


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

Some interesting dichotomies arising out of all this.

Amy Coney Barrett - her Catholic religion is the basis for The Handmaid's Tale

Joe Biden - How his Catholic religion shapes his politics.

We can see the differences in stark detail - one is pure evil leading to a dystopia of female slaves, one is saintly with references to faith, justice, love with references to Matthew; all based on the same religion.  One a pure hit piece based on a comparison to an imagined dystopian world (Note to Newsweek - Atwood imagined that world, not some Catholic group) and the other a fawning love piece.  Love the images - Biden looks like a devout saint in the front of the church.

If you wanted case A on how the press is wildly left, here it is.  I stand in disbelief when there are arguments in here that the mainstream press isn't biased.  It's massively, wholly biased in one direction.

She is not a mainstream Catholic. She belongs to an organization that specifically asserts that men control their wives. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Drunken Cowboy said:

She is not a mainstream Catholic. She belongs to an organization that specifically asserts that men control their wives. 

Every article contains inuendo and is uncertain whether she is actually a member.  It is also unclear how radical the group is today.  Much of the negative information seems to be from information obtained about the group in the 80's.   The information the group puts out in more recent times seems more mainstream and has evolved much like the general public.  

Edited by jon_mx

Share this post


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

Some interesting dichotomies arising out of all this.

Amy Coney Barrett - her Catholic religion is the basis for The Handmaid's Tale

Joe Biden - How his Catholic religion shapes his politics.

We can see the differences in stark detail - one is pure evil leading to a dystopia of female slaves, one is saintly with references to faith, justice, love with references to Matthew; all based on the same religion.  One a pure hit piece based on a comparison to an imagined dystopian world (Note to Newsweek - Atwood imagined that world, not some Catholic group) and the other a fawning love piece.  Love the images - Biden looks like a devout saint in the front of the church.

If you wanted case A on how the press is wildly left, here it is. 

Not surprising that we start to see ridiculous hit pieces emerge.  Really, this is the best they can come up with?  Responsibility for an imagined world based on her religion?  She must be a super solid pick from a personal point of view.

I’m a Catholic and I guess you won’t be surprised I’m pretty familiar with the milieu - I mean the actual schools and neighborhoods and social mix here in NO & Old Metry - that Barrett came out of.

But this cuts both ways. Biden wears his Catholicism and his background on his sleeve. He goes to Mass on Sundays when Trump is golfing (and diverting public funds into his private coffers, ie stealing) and rage tweeting, regularly breaking 3 commandments every Sunday. I’d charge it’s Trump supporters who are false on this point, the issue of faithfulness, morality and decency is not in fact a serious value for them.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also:

Quote

This article's headline originally stated that People of Praise inspired 'The Handmaid's Tale'. The book's author, Margaret Atwood, has never specifically mentioned the group as being the inspiration for her work. A New Yorker profile of the author from 2017 mentions a newspaper clipping as part of her research for the book of a different charismatic Catholic group, People of Hope. Newsweek regrets the error.

- I mean, what are we even talking about here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Also:

- I mean, what are we even talking about here?

Exactly - it's just a hit piece.

And I'll probably burn in hell, but when thinking about ACB all that rolls through my head is "man, Dominican girls were hot!"  

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

I’m a Catholic and I guess you won’t be surprised I’m pretty familiar with the milieu - I mean the actual schools and neighborhoods and social mix here in NO & Old Metry - that Barrett came out of.

But this cuts both ways. Biden wears his Catholicism and his background on his sleeve. He goes to Mass on Sundays when Trump is golfing (and diverting public funds into his private coffers, ie stealing) and rage tweeting, regularly breaking 3 commandments every Sunday. I’d charge it’s Trump supporters who are false on this point, the issue of faithfulness, morality and decency is not in fact a serious value for them.

I'm talking about Barrett.  DJT isn't really part of the conversation (though I agree he has no standing to pontificate on religious matters at all).

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

I don't think that is necessarily true.

More Americans have voted for a Democratic presidential candidate in six of the last seven cycles.  This is almost certain to be true again in 2020.

More Americans voted for Democrats in the House in 2018.

Democratic Senators represent far more people than Republican Senators.

 

The reality is that the majority of the country is Center-Left to Left.

The GOP will be blamed for politicizing the Supreme Court - rightly or wrongly.  Refusing to allow Obama to fill Scalia's seat, and pushing Trump's nominee for Ginsburg's seat will easily win the politicizing argument.

So, if the Dems come into power, and talk about judicial reform, and adding judges to ease workloads, and that includes 4 new justices on the Supreme Court - sure the Trump Party will be angry - but I don't think that necessarily translates into nation-wide backlash.

 

Trump Party is acting brazen now, because they think there will be no consequences to their naked power grab.  Time will tell if they are correct.

You're jumping to a lot of conclusions when half the country doesn't even vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

You're jumping to a lot of conclusions when half the country doesn't even vote.

When they don't vote - their opinions matter a lot less...

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

When they don't vote - their opinions matter a lot less...

 

Your statement is still incorrect.

And you're severely underestimating the consequences of Biden and a Democrat Senate stacking the SCOTUS.  Plenty of those voters in the middle would turn back right instantly, IMO.  Threatening to do that to the courts is just as dangerous as anything the libs accuse Trump of.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

Your statement is still incorrect.

And you're severely underestimating the consequences of Biden and a Democrat Senate stacking the SCOTUS.  Plenty of those voters in the middle would turn back right instantly, IMO.  Threatening to do that to the courts is just as dangerous as anything the libs accuse Trump of.

Ok then.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sinn Fein said:

I don't think that is necessarily true.

More Americans have voted for a Democratic presidential candidate in six of the last seven cycles.  This is almost certain to be true again in 2020.

More Americans voted for Democrats in the House in 2018.

Democratic Senators represent far more people than Republican Senators.

 

The reality is that the majority of the country is Center-Left to Left.

The GOP will be blamed for politicizing the Supreme Court - rightly or wrongly.  Refusing to allow Obama to fill Scalia's seat, and pushing Trump's nominee for Ginsburg's seat will easily win the politicizing argument.

So, if the Dems come into power, and talk about judicial reform, and adding judges to ease workloads, and that includes 4 new justices on the Supreme Court - sure the Trump Party will be angry - but I don't think that necessarily translates into nation-wide backlash.

 

Trump Party is acting brazen now, because they think there will be no consequences to their naked power grab.  Time will tell if they are correct.

I guess time will tell how stacking the courts will be viewed.

I think it’s one thing to argue for it and add 2.  It’s another to expand yourself into a new majority.  
 

“Trump stole one, so we’re adding 4.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jm192 said:

I guess time will tell how stacking the courts will be viewed.

I think it’s one thing to argue for it and add 2.  It’s another to expand yourself into a new majority.  
 

“Trump stole one, so we’re adding 4.”

Well - clearly you have to massage the message.

But, the message for judicial reform is there to be taken.

And, if the only thing you do is add 4 new justices, sure some might be cynical.  But if you include other measures, like a term-limit for justices - allowing for the lifetime appointment of existing justices, but future justices limited to a 20-year term (or 10 or 15).  Then you start to depoliticize the court - its not a game about when someone dies.

And, you don't add 4 to take the majority - you add 4 so that each justice has oversight over a single judicial district - other than the Chief Justice.

You might also split the 9th circuit as part of the reforms - so that a more moderate district exists on the west coast (and which would put the Chief Justice on oversight duty on the DC circuit).

And, maybe you look at terms for lower court Judges as well.  In addition to making sure each district and circuit is fully staffed to ensure expeditious court outcomes.

 

The judiciary is in need of both an overhaul, and a return to neutrality.  We should not be reading political cases - just to see who appointed the judge in charge.  We should have faith that the judiciary is above partisan politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And, of course - you could take the Trump Party approach and add 4 new justices quickly, and then worry about the fallout much later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

Well - clearly you have to massage the message.

But, the message for judicial reform is there to be taken.

And, if the only thing you do is add 4 new justices, sure some might be cynical.  But if you include other measures, like a term-limit for justices - allowing for the lifetime appointment of existing justices, but future justices limited to a 20-year term (or 10 or 15).  Then you start to depoliticize the court - its not a game about when someone dies.

And, you don't add 4 to take the majority - you add 4 so that each justice has oversight over a single judicial district - other than the Chief Justice.

You might also split the 9th circuit as part of the reforms - so that a more moderate district exists on the west coast (and which would put the Chief Justice on oversight duty on the DC circuit).

And, maybe you look at terms for lower court Judges as well.  In addition to making sure each district and circuit is fully staffed to ensure expeditious court outcomes.

 

The judiciary is in need of both an overhaul, and a return to neutrality.  We should not be reading political cases - just to see who appointed the judge in charge.  We should have faith that the judiciary is above partisan politics.

The whole reasoning for lifetime appointments was so that the Court would be free from political pressures.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

Well - clearly you have to massage the message.

But, the message for judicial reform is there to be taken.

And, if the only thing you do is add 4 new justices, sure some might be cynical.  But if you include other measures, like a term-limit for justices - allowing for the lifetime appointment of existing justices, but future justices limited to a 20-year term (or 10 or 15).  Then you start to depoliticize the court - its not a game about when someone dies.

And, you don't add 4 to take the majority - you add 4 so that each justice has oversight over a single judicial district - other than the Chief Justice.

You might also split the 9th circuit as part of the reforms - so that a more moderate district exists on the west coast (and which would put the Chief Justice on oversight duty on the DC circuit).

And, maybe you look at terms for lower court Judges as well.  In addition to making sure each district and circuit is fully staffed to ensure expeditious court outcomes.

 

The judiciary is in need of both an overhaul, and a return to neutrality.  We should not be reading political cases - just to see who appointed the judge in charge.  We should have faith that the judiciary is above partisan politics.

If they add 4 justices, it will be crystal clear it’s to take back the majority.  
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

And, of course - you could take the Trump Party approach and add 4 new justices quickly, and then worry about the fallout much later.

I assume that’s how it’ll go down.

Share this post


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

The whole reasoning for lifetime appointments was so that the Court would be free from political pressures.  

And yet, here we are.

 

Share this post


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

This is not possible.

Sure it is.

Simple Amendment to the constitution.    There have been 27, no reason to expect there will never be another.

Share this post


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

Sure it is.

Simple Amendment to the constitution.    There have been 27, no reason to expect there will never be another.

Republicans control the large majority of states. We need assent from three-fourths of them. "Hey Republicans, will you please sign on to the Democrats' court-packing plan?" doesn't seem realistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, jm192 said:

I assume that’s how it’ll go down.

I'm thinking it's pretty much a done deal if Trump replaces RBG.

Share this post


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

Republicans control the large majority of states. We need assent from three-fourths of them. "Hey Republicans, will you please sign on to the Democrats' court-packing plan?" doesn't seem realistic.

:shrug:

Carrot and Stick.  Offer something the Trump party wants in the judicial reform bill, and then point out that instead of term-limited nominees, Dems could go ahead with life-time nominees for 4 seats.

Share this post


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

:shrug:

Carrot and Stick.  Offer something the Trump party wants in the judicial reform bill, and then point out that instead of term-limited nominees, Dems could go ahead with life-time nominees for 4 seats.

Agree to the concept.  I use to think politics meant "compromise". Both sides give a little to the other side to get what both sides can live with. But the last couple decades seem to be more about not giving the other side anything so nothing gets done at all. Which leads the POTUS to executive orders or judicial action.  Now it seems politics is just "hipocrosy" and rationalizing positions then and now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Sinn Fein said:

I don't think that is necessarily true.

More Americans have voted for a Democratic presidential candidate in six of the last seven cycles.  This is almost certain to be true again in 2020.

More Americans voted for Democrats in the House in 2018.

Democratic Senators represent far more people than Republican Senators.

 

The reality is that the majority of the country is Center-Left to Left.

The GOP will be blamed for politicizing the Supreme Court - rightly or wrongly.  Refusing to allow Obama to fill Scalia's seat, and pushing Trump's nominee for Ginsburg's seat will easily win the politicizing argument.

So, if the Dems come into power, and talk about judicial reform, and adding judges to ease workloads, and that includes 4 new justices on the Supreme Court - sure the Trump Party will be angry - but I don't think that necessarily translates into nation-wide backlash.

 

Trump Party is acting brazen now, because they think there will be no consequences to their naked power grab.  Time will tell if they are correct.

Wait, you’re claiming that filling an empty seat on SCOTUS is a “naked power grab”, and that adding 4 additional justices to the court can be slid through under “judicial reform”?

 

Wow.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sinn Fein said:

Well - clearly you have to massage the message.

But, the message for judicial reform is there to be taken.

And, if the only thing you do is add 4 new justices, sure some might be cynical.  But if you include other measures, like a term-limit for justices - allowing for the lifetime appointment of existing justices, but future justices limited to a 20-year term (or 10 or 15).  Then you start to depoliticize the court - its not a game about when someone dies.

And, you don't add 4 to take the majority - you add 4 so that each justice has oversight over a single judicial district - other than the Chief Justice.

You might also split the 9th circuit as part of the reforms - so that a more moderate district exists on the west coast (and which would put the Chief Justice on oversight duty on the DC circuit).

And, maybe you look at terms for lower court Judges as well.  In addition to making sure each district and circuit is fully staffed to ensure expeditious court outcomes.

 

The judiciary is in need of both an overhaul, and a return to neutrality.  We should not be reading political cases - just to see who appointed the judge in charge.  We should have faith that the judiciary is above partisan politics.

:lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:   The entire idea of adding more justices is partisan politics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The Future Champs said:

Wait, you’re claiming that filling an empty seat on SCOTUS is a “naked power grab”, and that adding 4 additional justices to the court can be slid through under “judicial reform”?

 

Wow.

Well, lets at least be intellectually honest here - its the combination of denying Obama the ability to fill a vacancy, while reversing course to allow Trump to fill a vacancy that is the naked power grab.

Share this post


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

:lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:   The entire idea of adding more justices is partisan politics

Glad you find this a laughing matter.

 

  • Sad 1

Share this post


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

Glad you find this a laughing matter.

 

I find the absurdity of you whining about partisan politics while littering a thread with your own personal partisan politics quite hilarious. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

Glad you find this a laughing matter.

 

In 20 years from now there will be 100 justices on the court as each president outstack the previous one.  Do Democrats never realize what the end game is when they articulate stupid ideas?  Somehow all their ideas end up biting them in the #### and it is going to turn the judiciary into a joke.  

Edited by jon_mx

Share this post


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

Well, lets at least be intellectually honest here - its the combination of denying Obama the ability to fill a vacancy, while reversing course to allow Trump to fill a vacancy that is the naked power grab.

Look, I agree Obama and Garland were unfairly screwed, I despise McConnell for doing so, and I’m definitely voting for Biden.  That said, Biden packs the court, and I’m out.  That would be worse than Trump at his Trumpiest.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jon_mx said:

In 20 years from now there will be 100 justices on the court as each president outstack the previous one.  Do Democrats never realize what the end game is when they articulate stupid ideas?  Somehow all their ideas end up biting them in the #### and it is going to turn the judiciary into a joke.  

Judiciary is already a joke.

:shrug:

 

Share this post


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

I find the absurdity of you whining about partisan politics while littering a thread with your own personal partisan politics quite hilarious. 

cool

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, The Future Champs said:

Look, I agree Obama and Garland were unfairly screwed, I despise McConnell for doing so, and I’m definitely voting for Biden.  That said, Biden packs the court, and I’m out.  That would be worse than Trump at his Trumpiest.

Sure I get it.

Two wrong don't make a right.

Thats why the Trump Party continues to swing haymakers.  There are no consequences.

Share this post


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

Judiciary is already a joke.

:shrug:

 

It really is not. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jon_mx said:

In 20 years from now there will be 100 justices on the court as each president outstack the previous one.  Do Democrats never realize what the end game is when they articulate stupid ideas?  Somehow all their ideas end up biting them in the #### and it is going to turn the judiciary into a joke.  

Funny thing of all the battles to pick, what has the SCOTUS even done since Trump swung it back to his side that's so bad for the left?   There's all this fear that zOMG abortion will become illegal.  It's never going to happen.  Is anyone even trying to make it illegal other than a few fringe guys?

Share this post


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

Sure I get it.

Two wrong don't make a right.

Thats why the Trump Party continues to swing haymakers.  There are no consequences.

The election is the consequence.  Not acting just like him and even worse but there are plenty of people on your side just as bad as Trump.   But sides....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

The election is the consequence.  Not acting just like him and even worse but there are plenty of people on your side just as bad as Trump.   But sides....

The election, with nothing else, is not "consequence".

Its the ability to use that power to effect a change that is the consequence.

Share this post


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

Sure I get it.

Two wrong don't make a right.

Thats why the Trump Party continues to swing haymakers.  There are no consequences.

I hope this election is the consequence.   That’s all I got.

Share this post


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

Funny thing of all the battles to pick, what has the SCOTUS even done since Trump swung it back to his side that's so bad for the left?   There's all this fear that zOMG abortion will become illegal.  It's never going to happen.  Is anyone even trying to make it illegal other than a few fringe guys?

Well, so far, there has not been a real swing - at least not to the right.

Scalia and Kennedy were both appointed by Republican presidents.

Kennedy, over time, was more of a swing vote, but not a liberal vote.

I think what I have observed of the court is that Roberts has taken on that role in many cases.  I think Roberts is legitimately worried about the independence of the SC, both in actuality and appearance.  And, he has tried to balance fairness against conservative/liberal battles.

 

But, now, by replacing a liberal candidate with a Trump candidate - we will see the first swing right in many years.  (I think the opposite dynamic is what really led McConnell to block Obama - not wanting to see Scalia replaced by a liberal justice.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

The election, with nothing else, is not "consequence".

Its the ability to use that power to effect a change that is the consequence.

What has the SCOTUS done since Trump appointed two justices that is so bad for the left?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, The Future Champs said:

I hope this election is the consequence.   That’s all I got.

Sure - but for there to be "consequence" its about losing something.  If the Dems win the election, but can't effectuate any changes towards their positions - then there are no consequences.

Part of the consequences might very well include adding SC justices.  

 

ANd, I hear people when they say - that will cause the public to turn on the Dems, and then the Trump Party will pack the court even more - which suggests they think its ok for one side to do it, but not the other.  :shrug:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sinn Fein said:

Sure - but for there to be "consequence" its about losing something.  If the Dems win the election, but can't effectuate any changes towards their positions - then there are no consequences.

This is crazy, GB.

Getting Trump out of office would be really consequential.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

What has the SCOTUS done since Trump appointed two justices that is so bad for the left?

Answered above - but I assume you understand the difference in Trump replacing two GOP-appointed justices, and Trump replacing a liberal justice.

Share this post


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

Sure - but for there to be "consequence" its about losing something.  If the Dems win the election, but can't effectuate any changes towards their positions - then there are no consequences.

Part of the consequences might very well include adding SC justices.  

 

ANd, I hear people when they say - that will cause the public to turn on the Dems, and then the Trump Party will pack the court even more - which suggests they think its ok for one side to do it, but not the other.  :shrug:

 

This would be SOP, imo.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

This is crazy, GB.

Getting Trump out of office would be really consequential.

Its a start.  

When you are in a hole, the first thing you should do is stop digging.

But, if the Dems are serious about their positions - then they have to act to move in that direction and they have to act to preserve those positions.

 

Again - judicial reform is one of many potential consequences to the election.  But, simply winning, and doing nothing - proves the Trump Party calculation was correct.  It will not deter future similar behavior.

Share this post


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

Answered above - but I assume you understand the difference in Trump replacing two GOP-appointed justices, and Trump replacing a liberal justice.

Tactical error by RBG - she should have given up her seat 6 years ago instead of dying in it.  Hard truth, but there it is.  I'm sure we'll see the same at some point with a GOP appointed justice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jm192 said:

If they add 4 justices, it will be crystal clear it’s to take back the majority.  
 

"Don't hit us back or it will really be bad" is just an argument for impotence. 

When y'all have power you use it. I dig that about you. 

The political world is a copycat league.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, jon_mx said:
21 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

Judiciary is already a joke.

:shrug:

 

It really is not. 

How many times have you ranted on and on about activist judges legislating from the bench? 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sand said:

Tactical error by RBG - she should have given up her seat 6 years ago instead of dying in it.  Hard truth, but there it is.  I'm sure we'll see the same at some point with a GOP appointed justice.

Probably.

 

  • Like 1

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.