Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Matt Gaetz Under Investigation for Sex Trafficking


Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, massraider said:

Some think he's the one getting flipped on, by his buddy already in the clink, facing 30 federal charges.  

Ha!!  Couldn't remember his name, and came across this story. Joel Greenberg is his name

Anyway, I dunno who Gaetz could flip on.  He's a little nothing congressman, and other GOP supposedly dislikes him.  

I don't know what ANY of this is supposed to prove?  They went to the back room and cracked one out together over pictures on a driver's license?  THAT's your big theory?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 616
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Honestly, I think there are few things less productive than arguing about hypocrisy on a message board. First, it’s often a generalized comment about groups of posters, which seems facially ridiculous

Today’s GOP:  Mitt Romney, Liz Cheney - “BOOOOOOO!!!!” Matt Gaetz, Roy Moore - “CIRCLE THE WAGONS!!!”

Not nearly as bad as a can of tuna in a crowded movie theatre.

7 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

I don't know what ANY of this is supposed to prove? 

I don't think it's supposed to prove anything.  I think if two guys are on video after hours going through discarded IDs, and one is facing 33 federal charges, and there's a 17 year old girl involved, I think I could come up with some shady theories as to why a couple of men-about-town might like to acquire some old IDs.  

Quote

They went to the back room and cracked one out together over pictures on a driver's license?  THAT's your big theory?

No my big theory is that they were going through IDs looking for ones they could use for the high school girls they were paying to screw.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, sho nuff said:

Nope...Im talking about those who keep posting about Cuomo and his women...but ignore Gaetz.  Just as they ignored Trump's accusations and others.  All while claiming Democrats don't really try to remove their own.

Read the thread about Cuomo.  Are there any posters defending him (either the nursing home story or his issues with women) ?  I don't see any.  I don't even see the "lets see how it plays out".  Seems most are calling for him to step down...are good with the investigation happening and him being removed.

Now read this thread...where are the conservatives other than saying "wait and see"?  Where are the conservative leaders out there calling for investigations and resignations?

To claim there is zero hypocrisy is laughable.

I won't read the stories on Cuomo?  I have read them...I have stated he should step down...said it long ago.  But yes...call me poorly informed as you called me ignorant the other day.  it continues to only prove how little you know about me....and odd that you continue to try and make it personal.

Almost no Republican poster here was talking about Cuomo and his women. You keep taking things out of context. Me and others went out of our way to say "wait and see" about those allegations, so that's at least one. You're just dead wrong, and you know it. I know at least two others did, likely many, many more. Your memory is faulty and your in-board cop skills are terrible, but keep trying.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just, I don't even want an alert that sho nuff quoted me so that I have to go down a rabbit hole and find it and waste my time. That's annoying.

Edited by rockaction
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, rockaction said:

Almost no Republican poster here was talking about Cuomo and his women. You keep taking things out of context. Me and others went out of our way to say "wait and see" about those allegations, so that's at least one. You're just dead wrong, and you know it. I know at least two others did, likely many, many more. Your memory is faulty and your in-board cop skills are terrible, but keep trying.

 

22 minutes ago, rockaction said:

God, sho, don't even bother replying you're so wrong.

 

21 minutes ago, rockaction said:

Just, I don't even want an alert that sho nuff quoted me. That's annoying.

https://forums.footballguys.com/topic/794070-gov-andrew-cuomo/?do=findComment&comment=23268522

https://forums.footballguys.com/topic/794070-gov-andrew-cuomo/?do=findComment&comment=23268649

https://forums.footballguys.com/topic/794070-gov-andrew-cuomo/?do=findComment&comment=23268674

https://forums.footballguys.com/topic/794070-gov-andrew-cuomo/?do=findComment&comment=23268731

https://forums.footballguys.com/topic/794070-gov-andrew-cuomo/?do=findComment&comment=23268872

https://forums.footballguys.com/topic/794070-gov-andrew-cuomo/?do=findComment&comment=23270246

And I could keep going...you didn't want a response because you knew what was in that thread.  You knew there were posts bashing him over sexual harassment issues...you knew those people are nowhere to be found in this thread calling for the same things from Gaetz.

so yeah...easier to try and get personal and wish someone wouldn't respond...probably best you just put me on ignore if you can't respond to me without always going personal man.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, sho nuff said:

 

 

https://forums.footballguys.com/topic/794070-gov-andrew-cuomo/?do=findComment&comment=23268522

https://forums.footballguys.com/topic/794070-gov-andrew-cuomo/?do=findComment&comment=23268649

https://forums.footballguys.com/topic/794070-gov-andrew-cuomo/?do=findComment&comment=23268674

https://forums.footballguys.com/topic/794070-gov-andrew-cuomo/?do=findComment&comment=23268731

https://forums.footballguys.com/topic/794070-gov-andrew-cuomo/?do=findComment&comment=23268872

https://forums.footballguys.com/topic/794070-gov-andrew-cuomo/?do=findComment&comment=23270246

And I could keep going...you didn't want a response because you knew what was in that thread.  You knew there were posts bashing him over sexual harassment issues...you knew those people are nowhere to be found in this thread calling for the same things from Gaetz.

so yeah...easier to try and get personal and wish someone wouldn't respond...probably best you just put me on ignore if you can't respond to me without always going personal man.

Bull####. You said not one poster said "wait-and-see." I did. I said he should resign over the hospital deaths. Why don't you fat finger your way to more bad faith.

  • Like 2
  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 2/26/2021 at 7:56 AM, rockaction said:

"Sounded like you were. I think the lack of effort in using Google to get the story seemed like sort of lack of effort enough to where one could be perceived as saying "no big deal." Perhaps you're not and I'm mistaken.

But don't let me jump on the pile about sexual harassment. I've been fairly consistent on these boards where one should wait and attempt to ascertain the veracity of the complaint, and I see no difference for Cuomo. My problem with Cuomo is that it seems his own AG had had enough of the grandstanding about the pandemic and turned him in. That's really bad, and a massive strike against his innocence regarding the matter."

You bad faith board cop. You missed this. Stop quoting me, sho. You said "not one person." #### that.

Edited by rockaction
  • Like 1
  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, rockaction said:

Bull####. You said not one poster said "wait-and-see." I did. I said he should resign over the hospital deaths. Why don't you fat finger your way to more bad faith.

I said I dont see any.  I saw yours while scrolling through now (and seeing a lot of people talking about him) and many not saying that.  So yes, I would have been incorrect had I said “not one poster  said “wait and see”.  But that isn’t what I said.  So take the claims of BS and please realize that isn't right.  Ill admit you said wait and see...good for you.  It appears that was a minority opinion from the right.  And it seems the others in there are nowhere to be found about Gaetz.

So nothing about my post is bad faith...and once again you are making false claims about what I posted.  And more personal comments.

So walking away from yet another stupid back and forth with someone who cant keep from trying to insult others.

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

I don't know what ANY of this is supposed to prove?  They went to the back room and cracked one out together over pictures on a driver's license?  THAT's your big theory?

Greenberg has been charged with using surrendered licenses to create fake IDs. I think Gaetz going with him after hours to the tax office to go through surrendered licenses is relevant to the question as to whether Gaetz had knowledge of or participated in certain of the crimes with which Greenberg has been charged. It doesn’t prove anything in and of itself, but it’s certainly relevant to the investigation.

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

I don't think it's supposed to prove anything.  I think if two guys are on video after hours going through discarded IDs, and one is facing 33 federal charges, and there's a 17 year old girl involved, I think I could come up with some shady theories as to why a couple of men-about-town might like to acquire some old IDs.  

No my big theory is that they were going through IDs looking for ones they could use for the high school girls they were paying to screw.  

From what I’ve read the fake IDs were for Greenberg’s use, so it doesn’t appear to have had anything to do with finding IDs for underage girls. 

From the Orlando Sentinel: Greenberg “had a common scheme and plan to use his position as the Seminole County Tax Collector to steal surrendered licenses that he would use to produce fake driver’s licenses for himself....And plan to pretend to be people other than himself and to assume their identities,” said Assistant U.S. Attorney Roger Handberg in the court filing.

Edited by bigbottom
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

I said I dont see any.  I saw yours while scrolling through now (and seeing a lot of people talking about him) and many not saying that.  So yes, I would have been incorrect had I said “not one poster  said “wait and see”.  But that isn’t what I said.  So take the claims of BS and please realize that isn't right.  Ill admit you said wait and see...good for you.  It appears that was a minority opinion from the right.  And it seems the others in there are nowhere to be found about Gaetz.

So nothing about my post is bad faith...and once again you are making false claims about what I posted.  And more personal comments.

So walking away from yet another stupid back and forth with someone who cant keep from trying to insult others.

Bad Faith Sho strikes again. "I said I don't see. I saw yours while scrolling through now." And you'd see a lot of other people, too. You're just...wrong again, sho. Keep playing board cop, keep being wrong.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

21 minutes ago, rockaction said:

Bad Faith Sho strikes again. "I said I don't see. I saw yours while scrolling through now." And you'd see a lot of other people, too. You're just...wrong again, sho. Keep playing board cop, keep being wrong.

I like the new line of defense... “I wasn’t wrong.  I said I didn’t see any”.  As if not seeing what was clearly written somehow isn’t “wrong”.  You can’t make this stuff up.

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

Just, I don't even want an alert that sho nuff quoted me so that I have to go down a rabbit hole and find it and waste my time. That's annoying.

Ignore list.  Seriously.

  • Like 1
  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, ekbeats said:

 

I like the new line of defense... “I wasn’t wrong.  I said I didn’t see any”.  As if not seeing what was clearly written somehow isn’t “wrong”.  You can’t make this stuff up.

That part was wrong.  I have no issue saying I was wrong saying that.   Clearly rock said it.  But the main point of what I stated is right there with plenty more examples of those bashing Cuomo over allegations of sexual misconduct...who are silent in here or saying wait and see now.

  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

That part was wrong.  I have no issue saying I was wrong saying that.   Clearly rock said it.  But the main point of what I stated is right there with plenty more examples of those bashing Cuomo over allegations of sexual misconduct...who are silent in here or saying wait and see now.

Honestly, I think there are few things less productive than arguing about hypocrisy on a message board. First, it’s often a generalized comment about groups of posters, which seems facially ridiculous to me. Just because someone else of a similar political bent as me said (or didn’t say) something in another thread doesn’t make me a hypocrite. Any legitimate hypocrisy in this context is by its very nature an individual observation. Your exchange with rockaction is a perfect example of this.

Second, we don’t live here and we don’t post in every thread. What threads people choose to post in on a particular day can be a function of many factors such as having time to kill or finding a topic interesting at that moment. I’ll use myself as an example here - I had time to kill and was really interested in what happened on January 6.  But a common refrain we hear when people take issue with that event is something along the lines of “where were you during the summer riots - why weren’t you complaining in those threads?!?”  That doesn’t make me a hypocrite - it makes me someone who has limited time to spend here and whose posting choices are often arbitrarily determined by the availability of time and interest on a particular day. As I mentioned in a previous thread, the number of things I could criticize or complain about is a virtually endless list. If I complain about something in a thread, it is virtually certain that someone can come up with numerous analogous things that I didn’t complain about previously.  I mean you’re complaining about people “being silent” in here. How do you even know if they are reading the thread? If someone criticizes Cuomo in the Cuomo thread, are you expecting them to continuously monitor all topics in the PSF and if any arise that are tangentially related, they must post in all such threads lest they be labeled a hypocrite for remaining silent?  Who has time for that?

In conclusion, I think the discussions on this board would be greatly improved if we just focused on the topic at hand and didn’t waste time trying to argue that people are hypocritical, whether individually or collectively, because of some other thread they may or may not have posted in. It’s an exhausting and wholly unproductive endeavor, in my opinion.

Now let’s get back on topic!

Edited by bigbottom
  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1
  • Love 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, moleculo said:

Ignore list.  Seriously.

Ignore him?  He’s the only reason most of them are here. 

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

Ignore him?  He’s the only reason most of them are here. 

I probably have most of "them" on ignore too.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I need to also work on tone in here. Mea culpa for earlier today, including being frustrated with sho. Including sho, I hope those of you that celebrate the holiday have a blessed day and those of you that don't have a great end/beginning to your week.

Again, my apologies.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/2/2021 at 7:32 PM, HellToupee said:

Link

“Matt Gaetz's arrest is imminent as sources say Joel Greenberg has been 'singing to the feds'

Rep is expected to be indicted within the next few weeks as former official and friend Joel Greenberg is believed to have turned on the congressman in the sex trafficking investigation against him, a source close to the probe tells DailyMail.com.“

LOL

How many times have we heard that some political figure's arrest was "imminent" over the past 5 years?

IMMINENT!!

  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, bigbottom said:

Honestly, I think there are few things less productive than arguing about hypocrisy on a message board. First, it’s often a generalized comment about groups of posters, which seems facially ridiculous to me. Just because someone else of a similar political bent as me said (or didn’t say) something in another thread doesn’t make me a hypocrite. Any legitimate hypocrisy in this context is by its very nature an individual observation. Your exchange with rockaction is a perfect example of this.

Second, we don’t live here and we don’t post in every thread. What threads people choose to post in on a particular day can be a function of many factors such as having time to kill or finding a topic interesting at that moment. I’ll use myself as an example here - I had time to kill and was really interested in what happened on January 6.  But a common refrain we hear when people take issue with that event is something along the lines of “where were you during the summer riots - why weren’t you complaining in those threads?!?”  That doesn’t make me a hypocrite - it makes me someone who has limited time to spend here and whose posting choices are often arbitrarily determined by the availability of time and interest on a particular day. As I mentioned in a previous thread, the number of things I could criticize or complain about is a virtually endless list. If I complain about something in a thread, it is virtually certain that someone can come up with numerous analogous things that I didn’t complain about previously.  I mean you’re complaining about people “being silent” in here. How do you even know if they are reading the thread? If someone criticizes Cuomo in the Cuomo thread, are you expecting them to continuously monitor all topics in the PSF and if any arise that are tangentially related, they must post in all such threads lest they be labeled a hypocrite for remaining silent?  Who has time for that?

In conclusion, I think the discussions on this board would be greatly improved if we just focused on the topic at hand and didn’t waste time trying to argue that people are hypocritical, whether individually or collectively, because of some other thread they may or may not have posted in. It’s an exhausting and wholly unproductive endeavor, in my opinion.

Now let’s get back on topic!

Sure....and I agree here and definitely my fault there for the original comment.  It was not meant as a huge conversation and turned that way.  Then, when called out and in a personal manner I reacted by posting a list of links rather than just ignoring the comments.

Definitely lets keep this about Gaetz and Republican leadership's response.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Roy L Fewks said:

LOL

How many times have we heard that some political figure's arrest was "imminent" over the past 5 years?

IMMINENT!!

You mean like Roger Stone, Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, Michael Cohen and George Papadopoulos?

  • Laughing 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dinsy Ejotuz said:

You mean like Roger Stone, Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, Michael Cohen and George Papadopoulos?

No, Like Donald Trump.  That was the goal and every day it was, "WE GOT HIM NOW!!!".

The fact that you scooped up some lackeys is irrelevant.  The goal was always Trump  and when you didn't "GET HIM!!" you resorted to changing the goal posts and making it seem as if getting the lackey's was the goal.

I can't even give you an "A" for effort.

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

No, Like Donald Trump.  That was the goal and every day it was, "WE GOT HIM NOW!!!".

The fact that you scooped up some lackeys is irrelevant.  The goal was always Trump  and when you didn't "GET HIM!!" you resorted to changing the goal posts and making it seem as if getting the lackey's was the goal.

I can't even give you an "A" for effort.

Does Gaetz fall into the lackey category?

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, bigbottom said:

Does Gaetz fall into the lackey category?

Much like AOC or Omar, I'd put Gaetz in the "attack dog" category.

  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, bigbottom said:

Does Gaetz fall into the lackey category?

 

Someone between the level of Rob Deer and Matt Stairs.

There's nothing wrong with a power hitter who knows all he is and will ever be is a power hitter. Now Stairs was more versatile, he could draw walks and was a good situational pinch hitter ( not quite in the league of a Dave Hansen but towards that end)

Being a name brand politician in either party is exceptionally difficult. That's like breaking into MLB with the vast and relentless competition.

I've said this before ( though it's likely taken flak since there is some kind of sin associated with any criticism of the GREAT AND ALMIGHTY BARACK OBAMA. I mean that kind of group think would be true if gun running for cartels and tanking America's health care system even further were seen as positive things ), that the profession of high level politics draws in sociopaths, psychopaths, sadists, narcissists, Borderline Personality Disorder types and plainly people who probably would have been beaten to death in a dark alley in a previous time in human history.

Gaetz had to try to make an impression in law school ( And what a vast menagerie of woe that ends up being. Remember I come from a generation when people thought being Blaine from Pretty In Pink was the height of self actualization) Then battle through the field of jackals, thugs and grifters on the way up.

To actually get into the national daily media cycle ( sans scandal) as a brand name politician is even harder. It's like Peter North shot you out of his Chateau Vas Deferens  and you had the motility of a prime Michael Phelps, and you burst up some post Wall hitting muffin top's Devils Creek and outraced billions of rivals into Egg City rebranded Eighteen Years Of Weary Obligation.

Rob Deer could turn on a fastball. Sometimes. There are way more failed wished they were Rob Deers out there than the actual Rob Deer.

Gaetz is skilled in a niche that is needed, it's just not versatile.  He also did it as a white male when being a white male in politics isn't exactly the kind of street currency it used to be. If JaVale McGee was 5'7, he'd probably be mopping a floor at a Sbarros right now. There's a context to everything.

Gaetz is a hack. But he's an exceptionally motile hack. Which means to survive that, he might actually survive this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Marjorie Taylor Greene made an interesting point: are there any women accusing Gaetz? Cuomo has 9 accusers but I haven't heard any women against Gaetz. I have no idea, and there could be. But I thought it was a reasonable question.

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

Marjorie Taylor Greene made an interesting point: are there any women accusing Gaetz? Cuomo has 9 accusers but I haven't heard any women against Gaetz. I have no idea, and there could be. But I thought it was a reasonable question.

No women...just children.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, trogg78 said:

No women...just children.

OK that's bad and like I said I had no idea. If children are coming forward with accusations I honestly think thats much worse than Cuomo.

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

Marjorie Taylor Greene made an interesting point: are there any women accusing Gaetz? Cuomo has 9 accusers but I haven't heard any women against Gaetz. I have no idea, and there could be. But I thought it was a reasonable question.

Why is that a good point.  It isn’t a sexual harassment allegation...

No woman has to make an accusation if facts and evidence exists to show a crime.

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

No woman has to make an accusation if facts and evidence exists to show a crime.

Oh of course - and if it's children that's especially understandable. 

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

Why is that a good point.  It isn’t a sexual harassment allegation...

No woman has to make an accusation if facts and evidence exists to show a crime.

He said it was an interesting point.  Please provide facts and evidence to show a crime.  

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

He said it was an interesting point.  Please provide facts and evidence to show a crime.  

Did I say I had them.  I said of there is any...right now we have an allegation.  And a pretty ugly one.

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

Oh of course - and if it's children that's especially understandable. 

It’s reported that the 17 year old (she may be older than that now) is cooperating with investigators, but we’ll have to see what, if anything, comes of it. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

Did I say I had them.  I said of there is any...right now we have an allegation.  And a pretty ugly one.

So you have no facts or evidence and you were misquoting previous quote.. got it. 

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

So you have no facts or evidence and you were misquoting previous quote.. got it. 

I misquoted nothing.  Please understand what was being said.  
I was simply stating that there doesn't need to be an allegation from any female as there is with sexual assault or Harassment.

Never did I even infer I had such facts or evidence.  There is clearly an if there...if there is some...he will go down.  Without a person having to make the allegation .

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

It’s reported that the 17 year old (she may be older than that now) is cooperating with investigators, but we’ll have to see what, if anything, comes of it. 

I think we can all agree that it's a very sad day when MTG is the voice of reason.

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

So you have no facts or evidence and you were misquoting previous quote.. got it. 

There is exactly one person in this thread that is coming to Gaetz's defense. Why are you so on his side? I mean, I get being skeptical until more info comes out, but it comes across as super creepy defending someone you don't know, who is already viewed as an odd dude,and has been associated with sex trafficking

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

There is exactly one person in this thread that is coming to Gaetz's defense. Why are you so on his side? I mean, I get being skeptical until more info comes out, but it comes across as super creepy defending someone you don't know, who is already viewed as an odd dude,and has been associated with sex trafficking

I’m just trying to remind everyone that in this country people are innocent until proven guilty especially when we have stories from unsourced people.  So people are not entitled to a defense regardless of the crime?

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

I’m just trying to remind everyone that in this country people are innocent until proven guilty especially when we have stories from unsourced people.  So people are not entitled to a defense regardless of the crime?

Except for Deshaun Watson.   Lots of folks ready to throw him in jail over in the Shark Pool.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Alex P Keaton said:

Except for Deshaun Watson.   Lots of folks ready to throw him in jail over in the Shark Pool.

So the difference here from my perspective is the following:

watson - has over 20 women accusing him with lawyers and recently reported over 50 women ready to testify 

gaetz - no women coming forward and unsourced accusations.

 

so your point is what? 

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

So the difference here from my perspective is the following:

watson - has over 20 women accusing him with lawyers and recently reported over 50 women ready to testify 

gaetz - no women coming forward and unsourced accusations.

 

so your point is what? 

Both should be innocent until proven guilty.   One guy has the FBI after him.  The other has a lawyer asserting that 20 people (unnamed people) have made accusations, and (finally) one woman who has actually gone to the police.   Either way, both are and should be innocent until proven guilty.  For whatever reason, that sentiment doesn't apply to Watson.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Alex P Keaton said:

Both should be innocent until proven guilty.   One guy has the FBI after him.  The other has a lawyer asserting that 20 people (unnamed people) have made accusations, and (finally) one woman who has actually gone to the police.   Either way, both are and should be innocent until proven guilty.  For whatever reason, that sentiment doesn't apply to Watson.

 

 

I agree..  let the courts decide

  • Thanks 1
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.


×
×
  • Create New...