Jump to content

The Politics Thread


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 6.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Re: The Politics Thread First of all R.I.P to the guy that died in Woolwich,if he was beheaded (can't watch the supposed video that exists) that's a horrible way to die and of course noone ever ever

Re: The Politics Thread Can't help but agree with the sentiments that the IRA, and Irish people and Catholics did NOT get the kind of demonisation that Islam gets today. And they were far more succes

Re: The Politics Thread You post up the article involving one case and arguing on that basis that NHS isn't great. So you are generalising as you are implying that is all they pay for all year long.

Re: The Politics Thread

Is the wearing of the Burqa a cultural practice or religious decree?

And it does pose a security risk.

The question seems to presuppose that a difference can be distinguished between religion and culture, which I highly doubt.

And it is important to recognise that 'security' is not an objective condition, a condition that exists independently, but instead is a social construct, created and redefined through consensus or power.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The Politics Thread

The question seems to presuppose that a difference can be distinguished between religion and culture' date=' which I highly doubt.

And it is important to recognise that 'security' is not an objective condition, a condition that exists independently, but instead is a social construct, created and redefined through consensus or power.[/quote']

There is a difference-since culture contains religion as a subset while a particular religion may be part of a culture. However there may be exclusive parts of culture like alcoholism and religion etc.

Security is defined based on the society -so totally agree there bud.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The Politics Thread

There is a difference-since culture contains religion as a subset while a particular religion may be part of a culture. However there may be exclusive parts of culture like alcoholism and religion etc.

And therein lies the difficulty in answering your question, distinguishing between the two. Where does religion end and culture (whatever that may be) begin? If religion is just an aspect of culture, then does the question have really any meaning?

Wearing a burkha may have roots in religion, but it may become culturally appropriate (for a myriad reasons) to do so, so the line between the two becomes ever more blurry...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The Politics Thread

Hard to really come in on this debate when I missed a day and it seems that many key points have been said already. I agree with Longnose's post,

Just taking a brief look at this and here is a quick couple of things to consider ....

The cynic in me has started to think that this is a desperate attempt by a failing Sarkozy to harness the legitimate concerns of the French population about not only Immigration ( Muslim) but the nightmare which is the EU?

Except perhaps the bit about the 'legitimate concerns' and the (Muslim) immigration part (it is probably more the 'Muslim within' that is of concern to the right wing in France' date=' a demographic time-bomb resulting from their colonial misadventures in North Africa).

And with Jozua,

I agree with you, i think this law is disgusting - what gives us the right to dictate what a particular sector of society wear, its bordering on racial discrimination. This is only going to make the divide between the Middle-East and the West even larger, i wouldn't be surprised if we see a rise in terrorism because of this as its just giving the Muslim extremists more ammunition for their cause.

Though more particularly I wouldn't be surprised if we see a rise in burkas and niqabs in France, rather than extremist acts.

And especially with RoKo7,

They're left with a potentially ugly dilemma in this circumstance already though. It's not much of a stretch to conjure up a scenario in which a young girl might not want to wear it but it encouraged to by her family or community and now the French Government tries to push her not to wear it. Instantly she's forced to make a choice that one way or another doesn't end well for her' date=' and what's more she has to pay her own fines if she decides to continue wearing one. I know the law itself states that those forcing the woman will be fined but is any girl that continues to choose to wear a burqa under duress from family really going to suddenly discover the conviction to then point the finger at her family?

I just think the answer in this sort of scenario is education and dialogue rather than the state telling us what we can and cannot wear.

[/quote']

Is it really okay to attack the rights of individuals, to disempower women, or possibly endanger women (I believe far more women though chose to wear these garments than are forced to do so), for the preservation of some mythical homogenous French culture, or the sake of some supposed 'security risk'?

Anyway, much of what I would say has already been stated, except one thing, which I have to admit is a thought that has sat with me for some time now, surely I can't be the only one who thinks a niqab can be pretty sexy?! :)

niqab.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The Politics Thread

Hard to really come in on this debate when I missed a day and it seems that many key points have been said already. I agree with Longnose's post' date='

Except perhaps the bit about the 'legitimate concerns' and the (Muslim) immigration part (it is probably more the 'Muslim within' that is of concern to the right wing in France, a demographic time-bomb resulting from their colonial misadventures in North Africa).

Anyway, much of what I would say has already been stated, except one thing, which I have to admit is a thought that has sat with me for some time now, surely I can't be the only one who thinks a niqab can be pretty sexy?! :)

[/quote']

A lazy post on part Jooles but I was referring to the Frogs legitimate concerns about the scale of Immigration, the growth of Islam in France and a growing disappointment in the EU. Once more I see this as little more than a shabby trick by old bignose to stave off the far right :)

....and Yes quite possibly you are :P

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Re: The Politics Thread

The Alternative Vote

So, what are peoples' thoughts on the referendum? To scan over the choice for those who haven't looked into it:

First Past the Post

The current system. The candidate with most votes wins. Simple enough but those opposing it say it isn't great as the winner often doesn't have the backing of the majority of voters and these votes are lost.

Alternative Vote

Voters can choose to order their ballot papers in order of preference. A winning candidate has to have over 50% to be elected. If after the 'first round' of counting no candidate has over 50% of the votes then the candidate in last place is removed and the second choices on those ballots are counted. This process repeats until a candidate has over 50%. The candidate with most 'first round' votes doesn't necessarily win and the cost of implementation is high.

I personally don't think either system is perfect and hence wouldn't want a shed-load of money pumped into AV.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The Politics Thread

The Alternative Vote

So' date=' what are peoples' thoughts on the referendum? To scan over the choice for those who haven't looked into it:

[center']
First Past the Post
[/center]

The current system. The candidate with most votes wins. Simple enough but those opposing it say it isn't great as the winner often doesn't have the backing of the majority of voters and these votes are lost.

Alternative Vote

Voters can choose to order their ballot papers in order of preference. A winning candidate has to have over 50% to be elected. If after the 'first round' of counting no candidate has over 50% of the votes then the candidate in last place is removed and the second choices on those ballots are counted. This process repeats until a candidate has over 50%. The candidate with most 'first round' votes doesn't necessarily win and the cost of implementation is high.

I personally don't think either system is perfect and hence wouldn't want a shed-load of money pumped into AV.

I was speaking to this with Darlo earlier on the 5579 chat,personally I don't want either system and therefore I won't be voting,as for the shed-load of money most of it will have already been pumped in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The Politics Thread

I was speaking to this with Darlo earlier on the 5579 chat' date='personally I don't want either system and therefore I won't be voting,as for the shed-load of money most of it will have already been pumped in.[/quote']

Not voting won't tell them you don't want either system :P

Quite a bit has already been put into the referendum but far more will go in if it gets introduced.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The Politics Thread

Not voting won't tell them you don't want either system :P

Quite a bit has already been put into the referendum but far more will go in if it gets introduced.

Didn't mean it like that Stuart:p,What I meant was I don't want either of the options that we've been given,therefore I don't really see much point in voting at all as there's no point settling for a system I don't want.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The Politics Thread

The Alternative Vote

So' date=' what are peoples' thoughts on the referendum? To scan over the choice for those who haven't looked into it:

[center']
First Past the Post
[/center]

The current system. The candidate with most votes wins. Simple enough but those opposing it say it isn't great as the winner often doesn't have the backing of the majority of voters and these votes are lost.

Alternative Vote

Voters can choose to order their ballot papers in order of preference. A winning candidate has to have over 50% to be elected. If after the 'first round' of counting no candidate has over 50% of the votes then the candidate in last place is removed and the second choices on those ballots are counted. This process repeats until a candidate has over 50%. The candidate with most 'first round' votes doesn't necessarily win and the cost of implementation is high.

I personally don't think either system is perfect and hence wouldn't want a shed-load of money pumped into AV.

Don't agree with the AV whatsoever all it does is over-complicate the voting system. Besides i only support one party and i wouldn't want to order the other parties in preference - i honestly don't see how it improves on the system we've currently got. I will definitely be voting NO!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The Politics Thread

Don't agree with the AV whatsoever all it does is over-complicate the voting system. Besides i only support one party and i wouldn't want to order the other parties in preference - i honestly don't see how it improves on the system we've currently got. I will definitely be voting NO!!

Well in a two candidate system the First past the post system works well-majority votes win. However with 3 parties-things get a bit sticky where a minority candidate (meaning someone who has received less than 51% can win)

Found some pros and cons at http://www.mohammedamin.com/Politics/Alternative-vote-referendum-2011.html

Clear concise description there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The Politics Thread

The Alternative Vote

So' date=' what are peoples' thoughts on the referendum? To scan over the choice for those who haven't looked into it:

[center']
First Past the Post
[/center]

The current system. The candidate with most votes wins. Simple enough but those opposing it say it isn't great as the winner often doesn't have the backing of the majority of voters and these votes are lost.

Alternative Vote

Voters can choose to order their ballot papers in order of preference. A winning candidate has to have over 50% to be elected. If after the 'first round' of counting no candidate has over 50% of the votes then the candidate in last place is removed and the second choices on those ballots are counted. This process repeats until a candidate has over 50%. The candidate with most 'first round' votes doesn't necessarily win and the cost of implementation is high.

I personally don't think either system is perfect and hence wouldn't want a shed-load of money pumped into AV.

Predictable yes from me.

I was speaking to this with Darlo earlier on the 5579 chat' date='personally I don't want either system and therefore I won't be voting,as for the shed-load of money most of it will have already been pumped in.[/quote']

A few of my friends have this viewpoint, it makes me despair. I'm assuming from your post you would prefer something like STV. I'm no massive fan of AV either but I have to ask myself what result puts us in the best position to progress toward some form of PR, a no vote that gives the established powers the easy catch all excuse of a referendum loss whenever the question of voting reform is mentioned, or a yes vote that illustrates desire for change and lays foundations to progress toward a better system? Apathy will only help vindicate maintaining the status quo.

AV is a poor man's PR' date=' which I personally favour.[/quote']

Any preference as to which sort, out of interest? The idealist in me would prefer STV but I kind of like AMS as well despite it's obvious flaws.

Don't agree with the AV whatsoever all it does is over-complicate the voting system. Besides i only support one party and i wouldn't want to order the other parties in preference - i honestly don't see how it improves on the system we've currently got. I will definitely be voting NO!!

In what way do you anticipate it over complicating matters? Even people who pay no attention at all and go in next election to put the same X on their ballots won't have it spoiled, as I understand it. The argument that people won't understand the new system, and I'm not portraying your concerns as this specifically so much as just making a general point, are nothing short of insulting.

It will take longer to count the results yes, but for a more democratic system (as in actually mathematically proven to be fairer, which is really what the yes campaign should be highlighting rather than wheeling out war vets. It really is indisputably fairer to the voter, despite the No campaign's ridiculous assertion about multiple votes.) I'd say it's worth it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The Politics Thread

I'm no massive fan of AV either but I have to ask myself what result puts us in the best position to progress toward some form of PR' date=' a no vote that gives the established powers the easy catch all excuse of a referendum loss whenever the question of voting reform is mentioned, or a yes vote that illustrates desire for change and lays foundations to progress toward a better system?[/quote']

Do you think that's the case? I'm of the opinion that a Yes vote for AV will make the powers believe you want AV, not to get closer to PR. I don't think they'll invest millions changing the system only to change it again in the future when people come up with a more refined version.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The Politics Thread

Do you think that's the case? I'm of the opinion that a Yes vote for AV will make the powers believe you want AV' date=' not to get closer to PR. I don't think they'll invest millions changing the system only to change it again in the future when people come up with a more refined version.[/quote']

Yep, without a single doubt in my mind. Naturally neither result is going to bring a further reform up to the top of the agenda but a yes vote does significantly less harm. Whatever the motives of those voting no, and there are many credible reasons, a result in that favour will be interpreted as a vindication of the status quo and FPTP.

It's just not an issue that enough people care passionately enough or have enough knowledge about to make it an issue again for another generation if the referendum is lost, not to mention that the Tories and Labour who both quite like the current system have little desire to change it and will for the foreseeable future be making up the government or at least be the senior party in a coalition. A no vote takes reform off the agenda for years, a yes vote builds a platform on which to state a case for further changes and the desire for a fairer voting system.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The Politics Thread

This whole business is a nonsense in my opinion, the present system works fine. This is little more than a dreadful act of pandering to those soppy liberals and a total waste of tax-payers money. If there is to be any referendum in this country then clearly it soon be about our continued membership of the E.U., whose relentless meddling makes a mockery of our whole electoral system..in whatever form it takes...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The Politics Thread

This whole business is a nonsense in my opinion' date=' the present system works fine. This is little more than a dreadful act of pandering to those soppy liberals and a total waste of tax-payers money. If there is to be any referendum in this country then clearly it soon be about our continued membership of the E.U., whose relentless meddling makes a mockery of our whole electoral system..in whatever form it takes... [/color']

Couldn't of put it better myself :D

In what way do you anticipate it over complicating matters? Even people who pay no attention at all and go in next election to put the same X on their ballots won't have it spoiled' date=' as I understand it. The argument that people won't understand the new system, and I'm not portraying your concerns as this specifically so much as just making a general point, are nothing short of insulting.

It will take longer to count the results yes, but for a more democratic system (as in actually mathematically proven to be fairer, which is really what the yes campaign should be highlighting rather than wheeling out war vets. It really is indisputably fairer to the voter, despite the No campaign's ridiculous assertion about multiple votes.) I'd say it's worth it.[/quote']

Of course it will over complicate matters, with the present system you walk into the booth, put your cross in the box and you walk out. The current system makes it easy to count the votes, saving man-power and money.

With the AV system, people are going to dither over selecting what order to put the parties in and also the counters have then got to go through each ballot card and note the order of preference. Yes its fairer in the sense that every vote is counted, unlike the first past the post system, however it will greatly increase the time for the votes to be counted making it very inefficient.

The AV system favours the Liberals because they know that most people look to them as an alternative vote, being in the middle of the political spectrum, and therefore they will gain more power in the Commons. Its not for the public's benefit, it's solely for theirs and i won't be voting for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The Politics Thread

Of course it will over complicate matters' date=' with the present system you walk into the booth, put your cross in the box and you walk out. The current system makes it easy to count the votes, saving man-power and money.

With the AV system, people are going to dither over selecting what order to put the parties in and also the counters have then got to go through each ballot card and note the order of preference. Yes its fairer in the sense that every vote is counted, unlike the first past the post system, however it will greatly increase the time for the votes to be counted making it very inefficient.

The AV system favours the Liberals because they know that most people look to them as an alternative vote, being in the middle of the political spectrum, and therefore they will gain more power in the Commons. Its not for the public's benefit, it's solely for theirs and i won't be voting for it.[/quote']

I can't agree with the use of the phrase over-complicating I'm afraid. Essentially the only difference will be the ballots taking longer to be counted, which isn't exactly a deal breaker. I don't see why people should dither on the day any more than they do now given the amount of time they have to think about it prior to voting. Not to mention that you can of course still just walk in and put a cross in a box and walk out if you so choose, you don't have to rank every party, just as many as you wish to. It's hardly complex to decide if you like a 2nd or 3rd party as well, you have a very low estimation of the British public if you believe that will be overwhelmingly difficult for people.

The greater cost is also going to be nowhere near what the No campaign is suggesting, given that the £130m machines they like to talk about aren't going to be necessary.

There are valid arguments against, the encouraging of wishy washy centrist policies is certainly one, but the argument about AV being complex is infuriating to me. It's simply not true.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The Politics Thread

I can't agree with the use of the phrase over-complicating I'm afraid. Essentially the only difference will be the ballots taking longer to be counted' date=' which isn't exactly a deal breaker. I don't see why people should dither on the day any more than they do now given the amount of time they have to think about it prior to voting. Not to mention that you can of course still just walk in and put a cross in a box and walk out if you so choose, you don't [i']have[/i] to rank every party, just as many as you wish to. It's hardly complex to decide if you like a 2nd or 3rd party as well, you have a very low estimation of the British public if you believe that will be overwhelmingly difficult for people.

The greater cost is also going to be nowhere near what the No campaign is suggesting, given that the £130m machines they like to talk about aren't going to be necessary.

There are valid arguments against, the encouraging of wishy washy centrist policies is certainly one, but the argument about AV being complex is infuriating to me. It's simply not true.

I think your are miss-interpreting what i am saying, i have not said that the AV system will be 'difficult' for people to understand, just that the process is going to over-complicate the voting system. Besides, i don't understand why anyone would want to vote for multiple parties - surely if you support a party, why would you want to increase the chances of the opposition getting into power??

Personally i don't think it's a good idea to bring in a voting system that is ineffective and has a reputation of creating hung-parliaments - you only have to look at Australia to see how absurd the AV system is, where the party who received fewer votes than its rival ended up bargaining its way into government. I don't want anymore coalition governments, the current one isn't exactly going brilliantly. Anything that creates indecisiveness in a government and leads to less policy change is a very bad thing in my opinion, especially at a time when we need change to get us out of this recession.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The Politics Thread

I think your are miss-interpreting what i am saying' date=' i have not said that the AV system will be 'difficult' for people to understand, just that the process is going to [b']over-complicate[/b] the voting system. Besides, i don't understand why anyone would want to vote for multiple parties - surely if you support a party, why would you want to increase the chances of the opposition getting into power??

Personally i don't think it's a good idea to bring in a voting system that is ineffective and has a reputation of creating hung-parliaments - you only have to look at Australia to see how absurd the AV system is, where the party who received fewer votes than its rival ended up bargaining its way into government. I don't want anymore coalition governments, the current one isn't exactly going brilliantly. Anything that creates indecisiveness in a government and leads to less policy change is a very bad thing in my opinion, especially at a time when we need change to get us out of this recession.

I wouldn't call taking longer to count the ballots over complicating things. I assumed with your dithering comment you thought people would find it more difficult leading to complications. Other than a longer wait for results I can't really see how it would over-complicate things. I'm aware I might be being obtuse here, not deliberately though. :D

There are a ton of people who have beliefs that fit with a party who are a distant third or worse in their constituency so under FPTP make a compromise vote for the 1st or 2nd ranked party so as their vote might actually count for something. Under AV they are better accounted for and have no cause to tactically vote any more.

Hung parliaments are created when more people stop voting for the big two parties, as has been the increasing trend here since the 1950s. AV might make it slightly more likely (though from what I've read I suspect this is a myth) but they're going to be more common place even under FPTP from here on out.

Edit: While I'm here, Australia has 1 hung parliament from the last 38 elections. Just sayin'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The Politics Thread

AV is a stupid waste of time.

Has absolutely zero credability In my humble opinion, the whole process is quite complicated and most people I speak to dont understand it and being really honest what percentage of the British Public do you think actually cares??? A tiny percentage I imagine.

As Cleggy said himself AV is just a poor relation when compared to proportional representation which does have some merits, but AV na not for me, always believed in first past the post IMO it is the best and most democratic way, the person who gets the most votes win, why complicate a system which has worked well for centuries.

AV operates in three countries to my knowledge and 2 of them if my memory serves are Fiji and some other tiny country Papa new Guinea or summit, hardly political heavyweights and you only need to look at the farce in Australia where the last election was basically decided by whether a few politicians decided to lean to the left or the right....hardly democratic.

Say No to AV :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The Politics Thread

AV is a stupid waste of time.

Has absolutely zero credability In my humble opinion' date=' the whole process is quite complicated and most people I speak to dont understand it and being really honest what percentage of the British Public do you think actually cares??? A tiny percentage I imagine.

As Cleggy said himself AV is just a poor relation when compared to proportional representation which does have some merits, but AV na not for me, always believed in first past the post IMO it is the best and most democratic way, the person who gets the most votes win, why complicate a system which has worked well for centuries.

AV operates in three countries to my knowledge and 2 of them if my memory serves are Fiji and some other tiny country Papa new Guinea or summit, hardly political heavyweights and you only need to look at the farce in Australia where the last election was basically decided by whether a few politicians decided to lean to the left or the right....hardly democratic.

Say No to AV :P[/quote']

It's not complicated in the slightest. If anybody is unable to grasp the idea of ranking candidates in order of preference, especially as you only need to choose one if you desire, then I fear for them.

You 'complicate' a system that has worked well in the past because perhaps it's become antiquated in a new multi-party system?

As somebody said last week, a large percentage of the rest of the world that use FPTP is also starving but we don't use that as a reason to go out and adopt that. FPTP works fine in places like the US because they've maintained a 2 party system, it's becoming increasingly out of date among the modern UK political environment and its multitude of parties. AV might not be ideal but it's a potential stepping stone toward something like STV or Germany's AMS system. And Australia has delivered just 1 hung parliament from the last 38 attempts under AV, our FPTP system has thrown up more than that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The Politics Thread

It's not complicated in the slightest. If anybody is unable to grasp the idea of ranking candidates in order of preference' date=' especially as you only need to choose one if you desire, then I fear for them.

You 'complicate' a system that has worked well in the past because perhaps it's become antiquated in a new multi-party system?

As somebody said last week, a large percentage of the rest of the world that use FPTP is also starving but we don't use that as a reason to go out and adopt that. FPTP works fine in places like the US because they've maintained a 2 party system, it's becoming increasingly out of date among the modern UK political environment and its multitude of parties. AV might not be ideal but it's a potential stepping stone toward something like STV or Germany's AMS system. And Australia has delivered just 1 hung parliament from the last 38 attempts under AV, our FPTP system has thrown up more than that.[/quote']

Cant be bothered to have a long debate as Im at work and it's early.

I simply dont agree with you. The starvation line is nonsense, this country IS a 2 party system only Conservatives or Labour will ever win a general election, the Lib Dems are finished, lost all credability and IMO are a bit of a laughing stock. God help us if you want a system like Germany, got enough clowns in parliment as it is without having idiots like Merkel being advocated, but dont get me started on the "Eurozone"

I never said I was worried by hung parliaments that aint the issue In my eyes, simply that FPTP IMO is the most democratic way, you get the most votes you win. All this adding in 2nd,3rd, 4th vote nonsense is rubbish, and even with this system you still dont need to get 50% of the vote to get in power as has been proven.

If you want a system like Australia you go ahead and vote for AV, quite simply I think it is cobblers and as the last election in Australia proved where the government formed ws basically decided by whether a few politicians leaned to the left or the right...hardly democratic IMO.

Anyhow those are my last words on the matter, roll on May 5th and hopefully we can put an end to all this rubbish, Proportional representation might be worth having a debate/referendum on but this, no not IMO

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The Politics Thread

A two party system where the 3rd party gets just shy of a quarter of the total votes cast is quite something. The figures show we have nothing like a two party system and will probably continue to do so whether that considerable third party comes from the Lib Dems or somebody else to fill the gap. Increasing numbers of people are disillusioned with the 2 established powers and will vote as such, even more so with an austerity government.

AMS has nothing to do with either Merkel or the Eurozone, that's a completely irrelevant line of argument. I could equally say Zimbabwe elected Mugabe with FPTP so we shouldn't use it, but it would be completely disingenuous of me.

If you honestly think FPTP is more democratic then you're being wilfully ignorant to the facts. There are a ton of writings out there that show otherwise, here for a start. The mere facts that it would likely give better representation from % of total votes to % of total seats and would stop the need for tactical voting makes it beneficial to FPTP on two big issues with the current system. If you say it's a 'better' system or your preference then they are different things, but to call it more democratic is standing on very shaky ground.

You keep bringing that one example from the past 38 attempts where no such thing has happened. Should the Tories and Lib Dems have failed to reach an agreement here in 2010 then we could be talking about a rainbow coalition propped up by some minor parties as well. FPTP doesn't have a free pass from this problem and in fact as I've said has delivered more possibilities in this country (and Canada, for the record) than Australia over the corresponding time frame.

AV isn't perfect and I'm not suggesting everybody should run out and vote for it (in fact I'd be amazed if it wasn't defeated on May 5th), but some of the arguments against are so easily debunked that it's frustrating to me.

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.   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...

×
×
  • Create New...