0
piper17

Obama and the attempt to destroy the Second Amendment

Recommended Posts

Quote

Bush did not cause the economic crisis. It actually all started with Carter ...

Blues,
Rob



I don't believe Carter (or Clinton) invented credit default swaps, highly leveraged derivatives, or forced insurance companies like AIG or banks like Lehman to buy AAA rated "securitized" shit. I don't believe any Dem sponsored the legislation that allowed big corporations to hide their problems - that was Gramm and friends.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

When was your constitution made again? And colored by what kind of political climate? How was this nation built and united? After how many wars nad guns and shit? Could your forfathers have a different and more realistic view on wearing arms and protecting themselfs?? Things change after 200 years..



What changes would you make to the other Amendments?
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>A portion of our current population seems to not want to worry about the
>principles of freedom though...

We call these people "Bush supporters."



Good thing he is not running again huh?

And only one candidate has made statements that he wants to limit Constitutional rights....And it was not McCain.

You seem to be willing to fight for every Amendment BUT the second. That one you seem more than willing to push aside.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is true but Carter is resposible for getting CRA and other mortgage bills through to push for higher LTV (loan to value) loans. PMI (mortgage insurance) was created as a result to have the ability to lend money with little or no money down to hedge the risk the banks were taking as a result of the government policies. Fannie and Freddie also got more loose with what they would buy as a result of this. Had this legislation never been passed becaue "everone deserves the ability to buy a home" then this would have never happened. So what you say is true but so is what I have stated above. I was a Senior mortgage banker and I worked for HUD and these discussions have been going on forever in the industry as far as how long it would last at the pace it was going and when it would all fall apart. What really kicked it up a notch were the private investors and lenders that saw the banks lending this way and realized they could do the same thing. It was then taken to a whole new level by Lehman Brothers, Countrywide, etc.
Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it.
Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000
www.fundraiseadventure.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

That is true but Carter is resposible for getting CRA and other mortgage bills through to push for higher LTV (loan to value) loans. PMI (mortgage insurance) was created as a result to have the ability to lend money with little or no money down to hedge the risk the banks were taking as a result of the government policies. Fannie and Freddie also got more loose with what they would buy as a result of this. Had this legislation never been passed becaue "everone deserves the ability to buy a home" then this would have never happened. So what you say is true but so is what I have stated above. I was a Senior mortgage banker and I worked for HUD and these discussions have been going on forever in the industry as far as how long it would last at the pace it was going and when it would all fall apart. What really kicked it up a notch were the private investors and lenders that saw the banks lending this way and realized they could do the same thing. It was then taken to a whole new level by Lehman Brothers, Countrywide, etc.



What % of CRA loans went bad, compared to loans through brokers who aren't bound by CRA, loans for 2nd homes, loans for very expensive homes, loans to developers, etc. What % of the problem loans are CRA loans?

How come neighborhood banks even in poor neighborhoods aren't in such bad shape?

How come European banks are folding, when they aren't bound by CRA?

Who forced AIG to insure these loans? Who forced Countrywide to buy them? How come Gramm's UBS bought $18billion of bad mortgages? Did CRA force any of those mistakes?

Blaming CRA is a lame attempt to place blame on the wrong people.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

>A portion of our current population seems to not want to worry about the
>principles of freedom though...

We call these people "Bush supporters."



Good thing he is not running again huh?



Funny how desperately McCain distanced himself from Bush in the debate tonight.

Funny how one of our local GOP congressmen, in his TV ads, is touting how much he opposed Bush.

Funny that 4 years ago all you folks voted Bush into office, and 8 years ago you chose him in preference to McCain.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry Kall but it is what started it all and by the way brokers are bound by it in a differnt way. HUD, acting as the police for RESPA (real estate setlement procedures act) check protfolios to see how many are to low income or CRA areas otherwise you get slamed for redlining. The percentage of CRA loans that have gone in default is higher than the conventional loan number because they had no vested interest really... no money down, no wait they had money down it was the tax payers money. If the government would not have pushed to lend higher LTV loans this would have never happened. Also PMI would not have been necessary and the government also was involved in working with the insurance companies to allow this to work. It is true that a lot of the actions after that fall on the shoulders of the banks and lenders as well as the insurance companies but that does not negate what opened pandoras box. Sorry it is not a lame excuse it is fact..... much of the blame lies on teh government and honestly I am still not sure why homeowners are not taking any resposibility for what they signed and agreed to? Bottom line is this is a big mess but to say it is the fault only of big business is a crock.
Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it.
Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000
www.fundraiseadventure.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Sorry Kall but it is what started it all and by the way brokers are bound by it in a differnt way. HUD, acting as the police for RESPA (real estate setlement procedures act) check protfolios to see how many are to low income or CRA areas otherwise you get slamed for redlining. The percentage of CRA loans that have gone in default is higher than the conventional loan number because they had no vested interest really... no money down, no wait they had money down it was the tax payers money. ....



The Federal Reserve Board survey of banks does NOT support your position. over 50% said CRA loans were profitable, compared with 8% that said they are unprofitable. The default rate for broker originated loans is worse than for CRA loans.

Per the Federal Reserve:

Abstract: The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) encourages lenders to make mortgage loans to certain classes of borrowers. However, the law does not apply to all lenders, and lenders do not necessarily receive credit for all loans made to borrowers of a particular class. We use this variation to test whether or not CRA-affected lenders cut interest rates to CRA-eligible borrowers; in other words, we test for the presence of a regulation-driven subsidy. Our theory suggests that loans made by commercial banks and savings associations (``relationship lenders'') and mortgage companies (``transaction lenders'') will differ from one another depending on borrower risk and homeownership benefits. Empirically, we find that CRA-eligible loans at CRA-affected institutions do carry lower mortgage spreads compared with other loans at the same institution. However, once we control for risk and benefit effects suggested by our theory, these differences in mortgage spreads become economically and statistically insignificant.

The crisis is NOT due to the CRA, it is due to absurd leveraging by greedy financial institutions.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Funny that 4 years ago all you folks voted Bush into office, and 8 years ago you chose him in preference to McCain.



4 years ago he was a better choice than Kerry. Funny if Bush sucked so bad that Kerry must have sucked worse.

8 Years ago I wanted McCain, but Bush was better than Gore.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Funny that 4 years ago all you folks voted Bush into office, and 8 years ago you chose him in preference to McCain.



4 years ago he was a better choice than Kerry. Funny if Bush sucked so bad that Kerry must have sucked worse.



As does McCain, by that logic.

And, of course, we now know for sure how badly Bush sucks.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Whereas McCain *wrote* McCain-Feingold.



CO-wrote.

And it had some good parts such as the stand by your ad bit. The bill was far from perfect, but its impact is really minor to the average person.

But you really think Obama is not going to try to rewrite the 2nd?
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Whereas McCain *wrote* McCain-Feingold.



CO-wrote.

And it had some good parts such as the stand by your ad bit. The bill was far from perfect, but its impact is really minor to the average person.

But you really think Obama is not going to try to rewrite the 2nd?



It seems that you haven't looked at the process for amending the Constitution. It's not the same as the process for authoring a bill in Congress, Ron.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

It seems that you haven't looked at the process for amending the Constitution. It's not the same as the process for authoring a bill in Congress, Ron.



Actually, I do know the process thanks.

Bills can be written that in essence rewrite an amendment. McCain-Feingold could be seen as one. The AWB can also be seen as one.

The topic of this thread is Obama and the 2nd. He has made statement after statement that he wants to remove rights granted under the second.

Such as these that you never responded to in another thread:

From his own website:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Address Gun Violence in Cities: As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn't have them. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Fact check

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q: Is the D.C. law prohibiting ownership of handguns consistent with an individual's right to bear arms?

A: As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right/b], in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban
Obama was being misleading when he denied that his handwriting had been on a document endorsing a state ban on the sale and possession of handguns in Illinois. Obama responded, "No, my writing wasn't on that particular questionnaire. As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns."

Actually, Obama's writing was on the 1996 document, which was filed when Obama was running for the Illinois state Senate. A Chicago nonprofit, Independent Voters of Illinois, had this question, and Obama took hard line:

35. Do you support state legislation to:
a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
b. ban assault weapons? Yes.
c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q: You said recently, "I have no intention of taking away folks' guns." But you support the D.C. handgun ban, and you've said that it's constitutional. How do you reconcile those two positions?

A: Because I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it's important for us to recognize that we've got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NO ONE has an issue with illegal guns...But why the problem with legal assault weapons?

Even the DOJ said that before the first AWB that only 1-4% of crimes were using weapons that were outlawed by the AWB.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Obama sought moderate gun control measures, such as a 2000 bill he cosponsored to limit handgun purchases to one per month
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry"--Obama
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* Principles that Obama supports on gun issues:Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
* Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
* Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.

Source: 1998 IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test Jul 2, 1998
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Barack Obama’s presidential campaign has worked to assure uneasy gun owners that he believes the Constitution protects their rights and that he doesn’t want to take away their guns.

But before he became a national political figure, he sat on the board of a Chicago-based foundation that doled out at least nine grants totaling nearly $2.7 million to groups that advocated the opposite positions.

The foundation funded legal scholarship advancing the theory that the Second Amendment does not protect individual gun owners’ rights, as well as two groups that advocated handgun bans. And it paid to support a book called “Every Handgun Is Aimed at You: The Case for Banning Handguns.”

But the Joyce Foundation in 1999 awarded $84,000 to the Chicago-Kent College of Law for a symposium on the theory that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual’s right to bear arms, but rather only a state’s right to arm its militia.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Post quotes Obama out of context, claiming that he only wanted to tax “certain types” of guns in 1999. But the full sentence in the 1999 article reads, “Obama is also seeking to increase the federal taxes by 500 percent on the sale of firearm, ammunition [sic] -- weapons he says are most commonly used in firearm deaths.” Chinta Strausberg, Obama unveils federal gun bill, Chicago Defender, Dec. 13, 1999, at 3.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On March 13, 2003, Obama voted in the Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee for a bill that would have enacted a much broader gun ban. (The vote tally sheet is available at http://www.nrapvf.org/Media/pdf/sb1195_obama.pdf).
The bill under debate that day, SB 1195 (available at http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/93/...300SB1195lv.pdf), would have made it illegal to “knowingly manufacture, deliver, or possess” a “semiautomatic assault weapon.”
The bill defined a “semiautomatic assault weapon” to include “any firearm having a caliber of 50 [sic] or greater.” See SB 1195, page 2, line 10 (emphasis added). Under this bill, a firearm did not actually have to be semi-automatic to be a “semiautomatic assault weapon.”
Shotguns 28-gauge or larger (by far the majority of shotguns owned in the United States) are all “.50-caliber or greater.” See National Rifle Ass’n, Firearms Fact Book 183 (3d ed. 1989). SB 1195 did exclude any firearm that “is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever or slide action” and “any semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more than 5 rounds of ammunition in a fixed or detachable magazine.” SB 1195 p.3, lines 12-23. However, the bill did not exclude firearms with hinge or similar actions, such as single-shot or double-barreled shotguns used by millions of hunters.
Anyone who possessed one of these firearms in Illinois 90 days after the effective date would have had to “destroy the weapon or device, render it permanently inoperable, relinquish it to a law enforcement agency, or remove it from the state.” SB 1195, p. 5, line 33. Anyone who still possessed a banned gun would have been subject to a felony sentence. SB 1195, p. 5, line 15. This “seizure and surrender” provision was much more severe than the former federal “assault weapons” ban, which had a “grandfather clause” to allow current lawful owners to keep their guns. See 18 U.S.C. 922(v)(2) (repealed).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

He has voted several times to ban weapons.

He has made several statements that he wants to ban weapons.

He voted to take certain types of weapons from the populace, or make them criminals.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kall a mortgage is considered profitable for 1-2 years. After that if it is still on the books it is not really doing anything. Take US Bancorps model whom is doing quite well despite all of this...... they prefer to hold a mortgage no longer than 3 years as the return on interest becomes a "stagnant return". A loan can be foreclosed on and still be considered "profitable". Sorry but I disagree with you..... CRA started it but it is not the only reason. It merely opened the door for everything else. Yes people were greedy but buyers were also irresponsible!
Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it.
Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000
www.fundraiseadventure.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Whereas McCain *wrote* McCain-Feingold.



CO-wrote.

And it had some good parts such as the stand by your ad bit. The bill was far from perfect, but its impact is really minor to the average person.

But you really think Obama is not going to try to rewrite the 2nd?



It seems that you haven't looked at the process for amending the Constitution. It's not the same as the process for authoring a bill in Congress, Ron.



Perhaps you should have remembered that before your "Palin will have women bearing rape babies" shrill, recently.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Perhaps you should have remembered that before your "Palin will have women bearing rape babies" shrill, recently.



That does not require a constitutional amendment

All it requires is for the law to be set making ALL conceptions( from the moment of fertilization) to be viable human beings and abortion illegal once again.
( bring on the coat hangers and back ally botched abortions America)

It is nearly impossible to find a place to make the choice to terminate a pregnancy in MOST parts of this country already, by making it impossible to maintain a medcial facility in which to perform the procedure. Even if they do it immediately after impregnation it is impossible because the medical facilities are not there. It is also very hard to find the morning after pill in many places...or pharmacists even doing their job i and having them dispense the pill even if the woman can find a doctor to prescribe it.

You already have a defacto abortion ban for rape and incest in much of red state AmeriKa.>:(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Kall a mortgage is considered profitable for 1-2 years. After that if it is still on the books it is not really doing anything. Take US Bancorps model whom is doing quite well despite all of this...... they prefer to hold a mortgage no longer than 3 years as the return on interest becomes a "stagnant return". A loan can be foreclosed on and still be considered "profitable". Sorry but I disagree with you..... CRA started it but it is not the only reason. It merely opened the door for everything else. Yes people were greedy but buyers were also irresponsible!



To get back to the repeatedly evaded questions -
What % of CRA loans went bad?
How did they compare with non CRA sub-prime loans?
What % of bad loan $$$ that caused the crisis were from CRA loans?
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Whereas McCain *wrote* McCain-Feingold.



CO-wrote.

And it had some good parts such as the stand by your ad bit. The bill was far from perfect, but its impact is really minor to the average person.

But you really think Obama is not going to try to rewrite the 2nd?



It seems that you haven't looked at the process for amending the Constitution. It's not the same as the process for authoring a bill in Congress, Ron.



Perhaps you should have remembered that before your "Palin will have women bearing rape babies" shrill, recently.



Another of your strawmen.

Palin (and the GOP platform) SUPPORTS a Constitutional amendment to force rape victims to bear the child of the rapist. Obama has NOT said he supports a Constitutional amendment to outlaw guns.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Funny....I don't see anything in the GOP platform about forcing victims of rape to continue the pregnancy to term. What the platform says is this:

Maintaining The Sanctity and Dignity of Human Life

Faithful to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence, we assert the inherent dignity and sanctity of all human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity and dignity of innocent human life.

We have made progress. The Supreme Court has upheld prohibitions against the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion. States are now permitted to extend health-care coverage to children before birth. And the Born Alive Infants Protection Act has become law; this law ensures that infants who are born alive during an abortion receive all treatment and care that is provided to all newborn infants and are not neglected and left to die. We must protect girls from exploitation and statutory rape through a parental notification requirement. We all have a moral obligation to assist, not to penalize, women struggling with the challenges of an unplanned pregnancy. At its core, abortion is a fundamental assault on the sanctity of innocent human life. Women deserve better than abortion. Every effort should be made to work with women considering abortion to enable and empower them to choose life. We salute those who provide them alternatives, including pregnancy care centers, and we take pride in the tremendous increase in adoptions that has followed Republican legislative initiatives.

Respect for life requires efforts to include persons with disabilities in education, employment, the justice system, and civic participation. In keeping with that commitment, we oppose the non-consensual withholding of care or treatment from people with disabilities, as well as the elderly and infirm, just as we oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide, which endanger especially those on the margins of society. Because government should set a positive standard in hiring and contracting for the services of persons with disabilities, we need to update the statutory authority for the AbilityOne program, the main avenue by which those productive members of our society can offer high quality services at the best possible value.

Many people believe in the exception to no abortions for rape, incest, and life of the mother. Planned Parenthood refuses to work with law enforcement when an under-age, pregnant girl comes to them seeking an abortion. That is statuatory rape...Why does Planned Parenthoon refuse to assist law enforcement in upholding the law and protecting under-age girls?
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am not evading anything! There are less CRA loans then conventional and less CRA loans than subprime loans although some are subprime and CRA. The % of bad CRA loans is almost equal to bad conventional loans at about a 9-12% rate of default. Sub-prime loans are at about 15%.... NOT MUCH DIFFERENT!! You seem stuck on the fact that just because CRA loans have a lesser default rate the legislation did not cause all of this. The fact is higher LTV's were offered because of these legislations. NO mortgage programs would have offered these high loan to values and not of them would have required PMI if it had not been for the Community Reinvestment Act and others like it. Another result of the act was allowing higher DTI's (debt to income %'s) or ratios to go above the norm. This actually started with Fannie & Freddie products and yes CRA loans and then moved in to what we now call subprime. You can believe it or not believe it...... it doesn't really matter to me. It was my business to know these things especially while I worked for HUD. I was tracking a lot of this information and as a broker the first thing I would do when a customer refused to put money down despite me telling them to was take them to an FHA loan with no money down and higher DTI's. Yet another government project created by the dems. I concede there are a lot more people to blame in all of this but it all started with this type of legislation!
Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it.
Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000
www.fundraiseadventure.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I am not evading anything! There are less CRA loans then conventional and less CRA loans than subprime loans although some are subprime and CRA. The % of bad CRA loans is almost equal to bad conventional loans at about a 9-12% rate of default. Sub-prime loans are at about 15%.... NOT MUCH DIFFERENT!!



Your idea of "different" and mine are very different:P No wonder YOUR industry is in such big trouble.

What you are telling us is that subprimes are between 33% and 66% MORE LIKELY to be in default than CRA loans.

Thank you for nicely illustrating my point that the CRA loans are less of a problem than the other subprimes and no worse than conventional loans. And that trying to blame the crisis on CRA loans is a smokescreen to hide the real culprits in the brokerages, big banks, and "deregulators".
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Funny....I don't see anything in the GOP platform about forcing victims of rape to continue the pregnancy to term. What the platform says is this:

Maintaining The Sanctity and Dignity of Human Life

Faithful to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence, we assert the inherent dignity and sanctity of all human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.



I think you just made my point for me - thank you.

And I notice you avoided comment on Palin's very clear statement in her campaign interview.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ha :ph34r: you can use %'s to your advantage if you choose but my point is what you keep ignoring. CRA and programs like it started this whole mess!! If the LTV's and DTI's would not have been raised then this would have NEVER HAPPENED! It is no longer my industry by the way and I am proud of who and how I helped when I was in it!

Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it.
Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000
www.fundraiseadventure.com

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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0