Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Epistemology, Metaphysics and Ethics trumps Politics: vote Obama

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

What matters is how they are being sold--what they are a symbol of. Obama is the "elitist" these days, and Romney is the opposite...
Romney and Ryan are not selling themselves as people to decide things from their hearts. They're selling themselves as the ones who will face reality with reason. They are also selling themselves as people to will not evade the huge deficit caused by entitlements. They are also selling themselves as champions of lower regulation and less statism. The real danger is that people will read any failures from their actions as a failure of capitalism. However, if you're going to decide based on how they're being sold, then they win.

I would not say the same if Santorum or the Alaskan air-head was the GOP candidate or the choice for VP.

[*That said, you do recall that Romney is a freakin' Mormon right? You know, with the hat and the gold bars and dum dum dum dum dum dum...?].
I don't like Romney pandering to the religious right. If I vote for a GOP candidate, I want him to be someoe where the evidence shows he is nowhere near imposing his religious beliefs on others, and that his pandering is just that. Agsin, I would not say the same of Santorum or Michelle Bachman or even Newt.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Romney and Ryan are not selling themselves as people to decide things from their hearts. They're selling themselves as the ones who will face reality with reason. They are also selling themselves as people to will not evade the huge deficit caused by entitlements. They are also selling themselves as champions of lower regulation and less statism. The real danger is that people will read any failures from their actions as a failure of capitalism. However, if you're going to decide based on how they're being sold, then they win.

I would not say the same if Santorum or the Alaskan air-head was the GOP candidate or the choice for VP.

I don't like Romney pandering to the religious right. If I vote for a GOP candidate, I want him to be someoe where the evidence shows he is nowhere near imposing his religious beliefs on others, and that his pandering is just that. Agsin, I would not say the same of Santorum or Michelle Bachman or even Newt.

Romney isn't "pandering" to the Religious right by being Morom (believe it or not, even Christian kooks regard Mormons as kooks--Romney's Mormanism is not an asset for him). No, what I fear is Romney's actual Mormon beliefs, and more than that, I fear that his attitude--that you can simply go against your core beliefs whenever it suits you--is a bad trait to be exhibited by the President. I guess this is the heart of the issue for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Compared to the Republican top-level summary, all of them...

Joe Biden is a Democrat. So is Charlie Rangel. And Debbie Wasserman Schultz. They're smart and logical? How about Henry Johnson, the representative from Georgia?

You really should pick some yourself. If you're gonna let me pick them, it's not gonna help your argument one bit.

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CrowEpistemologist:

We must be living in different universes because nothing you have said corresponds to reality as I know it.

The VP candidate for the Republican party is a bald-faced liar who once made his staff read AR and now says his interest in her is an "urban legend".

You'll have to provide more context or a quote or an attribution to this quote since this is something I hadn't heard. My understanding of Ryan's position on Rand is ARI's: he is a fan of Rand's, particularly Atlas Shrugged but he doesn't accept her whole philosophy.

On Fox News we regularly hear speakers conflating Obama's support of Regan's programs as, "communism" all they while they tell the dumb dumbs who watch that crap that lowering taxes on the rich will make poor truck drivers like themselves oh-so-much-more rich sometime in the future.

Which part of this do you believe is untrue: That the rich disproportionately and unjustly are punished (via taxes) for their success or that all of us would be better off if they weren't?

Meanwhile, the constant drone of the Democrats seems to be, "okay, so you want a welfare state, let's actually make it mathematically work". Crazy stuff.

I don't hear any Democrats saying this. Certainly you can't mean Obama who has increased the debt more than all former Presidents combined. I have heard some Democrats say they want to raise taxes to supposedly pay down the debt but all higher taxes equates to is more government spending.

Af for reality, Paul Krugman (!) said it best: the US government is an insurance company with an army.

I have no idea what this means, a properly attributed quote with full context would be nice. But ... Paul Krugman?!?! Seriously? You are pointing to him as part of this intelligentsia? He is an evil liar with no connection to reality at all.

Given the premises and the political realities for the next, say, 25 years, we're going to spend what we're spending on our Army and social safety net, and we're going to have to pay for it somehow. Our choices therefore are either deficit spending or higher taxes. Period. One party acknowledges this, and one party lies about this.

One party acknowledges that spending money we don't have cannot go on forever, eventually it will bankrupt us, as it already has and as it has Europe. They also acknowledge that we are Taxed Enough Already. The other party ignores these truths -- apparently you agree with them.

I'm voting for the guys with the cloak borrowed from Aristotle. At least they still see some reason to wear that cloak.

Wow, this is nowhere near the truth. They haven't borrowed the cloak from Aristotle, they have borrowed the cloak from Kant. Kant was pretending to borrow the cloak from Aristotle in order to destroy the cloak, this is what the Democrats/liberals are doing. They don't wear the cloak of reason, they decide things by feelings or subjectively or according to social justice or according to race or group affiliation. They have already destroyed the schools and they are actively working to destroy the minds of the young by what they teach in schools.

Do you really think they revere or even respect reason when their leader says: "I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there." !!!!! In other words "Intelligence is not what gets you anywhere."

They call Democrats "elitist" (which is what Democrats used to call Republicans back in the day of Barry Goldwater and WF Buckley). The word "elitist" is code for "intelligent and rational".

Forget politics folks--it's pissing in the ocean at this point and time. The real battle is culture, logic and rationality. Vote pro-elitist, not pro-moronic truck driver.

Again, a quote would be nice because I don't often hear Republicans using this word. Perhaps they have used it to refer to Marxist humanities college professors or even Marxist "law professors" but I don't think they use it to denigrate reason or intelligence.

In fact, I believe it is more commonly used by Democrats or the Marxist Occupy Wall Street crowd to refer to rich people.

Interesting your usage there though: "moronic truck driver". Are all truck drivers necessarily moronic? Who is the elitist now?

Romney and Ryan are not selling themselves as people to decide things from their hearts. They're selling themselves as the ones who will face reality with reason. They are also selling themselves as people to will not evade the huge deficit caused by entitlements. They are also selling themselves as champions of lower regulation and less statism. The real danger is that people will read any failures from their actions as a failure of capitalism. However, if you're going to decide based on how they're being sold, then they win.

Funny how you ignored this part of softwareNerd's post and instead decided make fun of Romney's religious beliefs ... as opposed to what? Christian belief? Remember ... Obama is a freakin' Christian right?

Who's a smart and logical Democrat?

I'm sorry, in order to keep this out of the category of "floating abstraction" or at least out of the category of "Democratic talking points" we are really going to need a name. I can't think of any. Bill Clinton is supposedly smart but he is also a liar and a cheat. So perhaps you could name a smart, logical, honest Democrat. (I'm sorry to say that this will be an impossible task since, contrary to your defense of some liberal's "internal consistency", logic requires correct premises.)

I feel like many people here simply refuse to believe the indisputable fact that every one of those geriatric t-party followers are on Social Security like all old people are, and when push comes to shove they aren't going to vote themselves a pay cut. They are there because somebody at Fox News told them that 94% of the Federal budget is actually spent on homosexual atheist art specials on PBS and if they just get rid of the Democrats we can cut those and balance the budget.

Here is a nice little hyperbolic screed a la who, John Stewart? However it only displays your myopia. You have been asking about reason and intelligence, logic and fundamental premises and when they present themselves you do what Democrats who have none of the above do: you insult instead of making an argument.

All of the energy and ideas on the Republican side come from the Tea Party these days but you dismiss them as what? Geriatric hypocrites? Ayn Rand and many other Objectivists collected and collect Social Security. Do you think they wouldn't "vote themselves a pay cut"? Why is it that you find Tea Partiers less sincere that Marxist socialists or even Democrat/liberals? I'm sure most of the Tea Partiers understand that cutting SS must be done and that ultimately it will be beneficial for them.

I'm reminded of the election 10 years ago in Alabama I believe in which there was a proposal to raise taxes on the rich in order to supposedly save services for the poor. A large percentage of the electorate was considered poor enough that this tax would either help them directly or not affect them at all, it was expected to easily pass, it didn't, 70% of poor people voted against raising taxes on the rich. People aren't as cynical or unjust as you suspect.

So the Tea Party espouses less spending and lower taxes. They envision smaller government and revere the founding fathers and principles. This may not be a full philosophy and they may not even understand it fully, but at least they are on the right side of truth, justice, the American way and "culture, logic and rationality", which are the things you supposedly want to support.

But somehow you have convinced yourself that supporting the party that explicitly says: government spending is what creates jobs; redistribution of wealth is fair; if you own a business you didn't build that; working hard and being smart are not how you get ahead in life; government is the answer not the problem; etc. -- is what culture, logic and rationality demand. These things are what has and is destroying the culture, they are illogical and have no connection to reality at all.

What you support is destroying the things you say you want to save. You have deluded yourself, your thinking is muddled, contradictory and wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...]

So the Tea Party espouses less spending and lower taxes. They envision smaller government and revere the founding fathers and principles. This may not be a full philosophy and they may not even understand it fully, but at least they are on the right side of truth, justice, the American way and "culture, logic and rationality", which are the things you supposedly want to support.

[...]

This is the Tea Party you made up in your own mind. A Romantic (in the literary sense) Tea Party of how it "might be and ought to be".

The real Tea Party is staffed with old people who will vote any politician out of office who touches they SS or Medicare with a 10' pole. That's why all of the Republican candidates frame their policies in terms of "saving Medicare" or "bolstering Social Security".

Here's a relevant story on Ryan (and just google "ryan medicare" or "ryan social security" for dozens of others):

http://www.slate.com...servatism_.html

The point is that Ryan and Romney are 1000% committed to the welfare state. If they weren't, the Tea Party people would not vote for them. Yes, you read that right.

I defy you to show me a single Tea Party spokesperson who actually understands what Natural Rights are beyond a tax break for themselves and a way to get darky out of office.

Oh, here's one more link demonstrating just how many light years the Tea Party is from real individual rights:

Republican Immigration Platform Backs ‘Self-Deportation’

From the article: “If you really want to create a job tomorrow, you can remove an illegal alien today,” Mr. Kobach said.

Edited by CrowEpistemologist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the Tea Party espouses less spending and lower taxes. They envision smaller government and revere the founding fathers and principles. This may not be a full philosophy and they may not even understand it fully, but at least they are on the right side of truth, justice, the American way and "culture, logic and rationality", which are the things you supposedly want to support.

Actually the first two sentences are fact and the last sentence states which philosophical side these facts stand on. And if the Tea Party does come to a full understanding of the reasons why these policies are right, then that philosophy can be realized.

Whereas, if the policies and philosophy of the Dems becomes fully realized, then we will have the old Soviet Union right here in the United States. This is OK with you?

The real Tea Party is staffed with old people who will vote any politician out of office who touches they SS or Medicare with a 10' pole. That's why all of the Republican candidates frame their policies in terms of "saving Medicare" or "bolstering Social Security".

Actually, the only people the Tea Party has voted out of office are those who oppose lower spending and less taxes.

The point is that Ryan and Romney are 1000% committed to the welfare state. If they weren't, the Tea Party people would not vote for them. Yes, you read that right.

The point is that the Dems are 10,000% committed to the welfare state. I don't know why you bring this up since most certainly the Dems are more committed to the welfare state -- a fact you've already acknowledged -- and that is why the Tea Party won't vote for them.

I defy you to show me a single Tea Party spokesperson who actually understands what Natural Rights are beyond a tax break for themselves and a way to get darky out of office.

I defy you to show me a single person (beyond Objectivists) who actually understands what Natural Rights are. I defy you to show me a single Dem who, to the extend they do understand what Rights are, doesn't want to destroy them. I further defy you to do it by making a logical argument sans fallacious and unbecoming race baiting (you and the Dems make yourselves so ugly and small when you engage in nonsense like that.) You should also watch the attribution of "for themselves", this is an Objectivist forum after all, that selfless illogic doesn't play.

Your primary argument, I thought, for voting for Dems was this idea that the Dems represented the only vestige of reason and logic in politics today -- I'm glad to see you've abandoned that false argument, that is some progress.

You also seem to agree that lower taxes and less spending are a good thing, why would you ever vote for a Democrat then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually the first two sentences are fact and the last sentence states which philosophical side these facts stand on. And if the Tea Party does come to a full understanding of the reasons why these policies are right, then that philosophy can be realized.

Whereas, if the policies and philosophy of the Dems becomes fully realized, then we will have the old Soviet Union right here in the United States. This is OK with you?

The Tea Party has no leader. There is no platform to look at other than probably some form of Reagonomics just based on the fact that they're Republicans essentially. Either that, or it was a good thing, but Republicans and their emotionalism quickly ruined it. There is little to no reason to expect they will ever come to a philosophical foundation other than common sense, which is absolutely not a philosophical foundation, and instead very damaging to getting anything done rationally. And it's scare mongering to even bring up the Soviet Union. It's up there with calling Obama a commie in terms of hyperbole.

I actually don't care much which ticket anyone prefers to vote for, what I'd much rather hear is what you would like to see done in the future. It's more productive. I doubt anyone here thinks the Romney/Ryan ticket is actually "good", just the "least bad" for those who plan to vote for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And if the Tea Party does come to a full understanding of the reasons why these policies are right, then that philosophy can be realized.

If the Tea Party came to be lead by Ayn Rand (who sprang forth from the grave) then yeah, it would be... not the Tea Party...

There's nothing wrong with dreaming a dream. It's not reality though.

Whereas, if the policies and philosophy of the Dems becomes fully realized, then we will have the old Soviet Union right here in the United States. This is OK with you?

Nope, not okay with me. It would also be very bad, for instance, if the Democrats were actually aliens who planned to eat us all for dinner. I wouldn't be okay with that either.

The "soviet threat" of Democrats is ridiculous scare mongering. They are middle of the road politicians. If they could actually do that, it would only be because the other party wanted to do that too.

Actually, the only people the Tea Party has voted out of office are those who oppose lower spending and less taxes.

And they replaced them with people who do nothing since no politician on either side can oppose Medicare and Social Security and Defense--and those three make up 90% of the spendable Federal budget.

I defy you to show me a single person (beyond Objectivists) who actually understands what Natural Rights are.

I agree that there aren't any. That's my whole point. Trying to make a political revolution happen in this state is pointless. You will get exactly nowhere, and its quite possible you will push your goals out a lot further.

The times we live in are only open to philosophical revolution not political revolution. Sure, the former will not be easy and will take a long time, but the latter presupposes the former.

Your primary argument, I thought, for voting for Dems was this idea that the Dems represented the only vestige of reason and logic in politics today -- I'm glad to see you've abandoned that false argument, that is some progress.

Huh?

You also seem to agree that lower taxes and less spending are a good thing, why would you ever vote for a Democrat then?

Because I think it will accomplish that for my grandchildren, and I think we will live in a slightly safer, more rational world in the mean time.

The Republican "brand" is suspension of disbelief and willful evasion of facts. Romney and Ryan are "flip-floppers" on the deepest levels of their character. We are asked to ignore that fact that Romney wasn't, then was, then wasn't and now is pro-choice. We are asked to believe that Obamacare is socialism whereas the same exact programs touted by Republicans is just sensible governing. We are asked to ignore the fact that Ryan was, then wasn't an Objectivist--we are asked to believe that he never understood that Ayn Rand was an atheist or was pro-choice--asked to believe that somebody only recently pointed this out to him.

I prefer honest socialists (Democrats) to dishonest socialists (Republicans). It's not a great choice, no, but the choice is clear anyhow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have the impression that the Republicans are intellectually vague, and don't know exactly what course to set; while the Democrats are intellectually firm, and know exactly what course to set. So with the R's, as with Bush, we get a sloppy, inconsistent administration that has a general tendency towards capitalism (but without really knowing why its best), and with the D's we get as clear a path as they can make to Marxism.

I also have the impression that the OP admires the fidelity to a central ideal that the D's display, and has disdain for the half-hearted bumbling done by the R's when they have the ball.

Firm convictions, founded upon an intellectual base, inspire confidence in the man or men holding them. Wishy-washy notions of tradition have the opposite effect upon the men holding them.

If this were enough to judge a man or party fit for leadership, then the D's win. But the analysis doesn't end there. We must consider what convictions these men hold.

A liberal professor, say, can articulate very well why private property doesn't exist. But that doesn't make the professor right, even though some schlub can't express his argument for private property any better than "It's mine 'cause I earned it". The professor makes his claim based upon (faulty) reason and logic, and the schlub makes his based upon a seemingly self-evident principle but without any real argument to support it.

So do I stand by the professor or the schlub, when the time comes to implement their ideas? Do I stand by a party dedicated to an end, or a party which can't justify its own ends? One clearly expouses Marxism. The other gives lip service to Freedom and Capitalism, while not knowing how justify them in altruistic terms, or perhaps in any terms outside of being endowed by our Creator....

But God-damn, at least the R's know the Constitution is GOOD, even if they don't fully understand it. They respect Individual Rights*, even if they don't have a thorough comprehension of them. They don't want to violate the Constitution's every principle in favor of fairness and equality.

Neither party espouses laissez-faire, which is, politically, the only way to implement Individual Rights. But one is closer to doing it than the other.

(*This is untrue of the R's in every aspect, of course. The War on Drugs, the Patriot Act, Defense of Marriage, Abortion immediately pop into mind)

Edited by Jam Man
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I prefer honest socialists (Democrats) to dishonest socialists (Republicans). It's not a great choice, no, but the choice is clear anyhow.

Republicans implement socialist policies precisely because the reigning philosophical current in America has been altruistic. They don't know how to get capitalism and altruism to jive. Of course you get mixed results, when you hold mixed premises. But you will not effect philosophical revolution by electing the proponents of the philosophy from which you wish to revolt. Which is altruism, is it not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Republicans implement socialist policies precisely because the reigning philosophical current in America has been altruistic. They don't know how to get capitalism and altruism to jive. Of course you get mixed results, when you hold mixed premises. But you will not effect philosophical revolution by electing the proponents of the philosophy from which you wish to revolt. Which is altruism, is it not?

Then we won't get philosophical revolution. Both parties have the same basis premises despite one paying occasional lip service to freedom while actively working against it.

Now, I personally think this is overly defeatist. An honest assessment of where we are and where we are going--and at what speed--shows us staying more or less status quo for a long time (recall our current Federal tax rates are the lowest in 40 years right now). We're not on some sort of brink of communism politically--thankfully, because if we were, there'd be nothing we could do about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An honest assessment of where we are and where we are going--and at what speed--shows us staying more or less status quo for a long time

Were previous elections just as heated as this presidental election? Anytime I watch or read something related to politics (debates, youtube vids, the news), it seems that people are getting nastier and nastier towards each other. I don't know how long that'll last before there's some sort of.. culmination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Were previous elections just as heated as this presidental election? Anytime I watch or read something related to politics (debates, youtube vids, the news), it seems that people are getting nastier and nastier towards each other. I don't know how long that'll last before there's some sort of.. culmination.

Yes, and that's in support of my point. The "nastiness" comes from the absence of real issues. Since both parties already agree on all essentials, and neither dare bring up anything deeply differentiating, all you have left is personalities and person attacks. In years past candidates would talk (more) about issues since they could in essence say, "my opponent is a nice, honest guy but he's wrong about his policy and I want to lead the country in the other direction".

Besides pure personal attacks you often see a variant which is when a candidate simply lies about their opponent's being the same exact thing as themselves (viz. Paul Ryan Defends Medicare Plan, Accuses President Obama of 'Raiding It' -- Paul Ryan accuses Obama of trying to hurt Medicare which they both in fact agree should be defended at all costs and neither of their plans changes anything essential).

There was a time when candidates told the truth about their opponents views and lied about how their own views where better. Now politicians don't even tell the truth in any case...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... it seems that people are getting nastier and nastier towards each other.
Not really. This campaign is not particularly nasty, it is just that we are here now and focus on this one and its nastiness. History books often carry accounts of the fight between John Adams and Jefferson, and that was as personal as it gets. Here's a brief NY Times article.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

An honest assessment of where we are and where we are going--and at what speed--shows us staying more or less status quo for a long time (recall our current Federal tax rates are the lowest in 40 years right now).

I don't think an honest assessment of where we are would be based on that statistic at all. I think you should instead look at federal spending as a percentage of GDP. That's the measure of the size of government, and that's the actual burden being imposed on productive Americans.

If you look at that, there's no cause for optimism, because that figure has gone up dramatically in recent years, and has recently reached its highest mark since WW2.

Add to that the fact that total government spending has been consistently over the 40% mark since 2008 (that's right, 40% of GDP - another 60 year record), and I'd say that, in the US, the overall state of government is at its worst in history.

If there is a silver lining, it's that the Romney/Ryan ticket (which is promising to at least reduce the federal chunk of that spending back to under 20% of GDP, from the 25% it shot up to in recent years) has a slight lead in the pols. That will take government from the worst four year period in US history back down to the second worst such period.

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think an honest assessment of where we are would be based on that statistic at all. I think you should instead look at federal spending as a percentage of GDP. That's the measure of the size of government, and that's the actual burden being imposed on productive Americans.

If you look at that, there's no cause for optimism, because that figure has gone up dramatically in recent years, and has recently reached its highest mark since WW2.

Add to that the fact that total government spending has been consistently over the 40% mark since 2008 (that's right, 40% of GDP - another 60 year record), and I'd say that, in the US, the overall state of government is at its worst in history.

If there is a silver lining, it's that the Romney/Ryan ticket (which is promising to at least reduce the federal chunk of that spending back to under 20% of GDP, from the 25% it shot up to in recent years) has a slight lead in the pols. That will take government from the worst four year period in US history back down to the second worst such period.

Again, looking at the ideological spectrum, we're not much different than we were decades ago--better in a lot of ways.

The programs put in place by FDR and LBJ are coming to their mathematical fruition because of demographics and the downturn. Obama didn't expand anything all he did was hold office while all this was happening. Regardless of who was elected, we'd still be in the same state. There have been absolutely no structural expansion of the welfare state. Obama--and none before him in decades--have done anything particularly novel.

The $700b stimulus, for instance, was quite small in the history of these things--and this was not some sort of new novel expansion of government power, just a tool that had been used before. Obamacare is simply a tweak of the existing system: the decision to provide free medical care to all citizen was made in the 60s or before.

The one thing that could have realistically changed in the last decade was taxes. Those have gone lower or stayed the same. If the country was itching to go communist, this wouldn't be the case.

The Ryan plan to reduce the deficit depends on growth to produce deficit reduction. There's no explanation as to where this growth is going to come from, but if you put in robust growth into any projections then of course you'll get deficit reduction without cutting programs. It's rubbish--typical politicking, campaign promises, etc. Ryan is not rolling back the welfare state one bit.

Ryan did talk about moving Medicare to a voucher arrangement. Again, this does not change anything. The implication is that these vouchers could be reduced as necessary when the politicians wanted to reduce the deficit--you know, just like they do now (not). Vouchers can (and probably will, if they are implemented) cost just as much as the current arrangement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a fan of vouchers, but if done with a modicum of sense, they are major structural change.

How? How do they change anything? They keep saying they will save money somehow, but they can (and probably will) spend just as much if not more through vouchers as they do the old way. Are people going to suddenly stop aging with vouchers? Will medical science suddenly reverse itself and make people die sooner?

I mean, sure, if you convince people they should live with fewer benefits then you can cut their voucher amounts, but I'd submit that cutting benefits is easier when there's not a nice obvious top-line number to talk about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At an aggregate level, they eventually allow for more value to be delivered within the same cost. At an individual level, they allow for more choice.

Sorry to sound like a broken record, but... how? Why does changing the way the benefit is paid out save any money?

I get the thing about choice, but what if people choose more expensive things and demand more voucher money? To me that is more likely when people "see the money in their own hands" than simply being handed a relatively static system.

I think one fallacy with voucher schemes is that people compare--invalidly--spending your own hard-earned money, which you may do wisely, with spending somebody else's money, which you may not. They are not the same thing and I'd love to see some hard data on this because my intuition would be that this would change nothing or even cost more.

Link to comment
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...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...