Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Peikoff and supporting the Democrats

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Hussein Obama, who attended madrasas as a child, wants to raise taxes on American producers to give that confiscated money to Muslim states that sponsor terrorism on the premise that Islamic terrorists murder because they are poor and lack opportunity.

That doesn't sound a lot different than the way Bush is handling the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, or the way Bush gave enormous foreign aid to the Palestinian Authority.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 161
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If he existed at all, he has been dead for nearly 2,000 years. We are not worried about him imposing his will on us.

I suppose you are worried about His followers imposing their will upon you. But I am not sure why. Perhaps you can explain to me how the religious right is any different than any other pressure group in this country. How are they so different from the environmentalists? The welfare-statists? The anti-capitalists? The multi-culturalists? The feminists? Each of these groups seek to use the power of the state to impose their collective will upon the rest of us. Why should the Christians be the only ones excluded from the game? If the despicable atheist left is determined to destroy all things religious, (as well as all things American) why should we expect Christians to stand quietly by? The left created a system whereby pressure groups fight for power. Christians have just gotten into the game. And who can blame them. It is the left in this country that lacks values. It is the left in this country that rejects individualism, capitalism and liberty. It is the left in this country that so despises all things religious that they have rejected concepts like good and evil and black and white and destroyed other concepts entirely like the concept of rights. To them everything is gray, everthing is subjective. Morality is a blanket that covers every degenerate. The only stain of immorality anywhere is the individual that stands up for his individuality. Christians arent my first choice of allies, but they seem to be the only ones willing to stand up to the left. For that I salute them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Hussein Obama, who attended madrasas as a child, wants to raise taxes on American producers to give that confiscated money to Muslim states that sponsor terrorism on the premise that Islamic terrorists murder because they are poor and lack opportunity.

That's still preferable to the same funds going into local religious institutions' coffers. That would also backfire, increase popular disdain for Islam and its enablers, and also the welfare mentality, and just maybe there would be sufficient anger among people for the pollies to start taking national defence and offence more seriously. It is not as though I expect a Dem administration to be strawberries and cream! Other things remaining equal, I would prefer Obama's increase in overseas nuttiness over an increase upon Bush's insinuation of religion into public life.

A half decent Objectivist intellectual could also get a better rapport with audiences by dealing with that than trying to deal with the apparent harmlessness or even decency that most people think of Christianity as being. That intellectual would expost altruism and its consequences, tracing it back to anti-reality and anti-reason belief systems, and show that the major problem is religion as such and not just one particular type. Politics certainly isn't primary there, but a major concern is precisely to keep their opposites from being more internalised by people as a result of politics. It would not be good for things to degenerate into sectarian rivalry, of Christianity good Islam bad, which is what you will get if the RR and similar group get their ways through a pliable Rep administration.

JJM

Link to post
Share on other sites
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Hussein Obama, who attended madrasas as a child, wants to raise taxes on American producers to give that confiscated money to Muslim states that sponsor terrorism on the premise that Islamic terrorists murder because they are poor and lack opportunity.

Ha! :D You sound just like Michael Savage! That is just too funny. Anyway, the myth that Barack Obama attended a madrassa was discredited a long time ago.

Unfortunately, a lot of the candidates are in favor of some form of appeasement.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps you can explain to me how the religious right is any different than any other pressure group in this country. How are they so different from the environmentalists? The welfare-statists? The anti-capitalists? The multi-culturalists? The feminists? Each of these groups seek to use the power of the state to impose their collective will upon the rest of us.

The atheist left's programs would last five or six generations tops (if they remained atheists that is) and necessarily still leave open the door to fundamental criticism conducted quietly in people's minds and back rooms. Religious domination can last for millenia, shutting down not just the ability to think but also the willingness to think far more pervasively.

Both will also end up promoting a police state, but with a major difference. No matter how much effort and expense the leftists put into creating surveillance systems and a secular police state, "Big Brother is watching you" cannot have the same ability for all-embracing fear-generation as "God is watching you." There is always the thought of possibly fooling the surveillance systems, for which there is plenty of evidence of people succeeding even with limited resources up against well-funded behemoths. The requirements for maintenance of that system would also be the main source of that door being left open: the need for reason to figure out technology. There is far far less scope for this in relation to an omniscient being, not just technically but in the fundamental manner described above. Religion needs no such door left open, and would be happy to give up all mod cons for greater moral perfection (the quote about plucking out one's eyes etc to maintain one's faith comes to mind). Thus in both practicality and morality, religion would give people immensely greater reason to dob in heretics who expressed their thoughts than leftist creeds would in regard to political dissidents.

Christians arent my first choice of allies, but they seem to be the only ones willing to stand up to the left. For that I salute them.

I don't take any of those nutters, neither the Christians nor the leftists, as even remotely allies. It is a matter of who is less destructive than whom right down to the content of people's minds. Again, the left only is where it is because it piggybacked on religious morality and just dumped the religious part. Their apparent rejection of morality only goes so far - the core of altruism is as strong as ever. Kill the roots - religion - not its outgrowths.

JJM

Link to post
Share on other sites
Right now socialism is the default because not even religion has been able to dislodge it from government or academia.

Do you mean "socialism" literally? I don't think you'll have an easy time finding large numbers of academics who are in favor of socialism. Certainly, a majority are in favor of welfare, universal health care, etc. But that's not the same as being in favor of total government planning, i.e. socialism.

For almost all of them, whether they dare name it for what it is or not, that is their ultimate goal and they have been implementing it one step at a time.

Who are "they?" Who advocates explicit socialism, even if they don't name it that? I've not read "It Takes a Village." But I'm skeptical. How advocating increased social services make one a socialist and not a mixed economy pragmatist?

The "they" are the aforementioned hard to dislodge people in government and academia. Note that I did not say they advocate explicit socialism -- in fact, I said many dare not name what they advocate. I said they advocate literal socialism.

As evidence that they really want full socialism and not just a mixed economy or a "social safety net," observe that no matter how many laws, regulations, and taxes the they get, it is never enough. They always want more.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've also never really understood what would be wrong with voting for a religious person, compared to a nihilist.

Last time there was this debate I asked if those saying this would prefer a house of representatives/ senate full of Hilary Clintons or one full of Victor Hugos, if they had a choice. I did not get a satisfactory answer.

Victor Hugo was a serious Christian who based his morals on a theistic metaphysics but had a very this-worldly (and heroic) approach to life. Would you vote for him? If so, why wouldn't you vote for Mitt Romney (for example)?

I think that what we should be fighting for culturally is not the death of religion, but rather the birth (and growth) of rationality. Having a society with a lot of rational Christians - that's not an oxymoron if you believe that Victor Hugo was real - would not be a dangerous thing at all. (But maybe there's something I've missed which I'll only understand in time).

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't take any of those nutters, neither the Christians nor the leftists, as even remotely allies. It is a matter of who is less destructive than whom right down to the content of people's minds. Again, the left only is where it is because it piggybacked on religious morality and just dumped the religious part. Their apparent rejection of morality only goes so far - the core of altruism is as strong as ever. Kill the roots - religion - not its outgrowths.

I think the ideology of the left is based less upon altruism than it is upon envy. They dont love the poor nearly as much as they hate the rich. They build into programs like socialized medicine an altruistic appeal, but the truth is that they really cant stand the idea that a persons ability to pay should effect the degree of health care they receive. If the left has embraced a Christian doctrine it is the worst of all Christian doctrine--Original Sin. They see all men as evil and in need of control, that is why they erect a powerful state with themselves at the helm. They are not advocates of reason, they are advocates of emotion, and their lack of morality is evidence of that. To the left, how a person feels will dictate whether an action is right or wrong. Morality becomes whatever feels good, not what is right--and that is not morality at all.

The growth of the religious right is a reaction to the increased political power of, and assault by what they see as an immoral left. Take down the left and much of the purpose for the religious right disappears.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The "they" are the aforementioned hard to dislodge people in government and academia. Note that I did not say they advocate explicit socialism -- in fact, I said many dare not name what they advocate. I said they advocate literal socialism.

As evidence that they really want full socialism and not just a mixed economy or a "social safety net," observe that no matter how many laws, regulations, and taxes the they get, it is never enough. They always want more.

Call it asymptotic socialism.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to post
Share on other sites
I've also never really understood what would be wrong with voting for a religious person, compared to a nihilist.

Ayn Rand often endorsed candidates who were religious. If they had the right political principles, it didn't matter to her if they held them for the wrong (i.e., religious) metaphysical reasons.

One cannot expect, nor is it necessary, to agree with a candidate's total philosophy—only with his political philosophy (and only in terms of essentials). It is not a Philosopher-King that we are electing, but an executive for a specific, delimited job. It is only political consistency that we can demand of him; if he advocates the right political principles for the wrong metaphysical reasons, the contradiction is his problem, not ours.

A contradiction of that kind will, of course, hamper the effectiveness of his campaign, weaken his arguments and dilute his appeal-as any contradictions undercut any man's efficacy. But we have to judge him as we judge any work, theory or product of mixed premises: by his dominant trend.

A vote for a candidate does not constitute an endorsement of his entire position, not even of his entire political position, only of his basic political principles.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ayn Rand often endorsed candidates who were religious. If they had the right political principles, it didn't matter to her if they held them for the wrong (i.e., religious) metaphysical reasons.

No candidates today have the right political principles. The pragmatist left have no principles, and the religious right wish to establish a theocracy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The "they" are the aforementioned hard to dislodge people in government and academia. Note that I did not say they advocate explicit socialism -- in fact, I said many dare not name what they advocate. I said they advocate literal socialism.

As evidence that they really want full socialism and not just a mixed economy or a "social safety net," observe that no matter how many laws, regulations, and taxes the they get, it is never enough. They always want more.

But this is evidence of a decline in the cultural power of socialism! Several decades ago, the academy was thoroughly and explicitly marxist/socialist. Now, according to you, they are all secretly socialist or socialist but they don't really know it.

"As evidence that they really want full socialism and not just a mixed economy or a "social safety net," observe that no matter how many laws, regulations, and taxes the they get, it is never enough."

This is evidence of no such thing, however. It is evidence that they want more regulations, more taxes, etc. When did Hilary Clinton or Robert Reich last advocate for government control of the means of production? They want the government to control health care. Do they want the government to control the computer industry? That's the difference between a mixed economy advocate (with an emphasis towards government control) and a socialist. At best, it's evidence for Peikoff's "ailing socialism" or whatever adjective he used.

Remember, you wrote, "they really want full socialism and not just a mixed economy." That means, according to you, Hilary Clinton or whomever really wants the government to own the computer industry.

blackdiamond,

No one is saying, "Don't vote for a religious person." What has been said is, "Don't vote for a candidate (or party) who is going to further entwine religion and government." That's the voting part of the argument, at least.

Link to post
Share on other sites
blackdiamond,

No one is saying, "Don't vote for a religious person." What has been said is, "Don't vote for a candidate (or party) who is going to further entwine religion and government." That's the voting part of the argument, at least.

Has Arnold Schwazzeneggar (Republican) done that in California?

Would Giulliani (Republican) do that as president?

Link to post
Share on other sites
No candidates today have the right political principles. The pragmatist left have no principles, and the religious right wish to establish a theocracy.
When did this change in culture (where there are no politicians with principles any more) happen? Just after Ayn Rand's death?(Since she made no such observation during her time). What caused such a shift in culture? What evidence do you have that this great change has happened in the intellectual culture of America or is this as arbitrary as it sounds?

[i'm very skeptical that you have gone through the web sites of all the Republican candidates and established that NONE of them have any political principles, except to establish a theocracy! Is that really Giulliani's driving ambition, for example?]

Edited by blackdiamond
Link to post
Share on other sites
Ha! :) You sound just like Michael Savage! That is just too funny. Anyway, the myth that Barack Obama attended a madrassa was discredited a long time ago.

Barack Hussein's father was Muslim, and both Barack & Hussein are Muslim names, and Barack grew up in Muslim Indonesia and was educated there, regardless if it's called a madrasas or "public school" as CNN says. The point is Barack Hussein wants to expand the welfare state in America to support "impoverished" Islamic terrorists in the Middle East. While it's improper to use American tax dollars to fund American Christians, it's downright dangerous to use American tax dollars to fund Islamic terrorists who want to collapse America.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Has Arnold Schwazzeneggar (Republican) done that in California?

I do not think that he has. In fact, he has made statements about wanting to keep religion out of political decision-making.

Would Giulliani (Republican) do that as president?

At present, my guess is no, although he has been pretending to be more religious while on the campaign trail.

I'm very skeptical that you have gone through the web sites of all the Republican candidates and established that NONE of them have any political principles, except to establish a theocracy!

I do not think that anybody here is making the argument that every single individual Republican wants to bridge religion and state. Most are arguing that a dangerous number of Republicans want to. Since most members of Congress vote along party lines, this makes voting in any additional religious Republicans risky.

At present, I perceive that Rudy Giuliani is a Republican who will not further inject religion into the American Government. This is one of the main reasons why I am supporting him. Actually, I think his nomination could defuse the Religious Right's political power.

Barack Hussein's father was Muslim, and both Barack & Hussein are Muslim names, and Barack grew up in Muslim Indonesia and was educated there, regardless if it's called a madrasas or "public school" as CNN says.

It is not uncommon for right-wing commentators to deliberately refer to Senator Obama as Barack HUSSEIN Obama with a strong emphasis on his middle name. The same individuals also relish constantly reminding Americans how he spent part of his childhood in Indonesia. Actually, he only spent four years living there: when he was 6 to 10 years old. Barack Obama actually relocated quite often when he was young. (This was mentioned in the article I already linked you to.) I doubt that he got really attached to Muslim culture in that brief timespan.

Anyway, I find the aforementioned practice to be so intellectually dishonest it sounds comical. Right-wing commentators who do this are not trying to persuade individuals with rational argument or facts from reality. They are intentionally misleading their listeners into thinking the Illinois Senator is heavily influenced by Islam. If you have any actual evidence of this, now is the time to offer it.

The point is Barack Hussein wants to expand the welfare state in America to support "impoverished" Islamic terrorists in the Middle East. While it's improper to use American tax dollars to fund American Christians, it's downright dangerous to use American tax dollars to fund Islamic terrorists who want to collapse America.

Even here, you insinuate that Senator Obama is seeking the Presidency as an evil conspirator for Political Islam. If this were true, he must have been living a lie his entire life so that he can eventually claim the Presidency only to abuse the highest office to uplift Islamic Fundamentalism to unprecedented levels. There is absolutely no evidence for this. You could have said that he will appease nations who lend political, financial and spiritual support to terrorism. You could have said that he wants to increase foreign aid to the Middle East which you think will inevitably land in the hands of Islamic Fundamentalist militant groups. However, to explicitly state that Barack Obama wants to support Islamic terrorists is not an honest argument. Again, if you actually have any real evidence of this, now is a perfect time for presentation.

I think it is pretty easy to make an argument how Senator Obama is one of the most unsavory of the leading Democratic candidates without resorting to deception. Even though many of his idealistically liberal ideas are horribly wrong, I still perceive that he generally means well and thinks he is going to help people.

Edited by DarkWaters
Link to post
Share on other sites

But this is evidence of a decline in the cultural power of socialism!

How so?

Several decades ago, the academy was thoroughly and explicitly marxist/socialist. Now, according to you, they are all secretly socialist or socialist but they don't really know it.

I didn't say that. My position is that the bureaucrats and academics are, in fact, advocating literal socialism and moving in the direction of more and more government control of our lives regardless of what they call it, whether they will admit it, and whether or not they are aware of what they are doing. The only thing that has changed in the past fifty years is than we have moved further down the road to full government control. In addition, the road is now littered with additional junk like multiculturalism, pacifism, and anti-Americanism.

"As evidence that they really want full socialism and not just a mixed economy or a "social safety net," observe that no matter how many laws, regulations, and taxes the they get, it is never enough."

This is evidence of no such thing, however. It is evidence that they want more regulations, more taxes, etc.

... which leads to .... (let's abstract a little)

When did Hilary Clinton or Robert Reich last advocate for government control of the means of production? They want the government to control health care.

Isn't "health care" really doctors, nurses, drug companies, hospitals, etc. -- the means by which we produce the products and services to maintain our health?

Do they want the government to control the computer industry?

Yes! And radio talk shows, and how we raise our children, and ...

That's the difference between a mixed economy advocate (with an emphasis towards government control) and a socialist. At best, it's evidence for Peikoff's "ailing socialism" or whatever adjective he used.

Remember, you wrote, "they really want full socialism and not just a mixed economy." That means, according to you, Hilary Clinton or whomever really wants the government to own the computer industry.

Maybe not today, but after she has control of health care and has instituted the Fairness Doctrine, it just might be the next step. Do you think someone like Hilary would ever say, "Now I'll stop. I have enough power?"

Link to post
Share on other sites
I do not think that anybody here is making the argument that every single individual Republican wants to bridge religion and state.

I think the post I was responding to is essentially arguing just that:

No candidates today have the right political principles. The pragmatist left have no principles, and the religious right wish to establish a theocracy.
-my emphasis.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the post I was responding to is essentially arguing just that:

His statement states that the religious right wants to establish a theocracy. The "religious right" commonly refers to a (significant) portion of the Republican base who primarily want to impose religious principles in government. It definitely does not entail all Republicans.

Examples of Republicans who are part of the religious right include: "Rick Santorum, Katherine Harris, Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee, Tom Delay, Tom Coburn and Tom Tancredo."

Examples of Republicans who are not part of the religious right (but still might be religious) are: Rudy Giuliani, Olympia Snow, Chuck Hagel, Richard Lugar and Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Link to post
Share on other sites
When did Hilary Clinton or Robert Reich last advocate for government control of the means of production? They want the government to control health care. Do they want the government to control the computer industry? That's the difference between a mixed economy advocate (with an emphasis towards government control) and a socialist.
Control of the computer industry could come in forms like anti-trust regulation; it could come in the form of "net neutrality". I think socialists of all stripes -- Republican and Democrat -- will "socialize" as much as they can get away with. The obvious first targets are things about which they can make up some sob stories. Health care can be made to seem like an emergency situation, the lower availability of something else -- say music or net-access -- is less easy to "spin" into a story of woe and suffering. Even so, the socialists will find a way. They try to spin any inequality into a sob-story requiring government action. If one person has high-speed access to the web and another has dial-up, that can be a sob-story. If one person drives a large SUV, that's a problem. I don't think any of these power-lusters will be stopped for want of trying. The only thing that will stop them is whether people will buy their stories (i.e. the underlying ideology accepted by the voters).

Robert Reich or Hillary do not advocate totalitarian socialism. However, by the same token, Romney, McCain and Thomson do not advocate a totalitarian theist state. Guliani definitely does not (though I expect he'd go for it if he thinks it'll get him the votes!) If the next political change allows one small step toward religion, whether in abortion, or tax-funded religious charities, or prayer in school, or more creationism in schools, the next religionist will attempt to build on that, and take it further. On the other hand, one might argue that, if Hillary manages to socialize medicine, Chelsea :) might take things to the next step.

My point is that the immediate intent of the politicians from both sides is not the end of the issue. What's really important is the trends of ideology of voters, not the next immediate political step. So, the case against the theists is better made by what that will do in terms of changing people's ideology -- e.g. the extent they are increasingly convinced that religion has important thing to say in the political realm. One can also make the opposite case: of a country recoiling at the excesses they see -- by the people in power (whether socialist excesses or theist excess). Those are the type of cases -- i.e. related to (or indicative of) changes in ideology -- that are more crucial in the long term.

Crucially, the battle is ideological, not political. So, it's important to point out that voters do not get their ideology only from politicians. Politicians, their spin doctors, and their "think-tank" friends are one source of ideology -- theist or socialist. There are others of course, and those bear close watching: for instance, the universities (particularly the reputed ones).

Link to post
Share on other sites
When did this change in culture (where there are no politicians with principles any more) happen? Just after Ayn Rand's death?(Since she made no such observation during her time).

As I said earlier, I am reporting what I heard her say in recorded lectures which the ARI has made available on its website. Ayn Rand made the observation a number of times that pragmatism has no principles and no ideology, that the left have gone to pragmatism, and that the left have no principles and no ideology.

I'm very skeptical that you have gone through the web sites of all the Republican candidates and established that NONE of them have any political principles, except to establish a theocracy! Is that really Giulliani's driving ambition, for example?

Oh, the Republicans have principles. As I said, they stand for god and for his kingdom on earth. (This is not a statement about all Republicans. It is a statement about the dominant trend among Republicans.)

Edited by y_feldblum
Link to post
Share on other sites
Barack Hussein's father was Muslim, and both Barack & Hussein are Muslim names, and Barack grew up in Muslim Indonesia and was educated there, regardless if it's called a madrasas or "public school" as CNN says. The point is Barack Hussein wants to expand the welfare state in America to support "impoverished" Islamic terrorists in the Middle East.
I must echo the point that DW made. These accusations fall into three categories -- false, unsupported, and irrelevant. The name "David"

name is Hebrew, which does not make me Jewish. The name given to Obama by his parents reflects not one bit on Obama's character. The canards about growing up and being educated in Indonesia are not just false, it takes major effort to avoid knowing that they are false. A madras is in fact different from a public school (get a clue, please) even in a predominantly Muslim country (not to mention Hawaii). If you read the Wiki article on him, you will see that he was willfully baptised in the Trinity United Church of Christ. You have not provided one shred of evidence that show that Obama supports Islamists terrorism. This is not acceptable. If you have an argument that Obama is a terrorist supporter, produce the evidence. Otherwise, don't say these things here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the ideology of the left is based less upon altruism than it is upon envy.

I don't doubt that as being the motive for many in the core of the movement, but I don't see it being primary in the people who give them broad support. It is those ordinary people I am concerned about, not the fruitcakes pushing the programs. As you said, it is something they use to appeal to people. Take away altruism and you take away the means by which they and their programs get that broad support.

Second, envy would never get the legs it has without altruism. It frequently only develops because altruism is taken seriously, which generates moral judgements of others, which includes emotional responses, which then metastasizes. Get rid of altruism and it will bring that process to a screeching halt among new members of the movement. It will also take away the veneer of decency the older members and fruitcakes use to pretend to themselves their motives aren't now what they are. Remove altruism and all they're left with is pathology, in response to which some would turn away from it in shame while most would visibly be a bunch of lunatics.

If the left has embraced a Christian doctrine it is the worst of all Christian doctrine--Original Sin. They see all men as evil and in need of control, that is why they erect a powerful state with themselves at the helm. They are not advocates of reason, they are advocates of emotion,

All of that they got from the whole of religion, not just one little part of it. Nor did they embrace it so much as just ride on it and depend on it. Emotions do not arise causelessly.

To the left, how a person feels will dictate whether an action is right or wrong. Morality becomes whatever feels good, not what is right--and that is not morality at all.

And who inculcated the source of their emotional responses? Who will do the same again and again if not challenged at root?

The growth of the religious right is a reaction to the increased political power of, and assault by what they see as an immoral left. Take down the left and much of the purpose for the religious right disappears.

That's a non-sequitur. Religious people does not need its absence nor its rejection to be a motive for them to continue to internalise and proselytise their creed. You may correctly cite it as an extra motive, but it isn't as important as you make it out to be as religion can power ahead on its own steam just as it did in the past.

JJM

Link to post
Share on other sites
His statement states that the religious right wants to establish a theocracy. The "religious right" commonly refers to a (significant) portion of the Republican base who primarily want to impose religious principles in government. It definitely does not entail all Republicans.

I agree. But please note that his statement just before that was "NO candidates today have the right political principles." NONE, ZERO. The next sentence therefore would mean that the candidates are either on the religious right or the pragmatist left, since this was an expansion on the first sentence. If he believes there are some (candidates) who are not in these extremes, then the first sentence is false, and the whole point of his reaction to Ms Speicher is therefore diffused (which takes us all the way back to the Rand quote). I hope you now see where I'm coming from.

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...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...