Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Shameful Display of Anarchy and Violence

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, MisterSwig said:

The representatives deserve to be pressured and threatened by a mob because that's what they believe in and kneeled down to just last year: mob rule. They embrace it. They get what they deserve.

Including the ones who condemned the violence?  You do know that there is more than one person being slotted into that moral evaluation, right?  I ask because, firstly, that's a suspiciously simple and -crisp?- way of phrasing what would be a rather complex act of judgement if it was being done correctly; secondly because this:

2 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

I'm confident many could articulate a better political ideal than the Founders, whose flawed "ideal" led to civil war.

I'm really not sure where to start with that.  It certainly is a unique take.  If you don't mind me asking, which of Ayn Rand's works have you gotten a chance to read so far?

 

Edit:  Actually, this explains a few things:

3 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

We've already done the thinking. We aren't fighting to create something new and different. We're fighting to preserve what we have (or, in some cases, recently had).

 

I'm really trying very hard not to be the psychologizing prick I know I sometimes can be.  But if you don't at minimum feel some vague sort of reverence for our founding fathers then that makes it very difficult for me to try and guess at where our really fundamental disagreement even is, because it almost seems like it'd be about everything, everywhere.  And the above post gives me a bit of an "act first, then reflect on it afterwards" vibe (which, being only a "vibe" at this point, doesn't really prove anything - I just thought I'd mention it).

 

Fin.

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 597
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

As America prepares to certify our next President, a large band of hooligans have taken upon themselves to storm the Capitol.  This in the name of Freedom?  Are these hooligans striving to look for th

14 January 2021 We will crush their violence enacted under their feast of self-delusion and contempt for our Constitutional rule of law. The republic will prevail. The citizens on both sides are

Also there's an argument to the effect that, well look, the representatives in Congress deserve this. While, strictly speaking, this is correct, it doesn't follow merely from that fact that this is th

Posted Images

31 minutes ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

Including the ones who condemned the violence?

Do innocent representatives deserve it? No. Neither did innocent French citizens deserve to die during Allied bombing of German occupation forces. What's your point, that innocents sometimes get hit in the crossfire or that the majority of representatives are good and thus didn't deserve the Sixth?

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

Do innocent representatives deserve it? No. Neither did innocent French citizens deserve to die during Allied bombing of German occupation forces. What's your point, that innocents sometimes get hit in the crossfire or that the majority of representatives are good and thus didn't deserve the Sixth?

Well, you've got me there.  And I guess I can't think of any other reasons why the Senators didn't deserve what they got on the Sixth.  I'm not sure I've ever sat down and contemplated the just how pathetic most of them are before this.  I still don't think it was a good idea, even if its intended victims would've deserved it.  But I guess they did deserve it.

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

I'm really trying very hard not to be the psychologizing prick I know I sometimes can be.

I'm glad to hear that. I hope others will follow your lead and check that shit pronto. Some here are way too into their feels.

1 hour ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

But if you don't at minimum feel some vague sort of reverence for our founding fathers...

So assuming I do feel reverence for the Founders, what would be your guess about our fundamental disagreement?

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

But the congress collective does deserve it, therefore a mob "should" deliver what they deserve  ... said the anti-collectivist collectivist. 

If there's any one thing Rand would've supported, I'm sure it's mob violence in the name of lies at the behest of an authoritarian against democracy...

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Eiuol said:

If it's time to fight, what you want to preserve is already dead. Any physical display of force in the context of resisting the government you have would be justified because there is nothing

I don't understand. What's dead? Why is there nothing?

16 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Are you trying to justify the insurrectionists here?

Not so much as defend them a little. It's like this, I'm generally against taking government handouts, but if the government is handing out money, then I don't fault ARI for taking PPP to stay afloat. Likewise, if the government is kneeling down to mob rule, who am I to fault Trump supporters for forming a mob and storming the Capitol? That's how government is done now. If you have a grievance, you gather some friends and take over a city district or a freeway, burn or loot some buildings, or attack police officers or a federal building. It doesn't really matter who you are or what your message might be. Maybe you're ARI and your message is that government handouts are wrong, but you still need money, so you take the PPP. Maybe you're a Trump fan whose political M.O. isn't normally mobbing and rioting, but when in Rome, right? I don't care for the QAnon and far right BS that motivated many stormers on the Sixth, but I certainly have my issues with the voting system and election, so I sympathize a little with the right, whereas I couldn't care less about the left.

16 hours ago, Eiuol said:

To me, in the context of everything else you are saying, you sound to be saying that you want to get rid of the Constitution and replace it with something else. This is what I'm saying: you are not arguing for preservation, your arguing for a complete change (which is by definition a revolution).

That's not what I'm saying. The Constitution has flaws. Some of the original ones have been corrected through the amendment process, others still have not. I would prefer to go through the amendment process, but that's just me spitting into the wind of socialism, isn't it?

16 hours ago, Eiuol said:

The spirit of the Constitution didn't allow for slavery. 

Yes, it did. It also allowed for the taxation of slavery.

Edited by MisterSwig
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

I don't understand. What's dead? Why is there nothing?

Nothing is dead, that's why it isn't time to fight in the violent way. 

I was saying that if the target of violence is government, then the people attacking the government aren't preserving or defending something they have. They would be fighting to attain something they don't yet have. If these people were fighting for the spirit of America, to preserve that, then they can't attack the government when it uses the Constitution as intended (the Constitution is the spirit of America). Or if they want to say that the country has been taken over by the bogeyman left, then they aren't preserving anything - they would be admitting that the American dream has been murdered by the left. And by the way, Donald Trump literally said the American dream is dead. 

3 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

Likewise, if the government is kneeling down to mob rule, who am I to fault Trump supporters for forming a mob and storming the Capitol?

Fair enough, it's not like anyone in the government should be shocked when a lot of people come and knock down their door. I think of that scene in Atlas Shrugged with the train accident. The victims of the accident were described as getting what they deserve. Some people thought that Rand was suggesting that the victims should have been gathered up and executed. "Deserve" is more like "there are consequences to your actions, what the hell did you expect?" Principles seem so lacking in the legislature these days. Not very much respect for reasoning, more about emotional responses, Republicans and Democrats. So we shouldn't be surprised when a mob of unreasoning emotionalists attack. That's what happens when respect for principles gradually erodes. 

 

3 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

Yes, it did. It also allowed for the taxation of slavery.

I disagree, but it depends on if the spirit of the Constitution really included all the founders. I don't think so. I have reverence for some of the founders, and I have complete disdain for other founders. Hamilton was more the spirit of the Constitution, Jefferson not so much. That's why I think slavery would inevitably die anyway, despite the literal wording in the Constitution that partially defended slavery. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Excerpted from "John Brennan's Dark Fantasies" by Paul Farrell

(First they came for...I told everyone there'd be a witchhunt)

Brennan doesn't mention Antifa, tho he does libertarians.

 

"In a shocking moment of honesty and clarity, Obama CIA Director John Brennan gave the rest of America keen insight into The Washington DC Establishment's plans and actions for the Trumpsters and other "Deplorables" populating the land.

In an interview, Brennan lies and exaggerates to the public about a supposed domestic terrorist insurgency across the country that is gaining strength and threatening the republic. Brennan asserts that he knows that members of the Biden team:

"... are now moving in laser-like fashion to try to uncover as much as they can about what looks like insurgency movements that we've seen overseas, where they germinate in different parts of the country, and they gain strength, and it brings together an unholy alliance, frequently, religious extremists, authoritarians, fascists, bigots, racists, nativists, even libertarians. And, unfortunately, I think there has been this momentum that has been generated as a result of, unfortunately, the demagogic rhetoric of people that just departed government, but also those that continue in the halls of Congress. And, so, I really do think that law enforcement, homeland security, intelligence, and even defense officials are doing everything possible to root out what seems to be a very, very serious and insidious threat to our democracy and our republic."

How do libertarians and authoritarians fit in the same rhetorical political basket? Very tough to reconcile those positions, unless you really do not care about the "logic" of your assertion. Why did Brennan leave out communists? Brennan reportedly voted for Communist Party presidential candidate Gus Hall in 1976, while a student at Fordham University. What about Islamic supremacists? Why did Brennan leave them out of the "unholy alliance?""[...]  P. Farrell

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

So assuming I do feel reverence for the Founders, what would be your guess about our fundamental disagreement?

I suspect that much of it comes from an overly-rosy mental image of Donald Trump, which would also lead you to rely too much on the truthfulness of his word (about election fraud and "the deep state" etc) - I'm not sure but I suspect that's what's going on with several of the participants in this thread. And when I call your mental picture of him "overly rosy" I mean by comparison to what's out there in reality.

That's why I've spent several posts trying to indicate what the real man is actually like - to show what a bad idea I think it would be to take his word about election fraud at face value.

 

And that's the sort of disagreement that I think we ought to be able to hash out rationally, without too much trouble. Donald Trump is not Satan incarnate (and I'll argue just as vehemently with those who think he is) but neither is he a particularly admirable or reliable man; he has many flaws that we've all known about for some time and a few that have become much more apparent more recently.

 

The moral stature of our founding fathers, by contrast, would be a much bigger can of worms on which I'd have to make a much greater effort to try and discuss dispassionately.

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

Donald Trump is not Satan incarnate

In 2016 I was still teaching.  Just after the election one of my students asked me if I voted "for Satan or the orange".  I said that actually Satan was Immanuel Kant, not any politician.  I overheard him ask some of his fellow students "Who??".

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, MisterSwig said:
23 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Are you trying to justify the insurrectionists here?

Not so much as defend them a little

Quote

The representatives deserve to be pressured and threatened by a mob

Gee, not much of contradiction there.

7 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

If you have a grievance, you gather some friends and take over a city district or a freeway, burn or loot some buildings, or attack police officers or a federal building.

That's certainly how YOU are proposing it to be done. It's neither moral nor widespread.

7 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

I'm generally against taking government handouts, but if the government is handing out money, then I don't fault ARI for taking PPP to stay afloat. Likewise, if the government is kneeling down to mob rule, who am I to fault Trump supporters for forming a mob and storming the Capitol?

"Likewise"??? And now you're equating taking a handout from an agency that you already paid into vs. using physical violence to get your point across. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

 

I'm not worried about waking up some morning and looking out my window to discover the Soviet Union.  It didn't happen under Obama (whose rhetoric truly was openly Communistic and terrifying); the reverse didn't happen under Trump; that's just not how America works.  The postmodernist left will get a few of the things they want (which will be some amount of bad for all of us) but I cannot imagine there being any gulags - UNLESS the right wing decides to also go berserk.  What I am worried about is waking up one morning in an active war zone that I didn't ask for and would probably have some difficulty trying to thrive in.

 Not something I can say with certainty, but. Given that I know Democrats and their supporters revere Obama, what is central to them - and him -  is continuing The Obama Legacy (so rudely interrupted for a while); also Obama knows Biden intimately, and was once quoted deploring his V-P's tendency to commit gaffes and dumb errors; so, one may infer that Obama is now in constant, daily contact with Biden, advising his next steps and speeches. The man behind the throne, in effect. I don't accept that Obama is out of the frame and one supposes that includes his ideology.

It is less the "right wing" I am concerned about initiating conflict, than it is these undergoing 'investigations' into everyone suspected of having an ¬unacceptable¬ ideology. The witchhunts can spark trouble. I am certain that some of the vile people in power and in the msm are avidly pursuing an armed confrontation with anyone remotely connected or sympathetic to Trump. Only critical of the Dems or BLM could be sufficient. Libertarians, watch out. All they need is an excuse for action. I am forever saying it is punitive vengeance Leftist-Marxists wish for, and Brennan's latest statement bears that out. You know how these things can spiral, some individuals are picked out and arrested by the thought police informed by the social media watchdogs, for saying a few critical words, within their rights - that injustice inflames popular backing from other conservatives, before you know it there will be full scale clashes with one outcome: dead on both sides and mostly civilians. That's what these sick people want, that is the depth of their hatred for anyone on the right and moderate right. This is not said lightly, I have been informally studying the "left" here in SA and in the UK but especially in the US for many years and I believe I have the measure of their collective character. With a few localized variations they are near identical. When you get to know their premises they are highly predictable.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Eiuol said:

I was saying that if the target of violence is government, then the people attacking the government aren't preserving or defending something they have. They would be fighting to attain something they don't yet have.

It might be an overgeneralization to say they were attacking the government. They stormed one branch of it over one primary concern: the election. Trump was still president. They were trying to preserve his presidency and save it from what they considered to be a stolen, illegitimate election. Now, they might be wrong or have bad arguments, but that doesn't mean they weren't trying to preserve something.

4 hours ago, Eiuol said:

I think of that scene in Atlas Shrugged with the train accident. The victims of the accident were described as getting what they deserve.

Yes. Rand framed it as an issue of being "guilty or responsible for the thing that happened to them." Her fictional example had everyone on the train be somewhat responsible. In reality maybe there were some innocents caught in the Capitol riot.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

Likewise, if the government is kneeling down to mob rule, who am I to fault Trump supporters for forming a mob and storming the Capitol? That's how government is done now.

Just to be clear, though, you've given up on the idea of keeping this country civilized? Antifa wins?

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

You know how these things can spiral, some individuals are picked out and arrested by the thought police informed by the social media watchdogs, for saying a few critical words, within their rights - that injustice inflames popular backing from other conservatives, before you know it there will be full scale clashes with one outcome: dead on both sides and mostly civilians. That's what these sick people want, that is the depth of their hatred for anyone on the right and moderate right. 

Exactly! For the record I am an unrepentant anti-dead-civilian-ist!

 

If the left (through the government or through Antifa) goes on to initiate that violence then they'll be in the wrong (just as they were last summer) and I don't think you and I will have many disagreements about it. And if the right initiates that violence then I hope you'll see that THEY'LL be in the wrong; just as wrong as Antifa.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Nothing is dead, that's why it isn't time to fight in the violent way. 

I was saying that if the target of violence is government, then the people attacking the government aren't preserving or defending something they have. They would be fighting to attain something they don't yet have. If these people were fighting for the spirit of America, to preserve that, then they can't attack the government when it uses the Constitution as intended (the Constitution is the spirit of America). Or if they want to say that the country has been taken over by the bogeyman left, then they aren't preserving anything - they would be admitting that the American dream has been murdered by the left. And by the way, Donald Trump literally said the American dream is dead. 

 

 

Since when was an emotion-driven, disorganized mob (causing one violent fatality) given the status of an attack on the Government/Democracy/Constitution? Because the Leftists want it to be. Because the media said so.

The "bogeyman" Left has long had control of the country in all the areas that matter.

The fears of the "bogeyman" Right has forever been standard fare by the Left: Look out, the Nazis are coming! While everyone focused on protecting that front from the Fascists, from the rear the Fascist Left were slipping through unimpeded and have taken over. And if they represent the spirit of America - god help us.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, whYNOT said:
  22 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

 

I'm not worried about waking up some morning and looking out my window to discover the Soviet Union.  It didn't happen under Obama (whose rhetoric truly was openly Communistic and terrifying); the reverse didn't happen under Trump; that's just not how America works.  The postmodernist left will get a few of the things they want (which will be some amount of bad for all of us) but I cannot imagine there being any gulags - UNLESS the right wing decides to also go berserk.  What I am worried about is waking up one morning in an active war zone that I didn't ask for and would probably have some difficulty trying to thrive in.

Personally Harrison Summed it up for me. My greatest fear is waking up to an objectively unjustified war zone. Both sides using violence are being immoral. I can live with it if Obama and Trump's legacy is figuring things out using peaceful means.

1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

It is less the "right wing" I am concerned about initiating conflict, than it is these undergoing 'investigations' into everyone suspected of having an ¬unacceptable¬ ideology. The witchhunts can spark trouble.

It is unlikely that anyone in the forum disagrees with this type of attack on free speech. Currently the attack on free speech has been cultural not legal. In other words only private companies are interfering. When it becomes the law to speak against socialism, then I'd be as concerned as you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

Exactly! For the record I am an unrepentant anti-dead-civilian-ist!

 

If the left (through the government or through Antifa) goes on to initiate that violence then they'll be in the wrong (just as they were last summer) and I don't think you and I will have many disagreements about it. And if the right initiates that violence then I hope you'll see that THEY'LL be in the wrong; just as wrong as Antifa.

I will give the Conservatives one thing, morally, everyone I have known is capable of shame. Of remorse and "soul-searching", if you like. The behavior of a relative few has disgusted the great majority. From Americans especially I regularly hear and read:  "They go low, we go high". I have failed to find such qualities among the Left. There is a blatant shamelessness for whatever depravities they or others commit which is definitive of their nature- I can almost believe they haven't the capability to introspect. (Like they don't have "a soul", in any sense of the word - a "self"). BUT, and while hoping the conservatives stay "high", there is only so much provocation that humans can take. The provocation against them, individually and as a group, is going to be immense from now on.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

Since when was an emotion-driven, disorganized mob (causing one violent fatality) given the status of an attack on the Government/Democracy/Constitution? Because the Leftists want it to be. Because the media said so.

No, I'm not saying that because the media said so. I gave my reasoning much earlier about why I think the people who broke into the Capitol were insurrectionists and traitors. It doesn't matter if they were organized or not - besides, some of them were. There were also 5 fatalities, by the way. Are you trying to call me a Leftist? Are you saying that the media has manipulated me to believe that this mob attacked the Constitution, America itself? If you want me to expand on my position, fine, but don't presume to know why I believe what I believe. My reasons are independent of what the media says or the narrative that they provide. 

58 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

Now, they might be wrong or have bad arguments, but that doesn't mean they weren't trying to preserve something.

Sure, I agree that they were trying to preserve something, if we take it concretely. They want to preserve his presidency. I would say that the means to preserve his presidency though, is to attack the Constitution. To attack the process that the government uses. They were not trying to preserve the Constitution, which I argue is the very spirit of America. I mean, maybe they were trying to preserve their fantasy of fighting against oppression like they imagine in their dreams. 

2 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

That's certainly how YOU are proposing it to be done. It's neither moral nor widespread.

I think you are dropping the context of Swig's comments. I don't think he is saying so much "I agree with the insurrectionists" as much as he is saying "I see where they're coming from". He's also pointing out that the legislature is not worthy of praise and even is responsible for the deterioration of the country's culture. They aren't without blame for what happened. They got what they deserve - the consequence of lacking principles. (To paraphrase Archer: "Do you want a mob to attack you? Because this is how you get a mob.") The only controversial thing I'm getting is that Swig is suggesting we are in a political war right now so we need to pick a side whether or not we like either side. But it's not the same as cheering on what happened.

I didn't link the Joker just because it had a nice line. If you've seen the movie, Joker pretty much hates the world, I don't think his behavior is glamorized. But out of all the bad things that Joker did, everyone pretty much deserved it. Not in the sense that Joker did the right thing, but you reap what you sow. Murray might appear innocent on the surface because he just has a funny TV show, but he was complicit in creating the destructive world all around the Joker. 

Edited by Eiuol
Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

Furthermore, Why not, do you know of a good reason we should try to prolong the existence of the nanny-state rather than allowing an open border policy to take its course?

Which comes first, do you mean? Simply my view is the Nanny state can't coexist with open borders (and vice-versa). They are in self-contradiction. Causally, the former has to completely be abolished before open migration can be implemented and even discussed.

Bringing about an open border policy, regardless of this factor, I cannot see ending the Nanny State - unless by way of civil discord and eventual collapse of institutions and proper governance with it.  

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

When it becomes the law to speak against socialism, then I'd be as concerned as you.

Absolutely.

1 hour ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

If the left (through the government or through Antifa) goes on to initiate that violence then they'll be in the wrong (just as they were last summer) and I don't think you and I will have many disagreements about it.

On second thought this actually deserves a bit more precision.

Cultural issues (like cancel culture or whatever amount of white supremacy actually exists in America) can objectively be cause for concern, but not like legal issues are.  The things that are actually backed up by legally sanctioned violence are what deserve real scrutiny.  And the distinction between public and private violence (so to speak) is also worth noting.  Private violence is the one reason why we even have a government.  If you are okay with it then you are also saying there is no reason to have a government anymore; we'll just take justice into our own hands.  That's not necessarily an invalid position (from what I can tell from the face of it) but it certainly isn't a point we should be skipping over without at least mentioning.

1 hour ago, MisterSwig said:

It might be an overgeneralization to say they were attacking the government. They stormed one branch of it over one primary concern: the election. Trump was still president. They were trying to preserve his presidency and save it from what they considered to be a stolen, illegitimate election. Now, they might be wrong or have bad arguments, but that doesn't mean they weren't trying to preserve something.

Yes, but it's also true that they were trying to preserve our civilization by destroying its very foundation.  Sort of a "taking someone to an art gallery at the price of his eyes" move.

This is what I mean when I say that Trump has obviously never had any grasp of what would in fact be good or bad for America.  His fans also have such an unclear and unphilosophical approach to such questions that they actually thought they were helping the Republic with private, spontaneous violence.  In my opinion the comparison to a caring but also delusional and abusive father fits pretty damn well.

59 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

Since when was an emotion-driven, disorganized mob (causing one violent fatality) given the status of an attack on the Government/Democracy/Constitution? Because the Leftists want it to be. Because the media said so.

No; it's because by taking matters into their own clenched fists they did, in actual fact, violate the very principles on which the country they claim to love is based.  The fact that the media says so is just a happy accident.  I mean, the media says things literally all day every day; statistically speaking they're bound to get SOMETHING right EVENTUALLY.

 

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
John Galt Speaking
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

That's why I've spent several posts trying to indicate what the real man is actually like - to show what a bad idea I think it would be to take his word about election fraud at face value.

Ah, something we can agree on. I also think it's a bad idea to take Trump's word about election fraud. Fraud is not the basis for my beef with the election, which is why you don't see me participating in that debate. But if you ever want to discuss voter requirements or mail-in ballots, that's my focus.

2 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

I suspect that much of it comes from an overly-rosy mental image of Donald Trump, which would also lead you to rely too much on the truthfulness of his word (about election fraud and "the deep state" etc)

You picked two subjects of which I have very little interest. I certainly don't take Trump's word about them. I have an extremely rosy image of Rand, and I don't take her word at face value either.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

No, I'm not saying that because the media said so. I gave my reasoning much earlier about why I think the people who broke into the Capitol were insurrectionists and traitors. It doesn't matter if they were organized or not - besides, some of them were. There were also 5 fatalities, by the way. Are you trying to call me a Leftist?

As far as fatalities, the ones which can be laid on the "insurrectionists", caused directly by someone among them - was: one. And three by natural causes and one insurgent shot. This has been exaggerated (by guess who?) to be 5 casualties committed by the invaders. "Five" reads better in some eyes and the number hasn't been queried by anyone I heard.

Edited by whYNOT
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...