Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.


All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 196 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next   
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 4:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 7:02 am
Posts: 3366
Occupation: Vulture Capitalist
Sen Jeff Merkley (D-OR) is proposing a series of reforms designed to prevent the Senate from being held hostage by a very small minority while still offering the minority party their right to object and to add amendments. Merkley's proposal basically shifts the burden from the majority party having to jump through hoops to end a filibuster to the minority party attempting to initiate one.
Washington Post wrote:
This spring, Harry Reid caused a stir when he said he’d finally seen the light on the need for real reform. Republicans are skeptical that Reid is serious about changing the filibuster, and there’s some grounds for that skepticism. However, it’s also possible that the unprecedented GOP obstructionism of the last four years may have persuaded Reid, as David Dayen put it recently, that the Senate has become a “super majority institution” that is “governed by a tyranny of the minority” and is “horrendously broken.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plu ... _blog.html

Sen Reid ended the Senate's tradition of secret holds last year and apparently has learned more changes are needed.

_________________
"You know boys, a nuclear reactor is a lot like women. You just have to read the manual and press the right button."
Image
Homer Simpson


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 5:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 5:52 pm
Posts: 601
Merkley's proposal seems well reasoned and fair. I hope it goes through; filibuster reform is long overdue. I'll definitely be contacting my two senators about supporting these changes.

I also liked this his suggestion regarding segregation of senators
Quote:
#8) Decrease the Segregation of Members
Members of the Senate are segregated by party. They sit on different sides of the aisle in the Senate chamber. They sit on opposite sides of the room in committees. They caucus separately. Even the pages on the floor are designated as “Democratic” pages or “Republican” pages.

These practices may not have been significant in the past when senators lived in Washington and socialized on evenings and weekends. But now senators work evenings and then fly home, greatly diminishing the time for informal interactions with each other.

The segregation of the senators by parties unnecessarily deepens the partisan divide and we should end it. It is worth observing, by the way, that many state legislatures do not practice such segregation, facilitating the forging of informal connections between members of different parties.

Here are three specific suggestions:
1. Bolt down the desks in the Senate chamber permanently – fifty on each side -- and allow senators to choose desks anywhere they want on the floor among those available.

2. End the segregation of senators in committee meetings. One committee, Homeland Security, has already done this.

3. End the designation of pages by party.


Simple, yet a good step towards fostering congeniality among Senators.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2012 6:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 7:02 am
Posts: 3366
Occupation: Vulture Capitalist
Sen Reid announced there will be some changes proposed at the beginning of Congress.
Politico wrote:
All of this will come to a head at the beginning of next Congress and could require Reid to employ a circuitous path to change the rules by 51 votes, rather than a two-thirds majority. The GOP calls that tactic “the nuclear option.”

“I think that the rules have been abused and that we’re going to work to change them,” Reid said. “We’re not going to do away with the filibuster, but we’re going to make the Senate a more meaningful place, we’re going to make it so that we can get things done.”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/11 ... Page2.html

Take a WAG who won't be happy.
DeMint and Paul will probably squeal the loudest with Lee, McConnell and Grassley mumbling in the background.

_________________
"You know boys, a nuclear reactor is a lot like women. You just have to read the manual and press the right button."
Image
Homer Simpson


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2012 7:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2011 1:07 pm
Posts: 1135
Location: not Florida, just a bit east of there....
Occupation: Huntin' Freepers
Fuck 'em. If Harry can pull this off it will make The Senate relevent for Dems AND Repubs for the future. Fixing thebfillibuster maybhelp Dems short term, but at some point, the GOP may take control again, and it could benefit them.

_________________
We are all Americans, with the same rights and the same duties, regardless our ethnical background. - The Gospel According To Wilfred Noonan


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2012 10:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm
Posts: 9708
My simple filibuster reform.

Just go back to the system where some asshat had to get up and actually talk all that time.

Just saying you're going to filibuster being enough to gum up the proceedings is utter bullshit. Make them actually do it.

Then make sure there are cameras there at all times.

With all the insane garbage that comes out of the mouths of these morons every time they speak for even a few minutes, they'd manage to wreck any chance for reelection in a couple hours tops.

_________________
"[T]he American people, taking one with another, constitute the most timorous, sniveling, poltroonish, ignominious mob of serfs and goose-steppers ever gathered together under one flag in Christendom since the end of the Middle Ages, and. . .they grow more timorous, more sniveling, more poltroonish, more ignominious every day." H.L. Mencken


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2012 10:48 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:36 am
Posts: 5403
Location: Belize City
Occupation: Visiting doctors.
^^^^^^^ That one.

_________________
If a bunch of religious nuts can vote away your fundamental civil rights, then your rights are not self-evident, inalienable, or endowed by God. Quod erat demonstrandum. -- Stonekettle Station
ImageImageImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2012 3:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm
Posts: 1569
Location: Wherever I am, that's where I'll be.
Occupation: I do the math so you don't have to.
I've long thought that what LoH proposed is a great solution. I'd make it so that if a cloture vote is called (and fails) then the filibuster can only be sustained by someone holding the floor, but doing away with the procedural filibuster entirely is fine by me...

_________________
Empty Chair 2, Orly Taitz 0

"[Orly] is just wrong." Indiana Election Commissioner Dumezich (quoting Thomas Jefferson)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2012 3:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:40 am
Posts: 5907
Occupation: retired
What Loh said. Make them do it the old-fashioned way. Make them bring their little urinals with them to the floor like in the old days.

_________________
Mark Twain
Quote:
Research shows that 61.91944 per cent of all statistics are made up.

For other Mark Twain quotes and attributions, true and false:
http://www.twainquotes.com/Lies.html No evidence of "A lie will travel...."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2012 3:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 2:48 pm
Posts: 5295
esseff44 wrote:
What Loh said. Make them do it the old-fashioned way. Make them bring their little urinals with them to the floor like in the old days.


Is that Brian Lamb I hear screaming?

_________________
And please be sure it's in the form of a question. -- T. Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2012 4:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:40 am
Posts: 5907
Occupation: retired
The filibuster itself is a good thing to keep and to have in the tool box of a senator. The Senate tends to be slow moving and follows the old metaphor of being the 'cooling saucer' for legislation. The time when panic sets in and there's a rush to pass unwise things usually have to do with war.

Senator Mike Gravel was an iconoclastic, some say loose cannon, senator who was vehemently anti-war. He tried and failed to use the filibuster to end the draft earlier.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senator_Mike_Gravel

There's a YouTube of his describing the tale of the his reading the Pentagon Papers into the Congressional Record before the NYTimes was waiting for a court decision to allow them to publish them. It's not a filibuster but close to it. It does show the physical strain it puts one under to maintain a filibuster.

Warning: It's a little hard to watch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBrNFBabayo

_________________
Mark Twain
Quote:
Research shows that 61.91944 per cent of all statistics are made up.

For other Mark Twain quotes and attributions, true and false:
http://www.twainquotes.com/Lies.html No evidence of "A lie will travel...."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 09, 2012 5:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 7:02 am
Posts: 3366
Occupation: Vulture Capitalist
A Legal Lohengrin wrote:
My simple filibuster reform.

Just go back to the system where some asshat had to get up and actually talk all that time.

Just saying you're going to filibuster being enough to gum up the proceedings is utter bullshit. Make them actually do it.

Then make sure there are cameras there at all times.

With all the insane garbage that comes out of the mouths of these morons every time they speak for even a few minutes, they'd manage to wreck any chance for reelection in a couple hours tops.

Sen Merkley's proposal (linked in the OP) would require something similar to what you suggested.
Sen Merkley's proposal wrote:
Require a specific number of Senators -- I suggest five for the first 24 hours, 10 for the second 24 hours, and 20 thereafter -- to be on the floor to sustain the filibuster. This would be required even during quorum calls. At any point, a member could call for a count of the senators on the floor who stand in opposition to the regular order, and if the count falls below the required level, the regular order prevails and a majority vote is held.

The Sergeant-at-arms bars the doors and the Clerk takes a count. If a sufficient number of Senators are not present before the doors are barred (nobody can enter), the filibuster is over. If they have the numbers it continues.

Merkley's key is quite simple.
Sen Merkley's proposal wrote:
It is essential, however, that proposals for reforming the filibuster be aimed at increasing the deliberative process and not at diminishing the right or ability of the minority party to participate. With every idea, members of the majority should ask: Would the proposal, when we are in the minority down the road, be one we could live with?

_________________
"You know boys, a nuclear reactor is a lot like women. You just have to read the manual and press the right button."
Image
Homer Simpson


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 13, 2012 7:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:40 am
Posts: 5907
Occupation: retired
Who are the five mostly likely Republicans to side with Dems on certain issues so as to stave of a filibuster threat?

Here's a proposed list:

http://news.yahoo.com/5-gop-senators-mo ... itics.html

What's the word on Arizona. I heard noises that Carmona might take back his concession since so many votes remain uncounted. Updates? Lots of votes still uncounted.

That would mean Dems would need to round up only four 'Pub votes Carmona slides into home plate.

_________________
Mark Twain
Quote:
Research shows that 61.91944 per cent of all statistics are made up.

For other Mark Twain quotes and attributions, true and false:
http://www.twainquotes.com/Lies.html No evidence of "A lie will travel...."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2012 3:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 10:11 pm
Posts: 7561
Location: Outa da doghaus and I ain't goin' back!
Occupation: Arf! Arf! Arooooooooooo! (Get that damned kitty!)
Slightly off-topic but some of the hypocrisy that may be a hurdle to filibuster reform:

Quote:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) infuriated Republicans during the campaign with his harsh partisan attacks and now faces the delicate task of mending his relationship with the GOP.

Some Republicans say Reid poisoned his relationship with their party by waging controversial attacks against GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney. They were most angered by Reid’s charge that Romney had not paid taxes in ten years, attributing the information to an anonymous source.

"I do think he lost more credibility with Republicans because of his aggressive comments during the campaign,” said Ron Bonjean, a Republican strategist and former leadership aide who served in the Senate and House.

“The make-up of the Senate is almost the same and I think Sen. Reid is likely to produce the same type of gridlock he did before because of his unusually partisan stance," Bonjean added.

(bold added) -- the lying sacks o' shit.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/2691 ... gn-attacks

_________________
  • I know that there are no limits to which the powers of privilege will not go to keep the workers in slavery.
  • My friends, it is solidarity of labor we want. We do not want to find fault with each other, but to solidify our forces and say to each other: “We must be together; our masters are joined together and we must do the same thing.”
  • Pray for the dead, and fight like hell for the living.
—Mother Jones


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2012 3:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm
Posts: 9708
Plutodog wrote:
Slightly off-topic but some of the hypocrisy that may be a hurdle to filibuster reform:


Actually, it's an indication that it is necessary, and it only requires a majority. They do not need a single Republican vote to refuse to re-adopt the old Senate rules again, and could, without constitutional difficulty, abolish and rewrite them entirely.

There is no constitutional basis for the filibuster, and there is certainly no basis whatsoever in history for the procedural filibuster. The filibuster is a side effect of the deliberate difficulty in shutting down debate in the Senate. Since it is solely a byproduct of protecting that right, it should require its exercise.

Other than tradition, though, the filibuster itself is not constitutionally necessary. Standard parliamentary procedure would be to operate by majority vote.

_________________
"[T]he American people, taking one with another, constitute the most timorous, sniveling, poltroonish, ignominious mob of serfs and goose-steppers ever gathered together under one flag in Christendom since the end of the Middle Ages, and. . .they grow more timorous, more sniveling, more poltroonish, more ignominious every day." H.L. Mencken


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2012 4:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 1:15 pm
Posts: 733
Location: Undulating Center of the universe.
Occupation: Vagrant, rolling stone.
A Legal Lohengrin wrote:
My simple filibuster reform.

Just go back to the system where some asshat had to get up and actually talk all that time.

Just saying you're going to filibuster being enough to gum up the proceedings is utter bullshit. Make them actually do it.

Then make sure there are cameras there at all times.

With all the insane garbage that comes out of the mouths of these morons every time they speak for even a few minutes, they'd manage to wreck any chance for reelection in a couple hours tops.



YUP. Requiring a little effort to gum up the works might go a long way towards discouraging such antics. No one even knows what a real filibuster is anymore, or possibly they don't realise at the moment it simply means saying filibuster. What assholes are some who can claim they filibustered and many think it is Mr. Smith Goes to Washington? Civics and government classes in school anyone?

_________________
My father told me awhile back he was afraid Obama was going to "take his guns". I told him he better be more afraid that the Republicans would take my sisters birth control. He shut up.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2012 4:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 10:11 pm
Posts: 7561
Location: Outa da doghaus and I ain't goin' back!
Occupation: Arf! Arf! Arooooooooooo! (Get that damned kitty!)
A Legal Lohengrin wrote:
Plutodog wrote:
Slightly off-topic but some of the hypocrisy that may be a hurdle to filibuster reform:


Actually, it's an indication that it is necessary, and it only requires a majority. They do not need a single Republican vote to refuse to re-adopt the old Senate rules again, and could, without constitutional difficulty, abolish and rewrite them entirely.

There is no constitutional basis for the filibuster, and there is certainly no basis whatsoever in history for the procedural filibuster. The filibuster is a side effect of the deliberate difficulty in shutting down debate in the Senate. Since it is solely a byproduct of protecting that right, it should require its exercise.

Other than tradition, though, the filibuster itself is not constitutionally necessary. Standard parliamentary procedure would be to operate by majority vote.

Oh, I know Loh. I just know how the other side will label the whole reform effort and how the press will run with that. What I don't know is whether the Dems (including Harry) will have the rocks to push through anyways.

_________________
  • I know that there are no limits to which the powers of privilege will not go to keep the workers in slavery.
  • My friends, it is solidarity of labor we want. We do not want to find fault with each other, but to solidify our forces and say to each other: “We must be together; our masters are joined together and we must do the same thing.”
  • Pray for the dead, and fight like hell for the living.
—Mother Jones


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2012 4:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 2:48 pm
Posts: 5295
Plutodog wrote:
Oh, I know Loh. I just know how the other side will label the whole reform effort and how the press will run with that. What I don't know is whether the Dems (including Harry) will have the rocks to push through anyways.


One of the big risks is that the House is still in Republican hands. If their ability to block Senate bills is weakened, that might hurt any possibility of bipartisanship in the House that may exist, though we'll have a better idea in a few weeks how hopeful to be about that.

_________________
And please be sure it's in the form of a question. -- T. Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2012 4:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 10:11 pm
Posts: 7561
Location: Outa da doghaus and I ain't goin' back!
Occupation: Arf! Arf! Arooooooooooo! (Get that damned kitty!)
MaineSkeptic wrote:
Plutodog wrote:
Oh, I know Loh. I just know how the other side will label the whole reform effort and how the press will run with that. What I don't know is whether the Dems (including Harry) will have the rocks to push through anyways.


One of the big risks is that the House is still in Republican hands. If their ability to block Senate bills is weakened, that might hurt any possibility of bipartisanship in the House that may exist, though we'll have a better idea in a few weeks how hopeful to be about that.

If the Reepubs hadn't demonstrated that they have no intention of being at all judicious about when they use the filibuster, AND if it weren't obvious that they will outlaw the filibuster whenever they come back to power, that might worry me some.

But it don't. Reepubs have repeatedly shown their hand, as it were and we're foolish if we don't believe them. The filibuster as a stopgap against the very occasional crazy is dead, dead, DEAD.

_________________
  • I know that there are no limits to which the powers of privilege will not go to keep the workers in slavery.
  • My friends, it is solidarity of labor we want. We do not want to find fault with each other, but to solidify our forces and say to each other: “We must be together; our masters are joined together and we must do the same thing.”
  • Pray for the dead, and fight like hell for the living.
—Mother Jones


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2012 4:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm
Posts: 9708
MaineSkeptic wrote:
Plutodog wrote:
Oh, I know Loh. I just know how the other side will label the whole reform effort and how the press will run with that. What I don't know is whether the Dems (including Harry) will have the rocks to push through anyways.


One of the big risks is that the House is still in Republican hands. If their ability to block Senate bills is weakened, that might hurt any possibility of bipartisanship in the House that may exist, though we'll have a better idea in a few weeks how hopeful to be about that.


Unlike Senators, House members are answerable to a specific constituency. If they don't bring home the bacon, they go home. Thus, they can often be bribed with pork and committee seats and other things that let them look good at home.

Further, what possibility of bipartisanship? I can't see it getting any worse there.

_________________
"[T]he American people, taking one with another, constitute the most timorous, sniveling, poltroonish, ignominious mob of serfs and goose-steppers ever gathered together under one flag in Christendom since the end of the Middle Ages, and. . .they grow more timorous, more sniveling, more poltroonish, more ignominious every day." H.L. Mencken


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2012 4:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 2:48 pm
Posts: 5295
A Legal Lohengrin wrote:
Further, what possibility of bipartisanship? I can't see it getting any worse there.


I'm skeptical too. I think it's a long shot.

But the Repubs are scrambling to regain their foothold after the election. Some are retreating from the Norquist pledge. Polling show overwhelmingly that the public want more bipartisan cooperation, and that more blame the Rs than the Ds for the lack of it.

Where will it lead? No one knows. But I'm afraid that the weakening of the filibuster rule, at least this early in the game, would be too easily portrayed as a provocation.

_________________
And please be sure it's in the form of a question. -- T. Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2012 4:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm
Posts: 9708
MaineSkeptic wrote:
Where will it lead? No one knows. But I'm afraid that the weakening of the filibuster rule, at least this early in the game, would be too easily portrayed as a provocation.


What good does the procedural filibuster do? It's evil.

_________________
"[T]he American people, taking one with another, constitute the most timorous, sniveling, poltroonish, ignominious mob of serfs and goose-steppers ever gathered together under one flag in Christendom since the end of the Middle Ages, and. . .they grow more timorous, more sniveling, more poltroonish, more ignominious every day." H.L. Mencken


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2012 4:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 2:48 pm
Posts: 5295
A Legal Lohengrin wrote:
MaineSkeptic wrote:
Where will it lead? No one knows. But I'm afraid that the weakening of the filibuster rule, at least this early in the game, would be too easily portrayed as a provocation.


What good does the procedural filibuster do? It's evil.


LOL, no disagreement there. But at this point I'm thinking about Realpolitik, and while I would agree with the move, my feeling is that the timing right now is premature.

_________________
And please be sure it's in the form of a question. -- T. Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2012 4:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:02 pm
Posts: 7381
Location: Moonbat cave
Occupation: Deputy Minister of Propaganda, TP and PC Divisions
Quote:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) infuriated Republicans during the campaign with his harsh partisan attacks


What a bunch of fookin' babies. Have they never listened to their side?

_________________
Image Image Image Image Image Image Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2012 5:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 10:11 pm
Posts: 7561
Location: Outa da doghaus and I ain't goin' back!
Occupation: Arf! Arf! Arooooooooooo! (Get that damned kitty!)
MaineSkeptic wrote:
A Legal Lohengrin wrote:
MaineSkeptic wrote:
Where will it lead? No one knows. But I'm afraid that the weakening of the filibuster rule, at least this early in the game, would be too easily portrayed as a provocation.


What good does the procedural filibuster do? It's evil.


LOL, no disagreement there. But at this point I'm thinking about Realpolitik, and while I would agree with the move, my feeling is that the timing right now is premature.

Premature? I'm thinking waaaaay long overdue. And no matter when it happened (and remember procedurally, it's more secure at the beginning of a congress), the Reepubs will denounce it as a provocation. WHENEVER it happens. We can't win waiting for a more better time, IMO. No such thing, IMO.

_________________
  • I know that there are no limits to which the powers of privilege will not go to keep the workers in slavery.
  • My friends, it is solidarity of labor we want. We do not want to find fault with each other, but to solidify our forces and say to each other: “We must be together; our masters are joined together and we must do the same thing.”
  • Pray for the dead, and fight like hell for the living.
—Mother Jones


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2012 5:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm
Posts: 9708
MaineSkeptic wrote:
LOL, no disagreement there. But at this point I'm thinking about Realpolitik, and while I would agree with the move, my feeling is that the timing right now is premature.


I couldn't disagree more. It may be impossible to do at any time in the future. If it isn't now, we're stuck with it forever.

_________________
"[T]he American people, taking one with another, constitute the most timorous, sniveling, poltroonish, ignominious mob of serfs and goose-steppers ever gathered together under one flag in Christendom since the end of the Middle Ages, and. . .they grow more timorous, more sniveling, more poltroonish, more ignominious every day." H.L. Mencken


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 196 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next   

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
View new posts | View active topics



Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group