|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
 Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2017 7:34 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Read your own source again. He very specifically condemned the neo-Nazis, KKK, and other hate groups within the the "alt-right" side, separating them from other "very fine" protesters*. Aside from his usual outbursts about fake news, this was actually a very level-headed and Presidential response from Trump, in stark contrast to what we heard from Obama following the Martin and Gates incidents. The rise of leftist violence (and its involvement, potentially even instigation, in Charlottesville) needs to be acknowledged and condemned, arguably even moreso than Spencer and his kind, given that unlike Antifa and BLM, no one of any significance gives a pass to neo-Nazi bigotry. Yes, people defend, as Trump did in his press conference, the idea that Confederate monuments and symbols can carry a meaning other than hatred and bigotry, largely because "heritage, not hate" is a genuine and popular concept in the South. But this is not, as the stubbornly divisive insist, in anyway comparable to white supremacist ideology, and if you actually cared about peace, unity, and progress, you would be honest and acknowledge it.
*While there is no shortage of the tolerant among those who hold favorable opinions of Lee and Stonewall, I haven't seen any evidence of their attendance in Charlottesville. The manner in which Trump gave a nod to their point of view was very clumsily handled. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 3:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Two takeaways:
1) What does the ACLU think about this matter?
| Quote: |
“We asked the city to adhere to the U.S. Constitution and ensure people’s safety at the protest. It failed to do so. In our system, the city makes the rules and the courts enforce them. Our role is to ensure that the system works the same for everyone.
“In the weeks after the July 8 protests, the city (working with the governor and others) had ample opportunity to put together a case and present it in court on its own motion justifying the revocation of the permit and the imposition of a prior restraint on speech. If the judge in our case had been presented with any credible evidence or testimony by the city of an imminent threat of harm (other than a list of internet entries) or evidence that the change in permit would, in fact, result in no demonstration in downtown Charlottesville, I have confidence that he would have denied the injunction, and the city would have been faced with enforcing the change of venue and protecting demonstrators and counter-demonstrators in two locations.
“Instead, the city’s pleadings said that its decision to revoke the permit was based primarily on the unmanageable numbers of people who would show up. An affidavit from the police chief said that they expected twice as many counter-protesters (2,000) as protesters (1,000). Yet, the city did not revoke the permits for the counter-protesters, too. In light of those facts, the judge couldn’t get beyond the fact that the city hadn’t revoked all permits for demonstrations downtown on Saturday.
“It is the responsibility of law enforcement to ensure safety of both protesters and counter-protesters. The policing on Saturday was not effective in preventing violence. I was there and brought concerns directly to the secretary of public safety and the head of the Virginia State Police about the way that the barricades in the park limiting access by the arriving demonstrators and the lack of any physical separation of the protesters and counter-protesters on the street were contributing to the potential of violence. They did not respond. In fact, law enforcement was standing passively by, seeming to be waiting for violence to take place, so that they would have grounds to declare an emergency, declare an ‘unlawful assembly’ and clear the area.
“Rather than seeking to scapegoat the ACLU of Virginia and the Rutherford Institute for the devastating events on Saturday, it is my firm hope and desire that the governor and other state and local officials will learn from this past weekend how constitutionally to prevent events like the horror we saw in Charlottesville from ever happening again.” |
Given the ACLU is ideologically hostile to the protesters (even as it defends their civil rights under its mission), I for one am inclined to take their assessment of how the Municipality of Charlottesville comported itself in this matter seriously. Given the psychology of mob dynamics, it's entirely possible that whichever city official was responsible for managing the police presence at the event may be the single most culpable party vis a vis the general violence (though obviously not the particular act of crashing a car into a crowd of people).
2) What does the Governor of Virginia, who once pardoned an illegal immigrant in hopes of decreasing the likelihood of her deportation, think about the Americans who exercised their First Amendment rights in his state in Charlottesville?
There's a nice campaign slogan for his imagined 2020 run at the Presidency. "Terry McAuliffe 2020: Americans Whose Views I Find Repugnant Aren't Americans and Should Leave the Country." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stilicho25
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 6:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox, where did you find that ACLU quote? That is stunning. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 8:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Apparently, Antifa may have saved lives.
https://www.democracynow.org/2017/8/14/cornel_west_rev_toni_blackmon_clergy
| Cornell West wrote: |
| But what happened was, they held us hostage in the church. We could not leave after the service, because the torch march threatening the people who were there. And so, in that sense, I said, "Hmmm, boy, these neofascists, they’re out of control. Where are the police?" And who would think that our dear sister Heather, my dear comrade, who also was with IWW—you know, that’s very important. She was an organizer. She stood with us on Saturday. She paid the ultimate price. And many of us may have to pay that ultimate price. |
| Quote: |
CORNEL WEST: ... You had a number of the courageous students, of all colors, at the University of Virginia who were protesting against the neofascists themselves. The neofascists had their own ammunition. And this is very important to keep in mind, because the police, for the most part, pulled back. The next day, for example, those 20 of us who were standing, many of them clergy, we would have been crushed like cockroaches if it were not for the anarchists and the antifascists who approached, over 300, 350 antifascists. We just had 20. And we’re singing "This Little light of Mine," you know what I mean? So that the—
AMY GOODMAN: "Antifa" meaning antifascist.
CORNEL WEST: The antifascists, and then, crucial, the anarchists, because they saved our lives, actually. We would have been completely crushed, and I’ll never forget that. Meaning what? Meaning that you had the police holding back, on the one hand, so we couldn’t even get arrested. We were there to get arrested. We couldn’t get arrested, because the police had pulled back, and just allowing fellow citizens to go at each other, you see, and with all of the consequences that would follow therefrom. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 11:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
See for yourself the "very nice people" among the white nationalists, alt-rightists and neo-Nazis ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P54sP0Nlngg
Tactics aside, the underlying motivation of this crucial part of Trump's political base is really morally base (and I don't think I'm off-base here...) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 5:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stilicho25 wrote: |
| Fox, where did you find that ACLU quote? That is stunning. |
Sorry, I forgot to add the link in the original post. It is on the page of the Virginia Chapter of the ACLU:
https://acluva.org/20108/aclu-of-virginia-response-to-governors-allegations-that-aclu-is-responsible-for-violence-in-charlottesville/
And according to Kuros' post above, it seems Mr. West corroborates the ACLU account of police conduct:
| Cornell West wrote: |
And this is very important to keep in mind, because the police, for the most part, pulled back.
...
Meaning that you had the police holding back, on the one hand, so we couldn’t even get arrested. We were there to get arrested. We couldn’t get arrested, because the police had pulled back, and just allowing fellow citizens to go at each other, you see, and with all of the consequences that would follow therefrom. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stilicho25
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 11:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Thanks Fox. This is so ugly that I do not even know what to say. I hope it all works out, but the prospect for that dims by the day. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 19, 2017 4:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
Two takeaways:
1) What does the ACLU think about this matter?
| Quote: |
“We asked the city to adhere to the U.S. Constitution and ensure people’s safety at the protest. It failed to do so. In our system, the city makes the rules and the courts enforce them. Our role is to ensure that the system works the same for everyone.
“In the weeks after the July 8 protests, the city (working with the governor and others) had ample opportunity to put together a case and present it in court on its own motion justifying the revocation of the permit and the imposition of a prior restraint on speech. If the judge in our case had been presented with any credible evidence or testimony by the city of an imminent threat of harm (other than a list of internet entries) or evidence that the change in permit would, in fact, result in no demonstration in downtown Charlottesville, I have confidence that he would have denied the injunction, and the city would have been faced with enforcing the change of venue and protecting demonstrators and counter-demonstrators in two locations.
“Instead, the city’s pleadings said that its decision to revoke the permit was based primarily on the unmanageable numbers of people who would show up. An affidavit from the police chief said that they expected twice as many counter-protesters (2,000) as protesters (1,000). Yet, the city did not revoke the permits for the counter-protesters, too. In light of those facts, the judge couldn’t get beyond the fact that the city hadn’t revoked all permits for demonstrations downtown on Saturday.
“It is the responsibility of law enforcement to ensure safety of both protesters and counter-protesters. The policing on Saturday was not effective in preventing violence. I was there and brought concerns directly to the secretary of public safety and the head of the Virginia State Police about the way that the barricades in the park limiting access by the arriving demonstrators and the lack of any physical separation of the protesters and counter-protesters on the street were contributing to the potential of violence. They did not respond. In fact, law enforcement was standing passively by, seeming to be waiting for violence to take place, so that they would have grounds to declare an emergency, declare an ‘unlawful assembly’ and clear the area.
“Rather than seeking to scapegoat the ACLU of Virginia and the Rutherford Institute for the devastating events on Saturday, it is my firm hope and desire that the governor and other state and local officials will learn from this past weekend how constitutionally to prevent events like the horror we saw in Charlottesville from ever happening again.” |
Given the ACLU is ideologically hostile to the protesters (even as it defends their civil rights under its mission), I for one am inclined to take their assessment of how the Municipality of Charlottesville comported itself in this matter seriously. Given the psychology of mob dynamics, it's entirely possible that whichever city official was responsible for managing the police presence at the event may be the single most culpable party vis a vis the general violence (though obviously not the particular act of crashing a car into a crowd of people). |
Hello Wednesday, August 16th Fox. Sunday, August 20th Fox here. I hope you're enjoying an opportunity to feel a moment of actual admiration for an American organization, and I hope you've savored it while you had the opportunity, because I'm here to snatch it away from you. The ACLU has bowed to political pressure and devised a justification for refusing to defend the civil liberties of protesters like these in the future, that justification being "guns" and "violence." Yet the ACLU itself acknowledged, even insisted, that the Municipality of Charlottesville refused to defend the protesters and keep order, and even the New York Times is now admitting that "Antifa" is an explicitly and avowedly violent organization which promises to bring that violence to any future protests of this sort*, so "violence" is a forgone conclusion, which in turn means that the ACLU refusing to defend this sort of protest is a forgone conclusion. Nevermind that, as far as I am aware, the number of shooting deaths in Charlottesville was zero, and that given the combination of Charlottesville refusing to keep order and "Antifa" explicitly threatening violence, bearing arms is actually a fairly rational decision. No more ACLU defense for "White supremacists" who want to protest. It took four days -- just four days -- for the ACLU to fall from its principled heights in the face of social media pressure. Be disappointed.
*Aside: this article, in essence, constitutes an admission that the President of the United States was correct in his assessment of Charlottesville and the character of those involved. I shouldn't be struck by it, but I am still am: after all the hysteria and ranting and insistence that President Trump was terrible for acknowledging that violence and hatred existed on both sides, the New York Times runs a piece more or less admitting, "Yes, 'Antifa' hates their opposition, and they explicitly intend to bring violence to bear against that opposition." How did Donald Trump end up becoming the adult in the room on this topic? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 19, 2017 4:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Good on the ACLU.
Also, Donald Trump the adult in the room? Not a chance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 20, 2017 2:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Two fellows writing at Politico seem to understand:
| Quote: |
The events in Charlottesville last weekend have provoked understandable fear and outrage. Potential sites for future “alt-right” rallies are on edge. Texas A&M University, the University of Florida and Michigan State University have all decided to cancel or deny prospective events by white nationalist Richard Spencer. All cited safety concerns. All raise serious First Amendment issues.
Even though we’ve been called “free speech absolutists”—sometimes, but not always, as a compliment—we will not pretend that Spencer’s speaking cancellations make for a slam-dunk First Amendment lawsuit. Yes, hateful, bigoted and racist speech is fundamentally protected under the First Amendment, as it should be. However, if we’re honest about the law, we have to recognize that Spencer faces tough—though not insurmountable—legal challenges.
...
But what happens in a court of law is one thing. What happens in the court of public opinion is perhaps more important. As the famous jurist Learned Hand once said, “Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it.”
And, unfortunately, there is evidence that freedom of speech needs a pacemaker.
If your social media newsfeed doesn’t provide ample anecdotal evidence that free speech is suffering a public relations crisis, look to the polling: A recent Knight Foundation study found that fewer than 50 percent of high school students think that people should be free to say things that are offensive to others.
The New York Times opinion page, for its part, has run three columns since April questioning the value of free speech for all, the most recent imploring the ACLU to “rethink free speech”—the same ACLU that at the height of Nazism, Communism and Jim Crow in 1940 released a leaflet entitled, “Why we defend civil liberty even for Nazis, Fascists and Communists.” The ACLU of Virginia carried on this honorable tradition of viewpoint-neutral free speech defense in the days before the Charlottesville protests. However, the Wall Street Journal reported this week that the ACLU “will no longer defend hate groups seeking to march with firearms.”
And how is the birthplace of the 1960s free speech movement faring? In the wake of the riots that shut down alt-right provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos’ speech at the University of California, Berkeley on February 1, multiple students and alumni wrote that the violence and destruction of the Antifa protests were a form of “self-defense” against the “violence” of Yiannopoulos’ speech. Watching videos of the protest, it is fortunate nobody was killed.
...
So how do we respond to the calls for censorship after Charlottesville?
For most of our careers, the charge “what if the Nazis came to town?” has been posed as a hypothetical retort to free speech defenses. (Godwin’s law extends to free speech debates, too.) But the hypothetical is no longer a hypothetical: In Charlottesville, neo-Nazis carried swastikas through the streets and revived the Hitler salute.
If you were to listen to scholars like Richard Delgado, the response should be to pass laws, to put people in jail, to do whatever it takes to stop the Nazi contagion from spreading. It’s a popular argument in Europe and in legal scholarship, but not in American courts.
There are a few problems with this response that free speech advocates have long recognized. For one, it doesn’t necessarily work; since the passage of Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism laws in Europe, rates of anti-Semitism remain higher than in the U.S., where no such laws exist. In fact, the Anti-Defamation League found that rates of anti-Semitism have gone down in America since it first began measuring anti-Semitic attitudes in 1964.
What’s more, in the 1920s and 30s, Nazis did go to jail for anti-Semitic expression, and when they were released, they were celebrated as martyrs. When Bavarian authorities banned speeches by Hitler in 1925, for example, the Nazis exploited it. As former ACLU Executive Director Aryeh Neier explains in his book Defending My Enemy, the Nazi party protested the ban by distributing a picture of Hitler gagged with the caption, “One alone of 2,000 million people of the world is forbidden to speak in Germany.” The ban backfired and became a publicity coup. It was soon lifted.
...
We cannot forget, too, that laws have to be enforced by people. In the 1920s and early 30s, such laws would have placed the power to censor in the hands of a population that voted in large numbers for Nazis. And after 1933, such laws would have placed that power to censor in the hands of Hitler himself. Consider how such power might be used by the politician you most distrust. Consider how it is currently being used by Vladimir Putin in Russia.
What does history suggest as the best course of action to win the benefits of an open society while stemming the tide of authoritarians of any stripe? It tells us to have a high tolerance for differing opinions, and no tolerance for political violence. What distinguishes liberal societies from illiberal ones is that liberal societies use words, not violence or censorship to settle disputes. As Neier, a Holocaust survivor, concluded in his book, “The lesson of Germany in the 1920s is that a free society cannot be established and maintained if it will not act vigorously and forcefully to punish political violence.”
But we should not be so myopic about the value of freedom of speech. It is not just a practical, peaceful alternative to violence. It does much more than that: It helps us understand many crucial, mundane and sometimes troubling truths. Simply put, it helps us understand what people actually think—not “even if” it is troubling, but especially when it is troubling.
As Edward Luce points out in his excellent new short book The Retreat of Western Liberalism, there are real consequences to ignoring or wishing away the views that are held by real people, even if elites believe that those views are nasty or wrongheaded. Gay marriage champion and author Jonathan Rauch reminds us that in the same way that breaking a thermometer doesn’t change the temperature, censoring ideas doesn’t make them go away—it only makes us ignorant of their existence.
So what do we do about white supremacists? Draw a strong distinction between expression and violence: punish violence, but protect even speakers we find odious. Let them reveal themselves.
... |
The ACLU understood once as well:
| Quote: |
...
We do not choose our clients. Lawless authorities denying their rights choose them for us.
...
Further, we point out the inevitable effect of making by persecution. Persecute the Nazis, drive them underground, imitate their methods in Germany -- and attract to them hundreds of sympathizers with the persecuted who would otherwise be indifferent. The best way to combat their propaganda is in the open where it can be fought by counter-propaganda, protest demonstrations, picketing -- and all the devices of attack which do not involve denying their rights to meet and speak.
...
To those who urge suppression of meetings that may incite riot or violence, the complete answer is that nobody can tell in advance what meetings may do 50. Where there is reasonable ground for apprehension, the police can ordinarily prevent disorder.
... |
No longer, it seems, and the country is poorer for it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 20, 2017 3:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/charlottesville-violence-prompts-aclu-change-policy-hate-groups-protesting-guns/
| Quote: |
After the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, turned deadly, ACLU executive director Anthony Romero told The Wall Street Journal that the group will review legal requests from white supremacist groups on a case-by-case basis, assessing more closely whether their protests would have the potential to be violent.
“The events of Charlottesville require any judge, any police chief and any legal group to look at the facts of any white-supremacy protests with a much finer comb,” Romero told the Journal. “If a protest group insists, ‘No, we want to be able to carry loaded firearms,’ well, we don’t have to represent them. They can find someone else,” he added. |
This is the correct line to draw. Note that ACLU has only refused to represent the white supremacists and fascists when they refuse to assemble peacefully. The ACLU need not support groups that tote firearms to intimidate. I believe the ACLU will apply this standard equally and fairly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 20, 2017 3:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Even someone writing at the Washington Post seems to understand:
| Quote: |
The three California ACLU chapters put out a joint ACLU of California Statement: White Supremacist Violence is Not Free Speech:
Our country’s greatest strengths are the diversity of its people and the principles of equal dignity and inclusion that unite us all. There are troubling events planned in our state in the coming weeks. This is an incredibly painful and difficult time for millions of Californians. For those who are wondering where we stand — the ACLU of California fully supports the freedom of speech and expression, as well as the freedom to peacefully assemble. We review each request for help on a case-by-case basis, but take the clear position that the First Amendment does not protect people who incite or engage in violence. If white supremacists march into our towns armed to the teeth and with the intent to harm people, they are not engaging in activity protected by the United States Constitution. The First Amendment should never be used as a shield or sword to justify violence.
This seems like an odd statement, especially given that the context is presumably the call to rescind the permit for an “alt-right” rally in San Francisco:
Everyone, I take it, agrees that violence, white supremacist or otherwise, isn’t speech. And the First Amendment doesn’t protect people who “incite violence” in the sense of engaging in speech intended to and likely to promote imminent criminal conduct (the Brandenburg v. Ohio standard) — a category that the courts have always read narrowly, and that the ACLU has said should be read narrowly. But as I understand the traditional position of the ACLU, it is that speech and assembly must be allowed, even if violence and unprotected incitement (or threats) at the event are punished. (I’m also pretty sure that no one is legally going into San Francisco “armed to the teeth”; even the most law-abiding Californians are generally not allowed to do that.)
The question facing California government officials, as I understand it, is not whether to allow violence or constitutionally unprotected incitement. Rather, it’s whether the government can ban events — of whatever political stripe — based on a fear that the speakers or some of the attendees may engage in violence (or in unprotected incitement). The answer, under modern First Amendment doctrine that the ACLU has generally helped develop, is “no.” I would have thought that people want to know about the ACLU of California’s position on that question, and not on whether “violence” (white supremacist or otherwise) is free speech.
I asked the ACLU spokesman who sent around the statement about this:
I blog at the Washington Post site, and I’m writing something about the ACLU statement on “White Supremacist Violence is Not Free Speech.” Of course, violence of any sort isn’t free speech, but I’m wondering what the ACLU’s position is on the proposals to revoke the “alt right” rally permit in Northern California, and similar calls to ban such events. Can you tell me, please, if the statement is meant to address that, and what the ACLU’s position on that would be?
The answer I got:
This is what we have to offer for now. We will circle back with you if anything changes.
UPDATE: The national ACLU has endorsed the ACLU of California statement:
We agree with every word in the statement from our colleagues in California. The First Amendment absolutely does not protect white supremacists seeking to incite or engage in violence. We condemn the views of white supremacists, and fight against them every day. At the same time, we believe that even odious hate speech, with which we vehemently disagree, garners the protection of the First Amendment when expressed non-violently. We make decisions on whom we’ll represent and in what context on a case-by-case basis. The horrible events in Charlottesville last weekend will certainly inform those decisions going forward. |
Again, given that as far as I am aware there were zero shooting fatalities at Charlottesville, this attempt by the ACLU to use "guns" as a pretext to abandon clients they would otherwise take based upon their principles seems to be a fairly transparent capitalization upon an outcome in Charlottesville which the ACLU itself suggested was engineered intentionally by the municipal government there. Just as Islamic finance utilizes chicanery to achieve the same end as straight usury while disguising the means, the ACLU's "gun test" seems to seek the same end as a straight up refusal to provide aid outright without the appearance of outright refusal. Kuros above suggests, "This is the correct line to draw," but what constitutes the correct line to draw is based upon the group's intended mission. If their new mission is to be, "Avoid public opprobrium by refusing aid to a certain unsavory class of protester or speaker upon the basis of a pretext," yes, it's the correct line. But if they want to continue to project an image of true civil liberties defense, even at the cost of tolerating a message they otherwise might not, then no, it's not the "correct line," for reasons the ACLU itself has already acknowledged before they announced their policy shift. How one will feel about the change in question is probably dictated by whether the old policy or the new policy more closely aligns with their First Amendment vision, which explains why some cheer it while others lament it.
Perhaps after all the hysteria subsides, the ACLU will drop this PR campaign and revert to its historic norms. We'll see. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2017 3:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Richard Spencer is a man of immense passive wealth and a red-state welfare recipient.
| Quote: |
Spencer, along with his mother and sister, are absentee landlords of 5,200 acres of cotton and corn fields in an impoverished, largely African American region of Louisiana, according to records examined by Reveal from The Center for Investigative Reporting. The farms, controlled by multiple family-owned businesses, are worth millions: A 1,600-acre parcel sold for $4.3 million in 2012.
The Spencer family’s farms are also subsidized by the federal government. From 2008 through 2015, the Spencers received $2 million in US farm subsidy payments, according to federal data. |
He is a modern share-cropper!
It may be that hatred is a luxury that the working- and middle-class can ill afford. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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 vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
