Jump to content

#occupywallstreet Or Bourbonstreet Or Sesamestreet


Recommended Posts

I don't think you are watching the coverage of the events very closely. EVERY questionable thing at tea parties was amplified thousands of times -- even if it was someone coming in and intentionally picking a fight with a tea party member. The tea party events were incredibly peaceful and restrained for their size, yet they were portrayed as violent rednecks. The OWSers regularly get into clashes with police, but are portrayed as the good guys.I've seen a couple racist remarks collected from a year of footage of tea parties; I've seen more racist remarks from OWSers in a month. The tea party remarks were lead stories on CNN and MSNBC; the OWS remarks were only covered on obscure blogs. Why? Why is it not "racist OWSers continue violence toward police"? For the clearest example, look at the coverage leading up to the signing of Obamacare. In that case, a completely made up story got more coverage than dozens of actual verified stories from OWS.Why are you pretending there is no coverage gap here? I'm assuming you are just not paying attention enough to notice it, but if that is the case, why defend the terrible slanted coverage?
What coverage you see and what you notice will be almost completely determined by your choice of news sources and the personal lens you see news through.You look at this stuff more closely than me (it would be hard not to), but judging from your commentary and interpretation on specific articles or events, you don't strike me as having as being particularly objective.If you look carefully, I never argued there is no coverage gap. I just argued that your interpretation of a coverage gap was flawed.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 386
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

What coverage you see and what you notice will be almost completely determined by your choice of news sources and the personal lens you see news through.You look at this stuff more closely than me (it would be hard not to), but judging from your commentary and interpretation on specific articles or events, you don't strike me as having as being particularly objective.If you look carefully, I never argued there is no coverage gap. I just argued that your interpretation of a coverage gap was flawed.
My first reads each day: CNN, Star-Tribune (local Msp paper), eventually FOX. And I see a lot of MSNBC coverage through links and whatever. So it's not like I'm only reading "Big Government Haters Blog" and stuff like that. 95% of what I read is pretty mainstream. Tea party: Made up story is front page for days, no fact checkingOWS: Actual story not mentioned in MSM or handled with balanceObama: If you dislike his policies you are racistCain: If you like his policies you are racist
Link to post
Share on other sites
Obama: If you dislike his policies you are racistCain: If you like his policies you are racist
Bullshit, Bullshit, Bullshit, BullshitJust stop.Do some people dislike Obama because he's Black,yes because racism exists and there are people who will never vote for a Black man.You take people making that statement as saying that everybody who opposes Obama does so for racial reasons which is absurd. To deny that there are people out there who oppose Obama because of racism means that you're either in denial, lying or oblivious to reality.You probably think that the statement "We need to take our country back." doesn't have a double meaning. Some might see it as innocent while others are talking about taking their country back from the Black Muslim in the White House. To deny the inherent racism of the birther movement is nuts for example. Sure there are some like Trump who just want to stir up shit but if Obaba was White no way that such a high percentage of people who support the Republican party would still be thinking that he wasn't born in the US. Does that mean that every birther is a racist ? No but it doesn't mean that racism isn't a large part of the birthers.There is an element on the left especially amongst some of the more radical Blacks who think that any Black person who supports the Republican Party is an Uncle Tom and a traitor. This of course is absurd but to take this and then say that the media is saying that anybody who supports Cain is a racist is just stupid and really annoying.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Bullshit, Bullshit, Bullshit, BullshitJust stop.Do some people dislike Obama because he's Black,yes because racism exists and there are people who will never vote for a Black man.You take people making that statement as saying that everybody who opposes Obama does so for racial reasons which is absurd. To deny that there are people out there who oppose Obama because of racism means that you're either in denial, lying or oblivious to reality.You probably think that the statement "We need to take our country back." doesn't have a double meaning. Some might see it as innocent while others are talking about taking their country back from the Black Muslim in the White House. To deny the inherent racism of the birther movement is nuts for example. Sure there are some like Trump who just want to stir up shit but if Obama was White no way that such a high percentage of people who support the Republican party would still be thinking that he wasn't born in the US. Does that mean that every birth is a racist ? No but it doesn't mean that racism isn't a large part of the birthers.There is an element on the left especially amongst some of the more radical Blacks who think that any Black person who supports the Republican Party is an Uncle Tom and a traitor. This of course is absurd but to take this and then say that the media is saying that anybody who supports Cain is a racist is just stupid and really annoying.
Bullshit! Bullshit!Bullshit! The media pushes the 'tea party is racist' narrative or whatever other narrative the democratic party puts forth. At first the media ignored it, because that was the way the Obama administration wanted it to be handled, then it got too big to ignore so the media pushed the democratic party line that it was an astroturf movement driven by big republican wallets. Then when that wouldn't fly, they followed the lead of democratic leaders and started calling the tea party racist. They do not present this narrative that elements of the tea party are racist, they present racism and hatred as the center of the movement. And you implying that they present it in that way is Bullshit. You are the one blinded by ideology, and for you to accuse Henry of being blinded by ideology is hypocritical in the extreme. Every republican that went on sunday talk shows would be asked questions about racism of the tea party. Then they were asked questions about how the hatred of the movement led to a congress women being shot. You are 100% wrong, you have no clue as to what you are talking about. It is obvious, with evidence everywhere you look, for you to miss this shows your deficiency, not Henry's.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Every republican that went on sunday talk shows would be asked questions about racism of the tea party. Then they were asked questions about how the hatred of the movement led to a congress women being shot. You are 100% wrong, you have no clue as to what you are talking about. It is obvious, with evidence everywhere you look, for you to miss this shows your deficiency, not Henry's.
This is absolutely ****ing ridiculous. Love it when there is evidence everywhere and nothing at all to posted to back up they hyperbolic garbage. This is exactly what's wrong with discussing politics here or anywhere else. Was the media as a whole nicer to Obama then it's being to Cain yes probably, maybe, well who gives a crap what does any of that have to do with issues at hand? Every time a democrat on here or anywhere defends an Obama action the repubs are quick to point well the dems disagreed with it when Bush did the samething and the dems say well "you repubs liked in when Bush did it" and it all goes in a giant circle where the actual issue at hand becomes secondary to the battle of hypocrisy. There was what I thought a lot of interesting, intelligent back in forth on here from both sides during the last election and for Henry to go on and on and on about how in the media, on here, everywhere anyone said anything negative about Obama they were branded racist is completely dishonest and offensive. Yes there are differences to how cnn and msn handled Obama to Cain as there are differences in how foxnews etc are handling Cain to how they handled Obama but does bringing this crap up in every single thread during every single discussion do any good? Does it tackle any important issues facing the U.S.A"
Link to post
Share on other sites
Does it tackle any important issues facing the U.S.A"
Personally, I like Henry's plan here. He is using a 3rd level strategy of using reality to keep the leftist here from controlling the topic of discussion while mocking the Occupiers ( which are so worthy of mocking ) AND placing the Tea Party in a position to be mock-proof.AND we don't have to debate drug legalization, gay marriage, or Keynesian economics ( which totally doesn't work )And it allows us all to pretend that expressing our strongly held ( but totally irrelevant ) opinions have some strange chance of making a difference.
Link to post
Share on other sites
This is absolutely ****ing ridiculous. Love it when there is evidence everywhere and nothing at all to posted to back up they hyperbolic garbage.
Do you dispute that on every single network the Sunday after congress women Giffords was shot that they had republicans on who had to defend themselves against accusations that toxic rhetoric used by the tea party was why she got shot. That was a narrative driven by the media plain and simple. It had nothing to do with reality, it was done because the media wanted to use that to make people they disagree with look bad. If you can't see that then you are being 'dishonest' and 'offensive".
This is exactly what's wrong with discussing politics here or anywhere else. Was the media as a whole nicer to Obama then it's being to Cain yes probably, maybe, well who gives a crap what does any of that have to do with issues at hand? Every time a democrat on here or anywhere defends an Obama action the repubs are quick to point well the dems disagreed with it when Bush did the samething and the dems say well "you repubs liked in when Bush did it" and it all goes in a giant circle where the actual issue at hand becomes secondary to the battle of hypocrisy.
Then don't come on here and comment, It gets old hearing this kind of bullshit from you guys who think (sincerely? I guess I will give you the benefit of the doubt) that they are somehow above the fray and always argue the facts while Henry and others arguments are driven by something else.
There was what I thought a lot of interesting, intelligent back in forth on here from both sides during the last election and for Henry to go on and on and on about how in the media, on here, everywhere anyone said anything negative about Obama they were branded racist is completely dishonest and offensive.
Oh Bullshit!! Henry was as much responsible for the intelligent back and forth as anyone else.
Yes there are differences to how cnn and msn handled Obama to Cain as there are differences in how foxnews etc are handling Cain to how they handled Obama but does bringing this crap up in every single thread during every single discussion do any good? Does it tackle any important issues facing the U.S.A"
It isn't brought up in every single thread, but I would say it is brought up when it is relevent. If you think it isn't relevent then we will have to agree to disagree. But you are still ****ing wrong, and so is BOB. ;)PS. ... and also **** you irish guy for making me miss two Rams touchdowns. They haven't scored two ****ing touchdowns in a game all year and probably won't score another one today. Thanks again!! :club:
Link to post
Share on other sites
Bullshit, Bullshit, Bullshit, BullshitJust stop.Do some people dislike Obama because he's Black,yes because racism exists and there are people who will never vote for a Black man.You take people making that statement as saying that everybody who opposes Obama does so for racial reasons which is absurd. To deny that there are people out there who oppose Obama because of racism means that you're either in denial, lying or oblivious to reality.You probably think that the statement "We need to take our country back." doesn't have a double meaning. Some might see it as innocent while others are talking about taking their country back from the Black Muslim in the White House. To deny the inherent racism of the birther movement is nuts for example. Sure there are some like Trump who just want to stir up shit but if Obaba was White no way that such a high percentage of people who support the Republican party would still be thinking that he wasn't born in the US. Does that mean that every birther is a racist ? No but it doesn't mean that racism isn't a large part of the birthers.There is an element on the left especially amongst some of the more radical Blacks who think that any Black person who supports the Republican Party is an Uncle Tom and a traitor. This of course is absurd but to take this and then say that the media is saying that anybody who supports Cain is a racist is just stupid and really annoying.
So the party that makes their racists VP and Senate Majority Leader and re-elects a KKK member for 50 years gets a pass, but the tea party is racist because there is a possibility that "take our country back" could possibly maybe mean something racist if you twist the meanings of words enough? Bullshit. That's pure bullshit.I asking to end the double standard -- both in the MSM and here on this forum. It's flagrant and offensive.
Link to post
Share on other sites
So the party that makes their racists VP and Senate Majority Leader and re-elects a KKK member for 50 years gets a pass, but the tea party is racist because there is a possibility that "take our country back" could possibly maybe mean something racist if you twist the meanings of words enough? Bullshit. That's pure bullshit.I asking to end the double standard -- both in the MSM and here on this forum. It's flagrant and offensive.
Oh I'm sorry I didn't know that before every comment about the Demorcratic party you expect the point to be made that in the past a large number of Southern Democrats were racists.Please provide recent unfair quotes from this forum accusing the "Tea Party" of racism ?Please provide examples of what you think are unfair examples of the editorial content in what you consider the main stream media that falsely accuse the "Tea Party" of racist leanings.And yes I know that crackpots such as Sean Penn have given recent interviews where they have accused the Tea Party of being racist.You have what to me is an unhealthy fixation for what you perceive to be slights on organizations that you feel some kinship for in the main stream media without ever actually giving examples of it and refuting the points that are being made.The "Tea Party" isn't racist but there are elements within the Tea Party and those that support it that are 100% racist just like there are in every organization or group. Some of the themes that have been used by Tea Partiers have been veiled in a way to appeal to that sentiment.You seem to think that anytime this is pointed out or discussed it's calling you a racist.The vast majority of the discussion about the Tea Party is about their economic policies and how they're affecting the political process not about racism. You're the one who keeps bringing it up.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually I have a suggestion for you Henry.Create a new thread and keep it updated with news stories and articles that are from traditional media sources not blogs or other obviously biased sources that you feel are unfair and slanted and give your reasons for thinking that way.That would be a productive and useful way for you go get your point across rather than how you have been doing it recently in this forum.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh I'm sorry I didn't know that before every comment about the Demorcratic party you expect the point to be made that in the past a large number of Southern Democrats were racists.
Nevada and Delaware are southern? And "now" is past? LOL.
Please provide recent unfair quotes from this forum accusing the "Tea Party" of racism ?
How recent? About a year ago about 5 people piled on me for suggesting that the crazy guy at the back of a 10,000 person rally doesn't represent the whole movement. Those people are strangely silent now that their side is exhibiting racism.
You have what to me is an unhealthy fixation for what you perceive to be slights on organizations that you feel some kinship for in the main stream media without ever actually giving examples of it and refuting the points that are being made.
I've pointed out examples many times, from the fake racism on Obamacare, to the fake violence of the Gifford shooting, and on and on. It comes with shocking regularity.
The "Tea Party" isn't racist but there are elements within the Tea Party and those that support it that are 100% racist just like there are in every organization or group.
And yet, the tea party gets racism charges regularly; the Dems -- who actually have racists in high positions -- get a pass.
Some of the themes that have been used by Tea Partiers have been veiled in a way to appeal to that sentiment.You seem to think that anytime this is pointed out or discussed it's calling you a racist.
If this was consistently reported for both sides, it wouldn't be an issue. Instead, the Dems more blatant and persistent racism is excused, while bizaare twisting of words on the other side is given credence.
The vast majority of the discussion about the Tea Party is about their economic policies and how they're affecting the political process not about racism. You're the one who keeps bringing it up.
I don't think I've gone two weeks without seeing a new racism charge against the tea parties. It has dropped off since it got the Dems decimated in the last election, but Ron Paul (the founder of the modern tea party movement) is accused of racism almost weekly, including just recently in this forum.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think I've gone two weeks without seeing a new racism charge against the tea parties. It has dropped off since it got the Dems decimated in the last election, but Ron Paul (the founder of the modern tea party movement) is accused of racism almost weekly, including just recently in this forum.
So you deny that some things connected to him have been blantently racist ?Instead of just saying that he's being attacked for being racist and that's bad reference where people are accusing him of it and counter their points.You seem certain that Joe Biden is a racist and here's an example of an article that counters one of the times that a statement he made was used against him. Use arguments to refute things that you disagree with.From The Economist in 2007.Joe Biden: moron racist, or poorly transcribed?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you dispute that on every single network the Sunday after congress women Giffords was shot that they had republicans on who had to defend themselves against accusations that toxic rhetoric used by the tea party was why she got shot. That was a narrative driven by the media plain and simple. It had nothing to do with reality, it was done because the media wanted to use that to make people they disagree with look bad. If you can't see that then you are being 'dishonest' and 'offensive".
Again "every single network" is pure hyperbole. Me pointing out that it is, is certainly not dishonest or offensive.
Then don't come on here and comment, It gets old hearing this kind of bullshit from you guys who think (sincerely? I guess I will give you the benefit of the doubt) that they are somehow above the fray and always argue the facts while Henry and others arguments are driven by something else.
Myself and other don't really comment here because of this garbage. My whole point was that this crap comes from both sides and serves no purpose.
Oh Bullshit!! Henry was as much responsible for the intelligent back and forth as anyone else.
Never said he wasn't. He was often a leader of generating interesting and intelligent back and forth which it makes it more frustrating.
It isn't brought up in every single thread, but I would say it is brought up when it is relevent. If you think it isn't relevent then we will have to agree to disagree. But you are still ****ing wrong, and so is BOB. ;)PS. ... and also **** you irish guy for making me miss two Rams touchdowns. They haven't scored two ****ing touchdowns in a game all year and probably won't score another one today. Thanks again!! :club:
I'm not really voicing a side as much as I'm saying it's pointless and counter productive so not to sure how I'm wrong and I had to work so you still made out better then me.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Taking a bit of a step back, the whole "the media is biased against my side" argument comes across as so boring and a bit lazy.Let me make myself clear. Media integrity is extremely important, and we should all fight for an impartial media (where applicable) or at least an intelligent media. Without that, Democracy doesn't work.However, I find increasingly that a "media bias" argument has become a substitute to any actual political conversation (I'm now talking specifically about this and similar forums). When discussing Cain, the issue immediately goes to media bias against him. When discussing the Tea Party or OWS, it's the media portrayal of them. Was Obama the media's darling, does the media hate Romney? These questions have their place, but they shouldn't be the center stage.I think that it's easy to say, "the media is against me," and then not have to dive deeper into issues or argue finer points. We haven't discussed the implications of 9-9-9, but we've tried to determine whether there is Uncle Tom syndrom in the Democratic party. hblask's tirade comes across as annoying instead of some well-thought-out charge against flawed journalism. And the almost daily cries of "liberal media" or "Fox news bias" are getting tired . (Besides, the issue isn't really even about bias, it's about competence, but that's another rant).Okay, I'm done for now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Taking a bit of a step back, the whole "the media is biased against my side" argument comes across as so boring and a bit lazy.Let me make myself clear. Media integrity is extremely important, and we should all fight for an impartial media (where applicable) or at least an intelligent media. Without that, Democracy doesn't work.However, I find increasingly that a "media bias" argument has become a substitute to any actual political conversation (I'm now talking specifically about this and similar forums). When discussing Cain, the issue immediately goes to media bias against him. When discussing the Tea Party or OWS, it's the media portrayal of them. Was Obama the media's darling, does the media hate Romney? These questions have their place, but they shouldn't be the center stage.I think that it's easy to say, "the media is against me," and then not have to dive deeper into issues or argue finer points. We haven't discussed the implications of 9-9-9, but we've tried to determine whether there is Uncle Tom syndrom in the Democratic party. hblask's tirade comes across as annoying instead of some well-thought-out charge against flawed journalism. And the almost daily cries of "liberal media" or "Fox news bias" are getting tired . (Besides, the issue isn't really even about bias, it's about competence, but that's another rant).Okay, I'm done for now.
I agree totally with this and you made the point much better than I could.As soon as somebody brings up media bias I tend to turn them off and discount whatever they're going to say.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course you two want to ignore media bias, the main stream media is biased towards your side!
Actually the main stream media is biased against my side. The CBC, Toronto Star and Globe and Mail all have a left wing bias and don't support my party the Conservative Party of Canada. It just isn't important.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually the main stream media is biased against my side. The CBC, Toronto Star and Globe and Mail all have a left wing bias and don't support my party the Conservative Party of Canada. It just isn't important.
I agree Canada politics isn't important, that's why we are discussing American politics... :club:
Link to post
Share on other sites
Taking a bit of a step back, the whole "the media is biased against my side" argument comes across as so boring and a bit lazy.Let me make myself clear. Media integrity is extremely important, and we should all fight for an impartial media (where applicable) or at least an intelligent media. Without that, Democracy doesn't work.However, I find increasingly that a "media bias" argument has become a substitute to any actual political conversation (I'm now talking specifically about this and similar forums). When discussing Cain, the issue immediately goes to media bias against him. When discussing the Tea Party or OWS, it's the media portrayal of them. Was Obama the media's darling, does the media hate Romney? These questions have their place, but they shouldn't be the center stage.I think that it's easy to say, "the media is against me," and then not have to dive deeper into issues or argue finer points. We haven't discussed the implications of 9-9-9, but we've tried to determine whether there is Uncle Tom syndrom in the Democratic party. hblask's tirade comes across as annoying instead of some well-thought-out charge against flawed journalism. And the almost daily cries of "liberal media" or "Fox news bias" are getting tired . (Besides, the issue isn't really even about bias, it's about competence, but that's another rant).Okay, I'm done for now.
That's pretty much what the point I was trying to make but much better said.
Link to post
Share on other sites
That's pretty much what the point I was trying to make but much better said.
Just for future reference:We all agree LLY is smart, but we never try to actually say it. It is likely that the smarter a person is and the more they are told they are smart, the greater the chance they will become engrossed in plans to take over the world for their diabolical plans.So in the future say something more like: "If this guy wasn't from New York he would know what he is talking about."We're trying to save the world.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Taking a bit of a step back, the whole "the media is biased against my side" argument comes across as so boring and a bit lazy.Let me make myself clear. Media integrity is extremely important, and we should all fight for an impartial media (where applicable) or at least an intelligent media. Without that, Democracy doesn't work.However, I find increasingly that a "media bias" argument has become a substitute to any actual political conversation (I'm now talking specifically about this and similar forums). When discussing Cain, the issue immediately goes to media bias against him. When discussing the Tea Party or OWS, it's the media portrayal of them. Was Obama the media's darling, does the media hate Romney? These questions have their place, but they shouldn't be the center stage.I think that it's easy to say, "the media is against me," and then not have to dive deeper into issues or argue finer points. We haven't discussed the implications of 9-9-9, but we've tried to determine whether there is Uncle Tom syndrom in the Democratic party. hblask's tirade comes across as annoying instead of some well-thought-out charge against flawed journalism. And the almost daily cries of "liberal media" or "Fox news bias" are getting tired . (Besides, the issue isn't really even about bias, it's about competence, but that's another rant).Okay, I'm done for now.
I will never bring up media bias again in these forums if you will admit that almost all of the main stream media(I would be glad to get more specific) selectively run stories that are slanted(very much so) to put forth their own agenda which is pretty much in lockstep with the far left views of the democratic party.
Link to post
Share on other sites
This is absolutely ****ing ridiculous. Love it when there is evidence everywhere and nothing at all to posted to back up they hyperbolic garbage. This is exactly what's wrong with discussing politics here or anywhere else. Was the media as a whole nicer to Obama then it's being to Cain yes probably, maybe, well who gives a crap what does any of that have to do with issues at hand? Every time a democrat on here or anywhere defends an Obama action the repubs are quick to point well the dems disagreed with it when Bush did the samething and the dems say well "you repubs liked in when Bush did it" and it all goes in a giant circle where the actual issue at hand becomes secondary to the battle of hypocrisy. There was what I thought a lot of interesting, intelligent back in forth on here from both sides during the last election and for Henry to go on and on and on about how in the media, on here, everywhere anyone said anything negative about Obama they were branded racist is completely dishonest and offensive. Yes there are differences to how cnn and msn handled Obama to Cain as there are differences in how foxnews etc are handling Cain to how they handled Obama but does bringing this crap up in every single thread during every single discussion do any good? Does it tackle any important issues facing the U.S.A"
btw, I am glad my comments on obvious media bias have pulled you off the sidelines and put you back in the game. I haven't heard from you since the last time I pointed out obvious liberal bias( I feel guilty about using the term 'bias' after LLY's lecture) in the media. Welcome back, I have been sitting on the sidelines myself during these economic debates.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Taking a bit of a step back, the whole "the media is biased against my side" argument comes across as so boring and a bit lazy.Let me make myself clear. Media integrity is extremely important, and we should all fight for an impartial media (where applicable) or at least an intelligent media. Without that, Democracy doesn't work.However, I find increasingly that a "media bias" argument has become a substitute to any actual political conversation (I'm now talking specifically about this and similar forums). When discussing Cain, the issue immediately goes to media bias against him. When discussing the Tea Party or OWS, it's the media portrayal of them. Was Obama the media's darling, does the media hate Romney? These questions have their place, but they shouldn't be the center stage.I think that it's easy to say, "the media is against me," and then not have to dive deeper into issues or argue finer points. We haven't discussed the implications of 9-9-9, but we've tried to determine whether there is Uncle Tom syndrom in the Democratic party. hblask's tirade comes across as annoying instead of some well-thought-out charge against flawed journalism. And the almost daily cries of "liberal media" or "Fox news bias" are getting tired . (Besides, the issue isn't really even about bias, it's about competence, but that's another rant).Okay, I'm done for now.
I agree that other stuff is more important, but media bias is important, too. It is the primary filter through which most people get their news and heavily influences elections. The fact that conservatives have *ANY* success in elections is a bit surprising considering how biased most coverage is (or especially, was, before FOX staked out the other end).But I am willing to admit that a large part of it is personal, too, because when I tried to point out the people's opinion of the tea party was tainted by shoddy reporting, I was piled on here on this forum. Not just a little, a lot. I was actually quite shocked by the response I got here, because it seemed to come out of nowhere and was really overwhelming -- and it was clearly, way way wrong. I've pointed out the most extreme examples a couple of times lately. So anyway, I'm done, I've made my point. All of you who jumped on me back then but are strangely silent now, I see you there lurking in the shadows covering your faces. The charade is up.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...