Joined: 24 Sep 2008 {Posts: 102 } Location: Santiago, DR
Posted: Thu 09 Oct 2008 02:05 Post subject:
anonymouse wrote:
btw: you never answered my questions
Your point being that the blacks typically vote Democrat, granted. However, they are at leadt 12 points higher thatn the previous election and no matter what you can't say, it can't be denied the black community is putting pressure on putting one's "own" in to the office.
I will repeat, many white Americans who are not racist or have a problem with a president who they think will put their people ahead of their country. And Cohens article so neatly lumps them into the racist "bowl", how convenient.
What I believe is that a single standard should be used to judge people, whatever their race, etc, bottom line. At this point it isn't happening and I'm sure this won't help to bring this country to where we need to be flag first and race last.
Your point being that the blacks typically vote Democrat, granted. However, they are at leadt 12 points higher thatn the previous election and no matter what you can't say, it can't be denied the black community is putting pressure on putting one's "own" in to the office.
I will repeat, many white Americans who are not racist or have a problem with a president who they think will put their people ahead of their country. And Cohens article so neatly lumps them into the racist "bowl", how convenient.
What I believe is that a single standard should be used to judge people, whatever their race, etc, bottom line. At this point it isn't happening and I'm sure this won't help to bring this country to where we need to be flag first and race last.
Perhaps that increase is a result of GW Bush failed policies and republicans in general losing support among blacks. Stating a 12 point rise in blacks supporting the democratic nominee has to be the result of race-based voting practices is nonsense. As I stated perhaps his stance on the issues and the policies he espouses are more popular with an ethnic group that primary votes democratic. His race is just icing on the cake
Now I am not saying that there aren't blacks who will vote for him primarily because he is black. But then again there are whites who will not vote for him specifically because he is black. I would like to think that those two would be a wash but that probably will not be the case.
BTW, I won't vote for Obama only because of his liberal stance and questionable associations.
We have had a conservative president for the last 8 years and a conservative congress for 6 of the last 8 years and look at what they have given us:
Government has recorded the largest growth ever;
We have the greatest national deficit ever;
Our economy is in the worst shape in almost 100 years due to careless deregulation;
The most deadliest terrorist attacks this country has ever faced have taken place during this Republican watch;
Diplomacy has been thrown out the door and a rush to war albeit without any long term plans to sustain or any exit strategies considered is the general policy;
And you want to elect ANOTHER conservative president? I fail to see the logic in your decision
Joined: 24 Sep 2008 {Posts: 102 } Location: Santiago, DR
Posted: Thu 09 Oct 2008 19:07 Post subject:
1. Bill Clinton was the cause of 911. Ask any intelligence operative who worked abroad in the 90's. He took the tools right out the hands of our professionals and even rejected to take Obama when he was in custody.
3. Democrats have been responsible for more murders (abortion) than by all the combined casualties of all the wars combined that we have been involved with. Sure you say it is a women's choice yet as I am Catholic and actually care where I go in the next life I'll have to go with the Creator on this one, sorry. Imagine if we decided Jesus wasn't a human at birth
"But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. Matthew 1:20"
4. Obama has demonstrated a severe lack of judgment in many of his decisions, namely starting his political career with Bill Ayers, a homegrown terrorist.
1. Bill Clinton was the cause of 911. Ask any intelligence operative who worked abroad in the 90's. He took the tools right out the hands of our professionals and even rejected to take Obama when he was in custody.
I do not know any intelligence professionals and I've worked for DOD agencies for almost 10 years. What I do know is that on Sept 11th 2001 Bill Clinton was a private citizen and GW Bush was president. Bush ignored everything that was passed on to him. Bush decided to do the opposite of everything Clinton did. That opposite stuff only works for George Costanza, not George Bush. Bush took his eye off the ball and we as a country suffered for it
The bills were introduced in the U.S. Senate by Phil Gramm (R-Texas) and in the U.S. House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa). The bills passed the Senate on a 54-44 vote along party lines (53 Republicans and one Democrat in favor; 44 Democrats opposed). After passing both the Senate and House the bill was moved to a conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. Democrats agreed to support the bill after Republicans agreed to strengthen provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act and address certain privacy concerns.On November 4, the final bill resolving the differences was passed by the Senate 90-8 and by the House 362-57.This 'veto proof legislation' was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.
Even if that is true (and I don't believe there was a single cause for the meltdown) praytell how do you blame a bill introduced by the Republicans and passed overwhelmingly by both sides of the house on Bill Clinton? He was powerless to do anything about it since the bill was veto proof
chip wrote:
3. Democrats have been responsible for more murders (abortion) than by all the combined casualties of all the wars combined that we have been involved with. Sure you say it is a women's choice yet as I am Catholic and actually care where I go in the next life I'll have to go with the Creator on this one, sorry. Imagine if we decided Jesus wasn't a human at birth
"But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. Matthew 1:20"
I have no interest in your religious beliefs. They have no bearing on our economy or our standing in the in the community of nations. Besides McCain does not want to overthrow Roe v Wade. Well at least the old McCain didn't
chip wrote:
4. Obama has demonstrated a severe lack of judgment in many of his decisions, namely starting his political career with Bill Ayers, a homegrown terrorist.
I still don't see a smoking gun, just a lot of innuendo. If they were so close why are there no records of them ever being seen together publicly or privately? Where are the meeting minutes detailing their friendly interactions? All I see/hear are manic ravings by political pundits like Sean Hannity
Last edited by anonymouse on Fri 10 Oct 2008 15:54; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 24 Sep 2008 {Posts: 102 } Location: Santiago, DR
Posted: Thu 09 Oct 2008 19:57 Post subject:
anonymouse wrote:
They have no bearing on our economy or our standing in the in the community of nations.
I think this says a lot about you - let other countries dictate our policy.
Also, sorry, I don't buy your interpretation of the cause of the financial meltdown. Certainly Republicans were to blame but I am just sick and tired of all this being blamed on Bush by the liberal media.
As far as not knowing anyone in the intelligence, I don't know what to say other that I have - someone who worked with Delta Force for over 15 years and personally is familiar with directives received from Clinton's administration. Did you ever see "Blackhawk Down", a good example of another failure.
We certainly made everybody like us back then didn't we???? Did us a whole lot of good to. If you have DOD connections, ask any about how many tons of unaccounted uranium is there still out there?
They have no bearing on our economy or our standing in the in the community of nations.
I think this says a lot about you - let other countries dictate our policy.
it's not about letting other countries dictate our policies - it is about getting along with our neighbours.
chip wrote:
Also, sorry, I don't buy your interpretation of the cause of the financial meltdown. Certainly Republicans were to blame but I am just sick and tired of all this being blamed on Bush by the liberal media.
I gave no interpretation. You stated that the meltdown was a direct result of the Gramm-Leech Bliley Act but that bill that was introduced by two Republican congressmen and passed overwhelmingly by Congress. Why would you blame Bill Clinton for its passage? Why can't you call a spade a spade. We are in this shape because of the failed economic policies of the Bush administration and the republican party in general.
chip wrote:
As far as not knowing anyone in the intelligence, I don't know what to say other that I have - someone who worked with Delta Force for over 15 years and personally is familiar with directives received from Clinton's administration. Did you ever see "Blackhawk Down", a good example of another failure.
What does a movie based on events from 1993 have to do with terrorist attacks in 2001? Bush was at the helm and Bush screwed up.
chip wrote:
We certainly made everybody like us back then didn't we???? Did us a whole lot of good to. If you have DOD connections, ask any about how many tons of unaccounted uranium is there still out there?
Asking about uranium on a DOD site such as the pentagon is a good way to get arrested and getting your security clearance revoked. Besides - what does unaccounted uranium have to do with anything we have been discussion? Oh and for the record uranium is a naturally occuring element. No one knows how much is out there
Chip - it looks like you're flailing about and throwing everything in this discussion but the kitchen sink. Could you please stay on topic? I will repeat:
We have had a conservative president for the last 8 years and a conservative congress for 6 of the last 8 years and look at what they have given us:
Government has recorded the largest growth ever;
We have the greatest national deficit ever;
Our economy is in the worst shape in almost 100 years due to careless deregulation;
The most deadliest terrorist attacks this country has ever faced have taken place during this Republican watch;
Diplomacy has been thrown out the door and a rush to war albeit without any long term plans to sustain or any exit strategies considered is the general policy;
In light of these facts why on earth would you vote for ANOTHER conservative republican president? As the old saying goes: Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me.
Last edited by anonymouse on Thu 09 Oct 2008 20:46; edited 1 time in total
We have had a conservative president for the last 8 years and a conservative congress for 6 of the last 8 years and look at what they have given us:
Technically, a president with strong neo-conservative leanings, which is why:
Quote:
Government has recorded the largest growth ever;
We have the greatest national deficit ever;
Quote:
The most deadliest terrorist attacks this country has ever faced have taken place during this Republican watch;
People tend to forget the first time terrorists of a certain religious persuation tride to blow up the World Trade Center back in '93. That was under Clinton's watch. It's my belief that plans for the second attack (9/11) probably began during the end of Clinton's term.
Quote:
Diplomacy has been thrown out the door and a rush to war albeit without any long term plans to sustain or any exit strategies considered is the general policy;
True, but did not Republicans AND Democrats in Congress support this war and appropriate money for it?
Quote:
Our economy is in the worst shape in almost 100 years due to careless deregulation
Well if we are talking about the mortage mess, in part it is do to gov't mandates to lower credit standards to expand the number of homeowners from disadvantaged groups. Bush, Clinton and the Democrats supported this policy.
Independent.co.uk
Dominic Lawson: Democrat fingerprints are all over the financial crisis
The least well off are going to face the most stringent terms for mortgages
Friday, 3 October 2008
Of all the characteristics of a successful politician, none is more essential than bare-faced cheek. Never has this been more evident than in the past fortnight, as senior Democrat members of the US legislature have sought to lay all the blame for the country's financial crisis on the executive arm of Government and Wall Street.
Neither of these two institutions is blameless far from it. Yet when I see such senior Democrats as Barney Frank, Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, and Christopher Dodd, Chairman of the Senate's Banking Committee, play the part of avenging angels well, I can only stand in silent awe at the sheer tight-bottomed nerve of it. These are men with sphincters of steel.
What is the proximate cause of the collapse of confidence in the world's banks? Millions of improvident loans to American housebuyers. Which organisations were on their own responsible for guaranteeing half of this $12 trillion market? Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the so-called Government Sponsored Enterprises which last month were formally nationalised to prevent their immediate and catastrophic collapse. Now, who do you think were among the leading figures blocking all the earlier attempts by President Bush and other Republicans to bring these lending behemoths under greater regulatory control? Step forward, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.
In September 2003 the Bush administration launched a measure to bring Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under stricter regulatory control, after a report by outside investigators established that they were not adequately hedging against risks and that Fannie Mae in particular had scandalously mis-stated its accounts. In 2006, it was revealed that Fannie Mae had overstated its earnings to which its senior executives' bonuses were linked by a stunning $9.3billion. Between 1998 and 2003, Fannie Mae's executive chairman, Franklin Raines, picked up over $90m in bonuses and stock options.
Yet Barney Frank and his chums blocked all Bush's attempts to put a rein on Raines. During the House Financial Services Committee hearing following Bush's initiative, Frank declared: "The more people exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness [at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae], the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury which I do not see. I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially." His colleague on the committee, the California Democrat Maxine Walters, said: "There were nearly a dozen hearings where we were trying to fix something that wasn't broke. Mr Chairman, we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac and particularly at Fannie Mae under the outstanding leadership of Mr Franklin Raines."
When Mr Raines himself was challenged by the Republican Christopher Shays, to the effect that his ratio of capital to assets (that is, mortgages) of 3 per cent was dangerously low, the Fannie Mae boss retorted that "our assets are so riskless, we could have a capital ratio of under 2 per cent".
Maxine Walters' complaint about previous attempts to bring the great state-sponsored housing finance bodies under stricter control was partly a reference to Bill Clinton's efforts. Last week the former President acknowledged that "responsibility" for the absence of proper regulation rested "with Democrats who were resisting any efforts of Republicans in Congress, and earlier when I was President and tried to impose tighter standards on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac". Then, as now, members of his own party saw all such initiatives as unwonted attacks on the chances for low-earners, and particularly African-Americans, to own their own homes.
From its inception in 1938 Fannie Mae (and later Freddie Mac) was designed to make housing finance available to "ordinary Americans". This was a noble aim. In the 1970s another Democrat President, Jimmy Carter, introduced legislation which demanded that such bodies enhance their lending to minorities. Again, this was based on a noble idea: to stamp out racism in the mortgage market. Thus by 1998 you had the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston producing a document entitled "Closing the Gap: a Guide to Equal Opportunities Lending", which instructed banks that an applicant's "lack of credit history should not be seen as a negative factor" in obtaining a mortgage. As Stephen Malanga of the Manhatta *Institute notes: "Of course the new federal standards couldn't just apply to minorities. If they could pay back loans under these terms, then so could the majority of loan applicants. Quickly, these became the new standards in the industry. As the housing market boomed, banks embraced these new standards with a vengeance. Between 2004 and 2007, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac became the biggest purchasers of subprime mortgages from all kinds of applicants, white and minority, and most of these loans were based on lending standards promoted by the Government."
One of the few journalists to see where this would lead was Jeff Jacoby, of the Boston Globe. Last week he reminded his readers what he had written in 1995: "Our banks are knowingly approving risky loans to get the feds and the activists off their backs... When the coming wave of foreclosures rolls through the inner city, which of today's self-congratulating bankers, politicians and regulators plans to take the credit?". Jacoby adds now: "Barney Frank doesn't. But his fingerprints are all over this fiasco."
It's true that the improvident lending was not initiated by Fannie and Freddie: their role in this was to buy these loans and sell them on but then the music stopped. Cynical students of the American political system will note that the biggest recipient of campaign contributions from the munificent duo of Fannie and Freddie over the past 20 years was one Christopher Dodd, Democrat Chairman of the Senate's Banking Committee.
Rather surprisingly, given that he has only been in the Senate for four of those years, the second biggest beneficiary was Barack Obama. In August the Washington Post reported that Obama's presidential campaign team had sought the advice of Franklin Raines "on mortgage and housing policy matters". Perhaps Mr Obama's team just wanted to know where all the bodies are buried there are rather a lot of them.
The saddest outcome of all this within America apart from the crippling cost to the nation's taxpayers is that the very people the Democrats had intended to help will be the biggest victims: for many years to come banks will demand the most stringent terms for mortgages to the least well off.
In the meantime, let us praise Congressman Artur Davis of Alabama, who confessed this week: "Like a lot of my Democrat colleagues I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie and Freddie when in retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised. I wish my Democrat colleagues would admit that we were wrong." I fear Congressman Davis will not go far with this attitude but at least he will be able to look at himself in the mirror.
Joined: 24 Sep 2008 {Posts: 102 } Location: Santiago, DR
Posted: Thu 09 Oct 2008 20:50 Post subject:
Well said Gman.
As far as not uranium being a natural forming element, I fail to see the connection. I do know that it is one of the few natural elements that can be converted into an explosive device of immense power.
As far as knowing how much uranium is out there I'm not asking you to compromise your security clearance just google it! How about 40 tons!
If you tell me you are working in the DOD and aren't aware of the very real threat of a nuclear attack on our soil (hope you don't live in Wash or NY) then I honestly have to question that you do, or maybe you don't talk to other people, who knows.
As far as not uranium being a natural forming element, I fail to see the connection. I do know that it is one of the few natural elements that can be converted into an explosive device of immense power.
As far as knowing how much uranium is out there I'm not asking you to compromise your security clearance just google it! How about 40 tons!
If you tell me you are working in the DOD and aren't aware of the very real threat of a nuclear attack on our soil (hope you don't live in Wash or NY) then I honestly have to question that you do, or maybe you don't talk to other people, who knows.
You still haven't addressed my questions. I see no need to have this discussion devolve into bickering about the threat of nuclear attack. Stay on topic. If you keep dodging the issue I will cease to communicate with you in this thread
We have had a conservative president for the last 8 years and a conservative congress for 6 of the last 8 years and look at what they have given us:
Technically, a president with strong neo-conservative leanings, which is why:
Quote:
Government has recorded the largest growth ever;
We have the greatest national deficit ever;
Quote:
The most deadliest terrorist attacks this country has ever faced have taken place during this Republican watch;
People tend to forget the first time terrorists of a certain religious persuation tride to blow up the World Trade Center back in '93. That was under Clinton's watch. It's my belief that plans for the second attack (9/11) probably began during the end of Clinton's term.
Changes nothing. They have probably planned and tried a number of terrorist acts. Do you really think the general public is informed everytime an event is foiled? The fact is Bush & Company should have been even more vigilant because they were teh new administration. But for his first 8 month in office Bush favoured disengagement. He stepped away from the mid east crisis and it got worse. He stepped away from north Korea and the threat grew. He adopted an almost petulant policy of doing the polar opposite of Bill Clinton...and WE as a country paid the price
G-Man wrote:
Quote:
Diplomacy has been thrown out the door and a rush to war albeit without any long term plans to sustain or any exit strategies considered is the general policy;
True, but did not Republicans AND Democrats in Congress support this war and appropriate money for it?
Yep, due in no small part to trumped up or outright falsified documents and testimony.
G-Man wrote:
Quote:
Our economy is in the worst shape in almost 100 years due to careless deregulation
Well if we are talking about the mortage mess, in part it is do to gov't mandates to lower credit standards to expand the number of homeowners from disadvantaged groups. Bush, Clinton and the Democrats supported this policy.
Deregulation is the republican mantra. Let free market economics reign is their battlycry. But now our economy has gone to hell in a hand basket and because of lack of oversight you want to blame the democrats and Bill Clinton? Right now George Bush is the CEO of this country. Where do you think the buck should stop?
Joined: 24 Sep 2008 {Posts: 102 } Location: Santiago, DR
Posted: Thu 09 Oct 2008 22:35 Post subject:
anonymouse wrote:
Chip
You still haven't addressed my questions. I see no need to have this discussion devolve into bickering about the threat of nuclear attack. Stay on topic. If you keep dodging the issue I will cease to communicate with you in this thread
Oh brother you are kidding right? Since when did we make you the judge of that, ie you're deviating just as much - look at your own posts.
Better yet, let's just end our discourse, I have read your posts and you reasoning make little sense to me and I can see I'm getting no where with you and I'm sure for you the feeling is mutual.
Yeah, I think race is a major issue. Only because it presents true problems for people. So if the scientific or biological form of race doesnt' exist then obviously the socialized one is alive and well.
My signature has been in place for close to a year now and I see no need to change it just to make someone feel better about themselves.
It's not about me feeling better about myself - good grief.
Honestly, I'm going to blunt with you because you apparently aren't getting the message - your message reeks of "insecurity" which is quite ironic because you preface any interaction by acknowledging the perceived "insecurity" of other posters on this forum.
You know, that reminds me of some prejudiced white southerners who I grew up with(hicks), who would for no reason bad mouth blacks without ever having the chance to judge the person by their actions. This is what weak and insecure people do to make themselves feel better - this is what you are doing and it makes you look no better than some dumb hick, sorry.
Chip, if the moderators thought it was out of place we would have asked him to change it, which we have done to member in the past.
your starting an arguement based on someones signature, it really shouldn't be a big deal...
This falls under courtesy, even though this rule is dealing mainly with topics of discussion, it is relevant to courtesy in general. It's a signature. We can all find something about another person's perceived character to call out...
2.2 Do not engage in ad hominem. If you disagree with someone, focus your comments on the content of their message, not their person. Do not attribute motives. Do not ridicule them. Do not engage in any form of ad hominem.
They have no bearing on our economy or our standing in the in the community of nations.
I think this says a lot about you - let other countries dictate our policy.
be careful:2.2 Do not engage in ad hominem. If you disagree with someone, focus your comments on the content of their message, not their person. Do not attribute motives. Do not ridicule them. Do not engage in any form of ad hominem.
Also, sorry, I don't buy your interpretation of the cause of the financial meltdown. Certainly Republicans were to blame but I am just sick and tired of all this being blamed on Bush by the liberal media.
As far as not knowing anyone in the intelligence, I don't know what to say other that I have - someone who worked with Delta Force for over 15 years and personally is familiar with directives received from Clinton's administration. Did you ever see "Blackhawk Down", a good example of another failure.
We certainly made everybody like us back then didn't we???? Did us a whole lot of good to. If you have DOD connections, ask any about how many tons of unaccounted uranium is there still out there?
Apples and...grapefruits Chip. There is a huge difference in showing that a certain percentage of whites will refuse to vote for a black man versus PREDICTING (read: guessing) that Obama will get 95% of the black vote, especially since blacks overwhelming vote Democratic (when they chose to vote that is).
If Hillary had gotten the nomination the numbers would probably be the same.
I guess I must be dreaming that all of my black friends and many blacks I have talked to or seen on othe forums say they are going to vote for Obama because he is black.
I guess all my black friends who say they're voting for Obama not because he's black, but because they agree with his stance on certain issues cancels out your black friends and people you know who are voting for him because he's black.
Anecdata aside, the numbers would be just about the same. I don't think Obama being black has nothing to do with his support, but it's not the only reason. If Obama was an Alan Keyes type I doubt the majority of African Americans would support him.
On the flip side, if Barack Obama was more like Cynthia McKinney, I doubt he'd be so popular, either.
Quote:
People tend to forget the first time terrorists of a certain religious persuation tride to blow up the World Trade Center back in '93. That was under Clinton's watch. It's my belief that plans for the second attack (9/11) probably began during the end of Clinton's term.
Oh boy.
Clinton was President from Jan 1993. The WTC 1993 bombing happened a month later, in February. All the planning happened from 91-92, during George HW Bush's presidency.
So one one hand, you're blaming Clinton for the planning of 9/11 that took place during his time, but then in the same sentence blame him again for the bombing in 1993, in which the planning took place before his time.
Deregulation is the republican mantra. Let free market economics reign is their battlycry. But now our economy has gone to hell in a hand basket and because of lack of oversight you want to blame the democrats and Bill Clinton? Right now George Bush is the CEO of this country. Where do you think the buck should stop?
Anonymouse, go back and read both the article and my response. The author of the article, Dominic Lawson, is a liberal and can't be saddled with the charge of conservative bias.
The current financial mess is due in part to NGOs and government demanding the loosening of credit standards in issuance of mortgages. Both Clinton and Bush supported these policies. Youre judgment is obviously clouded by your hostility to the Republicans (as others are by their hostility to the Democrats) that you refuse to entertain the role such polices-initiated by Democrats-played in our current economic crisis.
Finally, deregulation and let the free market reign may be battle cries of some Reublicans, but it remains to be seen that the market was any freer under Bush than Clinton.
Joined: 24 Sep 2008 {Posts: 102 } Location: Santiago, DR
Posted: Sun 12 Oct 2008 05:44 Post subject:
Famu wrote:
Oh boy.
Clinton was President from Jan 1993. The WTC 1993 bombing happened a month later, in February. All the planning happened from 91-92, during George HW Bush's presidency.
So one one hand, you're blaming Clinton for the planning of 9/11 that took place during his time, but then in the same sentence blame him again for the bombing in 1993, in which the planning took place before his time.
Huh?
911 was planned on Clinton's watch, period.
FYI, I have a contact who was with Delta Force for 10 years during the Clinton Admin. Clinton by presidential directive removed the authority of our operatives to kill our enemies whenever and wherever they were found. This is why we couldn't get him in the 90's. Oh yeah, btw, Osama was actually captured by a foreign country and they offered to have him sent to the US and Mr Bill declined. BOTTOM LINE, FOR THOSE IN THE KNOW, 911 HAPPENED BECAUSE OF BILL CLINTON.
Not only that, there are more than 40 tons of unaccounted for uranium not to mention suitcase bombs as well. As soon as we let our defenses down it is only inevitable. I hope you don't live in or around Washington or NY.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
