First and formost this is what i posted on another forum where im much more involved in political debates. Therefore you may not have seen me as so much antibush...
As EVERYONE has noticed I was an (over)zealous supporter of Mr. Kerry in his persuit to defeat Bush. This article touches on that partly, the election in general, my thoughts on its unfolding, and how im pissed off at the general immaturity of people on BOTH sides.
First and formost, congradulations to the Bush administration on winning a rather tight race... he legitimately won this one.
The voters sent a clear message via the results, and I think that we can accept the message. The voters want Bush's mess cleaned up, and they think that its best he fix his own problems. Denying Bush fucked up at this point is impossible, but the American people have had a tendancy to let people fix their own problems (or be incredibly stupid, but unlike my fellow Left-Supporters i disagree in this case). Bush has claimed he will be in touch with Kerry on trying to win over SOME support from Kerry supporters, and if he legitimately takes the advice the US should be in FAIRLY good hands. The Left/Right arguments dont really matter in this scenario as there were far to many different issues surrounding the election.
And now for my messages to those without a shred of poli-scientific knowledge, common courtesy, or respect.
To Bush supporters - Having your man win by 2% is great. Celebrate. you should. BUT you should never bash your opponents supporters. Its bad form. Leading up to the election they gave you a good fight, but you dont kick someone when their down, you leave them to recover. Dont go saying things like "Take that you fucking liberals" "I told you Kerry sucks.. See!" or anything along those lines. Have respect, as Bush has given Kerry's supporters.
To Kerry supporters - Im as dissappointed in you as the Bush supporters. Firstly, running around yelling "Fucking Bush!" is a dumb idea... he DID win by popular vote this year, if only just. Dont blame Bush on all your problems postelection, dont call yoru fellow voters "stupid" or "blinded by the media" as you NEVER KNOW. Let the dog die... four years isnt enough to destroy the world and Bush is not as much an idiot as we claim him to be. He may not be as smart as Kerry but he DOES have the capability to start cleaning his mess.
Finally, from a Canadian perspective with heavy bias, I pity those who were told to vote without being given a broad view if this was the case. I also in a perverse sence hope Bush's presidency continues to raise the Canadian dollar.
Full Version: Election...
I'll point out that ~70% of the people who voted for Kerry were voting against Bush and not being positive for Kerry.
This is a discouraging statistic
Maggietobias
This is a discouraging statistic
Maggietobias
I think that if nothing else, this election has taught us one very valuable lesson. The mainstream media is so far out of touch with the American public that one can no longer believe what they say at face value. I was appauled at what I saw in the media this election. As if it wasn't bad enough that they "called" the election for Gore four years ago before the polls had even closed, they botched things even worse this time around.
Here are just a few of the examples, without going into too much detail:
1. Dan Rather's blatent partisanship against Bush. Anchors are supposed to REPORT the news, after thorough research, without any bias. His blind hatred for Bush not only deceived the public but also tainted his reputation and will create a dismal legacy.
2. The % of negative stories against Bush in the media was around 67% vs. 30% against Kerry. I'm all for hearing the good and bad of the candidates, just give them equal billing.
3. All the major media began (once again) calling the election for Kerry based on exit polls. They were so far out of whack that even Kerry's group wasn't believing that they were winning by that much. Let the people vote and report on the results that come in.
4. Stop just being a venue for the "Talking Points" of the canidates. No one ever asks the really tough questions of these guys. Just once, when Kerry said that Bush was responsible for sending jobs over seas, or that he was responsible for the number of people without health care I would have loved to hear someone ask, "If Bush is responsible for where we are today after 4 years in office, then what are you responsible for after 20 years in congress?"
Those are just a few examples, but I hope that when the next election comes around they will look back and realize that their attempted manipulation of the American people was unsuccessful and that we are beyond believing every word that is spoken from their mouths. Just report the facts and let us decide from there.
Just my 2 cents.
Parli
Here are just a few of the examples, without going into too much detail:
1. Dan Rather's blatent partisanship against Bush. Anchors are supposed to REPORT the news, after thorough research, without any bias. His blind hatred for Bush not only deceived the public but also tainted his reputation and will create a dismal legacy.
2. The % of negative stories against Bush in the media was around 67% vs. 30% against Kerry. I'm all for hearing the good and bad of the candidates, just give them equal billing.
3. All the major media began (once again) calling the election for Kerry based on exit polls. They were so far out of whack that even Kerry's group wasn't believing that they were winning by that much. Let the people vote and report on the results that come in.
4. Stop just being a venue for the "Talking Points" of the canidates. No one ever asks the really tough questions of these guys. Just once, when Kerry said that Bush was responsible for sending jobs over seas, or that he was responsible for the number of people without health care I would have loved to hear someone ask, "If Bush is responsible for where we are today after 4 years in office, then what are you responsible for after 20 years in congress?"
Those are just a few examples, but I hope that when the next election comes around they will look back and realize that their attempted manipulation of the American people was unsuccessful and that we are beyond believing every word that is spoken from their mouths. Just report the facts and let us decide from there.
Just my 2 cents.
Parli
| QUOTE (Parli @ Nov 30 2004, 03:53 AM) |
| As if it wasn't bad enough that they "called" the election for Gore four years ago before the polls had even closed |
It has something to do with the fact that, after the polls were closed, Gore still had 500 thousand more votes :/
| QUOTE |
| congradulations to the Bush administration on winning a rather tight race... he legitimately won this one |
Hey, he legitimately won the last one also. He was in full compliance with the US constitution. That made his election in 2000 legitimate. He won the majority vote in Florida giving him the required number of electoral votes. the US supreme court only ordered Florida to comply with its own state constitution which the Gore campaign did not want to do- Gore wanted a partial recount rather than the full state recount required by the Florida constitution.
If the 53% that Bush won in 2004 isn't a resounding defeat for the Democrats and a solid win for Bush then what was the 43% that Cinton won in 1992 and the 47% that Clinton won in 1996.
And no it is not impossible to deny that Bush screwed up. It is the Europeans that screwed up. They screwed their best ally and now it is time to return the favor. Bush has no responsibility to be in touch with the Kerry suporters. A majority of the American people have rejected them and what they stand for. For Bush to move toward this group is to reject the votes of 53% of the American voters. It is time for the majority of the American voters to get what they voted for and not to be ashamed of it.
If the Democrats want to influence policy or direct policy they should win elections. This is what democracy is all about. You win - you rule. It is totally undemocratic to go against the wishes of the majority electorate. What kind of crap is this to suddenly adopt the policies of the defeated.
How did this get in twice??? Maybe it needed to be repeated?????
| QUOTE |
| congradulations to the Bush administration on winning a rather tight race... he legitimately won this one |
Hey, he legitimately won the last one also. He was in full compliance with the US constitution. That made his election in 2000 legitimate. He won the majority vote in Florida giving him the required number of electoral votes. the US supreme court only ordered Florida to comply with its own state constitution which the Gore campaign did not want to do- Gore wanted a partial recount rather than the full state recount required by the Florida constitution.
If the 53% that Bush won in 2004 isn't a resounding defeat for the Democrats and a solid win for Bush then what was the 43% that Cinton won in 1992 and the 47% that Clinton won in 1996.
And no it is not impossible to deny that Bush screwed up. It is the Europeans that screwed up. They screwed their best ally and now it is time to return the favor. Bush has no responsibility to be in touch with the Kerry suporters. A majority of the American people have rejected them and what they stand for. For Bush to move toward this group is to reject the votes of 53% of the American voters. It is time for the majority of the American voters to get what they voted for and not to be ashamed of it.
If the Democrats want to influence policy or direct policy they should win elections. This is what democracy is all about. You win - you rule. It is totally undemocratic to go against the wishes of the majority electorate. What kind of crap is this to suddenly adopt the policies of the defeated.
| QUOTE (artzelda @ Dec 3 2004, 04:26 PM) |
| And no it is not impossible to deny that Bush screwed up. It is the Europeans that screwed up. |
Refusing to assist in an illegal war based on falsified evidence isnt screwing up. Falsifying evidence to go to war is, then blindly following what you personally think should happen with utter disregard to the opinions of the populus is screwing up.
Taking a months vacation immediately after being informed of a terrorist plan to use airplanes as missles is also screwing up.
Taking only two years to shift from the focus of the sorrows of the world to being considered the largest threat to world peace internationally is screwing up.
Attempting to write prejudice into the constitution isnt really screwing up, but does twist the arm of the first amendment a bit.
I wont even go into the PATRIOT act....
Illegal war. What court declared the Iraq law illegal? None that I am aware of. But I am willing to be educated. The UN is NOT the arbitrater of who goes to war or not. What falsified evidence? Everyone icluding the UN, Canada, Europe believed that Iraq had WMD. What the hell were the inspectors in Iraq looking for if these countries and the UN did not believe that they were there. Name a country, other than Iraq, that stated that Iraq did not have WMD!!!
Going agains the wishes of the populace. What populace are you talking about. Congress authorized going to war - even Kerry voted for it. An overwhelming majority of Americans were for it. If the populace you are talking about is the European and Canadian populace- well a president is not required or obliged to care what they think. They should have and have no influence on the actions and opinions of a US president.
Taking a months vacation after being informed of a missle attack. Please identify the exact circumstances of this accusation - or are you just repeating the liberal mantra that a white paper indicating that Al - Queda was to attack the US was sufficient warning to take actions. Al Queda had identified its intent to attack US interests under the CLinton administration and Clinton took no actions to protect US military forces, ie the attack of the USS Cole in the Arabian Gulf, etc. No one had specific intelligence to warrant actions. 911 opened the eyes of the US to the true nature of this threat. The rest of the world ignores it and hopes it will go away and stay away from them. Only the US is being attacked and confronting this threat with the aid and assistance of some of its friends. Those countries that do not help or obstruct are not friends and allies but are enemies of the US.
What sorrows of the world are you talking about?? Why is it the US has to solve them? Let Europe and Canada solve them. They talk alot but do nothing. Who has contributed the most money to fight Aids in Africa either in total dollars or a percent of GNP or government budget. Europe and Canada are nothing more than hulking elephants sucking on the largesse of the US.
What prejudice has been written into the constitution?? I am not aware of any change in the US constitution for at least 50 years and maybe longer. Please identify the specific prejudice written into the constitution by the Bush administration ???
These accusations are rant with no basis behind them. Just opinion of what constitutes an illegal war, falsified evidence, valid credible intelligence, sorrows of the world. I left out the prejudice issue because there have been NO changes to the constitution under the Bush adminstration. The constitution is identical to what existed under the Clinton adminstration.
Going agains the wishes of the populace. What populace are you talking about. Congress authorized going to war - even Kerry voted for it. An overwhelming majority of Americans were for it. If the populace you are talking about is the European and Canadian populace- well a president is not required or obliged to care what they think. They should have and have no influence on the actions and opinions of a US president.
Taking a months vacation after being informed of a missle attack. Please identify the exact circumstances of this accusation - or are you just repeating the liberal mantra that a white paper indicating that Al - Queda was to attack the US was sufficient warning to take actions. Al Queda had identified its intent to attack US interests under the CLinton administration and Clinton took no actions to protect US military forces, ie the attack of the USS Cole in the Arabian Gulf, etc. No one had specific intelligence to warrant actions. 911 opened the eyes of the US to the true nature of this threat. The rest of the world ignores it and hopes it will go away and stay away from them. Only the US is being attacked and confronting this threat with the aid and assistance of some of its friends. Those countries that do not help or obstruct are not friends and allies but are enemies of the US.
What sorrows of the world are you talking about?? Why is it the US has to solve them? Let Europe and Canada solve them. They talk alot but do nothing. Who has contributed the most money to fight Aids in Africa either in total dollars or a percent of GNP or government budget. Europe and Canada are nothing more than hulking elephants sucking on the largesse of the US.
What prejudice has been written into the constitution?? I am not aware of any change in the US constitution for at least 50 years and maybe longer. Please identify the specific prejudice written into the constitution by the Bush administration ???
These accusations are rant with no basis behind them. Just opinion of what constitutes an illegal war, falsified evidence, valid credible intelligence, sorrows of the world. I left out the prejudice issue because there have been NO changes to the constitution under the Bush adminstration. The constitution is identical to what existed under the Clinton adminstration.
Hmm... two buisness class parties to choose from, a currupt Democratic Party, a currupt Republican Party, a currupt UN, insane dictators. Yeah we are all winners here.
If you thought going in to Bosnia was just becuase of the genocide, then the Iraq war is just. Im disappointed that the US didn't play that up more as a reason to goto war.
According to UN statutes it was illegal, statutes the US helped put in place. Be we can all see now how ligitamit the UN is.
And yes Bush does need to do something about getting the two different party supportes together. There is a big cultural clash that is about to happen. But Bush is so indifferent to anyone elses beliefs, that solving it wont happen.
And yes i agree, the media is a bitch right now.
If you thought going in to Bosnia was just becuase of the genocide, then the Iraq war is just. Im disappointed that the US didn't play that up more as a reason to goto war.
According to UN statutes it was illegal, statutes the US helped put in place. Be we can all see now how ligitamit the UN is.
And yes Bush does need to do something about getting the two different party supportes together. There is a big cultural clash that is about to happen. But Bush is so indifferent to anyone elses beliefs, that solving it wont happen.
And yes i agree, the media is a bitch right now.
| QUOTE (artzelda @ Dec 3 2004, 07:03 PM) |
| Illegal war. What court declared the Iraq law illegal? None that I am aware of. But I am willing to be educated. The UN is NOT the arbitrater of who goes to war or not. What falsified evidence? Everyone icluding the UN, Canada, Europe believed that Iraq had WMD. What the hell were the inspectors in Iraq looking for if these countries and the UN did not believe that they were there. Name a country, other than Iraq, that stated that Iraq did not have WMD!!! Going agains the wishes of the populace. What populace are you talking about. Congress authorized going to war - even Kerry voted for it. An overwhelming majority of Americans were for it. If the populace you are talking about is the European and Canadian populace- well a president is not required or obliged to care what they think. They should have and have no influence on the actions and opinions of a US president. Taking a months vacation after being informed of a missle attack. Please identify the exact circumstances of this accusation - or are you just repeating the liberal mantra that a white paper indicating that Al - Queda was to attack the US was sufficient warning to take actions. Al Queda had identified its intent to attack US interests under the CLinton administration and Clinton took no actions to protect US military forces, ie the attack of the USS Cole in the Arabian Gulf, etc. No one had specific intelligence to warrant actions. 911 opened the eyes of the US to the true nature of this threat. The rest of the world ignores it and hopes it will go away and stay away from them. Only the US is being attacked and confronting this threat with the aid and assistance of some of its friends. Those countries that do not help or obstruct are not friends and allies but are enemies of the US. What sorrows of the world are you talking about?? Why is it the US has to solve them? Let Europe and Canada solve them. They talk alot but do nothing. Who has contributed the most money to fight Aids in Africa either in total dollars or a percent of GNP or government budget. Europe and Canada are nothing more than hulking elephants sucking on the largesse of the US. What prejudice has been written into the constitution?? I am not aware of any change in the US constitution for at least 50 years and maybe longer. Please identify the specific prejudice written into the constitution by the Bush administration ??? These accusations are rant with no basis behind them. Just opinion of what constitutes an illegal war, falsified evidence, valid credible intelligence, sorrows of the world. I left out the prejudice issue because there have been NO changes to the constitution under the Bush adminstration. The constitution is identical to what existed under the Clinton adminstration. |
Point One: As Radnoken said, the US is (was?) obliged to follow UN policy they signed for. If you sign that your going to do something, then break it, it is illegal in international law. This even applys if you are the most powerful nation in the world.
Can you support your statement saying everyone believed that Iraq had WMDs? Former Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien had gone on the record several times explaining how Canada would not participate against Iraq unless the UN sanctioned it - ie they had discovered nuclear weapons. Most countrys did believe they were there, however, due to evidence planted by British and American officials. (I will post my sources after i am done crosschecking the authenticity of a few in question)
I concede the second statement.
Point Three: “News coverage has pointedly stressed that W.'s month-long stay at his ranch in Crawford is the longest presidential vacation in 32 years. Washington Post supercomputers calculated that if you add up all his weekends at Camp David, layovers at Kennebunkport and assorted to-ing and fro-ing, W. will have spent 42 percent of his presidency ‘at vacation spots or en route.’”
- Charles Krauthammer, “A Vacation Bush Deserves,” The Washington Post, August 10, 2001.
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/80601pdb.html
-Presidential Daily Brief, August 6, 2001
If its a confidential, your-eyes-only document that has examples that the threat could very well be legitimate, it is your responcibility to attempt to take action.
Neglecting to allow himself to be briefed on terrorism was a bad idea...
“[T]hey didn't allow me to brief him on terrorism. You know, they're saying now that when I was afforded the opportunity to talk to him about cybersecurity, it was my choice. I could have talked about terrorism or cybersecurity. That's not true. I asked in January to brief him, the president, on terrorism, to give him the same briefing I had given Vice President Cheney, Colin Powell and Condi Rice. And I was told, ‘You can't do that briefing, Dick, until after the policy development process.’”
-Richard Clarke interview with Tim Russert on NBC’s Meet the Press, March 28, 2004.
"Clarke asked on several occasions for early Principals Committee meetings on these issues [outlined in his January 25, 2001 memo] and was frustrated that no early meeting was scheduled. He wanted principals to accept that al Qaeda was a ‘first order threat’ and not a routine problem being exaggerated by ‘chicken little’ alarmists. No Principals Committee meetings on al Qaeda were held until September 4, 2001.”
- National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Threats and Responses in 2001, Staff Statement No. 8, “National Policy Coordination,” pp 9-10;
Saying the rest of the world ignored the terrorist threat is downright ignorant. There are nearly as many Canadian forces in Afghanistan at the moment as there are American ones. How else could an American pilot kill four Canadian soldiers?
Sorrows of the world - You misunderstand me. After September 11, the world felt sorry for the US. The world supported them. Acknowledged the tradgedy they suffered. They have thrown all that away now. As for international aid, the US's altruistic goals are respectable, but most industrialized countries would have other things to focus on if they had a 7 trillion dollar deficit.
Nothing has currently been written into the constitution. Bush is attempting to blacklist homosexual marriages, which is descriminant against a group in a certain mindset, ergo is prejudice.
The UN allows nations to act in their defense. This is what the US did and is the reason for the Iraq war - (the threat that Iraq was to use WMD or allow their use via transfer to other groups) . At the time the US government believed that Iraq was an imminent threat. This is what the Congress of the US voted when they gave the president authorizaiton to go to war against Iraq. You can argue what imminent means but that was and is the justification - fully within the UN charter. (When did the attack on 911 become imminent - during the planning, when the attackers entered the US, when they bought a ticket for the flight - the term imminent depends on your outlook). The UN is not allowed to determine or have the final say when another country will be attacked or decide when a country is allowed to defend itself or when a country feels it is being threatened.
The need to support the statement that other countries believed Iraq had WMD is ridiculous. Every member of the Security Council stated they had WMD and voted the resolutions on this belief. This should need no further justification for anyone knowledgeable of the events. The fact other countries do not participate in the war does not mean these countries did not belive Iraq possessed WMD. In fact Iraq never denied they had them. France, Germany, and the other European countries believed Iraq possessed WMD as evidenced by the reports from their own intelligence agencies. This should require no further discussion.
The fact Bush may have taken a long vacation is one thing. But to argue this vacation was taken in lieu of preparing for a missile attack, as was alleged, makes no sense and there is no evidence to show otherwise. This connection is ludicrous. The arguement that Bush was not briefed on terrorism is also completely incorrect. One has only to review the sworn testimony before the 911 commission to be made aware of this. Statements made on TV are not the same as sworn testimony and do not have the same level of validity or credibilty. After all, Dan Rather had documents he presented on TV to prove Bush's dereliction of duty that were later shown to be forgories. The statement that because Bush was informed about terrorist activities required him to take some action presupposes knowledge of specific actions, locations, and timing so an interdiction could occur. If this were to occur on foreign territory, would the world have accepted this as being within international law?? I doubt it. England never took action against the IRA based on loose intelligence, and neither has any other country.
The fact that countries are involved in Afganistan does not mean they are fully committed to the war on terror. The difference is that a defined country and group could be targeted in Afganistan - in other words a conventional war. However the war in Iraq is not against the Iraqi government but againt those who wish to prevent a legitimate Iraqi government from being formed by free elections. Look who is being targeted by the murderers and terrorists- Iraqi police, civilians, Shiite mosques and worshippers. If these people are not stopped and destroyed, then the governments that allow this to occur are also responsible for this murder.
Bush in not attempting to blacklist homosexual marriage. He believes marriage should only be between a man and a woman. Is this blacklisting???. No it is not. Homosexuals never were allowed to be legally married. This is not an issue of civil rights because marriage is not a civil right. It is a legal status conveyed by government and government can decide what the definition of marriage is. In the US the people's representatives decide. Government can convey legitimate status to polygamy if it wishes or allow siblings to marry or allow sons and daughters to marry their mothers and fathers. This is all within the legitimate authority of government. Does this mean polygamists are being discriminated against, or brothers and sisters are being discriminated against, or children and their parents are being discriminated against??? I guess if that is the definition of discrimination then these people are being discriminated against by a bigoted government. Does this mean government is prejudiced against these people??? I guess if this is the definition of prejudice then government is prejudiced. I would guess an overwhelming number of people would agree government is neither discriminating or prejudiced against polygamist marrying, siblings marrying, or parents and children marrying by preventing their marriage. On the same basis government is not prejudiced or discriminating against homosexuals.
The need to support the statement that other countries believed Iraq had WMD is ridiculous. Every member of the Security Council stated they had WMD and voted the resolutions on this belief. This should need no further justification for anyone knowledgeable of the events. The fact other countries do not participate in the war does not mean these countries did not belive Iraq possessed WMD. In fact Iraq never denied they had them. France, Germany, and the other European countries believed Iraq possessed WMD as evidenced by the reports from their own intelligence agencies. This should require no further discussion.
The fact Bush may have taken a long vacation is one thing. But to argue this vacation was taken in lieu of preparing for a missile attack, as was alleged, makes no sense and there is no evidence to show otherwise. This connection is ludicrous. The arguement that Bush was not briefed on terrorism is also completely incorrect. One has only to review the sworn testimony before the 911 commission to be made aware of this. Statements made on TV are not the same as sworn testimony and do not have the same level of validity or credibilty. After all, Dan Rather had documents he presented on TV to prove Bush's dereliction of duty that were later shown to be forgories. The statement that because Bush was informed about terrorist activities required him to take some action presupposes knowledge of specific actions, locations, and timing so an interdiction could occur. If this were to occur on foreign territory, would the world have accepted this as being within international law?? I doubt it. England never took action against the IRA based on loose intelligence, and neither has any other country.
The fact that countries are involved in Afganistan does not mean they are fully committed to the war on terror. The difference is that a defined country and group could be targeted in Afganistan - in other words a conventional war. However the war in Iraq is not against the Iraqi government but againt those who wish to prevent a legitimate Iraqi government from being formed by free elections. Look who is being targeted by the murderers and terrorists- Iraqi police, civilians, Shiite mosques and worshippers. If these people are not stopped and destroyed, then the governments that allow this to occur are also responsible for this murder.
Bush in not attempting to blacklist homosexual marriage. He believes marriage should only be between a man and a woman. Is this blacklisting???. No it is not. Homosexuals never were allowed to be legally married. This is not an issue of civil rights because marriage is not a civil right. It is a legal status conveyed by government and government can decide what the definition of marriage is. In the US the people's representatives decide. Government can convey legitimate status to polygamy if it wishes or allow siblings to marry or allow sons and daughters to marry their mothers and fathers. This is all within the legitimate authority of government. Does this mean polygamists are being discriminated against, or brothers and sisters are being discriminated against, or children and their parents are being discriminated against??? I guess if that is the definition of discrimination then these people are being discriminated against by a bigoted government. Does this mean government is prejudiced against these people??? I guess if this is the definition of prejudice then government is prejudiced. I would guess an overwhelming number of people would agree government is neither discriminating or prejudiced against polygamist marrying, siblings marrying, or parents and children marrying by preventing their marriage. On the same basis government is not prejudiced or discriminating against homosexuals.
now would be a good time to lock 
Is this a thread for "who can type the longest post"?! 
No, its a bitching thread. So lets bitch and stay on subject.
| QUOTE (artzelda @ Dec 6 2004, 02:25 PM) |
| No, its a bitching thread. So lets bitch and stay on subject. |
Ok then.
With regards to your posts on the topic, IMHO your posts are nothing more than the ravings of a bigoted, tunnel-visioned, xenophobic, homophobic, war-mongering, bully boy MADMAN!!!!
Bitchy enough for you????
That away Bearsland, that's what I call a rant and a bitch.
Well.... I think Bush is a NASTY-PASTY!!!
There, my first post in this section... thought that'd shock you all.
There, my first post in this section... thought that'd shock you all.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.