Jump to content
DC Message Boards
Guest ALWAYSRED

GOP Pledge to America

Recommended Posts

Guest human

Democrats hold unto the house and you will find out.

 

In all honesty I hope the democrats do win, and hold unto the house.

 

Some things just have to be learned the hard way for folks to understand.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

How is the GOP Pledge the last chance for the American Dream?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tea Party Patriot

Here is middle ground.

 

Give tax cuts on all investment in United States businesses for the next 10 years.

Give tax cuts on all United States sourced goods and services for the next 10 years.

Give tax credits for private education.

Give tax credits on green energy.

Keep Social Security in Place.

Make Health Care an optional public service. Put tort reform on all forms of Insurance.

Keep Markets regulated.

 

That is all I can think for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will say the solution is simple.

 

Start focusing on American Manufacturing.

 

Start with the circuitry, then move to engines, then move to energy.

 

Give small business the advantage at producing hard goods.

 

Get Americans to buy American made goods. Every politician should be promoting it every chance they get.

 

Retail stores will follow if they feel consumer pressure to Buy American.

 

The government will gain more than enough tax revenue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest American4Progress

"High-profile conservatives" are upset with House Republicans for electing Rep. Hal Rogers (R-KY), dubbed the "prince of pork" for his history of earmarking, as chairman of the Appropriations Committee. Longtime conservative activist Richard Viguerie said the placement "should cause all conservatives and Tea Partiers to doubt how serious the Republican leadership is about cleaning up" Congress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LAW

I guess the whole Republican promise of no more earmarks was a farce to gain support of its Tea Party base. Here is a wonderful article from NPR that explains it:

 

BLOCK: So David, help us understand, though. How is it that Republicans who are railing against these earmarks at the same time are loading the spending bill with earmarks for their home states?

 

WELNA: Well, yeah, right. Republicans have requested about 5,600 earmarks this year, and they got a lot of them approved. GOP leader McConnell, for example, has $86 million worth of earmarks in this big omnibus package. South Dakota Republican Senator John Thune got more than $38 million worth approved.

 

And when I asked him why he hasn't requested that they be removed from the omnibus, he said he's voting against the whole package. But of course, that omnibus might pass, and since there are some Republicans who will vote for it, that way McConnell and Thune and 31 other Republican senators who all requested earmarks this year could get them despite their public stance of being against them.

 

BLOCK: David, what is the rationale? If the Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse, why would they swear off earmarks?

 

WELNA: Well, Melissa, I think the only explanation for swearing them off is fear. Some major GOP earmarkers got knocked out of their primaries this year by tea party-backed challengers, who basically said death to earmarks.

 

But some Republicans now seem to be having second thoughts about having climbed onto the no-earmarks bandwagon. They're starting to realize they might have a lot of other voters mad at them for leaving the bacon behind in Washington.

 

http://www.npr.org/2010/12/16/132115556/Spending-Bill-Loaded-With-GOP-Earmarks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest human

http://slatest.slate.com/id/2278353/

I do Like the Tea Partiers.

Law your group does not like the Tea Partiers.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I guess the whole Republican promise of no more earmarks was a farce to gain support of its Tea Party base. Here is a wonderful article from NPR that explains it:

 

BLOCK: So David, help us understand, though. How is it that Republicans who are railing against these earmarks at the same time are loading the spending bill with earmarks for their home states?

 

WELNA: Well, yeah, right. Republicans have requested about 5,600 earmarks this year, and they got a lot of them approved. GOP leader McConnell, for example, has $86 million worth of earmarks in this big omnibus package. South Dakota Republican Senator John Thune got more than $38 million worth approved.

 

And when I asked him why he hasn't requested that they be removed from the omnibus, he said he's voting against the whole package. But of course, that omnibus might pass, and since there are some Republicans who will vote for it, that way McConnell and Thune and 31 other Republican senators who all requested earmarks this year could get them despite their public stance of being against them.

 

BLOCK: David, what is the rationale? If the Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse, why would they swear off earmarks?

 

WELNA: Well, Melissa, I think the only explanation for swearing them off is fear. Some major GOP earmarkers got knocked out of their primaries this year by tea party-backed challengers, who basically said death to earmarks.

 

But some Republicans now seem to be having second thoughts about having climbed onto the no-earmarks bandwagon. They're starting to realize they might have a lot of other voters mad at them for leaving the bacon behind in Washington.

 

http://www.npr.org/2010/12/16/132115556/Spending-Bill-Loaded-With-GOP-Earmarks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Karen King

Repubs said that rich CEOs will make GOOD American jobs if they got their tax cuts. Unemployment 2011, 5%! Right GOP? You better keep your promise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LAW

New Tea Party Rules

 

New Constitutional Authority Requirement for Legislation

 

The Pledge to America released by House Republicans in September of this year included a commitment to “require every bill to cite its specific Constitutional Authority.” To implement this proposal, the Transition Team and the Elected Republican Leadership are recommending a change to standing Rules of the House to require that each bill or joint resolution introduced in the House be accompanied by a statement citing the specific powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the proposed law.

 

As this requirement will apply to all bills and joint resolutions introduced in the 112th Congress — including those introduced on the first day — we are writing to provide early guidance for complying with this rule so as to minimize any disruption caused by its implementation. Our staff will also hold bipartisan briefings for your staff to assist in compliance with this new requirement.

 

INITIAL STAFF BRIEFINGS

1:00 PM, Monday, December 20, 2010 in HVC-215

1:00 PM, Tuesday, December 21, 2010 in HVC-215

Additional briefings will be scheduled for January 3rd and 4th, 2011.

 

TEXT OF THE PROPOSED RULES CHANGE:

The new rule will be a new paragraph of clause 7 of rule XII: "© A bill or joint resolution may not be introduced unless the sponsor has submitted for printing in the Congressional Record a statement citing as specifically as practicable the power or powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the bill or joint resolution. The statement shall appear in a portion of the Record designated for that purpose and be made publicly available in electronic form by the Clerk.”

 

COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROPOSED RULE:

When a Member presents a bill or joint resolution for introduction and referral (when it is dropped in the “hopper”), the bill must be accompanied by a separate sheet of paper citing the constitutional authority to enact the proposed bill or joint resolution. Below is the suggested format for the citation:

___________ Member Signature ____________________ Bill Number

 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Pursuant to clause 7 of Rule XII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the following statement is submitted regarding the specific powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the accompanying bill or joint resolution.

 

The blanks are to be filled in by the sponsor. Below are five illustrative examples of citations of constitutional authority:

  • The constitutional authority on which this bill rests is the power of Congress to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces, as enumerated in Article I, Section 8, Clause 14 of the United States Constitution.
  • This bill is enacted pursuant to Section 2 of Amendment XV of the United States Constitution.
  • This bill is enacted pursuant to the power granted to Congress under Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution.
  • The Congress enacts this bill pursuant to Clause 1 of Section 8 of Article I of the United States Constitution and Amendment XVI of the United States Constitution.
  • This bill makes specific changes to existing law in a manner that returns power to the States and to the people, in accordance with Amendment X of the United States Constitution.

It is important to note that the sample citations above are merely examples. Further, the citation to accompany a bill is not limited to one sentence and a sponsor may provide additional explanatory details if they wish.

 

DETERMINING A BILL'S CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY:

While the Office of the Legislative Counsel will assist Members by providing a properly formatted Constitutional Authority Statement form, it is the responsibility of the bill sponsor to determine what authorities they wish to cite and to provide that information to the Legislative Counsel staff.

 

In addition to the Constitution itself, there are a variety of resources available to Members and staff to assist them in identifying the power granted to Congress by the Constitution to enact a proposed bill. These include:

  • The Federalist Papers, written mostly by James Madison and Alexander Hamilton to explain the purpose of the Constitution, are considered by many to be the primary source of authority on what the Constitution was understood to mean when it was ratified. There are various editions of the Federalist Papers that provide useful commentary, including the Clinton Rossiter edition, which contains a useful copy of the Constitution with page references to the Federalist Papers that discuss those parts of the Constitution in the margins. The Federalist Papers are also available online at http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fedpapers.html
  • The Congressional Research Service’s “Annotated Guide to the Constitution” includes an outline format that allows users to select main topics, then scale down to more narrow subjects within the Constitution and relevant Supreme Court decisions. For House Members and staff, this information may be accessed through CRS’s website: http://www.crs.gov/analysis/Pages/constitutionannotated.aspx The Heritage Foundation has a variety of resources available for Members and staff, including the Heritage Guide to the Constitution, which provides a clause-by-clause analysis along with relevant court cases that is written for lawyers and non-lawyers alike. For more information visit: www.heritage.org.
  • The Founder’s Constitution is an on-line version of a five-volume work first published in 1986 that includes a range of documents that help explain and place into context the specific provisions of the Constitution. Information is arranged by article, section, and clause of the U.S. Constitution, from the Preamble through Article Seven and continuing through the first twelve Amendments. It is available at: http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/

There are a number of think-tanks and associations from across the political spectrum that provide research and commentary on constitutional issues, including:

 

The Brookings Institution:

http://www.brookings.edu/topics/u-s-constitutional-issues.aspx

 

CATO Institute:

http://www.cato.org/constitutional-studies

 

The Federalist Society:

http://www.fed-soc.org/

 

The American Constitution Society:

http://home.acslaw.org/

 

The adequacy and accuracy of the citation of constitutional authority is matter for debate in the committee and in the House. The rule simply requires that the bill be accompanied by a constitutional authority statement upon introduction. The statement will be publicly available through the Congressional Record and will be available with other relevant bill information, such as a list of cosponsors, on the Thomas website.

 

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS:

Q. What if a sponsor declines to attach a Constitutional Authority Statement when introducing a bill?

A. Under the rule, the clerk will not accept the bill and it will be returned to the sponsor. This is the same process used to enforce clause 5 of Rule XII, which since 1995 has prohibited the introduction of bills or resolutions which seek to designate a specific period of time (such as a day, week, or month) for a particular commemoration.

 

Q. Does this rule apply to the introduction of all bills and joint resolutions, such as bills that merely make technical corrections to current law or proposed constitutional amendments?

A. Yes, the rule applies to all bills and joint resolutions. In these instances, a sponsor may in their Constitutional Authority Statement wish to refer back to the power granted to Congress to enact the statute they are proposing to amend or the powers under Article V to propose constitutional amendments.

 

Q. Isn’t it the courts’ duty to determine whether a law is constitutional and thus doesn’t this rule infringe on the power of the courts?

A. No. While the courts have the power to overturn an Act of Congress on the basis that it is unconstitutional, Members of Congress have a responsibility, as clearly indicated by the oath of office each Members takes, to adhere to the Constitution.

 

Q. What impact will the Constitutional Authority Statement have on litigation regarding the constitutionality of Acts of Congress?

A. To the extent that a court looks at the legislative history of an Act, the Constitutional Authority Statement would be part of that history. However, the courts have made clear that they will not uphold an unconstitutional law simply on the basis that Congress thinks that the law is constitutional.

 

Q. What if the citation of constitutional authority is inadequate or wrong?

A. As stated earlier, the adequacy and accuracy of the citation of constitutional authority is a matter for debate in the committees and in the House. Ultimately, the House will express its opinion on a proposed bill, including its constitutionality, by either approving or disapproving the bill.

 

Q. So why have this Rule at all?

A. Just as a cost estimate from the Congressional Budget Office informs the debate on a proposed bill, a statement outlining the power under the Constitution that Congress has to enact a proposed bill will inform and provide the basis for debate. It also demonstrates to the American people that we in Congress understand that we have an obligation under our founding document to stay within the role established therein for the legislative branch.

 

FOR MORE INFORMATION

Background Document on the Consitution and Congress (PDF)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the Speaker understands that the fate of the Nation rests on the fate of respecting the wishes of the independent majority. I believe that he wants to trim the fat, bring back more jobs, and give back more individual freedoms. I also believe that he supports and understands that American small business is the backbone of the nation.

 

The business environment is no different from the physical one. Diversity breeds innovation. Less competition leads to either fascism or socialism controlled by interests groups and think tanks.

Edited by Luke_Wilbur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaker Boehner,

May God bless you. trim the fat, bring back more jobs, & individual freedoms and wealth to our Nation. MADE IN USA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest American4Progress

Republican leaders are scaling back" their campaign pledge to seek $100 billion in budget cuts, claiming that "because the current fiscal year, which began Oct. 1, will be nearly half over before spending cuts could become law." The cuts they seek will now be in the range of $50-60 billion.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/05/us/politics/05fiscal.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Linda Williams

Right, because how could any Republican have known that January 2011 was PAST October 2010?

I don't blame them because, really, who owns or has access to a calendar?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tamborine Man

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified on July 9, 1868, and granted citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States,” which included former slaves recently freed. In addition, it forbids states from denying any person "life, liberty or property, without due process of law" or to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” By directly mentioning the role of the states, the 14th Amendment greatly expanded the protection of civil rights to all Americans and is cited in more litigation than any other amendment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Soldier of God

Gabrielle Giffords, a Democratic congresswoman from Arizona, was shot today. Since people here look for answers to problems, I decided to read more about this remarkable woman. I think it is important to reflect on the problems that are dividing our great nation. I ask our Creator to help us in our times of great need.

 

I think we all should read her wisdom.

 

As a former small business owner, I believe our federal government shouldn’t spend money it doesn’t have. Southern Arizonans know that the record deficit we face today is a direct consequence of the failed, short-sighted fiscal policies of the last decade. Too many Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle are playing games with the debt, instead of making a serious effort at fiscal reform. We can’t afford to wait any longer to put our fiscal house in order.

 

Fighting for Earmark Reform

 

I am fighting for earmark reform and working to curb pork-barrel spending. That is why I wrote legislation banning lawmakers from taking campaign contributions from the same top executives who they also request earmarks for. This practice is wide spread in Washington, and it is truly unacceptable. I was also one of the first Members of Congress to post all earmark requests online for greater transparency and accountability.

 

I do not accept earmark requests from for-profit entities. It was my example and leadership that helped the House of Representatives adopt this standard across the board. >>READ MORE

Opposing Pay Raises for Congress

 

In these tough times, it’s just wrong for Congress to give itself a pay raise. That’s why I have voted against all salary increases for Members of Congress and has never given out bonuses to Congressional staff.

 

Establishing a Bipartisan Commission to Reduce the Deficit

 

I was one of the leading advocates for establishing a bipartisan debt commission with the authority to force Congress’ hand in making the tough decisions necessary to end wasteful spending and put the country back on track. The commission would recommend ways to ensure the long-term solvency of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid while reducing the debt burden for future generations. The President recently created the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, which will report by December 1, 2010 on ways to balance the budget and improve our long-term fiscal outlook.

 

Holding Irresponsible Companies Accountable

 

I voted to audit the Federal Reserve to find out exactly how bailout funds were distributed. I believe that we need to hold these companies accountable. And I supported laws requiring big banks and Wall Street to pay back 100% of any taxpayer funds they received, including returning CEO bonuses.

 

Pay-As-You-Go

 

I have been fighting to reduce the deficit since the day I arrived in Washington. That's why I am a member of the fiscally conservative Blue Dog Coalition in Congress. This 54 member democratic coalition is committed to restoring responsible spending in Washington and we've worked hard to bring back the budget rules of the 1990s which helped turned then record deficits into record surpluses.

 

I cosponsored and supported the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, which the President signed into law on February 13, 2010. This bill reestablishes the pay-as-you-go budgeting rules, known as PAYGO, this legislation requires any new spending initiatives to be paid for; if they are not offset, automatic cuts are triggered. The passage of this bill was a good first step in getting the federal government back to the common sense practice of paying for what we buy.

 

Opposing Increases of the Debt Limit

 

Congress has raised the debt limit eight times since 2001. Skyrocketing deficits are taking us down a path to mushrooming debt that will have serious real-world consequences. In 2008, American taxpayers paid more than $250 billion to our creditors in interest payments alone, and each citizen’s share of the debt was more than $38,000. Clearly, we can no longer tolerate reckless fiscal polices.

 

That is why I voted against increasing the nation’s debt limit in December 2009 and again in February 2010.

 

The Truth in Spending Act

 

In July, I introduced the Truth in Spending Act, a bill that would force Congress to abide by the published costs of the legislation it passes. The legislation would require the Office of Management and Budget to check cost estimates for legislation five and 10 years after laws take effect to determine the accuracy of the predictions.

 

When costs are higher or savings lower than predicted, the Truth in Spending Act would create a fast-track process to reduce excess costs. This legislation would not only cover future laws. Legislation passed from 2005 to the present also would be included.

 

I found this on her web site. I think everyone in power should read her words on fiscal responsibility. I am not a politician but I do think she said had great truth.

 

http://giffords.house.gov/fiscal-responsibility.shtml

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Sweeny V.



I do think people should stop the hateful blame game. I am hearing more and more about finding common ground rising from this tragedy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LAW

Republicans make it official. Their pledge is now to privatize Social Security.

 

http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Roadmap2Final2.pdf

 

Social Security Personal Savings Account Board. Creates a Board to administer

the Savings Fund into which contributions to the personal accounts are deposited.

Makes the Board responsible for paying administrative expenses and regulating

investment options offered by non-government firms. Provides that the Board

consist of five members – required to have substantial experience, training, and

expertise in the management of financial investments and pension benefit plans –

appointed by the President, two of whom are appointed after consideration of the

recommendations by the House and Senate. Establishes 4-year terms for Board

members.

 

Three-Tier Structure. Structures individual accounts in three tiers, with

investment options similar to the Thrift Savings Plan [TSP]. The Thrift Savings

Plan (TSP) is a defined contribution plan for United States civil service employees and retirees as well as for members of the uniformed services.

 

- TIER ONE. Originally, the Board invests the contributions in regulated,

low-risk instruments until the personal account reaches a low threshold.

 

- TIER TWO. Once this threshold is reached, individuals are automatically

enrolled into a “life cycle” fund that adjusts for risk and automatically

invests the portfolio in a blend of equities and bonds appropriate for the

individual’s age. An individual can remain in the “life cycle” fund or

choose from five different options that are the same as offered under the

TSP:

 

1 ) a Government Securities Investment Account;

2 ) a Fixed Income Investment Account;

3 ) a Common Stock Investment Account;

4 ) a Small Capitalization Stock Index Investment Account; and

5 ) an International Stock Index Investment Account.

 

- TIER THREE. Once an account accumulates more than $25,000 in

inflation-adjusted dollars, an individual can choose an option provided

by a non-government firm certified by the Board. The Board certifies

only those firms meeting a set of standards. These nongovernment funds

also are subject to regulation by the Board to ensure their safety and

soundness.

 

Purchase of Annuity. Provides that, when an individual either reaches the normal

retirement age or decides to retire early, the individual will purchase an annuity

to provide monthly payments equivalent to at least 150 percent of poverty. An

individual may purchase a larger annuity if they choose. If an individual has

excess money in their account, they may receive it in a lump sum payment and

use it as they choose.

 

Early Retirement for Personal Account Participants. Allows an individual to

retire and begin receiving an annuity at any time that their personal account has

accumulated enough funds to purchase an annuity equivalent to at least 150

percent of poverty.

 

Annuity Purchase and Regulation. Establishes within the Office of the Board, an

Annuity Issuance Authority [AIA], which will provide annuity options to be

purchased by retiring individuals.

 

Progressive Price Indexing. Excluding those now over 55, employs, starting in

2018, a mix of wage indexing and “progressive price indexing” for calculating

initial Social Security benefits under the traditional system, with adjustments for

income levels as follows:

 

- LOW-INCOME. Individuals making less than a certain threshold level

(approximately $27,700 per year in 2018) will continue to receive initial

benefits based on wage indexing. Threshold indexed for inflation.

 

- MIDDLE-INCOME. Individuals who make between the minimum threshold

and the maximum taxable amount (approximately $27,700 and

$147,9000 in 2018) will have initial benefits adjusted upward by a

combination of wage and price indexing that becomes more oriented

toward price indexing as they move up the income scale. For example, an

individual whose income is half way between $27,700 and $147,900 (in

2018 dollars) will have his initial benefit adjusted upward approximately

50 percent by wage indexing and 50 percent by price indexing. These

amounts will also be adjusted for inflation.

 

- UPPER-INCOME. Individuals who make more than the taxable maximum

amount (approximately $147,900 in 2018) will have initial benefits

adjusted upward by price indexing, also adjusted for inflation.

 

- NO EFFECT ON COLAS. The proposal does not affect the cost-of-living

adjustment [COLA] that Social Security beneficiaries receive each year

once they have already begun receiving benefits. Further, it does not

affect any individuals over 55, as it is not applied to Social Security

beneficiaries until 2018.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Cee Lo

I'm neither a politician nor an economist, but it sounds like this plan is going to put even more money into the hands of Wall Street bankers, stock brokers and others'.

 

Is this a good idea? Is Social Security so badly broken we need to turn it over to a tiny group of people who have their best interests at heart and no one else's?

 

Didn't we just have a problem with these same people almost collapsing the economy because of self-serving "special investment vehicles"?

 

I'm digressing, but how are these Wall Street executives not modern Day Robber Barons???

 

Mr. Green

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Fedup

That is why I believe both Republicans and Democrats have been compromised. That is why I lump them together as Republicrats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest ALWAYS RED

This a major difference between Republicans and Democrats

 

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) today issued the following statement after House Republicans filed the Continuing Resolution:

 

“This evening, on behalf of House Republicans, Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers introduced a Continuing Resolution that will reduce spending by at least $100 billion in the next 7 months – a historic effort to get our fiscal house in order and restore certainty to the economy. At a time when unemployment is too high and economic growth is elusive in part because of the uncertainty created by our skyrocketing debt, this legislation will mark the largest spending cut in modern history and will help restore confidence so that people can get back to work. These are not easy cuts, but we are finally doing what every other American has to do in their households and their businesses, and that’s to begin a path of living within our means.

 

“Unlike our Democrat colleagues whose reaction to reducing spending has been to stoke fear while offering no credible plan, House Republicans are fully committed to using every tool at our disposal so that we can boost long-term economic confidence helping businesses to grow. For years Democrats have proposed more government spending to create jobs, resulting in the largest debt and deficits in history while unemployment still remained too high. Republicans believe in free markets and the ability for small businesses and entrepreneurs to keep more of their own money so they can invest, grow their companies and hire employees. This is the difference, and will be clearly evident next week and in the months ahead.

 

“The Continuing Resolution is just a start, and we have much more work to do to change our country's fiscal path and create jobs, and you will see that start to take shape in the budget that Chairman Paul Ryan is putting together. Finally, the work that Chairman Rogers and his Appropriations Committee have done over the last three weeks is literally unprecedented and I thank him and his staff for their work.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ron

The Chinese DO NOT HAVE A FREE MARKET.

 

Even if they did, the population could not afford the price of our products.

 

All they want from us is raw materials.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×