Peter Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 Michael wrote, “This is sometimes called the bombastic offer. The process is clear in The Art of the Deal.” I won't fall for the left wing press. I can wait until Monday. A small wish list, ala Steve Martin. Kill our enemies whenever they initiate force, but stop the cycle of endless wars no matter the weaponry used to achieve this goal, which includes using nuclear bombs. This is an attitude that the Ayn Rand Institute “JUSTLY” extends to the whole Arab world today. Avoid collateral damage, but as with the Soviet Union, the citizens where these terrorists are found, are abetting our enemies. Change the “One China” policy and support free countries (mostly in spirit and in trade) all over the world. Shun tyrannies in spirit and in trade. Never fail to pass moral judgement on regimes that do not support individual rights. Stop the “Politically Correct” tyranny. Stop the philosophical monopoly of left wing politics on campuses that is fostered by an aging, and younger, Progressive and Marxist professorship. Do it with philosophy and money. Break the stranglehold of the left wing propagandized press. Back away from economic controls and return us to a more laissez faire economic policy. Get government out of business. Peter Notes from Ayn Rand. PLAYBOY: What about force in foreign policy? You have said that any free nation had the right to invade Nazi Germany during World War II. RAND: Certainly. PLAYBOY: . . . And that any free nation today has the moral right -- though not the duty -- to invade Soviet Russia, Cuba, or any other "slave pen." Correct? RAND: Correct. A dictatorship -- a country that violates the rights of its own citizens -- is an outlaw and can claim no rights. Rand wrote: Observe that, in spite of their differences, altruism is the untouched, unchallenged common denominator in the ethics of all these philosophies. It is the single richest source of rationalizations. A morality that cannot be practiced is an unlimited cover for any practice. Altruism is the rationalization for the mass slaughter in Soviet Russia—for the legalized looting in the welfare state—for the power-lust of politicians seeking to serve the "common good"—for the concept of a "common good"—for envy, hatred, malice, brutality—for the arson, robbery, high jacking, kidnapping, murder perpetrated by the selfless advocates of sundry collectivist causes—for sacrifice and more sacrifice and an infinity of sacrificial victims. When a theory achieves nothing but the opposite of its alleged goals, yet its advocates remain undeterred, you may be certain that it is not a conviction or an "ideal," but a rationalization. end quote From he Ayn Rand Lexicon: Taxation. In a fully free society, taxation—or, to be exact, payment for governmental services—would be voluntary. Since the proper services of a government—the police, the armed forces, the law courts—are demonstrably needed by individual citizens and affect their interests directly, the citizens would (and should) be willing to pay for such services, as they pay for insurance. The question of how to implement the principle of voluntary government financing—how to determine the best means of applying it in practice—is a very complex one and belongs to the field of the philosophy of law. The task of political philosophy is only to establish the nature of the principle and to demonstrate that it is practicable. The choice of a specific method of implementation is more than premature today—since the principle will be practicable only in a fully free society, a society whose government has been constitutionally reduced to its proper, basic functions. Any program of voluntary government financing has to be regarded as a goal for a distant future. What the advocates of a fully free society have to know, at present, is only the principle by which that goal can be achieved. The principle of voluntary government financing rests on the following premises: that the government is not the owner of the citizens’ income and, therefore, cannot hold a blank check on that income—that the nature of the proper governmental services must be constitutionally defined and delimited, leaving the government no power to enlarge the scope of its services at its own arbitrary discretion. Consequently, the principle of voluntary government financing regards the government as the servant, not the ruler, of the citizens—as an agent who must be paid for his services, not as a benefactor whose services are gratuitous, who dispenses something for nothing. end quote Rand quotes: Q: What should be done about the killing of innocent people in war? AR: This is a major reason people should be concerned about the nature of their government. Certainly, the majority in any country at war is innocent. But if by neglect, ignorance, or helplessness, they couldn't overthrow their bad government and establish a better one, then they must pay the price for the sins of their governments we are all paying for the sins of ours. If some people put up with dictatorships some of them do in Soviet Russia, and some of them did in Nazi Germany then they deserve what their government deserves. There are no innocent people in war. Our only concern should be: who started that war? If you can establish that a given country did it, then there is no need to consider the rights of that country, because it has initiated the use of force, and therefore stepped outside the principle of right. I've covered this in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, where I explain why nations as such do not have any rights, only individuals do. Q: Assume a war of aggression was started by the Soviet Union; assume also that within the Soviet Union, there were individuals opposed to the Soviet system. How would you handle that? AR: I'll pretend I'm taking the question seriously, because this question is blatantly wrong. I cannot understand how anyone could entertain the question. My guess is that the problem is context-dropping. The question assumes that an individual inside a country can and should be made secure from the social system under which he lives and which he accepts, willingly or unwillingly (even if he is fighting it he still accepts it because he hasn't left the country), and that others should respect his rights and collapse to aggression themselves. This is the position of the goddamned pacifists, who wouldn't fight, even when attacked, because they might kill innocent people. If this were so, nobody would have to be concerned about his country's political system. But we should care about having the right social system, because our lives are dependent on it because a political system, good or bad, is established in our name, and we bear the responsibility for it. So if we fight a war, I hope the "innocent" are destroyed along with the guilty. There aren't many innocent ones; those that exist are not in the big cities, but mainly in concentration camps. But nobody should put up with aggression, and surrender his right of self- defense, for fear of hurting somebody else, guilty or innocent. When someone comes at you with a gun, if you have an ounce of self-esteem, you will answer him with force, never mind who he is or who stands behind him. If he's out to destroy you, you owe it to your own life to defend yourself. end quotes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 The jerks. They just preempted the “Price Is Right.” I was forced to listen to the inauguration of Delaware Governor, John C. Carney. He made an interesting point when he said we cannot forget Wilmington, which is an impoverished, mostly black city. Those people should feel safe in their city. Now, Delaware is the “incorporation capital” of America because of its economic freedom. And the state gets money from all those companies headquartered there. What if the taxpayers did cut Wilmington off from those funds? Cities used to be the powerhouses that funded state budgets. They did not drain every tax dollar paid. Not anymore. (Is NYC still paying more than its share?) There have always been jokes about cutting the left coast off of America. And that map that showed the blue and red areas of America was an eye opener. So much of America is no longer voting democrat. State governments are mostly Republican. Would the Fed miss California and New York taxes? Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 I will make this my last one for a while. I am even booring myself. From the Israeli Times: Israelis flock to Trump inauguration, Veteran rocker Rod Stewart announces Tel Aviv show in June . . . Okay. I am taking questions. You. From Fox in the front row, what’s your question? . . . shut up CNN. No you can’t move from the back row, you losers. Go ahead, Peter. President Trump, thank you for fielding my questions. Are we a nation divided? The propaganda a year ago was that neo Nazis would be showing up if you were elected, but it now seems as though the Democrats and the left are “nearly” the only ones threatening and doing violence. And my second question is, should better back ground checks separate the mentally unfit from their firearms? And, should teachers who are vetted and trained be allowed (or even required) to carry fire arms in schools? Thank you. You are welcome Peter. You in the back. Shut up. Guards! GET THOSE ASSHOLES FROM MSNBC out of here. News protesters. What the hell? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 2 hours ago, Peter said: I will make this my last one for a while. I am even booring myself. From the Israeli Times: Israelis flock to Trump inauguration, Veteran rocker Rod Stewart announces Tel Aviv show in June . . . Okay. I am taking questions. You. From Fox in the front row, what’s your question? . . . shut up CNN. No you can’t move from the back row, you losers. Go ahead, Peter. President Trump, thank you for fielding my questions. Are we a nation divided? The propaganda a year ago was that neo Nazis would be showing up if you were elected, but it now seems as though the Democrats and the left are “nearly” the only ones threatening and doing violence. And my second question is, should better back ground checks separate the mentally unfit from their firearms? And, should teachers who are vetted and trained be allowed (or even required) to carry fire arms in schools? Thank you. You are welcome Peter. You in the back. Shut up. Guards! GET THOSE ASSHOLES FROM MSNBC out of here. News protesters. What the hell? Choice! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KorbenDallas Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 14 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: With the mainstream press (especially RedState--one of the homes of the never-Trumpers, fer kerissakes), I take it in the same way I take all their reporting. It's propaganda. Here is what what Trump said on the 15th about healthcare, from Reuters: Trump did not give the newspaper specifics about his proposals to replace Democratic President Barack Obama's signature health insurance law, but said the plan was nearly finished and he was ready to unveil it alongside the leaders of the Republican-controlled Congress. The Republican president-elect takes office on Friday. "It’s very much formulated down to the final strokes. We haven’t put it in quite yet but we’re going to be doing it soon," Trump told the Post, adding he was waiting for his nominee for health and human services secretary, Tom Price, to be confirmed. The plan, he said, would include "lower numbers, much lower deductibles," without elaborating. “We’re going to have insurance for everybody,” Trump said. “There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can’t pay for it, you don’t get it. That’s not going to happen with us.” Propaganda or quotes?!? 6 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: [Trump's negotiating style] He asks for a lot more than he wants so when the other side compromises and gives him what he wants, it feels like a win to them. This is sometimes called the bombastic offer. The process is clear in The Art of the Deal. Okay, so let me get this straight. He tells the other side, “We’re going to have insurance for everybody,”---yet in full knowing that he doesn't believe it at all or intends for that at all... and how is that not lying? In Rand's The “Conflicts” of Men’s interests, she clearly lists four elements to dealing with other men: reality, context, responsibility, effort. Trump is faking reality and going out of his own context if he's telling the other side “We’re going to have insurance for everybody,”---something he doesn't believe---in order to get what he wants. That doesn't sound virtuous to me, that sounds utilitarian. Just sayin'!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 KorbenDallas wrote: Okay, so let me get this straight. He tells the other side, “We’re going to have insurance for everybody,”---yet in full knowing that he doesn't believe it at all or intends for that at all... and how is that not lying? end quote Notice they talk over El Presidente Trump’s actual words? Can this be spun to include free market solutions while phasing out socialized medicine? I think it can. What if he says next Monday: Obamacare is gone but your current policy will stay in affect for one year. After that, if you want insurance it will be available on the free market. I know a lot of young people say the heck with it . . . I am not paying. Well, you looked at the odds and decided to opt out. You were still offered insurance. The offer will still be there tomorrow. You can deduct 20 percent of the cost from your taxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KorbenDallas Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 Trump: “We’re going to have insurance for everybody,” Trump said. “There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can’t pay for it, you don’t get it. That’s not going to happen with us.” Now for a pop quiz, who said this?: "Every man, woman and child in our country should be able to access the health care they need regardless of their income." Spoiler Bernie Sanders! https://berniesanders.com/medicareforall/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 30 minutes ago, KorbenDallas said: Trump: “We’re going to have insurance for everybody,” Trump said. “There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can’t pay for it, you don’t get it. That’s not going to happen with us.” Now for a pop quiz, who said this?: "Every man, woman and child in our country should be able to access the health care they need regardless of their income." Hide contents Bernie Sanders! https://berniesanders.com/medicareforall/ God Damn Hillary and her scurvy crew at the DNC. If Bernie had run it would have been a very interesting race. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KorbenDallas Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 9 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said: God Damn Hillary and her scurvy crew at the DNC. If Bernie had run it would have been a very interesting race. Yea and Bernie was a lot more likable No way that bird would have came anywhere near Hillary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KorbenDallas Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 54 minutes ago, Peter said: Notice they talk over El Presidente Trump’s actual words? Can this be spun to include free market solutions while phasing out socialized medicine? I think it can. What if he says next Monday: Obamacare is gone but your current policy will stay in affect for one year. After that, if you want insurance it will be available on the free market. I know a lot of young people say the heck with it . . . I am not paying. Well, you looked at the odds and decided to opt out. You were still offered insurance. The offer will still be there tomorrow. You can deduct 20 percent of the cost from your taxes. I hope it will be a free market solution, Trump's website hasn't changed, and his aids are out trying to cover for what he appeared to say. I generally liked Rand Paul's healthcare proposals, but the HSA part scares me. Seems like it could be a way for insurance companies to push costs to individuals that would otherwise be covered in the healthcare plans. Perhaps higher deductibles, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 1 hour ago, KorbenDallas said: Propaganda or quotes?!? Korben, Well, if The Washington Post said something, it must be true. After all, it's a journal with integrity that never lies, huh? (btw - You interested in buying a bridge? I've got on cheap... ) Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 Let me rephrase something, too. "In Rand's The “Conflicts” of Men’s interests, she clearly lists four elements to dealing with other men: reality, context, responsibility, effort. The Washington Post constantly fakes reality and goes out of its own context when it tells people something it doesn't believe---in order to get what it wants. That doesn't sound virtuous to me, that sounds utilitarian. Worse than that, what do we call it when someone who knows that and accepts as true, by default, any information coming from The Washington Post? A journal the person knows has no integrity because it's been caught too many times publishing false crap and spinning the rest? Would we say that someone is down with faking reality when it's useful to him? That sounds awfully utilitarian to me. Just saying... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: The Washington Post constantly fakes reality So does the New York Times. Look at this bullshit: Breaking News: Chelsea Manning will be freed in May. President Obama is commuting her sentence. https://t.co/ExWbefuraf — The New York Times (@nytimes) January 17, 2017 To the issue of how to divine the ACA 'replacement' promises of candidate Trump and President-elect Trump, at some point one has to divine his quoted statements. Orbiting above such details doesn't help -- I mean having an operating assumption that the interview quotes were actually 'quoats.' One can separate accurate 'indicator' quotes from hoopla and spin. Should we then presume the quotes introduced by Korben are 'unreal'? Nobody from Trump on down has denied them. Using Korben's reading -- the 'quotes' and the uncertainty (Trump playing possum, Trump avoiding sabotage, Trump keeping 'em guessing) -- can open the discussion field to expectations, horse-trading, Trump's "bottom-line" position and so on. An interview can be selectively edited, truncated, offered in bits between lots of journalistic lard and misdirection, reported without transcript, off-the-record, partially off-the-record, given with a transcript, etc. I see no reason to take the quotes as false. I suggest reorienting discussion to expectations ... Edited January 17, 2017 by william.scherk Can a quote be faked? Of course, silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KorbenDallas Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 13 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Worse than that, what do we call it when someone who knows that and accepts as true, by default, any information coming from The Washington Post? A journal the person knows has no integrity because it's been caught too many times publishing false crap? Would we say that someone is down with faking reality when it's useful to him? That sounds awfully utilitarian to me. Just saying... Spoiler But Trump's aids haven't said that Trump didn't say those quotes, Trump hasn't said he didn't say them, either---and that was Sunday.. it's been two days.. still waiting... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 2 minutes ago, william.scherk said: So does the New York Times. Look at this bullshit: William, What's that got to do with the integrity of the NYT? When that editor, Jim Rutenberg, wrote a front-page article last year saying reporters had to lie to keep Trump from winning and it was proper for them to do that (see here)--now that has to do with the integrity of the NYT. They even tell you what they're doing and some people don't believe it. If that thing about Manning is true, though, I'm glad President Obama is doing the right thing. And I hope he doesn't get that pound of flesh from Julian Assange that he offered in exchange. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 2 hours ago, KorbenDallas said: ... how is that not lying? Korben, So what? Here's a premise you should check. Since when is lying a blanket one-size-fits-all sin in Objectivism? It's not. The standard example is telling the thief that there are no jewels instead of telling the thief where they are. Rand considered the first case moral and the second case immoral (self-sacrifice for a floating principle disconnected from context). This is in the canon somewhere and there are other examples, too. The principle is to take into account the morality of the person you are talking to and what's at stake (the reality). Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 10 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: If that thing about Manning is true, though, I'm glad President Obama is doing the right thing. And I hope he doesn't get that pound of flesh from Julian Assange that he offered in exchange. Come to think of it, knowing Obama, he was probably political in doing this. Since he will be out of power, I wonder how often he will play this card with WikiLeaks to try to guilt them into leaking more shit than they normally would about Trump over the next 8 years. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KorbenDallas Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 5 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: 2 hours ago, KorbenDallas said: ... how is that not lying? Korben, So what? Here's a premise you should check. Since when is lying a blanket one-size-fits-all sin in Objectivism? It's not. The standard example is telling the thief that there are no jewels instead of telling the thief where they are. Rand considered the first case moral and the second case immoral (self-sacrifice for a floating principle disconnected from context). This is in the canon somewhere and there are other examples, too. The principle is to take into account the morality of the person you are talking to and what's at stake. Michael Pretty sure that principle is to defend values, not to gain values. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 Just now, KorbenDallas said: Pretty sure that principle is to defend values, not to gain values. Korben, That's exactly what Trump is doing. What else do you call wresting power from the folks who are destroying America and the free market with income redistribution schemes? Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 On a happier note: Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KorbenDallas Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 1 minute ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Korben, That's exactly what Trump is doing. What else do you call wresting power from the folks who are destroying America and the free market with income redistribution schemes? Utilitarian, of course! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 (edited) 35 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: 45 minutes ago, william.scherk said: 48 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: The Washington Post constantly fakes reality So does the New York Times. What's that got to do with the integrity of the NYT? I was mocking your orbital reading: 'constantly fakes reality.' For humorous purposes, accepting your claim as Generally True. A constant barrage of faked reality from the Washington Post. If the WaPo constantly delivers garbage, then why not the New York Times? To point out the obvious, the problem is in the generality. The statement or claim is so far up, so encompassing, that it is absurd. Since the question of particular quote veracity is at issue, making the absurd general claim does no work to advance an argument. To my expectations, I think everyone is right who says the outcome is uncertain. There are great interests involved, and the President is not a sole constitutional actor. There will be horse-trading, or whatever you want to call the kinds of negotiations that will lead to a deal that can pass through Congress. I think Trump is quite smart to be vague, to offer orbital statements himself on the ACA replacement. It stops him from getting bogged down, and keeps the aim or goal very high. He wants systems that offer more choice, cheaper drug prices, insurance 'mobility' across state lines (in both the can-purchase, can-travel categories), a kind of universal access to the first rung of insurance -- for at least the same amount of people who took on Obamacare via the state exchanges. He doesn't want the optics of folks by the millions losing health-care coverage. He doesn't want people left to die in the streets. He doesn't want to gut Medicare. He goes possum on Medicaid extensions. That is good politics. It lets everyone else thrash out all the fucking details as he himself figures it out. He will obviously support demolition efforts but he hasn't yet seen the blueprints, the engineering reports, the spreadsheet of costs and benefits -- from his own assembling team. If I were him I would utter as much Apple Pie grobblings as possible. All that to say is I think it will be a great challenge to accomplish all the 'quoted' goals of candidate and President-elect. I expect to be surprised. I expect someone with the force of personality of Trump to be able to knock heads together and use force of will to dicker and press and get something closest to his dreams. I don't have access to his dreams except for what he outputs himself as a communicator. If some people see the Trump ACA plans as a Pig in a Poke, or a Possum, they are probably both right in a way ... the uncertainty monster is in town. Thanks, Korben, for your good humour. Edited January 17, 2017 by william.scherk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 7 minutes ago, KorbenDallas said: Pretty sure that principle is to defend values, not to gain values. Korben, btw - If you ever do business with people in our subcommunity, I suggest you avoid typical ortho-Objectivists. I'm serious. But if you do and your experience is the same as mine (too many times for comfort), you will encounter some of the most out-to-lunch non-realistic negotiators in the world. What's worse, they will be blatantly dishonest and have a chip on their shoulder daring you to call them on it, too. (That's one of the main reasons I don't do business in O-Land.) And talk about bombastic offers! I know of one case, for example (I prefer not to say who), where the opening offer was $500k and the price the person accepted in the end was $50k. And this wasn't a negotiating tactic. The deal wasn't even worth $50k. This person wanted to run a rusty nail through the buyer, pure and simple. I don't think most hardcore Objectivists are immoral at business, though. Incompetent, yes. Immoral... well... to the extent little kids are I guess... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 5 minutes ago, william.scherk said: ... the uncertainty monster is in town. William, If you read Trump's books, you will know he encourages uncertainty on purpose, too. He likes to say he's unpredictable. If you really want to know how Trump ticks, think sports. He has loved sports and promoted them most of his professional life. He learns the rules of the game, learns how to play by those rules, learns what skills he needs, then trains like hell and studies his competition like hell. When he goes into the ring, he goes prepared. He even won an election for president doing that. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 12 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: 17 minutes ago, william.scherk said: ... the uncertainty monster is in town. If you read Truncquoat! Here is where I expect the most surprises with ACA repeal-replacement -- just how the man achieves his synthesis. I am willing to bet that the regulatory burden comprising not just ACA but deeper and broader 'state' intrusions between consumer and producer will be long-term targets. What crust and rime of 'supervision' are necessary and which are nonsense? How did you get to a place where the government regulates the employer such that the employer is primary purchaser-in-group of coverage? Why are there seventeen levels of organization between the biller and the billee? To what purpose and benefit are the arcane detailed regulatory frameworks that prevent interstate double-mobility in insurance? Etc -- how many ways are your systems sick in themselves with bureaucracy? The first surprise will likely be what bill language Trump will accept that recasts 'pre-existing condition' rules. I figure, in my ignorance, that there are certain fundamental issues that bother Trump the dreamer -- issues of fairness. I expect he will be in effect arguing with himself, as a representative of the business class, and as a representative of the "little guy." It's a big table that collects all the 'negotiators' for The Deal. It will be interesting even without the inevitable hoopla. A major 100 days challenge, repeal and replace. Anyone else sketching out ACA surprises in mind? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now