Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 39

Thread: EXCLUSIVE — Scott Walker to Iowa to Speak at Freedom Summit

  1. #1
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    1,489
    Join Date
    Jul 2013

    EXCLUSIVE — Scott Walker to Iowa to Speak at Freedom Summit

    Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker will speak at the Iowa Freedom Summit at the end of January hosted by Rep. Steve King (R-IA) and Citizens United, Breitbart News has learned exclusively.

    “Governor Walker looks forward to sharing the story of Wisconsin’s successful reforms and common sense message with grassroots conservatives,” Walker’s spokesman Tom Evenson told Breitbart News.


    Citizens United president David Bossie added that he’s thrilled Walker will join the already impressive lineup of speakers.


    “Congressman Steve King and I are thrilled Governor Scott Walker, a leading conservative voice, plans to attend the Iowa Freedom Summit,” Bossie said. “The Iowa Caucus is the first step for any conservative running for the Republican nomination and we are pleased Governor Walker appreciates and respects its importance.”

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...reedom-summit/

    If anybody is wondering if Rand is speaking at it, I saw this at the bottom:
    Two notable exceptions from the 2016 GOP presidential field won’t be there: Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    No college degree. Discussion should end there.

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Millennial Conservatarian View Post
    No college degree. Discussion should end there.
    No, it shouldn't. I don't like Walker, but I would gladly vote for a farmer or any honest clear headed guy over a slimy lawyer.
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    It's a balance between appeasing his supporters, appeasing the deep state and reaching his own goals.
    ~Resident Badgiraffe




  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by William Tell View Post
    No, it shouldn't. I don't like Walker, but I would gladly vote for a farmer or any honest clear headed guy over a slimy lawyer.
    Because he will not be taken seriously as a candidate by the people, let alone the media.

    If my father, who has worked 25 years for the same company and worked his way up to 6-figure regional manager positions and had the best regional sales numbers in the country year after year, can't advance to upper-management of a mid-sized corporation because he lacks a college degree, why should the President of the United States not be held to the same standard?

    What are we going to tell our kids? Finish high school, don't go to college, and one day you can be President? It may work for a Governor but with the national media (especially if it's a Republican we're talking about) they will never hear the end of it. Not having a college degree is already an issue among Republican radio personalities, let's not make it an issue among our Presidential candidates.

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Millennial Conservatarian View Post
    Because he will not be taken seriously as a candidate by the people, let alone the media.

    If my father, who has worked 25 years for the same company and worked his way up to 6-figure regional manager positions and had the best regional sales numbers in the country year after year, can't advance to upper-management of a mid-sized corporation because he lacks a college degree, why should the President of the United States not be held to the same standard?

    What are we going to tell our kids? Finish high school, don't go to college, and one day you can be President? It may work for a Governor but with the national media (especially if it's a Republican we're talking about) they will never hear the end of it. Not having a college degree is already an issue among Republican radio personalities, let's not make it an issue among our Presidential candidates.
    That's elitism. Screw that. This notion that you need a slip of paper from a Government propaganda center is pathetic.

    So many great minds are self taught.
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    It's a balance between appeasing his supporters, appeasing the deep state and reaching his own goals.
    ~Resident Badgiraffe




  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by William Tell View Post
    That's elitism. Screw that. This notion that you need a slip of paper from a Government propaganda center is pathetic.

    So many great minds are self taught.
    Try selling that to the American people and the media.

    A candidate without a college degree will be a non-starter, no matter their record or beliefs.

  8. #7
    Two notable exceptions from the 2016 GOP presidential field won’t be there: Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush.
    The leading conservative alternative and the leading establishment candidate absent = loser convention.

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Millennial Conservatarian View Post
    Because he will not be taken seriously as a candidate by the people, let alone the media.

    If my father, who has worked 25 years for the same company and worked his way up to 6-figure regional manager positions and had the best regional sales numbers in the country year after year, can't advance to upper-management of a mid-sized corporation because he lacks a college degree, why should the President of the United States not be held to the same standard?

    What are we going to tell our kids? Finish high school, don't go to college, and one day you can be President? It may work for a Governor but with the national media (especially if it's a Republican we're talking about) they will never hear the end of it. Not having a college degree is already an issue among Republican radio personalities, let's not make it an issue among our Presidential candidates.
    Are you saying that a POTUS should be held to that, or only that they will? I agree that they mostly will, but I don't think they should.
    Last edited by The Rebel Poet; 01-13-2015 at 05:26 PM.
    Amash>Trump

    ΟΥ ΓΑΡ ЄCΤΙΝ ЄξΟΥCΙΑ ЄΙ ΜΗ ΥΠΟ ΘЄΟΥ

    "Patriotism should come from loving thy neighbor, not from worshiping graven images" - Ironman77

    "ideas have the potential of being more powerful than any army....The concept of personal sovereignty was pulled screaming from the ether into this reality by the force of men believing in a self evident truth, that men are meant to be free." - The Northbreather

    "Trump is the security blanket of aggrieved white men aged 18-60." - Pinoy



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    The leading conservative alternative and the leading establishment candidate absent = loser convention.
    Yup.
    Amash>Trump

    ΟΥ ΓΑΡ ЄCΤΙΝ ЄξΟΥCΙΑ ЄΙ ΜΗ ΥΠΟ ΘЄΟΥ

    "Patriotism should come from loving thy neighbor, not from worshiping graven images" - Ironman77

    "ideas have the potential of being more powerful than any army....The concept of personal sovereignty was pulled screaming from the ether into this reality by the force of men believing in a self evident truth, that men are meant to be free." - The Northbreather

    "Trump is the security blanket of aggrieved white men aged 18-60." - Pinoy

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Millennial Conservatarian View Post
    Try selling that to the American people and the media.

    A candidate without a college degree will be a non-starter, no matter their record or beliefs.
    If that's the case, its because the media and so many people are pathetic, so don't appeal to them for authority. If you agree with them you are the problem. Attacking people for daring to run for office without a certain degree is dirty politics. Its elitism, and has been used on someone I know personally.

    Candidates should be judged by issues.
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    It's a balance between appeasing his supporters, appeasing the deep state and reaching his own goals.
    ~Resident Badgiraffe




  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by The Rebel Poet View Post
    Are you saying that a POTUS should be held to that, or only that they will? I agree that they mostly will, but I don't think they should.
    A little bit of both. Theoretically, I think people should be judged by their abilities, knowledge, performance and experience when applying for ANY job or promotion, whether they're applying to manage a Taco Bell or to be President of the United States. But with the way society currently is, if a college degree is an impediment for the regular hard working American to be promoted (or hired in the first place) regardless of the aforementioned qualities of that individual, the President should be held to the same standard.

    But we all know the media would have a FIELD DAY with a Republican nominee lacking a college degree, regardless of his record as governor or Wisconsin. As a resident of neighboring Illinois, I would gladly take Scott Walker in this state, even over our recently-inaugurated Republican Governor, Bruce Rauner (a RINO elitist of the highest order). I think he's a pretty good governor and education aside, he'd be higher on my list for President than most of the other idiots considering running. But the media would never let this go.

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by William Tell View Post
    If that's the case, its because the media and so many people are pathetic, so don't appeal to them for authority. If you agree with them you are the problem. Attacking people for daring to run for office without a certain degree is dirty politics. Its elitism, and has been used on someone I know personally.

    Candidates should be judged by issues.
    Absolutely. I agree with about everything you said. Read my reply to Rebel Poet, though. I'm not attacking Walker as a Governor or even Conservative nor am I passing judgement on his record or stances on the issues. I am simply saying that his campaign would be a non-starter with the media because of his lack of a degree, and especially so because he's a Republican who they already love to hate.

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Millennial Conservatarian View Post
    Absolutely. I agree with about everything you said. Read my reply to Rebel Poet, though. I'm not attacking Walker as a Governor or even Conservative nor am I passing judgement on his record or stances on the issues. I am simply saying that his campaign would be a non-starter with the media because of his lack of a degree, and especially so because he's a Republican who they already love to hate.
    Ok. What I don't get though is the whole idea that someone needs "a degree"
    I mean, if you are going to hire a surgeon you want him to have knowledge of surgery specifically.
    But having a liberal arts degree is enough to satisfy the people who want someone with a degree. There is no logic to it, these people don't care what a candidate actually knows. They just want him to have a slip of paper. A lot of politicians are lawyers, this would suggest they have knowledge of the constitution. However, that is rarely the case. And the way they vote proves that.
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    It's a balance between appeasing his supporters, appeasing the deep state and reaching his own goals.
    ~Resident Badgiraffe




  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Millennial Conservatarian View Post
    A little bit of both. Theoretically, I think people should be judged by their abilities, knowledge, performance and experience when applying for ANY job or promotion, whether they're applying to manage a Taco Bell or to be President of the United States. But with the way society currently is, if a college degree is an impediment for the regular hard working American to be promoted (or hired in the first place) regardless of the aforementioned qualities of that individual, the President should be held to the same standard.

    But we all know the media would have a FIELD DAY with a Republican nominee lacking a college degree, regardless of his record as governor or Wisconsin. As a resident of neighboring Illinois, I would gladly take Scott Walker in this state, even over our recently-inaugurated Republican Governor, Bruce Rauner (a RINO elitist of the highest order). I think he's a pretty good governor and education aside, he'd be higher on my list for President than most of the other idiots considering running. But the media would never let this go.
    Well, I certainly can't argue that they would make a big deal about it, so it would be really stupid to open that can of worms, but I don't see why we should support the elitest nonsense.

    Using your reasoning, we should imprison everyone who commits victimless crimes, since society has already decided that some victimless crimes should be punished that way.
    Amash>Trump

    ΟΥ ΓΑΡ ЄCΤΙΝ ЄξΟΥCΙΑ ЄΙ ΜΗ ΥΠΟ ΘЄΟΥ

    "Patriotism should come from loving thy neighbor, not from worshiping graven images" - Ironman77

    "ideas have the potential of being more powerful than any army....The concept of personal sovereignty was pulled screaming from the ether into this reality by the force of men believing in a self evident truth, that men are meant to be free." - The Northbreather

    "Trump is the security blanket of aggrieved white men aged 18-60." - Pinoy

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Millennial Conservatarian View Post

    What are we going to tell our kids? Finish high school, don't go to college, and one day you can be President? It may work for a Governor but with the national media (especially if it's a Republican we're talking about) they will never hear the end of it. Not having a college degree is already an issue among Republican radio personalities, let's not make it an issue among our Presidential candidates.
    Have you been listening to Michael Savage attack Wallbanger?

    The bigger story here is that some low information GOP voters actually think Walker is more conservative than Rand.

    Rand is more conservative on Walker on pretty much every issue. On immigration they are almost identical, though Walker flip flopped and will be going to pretend his some sort of tough guy.


    Rand and Jeb not appearing are genuine reasons.

    Jeb only has open townhalls with donors not grassroots activists.

    Steve King defended Rand when a lot of people attacked him for so-called running away from the Dreamers.


    S. King on Rand: Wasn't going to be a constructive place for him to be if he wants to be POTUS

    Last edited by RandallFan; 01-21-2015 at 04:27 PM.
    BOWLING GREEN, Kentucky – Washington liberals are trying to push through the so-called DREAM Act, which creates an official path to Democrat voter registration for 2 million college-age illegal immigrants.
    Rand Paul 2010

    Booker T. Washington:
    Cast it down among the eight millions of Negroes whose habits you know, whose
    fidelity and love you have tested in days when to have proved treacherous meant the ruin of your firesides.

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by William Tell View Post
    No, it shouldn't. I don't like Walker, but I would gladly vote for a farmer or any honest clear headed guy over a slimy lawyer.
    Why do you "don't like Walker?" He seems to be the leading candidate among Birchers that I've spoken to. I know this is the Ron Paul Forums, but do you have to be related to Ron Paul to get our endorsement? This is a concern with Rand and national sovereignty issues in his unconstitutional support of the TPP...

    Rand Paul to Obama: "Prioritize" Passage of Trans-Pacific Partnership
    http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews...ic-partnership
    Last edited by andym; 02-27-2015 at 10:08 AM.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    I think this whole argument about a degree will backlash against the MSM & Democrat Party, who's majority is made up of people WITHOUT a college degree. Think of it, you may have a college degree, but so many out there don't, and these are the people who vote only once every four years in mass. They may consider to vote for one of their own. And as William Tell wrote, it screams of elitism. We can use this to our advantage if the MSM pulls such tactic.

  21. #18
    Rand also voted against States Rights on this one (From the JBS The New American Freedom Index)...
    On the Amendment S.Amdt. 965 to S. 954 (Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2013): To permit States to require that any food, beverage, or other edible product offered for sale have a label on indicating that the food, beverage, or other edible product contains a genetically engineered ingredient.
    Vote Date: May 23, 2013 -- Vote: NAY
    Product Labeling for Genetically Modified Food. During consideration of the Farm Bill (S. 954), Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) offered an amendment (Amendment 965) to allow states to require that any food, beverage, or other edible product have a label indicating that it contains a genetically engineered ingredient, such as pesticide-resistant plants. Sen. Sanders remarked during consideration of his amendment: "This is a pretty simple issue, and the issue is do the American people have a right to know what they are eating, what is in the food they are ingesting and what their kids are eating.... What this amendment does is very simple. It basically says States that choose to go forward on this issue do have the right. It is not condemning GMOs or anything else. It is simply saying that States have the right to go forward." The Senate rejected Sanders' amendment on May 23, 2013 by a vote of 27 to 71 (Roll Call 135). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because the federal government does not have the constitutional authority to prevent states from enacting their own product-labeling requirements.
    http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=1&vote=00135

  22. #19
    Another bad unconstitutional decision by Rand reminiscent of the widely reviled Common Core Standards...
    On Passage of the Bill S. 1086: A bill to reauthorize and improve the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990, and for other purposes.
    Vote Date: March 13, 2014 -- Vote: AYE
    This bill (S. 1086) would reauthorize the Child Care and Development Block Grant program through fiscal 2020 and would further institute new standards for education, health, and safety on child care providers that receive funds under this program. It would also expand the information required from states regarding how they will make use of the funds, as well as require that the states develop plans that include guidelines for training and teaching children from the time they are born until they enroll in kindergarten. The CBO has estimated that implementing this bill would cost $16.8 billion over the 2015-2020 period. The Senate passed S. 1086 on March 13, 2014 by a vote of 96 to 2 (Roll Call 77). We have assigned pluses to the nays because childcare funding is an unconstitutional activity of the federal government. Just based on the brief description of S. 1086 in the above paragraph, it is clear that this bill would increase federal oversight of child care and impose national standards reminiscent of what the widely reviled Common Core State (read National) Standards are doing to K-12 education.
    http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=2&vote=00077

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by andym View Post
    Why do you "don't like Walker?" He seems to be the leading candidate among Birchers that I've spoken to. I know this is the Ron Paul Forums, but do you have to be related to Ron Paul to get our endorsement? This is a concern with Rand and national sovereignty issues in his unconstitutional support of the TPP...

    Rand Paul to Obama: "Prioritize" Passage of Trans-Pacific Partnership
    http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews...ic-partnership
    Why would any Bircher or paleocon support someone who wants worldwide perpetual war with ground troops all over the world? Also, I'm sure that Walker supports the TPP as well.

    http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/scott-wal...und-syria-isis

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by andym View Post
    Rand also voted against States Rights on this one (From the JBS The New American Freedom Index)...
    On the Amendment S.Amdt. 965 to S. 954 (Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2013): To permit States to require that any food, beverage, or other edible product offered for sale have a label on indicating that the food, beverage, or other edible product contains a genetically engineered ingredient.
    That bill did far more than that. No bill in Congress is ever that simple. There were all kinds of federal reporting requirements that were included in that amendment.

  25. #22
    Rand needs to listen to his father more on following the Constitution. Here's another one...
    Bill H.R. 803: An act to amend the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 to strengthen the United States workforce development system through innovation in, and alignment and improvement of, employment, training, and education programs in the United States, and to promote individual and national economic growth, and for other purposes.
    Vote Date: June 25, 2014 -- Vote: AYE
    H.R. 803 would consolidate workforce training programs under the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, reauthorize adult-education programs, and reauthorize other workforce-related programs under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The Senate passed H.R. 803 on June 25, 2014 by a vote of 95 to 3 (Roll Call 214). We have assigned pluses to the nays because there is no constitutional authorization for federal workforce-training programs. This is not to say that workforce training is a bad thing, but such programs are best handled by the private sector, which would surely provide more and better jobs if the federal government were to siphon less money out of the economy for programs to improve the economy.
    http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=2&vote=00214

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Brett85 View Post
    That bill did far more than that. No bill in Congress is ever that simple. There were all kinds of federal reporting requirements that were included in that amendment.
    The amendment said that the federal government will not impose their will upon the states on labeling. Where was there "federal reporting" as you wrote for this amendment?

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by andym View Post
    The amendment said that the federal government will not impose their will upon the states on labeling. Where was there "federal reporting" as you wrote for this amendment?
    Do you have the full text for that amendment? I just remember that that amendment wasn't as simple as saying that the federal government won't impose their will on the states on labeling. Bernie Sanders isn't exactly a huge supporter of states' rights.



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Rand also approves of unconstitutional "Free Trade" agreements...

    H.R. 3080: United States-Korea Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act
    Vote Date: October 12, 2011 -- Vote: AYE
    On a single day - October 12, 2011 - both the House and Senate approved three separate trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama. These measures are three more in a series of "free-trade agreements" intended to transfer the power to regulate trade (and eventually other powers too) to super-national arrangements via a step-by-step process. NAFTA is a prime example of such an arrangement. So is the developing continental government now known as the European Union, which is an outgrowth of a free-trade arrangement once called the Common Market. In fact, the Common Market-EU trajectory to regional governance served as a model for the formation of NAFTA. The South Korea agreement, to quote Congressional Quarterly, is "considered the most economically important trade deal since the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement." For this reason, the "Freedom Index" editors selected this vote over the other two (Colombia and Panama) for inclusion in this index. The Senate passed H.R. 3080 on October 12, 2011 by a vote of 83 to 15 (Roll Call 161). We have assigned pluses to the nays because agreements such as this one are intended to transfer trade (and other) powers to super-national arrangements, despite the fact that under the Constitution only Congress has the power "to regulate commerce with foreign nations."
    https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr3080

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Brett85 View Post
    Do you have the full text for that amendment? I just remember that that amendment wasn't as simple as saying that the federal government won't impose their will on the states on labeling. Bernie Sanders isn't exactly a huge supporter of states' rights.
    Well even a broken clock named Bernie can be right twice a day. Even Ron at one time formed an alliance with him to create a document that the neocons hated. I included the URL above but here it is again. Click on the links next to "Amendment Number" at the following site...
    http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=1&vote=00135
    Last edited by andym; 02-27-2015 at 11:06 AM.

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by andym View Post
    Rand also approves of unconstitutional "Free Trade" agreements...
    I don't really see what your point is. Scott Walker would be just as likely to support those free trade agreements. Do you also realize that Rand has the highest rating in the Senate on JBS's scorecard at 93%? That's only 3% lower than Ron's lifetime rating of 96%.

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Brett85 View Post
    I don't really see what your point is. Scott Walker would be just as likely to support those free trade agreements. Do you also realize that Rand has the highest rating in the Senate on JBS's scorecard at 93%? That's only 3% lower than Ron's lifetime rating of 96%.
    Well the point is I still don't know who's best. Rand has some concerns as I posted above, but noones perfect. Rand seemed to have more unconstitutional votes recently, as his Freedom Index reduced from 94 to 92. We don't know yet if Walker supports so-called free trade agreements. i would like to know Walker's position on the UN. Has Rand, like Ron did previously, pushed forward a Get US Out of the UN bill each year? The National Review had a hit-piece out on Walker, but any criticism out of that neocon rag I take as a positive for the person they're criticizing. I agree that the MSNBC article you posted above on Walker & bombing ISIS & ground troops is a major concern. I'm sharing that with my JBS friends who told me Walker is the best of the bunch for their take; maybe they'll reconsider Rand.

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by andym View Post
    Well the point is I still don't know who's best. Rand has some concerns as I posted above, but noones perfect. Rand seemed to have more unconstitutional votes recently, as his Freedom Index reduced from 94 to 92. We don't know yet if Walker supports so-called free trade agreements. i would like to know Walker's position on the UN. Has Rand, like Ron did previously, pushed forward a Get US Out of the UN bill each year? The National Review had a hit-piece out on Walker, but any criticism out of that neocon rag I take as a positive for the person they're criticizing. I agree that the MSNBC article you posted above on Walker & bombing ISIS & ground troops is a major concern. I'm sharing that with my JBS friends who told me Walker is the best of the bunch for their take; maybe they'll reconsider Rand.
    Rand is the only candidate who has spoke out against the UN.

    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ssolve-the-U-N
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    It's a balance between appeasing his supporters, appeasing the deep state and reaching his own goals.
    ~Resident Badgiraffe




  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by andym View Post
    Well the point is I still don't know who's best. Rand has some concerns as I posted above, but noones perfect. Rand seemed to have more unconstitutional votes recently, as his Freedom Index reduced from 94 to 92.
    I think a couple of those votes were probably due to him running for President. I think he can't be seen as someone who just votes against everything since he's going to run for President. Otherwise, commercials would be run against him saying "Rand Paul doesn't believe in child care." We need a libertarian/Constitutionalist in the U.S Senate who doesn't have any higher political aspirations.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. On Scott Walker's performance in Iowa: 'Unless he really screws up, he should win' (Reuters)
    By randomname in forum 2016 Presidential Election: GOP & Dem
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 08-24-2017, 10:54 PM
  2. Scott Walker Cancels Stops to Focus on Iowa and South Carolina
    By Virgil in forum 2016 Presidential Election: GOP & Dem
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-20-2015, 04:14 PM
  3. Poll: Scott Walker and Rand Paul up in Iowa, Jeb Bush and Chris Christie lag
    By NACBA in forum 2016 Presidential Election: GOP & Dem
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 02-02-2015, 05:40 AM
  4. Scott Walker shows fire in Iowa [video]
    By Jeremy in forum 2016 Presidential Election: GOP & Dem
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-24-2015, 06:36 PM
  5. Looking to 2016, Iowa GOP Raves About...Scott Walker
    By Mr.NoSmile in forum 2016 Presidential Election: GOP & Dem
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 06-01-2013, 05:16 PM

Select a tag for more discussion on that topic

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •