Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Argus

Welfare should be elmiinated

Recommended Posts

Guest American Woman

Amusing.

That about sums it up. I can't stop laughing.

This produces the horrifying result of my having to rake up my own leaves. Yes, me. I had to do it MYSELF! Why is that? In a perfect society I'd be able to pay some poor person $5 or at most $10hr to do it for me and they'd be eager for the money to buy food, to support their family, etc. But noooo, because of welfare, the only guy I know who does stuff like raking lawns and cutting grass can charge $30hr. Since I don't want to get hosed I have to do it myself. Meanwhile, all those lazy people on welfare are just getting drunk, fornicating, and beating their children.

:D

It's not so much I mind paying welfare. But those people ought to be available for taxpayers to whistle up and point at some manual labour thing and have them take care of it for us.

:lol:

The sad thing is, though, I have to admit that there's a little part of me that wonders if you're serious....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amusing.

In any event, you miss the nature of the OP. It's not a complaint about welfare being misused. It's a complaint about how the existence of welfare/pogey (which is welfare in much of the country) distorts the natural inclination of people to work for a living. This produces the horrifying result of my having to rake up my own leaves. Yes, me. I had to do it MYSELF! Why is that? In a perfect society I'd be able to pay some poor person $5 or at most $10hr to do it for me and they'd be eager for the money to buy food, to support their family, etc. But noooo, because of welfare, the only guy I know who does stuff like raking lawns and cutting grass can charge $30hr. Since I don't want to get hosed I have to do it myself. Meanwhile, all those lazy people on welfare are just getting drunk, fornicating, and beating their children.

It's not so much I mind paying welfare. But those people ought to be available for taxpayers to whistle up and point at some manual labour thing and have them take care of it for us.

Yes, welfare indeed does us a great disservice by removing the teeth away from failure... Back in the olden days, failure inevitably meant starvation and/or death... today it merely means going to the welfare line, signing your name, answering a few question.

The dysgenic effects of this are already catching up with us, and in enough time will mean the difference between savagery and civilization.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, welfare indeed does us a great disservice by removing the teeth away from failure... Back in the olden days, failure inevitably meant starvation and/or death... today it merely means going to the welfare line, signing your name, answering a few question.

The dysgenic effects of this are already catching up with us, and in enough time will mean the difference between savagery and civilization.

In Canada we've had welfare since the 1930s. When are the effects going to catch up with us ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taxes are necessary. (If you don't believe me, don't pay any for 5 years and discover the outcome.)

Exactly. You become a criminal for not submitting to slavery.

However, the present form of taxation - yes the sliding scale income tax, I do not like at all. I hate it. But because taxes are necesasry does not mean I must charitably contribute nor be proud of my contribution.

What I disagree with is a statement such as this: "Government does this for it's own self-aggrandizement and a justification to further tax the economy."

I hardly believe that looking after the welfare of its citizens is done for "self-aggrandizement" or is a "justification" to further tax the economy. And I am not sure what province you live in, but health care is not free for me. I pay the Ontario Health Premium as well as taxes.

It's hard to beleive isn't it. The government is just benevolent.

Well, according to Michael Moore healthcare is free. Just watch his documentary.

And I am OK with the concept as I am with some of that tax money being spent on the unfortunate. Have we devised a perfect system to help the unfortunate that is immune to abuse? No. But what human system is immune from abuse? And like it or not the unfortunate are members of this system. However, complain as you may about the state or the economy or the economy of the state, you have not given any compelling reason why we should eliminate welfare.

Can you? Can you give a compelling, unassailable reason why welfare should be eliminated in Canada?

The government should not run welfare is what I am saying, not eliminate welfare.

It is hard for me to fathom that what I have said isn't in the least compelling.

Before the existence of government run social safety nets people had to look after themselves and the community was very important to each individuals welfare. They all helped each other. They had a sense of pride in their community because they all contributed to each others well-being and knew the value of their contribution. They helped each other. No one would ever think to live off of another member of the community without any contribution to the community. It would be a very demeaning and degrading experience. People were too proud to accept charity. They would do dishes, wash windows, rake leaves, shovel walks, anything to contribute to the community in return for their keep. They constantly strived to improve their position, as any person normally does, so they didn't have to do these menial jobs but they were respected and maintained their pride and self-esteem their self image because they were helping someone else.

Today, welfare is no longer a privilege earned it is a "right" and there is no prerequisite to contribute to society or the community or anyone. There is no pride in the community, society or the country because they have contributed nothing; but worse they have no pride in themselves. They are told that there is no shame in being on welfare and to hold up your head and be proud. Hardly the same as doing anything to better the community.

So help is not giving and making yourself feel good about yourself, that sanctimonious feeling of self-righteousness that I accuse the government of in justifying their efforts to re-distribute the wealth.

Genuine help restores the individuals self image and self respect by enabling him to help another or contribute to the community or society or the country so that it becomes part of him. Some don't, they take and return nothing and that is called criminality. Recipients of government welfare are made to feel no better than criminals as they are actively prevented from contributing anything. It doesn't mean they are criminals but that is what welfare creates and that is how they are made to feel. Telling them they have a right to welfare and to be proud is the mask they are told to wear. They must not feel shame. It is a "right". This seprates them from society and they become bitter about it. Blaming it for their ills and they become indignant about any criticism.

This is a generality, of course, the people that don't abuse the system realize they must get off it as soon as possible. There are those as well that will need help all their lives but the only way to restore any sense of well-being in them is to get them to feel that they have hleped and contributed to someone else.

You yourself know the feeling of paying your taxes and "helping". Those you "help" need to feel that same sense of worth. Why would you deny them that by just giving them handouts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before the existence of government run social safety nets people had to look after themselves and the community was very important to each individuals welfare. They all helped each other. They had a sense of pride in their community because they all contributed to each others well-being and knew the value of their contribution. They helped each other. No one would ever think to live off of another member of the community without any contribution to the community. It would be a very demeaning and degrading experience. People were too proud to accept charity. They would do dishes, wash windows, rake leaves, shovel walks, anything to contribute to the community in return for their keep. They constantly strived to improve their position, as any person normally does, so they didn't have to do these menial jobs but they were respected and maintained their pride and self-esteem their self image because they were helping someone else.

Today, welfare is no longer a privilege earned it is a "right" and there is no prerequisite to contribute to society or the community or anyone.

Pliny, there is something to what you say. Giant state operated social benefit systems dehumanize people and remove the social connection between the community and the people that its trying to help. This is why I changed my position on the Ontario Harris government's workfare in the 1990s. But you're wrong that there is no prerequisite. Again, speaking about my own jurisdiction, able bodied people have to be willing to find work in order to qualify.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If poor people cannot afford to raise their own kids then perhaps their children should be taken away at the hospital where they'll be put up for adoption to a family who can.

Wow, Mr. Dickens, it's like 1860 all over again!!!!!!

Everybody is afforded the same opportunities in life. Anyone can get student loans and go to college or university. There is no excuse besides laziness. Even people with zero experience can get work doing landscaping labour or construction labour and work their way up. Happens all the time, sadly many people choose to sit on their backsides and collect free money. Free to them but certainly not free to the taxpayer. The average taxpayer only gets to keep about $0.46 per dollar they earn. We are over taxed yet the left wants to raise taxes even more so we can only keep around $0.39 per dollar earned.

The French Revolution taught the rest of the world something. You don't give people a basic need, they'll take it from you, and you'll probably end up lighter your head. In your case, I suspect that won't prove much of an obstacle, but still...

The left needs to learn to keep their hands off of our money. Work with what they have and stop expanding government and programs.

But the only reason you can reliably make money is because society has apparatuses in place to assure that you can do so. Social instability is the surest way to make sure your money is worthless, and your security and capacity to reliably earn money is heavily impinged upon.

You do prove one point, though. The more ridiculously and overtly Christian one is, the more likely it is that they're probably just selfish, self-important and greedy, and use their so-called beliefs as a crutch to soothe what should be absolutely savaged consciouses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not so much I mind paying welfare. But those people ought to be available for taxpayers to whistle up and point at some manual labour thing and have them take care of it for us.

Well now that wouldn't be fair. There aren't enough people on welfare to rake everyone's leaves. So why should you get your leaves raked and not I? Best you're gonna get is having them work for the state. Mow lawns of gov't property, dig ditches along public roads etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The welfare system was created back in 1957 by those that controlled big buisness in Canada. They created the agency system and destroyed the charitable system. They wanted total control over the work force that could control men though their wives and children. NOW the system is set up in such a way that big buisness profits from the poor. The welfare system is by design a very insidous sort of oppression plus a clever and incrimental way to genocide those that big buisness finds useless to their cause - Check out "Marriage Of Convienence" - It has been social engineering and down hill all the way since the big buisness males ousted the kind and careing Christian and Jewish woman that belonged to charities such as the Community Chest. Just like early Christianity - Woman were the founders and officers until jerks like so-called Saint Peter wrestled charity away from woman and created a mafia like corporation that Christianity morphed into.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FURTHER MORE: The system as it stands only doles out money for those that have lost their cars - lost their homes - lost everything - THEN they send you 500 bucks to suffer on - It should be reformed - Those about to lose their houses should be sent the odd mortgage payement - we should not have to wait untill a person is so bottomed out that they will never recover finacially or mentally - the system as it stands destroys all - Maybe that's what the cruel son's of bitches want - Once you are all powerful and fabulously rich - the last thrill is the slow kill...of what you consider your inferiours - Those that were made inferiour though the corrupt actions of our supposed intelligent and respectable establishment - It's warfare - and those that fall to the bottom are the losers - and those that are left on the top of the heap are the winners ..it's a dirty little childish game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pliny, there is something to what you say. Giant state operated social benefit systems dehumanize people and remove the social connection between the community and the people that its trying to help. This is why I changed my position on the Ontario Harris government's workfare in the 1990s. But you're wrong that there is no prerequisite. Again, speaking about my own jurisdiction, able bodied people have to be willing to find work in order to qualify.

I know how that works, Michael. Everyone is forced to play lip service to that prerequisite.

"I went to 6 interviews last week!"

Creating victims is an industry. Instead of overcoming adversities in our lives we are told we have to live with them. There are people who will be "enraged" by this thread and they are the ones in the "helping" industry or the victims they have created. Because people are generally of good intent, good heart and like to help they feel empathy for those "victims" and the whole industry is supported.

Once in awhile someone trots out of the system and makes something of himself and is touted

as a great success or has some ability to make a statement thus becoming a spokesperson for the cause. He is more of a tool than a success. The successes are pushing buggies on the street.

All a rational person has to do is look at what he would like to do in life to see it involves providing a service to others or helping others, improving other people's lives.

Not allowing that to occur is devastating to the individual. Even children are abused by this with child labour laws. People are not allowed to work for less than the minimum wage and minimum wage laws do nothing to help the unemployed except keep them out of work. They do provide privilege to people that have work much like Unions do but they certainly don't help the poor or people who want to help.

The way it should work, which is the natural human proclivity, is the more you improve other people's lives, i.e. enabling them to help others not gain material wealth, the more you are rewarded. The rewards may be material but they are mostly in seeing others active and vibrant individuals contributing to each other in the community.

Oleg makes some good points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well now that wouldn't be fair. There aren't enough people on welfare to rake everyone's leaves. So why should you get your leaves raked and not I? Best you're gonna get is having them work for the state. Mow lawns of gov't property, dig ditches along public roads etc.

It would be fair if he also paid him and supplemented his welfare without penalty.

In the name of fairness, you would suggest restricting someone from doing a service for another? If he is getting welfare he should be encouraged and rewarded to act like a normal human being and not feel like a criminal hiding the "extra" pittances he manages to earn to improve himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pliny

I know how that works, Michael. Everyone is forced to play lip service to that prerequisite.

"I went to 6 interviews last week!"

Creating victims is an industry. Instead of overcoming adversities in our lives we are told we have to live with them. There are people who will be "enraged" by this thread and they are the ones in the "helping" industry or the victims they have created. Because people are generally of good intent, good heart and like to help they feel empathy for those "victims" and the whole industry is supported.

Once in awhile someone trots out of the system and makes something of himself and is touted

as a great success or has some ability to make a statement thus becoming a spokesperson for the cause. He is more of a tool than a success. The successes are pushing buggies on the street.

Why do you have such a cynical attitude ? In fact, I see this on both sides - questioning the motives of those involved and whether they really desire to help and improve the situation.

All a rational person has to do is look at what he would like to do in life to see it involves providing a service to others or helping others, improving other people's lives.

Not allowing that to occur is devastating to the individual. Even children are abused by this with child labour laws. People are not allowed to work for less than the minimum wage and minimum wage laws do nothing to help the unemployed except keep them out of work. They do provide privilege to people that have work much like Unions do but they certainly don't help the poor or people who want to help.

Your assumptions about work seem old-fashioned to me. Your point seems to be that people should have to work no matter how little they're paid. I think that if you remove minimum wages and constraints to the market then people will make poor choices to work for less than they're worth and society will generally suffer.

The way it should work, which is the natural human proclivity, is the more you improve other people's lives, i.e. enabling them to help others not gain material wealth, the more you are rewarded. The rewards may be material but they are mostly in seeing others active and vibrant individuals contributing to each other in the community.

Oleg makes some good points.

Contributing to the community isn't just measured in dollars, though. It could be, but the benefits for a lot of things are difficult to measure and we shouldn't let that limitation dictate what types of work are done, such as volunteer work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pliny

Why do you have such a cynical attitude ? In fact, I see this on both sides - questioning the motives of those involved and whether they really desire to help and improve the situation.

Me, cynical? Would you not contest the creation of criminality?

Your assumptions about work seem old-fashioned to me. Your point seems to be that people should have to work no matter how little they're paid. I think that if you remove minimum wages and constraints to the market then people will make poor choices to work for less than they're worth and society will generally suffer.

My point is that people should be able to work if they want. Payment, in material terms, is irrelevant. Did you make someone happy, did you improve their lives, did you make someone smile?

Basically, in your rebuttal, you are minimizing the power of the individual. Certainly a union is more "formidable" than an individual. The question is whether or not someone will work for less than they are worth. The answer is no. They will work for whatever is considered an equal trade. They will certainly find out if they have been taken advantage of because no one else will tak their job.

Contributing to the community isn't just measured in dollars, though. It could be, but the benefits for a lot of things are difficult to measure and we shouldn't let that limitation dictate what types of work are done, such as volunteer work.

There has to be a "measure" of value and "dollars" are usually the yardstick. A smile, a thank you, a material return, these are also measures of value. The government despises the fact that "a smile" or "thank you" have value since it is untaxable.

Edited by Pliny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, I have a friend (yes, really) who has an important job. She works long hours, and as she's considered management, she gets no overtime pay. Now her boss has been transferred, and it looks like they want to promote her. But she's got two kids at home, and her husband is working long hours with a new store he's opened. It's a big struggle to look after the kids and get things done at home with the long hours they work.

And I was thinking (yes really) that a hundred years ago, middle class folks like this didn't have to worry so much about things like this because they had servants. There was no welfare then, and poor people lived in crummy little houses and were desperate for anything they could get. So if you were middle class you could hire yourself a housekeeper or two for peanuts, and they'd take care of all the chores and help raise the kids if necessary.

But nowadays poor people just sit around the comfortable homes we pay for, eating the food we pay for, doing NO work, playing video games, getting drunk and fornicating. They're useless, a drain on resources. But if we stopped paying for their houses and stopped paying welfare, they'd be available to do work again at wages the middle class could afford. Plus, our taxes would go down considerably, allowing us to be more generous.

It would make life a lot easier on hard working, middle-class folks, and would increase productivity across the board. I could even hire one. Winter is coming up and I hate shovelling my lane. Well, not that I do. I hire some guy for that. But I wouldn't have to pay as much if I had my own servant guy. He could cut the lawn in the summer and do the weeding, too. The welfare types would get experience in working, and would gain more self respect. I think getting rid of welfare would be an all-around winner for everyone.

So, if I'm understanding you correctly, you want to ensure that poor people have very limited options, so that the wealthy can exploit them as near-slaves.

One of the many innumerable flaws in your suggestion, is that most of the wealthy people don't really want the 'welfare class' in their homes. Do you really want someone incapable of getting a minimum wage job looking after your kids, or being alone in your home when you are not there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking to a retired old math professor who likes to wander about the streets - He said that if all the poor and homeless where dealt with properly and the problem was repaired - "the whole system would fall apart" - Just like the Catholic church..sure they mean well and don't know any better - but they have been dependent on the poor for their existence and survival for centuries. Imagine how many people in our system would be with out work if suddenly there were no sad poverty cases to service - It would be a few million jobs...so being on welfare is a job - to keep those slightly above you employed. It's the lowest paying job in the country but it's work none the less. It's amazing how many professional are dependent on this service industry for their survival.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pliny

My point is that people should be able to work if they want. Payment, in material terms, is irrelevant. Did you make someone happy, did you improve their lives, did you make someone smile?

Basically, in your rebuttal, you are minimizing the power of the individual. Certainly a union is more "formidable" than an individual. The question is whether or not someone will work for less than they are worth. The answer is no. They will work for whatever is considered an equal trade. They will certainly find out if they have been taken advantage of because no one else will tak their job.

To a certain point - people shouldn't be able to enter into agreements that take advantage of them. You shouldn't be able to sell yourself into slavery, for example. If you're stupid enough to work as the highest scoring forward in the NBA for minimum wage then that's your decision, but you can't agree to do so for nothing.

Why do we limit peoples' choices in this way ? Because people will make poor choices, and others will take advantage of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The welfare administrators have this thing called "volunteer" - You volunteer your services say in some immigration or employment office - the staff make 800 dollars a week - you do the same thing and they give you a hundred dollar bus pass - I would not really call this volunteering...if you do not "volunteer" they cut off your cheque and into the streets you go...I would say that when I did this for about 6 months..I was a slave ....I did the same work as the others for nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Canada we've had welfare since the 1930s. When are the effects going to catch up with us ?

We went from a NATION (ie a country related by ancestry and birth: A european nation), to now a mere country... and soon we will be loose our sovereignty to a "north american Union" for starters...

Before WW2 we had next to zero income tax, today depending in what bracket you're in, you can pay nearly half your salary in tax.

Look at the racial squalor, the log rolling waste of time and resources that third world immigration is causing us... look at the cost of life which keeps going up, while the average wage keeps stagnating or going down...

these fissures in the foundation are plain to see. and they,re not good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lictor,

We went from a NATION (ie a country related by ancestry and birth: A european nation), to now a mere country... and soon we will be loose our sovereignty to a "north american Union" for starters...

Before WW2 we had next to zero income tax, today depending in what bracket you're in, you can pay nearly half your salary in tax.

Look at the racial squalor, the log rolling waste of time and resources that third world immigration is causing us... look at the cost of life which keeps going up, while the average wage keeps stagnating or going down...

these fissures in the foundation are plain to see. and they,re not good.

I'm confused. Are these things all caused by welfare then ? Or are you just generally lamenting about society here /

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lictor,

I'm confused. Are these things all caused by welfare then ? Or are you just generally lamenting about society here /

well it is of course a well known fact (one that liberals consistently ignore and pretend not to believe) that many third world immigrants (except perhaps northern asians) are simply cancers on our federal handout system... and consume more then they contribute in taxes.

Also having a non-homogeneous population will engender huge losses in productivity since it has to fight ghosts such as racism and discrimination etc... the cost of managing schemes such as affirmative action alone are estimated in the hundreds of millions for the province of ontario...

that cost is of course forwarded unto us...

Also welfare begets more welfare... since welfare dependents tend to have the largest families... who in turn are more likely to be on welfare... etc etc...

Edited by lictor616

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is silly. It is like no one has picked up a history book.

Servants were slaves, indentured slaves, and serfs. The rich got richer, the poor became even poorer. The poor will continue to breed regardless of income (see Africa, India etc).

They will then cause social strife and unrest, etc etc.

Communism is the monster that emerged when there were too many poor and too few rich.

Pick up a damn book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We went from a NATION (ie a country related by ancestry and birth: A european nation), to now a mere country... and soon we will be loose our sovereignty to a "north american Union" for starters...

Before WW2 we had next to zero income tax, today depending in what bracket you're in, you can pay nearly half your salary in tax.

Look at the racial squalor, the log rolling waste of time and resources that third world immigration is causing us... look at the cost of life which keeps going up, while the average wage keeps stagnating or going down...

these fissures in the foundation are plain to see. and they,re not good.

Europeans have only had it easy due to colonialism. Free natural resources.

When the Africans began rebelling, many European economies began to destabilize.

No India and Africa for the British today, Britain is primarily services based. Wages are falling because of market liberalization, as opposed to the old European system of mercantilism.

Europe can't survive without trade and positive relations with the "third world racial squalor" as you so kindly put it, and neither can Canada and the US.

You better get used to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We went from a NATION (ie a country related by ancestry and birth: A european nation), to now a mere country... and soon we will be loose our sovereignty to a "north american Union" for starters...

Before WW2 we had next to zero income tax, today depending in what bracket you're in, you can pay nearly half your salary in tax.

Look at the racial squalor, the log rolling waste of time and resources that third world immigration is causing us... look at the cost of life which keeps going up, while the average wage keeps stagnating or going down...

these fissures in the foundation are plain to see. and they,re not good.

My finacial down fall resulted when the feds decieded to garneshee 100% of my money. It took me eighteen years to build us a career from scratch in the film industry. Some years I made nothing - other years was enough to feed my chidlren and cloth them - the feds assumed that I was some crook with a collection of Porche` cars hidden away some where - I was an artist and they did not understand that - my operating cost was about 6 thousand a year - I inherited some money and decided to get an accountant...He stuck me with a bill of 5 thousand..the bill with compound interest eventually became 35 thousand..then to justify this Draconian and mindless act they back file on my behalf.

Then I was crippled finacially - I could not move - The federal bureacrats took great joy in destroying me finacially...so now I don't work..and yes I am on the dole - and at this rate I consider it a very pauperish early retirement. Why did they not treat me in a reasonable manner? If I work the money should be mine - and a minimal amount should be tax - I smoke - I have paid over a few hundred thousand in excise sin tax - I paid my share..Will I ever return to the film industry? NO - because it has collapsed thanks to the thwarting of American investment by people in government - who assume that artists are bums and thieves. Which is not the case - I contributed the best I could with great energy and loyality..where did it get me? A slap in the face and a monthly cheque of 5 hundrend and 70 dollars...YOU try surviving on that with out loosing your health...what a joke - bitter? Not really - we have a system run by fools.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Before the existence of government run social safety nets people had to look after themselves and the community was very important to each individuals welfare. They all helped each other."

So then if we had this form of Community Utopia, why did the government step in and provide that safety net? Any idea how we ended up with a government run social safety net?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oleg,

Then I was crippled finacially - I could not move - The federal bureacrats took great joy in destroying me finacially...so now I don't work..and yes I am on the dole - and at this rate I consider it a very pauperish early retirement. Why did they not treat me in a reasonable manner? If I work the money should be mine - and a minimal amount should be tax - I smoke - I have paid over a few hundred thousand in excise sin tax - I paid my share..Will I ever return to the film industry? NO - because it has collapsed thanks to the thwarting of American investment by people in government - who assume that artists are bums and thieves. Which is not the case - I contributed the best I could with great energy and loyality..where did it get me? A slap in the face and a monthly cheque of 5 hundrend and 70 dollars...YOU try surviving on that with out loosing your health...what a joke - bitter? Not really - we have a system run by fools.

Am I to understand that you didn't file ?

This doesn't make otherwise, as you should be able to average income over several years if you're in an up-and-down type of industry from what I understand. Or, if you want to get really smart you can incorporate yourself, then pay yourself a level salary in good years and bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji 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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...