Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 101

Thread: French election

  1. #31
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    12,480
    This Tweet hits the nail on the head for me. It's a sad situation to be in when people are celebrating the fact that "only" 1 in 3 cast a vote for a fascist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  2. #32
    All Worship Ragnarök Loki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    15,572
    FYI, a third of Fillon voters went for Le Pen (another large chunk abstained).
    Hope is the denial of reality

  3. #33
    SEÑOR Member Aimless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    11,313
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    This Tweet hits the nail on the head for me. It's a sad situation to be in when people are celebrating the fact that "only" 1 in 3 cast a vote for a fascist.

    *shrug* they have no Tories so they voted for the next best thing. It's about as sad as when one in five voters voted UKIP in local elections or one in four in EU parliamentary elections. Fascists everywhere, only your fascists found a home in a mainstream party.

    In other happy news: http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borow...over-americans
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  4. #34
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    12,480
    I don't like Kippers but the party is not Fascist. There is absolutely no comparison. If a fifth of voters had gone for the BNP now then you'd have a comparison.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  5. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    9,043
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    I don't like Kippers but the party is not Fascist. There is absolutely no comparison. If a fifth of voters had gone for the BNP now then you'd have a comparison.
    Actually, the PM is starting to sound like a red white and blue fascist. With all her war talk over negotiations and her mind numbing non-message. Do we even know on what platform she's running under the motto of strong and stable?
    Greece shows us that there is a kind of politician worse than the ones that break their election promises; the ones that keep their election promises.

  6. #36
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    12,480
    You don't believe the hate you spew deep down do you? I feel sorry for you if you do.

    Meanwhile this is funny satire: http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/i...20170508127219
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  7. #37
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    9,043
    Actually, given the direct causality between the radicalization of the middle class and the rise of fascism I very much believe what I wrote; your PM is reading from the fascist rule book.
    Greece shows us that there is a kind of politician worse than the ones that break their election promises; the ones that keep their election promises.

  8. #38
    Resiste et Mords! Steely Glint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,942
    Your thoughts are broken. Your reasoning is flawed.
    The defense is just an act, and lies are all you've got.
    How easily can we see defeat behind your argument?
    That fatalistic smile.

  9. #39
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    12,480
    Far too much is made of the so-called interference by Russia. The fact remains that the Clinton email saga had been running for years without the Ruskies help. They jumped on a bandwagon, they didn't create it entirely.

    Furthermore the key issue was one of competence and trust in Hillary and she dealt with the issues badly, it fed into a pre-existing narrative. It did not help that Hillary was an aloof and awful candidate that had failed to beat an unknown black senator from Illinois, struggled against a socialist in Sanders and ultimately failed to carry swing states some of which she deliberately avoided campaigning in, in order to be portrayed as stronger. WTF?

    The Russians tinkering was at the edges of swinging votes and as the election ended up being so close may - just may - have swung enough but was not the only issue its blown up as being. A better candidate could have easily won.

    Macron was an infinitely better candidate and deservedly won. Had the Democrats had a Macron instead of a Hillary, even a Bill instead of a Hillary, they too would and should have won.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  10. #40
    Resiste et Mords! Steely Glint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,942
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    Far too much is made of the so-called interference by Russia. The fact remains that the Clinton email saga had been running for years without the Ruskies help. They jumped on a bandwagon, they didn't create it entirely.
    If you mean, how much influence did Russian hacking have over the election then, yeah, you're probably right, it's probably overstated. But if you mean, far too much is made of an attempt Russian intelligence to interfere in the outcome of the election and accusations of complicity of GOP elements with such attempts then WTF.

    Furthermore the key issue was one of competence and trust in Hillary and she dealt with the issues badly, it fed into a pre-existing narrative.
    That and the massive double standard in play throughout the election, such that Hillary Clinton was the one with 'trust and competence' issues, when her opponent was Donald frigging Trump.

    It did not help that Hillary was an aloof and awful candidate that had failed to beat an unknown black senator from Illinois
    That's right, Randblade. Obama was just a random unknown senator from Illinois, not a once-in-a-generation transformative candidate or anything.
    Your thoughts are broken. Your reasoning is flawed.
    The defense is just an act, and lies are all you've got.
    How easily can we see defeat behind your argument?
    That fatalistic smile.

  11. #41
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    12,480
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    If you mean, how much influence did Russian hacking have over the election then, yeah, you're probably right, it's probably overstated. But if you mean, far too much is made of an attempt Russian intelligence to interfere in the outcome of the election and accusations of complicity of GOP elements with such attempts then WTF.
    No I meant the former. Though Russia acts hostile to the west is hardly breaking news for the latter either.
    That and the massive double standard in play throughout the election, such that Hillary Clinton was the one with 'trust and competence' issues, when her opponent was Donald frigging Trump.
    Indeed. Because President Hillary was taken seriously, so her flaws were taken seriously. Trump was never taken seriously until it happened.
    That's right, Randblade. Obama was just a random unknown senator from Illinois, not a once-in-a-generation transformative candidate or anything.
    At the time in 2008 he was yes. He became more transformative as the campaign went on, but Hillary if she was decent could have (and nearly did) squished him before then.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  12. #42
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    12,480
    For anyone like Hazir who is imbecilic enough to link Le Pen and Brexit https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/0...ral-opponents/
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  13. #43
    Resiste et Mords! Steely Glint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,942
    For those with short attention spans or who can't stomach reading something on a site with an aggressive modal pop-up, that was basically ~1000 words of protesting too much and pretending Brexit wasn't won off the back of mass anti-immigrant sentiment.
    Your thoughts are broken. Your reasoning is flawed.
    The defense is just an act, and lies are all you've got.
    How easily can we see defeat behind your argument?
    That fatalistic smile.

  14. #44
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    12,480
    It wasn't.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  15. #45
    SEÑOR Member Aimless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    11,313
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    For those with short attention spans or who can't stomach reading something on a site with an aggressive modal pop-up, that was basically ~1000 words of protesting too much and pretending Brexit wasn't won off the back of mass anti-immigrant sentiment.
    That's weird, the Spectator isn't known for distorting reality but from your description it sounds like that's exactly what they're doing.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  16. #46
    Resiste et Mords! Steely Glint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,942
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    It wasn't.
    Your thoughts are broken. Your reasoning is flawed.
    The defense is just an act, and lies are all you've got.
    How easily can we see defeat behind your argument?
    That fatalistic smile.

  17. #47
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    12,480
    Continue to feel smug and not address any issues if you like. I'll continue to be smug knowing that you're flailing around with condescension as you have nothing credible to say.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  18. #48
    Resiste et Mords! Steely Glint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,942
    Which issues do you feel I am not sufficiently addressing, Randblade?
    Your thoughts are broken. Your reasoning is flawed.
    The defense is just an act, and lies are all you've got.
    How easily can we see defeat behind your argument?
    That fatalistic smile.

  19. #49
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    12,480
    From the article:

    That Le Pen wants to cut net migration to nearly zero and Brexit is not about that.
    That Le Pen is a protectionist while the majority of Leavers [and the Leave leadership] are pro-free trade.
    Etc, etc
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  20. #50
    Resiste et Mords! Steely Glint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,942
    But... that's just bollocks. It's the exact opposite of what is true. You can't just pretend the whole UKIP side of the leave campaign didn't exist.
    Your thoughts are broken. Your reasoning is flawed.
    The defense is just an act, and lies are all you've got.
    How easily can we see defeat behind your argument?
    That fatalistic smile.

  21. #51
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    12,480
    No it is exactly true, the majority (not all) of Leavers are as I described.

    Criticise UKIP to your hearts content, and I will agree with you wholeheartedly. The vast majority of Leave voters have never voted UKIP, never will vote UKIP and UKIP had no role in the leadership of the Leave campaign. If you say Leave when you mean UKIP then that's like saying "dogs" when you mean "rottweilers". UKIP was and always will be an ugly minority not the majority and it is you being untrue if you pretend one is the other.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  22. #52
    Resiste et Mords! Steely Glint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,942
    Thinking there should be less migration into the country doesn't automatically make you a UKIP voter, as most people are not single issue voters.

    The vast majority of Leave voters have never voted UKIP, never will vote UKIP and UKIP had no role in the leadership of the Leave campaign.
    And this? This is the most Randblade sentence ever to Randblade.

    For the foreigners following along: there were two Leave campaign organisations. 'Vote Leave' and 'Leave.eu', and at the start of the campaign they was a sort of fight between them to see who would be given the status of official campaign organisation for the leave side.

    Vote Leave was the semi-respectable one with mainstream Tories, Euroskeptic Labour people and so on. Leave.eu was the racist one and had Nigel Farage in it. Vote Leave ended up being given the status of official campaign.

    But all that really meant was that they got some public money (about £7 million) and access to the electoral register for purposes of, e.g. mailshots. Leave.eu continued to operate throughout the campaign much as they would have had they got the nod instead of Vote Leave, i.e they spent about 90% of their time talking about immigration and doing shit like this whilst, with their bare faces hanging out, accusing Remain of scaremongering.

    I have no information on which side did more in terms of spending money, billboards, canvassing etc. and as far as I know that information does not exist. But make no mistake: leave.eu had a substantial presence throughout the entire campaign, they were getting media attention right the way through and their people were being interviewed on major outlets. They were not some fringe. They were a major part of the Leave effort.

    The 'official' status of the Vote Leave campaign (who avoided racism and mostly limited themselves to lying about the NHS and pretending trade deals with other major economies are quick, inevitable, easy and universally beneficial, though they did talk, in a far more measured way, about controlling immigration as well) is the fig leaf Randblade is trying to use to claim that anti-immigration feeling had nothing, nothing I tell you, to do with Brexit but, rather, it was born of some sort enlightened globalist impulse on the part of the British public.

    It is, as I said, bollocks. That last part in particular is utter bollocks, no one in the general electorate gives a shit about free trade and globalism.

    What actually happened was that people like Michael Gove and Boris Johnson chatted pie in the sky shit about these wonderful trade deals with places like Brazil that will probable never actually materialise because the real world is actually complicated and lie about the money they were going to give the NHS while affecting to be shocked, shocked I tell you, at leave.eu doing the dirty work of actually winning the referendum.

    Because, as we know, the Tories are totally above using anti-immigrant feeling to their advantage. They would never do such a thing.
    Your thoughts are broken. Your reasoning is flawed.
    The defense is just an act, and lies are all you've got.
    How easily can we see defeat behind your argument?
    That fatalistic smile.

  23. #53
    All Worship Ragnarök Loki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    15,572
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    It wasn't.
    The main reasons for supporting Brexit was "sovereignty" and immigration, which happen to also be two of Le Pen's top talking points. FWIW, both were portrayed incredibly favorably by the Kremlin-owned media.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  24. #54
    ======== Timbuk2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,720
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    Thinking there should be less migration into the country doesn't automatically make you a UKIP voter, as most people are not single issue voters.



    And this? This is the most Randblade sentence ever to Randblade.

    For the foreigners following along: there were two Leave campaign organisations. 'Vote Leave' and 'Leave.eu', and at the start of the campaign they was a sort of fight between them to see who would be given the status of official campaign organisation for the leave side.

    Vote Leave was the semi-respectable one with mainstream Tories, Euroskeptic Labour people and so on. Leave.eu was the racist one and had Nigel Farage in it. Vote Leave ended up being given the status of official campaign.

    But all that really meant was that they got some public money (about £7 million) and access to the electoral register for purposes of, e.g. mailshots. Leave.eu continued to operate throughout the campaign much as they would have had they got the nod instead of Vote Leave, i.e they spent about 90% of their time talking about immigration and doing shit like this whilst, with their bare faces hanging out, accusing Remain of scaremongering.

    I have no information on which side did more in terms of spending money, billboards, canvassing etc. and as far as I know that information does not exist. But make no mistake: leave.eu had a substantial presence throughout the entire campaign, they were getting media attention right the way through and their people were being interviewed on major outlets. They were not some fringe. They were a major part of the Leave effort.

    The 'official' status of the Vote Leave campaign (who avoided racism and mostly limited themselves to lying about the NHS and pretending trade deals with other major economies are quick, inevitable, easy and universally beneficial, though they did talk, in a far more measured way, about controlling immigration as well) is the fig leaf Randblade is trying to use to claim that anti-immigration feeling had nothing, nothing I tell you, to do with Brexit but, rather, it was born of some sort enlightened globalist impulse on the part of the British public.

    It is, as I said, bollocks. That last part in particular is utter bollocks, no one in the general electorate gives a shit about free trade and globalism.

    What actually happened was that people like Michael Gove and Boris Johnson chatted pie in the sky shit about these wonderful trade deals with places like Brazil that will probable never actually materialise because the real world is actually complicated and lie about the money they were going to give the NHS while affecting to be shocked, shocked I tell you, at leave.eu doing the dirty work of actually winning the referendum.

    Because, as we know, the Tories are totally above using anti-immigrant feeling to their advantage. They would never do such a thing.
    A good summary.
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    "Scientists raise alarm: bananas can cause EU"

  25. #55
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    9,043
    But just for the fun of it, let's assume it wasn't all about a rabid obsession with immigration that made Brexit come out on top. Then why is it that the British PM is dead set on keeping to an unrealistic low threshold for immingration and is willing to toss the British economy off the cliff to end freedom of movement?

    One would think that the Swiss, who actually had a referendum on immigration, then took some time to think over the ramifications of putting fantastic immigration fears over the well being of their people and economy, actually had a good reason wh they came up with an implementation of their constitutionally proscribed limit of free movement that really isn't a limit at all. I think the Swiss have to take lessons in strong and stable government from nobody, yet they were able to combine it with not crashing out of their arrangements with the EU.
    Greece shows us that there is a kind of politician worse than the ones that break their election promises; the ones that keep their election promises.

  26. #56
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    12,480
    Quote Originally Posted by Timbuk2 View Post
    A good summary.
    It would have been a good summary if it wasn't for the fact it was entirely incorrect.

    Take this claim:

    But all that really meant was that they got some public money (about £7 million) and access to the electoral register for purposes of, e.g. mailshots. Leave.eu continued to operate throughout the campaign much as they would have had they got the nod instead of Vote Leave, i.e they spent about 90% of their time talking about immigration and doing shit like this whilst, with their bare faces hanging out, accusing Remain of scaremongering.

    I have no information on which side did more in terms of spending money, billboards, canvassing etc. and as far as I know that information does not exist. But make no mistake: leave.eu had a substantial presence throughout the entire campaign, they were getting media attention right the way through and their people were being interviewed on major outlets. They were not some fringe. They were a major part of the Leave effort.


    The fact you do not have that information explains a lot about your ignorance. I do have that information and if you don't its because you haven't followed the news. That information not only does exist, it is public record as reported by the Electoral Commission. Leave.EU as a non-official campaign group had a spending limit of £700,000 - of which they spent £693,022. Vote Leave as the official campaign group did not get public funds of £7 million pounds, like all campaign groups they had to raise the funds privately. They got a spending limit of £7 million. So their spending was literally ten times higher than Leave.EU and that is all public record available at the Electoral Commission website.

    Furthermore in every single debate the BBC televised it was Vote Leave figures who were the ones putting the arguments. These were highly watched by millions. In fact in only one single debate, with a much lower audience on ITV, was Farage featured and in no other debate was a Leave.EU figure invited.

    If Leave.EU won the referendum while having a spending cap of £700k and negligible prime time air time on the media against £7 million for Vote Leave, dominating the prime time air time, £7 million for the Remain campaign and an £11 million pre-referendum campaign by the government then that is really stunning value for money. Expect they didn't.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  27. #57
    Resiste et Mords! Steely Glint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,942
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    The fact you do not have that information explains a lot about your ignorance. I do have that information and if you don't its because you haven't followed the news. That information not only does exist, it is public record as reported by the Electoral Commission. Leave.EU as a non-official campaign group had a spending limit of £700,000 - of which they spent £693,022. Vote Leave as the official campaign group did not get public funds of £7 million pounds, like all campaign groups they had to raise the funds privately. They got a spending limit of £7 million. So their spending was literally ten times higher than Leave.EU and that is all public record available at the Electoral Commission website.
    Both official campaigns did receive public money, in the order of millions: source, though the £7 million pounds number was indeed the spending limit.

    If Leave.EU won the referendum while having a spending cap of £700k and negligible prime time air time on the media against £7 million for Vote Leave, dominating the prime time air time, £7 million for the Remain campaign and an £11 million pre-referendum campaign by the government then that is really stunning value for money. Expect they didn't.
    Trump beat Clinton spending half what she did, so I don't think it's that much of a stretch to think the efforts of leave.eu won the referendum - it was only a 4% margin. As for negligible media presence, this is laughable - there is more to the media than just the official debates and leave.eu got plenty of media attention even if it was just people reporting on the controversy about the latest racist thing they did. As Trump discovered, this is still effective and amounts to free media coverage.
    Your thoughts are broken. Your reasoning is flawed.
    The defense is just an act, and lies are all you've got.
    How easily can we see defeat behind your argument?
    That fatalistic smile.

  28. #58
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    12,480
    OK this just improves my point thank you. Your link says the £7 million that Vote Leave got a limit of (and the £700k Leave.EU had a limit of) had to be raised privately.

    However on top of that Vote Leave and the Remain campaign each got further funds and assistance equally that did not count towards the limit. Leave.EU didn't get that. So it wasn't 10:1 spending by Vote Leave it was considerably much more than that.

    Half spending is not less than 10% spending. Even without counting the mailshots etc that both the Remain campaign and Vote Leave got we know that between those two campaigns and the government expenditure there was total expenditure of £26.2 million. £11 for the government campaign, £7 million private spending by each campaign and £600k public spending by each campaign not counted in the private limit (from your link). Against that £26.2 million the Leave.EU rabble got £700k.

    If we take in good faith the £20mn in public funds for the incidentals that Fallon claims in your link and assume that's 50-50 for Remain and Vote Leave then it means that Remain and Vote Leave each spent ~£17 million in the campaign and Leave.EU spent ~£700k. Yeah that's the same

    Yes Leave.EU existed on the sidelines and appealed to their own variant of fruitcakes, nuts and loons. But to get back to my original point they patently played no part in the leadership of the Leave campaign, which is the Leave campaign that outspent them by a factor of 10 to 1 privately and over 24 to 1 once we count in the extra bits the public gave the official campaign.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  29. #59
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    9,043
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    Both official campaigns did receive public money, in the order of millions: source, though the £7 million pounds number was indeed the spending limit.



    Trump beat Clinton spending half what she did, so I don't think it's that much of a stretch to think the efforts of leave.eu won the referendum - it was only a 4% margin. As for negligible media presence, this is laughable - there is more to the media than just the official debates and leave.eu got plenty of media attention even if it was just people reporting on the controversy about the latest racist thing they did. As Trump discovered, this is still effective and amounts to free media coverage.
    You are missing his precious point; he's obsessing over who helt the leadership of the entire out movement. This appearantly magically will absolve him of any responsibility for the more unsavory elements of the out campaigns.
    Greece shows us that there is a kind of politician worse than the ones that break their election promises; the ones that keep their election promises.

  30. #60
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    12,480
    There's no magic it is pretty simple: The more unsavoury elements of the out campaign have responsibility for the more unsavoury elements of the out campaign.

    Just as the more unsavoury elements of the in campaign have responsibility for the more unsavoury elements of the in campaign.

    Guilt by association is a fallacy. Feel free to look up a definition of the word fallacy before you throw out terms like magic.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

Posting Permissions

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