This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Flee
Pages: 1 ... 155156157 158159 ... 520
4681
« on: May 19, 2016, 05:56:49 AM »
I'm not seeing the issue. I'm perfectly fine with a dad taking his daughter to go use the bathroom. Either use a stall or just the urinal, it's not as if you're standing around with your pants around your ankles waving your junk around for all to see.
4682
« on: May 19, 2016, 02:32:27 AM »
Looks like I'm not the only one with these concerns. Here's a decent overview of some of the arguments and this is a good article by two Duke and Harvard law school professors on the legal side of things. Don’t Let Americans Sue Saudi Arabia
THERE has been much debate about whether a bill advancing through Congress that aims to expose Saudi Arabia to lawsuits in American courts for its alleged connection to the 9/11 attacks would unduly harm diplomatic and economic relations between the two countries. But the bill’s potential for harm extends far beyond bilateral relations with one ally. It would also violate a core principle of international law, and it would jeopardize the effectiveness of American foreign aid and the legitimacy of the United States’ actions in the war on terrorism.
A nation’s immunity from lawsuits in the courts of another nation is a fundamental tenet of international law. This tenet is based on the idea that equal sovereigns should not use their courts to sit in judgment of one another. Many nations have tacitly agreed to limit immunity in specified contexts, such as when they engage in certain commercial activities. But apart from those exceptions (or where a binding treaty or Security Council resolution otherwise dictates), international law continues to guarantee immunity, even for alleged egregious crimes.
No nation benefits more from this arrangement than the United States. It conducts far more diplomatic, economic and military activities abroad than any other nation. Were the sovereign immunity rule to weaken, the United States would be subject to many more lawsuits in foreign courts than any other nation and would become an attractive and high-profile target for politicized litigation designed to contest its foreign policy. For this reason, the United States has long resisted actions by other nations that would erode the international law of immunity.
Yet now Congress is considering doing just that. Although the precise wording is still being negotiated, the bill in question would create an exception to immunity from civil lawsuits for foreign nations accused of facilitating terrorist attacks in the United States. This would substantially narrow the immunity of foreign governments under American law, which currently allows for personal injury lawsuits against foreign governments only when the entire wrong of which they are accused occurs in the United States, and only when the act does not involve sensitive policy-oriented decisions. (A New Yorker can sue a foreign nation, for example, if one of its employees injures him in a traffic accident in Manhattan.)
To be sure, Congress has previously created exceptions to sovereign immunity from civil lawsuits for a small number of “state sponsors of terrorism.” (The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld efforts to enforce large judgments against Iran under this exception.) The exception has been controversial and is almost certainly contrary to international law. The controversy has been muted, however, because the exception applies to only a few nations designated as bad actors by the executive branch, which takes into account foreign policy and related considerations in making the designations. (Tellingly, the list does not include Saudi Arabia.) The current proposed legislation, by contrast, would create a broad general exception to immunity, potentially applicable to any nation, which private plaintiffs could exploit without any filtering by the executive branch.
One important reason for granting immunity to foreign governments in American courts is, as the Supreme Court once explained, “reciprocal self-interest.” If the United States reduces the immunity it accords to other nations, it exposes itself to an equivalent reduction in its own immunity abroad.
It might appear that the United States has little to fear in lawsuits abroad for acts of terrorism akin to 9/11. But terrorism is often in the eye of the beholder, and reciprocity need not be precise. It is easy to imagine the United States being sued abroad as a result of the military and other foreign aid it gives to many nations. A great deal of behavior traceable to American financial and material support — for example, aid to Israel that is said to result in displacements or killings in the West Bank, or to United States-backed rebels who are accused of attacking civilians in Syria — might result in a lawsuit abroad for aiding and abetting terrorism.
The lawsuits would not end there. American airstrikes against Al Qaeda and associates, and against the Islamic State, are legally controversial abroad. Many see the targeting practices of the United States (especially those that result in civilian casualties) as a form of terrorism, or as violating equally important norms of international humanitarian law. Lawsuits about such matters by foreign plaintiffs in foreign courts would be politically and financially damaging, and could produce legal rulings about appropriate military action that are far different from the principles that the United States and its allies now embrace.
Some people may view heightened accountability for America’s controversial actions abroad as a benefit of the bill rather than a flaw. We doubt the bill’s sponsors see things that way. But in any event, civil lawsuits directed by plaintiffs’ lawyers in foreign courts will inevitably be politicized. Such private-controlled lawsuits are not the right forum — abroad or in the United States — for the development of international norms and accountability for actions by nations related to military and criminal affairs. Deliberations and scrutiny through international diplomacy and by international organizations better serve this role.
Congress has many options for increasing accountability for 9/11. It could directly provide additional compensation for the families of those killed and injured on 9/11, and it could investigate lingering questions about the attack itself. Delegating these important tasks to private plaintiffs and unelected federal courts is an all-too-familiar eschewal of congressional responsibility that will do significant harm to the United States in its many activities abroad. tl;dr: could set a dangerous precedent on state immunity, harm agreements based on reciprocity, hurt international relations and backfire by opening up a two-way street and letting claimants contribute to shaping public policy.
4683
« on: May 18, 2016, 04:39:03 PM »
I'll respond to you in a bit, if you don't mind. Got a major moot court on trademark and banking law tomorrow and my thesis is due much sooner than I would like.
4684
« on: May 18, 2016, 04:10:18 PM »
Yes, thank you for pointlessly explaining to me that which I already know. I guess you could've "saved yourself a whole lot of effort" and stopped at the first paragraph. It's an open forum. I make these posts just as much for you as I do for anyone else reading this who might not be as well aware of the current relationship between the EU and Norway and could very well come draw the conclusion from that article that Norway benefits so much because it cut all ties with the EU. The point being that the tactics project fear employs rarely ever pans out accurately. Like Ian said, it isn't a crystal clear black and white "the UK will drift off into the Atlantic if we leave, but it'll remain a utopia if we stay" kind of outcome here. I suppose it's only a good thing that I never contested that point to begin with and don't believe there's nothing to say in favor of a Brexit. And no, economics actually bore me quite a bit. While they're likely a major component as to why the UK would benefit from remaining in the EU, I'm much more interested in things like human rights, academic research and criminal justice and security.
4685
« on: May 18, 2016, 03:37:17 PM »
A few things about Norway, though. - Norway obtained its relationship with the EU back in the 90's. What it didn't do was join for decades, become one of the Union's 3 largest actors and then leave in the middle of one of the biggest crises the Union has ever seen. It's unlikely that the UK would get the same deal as Norway did. - Norway is still a member of the EEA (European Economic Area). The membership fees it pays for this are almost identical to what a full EU member pays. - As a mere member of the EEA and not the EU, Norway gets absolutely no say or vote in what goes on in the EU (compared to the current British input which is quite significant) while still being subject to almost everything the EU decides. - As such, Norway has still implemented over 75% of all EU legislation incorporated in the EEA without having any say in it at all. - Norway is bound by the free movement of people, goods, services and capital (the four EU freedoms) just the same, has no say in how it is further implemented and can not deviate from it without leaving the EEA. - Norway is part of the Schengen agreement which removes borders and allows for a complete freedom of movement for all citizens of any EEA country, meaning its borders are even more open than those of the UK and that it is more closely aligned with the fundamental EU principles than many actual EU member states. This plays a major role in its economic growth and success, as Norway depends on the EU for 60pc of the goods it imports and 80pc of exports which it would not be able to obtain withou following a myriad of EU rules. - Norway has higher per capita immigration of EU citizens than the UK does. - Norway has to still abide by all of the EU’s product standards, financial regulations, employment regulations, and substantial contributions to the EU budget without having any say in it whatsoever. The only economic activities Norway is excluded from are agriculture, fishing and customs where they make their own policy. It's true that Norway is obviously not the UK, but don't think of the country as a success story caused by a heroic refusal to join the EU. Norway is still a full member of the Council of Europe and owes a lot of its economic growth to being a member of the EEA, meaning it still pays millions of dollars a year in fees and is subject to most of the EU's economic legislation without having any say in it whatsoever. Norway is extremely dependent on the European single market and the benefits the EU brings, and it's unlikely the UK would get the same deal if it chose to leave. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/27/norway-eu-reality-uk-voters-seduced-by-norwegian-modelhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/03/06/what-if-britain-left-the-eu-and-could-be-more-like-norway/http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/might-britain-vote-to-leave-the-eu-only-to-find-out-that-theres-no-real-exit/
4686
« on: May 18, 2016, 03:06:40 PM »
And it's not your opinion that the people who are voting in favor of leaving are doing so because they're uneducated and ignorant from misinformation coming from news sources that demonized the Hell out of them for voting in such a way two years ago? Whether I think that or not is irrelevant. I agree with a lot of the criticism against the EU but still believe that a lot of the arguments in favor of leaving the Union are misguided and based on misinformation. If the EU is as dysfunctional as everyone admits, why bother staying? You could say it will get better but nothing in the last several years has shown any promises of the EU changing for the better. Because it being flawed or dysfunction does not mean it has to go. It's all about the net worth of the Union. Do the benefits outweigh the cons or is it the other way around? I personally still believe the pros are greater than the cons. You yourself mentioned that leaving would instill agreements with the council on the relations with the UK and the EU nations afterward, if they can make the process as seamless as possible and still keep agreements that will benefit both parties and allow the UK's independence, I'm failing to see the downsides other than other nations being butthurt that the UK gets freedom and they don't.
But that is a very big if, though. I don't see anyone being butthurt about the UK getting freedom while the rest doesn't, as it's likely that the UK citizens will actually end up with less freedom than they would under the EU. What I do see is a lot of people worrying about how leaving will harm both the UK and the rest of the EU. Problem is that for things like this you can't always pick and choose. Many people supporting a Brexit believe that the UK will leave and simply be able to opt in for all the good stuff while choosing not to deal with any of the responsibilities or burdens that come with it. Betting on the remaining EU countries to simply smile and go "you want to not carry any of the burdens, not pay membership fees, not be subject to judicial control or EU legislation, not open your borders to EU citizens and not be subject to the same standards as the other countries but still retain the same privileges and profit from the EU's market? Sure thing friend!" is a pretty long shot.
4687
« on: May 18, 2016, 02:52:03 PM »
So can someone explain me why they want out so badly?
Increasing integration and a lack of democratic legitimacy. The European Commission caused a constitutional crisis in Portugal when it threatened to withdraw funding because the Portuguese constitutional court shot down the Commission austerity measures. There are noises about making a European Army, which Nick Clegg claimed would never happen. Angela Merkel was depicted as a Nazi in Greek newspapers in 2011, again over austerity. The necessity of greater fiscal integration if the EU is even to survive, let alone prosper.
I was actually hoping my posts in this thread would make you come back, even if only for a little bit. Good to see you again. I agree with most of your arguments, even though I don't remember the Commission actually threatening to withdraw funding. Can you elaborate on the increasing integration by leaving part? Fiscal policy is one of the few areas I've never been too big on.
4688
« on: May 18, 2016, 02:37:19 PM »
I don't really see what the point of saying anything is considering you'd ignore it anyway.
This is probably the main people have stopped caring, Roman. At least, I know I kind of have. It's like with your recent thread on what happened with that one girl. I spent a decent amount of time doing some research for you and present you with actual sound advice based on medical facts, which you didn't even acknowledge but instead went on for another 2 pages about how the world was going to end because of a tear on your dick. Doesn't exactly make people want to help.
4689
« on: May 18, 2016, 02:31:33 PM »
So open borders with hardly any regulation is not bad? For someone who's so concerned with the mischaracterization of UKIP and their supporters, you really have been trying your hardest to misconstrue just about everything I've said so far in a failed attempt to strawman my argument in a widely exaggerated statement I wasn't even implying in the first place. What Mordo first and wrongly accused me of, you're now doing for real. I think now that the dust over that election has settled people are a bit more calm and collected than before, and with that said the news hasn't been as deranged as it was. Nor do I believe that people wanting out as fast as human possible are ignorant or uneducated about their decisions. That is your opinion and you're obviously free to have it. But as someone who actually spent a good several years studying European law, the amount of misinformation and biased inaccuracies I often see thrown around by the Brexit camp and a lot of UK media has me believe otherwise. While I fully understand and agree with a lot of valid criticism against the EU, nothing I've read so far has given me any reason to believe that most of the Brexit supporters aren't basing their vote on sheer ignorance and misinformation. Just as I'm hoping the US will ultimately vote against Trump, I am cautiously hopeful that my British friends choose to stay in the end.
4690
« on: May 18, 2016, 01:08:42 PM »
I really hope lots of people starting suing the US.
Well the bill allows US citizens to sue Saudi, not the entire world sue each other. Plus, US law =/= the world.
You're missing the part where state sovereignty is one of the key principles of international law and only a small number of exceptions thereto are commonly accepted. States, more often than not, work together based on reciprocity. Rest assured that if the US chooses to allow its citizens to sue foreign governments because of this, you'll soon see a number of other countries do the exact same. And seeing how the US is pretty globally involved in all things war and foreign interference, this is probably not a good trade just to give the families of the 9/11 victims some peace of mind.
4691
« on: May 18, 2016, 12:59:17 PM »
So the EU pushing for more open immigration is just a boogeyman made by Brexitors? It kind of is, yeah. Clearly whatever good comes from the EU is vastly overshadowed by what the citizens who want out are complaining about and with a 50/50 split on the issue it's not as black and white as "Brexit is going to ruin this country!". Or maybe a lot people are just largely ignorant, uneducated and easily swayed by poor news reporting. especially when just having a vote to leave had to go through so much bureaucratic bullshit, being a part of the EU shouldn't be a gunpoint decision. The big vote and everything surrounding it is entirely British. The EU does not require a referendum, vote or anything like it. You want out, you tell the Council. The Council then tries to reach an agreement on future cooperation between the country and the EU. If no such agreement is reached within a certain amount of the time, the country automatically leaves the EU and becomes free from any EU treaty, regulation or obligation.
4692
« on: May 18, 2016, 12:21:05 PM »
When the UK looks at countries like Germany and France who bend over backwards for these people Which are two countries choosing to let in more refugees because they so wish, not because they're forced to do so by the EU. (I don't think anyone needs to link the woman kicked out of her apartment in Germany story again) The one where a single German city (not even the German federal government, let alone the EU) gave a women almost a year forewarning and ample aid in finding a new residence when they legally ended her renting contract to live in a city-owned complex that was to be converted into a center? and are expected to do the same, of course they want to abandon a sinking ship. Because the above just screams that the EU will order British citizens to leave their homes and make way for refugees tomorrow. Also, you are aware that the EU is probably the best thing we have against "mass immigration" and that the UK has been entirely free not to take part in the main relocation scheme, right? The notion that the UK will somehow be weaker without the EU constantly throttling them is trying to keep the UK citizens from voting what they want out of fear. Or you know, maybe there actually exists good reason to assume that leaving the EU will be detrimental for the UK and its citizens.
4693
« on: May 18, 2016, 10:45:47 AM »
Everybody knows migration is necessary. Not sure why you felt a compulsion to construct a post explaining that and then apply it to the opposition as if anyone is even positing it.
Because that is literally what Psy's headline did. Quoting a random high number of how much it costs taxpayers for migrant children to go to school in the UK and then making the implication by omission that this is a leech on the British people having to pay out of their ass for lazy refugees from god knows where while conveniently not paying attention to how most of these migrants are actually legal Europeans contributing more to the UK economy and treasury than the average Briton is.
4694
« on: May 18, 2016, 10:28:18 AM »
I forgot to mention--I jumped online briefly, just to update the game to its current and presumably final version (1.09).
Hopefully that means no more bizarre glitches, better frame rates, and smoother sailing in general.
Kinda funny that I was playing vanilla Dark Souls this whole time.
Just so you know, the game suffers from some frame rate drops even with the latest patches. The area you're in now and the one right afterwards are notorious for it. The rest of the game is generally pretty smooth, but be aware that the part you're in now can be pretty shitty. Best recommendation is to angle the camera down so that you're looking at the floor if it gets too bad. Less things on screen should increase frame rate.
Nah, it actually improved quite vastly. You should've seen how bad it got before I updated. As for the next area, I guess we'll have to see.
Can't wait to update--I'm really enjoyed this part.
Well, the next area is the bad one. Expect the frame rate to tank at certain parts of it.
Other than frame rate drops out the hoo ha, I don't think that area is that bad tbh.
Yeah, that's what I meant. I was just talking about the frame rate in that area, as I quite like it myself.
4695
« on: May 18, 2016, 10:23:50 AM »
C'mon, now Flee, this is a pretty shameful mischaracterization of the arguments being espoused here.
You could've saved yourself a whole lot of effort if you stopped writing right there. My previous reply was in no way a characterization of the entire Brexit movement or its supporters. It was nothing but a response to the newspaper headlines Psy cited in order to reveal how biased, misleading and populist such fearmongering articles really are. Despite thinking they're wrong, I'm well aware that some have better arguments in favor of the Brexit.
4696
« on: May 18, 2016, 08:33:40 AM »
I used to do it on B.net because they left a space above the quote by default.
4697
« on: May 18, 2016, 08:16:28 AM »
They are widely circulated rags so you get a nice fearmongering attitude spread pretty far, they never talk about any of the benefits of the EU either.
Populism is always infuriating. "OMG IT COSTS £3 BILLION TO EDUCATE 700,000 IMMIGRANT CHILDREN FROM OTHER PARTS OF THE EU?" Let's completely ignore that: - the EU funds close to 20% of research done by British universities - close to 1.5 million Brits live in other EU countries where they and their children receive similar government benefits - EEA immigrants contribute more than 34% in taxes than what they received in benefits - on average, each EEA immigrant puts around 6,000 pounds more into the government's budget than they take out of it - since 1995, EEA migrants contributed more than 4£ billion to Britain's funds compared to native Brits causing £591 billion loss from the funds. Narrowing it down more, EU immigrants contributed 64% more in taxes than they received in benefits, contributed more than £20bn to the UK's finances, contribute 10% more to the UK's finances than natives do (relatively speaking, of course), are more likely to have a higher degree of education than natives, less likely to rely on state benefits, overall contribute more to the economy than natives and have no negative impact on British wages. BUT GOD BE DAMNED THAT OUR TAXES GO TO SCHOOLS THAT THESE PEOPLE AND THEIR CHILDREN USE! Those people are nothing but fearmongering morons who have yet to figure out that, *gasp*, you have to invest some money to obtain far greater benefits. The EU is sluggish, tends to over regulate and is deeply flawed in a number of ways. But to ignore all that it has accomplished and the myriad of benefits it has brought for all member states involved because "British jerbs are for British werkers" and because "Eastern European migrants being vital for our labor, food and construction industries is one thing, but actually paying taxes which allow their children to go to school here as well is a disgrace" is really just stupid. http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21631076-rather-lot-according-new-piece-research-what-have-immigrants-ever-done-ushttps://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/1114/051114-economic-impact-EU-immigrationhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/12188081/EU-Facts-Is-European-immigration-good-for-Britain.htmlhttp://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/feb/18/mass-eu-migration-into-britain-is-actually-good-news-for-uk-economyhttp://iasservices.org.uk/how-does-immigration-benefit-the-uk/http://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/may/11/eu-migrants-had-no-negative-effect-on-uk-wages-says-lsehttps://www.nottingham.ac.uk/hrlc/documents/student-conference-2015/izabela-pompova-paper.pdf
4698
« on: May 18, 2016, 07:42:55 AM »
I do get that it's doing as good of a job as it can considering the scale of the problem and I don't really fault the EU for the way it's handling it. I think that considering the UK was being a stubborn little bugger for the schengen agreement it's not too bad for us but it's kind of... eh. Refugees are one thing, but when they are coming from countries that are just a bit shit rather than being ripped apart by warfare... eeeh. We (uk) already have enough problems with migrants who refuse to assimilate and our politicians are either wet lettuces or foaming at the mouth when it comes to the matter.
My gut says we are better off in and in all likelihood that's what I'll vote for in a month, but the migrant crisis has kind of given it a good kicking <_<
Fair enough. I just think that no matter how you turn it, the European countries are in the migrant crisis together. The UK saying "nope, we're out and closing our borders, the rest of you can deal with this on your own" would backfire tremendously. There would considerable economic damage to the UK's most important trade area and the reaction of the EU would be very detrimental for the UK. We really are stuck in this mess together and whether any of us like it or not, the EU is by far the best platform we have to address the migration crisis. The alternative of turning back decades of progress which turned the EU into the single largest economy in the world and letting each country deal with refugees on its own would probably be disastrous for all member states including the UK.
4699
« on: May 18, 2016, 06:10:26 AM »
I have a growing suspicion that underneath your seemingly normal and acceptable demeanor and profile picture, you actually are one of this site's many weebs.
4700
« on: May 18, 2016, 05:35:49 AM »
This actually looks really cool.
4701
« on: May 18, 2016, 05:28:07 AM »
I played the piano for a number of years.
4702
« on: May 18, 2016, 04:41:15 AM »
I forgot to mention--I jumped online briefly, just to update the game to its current and presumably final version (1.09).
Hopefully that means no more bizarre glitches, better frame rates, and smoother sailing in general.
Kinda funny that I was playing vanilla Dark Souls this whole time.
Just so you know, the game suffers from some frame rate drops even with the latest patches. The area you're in now and the one right afterwards are notorious for it. The rest of the game is generally pretty smooth, but be aware that the part you're in now can be pretty shitty. Best recommendation is to angle the camera down so that you're looking at the floor if it gets too bad. Less things on screen should increase frame rate.
Nah, it actually improved quite vastly. You should've seen how bad it got before I updated. As for the next area, I guess we'll have to see.
Can't wait to update--I'm really enjoyed this part.
Well, the next area is the bad one. Expect the frame rate to tank at certain parts of it.
4703
« on: May 18, 2016, 04:12:03 AM »
I forgot to mention--I jumped online briefly, just to update the game to its current and presumably final version (1.09).
Hopefully that means no more bizarre glitches, better frame rates, and smoother sailing in general.
Kinda funny that I was playing vanilla Dark Souls this whole time.
Just so you know, the game suffers from some frame rate drops even with the latest patches. The area you're in now and the one right afterwards are notorious for it. The rest of the game is generally pretty smooth, but be aware that the part you're in now can be pretty shitty. Best recommendation is to angle the camera down so that you're looking at the floor if it gets too bad. Less things on screen should increase frame rate.
4704
« on: May 18, 2016, 04:06:06 AM »
Seeing 28 weeks later pouring across the Mediterranean hasn't helped the inclination to remain tbh
As opposed to the alternative of leaving immigration entirely to the weaker and less wealthy border states who would never be able to sustain tens of thousands of refugees and would have to let heaps of them through without any sort of supervision? Not to say that the EU's immigration approach is anywhere near perfect, but do you really think that this would be any better if poorer countries like Greece and Bulgaria were left to their own devices when it came to dealing with hundreds of thousands of refugees swarming their borders? If the EU didn't help by providing additional funding, installation of border monitoring facilities, increased border patrols, actions against smugglers, relocation of refugees, joint processing of asylum applications, cross-border safety measures (identification and fingerprinting of all migrants) international agreements with nearby countries like Turkey, programs for the return of immigrants to safe countries, projects to monitor immigrants crossing the border, developmental aid in countries from which the refugees originate from or pass through and regulations allowing for the return of immigrants to their original point of entry, those border countries would have buckled within weeks and we'd now have more refugees causing more problems with less information or supervision thereof all across Europe.
4705
« on: May 18, 2016, 03:42:45 AM »
I'm curious why so many want to leave. I'm fairly confident the UK citizens will see the light in the end and make the right choice by voting to stay, but I don't get why so many want out. Sure, the EU is sluggish, bureaucratic and takes away some legislative autonomy. It's far from perfect and has numerous flaws. But it also comes with a very large number of benefits for both the people of Europe and the UK. So can someone explain me why they want out so badly?
4706
« on: May 18, 2016, 03:23:54 AM »
There's a floating door in Duke's. 
4707
« on: May 18, 2016, 02:57:22 AM »
Terrible idea based on emotional appeals that will backfire tremendously.
4708
« on: May 17, 2016, 03:08:50 PM »
Either misguided or not UK poster.
I would vote to stay. Not UK poster, not misguided either.
4709
« on: May 17, 2016, 02:58:37 PM »
I would vote to stay.
4710
« on: May 17, 2016, 01:46:27 PM »
Remember us little people okay?
No worries, I'll always be here for legal and academic advice.
Pages: 1 ... 155156157 158159 ... 520
|
Show Posts