HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Purple Haze

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 08:23 PM

Purple Haze


I had generally avoided DU:GDP until January, because I found so much of the arguing on OP/threads to be non-productive. Certainly, the previous discussions in Democratic primary seasons had high levels of toxicity including my own contributions to such foolishness. So I didn’t want any part of it this time.

As a member of the Democratic Party who has voted for our nominee in virtually every election in my adult life, I was pleased with the three candidates in this primary. I thought that Martin O’Malley was one of the better candidates that I’ve seen. In a normal year -- whatever the heck “normal” means -- I think he’d have been an outstanding choice. The fact that his campaign didn’t catch on suggests this year present extraordinary issues for voters to consider.

In the past couple of weeks, I’ve said that I have decided to support Bernie Sanders. In doing so, I haven’t attacked Hillary Clinton. While I do not like some of the people associated with her campaign, I like her as an individual; and, as a politician, I think she is very good on most domestic issues. There are some areas that I’m not comfortable with her, that I thought might be interesting to discuss.

I think that I have pretty solid friendships with some of this forum’s members who are supporting Hillary Clinton for president. I respect them, and their opinions -- which is why I’m comfortable posting this. There are also a lot of pro-Clinton people here that I’m not acquainted with; I have been favorably impressed with some of their contributions here, and not so much with others. And, there’s a third group -- those who identify me as an “enemy,” and/or have concluded that I’m a jackass, not worth conversing with. In reading some of their contributions to DU, I’ve thought some were very good, and that others were very disappointing.

What I’m hoping is that some of the pro-Clinton people will read this, and consider it worth responding to. Also, I want to make clear that no politician is perfect; because one might disagree with a candidate on some issues, that need not translate in refusing to vote for them …..for, as Malcolm X said, any time two people think exactly alike, it is proof that only one of the two is actually thinking. So I hope that people will find this worth discussing, and more, that it is worth debating without resorting to insults aimed at others.

The 2016 Democratic primary has been one for the history books. At first, it seemed like no one was going to throw their hat into the ring, and compete against Hillary Clinton. She is definitely a formidable candidate, with important experience as First Lady, a US Senator, and Secretary of State. Also, she is backed by a powerful segment of the Democratic Party.

However, the mood of the country might have been taken as a warning that many people, looking for change, were unhappy with the potential of a Bush vs. Clinton contest in 2016. We’ve seen that, in different ways, in both the Democratic and republican primaries. Rightly or wrongly, this has led to people having lots of questions about Hillary Clinton ….some of which have certainly been encouraged by republican shit heads like Karl Rove, but others that are legitimate concerns of good human beings. The popularity of the Bernie Sanders movement cannot be dismissed as republican shenanigans. And when Clinton supporters attempt to attribute negative motivations to Sanders supporters, it comes across as shallow -- just as when Sanders supporters attack the sincerity and intelligence of Clinton supporters.

Some issues that are proving difficult for the Clinton campaign to deal with, while important, do not disqualify Hillary on their own. This is, in my opinion, the case with the transcripts from Clinton’s presentations to Goldman-Sachs. The fees she was paid are, of course, offensive to some, but not a big deal to others. And one’s response to her refusing to release the transcripts likely depends on their opinion of those speaker’s fees. Still, there are people -- including Democrats -- who might have been okay with the fees, but who find her refusal to release the transcripts questionable. I think it could become a major issue in the primary contest, if the transcripts are not opened for public inspection.

The two issues that I’d like to discuss may not play a significant role in this contest. But not everything important gets covered by the media, just as everything covered by the media isn’t necessarily important. The first one relates to Hillary Clinton going to Flint, where the water has been poisoned as a result of greedy politicians who do not care about human beings outside of their socio-economic class.

I think it was good that she went there. I don’t think it was an attempt to exploit those people’s suffering. But here’s what I do have a problem with: Hillary Clinton is pro-fracking, and as I have seen firsthand, fracking poisons people’s water.

I do not think that Ms. Clinton favors the poisoning of people’s water. So, in my opinion, that leaves two alternative explanations. She could be ignorant about the dangers of fracking. Maybe people have lied to her, and presented it as “safe,” and discredited the many people who have publicly opposed fracking. And I find that idea troubling.

The second option that I can come up with is that she’s somewhat aware of the dangers, but subscribes to the big business model with “acceptable number of deaths” per hundred thousand, in association with a process or product. I have met both heads of “energy corporations” and public officials -- the unelected and elected leaders of our government -- who are aware of those results from poisoning the water, but are able to detach from being human, and see only digits on papers, mainly representing dollars and cents. I find that disturbing.

The second issue involves Henry Kissinger. I think that Henry ranks very high among the most vile, evil people in this nation’s history. I understand that, in the world of politics at the national level, you are likely to encounter all types of people …..including good people, as well as republicans. And while Hillary might well have benefited politically, had she opted to choke Kissinger on live tv, I understand why she couldn’t. And you know as well as I that Karl Rove would twist the truth, and use it against Clinton if she does become the party’s nominee.

I’m troubled by Hillary Clinton’s approach to Henry Kissinger. Again, I get that she can’t choke him. But she acts as if he is an honorable man. He is not. Kissinger is a war criminal, worse than even Dick Cheney.

Do those here who support Hillary find Kissinger acceptable? Honorable? Can you see how this type of thing reinforces many good people’s opinions -- on things like Occupy, the 1%, Mitt’s infamous statistic, the 99% -- that the establishment is very separate from us common folk. That, at times, we view DC as having Democrats and republicans who relate to government, much like lawyers relate to the court. The prosecutor and defense attorney are opponents inside that court room, and represent different people. But they are still officers of the court. I’m not saying that’s wrong for lawyers, but that’s a different question from if politicians do the same.

I hope that people find this non-offensive, and worth responding to.

Thanks,
H2O Man

39 replies, 1879 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 39 replies Author Time Post
Reply Purple Haze (Original post)
H2O Man Feb 2016 OP
leftofcool Feb 2016 #1
H2O Man Feb 2016 #4
RiverLover Feb 2016 #5
RobertEarl Feb 2016 #6
H2O Man Feb 2016 #9
RobertEarl Feb 2016 #13
H2O Man Feb 2016 #14
antigop Feb 2016 #16
H2O Man Feb 2016 #18
antigop Feb 2016 #32
H2O Man Feb 2016 #34
antigop Feb 2016 #35
H2O Man Feb 2016 #8
Armstead Feb 2016 #28
H2O Man Feb 2016 #29
thereismore Feb 2016 #2
H2O Man Feb 2016 #7
ms liberty Feb 2016 #3
H2O Man Feb 2016 #12
elias49 Feb 2016 #10
H2O Man Feb 2016 #11
Hekate Feb 2016 #15
H2O Man Feb 2016 #17
HillDawg Feb 2016 #19
H2O Man Feb 2016 #20
Warren DeMontague Feb 2016 #21
H2O Man Feb 2016 #24
John Poet Feb 2016 #22
H2O Man Feb 2016 #25
Flying Squirrel Feb 2016 #23
H2O Man Feb 2016 #26
Uncle Joe Feb 2016 #27
H2O Man Feb 2016 #30
OriginalGeek Feb 2016 #33
Dem2 Feb 2016 #31
H2O Man Feb 2016 #36
bullwinkle428 Feb 2016 #37
H2O Man Feb 2016 #38
TBF Feb 2016 #39

Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 08:28 PM

1. Kissinger is old news and I don't care what he says or doesn't say about Hillary.

Most Democrats don't either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftofcool (Reply #1)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 09:28 PM

4. That, of course,

has nothing to do with what I wrote. I spoke about what she says about him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftofcool (Reply #1)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 10:21 PM

5. Both Hill and Bill have been -bragging- about Kissingers association with Hillary.

Bragging!

Unless they're repubs, why would they boast, as if its a good thing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Reply #5)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 10:41 PM

6. It -this Kissing up to Kissinger

 

Is an appeal to establishment. It is also Hippie Punching, in, imo, a disastrous political policy meant to divide the party.

His name should never be mentioned in polite company without a knowing nod to the criminality he represents.

What I'd like to hear is what the young people think of how we are going on about as we relate our feelings toward him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #6)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 11:01 PM

9. "Hippie Punching"

I wasn't familiar with that. It's very good. Thank you for it!

It's really strange to me, her speaking so highly of an evil man.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #9)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 11:22 PM

13. The Hippies hurt Kissinger

 

The memory of the hurting we put on him is long.

I am so pleased you are supporting Bernie. I took notice of your reticence in the early days of this race, so to see you here now is a good sign. Did your kids have some influence? <grin>

Do you remember this old saying: The Hippies were right.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #13)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 11:35 PM

14. Yes, my kids are

a major influence on my thinking. I suspect that they would say that I am a major influence on their's, too. I suspect they would say that I raised them to be Bernie supporters.

To be honest, everyone in my extended family, my circle of friends, and network of associates, supports Sanders. That might not sound like much, but it really is a large, diverse group of people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #9)

Tue Feb 9, 2016, 12:26 AM

16. "her speaking so highly of an evil man."

Maybe she doesn't consider his deeds evil? (which would be extremely disturbing).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Reply #16)

Tue Feb 9, 2016, 12:30 AM

18. That's possible.

I hope not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #18)

Tue Feb 9, 2016, 01:44 PM

32. OK, let me just throw this out there.

In your OP, you mention about fracking:
"...subscribes to the big business model with “acceptable number of deaths” per hundred thousand, in association with a process or product. "

Maybe it's the same thing about Kissinger. She believes in a certain political/military agenda and there can be an "acceptable number of deaths" to achieve that political/military agenda.

(Actually, I think it's just a case of follow the money.

Money = access and access = influence. She's been unduly influenced by the energy industry and the MIC donors. )

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Reply #32)

Tue Feb 9, 2016, 01:51 PM

34. Solid point.

You are good. Very good.

Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #34)

Tue Feb 9, 2016, 02:01 PM

35. Whatever the reason is...it scares the cr*p out of me.

Thanks for the OP.

Have to go to work. Will check in later.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Reply #5)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 10:59 PM

8. Right.

I don't care what Henry says. But, exactly as you note, both Bill and Hillary have spoken of him -- and recently, it's not ancient history -- as if his admiration is a badge of honor.

I think that this was clearly stated in the OP. So I'm unsure if the twisting of it in post #1 was purposeful, or more of a reflexive action. It seems to be difficult for some people to respond to.

If a person says they are okay with fracking and/or Kissinger, that's fine. They are as entitled to their ethics and values, as I am to mine. But, of course, that makes for very different ethics and values.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftofcool (Reply #1)

Tue Feb 9, 2016, 11:17 AM

28. History matters -- as do the views of present politiians on history

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Armstead (Reply #28)

Tue Feb 9, 2016, 11:22 AM

29. Right.

Both Bill and Hillary Clinton spoke about Kissinger in the past week, which suggests that our friend's attempt to dismiss it as "old news" seems curious -- or perhaps non-curious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 08:32 PM

2. To be fair, she propagated fracking OUTSIDE the US. You know, where other people live.

Small comfort.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thereismore (Reply #2)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 10:54 PM

7. I know that she

had fronted for it in other countries, but also think that she favors it domestically.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 08:37 PM

3. K&R. I will be interested to see this discussion.

I have to finish dinner right now, though!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ms liberty (Reply #3)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 11:19 PM

12. I think it

has potential to be both civil and worthwhile.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 11:05 PM

10. First of all, thanks for being a good writer.

 

One of the factors I like to take into consideration when I vote, is the motivation of each candidate. Motivation can be inferred in a lot of ways - associates, associations, stated goals, life history. But you can read motivation from a person's face, how they talk and move, whether the sounds coming out of their mouths feel genuine.
So I take a lot into account when I try to judge 'motivation'. Facts, figures, feelings, hunches and the input from friends and family.
And then, like a closing argument, I ask myself which candidate offers a path with heart?


(And then I blow my 'impartiality' because I forgot about my sig line. Sometimes i think so hard I forget what I'm doing!)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elias49 (Reply #10)

Mon Feb 8, 2016, 11:18 PM

11. Very good!

Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Tue Feb 9, 2016, 12:15 AM

15. My friend, my everlasting thanks for providing us with a well-reasoned, logical, intelligent....

...piece of writing and putting it in the wasteland that is currently GDP.

Your critique of Kissinger does give me pause for thought. Like Hillary, I spent 1968 earnestly working for Gene McCarthy, though in my then-home state of California. Unlike HRC, I didn't later specifically target Kissinger -- I was too preoccupied with Richard Effing Nixon, may he rest in Hell.

So, at what point did this shift for her? And why? Was there a forgetting because she found herself working with him, or because his many heavy books are required reading in foreign policy?

Yes, I'm with her. No, she is far from infallible.

Oh, and here's a DU hear for you --->

~~Hekate

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hekate (Reply #15)

Tue Feb 9, 2016, 12:30 AM

17. Thank you very much.

I understand and appreciate why people are backing Hillary Clinton. And I know intelligent, sincere people who support her. I have absolutely no problem with that. And none of them have any problem with my supporting Bernie. More, we will all support the Democratic nominee.

At the same time, I know that for a lot of people, there's a very real lack of trust for those supporting the other Democratic candidate. It seems to me that we'll all benefit from expanding both the party, and our thinking. That includes trusting people who think differently about some things (such as tactics), but are aiming for a similar goal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Tue Feb 9, 2016, 12:37 AM

19. I came into this thread..

 

Hoping it was going to be about Purple Haze marijuana.

Admittedly, I will leave this thread disappointed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HillDawg (Reply #19)

Tue Feb 9, 2016, 02:33 AM

20. I think it is,

in a way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Tue Feb 9, 2016, 02:37 AM

21. "I’m troubled by Hillary Clinton’s approach to Henry Kissinger." - BINGO.

Somewhere there is a middle ground between telling the guy to fuck off publicly, and putting him down as a job reference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #21)

Tue Feb 9, 2016, 10:47 AM

24. Right.

Exactly. It's like saying that Dick Cheney gave you a recommendation as vice president.

I assume the Clintons are bringing it up in NH, to try to get the conservative independents to vote for her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Tue Feb 9, 2016, 04:08 AM

22. Thoughtful. K & R

 



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to John Poet (Reply #22)

Tue Feb 9, 2016, 10:49 AM

25. Great song.

I have a huge Hendrix collection that includes numerous versions of the song. I always enjoy listening to it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Tue Feb 9, 2016, 08:09 AM

23. Do her reasons and motives really matter?

 

As Biden would say, don't question her motives; only question her judgment.

I don't care why she supports fracking and cozies up to Kissinger. I think both of those things represent poor judgment and I hope for (a) better judgment and (b) more progressive stances and actions from the person representing the Democratic Party in the GE.

Incidentally, I like the way you do not capitalize "republican" - I may have to follow suit from now on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Flying Squirrel (Reply #23)

Tue Feb 9, 2016, 11:00 AM

26. A couple years ago,

I ran into my old junior high school gym teacher. He is extremely pro-fracking, believing it to be a miracle cure for all of the local community's economic ills. I greeted him politely and respectfully; he could not resist tossing some insults in my direction.

I suggested that we get together, and discuss fracking over a cup of coffee. He became enraged -- no exaggeration -- and n a very loud voice stated, "No! You'll never change my mind. I won't talk to you about it!"

I said that I had no interest in changing his mind. I said it was an issue that was dividing people in our local communities, and was causing a lot of hard feelings. Thus, I thought it was worth our while to sit down and just talk to one another. Neither of us was going to change their mind, but we could at least try to understand the other's viewpoint.

The expression on his face was, I think, exactly as it would be if he were talking to Satan himself. He said, "Fuck you," and turned and walked away.

I was tempted to say that now I knew why he was a junior high gym teacher, rather than a high school math or social studies teacher. But I think we both knew.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Tue Feb 9, 2016, 11:07 AM

27. I never had a problem with Hillary going to Flint but I have to agree with former NAACP

head Ben Jealous that her swipe against Bernie for being scheduled to appear on SNL around the same time as if this meant that he didn't care about the people of Flint was petty to the extreme.



(CNN)Ben Jealous, the former head of the NAACP and one of Bernie Sanders' highest-profile African-American supporters, said on Monday he was unimpressed by Hillary Clinton's swipe at the Vermont senator's turn on "Saturday Night Live," while she took a trip to Flint, Michigan.

Clinton had said: "I know Sen. Sanders went to New York to be on 'Saturday Night Live,' and I'm going to Flint to see if we can help with the kids."

"That type of stuff just always strikes me as petty," Jealous told CNN's Jake Tapper on "The Lead." "I'm fairly certain that if she had been asked to go on Saturday Night Live, she would have gone to Flint on a different day."


http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/08/politics/ben-jealous-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders/



Thanks for the thread, H2O Man.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Uncle Joe (Reply #27)

Tue Feb 9, 2016, 12:29 PM

30. Right.

I know that such cheap shots are part of political campaigns. But they don't have to be. It's an individual candidate's choice.

Thanks, Uncle Joe!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Uncle Joe (Reply #27)

Tue Feb 9, 2016, 01:51 PM

33. I guess the week she was on SNL

the US was in a state of blissful grace. No problems at all then....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Tue Feb 9, 2016, 01:17 PM

31. Very good post - k&r

This is interesting as neither of these issues are of great interest to me (I can hear heads exploding as I type - I do care about fracking but I can't say that I believe Hillary is a big-time pro-fracking advocate.) I will admit, however, that I generally find much of the criticism of Bernie and/or Hillary to be high on venom, low on the "I care" scale. I do appreciate you presenting issues important to you in a relaxed way allowing those who find these issues of import to discuss them reasonably (or not, as is their wont.) The issues I care about are well articulated by Bernie - economic fairness and equality - but Hillary is also right there on these issues (albeit a tad less enthusiastic) but might even be a more effective leader when it comes to implementation. In other words, the differences between the candidates I see being screamed at high decibels are not generally issues that sway me; I haven't committed to either candidate, though I will admit that most arguments as presented on DU tend to turn me away from their favorite candidate. These high-decibel people need to calm the fuck down, they are NOT helping.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dem2 (Reply #31)

Tue Feb 9, 2016, 02:46 PM

36. Thank you, Dem2.

I thought that the two issues might serve as a vehicle to more relaxed, informative OP/threads here, for everyone to participate in. The two issues that I focused on are not "front-burners" right now -- though they are being discussed to different extents in other places -- but they do inter-connect with many other issues .....the types that people argue and rant about here on DU:GDP too often.

The truth is that there isn't any issue -- literally none -- that we couldn't have a more meaningful discussion of, no matter how intensely we may disagree with others, than we can ever have a confrontational argument about. Yet, many good people either chose to argue, or get sucked into arguments here.

I think that we would do better to invest our energies into serious, though not hostile, talks about all of the issues. Even when they might be uncomfortable. And that goes equally to both sides. More, while I don't advocate "the lesser of two evils" thinking, I believe that it is important -- even urgent -- that we pay attention to the republican primary contests. And in part, because parts of them are hilarious, and the DU community includes numerous people with outrageous senses of humor. That's a good thing. I love the DU humor aimed at republicans, and think it is hugely important.

Still, the sum-total of the republican primaries is unnerving. There are times that we see the potential threat posed by large crowds of unconscious herd animals, following the calls of amoral and immoral republican primary candidates.

I know that both Hillary and Bernie can beat any of the republicans. Yet, I am aware of the fact that a Democratic victory is not a given. And the passionate, emotional fights between us increases the chances of a republican win.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Tue Feb 9, 2016, 02:50 PM

37. K&R. An absolutely fantastic post, as we've come to expect from you, good sir.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bullwinkle428 (Reply #37)

Tue Feb 9, 2016, 03:12 PM

38. Oh, thanks, bullwinkle428!

I believe that my best contributions here are when I simple say what a lot of us are thinking. An issue like Flint -- the poisoning of itty-bitty children outrages all of us. That includes everyone in the DU community. It's definitely a topic that we should be looking at, both in and outside the context of the election. The more attention paid to it, the better. Yet, the more information released on the cause and effect of the crisis grows worse.

As I've noted here and on other threads, the willful poisoning of water in Flint connects with all of the industrial toxic waste dumps from the past, as well as the terrible damage done today by fracking.

Pollution is also, of course, tied closely to climate change. We are poisoning the soil, the water, as well as the air/ atmosphere.

We can also connect the poisoning of the living environment -- which includes human beings -- to issues of health care. Frequently, toxic dumps are found in low-income and/or non-white neighborhoods and towns. But toxins in the environment move. And while many of the public health crises take place in those poor areas, they absolutely are now impacting everyone in the 99%, to some extent.

It just seems like something we could discuss, and even if we don't all agree 100%, that we could reach some common ground. And then protect it from toxins.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Tue Feb 9, 2016, 06:31 PM

39. Excellent post - I hope you get some sincere responses -

for me personally I am supporting the person who is talking about class. But my view is politics=economics, and other people have different lenses (or perhaps multiple lenses) they view through. Mostly I replied so I can come back and look at more responses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread