Jump to content

Rauner vs Pritzker


chancemccall

Recommended Posts

Now we know for sure who is going to be slugging it out. I know that many here preferred Ives but she lost. In my opinion, she would have lost the general election by a huge margin had she won the primary.

 

Unfortunately, she and many of her supporters are not planning on supporting Rauner against JB. The trouble is, as gun owners, we need them and many more to do so if we want any gun rights left in Illinois. If JB gets in, Madigan and the Chicago Democrats are going to own the state, and they do not like guns.

 

For Rauner to win, it is going to take far more than just grudgingly voting for him in November. We are going to need to organize and motivate all gun owners to elect him and to talk others into voting for him. In my opinion, if we do not, we are going to lose and we will only have ourselves to blame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other option is to actively work against JB. Make the people who would vote for him indifferent or repulsed by him so they stay home.

 

DD123 mentioned earlier that Rauner needs to support weed legislation to keep the stoner lobby at bay. He's right about that. Why give JB an easy path to victoy via the youth and stoner vote? Might make a little revenue along the way for the state too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now we know for sure who is going to be slugging it out. I know that many here preferred Ives but she lost. In my opinion, she would have lost the general election by a huge margin had she won the primary.

 

Unfortunately, she and many of her supporters are not planning on supporting Rauner against JB. The trouble is, as gun owners, we need them and many more to do so if we want any gun rights left in Illinois. If JB gets in, Madigan and the Chicago Democrats are going to own the state, and they do not like guns.

 

For Rauner to win, it is going to take far more than just grudgingly voting for him in November. We are going to need to organize and motivate all gun owners to elect him and to talk others into voting for him. In my opinion, if we do not, we are going to lose and we will only have ourselves to blame.

 

Where did you hear, definitively, that her supporters will not support Rauner? Many of us here have stated that we would vote for whomever got the Republican nomination. It is a matter of the lessor of 2 evils. At least Rauner gives some support to the Second Amendment. I think that it is too close to a hard lose for her to come out for Rauner, but that she will voice at least token support in a few weeks. Hopefully the governor will note the strong conservative expression of those of us who voted for her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pritzker is a load of bad news for anyone in the state and not just for gun control. Anyone who is remotely conservative and sits this one out is a moron in the actual textbook definition of the word. After 4 years of JB and a compliant legislature we will be california but without the weather and still somewhat positive economic activity. I would have a hard time seeing the road back. We seem to be at a tipping point.

 

The main hope is that downstate democrats and moderates in the collar counties realize just how extreme pritzker is. His agenda is straight out of Seattle or LA or San Fran. It does sound like he will be running as an open progressive and not a stealth progressive. So that SHOULD scare anyone so far not paying attention who is not 100 percent moonbat.

 

If he wins I think that about wraps it for IL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Now we know for sure who is going to be slugging it out. I know that many here preferred Ives but she lost. In my opinion, she would have lost the general election by a huge margin had she won the primary.

 

Unfortunately, she and many of her supporters are not planning on supporting Rauner against JB. The trouble is, as gun owners, we need them and many more to do so if we want any gun rights left in Illinois. If JB gets in, Madigan and the Chicago Democrats are going to own the state, and they do not like guns.

 

For Rauner to win, it is going to take far more than just grudgingly voting for him in November. We are going to need to organize and motivate all gun owners to elect him and to talk others into voting for him. In my opinion, if we do not, we are going to lose and we will only have ourselves to blame.

 

Where did you hear, definitively, that her supporters will not support Rauner? Many of us here have stated that we would vote for whomever got the Republican nomination. It is a matter of the lessor of 2 evils. At least Rauner gives some support to the Second Amendment. I think that it is too close to a hard lose for her to come out for Rauner, but that she will voice at least token support in a few weeks. Hopefully the governor will note the strong conservative expression of those of us who voted for her.

 

In an interview she did this morning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rauner needs to come out in full support of the 2nd Amendment. If he doesn't make a change in his policies a lot of conservatives won't vote for him.

I would be surprised if he will do that. He still needs the collar counties around Chicago to have any chance of winning. Again, for gun owners and other conservatives, JB's winning will be horrible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other option is to actively work against JB. Make the people who would vote for him indifferent or repulsed by him so they stay home.

 

DD123 mentioned earlier that Rauner needs to support weed legislation to keep the stoner lobby at bay. He's right about that. Why give JB an easy path to victoy via the youth and stoner vote? Might make a little revenue along the way for the state too.

Agreed. Frankly, I could care less about weed one way or another. We spend too much money on prisons anyway and I have never understood the costs of catching, arresting, prosecuting, and locking up those users being justified as a danger to public safety.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issues on Rauner's plate are many and complex. And he'll need to find a balance between all of them to win in November. It would not surprise me to hear him speak on 2A issues that many on this forum won't like, possibly even myself. But we'll need to focus on the larger issue, that being whatever Rauner says or does Pritzker will always be worse. Likely more so if he's hit by a grabber and his #2 steps in.

 

As important as 2A issues are to us, the rest of the iceberg is a fundamental difference in worldview. Individual freedom and competitiveness vs bigger government, higher taxes, more handouts, more regulation and a nanny state.

 

IMO, this is where every conversation needs to focus between now and November. Don't allow ourselves to become splintered or distracted by details. Personally, I'm not in favor of legalizing weed. But if that's what Rauner needs to do in order to win, so be it.

 

Same with his abortion flip-flop. Hate that my tax dollars are now funding it. Am I not going to vote for Rauner because of it? Whatever Rauner did, Pritzker would have been worse.

 

Primary season is over and now it's time to throw in behind the winner. Anybody. But. Pritzker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When Prickster takes the oath of office, the first words are: "I do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States....."

 

Any bets on how long before he commits perjury?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When Prickster takes the oath of office, the first words are: "I do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States....."

 

Any bets on how long before he commits perjury?

 

It would not be perjury. The swearing in is not a judicial procedure.

 

 

Perjury

A crime that occurs when an individual willfully makes a false statement during a judicial proceeding, after he or she has taken an oath to speak the truth.

The common-law crime of perjury is now governed by both state and federal laws. In addition, the Model Penal Code, which has been adopted in some form by many states and promulgated by the Commission on Uniform State Laws, also sets forth the following basic elements for the crime of perjury: (1) a false statement is made under oath or equivalent affirmation during a judicial proceeding; (2) the statement must be material or relevant to the proceeding; and (3) the witness must have the Specific Intent to deceive.

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/perjury

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Where did you hear, definitively, that her supporters will not support Rauner? Many of us here have stated that we would vote for whomever got the Republican nomination. It is a matter of the lessor of 2 evils. At least Rauner gives some support to the Second Amendment. I think that it is too close to a hard lose for her to come out for Rauner, but that she will voice at least token support in a few weeks. Hopefully the governor will note the strong conservative expression of those of us who voted for her.

 

 

 

In an interview she did this morning.

 

 

From Capital Fax today...

 

Amy Jacobson: So yesterday, Governor Rauner did not give you a phone call before he went up and kinda gave his victory speech, because there was some problems with the ballot boxes in DuPage County, and you fared very well in DuPage County. So, what do you want to say to Governor Rauner this morning?

 

Jeanne Ives: “Governor Rauner can talk to himself in the mirror and look at himself and decide whether or not he’s proud of what he’s done all around, from his governorship to the way that he ran his campaign. I really don’t care to say anything to the Governor at this point, quite frankly.”

 

When asked if she would vote for him in the fall, she responded by saying, “I’ve said I will vote for him.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

When Prickster takes the oath of office, the first words are: "I do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States....."

 

Any bets on how long before he commits perjury?

 

It would not be perjury. The swearing in is not a judicial procedure.

 

 

Perjury

A crime that occurs when an individual willfully makes a false statement during a judicial proceeding, after he or she has taken an oath to speak the truth.

The common-law crime of perjury is now governed by both state and federal laws. In addition, the Model Penal Code, which has been adopted in some form by many states and promulgated by the Commission on Uniform State Laws, also sets forth the following basic elements for the crime of perjury: (1) a false statement is made under oath or equivalent affirmation during a judicial proceeding; (2) the statement must be material or relevant to the proceeding; and (3) the witness must have the Specific Intent to deceive.

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/perjury

 

The statute in ILLannoy:

 

(720 ILCS 5/32-2) (from Ch. 38, par. 32-2)

Sec. 32-2. Perjury.

(a) A person commits perjury when, under oath or affirmation, in a proceeding or in any other matter where by law the oath or affirmation is required, he or she makes a false statement, material to the issue or point in question, knowing the statement is false.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've voted for Rauner 3 times now. The first time I held my nose, the past 2 it has been the ONLY choice.

 

Everyone knew, and knows, Ives would never pull off the primary, heck, look at this site(which is a one issue site), its members can't ever come together until it is iron in the fire and ready to brand. Ives never stood a chance.

 

So much is at stake for the 2nd amendment in November. If they get a supermajority in one or both chambers and the governors position we are done legislatively, it then comes down to judicial battles. The NRA has all but abandoned IL for the time being, the SCOTUS continues to not hear 2A cases and we still remain divided over personal beliefs on a 2A focused site.

 

We are our own worst enemy, we can't unite amongst ourselves let alone bring the entire state together.

 

Once Pritzker takes the reigns he changes everything. Reappoints the CC review board, the ISP, "shall" will change to "may". Everything will fall back 4+ years. Posner's decision gets us nothing, Hawaii is a CC state as well, how does their residents feel.

 

Democrats stick by their candidate regardless of how much they stink, heck, they're still trying to redo the 2016 election a year and a half later.

 

Republicans just tend to infight and split themselves into non-wins.

 

I can't wait to leave this state. I have conceded to Chicago politics because we cannot unite like they can. We wait until the iron is hot and hope not to get branded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't forget that Madigan and the puppets he has in the House and Senate will be working overtime to make sure Rauner get's nothing but problems on anything positive he wants and plenty of bad things added to everything he needs to sign. Gas Bag will point out how Rauner get's nothing done as his cronies make sure he doesn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The other option is to actively work against JB. Make the people who would vote for him indifferent or repulsed by him so they stay home.

DD123 mentioned earlier that Rauner needs to support weed legislation to keep the stoner lobby at bay. He's right about that. Why give JB an easy path to victoy via the youth and stoner vote? Might make a little revenue along the way for the state too.

 

Agreed. Frankly, I could care less about weed one way or another. We spend too much money on prisons anyway and I have never understood the costs of catching, arresting, prosecuting, and locking up those users being justified as a danger to public safety.
I would wager more people smoke weed recreationally then own guns. Their sentiment on ANY politician that doesn't want to decriminalize or legalize is the same as our sentiment on guns. It will make single issue voters.

 

If Rauner falls for it and makes it a wedge issue he's done. It's going to depend on superpac spending of the major Illinois Pharmaceutical and liquor distributors as they tend to be the biggest opposition funding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

The other option is to actively work against JB. Make the people who would vote for him indifferent or repulsed by him so they stay home.

DD123 mentioned earlier that Rauner needs to support weed legislation to keep the stoner lobby at bay. He's right about that. Why give JB an easy path to victoy via the youth and stoner vote? Might make a little revenue along the way for the state too.

Agreed. Frankly, I could care less about weed one way or another. We spend too much money on prisons anyway and I have never understood the costs of catching, arresting, prosecuting, and locking up those users being justified as a danger to public safety.
I would wager more people smoke weed recreationally then own guns. Their sentiment on ANY politician that doesn't want to decriminalize or legalize is the same as our sentiment on guns. It will make single issue voters.

 

If Rauner falls for it and makes it a wedge issue he's done. It's going to depend on superpac spending of the major Illinois Pharmaceutical and liquor distributors as they tend to be the biggest opposition funding.

 

Madigan could easily get his stooges in the legislature to pass something to legalize marijuana and let Rauner veto it, getting the dopers to flock to the pile of blubber. that's just one way scam Madigan could try to sink Rauner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other option is to actively work against JB. Make the people who would vote for him indifferent or repulsed by him so they stay home.

DD123 mentioned earlier that Rauner needs to support weed legislation to keep the stoner lobby at bay. He's right about that. Why give JB an easy path to victoy via the youth and stoner vote? Might make a little revenue along the way for the state too.

Agreed. Frankly, I could care less about weed one way or another. We spend too much money on prisons anyway and I have never understood the costs of catching, arresting, prosecuting, and locking up those users being justified as a danger to public safety.

I would wager more people smoke weed recreationally then own guns. Their sentiment on ANY politician that doesn't want to decriminalize or legalize is the same as our sentiment on guns. It will make single issue voters.

If Rauner falls for it and makes it a wedge issue he's done. It's going to depend on superpac spending of the major Illinois Pharmaceutical and liquor distributors as they tend to be the biggest opposition funding.

Madigan could easily get his stooges in the legislature to pass something to legalize marijuana and let Rauner veto it, getting the dopers to flock to the pile of blubber. that's just one way scam Madigan could try to sink Rauner.

Exactly why a republican sponsor needs to file a bill first. Rauner can endorse the bill. Madigan will then either hold back the bill, or send it to Rauner for a win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other option is to actively work against JB. Make the people who would vote for him indifferent or repulsed by him so they stay home.

DD123 mentioned earlier that Rauner needs to support weed legislation to keep the stoner lobby at bay. He's right about that. Why give JB an easy path to victoy via the youth and stoner vote? Might make a little revenue along the way for the state too.

Agreed. Frankly, I could care less about weed one way or another. We spend too much money on prisons anyway and I have never understood the costs of catching, arresting, prosecuting, and locking up those users being justified as a danger to public safety.

I would wager more people smoke weed recreationally then own guns. Their sentiment on ANY politician that doesn't want to decriminalize or legalize is the same as our sentiment on guns. It will make single issue voters.

If Rauner falls for it and makes it a wedge issue he's done. It's going to depend on superpac spending of the major Illinois Pharmaceutical and liquor distributors as they tend to be the biggest opposition funding.

Madigan could easily get his stooges in the legislature to pass something to legalize marijuana and let Rauner veto it, getting the dopers to flock to the pile of blubber. that's just one way scam Madigan could try to sink Rauner.

That is coming. "The People" (Crook County Wingnuts) have spoken in the silly referendum, and Baby Huey specifically talked about it in his victory speech (when his identity politics non-entity running mate would let him speak, that is). They can now point to a "mandate" from the "People." It will come in the late summer or early fall. And probably, with some kind of gun grab rider attached to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just kicking the bloated dead horse to watch the flies jump, I'm sure most here realize Rauner gathered 361,000 votes from across the state.

Daniel Biss, the Democrat who tailed way behind Pritzger and may have been conceding to reporters while he opened the curtain to leave the voting booth,

garnered 337,000 votes. Disregard the couple hundred thousand votes that #3 Mr. Kennedy also took in. I'll just stick to the top two from each party.

Now I'll suppose that say, 80% of the Ives voters go over to Rauner during the general; that should add another 273,000 give or take, to his rolls, or about 634,000.

Between JB Pritzger and Biss, over 900,000 Illinois residents decided that a Democrat is the answer for curing this state of the horrible condition it is in, apparently caused not by the last 40 years of the same, but by 3 years of a sole Republican leader.

Did 300,000 conservatives stay home because they couldn't stand either the RHINO or the neo con? Were they all slamming the trunk lids on their Buicks shut as they finished packing for the final escape out of Illinois?

Pritzger is in a way similar to where HRC was 2 years ago. He just needs to avoid her failed campaign methods.

Rauner made most of his bed and he has his work cut out for him. I'm not sure fundraising or the doper demographic can overcome this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What surprised me was that Madison County, which has been a a Democratic stronghold down south, came very close to having more Republicans vote than Democrats.

 

Of those voters, 21,777 were Democrats, 20,587 were Republicans, 13 were Green Party members and 1,431 were non-partisan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rauner v. Pritzker will be a defining election for Illinois. Pritzker isn't even shy about his socialist left-wing platform. He is full-on supporting an income tax scheme which will ruin Illinois. And now it would be even much worse, since Income tax is no longer deductible to any real degree on your Federal 1040. So Pritzker's tax agenda will be total destruction of any ability to budget and survive. And Pritzker hates our rights; he will actively support any plan to harm the 2nd amendment.

 

Remember that Madigan & Cullerton have very strong control of the Illinois House and Senate. If we have a moonbat governor, there is literally no limit to the amount of destruction they can perform.

 

And remember that Democrats far outnumber Republicans in Illinois. Our only chance of salvation is for every single Republican, Libertarian, and moderate / fiscally conservative Independent to vote for Rauner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Which is unlikely to happen. Illinois will go down in flames unless there is a unforeseen circumstance. Pritzker has a grabber, Madigan has a grabber or something along those lines. People on this very forum will sit out the General because of other issues.

Getting everybody on the same page Statewide is not going to happen.

We are screwed if you are a realist.

 

 

Quite possibly. But it doesn't mean we should give up and not try. While Republicans face an uphill battle, it's a battle worth fighting! You lose 100% of the challenges when you forfeit...

 

We have a chance. Maybe it's not an awesome chance. But now is the time to bug any conservatives and get them out to vote in November. Many on IllinoisCarry and elsewhere are disappointed in RINO Rauner and have decided not to vote in Nov. We need to use every second and try to change their minds. :) And it's also a good time to politely discuss with any moderate Democrats and show why Rauner is closer in line with them than far-left Pritzker.

 

I have a friend in the 1st camp (Ives supporter vowing not to vote for Rauner) and a relative in the 2nd one (Democrat but not left-wing). I will be talking to both of them and seeing if they would reconsider a vote for Rauner. This is the duty of everyone here!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Now we know for sure who is going to be slugging it out. I know that many here preferred Ives but she lost. In my opinion, she would have lost the general election by a huge margin had she won the primary.

 

Unfortunately, she and many of her supporters are not planning on supporting Rauner against JB. The trouble is, as gun owners, we need them and many more to do so if we want any gun rights left in Illinois. If JB gets in, Madigan and the Chicago Democrats are going to own the state, and they do not like guns.

 

For Rauner to win, it is going to take far more than just grudgingly voting for him in November. We are going to need to organize and motivate all gun owners to elect him and to talk others into voting for him. In my opinion, if we do not, we are going to lose and we will only have ourselves to blame.

 

Where did you hear, definitively, that her supporters will not support Rauner? Many of us here have stated that we would vote for whomever got the Republican nomination. It is a matter of the lessor of 2 evils. At least Rauner gives some support to the Second Amendment. I think that it is too close to a hard lose for her to come out for Rauner, but that she will voice at least token support in a few weeks. Hopefully the governor will note the strong conservative expression of those of us who voted for her.

 

I've seen at least two people who wanted Ives but said they'd vote for Jabba over Rauner. I'm scratching my head, but there are several out there who will either stay home or vote democrat, because they somehow have it in their head that Rauner is a democrat. (the man had to play politics in a blue state, what do you expect, he's not gonna veto everything under the sun)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots of talk here, but does anyone have an actual list of talking points to use against Pritzker (other than general disgust?) In one of his early ads the first words uttered were, "I will raise taxes." So there's a start. And in all of ads nowhere did I hear mentioned any plan to make Illinois competitive with surrounding states to attract jobs. Or a plan to fix the finances.

 

What else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other option is to actively work against JB. Make the people who would vote for him indifferent or repulsed by him so they stay home.

DD123 mentioned earlier that Rauner needs to support weed legislation to keep the stoner lobby at bay. He's right about that. Why give JB an easy path to victoy via the youth and stoner vote? Might make a little revenue along the way for the state too.

Agreed. Frankly, I could care less about weed one way or another. We spend too much money on prisons anyway and I have never understood the costs of catching, arresting, prosecuting, and locking up those users being justified as a danger to public safety.

I would wager more people smoke weed recreationally then own guns. Their sentiment on ANY politician that doesn't want to decriminalize or legalize is the same as our sentiment on guns. It will make single issue voters.

If Rauner falls for it and makes it a wedge issue he's done. It's going to depend on superpac spending of the major Illinois Pharmaceutical and liquor distributors as they tend to be the biggest opposition funding.

Madigan could easily get his stooges in the legislature to pass something to legalize marijuana and let Rauner veto it, getting the dopers to flock to the pile of blubber. that's just one way scam Madigan could try to sink Rauner.

That is coming. "The People" (Crook County Wingnuts) have spoken in the silly referendum, and Baby Huey specifically talked about it in his victory speech (when his identity politics non-entity running mate would let him speak, that is). They can now point to a "mandate" from the "People." It will come in the late summer or early fall. And probably, with some kind of gun grab rider attached to it.

 

Yeah, we should definitely listen to what Cook County has to say. The same Cook County that keeps Madigan in power for 30 years. Votes for potato head, blago, dead fish, etc., etc., etc.

 

So legalizing weed must be THE BEST IDEA IN THE WHOLE WORLD CUZ COOK COUNTY AGREES. LET'S MAKE SURE OUR CANDIDATE DOES THE SAME THING. LET'S MAKE SURE OUR SIDE DOES ALL THE SAME THINGS THEIR SIDE DOES BUT WE'LL KEEP OUR GUN RIGHTS, TAXES WILL GO DOWN, AND CORRUPTION WILL CEASE TO EXIST.

 

Gee whiz, I can't figure out why we have to keep fighting for our guns. I can't figure out why my taxes keep going up. I can't figure out why businesses keep leaving our state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know it burns, but Cook county has more voters than the rest of the state so following their lead as a way to siphon off votes is strategy.

When the rest of the state gets as angry as we are maybe we'll get a say in what happens, but until then Cook county decides for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

When Prickster takes the oath of office, the first words are: "I do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States....."

 

Any bets on how long before he commits perjury?

 

It would not be perjury. The swearing in is not a judicial procedure.

 

 

Perjury

A crime that occurs when an individual willfully makes a false statement during a judicial proceeding, after he or she has taken an oath to speak the truth.

The common-law crime of perjury is now governed by both state and federal laws. In addition, the Model Penal Code, which has been adopted in some form by many states and promulgated by the Commission on Uniform State Laws, also sets forth the following basic elements for the crime of perjury: (1) a false statement is made under oath or equivalent affirmation during a judicial proceeding; (2) the statement must be material or relevant to the proceeding; and (3) the witness must have the Specific Intent to deceive.

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/perjury

 

The statute in ILLannoy:

 

(720 ILCS 5/32-2) (from Ch. 38, par. 32-2)

Sec. 32-2. Perjury.

(a) A person commits perjury when, under oath or affirmation, in a proceeding or in any other matter where by law the oath or affirmation is required, he or she makes a false statement, material to the issue or point in question, knowing the statement is false.

 

Have you ever heard of a legislator or governor being charged with perjury, based on their oath of office, for having voted for or signing a law that was later found to be unconstitutional?

I do not think that there is uniform agreement about the meaning of many of the articles of the Constitution. Many decisions from the state and federal supreme courts are split.

Why would a state official be expected to know, without exception, the constitutionality of a proposed law? The high courts make the final determination concerning constitutionality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quiet Observer: Of course he'll never be charged with perjury on this issue. I said he'll be committing it. The IL statute on this, quoted in post #14 above, is written in very plain language:

 

(720 ILCS 5/32-2) (from Ch. 38, par. 32-2)
Sec. 32-2. Perjury.
(a) A person commits perjury when, under oath or affirmation, in a proceeding or in any other matter where by law the oath or affirmation is required, he or she makes a false statement, material to the issue or point in question, knowing the statement is false.

 

When JB is taking that oath next year, don't you think he will know he's lying through his teeth when he swears that he "will support the Constitution of the United States" when he knows he will have a massive program designed to infringe our Second Amendment rights?

 

Ok, so leave perjury out of it. Can you settle for massively disgusting hypocrisy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...