GostHacked Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 Anyone here ever mis-speak? I know I have... I'm kinda glad he's human rather than an unfeeling and uncaring automatron like Harper... If he did not misspeak this time, then what do you think the conclusion is based on the other question raised. One tries to be an American, the other one is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 Correct. ie Chretien killing the GST... Martin convinced Chretien that reducing the national debt, balanced budgets, and a surplus rather than deficit economy were more important... Much as I hate the GST because of it's unfairness and harder impact on society, Martin was right... Absolutely correct... Socialism and Communism have been wrongly termed the same thing for a long, long time now... They are quite different in reality... However, even the dreaded Communism seems to be working when mixed with Socialism AND Capitalism (Hong Cong) when it comes to China... One has to do some mixing if one wants to make a cake or to make a Just Society... Just a point of order,Wizer... If a nation has an authoritarion regime that is embracing Corpratism and/or Von Hayekiam free markets AND seems outwardly to be gaining a strident nationalism,as China is,I would submit that the former Maoist China has flipped and become the "New and Improved" Crypto-Fascist China... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted January 30, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 Just a point of order,Wizer... If a nation has an authoritarion regime that is embracing Corpratism and/or Von Hayekiam free markets AND seems outwardly to be gaining a strident nationalism,as China is,I would submit that the former Maoist China has flipped and become the "New and Improved" Crypto-Fascist China... Proving there is not much difference between one totalitarian state and the next. The new "crypto-fascist" China is just the tired of no production marxist socialist state trying to make some money. Just another ugly face of socialism. I guess Gwiz and dre prefer that things remain the same, that is, keeping politics the dirty game it is and keeping people in the dark. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 Just a point of order,Wizer... If a nation has an authoritarion regime that is embracing Corpratism and/or Von Hayekiam free markets AND seems outwardly to be gaining a strident nationalism,as China is,I would submit that the former Maoist China has flipped and become the "New and Improved" Crypto-Fascist China... Since any form of fascism is in fact the opposite of any form of socialism, or even communism, I'd have to disagree with you... In fact the ONLY simularity between fascism and communism is that they both are authoritarian regimes... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 Since any form of fascism is in fact the opposite of any form of socialism, or even communism, I'd have to disagree with you... In fact the ONLY simularity between fascism and communism is that they both are authoritarian regimes... Theoretically,it's not hard to imagine how one would flip from to another as they are actually fairly close on the political spectrum,depending of course,on how one reads the political spectrum. I was always taught to read it as a horseshoe,so that the extreme plotical rights and lefts are actually closer to each other than the democratic versions... In fact,the only differences I see between an extreme Leftist state and an extreme right wing state is that in a Fascist state one sees: 1.Some form of corporatism/"freer" markets 2.Some form of private property ownership 3.An almost virulent form of Nationalism,and in the case of NAZI Germany,Nationalism morphing into ethnic superiority Other than that,they are both top dwon,autocratic,authoritarian,centrally planned and controlled regimes.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 Proving there is not much difference between one totalitarian state and the next. The new "crypto-fascist" China is just the tired of no production marxist socialist state trying to make some money. Just another ugly face of socialism. I guess Gwiz and dre prefer that things remain the same, that is, keeping politics the dirty game it is and keeping people in the dark. Wrong again Pliny... Just because one was once an extreme leftist regime does'nt mean it cannot change into an extreme right wing one... You simply cannot admit this because of some ideoogical insecurity in admitting the political right has as many skeletons in its' closet as the political left... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 Theoretically,it's not hard to imagine how one would flip from to another as they are actually fairly close on the political spectrum,depending of course,on how one reads the political spectrum. I was always taught to read it as a horseshoe,so that the extreme plotical rights and lefts are actually closer to each other than the democratic versions... In fact,the only differences I see between an extreme Leftist state and an extreme right wing state is that in a Fascist state one sees: 1.Some form of corporatism/"freer" markets 2.Some form of private property ownership 3.An almost virulent form of Nationalism,and in the case of NAZI Germany,Nationalism morphing into ethnic superiority Other than that,they are both top dwon,autocratic,authoritarian,centrally planned and controlled regimes.. Hitler's most effective weapon to gain support from the general population was his hatred of Communism (read Stalin) which is why he went east not west where his troops, who, up to Poland (a very Nationalistic state who had fought Communism and any other form of subjugation), were welcomed as liberators... 1. Fascism isn't about markets it's only about productivety in support of the state aka GDP... PURE Capitalism on the other hand is control of the state by it's corporate elite with little regard for the general population since they don't matter to the "bottom line" and are at best considered an "expense"... In this case markets matter, but only to the degree of profitabilty to the corporations... 2. Anything like "ownership" by the general population is only viewed within the spectrum of profit or loss (Capitalism) and doesn't exist under fascism since the state controls all facets of the states assets, not very palitable to the population as Mussolini found out the hard way... 3. "Nationalism" is love of country and exists within any form of Government... It never "morphs"... On the "left" there's Communism and Socialism, both derived from Marxism but taking divergent paths... Relevent and workable Democracy can only exist where society (read social) controls Government and in turn Government acts for the benefit of the people - by the people, for the people - without some degree of "socialism" a Democratic Government cannot exist nor function... Communism deems that the Government knows best what's good for the society it Governs with little or no input from "the people" - by the state, for the people - ... In that way it is simular to Fascism but with an opposing focus... Socialism vs Communism Definition Socialism is defined as "any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods." Whereas, communism is defined as "a system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy, and a single, often authoritarian party, holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people." http://www.buzzle.com/articles/communism-vs-socialism.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 Hitler's most effective weapon to gain support from the general population was his hatred of Communism (read Stalin) which is why he went east not west where his troops, who, up to Poland (a very Nationalistic state who had fought Communism and any other form of subjugation), were welcomed as liberators... 1. Fascism isn't about markets it's only about productivety in support of the state aka GDP... PURE Capitalism on the other hand is control of the state by it's corporate elite with little regard for the general population since they don't matter to the "bottom line" and are at best considered an "expense"... In this case markets matter, but only to the degree of profitabilty to the corporations... 2. Anything like "ownership" by the general population is only viewed within the spectrum of profit or loss (Capitalism) and doesn't exist under fascism since the state controls all facets of the states assets, not very palitable to the population as Mussolini found out the hard way... 3. "Nationalism" is love of country and exists within any form of Government... It never "morphs"... On the "left" there's Communism and Socialism, both derived from Marxism but taking divergent paths... Relevent and workable Democracy can only exist where society (read social) controls Government and in turn Government acts for the benefit of the people - by the people, for the people - without some degree of "socialism" a Democratic Government cannot exist nor function... Communism deems that the Government knows best what's good for the society it Governs with little or no input from "the people" - by the state, for the people - ... In that way it is simular to Fascism but with an opposing focus... Socialism vs Communism Definition Socialism is defined as "any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods." Whereas, communism is defined as "a system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy, and a single, often authoritarian party, holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people." http://www.buzzle.com/articles/communism-vs-socialism.html Agreed on Herr Schickelgruber...To a point...I would agree with you as it related the The Anschluss,but not the Sudatenland...That was forced subjugation,where in Austria,there were a great many NAZI sympathizers.It is true that Adolph Hitler was an anti-Communist...He was also an anti-Socialist and and anti-democrat.To gain power,he sided with conservative elements within the Weimar Republic.The reason was that many conservatives agreed with his economic policies and could be placated that way.Remember,to gain absolute power he staged the Reichstag Fire and blamed it on the Dutch Communist,Marius Vander Lubbe.Once that power was gained,he and his SA thugs went to murdering and imprisoning everything Centre Left they could find.The situation in Poland was really about dividing Eastern Europe with Stalin until Hitler could invade the Soviet Union...Strategic,but not really about getting along with Stalin at all... 1.Agreed,but pure Capitalism and Fascism can be symbiotic.Some form of wealth can be creat5ed to assist in the "betterment of the state" ie.General Augusto Pinochet's Chile. 2.Disagree...There was private property ownership in NAZI Germany,Franco's Spain,Oliviera Salazar's Portugal...Albeit,for the elites that assisted in perpetuating the Fascist government in those countries,but private property ownership nonetheless.Specific to Mussolini,I ahve to give him some grudging repect.His public works projects were necessary and worked.What really ruined his "Fascist Roman Empire" was the strident attacks on Libya,Somalia,and,Ethiopia.This was done as a smokescreen to divert public attention from the simple fact he broke the bank on internal public works.In fact,those foreign incursions were completely unnecessary! 3.Disagree again...Strident Naionalism is the final resting place of misguided patriotism....And it definately morphs...It usually starts out as: 1.We are proud to be (insert name here) and then morphs into... 2.We are not only proud,but we are stronger than (usually everyone else) and then morphs into... 3.We are not only stronger,but we are superior to(a specific group or everyone else) Now,it can stop there (see the French)or..It goes into scary territory and morphs into... 4.We are superior,we have to attack the weak and inferior outside of our borders to protect ourselves from being "infected" by their weakness and inferiority. and simultaneously... 5.We must get rid of (see exterminate) those in our midst who are weak and inferior lest they infect us and bring us down.(see NAZI Germany) I agree that there can be a form of Nationalism within a Communist state,however,because Communism is about the collective it's an inherently more nebular construct.Therefore that strident Nationalism is harder to attain and takes a much longer period of time.In a Fascist state the "punch" of that Nationalism is always more strident,focused,and,violent. I do agree that Fascism and Communism are very similar but come to that similarity from completely different angles. 3.Completely agree.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 Agreed on Herr Schickelgruber...To a point...I would agree with you as it related the The Anschluss,but not the Sudatenland...That was forced subjugation,where in Austria,there were a great many NAZI sympathizers.It is true that Adolph Hitler was an anti-Communist...He was also an anti-Socialist and and anti-democrat.To gain power,he sided with conservative elements within the Weimar Republic.The reason was that many conservatives agreed with his economic policies and could be placated that way.Remember,to gain absolute power he staged the Reichstag Fire and blamed it on the Dutch Communist,Marius Vander Lubbe.Once that power was gained,he and his SA thugs went to murdering and imprisoning everything Centre Left they could find.The situation in Poland was really about dividing Eastern Europe with Stalin until Hitler could invade the Soviet Union...Strategic,but not really about getting along with Stalin at all... 1.Agreed,but pure Capitalism and Fascism can be symbiotic.Some form of wealth can be creat5ed to assist in the "betterment of the state" ie.General Augusto Pinochet's Chile. 2.Disagree...There was private property ownership in NAZI Germany,Franco's Spain,Oliviera Salazar's Portugal...Albeit,for the elites that assisted in perpetuating the Fascist government in those countries,but private property ownership nonetheless.Specific to Mussolini,I ahve to give him some grudging repect.His public works projects were necessary and worked.What really ruined his "Fascist Roman Empire" was the strident attacks on Libya,Somalia,and,Ethiopia.This was done as a smokescreen to divert public attention from the simple fact he broke the bank on internal public works.In fact,those foreign incursions were completely unnecessary! 3.Disagree again...Strident Naionalism is the final resting place of misguided patriotism....And it definately morphs...It usually starts out as: 1.We are proud to be (insert name here) and then morphs into... 2.We are not only proud,but we are stronger than (usually everyone else) and then morphs into... 3.We are not only stronger,but we are superior to(a specific group or everyone else) Now,it can stop there (see the French)or..It goes into scary territory and morphs into... 4.We are superior,we have to attack the weak and inferior outside of our borders to protect ourselves from being "infected" by their weakness and inferiority. and simultaneously... 5.We must get rid of (see exterminate) those in our midst who are weak and inferior lest they infect us and bring us down.(see NAZI Germany) I agree that there can be a form of Nationalism within a Communist state,however,because Communism is about the collective it's an inherently more nebular construct.Therefore that strident Nationalism is harder to attain and takes a much longer period of time.In a Fascist state the "punch" of that Nationalism is always more strident,focused,and,violent. I do agree that Fascism and Communism are very similar but come to that similarity from completely different angles. 3.Completely agree.... I stand by what I said... Nationalism is love of country pure and simple... Whether it's called Motherland, Fatherland, Homeland or by any other name it's his/her country, that's nationalism... I'm not a Liberal or anything else political, I'm Canadian, and damn proud of it... Same goes for either a Republican or Democrat, both will tell you proudly they're American... I'm Iranian, I'm Russian, I'm Sudaneze, I'm German, I'm Israelie, I'm Greek, I'm Turkish, all have the same meaning to the person saying it... Hitler and the Nazi's "hatred" of the Jews was NOT a hatred of Jews by the vast majority of Germans nor did Jews come into play until Hitler had established his power base... There was NEVER a "morphing" of Nationalism in Germany... Nazis and "Germans" are different entities politically that were in the same country, always were... Your analysis of "weak and inferior" is the opposite of what happened... Jews were portrayed by Hitler and the Nazi's as money grubbing, Communist loving, Germany (country) hating (traitors), ruthless industrialists, that were stealing Germany's wealth and treasure for themselves because they controled much of Germany's industrial complex and economy post WWI... At that time the Jews were simply an excuse Hitler used for his actions... "Them" against "us" is nothing new... Since the Jews owned most of Germany's industry for Hitler and his Nazis to gain control of them this portrayal of Jews was his means of removing them from German economic control and industry... When Germans objected, many Germans did, to Hitler's ruthless takeover of Germany's Industries his henchmen (the Gestapo) "solved" any objection to what he was doing very quickly... Once he had total control over the German Industrial and economic structure, and tons of new money from many US industrialists who saw a chance to get rich from Germany's economic recovery, he kept his promise to the German people... Germany changed quickly from a poor, defeated (WWI) nation to a once again proud, prosperous, and vibrant nation... What society wouldn't buy into that? Germans did... And history tells us the rest... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 If he did not misspeak this time, then what do you think the conclusion is based on the other question raised. One tries to be an American, the other one is. Huh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 Anyone here ever mis-speak? I know I have... I'm kinda glad he's human rather than an unfeeling and uncaring automatron like Harper... Ignatieff did not "miss-speak" (multiple times) at Whitman College.....he purposely used his American cloaking device to increase credibility with the audience (and maybe sell some more books). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 (edited) Anyone here ever mis-speak? I know I have... I'm kinda glad he's human rather than an unfeeling and uncaring automatron like Harper... He wasn't misspeaking. He was identifying himself as an American. It did not take Ignatieff's opponents long [...] to discover his past speeches and journalism in which he assiduously identified himself as an American. He talked and wrote of we, us, our way of life, our constitution, and our leaders; he even went so far as to say "Being an American is not easy." Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/12/08/leadership-contenders.html#ixzz1CVLnq1KF That would be a lot of misspeaking -- with no corrections. Makes me wonder if you even listened to the clip as it's obvious, with his repetitive reference to being an American, that he didn't misspeak. Edited January 30, 2011 by American Woman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 He wasn't misspeaking. He was identifying himself as an American. It did not take Ignatieff's opponents long [...] to discover his past speeches and journalism in which he assiduously identified himself as an American. He talked and wrote of we, us, our way of life, our constitution, and our leaders; he even went so far as to say "Being an American is not easy." Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/12/08/leadership-contenders.html#ixzz1CVLnq1KF That would be a lot of misspeaking -- with no corrections. Makes me wonder if you even listened to the clip as it's obvious, with his repetitive reference to being an American, that he didn't misspeak. Wrong context my dear lady... I too am an American... North American to be exact... WORDS Words, whether writen or spoken, in and of themselves have no meaning, it is only when the reader or listener applies meaning to them that words become meaningful... Unfortunately quite often applying meaning to words quite different than what the writer or speaker intended... - GWiz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 Wrong context my dear lady... I too am an American... North American to be exact... LOL! Do you also have "Founding Fathers" and live in a republic? Do you have a "Super Bowl"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 (edited) Wrong context my dear lady... I too am an American... North American to be exact... WORDS Words, whether writen or spoken, in and of themselves have no meaning, it is only when the reader or listener applies meaning to them that words become meaningful... Unfortunately quite often applying meaning to words quite different than what the writer or speaker intended... - GWiz He was speaking to Americans about America. Try as you might to make it otherwise, that's exactly what he was saying. But I suppose you think when Carolyn Parrish said "Damn Americans, I hate those bastards" she was referring to North Americans, eh? She hates Canadians. And when Ignatieff said "You have to decide what kind of America you want ... It's your country just as much as it is mine," he was referring to the "country" of North America, eh? Edited January 30, 2011 by American Woman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 ....But I suppose you think when Carolyn Parrish said "Damn Americans, I hate those bastards" she was referring to North Americans, eh? She hates Canadians. And when Ignatieff said "You have to decide what kind of America you want ... It's your country just as much as it is mine," he was referring to the "country" of North America, eh? Game, set, and match. <applause> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 LOL! Do you also have "Founding Fathers" and live in a republic? Do you have a "Super Bowl"? Do you live in the United States or in North America? I live in Canada which is in North America, a continent, just like the United States is in North America, a continent... I call myself a Canadian but I am also a North American... You calling yourself a United Statesian, which would be correct, sounds kind of silly, being what United Statesians are you drop the North and call yourself an "American" after the continent the United States sits on... Any good reason a Canadian can't do the same? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 Do you live in the United States or in North America? I live in Canada which is in North America, a continent, just like the United States is in North America, a continent... I call myself a Canadian but I am also a North American... You calling yourself a United Statesian, which would be correct, sounds kind of silly, being what United Statesians are you drop the North and call yourself an "American" after the continent the United States sits on... Any good reason a Canadian can't do the same? Now this response is just sad. But let me be sure I'm getting it straight. First, Ignatieff "misspoke." Now he didn't misspeak, he was simply referring to North Americans; in particular, the "country" of North America. I can understand why you avoided my response, but I think you would have done better to have remained silent altogether. An appropriate quote comes to mind, as it describes you quite accurately: There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 He was speaking to Americans about America. Try as you might to make it otherwise, that's exactly what he was saying. Tis quite probable he was... Then again, I believe at the time he was living in America, and trying to sell something, a book, so it's not exactly unheard of to "go native" when speaking to the natives in order to increase those sales... I highly doubt that at the time he was thinking about being/becoming the leader of his homeland to the North, eh... Funny that you "Americans" so easily forget one of your own saying something like that, as the US president no less, "ICH BIN EIN BERLINNER" (I am a Berliner) - John F. Kennedy... But I suppose you think when Carolyn Parrish said "Damn Americans, I hate those bastards" she was referring to North Americans, eh? She hates Canadians. Naaaa, she was definitely referring to you (not personnally of course)... And when Ignatieff said "You have to decide what kind of America you want ... It's your country just as much as it is mine," he was referring to the "country" of North America, eh? Highly doubtful since there is no "country" of North America nor "America" for that matter... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 (edited) He was speaking to Americans about America. Try as you might to make it otherwise, that's exactly what he was saying. But I suppose you think when Carolyn Parrish said "Damn Americans, I hate those bastards" she was referring to North Americans, eh? She hates Canadians. And when Ignatieff said "You have to decide what kind of America you want ... It's your country just as much as it is mine," he was referring to the "country" of North America, eh? I just dont see the significance of that even if its true. So what... he thought of himself as an American at some point, or spoke as an American to appeal to an American audience... This matter because of what? Edited January 30, 2011 by dre Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 Game, set, and match. <applause> Hey my friend... Wait for the game to BEGIN before you declare a win... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 Highly doubtful since there is no "country" of North America So you get that now. Good for you. nor "America" for that matter... Nor the United States either, eh? Because of course no one ever refers to us in either way. Everyone always refers to the full name; the United States of America. Including you. (Oops, eh?) I'm finding your sig line more ironic and amusing with each response you make. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 Now this response is just sad. But let me be sure I'm getting it straight. First, Ignatieff "misspoke." Now he didn't misspeak, he was simply referring to North Americans; in particular, the "country" of North America. In truth, and I always tell the truth, neither, he went "native" to increase the sales of his book as I said in my previous post to you... Don't be sad, both Ignatieff and myself will be just fine... Have FUN and don't worry so much about us Americans, eh... I can understand why you avoided my response, but I think you would have done better to have remained silent altogether. An appropriate quote comes to mind, as it describes you quite accurately: There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH... I don't avoid responding to good people and judging by your posts I've read you are... BUT, I don't live on the computer and I even sometimes sleep... Another quote comes to mind, "patience is a virtue", be virtuos, eh... Most importantly my friend, have FUN, I do, never get too serious it's just a forum (a pretty good one at that), I don't, and take everything you see with a big dose of salt (which can taste mighty awful)... Have a great day... ps - thanks for quoting me, it's always appreciated Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 Ignatieff did not "miss-speak" (multiple times) at Whitman College.....he purposely used his American cloaking device to increase credibility with the audience (and maybe sell some more books). OK... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinko Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 I wish the Americans the very best in addressing their debt. While there may be no simple answer to this problem it is my observation that the wealthy in the USA have been able to influence public policy in a manner which has negatively impacted many American citizens. With its bloated military and inefficient healthcare system the USA is on a road to destruction. As a nation it has historically embraced war as a means to gain control throughtout the world. The folly of this self serving arrogance is evident in the crumbling infrastucture and new world order. To my yankee friends I say suck it up as yours is an empire in decline. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.