Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Recliner Pilot

*********THE OFFICIAL: OBAMA IS RUNNING ON HIS RECORD FOR RE-ELECTION THREAD***********

Recommended Posts

You made a statement that his campaign would revolve around criticizing Bush.

 

And it does. I guess you miss his daily stump speeches..........prolly cuz you never watch the news, Troll. :doh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And it does. I guess you miss his daily stump speeches..........prolly cuz you never watch the news, Troll. :doh:

And I've seen plenty of Obama ads where he rips apart Romney. As far as I know, that's who he's running against, right? I don't need to watch the news to see television ads, you jackass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I've seen plenty of Obama ads where he rips apart Romney. As far as I know, that's who he's running against, right? I don't need to watch the news to see television ads, you jackass.

:pointstosky:

 

Keep posting, Moron. With every post you confirm your Hero has no record to run on. :doh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:pointstosky:

 

Keep posting, Moron. With every post you confirm your Hero has no record to run on. :doh:

Diodn't he win in 2008 simply by showing the country how horrible the GOP currently is? Thye public knows what's going on. Why should he run ads telling them how things are right now? Families are either doing well or they're not. He's going to tell you about Romney's lying. His flip-flops. The state of Massachusett's economy while he was in charge.

 

It's so easy to do. He'd be foolish not to. :dunno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama had no record, or qualifications, in 2008 to run on. That's why he came up with "Hope & Change" to fool mental midget rubes like you into voting for him.

 

Thanks for confirming once again the record he now has is so dismal he will avoid it like the plague. :doublethumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama had no record, or qualifications, in 2008 to run on. That's why he came up with "Hope & Change" to fool mental midget rubes like you into voting for him.

 

Thanks for confirming once again the record he now has is so dismal he will avoid it like the plague. :doublethumbsup:

I've said it before, he's ripe for the picking. I said in 2009 that it simply comes down to the economy and unemployment. Neither are doing all that well, so any decent candidate that the GOP puts up has a great chance of getting elected. But much like 2004, when Bush was a sitting duck and all the Dems could come up with was Kerry, the GOP is parading out Mitt Romney. A documented lair and flip-flopper. He's perfect fodder for the Obama campain ads. And to otp it all off, the healthcare plan is probably Obama's "Child" and the GOP chooses a candidate that created an almost identicle system for his state. :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama had no record, or qualifications, in 2008 to run on. That's why he came up with "Hope & Change" to fool mental midget rubes like you into voting for him.

 

Thanks for confirming once again the record he now has is so dismal he will avoid it like the plague. :doublethumbsup:

 

He passed Constitutionally Approved Health Care legislation.:first:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found this interesting, wondering what folks think. According to E.J. Dionne (granted a left wing shill) Obama is getting a lot of mileage out of ads attacking Romney on his time at Bain. I uh, haven't seen these ads obviously. This is just the direction the latest string of attacks are coming from.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ej-dionne-jr-mitt-romneys-bain-problem/2012/07/01/gJQA3oFqGW_story.html?tid=pm_opinions_pop

 

 

---------

 

Mitt Romney’s Bain problem

 

By E.J. Dionne Jr., Published: July 2

 

While the Supreme Court’s upholding of the health-care law was last week’s most important event in historical terms, it will not be the decisive event of the 2012 election. In the long run, polling in swing states suggesting that Mitt Romney’s tenure at Bain Capital is hurting him could have larger implications for where this campaign will move.

 

It’s certainly true that had the court knocked down President Obama’s signature domestic achievement, the defeat would have been woven into a narrative of ineffectual leadership and mistaken priorities. Instead, the president found vindication not only from the court’s liberals but also from Chief Justice John Roberts.

 

But precisely because the decision saved the president from disaster on health care, it only reinforced the importance of the economic argument Obama and Romney have been having for months. And here is where Romney’s Bain problem kicks in.

 

As Democrats, mostly from Washington and New York, debated the efficacy of attacks on Romney’s role in Bain, an entirely different conversation was being driven in the swing states, courtesy of ads broadcast by the Obama campaign and especially by Priorities USA Action, the pro-Obama super PAC. The ads portray highly sympathetic workers who lost their jobs and companies that collapsed even as Bain’s principals made substantial profits.

 

An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll last week provided surprisingly dramatic evidence of how much these commercials are wounding Romney.

 

In the country as a whole, 23 percent said they viewed Romney more positively because of his experience “managing a firm that specializes in buying, restructuring and selling companies,” while 28 percent said this made them view Romney more negatively. But in this year’s 12 battleground states, many of which have gotten a heavy run of the anti-Bain ads, only 18 percent viewed Romney’s business experience positively; 33 percent viewed it negatively. Obama led Romney by three points nationally but by eight in the battlegrounds.

 

This is disturbing news for Romney, who hoped his business experience would be an unalloyed asset. The numbers also underscore voter resistance to the core conservative claim that job creation is primarily about rewarding wealthy investors and companies through further tax cuts and less regulation. Americans are not anti-business, but they are skeptical that everything that is good for corporations is also good for their employees, and for job creation itself.

 

The Bain ads have done double-duty, specifically undermining Romney but also serving as a parable for how aspects of the current financial system hurt workers and local communities. Profits and productivity can rise even as real wages stagnate or fall, and jobs can be offshored and outsourced. The Romney campaign’s response to a recent Washington Post story describing Bain’s record on outsourcing — the campaign sought to “differentiate between domestic outsourcing versus offshoring” — sounded more like bureaucratic gobbledygook than an effective answer. Obama picked up on the story immediately, calling Romney an “outsourcing pioneer.”

 

But can the Obama campaign turn the argument over Romney and Bain into a broader challenge to the Republican claim that the only thing government can do to spur job creation is to get out of the way? “Jobs” will remain the Romney battle cry for the rest of the campaign, but the success of the anti-Bain offensive points to an opportunity for Obama to engage in a kind of political jujitsu. He can argue that Romney’s primary interest is not in job creation at all but in low-tax and deregulatory policies he would favor whether the economy was soaring or flat.

 

In a recent talk at the Center for American Progress, Stefan Löfven, the new leader of the Swedish Social Democratic Party, outlined a way to turn the debate around, arguing that job creation worldwide should be the focus of center-left parties. New policies on job creation should also be concerned with the quality and conditions of the jobs, how quickly the unemployed can be moved to new work and how the unemployed are treated and assisted toward new opportunities.

 

Here are the questions voters should be encouraged to ask in 2012: Should government focus directly on innovative approaches to creating good jobs in a new economy? Or should it be relegated to a position of powerlessness in which its only option is to concede ever more benefits to those — including the financial wizards at Bain — who are already doing very well indeed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really didn't think that Romney's time at Bain would hurt him much because frankly I think most Americans barely even understand his line of work there. But this part of your article makes some sense to me:

 

The numbers also underscore voter resistance to the core conservative claim that job creation is primarily about rewarding wealthy investors and companies through further tax cuts and less regulation. Americans are not anti-business, but they are skeptical that everything that is good for corporations is also good for their employees, and for job creation itself.

 

This seems to be exactly the same argument we have here at FFT every day of the week. :dunno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found this interesting, wondering what folks think. According to E.J. Dionne (granted a left wing shill) Obama is getting a lot of mileage out of ads attacking Romney on his time at Bain. I uh, haven't seen these ads obviously. This is just the direction the latest string of attacks are coming from.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ej-dionne-jr-mitt-romneys-bain-problem/2012/07/01/gJQA3oFqGW_story.html?tid=pm_opinions_pop

 

 

---------

 

Mitt Romney’s Bain problem

 

By E.J. Dionne Jr., Published: July 2

 

While the Supreme Court’s upholding of the health-care law was last week’s most important event in historical terms, it will not be the decisive event of the 2012 election. In the long run, polling in swing states suggesting that Mitt Romney’s tenure at Bain Capital is hurting him could have larger implications for where this campaign will move.

 

It’s certainly true that had the court knocked down President Obama’s signature domestic achievement, the defeat would have been woven into a narrative of ineffectual leadership and mistaken priorities. Instead, the president found vindication not only from the court’s liberals but also from Chief Justice John Roberts.

 

But precisely because the decision saved the president from disaster on health care, it only reinforced the importance of the economic argument Obama and Romney have been having for months. And here is where Romney’s Bain problem kicks in.

 

As Democrats, mostly from Washington and New York, debated the efficacy of attacks on Romney’s role in Bain, an entirely different conversation was being driven in the swing states, courtesy of ads broadcast by the Obama campaign and especially by Priorities USA Action, the pro-Obama super PAC. The ads portray highly sympathetic workers who lost their jobs and companies that collapsed even as Bain’s principals made substantial profits.

 

An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll last week provided surprisingly dramatic evidence of how much these commercials are wounding Romney.

 

In the country as a whole, 23 percent said they viewed Romney more positively because of his experience “managing a firm that specializes in buying, restructuring and selling companies,” while 28 percent said this made them view Romney more negatively. But in this year’s 12 battleground states, many of which have gotten a heavy run of the anti-Bain ads, only 18 percent viewed Romney’s business experience positively; 33 percent viewed it negatively. Obama led Romney by three points nationally but by eight in the battlegrounds.

 

This is disturbing news for Romney, who hoped his business experience would be an unalloyed asset. The numbers also underscore voter resistance to the core conservative claim that job creation is primarily about rewarding wealthy investors and companies through further tax cuts and less regulation. Americans are not anti-business, but they are skeptical that everything that is good for corporations is also good for their employees, and for job creation itself.

 

The Bain ads have done double-duty, specifically undermining Romney but also serving as a parable for how aspects of the current financial system hurt workers and local communities. Profits and productivity can rise even as real wages stagnate or fall, and jobs can be offshored and outsourced. The Romney campaign’s response to a recent Washington Post story describing Bain’s record on outsourcing — the campaign sought to “differentiate between domestic outsourcing versus offshoring” — sounded more like bureaucratic gobbledygook than an effective answer. Obama picked up on the story immediately, calling Romney an “outsourcing pioneer.”

 

But can the Obama campaign turn the argument over Romney and Bain into a broader challenge to the Republican claim that the only thing government can do to spur job creation is to get out of the way? “Jobs” will remain the Romney battle cry for the rest of the campaign, but the success of the anti-Bain offensive points to an opportunity for Obama to engage in a kind of political jujitsu. He can argue that Romney’s primary interest is not in job creation at all but in low-tax and deregulatory policies he would favor whether the economy was soaring or flat.

 

In a recent talk at the Center for American Progress, Stefan Löfven, the new leader of the Swedish Social Democratic Party, outlined a way to turn the debate around, arguing that job creation worldwide should be the focus of center-left parties. New policies on job creation should also be concerned with the quality and conditions of the jobs, how quickly the unemployed can be moved to new work and how the unemployed are treated and assisted toward new opportunities.

 

Here are the questions voters should be encouraged to ask in 2012: Should government focus directly on innovative approaches to creating good jobs in a new economy? Or should it be relegated to a position of powerlessness in which its only option is to concede ever more benefits to those — including the financial wizards at Bain — who are already doing very well indeed?

innovation like solyndra ? or teachers unions ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And this is an example of Obama running on his record how?

 

Where are all his ObamaTaxCare ads? He just had a huge win in the SC. One would think he would have the ads qued up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And this is an example of Obama running on his record how?

 

Where are all his ObamaTaxCare ads? He just had a huge win in the SC. One would think he would have the ads qued up.

He's trying to win the election. Why should he run on his record? That would be stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's trying to win the election. Why should he run on his record? That would be stupid.

Exactly.

 

Obviously his record is so pathetic he can't touch it. That's the point of this thread. How long has it been on the bored with no examples od Obama running on his record?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The latest news on Obama running on his record:

 

1. Romney outsourced jobs. :mad:

 

2. Romney had his name on Bain documents after he said he wasn't calling the shots a Bain. :mad:

 

3. Bain made money in the medial disposal business. :mad:

 

4. Romney may have committed felonies. :mad:

 

 

Quite the record ya got there, Obama. :clap:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The latest news on Obama running on his record:

 

1. Romney outsourced jobs. :mad:

 

2. Romney had his name on Bain documents after he said he wasn't calling the shots a Bain. :mad:

 

3. Bain made money in the medial disposal business. :mad:

 

4. Romney may have committed felonies.

 

 

Quite the record ya got there, Obama. :clap:

:lol: Yet another exciting Friday night for Pathetic Pilot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still nothing about his record......just lies, lies, and more lies... :doublethumbsup:

 

 

Fact Check: Obama running against outdated version of Ryan Medicare plan

 

 

 

The Obama campaign would like voters to believe that Paul Ryan's Medicare plan would "end Medicare as we know it" -- privatizing the whole system and costing seniors more than $6,000 extra a year.

 

But the campaign, even before Ryan was selected as Mitt Romney's running mate, has effectively been running against the wrong Ryan plan.

 

The president's accusations largely refer to Ryan's 2011 plan, ignoring the fact that the House Budget Committee chairman rolled out a different version in 2012 -- taking into account Democratic critiques. Though the 2012 plan is more moderate, Obama and his surrogates have all but ignored the newer version as they amp up their accusations against the Romney-Ryan ticket.

 

Most glaringly, the campaign has omitted a key point.

 

While Ryan's 2011 plan proposes to give seniors a government payment to buy private insurance, his 2012 plan offers seniors a choice.

 

Under the blueprint, seniors could use the payment to buy private insurance or stay in traditional Medicare.

 

This distinction rarely comes up at Obama campaign events.

 

Last week in Davenport, Iowa, Obama again accused Romney-Ryan of wanting to "voucherize the Medicare system."

 

"They want to turn Medicare into a voucher system," he said. "That means seniors would no longer have the guarantee of Medicare -- they'd get a voucher to buy private insurance. And if it doesn't keep up with costs, well, that's the seniors' problem."

 

Obama neglected to mention the traditional Medicare option. Under the plan, the two-tiered system would kick in a decade from now.

 

Another distinction the campaign has chosen not to make is over the average cost to seniors. For months, Obama has cited an estimate that the Republican budget plan would cost Medicare seniors $6,400.

 

The campaign repeated that claim in a new TV ad released Friday called "Fact."

 

The ad says: "And experts say his voucher plan could raise future retirees' costs more than $6,000. ... Get the facts."

 

But that estimate is from early 2011, and refers to Ryan's outdated plan from the same year. Sharp-eyed viewers would see in the latest Obama ad the fine print that attributes the estimate to "Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 4/8/11."

 

The liberal-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities indeed estimated the old plan could cost seniors $6,400. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reached a similar conclusion.

 

However, the CBO this year said it "does not have the capability" to estimate the individual impact of the latest Ryan plan, though it cautioned "beneficiaries might face higher costs."

 

Still, Obama has continued to campaign off the outdated $6,400 figure.

 

"Somebody did the analysis -- not us, somebody else," Obama declared Saturday in New Hampshire. "And they estimate that this could force seniors to pay as much as an extra $6,400 a year for their health care."

 

The Medicare guarantee issue has led to exaggeration on both sides. Fact-check site Politifact rated the oft-repeated claim that Republicans voted to "end Medicare" as the "Lie of the Year" for 2011.

 

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/20/fact-check-obama-campaign-running-against-outdated-ryan-medicare-plan/#ixzz246R7F8Qe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few months ago, I wouldn't have thought that Obama's team strategy of running against Romney's business background would have been very productive, but they seem to have struck a chord with this outsourcing/ off-shoring thing. Nobody understands what Bain Capital does anyways other than make themselves rich and the overseas accounts and decision not to release tax returns, and plan to cut taxes on the wealthy all frame the same picture.

 

Whatever works.

 

I'm voting against Romney because he's a political chameleon with no character, ethics, or substance who lies constantly depending on the situation and turns my stomach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I'm voting against Romney because he's a political chameleon with no character, ethics, or substance who lies constantly depending on the situation and turns my stomach.

So, who are you voting for?

 

You have eliminated Obama by your own criteria.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, who are you voting for?

 

You have eliminated Obama by your own criteria.

 

Obama.

 

Although if all things were equal, I'd be far more happy to vote for Gary Johnson than Obama. Unfortunately, it's a two party system.

 

Romney may not even make for a bad president, he may even agree with me on all issues. I've no way of knowing what he will do because he lies every time he opens his mouth. Nixon was a slimy turd but that didn't stop him from being a really good president.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you apply a double standard to justify your vote.

No. There's no double standard. Obama is a decent guy and aside from dipsh*t Eric Holder's Justice Department, the Obama administration has been remarkably clean. The only people excited about Romney are Washington lobbyists. Also Obama is a likable person that I respect. Certainly a far better human being than the ethics-free, spineless, asskisser, weather-vain Romney. It isn't even close to being close.

 

Obama's one huge, huge downside in that he doesn't take entitlement reform more seriously. And for me that's always been the biggest issue. Fortunately for him, he gets most of the other stuff right. Romney talks a good game here and he should score better but I can't give him full points because I don't trust anything Romney says about anything.

 

Who knows WTF Romney believes, the man lies constantly.

 

There's not much good Obama's done. The country was circling the sh*tter when he took over from The Bushtard, things still suck but are far less bad now. That's a sort of plus. I have nothing but praise for his foreign policy and I only give him 1/3 of the blame for the collapse of the budget negotiations. Most of the blame goes to the GOP who were unserious.

 

The bottom line is I'm not so disappointed in Obama that I'm going to replace him with this Romney scumball who's completely unworthy of my respect and my vote. And I'm so fed up with Romney's bullsh*t that I'm not going to throw my vote away on a 3rd party candidate that I very much like in Johnson either.

 

Romney's further problem is it's impossible for him to make up ground. He can't say or do anything at this point to change my mind on him because I don't believe anything he says. He's by far the biggest asskissing liar I've seen in either party since I began watched presidential politics in '84. I have no respect for how he's run his two campaigns.

 

There's upside in Romney. He was a pretty good governor, ran the Olympics well, and is smart enough to make a lot of money in business though. He may not be far from me on any given decision. Then again, he might be the exact opposite. At various times in his political career, depending on what the polls and target marketing research dictated, he's taken every possible position on every possible issue. Consequently, the margin of error is really wide with this guy- he could be Ayn Rand or Karl Marx or anybody in between.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. There's no double standard. Obama is a decent guy and aside from dipsh*t Eric Holder's Justice Department, the Obama administration has been remarkably clean. The only people excited about Romney are Washington lobbyists. Also Obama is a likable person that I respect. Certainly a far better human being than the ethics-free, spineless, asskisser, weather-vain Romney. It isn't even close to being close.

 

Obama's one huge, huge downside in that he doesn't take entitlement reform more seriously. And for me that's always been the biggest issue. Fortunately for him, he gets most of the other stuff right. Romney talks a good game here and he should score better but I can't give him full points because I don't trust anything Romney says about anything.

 

Who knows WTF Romney believes, the man lies constantly.

 

There's not much good Obama's done. The country was circling the sh*tter when he took over from The Bushtard, things still suck but are far less bad now. That's a sort of plus. I have nothing but praise for his foreign policy and I only give him 1/3 of the blame for the collapse of the budget negotiations. Most of the blame goes to the GOP who were unserious.

 

The bottom line is I'm not so disappointed in Obama that I'm going to replace him with this Romney scumball who's completely unworthy of my respect and my vote. And I'm so fed up with Romney's bullsh*t that I'm not going to throw my vote away on a 3rd party candidate that I very much like in Johnson either.

 

Romney's further problem is it's impossible for him to make up ground. He can't say or do anything at this point to change my mind on him because I don't believe anything he says. He's by far the biggest asskissing liar I've seen in either party since I began watched presidential politics in '84. I have no respect for how he's run his two campaigns.

 

There's upside in Romney. He was a pretty good governor, ran the Olympics well, and is smart enough to make a lot of money in business though. He may not be far from me on any given decision. Then again, he might be the exact opposite. At various times in his political career, depending on what the polls and target marketing research dictated, he's taken every possible position on every possible issue. Consequently, the margin of error is really wide with this guy- he could be Ayn Rand or Karl Marx or anybody in between.

 

 

Everything you say about Romney could be said about Obama, and vice versa.

 

The difference is that Romney has a track record of success at everything he has done, and Obama has been a debacle as President.

 

Seems to me the choice is easy, but mebbe you think Obama will somehow magically get a clue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The difference is that Romney has a track record of success at everything he has done, and Obama has been a debacle as President.

I disagree with the first sentence. Even among politicians, when it comes to lying Romney is off the charts bad. And I've every reason to bellieve Romney's foreign policy will suck. Anyone endorsed by John Bolton automatically scores whatever is below F minus on their foreign policy report card.

 

But this sentence here is a solid point. He has been good at what he does hasn't he? He's also the only shot we have at serious entitlement reform. We aren't getting it with Obama, the best we can hope for is tinkering at the edges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Poll Date Sample MoE Obama (D) Romney (R) Spread 
RCP Average 8/7 - 8/20 -- -- 47.0 45.3 Obama +1.7 
Associated Press/GfK 8/16 - 8/20 885 RV 4.1 47 46 Obama +1 
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 8/16 - 8/20 1000 RV 3.1 48 44 Obama +4 
Rasmussen Tracking 8/18 - 8/20 1500 LV 3.0 44 45 Romney +1 
Gallup Tracking 8/14 - 8/20 3050 RV 2.0 45 47 Romney +2 
Monmouth/SurveyUSA/Braun 8/15 - 8/19 1149 LV 2.9 46 45 Obama +1 
CNN/Opinion Research 8/7 - 8/8 911 RV 3.5 52 45 Obama +7 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama challenges press to find video of his flip-flops. They found plenty. I'm not posting all the videos so you will have to go to the link. :doublethumbsup:

 

 

 

 

Obama Says To Look At "Videotape" For His Flip-Flops

 

The President hit Mitt Romney for flip-flopping today on the campaign trail in Iowa saying you can look at videotape of his past positions and not see flip-flops.

 

 

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/obama-says-to-look-at-videotape-for-his-flip-flo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, this certainly should sway the undecideds over to Obama. :P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

New Obama Slogan: They’ve Added An Exclamation Mark

 

 

Nashua, NH – The new Obama slogan isn’t exactly what you’d call heavily revamped from the old Obama slogan.

 

Previously, supporters of the president could wave banners and placards declaring, ‘Forward‘ (see above). Now, with under ten days to go until election day, the signs read, ‘Forward!’

 

That exclamation mark was added by the president’s campaign team earlier this week and is presumably designed to whip up Obama supporters into a voting frenzy.

 

The new Obama slogan arrived just in time for a 40-hour campaign marathon by the president, who was set to blitz key battleground states over the weekend.

 

Obama spokeswoman Jennifer Psaki said the campaign had boosted the slogan in a bid to reflect “the stakes in this election and energy at our events.”

 

Furthermore, the pumped-up punctuation will now remain in place for the rest of the campign. It made an appearance in New Hampshire over the weekend as a crowd of 6,000 turned up at an Obama rally.

 

Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/379365/new-obama-slogan-theyve-added-an-exclamation-mark/#ciZPKcRCLkTjpXvd.99

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How sucky would BHO's opponent have to be to lose to a guy like BHO running on his record? Imagine!

 

As long as no opponents disses 47% of the electorate, they should win handily. That's what Rasmussen is telling me, anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×