If it weren’t for the fact that they’re voting for other conservative parties, too, I’d assume it was his bouffant blond mop that’s drawing their attention. But now that gays on the streets of Amsterdam are routinely beaten up by gangs of immigrant “youths”, it seems that homosexuals are waking up and voting their best interests.
According to NIS:
Dutch Gays Prefer Conservative to Leftwing Parties- - - - - - - - -
If only homosexuals were to vote, Proud of the Netherlands (TON) would be the biggest party in the Lower House. Conservative parties are more favoured among them than progressive ones, a poll by TV programme NOVA reveals.
NOVA carried out the survey in cooperation with gay publications Gaykrant and Gay.nl. TON pulled in the votes of 19 percent of the readers of Gaykrant. From Gay.nl, the party of Rita Verdonk won as much as 33 percent. Among all of the Dutch, 13 percent would vote for TON, according to NOVA.
The centre-left D66 party scored best with Gaykrant readers: 22 percent. With Gay.nl, it scored 14 percent. Together, this makes D66 the second party for homosexuals. Among all of the Dutch, only 3 percent would vote D66.
NOVA said this was the first time a survey has been carried out on such a large scale of the gay vote. It did say that compared with a Gaykrant survey from 1997, leftwing parties have dropped out of favour. TON and the Party for Freedom (PVV) of anti-Islam champion Geert Wilders have prompted strong growth towards the right.
In 2007, the Socialist Party (SP), Labour (PvdA) and the leftwing Greens (GroenLinks) together captured 40 percent of the gay vote, compared with just 25 percent now. Together with TON and PVV, the conservatives (VVD) and Christian democrats (CDA) would now win a combined 45 percent, up from 35 percent in 1997. TON’s Verdonk and Wilders’ PVV have emerged from the VVD.
In the NOVA poll, PvdA scores 7 percent on average among the gays. GroenLinks does better with 10 percent, while the SP gets 7 percent of the gay vote. The VVD would win 9 percent of the votes and PVV, 8 percent. CDA, the biggest Lower House party, traditionally has a very low score among homosexuals (4 percent).
If gays are turning their backs on the Socialists, then anything is possible.
If voters start voting their interests as far as Islamization is concerned, then will women also begin to shift their votes to TON and PVV?
And if women and gays start to abandon it, what will become of the Left?
Hat tip: TB.
25 comments:
And if women and gays start to abandon it, what will become of the Left?
Be still my heart!
What a revolutionary idea, that people would vote in their own interests.
gays on the streets of Amsterdam are routinely beaten up by gangs of immigrant “youths”
At least they don't have to pay for it anymore!
[rimshot]
But seriously folks, was anyone else wondering how long it would take for homosexuals to realize that their liberal, Muslim-loving political cohorts might be on the wrong track?
There is emerging a supreme irony in how conservative, anti-Islamic ideology may well support a more tolerant and all-embracing worldview than that of the liberals. The Left's Multicultural agenda in general—and their appeasement of Islam in particular—will likely prove far more damaging to Western civilization than all but the most puritanical of conservative doctrines.
I have already noticed this when participating at various online fora. More frequently, it is the liberal web sites that hurry to squelch my views whereas even rather conservative boards at least give me a fair hearing. This one single fact has obliged me to carefully re-examine a lifetime of liberal thinking.
Furthermore, as gay culture continues its aggressive campaign to depose the nuclear family from its role as primary lifestyle, my tolerance for "in-your-face" homosexuality is undergoing substantial recalibration. It would seem as though most gays simply cannot manage to recall how an overwhelming majority of them owe their very existence to nuclear families. I’ll let that one hang in the air for a moment.
Far too many of Orwell's predictions regarding the destructive forces that leftist and socialist agendas would unleash are already coming true such that I can no longer give liberalism any benefit of the doubt. First, Greenpeace's founder Patrick Moore has come out in favor of nuclear power generation despite once having equated it with nuclear war. Now we see gays abandoning their traitorous leftist political allies for the shelter of more rational conservative thinking. One can only wonder what new surprises await us.
Saddest of all is speculating upon what sort of horrendous cataclysm will be required for liberals to finally throw socialism under the wheels. If the Soviet Union's collapse—along with exposing communism’s ongoing criminal enterprise against humanity—was not enough, I shudder to think of what it will take. It is doubtful in the extreme that even Islam's horrors will be sufficient to shatter the Left’s hypnotic enchantment with Multiculturalism and “big government”. How many more of Orwell’s gruesome predictions must be chiseled as epitaphs to their failed vision before liberals finally understand the fundamentally dysfunctional nature of socialism and its coterie of Transnational and Multicultural demons?
Some of you folks should check out this blog of a gay guy and view the comments
Myrick, Knollenberg Want Action Taken Against Carter
He critized Carter and supports having Carter's passport revoked.
This led to a surge from hateful Leftists and then counterarugments.
Freedom unites. Unfortunately, tyranny binds. It can be hard to tell unity from captivity until you see them from the inside.
The leftist plan such as it is uses whatever is at hand to batter down the pillars of Western civilization - European white culture, Christianity, marriage and the nuclear family, democracy, equality under the law as opposed to equality of outcomes.
They've found multicult most useful in this regard, especially Muslims.
However, lefties are a little hazy on how they are going to get the enabled barbaric hordes to leave once conservative defenses have been breached and the way is clear for totalitarianism run by an elite. Which totalitarianism will trump the other? The one that exalts gays or the one that kills them? The one that encourages women to be so sexually liberated that abortion is a necessary corollary or the one that mummifies them? The one that trumpets atheism or the one that requires prayers five times a day to a god that runs a bordello in heaven?
Lefties are very bad at dealing with the consequences of their crappy experiments.
Obviously meaningful, once one considers the details. The 'Right' has always been systematic in defending individual liberties, whereas the left traditionally has taken a 'hands off' approach, assuming that the culture of society at large would be tolerant enough that they could reap the honour without sowing anything useful.
Past victims of cultural enrichment, if still alive, hopefully take heart - and take part. It's workable.
Never mind the homos, how about the proletariat?
This is far more hopefull and it should be headline news everywhere: the left has been utterly annihiliated in the Italian elections. Not a single commie or "green" has been elected to parliament. Not just a rightward shift, the far left vote has NOT shifted to the center-left, but gone over entirely, particularly to the Lega Nord (Northern League). The NL is strongly anti-immigrant, anti-Islamic, anti-EU and socially conservative. NL leader Bossi now proclaims it the "new worker's party".
Despite the apparent epochal change, the mainstream media has been silent on this Italian election result election, noting only in passing that Berlusconi has won.
Never mind the homos, how about the proletariat?
Proletariat?
I think that is something that exist only in the twisted imagination of Marxists. And that they do not like this derogative designation, as if they were only interested in drinking beer and banging away on their PlayStation.
I don't think the term 'Proletariat' is of much use.
As for Berlusconi, the Danish media didn't ignore him. Brimming with despair, the left-wing extremist Politiken said that the only hope for Italy was now the opposition. The fact that the Communists were, ehm, Terminated, was completely lost on them.
The term 'Besserwissen' applies very well here. This branch of the media is indoctrinating its readers - yet lacking philosophy or sophistication themselves.
I used "Proletariat" in sarcasm there, Henrik.
The anglophone media did notice Berlusconi, but they too missed the important part : the complete rejection of the traditional left. The counter-revolution has come (in Italy anyway) and the media is determined not to let anyone notice.
To be honest, up until now typically the proles* have been more interested in beer and cheap entertainment, and have always voted for the old socialist left despite their manifest betrayal ... another major relevation in this revolutionary Italian vote was a very high turnout.
Its hard to describe the Lega Nord in familiar left/right political dialectic ... you can't say national socialism anymore, how about conservative socialism? The left should be terrified, this election has rendered them irrelevant in Italy, and there is no reason not to see the same elsewhere ... the policies of the BNP and VB are not greatly different to LN.
*sarcasm implied ... but here I make note that the new left and/or marxists have always taken the vote of the trade union types for granted throughout the west
I used "Proletariat" in sarcasm there.
Oh. Am notoriously bad catching that.
As for the VB, I think you're making a mistake. These people are not socialists, they are free-market advocates, conservatives. Lumping them in with LN and BNP is unfair.
Zenster -
RE: ...what sort of horrendous cataclysm will be required for liberals to finally throw socialism under the wheels. If the Soviet Union's collapse...was not enough, I shudder to think of what it will take.
Well, what would it take for over a billion Muslims in dozens of countries to collectively (generally) decide that Muhammed was no prophet at all, just madman in the desert, and worshiping him in any way is a waste of time?
THAT is what it would take for socialists to give up their own religious mania. I don't see it happening soon, no matter how many tractor size wheels the ideology is thrown under.
I'm gay and thus hated by the charming Mr. Henriques
j/k
Afonso --
I'm not going to allow those gratuitous insults of gay people to remain here. We have gay readers who are conservative and dedicated to the counterjihad cause, and I object to your insulting them as a group.
However, because I'm a reasonable guy, I'll leave the rest of your comment intact.
-------------------------
Afonso Henriques said...
[gratuitous insults redacted]
But I wanted to say one thing about the Italian elections. The extreem left went out, but we still had some 30% of votes to the left. Like the Labour Party of Brittain.
Also, the so called far right had something like almost 15% (including Lega Nord).
What people failed to realise is that centrist parties, with no ideology, based in things everybody agrees with like "we are aginst corruption" and "we are against starvation in Africa" did get 10% of the votes, with two centrist parties having some 5% of them and making it to parliament.
Maybe this is where the leftist vote went to. And maybe some Italian could show up and let us know what really happened.
Long live Berlusconni!
I would lke a Berlusconni to govern my country.
druu222: Well, what would it take for over a billion Muslims in dozens of countries to collectively (generally) decide that Muhammed was no prophet at all, just madman in the desert, and worshiping him in any way is a waste of time?
THAT is what it would take for socialists to give up their own religious mania. I don't see it happening soon, no matter how many tractor size wheels the ideology is thrown under.
Thank you for posing such an outstanding question. Much of your inquiry reaches to the very crux of what confronts us in both the defeat of Islam and squelching liberalism's rapt fascination with the Politically Correct "nanny state".
what would it take for over a billion Muslims in dozens of countries to collectively (generally) decide that Muhammed was no prophet at all
Strangely, this is—in many ways—the easier question to answer, even though the Islamic problem promises to be no less intractable than Leftist liberalism.
Please pardon the following contortions …
To begin with, I continue to oppose first-use of nuclear weapons in the West’s battle against Islam. They should remain as our “hole card” and be reserved in order to maintain our moral authority in case of a terrorist nuclear attack, which would demand retaliation with atomic weapons.
That said, one of the few functional suggestions I’ve encountered with respect to readily crippling Islam’s overweening sense of preordained supremacy involves nuclear eradication of the shrines at Mecca and Medina. To paraphrase an unnamed author, after a while, Muslims would begin to feel rather foolish bowing five times a day to a plain of hot smoking glass.
No matter how much I argue for the use of conventional weapons in first strikes against Islamic targets, the foregoing strategy literally demands the use of nuclear bombs. The shrines must not just be obliterated but rendered both unsalvageable and uninhabitable for centuries.
Mind you, somehow the West must reach out and touch some ONE BILLION Muslims. Only an irrefutable demonstration of Allah’s fallibility could possibly shake sufficient numbers free from their resolute determination to bring about the West’s downfall. What this represents is a Functional Deterrent to Islamic terrorism.
I have proposed many other deterrents, both here and elsewhere. At the risk of trying the Baron’s patience (and bandwidth), I will repost my list of potential strategies for general consideration: (Please understand that this roster is unadorned by any preface or explanations that originally accompanied it.)
Some potential measures to consider on an individual basis or in combination:
Targeted Assassinations:
One exceptionally economical way of deterring people from engaging in terrorism is to make sure that they die for doing so. The problem of recidivism no longer remains an issue. Obviously, we cannot pursue every last jihadi on earth. Such a thing would involve Islam cleaning its own house. Still, it would set a powerful example if the top tiers of jihad’s commanders, financiers, indoctrinators and scholars all began to experience severe physical attrition. The high context nature of Muslim culture both encourages and rewards people for being indispensable. To eliminate such irreplaceable elements of terrorism’s network structure will weaken it significantly. Doing so might possibly allow for other methods—less likely to work on their own—to realize some measure of success.
More than anything, it would represent major progress if jihadi leadership no longer felt comfortable making personal appearances before large assemblies or maintaining a conspicuous public presence of any sort. Again, in high context cultures this diminishes personal power in the very strongest sense. Without going into why Western governments are so loath to implement such a program, suffice to say that is would be very inexpensive when compared to our current rate of monetary expenditure in fighting Global Terrorism.
Propaganda — A Cautionary Tale:
Islamic terrorists continue to agitate for the use of nuclear weapons against the far better armed West. Muslim populations need to be informed of how exceptionally dangerous such a notion is. Making them aware of this would involve creating a really well produced Middle East version of "The Day After Tomorrow". Not the more recent global warming movie but that 1980s American video about the aftermath of a nuclear war. The program should show retaliation for a nuclear terrorist attack on a major American city. Explicit recreations should portray Cairo, Islamabad, Tehran, Riyadh and Damascus all vaporizing in nuclear explosions. Extremely vivid and graphic detail should be used to demonstrate just how devastating and gruesome such a response would be. Accurate recreations of firestorms, burning cement, boiling lakes and disintegrating buildings should all be included. The footage would also show easily recognized landmarks within each metropolis being destroyed along with its more affluent neighborhoods.
Subsequent footage should document the immense human suffering from radiation poisoning, exposure, starvation and epidemics that would ravage the affected areas. All of this should be burned onto millions of DVDs with sub-tracks in Arabic, Farsi, Pashto, Hindi and so forth. These would then be airdropped over the entire Arab Middle East and made to coincide with peak viewing cycles during Ramadan. To enhance public notice of this, airings of the video would also be electronically piggybacked onto al Jazeera, al Manar and other Arab state television broadcast channels. This would guarantee a splash of publicity and assure follow up viewing of the airdropped DVDs.
I can think of few other ways for America to clearly communicate the incredibly perilous position Muslims are being placed in by their jihadi co-religionists. Whether they agree with them or not is entirely of zero consequence. Islam is currently headed directly towards such an outcome and if there is some way of inspiring Muslims to begin reforming Islam or killing off their jihadist clergy and followers then this catastrophe might be averted.
Taking The Shrines as Hostages:
Through unilateral or coalition military action the shrines at Mecca and Medina are taken and held hostage against future terrorist attacks. Somehow, we need to reach out and touch over ONE BILLION Muslims. The haj (pilgrimage), is annually attended by over one million Muslims. For many, it is a once-in-a-lifetime event that may well involve the most costly financial outlay they ever make. Missing such an opportunity due to terrorist atrocities might well cause individuals who are denied the haj to rethink their support of jihad. Once the shrines are captured, a span of thirteen months must pass without a single major terrorist atrocity before the haj can resume.
The shrines would be surrounded by a no-man’s land of minefields covered by computer controlled automatic weapons fire directed by night vision systems. If anything, the captured shines would also serve as the ultimate “flypaper” in how they would attract the most fanatical jihadis thereby distracting them from attacking other Western targets. Additionally, all attendees of the haj would have to undergo comprehensive biometric analysis in order to participate. The database assembled would provide a powerful tool in profiling terrorist families and groups.
Holding the shrines as physical hostages would also serve another purpose. Should there be a chemical or biological attack on a Western city, Medina would be contaminated with a similar agent. A second one would result in Mecca being contaminated as well. This is a significant deterrent as cleaning up either site would cost untold BILLIONS of dollars. In the case of a nuclear terrorist attack, first Medina and then Mecca would be obliterated.
Food Embargo:
Water Poverty is endemic throughout the MME (Muslim Middle East). As populations grow, increasing amounts of water previously used for agricultural purposes are diverted into municipal drinking supplies. Deep aquifers are being pumped out at unsustainable rates and corrupt Arab governments are not willing to expend the massive amounts of money required to build expensive desalination plants or the nuclear reactors needed to power them.
One ton of grain requires ONE THOUSAND tons of water to grow. The average human diet consumes one third of a ton of grain per year, requiring over 300 tons of water. A Western diet rich in livestock can see that number rise to 800 tons of water needed to sustain such intake. Iran recently overtook Japan as the world’s largest grain importer. The MENA (Middle East North Africa) region ranks as the fastest growing market for imported grain. The water needed to accommodate this region’s combined consumption requires a volume roughly equivalent to the entire annual flow of the NILE RIVER. Bringing in foreign grain is just another way of importing water.
An immediate halt of grain exports by America, Canada and Australia to the MME would bring about mass starvation in a matter of months, if not weeks. It borders on the ludicrous to consider how Islam continues antagonizing the West even as it is helplessly dependent upon it for their daily bread. An embargo of food shipments is one strategy that Russia and China—both major food importers—could not possibly triangulate against. One or two terrorist nuclear atrocities against the West could easily help it overcome any moral compunction about halting food shipments. No amount of money or any other lever could make the needed food magically appear. Even an oil embargo would not impact the West soon enough to counter the almost immediate onset of starvation.
Appropriation of Assets:
The 9-11 atrocity easily cost America on the order of ONE TRILLION dollars. A vast majority of the hijackers involved came from Saudi Arabia and were indoctrinated by Saudi Wahhabists. The USA would be well within its rights to appropriate the Ghawar Oilfield as compensation for this attack. Similarly, confiscation of other MME petroleum sources could serve as a form of retaliation against future attacks. Deprived of massive petrodollar wealth, the building of mosques and furnishing of weapons or money to terrorist organizations would come to a screeching halt.
Massively Disproportionate Retaliation:
For each new terrorist atrocity a major MME city ceases to exist. To date, Islam has not even begun to feel the West’s pain. World War II saw the firebombing of Tokyo and Dresden as direct retaliation for military aggression. At present, reluctance to identify Islam itself as an actual military foe is one of the only things inhibiting recognition of disproportionate retaliation as a useful tool. Again, a few more atrocities may change all that.
One way or the other, Muslims must be made to quake in fear with the announcement of each new terrorist attack. Uncertainty—a favorite tool of the jihadists—must be turned against Islam until homeless outraged Muslims scurry down to the local mosque and slit the jihadi imam’s throat. This is the self-policing that is currently absent and so badly needed.
Another form of massively disproportionate retaliation involves issuing a proclamation that even one single terrorist nuclear attack upon the West will result in rogue regimes like Iran, Pakistan, North Korea and Syria all undergoing nuclear bombardment. This might inspire such terrorist havens to begin reversing the damage they have done.
Reverse Immigration and Containment:
The deportation of all Muslim immigrants back to their countries of origin may well prove necessary. Taqiyya makes it impossible to trust the followers of Islam. Much like World War II, Muslim citizens may need to be placed in internment camps if they refuse repatriation to their countries of origin. Like Mexico, Islam continues to export excess population that might otherwise agitate for change. The West needs to reassemble Islam’s diaspora and make Islamic nations confront their own shortcomings. With populations returned to their true levels, water poverty would loom even larger as a threat against further terrorist atrocities.
Outright Demolition of the Shrines:
While not my own specific idea, please refer to the previous explanation regarding this. I invite the GoV participant who originally suggested this measure if they see fit to step in.
---------------------
So, there you have it: A laundry list of measures which might, or might not, prove effective against Islam. Now, onto the second half of dru222’s well-phrased question:
THAT is what it would take for socialists to give up their own religious mania. I don't see it happening soon, no matter how many tractor size wheels the ideology is thrown under.
dru222, here you bring forward the most discouraging and prominent aspects of fighting both Islam and Leftism. Additionally, seeing as how liberalism continues to propel Islam, this specific issue is only given even greater weight.
One would think the Soviet Union’s collapse might have served sufficient notice to liberals that socialism was simply a no-go. Even confronted with communist China’s disastrous “cultural revolution” and “great leap forward”, socialists continue to screech that “it just hasn’t been done right yet”. Deterring these lunatic wankers involves measures that are orders of magnitude beyond that required to effectively deal with Islam. Herein lies the most onerous rub.
To date, all that I can envision which might terminate liberalism’s obsession with socialistic government is a Civil War. Horrid as it might sound, I can only give you the example of how America’s Left still pursues gun control, even as they continue to insist that the well-armed Right lay down their weapons. Ongoing research has already shown that America’s soldiers will be less than likely to help disarm their nation’s citizens.
What all of this points towards is a coming clash between the armed Right and a Left which relies upon legislative measures to disarm their enemy. I invite you to guess where my bets are laid. Here, we are still obliged to examine the more important question of what it will require for the Left to cast socialism under the wheels. My foregoing suggestion of Civil War is one of the few functional alternatives that presents itself and I would sorely like to imagine that there are other better options. Please feel free to suggest them because I see few other choices to these abhorrent .
Oops:
Please feel free to suggest them because I see few other choices to these abhorrent paths.
Ok Baron, I may have exceeded in those comentaries. And I am sorry.
I will try to be more civil this time.
I will only reforce that I don't know one single male Spaniard who is happy about the gay marriges there; all the male Spaniards I know are indeed ashamed of it, they say that Zapatero is now turning Spain from a land of vitrtue into a land of imorality.
I also wanted to state clearily that I am indeed homofobic regarded that "histericall gayness", the "gay in your face mentality".
I think that right wing "persons or entities" should not rely on gayness to win this or that.
John Sullivan once said that the right is composed of three pillars:
Nationalism;
Free Market/Capitalism (few socialism);
Moral Traditionalism.
Where is the moral traditionalism? He said that a strong right has to have all this three pillars and I agree with him.
Now I think I haven't offended gays this time. If so, I am sorry. I will try not to touch this topic again (as I hope it not to pour in again).
"It would seem as though most gays simply cannot manage to recall how an overwhelming majority of them owe their very existence to nuclear families. I’ll let that one hang in the air for a moment."
Oh well, and the rest of your post seemed a litlle tiny bit smarter than that.
So western gay men were born in traditional nuclear families... Then what?? That means nuclear family is wonderful and superb and beyond approach by homosexuals and heterosexuals who were conceived in that institution?
Muslim women were born in families (many of which formed by polygamous unions) very distinct from ours, where women's submission is a prerequisite, and they're often treated as intellectually inferior and personally weaker. So Muslim women should bend over to that kind of familly arrangement, after all that is part of their moral and cultural tradition (just like nuclear family is ours), and, of course, they were conceived in that kind of institution. So you all Muslim feminists, ST*U!
Rafinha: So western gay men were born in traditional nuclear families... Then what?? That means nuclear family is wonderful and superb and beyond approach by homosexuals and heterosexuals who were conceived in that institution?
Ummmm ... no. Where did I say any such thing? My only point is that a large portion of the gay world seems Hell-bent on destroying the nuclear family's social primacy. Seeing as how the nuclear family is directly responsible for humanity's continued existence, I'm more than willing to give it a lot of credit.
One would hope that—alternative lifestyle or not—gays might have a little more respect for that which is different from them. Ironic, isn't it, that we are—frequently now by law—obliged to demonstrate more tolerance for homosexuals than they sometimes show for heterosexuals. This sort of ingratitude and hypocrisy cannot be left unchallenged.
Muslim women were born in families (many of which formed by polygamous unions) very distinct from ours, where women's submission is a prerequisite, and they're often treated as intellectually inferior and personally weaker. So Muslim women should bend over to that kind of familly arrangement, after all that is part of their moral and cultural tradition (just like nuclear family is ours), and, of course, they were conceived in that kind of institution. So you all Muslim feminists, ST*U!
I'd enjoy hearing an explanation of how you managed to make such a disjunct leap from my comments to the foregoing diatribe. To claim that "[polygamy] is part of their moral and cultural tradition (just like nuclear family is ours)", smacks of cultural and moral relativism. Islamic polygamy is the direct result of a mysoginstic and—less than benign—chauvanistic patriarchal construct intentionally designed to perpetuate male dominance for no other reason than that of cementing in place an arbitrary practice of exorbitant male privilege. Any supposed merit of shari'a promulgated polygamy is strictly self-delegated and in no way derives from rational or egalitarian motives.
Asking that gays show some respect for the familial schema that gave them life does contain merit in that for homosexuals to utterly abhor the nuclear family constitutes a degree of self-loathing and cognitive dissonance that is not permissible in a rational person.
None of this precludes the possibility that any given person—gay or not—may have had totally whacked out parents whose irrationality could have tainted that indivisual's own perception of the nuclear family. That in no way serves to validly indict the nuclear family for such ills and permitting oneself the ethical laxity to do so is morally reprehensible.
Afonso and Rafinha --
I just learned what the Portuguese parts of your comments meant, so I deleted them both entirely.
I was too tired and annoyed to reproduce the non-Portuguese parts.
I ask you both to cease this insulting behavior, in any language.
All I can say is that I am sorry. I was way too influenciated.
I'm ashamed of having done what I did. Sorry Gates of Vienna Comunity...
All I can say is that I am sorry. I was way too influenciated.
I'm ashamed of having done what I did. Sorry Gates of Vienna Comunity...
Post a Comment