Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 62

Thread: McAuliffe thinks Cuccinelli is the bad guy at the Airport

  1. #1
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519

    McAuliffe thinks Cuccinelli is the bad guy at the Airport


  2. #2
    Regular Member The Wolfhound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Henrico, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    697

    How would Terry know?

    I doubt seriously that he has flown commercial in a very long time. He knows what is best for us lowly peons. I also doubt that the cruise missle pictured was ever a threat to American air safety but hyperbole is his stock and trade.
    Appleseed, Virginia State Coordinator
    Are you a Rifleman yet?
    http://appleseedinfo.org

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,171

    Seriously???

    Like you were actually expecting the truth from Terry???

    Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

    OMG that hurt.

  4. #4
    Regular Member USNA69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Norfolk, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    375
    The problem, of course, is that the government school indoctrinated low information voter will swallow that ad without even chewing. And, the number of them is steadily increasing.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    South Chesterfield, VA
    Posts
    315
    I remember the bill seeking to ban guns, when the f$%^ did missiles become part of that equation? Am I forgetting something?

    All in all I'm sick of both of their campaigns, I've not seen a single add showing what either has done, only "Look how terrible that guy is, VOTE FOR ME!"

  6. #6
    Activist Member JamesCanby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Alexandria, VA at www.NoVA-MDSelfDefense.com
    Posts
    1,543
    This ad is typical of the democrat's approach to campaigning. Unfortunately, it works for their low-information voter community.

  7. #7
    Regular Member jhfc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    164
    So.....cruise missiles are allowed in Virginia airports? I suppose you never know when there is a terrorist camp that must be destroyed as one is picking up the parents from Dulles.

    What kind of license do you need to buy a cruise missiles and where do you purchase one?

  8. #8
    Regular Member zoom6zoom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Dale City, VA, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,694
    Depends on the definition of "missile", too. I believe Virginia law considers anything thrown a missile. There was a case a year or too ago in NoVA where a woman threw a paper cup full of ice at another car in traffic and the charge regarded a "missile".

    Still, don't expect any ads from McAwful with any information about himself or his plans / history. Everything will be an attack.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519
    Quote Originally Posted by zoom6zoom View Post
    Depends on the definition of "missile", too. I believe Virginia law considers anything thrown a missile. There was a case a year or too ago in NoVA where a woman threw a paper cup full of ice at another car in traffic and the charge regarded a "missile".
    It actually looks like a model rocket.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Fredericksburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by jhfc View Post
    So.....cruise missiles are allowed in Virginia airports? I suppose you never know when there is a terrorist camp that must be destroyed as one is picking up the parents from Dulles.

    What kind of license do you need to buy a cruise missiles and where do you purchase one?
    They are tough to get, you need an "exception" license.

    But if they were available, now THIS is something I would want to see raffled on Lobby Day!

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by jhfc View Post
    So.....cruise missiles are allowed in Virginia airports? I suppose you never know when there is a terrorist camp that must be destroyed as one is picking up the parents from Dulles.

    What kind of license do you need to buy a cruise missiles and where do you purchase one?
    Missiles themselves are not restricted. Its the launchers that need a license.

    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by JamesCanby View Post
    This ad is typical of the democrat's approach to campaigning. Unfortunately, it works for their low-information voter community.
    What I can't quite figure out is how anybody would trust a campaign that puts out that kind of information.

    If he'll lie and distort and twist during the campaign, its kind of a given he'll do the same in office, no?

    Anyway, if he'll tell those kinds of whoppers, there's no doubt he'll rule you without your consent.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , Virginia, USA
    Posts
    227
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    What I can't quite figure out is how anybody would trust a campaign that puts out that kind of information...
    They depend on unsophisticated voters who believe sound bites without any scrutiny. They pretend to be for the little people, but in fact, their policies ensure that the little people will remain little people in perpetuity.

  14. #14
    Founder's Club Member Tess's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Alexandria, Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,765
    Quote Originally Posted by builtjeep View Post
    I remember the bill seeking to ban guns, when the f$%^ did missiles become part of that equation? Am I forgetting something?

    All in all I'm sick of both of their campaigns, I've not seen a single add showing what either has done, only "Look how terrible that guy is, VOTE FOR ME!"


    Ditto.

    I have contacted both campaigns to express my disgust, with no response.

    I suppose I'll vote for the unqualified guy, since I refuse to vote for either of these guys.

  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Tess View Post
    SNIP I suppose I'll vote for the unqualified guy, since I refuse to vote for either of these guys.
    Why not join me in voting "consent refused".

    We're all equals. The only way government can be legitimate is with the genuine consent of the individual being governed. I no longer believe I have standing to govern others merely because I end up on the 51% or better side of the election. And, I darned sure do not consent to be governed by the likes of the current criminals at the local, state, and federal level.
    Last edited by Citizen; 08-22-2013 at 08:47 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Stuarts Draft, Virginia
    Posts
    77
    Unfortunately, Democrats will vote Democrat and Republicans will vote Republican with no thought to who or what their candidate really is or what they have done or will do for the people.
    Bleat after me people, BAAAHHHHH!

  17. #17
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Roverhound View Post
    Unfortunately, Democrats will vote Democrat and Republicans will vote Republican with no thought to who or what their candidate really is or what they have done or will do for the people.
    Bleat after me people, BAAAHHHHH!
    I'm not sure its totally that bad.

    Congress' approval rating has been below twenty percent for some time.

    Think about this for a bit:

    What if you could get 51% of voters to express that dissatisfaction in the form of refusing consent to be governed by the existing regimes at the federal, state, and local level?

    The whole psuedo-legitimacy of the government depends on the lie that it governs by consent of the governed. Personally, I hold that since we are equals, I can only govern another if he individually consents. Government today--since the founding, actually--socializes my idea and governs everybody on the consent of a few. It presumes consent. And, whoever gets 51% or more of the vote, presumes consent of the majority (instead of consent of every single person), considering/claiming themselves legitimate govern-ers.

    So, by the rulers' own lie, if 51% were to refuse consent to be governed by them, at that instant the entire government would be illegitimate by their own rules. They would be forced to either govern illegitimately, or dramatically reduce government until a common-ground was reached whereby at least 51% again consented to be governed.

    This could be an entirely non-violent way of forcing the government back into its box. Or, it would force government to rule illegitimately--stripping away the lies and symbols of freedom that are not freedom itself. Take away the lies, take away the veils people use to avoid looking at how bad the government is, and a lot more people will be angry about the government.

    Just think it over.
    Last edited by Citizen; 08-23-2013 at 09:57 AM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  18. #18
    Activist Member JamesCanby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Alexandria, VA at www.NoVA-MDSelfDefense.com
    Posts
    1,543
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    I'm not sure its totally that bad.

    Congress' approval rating has been below twenty percent for some time.

    Think about this for a bit:

    What if you could get 51% of voters to express that dissatisfaction in the form of refusing consent to be governed by the existing regimes at the federal, state, and local level?

    The whole psuedo-legitimacy of the government depends on the lie that it governs by consent of the governed. Personally, I hold that since we are equals, I can only govern another if he individually consents. Government today--since the founding, actually--socializes my idea and governs everybody on the consent of a few. It presumes consent. And, whoever gets 51% or more of the vote, presumes consent of the majority (instead of consent of every single person), considering/claiming themselves legitimate govern-ers.

    So, by the rulers' own lie, if 51% were to refuse consent to be governed by them, at that instant the entire government would be illegitimate by their own rules. They would be forced to either govern illegitimately, or dramatically reduce government until a common-ground was reached whereby at least 51% again consented to be governed.

    This would be an entirely non-violent way of forcing the government back into its box.
    It reads as if you were recommending a plebiscite instead of a representative democracy. We express our consent by electing people to represent us. The only effective way to revoke consent would be to successfully recall a representative who no longer reflected our consent on issues, or to replace that person at the next election -- and both options are available to us. Unfortunately, that supposes an informed, active and educated electorate, and that is something we are sorely lacking. We have reached a tipping point where the "takers" will continue to vote for those who promise the most freebies, regardless of rights or Constitutionality.

    The national polls are showing that a majority of those polled think our government is on the wrong path, and the approval rating of the Congress and the President is well below 50% in each case. So what? We do not govern by polls, nor should we.

    Election and voting reform at all levels, with strict rules regarding voter ID, donation-ability and representation are the answer ... but it will take action by that same incumbent-self-serving government to which we have currently given consent ... and please don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen.

  19. #19
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by JamesCanby View Post
    It reads as if you were recommending a plebiscite instead of a representative democracy. We express our consent by electing people to represent us. The only effective way to revoke consent would be to successfully recall a representative who no longer reflected our consent on issues, or to replace that person at the next election -- and both options are available to us. Unfortunately, that supposes an informed, active and educated electorate, and that is something we are sorely lacking. We have reached a tipping point where the "takers" will continue to vote for those who promise the most freebies, regardless of rights or Constitutionality.

    The national polls are showing that a majority of those polled think our government is on the wrong path, and the approval rating of the Congress and the President is well below 50% in each case. So what? We do not govern by polls, nor should we.

    Election and voting reform at all levels, with strict rules regarding voter ID, donation-ability and representation are the answer ... but it will take action by that same incumbent-self-serving government to which we have currently given consent ... and please don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen.
    Bear with me for a moment. Read it for what it says, rather than as if.

    I have to go in just a moment, so I'm gonna hit just the highest high points.

    The American Revolution was either legitimate, or it wasn't. If it wasn't, the Queen of England is our rightful sovereign. If the revolution was legitimate, then in order to maintain their legitimacy, the governments since then must adhere to the revolutions justifications. Those justifications are found in the opening sentences of the Declaration of Independence.

    All men are equal. Governments are established to protect inalienable rights. Governments derive their just powers (legitimacy) from the consent of the governed.

    If we are all equal, the only way I can govern you is if you personally consent. This is a crucial point. Mull it around, hold it out and examine it from all directions until you are totally certain about it one way or the other.

    Gotta go. I'll try to come back later and finish the rest.

    ETA: I'm back.

    When we say that we express our consent by voting, we're covering up a falsehood: we're still going to govern those who don't consent. The idea includes a false generalization: "we consent". The best that can be said is that the actual voters who won are the ones that consented, not some generalized we. The other side of the coin is that those who didn't vote, and those voters who lost, are still going to be governed without their consent, and quite possibly in spite of nonconsent.

    In the earlier post I invited Tess to vote with me "consent refused". That was just a manner of speaking, the context of the conversation being her voting for a certain candidate. Consent is more a matter of who is governed than how who is determined. Do it by vote, do it by survey, do it by legal contract (my favorite). The point is less how to do it, than against who the crime of current-government is perpetrated.
    Last edited by Citizen; 08-23-2013 at 02:31 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  20. #20
    Founder's Club Member Tess's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Alexandria, Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,765
    In American society, under the system created by our Founders, "consent" is given by election of those who represent us, under the majority-rule concept. I seriously doubt our Founders accounted for people who just didn't bother, or didn't care, but the fact remains our consent is not individual - as things are now.

  21. #21
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Tess View Post
    In American society, under the system created by our Founders, "consent" is given by election of those who represent us, under the majority-rule concept. I seriously doubt our Founders accounted for people who just didn't bother, or didn't care, but the fact remains our consent is not individual - as things are now.
    Great observation.

    And, its been a lie since day one---the crucial element is equality. If all are equals, the only possible way to legitimately govern your equals is with their consent. If any single human being anywhere on the planet can govern me without my personal consent, against my personal refused consent, then he has elevated himself above me.

    Some say consent is presumed under majority-rule. Presuming my consent because of majority-rule is just a specious justification to rule everybody, including those equals who don't wanta be ruled by the current regime or the one that wins. The proof is in the alternative: no presumption is necessary--I'm right here and available to declare my refused consent. Many readers here have already read my express refused consent. No presumption is necessary when I can be asked or have already made it publicly known, meaning no presumption is necessary when it is too easy to find out for sure. If the government wanted to know, they require me to file taxes every year. But, somehow there is not even so much as a check box for me to check off whether I consent to be governed by the current criminal rabble.

    Regarding "consent" being given by election, the best that can be said is that consent is given by the voters for themselves to be governed. Fine. If they want to be governed by the candidates they elect, I have no problem with that. The trouble starts when they slop their criminal rabble over onto me and anybody else.

    One could even stretch the point and say that loser voters consented by participating in the system. But, unless they are individually asked and individually consent to play by that rule, then we're back to a specious, justifying presumption.

    As an alternative to "a lie", the best we can say is that the founders set up a system closer to an ideal, much like a constitution that still tolerated slavery and counted some men as only 3/5 of a man. So, instead of a lie, we could say they came closer to an ideal and gave us clue about which direction to evolve and progress.

    And, its way past time to evolve on this point.
    Last edited by Citizen; 08-23-2013 at 02:33 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  22. #22
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Regarding consent and equality, we are in the perfect season to discuss it. A very important date in history for this subject is less than a week away.


    John Locke's Second Treatise on Government 1689

    Declaration of Independence July 4, 1776

    "I have a dream!" MLK Aug. 28, 1963
    Last edited by Citizen; 08-23-2013 at 08:41 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  23. #23
    Activist Member JamesCanby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Alexandria, VA at www.NoVA-MDSelfDefense.com
    Posts
    1,543
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Great observation.

    And, its been a lie since day one---the crucial element is equality. If all are equals, the only possible way to legitimately govern your equals is with their consent. If any single human being anywhere on the planet can govern me without my personal consent, against my personal refused consent, then he has elevated himself above me.

    Some say consent is presumed under majority-rule. Presuming my consent because of majority-rule is just a specious justification to rule everybody, including those equals who don't wanta be ruled by the current regime or the one that wins. The proof is in the alternative: no presumption is necessary--I'm right here and available to declare my refused consent. Many readers here have already read my express refused consent. No presumption is necessary when I can be asked or have already made it publicly known, meaning no presumption is necessary when it is too easy to find out for sure. If the government wanted to know, they require me to file taxes every year. But, somehow there is not even so much as a check box for me to check off whether I consent to be governed by the current criminal rabble.

    Regarding "consent" being given by election, the best that can be said is that consent is given by the voters for themselves to be governed. Fine. If they want to be governed by the candidates they elect, I have no problem with that. The trouble starts when they slop their criminal rabble over onto me and anybody else.

    One could even stretch the point and say that loser voters consented by participating in the system. But, unless they are individually asked and individually consent to play by that rule, then we're back to a specious, justifying presumption.

    As an alternative to "a lie", the best we can say is that the founders set up a system closer to an ideal, much like a constitution that still tolerated slavery and counted some men as only 3/5 of a man. So, instead of a lie, we could say they came closer to an ideal and gave us clue about which direction to evolve and progress.

    And, its way past time to evolve on this point.
    So.... if you revoke or deny your consent to be governed by those elected, then how do you justify being able to benefit from what "their" government does? Have a medical emergency? Ooops, no ambulance for you -- you opted out. House on fire? Oooops, better get out your own garden hose. The fire department will protect the houses on either side of you (if they did not opt out), but you're on your own.

    The reality of the situation is that elections have consequences and once the election dust has settled, we are ALL saddled for the duration of the term with the representatives who won -- including their policies, beliefs and programs ... often based on the interests of who have funded their campaigns.

    We ARE the government. WE elect our representatives. If we are not successful in getting "our guys" into office, we cannot opt out, pick up our ball and go home. What we CAN do is to work even harder for the next election to correct the "mistakes" that got the other guys elected. And, in the interim, work hard to change the election system to rid it of "special interests" that pollute the process with massive doses of money from outside the jurisdiction of the candidate they are supporting.

    In order to facilitate your concept, perhaps all ballots should have the slate of candidates plus one more option: None Of The Above. If we could get to that point where 51% said none of the choices are valid -- that we do not consent to be governed by ANY of the choices -- then you might achieve your goal. Don't hold your breath.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , Virginia, USA
    Posts
    227
    Quote Originally Posted by JamesCanby View Post
    ...What we CAN do is to work even harder for the next election to correct the "mistakes" that got the other guys elected...
    That is why we should support the one candidate over the other candidate. I believe that the other candidate would restrict our OC and CC rights if given the chance. While that chance may or may not arise, that is all I need to know.

  25. #25
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by JamesCanby View Post
    So.... if you revoke or deny your consent to be governed by those elected, then how do you justify being able to benefit from what "their" government does? Have a medical emergency? Ooops, no ambulance for you -- you opted out. House on fire? Oooops, better get out your own garden hose. The fire department will protect the houses on either side of you (if they did not opt out), but you're on your own.

    The reality of the situation is that elections have consequences and once the election dust has settled, we are ALL saddled for the duration of the term with the representatives who won -- including their policies, beliefs and programs ... often based on the interests of who have funded their campaigns.

    We ARE the government. WE elect our representatives. If we are not successful in getting "our guys" into office, we cannot opt out, pick up our ball and go home. What we CAN do is to work even harder for the next election to correct the "mistakes" that got the other guys elected. And, in the interim, work hard to change the election system to rid it of "special interests" that pollute the process with massive doses of money from outside the jurisdiction of the candidate they are supporting.

    In order to facilitate your concept, perhaps all ballots should have the slate of candidates plus one more option: None Of The Above. If we could get to that point where 51% said none of the choices are valid -- that we do not consent to be governed by ANY of the choices -- then you might achieve your goal. Don't hold your breath.
    Just let me get one thing off my chest, first. Regarding we are the government. I'm sure you didn't mean it as a high insult, but don't nobody include me in that we. Do not include me in the rapacious, murderous, selfish, expropriating, rights-violating group of criminals called government. I am not part of that. I want nothing to do with it. I would not wish that group of thieves on my worst enemy, much less my fellow Americans and fellow Virginians. I object, I object, I OBJECT!!!

    Regarding benefitting. Just because the government has co-opted certain services does not mean that is the only option. It simply means the criminals have forbidden or prevented other options. Another false premise: that I should consent to tax rape and the whole litany of other abuses just so I can receive a few benefits. And, I should consent to perpetrating government on others. Forget it. I'll take my chances even in the absence of anybody else providing those services.

    You're welcome to set up any mutual aid/protection body (government) you want by your own consent and the consent of like-minded people. But, you cannot legitimately require my participation without my consent.

    Regarding facilitating my concept--I did not say one needs to vote in order to move this along. And, I already cleared up the one reference to voting. So, refused consent would not need to be on a ballot. All we'd need is 51% of voters to expressly refuse consent, and the system becomes blatantly illegitimate by its very own rules. You could simply print out the voter rolls and get each to sign by his name door to door, or have them mail it in, or...

    And, lets say you do consent to the current system. And, lets say 51% of the voters also consent. Its not too much to ask for government to come off its lie--that it intends to rule everybody, not just the people who do consent: government of all by the consent of some.

    So, back to one of my earlier points. It would expose the current system as illegitimate in the sense that lots more people would recognize it. It would certainly strengthen the hand of those who want to roll back government, especially as refused consent spread and more and more people saw the lie for a lie instead of a glossy, cool-sounding-but-empty justification.
    Last edited by Citizen; 08-23-2013 at 08:36 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •