Evolving Middle East Crisis Thread

Politics & Current Events

  1. hrmwrm

    hrmwrm Dedicated LVC Member

    Messages:
    1,392
    Likes Received:
    1
    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2007
    Location:
    Alberta
    you mean as opposed to you defending the supernatural without a FACTUAL BASE?
    when you get your head out of philosophy and into reality, i'll discuss further.
    the material world is self evidently true. anything beyond stems from philosophical fantasy.
     
  2. shagdrum

    shagdrum Dedicated LVC Member

    Messages:
    6,559
    Likes Received:
    33
    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2005
    Location:
    Topeka
    But you don't get to redefine what materialism is based on what is convenient for you. It is a very specific idea that is necessary for the Atheist worldview to make any sense.
    Maybe not in all cases, but much more than enough to be coincidence. In fact, most of the main talking points put out by Atheists (specifically the "New Atheists" like Dawkins, etc) do inherently assume materialism. There might be some philosopher somewhere who can make an argument for Atheism without assuming materialism but that would be a small fraction of a percent of total Atheists and would be very distinct from the worldview held by the vast majority of Atheists.

    But that has been the whole point of this round and round on materialism; show me how Atheism makes sense without materialism, or provide a proof of materialism. The fact that the only response given is a dance around the issue to avoid having to actually give either of those proofs only shows that materialism IS being assumed and IS based on faith.

    The very dichotomy of science vs religion ONLY makes any logical sense with certain presumptions in place; one of which is materialism.

    Who is doing that? The connection between materialism and science is only in YOUR mind, not mine. I reject the science vs religion dichotomy as substantively false.

    Scientism (as opposed to true science) is very much connected to materialism, as is Atheism (which tends to unquestionably embrace scientism).

    Just because you may be unaware of the assumptions behind a viewpoint you subscribe to doesn't mean those assumptions are not there.

    Not really. Those "accurate representations" depend on a lot of assumptions that ultimately make those claims circular and loaded.
     
  3. Federali Aundy

    Federali Aundy Active LVC Member

    Messages:
    73
    Likes Received:
    3
    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2010
    Location:
    Kansas City
    Faith, Reason, and Certainity that God Exists

    I know I'm coming into this discussion in the middle of things, but I thought I'd add my thoughts on the matter.

    I would argue that faith and reason are partially overlapping. There are some things which properly belong only to reason (e.g. mathematics and physical science) and some things which properly belong only to faith (e.g. worshiping cows, reincarnation, the Christian dogmas of the Trinity and the Immaculate Conception). However, there is the area of the partial overlap where some things known by reason are also known by faith (e.g. the moral law and the existence of God).

    There are indeed sufficient grounds for belief in God, grounds which makes knowledge of God neither irrational nor a matter of blind faith. We know that the following statement is true: from nothing, only nothing comes. Yet science also tells us that 13.7 billion years ago there was no matter at all, nothing material. Since (1) from nothing, only nothing comes and (2) since there was a time when matter was not, (therefore) it follows that something immaterial must be the source of matter's origin. We call this immaterial being God.

    Now that doesn't tell you much about God, but it is enough to refute materialism, scientism, and atheism.


    04SCTLS write that: "To use religion as an equal alternative explanation to observed science is akin to asking a plumber about dental work."

    It seems like the problem stated here is common but it is actually a non-problem for the religion held by most Americans: Christianity. My philosophy professors stated it far too often. It is a wonderful problem for classical paganism which attributed so many natural phenomena to the gods. Neither Jews, nor Muslims, nor Christians fall under this criticism. All three religions can, however, reveal the flawed logic behind scientism and materialism.


    hrmwrm writes that: "the material world is self evidently true."

    But the universe has no grounding for its existence. Matter is finite, not infinite. Matter had a beginning, it is not self-existent. To assert materialism is no better off than to say that the world is held up upon the backs of an infinite number of turtles - except that we know that there is neither an infinite number of atoms nor a self-creating atom which can give the universe its material existence. The fact that the material world is self evidently true is itself a finger pointing towards God.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • 04SCTLS

      04SCTLS Dedicated LVC Member

      Messages:
      3,198
      Likes Received:
      16
      Joined:
      May 13, 2007
      Location:
      Lockport
      I grew up out of the saturday morning cartoons I used to watch as a kid :D.

      Saying I cannot argue what is convenient for me because it doesn't follow your definition of materialism you are trained in attacking is weak.

      I am not a militant athiest and can accept the notion of an act of creation bringing about the universe but that does not mean there is a personal ethical moral (man made) God who dangles immortality as a reward for behaviour, looks after you and cares and judges you.
      Makes it sound like man is a toy to amuse a diety.
      Maybe that is all we are since nothing really matters and the universe has no purpose(it only matters when you are alive, nothing matters when you are dead)
      It is a great leap to posit that whatever created the universe or however it was created if it didn't always exist :confused: is tied into the ethics and morality of human behaviour.

      You are usng the creation of the universe as justification for you moral opinions.
      I don't see the connection.

      One could easily make the argument that religious people reject God by denying and condemning homosexuality(one of his creations), then seeking coded "religious freedom" exemptions for their nastiness.

      If it wasn't for human pride non heterosexual behaviour could actually could be defined as a disability of sorts (practically speaking it is) in which case religious freedom amounts to despicable picking on a handicapped disabled person.
       
    • Federali Aundy

      Federali Aundy Active LVC Member

      Messages:
      73
      Likes Received:
      3
      Joined:
      Aug 28, 2010
      Location:
      Kansas City
      Response to 04SCTLS

      "I am not a militant athiest and can accept the notion of an act of creation bringing about the universe but that does not mean there is a personal ethical moral (man made) God who dangles immortality as a reward for behaviour, looks after you and cares and judges you. Makes it sound like man is a toy to amuse a diety."

      By allowing for an "act of creation" are you saying that you are open to a creator God, just not one that "looks after you" or is "moral"? If so, would you call yourself a deist in the Jeffersonian sense?


      "You are usng the creation of the universe as justification for you moral opinions."

      Well I haven't made the jump yet from God's existence to ethics. If you consider yourself a deist (i.e. there is a God who creates, just not one who interferes with his creation), then we can go on from there I suppose. It could be argued that a materialist metaphysics does not allow for free will since all matter is determined. If so, we ought not punish criminals since they had no free will to commit their crimes. If we are just animals running on instinct, no one can be held accountable for anything at all.


      "One could easily make the argument that religious people reject God by denying and condemning homosexuality (one of his creations)"

      It would be helpful if you better understood the Christian conception of morality and natural law. The same argument you make would apply to the following: "One could easily make the argument that religious people reject God by denying and condemning murderers (one of his creations)." Just because something happens in nature (e.g. murder and homosexual acts), it does not make it natural. God does not create immoral people - our free will can choose between inclinations, instincts, and the moral law. If a person chooses to be immoral, it is the person's choice not God's creation.
       
      • Agree Agree x 1
      • 04SCTLS

        04SCTLS Dedicated LVC Member

        Messages:
        3,198
        Likes Received:
        16
        Joined:
        May 13, 2007
        Location:
        Lockport
        I'm not arguing against free will or supporting and/or explaining criminality as born that way.
        Some things are clearly choices.
        But what rational man would choose to be homosexual?
        That's like choosing to be handicapped and disabled and inviting hatred.
        Murder is not a lifestyle behaviour or natural way of life but it is interesting and perhaps even telling that you would pick murder (which is a crime and not a lifestyle by the way) as an equivalency to non heterosexual behaviour.:p
         
      • 04SCTLS

        04SCTLS Dedicated LVC Member

        Messages:
        3,198
        Likes Received:
        16
        Joined:
        May 13, 2007
        Location:
        Lockport
        We need deists of the caliber of the founding fathers in charge of the government as opposed to devout christians

        The work of statecraft is not the work of salvation.

        Does the faith of our presidents matter?

        Here's some refreshing honesty, from a preacher of all people

        http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/04/does-the-faith-of-our-presidents-matter/
        To date, all U.S. presidents have labeled themselves Christians of some sort, and it is speculative and uncharitable to question their claims or sincerity.

        Nevertheless, a number of presidents have provided abundant evidence in their writings or behavior that their faith was heterodox, at best. At worst, we may have serious reason to doubt whether they confessed anything at all like the historic Christian faith.

        Take, for example, the first three presidents: George Washington, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Gregg L. Frazer, author of The Religious Beliefs of America’s Founders, argues that though all three believed in an outwardly Christian God, their orthodoxy and practice were seriously deficient. He characterizes their views as “theistic rationalism,” a religious view midway between deism and orthodoxy.

        Soon after his death, Washington was lionized as a great Christian leader — and still is today — leading to an abundance of dubious stories which should at best be characterized as mythological. These stories create a veneer of Christian faith which continues to give the impression of Christian piety ungrounded in fact.
        (typical dissonant religious fantasy)

        For instance, the famous painting of Washington on his knees at Valley Forge, praying in the darkest hour of the American Revolution, is almost certainly false. The story originated from Parson Weems’ Life of Washington, and was based on the eyewitness claims of the owner of the farm where it purportedly took place, Isaac Potts. Unfortunately, Potts didn’t live on this farm until after the Revolutionary War, and he was nowhere near Valley Forge in 1777.
        Washington was clearly a theist, and had a certain kind of piety which viewed God as actively intervening in history as moral governor, provider and protector for the good of man. But he never claimed to be a Christian. In looking at his own words, we find that Washington never spoke of a personal, saving faith in Jesus Christ. In over 20,000 pages of his life’s writings, the name of Jesus Christ is found only once — and that in a public proclamation not written in his own hand.Washington’s religious practice is even more revealing. It is often noted that he sat on the vestry of his local Episcopal church. While this is true, it is important to note that this was a primarily civic role that was expected of leading citizens of his community. While Washington attended services on average once a month, it was his unvarying practice to leave early on those Sundays when communion was served, exiting prior to the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. When he was publicly rebuked for this practice during a sermon, he agreed the reproof was just and responded by henceforth avoiding services entirely when he knew communion would be served. As far as we know, Washington never once communed at the Lord’s Supper.
        Our second president, John Adams, is reputed to be one of the more orthodox founders, largely because he grew up in a Congregationalist home where Calvinist roots ran deep. In fact, however, Adams explicitly rejected the faith of his fathers. He denied the deity of Jesus Christ and his atoning death, viewing him instead as a great moral teacher, not a savior from sin. He said “placing all religion in grace, and its offspring, faith” was “Antichristianity.”
        Like many others of the founding generation, Adams believed that the forgiveness of sins actually undermined the moral force of the Christian religion. Ironically this faith retained many Christian trappings, including belief in the resurrection, which was retained to preserve the fear of eternal punishment and the hope of rewards for “Christian morality.”
        Thomas Jefferson is widely known as the least orthodox of our founding generation, yet this hasn’t stopped many apologists in our day from claiming him as a Christian hero. David Barton, well known in conservative Christian circles for his “Wallbuilders” ministry, defended Jefferson’s faith in his recent book, The Jefferson Lies. Unfortunately, Barton’s conclusions have been roundly condemned by historians as deeply flawed, and the book has been withdrawn by its publisher, Thomas Nelson. Criticism of Barton’s book has come from all quarters, including Christian scholars Warren Throckmorton and Michael Coulter, who wrote a response, Getting Jefferson Right.
        A most outspoken critic of orthodoxy, Jefferson was attacked as an atheist by his political opponents, and had to maintain a semblance of Christianity. Yet this didn’t stop him from recording his dissent, particularly in his private letters, which he strove to keep from the public. In these private letters he explicitly rejected the divinity of Christ and the Trinity. This was reflected in practice: in 1788 Jefferson refused to be a godfather for a friend’s child, because he would have to affirm his belief in the Trinity. Speaking of this doctrine, he wrote “ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions.”
        Speaking about the divinity and virgin birth of Jesus, Jefferson had this to say:

        The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.

        For Jefferson, Jesus was a mere man, a great moral teacher and reformer of corrupt Judaism along the lines of reason. But Jefferson believed Jesus’ moral teachings had been corrupted by the “dupes and impostors” who followed him — chief of whom was Paul — who clouded his message by the addition of mythological teachings, including his divinity and miracles.
        There is perhaps no greater evidence for Jefferson’s heterodoxy than his rejection of the Bible as God’s word. Jefferson famously produced his own version of the New Testament, literally cutting and pasting the text in order to rescue Jesus’ original moral truths from the miraculous and supernatural additions of his followers. Jefferson likened this process of selecting moral truths from the supernatural acts of Jesus as rescuing “diamonds from dunghills.”
        Jefferson, like Adams, believed in a bodily resurrection for its moral value; eternal reward and punishments were to be earned by good behavior. Regarding salvation, Jefferson couldn’t be more clear: “My fundamental principle would be the reverse of Calvin’s, that we are to be saved by our good works which are within our power, and not by our faith which is not within our power.”
        Only God knows whether Washington, Adams or Jefferson had saving faith in Christ, but their writings give us abundant reason to doubt that they did. At the core of our nation’s founding is the principle of religious freedom. The state is not a respecter of all faiths, but of none — there is no religious test for higher office. (freedom from and not of religion is our most cherished and founding principle) Christians can rest in knowing that God uses men and women of all faiths — or no faith — to accomplish his purposes in history.
        Does the faith of our presidents matter?

        Surely, Christian faith, and all that it entails — confessing the truth of God’s Law, one’s own sin and the saving work of Christ — informs one’s view of the civil magistrate and the just execution of its highest office. But in God’s providence, the men who shaped our nation’s founding and served as its heads of state for the first 20 years of its existence managed to accomplish great things, despite their apparent rejection of God’s saving work in Christ. What does this tell us?
        The work of statecraft is not the work of salvation.

        ________________________________________________________________

        The Jeffersonian conclusion is that ridicule is the only proper response to nonsense.
        Religious people resort to dissonant fabrications (or outright lies to put it plainly) to justify their opinions and that in founding the greatest country in the world the athiests, religious sceptics and doubters were smarter, more exceptional and creative and incisive than the devoutly religious whose governance throughout history up to the current Middle East has been second rate and therefore the overly religious are incompetent at governing, should be shunned from politics and only lip service should be paid to religion in governance.
         
        • Like Like x 1
        • shagdrum

          shagdrum Dedicated LVC Member

          Messages:
          6,559
          Likes Received:
          33
          Joined:
          Aug 30, 2005
          Location:
          Topeka
          So equivocation is not, by definition, a false argument?

          No one is arguing that if materialism is false then the Christian God must therefore exist. That is certainly one possibility but not a logical deduction from the simple fact of materialism being false by itself.

          Agreed. That is why no one is making that leap.

          As to that daily caller piece, there are a lot of historical inaccuracies. There is a lot of mythmaking by Atheists concerning the framers religious views. It is very easy to cherry pick historical facts to fit a narrative. The problem is when those false narratives are confronted with inconvenient facts that don't fit the narrative. Foxy and I went round a few times concerning Jefferson and I know I've pointed a few other Atheist lies concerning Washington on here as well.

          Here is an example of the shoddy work of your cherry picked article and the revisionist history concerning the framers. The article absurdly claims that Washington was not a Christian however he was a Theist in a majority Christian nation that elected him as their first president. That is a huge stretch. If you actually look at historical documents, look into his history, etc you would know he had a daily prayer bible that he made extensive notes in the margins of. He started the tradition of swearing in for office on a bible. In the 1789 Thanksgiving day proclamation, he said it was "the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God".

          Really, the atheist revisionism that you are citing here is simply moving the goalposts on the fact of Washington as Christian; raising the burden of proof to an absurd degree. Basically, if Washington didn't go around actively proclaiming to be a Christian (specifically) then they try to claim it is false that he was a Christian. Never mind the fact that at that time in America, being religious was virtually synonymous with being Christian. Never mind that Washington's ACTIONS clearly show him to be a deeply religious man and active bible reader.

          You are buying into atheist mythmaking, nothing more. The article you cite here is laughably ignorant and/or willfully dishonest to anyone who has read and is familiar with the Framer's views. Jefferson, Paine and Franklin were really the big three that weren't devout Trinitarian Christians and, besides Paine, they were all very respectful of the role Christianity played in society and in the founding of the Nation.

          With a few exceptions, the Framer's were overwhelmingly Christian and that faith heavily influenced their views. For instance, the Natural Law that our nation is founded on is specifically drawn from Christianity. This same group of men had no problem with religious tests for office at the state and local level (something very common at the time). Only at the national level was this forbidden in order to promote religious freedom.
           
        • 04SCTLS

          04SCTLS Dedicated LVC Member

          Messages:
          3,198
          Likes Received:
          16
          Joined:
          May 13, 2007
          Location:
          Lockport
          Well contradiction rears it's head again!
          The Daily Caller is a conservative entity and virtually every article is anti Obama.
          This article merely states that the most religious are not somehow blessed by God to be nessesarily effective political leaders (Carter, Bush 43) and that even the best ones were a mixed bag religionwise.
          Other articles by this preacher are unabashedly pro religion.

          In Canada where I'm originally from a politician who wraps himself in religion is dismissed as empty, deficient and is treated with suspicion.

          Despite all my rhetoric the wife and I will be voting for Romney and Collins locally, a businessman and former County Executive worth "only" 102 million dollars (vs Mitt's 250 mil)

          Somehow I feel that Romney is playing his base (in fine contradiction tradition) was never a true ideological conservative and if elected will be a sane responsible leader who will not stick himself too far into divisive social issues and concentrate on the economy.

          Romney has shown himself to be able to handle the base without making real promises that turn off other voters, a quality I can admire.
           
        • hrmwrm

          hrmwrm Dedicated LVC Member

          Messages:
          1,392
          Likes Received:
          1
          Joined:
          Aug 26, 2007
          Location:
          Alberta
          ok. why worship? why religion? they are irrelevent of a god/creator. well, at least as you're describing here.
          but then, you're description is philosophical.
          god couldn't have been created from nothing either. for it to be, it needs a beginning and a creator also. so the circle continues.
           
        • hrmwrm

          hrmwrm Dedicated LVC Member

          Messages:
          1,392
          Likes Received:
          1
          Joined:
          Aug 26, 2007
          Location:
          Alberta
          if nothing comes from nothing, then where did god come from? what created IT?
          if god can spring from nothing, then so to can a universe.
           
        • Calabrio

          Calabrio Dedicated LVC Member

          Messages:
          8,828
          Likes Received:
          6
          Joined:
          Oct 14, 2005
          Location:
          Sarasota
          Given the luxury we have here of a multi-year long thread.
          Where are we now?
          Who's anticipation of future events was more right, who was more wrong?
           
        • 04SCTLS

          04SCTLS Dedicated LVC Member

          Messages:
          3,198
          Likes Received:
          16
          Joined:
          May 13, 2007
          Location:
          Lockport
          They're screwed because their elected governments are run by childish vengeful bullying insecure inept at governing religious people who believe silly things and hate each other and spend their time preoccupied with destructive suicidal nonsense while we have the superior separation of church and state with adults in power, our own religious seditionist conservatives notwithstanding, so we can spend our time in the pursuit of happiness, creating value, admiring hot women :D and making money :cool:
           
        • 04SCTLS

          04SCTLS Dedicated LVC Member

          Messages:
          3,198
          Likes Received:
          16
          Joined:
          May 13, 2007
          Location:
          Lockport
          Syria is Allah's war, Mr. Obama

          http://communities.washingtontimes....w-world/2013/sep/3/syria-allahs-war-mr-obama/

          Excerpts:

          So what’s the big deal?

          Back and forth between Assad and the rebels (many of them Muslim Brotherhood types) more than 100,000 Syrians have been killed. But then, apparently, Assad resorted to ritually unclean methods to smash the opposition — Sarin gas we are told – and that amounts to breaking the rules of engagement, for some reason.

          From where most Americans sit, both sides in Syria are equally rotten and guilty, so why should we sort it out?

          This is an internal conflict for tribal rights.

          On foreign affairs, especially in the Middle East, this administration continuously wakes up an hour too late.

          The hysterical focus on Israel has blinded both Obama and Kerry on what really troubles the Middle East: Arab against Arab.

          When families get to squabbling, hands-off is always the best policy. When will we ever learn?
          _______________________________________________________________

          When your enemies are busy destroying themselves the best action is to stay out of the way.
           
        • PenGun

          PenGun Dedicated LVC Member

          Messages:
          565
          Likes Received:
          62
          Joined:
          May 2, 2012
          Location:
          BC
          I've been right, well have pretty good knowledge of this kerfuffle, since it started.

          I shall explain. Qatar has more gas than god.They would really like to sell that to Europe. As the US has problems with Russia in general, and specifically they have done their best to screw Russia over gas delivery as a general policy. So this looks good for the US.

          The problem is that Syria is in the way. As well the mixed religious nature of Syria has prevented the Sunnis from taking over politically. So remove Assad became the mantra. The rebellion was similar to many CIA sponsored affairs, right down to snipers shooting at both sides to get the party started. Just like in the Ukraine.

          War occurred. After a lot of back and forth, the Russians stepped in and ruined everything. ;)
           
        • cammerfe

          cammerfe Dedicated LVC Member

          Messages:
          3,622
          Likes Received:
          164
          Joined:
          Oct 27, 2007
          Location:
          Metro Detroit
          And now, as of the late afternoon of 4/6/17, Trump says, "No more paper tiger". Or, in the words of a long story that made the rounds when I was in the 4th or 5th grade, "Don't F U C K with Hoppy". (If you're not old enough to be familiar with the story...

          KS
           
        • PenGun

          PenGun Dedicated LVC Member

          Messages:
          565
          Likes Received:
          62
          Joined:
          May 2, 2012
          Location:
          BC
          OK. Of the 59 missiles fired, 23 got through. Of those, just one hit a useful target. The rest were spoofed. The air field is just fine.
           
        • cammerfe

          cammerfe Dedicated LVC Member

          Messages:
          3,622
          Likes Received:
          164
          Joined:
          Oct 27, 2007
          Location:
          Metro Detroit
          Gee, that's not what the pictures seem to show. And far more important than the damage is the message---"ENOUGH" !

          And that one useful target was 20 airplanes and a whole variety of other things around the installation?

          KS
           
          Last edited: Apr 7, 2017
        • PenGun

          PenGun Dedicated LVC Member

          Messages:
          565
          Likes Received:
          62
          Joined:
          May 2, 2012
          Location:
          BC
        • cammerfe

          cammerfe Dedicated LVC Member

          Messages:
          3,622
          Likes Received:
          164
          Joined:
          Oct 27, 2007
          Location:
          Metro Detroit
          Gee, I have pictures I took of my '34 Ford Five-Window, and I sold that car in 1962.

          Why does this forum attract so many who wish the US ill? Lefties, whiners and those who jam their fingers in their ears, squinch their eyes shut and loudly holler La-La-La-La...

          Videos of the destruction are all over the news programs unless you confine yourself to MSNBC or CNN. They are still whinging about the election and/or complaining about the new SCOTUS justice.

          The latest I heard, ONE of the cruise missiles was aborted and the other 58 did what they were supposed to do.

          Now tell us that 9/11 didn't have anything to do with airplanes and we didn't go to the moon.

          KS
           
          Last edited: Apr 8, 2017
        • PenGun

          PenGun Dedicated LVC Member

          Messages:
          565
          Likes Received:
          62
          Joined:
          May 2, 2012
          Location:
          BC
          Of the 59 fired 23 made it to the air base, they largely missed their targets. The air base is operational today.
           
        • cammerfe

          cammerfe Dedicated LVC Member

          Messages:
          3,622
          Likes Received:
          164
          Joined:
          Oct 27, 2007
          Location:
          Metro Detroit
          According to the news on at the moment, the idea was never to make the base un-operational. Cruise missiles don't crater run-ways. And even if they did, that sort of damage is very easily repaired. Push the hole full of rubble and run some tarmac and a roller over it. It literally takes a few hours and the run-way is operational later the same day.

          The destruction was largely in the support infrastructure and the fixed-wing aircraft themselves.

          KS
           
        • PenGun

          PenGun Dedicated LVC Member

          Messages:
          565
          Likes Received:
          62
          Joined:
          May 2, 2012
          Location:
          BC
          6 planes were toasted. They were in the repair area.

          If that happened to a US air field you would be down for a week. Ever seen a runway clearing party US style? Many people go over it and pick up every little rock. Russian aircraft just drop the screens and fly off the rubble.
           

        Share This Page