Jump to content

Only letting in the finest of women immigration policy?


Rozalia
 Share

Recommended Posts

So immigration is a hot issue that is so often talked about. I usually as a default will say that only letting a small number of the finest of people is the policy to pursue. Get the cream of the crop, not the chaff. 

However now and then usually due to the conversation crossing over with talk of Poly relationships someone will talk of the imbalance that brings and I'll state that hey, we can always import women. So with that in mind... how about in the west we do a woman only immigration policy where only those 7+ on the attractiveness scale are allowed in? Immigration officers can be trained beauty judges to suit the new role for those who wonder how attractiveness can be judged. 

I mean think about the positives. We get attractive women for our strapping lads, and you progressive types especially love some diversity too right? These women will have that. Their children raised in western culture will not be problematic like those raised by immigrants in Islamic culture or whatever else. We also cut out male immigrants which we know are overwhelmingly the problem. 

Does anyone have any actual arguments against this policy? No one I have talked to has ever been able to criticise it effectively. I mean who turns down attractive women? Homosexuals I suppose. Do you really need that Arabic man (racist, antisemite, sexist, homophobe), and his 3 slave wives in your country also? We can cut them for more attractive women surely?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now that is quite the question.

Plastic surgery does exist and can be used to up your points but ultimately I do not believe it to be that large a concern. Men will be happy with lookers even if some uh, enhancements have gone on and children are going to have the father in them lets not forget. Such extreme cases would be a small minority of cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Rozalia said:

Now that is quite the question.

Plastic surgery does exist and can be used to up your points but ultimately I do not believe it to be that large a concern. Men will be happy with lookers even if some uh, enhancements have gone on and children are going to have the father in them lets not forget. Such extreme cases would be a small minority of cases.

It's like my friends used to say back in high school, only look for a girl during rainy days.

Make up gets washed away and the cloudy skies cast an unflattering light.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Crossbones said:

It's like my friends used to say back in high school, only look for a girl during rainy days.

Make up gets washed away and the cloudy skies cast an unflattering light.

All sounds very sagacious and make up certainly is another thing that can modify the points a woman has on the scale. Though I'd personally rather not talk of the specifics on this which can be worked out. More interested in any reasons not to have this policy in place. If no-one provides any then I got to assume it really is a stellar policy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sarcasm and satire aside...

...no.

Taking the creme de las creme of other countries displaces the best of the best here.  This is typical social liberalism run amok that doesn't care to cultivate talent at home by displacing it with talent from abroad.  The fact that this deals with good looks is even worse since it reinforces aristocracy at the expense of meritocracy. 

I know the point is to try to teach liberals a lesson, but the fact is it won't do that.  They'll bite the bullet on purpose.  What you're proposing is like one of those naive people who say that Hispanics are Catholic, so they'll vote conservative in the future anyway.  

Even beyond this, it ignores the artistic sublime value of living in an international world.  Elites want to be charmed by the mystery of others who have taken the time to cultivate their talents at home before being exposed to them.  Exposing them prematurely spoils the surprise of that charm.

This, for example, is why the Concert of Europe succeeded for so long in maintaining peace between Napoleon and WW1.  You had elites among all the countries who didn't know too much about each other's cultures too soon. It was only when they were finally courting each other after they developed that they enjoyed each other's company.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dubayoo said:

Sarcasm and satire aside...

...no.

Taking the creme de las creme of other countries displaces the best of the best here.  This is typical social liberalism run amok that doesn't care to cultivate talent at home by displacing it with talent from abroad.  The fact that this deals with good looks is even worse since it reinforces aristocracy at the expense of meritocracy. 

I know the point is to try to teach liberals a lesson, but the fact is it won't do that.  They'll bite the bullet on purpose.  What you're proposing is like one of those naive people who say that Hispanics are Catholic, so they'll vote conservative in the future anyway.  

Even beyond this, it ignores the artistic sublime value of living in an international world.  Elites want to be charmed by the mystery of others who have taken the time to cultivate their talents at home before being exposed to them.  Exposing them prematurely spoils the surprise of that charm.

This, for example, is why the Concert of Europe succeeded for so long in maintaining peace between Napoleon and WW1.  You had elites among all the countries who didn't know too much about each other's cultures too soon. It was only when they were finally courting each other after they developed that they enjoyed each other's company.

You're referring to what I usually say when it comes to immigration (not really the point of this thread but I'll answer) and I fail to see your point there. A small number of "elites" aren't going to displace local people as they simply won't have the numbers. They bring skills, wealth, and good behaviour which contributes greatly to integration. Immigration is very much a boon if done properly.

Reinforcing aristocracy? You have to explain that to me. While it does happen... Aristocrats aren't exactly known as a diverse crowd. They like marrying other people of money too. This largely is for the middle and lower class to enjoy. Nice looking foreign babes coming in and not causing trouble like those young ugly trouble making men. Considering the discrimination of men and emboldening of women, plus the support for this extra bit of diversity this brings... why aren't progressives on here coming in here and championing the Roz's idea? Come on peeps, this should be up your alleys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Rozalia said:

You're referring to what I usually say when it comes to immigration (not really the point of this thread but I'll answer) and I fail to see your point there. A small number of "elites" aren't going to displace local people as they simply won't have the numbers. They bring skills, wealth, and good behaviour which contributes greatly to integration. Immigration is very much a boon if done properly.

Reinforcing aristocracy? You have to explain that to me. While it does happen... Aristocrats aren't exactly known as a diverse crowd. They like marrying other people of money too. This largely is for the middle and lower class to enjoy. Nice looking foreign babes coming in and not causing trouble like those young ugly trouble making men. Considering the discrimination of men and emboldening of women, plus the support for this extra bit of diversity this brings... why aren't progressives on here coming in here and championing the Roz's idea? Come on peeps, this should be up your alleys.

Mate, we already see how they displace elites in our universities which deliberately recruit from abroad instead of from home because they're so disappointed in American schools.  Companies double-down on this in believing American graduates are incompetent, so they have more to gain from foreign talent.  This disappointment and incompetence stems from social liberalism deliberately neglecting our students in public education to accommodate feminist teacher unions. 

Pulling in attractive looking people will only make this worse since it will further discourage study habits and reinforce the popularity contests and bullying epidemic that our schools are plagued by.  On top of that, it will make people worship the actors, models, and singers in Hollywood more.  Along with this is how aristocracy is fundamentally grounded in families having children marry one generation after the next of other influential families instead of focusing on talented partners, influence which is first grounded in how people look to broadcast an attractive first impression.  

If you think attractive women aren't going to cause trouble, then you really don't know what you're talking about.  If anything, one of the easiest ways to cause trouble is by charming people with good looks while playing the victim on one hand as a poor woman while blaming men as not being manly enough because they won't put up with feminine antics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dubayoo said:

Mate, we already see how they displace elites in our universities which deliberately recruit from abroad instead of from home because they're so disappointed in American schools.  Companies double-down on this in believing American graduates are incompetent, so they have more to gain from foreign talent.  This disappointment and incompetence stems from social liberalism deliberately neglecting our students in public education to accommodate feminist teacher unions. 

Pulling in attractive looking people will only make this worse since it will further discourage study habits and reinforce the popularity contests and bullying epidemic that our schools are plagued by.  On top of that, it will make people worship the actors, models, and singers in Hollywood more.  Along with this is how aristocracy is fundamentally grounded in families having children marry one generation after the next of other influential families instead of focusing on talented partners, influence which is first grounded in how people look to broadcast an attractive first impression.  

If you think attractive women aren't going to cause trouble, then you really don't know what you're talking about.  If anything, one of the easiest ways to cause trouble is by charming people with good looks while playing the victim on one hand as a poor woman while blaming men as not being manly enough because they won't put up with feminine antics.

... You don't seem to understand when I support immigration I do at most lowish 5 digits. Such numbers are an irrelevance in the vast majority of western countries. 

Bullying? You are just trying to come up with ways to attack this aren't you? Thanks I guess but I need serious arguments here.

Please mate, attractive women do not cause the trouble men do. Fact. Also I know how to handle birds don't worry and will other men when they understand what it means to be a man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Oswulf said:

Sacrificing your country's safety so that other men can get laid.

 

A true cuck

Holy shit this man is a genius. Somebody give this man a goddamn cookie!

It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Rozalia said:

... You don't seem to understand when I support immigration I do at most lowish 5 digits. Such numbers are an irrelevance in the vast majority of western countries. 

Bullying? You are just trying to come up with ways to attack this aren't you? Thanks I guess but I need serious arguments here.

Please mate, attractive women do not cause the trouble men do. Fact. Also I know how to handle birds don't worry and will other men when they understand what it means to be a man.

The amount of immigrants who arrive isn't really relevant.  We could have few immigrants or many immigrants.  What matters is they share our country's values, principles, and ideas.  Being physically attractive has no bearing on any of those.

If you don't think child development is a serious concern, that's a problem.  Across the country, children get bullied for not being physically attractive.  This sort of immigration effort won't do them wonders. 

Positive generalizations like that are naive as well.  Some attractive women might be well-mannered, but all are not.  Personality is more than skin deep.  This standard allows unprincipled people to enter the country just because they're good-looking.  Being a man doesn't mean being obligated to put up with bad behavior either.  

If anything, feminists insist on claiming that decent behavioral standards are patriarchic.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Dubayoo said:

The amount of immigrants who arrive isn't really relevant.  We could have few immigrants or many immigrants.  What matters is they share our country's values, principles, and ideas.  Being physically attractive has no bearing on any of those.

If you don't think child development is a serious concern, that's a problem.  Across the country, children get bullied for not being physically attractive.  This sort of immigration effort won't do them wonders. 

Positive generalizations like that are naive as well.  Some attractive women might be well-mannered, but all are not.  Personality is more than skin deep.  This standard allows unprincipled people to enter the country just because they're good-looking.  Being a man doesn't mean being obligated to put up with bad behavior either.  

If anything, feminists insist on claiming that decent behavioral standards are patriarchic.  

Except that relationships where the male is of the main culture have a far larger success rate in giving the child the main culture than the reverse. So you are incorrect in that even being a concern.

Children are cruel. Attractiveness has little to do with it.

Nothing a good choking won't solve mate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rozalia said:

Except that relationships where the male is of the main culture have a far larger success rate in giving the child the main culture than the reverse. So you are incorrect in that even being a concern.

Children are cruel. Attractiveness has little to do with it.

Nothing a good choking won't solve mate.

I've no idea where that first line came from.  It's totally off the wall.  This is what I said:

If you don't think child development is a serious concern, that's a problem.  Across the country, children get bullied for not being physically attractive.  This sort of immigration effort won't do them wonders. 

This is what you said:

Except that relationships where the male is of the main culture have a far larger success rate in giving the child the main culture than the reverse. So you are incorrect in that even being a concern.

What I said focused on children being made fun of for how they look (which is a natural concrete attribute that has nothing to do with artificial abstract cultivation), not their gender.  On top of that, people don't deserve to be treated like statistics (which is something liberals usually have to be reminded of because of their obsession with empirical pluralism) such that even if what you're saying is true despite being unproven, that doesn't make it valid.  Are we supposed to forsaken children who come from households where the father belongs to the main culture yet the child still isn't assimilated?  

Likewise, there's no good reason to believe our culture is perfect.  If there are foreigners who appreciate our values who can improve upon our culture, it would be helpful to bring them in. Sometimes, domestic culture neglects some personalities to the preference of others within the domestic population.  There's no need for that negligence to perpetuate.  If anything, we should have a sense of fraternal vigilance to those who share our values.  Good people look out for fellow good people.  To be clear, this is different from admitting refugees into the country because we don't know if refugees are good or not.

The second line isn't necessarily true.  Many children are considerate even if others are not.  On top of that, inconsiderate children can be such for many reasons.  The point here is your policy enables inconsiderate attitudes towards the unattractive.  

Your last line leaves me scratching my head as to whether or not you're taking this seriously.

Edited by Dubayoo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You talked about culture, having values and such. I talked about how those values will be instilled in the children that result from said women with no trouble due to how the male-female dynamic works. Men who fail in giving down their own culture to their child are failures, but even some of the most pathetic can achieve this so no worries.

What I fail to see is... all these women coming in are going to be 7 years old or something? Many aren't going to be going to school at all and if they do it'll be for a short time with adults which for the most part have grown past that phase. Support exists in school for people who have to adapt to a new country anyway.

Your native culture is always the best. The goal of immigrants at the end of the day is to gain the culture which is more easier with children but can be done with adults too.

Of course it is serious. I have talked on Discord extensively on the nature of the choke and what it represents. However if I must make it a little clearer for you. In essence men acting like men will get the job done. These feminists that you refer to that want men to be like women and women like men are simply unnatural. Men are dominant creatures. Women are submissive creatures. Exceptions naturally exist but efforts to artificially induce dominance in women and submission in men are simply wrong. Just like how people are born straight, !@#$, or Bi... you can't change your nature. 

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Rozalia said:

You talked about culture, having values and such. I talked about how those values will be instilled in the children that result from said women with no trouble due to how the male-female dynamic works. Men who fail in giving down their own culture to their child are failures, but even some of the most pathetic can achieve this so no worries.

What I fail to see is... all these women coming in are going to be 7 years old or something? Many aren't going to be going to school at all and if they do it'll be for a short time with adults which for the most part have grown past that phase. Support exists in school for people who have to adapt to a new country anyway.

Your native culture is always the best. The goal of immigrants at the end of the day is to gain the culture which is more easier with children but can be done with adults too.

Of course it is serious. I have talked on Discord extensively on the nature of the choke and what it represents. However if I must make it a little clearer for you. In essence men acting like men will get the job done. These feminists that you refer to that want men to be like women and women like men are simply unnatural. Men are dominant creatures. Women are submissive creatures. Exceptions naturally exist but efforts to artificially induce dominance in women and submission in men are simply wrong. Just like how people are born straight, !@#$, or Bi... you can't change your nature. 


This isn't about the male-female dynamic.  This is about how adults will socialize among fellow adults in society and gather to politicize and twist the legal system to their whims.  Merely bringing in attractive women from foreign lands does not mean you're bringing people into society who will have the character to refrain from doing this.  If anything, you're enabling reinforcement of feminism or at least social decay.  The mere fact that you're appealing to people based on how they make others feel from what they look like on the outside caters to the deconstruction of universal ideas that are needed to ensure reliable respect for rights and responsibilities in the rule of law.  You're literally encouraging favoritism and corruption that does not necessarily hold people responsible for their actions to get the credit or blame they deserve.

Obviously, these women aren't going to be youth going to school.  The point is the way they're admitted into society will direct them to socialize among fellow adults.  It will also encourage them to raise their own children a certain way and tolerate peer pressure among children growing up together.  In fact, we already see this in society where men focus on marrying attractive women from foreign lands, and the children are raised to prioritize good looks when socializing instead of caring about polite manners, sophisticated culture, or quality performance.  Of course, the same thing happens regardless of which gender is good looking or if anyone's foreign at all.  The point is good looks are prioritized instead of caring about who people are on a deeper level.  

Heck, this even explains how ugly redneck hillbilly communities resulted from social decay.  When people focus on how others look on the outside to make them feel instead of caring about deeper personalities, that means they take maintenance and development for granted since maintenance and development require deeper thought over time instead of shallow feelings in the moment.  Over the generations, people don't actualize the potential of their appearances from taking care of themselves, and even stoop to lower levels in hooking up with people beneath themselves out of frustrated desperation.  If anything, your policy would backfire over time.

What you say about native culture ignores how immigrants can want to bring their own culture with them as well, especially into a country like ours which is politically correct about diversity and tolerance.  What you're doing would reinforce that political correctness.  Do immigrants move somewhere else for a preferable culture?  No.  They move somewhere for preferable opportunity.  If anything, what you're doing would give them the opportunity to use political correctness and put children they had ahead of those had from purely domestic families.  

As for what you're saying about choking and dominance...

...sorry, but I'm a gentleman who has an understanding of passionate grace.  Is feminism messed up in trying to humiliate men?  Absolutely, but what you're advocating sabotages men from being themselves.  It encourages a culture where women are allowed to use their good looks to politicize the legal system.  It also separates good men from being able to exercise their sense of fraternal vigilance to look out for each other.

At the very least, you must be familiar with men who get married to said women, and get screwed over in the divorce proceedings which follow.  They get used just to enter the country, and abandoned after the fact while paying alimony.

Edited by Dubayoo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What? Such women normally are far less feminist than the native women that have been subject to it longer. 

Except... what culture do children of such men have? They have the culture of their father. The children by the large are going to be influenced far more by their father due to the power dynamic in the relationship.

Political correctness is a scourge because of the main group of people, not due to immigrants or minorities. I'm sure the women and the men who get attached to them will be fine. There is a reason such women have a reputation for being submissive you know. They have been likely raised their whole life that the man is the boss and that will be how it'll be. Some argument from some out of shape guy/gal ain't going to convince them.

Nothing is more passionate than dominance over the submissive mate. Men who don't choke, spit, smack, tie up, so on simply aren't using the full toolbox. I don't see where men bringing women into the country came up here in this thread. In the issue of getting screwed in a divorce though you merely need to do what I always say, get the piece of paper, the prenuptial signed. Ain't perfect of course but it helps. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Rozalia said:

What? Such women normally are far less feminist than the native women that have been subject to it longer. 

Except... what culture do children of such men have? They have the culture of their father. The children by the large are going to be influenced far more by their father due to the power dynamic in the relationship.

You're talking about a specific type of feminist there.  Some are feminists because they're ugly fatsos craving for attention, but all are not.  Others are feminists because they're beautiful models who just want to act up without being held responsible for their actions.  Heck, they even appeal to the ugly fatsos sometimes because they know they're frustrated and want to act up too.  Then, you also have the beautiful model fatsos who try to evoke envy to feel good about themselves while appealing to universal ideas, but that appeal is just a short-term charade that precedes two-faced betrayals.  The moment they're confident that the ugly fatsos are dispatched, the ideas are forsakened.

I see how there's an argument on your side in saying that bringing foreign women into the country will compel domestic women to compete harder, but it really doesn't work like that.  Heck, many people, women, and feminists deliberately surrender because they either believe they were outcompeted and nothing can be done about it, they admire those who are better than them and are charmed into apathy (which is something our country does already in admiring foreign beautiful actresses, models, and singers in Hollywood), or they give in on purpose to strive for an epic goal while believing those who beat them have a better shot at turning the world into the form they believe in.  

Again, the relationship isn't everything that matters.  What matters is how adults socialize in society.  Our society accommodates political correctness tremendously, so the mother's culture will be more influential than you're proposing.  It's not like she is going to be (or should be) locked up and unable to socialize with anyone aside from her husband.  When she socializes among fellow adults, she'll realize how diversity, feminism, and multiculturalism end up going hand in hand.  If anything, the father will be pressured into relinquishing control to show he actually cares.  Heck, if he doesn't, it will make her wonder if she's really loved by him or if he's just using her (to appear PC).

6 hours ago, Rozalia said:

Political correctness is a scourge because of the main group of people, not due to immigrants or minorities. I'm sure the women and the men who get attached to them will be fine. There is a reason such women have a reputation for being submissive you know. They have been likely raised their whole life that the man is the boss and that will be how it'll be. Some argument from some out of shape guy/gal ain't going to convince them.

Nothing is more passionate than dominance over the submissive mate. Men who don't choke, spit, smack, tie up, so on simply aren't using the full toolbox. I don't see where men bringing women into the country came up here in this thread. In the issue of getting screwed in a divorce though you merely need to do what I always say, get the piece of paper, the prenuptial signed. Ain't perfect of course but it helps. 

This is wrong on so many levels I don't know where to start.

In any case, remember what you wrote the OP about.  This thread wasn't about dominance and submission.  It was about attractive women being allowed into the country. You turned it over into relation dynamics when saying:

On 8/29/2017 at 11:12 AM, Rozalia said:

Except that relationships where the male is of the main culture have a far larger success rate in giving the child the main culture than the reverse.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see how you can attack me for sidetracking when you did it to start with. 

There is a reason there is a market for good docile foreign wives. There is a reason White Male - Black Female marriages are apparently so rock solid. These women to begin with are not brought up believing that guff and second they do not have greater "power" than the male in the relationship. Indoctrination can of course occur and if it does then the man should have done a better job for letting it happen. However it is largely not a significant risk.You listed rich guys getting foreign wives did you not? Let me ask you. How many of their children are their mother's culture? I don't want to talk absolutes of course but this is one up there in how unlikely it is.

On 31/08/2017 at 11:23 PM, Dubayoo said:

This is wrong on so many levels I don't know where to start.

Start wherever you wish. Domination makes the dominate feel good. Submission makes the submissive feel good. Simply how it goes. 
Relationships/marriages have collapsed these days because men had their societal power taken from them and it is quite apparent many men without that simply can't get the job done right. However when it comes to relationships of men with power and women with much less so... some of that power advantage is restored. 

Now if what you had a problem with was what I said about the many ways a man makes love to a woman then... sorry mate but your Puritan style lovemaking is not manly nor natural. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be clear, there's nothing wrong with being dominant.  The point is you're confusing dominance with violence just as much as you're confusing passion with puritanism.  If anything, your style is boring because it's like you're nailing an airhead who doesn't reciprocate in the act.  She gets to just lay there while you do all the work.  You might as well replace who's there with a blowup doll.  Even if she does on occasion reciprocate by doing what you tell her to do, it doesn't reach that level of sublime transformation.  

The point of being passionate is to be gradual by starting with the little things before building up to the big things.  Passion starts tender, intimate, passionate, and sensual before building harmony and synchronizing together.  It's like how a Ferrari accelerates over time before using its downforce to hug the turns you ordinarily have to slow down for.  What you're doing, in contrast, is like driving a monster truck.  You make a lot of noise crushing things, but don't go very fast and end up rolling over upside down at the end.

If anything, your problem is the same problem puritans have.  They don't reach that level of sublime transformation either.  They have no style in what they do that symbolizes what they feel.  They shun creativity while remaining plain like driving a top-heavy minivan that doesn't drive fast or handle turns well either.  Just like you, it ends up rolling over too even if it's cautious about making noise and avoiding wreckage.

In any case, what you said about interracial marriages doesn't necessarily apply.  A lot of the time, they backfire.  Yea, you have some who don't want to lose a good thing, but there are others who take a good thing for granted.  On top of that, you're not addressing the reality of dysfunctional domestic households.  You're just displacing them.  

Perhaps you live in a red state, but in blue states like California, New York, Washington, and Illinois, interracial marriages often end up with the foreign culture taking precedent, especially when it's female due to the overlapping political correctness between feminism and multiculturalism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You aren't saying these things to me... surely not. Being dominant isn't about nailing a dead fish, that is what the Puritan types do. You can be dominant without doing a single thing and getting her to do all the work. 

??? You'll have to show where I said you have to skip foreplay and go straight to piledriving hard and fast. You're trying to defend yourself I know but the truth is quite simply, and it is factual, you do not operate with the full toolbox. You hear choking, smacking, spitting, and so forth and you think it all happens in some hurricane of sex. No. It can go at whatever pace you want. 

#NotAll right. What is the purpose of your statement? Some of them backfire? Sure, oh course, where did I say they all succeed. The numbers I've seen show them as the most stable relationships though Hispanics are apparently really bad for whatever reason. 

I live in Great Britain. I have read some stories on half black women in America who talk about how their white father is a bad man because he treated them as she was just another person and didn't define her as black or whatever. That he wanted to rub out her blackness or whatever guff. Clearly those fathers should have done a better job in making it clear that in this world there are despicable race hustlers who will try and define respect as racism. Sad stories. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.