Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 29 April, 2011 Share Posted 29 April, 2011 I never said public opinion was the decider in what was right and wrong - reason is. Since you agree with me, or unable to form an argument against me I have to assume I win again. So all those things you were saying about democracy are invalid.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revolution saint Posted 30 April, 2011 Share Posted 30 April, 2011 So all those things you were saying about democracy are invalid.. Relying on the bewildered herd to come up with a decent argument then Sergie? In any case I believe in democracy but I don't always like it's results - I never said anything to the contrary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperMikey Posted 30 April, 2011 Author Share Posted 30 April, 2011 Well, i've done my trip to the pub, and I still can't see a solid reason for keeping the monarchy posted on this thread. Yes - they make money for the country through tourism. But couldn't the money that we spend on them be used to set up a multitude of businesses which could easily make 10x the amount that the Royals currently bring in to the country? Why does the taxpayer have to spend tens of thousands on doing up Princess Beatrice/Eugenie's student digs, flying Prince Andrew halfway round the world to hang out with his affluent (allegedly) kiddy-fiddling friends, and providing year-round security for every member of the Royal Family when there are 'commoners' out there who can't afford to put food on the table? I just don't get it. Britain seems to be clinging onto the Royal Family purely for sentimental reasons - there is no logical explanation for keeping them. Not in my book anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 30 April, 2011 Share Posted 30 April, 2011 I think 2 billion people watching worldwide shows their value to the UK brand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocknrollman no2 Posted 30 April, 2011 Share Posted 30 April, 2011 I think 2 billion people watching worldwide shows their value to the UK brand. But how many of them will spend their money over here? I imagine that the tv was on in the background of the sweatshops in most third world countries. No doubt those same sweatshops in India and China will now be a lot busier making replicas of Kate Middletons dress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastleighSoulBoy Posted 30 April, 2011 Share Posted 30 April, 2011 And Edward VIII nearly blew it. Was that the one who wanted to be bestest buddies with Adolf? Oh yes! After his abdication, he was created Duke of Windsor. He married Wallis Simpson in France on 3 June 1937, after her second divorce became final. Later that year, the couple toured Nazi Germany. During the Second World War, he was at first stationed with the British Military Mission to France but, after private accusations that he held pro-Nazi sympathies, moved to the Bahamas after his appointment as Governor. After the war, he was never given another official appointment and spent the remainder of his life in retirement in France. Courtesy of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_VIII_of_the_United_Kingdom Also of interest: http://www.feldgrau.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=25499 http://www.mail-archive.com/pen-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu/msg76477.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecuk268 Posted 30 April, 2011 Share Posted 30 April, 2011 But how many of them will spend their money over here? I imagine that the tv was on in the background of the sweatshops in most third world countries. No doubt those same sweatshops in India and China will now be a lot busier making replicas of Kate Middletons dress. Exactly. The CBI have estimated the cost to industry of the extra day off at around £7.5bn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deppo Posted 30 April, 2011 Share Posted 30 April, 2011 1,000 years of history and we are going to be the Mong generation that ends it? Hope not. Exactly. Like the mong generation that ended 1,000s of years of slavery. What a bunch of mongs. It was tradition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deppo Posted 30 April, 2011 Share Posted 30 April, 2011 Lovely day. My kids will remember it for the party for the rest of the lives, the village will remember it, Thank god I am British. Thank god I am not chippy. Tomorrow, I might go for a bike ride with the family or nurse my hangover. Exactly. Unlike those chippy Republicans, wallowing in their own faeces, unable to feel enjoyment in anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deppo Posted 30 April, 2011 Share Posted 30 April, 2011 What are you on? Have you ever walked around Westminster Abbey or the Tower? These countries you mention have NOTHING that compares to the history and grandeur of our Monarchy. Not even close. And they are jealous as ****. If I had my way I'd have revolutionary republicans banged up in the Tower for a bit to have a think about things. And to be fair, the Monarchy couldn't have made any worse a job of running the country than Gordon Brown. Exactly. What do the Greeks know about history? They've got absolutey none, whatsoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wade Garrett Posted 30 April, 2011 Share Posted 30 April, 2011 There are some right miserable gits on here. They wedding yesterday gave the country a bit of a lift and I got an extra day off work out of it. Cheers William and Kate, all the best. Diane Abbott is a hypocrite of the highest order, against private schooling for the masses but sees nothing wrong with sending her own child to a private school. If she says we should get rid of the Royals, then I'm quite comfortable with my opinion that we shouldn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 30 April, 2011 Share Posted 30 April, 2011 There are some right miserable gits on here. They wedding yesterday gave the country a bit of a lift and I got an extra day off work out of it. Cheers William and Kate, all the best. Diane Abbott is a hypocrite of the highest order, against private schooling for the masses but sees nothing wrong with sending her own child to a private school. If she says we should get rid of the Royals, then I'm quite comfortable with my opinion that we shouldn't. Deppo, is that you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 30 April, 2011 Share Posted 30 April, 2011 Exactly. The CBI have estimated the cost to industry of the extra day off at around £7.5bn. Good point. Let's abolish Christmas, Easter, the May bank holiday, the August bank holiday, paid leave, sick leave, maternity leave. After all, the only value of public life is a £ sign. £s affirm life. £s for everyone - joy for none! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deppo Posted 30 April, 2011 Share Posted 30 April, 2011 Good point. Let's abolish Christmas, Easter, the May bank holiday, the August bank holiday, paid leave, sick leave, maternity leave. After all, the only value of public life is a £ sign. £s affirm life. £s for everyone - joy for none! I agree with you, but I think this was in response to the Monarchist argument that the Royal Wedding brought huge amounts of money into the economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty Posted 30 April, 2011 Share Posted 30 April, 2011 Good point. Let's abolish Christmas, Easter, the May bank holiday, the August bank holiday, paid leave, sick leave, maternity leave. After all, the only value of public life is a £ sign. £s affirm life. £s for everyone - joy for none! I'm with benjii here. I'm sick of the lot of them and usually end up working anyway (like yesterday.) Get rid, and have done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 30 April, 2011 Share Posted 30 April, 2011 (edited) I agree with you, but I think this was in response to the Monarchist argument that the Royal Wedding brought huge amounts of money into the economy. Yes, I think it might have been. I am oft amused by leftists' retreat to measuring value in nowt but £, however, when it suits them. How uber-capitalist. What is the net £ benefit to society of giving unemployed people money? What is the net £ benefit to society of assisting disabled people? Surely it would be better to just take them to the country somewhere quiet and let them get on with it... out of sight out of mind, and what's more - we would save some ££££!!! It's all about the £££. These are simple economic transactions, after all. Nothing to do with transcendent values; nothing to do with social cohesion. £ £ £ Edited 30 April, 2011 by benjii Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deppo Posted 30 April, 2011 Share Posted 30 April, 2011 Yes, I think it might have been. I am oft amused by leftists' retreat to measuring value in nowt but £, however, when it suits them. How uber-capitalist. What is the net £ benefit to society of giving unemployed people money? What is the net £ benefit to society of assisting disabled people? Surely it would be better to just take them to the country somewhere quiet and let them get on with it... out of sight out of mind, and what's more - we would save some ££££!!! It's all about the £££. These are simple economic transactions, after all. Nothing to do with transcendent values; nothing to do with social cohesion. £ £ £ Yes, benji. All debatable points, but as I say, he was responding to the point of the worth of the Royal Wedding. I don't think he was measuring value in money for the sake of it, merely responding to an argument on the Monarchists' terms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 30 April, 2011 Share Posted 30 April, 2011 Yes, benji. All debatable points, but as I say, he was responding to the point of the worth of the Royal Wedding. I don't think he was measuring value in money for the sake of it, merely responding to an argument on the Monarchists' terms. That's not funny. Are you ok? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty Posted 30 April, 2011 Share Posted 30 April, 2011 That's not funny. Are you ok? He's going soft. I asked the other day who he was, he avoided the question Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deppo Posted 30 April, 2011 Share Posted 30 April, 2011 That's not funny. Are you ok? I am a chippy Republican. We don't know the meaning of the word 'fun'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 30 April, 2011 Share Posted 30 April, 2011 According to some estimates...... 5 million pounds ($7.5M): Estimated cost of royal wedding security to taxpayers. Football clubs have to pay for policing at games out of their own funds. The House of Windsor PLC is already obscenely rich thanks to the amount of public money they have received over the years. Why could they not pay for the security themselves? It's pocket change to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revolution saint Posted 30 April, 2011 Share Posted 30 April, 2011 Yes, I think it might have been. I am oft amused by leftists' retreat to measuring value in nowt but £, however, when it suits them. How uber-capitalist. What is the net £ benefit to society of giving unemployed people money? What is the net £ benefit to society of assisting disabled people? Surely it would be better to just take them to the country somewhere quiet and let them get on with it... out of sight out of mind, and what's more - we would save some ££££!!! It's all about the £££. These are simple economic transactions, after all. Nothing to do with transcendent values; nothing to do with social cohesion. £ £ £ I'm oft amused by Monarchists confusing Republicans with being left wing - it's possible to be right wing and republican too. Anyway the only reason money ever gets brought into the argument is because it seems to be the only Monarchist defence against abolition; they bring in money. The whole basis of the Monarchy though is divine right to rule and that's pretty indefensible and stupid isn't it? That's why money is used as an argument - because Monarchists don't want to talk about the fact that this great institution is built upon an absurdity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StDunko Posted 30 April, 2011 Share Posted 30 April, 2011 The United Kingdom earns £160million profit every year from the Monarchy, through tourism etc. Complete rubbish! How many tourists actually come and meet the royal family? I agree that this country's has an amazing collection of HISTORIC castles, palaces and estates/gardens which many tourists are attracted to. This would still exist without the monarchy. Keep the history and the buildings and the tourists will still come, offload the "chosen by god" aristocrats may rich by exploiting the resources of this and other commonwealth/empire countries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 30 April, 2011 Share Posted 30 April, 2011 I'm oft amused by Monarchists confusing Republicans with being left wing - it's possible to be right wing and republican too. Anyway the only reason money ever gets brought into the argument is because it seems to be the only Monarchist defence against abolition; they bring in money. The whole basis of the Monarchy though is divine right to rule and that's pretty indefensible and stupid isn't it? That's why money is used as an argument - because Monarchists don't want to talk about the fact that this great institution is built upon an absurdity. Are you really using this as an argument against the monarchy? How many prime ministers / MPs have there been in the history of British Politics that have been 'brought up' the right way, gone to the right public schools and are part of the 'old boys' club? I would wager that it is probably at least 10 to 1 in favour compared to those that went to state school and lived in a council house! I suspect that you could also infer that these people are in the positions they are in due to where they were born and who their parents are.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 30 April, 2011 Share Posted 30 April, 2011 Are you really using this as an argument against the monarchy? How many prime ministers / MPs have there been in the history of British Politics that have been 'brought up' the right way, gone to the right public schools and are part of the 'old boys' club? I would wager that it is probably at least 10 to 1 in favour compared to those that went to state school and lived in a council house! I suspect that you could also infer that these people are in the positions they are in due to where they were born and who their parents are.... Tenuous argument there, WSS. Prime Ministers do not have a 'divine right'. They are elected. Many MPs come from state schools and lived in council houses and are elected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deppo Posted 30 April, 2011 Share Posted 30 April, 2011 Are you really using this as an argument against the monarchy? How many prime ministers / MPs have there been in the history of British Politics that have been 'brought up' the right way, gone to the right public schools and are part of the 'old boys' club? I would wager that it is probably at least 10 to 1 in favour compared to those that went to state school and lived in a council house! I suspect that you could also infer that these people are in the positions they are in due to where they were born and who their parents are.... Are you really going to use that as an argument? It doesn't even make sense. What's divine right to rule got to do with going to public school and/or elected politicians? Just because they have a similar education, doesn't mean they have divine right to being Prime Minister. You might as well just say that as the X Factor contestants have the same breakfast cereal as the Royals, they are the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revolution saint Posted 30 April, 2011 Share Posted 30 April, 2011 Are you really using this as an argument against the monarchy? How many prime ministers / MPs have there been in the history of British Politics that have been 'brought up' the right way, gone to the right public schools and are part of the 'old boys' club? I would wager that it is probably at least 10 to 1 in favour compared to those that went to state school and lived in a council house! I suspect that you could also infer that these people are in the positions they are in due to where they were born and who their parents are.... Of course I'm using that as an argument - it's perfectly sensible. There are no prime ministers or MPs preordained at birth. Whilst some people have advantages there is no guarantee of a position of power. The other thing of course is that elected politicians are accountable and if they screw up then we can get rid of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robsk II Posted 30 April, 2011 Share Posted 30 April, 2011 What are you on? Have you ever walked around Westminster Abbey or the Tower? These countries you mention have NOTHING that compares to the history and grandeur of our Monarchy. Not even close. And they are jealous as ****. If I had my way I'd have revolutionary republicans banged up in the Tower for a bit to have a think about things. And to be fair, the Monarchy couldn't have made any worse a job of running the country than Gordon Brown. You are so proud you emmigrated? And Britain is a melting pot of other cultures and their historical journeys. We would not be who we are today if it were not for the (longer, in terms of civilisation) histories of countires such as Greece, Italy, and indeed China. The royal family is bloody german, for god's sake. Have you ever seen the Athenian Acropolis? The Colosseum? The great wall of china? For that matter, do you have any ideas of the history of Germany, or France? Mesopotamia? I'm sure others have made this point already, I couldn't be bothered to read through. But your post is one of the most ignorant, narrow-minded and laughable I have ever seen on this website, and that takes some doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperm_john Posted 30 April, 2011 Share Posted 30 April, 2011 anyone who thinks we would be better off without the monarchy needs their head checking after yesterday ...ive not seen such patriotism and pride/unity in our country for a long time ..you can split hairs about money all you want, but the world was watching and the world was jealous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revolution saint Posted 30 April, 2011 Share Posted 30 April, 2011 anyone who thinks we would be better off without the monarchy needs their head checking after yesterday ...ive not seen such patriotism and pride/unity in our country for a long time ..you can split hairs about money all you want, but the world was watching and the world was jealous It's possible to be patriotic without a monarchy isn't it? I'm sure every republican country will be rushing up to find themselves a monarchy now though.....yes, of course, you're right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ericb Posted 30 April, 2011 Share Posted 30 April, 2011 ive not seen such patriotism and pride/unity But that's because you were looking at a partisan crowd since those that disagreed weren't there. It's a bit like saying watching saints fans proves that everyone in the country supports saints, since you can't see any that don't. As for the world being jealous? No doubt there was interest from abroad but it was only a passing interest that's a bit of a throwback to the disney like stories of their youths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 30 April, 2011 Share Posted 30 April, 2011 It's possible to be patriotic without a monarchy isn't it? I'm sure every republican country will be rushing up to find themselves a monarchy now though.....yes, of course, you're right. it may be possible...it may be not...but it IS possible right now for 65p a year....isnt that a small price to pay to bring communities together now and then....nothing else really does it anymore..and I thought that is what we want...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 30 April, 2011 Share Posted 30 April, 2011 You are so proud you emmigrated? And Britain is a melting pot of other cultures and their historical journeys. We would not be who we are today if it were not for the (longer, in terms of civilisation) histories of countires such as Greece, Italy, and indeed China. The royal family is bloody german, for god's sake. Have you ever seen the Athenian Acropolis? The Colosseum? The great wall of china? For that matter, do you have any ideas of the history of Germany, or France? Mesopotamia? I'm sure others have made this point already, I couldn't be bothered to read through. But your post is one of the most ignorant, narrow-minded and laughable I have ever seen on this website, and that takes some doing. Lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 30 April, 2011 Share Posted 30 April, 2011 I'm oft amused by Monarchists confusing Republicans with being left wing - it's possible to be right wing and republican too. Anyway the only reason money ever gets brought into the argument is because it seems to be the only Monarchist defence against abolition; they bring in money. The whole basis of the Monarchy though is divine right to rule and that's pretty indefensible and stupid isn't it? That's why money is used as an argument - because Monarchists don't want to talk about the fact that this great institution is built upon an absurdity. Great point well made. Monarchists seem to want to choose our head of state on the basis of who brings in the most money. I found yesterday embarressing to a modern nation.The number of chumps who commented "This is what Britain does best",made me cringe. I tried by and large to ignore the whole thing, but some of the people I did see interviewed in the nights leading up to it, were definitely stalker material.If that's what Britain does best, then god help us. In 200 years people will look back on our social history and wonder how we ever allowed ourselves to get like this.Us Replublican are like Charles Darwin, banging our heads against a brick wall of "tradition", but like him our views will become the norm as time goes on. I refuse to sing God save the Queen at any event or occasion and will continue to do so. They need to go and go now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 30 April, 2011 Share Posted 30 April, 2011 it may be possible...it may be not...but it IS possible right now for 65p a year....isnt that a small price to pay to bring communities together now and then....nothing else really does it anymore..and I thought that is what we want...? Of course it is - just look at the USA for idiotic patriotism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 30 April, 2011 Share Posted 30 April, 2011 Great point well made. Monarchists seem to want to choose our head of state on the basis of who brings in the most money. I found yesterday embarressing to a modern nation.The number of chumps who commented "This is what Britain does best",made me cringe. I tried by and large to ignore the whole thing, but some of the people I did see interviewed in the nights leading up to it, were definitely stalker material.If that's what Britain does best, then god help us. In 200 years people will look back on our social history and wonder how we ever allowed ourselves to get like this.Us Replublican are like Charles Darwin, banging our heads against a brick wall of "tradition", but like him our views will become the norm as time goes on. I refuse to sing God save the Queen at any event or occasion and will continue to do so. They need to go and go now. Good comment, I had you down as a flag waver Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 30 April, 2011 Share Posted 30 April, 2011 anyone who thinks we would be better off without the monarchy needs their head checking after yesterday ...ive not seen such patriotism and pride/unity in our country for a long time ..you can split hairs about money all you want, but the world was watching and the world was jealous I bet the French weren't jealous. They can have pride and patriotism in their Country without the need to be subjects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingsbridge Saint Posted 30 April, 2011 Share Posted 30 April, 2011 Good debate. I have my view, others have theirs. Wars have been fought over this. But I can't get that worked up. There's a bigger deal over at Griffin Park. I'm going to move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revolution saint Posted 30 April, 2011 Share Posted 30 April, 2011 it may be possible...it may be not...but it IS possible right now for 65p a year....isnt that a small price to pay to bring communities together now and then....nothing else really does it anymore..and I thought that is what we want...? Money isn't the issue for me so I'm not getting in to that - it's about whether it's fair and right for our head of state to be unaccountable, unelected, undemocratic and there by birth alone. It's an outdated and absurd institution and the fact it's been around for centuries doesn't give it any legitimacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 30 April, 2011 Share Posted 30 April, 2011 Money isn't the issue for me so I'm not getting in to that - it's about whether it's fair and right for our head of state to be unaccountable, unelected, undemocratic and there by birth alone. It's an outdated and absurd institution and the fact it's been around for centuries doesn't give it any legitimacy. meh, either way they will be here for a long time yet as they do no harm.....as long as it stays that way the appetite to remove them will remain like it is today..pretty much null and void Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 30 April, 2011 Share Posted 30 April, 2011 Of course it is - just look at the USA for idiotic patriotism. but that is the USA.... they get all excited about 4th july.....its sort of frowned upon and unbritish/english to get excited like that about our national days...deffo st georges day japan get all excited about the emperor thailand get all excited about their king each country is different and has different things that draws many people together...cant think of too many occasions that bring so many together and get communties socialising like our royal family...like it or not now, if england could somehow win the world cup............................. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 30 April, 2011 Share Posted 30 April, 2011 it's about whether it's fair and right for our head of state to be unaccountable, unelected, undemocratic and there by birth alone. Also cannot be ( or be married to ) a catholic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revolution saint Posted 30 April, 2011 Share Posted 30 April, 2011 but that is the USA.... they get all excited about 4th july.....its sort of frowned upon and unbritish/english to get excited like that about our national days...deffo st georges day japan get all excited about the emperor thailand get all excited about their king each country is different and has different things that draws many people together...cant think of too many occasions that bring so many together and get communties socialising like our royal family...like it or not now, if england could somehow win the world cup............................. Ironic you should bring up independence day as an expression of patriotism.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 30 April, 2011 Share Posted 30 April, 2011 Ironic you should bring up independence day as an expression of patriotism.... indeed...but that is for them....something engrained in the history of that country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revolution saint Posted 30 April, 2011 Share Posted 30 April, 2011 Also cannot be ( or be married to ) a catholic. Or a woman if there is a direct male heir.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deppo Posted 30 April, 2011 Share Posted 30 April, 2011 I think we should have a democratically elected King and I am nominating thedelldays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 30 April, 2011 Share Posted 30 April, 2011 Well, i've done my trip to the pub, and I still can't see a solid reason for keeping the monarchy posted on this thread. Yes - they make money for the country through tourism. But couldn't the money that we spend on them be used to set up a multitude of businesses which could easily make 10x the amount that the Royals currently bring in to the country? Why does the taxpayer have to spend tens of thousands on doing up Princess Beatrice/Eugenie's student digs, flying Prince Andrew halfway round the world to hang out with his affluent (allegedly) kiddy-fiddling friends, and providing year-round security for every member of the Royal Family when there are 'commoners' out there who can't afford to put food on the table? I just don't get it. Britain seems to be clinging onto the Royal Family purely for sentimental reasons - there is no logical explanation for keeping them. Not in my book anyway. The fact that the majority of people like them isn't a good enough reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deppo Posted 30 April, 2011 Share Posted 30 April, 2011 The fact that the majority of people like them isn't a good enough reason. Agreed. Shall we lock this now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 30 April, 2011 Share Posted 30 April, 2011 The fact that the majority of people like them isn't a good enough reason. I think you're on to something here. Let's get the majority to decide who becomes head of state. We could call it an election, and vote every 4 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 30 April, 2011 Share Posted 30 April, 2011 Agreed. Shall we lock this now? Good idea! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now