Jump to content
Sal's RuneScape Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Sobend

Alexander Hamilton off the $10 bill, to be replaced with a woman

Recommended Posts

For the first time in more than a century, a woman’s face will appear on an American bill.

 

The Treasury Department announced Wednesday it will replace the main image of its own founder, Alexander Hamilton, on the $10 bill, with a woman as yet to be determined. Mr. Hamilton will remain on the bill in a diminished way.

 

The currency will be unveiled in 2020, the 100th anniversary of the 19th Amendment giving women the right to vote. The last woman to appear on a bill was Martha Washington, in the late 19th century.

 

Americans will have the summer to weigh in on which one of history’s leading ladies they think should have the honor. There is no list of successors, but names frequently mentioned include Eleanor Roosevelt, abolitionist Harriet Tubman, civil-rights icon Rosa Parks and Wilma Mankiller, who served as principal chief of the Cherokee Nation.

 

“It’s very important to be sending the signal of how important it is to recognize the role that women have played in our national life and in our national history for a very long time, really from the beginning,” Treasury Secretary Jack Lew said in an interview Wednesday. “This is a symbolic representation of that but symbols are important.”

 

Mr. Lew said he “will be announcing a decision later in the year. Then we will go into production.”

 

The decision to overshadow Mr. Hamilton, the first treasury secretary and a chief architect of the nation’s financial system, is part of a scheduled redesign of the $10 bill. The Legal Tender Act of 1862 gives the Treasury Department broad powers to design U.S. currency.

 

Can't say I want this. Jackson I can see, but Hamilton was much of the reason the United States didn't financially collapse early on. He was also the first head of treasury... makes sense for him to be on the currency.

 

As for the putting a woman on money stuff, I can see putting a woman's suffrage movement person on the bill, but not any of the popularly mentioned names (see above). I don't want to discount what they did but politically the woman's suffrage movement was far more important than Eleanor Roosevelt's charity work, Tubman's cool slave escapes, etc. Although by that logic Rosa Parks could get on a bill too, but she was not the main figure of the civil rights movement. This also brings up the question are we going to overlook so many male candidates (Madison, Martin Luther King) simply because they have a Y chromosome?

Edited by Sobend

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, I've always felt things like these were extremely unfair. I'm a supporter of equality, but when it comes to this stuff the chosen should be the most deserving, not members of the opposite gender not as deserving in name of equality. This applies to cases were women are the most deserving and men get chosen in name of equality too, so don't think I'm just being machist here or something. Doesn't matter if its jobs or awards we're talking about.

 

I have a similar issue with Peace Nobel Prizes as well, like when that poor girl Malala Yousafzai won. In this case I don't think it's a forced case of equality upholding but I feel its unfair nonetheless. I remember watching it on TV, she received the prize the same year as Kailash Satyarthi, an Indian children's rights advocate and an activist against child labour who has worked to improve kids lives for 30 years. Took him 30 friggin years to get Nobel Prize recognition (even though I'm sure he doesn't give a damn) after all his work and he gets it at the same times as 17 years old kid who got shot for demanding Pakistani girls to receive the education they deserve, and then made a couple speeches and thats about it.

It may seem harsh and a dickish thing to say I know, please believe me when I say I respect the girl and think shes a very brave and kind person. But at the same time it feels she didn't actually do 1/10th of the work Kailash Satyarthi did yet she's more famous because she got shot.

But then again it's the Peace Nobel prize we're talking about, even Obama has one.

Edited by Micael Fatia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jackson I can see
Dammit, how can you not want a president that merits sentences like the one below?
Jackson knew that time spent removing the bullets would just fall under the general category of "time not dueling," Jackson's least favorite category

 

This also brings up the question are we going to overlook so many male candidates (Madison, Martin Luther King) simply because they have a Y chromosome?
The last woman to appear on a bill was Martha Washington, in the late 19th century.
For the merit of boning the first President, one might add. Doesn't such a complaint sound a bit ridiculous, since many non-Y-chromosomed people were overlooked before on the basis of lacking that chromosome, and/or since they were women they weren't at the forefront (or were, but overshadowed) of basically anything save for very recent history?

 

100% Troll-certified solution: Caitlyn Jenner on the $10, yay Y chromosome

 

Eleanor Roosevelt's charity work
just that?

 

Madison was on the 5000$ bill, by the way

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said originally, I don't want to discount Eleanor Roosevelt's charity work, but the woman suffrage movement was incredibly important to this country and overlooking all of the people involved for Eleanor Roosevelt seems a bit ridiculous. I'm sure if you asked Eleanor Roosevelt she'd say the same thing. Also, the bill is coming out on the 100th anniversary of the woman's right to vote and they aren't even thinking about putting a Woman's Suffrage person on.

 

I'm still for viewing people on their merits and not anything else, such as gender, race, or sexual orientation. I thought that was the goal of those movements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think any of the names listed are as significant as Hamilton, sorry. Maybe Rosa Parks, but she was just part of a much wider movement. It also makes sense that our currency should highlight figures that had a profound impact on the economy, and Hamilton is the most significant one I can think of. His policies strengthened the federal government and encouraged industrialization, among other things. I can see replacing Jackson, as he is a controversial (if important) figure in American history, but Hamilton? Come on....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think any of the names listed are as significant as Hamilton, sorry. Maybe Rosa Parks, but she was just part of a much wider movement. It also makes sense that our currency should highlight figures that had a profound impact on the economy, and Hamilton is the most significant one I can think of. His policies strengthened the federal government and encouraged industrialization, among other things. I can see replacing Jackson, as he is a controversial (if important) figure in American history, but Hamilton? Come on....

I completely agree. These choices (listed thus far) just don't carry as much weight as Hamilton. Put their resume's side by side and there's no doubt Hamilton was more influential to our history, and especially our economy.

 

This is the problem that rises when political groups try to make society more equal. It just feels really forced and unnecessary, and honestly what is the purpose?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think any of the names listed are as significant as Hamilton, sorry. Maybe Rosa Parks, but she was just part of a much wider movement. It also makes sense that our currency should highlight figures that had a profound impact on the economy, and Hamilton is the most significant one I can think of. His policies strengthened the federal government and encouraged industrialization, among other things. I can see replacing Jackson, as he is a controversial (if important) figure in American history, but Hamilton? Come on....

I completely agree. These choices (listed thus far) just don't carry as much weight as Hamilton. Put their resume's side by side and there's no doubt Hamilton was more influential to our history, and especially our economy.

 

This is the problem that rises when political groups try to make society more equal. It just feels really forced and unnecessary, and honestly what is the purpose?

try[ing] to make society more equal might be one answer, actually

 

I'm still for viewing people on their merits and not anything else, such as gender, race, or sexual orientation.
That would be perfect, if only people could achieve merits (back then more than today) regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation.

 

shizzle, the last woman - with hardly any significance in American history - was on a banknote 130 years ago, how would this one that be a problem?

 

Bless Europe and its architectural motifs, geez

 

I don't want to discount Eleanor Roosevelt's charity work
That's because she did quite a bit more than charity work; diplomacy, social reform programs, public speeches (remember: woman, 1920s), first politically active first lady (as opposed to those before, basically whilte house homemakers, willing or not)...wouldn't that suffice?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think any of the names listed are as significant as Hamilton, sorry. Maybe Rosa Parks, but she was just part of a much wider movement. It also makes sense that our currency should highlight figures that had a profound impact on the economy, and Hamilton is the most significant one I can think of. His policies strengthened the federal government and encouraged industrialization, among other things. I can see replacing Jackson, as he is a controversial (if important) figure in American history, but Hamilton? Come on....

I completely agree. These choices (listed thus far) just don't carry as much weight as Hamilton. Put their resume's side by side and there's no doubt Hamilton was more influential to our history, and especially our economy.

 

This is the problem that rises when political groups try to make society more equal. It just feels really forced and unnecessary, and honestly what is the purpose?

try[ing] to make society more equal might be one answer, actually

 

 

I guess I just don't see how adding a woman to currency spontaneously makes our society more equal. Especially if it's arguing that [whoever they choose] is a better fit for the bill than Hamilton. I don't really know anything about feminism, but are there people who actually feel oppressed because they're using a man's head to pay for items? Am I oversimplifying a bigger problem? I guess I'm just a little naive about the whole thing, I just don't see the point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think any of the names listed are as significant as Hamilton, sorry. Maybe Rosa Parks, but she was just part of a much wider movement. It also makes sense that our currency should highlight figures that had a profound impact on the economy, and Hamilton is the most significant one I can think of. His policies strengthened the federal government and encouraged industrialization, among other things. I can see replacing Jackson, as he is a controversial (if important) figure in American history, but Hamilton? Come on....

I completely agree. These choices (listed thus far) just don't carry as much weight as Hamilton. Put their resume's side by side and there's no doubt Hamilton was more influential to our history, and especially our economy.

 

This is the problem that rises when political groups try to make society more equal. It just feels really forced and unnecessary, and honestly what is the purpose?

try[ing] to make society more equal might be one answer, actually

 

 

I guess I just don't see how adding a woman to currency spontaneously makes our society more equal. Especially if it's arguing that [whoever they choose] is a better fit for the bill than Hamilton. I don't really know anything about feminism, but are there people who actually feel oppressed because they're using a man's head to pay for items? Am I oversimplifying a bigger problem? I guess I'm just a little naive about the whole thing, I just don't see the point.

There are people like that, but scratch them, this isn't about oppression; it's more about a simple representation problem - in the last century, on all banknotes, there were 100% males; would it be a problem to include an influential female, even without considering the 'occasion' of 100 years of women's suffrage?

 

Even a nary-a-scratch-above-Afghanistan-in.family-law-and-treatment-of-women country like Italy put a woman on its banknotes, jesustapdancin'christ

 

Speaking of oppression, don't get me started with the whole "in God we trust" brouhaha. :cute:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I previously supported the movement of putting a woman on a bill not because I believe the symbolic gesture of gender equality should take precedence over all else, including historically and economically momentous figures like Alexander Hamilton, but because we have what should essentially be a free spot in which to place a woman: Andrew Jackson, whose unrestrained ethnic cleansing against Native Americans, general crimes against humanity, and arguably destructive economic policies place him rather low on the decisive "American Hero" scale.

 

As for who that woman should be, I see no problem with any of the given options, and all of them were influential not just for some minor symbolic deed. Rosa Parks was a well-educated civil-rights activist before her iconic stand on the bus, and continued her efforts quite effectively until her death; Harriet Tubman not only should be admired for her bravery in helping so many slaves escape, but she also worked to promote women's suffrage later in her life; and Eleanor Roosevelt was not merely a humanist (though that characteristic should be regarded rather highly on its own), but, as mentioned above, a political polymath whose influence especially benefited the situation of her time.

 

And if so many people are worked up about Andrew Jackson's significant influence, by which I mean a rather Hitler-esque influence and not that which some would blindly associate with other presidents, then why not turn our eyes toward the $50 bill? Grant was a cool guy personally, but his presidency, with all due respect, sucked, and if he had never existed, his position would likely be filled by somebody perhaps more educated and politically competent. In any case, Alexander Hamilton was much more influential, not to mention more appropriate as far as currency is concerned.

Edited by Guitarguy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think any of the names listed are as significant as Hamilton, sorry. Maybe Rosa Parks, but she was just part of a much wider movement. It also makes sense that our currency should highlight figures that had a profound impact on the economy, and Hamilton is the most significant one I can think of. His policies strengthened the federal government and encouraged industrialization, among other things. I can see replacing Jackson, as he is a controversial (if important) figure in American history, but Hamilton? Come on....

I completely agree. These choices (listed thus far) just don't carry as much weight as Hamilton. Put their resume's side by side and there's no doubt Hamilton was more influential to our history, and especially our economy.

 

This is the problem that rises when political groups try to make society more equal. It just feels really forced and unnecessary, and honestly what is the purpose?

try[ing] to make society more equal might be one answer, actually

 

 

I guess I just don't see how adding a woman to currency spontaneously makes our society more equal. Especially if it's arguing that [whoever they choose] is a better fit for the bill than Hamilton. I don't really know anything about feminism, but are there people who actually feel oppressed because they're using a man's head to pay for items? Am I oversimplifying a bigger problem? I guess I'm just a little naive about the whole thing, I just don't see the point.

There are people like that, but scratch them, this isn't about oppression; it's more about a simple representation problem - in the last century, on all banknotes, there were 100% males; would it be a problem to include an influential female, even without considering the 'occasion' of 100 years of women's suffrage?

 

Even a nary-a-scratch-above-Afghanistan-in.family-law-and-treatment-of-women country like Italy put a woman on its banknotes, jesustapdancin'christ

 

Speaking of oppression, don't get me started with the whole "in God we trust" brouhaha. :cute:

Good point. I think my argument then is such: I don't mind a woman on a bill, I just would rather not see an influential figure from the formation of our country removed for someone whose role in our history wasn't at the same level (purely objective, I know). Perhaps I'm against removing Hamilton specifically, because out of all the figures depicted on notes, I would argue he is one of the most important.

 

In that case, I agree with Guitarguy. Grant might be a better bill to change. But still, I think our currency should reflect key moments of our government's history, so arguably everyone depicted so far has a great reason to be there.

 

Maybe we should invent a new bill entirely for the face of whoever gets chosen. I'm all for a $15 note.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think any of the names listed are as significant as Hamilton, sorry. Maybe Rosa Parks, but she was just part of a much wider movement. It also makes sense that our currency should highlight figures that had a profound impact on the economy, and Hamilton is the most significant one I can think of. His policies strengthened the federal government and encouraged industrialization, among other things. I can see replacing Jackson, as he is a controversial (if important) figure in American history, but Hamilton? Come on....

I completely agree. These choices (listed thus far) just don't carry as much weight as Hamilton. Put their resume's side by side and there's no doubt Hamilton was more influential to our history, and especially our economy.

 

This is the problem that rises when political groups try to make society more equal. It just feels really forced and unnecessary, and honestly what is the purpose?

try[ing] to make society more equal might be one answer, actually

 

 

I guess I just don't see how adding a woman to currency spontaneously makes our society more equal. Especially if it's arguing that [whoever they choose] is a better fit for the bill than Hamilton. I don't really know anything about feminism, but are there people who actually feel oppressed because they're using a man's head to pay for items? Am I oversimplifying a bigger problem? I guess I'm just a little naive about the whole thing, I just don't see the point.

There are people like that, but scratch them, this isn't about oppression; it's more about a simple representation problem - in the last century, on all banknotes, there were 100% males; would it be a problem to include an influential female, even without considering the 'occasion' of 100 years of women's suffrage?

 

Even a nary-a-scratch-above-Afghanistan-in.family-law-and-treatment-of-women country like Italy put a woman on its banknotes, jesustapdancin'christ

 

Speaking of oppression, don't get me started with the whole "in God we trust" brouhaha. :cute:

Good point. I think my argument then is such: I don't mind a woman on a bill, I just would rather not see an influential figure from the formation of our country removed for someone whose role in our history wasn't at the same level (purely objective, I know). Perhaps I'm against removing Hamilton specifically, because out of all the figures depicted on notes, I would argue he is one of the most important.

 

In that case, I agree with Guitarguy. Grant might be a better bill to change. But still, I think our currency should reflect key moments of our government's history, so arguably everyone depicted so far has a great reason to be there.

 

Maybe we should invent a new bill entirely for the face of whoever gets chosen. I'm all for a $15 note.

You could just follow Belgium's example and make a $2.50 coin :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think any of the names listed are as significant as Hamilton, sorry. Maybe Rosa Parks, but she was just part of a much wider movement. It also makes sense that our currency should highlight figures that had a profound impact on the economy, and Hamilton is the most significant one I can think of. His policies strengthened the federal government and encouraged industrialization, among other things. I can see replacing Jackson, as he is a controversial (if important) figure in American history, but Hamilton? Come on....

I completely agree. These choices (listed thus far) just don't carry as much weight as Hamilton. Put their resume's side by side and there's no doubt Hamilton was more influential to our history, and especially our economy.

 

This is the problem that rises when political groups try to make society more equal. It just feels really forced and unnecessary, and honestly what is the purpose?

try[ing] to make society more equal might be one answer, actually

 

 

I guess I just don't see how adding a woman to currency spontaneously makes our society more equal. Especially if it's arguing that [whoever they choose] is a better fit for the bill than Hamilton. I don't really know anything about feminism, but are there people who actually feel oppressed because they're using a man's head to pay for items? Am I oversimplifying a bigger problem? I guess I'm just a little naive about the whole thing, I just don't see the point.

There are people like that, but scratch them, this isn't about oppression; it's more about a simple representation problem - in the last century, on all banknotes, there were 100% males; would it be a problem to include an influential female, even without considering the 'occasion' of 100 years of women's suffrage?

 

Even a nary-a-scratch-above-Afghanistan-in.family-law-and-treatment-of-women country like Italy put a woman on its banknotes, jesustapdancin'christ

 

Speaking of oppression, don't get me started with the whole "in God we trust" brouhaha. :cute:

Good point. I think my argument then is such: I don't mind a woman on a bill, I just would rather not see an influential figure from the formation of our country removed for someone whose role in our history wasn't at the same level (purely objective, I know). Perhaps I'm against removing Hamilton specifically, because out of all the figures depicted on notes, I would argue he is one of the most important.

 

In that case, I agree with Guitarguy. Grant might be a better bill to change. But still, I think our currency should reflect key moments of our government's history, so arguably everyone depicted so far has a great reason to be there.

 

Maybe we should invent a new bill entirely for the face of whoever gets chosen. I'm all for a $15 note.

You could just follow Belgium's example and make a $2.50 coin :P

Honestly, though, that would work! :)

 

I think most people who oppose this change don't do so because they wouldn't want a woman on currency, but instead because they don't want Hamilton removed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone in this topic is opposing it for machist/anti-equality reasons, but due to feeling the people currently in the bills are more deserving of the honour. I'm not exactly an ace when it comes to American history, as I've never had any particular interest in learning about it. There are a few exceptions like the Civil War and WWII that I take interest in, but that part is mainly focused in military feats. For that reason I don't feel qualified to opinate about who is the most deserving to be featured on the bills, I just feel that if indeed Hamilton is recognised by the Americans as someone more influential and significant than the female options then this change in name of equality makes absolutely no sense.

 

However if there is another figure on the bills that is not as consensual as Hamilton then I see no reason a replacement can't take place, assuming it too is the common consensus that the (female) replacement is more fitting.

 

Or you could like totally have two different $10 bill versions, one with Hamilton and the other with whichever female figure gets chosen.

Edited by Micael Fatia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone in this topic is opposing it for machist/anti-equality reasons, but due to feeling the people currently in the bills are more deserving of the honour. I'm not exactly an ace when it comes to American history, as I've never had any particular interest in learning about it. There are a few exceptions like the Civil War and WWII that I take interest in, but that part is mainly focused in military feats. For that reason I don't feel qualified to opinate about who is the most deserving to be featured on the bills, I just feel that if indeed Hamilton is recognised by the Americans as someone more influential and significant than the female options then this change in name of equality makes absolutely no sense.

 

However if there is another figure on the bills that is not as consensual as Hamilton then I see no reason a replacement can't take place, assuming it too is the common consensus that the (female) replacement is more fitting.

 

Or you could like totally have two different $10 bill versions, one with Hamilton and the other with whichever female figure gets chosen.

I like your last idea a lot.

 

I know people aren't debating here about equality reasons in the sense you said above, but boy have I seen is mostly that way everywhere else. (I'm looking at you, people I should really unfriend on Facebook..)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man.

 

It's really hard to say "Eleanor Roosevelt was a great influence, but in no way should replace Hamilton on the $10 bill" without sounding like a prick to Eleanor Roosevelt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm all for womens rights and all, but replaceing a person on a bill just for the symbolizism of supporting womens rights is a little too far.

It reeks of the radical feminism which has gained such a strong foothold in this country and is ruining us along with every other group who thinks they know what's best for us.

Honestly what is a symbol going to do?

Absolutely nothing, people buying things whether they be drugs or grocerys couldn't care less who is on the $10 bill.

So I say who cares, only people who will remember will be historians, when they're writing about the crazy things we did to please others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Or you could like totally have two different $10 bill versions, one with Hamilton and the other with whichever female figure gets chosen.
Think about the median grocery store employee and national eurocoins. :cute:

 

It's really hard to say "Eleanor Roosevelt was a great influence, but in no way should replace Hamilton on the $10 bill" without sounding like a prick to Eleanor Roosevelt.
eleanorroosevelttrollface.jpg

 

It reeks of the radical feminism which has gained such a strong foothold in this country and is ruining us along with every other group who thinks they know what's best for us.
:rolleyes:

 

crazy things we did to please others
I could agree if it was - say - reserving the Presidency by law to a woman every other election, but good heavens, if putting someone on a bill is "something crazy", I wouldn't want to meet you on a traffic intersection, in case giving right-of-way was as crazy as that. :blink:

 

In other news, the female figure would be alongside Hamilton on the bill, so unrustle yo' jimmies, y'all

Edited by Arianna

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and that folks is why you don't put people on your bills (unless you have a King/Queen which makes things easy again)

(also while you are at it maybe like get rid of that pretentious religious fiddlesticks on your bills too)

 

yhMJMPV.jpg

Edited by Egghebrecht

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm so angry about this I might actually boycott the dollar

 

Edit: If what Arianna says about the female figure being next to Hamilton, then my jimmies are a little less rustled. They still should've kicked either Jackson or Grant off their respective bills though. Jackson was a prick, and Grant was a pretty average president.

 

 

Or kick them both off and put Sherman on the $50, for those delicious southern tears

 

Edited by thepope1322

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We definitely weren't the 1st country to give women the vote but the LAST state in Australia to give women the vote was Victoria in 1908, it sounds more like USA celebrating being late to the party again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just some choice quotes I wanted to respond to.

 

I guess I just don't see how adding a woman to currency spontaneously makes our society more equal.

If everything we did in the name of equality had to automatically make society more equal then we may as well give up.

It reeks of the radical feminism which has gained such a strong foothold in this country and is ruining us along with every other group who thinks they know what's best for us.

I'm pretty sure the radical feminist group isn't actually a thing and is in fact not ruining anybody's country. Of course there's radical feminist and of course, like every other radical X out there, it's kinda dumb. Which is exactly why we shouldn't mention them in something like this because they're just a scarecrow.

Also, the bill is coming out on the 100th anniversary of the woman's right to vote and they aren't even thinking about putting a Woman's Suffrage person on.

Celebrating women in any way seems fair enough to me on the 100th anniversary of women's suffrage.

 

You guys should really just get all the people off your bills and put on buildings like the cool kids.

i9yC5.jpg

Europe, fudge yeaaaaaaah.

Edited by reepicheep

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys should really just get all the people off your bills and put on buildings like the cool kids.

i9yC5.jpg

Europe, fudge yeaaaaaaah.

Did you now that robins, despite their diminutive size, are bloody vicious? They're known for attacking their reflection in a mirror without hesitation and will not stop. They also attack other birds without provocation and they were sacred to Thor. Robins are fudgeing METAL.

 

Also we don't just have buildings, we have IMAGINARY buildings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We definitely weren't the 1st country to give women the vote but the LAST state in Australia to give women the vote was Victoria in 1908, it sounds more like USA celebrating being late to the party again.

Don't think this is really about celebrating being first, it's about recognizing women.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, the bill is coming out on the 100th anniversary of the woman's right to vote and they aren't even thinking about putting a Woman's Suffrage person on.

Celebrating women in any way seems fair enough to me on the 100th anniversary of women's suffrage.

But even still, the women suffragists are incredibly important to the nation's history, much more important than Eleanor Roosevelt and that Native American person, yet we're not going to even consider them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines and Privacy Policy.