Worst leaders of your country

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5
 

PsychedelicDiamond:
Hitler.

I win.

Godwin's Law.

You lose. :p

Heimir:

DJjaffacake:

Heimir:
And the US and the UK are guilty for the problems today with Israel.

Oh, yeah, it's not like all those countries that invaded Israel immediately after it was created, just because the israelis were mainly Jewish, had anything to do with it. Also, fixed it for you.

So what gave the UK and US the rights to throw out the inhabitants of the area just because the jews wanted it? Are you daft? Todays problems are caused by the carelessness of the US and UK creating Israel thinking there'd be absolutley no problems at all. Other than pissing of the entire arab world.

Well, to be blunt, back then nobody gave a crap what the arabs thought. There really weren't any strong states back then. The great empires were coming down, and alot of weak countries came about in those days.

As a thought exercise: how about if we give Utah to the american indians? Their very own sovereign country on US soil? Sure, the mormons wouldn't like it, but if you go back far enough you can show that they controlled that land long ago before losing it, and it would be fitting.

As far as horrid leaders... I'll put Queen Mary up there on the list.

Pretty much all of them, but George W. Bush is the first that comes to mind. Of course you can't really just blame the president for everything, our government doesn't work that way. Most, if not all of the government is actually to blame not just Bush.

Ch@Z:

Revnak:
Buchanan, LBJ, and Andrew Johnson. All of them crazy, all of them morons, all of them terrible leaders.

LBJ was awesome. If he didn't go to Vietnam, he would have been considered one of the greatest presidents of all time.

He fought for Civil Rights, made education cheaper with financial aid, reduced poverty dramatically, established Medicaid, made immigration easier, consumer protection, gun control, space race..... the list goes on man.

Except he was also absolutely crazy and he totally deserves to be hated for Vietnam in ways that no other president can compare to. But other than that he was among the most liberal presidents we ever had, and you appear to have a different opinion on whether that is always a good thing.

ThePenguinKnight:

Sutter Cane:

ThePenguinKnight:

Next time I will make my decision only after I set aside myself, my family, my friends, my race, my religion, my opinions, and my personal experiences and how they've effected me to give a proper robotic answer derived from statistics so that I am selfless and therefore don't reek of egoism.

Well in this case, yes you should, as you have not personally experienced all 200+ years of American history personally.

Every president who's ever lived has fucked over a group of people based on ethnicity/standing and made conditions significantly worse for said group of people. Are you saying the suffering of one group of people should be seen as less disgraceful as the suffering of a different group? Because it certainly seems like that's what your saying, and that's fucked up.

Please name ONE thing that the Bush administration carried out and actively supported that is even in the same ballpark of the trail of tears.

So let me get this straight, You actually want me to judge 200+ years of american history atrocities that even you admit I have never experienced? You want me to sit here and say that I believe X atrocity is worse than Y atrocity? Sure, lets see how sensible that would be in a hypothetical situation.

Hey fatherless child of war! You shouldn't feel so bad that your father was tortured until he died laying in his own waste from starvation! Being captured by terrorists isn't as bad as being a slave! Now stop crying because you're egotistical, it could have been worse.

You want to talk egotistical? You're the one trying to control my opinions.

I don't mind the thread subject and everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I just don't like being badgered because I dislike Bush more than previous presidents due to personal experiences rather than historical happenings.

Note that I never said that you weren't justified for disliking the bush administration, but simply that

1. There have been presidents that have caused more damage than bush (Cooledge, Johnson, Buchanan)
2. There've been presidents that intentionally committed atrocities (Jackson and perhaps the expansionist presidents as well)
3. There have been presidents more incompetent than Bush(Harding, Grant)

and that your justification for calling bush worse than all of these leaders was not that his actions were more severe, or more damaging to the country as a whole, but simply that they affected you and those close to you. That is not sufficient for making a case that he is the worst leader in US history. That's like saying "Transformers 2 is the greatest film ever made," and when asked why you reply "because I had I great time when I went to see it with my friends." It fails to establish what about the film merits it being viewed by everyone as the best film of all time, just as your explanation for why bush is the worst president has failed to establish how he is worse than those above, and if you honestly believe that Bush should be recognized by us as the worst president of all time simply because he affected you personally, that that would indeed be egocentric, as it would imply that the suffering caused by all those others does not measure up to the hardship that you personally have been through.

katsumoto03:
The stupid man who currently leads our country... right into the ground.

image

That guy looks like he's half ghost or something. He's like so white even his eyes refuse to have any color that's not complete dull. You guys may want to make sure he's not one of the undead, just for safety sake.

ThePenguinKnight:

Sutter Cane:

ThePenguinKnight:

Next time I will make my decision only after I set aside myself, my family, my friends, my race, my religion, my opinions, and my personal experiences and how they've effected me to give a proper robotic answer derived from statistics so that I am selfless and therefore don't reek of egoism.

Well in this case, yes you should, as you have not personally experienced all 200+ years of American history personally.

Every president who's ever lived has fucked over a group of people based on ethnicity/standing and made conditions significantly worse for said group of people. Are you saying the suffering of one group of people should be seen as less disgraceful as the suffering of a different group? Because it certainly seems like that's what your saying, and that's fucked up.

Please name ONE thing that the Bush administration carried out and actively supported that is even in the same ballpark of the trail of tears.

So let me get this straight, You actually want me to judge 200+ years of american history atrocities that even you admit I have never experienced? You want me to sit here and say that I believe X atrocity is worse than Y atrocity? Sure, lets see how sensible that would be in a hypothetical situation.

Hey fatherless child of war! You shouldn't feel so bad that your father was tortured until he died laying in his own waste from starvation! Being captured by terrorists isn't as bad as being a slave! Now stop crying because you're egotistical, it could have been worse.

You want to talk egotistical? You're the one trying to control my opinions.

I don't mind the thread subject and everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I just don't like being badgered because I dislike Bush more than previous presidents due to personal experiences rather than historical happenings.

You're deliberately misrepresenting what SutterCane said. He didn't say that this hypothetical child shouldn't feel bad. It is a terrible thing, and the kid has every right in the world to feel terrible. What is egotistical would be to say, "my suffering is worse than the suffering of the Cherokee on the trail of tears. Do you get the difference? If you want to think that Bush is a bad president, thats not egotistical in any way. What is egotistical is to say that bush is a WORSE president than Jackson, simply because you personally experienced some suffering due to Bush.

Sutter Cane:

ThePenguinKnight:

Sutter Cane:

Note that I never said that you weren't justified for disliking the bush administration, but simply that

1. There have been presidents that have caused more damage than bush (Cooledge, Johnson, Buchanan)
2. There've been presidents that intentionally committed atrocities (Jackson and perhaps the expansionist presidents as well)
3. There have been presidents more incompetent than Bush(Harding, Grant)

and that your justification for calling bush worse than all of these leaders was not that his actions were more severe, or more damaging to the country as a whole, but simply that they affected you and those close to you. That is not sufficient for making a case that he is the worst leader in US history. That's like saying "Transformers 2 is the greatest film ever made," and when asked why you reply "because I had I great time when I went to see it with my friends." It fails to establish what about the film merits it being viewed by everyone as the best film of all time, just as your explanation for why bush is the worst president has failed to establish how he is worse than those above, and if you honestly believe that Bush should be recognized by us as the worst president of all time simply because he affected you personally, that that would indeed be egocentric, as it would imply that the suffering caused by all those others does not measure up to the hardship that you personally have been through.

If I call you a dick, does that mean your literally a dick? No.

If I call Bush the worst US president does that factually make him the worst US president? No.

Can you factually prove who the worst US president is? No, you can't, because depending on who you are PERSONALLY and what you have EXPERIENCED in your lifetime manipulates your view on what is and isn't morally right or wrong and in turn manipulates your view on the severity of what is wrong and what is right.

I don't understand how you can remember the names of presidents and what they have done, but fail to grasp what an opinion is.

This guy here

http://i.pravda.sk/07/034/skcl/P231a0c6b_dzurindaV.jpg

Apart from selling out strategic state-owned companies, he promoted corruption like no other. Generally he is a sleazy guy who will go to great lengths to avoid answering questions and telling the truth. Thankfully, as of now he is no longer able to do any more damage on such a large scale.

Andrew Johnson by far.

Those saying GW Bush is the worst for America, he's just recent. Adjusted for inflation, Johnson screwed up WAY worse.

Valkaris:
Honestly I would say George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson etc were are pretty crappy leaders, only because they fought a war to create the country in the first place. We might as well have just stayed a colony of Brittan and just joined Canada in one big happy north american family (maybe conquer mexico).

*BOGGLE*

You can't be serious! Though, bravo for bringing up a very interesting "what if" scenario.

pastrami05:

ThePenguinKnight:

Sutter Cane:

You're deliberately misrepresenting what SutterCane said. He didn't say that this hypothetical child shouldn't feel bad. It is a terrible thing, and the kid has every right in the world to feel terrible. What is egotistical would be to say, "my suffering is worse than the suffering of the Cherokee on the trail of tears. Do you get the difference? If you want to think that Bush is a bad president, thats not egotistical in any way. What is egotistical is to say that bush is a WORSE president than Jackson, simply because you personally experienced some suffering due to Bush.

I said numerous times that it was my opinion. I said numerous times that he was chosen through a list of presidents I've experienced. And he just keeps telling me over and over again what I meant by my posts, as if he dictates what I type.

He's saying I reek of egotism because of my opinion, and he's trying to form an argument out of nothing.

Revnak:

NameIsRobertPaulson:
*snip*Coolidge*ship*

Never heard of anybody calling him out before. Care to explain? I am genuinely curious.

Coolidge is the real reason our country wound up in a depression, Hoover and Harding just get the blame. But it was Coolidge's financial strategy that started the spiral.

Rolandas Paksas
He became a president, sold countries secrets to russia, got removed, sued the country for "illegal removal of presidency" and won. hes trying to get to the position again this year.

scarfacetehstag:

AS to OP, any good Canadian's vote goes to Mulrooney, just an incompetent US Brown Noser

I was just a baby when it happened, but I will always think less of him for attempting to award Quebec extra seats in parliament in order to appease the separatist movement. Quebec always had special treatment compared to other provinces, giving them more say in the running of the country than anybody else was crossing the line.

Gustav IV Adolf, the king that lost us Finland, that had been a part of Sweden for 700 years. He lost HALF the country.

J Tyran:
His actions are really indefensible.

Challenge accepted.

J Tyran:
In some ways it could be argued he was the Hitler of his time. All the elements are there, genocidal religious intolerance, a series of atrocities and mass killings, oppression of his own people by forcing his own biases onto them and starting a war motivated by his hatred and biases.

Cromwell was a general. In the 17th century. You realise what that means don't you? People get killed, in vast numbers, and there's no Geneva Convention or UN Declaration of Human Rights to protect them - Cromwell was by no definition an astoundingly cruel commander. I don't know what war you think he started? Please enlighten me. His hatred and bias against the Irish was a hatred and bias held by virtually every single person in England at the time.

J Tyran:
Anyone that kills or starts wars in the name of religion is definitely a nutcase, Cromwell didn't just kill or start a war either.

No, he just didn't start the war at all ... and therefore not in the name of religion ... The Irish rebelled in 1641. Cromwell, after serving in the English Civil Wars, then went to return the government to English hands.

Revnak:

It absolutely was, Britain was not willing to give up its rule over the United States and the United States desired sovereignty. Any nation or people group that desires sovereignty has some degree of entitlement to it and if they can make adequate arguments for why they deserve it, which the founding fathers did, then their going to war to gain said sovereignty is necessary and they are fully entitled to it.

I think we are disagreeing on the use of the word "necessary" here, and "absolutely" come to think of it.

Also, the US did not exist. There were colonies under the rule of the UK. Some of those colonists wanted to leave British rule and start up for themselves, some did not. Hence why it was originally seen as a civil disorder matter in the UK. Should they have been given the option to vote on secession, yes sure, by today's standards I'd go for that.

MasterOfHisOwnDomain:

J Tyran:
His actions are really indefensible.

Challenge accepted.

J Tyran:
In some ways it could be argued he was the Hitler of his time. All the elements are there, genocidal religious intolerance, a series of atrocities and mass killings, oppression of his own people by forcing his own biases onto them and starting a war motivated by his hatred and biases.

Cromwell was a general. In the 17th century. You realise what that means don't you? People get killed, in vast numbers, and there's no Geneva Convention or UN Declaration of Human Rights to protect them - Cromwell was by no definition an astoundingly cruel commander. I don't know what war you think he started? Please enlighten me. His hatred and bias against the Irish was a hatred and bias held by virtually every single person in England at the time.

J Tyran:
Anyone that kills or starts wars in the name of religion is definitely a nutcase, Cromwell didn't just kill or start a war either.

No, he just didn't start the war at all ... and therefore not in the name of religion ... The Irish rebelled in 1641. Cromwell, after serving in the English Civil Wars, then went to return the government to English hands.

Defence attempt failed, "others did it too!" or "so and so did something worse!" is not a viable excuse. Without trying to be insulting that kind of defence is almost play school like. Even by the standards of the time butchering the civilians in a town after the garrison had surrendered was considered pretty brutal.

His war had little to do with suppressing a rebellion, it had everything to do with getting revenge for the Portadown massacre.

Edmund Barton

The first one we ever got (outside the monarchy), and the first bit of legislation he passes effectively banned anyone not British and White from entering the country. Way to make a first impression!

Though, on the whole, we have had a reasonable amount of competent pollies, especially after the second world war.

EDIT: Whoopsie daisy!

Heimir:

Axolotl:

Heimir:

Actually Hitler was a brilliant leader and an awesome politician. A genocidl despot, sure. But a bad leader? Hell no. He united a nation and brought all of Europe too its knee's.

Are you kidding? In 12 years he took a country that was while undergoing a huge depression was still one of the countries on earth and in just 12 years reduced it's population by 10% and left it in the power of hortile governments where the Eastern half was being systematically destroyed, raped and murdered and with the Western half being used as a proxy in the cold war.

Seriously I couldn't fuck up a country that much if I tried.

He was still a great leader. His goals were retarded wich made him fail. But as a leader he was solid. Otherwise the nazi parti would never have gotten of the ground at all.

The only reason he got into power was because of luck and thuggery, not good policies.

The luck factor was the fact that Germany was in a MASSIVE economic problem and it's citizens wanted something different from the shit the Weimar Republic was giving them. I'l admit, he was a charismatic speaker, but apart from that he was terrible.

The rest was just mindless propaganda and fear used by the SA to stop people from voting. Hell, it's very likely the Nazis are the ones who caused the Reichstag fire and just blamed it on the communists (which they did), which allowed them to just put them down and gain their votes.

And like another poster said, recent accounts show that he was a lazy shit and hardly did anything.

.............Goddammit, why do I have to live in Canada?

Australian politics don't matter in the long run, but still. Julia Gillard. She is just awful. The Carbon tax? It will do nothing good, same with the mining tax.

For Switzerland, hmm....

I'm really tempted to say Blocher, who was one of the 7 leaders we had here, because he really only he a loud mouthed troll who spent more time short circuiting the democratic process than doing anyhing helpful.

But I'd put Ueli Maurer, responsible mostly for the army department, in first place for just being a delusional incompetent fart who still thinks we live in the 1970 and has a total disregard for the outrageous spendings and allocations he does for a defunct branch of our society

Tony Blair.

Joined EU, the most undemocratic democracy of all time. Sold ALL of our countries gold reserves for a fucking pittance, which doesn't help ANYTHING because Britain isn't on the dollar, it's on the gold standard, so we would have nothing to fall back on if things went tits up, which it did... Allowed mass immigration to the country, causing movements such as the EDL, the BNP, the IRA to go fucking berserk, massive cultural upheavals have severely damaged the spirit of this country because of the European obsession with multiculturalism. Started a useless war in the middle east (I happen to think the second gulf war was at least partly necessary.) He's fucked the country over with the welfare state. He implemented CCTV on every British street to create a nanny state. URGHHH.

Kay, Tony Blair did some good things, what kind of an idiot would get voted in and just do horrible things? Nobody... But Stalin did some good things... It counts for nothing against the sheer peril he's put us through.

And the worst part is? He did all with a straight face. He's now on a multimillion dollar packet being a peace envoy for the middle east. WHAT ARE YOU DOING, BLAIR!? WHAT!?

Thatcher... Blair... Major was weak, Brown foolishly thought he had stopped boom and bust, Cameron is a twat
Basically every PM recently has been terrible.

Robert Ewing:
which doesn't help ANYTHING because Britain isn't on the dollar, it's on the gold standard,

No we aren't. We haven't been on the gold standard for a very long time. Plus that was Brown when he was chancellor.

Robert Ewing:
Tony Blair.

Joined EU, the most undemocratic democracy of all time.

You know Britain joined the EU(or the EEC as it was called at the time)in 1973,a full 24 years before Blair came to power,right?

causing movements such as the EDL, the BNP, the IRA to go fucking berserk,

Blair was one of the people behind the Good Friday Agreement which led to the IRA ceasefire.If you want to blame anyone for the shit the IRA carried out then blame previous UK governments who sucked up to the Unionists in Northern Ireland in order to gain their support in parliament.

Ch@Z:

Revnak:
Buchanan, LBJ, and Andrew Johnson. All of them crazy, all of them morons, all of them terrible leaders.

LBJ was awesome. If he didn't go to Vietnam, he would have been considered one of the greatest presidents of all time.

He fought for Civil Rights, made education cheaper with financial aid, reduced poverty dramatically, established Medicaid, made immigration easier, consumer protection, gun control, space race..... the list goes on man.

1: I agree he did well on civil rights.
2: If by made cheaper you mean granted colleges the right to start jacking up tuition because the government will pay for it then you are completely correct.
3: The president can rarely take credit or blame for the personal economic well being for the demographics of the nation. Poverty was already starting to dip when he entered office anyway.
4: Medicaid and Medicare should both fully belong the states so they can fit them to their size, needs, and capabilities. Medicaid is in a better position because the states have much more input, but both programs are terribly flawed.
5: I don't have a problem with easier immigration.
6: I'll give you consumer protection, with the exception of the NHTSA. Despite what people think, safety has always been a selling point for cars and creating a government program, while beneficial in the short term, has long lived its expiration date.
7:The problem with gun control is that the US has always had guns (that and human nature). Because of that if we implement gun control in the US crime will increase. Obviously automatic weapons are overkill and I don't have any problem with registration, but the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
8: He did well in the space race too.

I don't think LBJ was a really bad president, even if I disagree with many of his policies, but he wasn't great either.

Neverhoodian:
Here's my top three:

Absolute Worst: George W. Bush

*Gutted the Bill of Rights with the Patriot Act.
*Dragged the country into a completely unnecessary and costly war in Iraq,.
*Approved of gross human rights violations, including the indefinite detainment and torture of "enemy combatants."
*Guilty of treason by association with cabinet members that exposed CIA agent Valerie Plame.
*Furthered corporate interests at the expense of the working man/woman.

2nd Worst: Richard Nixon

*Watergate - need I say more?
*Altogether a thoroughly unlikable and slimy individual.

3rd Worst: Andrew Johnson

*Thoroughly bungled reconstruction efforts after the Civil War.
*Vetoed the Civil Rights Bill of 1866 ("This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government for white men.").
Are you a ninja? I was going to say the exact same thing. I literally thought the same things.
*Violated the Tenure of Office Act (for which he was later impeached).

DirtyJunkieScum:

Revnak:

It absolutely was, Britain was not willing to give up its rule over the United States and the United States desired sovereignty. Any nation or people group that desires sovereignty has some degree of entitlement to it and if they can make adequate arguments for why they deserve it, which the founding fathers did, then their going to war to gain said sovereignty is necessary and they are fully entitled to it.

I think we are disagreeing on the use of the word "necessary" here, and "absolutely" come to think of it.

Also, the US did not exist. There were colonies under the rule of the UK. Some of those colonists wanted to leave British rule and start up for themselves, some did not. Hence why it was originally seen as a civil disorder matter in the UK. Should they have been given the option to vote on secession, yes sure, by today's standards I'd go for that.

Needed to be done.

Ldude893:

Ldude893:
Uh, if you're in China, how can you say that without uh... Er... Gaining some "Attention" from the government? No offense to you, I'm not trying to sound like I'm joking, but isn't this the sort of thing that causes people to... "Disappear"?

I live in Hong Kong. It's technically part of China but with it's own system; a little corner of freedom in a giant country of authoritarian suck, at least until 2047 when China's allowed to change Hong Kong's system per an agreement with the British.
Over here, we've got mass candle-lighting memorials for the Tiananmen incident every June 4th.

right on; i'm living in beijing right now, considering moving to hong kong. i lived there for 1 year in the past, but i can't speak cantonese so that makes things a bit difficult.

My vote goes to Pierre Trudeau

-mishandled the constitution
-national energy program
-massively expanded the government bureaucracy
-massively increased expenditures

I guess he put the FLQ in their place, but his other failures do not make up for that

Revnak:
Needed to be done.

Add "in order for the founding fathers vision of an independent country to come to fruition" and I'd agree with you. "Needed to be done" full stop, no.

ThePenguinKnight:

Sutter Cane:

ThePenguinKnight:

Note that I never said that you weren't justified for disliking the bush administration, but simply that

1. There have been presidents that have caused more damage than bush (Cooledge, Johnson, Buchanan)
2. There've been presidents that intentionally committed atrocities (Jackson and perhaps the expansionist presidents as well)
3. There have been presidents more incompetent than Bush(Harding, Grant)

and that your justification for calling bush worse than all of these leaders was not that his actions were more severe, or more damaging to the country as a whole, but simply that they affected you and those close to you. That is not sufficient for making a case that he is the worst leader in US history. That's like saying "Transformers 2 is the greatest film ever made," and when asked why you reply "because I had I great time when I went to see it with my friends." It fails to establish what about the film merits it being viewed by everyone as the best film of all time, just as your explanation for why bush is the worst president has failed to establish how he is worse than those above, and if you honestly believe that Bush should be recognized by us as the worst president of all time simply because he affected you personally, that that would indeed be egocentric, as it would imply that the suffering caused by all those others does not measure up to the hardship that you personally have been through.

If I call you a dick, does that mean your literally a dick? No.

If I call Bush the worst US president does that factually make him the worst US president? No.

Can you factually prove who the worst US president is? No, you can't, because depending on who you are PERSONALLY and what you have EXPERIENCED in your lifetime manipulates your view on what is and isn't morally right or wrong and in turn manipulates your view on the severity of what is wrong and what is right.

I don't understand how you can remember the names of presidents and what they have done, but fail to grasp what an opinion is.

I'm sorry for assuming that when you post about how bad bush was in a thread dedicated for talking about the worst leaders in your country's history, that you actually think that he's possibly the worst leader in your country's history.

You know what, I can't definitively prove who the worst president is, but I can attempt to make a strong inductive argument to back up my opinion. Your post here still doesn't make your initial argument any more justifiable, as although what you value has been shaped by your experiences, it still doesn't change the fact that if you say leader X is the worst because of actions y and z, and i point out others who have committed actions similar to y and z but to a greater extent, you no longer have a strong argument for leader x being the worst, unless your criterion for a leader being good or bad is just how they've affected your life personally, in which case we're right back around to an egocentric view of the world again.

There is a ton of misinformation, misconceptions (and bias) surrounding G. W. Bush. I'll agree he wasn't the brightest bulb but he was far from the worst president this nation's ever had... just one of the most recent. Iraq was a ten year waste of time, money, and lives. Unfortunately the myth of WMDs was the result of poor intelligence and Saddam's own idiot blunder (he concocted the myth to make his neighbors think twice but brought the US and UN down on him instead). But at the time, the threat of terrorism and WMDs was very serious... still is.

The worst national leaders the US has had have been incompetent, such as our current president who has spent us further into oblivion and bungled up everything he's yet to do (stimulus package, obamacare, he even refused oil from Canada. idiot.) the only thing he has going for him in the re-elections is the free credit he gets for giving the order to kill Bin Laden, which is a no-brainer anyone would have done by default. As much as he's screwed up the US even more than it already was he's far from the worst for certain... just worthless. Andrew Jackson was one mean mother and the closest America gets to a proper tyrant, and Lincoln has enough blood on his hands for failing to manage the American Civil War. A lot of lives may have been saved had he dealt with succession better. As much credit as Lincoln gets, many consider him one of America's biggest presidential failures, if not the biggest.

Jimmy Carter was also worthless. Grant was a drunken bum. Fortunately America hasn't had the tyrants and maniacs that other nations have suffered... not yet anyway.

Captcha: "apple pie" nothing is more american than apple pie.
re-captcha: "burning oil" now i'm starting to get nervous

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked