Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Changes in Politics


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Changes in Politics Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Changes in Politics - 8/31/2008 10:55:25 AM   
philosophy


Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

But why are people just waiting for "change"?

Is there nothing that can be done here and now to change the world for the better?  Are people powerless to make alterations in their lives, in their communities, in the world, without a blessing from government on high?

Why are people waiting for Obama to "change" things? 



...very fair question CL. And i wholeheartedly agree with the notion that there are (broadly) two categories of things that can be changed. There are those that start from the ground up, with personal choices. Racism and other forms of bigotry are a good example of this. They don't really change because a government says they have to. Government, at best, can lay a thumb on the scales as it were, but without those millions of personal choices nothing will change much.
Where, i think, we can expect change to come from the top is in areas such as civil liberties. Now, i purposely choce that example as some will conflate it with racism and thus call the dreaded bs on me (puts up his anti-contentious-Alumbrado buffers just in case). However these are two different but related things. It's like the concept of rules in a sport........rules are set and enforced, but the players choose whether or not to abide by those rules.

So, the sort of change i'd like to see any new US government bring are: a commitment to stop being so ethically ambiguous (Patriot Act, Guantanamo, Cheney apparently not being something covered by the constitution, for instance) and a realisation that bullying as a foreign policy tactic, while occasionally useful, ought to be used sparingly at best and with great caution.

Also for the VP to stop shooting old mens faces off, but that's more of a joke......honest.

(in reply to celticlord2112)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: Changes in Politics - 8/31/2008 11:39:45 AM   
subexploring


Posts: 103
Joined: 12/28/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

This simple data shows the source of Roosevelt's popularity. He of course takes office in January, 1933, and recovery begins almost immediately, with the decline stopping in 1933 and strong growth beginning in 1934. You get the 1938 recession, but it is small compared to the Depression.

post hoc ergo propter hoc: "after this, therefore because of this".

As you point out, recovery begins "immediately".  Given the lag between government enacting policy and government implementing policy, this suggests that recovery was happening even before FDR.  Thus the debate is over the extent to which the New Deal helped or hindered that recovery.

The argument of many economists (and even FDR's own Treasury Secretary) is that the New Deal contributed less to the recovery than historians recount, and in many cases was counterproductive, thereby exacerbating and extending the period of recovery.

As a result, FDR and the New Deal is a dangerous precedent on which to formulate future economic policy for future presidential administrations.

Keep in mind that the economy in 1933 had contracted significantly from 1929, with extreme dislocations not just in the US but around the world.  The economy of the United States for the past 7 years has been expanding, not contracting.  If the economic studies and analyses I reference are even partially correct, a re-enactment of the New Deal today (and many argue rather persuasively that Obama's platform is exactly that), would have disastrous impact on the economy, and we would see reductions in GDP rather than increases.



I'm very familiar with the difficulty of attributing causation due simply to timing, but the data I gave are certainly suggestive. They are more compatible with a strong effect of Roosevelt's policies than with a pre-existing recovery. Economic decline actually appears to be accelerating through 1932, indicating no pre-existing recovery. Then Roosevelt takes office in January 1933, implements his policies in the famous "first hundred days" of the year, then economic decline slows sharply and finally turns around in 1934. Government policy can have very rapid effects (easily within months) because the announcement of policy immediately affects *expectations for the future*, which impact investment and hiring right away. This is well established in economics and is an argument conservatives regularly use when it suits them (for example, when arguing that tax increases will cause economic disaster right away).

I do agree with you that the situation today is nothing like the Great Depression. My remarks were targeted to Roosevelt and the Great Depression. But you might be surprised at some of the parallels -- in the Depression we also faced a situation where housing prices dropped sharply and millions of homeowners were left with mortgages larger than their current housing value. The New Deal response to this was quite successful and some have argued it offers useful lessons for our current situation.

Thanks for the civil tone of the discussion.

(in reply to celticlord2112)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: Changes in Politics - 8/31/2008 11:52:33 AM   
celticlord2112


Posts: 5732
Status: offline
quote:

Then Roosevelt takes office in January 1933, implements his policies in the famous "first hundred days" of the year, then economic decline slows sharply and finally turns around in 1934.

Again, you are arguing precedence proves causation.  It does not.

And, in fact, the data does suggest a pre-existing trend towards recovery.  That is the more conservative reading of the data--your interpretation posits FDR's New Deal on the scale of an economic miracle,  which cannot be supported by any of the available data.

Finally, your reading of history provides no insight or assessment of how the New Deal specifically triggered economic growth, and is silent on what the economy might have done without the New Deal.  My original citations argue that, sans New Deal, the recovery would have been even quicker. 


_____________________________



(in reply to subexploring)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: Changes in Politics - 8/31/2008 1:33:49 PM   
subexploring


Posts: 103
Joined: 12/28/2005
Status: offline 		Your original citations are all from right-wing think tank ideologues who are ideologically opposed to the New Deal. The New Deal triggers economic growth through the standard Keynesian mechanisms when an economy is producing under capacity -- Roosevelt's problem was that he wasn't willing to be Keynesian enough, he should have borrowed more than he did (and taxed less). 

The numbers I posted clearly show an economic decline that is accelerating, not slowing, just prior to Roosevelt taking office -- the economic decline in 1932 is much greater than 1931. There are no quarterly numbers pre-WWII, so we can't see the pattern within the year 1933, but from the trend toward improvement it seems clear that the first half of the year was worse than the second, which is consistent with Roosevelt's "first hundred days" increasing optimism among businesses and consumers, making them more willing to spend and invest.

I would never argue precedence *proves* causation, but it's a hell of a lot better evidence than fact-free speculations from some right wingers who were always bound and determined to hate Roosevelt no matter what.

Said my piece, I'm done, thanks.

(in reply to celticlord2112)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: Changes in Politics - 8/31/2008 1:44:48 PM   
celticlord2112


Posts: 5732
Status: offline
quote:

fact-free speculations from some right wingers who were always bound and determined to hate Roosevelt no matter what.

The studies I cite are "fact free speculations"?  Hardly.

Are their conclusions and interpretations open to challenge?  Absolutely.  However, suggestion that their research is paltry or non-existent to the extent of being "fact free" is several orders of magnitude beyond ludicrous.


_____________________________



(in reply to subexploring)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: Changes in Politics - 8/31/2008 1:46:42 PM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline 		Yep, 'change' seems to be the by-word for this election. Politicians don't create change, they ride it or are destroyed by it.

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to celticlord2112)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: Changes in Politics - 8/31/2008 1:51:40 PM   
celticlord2112


Posts: 5732
Status: offline
quote:

There are no quarterly numbers pre-WWII, so we can't see the pattern within the year 1933, but from the trend toward improvement it seems clear that the first half of the year was worse than the second, which is consistent with Roosevelt's "first hundred days" increasing optimism among businesses and consumers, making them more willing to spend and invest.

Again, you are arguing precedence.  Even worse, you are interpolating data that you freely admit does not exist to support the conclusion.

Your new thesis has the economy worsening even in early 1933, bottoming out somewhere during the middle of FDR's 100 days, and then moving toward recovery beginning in the last half of 1933.  This while admitting the data necessary to support such a thesis does not exist because the quarterly data was not tracked at the time.

And yet you say that the work of economists is "fact free speculation"?


_____________________________



(in reply to subexploring)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: Changes in Politics - 9/2/2008 10:19:19 AM   
Termyn8or


Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline 		CL, if you find time, I think you would thoroughly enjoy reading and hearing the speeches (or transcripts thereof) of the works of Fr. Charles Coughlin. Disregard the parts with which you disagree or find offensive and concentrate on his views on the economy.

In the beginning he was all for the New Deal, but living through the effects, he definitely changed his mind and became a very staunch critic of FDR. As such he needed to be silenced, as big money control of the media had not yet been completely established. You won't hear from a guy like this today.

First they took away his radio show, which reached millions of people and at his peak it was estimated that he was listened to by one third of the US population. With that gone he had enough backers among the common folk, who were also living in that era I might add, to establish his own sort of network mainly by buying airtime.

So of course the government changed a few more rules and he was eventually off the air. He could still publish his newspaper, but later they forbade him to use the US postal service to deliver it.

Some truth that has to be enforced by the force of the government huh. The recipients of his paper were not random, they asked for it, and they paid for it. Somehow he still managed to get his message out, until the Catholic church threatened to throw him out. Only then did he quiet down.

Coughlin also raised some very serious questions about FDR's programs, among the hardest to answer of which, is why are so many of these supposedly "government" programs incorporated in the State of Delaware ? A friend of mine actually got certified copies of the IRS's incorporation papers, and I have them in electronic form. Unfortunately for those who require absolute proof of everything, sending these copies will not convince you.

For the proof mongers among us, all you have to do is write to the State of Delaware requesting these documents, and submitting the reqiured fee. You will recieve CERTIFIED copies of same. Each page is notarized. I can get the address for anyone who wants it as I also have copies of the original request and all responses thereto. Proof my friends.

So if this has meandered into talking about FDR, perhaps someone can explain to me why a public program of the FEDERAL government finds it advantageous to incorporate in one of the several States ?

I think of FDR as a predecessor to one like Lee Iacocca. The guy that saved Chrysler. If you borrow enough money you can save anything, no matter how badly it has been run into the ground. Look at the US auto industry today.

T

(in reply to celticlord2112)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: Changes in Politics - 9/2/2008 10:40:06 AM   
ShieldWolf


Posts: 55
Joined: 7/15/2005
Status: offline 		I hardly believe that FDR ended the depression at all or faster than market forces ended it worldwide. It also was not true that Clinton's tax increase in his first budget helped the economy reach its robust status in the mid to late 90's.

In fact I would argue as Greenspan did at the time that it actually "prolonged" the downside of the recession another 12-18 months.

Of course seeing that recession at that time lead me to my personal belief that POTUS has very little to do with the economy since he has little control over outside economic forces, only political ones. The more the political forces influence the economy, i.e. the war in Iraq being delayed for six months for UN haggling, the more influence he possesses.

_____________________________

"The only man who never makes a mistake is the man who never does anything"--T. Roosevelt

(in reply to celticlord2112)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: Changes in Politics - 9/2/2008 11:28:12 AM   
rulemylife


Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

CL, if you find time, I think you would thoroughly enjoy reading and hearing the speeches (or transcripts thereof) of the works of Fr. Charles Coughlin. Disregard the parts with which you disagree or find offensive and concentrate on his views on the economy.

In the beginning he was all for the New Deal, but living through the effects, he definitely changed his mind and became a very staunch critic of FDR. As such he needed to be silenced, as big money control of the media had not yet been completely established. You won't hear from a guy like this today.

First they took away his radio show, which reached millions of people and at his peak it was estimated that he was listened to by one third of the US population. With that gone he had enough backers among the common folk, who were also living in that era I might add, to establish his own sort of network mainly by buying airtime.

So of course the government changed a few more rules and he was eventually off the air. He could still publish his newspaper, but later they forbade him to use the US postal service to deliver it.

Some truth that has to be enforced by the force of the government huh. The recipients of his paper were not random, they asked for it, and they paid for it. Somehow he still managed to get his message out, until the Catholic church threatened to throw him out. Only then did he quiet down.

Coughlin also raised some very serious questions about FDR's programs, among the hardest to answer of which, is why are so many of these supposedly "government" programs incorporated in the State of Delaware ? A friend of mine actually got certified copies of the IRS's incorporation papers, and I have them in electronic form. Unfortunately for those who require absolute proof of everything, sending these copies will not convince you.

For the proof mongers among us, all you have to do is write to the State of Delaware requesting these documents, and submitting the reqiured fee. You will recieve CERTIFIED copies of same. Each page is notarized. I can get the address for anyone who wants it as I also have copies of the original request and all responses thereto. Proof my friends.

So if this has meandered into talking about FDR, perhaps someone can explain to me why a public program of the FEDERAL government finds it advantageous to incorporate in one of the several States ?

I think of FDR as a predecessor to one like Lee Iacocca. The guy that saved Chrysler. If you borrow enough money you can save anything, no matter how badly it has been run into the ground. Look at the US auto industry today.

T


Father Coughlin's radio show was shut down because he became an embarrassment to the companies that paid for advertising.  He was openly anti-Semitic believing a vast Jewish conspiracy caused the depression.  He celebrated news of Jewish persecution by the Nazis and was used as a propaganda tool by them, becoming wildly popular in Germany.  Let's hope we .... "won't hear from a guy like this today"....  Although, if you want a new hero, Rush comes close.  

(in reply to Termyn8or)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: Changes in Politics - 9/2/2008 11:33:44 AM   
CallaFirestormBW


Posts: 3651
Joined: 6/29/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

Changes in Politics

Sowell makes an excellent point about "change."

quote:

We don't need Barack Obama to create "change." Things change in politics, in the economy, and elsewhere in American society, without waiting for a political messiah to lead us into the promised land.


For all the talk about people wanting "change", a simple question:

What are you waiting for?



I'm not waiting. I've made the argument for years that change comes from the grass-roots level, and have spent the last 30 years of my life as an activist on multiple levels. Who has been in the hot-seat has not stopped my activism, though I can honestly say that, over 30 years, it is easy to see when progress was easier, and when it came to nearly a dead stop.

That being said, it would be substantially easier to effect change if the lawmakers were not dead set in attempting to hold on to the status quo. The body in the seat at the White House, or in the chairs in Congress don't mean things -won't- eventually change -- but why have it be any harder than it absolutely has to be. If, by our selection of those 'seatwarmers', we can have a society that is restored in its Constitutional rights, and where, in truth, all humans are created equal, then heck, only a fool would choose "more difficult" over "less difficult".

CFB

< Message edited by CallaFirestormBW -- 9/2/2008 11:35:11 AM >

_____________________________

***
Said to me recently: "Look, I know you're the "voice of reason"... but dammit, I LIKE being unreasonable!!!!"

"Your mind is more interested in the challenge of becoming than the challenge of doing." Jon Benson, Bodybuilder/Trainer

(in reply to celticlord2112)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: Changes in Politics - 9/2/2008 11:40:01 AM   
kdsub


Posts: 12180
Joined: 8/16/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffff

I am waiting for transparency. I am waiting for honesty. I am waiting for intelligent thought.

I am waiting for a reasoned foreign policy. I am waiting for a government that not only talks the talk, but walks the walk

I  expect to be disappointed. once again

Jeff


Jeff you had all those things with Jimmy Carter...look what happened.

There always has been and always will be a fine line between what is honest and ethical and what is vital and responsible for the survival of the country.

Butch


(in reply to Jeffff)
Profile   Post #: 32
RE: Changes in Politics - 9/2/2008 12:56:15 PM   
Termyn8or


Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline 		rulem, of course I know he was all that, and I specifically stated to disregard certain parts. You could substitute "Jews" with "international bankers" and find that he really wasn't wrong about everything.

Racially, even if he believed that one race is causing most of the problems, he should have had more tact. Big money and international bankers are not all Jews, and no matter who they are, they did not twist our arm to borrow money.

No matter who anybody is, they can't get over on you unless you let them. Look at all the US paper held by China. They are not Jews. But the fact is, since FDR, this country has never been able to pay it's bills on time and has become a houndog for money. This weakens our sovereignty and overall position in world politics.

Hey, maybe someone should go to China and make a stink about Tibet. Think it's going to happen ?

T

(in reply to kdsub)
Profile   Post #: 33
RE: Changes in Politics - 9/2/2008 1:12:38 PM   
kittinSol


Posts: 16926
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

Racially, even if he believed that one race is causing most of the problems, he should have had more tact. Big money and international bankers are not all Jews, and no matter who they are, they did not twist our arm to borrow money.



I'm going to be on to you until you realise that Jews are not a 'race', and until you stop quoting anti-semitic authors. Enough already: it doesn't up your credentials, and you need to start addressing the origins of your prejudice.

_____________________________



(in reply to Termyn8or)
Profile   Post #: 34
RE: Changes in Politics - 9/2/2008 5:58:54 PM   
Termyn8or


Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline 		I'll be here kit. You do what you have to do.

I don't believe that you throw the baby out with the bathwater, apparently you do. I have been wrong and have admitted it, are you suggesting that I am wrong about everything ? Be careful with that one because I have agreed with you a few times, and remember this, when I disagree with you, I don't automatically discard everything you have ever written. Not that you have, at least to me, but to do so is IMO ignorance.

I didn't twist anyone's arm to read Coughlin, and I'll not comment on his bigotry or whatever you want to call it. I said right there, focus on his views of the economy.

Sorry if you can't handle it, but that is not my problem. Just don't read anything that was written by anyone who is not,,,,,,, what ? Bending over backwards to be politically correct ?

I agree and disagree with opinions, not people.

Be well kit, I need you around to make life more interesting from time to time. It might be a sad day when and if you ever find out what my complete opinion is about Jews, or if you prefer, Hebrews and Zionists. I have alot more respect than you think, and I am alot more similar to them than you think.

I think you might do well to actually read what I wrote, instead of displaying your hypersensitivity. I put a disclaimer RIGHT THERE IN THE BEGINNING. And if one member is going to prevent me from speaking my mind, except for TOS, I would just as soon be gone. Have you ever noticed how nobody else hardly says anything about stuff like this ? Think about it. Oh yes they have, but very rarely. You just pounce on that word like a,,,,a   hungry kitten. :-)

Hopefully without hijacking the thread, was Charles Coughlin not a citizen of the US ? Granted he was born in Canada, but is it right that big money silenced him ? He had one hell of a large audience. The people were discontent. Wrong or right, he spoke his mind, as did many others before they were silenced. Would you prefer he lie ?

In the CM spirit of some members, and this is to anyone, prove he was wrong. His premise was that FDR did wrong, and no matter what the GDP was, we have had an ever spiraling debt. I can explain that, and actually do it without mentioning race or creed.

You see, without FDR's actions, back then we would be reduced in wages overall. This is going to happen, and is actually happening right now. If it had happened back then our recovery would have been a real one, instead of this artificial money they create by issuing notes of credit. They may have forestalled the real crash by about 70-80 years, but because of that, it is going to be alot worse.

Therefore I disagree with alot of FDR's policies, I probably would have done some of the things he did, but definitely not all. It simply created too much debt. The GDP is not the whole story.

Oh, and I am not anti-Semitic. First of all Hebrews are not the only Semites, and when you call anything you deem to be anti-Jew to be anti-Semitic, it is you who put the race tag on it. I am fully aware that Judaism is a religion that may be practiced by anyone, but will they bury you in sacred ground in Israel ?

Two seperate issues, and I did not even bring it up. I mentioned someone in the 1930s. If you expect someone in the 1930s to be politically correct, sorry. Don't forget Coughlin was a Catholic, and I have some things to say about them that are not quite, shall we say, complementary.

None of it applies to a modern Jew or Catholic, but this much is true, each of those groups had one hell of an interesting history. Not all of it was good, and I can't even say all my history was good. I callum as I seeum. Show me one perfect race or religion.

T

(in reply to kittinSol)
Profile   Post #: 35
RE: Changes in Politics - 9/2/2008 6:46:16 PM   
slvemike4u


Posts: 17896
Joined: 1/15/2008
From: United States
Status: offline 		Classic supposition based on viewpoint and slant.....Generations of the elderly and the disabled would of course disagree with you,but why quibble!

_____________________________

If we want things to stay as they are,things will have to change...Tancredi from "the Leopard"

Forget Guns-----Ban the pools

Funny stuff....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNwFf991d-4


(in reply to celticlord2112)
Profile   Post #: 36
RE: Changes in Politics - 9/2/2008 6:58:00 PM   
kittinSol


Posts: 16926
Status: offline 		Termy, I've appreciated some of your insights at times too, but it's overshadowed by your choice of overtly racist literature. Do you really quote The Turner Diaries or Coughlin with a straight face, without a second thought to what they represent? Do you have any idea what they represent?

_____________________________



(in reply to Termyn8or)
Profile   Post #: 37
RE: Changes in Politics - 9/2/2008 7:08:50 PM   
rulemylife


Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

rulem, of course I know he was all that, and I specifically stated to disregard certain parts. You could substitute "Jews" with "international bankers" and find that he really wasn't wrong about everything.

Racially, even if he believed that one race is causing most of the problems, he should have had more tact. Big money and international bankers are not all Jews, and no matter who they are, they did not twist our arm to borrow money.

No matter who anybody is, they can't get over on you unless you let them. Look at all the US paper held by China. They are not Jews. But the fact is, since FDR, this country has never been able to pay it's bills on time and has become a houndog for money. This weakens our sovereignty and overall position in world politics.

Hey, maybe someone should go to China and make a stink about Tibet. Think it's going to happen ?

T


Yes, I know you put in the disclaimer.  I just don't understand why you felt the need to include him at all to make your point.  He's referred to by many sources as the founder of hate radio (or hate media in the modern version) and was widely discredited in his own day.

(in reply to Termyn8or)
Profile   Post #: 38
RE: Changes in Politics - 9/2/2008 9:03:02 PM   
Termyn8or


Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline 		kit, if we are to discuss this, let's call it an argument, I want it to be as civil as possible and will do everything in my power to make it so. We do need to come to an understanding on the definition of certain words though. You say that "the Jews" are not a race, OK then, but what are they ? Strictly a religion ? Are they the amalgamate of Hebrews and Zionists ? Or does that word mean that they specifically practice Judaism ? If I am using the wrong term, I can stand some enlightenment. Should I use the term Israelis ? If so, that might result in confusion as well, because there are still a few Palestinians left there.

Now I will jump the fence and be with you for a minute, Coughlin used the word Jews, and what he meant was big money/old money people. His perception was a bit off because he did not have proper information. There was no way for him to get it. I do believe it was improper, thus the disclaimer. I have the ability to extract what I need from what I read. You should see me read a nonfiction book for the first time, I make Elevyn Woods look like a psresbyopic dyslexic without a light to read by. I implant an index in my mind of the book and then  go to the parts I want and do read every word. Then I go back and read the whole thing. I then have most of the body of real information before I get to the author's speculation and opinion. Under these circumstances it is easy to disregard the author's personal views. Perhaps others haven't developed yet.

I have caught errors in all kinds of textbooks and technical material, and these are things nobody else noticed. I have read Pierce and I don't agree, I have read alot of things with which I do not agree at all, but I still want to get their point.

To the question "Do you realize what that represents?" I'll tell you right now. it represents nothing but what it said. Look on the front and you will see the author's name, it represents the opinion of a person, nothing more, nothing less.

rulem, I put it in there because some of it is good reading if you have a skin. Some of it. See now we are concentrating on this feeble issue instead of what I said. Can someone explain to me why WPA, the IRS and so many other supposed "arms" of the government are incorporated in Delaware ?

Coughlin was an embarrasment who had a hell of alot of public support. As such, none of his views are valid because of some of his beliefs ? Right or wrong ?

That is what I mean by throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

T

(in reply to rulemylife)
Profile   Post #: 39
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Changes in Politics Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094