RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined

RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

thishereboi -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/14/2012 5:14:36 AM)
quote: I quoted the New Testament reports of Jesus' words to make a point: those who beat the drums loudly in proclaiming this a christian nation since the founding [erroniously] are resistant to the commands of the god they worship. Quoting from some other source hardly supports the hypocracy and irony that I see in the suspicion and condemnation from those who war upon the poor. I am speaking to a broad group here and not to the OP who took it personal. And to him I apologize for not being clear about that, although it is only half an apology [the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh ] because I did ask: Are we a christian nation only when it is convenient? The irony of my question was lost. Have you ever looked at the number of the people who give to charities? Did you know that most of the money comes from religious organizations? So how is that not following the commands that say "feed the poor"? I have a friend who is athiest. She told me she will never give to any organization that is related in any way to a religious group. I asked her what groups she gave to and she couldn't name one. I thought that was very interesting.

vincentML -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/14/2012 8:27:00 AM)
quote: I really don't care if they are using or not, but for the millions of productive, contributing to society, potheads in our workforce, knowing how to beat the test is a critical job skill. Failing to make that reality part of the program, fails the people we are trying to help. [:D] I take this as sly satirical humor but allow me to point out what I see as a few flaws in the argument advanced in this post, and here I am addressing the entire post, not this passage alone: 1. A private employer has every right to screen his potential employees. The job applicants are free to submit or go away. And the boss may test an applicant coming from a TAFN referral. BUT, when government demands bodily fluids it strikes me as a violation of the Fourth Amendment. 2. Throughout the thread you snark against the nanny state but have no difficulty in allowing the State to intrude into the privacy of the poorest and most vulnerable. 3. In the OP you worried about expanding government bureaucracy but see no issue in expanding the apartchniks for drug testing. 4. If drug testing is a prerequisite for taking public money then politicians should be tested [as per tazzy's post above] and so should everyone receiving Social Security Funds, Medicare Funds, Veterans Benefits, etc. I realize folks in the latter categories are not seeking work but they are getting funding mostly because they cannot work. 5. In Florida at least the program was based upon the unproven assumption voiced by the governor that people on welfare more often use drugs than the general population, a shameful pandering to Right Wing morality and victimization of the poorest and helpless, a decidedly unpopular governor trolling for votes on the backs of the unemployed. 6. The use of drugs and alcohol is a valid coping mechanism against the absurdities of life and their should be no issue as long as people can get out and search for work and then show up for the job, and do it to the satisfaction of themselves and the boss. The boss has the option to fire them. The ball is in your court [:)]

mnottertail -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/14/2012 8:40:47 AM)
Since this is about defining homeless, I am glad they are taking a proactive stance on this, since had we defined WMD ahead of the curve, it would be a different world we live in today.

vincentML -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/14/2012 8:44:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: I quoted the New Testament reports of Jesus' words to make a point: those who beat the drums loudly in proclaiming this a christian nation since the founding [erroniously] are resistant to the commands of the god they worship. Quoting from some other source hardly supports the hypocracy and irony that I see in the suspicion and condemnation from those who war upon the poor. I am speaking to a broad group here and not to the OP who took it personal. And to him I apologize for not being clear about that, although it is only half an apology [the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh ] because I did ask: Are we a christian nation only when it is convenient? The irony of my question was lost. Have you ever looked at the number of the people who give to charities? Did you know that most of the money comes from religious organizations? So how is that not following the commands that say "feed the poor"? I have a friend who is athiest. She told me she will never give to any organization that is related in any way to a religious group. I asked her what groups she gave to and she couldn't name one. I thought that was very interesting. Yes, you make a good point, thb. People do give to charities. Religious charities are helpful. No argument there. Let me point out however that the Federal Govt subsidizes this charitable giving through exemptions in the tax code and through the Office of Faith Based Initiative. I agree that such charity can be effective working at the level where it is needed, from which the govt in Washington is too remote. I have no quarrel with that. My quarrel is with folks who want the Fed Govt out of caring for the needy on the philosophical assumption that rising up by your own boot straps is preferable or that the needy are at fault for their own situation, and on the political premise that central government should be downsized when it affects the old, unemployed and impoverished but not when it comes to subsidies for Multinationals and Agribusiness. The Commercial dole is okay but the Social dole is anathema. Your atheist friend has a foolish attitude imho. But then I haven't heard her reasoning so maybe I judge too quickly.

TheHeretic -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/14/2012 9:11:20 PM)
There's nothing sly or satirical about the fact that if druggies wish to get and keep jobs, they need to be able to pass the tests, Vincent. That you found it humorous just means that somewhere, you saw the clear truth of my words, even if you are not persuaded yet. (Now the shot at the Obamabots, that was sly and satirical) [:D] You see hypocrisy, even though I first introduced the idea of drug-testing in the welfare to work programs as an example of nannyism not just being a black and white issue, but with shades of gray, and the need to do things properly, if we are going to do them. No resetting the bar, thank you very much. I placed it at welfare to work programs, which are, I believe, a requirement of TANF, but done at the state/county/local level. Not the welfare archetype, single mother of young children, not the disabled person, caught up in the nightmare bureaucratic jobs program that is the Social Security appeals process. Eligible to work, and required to be out looking for it. It's very simple to do. In order to keep receiving benefits, they have to sign up for the program, and in order to do that, they sign and acknowledge that random drug testing will be a program requirement. Yeah, it's a catch-22 for the dopers, but if we are going to help them move forward we might as well get them acclimated to it. How you get from me saying that a specific classification of recipient ought to be nannied a bit more, to the blather about anybody who gets a government dime being required to pee in a cup... Well, maybe there is something else for the debate thread there. The ball is in your court, if you'd care to address what I said, rather than building a strawman that you are more comfortable with.

tazzygirl -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/14/2012 11:22:19 PM)
quote: No resetting the bar, thank you very much. I placed it at welfare to work programs, which are, I believe, a requirement of TANF, but done at the state/county/local level. Not the welfare archetype, single mother of young children, not the disabled person, caught up in the nightmare bureaucratic jobs program that is the Social Security appeals process. Eligible to work, and required to be out looking for it. It's very simple to do. In order to keep receiving benefits, they have to sign up for the program, and in order to do that, they sign and acknowledge that random drug testing will be a program requirement. Yeah, it's a catch-22 for the dopers, but if we are going to help them move forward we might as well get them acclimated to it. Why do employers drug test? We both know the answer to that. To prevent theft, injury, to cover liability, ect. Bottom line, its to protect their bottom line. Not that I blame them. When was the last time a lawyer was drug tested? a judge? wasnt till recently that some cops were drug tested at all. NY I believe. I would have no issue with testing for cause for welfare. You get arrested, you are on probation/parole, you come in for a meeting are reek of pot or alcohol or are obviously under the influence of something. But the 2% in florida vs the cost of testing so many just isnt financially prudent. There was a claim about the Savanah River site by Governor Haley. Columbia, SC (AP) -- The U.S. Department of Energy says it had just over 100 pre-employment drug test failures during the last two years. South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley earlier this week conceded she couldn't back up her often-repeated claim that half of the applicants for hundreds of jobs there had failed drug tests. Haley said the person who had told her that during her campaign would not substantiate the claim. Haley said the unproven remark shaped her outlook on linking unemployment benefits to drug tests. Data released Wednesday shows a two-year failure rate under 1 percent for more than 17,000 tests for the agency or its subcontractors. Last year, 71 people failed out of nearly 9,700 tests. In the year before, 37 people failed out of nearly 8,000 tests http://www.wltx.com/news/article/152330/2/Energy-Dept-Details-Drug-Test-Failures-After-Haley-Comment I cant see wasting the money to test everyone to catch 2% or less who are using. Fiscally, it does not compute. TANF is a limited program in how long one can sit back and collect. But, until anyone who receives a government check is tested, I cannot get behind this policy. As long as Politicians can opt out because it violates their constitutional rights, then it has to be applied to everyone.

vincentML -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/15/2012 5:01:08 PM)
quote: No resetting the bar, thank you very much. I placed it at welfare to work programs, which are, I believe, a requirement of TANF, but done at the state/county/local level. Not required by TANF but authorized. Big difference. No Federal Laws mandating taking pee samples. Only Laws from States with Republican governors pandering to their base. quote: It's very simple to do. In order to keep receiving benefits, they have to sign up for the program, and in order to do that, they sign and acknowledge that random drug testing will be a program requirement. In Florida, not random at all. Under the law, which takes effect on July 1, the Florida Department of Children and Family Services will be required to conduct the drug tests on adults applying to the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. The aid recipients would be responsible for the cost of the screening, which they would recoup in their assistance if they qualify. Those who fail the required drug testing may designate another individual to receive the benefits on behalf of their children. quote: How you get from me saying that a specific classification of recipient ought to be nannied a bit more, to the blather about anybody who gets a government dime being required to pee in a cup... Well, maybe there is something else for the debate thread there. Here is our pandering Florida governor giving his reasoning [same source as above] "It's the right thing for citizens of this state that need public assistance. We don't want to waste tax dollars. And also, we want to give people an incentive to not use drugs." So, not a difficult stretch to imagine him saying the same thing about medicaid recipients, which class may very well include the same people. Easy to draw an inclusive Venn diagram. Not constructing strawmen but applying a logical extention of the governor's reasoning. The unintended consequence of signaling out one class of people for bogus reasons. Applying such transparently limp logic as he did to a politically weak target group raises questions about the motivations of a governor whose approval rating is in the toilet. There may be case law already. I don't know. But, I say again I think anytime government starts demanding body fluids without suspicion of a crime is a violation of the 4th Amendment. jmho, yanno.

Real0ne -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/15/2012 5:58:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic There's nothing sly or satirical about the fact that if druggies wish to get and keep jobs, they need to be able to pass the tests, Vincent. while I agree that people should not use drugs recreationally, on the other hand I defend their private right to do so. I am surprised that more people do not set these employers up for the fall and sue the shit out of them for discriminatory hiring practices. In other words you cant offer someone a contract based on the requirement of them giving up a right or liberty.

Real0ne -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/15/2012 6:00:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML And also, we want to give people an incentive to not use drugs. lets go with coercion

TheHeretic -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/15/2012 10:13:17 PM)
Foot fault, and fail, Vincent. You're assuming the Florida experiment serves as model of what I have in mind because...? The government requires drug testing to do all sorts of things, yet you want to haul out the same old, tired crap of how it ought to be, that the truckers and air traffic controllers got over decades ago. Welfare, to steal a line from our President and the Alinsky Rules, is about dealing with the world as it is. You don't seem to want to do that. You can try again, if you like.

vincentML -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/16/2012 5:11:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Foot fault, and fail, Vincent. You're assuming the Florida experiment serves as model of what I have in mind because...? The government requires drug testing to do all sorts of things, yet you want to haul out the same old, tired crap of how it ought to be, that the truckers and air traffic controllers got over decades ago. Welfare, to steal a line from our President and the Alinsky Rules, is about dealing with the world as it is. You don't seem to want to do that. You can try again, if you like. Nice try, H, but no cigar. Air traffic controllers are employees of the government and so subject to employment conditions. TANF recipients are not employed by the government. There is no sustainable or justifiable rational for imposing drug testing upon free citizens. Certainly not for the laugh out loud funny reason you gave: to teach the skill of passing drug tests. You were joking, right?

TheHeretic -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/16/2012 6:45:02 AM)
Sure, Vincent. I mean, jobs training that actually prepares people for the real world environment? What a funny joke. Ha. Ha. Ha. We might as well expect them to show up on time, right? (You detected satire earlier, even if you missed where in the post it was. How are you with sarcasm?)

Real0ne -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/16/2012 9:32:51 AM)
fr the old english common law brought forward in the creation of this government required that their be a material injury in fact, a bona fide cause must exist to prevail in a suit. It was in itself the gatekeeper of all this frivolous shit we see today, like preemptive war and preemptive policing assumed wrongs based on data-less speculation and even whim. Much of the common law has been statutized (which is an english experiment and cannot be done "fairly") and of course leans toward government control not the preservation of rights they were entrusted to protect. The creation of the government was for the purpose of protecting rights and property in the form of courts of the people and armaments for the protection of the nation at large and their welfare in the form of amity and commerce, not stomp on everyones rights to do so. does getting a permission to drive in the form of a DL stop you from killing someone on the road? Does drug testing stop someone from doing drugs? What about pharmaceuticals? Does getting a heating and cooling license assure you that the new kid who cannot find his ass that the company hires with actually do the job right? NO Does that prevent or "stop" someone from doing drugs or otherwise? NO It only means that when you walked through that door you were drug free at that time or acknowledged as capable or within some specification at the time of application. Then I can show numerous court cases where the courts determined the government has no obligation to protect you, contrary to the very reason for the creation of their charter in the first place regardless and in spite of how they label themselves on the side of police cars and in gub buildings. Its because of the way they abused their power and expanded beyond their charter they now "technically" became a 3rd party to anything you do on the road! In other words they become party to a car accident since they "certified" your ability to drive. Of course the judges are protecting them but then it dissolves the trust doesnt it! They are burning the candle at both ends and as usual people are in the firing line taking shots at one another and for what end? The dance.

vincentML -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/17/2012 7:43:51 AM)
quote: Sure, Vincent. I mean, jobs training that actually prepares people for the real world environment? What a funny joke. Ha. Ha. Ha. We might as well expect them to show up on time, right? (You detected satire earlier, even if you missed where in the post it was. How are you with sarcasm?) I am always open to artful expressions of sarcasm, H. Not so much so when it is used to avoid responding to the issues in a debate. The point I made and you ignored is that the demand by a government agency for body fluids from nonemployees to test for drugs is a violation of the 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable search. Additionally, the reason it is being done in the case of the TANF recipients comes down to a pander to the political base on the Right. You advance the excuse that this is a form of job training and a preparation for the real world environment. There are an abundance of government institutions that provide job training and real world preparation for citizens without requiring them to pee in a cup sans at least reasonable suspicion of drug use. These pee cup free institutions are called public schools, community colleges, colleges and universities. All use federal and state dollars in pursuing their task. None feel the need to employ the mandatory pee cup in their curriculum. None of them use the demeaning pee cup to verify that the peoples’ tax dollars are being properly spent and not wasted on junkies and alcoholics. So, that is one flaw in your position. A second flaw is that blanket or even random testing of the TANF subset to teach job skills fails to take into account the likelihood that many of the needy already have marketable job skills and a personal history of employment attendance and reliability but lost their jobs for various reasons attached to the economic downturn and not through any fault of their own. Finally, the most egregious flaw in your doctrine is revealed by your comment: “We might as well expect them to show up on time, right?” Candidate Gingrich made a similar remark with respect to inner city school children. Therein lies the hidden philosophy that motivates the Right: the poor, the needy, the impoverished are in such a state because of their own personal flaws. They are lazy, uneducated, alcoholic, and/or drug addicted. They are inferior. Almost subhuman. Certainly on the lower rungs of the social ladder of humanity. We, the hard working, sober, righteous, superior, clean citizens of the state should applaud our politicians for spending tax dollars to save the wretched from their own excesses and weaknesses. How freakin patronizing is that! I invite you to lay aside sarcasm and respond to the three issues I have raised: the pee cup program violates the 4th Amendment guarantee; the TANF subset is subjected to a singular demand not placed upon other job trainee groups; the pee cup demand imputes indiscriminant blame and shame to the needy and treats them as an inferior class of citizens, ignoring the job skills they already may have. Do try to restrain your indignation at my suggestions, H. Please hold your sarcasm and give me some straight answers if you have any.

TheHeretic -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/17/2012 11:20:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML I invite you to lay aside sarcasm and respond to the three issues I have raised: the pee cup program violates the 4th Amendment guarantee; the TANF subset is subjected to a singular demand not placed upon other job trainee groups; the pee cup demand imputes indiscriminant blame and shame to the needy and treats them as an inferior class of citizens, ignoring the job skills they already may have. Do try to restrain your indignation at my suggestions, H. Please hold your sarcasm and give me some straight answers if you have any. I have been giving you straight answers, Vincent, but we'll try again, in the spirit of an honest exchange of ideas and viewpoints. How abut recalling that you started in here by quoting scripture at me, before we get all up on the high horse of who might be having a bit of fun at the expense of another. So, you want how requiring urinalysis passes the 4th Amendment test? Allow me to repeat myself. They sign up, and sign on. If that requires some legislative retooling in the state houses to avoid such a conflict, ok. Florida's experiment keeps coming up. How did they handle it there? If that law avoided an injunction, I'm thinking a well crafted, narrowly focused, one could get through the only nine opinions that finally matter, if it gets that far. Yes. The erosion of the 4th over the course of the War on Drugs is a travesty. Hell, hearsay became probable cause, 20-odd years ago. We are talking about welfare to work programs in the world as it is. The way to help people get back on their feet, or stand on them for the first time, is not by cocooning them away from reality. Next you say that they are somehow being singled out, subjected to something unique among job trainees. I think we may have conflicting visions of what "job training" means in this context. I suspect you are envisioning vocational course, while I'm thinking much more remedial stuff. Be here on time. Be accountable for what you do. Save the drama for your momma. Yes, it smells bad - get over it and get to work. While you may get the odd self-employed contractor who falls into a bad patch, and lands in the welfare net, instead of unemployment, those are the skills needed first in the common, "get a job - get a better job - get a career," path commonly used to move people from complete dependency to self-suffiency. Unemployment has a whole different set of rules, though I think there are changes we could make for the better there, as well. You seem very hung up on believing this is some sort of punitive thing, Vincent. It isn't. Now if it makes things a bit unpleasant, and discourages those who might otherwise just get comfy in the hammock, that I'll call a plus. Lots of things we learn from aren't a lot of fun at the time.

vincentML -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/18/2012 9:45:06 AM)
quote: How abut recalling that you started in here by quoting scripture at me I apologize for the offense, H. Actually, wasn’t aiming at you personally but offense taken so apology given for my carelessness. quote: So, you want how requiring urinalysis passes the 4th Amendment test? Allow me to repeat myself. They sign up, and sign on. Well yes, but out of necessity. Sign up or let your kids go hungry. Not an act of free people. Coercion by circumstance. All the more offensive an act by the powerful state against helpless citizens. quote: Next you say that they are somehow being singled out, subjected to something unique among job trainees. I think we may have conflicting visions of what "job training" means in this context. I suspect you are envisioning vocational course, while I'm thinking much more remedial stuff. Be here on time. Be accountable for what you do. Save the drama for your momma. Yes, it smells bad - get over it and get to work. While you may get the odd self-employed contractor who falls into a bad patch, and lands in the welfare net, instead of unemployment, those are the skills needed first in the common, "get a job - get a better job - get a career," path commonly used to move people from complete dependency to self-suffiency. Unemployment has a whole different set of rules, though I think there are changes we could make for the better there, as well. You have a misconception of TANF recipients, H. In 2009, 23.5% were employed; 47.3% were unemployed but looking for work; 29.2% were unemployed not looking/discouraged. Fifty-three percent of adult recipients had attained 12 years of education. Five percent had more than 12 years. Forty-eight percent were no-adult families. That is 831,134 families out of 1,726,560 without adults. quote: You seem very hung up on believing this is some sort of punitive thing, Vincent. It isn't. Now if it makes things a bit unpleasant, and discourages those who might otherwise just get comfy in the hammock, that I'll call a plus. Lots of things we learn from aren't a lot of fun at the time. Given the actual nature of the recipients, not those constructed in the minds of right-wing politicos, drug testing in TANF is punitive, unnecessary, infantilizing, demeaning, disrespectful, demoralizing and dehumanizing of politically powerless and economically coerced recipients. Your view, H, is grounded on the erroneous stereotype of slothful, uncaring people lacking basic skills of living, as was promoted by 1980s reaganesk propaganda. All very patronizing and stealing away of human dignity.

TheHeretic -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/18/2012 10:08:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Your view, H, is grounded on the erroneous stereotype of slothful, uncaring people lacking basic skills of living, as was promoted by 1980s reaganesk propaganda. I don't know why you are making such an assumption, Vincent, but my view is grounded in my view. A healthy chunk of the clients I work with in my new career are involved in various programs, which is very educational (California programs, for the most part, but since we have roughly 1/3 of the national caseload, among our 10ish% of the national population, it's a good class), and on my last job, I was a trainer for new hires. When I talk about people coming in from gov't sponsored programs with deficient fundamental skills, it's because I was dealing with people with deficient fundamental skills. "Be at the yard at 7:00 for equipment check, and the morning safety briefing," doesn't meant "roll in at 7:15, and tell stupid lies about why," on a regular basis. Trainees are going to make dumb mistakes, and are expected to learn from them. Answering the question of, "what happened," with "the shit just broke," doesn't suggest they are learning. Especially when they break again it the same way, and answer again, the same way, after I had gone over the system with them again. I'm suggesting that everyone the boss hired through a program that got him a tax break was a crappy candidate, but those were recurring issues. I suspect you are the one Googling as we go (quick, what does SNAP stand for?), and working from your own set of more bleeding heart filters and knee jerks on the subject. Obviously, from your table, the states are calculating who goes into what category, differently, unless nobody in Illinios is getting welfare while their SSDI claim is used as 2-3 years worth of federal bureaucratic make-work. Of course, that's where President Obama had bragged of "fixing" welfare reform, so maybe we need to read a bit more into the 84% unemployment rate, they do report. Pee in a cup, or leave the job application process is the norm. Get over it. Don't like it? Donate to NORML, and change the overall scheme of things.

pyroaquatic -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/18/2012 11:29:37 PM)
Sadness, much sadness. Speaking from perspectives garnered from bitterness. Seriously... test everyone's hair samples. Passing a piss test is really easy, using or not using. Cannabis is the hardest to cover up while other drugs tend to pass through the system quickly. Water, Water, Water, Tunafish, Peanut-butter, and other yummies (vitamins and minerals) to manufacture clean urine with zero amounts of anything. Without that flushed-out look. How many people are passing these tests while using, hmm? No one is going to give me the answer of course because this is a secret to everyone. Shh... Also: Making my career from scratch as I am self-employed and probably should be on disability due to post-Lyme disease and some other disorders that are not readily apparent on the surface. Being homeless sucks but being car-less is far worse. This is a class/status war that is cyclical and unbalanced when it is supposed to be fair and just. The toxicity and culture of value of material in pursuit of better class/status leads to Turds. Turds, Turds, Turds. You would think that with all of these turds the soil would be fertile with fruition but alas... the cycle of toxicity never ends, boys and girls will clamor in youth for nice pretty things without working for them and are left with crap for skills and abilities in their working adult years. Which is offset by idle educational choices in fields that pertain to nothing but flipping burgers paid for by the very parents that spent so much time working for seemingly nothing. Easy to blame the Effect when the Causation is lost in silly banter over piss. Test the hair follicles of everyone involved with the Government or anyone who receives any benefit from tax-payers. Go broke or go home.

TheHeretic -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/19/2012 9:32:49 AM)
I spotted one of those dumb typos that reverses a meaning in my post above. Read that as, "I'm NOT suggesting they were all crappy candidates." Pyro, if the goal was set a new standard, and effectively eliminate anyone who ever uses drugs from any participation in government, or government programs, then the follicle test would be the way to do it. The goal I'm talking about is simply to achieve parity with the norms of the day.

tazzygirl -> RE: Government in action: "Homeless" defined (2/19/2012 9:40:43 AM)
quote: to achieve parity with the norms of the day. Drug test politicians and any other person receiving a check from the government, and I would agree to welfare recipients being tested.

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875