Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: SCOTUS majority weasels out of another ruling.


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

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: SCOTUS majority weasels out of another ruling. Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: SCOTUS majority weasels out of another ruling. - 6/26/2013 6:00:51 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

The courts already found the law was enacted for a discriminatory purpose (it is on appeal right now). So when it is brought back before the same courts, after citizens are denied their right to vote, the courts will again find against Texas.


I don't think thats an accurate description of the court proceedings to date.

Texas voted a voter ID law (much as many other states have).
Justice department refused to preclear it.
Texas sued to have the law allowed.
The Court of appeals denied the suit.

Nonetheless, the appeal was against the justice department on the basis of the voter registration act.

So I'm pretty sure with the striking of section 5, the law goes into effect. Any attempt to block the law cannot rely on the previous proceedings but will have to start again.

Section 5 was not struck. Not even section 4 was. Only the specific jurisdictions specified as part of section 4 was struck. Congress is specifically encouraged in the opinion to produce a new map.

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 41
RE: SCOTUS majority weasels out of another ruling. - 6/26/2013 6:05:39 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
I did try to say that some of those links were aneqdotal. I am merely trying to point out that there are serious cases of voter intimidation and fraud going on, and that efforts to combat fraud are not necessarily to suppress the vote.

There are no documented cases of large scale vote fraud and the laws in question would do nothing to stop voter intimidation, they are actually simply a way to suppress the vote of disadvantaged people because those groups tend to vote for Democrats.

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 42
RE: SCOTUS majority weasels out of another ruling. - 6/26/2013 6:39:48 PM   
popeye1250


Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
I did try to say that some of those links were aneqdotal. I am merely trying to point out that there are serious cases of voter intimidation and fraud going on, and that efforts to combat fraud are not necessarily to suppress the vote.

There are no documented cases of large scale vote fraud and the laws in question would do nothing to stop voter intimidation, they are actually simply a way to suppress the vote of disadvantaged people because those groups tend to vote for Democrats.


DomKen, now I've heard just the opposite; "poor dumb rednecks in the South", voting for Republicans!
Gee, that makes sense, I live in a doublewide, drive a 20 year old Ford truck (when it runs) I get food stamps, medicaid, wic and a few other things,.....I Know,.....I think I'll vote for some rich Republican from up North!


_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 43
RE: SCOTUS majority weasels out of another ruling. - 6/26/2013 6:44:03 PM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
I did try to say that some of those links were aneqdotal. I am merely trying to point out that there are serious cases of voter intimidation and fraud going on, and that efforts to combat fraud are not necessarily to suppress the vote.

There are no documented cases of large scale vote fraud and the laws in question would do nothing to stop voter intimidation, they are actually simply a way to suppress the vote of disadvantaged people because those groups tend to vote for Democrats.


Simply not true. And I've previously provided the links for it. There are HUNDREDS of documented cases of fraud - from MN, to ohio, to philadelphi, to florida, totalling hundreds of thousands of votes.

128 counties in Ohio and Philadelphia where Romney received less than 1% of the vote. Republican poll watchers denied access to the polls in PA. Polling stations preloaded with votes.

Going back a bit in history - the famous butterfly election - thousands of hanging chads. I tried to generate hanging chads with that ballot. It was impossible to do - literally unless you stacked up 100 ballots and punched them all at the same time. Punched individually, (as you were by law supposed to do) I could not generate a single hanging chad in dozens of tries.


Even in the height of political landslides in brward county - about as democratic a place as you will find in the us - the ratio is never higher than 2.5 :1.

Wake up Ken. Those of us on my side aren't doing this to defraud an election. We just want our votes to count. We want people of all opinions to vote. I wouldn't mind bus service to the polls. I woulnd't mind having elections on saturday so more people could vote. No one I know wants to surpress voters from voting.

We just want precautions against fraud.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 44
RE: SCOTUS majority weasels out of another ruling. - 6/26/2013 6:54:01 PM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
[/quote]
Section 5 was not struck. Not even section 4 was. Only the specific jurisdictions specified as part of section 4 was struck. Congress is specifically encouraged in the opinion to produce a new map.
[/quote]

Page 3 of the decision: The formula of section 4 is struck. Since the basis for applying the law IS the formula in section 4, I do think its fair to say that section 4 was struck. Me saying 5 was typo.

The court encouraged the congress to setup new standards - but absent a democratic sweep there is no way thats going to happen.

You and I are saying a lot of the same things. That virtually all of the law was held - except the part which applied it to jurisdictions.

But frankly, if congress effected the same law again, I'm pretty sure the supremes would find the whole law unconstitutional. They just used the jurisdiction as a fig leaf.

Read the last couple of paragraphs. Says no one can say that the pervasive discrimination extant in 1965 still exists. Without that basis there is no basis for federal intrusion.

< Message edited by Phydeaux -- 6/26/2013 6:58:56 PM >

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 45
RE: SCOTUS majority weasels out of another ruling. - 6/26/2013 7:01:52 PM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
Until it happens again, then we are revisiting the Court.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 46
RE: SCOTUS majority weasels out of another ruling. - 6/26/2013 7:19:18 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
I did try to say that some of those links were aneqdotal. I am merely trying to point out that there are serious cases of voter intimidation and fraud going on, and that efforts to combat fraud are not necessarily to suppress the vote.

There are no documented cases of large scale vote fraud and the laws in question would do nothing to stop voter intimidation, they are actually simply a way to suppress the vote of disadvantaged people because those groups tend to vote for Democrats.


Simply not true. And I've previously provided the links for it. There are HUNDREDS of documented cases of fraud - from MN, to ohio, to philadelphi, to florida, totalling hundreds of thousands of votes.

128 counties in Ohio and Philadelphia where Romney received less than 1% of the vote. Republican poll watchers denied access to the polls in PA. Polling stations preloaded with votes.

Going back a bit in history - the famous butterfly election - thousands of hanging chads. I tried to generate hanging chads with that ballot. It was impossible to do - literally unless you stacked up 100 ballots and punched them all at the same time. Punched individually, (as you were by law supposed to do) I could not generate a single hanging chad in dozens of tries.


Even in the height of political landslides in brward county - about as democratic a place as you will find in the us - the ratio is never higher than 2.5 :1.

Wake up Ken. Those of us on my side aren't doing this to defraud an election. We just want our votes to count. We want people of all opinions to vote. I wouldn't mind bus service to the polls. I woulnd't mind having elections on saturday so more people could vote. No one I know wants to surpress voters from voting.

We just want precautions against fraud.


It is true. You've presented some unsubstantiated claims and a single processing error that was detected and corrected and that is it.

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 47
RE: SCOTUS majority weasels out of another ruling. - 6/26/2013 7:22:56 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


Section 5 was not struck. Not even section 4 was. Only the specific jurisdictions specified as part of section 4 was struck. Congress is specifically encouraged in the opinion to produce a new map.


Page 3 of the decision: The formula of section 4 is struck. Since the basis for applying the law IS the formula in section 4, I do think its fair to say that section 4 was struck. Me saying 5 was typo.

The court encouraged the congress to setup new standards - but absent a democratic sweep there is no way thats going to happen.

You and I are saying a lot of the same things. That virtually all of the law was held - except the part which applied it to jurisdictions.

But frankly, if congress effected the same law again, I'm pretty sure the supremes would find the whole law unconstitutional. They just used the jurisdiction as a fig leaf.

Read the last couple of paragraphs. Says no one can say that the pervasive discrimination extant in 1965 still exists. Without that basis there is no basis for federal intrusion.

If section 4 had actually been tossed out then Congress would not have been encouraged to come up with a new map.

Just wait, SCOTUS is going to get all the evidence it could ever need. That's what is so sad about the formerly covered states rushing to implement laws that had failed to get preclearance. They all already lost in court based on the standard that will apply under section 2 once an election is held.

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 48
RE: SCOTUS majority weasels out of another ruling. - 6/26/2013 7:41:04 PM   
BitYakin


Posts: 882
Joined: 10/15/2005
Status: offline
ok, maybe you can explain to me WHY its being enacted if its been ruled against then?

also BTW, it being struck down as unduely burdensome DOES NOT equal UNCONSTITUTIONAL, as you said

OPPPS

its so tiresome when people throw around words like UNCONSTITUTIONAL when all that really was done was ruled as burdonsome, meaning it needs TWEAKS to make it less burdonsome

just nit picking a lil here, according to the article YOU LISTED, it wasn't a 250 mile ONE WAY trip it was 200 - 250 ROUND TRIP making it 100 to 125 mile trip ONE WAY

and people like you and myself who live in huge cities think those are LONG TRIPS but I am here to tell you when I lived in texas if I said 50 miles is a long way to go to get a six pack everyone would LAUGH at me


one other lil DETAIL here, I don't know YOU and you do not know ME so don't go saying I am EAGER to DISINFRANCHISE ANYONE brown or otherwise. I don't apriciate you JUDGING ME just because you DISAGREE with how I see things and INSULTING me by implying I am EAGER to discriminate against ANYONE!

I live in missouri, where all ya need to register to vote is a UTILITY BILL and I am here to tell you if I wanted I could get registered to vote three times NO PROBLEM

my elect bill is in an old roomates name, I just keep paying the bill but never had ti changed over to my name
same for my phone bill (differant roomate) and my gas bill is in my name, I could EASILY threw the MAIL get a differant voter registration card for each one! since each mail in aplitaction would be signed in MY HANDWRITING it would never be questioned

then just vote at three differant polling stations, once with each card amd sign the correct name in MY MATCHING HANDWRITTING


(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 49
RE: SCOTUS majority weasels out of another ruling. - 6/26/2013 8:07:49 PM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
And all it takes is one person recognizing you....

penalty for voter fraud of up to a $15,000 fine and seven years in prison acts as a significant deterrent

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to BitYakin)
Profile   Post #: 50
RE: SCOTUS majority weasels out of another ruling. - 6/26/2013 8:09:47 PM   
BitYakin


Posts: 882
Joined: 10/15/2005
Status: offline
didn't say I'd do it, just pointing out how EASY it would be to do


PS. laws, fines, and penalties really only deter HONEST people, people who would do this will ASSUME they will not be caught, just like thieves and scammers etc etc etc

< Message edited by BitYakin -- 6/26/2013 8:13:15 PM >

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 51
RE: SCOTUS majority weasels out of another ruling. - 6/26/2013 8:24:49 PM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
Any idea how many people would have to travel to how many different voting precincts to affect the outcome? I can promise you it would require so many that one of them wouldnt keep their mouth shut and it would get out. How would this work? Money... pay enough, people will do it. Pay enough, and people talk. People talk, someone finds out.



_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to BitYakin)
Profile   Post #: 52
RE: SCOTUS majority weasels out of another ruling. - 6/26/2013 8:31:30 PM   
LookieNoNookie


Posts: 12216
Joined: 8/9/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

The majority decided to declare a map unconstitutional so as to prevent enforcement of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-96_6k47.pdf

Basically they ruled that the section that said certain jurisdiction would need preclearance to change their voting procedures was constitutional (Congress does have very specific ability to legislate voting rules) but that the map of which places were covered wasn't. Since there is no way this Congress will pass a new map the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is effectively dead.

This is a truly ridiculous and cowardly ruling.



I've never been able to figure out who SCOTUS is.....is it Some Crazy Operative Of The United States?

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 53
RE: SCOTUS majority weasels out of another ruling. - 6/26/2013 8:34:11 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin

ok, maybe you can explain to me WHY its being enacted if its been ruled against then?

also BTW, it being struck down as unduely burdensome DOES NOT equal UNCONSTITUTIONAL, as you said

Try reading the 15th amendment.

(in reply to BitYakin)
Profile   Post #: 54
RE: SCOTUS majority weasels out of another ruling. - 6/28/2013 8:43:40 PM   
dcnovice


Posts: 37282
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline
FR

Since this seems to be the closest we've come to a VRA thread, I'll post this here.

Slate has published an example of an actual literacy test. It's from Louisiana in 1964. I particularly like that there's a word missing from the last question.

Veterans of the Civil Rights Movement offers more examples.

_____________________________

No matter how cynical you become,
it's never enough to keep up.

JANE WAGNER, THE SEARCH FOR SIGNS OF
INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 55
RE: SCOTUS majority weasels out of another ruling. - 7/1/2013 8:03:52 PM   
cordeliasub


Posts: 528
Joined: 11/4/2012
Status: offline
As someone who actually works as a voter registrar and in elections in one of the affected states, I have read this thread with interest. I wish I could show you the crazy-ass map in our county that had to be done and redone and then you needed a PhD in geography to understand the damn thing because the lines were so wonky trying to make everything "fair." And then when people found out before the 2012 election they their voting precinct had changed (because every time there is a census it has to be redrawn and then federally approved....I got cursed out more than once and called racist for telling someone their new polling place was the armory instead of the fire station. Kinda ironic...being called racist for upholding an act that came into being to prevent racism.

And yeah, we caught a few people who had changed names and multiple registrations (they slipped through the cracks because they just re-registered instead of updating) trying to vote in more than one place. Also a couple who voted absentee trying to also go to the polls. Luckily there are enough checks and double and triple checks in place that they were caught.

(in reply to dcnovice)
Profile   Post #: 56
RE: SCOTUS majority weasels out of another ruling. - 7/1/2013 9:46:21 PM   
njlauren


Posts: 1577
Joined: 10/1/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
I did try to say that some of those links were aneqdotal. I am merely trying to point out that there are serious cases of voter intimidation and fraud going on, and that efforts to combat fraud are not necessarily to suppress the vote.

There are no documented cases of large scale vote fraud and the laws in question would do nothing to stop voter intimidation, they are actually simply a way to suppress the vote of disadvantaged people because those groups tend to vote for Democrats.


Simply not true. And I've previously provided the links for it. There are HUNDREDS of documented cases of fraud - from MN, to ohio, to philadelphi, to florida, totalling hundreds of thousands of votes.

128 counties in Ohio and Philadelphia where Romney received less than 1% of the vote. Republican poll watchers denied access to the polls in PA. Polling stations preloaded with votes.

Going back a bit in history - the famous butterfly election - thousands of hanging chads. I tried to generate hanging chads with that ballot. It was impossible to do - literally unless you stacked up 100 ballots and punched them all at the same time. Punched individually, (as you were by law supposed to do) I could not generate a single hanging chad in dozens of tries.


Even in the height of political landslides in brward county - about as democratic a place as you will find in the us - the ratio is never higher than 2.5 :1.

Wake up Ken. Those of us on my side aren't doing this to defraud an election. We just want our votes to count. We want people of all opinions to vote. I wouldn't mind bus service to the polls. I woulnd't mind having elections on saturday so more people could vote. No one I know wants to surpress voters from voting.

We just want precautions against fraud.



What you leave out is the other side of the equation,that the 'voter fraud' and voter id seems to be aimed at black and minority communities, and in lily white communities they don't enforce the rules. In black communities, if someone's name is misspelled or if they decide the person has the name similar to a known felon, they won't let them vote, in white communities, put your x on the paper and vote. What judges, both liberal and conservative, have found is many of these voter id laws require id that can be difficult for poor voters to have. It is kind of like the poll tests they had down south, supposedly to prove literacy enough to vote, that strangely enough, were only given to black voters.Are you saying that there is no voter fraud at all on the other side? That mysterious problems with voting machines, gee, only seem to happen in areas likely to vote democratic, or that 'poll watchers' seem only to be on duty in minority areas, whereas in white areas there literally are none allowed?

Yeah, it is really easy to claim that there are all these people out there that just love the GOP, that the only way the democrats win is because they cheat,which is a great excuse for the rabid right running the party not to change, they offer excuses, they claim the problem is Romney wasn't conservative enought, when the real problem is as a national party the GOP has become the party of crackpots, racists and far right wing ideology. The house is likely to shitcan immigration reform, which might fly well in the midwest and down south, but is going to kill them nationally. Even regionally the GOP is in trouble, the only reason they hold onto seats is they gerrymander districts that wouldn't pass muster except for the hard lines on Scotus who ideologically are using the bench to help keep the GOP in power, because otherwise, they violate the idea of one person, one vote, and give power to white minorities...the rural, southern GOP as it exists today exists in effect because of voter fraud, because they create districts that dilute minority and democratic leaning voters and leave the white trash in control..but it is going to fail, and then what? They can cry voter fraud all they want, but in my district, where GOP presidential candidates used to get 85-90% of the vote, the GOP barely polls half.....young people, minorities, those who are independent, all see the GOP as the party of angry, white, mostly southern and midwest, rural voters who are upset at the loss of 'their' America......the GOP wants to claim it is all voter fraud, but polls and surveys all show the same thing, the GOP is the white people's party, and more importantly, white people who are rapidly going to die off.

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 57
RE: SCOTUS majority weasels out of another ruling. - 7/1/2013 9:52:20 PM   
njlauren


Posts: 1577
Joined: 10/1/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: cordeliasub

As someone who actually works as a voter registrar and in elections in one of the affected states, I have read this thread with interest. I wish I could show you the crazy-ass map in our county that had to be done and redone and then you needed a PhD in geography to understand the damn thing because the lines were so wonky trying to make everything "fair." And then when people found out before the 2012 election they their voting precinct had changed (because every time there is a census it has to be redrawn and then federally approved....I got cursed out more than once and called racist for telling someone their new polling place was the armory instead of the fire station. Kinda ironic...being called racist for upholding an act that came into being to prevent racism.

And yeah, we caught a few people who had changed names and multiple registrations (they slipped through the cracks because they just re-registered instead of updating) trying to vote in more than one place. Also a couple who voted absentee trying to also go to the polls. Luckily there are enough checks and double and triple checks in place that they were caught.

What you are leaving out is the gerrymandering that is done to keep power in a particular party. In many places in the so called red states, the districts look like a balloon figure that had the air let out of it, it is so all over the place, and it is done to create districts that will vote GOP and keep the seat in the party. Happens all over the country, whichever party is in power rigs the districts to keep as any of their members in power by making the districts have majority voters likely to vote for them. Part of the proof of this is that in national elections, the GOP is losing ground, big time, and even with gerrymandering, it is getting harder and harder to keep their hegonomy. I think the voting rights act was idiotic in using data from 40 years ago, but I also think the process of gerrymandering should be looked at, whoever does it, because creating 'rotten' districts (i.e easy to hold onto) does not one any good, other than the parties. Among other things, it has created a congress full of loons who are full of crackpot theories, think they are on some divine mission, and have made congress into a joke, especially the house. John Boehner doesn't even look like a third rate used car salesman, I put him line with those guys doing infomercials that you can make a million dollars trading futures.....

(in reply to cordeliasub)
Profile   Post #: 58
RE: SCOTUS majority weasels out of another ruling. - 7/2/2013 2:58:52 AM   
Powergamz1


Posts: 1927
Joined: 9/3/2011
Status: offline
Apparently there was a TV show some time back that made much of the acronym POTUS taken from the Constitution.
There is of course, no such series of words referencing the US Supreme Court, but it would seem that the boob tube has induce a foolish consistency.


quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

The majority decided to declare a map unconstitutional so as to prevent enforcement of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-96_6k47.pdf

Basically they ruled that the section that said certain jurisdiction would need preclearance to change their voting procedures was constitutional (Congress does have very specific ability to legislate voting rules) but that the map of which places were covered wasn't. Since there is no way this Congress will pass a new map the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is effectively dead.

This is a truly ridiculous and cowardly ruling.



I've never been able to figure out who SCOTUS is.....is it Some Crazy Operative Of The United States?



_____________________________

"DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment" Anthony McLeod Kennedy

" About damn time...wooot!!' Me

(in reply to LookieNoNookie)
Profile   Post #: 59
RE: SCOTUS majority weasels out of another ruling. - 7/2/2013 6:50:59 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

Apparently there was a TV show some time back that made much of the acronym POTUS taken from the Constitution.
There is of course, no such series of words referencing the US Supreme Court, but it would seem that the boob tube has induce a foolish consistency.

Actually it Is a quite common way to reference those elected and appointed officials back in the late 80's. I saw them frequently when I was stationed in DC. I remember being directed to the VPOTUS* residence on the USNO** which had to be explained to me the first time but makes perfect sense with the way the military is crazy for acronyms.

*VPOTUS = Vice President Of The United States
**USNO = United States Naval Observatory


< Message edited by DomKen -- 7/2/2013 6:53:25 AM >

(in reply to Powergamz1)
Profile   Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: SCOTUS majority weasels out of another ruling. Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
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

0.125