RE: What have you changed on? (Full Version)

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



Message


SunDominant -> RE: What have you changed on? (12/13/2016 7:17:01 PM)

Gay marriage.

About ten years ago I was blessed to form a most unlikely friendship with the loudest, bitchiest, most opinionated gay man I had ever come across. He passed away a few years ago; a great loss to me. Frequent dialogue between us convinced me that if since government has inserted itself into our private live by taking over the institution of marriage, it must be equally available to all. It would, of course, be preferable that the state was not involved in any form when it comes to matrimony.




heavyblinker -> RE: What have you changed on? (12/13/2016 10:22:50 PM)

I used to be more of a believer in free speech and democracy, but Trump has seriously made me re-evaluate that position.

I know how this is going to sound, but I'm now convinced the most serious problem in the world today is stupidity, and this isn't a problem that's going to be solved by forcing the most educated and most insightful to cater to the desires of the uneducated, anti-intellectual masses.

Oh I get that I could be the one on the losing end of this and we could end up with a barbarian thug who even outdoes Trump in the stupidity department leading us all into a nuclear apocalypse... but sometimes the potential rewards are worth the risk, especially in the face of issues like climate change.




tamaka -> RE: What have you changed on? (12/13/2016 10:30:09 PM)

*




DaddySatyr -> RE: What have you changed on? (12/13/2016 10:45:12 PM)


This will raise a few eyebrows, but when I was 15, I was sure I was going to register and vote Democratic.

I was anti-guns. I was anti-nuclear energy. I was a child whose baby sitter had taken him to some of the earliest N.O.W. rallies in NYC (though I have never been pro child murder).

I wish I could tell you exactly what changed me ... well, initially, it was the absolutely feckless non-response of President Carter to the hostage situation in Iran, but it was more than that. It was his opponent who said things like: "If the government would get out of Americans' way, Americans would do great things."

It was a president that stewarded this country in such a way that just about anyone that wanted a job in the 80s could have one.

To be completely honest, I was still anti-nukes for some time.

Then, I looked around at some of the people with whom I agreed on some issues: Jane Fonda? Traitorous cunt. Michael Douglas? Arrogance and ignorance all rolled into one (a very dangerous combination). The list goes on, but as my star worship faded and I looked at some of my heroes as "people", I realized how much I truly disagreed with them.

Eventually, I started studying the constitution and the other writings of the founders and I realized that being an American was a special thing. We are "exceptional" in that there's no other country on earth like us. It doesn't mean we're better, it just means we're different and I have come to revere those differences.

What it comes down to is: (to paraphrase one of my favorite quotées) "I was amazed how much my elders had learned in seven short years (ages 15 - 22)".



Michael




igor2003 -> RE: What have you changed on? (12/13/2016 11:42:42 PM)

--FR--

There are some issues that I tend to lean to the right on, but over all I lean a little more to the left. On the issue of Muslim refugees, while I had been more to the left, I am now tilting back to the right quite a bit. I don't believe innocent Muslims should be judged by terrorist's actions. But it seems that they are more and more reluctant to decry terrorist activities, and more and more wanting to ignore American laws and set up Sharia laws. In my own mind, if they want to live here, then they need to abide by our laws.

I remember what happened with the Rajneeshies in Antelope, Oregon back in the 80's. It seems like, more and more that same type of thing is happening all over the country with the Muslims. If the country doesn't act to stop it, we are going to have some serious problems in the not too distant future.

I know I'm not going to last too many more years, and I probably won't be around to see the worst of it. I'm just happy that I never had any kids to leave the mess to.




ManOeuvre -> RE: What have you changed on? (12/14/2016 9:25:45 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: WickedsDesire
there is i and no-ele so i will feast
correct I all above me


WD, please do not misunderstand me.

I can't choose to accuse roguish broguish as only a purposeful tyre mirer. But, seeing as how it's my birthday in about 5 months (exactly 6 months after a Guy reminded yours and mine have more together than apart, and nearly 6 months after my comrades in mind pulled a lever for a man who took the guy's place in so many works of firelight) would you do me a solid favour and tell me exactly what you mean?

Google still hasn't added sheep-shagger...




ManOeuvre -> RE: What have you changed on? (12/14/2016 12:31:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka
*


Can't argue with that.




ManOeuvre -> RE: What have you changed on? (12/14/2016 1:11:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75
When I was a kid, I naturally wanted total freedom of speech, full freedom of press, and I don't think those things should suffer consequences. I thought our government, my own government in my own country, was way too crazy and restricting.
But as I grew up, I think the changing point was when initially, I wanted to pursue a career in journalism, and took a year's course on it.
There was a class that shows about how irresponsible journalism could influence the masses in a negative way. And have resulted in death of innocent people, and people getting physically hurt, as it riled up people to violence.
It completely change my entire view on what I wanted for full freedom of speech.
What I learnt is, in Utopia. Everybody is a mature adult who can exchange and have differences of view, differing beliefs, without ever going into physical conflict.
But in the real world. There are alot of non-mature adults operating in it, who are the black sheeps that can really cause some serious damage over words that are said.
So I completely understood our government point of view after that. They want a perfect orderly, law abiding society, where everything goes smoothly everyday, with no hiccups or major crime or protests or riots to disrupt people's day to day life.
This is also important as we have no natural resources AT ALL. Our economy is 100% reliant on companies wanting to be based here as a first choice due to the stability and security and predictability of an environment that we can offer.
It makes me really appreciate my government alot more and I really see their style of governance. It is based on pure pragmatism. And not against human rights. They simply want to do what is best for this country to continue to be successful. What works for us may not work for a country filled with natural resources for example.
As for which American party I support. I grew up thinking dems are the better party who represents more freedom, more kindness.
But after their support of an extremely terrible religion that does not represent what dems are suppose to represent.
I just started feeling more kindred spirits with republicans who seem to be the party who is not under estimating the goals of Islam as a religion and what they are trying to achieve in this world.
Dems keeps laughing it off as xenophobia, racism or paranoia, whatever. They are no longer sane or doing what is best for maintaining as much freedom for their people as possible. To support the very religion which is the anti-thesis of freedom.
I also grew up viewing Islam as a peaceful cultist religion, because of all their religious dress code, rules, fasting, all that stuffs. And also because I spent a good part of my life in a Muslim's family home. As my parents got an agreement with them to pick me up for school, and pick me back from school and hang out at their place until my parents can pick me home. But looking back as an adult on how they treated their daughter, my best friend then. And just little things came back to me.
One thing is, my own parents were physically abusive too, so even though my best friend was also being physically punished, but ALL her punishments were about breaking Islamic rules. My punishment has nothing to do with religion. But simply having a mother who hates my existence and lives to torment me.
So at that point of time, I didn't associate her abuse with Islam teachings. But looking back, I see it really clearly now that it was all Islam motivated. I felt her parents loved her. She was an only child. But they were just also, simply following their religion and trying to keep their daughter from straying from the religious regiments, as with religious people.
The hardest thing my friend had was being forced to wear the horrible hijab all the time. She never understood why she has to hide her body. She always leave in a hijab and then change into short skirts and normal clothes in my home, and we go out. And then change back into hijab to go home. Or she'll be punished for not wearing it outside.

Things like these. I felt was horrible. She also got punished for drinking from my cup. Sharing utensils or crockery that has touched swine is against Islam. I am chinese, I eat pork as my stable, we use pork lard for everything! Even our sweet traditional desserts, we put pork lard in it! So everything that I touch is polluted. And even if washed with detergent before allowing her to use it is not good enough. It needs special holy sand and water to rinse it of the "unholiness of swine" in it apparently.
So in the end, I had disposable cups just for her. She can't eat food in our home that's for sure. As our kitchen has pork in it.
My point is, I think at core, I still believe in total freedom. For my government, they have a good excuse not to practice it. It's about greater good.
But what is Islam's excuse? And what is dems excuse for supporting a religion that is against freedom.
I remembered some articles were even saying Trump aggressive stances towards Muslims, will hurt the relationship with the middle east. And US wants their oil and their "help" to fight ISIS. We all know the very people funding ISIS are the middle eastern government. Well...., there lies the problem. Basically, bending over to the world's most evil country, like Saudi Arabia, over oil. And playing surface games. They pretending to be horrified over ISIS, while they are the ones empowering ISIS.


Greta, I sympathize with your antipathy towards Islam - I've set foot in many countries, but I've never found a place wanting for too few minarets.

I'm a little confused though, as to the earlier concepts of your post. I don't know how to have free speech in any terms other than monochrome, without darkest grey eventually clouding out the whole show.




ManOeuvre -> RE: What have you changed on? (12/14/2016 10:40:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SunDominant
Gay marriage.
About ten years ago I was blessed to form a most unlikely friendship with the loudest, bitchiest, most opinionated gay man I had ever come across. He passed away a few years ago; a great loss to me. Frequent dialogue between us convinced me that if since government has inserted itself into our private live by taking over the institution of marriage, it must be equally available to all. It would, of course, be preferable that the state was not involved in any form when it comes to matrimony.


Fascinating.

I think my preference aligns with yours, with respect to government interference. It's very difficult to agitate against just such a thing in the context of requesting amendments or additions to the same. It seems libertarians in that regard must be of two minds. Workboots during the day and combats afterwards? It's a lot of lacing, but life makes pragmatists.

The story of your trajectory on this issue doesn't quite reveal your original position, so I won't speculate.

My journey to nearly the same place started from the standard left coast suite of positions; at 18, my first haircut in 4 years was during an indoctrination course where I was the only vegetarian, the only yogi and the only person signed up for the job who hadn't been shooting things since the age of 6.

I thought I was going to civilize the world starting with my Bro-magnons, then moving onto our nominal enemies.

Such was my certainty that my every position represented the maximum of compassion, humanity and would be firmly found on the right side of history that I was prepared to assert every one of them, viciously. I often did, to my eternal shame.

I suppose my trajectory on the topic of gay marriage has been from "Absolutely! Of course!" to a Paretoic mixture of "Governments shouldn't be involved." and "Isn't that missing the point of being gay?"

As with you, friendships with some studs actually in the race, family and following figures most public, but unconventionally queer along with review of principles led me to where I find myself this moment.




MrRodgers -> RE: What have you changed on? (12/14/2016 11:24:39 PM)

As for the EC, we know now that the rhetoric of a demagogue...works and that it has occurred twice in 16 years for the repubs, that they depend upon it, means if it happens again...it must go.





DaddySatyr -> RE: What have you changed on? (12/15/2016 4:31:16 AM)


It seems to me that the EC did exactly what it was supposed to do ... keep major cities in two states from deciding a presidential election for the whole country. Kudos to the Founders.



Michael




ManOeuvre -> RE: What have you changed on? (12/15/2016 7:23:50 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
As for the EC, we know now that the rhetoric of a demagogue...works and that it has occurred twice in 16 years for the repubs, that they depend upon it, means if it happens again...it must go.


Try and imagine how boring that word is, especially to people who don't regard it as an argument.

Honestly, demagogue is the new sustainable.




MrRodgers -> RE: What have you changed on? (12/15/2016 7:54:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr


It seems to me that the EC did exactly what it was supposed to do ... keep major cities in two states from deciding a presidential election for the whole country. Kudos to the Founders.



Michael


The question becomes why ? Why is it the function of the EC to keep a handful of large cities from electing the pres. ? And why does majority rule suffer from geography ?

Even with the EC, isn't it something like 17 states could elect a pres. ? And isn't that directly due to having a few large cities within them and obviously not near even a majority of the states.

As it is, it looks like the majority of our individual votes will be 63 million+ to 61 million+, close but...not a majority.




MrRodgers -> RE: What have you changed on? (12/15/2016 8:12:51 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ManOeuvre

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
As for the EC, we know now that the rhetoric of a demagogue...works and that it has occurred twice in 16 years for the repubs, that they depend upon it, means if it happens again...it must go.


Try and imagine how boring that word is, especially to people who don't regard it as an argument.

Honestly, demagogue is the new sustainable.

Demagogue: a person, especially an orator or political leader, (or one who seeks political power) who gains power and popularity by arousing the emotions, passions, and prejudices of the people.

Hardly boring, the real meaning of which sets up great disappointment for the demagogue's base of those whose appeal he's attained.

The demagogue rarely does and in our present case, will not come through on his rhetoric. He will succumb to the very powers he pledged to disturb.

Look at his proposed sec. of state. A man ripe with a direct conflict in dealing with Russia and who has no diplomatic or political experience...at all.




ManOeuvre -> RE: What have you changed on? (12/15/2016 9:02:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
Demagogue: a person, especially an orator or political leader, (or one who seeks political power) who gains power and popularity by arousing the emotions, passions, and prejudices of the people.
Hardly boring, the real meaning of which sets up great disappointment for the demagogue's base of those whose appeal he's attained.
The demagogue rarely does and in our present case, will not come through on his rhetoric. He will succumb to the very powers he pledged to disturb.
Look at his proposed sec. of state. A man ripe with a direct conflict in dealing with Russia and who has no diplomatic or political experience...at all.


Well, it looks to me like much of the definition you forwarded depends upon god-like mastery of reading people (emotions and passions) and full telepathy (prejudices), neither of which we have access to.

I have no desire to lionize Donald Trump, but it seems to me that an argument against his ideas, policies, appointments or statements should be tough enough to stand on their own without being bolstered by boring buzzwords like racist, sexist, misogynist, islamophobe or demagogue.

Don't even try to put bullhorns on that bear; hardly anyone's buying, and the folks that are, well they don't have any money.




MrRodgers -> RE: What have you changed on? (12/15/2016 9:34:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ManOeuvre

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
Demagogue: a person, especially an orator or political leader, (or one who seeks political power) who gains power and popularity by arousing the emotions, passions, and prejudices of the people.
Hardly boring, the real meaning of which sets up great disappointment for the demagogue's base of those whose appeal he's attained.
The demagogue rarely does and in our present case, will not come through on his rhetoric. He will succumb to the very powers he pledged to disturb.
Look at his proposed sec. of state. A man ripe with a direct conflict in dealing with Russia and who has no diplomatic or political experience...at all.


Well, it looks to me like much of the definition you forwarded depends upon god-like mastery of reading people (emotions and passions) and full telepathy (prejudices), neither of which we have access to.

I have no desire to lionize Donald Trump, but it seems to me that an argument against his ideas, policies, appointments or statements should be tough enough to stand on their own without being bolstered by boring buzzwords like racist, sexist, misogynist, islamophobe or demagogue.

Don't even try to put bullhorns on that bear; hardly anyone's buying, and the folks that are, well they don't have any money.

Well I disagree about any demagogue needing a god-like mastery or telepathy at all. Emotions are the beginning and many will tell you...the prejudices will follow.

The arguments against any of Trump and his appointment designees, will in all likelihood not even be subjected to any real scrutiny, demonstrating a continuing partisan hypocrisy among the repubs, according to their pre-election rhetoric, castigating Trump's often inflammatory statements and promises.

But the prospective sec, of state has business in Russia and has for a long time and even NR has a problem. We'll see.

Where money comes into the picture suggests an admission of and a fealty to the plutocracy.

Julius Caesar and Benito Mussolini were demagogues. Their constituencies and even political allies as such...asserted a rather gravely solution to their reign.





bounty44 -> RE: What have you changed on? (12/15/2016 9:43:56 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers


quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr


It seems to me that the EC did exactly what it was supposed to do ... keep major cities in two states from deciding a presidential election for the whole country. Kudos to the Founders.



Michael


The question becomes why ? Why is it the function of the EC to keep a handful of large cities from electing the pres. ? And why does majority rule suffer from geography ?

Even with the EC, isn't it something like 17 states could elect a pres. ? And isn't that directly due to having a few large cities within them and obviously not near even a majority of the states.

As it is, it looks like the majority of our individual votes will be 63 million+ to 61 million+, close but...not a majority.



its an absurd question and the short answer is, as Michael alluded to, all the country is not los angeles and new York city, which two places actually account for the popular vote differential.

your argument about other populated cities notwithstanding, the electoral college method is designed to be representative of the entire country, not concentrated dots on the map.

as to your argument about other populated cities, should we ever get to the point where the results in a large handful of states are swayed one particular way because of the presence of a large city (like frequently occurs in Minnesota), something desirable will have been lost.




MrRodgers -> RE: What have you changed on? (12/15/2016 10:19:31 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers


quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr


It seems to me that the EC did exactly what it was supposed to do ... keep major cities in two states from deciding a presidential election for the whole country. Kudos to the Founders.



Michael


The question becomes why ? Why is it the function of the EC to keep a handful of large cities from electing the pres. ? And why does majority rule suffer from geography ?

Even with the EC, isn't it something like 17 states could elect a pres. ? And isn't that directly due to having a few large cities within them and obviously not near even a majority of the states.

As it is, it looks like the majority of our individual votes will be 63 million+ to 61 million+, close but...not a majority.



its an absurd question and the short answer is, as Michael alluded to, all the country is not los angeles and new York city, which two places actually account for the popular vote differential.

your argument about other populated cities notwithstanding, the electoral college method is designed to be representative of the entire country, not concentrated dots on the map.

as to your argument about other populated cities, should we ever get to the point where the results in a large handful of states are swayed one particular way because of the presence of a large city (like frequently occurs in Minnesota), something desirable will have been lost.

So if I understand you guys correctly...majority rule prevails in house elections, senates elections, in all state and local elections, governors and mayors alike, in passing all laws not specifically proscribed by state or federal constitution but only the election of the president should not be subject to majority rule.

Why ? How does majority rule in all other cases of elections and 99.99% of law but become an 'absurd question' only for...POUS ?

Plus as we know, in fact by the numbers, the EC is not representative of the whole country when only about 1/3 of the most populated states could elect a pres.




bostonpolarbear -> RE: What have you changed on? (12/15/2016 10:52:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
It seems to me that the EC did exactly what it was supposed to do ... keep major cities in two states from deciding a
presidential election for the whole country. Kudos to the Founders.




*WWWWWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSHHH*

--------------
http://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/

*The Troubling Reason the Electoral College Exists*
The Founding Fathers had something particular in mind when they set up the U.S. presidential election system: Slavery
by Akhil Reed Amar
Nov. 8, 2016

As Americans await the quadrennial running of the presidential obstacle course now known as the Electoral College,
it’s worth remembering why we have this odd political contraption in the first place. After all, state governors in all
50 states are elected by popular vote; why not do the same for the governor of all states, a.k.a. the president? The
quirks of the Electoral College system were exposed this week when Donald Trump secured the presidency with an
Electoral College majority, even as Hillary Clinton took a narrow lead in the popular vote.

Some claim that the founding fathers chose the Electoral College over direct election in order to balance the interests
of high-population and low-population states. But the deepest political divisions in America have always run not between
big and small states, but between the north and the south, and between the coasts and the interior.

One Founding-era argument for the Electoral College stemmed from the fact that ordinary Americans across a vast
continent would lack sufficient information to choose directly and intelligently among leading presidential candidates.

This objection rang true in the 1780s, when life was far more local. But the early emergence of national presidential
parties rendered the objection obsolete by linking presidential candidates to slates of local candidates and national
platforms, which explained to voters who stood for what.

Although the Philadelphia framers did not anticipate the rise of a system of national presidential parties, the 12th
Amendment—proposed in 1803 and ratified a year later— was framed with such a party system in mind, in the
aftermath of the election of 1800-01. In that election, two rudimentary presidential parties—Federalists led by John
Adams and Republicans led by Thomas Jefferson—took shape and squared off. Jefferson ultimately prevailed, but
only after an extended crisis triggered by several glitches in the Framers’ electoral machinery. In particular, Republican
electors had no formal way to designate that they wanted Jefferson for president and Aaron Burr for vice president
rather than vice versa. Some politicians then tried to exploit the resulting confusion.

Enter the 12th Amendment, which allowed each party to designate one candidate for president and a separate
candidate for vice president. The amendment’s modifications of the electoral process transformed the Framers’ framework,
enabling future presidential elections to be openly populist and partisan affairs featuring two competing tickets. It is the
12th Amendment’s Electoral College system, not the Philadelphia Framers’, that remains in place today. If the general
citizenry’s lack of knowledge had been the real reason for the Electoral College, this problem was largely solved by 1800.
So why wasn’t the entire Electoral College contraption scrapped at that point?

Standard civics-class accounts of the Electoral College rarely mention the real demon dooming direct national election
in 1787 and 1803: slavery.

At the Philadelphia convention, the visionary Pennsylvanian James Wilson proposed direct national election of the
president. But the savvy Virginian James Madison responded that such a system would prove unacceptable to the
South: “The right of suffrage was much more diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern than the Southern States;
and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes.” In other words, in a direct election
system, the North would outnumber the South, whose many slaves (more than half a million in all) of course could
not vote. But the Electoral College—a prototype of which Madison proposed in this same speech—instead let each
southern state count its slaves, albeit with a two-fifths discount, in computing its share of the overall count.

Virginia emerged as the big winner—the California of the Founding era—with 12 out of a total of 91 electoral votes
allocated by the Philadelphia Constitution, more than a quarter of the 46 needed to win an election in the first round.
After the 1800 census, Wilson’s free state of Pennsylvania had 10% more free persons than Virginia, but got 20%
fewer electoral votes. Perversely, the more slaves Virginia (or any other slave state) bought or bred, the more electoral
votes it would receive. Were a slave state to free any blacks who then moved North, the state could actually lose
electoral votes.

If the system’s pro-slavery tilt was not overwhelmingly obvious when the Constitution was ratified, it quickly became
so. For 32 of the Constitution’s first 36 years, a white slaveholding Virginian occupied the presidency.

Southerner Thomas Jefferson, for example, won the election of 1800-01 against Northerner John Adams in a race
where the slavery-skew of the electoral college was the decisive margin of victory: without the extra electoral college
votes generated by slavery, the mostly southern states that supported Jefferson would not have sufficed to give him
a majority. As pointed observers remarked at the time, Thomas Jefferson metaphorically rode into the executive mansion
on the backs of slaves.

The 1796 contest between Adams and Jefferson had featured an even sharper division between northern states and
southern states. Thus, at the time the Twelfth Amendment tinkered with the Electoral College system rather than tossing
it, the system’s pro-slavery bias was hardly a secret. Indeed, in the floor debate over the amendment in late 1803,
Massachusetts Congressman Samuel Thatcher complained that “The representation of slaves adds thirteen members to
this House in the present Congress, and eighteen Electors of President and Vice President at the next election.” But Thatcher’s
complaint went unredressed. Once again, the North caved to the South by refusing to insist on direct national election.

In light of this more complete (if less flattering) account of the electoral college in the late 18th and early 19th century,
Americans should ask themselves whether we want to maintain this odd—dare I say peculiar?—institution in the 21st century.
------

Akhil Reed Amar teaches constitutional law at Yale University.
--------------


The United States of America rid itself of slavery 150 years ago this month with the passage of the 13th Amendment.
It is well past the time the US also rid itself of that legal vestige of slavery, the Electoral College.


. . .





Edwird -> RE: What have you changed on? (12/16/2016 7:38:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ManOeuvre
What political issue have you done an about face on?


Before we get to 'political issue', I'll just state from the outset that I had it right from the start; that politics qua politics is the bane of any society.

Anybody who needs an ideology to make up his/her mind about 'an issue' or even worse, define what is an 'issue' to begin with ... doesn't have a mind, as far as I'm concerned.

When/if we ever get to a point of dealing with whatever issues nature and human social reality present to us without instantly making it into a 'political issue', we might get somewhere.

There is nothing in all my years of readings of myriad newspapers and magazines an numerous books from the library and umpteen classes at the uni that have done anything but reinforce my estimation thereby.


quote:

We've all seen the slightly rightward shuffle that happens when people first start earning some decent coin, and heard the adage that a right-minded youth has no heart while a left-minded professional has no brain.


OTOH, those paying attention when they walk down the street as well as they pay attention at high society events would take note that not even any street person could come up with anything that unremittingly stupid.




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
6.347656E-02