Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Revolution


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

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Revolution Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Revolution - 2/3/2007 9:12:25 AM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy

Not techinically true, here in the UK the Labour party is only just over 100 years old, and actually formed its first government some 83 years ago. The current minority 3rd party owes its roots to what was once one of the more usual big two. That means that the labour party came from nothing to being the larger of the big two in something like 3 decades, thats almost the span of the last two governments here in this country, not really long at all.


You mean the a new party got power once in 100 years? One of the things that lead to that power shift was the widening of sufferage to working men. There are no new groups of voters to widen sufferage to. I guess one could debate the lineage of political parties but one could argue only three political parties have not only held power but only three prties have had significant representation in democratic Britain.

< Message edited by meatcleaver -- 2/3/2007 9:13:05 AM >


_____________________________

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

(in reply to sleazy)
Profile   Post #: 61
RE: Revolution - 2/3/2007 10:24:40 AM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

The majority of Britons aren't interested in what the government are doing providing they are satisfied with their personal wealth - this is the problem here, deep-rooted cultural failings. We get the government we deserve.


I couldn't agree more. Both the UK and the US have so called democracies based on constituencies/states which make it very difficult for a third party or even a fourth party to win representation. Since it's very difficult to get political change from within such systems, the only way is through protest and direct political action, something most ordinary people are reluctant to do unless pressed to breaking point. My guess is that is why both countries have this sort of system, it gives the pretence of democracy without there actually being democracy since both parties are part of the establishments of their respective countries. It is why both countries find going to war so easy, real democracies have great difficulty in getting enough support to fight a war unless the country is directly under threat.


i am sure that is what you said but to elaborate on it, it is the government that goes to war, usually against the wishes of the people.



We have a different way of looking at things here. IMO, blaming the government is the convenient answer - the get out of jail free card. The members of the government are a product of your society, just as "the people" are. Where a country is producing a government hell bent on destruction, the solution lies in understanding why the people in the country either support this or stand back and watch. It follows that it would be useful to understand why the main political parties advocate a similar path.

It is acceptable for an individual to denounce the main political parties while understanding there are cultural defects within "the people" which lead to the main political parties being consistently re-elected.

This is not unique to the US by any stretch of the imagination. I advocate getting a grip on the governments who are supposed to serve "the people". The problem is "the people" do not have the will to get a grip. 


You have seen my posts i am sure do i seem like the type who goes in for expediency?

i suppose the only way to explain myself is with a little history.

In the beginning:

The founding fathers created a very fair system of government, as fair as humanly possible and suprisingly inclusive even in todays day in age.

The problem with any system is that its success is totally dependant on the level of morality possessed by those who empower it.

The first episode of morality failing us took place with the tax fraud that was pulled on the people in 1916.  (keeping in mind that they did not have communications then like we do now and many people couldnt even afford to buy a paper)  

This was brought about by: do these names sound familiar?; Carnegie, Waldorf, Rockefeller, the "old aristocracy", who in a nutshell convinced taft that life would be better as a debtor society. Now they did not have to go directly to the people to get money to make wars, they could generate a revenue exactly like in england with taxation levels placed where the public would bear it.

Well that ratcheted up the tax over time to well over 50% now days.  A second problem ties into it.  Many people didnt even have a grade school education much less the ability to analyse what these guys were doing in washington.  So they just trusted the government, after it says we can on every dollar bill right along side the masonic eye right?

So many things became tradition as a result of corruption way back in 1916 and now that people are waking up to all this and becoming educated enough to understand that we have been fucked in many ways and have become slaves to the federal reserve and the illuminati it is a bit to late.

The time to change was back in 1916 but how?  How can people know what they do not know?  What they did not know up until the last few decades?  The internet serves to educate the many, look at the last 10 years.

Even 10 years ago phone calls were what 17cents per minute?  look at the mega hours we are on now.  So sure there is shared blame but we were handed a system that was never meant to be the way it is now.

We have the same system as the uk with the aristrocracy elite in power.  We have a growing fascist police state.  Everything our people died to protect is being thrown out the window as a result.

Now to finally answer your question.

The problem is now, that we do not choose who runs in office the democratic party and republican party chooses.  They keep regurgitating illuminati pawns and what can we do about it short of a revolt?  Not to mention a good deal of people here are still dumb as a box of rocks.  you will find the only rights many people know about is their right to colllect unemployment or social security or some other hand out and are clueless as to thier constitutional rights.

The problem is stopping a frieght train in motion and trying ot turn it around is a very difficult process if its possible at all falling short of a total revolt. Thats what the problem is and the reason it all came down the way it did, its simply not that simple as it all the peoples fault, but then i suppose everything in life is the peoples fualt.

Then in the end it boils down to do we revolt and risk our lives so we can have 50 bucks a day more?  most people are unlikely to go into that.

Then you get those who are pro government, especially those with governemnt jobns who will want to protect those jobs and there are so many now its a raging battle.

It a very difficult socioploitical problem to unravel much less make real headway with.  It gets as ignorant as arguing with 2 people on here whos names i wont bother mentioning as an example of what changing this system is like.  There are many like them, and many who have graduated college like them. 

How do you move people like that?  The general public are not that greedy to go to war with the government over 50 bucks.  its extortion i know but it works.

The only thing that will change that is things like 911 synthetic terror.  then you can get most people to go to war, at least till they figure there were no wmd's, that we attacked the wrong countries, etc etc and when that pendulum swings so far as to cause pain now people begin to wake up.

Anyway my fingerts are getting numb from typing this lol  but ithink you get the picture.



_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to NorthernGent)
Profile   Post #: 62
RE: Revolution - 2/3/2007 10:34:53 AM   
subfever


Posts: 2895
Joined: 5/22/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Devilslilsister

...They say they've ppl all over the country uniting...    


Gee, I'm shocked and outraged that the mainstream media hasn't reported any of this...

(in reply to Devilslilsister)
Profile   Post #: 63
RE: Revolution - 2/3/2007 10:36:33 AM   
sleazy


Posts: 781
Joined: 11/23/2006
From: UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy

Not techinically true, here in the UK the Labour party is only just over 100 years old, and actually formed its first government some 83 years ago. The current minority 3rd party owes its roots to what was once one of the more usual big two. That means that the labour party came from nothing to being the larger of the big two in something like 3 decades, thats almost the span of the last two governments here in this country, not really long at all.


You mean the a new party got power once in 100 years? One of the things that lead to that power shift was the widening of sufferage to working men. There are no new groups of voters to widen sufferage to. I guess one could debate the lineage of political parties but one could argue only three political parties have not only held power but only three prties have had significant representation in democratic Britain.


Incorrect. Allow me to try clarify, the new party was formed about 100 years ago. It made its first majoity goverment in 1924, since then it has always been one of the big 2 parties and is currently in power.

It could be inferred from that any new party with policies that appealed to the masses (currently members of the apathy party, a vote only counts if used), could concievably form a government within a similar time frame of approximately 3 decades. In todays age of 24/7 exposure, instant information and universal suffrage that such an event could happen even quicker. Remember the not totally unjustifiable claim of just one media group being responsible for the election of the current incumbent. All that is required is the right propoganda, or an intelligent voter pool as a whole.

Universal suffrage of those over the age of majority within the UK did not actually happen until after the rise of the 3rd party into power.

_____________________________

Opinion is packaged by weight not volume, contents may settle during transit. Consult you medical practitioner. Do not attempt to stop moving parts by hand. Ensure all safety shields in place. Open this way up. Do not expose to temperatures exceeding 50C

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 64
RE: Revolution - 2/3/2007 10:38:25 AM   
subfever


Posts: 2895
Joined: 5/22/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: toservez

... the best way to make change is to vote and get active in the political process...



Great. Let's all write to Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, and tell him he'll have our vote if he runs for President.

Any vote for one of the two main party candidates today is just another vote for the status quo.

(in reply to toservez)
Profile   Post #: 65
RE: Revolution - 2/3/2007 10:44:12 AM   
NorthernGent


Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
Real0ne,

Yeah, I've seen plenty of your posts - always worth a read.

There seems to me to be two questions to be answered to support your explanation:

1) Why is there no emergence of a third party to offer an alternative?

2) We certainly do have an aristocracy in Britain. As much as it pains me to say it, they are not alone in the way they think in this country. The reason they retain their power is because they share the same values as the majority of the electorate. What makes you think that the American establishment and "the people" are two separate entities i.e. are you sure the majority of the electorate do not share the same values as the government and establishment?

_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 66
RE: Revolution - 2/3/2007 10:53:58 AM   
sleazy


Posts: 781
Joined: 11/23/2006
From: UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Real0ne,

Yeah, I've seen plenty of your posts - always worth a read.

There seems to me to be two questions to be answered to support your explanation:

1) Why is there no emergence of a third party to offer an alternative?

2) We certainly do have an aristocracy in Britain. As much as it pains me to say it, they are not alone in the way they think in this country. The reason they retain their power is because they share the same values as the majority of the electorate. What makes you think that the American establishment and "the people" are two separate entities i.e. are you sure the majority of the electorate do not share the same values as the government and establishment?


Aristocracy in power? How does this fit in with the decimation both as regards make up and legislative power of our second chamber and relative lack of financial or industrial power of the said aristocrats?

Just been pondering the irony of that, namely that people are allegedly prepared to pay great sums of money for a mere illusion of real power :)

_____________________________

Opinion is packaged by weight not volume, contents may settle during transit. Consult you medical practitioner. Do not attempt to stop moving parts by hand. Ensure all safety shields in place. Open this way up. Do not expose to temperatures exceeding 50C

(in reply to NorthernGent)
Profile   Post #: 67
RE: Revolution - 2/3/2007 10:54:01 AM   
subfever


Posts: 2895
Joined: 5/22/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

...Why is there no emergence of a third party to offer an alternative?...



Because the great majority of people are either blind to what's really going on, or they are invested in the status quo.

(in reply to NorthernGent)
Profile   Post #: 68
RE: Revolution - 2/3/2007 10:56:54 AM   
sleazy


Posts: 781
Joined: 11/23/2006
From: UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: subfever
quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
...Why is there no emergence of a third party to offer an alternative?...

Because the great majority of people are either blind to what's really going on, or they are invested in the status quo.


Neither imho, apathy is the real answer unfortunately. There is no need for a third party, just a need for people to care enough that it is worth the existing parties taking opposing stances on issues rather than two nominally centreist parties with no differences on subjects of real weight.

_____________________________

Opinion is packaged by weight not volume, contents may settle during transit. Consult you medical practitioner. Do not attempt to stop moving parts by hand. Ensure all safety shields in place. Open this way up. Do not expose to temperatures exceeding 50C

(in reply to subfever)
Profile   Post #: 69
RE: Revolution - 2/3/2007 11:01:17 AM   
gandalf0297


Posts: 148
Joined: 8/6/2006
Status: offline
Ahh to be young again and have such loftly ideals...................

_____________________________

"The best things cannot be said. The second best are misunderstood." (Joseph Campbell.)

(in reply to Rule)
Profile   Post #: 70
RE: Revolution - 2/3/2007 11:27:32 AM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Real0ne,

Yeah, I've seen plenty of your posts - always worth a read.

There seems to me to be two questions to be answered to support your explanation:

1) Why is there no emergence of a third party to offer an alternative?

2) We certainly do have an aristocracy in Britain. As much as it pains me to say it, they are not alone in the way they think in this country. The reason they retain their power is because they share the same values as the majority of the electorate. What makes you think that the American establishment and "the people" are two separate entities i.e. are you sure the majority of the electorate do not share the same values as the government and establishment?


The general perception is that a third party would never win anyway.
Next there is no funding system set up like there is with the democrats and republicans
Combined with only here and there someone with any real pull runs on a 3rd party ticket so they have difficulty picking up funding momentum as they are not the norm so to speak.

your number 2 is very difficult to nail down as i am sure it varies from issue to issue and is dependant on how good the propaganda and spin can be put on it.

Many things the people get pissed about when they find out and yet others they do not.  it usually comes down to "did it hurt me" yes = i am pissed, no = screw it who cares, then finally ok i am pissed but "what the hell can one "me" do about it.  correctly i might add.

So when people do wake up they also see that there is no justice in this country.  just watch that video the OP posted the judge denied the constitutional right to due process!   Its bad here man!  Its getting worse!

So now we the enlightened have come to the realization that its we the slaves.

imo the ruling elite has to go and governments have to be protected with simple laws that help protect against infiltration.  Very simple laws that anyone even at a 5th grade education level can understand.

Our constitution has checks and balances but nothing to protect against immoral politics or what i call black ops corporate government.



_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to NorthernGent)
Profile   Post #: 71
RE: Revolution - 2/3/2007 11:28:03 AM   
NorthernGent


Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy

Aristocracy in power? How does this fit in with the decimation both as regards make up and legislative power of our second chamber and relative lack of financial or industrial power of the said aristocrats?



They still retain a certain amount of power. It was the house of lords who blocked the ID cards scheme and proposed anti-terror laws. Also, the monarchy still retains power - the last time we got into this I posted a few very good examples of their power in practice.

I do accept that the current government has reduced the collective power of the lords.

The point I'm making is the shared values of the government, wider establishment and the majority of the electorate. I include the media in the etablishment umbrella.

_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to sleazy)
Profile   Post #: 72
RE: Revolution - 2/3/2007 11:45:24 AM   
sleazy


Posts: 781
Joined: 11/23/2006
From: UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy
Aristocracy in power? How does this fit in with the decimation both as regards make up and legislative power of our second chamber and relative lack of financial or industrial power of the said aristocrats?

They still retain a certain amount of power. It was the house of lords who blocked the ID cards scheme and proposed anti-terror laws. Also, the monarchy still retains power - the last time we got into this I posted a few very good examples of their power in practice.

I do accept that the current government has reduced the collective power of the lords.

The point I'm making is the shared values of the government, wider establishment and the majority of the electorate. I include the media in the etablishment umbrella.


Fair points, as usual with a but.... :)

It is impossible for the second chamber to truly block any legislation, the first chamber has the power to override continuing objections, as was threatened/done for the hunting with hounds legislation. In the case of the second chamber proposing legislation I am fairly sure it cannot force the issue to even be tabled for discussion it certainly cannot force the commons to draft, vote for and submit legislation.

The less said about proposal to even remove the first chamber from the legislative process the better I think.

_____________________________

Opinion is packaged by weight not volume, contents may settle during transit. Consult you medical practitioner. Do not attempt to stop moving parts by hand. Ensure all safety shields in place. Open this way up. Do not expose to temperatures exceeding 50C

(in reply to NorthernGent)
Profile   Post #: 73
RE: Revolution - 2/3/2007 11:45:59 AM   
NorthernGent


Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

imo the ruling elite has to go and governments have to be protected with simple laws that help protect against infiltration. 



Here, the ruling elite are not the problem - they're a symptom of a society bogged down in chasing personal wealth. The ruling elite merely reflect the desires of wider society. There is no infiltration, no police state, no forced obedience. I'm struggling to see how it can be any different in the US but I accept I'm speaking from a position of limited knowledge.


_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 74
RE: Revolution - 2/3/2007 2:24:46 PM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy

Incorrect. Allow me to try clarify, the new party was formed about 100 years ago. It made its first majoity goverment in 1924, since then it has always been one of the big 2 parties and is currently in power.

It could be inferred from that any new party with policies that appealed to the masses (currently members of the apathy party, a vote only counts if used), could concievably form a government within a similar time frame of approximately 3 decades. In todays age of 24/7 exposure, instant information and universal suffrage that such an event could happen even quicker. Remember the not totally unjustifiable claim of just one media group being responsible for the election of the current incumbent. All that is required is the right propoganda, or an intelligent voter pool as a whole.

Universal suffrage of those over the age of majority within the UK did not actually happen until after the rise of the 3rd party into power.


I would argue that both the UK and the US political systems are weighted against third parites, hence a third party can get 22% of the vote and still have fewer than 10% of the seats while the winning party can get only 35% of the vote and get over 55% of the vote. The hurdle for a new party is incredibly high and so is a significant disincentive for a voter to vote for any but the two main parties. This puts much of the electrate who doesn't want to vote for one of the two largest parties in the position of pretty much wasting their vote on a no hoper, voting against a political party rather than for a political party or abstain and be accused of belomnging to the apathy party. It also means that should you get three parties around the 30% mark, you could end up having a sort of election roulette with one party gaining a substantial higher proportion of seats compared to another party with a similar percentage of the vote. The system pretty much stinks, especially when you introduce party financing into the equation.

< Message edited by meatcleaver -- 2/3/2007 2:27:59 PM >


_____________________________

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

(in reply to sleazy)
Profile   Post #: 75
RE: Revolution - 2/3/2007 2:33:21 PM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy

quote:

ORIGINAL: subfever
quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
...Why is there no emergence of a third party to offer an alternative?...

Because the great majority of people are either blind to what's really going on, or they are invested in the status quo.


Neither imho, apathy is the real answer unfortunately. There is no need for a third party, just a need for people to care enough that it is worth the existing parties taking opposing stances on issues rather than two nominally centreist parties with no differences on subjects of real weight.


There are third parties, plenty of them but the hurdle is so high for a new party to jump and there is so much disincentive as I have pointed out in my previous post to make it worthwhile voting for a third party.

In PR a new party can get a few seats in one election and the electrate can see how a new party performs. That performance will either boost or kill of the new party's vote at the next election. It also keeps the traditional parties up to the mark.

Unfortunately two party systems breed apathy and abstentions.

< Message edited by meatcleaver -- 2/3/2007 2:34:36 PM >


_____________________________

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

(in reply to sleazy)
Profile   Post #: 76
RE: Revolution - 2/3/2007 2:36:09 PM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy

Aristocracy in power? How does this fit in with the decimation both as regards make up and legislative power of our second chamber and relative lack of financial or industrial power of the said aristocrats?



They still retain a certain amount of power. It was the house of lords who blocked the ID cards scheme and proposed anti-terror laws. Also, the monarchy still retains power - the last time we got into this I posted a few very good examples of their power in practice.



If this isn't an argument for extending the Lords power at the expense of the executive's I don't know what is!

_____________________________

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

(in reply to NorthernGent)
Profile   Post #: 77
RE: Revolution - 2/3/2007 3:26:35 PM   
NorthernGent


Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy
Aristocracy in power? How does this fit in with the decimation both as regards make up and legislative power of our second chamber and relative lack of financial or industrial power of the said aristocrats?

They still retain a certain amount of power. It was the house of lords who blocked the ID cards scheme and proposed anti-terror laws. Also, the monarchy still retains power - the last time we got into this I posted a few very good examples of their power in practice.

I do accept that the current government has reduced the collective power of the lords.

The point I'm making is the shared values of the government, wider establishment and the majority of the electorate. I include the media in the etablishment umbrella.


Fair points, as usual with a but.... :)

It is impossible for the second chamber to truly block any legislation, the first chamber has the power to override continuing objections, as was threatened/done for the hunting with hounds legislation. In the case of the second chamber proposing legislation I am fairly sure it cannot force the issue to even be tabled for discussion it certainly cannot force the commons to draft, vote for and submit legislation.

The less said about proposal to even remove the first chamber from the legislative process the better I think.


Sleazy, they have blocked these proposed laws. This is a fact. Who would have thought it......a Labour government trying to pass laws aimed at locking up people without a trial of any description. What a joke. If there's one example of how this country has changed in the last 20 years this is it.

Speaking of the queen, she still has the power to dismiss a government. More importantly, she exercised it in 1975 when she sacked the elected Labour government of Australia.



_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to sleazy)
Profile   Post #: 78
RE: Revolution - 2/3/2007 3:41:51 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: subfever

quote:

ORIGINAL: toservez

... the best way to make change is to vote and get active in the political process...



Great. Let's all write to Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, and tell him he'll have our vote if he runs for President.

Any vote for one of the two main party candidates today is just another vote for the status quo.


subfever:
I would only add to that to include most  but not all of the minor parties also.
thompson

(in reply to subfever)
Profile   Post #: 79
RE: Revolution - 2/3/2007 3:47:29 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Real0ne,

Yeah, I've seen plenty of your posts - always worth a read.

There seems to me to be two questions to be answered to support your explanation:

1) Why is there no emergence of a third party to offer an alternative?
Historically one or both of the two major parties will incorporate enough of the planks of the third party to stay in power.

2) We certainly do have an aristocracy in Britain. As much as it pains me to say it, they are not alone in the way they think in this country. The reason they retain their power is because they share the same values as the majority of the electorate. What makes you think that the American establishment and "the people" are two separate entities i.e. are you sure the majority of the electorate do not share the same values as the government and establishment?

It is clear that they do not because they do not vote..  When given a choice between bullshit and dogshit for dinner most will go hungry.
thompson

(in reply to NorthernGent)
Profile   Post #: 80
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Revolution Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   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

0.078