Jump to content

Cheap points that the Liberal party can often score


Recommended Posts

Hi everyone,

I'd like to discuss, from a broad perspective, common cheap tactics that the Liberal party often uses to its advantage. From another angle, we can discuss irrational prejudices/emotions that some Canadian demographics hold onto that that are exploited by the Liberals (and likely the NDP) in order to score these cheap points.

Most recently, I remember an Ignatieff criticism of the Harper government as being "not just behind America, but behind Sarah Palin" (or something along those lines) with respect to the Federal government's spending on efforts to address climate change/global warming. I think it's pretty clear that Ignatieff is exploiting the anti-American sentiment that exists among many supporters of the Liberal party. Liberal supporters may say that I am extrapolating Ignatieff's intentions by connecting his criticism of Sarah Palin to the anti-American demographic, but I think many people see this cheap shot for what it is.

I cannot recall specific examples of the top of my head, but I've definitely seen cheap points scored by the Liberal party when using anti-American sentiment. I've also seen cheap shots taken against "corporate greed" (to say nothing of government greed and waste) and capitalism/free markets. Disturbingly, I recall many statements by Liberal supporters (and its political representatives) trying to paint a picture of the Conservative party as racists/prejudiced/xenophobic white men with some ambiguous, but malicious and evil, secret agenda (remember the black and white anti-Harper ads during the last federal election?) Although I imagine that these cheap shots resonate most strongly among the liberal party base (probably unemployed folks, or low-achievers, and arts students), I worry that these cheap points also score points with many Canadians who don't identify themselves as Liberal party supporters.

I'd like to hear from you folks about other general themes through which the Liberal party (and NDP, as well) can often depend on scoring cheap points with its base. From what I can tell, anti-American sentiment seems to be the most common trend for scoring cheap political points. I also think this sentiment is rooted in some strange belief among certain Canadians that the differences between the Canadian and American political cultures make us here in Canada superior to our southern neighbours.

Before I forget, one thing that's just occurred to me is how this same Liberal base will often refer to historical Canadian military operations as "peacekeeping", as if that means Canadian soldiers aren't using weapons to do what must be done. I'll never understand how some of these folks think that the Canadian military shouldn't involve itself in "military" or "offensive" operations when doing work in violent/dangerous environments. It's as if they think one can easily separate military operations from peacekeeping operations in one clean slice, without acknowledging that they're just parsing words and playing semantics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you have two CPC party memberships, just out of plain enthusiasm?

The Conservative Party marketing group is preparing for another election. Since this is really advertising - smearing campaigning - I think it would be proper to ban the new poster. This board should never become a vehicle for propaganda or political spam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, looks like I touched a nerve with a couple of folks. First of all, I'm non-partisan. I would support any politician from any party who I agree with. Currently, however, I support the Conservative party more than the other parties, and if there was an election today, I'd vote for the Conservative party candidate from my riding. That being said, I'm asking a legitimate question. If you two choose to not participate in this discussion, then just don't post in this thread. I'm not going to be taking any troll bait, which is clearly what you two are trying to do (the pointless one-liner from Molly and the hysteric conspiracy freak calling for my being banned). I'm sure a similar question could be asked of all party bases, so feel free to start another thread about cheap political points that you feel the Conservative party/rightist political movement in Canada often scores at the expense of legitimate debate, if that's what you'd prefer to discuss. IMO I see the left-wing politicians of Canada consistently and successfully appealing to certain groups of voters through anti-Americanism (our Canadian identity is how we're NOT American!) and a false sense of caring for various minority groups (pandering to what they describe as disadvantaged groups). I see this as insidious and responsible for perpetuating bad trends in the Canadian culture. I'd like to talk about this phenomenon.

Please spare me the hysteria of suggesting that I am some secret agent sent from Stephen Harper with a mission of collecting competitive political intelligence. In all honesty, this forum is largely devoid of that from what I've seen so far. I'm hoping I can engage in the occasional interesting discussion.

I sure hope the two meaningless replies this thread has so far yielded isn't representative of the overall vibe of this forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL The nerve you touched was the absurdly partisan premise you laid out! There could be room for a conversation about the cheap points parties lean on, ... but then, much of the conversation here has both feet planted on that ground.

If your mission is truly non-partisan, I'll start it off: 'lower taxes', 'soft on crime', 'coup', 'reform', 'democracy', 'gun registry'... all of which are/result in/ call on the support of/knee-jerk partisanship, yet require a lot more careful analysis.

There are more, but there's your start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to discuss, from a broad perspective, common cheap tactics...

I cannot recall specific examples of the top of my head...

I've also seen cheap shots taken against "corporate greed" (to say nothing of government greed and waste) and capitalism/free markets...

Disturbingly, I recall many statements...

citations? :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Molly, I do not need to analyze every single incidence of exploitation of irrational fears/beliefs/prejudices/etc among certain Canadians in this thread. I asked a question with a focus - to examine how the Liberal party (and NDP, and other leftist political groups/organizations) exploit aspects of political culture among some Canadians to their advantage. If I inquire about the errors of a particular Conservative politician in a specific context, must I then ask about the errors of a particular Liberal politician in order to appease salivating Conservatives? Of course not. I do not need to preface every single query of mine with an opposing query in order to please some other perspective. I am not interested in analyzing what you view as cheap political points scored by the Conservative party and rightist organizations that resonate with certain Canadians. Go cry about that somewhere else. Again, if you've got nothing to contribute besides making trolling little jabs at me, perhaps you should find something better to do with your time.

I am not partisan, I simply wish to analyze a specific phenomenon which I've observed for many years. I've seen it from politicians (Carolyn Parrish is the first that comes to mind) and around the dinner table with leftist friends of mine. The resentment of America (its culture, politics, etc) isn't anything that's hard to find in the Canadian left, it's pretty overt. I'd like to examine it, as well as other never prejudices not uncommon to the Canadian left that's exploited by the Liberal party and other leftist groups/politicians/etc.

Although it's clear that waldo isn't here to contribute anything worthwhile, given his one-word reply, I'll indulge you a bit. Do you *really* need me to provide evidence of the Liberal party or the NDP leveraging anti-Americanism? Are you THAT out-of-touch with Canadian politics that you need citations of representatives of this party disputing the opposition by comparing the Conservative party to America or Americans or George Bush (or any other American politician that's unpopular in Canada) or whomever in order to score cheap points by stroking the anti-American hard-on of the Canadian left? The list is ENDLESS. Check question period, check CBC interviews, check Canadian newspapers/op-eds. Get real.

waldo = Here's a simple question, a yes or no answer will suffice. Have members of the Liberal party and NDP, for years, been exploiting anti-American sentiment (which is hostile/resentful and largely irrational) in the Canadian left in order to garner political support? Your request for citations (countless examples are available over the decades of this phenomenon's existence) suggests to me that in your view, this phenomenon is a figment of my imagination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am trying to understand but I think Molly's bent here is that no political ideology outside of the current political parties in Canada exists. I would call myself non-partisan however, I do hold conservative values but from a political point of view I'll vote for any party that promises to make government smaller and less obtrusive in the lives of it's citizens. Classical Liberalism would probably be the label that fits but I am not about to vote for the progressives that makeup the Liberal party today, and I am glad that the Conservative party dropped the "Progressive" from their name - it was a good message.

On the thread topic, the Liberals have taken cheap shots at Americanism, actually promoting anti-Americanism. It was at it's height when Carolyn Parrish made her contempt for America known.

It probably added more reason to not vote Liberal in the last election. She sounded, not like a tolerant liberal, but a fascist nationalist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to discuss, from a broad perspective, common cheap tactics...

I cannot recall specific examples of the top of my head...

I've also seen cheap shots taken against "corporate greed" (to say nothing of government greed and waste) and capitalism/free markets...

Disturbingly, I recall many statements...

citations? :lol:
I asked a question with a focus - to examine how the Liberal party (and NDP, and other leftist political groups/organizations) exploit aspects of political culture among some Canadians to their advantage.

I am not partisan, I simply wish to analyze a specific phenomenon which I've observed for many years.

Although it's clear that waldo isn't here to contribute anything worthwhile, given his one-word reply, I'll indulge you a bit. Do you *really* need me to provide evidence of the Liberal party or the NDP leveraging anti-Americanism?

waldo = Here's a simple question, a yes or no answer will suffice. Have members of the Liberal party and NDP, for years, been exploiting anti-American sentiment (which is hostile/resentful and largely irrational) in the Canadian left in order to garner political support? Your request for citations (countless examples are available over the decades of this phenomenon's existence) suggests to me that in your view, this phenomenon is a figment of my imagination.

while emphasizing your declared non-partisanship, it seems you've also shifted a tad to now include the NDP... and other "leftist" political groups/organizations in your premise. And yet... your thread title remains the same. Perhaps you should edit your thread title to more properly reflect your broad sweeping premise - yes? Or is there a particular "non-partisanship" reason you've chosen to single out one political party rather than target what appears your all-inclusive labeling of "the left"... whether that actually includes left-central or central would appear to be somewhat irrelevant to your premise.

a request for citations is simply a point guide to assure we have proper context in determining that the... uhhh... countless examples you attest to are properly referenced. It also provides a tidy contextual comparison avenue to gauge whether all parties, including your favoured Conservative party, are looking to - as you say - score cheap political points. I think we can have some fun here... if you're game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why should I care about what a has-been native politician has done? People get duped by the common myths in Canada. Would you think he has been immune from that? I think not.....

It does seem you're upset. He was elected a few times as leader and now he is the lead in First Nations participation in the Olympics. Around here, many are divided as to what the response should be to the Olympics because of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does seem you're upset. He was elected a few times as leader and now he is the lead in First Nations participation in the Olympics. Around here, many are divided as to what the response should be to the Olympics because of it.

Nah, I'm not upset.

The native people that I work for say that the AFN does not represent them and that is it nothing more than a government arm doing the government work of colonization. I don;t have any say in that but I understand their position quite clearly.

Now as far as the Olympics go I support the call for a boycott because we have an obligation - legal, moral and historical - not to infringe on native rights - especially land rights. Unsurrendered land requires the government to consult, accommodate and reconcile the issues BEFORE any development takes place. Once again they have illegally ignored that obligation. Like everyone else I am getting tired of native people having to protest, or commit civil disobedience in order to get our government to do what it is legally bound to do. Stopping the Olympics would show the world just how criminal the government of Canada continues to be.

I digress.

This thread is propaganda without any cite to support the OP, I still believe that it should be shuttered and the original posted at least put on probation as a Conservative party hack trying to spam our discussion board.

Edited by charter.rights
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nah, I'm not upset.

The native people that I work for say that the AFN does not represent them and that is it nothing more than a government arm doing the government work of colonization. I don;t have any say in that but I understand their position quite clearly.

All I can go on is what Colleen Simard and other native journalists report in this area. It has left people divided as to what their reaction should be. Perhaps that is just around here. I guess we can't assume a universal point of view on some subjects.

Now as far as the Olympics go I support the call for a boycott because we have an obligation - legal, moral and historical - not to infringe on native rights - especially land rights. Unsurrendered land requires the government to consult, accommodate and reconcile the issues BEFORE any development takes place. Once again they have illegally ignored that obligation. Like everyone else I am getting tired of native people having to protest, or commit civil disobedience in order to get our government to do what it is legally bound to do. Stopping the Olympics would show the world just how criminal the government of Canada continues to be.

Are all B.C. First Nations in agreement about that about the Games being stopped?

I digress.

This thread is propaganda without any cite to support the OP, I still believe that it should be shuttered and the original posted at least put on probation as a Conservative party hack trying to spam our discussion board.

Think I stopped reading that from about the first few sentences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I can go on is what Colleen Simard and other native journalists report in this area. It has left people divided as to what their reaction should be. Perhaps that is just around here. I guess we can't assume a universal point of view on some subjects.

Are all B.C. First Nations in agreement about that about the Games being stopped?

Think I stopped reading that from about the first few sentences.

From what I understand the dilemma is between the Band Councils making public statements of support, while the people themselves are generally in disagreement. Most Band Councils only represent about 10% of their band memberships and while the government only recognizes Band Councils as the legitimate voice (of course they would being that the Band Councils are installed under the Indian Act and not a free and democratic election system), peoples groups have begun to spring up everywhere. Some have integrity and others do not. However, until the Band system represents the people and not the government' spin on things, it will always appear confusing.

I have heard from some very reliable sources that there will be some action taken by the native people of BC before and during the Olympics. I might just be rumour but I would support anything that does not promote violence. However, we all know that the police and the security forces use violence as a means to remove democratic right. If they can get people riled up - even injecting agent provocateurs - then they can spread mischief charges around as a means to get conditions which will prohibit future involvement. It is an abuse of the law but police and government don't care about the law when they want to reduce the opposition.

So at the end of the day, the government has done the wrong thing, again. By not consulting fully, by not recognizing native rights to be accommodated and by not promoting the reconciliation between competing interests, they have force people to take a stand - one that has the potential of ending in death and injury if it doesn't turn out right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I understand the dilemma is between the Band Councils making public statements of support, while the people themselves are generally in disagreement.

Are their poll numbers for that?

I mean how does one tell that the people are in disagreement with the elected officials?

Most Band Councils only represent about 10% of their band memberships and while the government only recognizes Band Councils as the legitimate voice (of course they would being that the Band Councils are installed under the Indian Act and not a free and democratic election system), peoples groups have begun to spring up everywhere. Some have integrity and others do not. However, until the Band system represents the people and not the government' spin on things, it will always appear confusing.

Confusing to some native journalists as well gives some of the varied reporting I have seen on the issue.

I have heard from some very reliable sources that there will be some action taken by the native people of BC before and during the Olympics. I might just be rumour but I would support anything that does not promote violence. However, we all know that the police and the security forces use violence as a means to remove democratic right. If they can get people riled up - even injecting agent provocateurs - then they can spread mischief charges around as a means to get conditions which will prohibit future involvement. It is an abuse of the law but police and government don't care about the law when they want to reduce the opposition.

I think even athletes putting up a "lost dog" poster is illegal at the Games from what I heard this week.

So at the end of the day, the government has done the wrong thing, again. By not consulting fully, by not recognizing native rights to be accommodated and by not promoting the reconciliation between competing interests, they have force people to take a stand - one that has the potential of ending in death and injury if it doesn't turn out right.

Who does the government consult with though? Are the band councils the wrong people to consult?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are their poll numbers for that?

I mean how does one tell that the people are in disagreement with the elected officials?

You have to have some contact with First Nation people on a regular basis to find this out. Plus all the activism that is appearing more and more demonstrates the discontent within the ranks at not being representative.

Confusing to some native journalists as well gives some of the varied reporting I have seen on the issue.

It depends on which side of the political support spectrum the native journalists are. Band Councils can also spin the information as good if not better than our own politicians.

I think even athletes putting up a "lost dog" poster is illegal at the Games from what I heard this week.

Civil disobedience means that it is unlikely that any preconditions would have an effect on those determined to protest.

Who does the government consult with though? Are the band councils the wrong people to consult?

Band Councils are extensions of the federal government. So consulting with them would merely be one arm of the government consulting with another arm. It really has no meaning. However, the Royal Proclamation 1763 defines what real consultation is all about and the courts have further refined its meaning. There must be a consensus (meaning not just a minority in favour) on any issue, and the people of the nation must have indicated that they are the agreement with the issue coming up for consultation. It is all meaningless however, since our government does not consult at all in the majority of the cases, and when it does it is only after some kind of protest has taken place. Yet the Supreme Court has laid out the circumstances and the meaning of what consultation is, the government ignores the law as if they were exempt. And since our fellow Canadians are not wise enough (or awake enough) to keep our government legal, they get away with it. The sad thing is that we are now seeing that what the has done to natives in the past and gotten away with it, they are now doing to us. Our rights are not inherent, or absolute but every exercise of rights must be followed by a lengthy court case eventually to the SCoC in order to assert them against the tyranny of government. In my view that is not how I want democracy to work but alone we are powerless.

Edited by charter.rights
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have to have some contact with First Nation people on a regular basis to find this out. Plus all the activism that is appearing more and more demonstrates the discontent within the ranks at not being representative.

The problem is activists mingle with other activists. It is sometimes hard to gauge support unless you travel the length and breadth of the community and even then, it only tells you about that community. First Nations are many and spread out across the country. I would hesitate to think that many truly know the opinions with any accuracy without some sort of polling or a vote of some sort.

It depends on which side of the political support spectrum the native journalists are. Band Councils can also spin the information as good if not better than our own politicians.

Guess I'd have to hear what the view is of what makes for a side of native journalism. I see a few different native journalists here as well as NCI and APTN.

I'm not sure which ones that have a side.

Civil disobedience means that it is unlikely that any preconditions would have an effect on those determined to protest.

It is why they keep the potential protesters far away from where events happen. If you thought Beijing's protest areas were far away, Vancouver will probably be farther.

Band Councils are extensions of the federal government. So consulting with them would merely be one arm of the government consulting with another arm. It really has no meaning. However, the Royal Proclamation 1763 defines what real consultation is all about and the courts have further refined its meaning. There must be a consensus (meaning not just a minority in favour) on any issue, and the people of the nation must have indicated that they are the agreement with the issue coming up for consultation. It is all meaningless however, since our government does not consult at all in the majority of the cases, and when it does it is only after some kind of protest has taken place. Yet the Supreme Court has laid out the circumstances and the meaning of what consultation is, the government ignores the law as if they were exempt. And since our fellow Canadians are not wise enough (or awake enough) to keep our government legal, they get away with it. The sad thing is that we are now seeing that what the has done to natives in the past and gotten away with it, they are now doing to us. Our rights are not inherent, or absolute but every exercise of rights must be followed by a lengthy court case eventually to the SCoC in order to assert them against the tyranny of government. In my view that is not how I want democracy to work but alone we are powerless.

Still not sure who arranges for a treaty talk on the native side. If the Feds ask to negotiate, do they bypass the Band Councils? Seems like a recipe for a breakdown right from the get go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is activists mingle with other activists. It is sometimes hard to gauge support unless you travel the length and breadth of the community and even then, it only tells you about that community. First Nations are many and spread out across the country. I would hesitate to think that many truly know the opinions with any accuracy without some sort of polling or a vote of some sort.

Guess I'd have to hear what the view is of what makes for a side of native journalism. I see a few different native journalists here as well as NCI and APTN.

I'm not sure which ones that have a side.

It is why they keep the potential protesters far away from where events happen. If you thought Beijing's protest areas were far away, Vancouver will probably be farther.

Still not sure who arranges for a treaty talk on the native side. If the Feds ask to negotiate, do they bypass the Band Councils? Seems like a recipe for a breakdown right from the get go.

Each nation is it's own. There is no need to guage interests of First Nations. One needs only to understand what that particular nation wants.

They won't be able to sort out who will be a protester and who is a resident. Remember we are operating the Olympics on their land. This isn't China either so security and police cannot use military force against people.

Lastly under the RP1763 the government has to ask the question of all of the people of the nation. In BC treaty talks the Band Councils attempted to represent the people but once it gets to the people, treaties fall apart. So in the end the government is still doing the wrong thing.

It isn't hard to create a consensus process. You just have to understand what consensus is in the first place. The government is reluctant to do that because it will diminish their power. And if it is successful it threatens our democratic process by offering meaning ful change to a system they are entrenched in.

Edited by charter.rights
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Each nation is it's own. There is no need to guage interests of First Nations. One needs only to understand what that particular nation wants.

I still think that it is difficult given reserve and off reserve and populations.

They won't be able to sort out who will be a protester and who is a resident. Remember we are operating the Olympics on their land. This isn't China either so security and police cannot use military force against people.

My understanding is that how people will be separated is by Olympic participant and non-participant and that it will be extremely difficult to get close for those not in attendance at the games itself.

Lastly under the RP1763 the government has to ask the question of all of the people of the nation. In BC treaty talks the Band Councils attempted to represent the people but once it gets to the people, treaties fall apart. So in the end the government is still doing the wrong thing.

It isn't hard to create a consensus process. You just have to understand what consensus is in the first place. The government is reluctant to do that because it will diminish their power. And if it is successful it threatens our democratic process by offering meaning ful change to a system they are entrenched in.

Consensus in any society is difficult. I have not seen talks anywhere in the world where a group within that society didn't fight for leadership of the debate and were not opposed by others. I suspect that there would even be a fight over what consensus really was. For some it means unanimity. For others it means a substantial majority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still think that it is difficult given reserve and off reserve and populations.

It isn't anymore difficult than getting Canadians who are not at home to vote during an election.

My understanding is that how people will be separated is by Olympic participant and non-participant and that it will be extremely difficult to get close for those not in attendance at the games itself.

I'm not into logistics but when a bus crosses someone's home a simple blockade can do a lot. It is all speculation anyway.

Consensus in any society is difficult. I have not seen talks anywhere in the world where a group within that society didn't fight for leadership of the debate and were not opposed by others. I suspect that there would even be a fight over what consensus really was. For some it means unanimity. For others it means a substantial majority.

First Nations people don't have that much difficulty understanding consensus since it is a legacy left to them by their ancestors. We have a more difficult time because our political institutions have always created winners and losers. It is adversarial at best, and is designed to overwhelm the minority opinion with the majority.

Neither examples that you provided come anywhere near consensus from an aboriginal point of view. The premise for a consensus process is that all solutions can be found and no one knows where those solutions will come from. It requires facts, discussion and solutions that meet the expectations of everyone. It involves participation of anyone who takes issue with the subject matter on a voluntary basis and produces a result that not only will last for sometime but satisfy even the most obstinate.

I sit on a committee that is working with a First Nation on creating a dialog (a consensus) within the community and with the leadership and various activists on a number of national (for them) issues. Surprisingly, what we are finding is not adversary but agreement and respect among all the participants. For the most part, although there are effectual differences in the way they achieve things, their root causes and their goals are the same. When people agree on any small issue then the big issues are not that much harder to find a consensus around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It isn't anymore difficult than getting Canadians who are not at home to vote during an election.

Getting Canadians in any election to vote is no easy task.

I'm not into logistics but when a bus crosses someone's home a simple blockade can do a lot. It is all speculation anyway.

Who knows what might happen. There may be more success in simply being interviewed by all the media present.

First Nations people don't have that much difficulty understanding consensus since it is a legacy left to them by their ancestors. We have a more difficult time because our political institutions have always created winners and losers. It is adversarial at best, and is designed to overwhelm the minority opinion with the majority.

I'll have to look a bit more at it. One of my clients is an educator in aboriginal governance. Perhaps she might have some insights on the history.

Neither examples that you provided come anywhere near consensus from an aboriginal point of view. The premise for a consensus process is that all solutions can be found and no one knows where those solutions will come from. It requires facts, discussion and solutions that meet the expectations of everyone. It involves participation of anyone who takes issue with the subject matter on a voluntary basis and produces a result that not only will last for sometime but satisfy even the most obstinate.

I dunno. I have met some pretty obstinate people. A two year old child comes to mind and yet that is how some adults go through life.

I sit on a committee that is working with a First Nation on creating a dialog (a consensus) within the community and with the leadership and various activists on a number of national (for them) issues. Surprisingly, what we are finding is not adversary but agreement and respect among all the participants. For the most part, although there are effectual differences in the way they achieve things, their root causes and their goals are the same. When people agree on any small issue then the big issues are not that much harder to find a consensus around.

Perhaps this is where solutions might come from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,713
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...