Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Michael J. Hurd Ph.D.

Reblogged:Why So Many Politicians Are Crooks

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

19 hours ago, SpookyKitty said:

You are just harping on semantics. Come back to me when you have a real argument.

1. Get your head out of your ass. There ARE poor people in America.

2. You could have just said from the beginning that the poor are to blame for the lack of freedom in America. Would have saved everyone a lot of time.

3. Your only response to my argument that politicians are crooked because crony capitalists pay them to do that is to say that crony capitalists don't exist because they are "really" just welfare statists. That's exactly the same argument communists use to say that the Soviet Union wasn't "really" communist.

If what you really want to say is that many rich people don't pay off politicians to do their dirty work, then just say it. Otherwise, re-evaluate your position. Either way, put up or shut up, and quit trying to hide behind semantic games.

Hello SK:

 

I previously posted a note to you which had been "modded" (removed) by Euiol for "sarcasm".

In keeping with forum rules and their proper application, I am honestly letting you know that the post contained a link to a leftist/communist forum... the point was to raise the possibility that you actually would prefer to "discuss" things with persons who frequent that forum rather than have the kinds of discussions you are having here.

Honestly, and without any sarcasm, I find myself wondering why do you expend the effort to come to a forum like this when you hold so many views which are antithetical to the very subject up for discussion, "Objectivism".  I see no evidence that you have read anything about Objectivism, know or understand anything about the philosophy nor have I seen any indication that you want to learn anything about the philosophy.  In fact you mostly tend to attack the specter of what you think Objectivism is or implies, but which actually is not Objectivism... and you end up arguing about what Objectivism is with persons who have many more years of actual experience, research, and reading on the subject. 

All of this is simply perplexing.  Why? What is your motivation?

 

Sincerely,

SL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Repairman said:

3) Goddamn right free speech is protected. That is, until one more idiot proposes another brilliant pieces of legislation to limit monies donated and spent on political speech.

Regarding political speech, let's distinguish general support with money as free speech, versus political favors defined as bribery. The latter is fraudulent.

Besides, why do you think a politician who doesn't mind being corrupt would need to "purchase" votes from the poor? What would they get? Think like a Machiavellian prince - all you need from lesser people is either fear or belief that you are a good soul. But your power would be derived from deals you make with other people that are corrupt and are wealthy. You'd need to appease them and balance that with how you appease the masses. To be sure, if people agree with principles of altruism, they'd vote for it, but a corrupt politician doesn't give a damn, all that matters is who has more money.

Let's say you're right, bad politicians buy votes from the poor. Clarify to me what the politician gets? Votes, yes, but what else? Secondly, votes are also going to be bought from the richest as well in this case. What does the politician get from them?

"Yes, the value is a political favor, but can we imagine what these businessmen have traded for that value? We are talking about the businessmen who are still providing jobs for people in this horrible political climate." -MisterSwig

Donald Trump - a man that Hurd has done gold medal mental gymnastics to defend - is a great example of trading fraudulent value to attain his money. Or take Wells Fargo fraudulently making multiple accounts for people. The people involved there deserve none of it. The jobs "created" are more like hiring people to dig holes and fill them up again. The whole point about a mixed economy is that it is possible to become rich through outright vice - the Jim Taggarts of the world. Remember, you said businessmen who demand political favors, not just businessmen. The rich businessmen who don't buy political favors are the last vestige of capitalism (Elon Musk maybe?). Now, in China favors are probably needed to exist AT ALL, but not in the US as far as I see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I guess it's about time for me to call it quits with Objectivism.

In my reading of Ayn Rand, I noticed she liked to tell everyone that their shit stank no matter their lot in life. She criticized the cronies about as much as the welfare leeches, but she seems to be just about the only Objectivist to do that.

In this thread, I see nothing (with the sole exception of Eiuol) but apologism for crony capitalism. I am honestly disappoointed in this community and philosophy.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Eiuol said:

The rich businessmen who don't buy political favors are the last vestige of capitalism (Elon Musk maybe?). 

Elon Musk? I think you can do better than that. He gives hundreds of thousands of dollars to Democrats. His businesses have been fronts for many federal programs, such as green energy tax breaks and incentives and federal space monies. And now he's talking about the "basic universal income," which is straight out of the commie playbook. He's about the worst example of a capitalist I could imagine.

Can you name any mega-rich businessman/corporation that doesn't give hundreds of thousands (or even millions) of dollars to political parties and politicians? Can you name one that doesn't have an obvious, business-related, vested interest in doing so? There must be some, right? Perhaps they are in less regulated industries than auto manufacturing and space exploration. But I don't know any off the top of my head. The Feds have their dirty paws in every major industry it seems.

Basically I agree that there are a lot of immoral businessmen. And I'm not apologizing for them. I'm only suggesting that when some businessmen or corporations buy political favors, it's not always to line their own pockets, but to keep their businesses from the wrong end of a federal anti-trust lawsuit or some such governmental action.

Edited by MisterSwig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, SpookyKitty said:

In this thread, I see nothing (with the sole exception of Eiuol) but apologism for crony capitalism. I am honestly disappoointed in this community and philosophy.

The question (link) was specifically asked of you to delineate who the "crony capitalists" are. You neglected to address it.

The precision of your terminology and the effort you put forth to refine it, leads you to disappointment, as I see it here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SpookyKitty said:

In my reading of Ayn Rand, I noticed she liked to tell everyone that their shit stank no matter their lot in life.

You might try expanding your reading of Rand, and giving her ideas some extra consideration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MisterSwig said:

Elon Musk? I think you can do better than that. He gives hundreds of thousands of dollars to Democrats. His businesses have been fronts for many federal programs, such as green energy tax breaks and incentives and federal space monies. And now he's talking about the "basic universal income," which is straight out of the commie playbook. He's about the worst example of a capitalist I could imagine.

 

Those aren't political favors, as I distinguished before. Do I like his politics? Not really. Does he bribe politicians or abuse the law? I'm not aware of any evidence to say he does. This is fine, a far as capitalism is concerned. Unless we want to start to categorize voters as the people who actually initiate force. I'm saying whatever mega-rich person is corrupt and bribes people is far more to blame than anyone else for producing crooked politicians like Hillary (distinguished from honest altruist politicians like Bernie Sanders). Those who vote for entitlements do so because they believe it is moral to provide it, not because politicians promise it. Combine the two and we get a social system where -no one- sees where value goes, so it doesn't go to who deserves value.

A moral way to respond to too much regulation is to flout it and let 'em chase you. Or follow it but publicly denounce it. If by law all businesses are essentially part of the government, then it may be justified to bribe. But this isn't China. It's not even Sweden.

All that to say the status of wanting entitlements is minor. It's more like a Republican myth. The market for votes only matters to the extent a politician is rewarded by someone with money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Regarding political speech, let's distinguish general support with money as free speech, versus political favors defined as bribery. The latter is fraudulent.

Besides, why do you think a politician who doesn't mind being corrupt would need to "purchase" votes from the poor? What would they get? Think like a Machiavellian prince - all you need from lesser people is either fear or belief that you are a good soul. But your power would be derived from deals you make with other people that are corrupt and are wealthy. You'd need to appease them and balance that with how you appease the masses. To be sure, if people agree with principles of altruism, they'd vote for it, but a corrupt politician doesn't give a damn, all that matters is who has more money.

Let's say you're right, bad politicians buy votes from the poor. Clarify to me what the politician gets? Votes, yes, but what else? Secondly, votes are also going to be bought from the richest as well in this case. What does the politician get from them?

Eioul,

My response was to this comment: "The buying and selling of political favors, on the other hand, is (most people believe) that is protected under free speech."--Spooky Kitty (my parenthesis). To begin with, premise that this claim is a matter of popular opinion undermines it as a fact. However, if we address it as an accepted generality, then it is equally acceptable to point out that leftist office-holders stay in power because, 1) they receive more votes than their opponents, obviously, and 2) they hold to policies of "generosity" toward the poor and middle-class using federal and states' budgets. You are right to point out that fear (of fiscal conservatives, I assume) is useful for the purpose of holding or gaining office. This is not to say that our Machiavellian prince is not receiving favors from moneyed interests as well as increasing the expenditures on social welfare programs. If it were necessary, I'm sure I could pull up plenty of articles exposing the corruption among left-leaning politicians. To be sure, their are legions of Chicago politicians who cater to their campaign contributors, while keeping the faith with their constituents.

So, let's address the last part of your rebuttal: Let's say you're right, bad politicians buy votes from the poor. Clarify to me what the politician gets? Votes, yes, but what else? Secondly, votes are also going to be bought from the richest as well in this case. What does the politician get from them?

Votes, yes. That's the obvious key to power. Votes are going to be bought from the richest; what does the politician get? Usually it comes in the form of campaign support (money mostly) and other perks. When someone holds the power to grant licenses, permits, and enforce the law at their discrimination, crony-capitalists get in line to help their friends.

To all concerned, I have less sympathy for those abusing the social welfare programs than the those business owners buying favors from their "special friends." Without digressing into a discussion about how to resolve the whole balled up mess, I would make a short and oversimplifies recommendation. That is, lawmakers ought to focus of deregulating laws prohibitive to entrepreneurs, perhaps a sort of reverse engineering of the existing laws allowing more freedom for low-budget enterprises. I know "crony-capitalism" is a term that irritates some people, but I use it as a general term covering the selective enforcement of government policies on "uncooperative" entrepreneurs. The capitalist, whether involved in high, low, or no level of corruption, is only one vote, compared to the masses of those who feel "cheated" by a system they don't even bother to understand. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By fear, I meant things like threats, like "I'll deport you" or fear of what an angry leader would do. This applies more to countries like maybe Turkey, I only included it to be thorough. Though you're right that inducing fear of the other without good reason is irrational. But still, political favors are fraudulent and aren't protected as free speech. Favors are usually meant as passing laws or policies aimed to hurt competitors.

Votes are means to an end. Votes, specifically, are not valuable on their own. So, as you say, it's a means to power. But power over what, for what end? I doubt a second-hander Machiavellian cares about vague "political authority". They want money or armies/police. Something that is able to do more than principles in their eyes, concrete things. Anyone poorer than the richest doesn't help a lot, the only value is to keep them happy by enacting principles they truly see as good. To a corrupt politician, these people are schmucks. The only real way to corrupt a politician is through a corrupt rich person. Yes, mixed economy policies are bad, but -corruption- comes from incentives provided by the richest people. The final reward is from those people, not the voters.

You seem to think selective enforcement is more like blackmail? I see no reason to think this happens much if at all. Some companies would be glad to pay a politician in order to do things like fraud safely. Yes, an entrepreneur is "one vote". As I said above, it's not the voters that give incentives to be corrupt in our economy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Repairman said:

I know "crony-capitalism" is a term that irritates some people, but I use it as a general term covering the selective enforcement of government policies on "uncooperative" entrepreneurs.

As you are using "crony-capitalism",  it aligns with the "aristocracy of pull". You're describing the "pull-peddlers".

The pull-peddlers use the children, poor, elderly, or other strategic division, to "sell" to those who mentally align themselves and indirectly to those that feel sorry for the particular discrete divisions. What message does the voter send when they elect those that are indirectly offering to take from the producers and hand it over to these special interest groups? It is not just those that feel "cheated", it also ropes in those that agree that someone who feels "cheated" is entitled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Influence-peddling is a mainstay for some, an unfortunate "reality" for some others in government administration. Rather than list the many ways to destroy the incentive of small businesses through bureaucracy, I acknowledge it as an artificial reality. No doubt, some politicians believe their own nonsense. Nonetheless, the actions taken by office-holders is back up with police force, a judicial system, and if need be, and army. If money is the primary goal of a high-level official, he/she is a fool. Money is merely the means to power for the true modern-day Machiavellian player. The money is only as good as it is used to maintain the seat of power upon which they sit.  It is what it is, for now.

I don't believe it has to be that way. When the proper role of government, as defined by Objectivist standards, is made popular, then the United States may not have to mirror the social orders of Turkey, China, Russia, or any other nation so admired by the Leftist intelligentsia. Until then, abuse of power in federal, state, and local government will become so institutionalized that it will be too late to make the change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Repairman said:

If money is the primary goal of a high-level official, he/she is a fool. Money is merely the means to power for the true modern-day Machiavellian player.

I'd rather say power is only sought in the form of having money or institutions of force (things poorer people lack and richer people might offer), as it is the only way a person is able to make any use of their lack of virtue. It's a stand-in for wealth and money -making-.

By the way, it's interesting to point out that The Prince was written ironically and given to Lorenzo Medici. It was an ironic how-to guide Machiavelli wrote of how a Republic would perish in the long run thanks to scheming politicians (princes back then), doubling as an analysis of political strategy actually used.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/8/2016 at 7:08 PM, SpookyKitty said:

In this thread, I see nothing (with the sole exception of Eiuol) but apologism for crony capitalism. I am honestly disappoointed in this community and philosophy.

I'm not sure if it matters now, but I wanted to point this part out. While I don't know any Objectivists, it is strange and silly for me to see apologists for corrupt capitalists. The response is either they are "forced" to bribe government officials, or that there's no such thing as a crony capitalist. Both responses miss the point. Rand didn't apologize for Jim Taggarts, and did call rich people out as appropriate. I don't understand why we can't have a frank discussion about political power. Basically, SK claims, as do I, that what I recognize as the "aristocracy of pull" matters more than what the masses demand, that power doesn't come from the masses.

Anyway, I still post and all not from only being a mod, but recognizing there is some desire to dissuade people from a right-wing impulse and just think carefully. The more voices (with mods on hand), the better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In such a frank discussion, would it take into consideration this excerpt from Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal?

The difference between political power and any other kind of social "power," between a government and any private organization, is the fact that a government holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force.

She considered it such an important, seldom recognized distinction that she repeated it twice in the same paragraph.

In the Ayn Rand Letter, Vol. II, No. 4  November 20, 1972, The American Spirit she parenthetically stated:

 [C]ulture and politics are always two mutually reinforcing manifestations of the same philosophy.

The "aristocracy of pull" is a phenomenon she outline via Francisco at Jim's wedding, as arising within the culture/political climate. She refers to it as graft and pull via Francisco again, at Hank's wife's anniversary party.

So, what is the culture? From the three lexicon entrees, this one has the best fit in this context.

A nation’s culture is the sum of the intellectual achievements of individual men, which their fellow-citizens have accepted in whole or in part, and which have influenced the nation’s way of life. Since a culture is a complex battleground of different ideas and influences, to speak of a “culture” is to speak only of the dominant ideas, always allowing for the existence of dissenters and exceptions.

So what makes an idea or a set of idea dominate within a "culture"? You're suggesting

1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

the "aristocracy of pull" matters more than what the masses demand, that power doesn't come from the masses.

In a sense I agree. The dominant ideas do not have to be what the masses demand. Where I disagree is how the power for the dominant ideas comes from the masses. It is not brought about by their advocation for "aristocracy of pull", "insider trading", or even the "civil rights" legislation. The power is derived from the masses accepting such slogans/cliches as "that's the way things are, there is nothing we can do about it", or "you can't fight city hall". In a metaphorical passage from Philosophy: Who needs it,

There is an old fable which I read in Russian (I do not know whether it exists in English). A pig comes upon an oak tree, devours the acorns strewn on the ground and, when his belly is full, starts digging the soil to undercut the oak tree's roots. A bird perched on a high branch upbraids him, saying: "If you could lift your snoot, you would discover that the acorns grow on this tree."

In order to avoid that pig's role in the forest of the intellect, one must know and protect the metaphysical-epistemological tree that produces the acorns of one's convictions, goals and desires. And, conversely, one must not gobble up any brightly colored fruit one finds, without bothering to discover that it comes from a deadly yew tree. If laymen did no more than learn to identify the nature of such fruit and stop munching it or passing it around, they would stop being the victims and the unwary transmission belts of philosophical poison. But a minimal grasp of philosophy is required in order to do it.

So when Dr. Hurd says:

On 11/5/2016 at 0:42 PM, Michael J. Hurd Ph.D. said:

In a society where the majority did not keep telling the government to do crooked things, we would not have a government so populated with crooked officials.

instead of the majority, substitute what most people in the culture consider the "will of the majority"—the dominate ideas.

I'm familiar with the the cronyism. I'm familiar with the term capitalism. A is A. Referring to a mixed economy, or the appointment of friends and associates to positions of authority, without proper regard to their qualifications, as being a subset or even an adjectival variant of capitalism (corrupt capitalism, crony capitalism) countermands the introduction to Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal recognition that:

Objectivists . . . are radicals for capitalism; we are fighting for that philosophical base which capitalism did not have and without which it was doomed to perish.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Note that it the quote from the Ayn Rand Letter doesn't specify that the only culture is an entire nation. There are cultures within cultures. Since the article is titled American Spirit, that one is referring to a general American culture. If Rand means a political reality derives from ONLY a general culture of a country, this is plainly false. For example, I don't think Stalinism derives from Russian culture is much as it does from the culture of the political class. Based on the way she wrote about of aristocracy of pull, Rand was probably well aware that a cultural climate among businessmen and politicians was not the same as American culture and politics in general. What is it that makes politicians -corrupt-? I am saying it is a culture among some very rich people and not anyone else. What makes American political beliefs as a whole? I'd say the masses. These are different questions.

As for "crony capitalism", it is okay to nitpick, but you should already -know- that in this case that SK isn't so anti-capitalist to think crony capitalism is a subset of capitalism. Just because there's a disagreement doesn't mean whining over ANY error as if it were a mortal sin that reveals true motivations. You know the topic is corruption, make a nitpick, but we know full well what people mean by crony capitalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does it have to be a sub-culture within a portion of the very rich, and no-one else?

If parasitism, favoritism, corruption, and greed for the unearned did not exist, a mixed economy would bring them into existence. (Pg. 170 CUI)

Work with causality here. If a factor deemed to be causal is removed from the equation, and the effect still takes place in its absence, that factor is not the cause. Are you suggesting that all lobbying is only supported by some of the very rich, or that only the lobbying supported by the very rich has any sway with politicians?

If you're looking for the root cause of corruption, examine how it stems from denying the law of identity.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, dream_weaver said:

Why does it have to be a sub-culture within a portion of the very rich, and no-one else?

I gave my reasons in several posts, the main reason being no one else offers any incentive to be corrupt. Corruption only works in a parasitic way, a corrupt politician can't feed off poorer people. So, I'm saying only lobbying supported by the very rich has any sway with politicians. By the way, I don't know what causal factor being removed you're talking about. A mixed economy brings about an environment that encourages corruption as (some) businesses become even more entrenched with the government.

To be sure, corruption first stems from failing to recognize and live by individual rights. The last step is picking who offers the best incentive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

I don't know what causal factor being removed you're talking about.

Break it down. Identify the particulars. Is the AARP a lobbying group? Have they corrupted any politicians? Who is/are the very rich individual(s) behind it? Or are the monies being derived from the aggregate of the membership?

Is the American Medical Association a lobbying group? Have they corrupted any politicians? Who is/are the very rich individual(s) behind it?

What about the U.S. Chamber of Commerce? Same questions?

https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=s

You said the corruptness is brought about by some of the very rich, and no others.

All S is P.

All corruption is brought about by some of the very rich, and no others.
All corruption . . .

Some S is P.

All corruption is brought about by some of the very rich, and no others.
So it is not all of the very rich, just some of them.

No S is P.

All corruption is brought about by some of the very rich, and no others.
Corruption is only brought about by some (not all) of the very rich.

Or are you saying that the Warren Buffets, Bill Gates, et., al. are just buying off enough politicians and simply bypassing the lobbying groups?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

Break it down. Identify the particulars. Is the AARP a lobbying group? Have they corrupted any politicians?

I mentioned before, companies like VW, people like Donald Trump, banks like Wells Fargo (it starts to look like people, not just you, reacted to a few lines and then posted). I see no reason to see the AARP as a lobbying group that is corrupt. I don't think Warren Buffet is corrupt. What are you getting at? I can list many particulars of why money or armies matter more for corruption than poorer / not rich people's votes. Think African warlords. Atilla the Hun. Italian city states (Borgias, some Medicis). I know that it happened in Greek city states. Masses only have power insofar as there's a "people's army" (think Mao). I don't know any examples of the poorer people being a motivator to be corrupt. So I conclude the immediate (short-term) issue is a subset of rich people.

Not sure what the formal logic is supposed to point out. All corruption is from incentives provided by a subset of people with the most money for a particular need. People, plural, so groups too. For a mixed economy, this means only rich people are able to offer enough. I don't think I was unclear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recall there were issues with both VW and Donald Trump that made them less than clear cut examples.

From my understanding of wealth, though, it can cut both ways. I would also have to ask, is the money seeking to purchase the the creation of corruption, or is there corruption that is seeking to acquire the money? If the corruption exists sans (without) the money, then the money cannot the cause of the corruption, and if money is not the cause of the corruption, then what is?

Is the money to be damned for the creation of corruption or does it yet hold a position of respect?

 

Edited by dream_weaver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

From my understanding of wealth, though, it can cut both ways. I would also have to ask, is the money seeking to purchase the the creation of corruption, or is there corruption that is seeking to acquire the money? If the corruption exists sans (without) the money, then the money cannot the cause of the corruption, and if money is not the cause of the corruption, then what is?

Why anthropomorphize? The desire for money at any short-term cost and principles of government is the corruption, as is giving money to those politicians. Get rid of all those people, then it's all good. What are you trying to say? Do you disagree that money and/or armies are the only reasons someone would want to be corrupt? Or do you agree with Hurd that (implicitly) poor people are to blame for wanting welfare and that's what makes a politician want to be corrupt?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given those two alternatives, yes, I disagree that money and/or armies are the only reasons someone would want to be corrupt, and no, I don't think that is an accurate assessment of Dr. Hurd's position.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Consider Francisco's response to Rearden, the night at the mills when he nearly lost a furnace on pg. 423, part of which was repeated in his meeting with the "boys", as a recollection, the night his mills were to be seized on pg. 432:

Do you think that what you're facing is merely a conspiracy to seize your wealth? You, who know the source of wealth, should know it's much more and much worse than that. Did you ask me to name man's motive power? Man's motive power is his moral code. Ask yourself where their code is leading you and what it offers you as your final goal.

Or try pg. 962 of Galt's speech in the paragraph leading up to and two paragraphs following this paragraph and partially captured in “The Age of Envy,” Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution, 157:

"You who've never grasped the nature of evil, you who describe them as 'misguided idealists'—may the God you invented forgive you!—they are the essence of evil, they, those anti-living objects who seek, by devouring the world, to fill the selfless zero of their soul. It is not your wealth that they're after. Theirs is a conspiracy against the mind, which means: against life and man.

So I ask again: Is money to be damned for the creation of corruption or does it yet have a place in the hall of respect?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know why you think I'm saying money is the problem or somehow establishes corruption. I didn't say anything about money as bad. I did say, however, that a corrupt politician -wants- money. They seek counterfeit value, operating through the good of others and their sanction. This is possible in a mixed economy. That bad people want money doesn't mean money is bad - it means the people are bad.

The topic is corrupt politicians, not immorality or general political beliefs of altruists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×