We need only one demand

Page 2 of 5 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: We need only one demand

Post by giogo on Sat Oct 22, 2011 10:05 pm

robwrenn wrote:Dealing with money in politics is important, as is reversing Citizens United. But if that's all we focus on, then we basically become in effect the protest wing of Common Cause, a long standing nonpartisan good government group that is also very alarmed by Citizens United. They have a Web site.

I think we also need to try to reverse some of the damage done to the 99% by the influence of money in politics.
-

I think you are right, but these things can be dealt with latter, after politics is clean from corporate influence. I think it is a better strategy to go by this way: focus on one, significant issue that can be achieved. After that, not only politics becomes a feasible environment to work on these other issues, but also people will be energized by the significant victory.

The danger of trying to address everything at once is that it becomes diluted and easy to defeat.

giogo

Posts: 101
Join date: 2011-10-20
Location: WA-08

Back to top Go down

Perhaps the one demand (money and politics) has several specific aspects.

Post by giogo on Sat Oct 22, 2011 10:52 pm

It can still be framed as 1 demand (for simplicity, effectiveness, broad appeal): free our democratic system from moneyed interests. But several specific points:
- Campaign finance
- Lobby
- Conflict of interest
- the FED
- corruption

giogo

Posts: 101
Join date: 2011-10-20
Location: WA-08

Back to top Go down

Re: We need only one demand

Post by SaintNuke on Sat Oct 22, 2011 11:08 pm

I really hate sounding like a parrot of my own stuff, but this "decide on 1 issue" call is becoming more common. So, my post from another thread:


If I personally had to funnel everything into 1 topic I think would have the best chance of fixing everything it would be, far and away, proportional representation.

http://www.accuratedemocracy.com/d_intro.htm

Through that system you could easily work through all the problems step by step. Long story short it would completely decimate the Republican and Democratic parties if they continued to ignore the people. It forces parties and politicians to listen because if they don't other parties will step in and take their place. So instead of a house with:

250 Dem
250 Rep

you would have (I'm using rounded numbers for simplicity)

125 D
125 R
125 Labor
50 Green
20 Socialist
20 TEA
20 Rent Is Too Damn High
15 Libertarian

Obviously not those exact numbers, but there would be no more worthless votes because everyone could just pick the party that reflects their views. Party strength would determine who gets in. No more gerrymandering, money would have a very hard time corrupting things because people will just vote for another party next time around. Greater emphasis on policy instead of politicians.

So if I had to personally distill it down to a single, solitary thing that would unf*** this country in a hurry, that would be it.

And a bit of double dissolution on the side:

"If the House of Representatives passes any proposed law, and the Senate rejects or fails to pass it, or passes it with amendments to which the House of Representatives will not agree, and if after an interval of three months the House of Representatives, in the same or the next session, again passes the proposed law with or without any amendments which have been made, suggested, or agreed to by the Senate, and the Senate rejects or fails to pass it, or passes it with amendments to which the House of Representatives will not agree, the Governor-General may dissolve the Senate and the House of Representatives simultaneously."

You jerks want to deadlock legislation? FINE, YOU'RE ALL FIRED, NEW ELECTIONS!

Elections last no longer than 3 months, and mandatory voting, even for people in prison.


That would be one of the very few things that would cause sweeping change, actually represent everyone, make it impossible to gerrymander. Any sniff of corruption would completely destroy a party because there would be 5-10 other parties there to fill in the vacuum if a party ignores the will of the people.

No more voting for the lesser of 2 evils, no more feeling like your vote is worthless, and a renewed focus on policy over politicians.

SaintNuke

Posts: 43
Join date: 2011-10-19
Location: KS-01

Back to top Go down

Proportional voting will not change anything

Post by giogo on Sat Oct 22, 2011 11:39 pm

SaintNuke wrote:If I personally had to funnel everything into 1 topic I think would have the best chance of fixing everything it would be, far and away, proportional representation.

Nah, this already exists in many countries and it makes no difference whatsoever. Some of the most corrupt countries in the world have proportional representation and policy/party ideology is not a bigger factorin elections than it is here. What difference really would it make to have a handful of green and libertarians there?

giogo

Posts: 101
Join date: 2011-10-20
Location: WA-08

Back to top Go down

Agreed, but this one issue, even though it is key, not exciting enough for people

Post by William58 on Sat Oct 22, 2011 11:46 pm

J789 wrote:Why not just focus on one demand: Cut the influence of Corporation on our politicians. One demand, clear and simple. I personally cannot think of one group that will oppose to get corporation out of politics. Except perhaps the politicians and corporations themselves. This seems like a demand that will be acceptable to the general public, left wings or right wings, the true 99% of the people. A demand, people without even knowing the details, will wants to join.

I pretty much agree, that is the most essential goal. Good-faith efforts by a few Congress persons over the years have been done toward this, but legislation always gets way too watered down because the general public hasn't gotten behind the effort. The issue--by itself--just isn't that interesting to most people, the connection to the country's ills just doesn't seem real clear, it's not a sexy, clearcut issue. It's boring to most people (unfortunately), including (understandibly) the OWSers who have been outside for a month with big dreams and wonderful ideas of great change (the kind we thought would begin in '08).

Occupy has helped change that. The Declarations 1-5 put this issue into a wider context that is needed to satisfy the OWSers AND get the majority of Americans interested and supportive. Declarations 1-5 illuminate and expand on the money-in-politics problem, making it inescapable for more people to recognize and take seriously. (I hope everyone has actually read the Declarations! Pretty well written)

Those five demands (Declarations 1-5) are unassailable and I believe universally acceptable to the 99%. Unassailable is essential in this effort!!!

William58

Posts: 6
Join date: 2011-10-22
Location: Portland, OR

Back to top Go down

Re: We need only one demand

Post by occupystephanie on Sun Oct 23, 2011 12:40 am

William58 wrote:
J789 wrote:Why not just focus on one demand: Cut the influence of Corporation on our politicians. One demand, clear and simple. I personally cannot think of one group that will oppose to get corporation out of politics. Except perhaps the politicians and corporations themselves. This seems like a demand that will be acceptable to the general public, left wings or right wings, the true 99% of the people. A demand, people without even knowing the details, will wants to join.

I pretty much agree, that is the most essential goal. Good-faith efforts by a few Congress persons over the years have been done toward this, but legislation always gets way too watered down because the general public hasn't gotten behind the effort. The issue--by itself--just isn't that interesting to most people, the connection to the country's ills just doesn't seem real clear, it's not a sexy, clearcut issue. It's boring to most people (unfortunately), including (understandibly) the OWSers who have been outside for a month with big dreams and wonderful ideas of great change (the kind we thought would begin in '08).

Occupy has helped change that. The Declarations 1-5 put this issue into a wider context that is needed to satisfy the OWSers AND get the majority of Americans interested and supportive. Declarations 1-5 illuminate and expand on the money-in-politics problem, making it inescapable for more people to recognize and take seriously. (I hope everyone has actually read the Declarations! Pretty well written)

Those five demands (Declarations 1-5) are unassailable and I believe universally acceptable to the 99%. Unassailable is essential in this effort!!!

I agree that Declarations 1-5 are unassailable and universal in that they seem to speak to most of the signs I have seen on the streets. I would move #16 up: Glass-Steagall, financial transaction tax, hedgefund loopholes)

We have been unrepresented for so long that we have a large backlog of things we want taken care of. However, we need to concentrate on our major problem--Our government represents the wealthy because that is who pays them.

That said, we can rewrite the Demands as a Resolution which is what the Congress will undoubtedly do. In the preamble, we can list the background, the context and the situation which has finally led the people to petition their government. In the operative clauses, we can spell out actions that we believe would remedy the people's situation. These can be pages long after the political process at the new Convention.

I do believe that we need to produce a document.

occupystephanie

Posts: 11
Join date: 2011-10-20
Location: OR-4

Back to top Go down

Re: We need only one demand

Post by William58 on Sun Oct 23, 2011 1:11 am

occupystephanie wrote:I agree that Declarations 1-5 are unassailable and universal in that they seem to speak to most of the signs I have seen on the streets. I would move #16 up: Glass-Steagall, financial transaction tax, hedgefund loopholes)

That was exactly my thought when I first read the Declarations--#16 was the one that needed to be up there with the top 5. It is at the core of how Bankers were able to get total control of the country's wealth. Declarations 6 and on, all pretty good, but will provide endless fodder for the mainstream media to to tie us in knots--which they dearly wish to do.

William58

Posts: 6
Join date: 2011-10-22
Location: Portland, OR

Back to top Go down

If you posted it elsewhere, I probably already endorsed it..

Post by uncommonfilth on Sun Oct 23, 2011 2:08 am

SaintNuke wrote:I really hate sounding like a parrot of my own stuff, but this "decide on 1 issue" call is becoming more common. So, my post from another thread:


If I personally had to funnel everything into 1 topic I think would have the best chance of fixing everything it would be, far and away, proportional representation.

http://www.accuratedemocracy.com/d_intro.htm

Through that system you could easily work through all the problems step by step. Long story short it would completely decimate the Republican and Democratic parties if they continued to ignore the people. It forces parties and politicians to listen because if they don't other parties will step in and take their place. So instead of a house with:

250 Dem
250 Rep

you would have (I'm using rounded numbers for simplicity)

125 D
125 R
125 Labor
50 Green
20 Socialist
20 TEA
20 Rent Is Too Damn High
15 Libertarian

Obviously not those exact numbers, but there would be no more worthless votes because everyone could just pick the party that reflects their views. Party strength would determine who gets in. No more gerrymandering, money would have a very hard time corrupting things because people will just vote for another party next time around. Greater emphasis on policy instead of politicians.

So if I had to personally distill it down to a single, solitary thing that would unf*** this country in a hurry, that would be it.

And a bit of double dissolution on the side:

"If the House of Representatives passes any proposed law, and the Senate rejects or fails to pass it, or passes it with amendments to which the House of Representatives will not agree, and if after an interval of three months the House of Representatives, in the same or the next session, again passes the proposed law with or without any amendments which have been made, suggested, or agreed to by the Senate, and the Senate rejects or fails to pass it, or passes it with amendments to which the House of Representatives will not agree, the Governor-General may dissolve the Senate and the House of Representatives simultaneously."

You jerks want to deadlock legislation? FINE, YOU'RE ALL FIRED, NEW ELECTIONS!

Elections last no longer than 3 months, and mandatory voting, even for people in prison.


That would be one of the very few things that would cause sweeping change, actually represent everyone, make it impossible to gerrymander. Any sniff of corruption would completely destroy a party because there would be 5-10 other parties there to fill in the vacuum if a party ignores the will of the people.

No more voting for the lesser of 2 evils, no more feeling like your vote is worthless, and a renewed focus on policy over politicians.
Yep, this would be at the TOP of MY list if I thought it could get done...I do believe we can get there though...So keep pushin and I'll bump ya up whenever possible...Lmao, at "The Rent Is Too Damn High" party, that dude was funny..and sure enough, I think he was evicted..

uncommonfilth

Posts: 128
Join date: 2011-10-20
Location: LA-01

Back to top Go down

Re: We need only one demand

Post by SaintNuke on Sun Oct 23, 2011 2:23 am

g-ogo wrote:
SaintNuke wrote:If I personally had to funnel everything into 1 topic I think would have the best chance of fixing everything it would be, far and away, proportional representation.

Nah, this already exists in many countries and it makes no difference whatsoever. Some of the most corrupt countries in the world have proportional representation and policy/party ideology is not a bigger factorin elections than it is here. What difference really would it make to have a handful of green and libertarians there?

You're right about corruption getting into any system, but different election systems do in fact make a big difference. It's a lot easier to safeguard a prop rep system against corruption than FPTP, Don't take my word for it, though.

http://www.libdemvoice.org/firstpastthepost-the-safe-seats-system-that-breeds-lazy-corrupt-mps-17537.html
"Put simply, MPs in safe seats are the laziest. As well as the most corrupt.

The solution? Ah well, that’s an easy one, as any Lib Dem kno’. Fair votes, electoral reform, proportional representation – call it what you will, the effect’s the same: an end to safe seats, and the lazy corruption the First-Past-The-Post system too often breeds."

http://corruptionresearchnetwork.org/resources/articles/electoral-institutions-legislative-accountability-and-political-corruption

"The author’s model posits that open-list PR systems offer a distinctive combination of competition at both the inter- and intra-party levels, which leads to reduced levels of corruption and higher levels of legislative accountability vis-a-vis FPTP and closed-list PR systems. Additionally, the author finds that multi-member district size and internal nomination structures of political parties may act as informative factors that show closed-list PR systems generating higher levels legislative accountability and lower levels of corruption than FPTP systems." His conclusion is on p.24 of the PDF, the rest is appendices.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/apr/27/av-referendum-cameron-indefensible-voting-system

UK doesn't beat around the bush, they just flat out call it an indefensible, corrupt, broken system.

This list can go on and on.

The greens and libertarians were an example. It was an example speaking more about the diminished power of Ds and Rs. Parties in PR systems come and go all the time. Right now what we do is vote in majority D, they prove to be worthless, so to punish them we vote in majority R! That'll show em! Now the Rs are screwing everything up, I know, let's vote in majority D! You don't need a 3rd party in prop rep system because everyone is a 3rd party. If you get voted in and don't listen to the people, they look at other parties. Prop rep means no more bouncing between 2 completely useless, corrupt parties.

But theorycrafting is worthless. We have actual facts to work with.

Countries that use FPTP to elect the lower or only house of their legislature include:
Antigua and Barbuda
Azerbaijan
Bahamas
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belize
Bhutan
Botswana
Canada (taking action to move to PR)
Dominica
Ethiopia
The Gambia
Ghana
Grenada
India (proportional representation in upper house)
Iran
Jamaica
Kenya
Kuwait
Lebanon
Malawi
Malaysia
Mexico
Federated States of Micronesia
Morocco
Nepal
Nigeria
Pakistan
Palau
Papua New Guinea
Philippines
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Samoa
Singapore
Solomon Islands
South Korea (they use PR also)
Swaziland
Tanzania
Tonga
Trinidad and Tobago
Tuvalu
Uganda
United Kingdom (Basically as bad as us but with UHC. Like Canada, taking steps to move to PR)
Yemen
Zambia
Zimbabwe

Sure, some corrupt countries use prop rep, but outside of the UK and Canada who are ditching FPTP every single FPTP country is a corrupt mess, including us. That's a pretty bang-up list. Every first world industrialized country on that list is either partially PR, or taking active steps to move to PR.

Countries using PR:
Albania
Algeria
Angola
Australia
Austria
Argentina
Aruba
Belgium
Bolivia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Brazil
Bulgaria
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Cambodia
Cape Verde
Colombia
Costa Rica
Croatia
Curaçao
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Denmark
Dominican Republic
Equatorial Guinea
Estonia
Finland
Germany
Greece
Guinea-Bissau
Guyana
Hungary
Iceland
India
Indonesia
Iraq
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Latvia
Lesotho
Liberia
Liechtenstein
Luxembourg
Macedonia
Malta
Mexico
Moldova
Montenegro
Namibia
Nepal
Netherlands
New Caledonia
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Norway
Paraguay
Peru
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
San Marino
Sao Tome and Principe
Serbia
Sint Maarten
Slovakia
Slovenia
South Africa
South Korea
Spain
Sri Lanka
Suriname
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
Turkey
Ukraine
UK-Northern Ireland
Scotland
Wales
Uruguay
Venezuela
Wallis and Futuna

I know correlation != causation, but the problems with FPTP are exactly the problems we are facing right now in this country. Our "mad at the guys in charge" vote goes to the other corrupt, worthless party doesn't listen to us. The highlighted countries on that list are just industrialized, developed nations, it doesn't even consider countries that are on the rise.

The difference it makes is that corrupt parties or parties that don't listen to their people lose popularity and lose seats. You're not beholden to 2 massive parties, neither of which listen to the will of the people. That's a hell of a lot more than "no difference whatsoever." In our current election system my vote is completely worthless. It's majority Republican state (roughly 65%), so my vote for any office holder has 0 value. Even if it did I wouldn't be voting for D, I'd be voting against an R.

FPTP just doesn't work. It's an outdated, broken system--and we're a perfect example of it. Our problems will never be fixed as long as people are voting D because they're terrified of R, or vice versa. We'll still be trapped in the endless cycle we've been stuck in since the beginning.

There's just no way around this argument, a lot of those countries studied our system and found it lacking and outdated before adopting theirs.

I'll bring it up again, though, what's most fascinating about that prop rep list isn't the countries already on it, but the ones that are up and coming--something the FPTP list lacks entirely.

This isn't an issue of opinion, this is an issue of political fact that is very easily verifiable.

Edit:
Edited for clarity of language and concision. It read kind of antagonistic which isn't how it's spoken in my head at all. Damn you written language! That's what I get for writing around 1 or 2 am or so.

SaintNuke

Posts: 43
Join date: 2011-10-19
Location: KS-01

Back to top Go down

Re: We need only one demand

Post by J789 on Sun Oct 23, 2011 1:17 pm

occupystephanie wrote:This elder appreciates your help!

I watched it and am 100% onboard with this Is there anyway I can help with this process here?
I am on my Demands Working Group here in my local Occupy and will further it here.
Simple and beautiful!
solidarity,
Stephanie

Thank you for supporting this idea. I am just trying to spread the message around, you can help that too.

Some people are suggesting of focusing on the declaration #1-5, I agree with it as it works towards this common goal. In another post I actually mention about it, although I am more leaning towards #1-4. My own opinion is, getting the tax reformation will leave much room into debate, much harder to get a consensus. As long as the demand was focusing on these few issues, whether it is the first 4, 5 or even 6 issues, it will more likely be supported by the general public.



J789

Posts: 4
Join date: 2011-10-20

Back to top Go down

One demand

Post by RAB on Sun Oct 23, 2011 1:46 pm

Taking money out of politics, as a single action, would not solve our problems. It is only one of many issues created by a small group of people that control the money creation process, that is, the financiers who own the world's central and large commercial and investment banks. In the U.S., they own the Fed and have leveraged it to buy the three branches of government, military and intelligence services, media, and voting processes.

We must first take back control of our money. The best way to do this is to create a network of public banks -- municipal, county, state, and national -- so that public revenues (taxes) are overseen by public agencies (governments) operating in the public interest. Since 2010, 14 states have introduced legislation to study a state bank or create one. See publicbankinginstitute.org and our latest video.

This thread should NOT be combined with the Federal Reserve thread, because just putting the Fed under control of the Congress (as the Constitution prescribes) will not solve the problem. The issue with Kucinich's bill is that it is the American Monetary Institutes' prescription, which is a top-down, Soviet-style model in which the national government would be the only entity that creates new money.

If you look at North Dakota -- which is the only state that owns its own bank, the Bank of North Dakota (BND), and which has the lowest unemployment, biggest budget surplus, zero bank failures, and most community banks per capita in the U.S. -- the BND partners with the local banks to create liquidity on Main Street.

The problem is not fractional reserve lending, it's fractional reserve lending controlled by private interests, and the compound interest charges.

Like Kucinich, Ron Paul wants to end the Fed, but he would put us on the gold standard, which would give back control of money to the same people who now control it. Money is not a commodity; it is a means of accounting for the value we create through labor (and associated production, e.g., machines and computers that we created from natural resources). Creating money is not inflationary if it represents value being created. Interest and other financial legerdemain is inflationary, because they don't represent value.


Last edited by RAB on Sun Oct 23, 2011 1:49 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : a few grammatical corrections)

RAB

Posts: 29
Join date: 2011-10-21
Location: CO-02

Back to top Go down

This thread reveals a commonly accepted fallacy

Post by emadera52 on Mon Oct 24, 2011 6:52 pm

In reading through the posts to this thread I've noticed two things. 1) There are a lot of issues to be addressed. 2) It seems to be generally, though not universally, accepted that the more issues the movement addresses, the broader the base of support will be.

Number 1) is true, number 2) is false. The easiest way to turn off the majority of our potential supporters is to show them a list of every issue raised by members of the movement. The majority has a short attention span and are complacent by nature. The only way to get their attention is with a concise, hard hitting focus on an issue that almost all of them will understand and a large majority will agree with. Here is what I've been promoting.

Who are we? We are the clear majority who have been moved to activism by the corruption that has nearly destroyed our way of life.

What do we want? Remove the corrupting influence of money on our government.

When do we want it? The sooner the better.

How will we get it? We will amend the constitution so that financial influence is prohibited and transparency (full disclosure) on the part all government officials is required.

Why do we want it? So that we will once more have a voice in addressing our many concerns by way of the democratic process.

The Why addresses ALL of the other concerns. It doesn't guarantee that everyone will get everything they want. That's not how democracy works. The result is far worse should the movement insists on presenting potential supporters with a long list of specific concerns. Without strong public support this will become just another failed attempt.


emadera52

Posts: 4
Join date: 2011-10-20

Back to top Go down

Corrupting influence of money on government a false issue

Post by RAB on Mon Oct 24, 2011 11:32 pm

From the previous post: "What do we want? Remove the corrupting influence of money on our government." I must strongly disagree.

The root cause is private control over the money creation process (the financiers who own the banks that own the Federal Reserve) and what that has bought outright: the three branches of government, the military and intelligence services, the media, and the voting machines.

Taking away certain rights of corporations--unlimited campaign contributions, lobbying, and the revolving door between lobbyists, Congress, and corporations--will not change who controls the U.S. and most of the world, because the powers that be would still own the printing press (the Fed) that makes the money (Federal Reserve Notes, the world reserve currency).

The Fed readily admits that it is a privately owned, for profit monopoly of what they claim is U.S. legal tender: Taking Control of Our Money

RAB

Posts: 29
Join date: 2011-10-21
Location: CO-02

Back to top Go down

Don't forget the 99%, please!

Post by Guest on Tue Oct 25, 2011 9:01 am

RAB wrote:From the previous post: "What do we want? Remove the corrupting influence of money on our government." I must strongly disagree.

The root cause is private control over the money creation process (the financiers who own the banks that own the Federal Reserve) and what that has bought outright: the three branches of government, the military and intelligence services, the media, and the voting machines.

Taking away certain rights of corporations--unlimited campaign contributions, lobbying, and the revolving door between lobbyists, Congress, and corporations--will not change who controls the U.S. and most of the world, because the powers that be would still own the printing press (the Fed) that makes the money (Federal Reserve Notes, the world reserve currency).

The Fed readily admits that it is a privately owned, for profit monopoly of what they claim is U.S. legal tender: Taking Control of Our Money

RAB,
I appreciate that you are trying to educate this group on this issue. If we wanted to go there, I could also list some "root issues" which, if addressed, would perhaps achieve broader reform than "Money out of Politics." Nonetheless, as I believe that our declaration should represent the OPINIONS and GRIEVANCES of the 99% as much as possible, I therefore maintain that we focus our message on something that most anyone, anywhere can agree on. That is, that over time, corporate wealth has corrupted our government to the point that ordinary citizens feel that they have no voice.

That's just my two cents.
Peace,
Johanna

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Simple to understand demand

Post by RAB on Tue Oct 25, 2011 11:00 am

RAB,
I appreciate that you are trying to educate this group on this issue. If we wanted to go there, I could also list some "root issues" which, if addressed, would perhaps achieve broader reform than "Money out of Politics." Nonetheless, as I believe that our declaration should represent the OPINIONS and GRIEVANCES of the 99% as much as possible, I therefore maintain that we focus our message on something that most anyone, anywhere can agree on. That is, that over time, corporate wealth has corrupted our government to the point that ordinary citizens feel that they have no voice.

That's just my two cents.
Peace,
Johanna

Johanna, I agree that the final demand(s) needs to be simple, but it also needs to be effective. Here's a fun way of looking at it that was posted the other day: Occupation flow chart.

We've got until 7/4/12 to come to an agreement, so let's take advantage of this time to understand the root cause, that is, how the financiers came to control the governments, military and intelligence services, media, and voting processes. They did it by controlling the creation of money, which in the U.S. and most of the world (Federal Reserve Notes still being the world reserve currency) means owning the Fed. That's why this started on Wall Street, because the "too big to fail" banks are the biggest stockholders of the Fed.

Through this ownership, they've boiled it down to 147 companies (New Scientist article) that control most of the world's economic activity. Why would we settle for some partial demand that won't fix things?

Best,

Bob

RAB

Posts: 29
Join date: 2011-10-21
Location: CO-02

Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 5 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum