moonbattery logo

Dec 11 2017

Open Thread

If you want to help the poor, don't be poor - Ann Wilson

51 Responses to “Open Thread”

  1. Mr. Freemarket says:

    “I am for doing good to the poor, but…I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed…that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”

    ― Benjamin Franklin

  2. vera says:

    That’s true. But what about creating a more level starting point? I am wobbly on this one.

    Franklin also thought the reason there were no beggars for a time in Philly was because the money belonged to the people, and not the banksters.

  3. vera says:

    Haha… at first, I thought you were punning on da feds. 🙂

  4. Daniel Barger says:

    Not the sharpest tool……..she’s a rich rock star……what has SHE done for the poor?

  5. StephaneDumas says:

    Here’s a meme in Ed Lee memory.
    [url=][img][/img][/url][url=]via Imgflip Meme Generator[/url]

  6. Bodhisattva says:

    So the money belongs to the “banksters”? Who are the “banksters”? And I thought it belonged to the rich… or to the mythical “1%”, depending on who the lunatic left is most pissed off at during the moment in question. Of course lunatic liberal moonbats do believe that everyone’s money is their money – that’s an underlying tenet of socialism… that government has the right to seize and redistribute anything and everything someone has worked to earn and have, money, property, possessions, etc.

    But do take a moment and explain who, exactly, are these “banksters” you’re talking about. Because in the real universe where I dwell, banks have money put there by people, who put it there out of their own free will and it’s the government that is trying the hardest to take as much of it away from them, not any mythical “banksters”.

  7. Bodhisattva says:

    Even As Media Whine About Trump Not Taking Their Constant Lies About Him Without Fighting Back, Their Hostile Coverage Shows No Let Up

    As the Media Research Center has been documenting all year, the media have approached the Trump presidency with unrelenting hostility. Our latest numbers show that coverage of Trump on the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts in September, October and November was more than 90 percent negative (our methodology counts only explicitly evaluative statements from reporters or non-partisan sources).

    In September, there were just 31 pro-Trump statements on the Big Three vs. 359 negative. In October, the number of positive statements grew to 41, while the negative statements swelled to 435.

    In November, there was somewhat less coverage of the President, as political journalists raced to cover the allegations against Alabama GOP Senate candidate Roy Moore, but the ratio remained essentially unchanged: 33 positive statements vs. 320 negative statements.

  8. Bodhisattva says:

    Brzezinski: Trump ‘Literally Sexually Harassed’ Gillibrand

    NO, actually, he didn’t.

    On Tuesday’s broadcast of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” co-host Mika Brzezinski argued President Trump’s tweet about Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) constitutes sexual harassment and that people who work around the president and don’t try to get him to delete the tweet don’t care about the country or women.

    (Trump has said the same thing, the same words, that a candidate would “do anything” or “get down on their knees”, for a campaign contribution. It’s just the way he talks and it is people like Brzezinski who have the messed up minds that take it where she took it.)

  9. Bodhisattva says:

    Sen. Elizabeth Warren Faces Criticism over ‘Slut-Shaming’ Tweet

    Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) faced criticism for saying that President Donald Trump “slut-shamed” Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) with a non-sexual insult, Tuesday.
    After President Donald Trump made a post on Twitter claiming that Sen. Gillibrand “would do anything” for campaign contributions, Sen. Warren made her own post accusing Trump of “slut-shaming.”

    Sen. Warren was quickly criticized for her post, with numerous users pointing out how she had insinuated that Gillibrand is a “slut.”

    AGAIN, Fauxachontas is the one who’s mind went to sexual things. It is well known candidates often offer to “do anything” for a campaign contribution – not meaning anything sexual.

  10. Bodhisattva says:

    Because there is none…

    Top Intel Democrat Downplays Expectations of Evidence in Russian Collusion Investigation

    The top Democrat on the House intelligence committee and a lead proponent of the Russian collusion narrative downplayed expectations there will be any smoking gun evidence showing collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, after months have passed and millions spent in investigations.
    Back in March, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-WA), in defending the need for investigations, told NBC’s “Meet the Press” that there was “circumstantial evidence” of collusion, and that the American people had a right to know whether the circumstantial evidence of collusion is “indicative of more.”

    But on Sunday, Schiff backed away from the need for any actual evidence of collusion, and argued that what he considered circumstantial evidence was good enough. Asked on CNN’s “State of the Union” whether there was any actual evidence of collusion, he said, “Well, you know, I think you have to look at the pattern and the chronology.”

  11. Bodhisattva says:

    CNN’s Acosta: I’m Fair and Objective (he’s also proving what a liar he is by saying that)

    CNN’s Acosta: ‘Journalists Make Honest Mistakes’ – They Don’t ‘Intentionally Mislead’ (So what, is he making the case that he and many other moonbats who represent themselves to be journalists – but who obviously INTENTIONALLY MISLEAD ON A DAILY BASIS aren’t really journalists?


    Fake News Firehose: Science Proves Media Are Not Making ‘Honest Mistakes’ About Trump

    The settled science informs us that the more often you flip a coin, the more likely it is that there will be a 50/50 split of heads to tails. In other words, if you flip a coin 20 times, the probability of achieving a ratio of 8 heads and 12 tails diminishes greatly if you flip it 40 or 60 times. The closer you get to 100 coin flips, the closer you will get to a perfect 50/50 split of heads to tails.
    Naturally, in order to achieve this perfect split, in order to conduct the experiment accurately, good faith must be involved. The person flipping the coin must show no bias and no personal investment towards the outcome. The coin-flipper must be interested in only one thing — an outcome that reveals objective truth.

    Therefore, through the use of dispassionate science and math, the only conclusion one can come to when observing the national media’s relentless fire-hosing of fake news is that these are not “honest mistakes,” but instead deliberate lies — attempts from a biased and partisan media to destroy President Trump through a propagandistic crusade of calculated disinformation.

    What allows us to safely come to this conclusion?

    Well, what would you think of a scientist who came to you with a coin-flipping experiment that resulted in 0 heads and 100 tails?

    That is easy, you would know the experiment had been rigged, that he is lying. And you would know this because a 0/100 outcome is impossible without a corrupting influence, without a conscious act of bias. Moreover, you would know that an insistence that the experiment was ethical was an attempt to make a fool of you.

    And that is what the media believe we are — fools, which is why proven liars, chief among them CNN’s Chris Cillizza, Brian Stelter, David Frum, and Jim Acosta, continue to make the audaciously anti-science argument that, all of the fake news we have seen over the last two years, is the result only of “honest mistakes” from reporters who “work hard to get it right.”

    Well, everyone knows that honest mistakes are like coin flips. The more honest mistakes one makes, the more the ratio of those mistakes will end up 50/50.

    So, if 100 honest mistakes are made in reports about Trump, we should see something very close to a 50/50 split in these reports. Half of these honest mistakes will get it wrong to Trump’s benefit; the other half will be damaging to Trump. Meaning…

    For every piece of MSM fake news that is unfair to Trump, we should see a piece of MSM fake news that is too soft on Trump, that gives him too much benefit of the doubt, that clears him of wrongdoing prematurely, soft-pedal his mistakes, or overestimates his popularity, crowd size, and political victories.

    Just as an honest and unbiased scientist interested only in an outcome of objective truth will achieve a 50/50 split, so too would honest and unbiased journalists interested only in an outcome of objective truth.

    But that is not what we are seeing from our national media, and already we are way, way, way beyond 100 coin flips. In just the last 10 days, the national media have been caught red-handed telling no fewer than 11 consequential lies. And…

    Every honest mistake comes up tails for Trump.




    It is just a fact that coin flips and honest mistakes do not fall like this — and anyone who argues otherwise is either a liar or a science denier.

    Furthermore, recent history is achingly clear in informing us that these are not “honest mistakes,” because this never happened to Barack Obama. We never saw anything even close to this unrelenting assumption of the worst when it came to Bill Ayers’s pal.

  12. Bodhisattva says:

    Taxes on Meat Could Join Carbon and Sugar in fraudulent attempt to “Help Limit Emissions”

    Move over, taxes on carbon and sugar: the global levy that may be next is meat.

    Next thing you know they’ll call for a tax on the pennies on your eyes.

  13. Bodhisattva says:

    Celeb-friendly restaurateur Ken Friedman accused of sexual harassment by by dozens of employees

    You might want to specificy exactly which room in which you wish to be seated when making a reservation at a Ken Friedman eatery.

    Friedman — the owner of New York City celebrity hot spot The Spotted Pig, whose clientele has included Beyonce, Taylor Swift, Kim Kardashian, and Gwyneth Paltrow — has been accused of sexual harassment by dozens of his restaurants’ former employees, The New York Times reported on Tuesday.

    Servers also say Friedman would entertain late-night VIP guests in the third-floor dining area, which employees had dubbed “the rape room,” due to the anything-goes atmosphere Friedman encouraged.

    Among other complaints, Friedman is accused of touching a female employee’s buttocks and groin

    [wait a minute… he’s a PUSSY GRABBER?]

    biting a bar manager on the waist, pulling another woman’s face toward his crotch while Amy Poehler looked on, and forcibly trying to kiss at least two of his former employees on the mouth. In one of the latter cases, he even pestered the woman with text messages, in which he asked her to send him a “sexy” picture despite her repeated refusals.

    Friedman, who co-owns five other NYC eateries and two California restaurants with Spotted Pig’s head chef April Bloomfield, has also been accused of creating a sleazy late-night atmosphere on the third floor for his VIP guests, which frequently included celebrity chef Mario Batali — a man who recently issued an apology for his own sexual misconduct.

    “We called him the Red Menace,” former Spotted Pig server Trish Nelson told the Post of Batali. “He tried to touch my breasts and told me that they were beautiful. He wanted to wrestle. As I was serving drinks to his table, he told me I should sit on his friend’s face.”

    Jamie Seet, a former manager, further claims she also witnessed Batali trying to grope and kiss a woman who appeared unconscious.

    It was this type of behavior, coupled with the claims that Friedman would allow his special guests to grope the third-floor servers, which earned the dining area its unflattering “rape room” nickname.

  14. Bodhisattva says:

    Who supports terrorism?

    Soleimani Says Iran Is Ready to Back so-called “palestinian” terrorists.

  15. Bodhisattva says:

    In obvious response to many people asking why, once the election ended, did all the Trump accusers suddenly just give up and go away…

    3 women reassert allegations of sexual harassment against Trump, call on Congress to investigate

    Nothing to see here. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THE WOMEN who made allegations against Trump Included details in their claims that were proven false, casting doubt on their credibility. They’re only coming back now due to the fact Democrats smell blood in the water – unfortunately for them it’s the blood of their own.

  16. Bodhisattva says:

    Florida’s 3rd District Court of Appeal upheld a ban on… vegetable gardens!

    “That’s what government does – interferes in people’s lives,” Ricketts said. “We had that garden for 17 years. We ate fresh meals every day from that garden. Since the village stepped its big foot in it, they have ruined our garden and my health.”

  17. vera says:

    Actually, the banksters create money out of thin air, and then lend it out at a price. Read up on it, even the Fed admits it in their documents.

    Who are they? That’s easy. Everybody who is on the take in the corrupt debt-money system. (And I don’t mean people who get a few bucks in dividends here and there.) As they say… if you are not at the table, you are on the menu.

  18. Wilberforce says:

    Keep it up, NFL. Keep it up…

    NFL to Host Workshop to Train College Athletes to Be Social Justice Activists

  19. seaoh says:

    College athletes and Criminals then again that’s redundant isn’t it?


  20. Mr. Freemarket says:

    There is no such thing as a “level” starting point. Some people create great wealth because they started “with a leg up” so to speak. Donald Trump is one such person. Some people start from the ground floor. Jon Huntsman, for example, was the son of a school teacher. Through his business acumen, he created the largest privately held chemical company in the world and was listed as #56 on Forbes list of richest people. I can give you far more examples of people who have dissipated their family wealth than those who have grown it.

    There is a very easy way to stay out of the hands of the banksters.

    Don’t borrow money.

  21. vera says:

    And some people have obscene wealth they never earned but had a grandpappy who ran a bootleg operation or just plain stole it. It cuts all different ways. Having a system that concentrates wealth in fewer and fewer hands simply by running, is dooming itself. Nobody “earns” billions upon billions. IMO.

    As for not borrowing money — if you apply it to everybody, the whole system collapses like a house of cards.

    The system we got’s got problems. Notice, I am not advocating socialism. Just sayin’…

  22. master of sinanju says:

    Your point being? LIFE AINT FAIR,GET OVER IT!! so what somebodies grandpappy gave them a trust fund it aint fair but it is not illegal. Doesnt teach Winthorpe clarence Harrison the third anything about working hard, but what would YOU do for YOUR kids? Stop hating on the rich, get rich yourself, and then spend your money on whatever you want.

  23. vera says:

    Ye gadz… you just don’t get it, do you. The system we got ain’t working. Not because of what the left says. But it isn’t. I am all for not fixing what ain’t broke, but we got a broke system that funnels wealth to the rich. Is that right? No. Will it lead to more problems? That it will. Guaranteed.

  24. Mr. Freemarket says:

    Apparently you are unfamiliar with Jon Huntsman. (I used to know him pretty well). He invented the polystyrene clamshell that McDonalds used for their hamburgers. He then moved into manufacturing polystyrene. He earned about 5.6 billion dollars.

    Pretty much the same deal with Steve Jobs; he invented iTunes and the iPhone; changed the music industry forever. His value to the Apple company simply cannot be measured.

    Wealth isn’t concentrated into fewer and fewer hands. By all measures, the US population is far wealthier today than they were 50 years ago. For example…how many computers do you own?

    When you want to whine about wealth concentrated in a few hands, consider John D. Rockefeller or J. P. Morgan.

  25. vera says:

    I am not whining. I am simply pointing out that if capitalism isn’t fixed, something else will replace it. And that something else may not be to our liking.

    P.S. The elder Rockefeller was a psychopath, IMO. Look up the Ludlow Massacre.

  26. Bodhisattva says:

    You are correct in the sense that, recently, the money supply and related things were manipulated for political purposes to prop up the foolish policies in place due to Obama and the Democrats and to limit the damage they caused – and now that a Republican is in office it’s OK to remove those artificial supports and let inflation rage so it can be blamed on Republicans as usual.

    You apparently are referring primarily to the Federal Reserve – making the argument that government has corrupted banking, although it might be argued they merely replaced one somewhat inefficient and to some extent corrupt system with another.

    Government is too involved in a lot of things and banking is often one of those things – for instance it was the government that caused the S&L crisis some decades ago and it was the government interfering in lending and home buying markets that played a major role in the housing bubble and resulting credit collapse.

  27. Mr. Freemarket says:

    “Capitalism” aka “economic freedom” doesn’t need fixing. We haven’t lived under capitalism in our life times. When you can, for example, cozy up to the government to get special privileges, that is no longer capitalism. It is fascism.

  28. vera says:

    No disagreement here. Except perhaps I would argue that money conjured out of thin air and based on debt is not in the best interest of anyone except a small elite that makes a killing thereby.

  29. vera says:

    True enough.

    Here is what needs fixing, IMO. The economic system we got, based on endless growth (the philosophy of the cancer cell), cannot keep going on a finite planet. The GDP needs to be replaced with something sane. Money needs to be based on value, not abstractions, and cease to be a tool of extraction and exploitation — personally, I am leaning toward it being a public utility. Taxes should only be imposed on “bads” (like using up virgin resources) never on “goods” (like labor). And yes, the government needs to back off from the market big time, while at the same time making sure things are fair and Smith’s “invisible hand” isn’t just another term for surreptitiously stealing from people’s wallets.

  30. Bodhisattva says:

    I do not believe the money system we now have is optimum, but since it’s not a field I’ve studied extensively I cannot say what would be better and what exactly is wrong with it. I do know that it serves a purpose, though it may not be optimum and may need some major changes, but I prefer to hear what it is that needs to be done to make it better rather than just complaints about what is wrong with it. Do you have any suggestions about how it can and should be improved?

  31. Mr. Freemarket says:

    I have no idea where you have come up with your thoughts. Money used to be based upon items with intrinsic value (such as gold) so that government couldn’t simply print it whenever they wanted to spend more. Money can never be like a public utility.

    “Using up virgin resources.”

    Everything you use must be either grown or mined or otherwise extracted.

    “Taxes should only be imposed on “bads”

    Somehow I don’t think I want either you or the government deciding what is bad and what is good.

    “the government needs to back off from the market big time, while at the same time making sure things are fair ”

    You realize you have provided an excellent example of a contradiction in terms. The government can’t “back off” while, at the same time “make things fair.”

    Plus….how do you make things “fair.” Michael Jordan, for example, has earned millions of dollar because people enjoy watching him play basketball. No one will pay to watch me play basketball. That is simply not fair.

  32. vera says:

    Well, I guess you want to put a spin on everything you say that is negative. Where I come from, we call it strawmanning a person. Shrug. Here is one more try.

    How then would you fix what ails money? I am not wedded to any particular solution, but what we have sucks.

    Everything we use must come from somewhere. But the paper we use need not come from an old growth forest, obviously, nor does copper we use have to come from new-mined copper. If it does, those who do want new mined-copper should pay for that privilege.

    Really? So who is going to decide what is bad? Should we call murder good and have the government go after people minding their own business instead? Should we call pollution good and filthy water drinkable? Who decides in your world?

    The Bureau of Weights and Measurements is a good example where the govt does not control what is sold, but makes sure that whatever is sold is measured by one fair measure.

    I am not saying I am looking for perfection. I am claiming that societies that attempt to level the playing field somewhat have lower levels of social conflict, which is good for everyone.

  33. vera says:

    It’s not one of my biggies, I follow it as a side issue. There is a website by Ellen Brown who wrote the Web of Debt and she has some good ideas.

    She advocates the public bank option like N. Dakota has, and Pennsylvania had in the days of Franklin had. I also support local currencies, but so far people haven’t figured out how to do it right. Look up the Worgl experiment… a local currency in Austria that worked so well during the depression that the banksters had to bring out the army to shut it down.

  34. Mr. Freemarket says:

    “But the paper we use need not come from an old growth forest, obviously, nor does copper we use have to come from new-mined copper. If it does, those who do want new mined-copper should pay for that privilege.”

    They pay for the privilege. They pay for the wages and costs of those bring those items to market. Here’s an example: Those earbud earphones that you put in your ears are only made possible by using rare earth magnets. There is no existing supply of rare earth materials; they must be mined anew. So how do you assess a cost for extracting those minerals above and beyond the money that is paid to those who mine those items? Simply put, you either believe in the free market, or you don’t. If you don’t believe in the free market (or in various forms of regulating the free market) what does that make you?

    “Should we call murder good and have the government go after people minding their own business instead? ”

    The declaration of independence lays out the fundamental purpose of government. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”

    The purpose of government is to secure our rights, not to make things “fair.” We believe rights come from God (in other words, they exist without government (you have the right to speak your mind; worship as you wish, assemble with those you wish without the need for government intervention. No one has to be paid in order for you to exercise those rights).

    The founders set up a federal government with limited powers and responsibilities. Local/state governments, by contrast, have extensive powers and responsibilities. If a person or company is fouling the air or water, local people have far more interest in stopping those actions than does a distant federal government. Likewise, local governments address the majority of crime, including murder, since they are far more able to take care of that responsibility than is the federal government.

    “The Bureau of Weights and Measurements is a good example where the govt does not control what is sold, but makes sure that whatever is sold is measured by one fair measure.”

    Actually the National Institute of Standards and Technology defines fundamental units such as the pound, the gallon, time, etc. They have no role in making sure whatever is sold is measured by one fair measure. That is, again, a function of local government. NIST sets up the definition of what a gallon is. Your local government tests and calibrates you gas pump to make sure that it is delivering the volume it is claiming to deliver.

    “I am claiming that societies that attempt to level the playing field somewhat have lower levels of social conflict, which is good for everyone.”

    I’d be interested in you providing some examples. The simple truth is that the free market has raised the standard of living for people throughout the world more than all the government assistance programs that have ever existed. Take for example the “War on Poverty” program; a program with the laudable goal of eliminating poverty. If you studied that program, you could see that over the past 50 years, poverty in the US has been reduced to 14% (it started at 14% back in 1965). Trillions of dollars have been spend on the program. And, as a side benefit, because single mothers received more aid under that program than married mothers, the percent of children born to single mothers in the black community has grown from the low 20% to over 70%.

    How is that for leveling the playing field?

  35. vera says:

    There is no free market. It’s always regulated. The question is, how and by whom? I think mining should be taxed, while labor should not be. How do you look at that, for example?

    “all men are created equal”

    There you have it. Are you paying attention? And I am against the stupid War on Poverty just like I am against the stupid and destruction War on Drugs. You?

    Examples? There is a book called The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger. I have not read it, but I have heard it makes a good argument.

  36. Mr. Freemarket says:

    In 1800, the United States was a very poor agriculture-based economy. In the next 100 years, there was perhaps more progress than has been made in any other single time period, all the while with markets being minimally regulated. As more and more regulation has been imposed during the next 100 years, we can see the rise of crime and the slowing of progress (prohibition being a great example).

    How do you think mining is conducted except with the use of labor?

    “”all men are created equal”

    There you have it. Are you paying attention? ”

    All men are created equal under the law with equal rights and equal protections. It is self-evident that no two people are born with equal gifts and equal opportunities. Some people, for example, are willing to get out of a warm bed at 5 am and go to work. Others choose to sleep in until nine or ten and then….don’t actually go to work.

    Some people have greater intellectual gifts. Some people have greater physical gifts. There is no society nor government program that can make up such differences.

    At the end of the day, attempts to make things equal lead to oppression of some and unearned benefits going to others. The very attempt to make things equal lead to inequality.

    What is the best we can do? Adopt Christian philosophy; make it part of our lives. Such philosophy cannot be imposed from above.

  37. vera says:

    Exactly. We both seem to agree we need a minimalist govt.

    To clarify: I am against the income tax (taxing labor). I have heard it’s not even constitutional anyway. I think the minimalist govt could be run via user fees.

    We agree on human differences. Where we seem not to agree is on the need for some leveling. For example, should a person be left to fend for themselves because they are born retarded? Should it all be up to the unfortunate family whose kids are born with a genetic disorder that runs up astronomical medical fees? In my view, a good society helps the weaker to get a leg up. Please notice I am not saying it should be offering free rides to freeriders.

    Completely agree with your closing argument. Bless you.

  38. Mr. Freemarket says:

    The sixteenth amendment made income tax constitutional. Prior to that, it was unconstitutional.

    No one says that those who can’t care for themselves should be left without help. The only question is “who should help?” Is that a federal function ? No. Is it a state function? Yes if the state wants it to be. Historically the churches took care of those in need. Most hospitals, for example, were originally started by churches.

    The reason that big government lovers like the government taking over all charitable efforts is because they 1) don’t trust their fellow citizens, and 2) hate the idea that people are dependant upon others. If you knew, for example, that you had to rely upon you local congregation, you would realize that aid from them wouldn’t necessarily be forever (in other words…more incentive to get a job).

    Medical costs have skyrocketed specifically because of government intervention. A medical care provider gets paid for specific services or procedures. He is paid for the aspirin that is dispensed, the number of IV’s, etc. It would be far simpler if he were paid simply to treat a particular illness or condition; whatever it takes. Insurance isn’t the answer. More competition is the answer.

  39. vera says:

    Well, monopoly busting would be part of the answer too (re health care). If the bakers had a right to limit how many people went into baking schools, bakery goods would be expensive too.

  40. Mr. Freemarket says:

    Here’s what I find interesting. You decry monopolies in medicine, looking to the government to bust up these monopolies…ignoring the fact that doctors are licensed by that same government…and that the AMA and the government conspire together to limit the number of applicants to medical school while providing the lion’s share of funding for medical interns.

    Do you see the pattern…..the government creates a problem, then addresses that problem by creating more government…which creates more problems, and the government rushes to the rescue to solve that problem, creating more government….

    Ironic, isn’t it?

  41. vera says:

    It is indeed. What is your cure?

  42. Mr. Freemarket says:

    Less government.

  43. vera says:

    There, we agree. Merry Christmas.

  44. Mr. Freemarket says:

    You also. I’ve enjoyed the discussion.

Alibi3col theme by Themocracy