The Future of the Republican Party


Normally open July 4th only---the one day a year when partisan politics, religion, etc. are acceptable topics on this Board (within reason). The forum is now closed.

The Future of the Republican Party

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Oct 28, 2008 7:03 am

Who will win the upcoming civil war for control of the Republican party, the dittoheads or the eggheads?
Jim Nuzzo, a White House aide to the first President Bush, dismissed Mrs Palin's critics as "cocktail party conservatives" who "give aid and comfort to the enemy".

He told The Sunday Telegraph: "There's going to be a bloodbath. A lot of people are going to be excommunicated. David Brooks and David Frum and Peggy Noonan are dead people in the Republican Party. The litmus test will be: where did you stand on Palin?"

Mr Frum thinks that Mrs Palin's brand of cultural conservatism appeals only to a dwindling number of voters.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... party.html
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Conor Dary » Tue Oct 28, 2008 7:41 am

Actually, neither. It will be the Democrats who are coming out of this the real winners, just like they will next Tuesday.
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Postby bad hammy » Tue Oct 28, 2008 8:00 am

The Republican party has been a coalition of special interest groups who are wary of each other but have enjoyed their shared ability to wield power for quite some time now. This election has the potential to see a major split, but conventional wisdom says they lick their wounds and regroup rather than break apart.

Personally I'd say that they would be nuts to split over Palin or to allow her to have any power in the future whatsoever, but that is neither my call nor my worry. If she were smart she'd turn this newfound publicity into a highly-paid Bill O'Reilly-type gig on Fox News.
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: The Future of the Republican Party

Postby Marlow » Tue Oct 28, 2008 8:07 am

jazzcyclist wrote:The litmus test will be: where did you stand on Palin?"

Wow - really? That seems like a disaster-in-waiting to me. Palin the person and Palin the conservative platform are two entirely different entities. You could easily appreciate her old-school conservative views, but not like the person she is. I like W and McCain just fine as people. I think they both mean (very) well and have admirable traits (obviously - McCain is a true American hero), but I wouldn't vote for either one for town dog-catcher.

Q: Did McCain outwit himself in picking Palin in terms of a female Bradley Effect? Did he actually lose conservative votes from people (men AND women) who simply won't vote a woman into the White House?
Marlow
 
Posts: 21079
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: The Future of the Republican Party

Postby bad hammy » Tue Oct 28, 2008 8:10 am

Marlow wrote:Q: Did McCain outwit himself in picking Palin in terms of a female Bradley Effect? Did he actually lose conservative votes from people (men AND women) who simply won't vote a woman into the White House?

Rather than 'a' woman, I think the problem is 'that' woman, at least for centrist Republicans.
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Oct 28, 2008 8:11 am

Conor Dary wrote:Actually, neither. It will be the Democrats who are coming out of this the real winners, just like they will next Tuesday.

Huh? :? I'm talking about the future of the Republican party, not the election. I assume that the Republicans do plan on fielding a Presidential candidate in 2012. Will it be someone from the Rush Limbaugh/James Dobson wing or from the Chuck Hagel/George Will wing?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Marlow » Tue Oct 28, 2008 8:16 am

jazzcyclist wrote:George Will?

I disgree with him a lot, but I admire his intellect and find my own views challenged by his logic. Same held true for William F. Buckley.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21079
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby Conor Dary » Tue Oct 28, 2008 8:26 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
Conor Dary wrote:Actually, neither. It will be the Democrats who are coming out of this the real winners, just like they will next Tuesday.

Huh? :? I'm talking about the future of the Republican party, not the election. I assume that the Republicans do plan on fielding a Presidential candidate in 2012. Will it be someone from the Rush Limbaugh/James Dobson wing or from the Chuck Hagel/George Will wing?


An analogy is 3 guys are in a mile race with two of the runners brothers. Suppose at the start the two brothers get into an argument and start pummeling each other, while the other guy keeps running. The question which will win soon becomes irrelevant.


When both sides lose in the end, which the Republicans will if they keep on like this, what does it matter who controls the party.


As one liberal blogger, Kevin Drum, puts it:

"But times change. Among vast swathes of the young, the culture war has lost its salience. Worse, it's become an albatross, a sign of intolerance and hatred that young voters despise. The results are crystal clear in party ID polling: twenty-somethings have fled the Republican Party in numbers not seen since the Great Depression, and if social conservatives manage to wrest control of the GOP and start shrieking 24/7 about banning abortion and hating gay people, they'll be guaranteeing Democratic dominance among an entire cohort of voters for decades to come.

Which is fine with me, of course. But the adults in the Republican Party better plan on knocking heads very hard and very fast if they don't share my attitude. Sarah Palin isn't the future of their party, she's the future of mine."

P.S. From Politico.com "In convo with Playbook, a top McCain adviser one-ups the priceless “diva” description, calling her “a whack job.”
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Oct 28, 2008 9:04 am

Conor Dary wrote:As one liberal blogger, Kevin Drum, puts it:

"Sarah Palin isn't the future of their party, she's the future of mine."

That's a great quote. :lol:
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby gh » Tue Oct 28, 2008 9:20 am

Here's an insightful column from David Brooks of the NYT on the Republicans and "class warfare" which I think is germane here.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/10/opini ... wanted=all
gh
 
Posts: 46302
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Oct 28, 2008 9:27 am

gh wrote:Here's an insightful column from David Brooks of the NYT on the Republicans and "class warfare" which I think is germane here.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/10/opini ... wanted=all

McCain dismisses people like Brooks as "Georgetown Cocktail Party Republicans". :P
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby donley2 » Tue Oct 28, 2008 9:30 am

bad hammy wrote:The Republican party has been a coalition of special interest groups who are wary of each other but have enjoyed their shared ability to wield power for quite some time now.


Is that not almost verbatim the same line the R's have been using to describe the D's for several decades now?
donley2
 
Posts: 2058
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Fort Worth, Texas

Postby JRM » Tue Oct 28, 2008 9:45 am

Back in the 90s, the Canadian political landscape was re-written when the reviled ruling party (the Progressive Conservatives) were literally voted off the map. They went from a majority in Parliament to holding 3 seats (one of whom, Elsie Wayne from New Brunswick, would have been elected regardless of her party affiliation).

I sometimes imagine that will happen in the US next week, but then I remember that there are only two parties... Perhaps this "future of the Republican party" thread can also address the "future of the two-party system"?
JRM
 
Posts: 2625
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Woodland Hills, CA

Postby bad hammy » Tue Oct 28, 2008 9:48 am

donley2 wrote:
bad hammy wrote:The Republican party has been a coalition of special interest groups who are wary of each other but have enjoyed their shared ability to wield power for quite some time now.


Is that not almost verbatim the same line the R's have been using to describe the D's for several decades now?

Perhaps, but I do not believe there is nearly the polarization on the Dem side that you have on the Rep side with the religious right, the neocons and the centrists.
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby donley2 » Tue Oct 28, 2008 10:56 am

bad hammy wrote:
donley2 wrote:
bad hammy wrote:The Republican party has been a coalition of special interest groups who are wary of each other but have enjoyed their shared ability to wield power for quite some time now.


Is that not almost verbatim the same line the R's have been using to describe the D's for several decades now?

Perhaps, but I do not believe there is nearly the polarization on the Dem side that you have on the Rep side with the religious right, the neocons and the centrists.


I seriously doubt the R's are now more divided than the D's have been on several occasions over the last few decades.
donley2
 
Posts: 2058
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Fort Worth, Texas

Postby bad hammy » Tue Oct 28, 2008 11:23 am

donley2 wrote:
bad hammy wrote:
donley2 wrote:
bad hammy wrote:The Republican party has been a coalition of special interest groups who are wary of each other but have enjoyed their shared ability to wield power for quite some time now.


Is that not almost verbatim the same line the R's have been using to describe the D's for several decades now?

Perhaps, but I do not believe there is nearly the polarization on the Dem side that you have on the Rep side with the religious right, the neocons and the centrists.


I seriously doubt the R's are now more divided than the D's have been on several occasions over the last few decades.

Uh, OK. Whatever . . .
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby kuha » Tue Oct 28, 2008 11:26 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
gh wrote:Here's an insightful column from David Brooks of the NYT on the Republicans and "class warfare" which I think is germane here.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/10/opini ... wanted=all

McCain dismisses people like Brooks as "Georgetown Cocktail Party Republicans". :P


And true conservatives (as opposed to reactionaries and right-wing radicals) will reject Brooks & his ilk at their own peril.
kuha
 
Posts: 9014
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Postby SQUACKEE » Tue Oct 28, 2008 11:31 am

To answer the question...what future?
SQUACKEE
 
Posts: 12885
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Heaven-In front of stereo listenin to re-mastered Beatles

Postby Mennisco » Tue Oct 28, 2008 11:50 am

bad hammy wrote:The Republican party has been a coalition of special interest groups


Maybe somebody knows the answer to this, but my memory says that the term "special interests" was coined to corral certain sensitive minorities and sting them - by religious radicals/Republicugnant operatives. First reaction was "What the hell are these phrase-coiners if not special interests themselves?", [don't pin the term phrase-coiner on me, ok? :lol: ] - and of late, I'm thrilled to see the really special interests getting flung with huge models of their own non-patented cow patties.
Mennisco
 
Posts: 4110
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 3:43 pm
Location: Canada

Re: The Future of the Republican Party

Postby Per Andersen » Tue Oct 28, 2008 10:45 pm

Marlow wrote:

Q: Did McCain outwit himself in picking Palin in terms of a female Bradley Effect? Did he actually lose conservative votes from people (men AND women) who simply won't vote a woman into the White House?

No, he caved in to the right wingers. He missed his chance to shape the party his own way. If he was such an independent guy he should have picked the man he wanted, Lieberman. But of course Lieberman wasn't anti abortion enough and
the "hate" wing of the GOP got their way with the Palin pick.

With the Palin pick McCain demonstrated how unfit he was for the office of President and that the "Country First" slogan meant absolutely nothing.
Per Andersen
 
Posts: 3736
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby Marlow » Wed Oct 29, 2008 3:44 am

I think the Republicans face a major sea-change now, and I hope they have a good strong healthy transition, because Democrats unfettered are no better than the GOP unfettered.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21079
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: The Future of the Republican Party

Postby tandfman » Wed Oct 29, 2008 5:52 am

Marlow wrote:Q: Did McCain outwit himself in picking Palin in terms of a female Bradley Effect? Did he actually lose conservative votes from people (men AND women) who simply won't vote a woman into the White House?

I don't know how many such people there actually are. I don't think there are a lot of those, and in any event, they'd be a small fraction of those who simply won't vote for an African-American. (And the number who would vote for an African-American but would not vote for a woman is probably extremely low.)
tandfman
 
Posts: 15041
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: The Future of the Republican Party

Postby Marlow » Wed Oct 29, 2008 8:38 am

tandfman wrote: the number who would vote for an African-American but would not vote for a woman is probably extremely low.)

Just from my limited experience, I strongly disagree.

'better a black MAN, than ANY woman' represents the opinion of more people than I'd care to think.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21079
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby tandfman » Wed Oct 29, 2008 10:24 am

The fact that you actually know people who think that way surprises me. I've heard people express reservations about voting for a Black man, and I probably know others who have those reservations but wouldn't express them. But I can honestly say that I don't know anyone who would be concerned about voting for a woman.
tandfman
 
Posts: 15041
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby Conor Dary » Wed Oct 29, 2008 10:25 am

From the Washington Monthly

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/

HIT 'EM WITH HUMOR.... Barack Obama campaigned earlier in Raleigh, North Carolina, principally relying on the closing-statement speech he unveiled in Ohio on Monday. Today, however, he added a new paragraph.

"[B]ecause he knows his economic theories don't work, he's been spending these last few days calling me every name in the book," Obama said. "Lately, he's called me a 'socialist' for wanting to roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans so we can finally give tax relief to the middle class. I don't know what's next. By the end of the week, he'll be accusing me of being a secret communist because I shared my toys in kindergarten. I shared my peanut butter and jelly sandwich."

From time to time, over the course of the 20 or so months, Obama has demonstrated an ability to use humor very effectively. Greg Sargent noted earlier, "[This] kind of unforced mockery, even levity, tends to be a good indicator of genuine confidence in the outcome."

I think that's true, but I'd add that Obama seems to use humor, light mockery, and the occasional sarcasm even when he's less confident in the outcome. For months, regardless of circumstance, even during the primaries, when given a choice between delivering an angry response and a humorous one, Obama almost always prefers the latter.

One gets the sense that Obama's not mad at the Republicans; he just thinks they're ridiculous.
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Postby EPelle » Wed Oct 29, 2008 10:38 am

I can see Obama at the table with Medvedev, both men laughing at each other, and at themselves... with a cigar in hand. Can:t say I envision the same about McCain. Can:t say a woman would ever even be asked to join a head of state for a social hour in an oval office with a glas of whiskey between she and her counterpart.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: The Future of the Republican Party

Postby TrakFan » Wed Oct 29, 2008 10:38 am

Marlow wrote:
tandfman wrote: the number who would vote for an African-American but would not vote for a woman is probably extremely low.)

Just from my limited experience, I strongly disagree.

'better a black MAN, than ANY woman' represents the opinion of more people than I'd care to think.


Speaking of women. ..

How many times have pundits on ALL sides complainined of bias AGAINST female candidates (Clinton & Palin), but also issued warnings before debates about how it would be considered suicide if the male candidates appeared to be too aggressive when debating either woman???
TrakFan
 
Posts: 1272
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Colorado Springs

Postby Conor Dary » Wed Oct 29, 2008 10:46 am

More lunacy from the Republicans.

http://spectator.org/blog/2008/10/28/the-sarah-party

The Sarah Party

By Robert Stacy McCain on 10.28.08 @ 8:20PM

SHIPPENSBURG, Pa. -- I've got news for the Christopher Buckleys of the world -- if Sarah Palin is enough to make you decide you're not a Republican, you're not a Republican.

As the conservative Andrew Sullivan comments:

It looks as if backing Palin will be the litmus test for the base right after the election for inclusion within the Republican coalition. Are they that suicidal? Do they even know who she is?

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/

It really should be fun after Tuesday!
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Postby Mighty Favog » Wed Oct 29, 2008 10:51 am

I tuned in to CNN's Huckabee Show last weekend partly out of curiosity (but also because Ricky Skaggs was performing). I think he's probably the future, but if he is it will be as big a change as 30 years ago when Reaganism finally took over. Why?

1) Economic populist. Poor wealthy people and multinational conglomerates--wil no one speak for them?

2) Not a hater. The economic anti-populism of Reaganism was made possible by divisiveness along racial, socio-economic, gender, sexual preference, ethnic and religious lines. Huckabee isn't about that, or at least spoke specifically against it that night.
Mighty Favog
 
Posts: 1786
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby cullman » Wed Oct 29, 2008 2:14 pm

Marlow wrote:I think the Republicans face a major sea-change now, and I hope they have a good strong healthy transition, because Democrats unfettered are no better than the GOP unfettered.

I don't know what they will morph into...but I'm hoping it will be half as interesting as the post-Goldwater refocussing of the conservative movement.

cman
cullman
 
Posts: 2065
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: ...in training...for something...

Postby Per Andersen » Wed Oct 29, 2008 10:41 pm

Marlow wrote:I think the Republicans face a major sea-change now, and I hope they have a good strong healthy transition, because Democrats unfettered are no better than the GOP unfettered.

In America there is always very little room on the left and the Dems can never move far from the center if they hope for more than 4 years.
As we have seen there is lots of room on the right.
Per Andersen
 
Posts: 3736
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: The Future of the Republican Party

Postby eldrick » Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:30 pm

Per Andersen wrote:With the Palin pick McCain demonstrated how unfit he was for the office of President


this was the shocker

over the pond, in europe, we are used to our politicians being "sophisticates"

guys like gordon brown, sarkozy, berlusconi ( he still prez ? ) & possibly merkel ( i haven't followed her much, german posters advise ) are consumate politicians with huge knowledge of history, economics, foreign affairs, etc, & over here we do tend to favor/appreciate that/them

when i found out palin's background & very real possibilty she can become prez ( mccain isn't too healthy looking ), it made me grinch to think how the euro politicians were going to deal with her in discussing matters & at what low level they will have to pitch their discussions

she obviously will carry the big stick, but it will be akin to a father/mother being bossed around & told what to do by their teenage daughter !

she will not go down well in europe unless she gets an intellect transplant !
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby Mighty Favog » Thu Oct 30, 2008 4:01 am

Per Andersen wrote:In America there is always very little room on the left and the Dems can never move far from the center if they hope for more than 4 years.
As we have seen there is lots of room on the right.
That's the conventional wisdom btu I don't think it's true.
Mighty Favog
 
Posts: 1786
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby jazzcyclist » Thu Oct 30, 2008 4:46 am

Per Andersen wrote:In America there is always very little room on the left and the Dems can never move far from the center if they hope for more than 4 years.
As we have seen there is lots of room on the right.

That may be true, but it's only because the country has moved further to left over the last 40-50 years, which has had the effect of shrinking the amount of room on the left. Look at how far we've come on issues like civil rights, women's rights, gay rights and abortion. It's similar to an offense finding it harder to score once it gets inside the 20-yard line in a football game, because the defense no longer has as much ground to defend.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: The Future of the Republican Party

Postby jazzcyclist » Thu Oct 30, 2008 4:53 am

eldrick wrote:she will not go down well in europe unless she gets an intellect transplant !
:lol:
It baffles me how the Palin supporters are still trying to use the "experience" argument to discredit Obama. However, I do work with a highly educated Palin supporter who willingly admits that she's very ignorant, but likes her anyway because of her stance on the social issues.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: The Future of the Republican Party

Postby tandfman » Thu Oct 30, 2008 5:10 am

jazzcyclist wrote: I do work with a highly educated Palin supporter who willingly admits that she's very ignorant, but likes her anyway because of her stance on the social issues.

Doesn't your co-worker think that McCain could have, and should have, found someone with similar stances on the social issues who is not very ignorant?
tandfman
 
Posts: 15041
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: The Future of the Republican Party

Postby jazzcyclist » Thu Oct 30, 2008 5:19 am

tandfman wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote: I do work with a highly educated Palin supporter who willingly admits that she's very ignorant, but likes her anyway because of her stance on the social issues.

Doesn't your co-worker think that McCain could have, and should have, found someone with similar stances on the social issues who is not very ignorant?

He hates McCain and views Palin as a future star who was brought up to the big leagues too soon.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Marlow » Thu Oct 30, 2008 5:54 am

tandfman wrote:The fact that you actually know people who think that way surprises me. I've heard people express reservations about voting for a Black man, and I probably know others who have those reservations but wouldn't express them. But I can honestly say that I don't know anyone who would be concerned about voting for a woman.


I live at the epi-center of the fundamentalist church of America.

The Bible [Ephesians 5:22-24] says:
Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.


Guess how that is interpreted around here by some (not most, but enough to be scary).
Marlow
 
Posts: 21079
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby SQUACKEE » Thu Oct 30, 2008 6:01 am

Marlow wrote: I have the new updated version. :cry:

The Bible [Ephesians 5:22-24] says:
Husbands, submit to your wives as to the Lord. For the wife is the head of the husband as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also husband should submit to their wives in everything.


Guess how that is interpreted around here by some (not most, but enough to be scary).
SQUACKEE
 
Posts: 12885
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Heaven-In front of stereo listenin to re-mastered Beatles

Postby Mennisco » Thu Oct 30, 2008 6:22 am

Marlow wrote:.

The Bible [Ephesians 5:22-24] says:
Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.


Guess how that is interpreted around here by some (not most, but enough to be scary).


Paul was also arguably unequivocal in stating that it was shameful for women to speak in church. Strangely, Palin's church states on the one hand that the Bible is to be read AS IS [whatever version you're reading, I guess; certainly not the original Greek], and the Pastor's wife says "Nothing is to be added, and nothing taken away." She's borrowing, and manipulating, part of Revelation there. However, hubby Pastor was quoted as saying their church explains the "writer's intent"......they've lost me there. And how on earth Palin ever opened her mouth in church and didn't feel a twinge of absurdity is another question. Forget Katie Couric.
Mennisco
 
Posts: 4110
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 3:43 pm
Location: Canada

Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 1 guest