U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles
Title: Walter E. Williams --- What's Gone Wrong With Democracy
Source:
[None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Mar 23, 2015
Author: Walter E. Williams
Post Date: 2015-03-23 14:35:49 by tpaine
Keywords: None
Views: 20716
Comments: 96
Walter E. Williams
What's Gone Wrong With Democracy?
The Economist magazine recently published "What's gone wrong with Democracy ... and what can be done to revive it?" The suggestion is that democracy is some kind of ideal for organizing human conduct. That's a popular misconception.
The ideal way to organize human conduct is to create a system that maximizes personal liberty for all. Liberty and democracy are not synonymous and most often are opposites. In Federalist Paper No. 10, James Madison explained, "Measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority." Democracy and majority rule confer an aura of legitimacy and respectability on acts that would otherwise be deemed tyrannical.
Let's look at majority rule, as a decision-making tool, and ask ourselves how many of our life choices we would like settled by majority rule. Would you want the kind of car you own to be decided through a democratic process, or would you prefer purchasing any car you please? Ask that same question about decisions such as where you shall live, what clothes you purchase, what food you eat, what entertainment you enjoy and what wines you drink. I'm sure that if anyone suggested that these choices be subject to a democratic process, we would deem it tyranny.
Our Founders saw democracy as a variant of tyranny. At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Edmund Randolph said, "...that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy." John Adams said, "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." Alexander Hamilton said, "We are now forming a Republican form of government. Real Liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments. If we incline too much to democracy, we shall soon shoot into a monarchy, or some other form of dictatorship."
By the way, the word democracy appears in none of our founding documents.
The Founders of our nation recognized that we need government, but because the essence of government is force, and force is evil, government should be as small as possible. The Founders intended for us to have a limited republican form of government where human rights precede government and there is rule of law. Citizens, as well as government officials, are accountable to the same laws. Government intervenes in civil society only to protect its citizens against force and fraud, but does not intervene in the cases of peaceable, voluntary exchange. By contrast, in a democracy, the majority rules either directly or through its elected representatives. The law is whatever the government deems it to be. Rights may be granted or taken away.
Alert to the dangers of majority rule, the Constitution's framers inserted several anti-majority rules. In order to amend the Constitution, it requires a two-thirds vote of both houses, or two-thirds of state legislatures to propose an amendment, and it requires three-fourths of state legislatures for ratification. Election of the president is not done by a majority popular vote, but by the Electoral College.
Part of the reason for having two houses of Congress is that it places an obstacle to majority rule. Fifty-one senators can block the wishes of 435 representatives and 49 senators. The Constitution gives the president a veto to thwart the power of 535 members of Congress. It takes two-thirds of both houses of Congress to override the president's veto.
If you don't have time to examine our founding documents, just ask yourself: Does our pledge of allegiance to the flag read to the democracy, or to the republic, for which it stands? Or, did Julia Ward Howe make a mistake in titling her Civil War song "The Battle Hymn of the Republic"? Should it have been "The Battle Hymn of the Democracy"?
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2015 CREATORS.COM
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-10) not displayed.
.
.
.
Ok. So, Walter Williams has written an article against democracy. He spends a lot of time telling us how much the Founders detested democracy. That's swell. ----- They created a restricted-franchise republic that preserved special rights for a certain class (which completely erased the rights of a quarter of the population).
Yep, the theory that men could be enslaved in a republic prevailed, -- but provisions were made in the constitution, for the peaceful death of slavery. - They didn't work..
Their system lasted for 72 years, then exploded in an orgy of blood. --- The Founders' model was not a success, because they did not create a free country.
No, the founders model was subverted by majority rule maniacs, in the slave states.
The model that came out of the "reset" of the 1860s was a more centralized oligarchy. And it doesn't work either.
Again, not true. The former slave states were gradually forced to give up their majoritarian tactics, while the rest of the republic prospered until the rise of 'progressive democracy'.
So, the Founder's hated democracy and monarchy. They liked republics, so they founded one. It failed within a decade and was replaced by another one, which failed in three generations. We're in the fourth or fifth generation since the Civil War, and our current republic is falling apart as well.
Our republic is in trouble because progressive democratic 'rules' have subverted the constitution. -- We are in the process of restoring the Constitution.
What can we take from this all? Democracy doesn't work. Monarchy doesn't work. Republics don't work. Nothing works for very long.
Thanks for your pessimism..
#12. To: tpaine (#9)
but in the body of the people, operating by the majority against the minority
The perception and articulation of self-evident Truth can be an unhealthy thing when it contradicts the dogmatic opinion of the indoctrinated mob.
===================
"Opposition from the Church led Copernicus to shelve his theory, but Church opposition did not kill the idea. A student of astronomy mentioned the idea to a young Protestant German named Johann Kepler, who in the late 1500s and into the early 1600s was trying to figure out the changing distances between planets. Kepler discovered that Mars was moving about the sun not in a perfect circle but in an ellipse – contradicting Plato's belief about perfection and the heavens. Kepler proposed that laws about materiality that applied to things on earth applied also to the heavens."
http://www.fsmitha.com/h3/copernicus.htm
#13. To: tpaine (#9) (Edited)
Fabian Socialist Judas Goats? --- I like it....
In today's edition of the Newspeak Dictionary they like to call themselves "progressives".
They are the vanguard elite of Transhumanist/Postgenderist doctrine, and an abomination to the nature of every domain they manage to inflict themselves upon.
#14. To: tpaine (#0)
Democracy is the worst form of government.
Except for all of the others.
#15. To: Chuck_Wagon (#14)
Our Republic, under our Constitution, is the best form of government.
Democracy is the worst form of government. ----- Except for all of the others.
#16. To: tpaine (#15)
Our Republic, under our Constitution, is the best form of government.
Except it's not really Ours anymore, since the Oligarch's stole it.
#17. To: Vicomte13 (#10)
"They created a restricted-franchise republic that preserved special rights for a certain class (which completely erased the rights of a quarter of the population)."
"Population" refers to people. Slaves weren't people. They were property. Just sayin' how it was.
Full rights were extended to those with the most to lose -- wealthy, adult, white males with property. Who in their right mind would allow women, the poor, and the uneducated to vote?
The Founders were wrong? Look around your "enlightened" society where everyone votes and tell me it's working.
#18. To: Vicomte13 (#10)
"He spends a lot of time telling us how much the Founders detested democracy."
Yeah. The Founders would be spinning in their graves to see how public referendums are being used to write statewide criminal laws (eg., marijuana).
#19. To: tpaine (#0)
Our Founders saw democracy as a variant of tyranny.
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51 percent of the people may take away the rights of the other 49." - THOMAS J
#20. To: misterwhite (#18) (Edited)
The Founders would be spinning in their graves to see how public referendums are being used to write statewide criminal laws (eg., marijuana).
Your fanatical obsession is truly unbelievable.
The FACT is that the framers left the states to govern themselves. And that is what they have done.
The framers would be truly spinning in their graves at the notion the federal government should be dictating how the states run their own affairs.
#21. To: misterwhite (#17)
Look around your "enlightened" society where everyone votes and tell me it's working.
Where everyone votes for those who the Oligarchs allow the sheeple to vote for?
America today is no more a democracy (or a Republic) than what existed in the context of Rome's bread and circus act.
#22. To: misterwhite (#18) (Edited)
The Founders would be spinning in their graves to see how public referendums are being used
In some cases maybe, but not in others...
Got TABOR?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dou...xpayer.27s_Bill_of_Rights
TABOR sure got the progressatards worked up. They have to get voter permission before levying new taxes.
It's been quite educational to watch the big-spending progressive (D) rats quack about "power of the people"... and then dance on democracy's grave when the "people" aren't them.
They worship their shiny trains and buses - but don't you dare ask them how they plan to pay for the infrastructure.
#23. To: tpaine (#0)
What's Gone Wrong With Democracy
Isn't that a lot like asking "What's gone wrong with cancer?".
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
#24. To: tpaine (#7)
Neither democracy or oligarchy have ever existed in the USA,
Really? Have you ever tried to explain that to the Bushes,the Kennedys,the Gores,the Roosevelts,etc,etc,etc?
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
#25. To: Vicomte13 (#10)
The Founders' model was not a success, because they did not create a free country.
Of course they did. Anybody that bought property and paid taxes was allowed to vote.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
#26. To: VxH (#13)
In today's edition of the Newspeak Dictionary they like to call themselves "progressives".
They would call themselves "steamships" if they thought they could get away with it,and it would hide their true nature and goals.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
#27. To: misterwhite (#17)
Full rights were extended to those with the most to lose -- wealthy, adult, white males with property.
Educate yourself,fool.
There were free blacks,browns,and yellows that owned property and had voting rights in the 1700's.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
#28. To: sneakypete (#26)
They would call themselves "steamships"
And lock the rest of us below their decks if TSHTF.
Iceberg? Those are soooo 1890s!
#29. To: misterwhite, spinning his approval of majority rule (#18)
Vicomte13 (#10) -- "He spends a lot of time telling us how much the Founders detested democracy."
Yeah. The Founders would be spinning in their graves to see how public referendums are being used to write statewide criminal laws (eg., marijuana). --- misterwhite
Yeah, it's even more 'really strange' to see misterwhite/robertpaulsen pretending to disapprove of public referendum/majority rule being used to write statewide anti-gun laws.
#30. To: sneakypete (#24)
Neither democracy or oligarchy have ever existed in the USA,
Really? Have you ever tried to explain that to the Bushes,the Kennedys,the Gores,the Roosevelts,etc,etc,etc?
Why bother? -- They're all convinced of their oligarchy type powers, -- when in reality, if they ever seriously tried to exercise them, they would be (figuratively speaking) shot down. -- Ahem....
#31. To: tpaine (#30) (Edited)
They're all convinced of their oligarchy type powers, -- when in reality...
Proud sponsors of the American Dream.
Last I heard none of the above have been bound in stocks for tomato pasting in response to their colorful SOX violations.
#32. To: Vicomte13 (#10) (Edited)
Nothing works for very long.
Meanwhile, collective human nature does what it has been doing throughout its collectively organized and indoctrinated history:
================================
Afghan woman Farkhunda lynched in Kabul 'for speaking out'
Farkhunda, 28, was beaten, hit by bats, stamped on, driven over, and her body dragged by a car before being set on fire.
A policeman who witnessed the incident on Thursday told AP news agency that Farkhunda was arguing with a local mullah. Her father said she had complained about women being encouraged to waste money on the amulets peddled by the mullahs at the shrine.
"Based on their lies, people decided Farkhunda was not a Muslim and beat her to death,"
================================
Ain't the organized religious (soon to be state-established, AGAIN) mob just awesome?
TO SECURE THESE RIGHTS governments are ins... err... umm --- I forget, how does that go again?
#33. To: misterwhite, Vicomte13 (#17)
"Population" refers to people. Slaves weren't people.
Art. 1, Sec. 2, Cl. 3:
Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
The slaves were considered persons. The interest held in a slave was legaly considered a property interest, but that did not transform slaves into non-persons. They were each counted as one complete person in the census. By unanimous agreement of the States, for representation purposes in the Congress, only 60% of the aggregate of such persons was counted.
#34. To: sneakypete (#27)
There were free blacks,browns,and yellows that owned property and had voting rights in the 1700's.
And women.
#35. To: tpaine (#30) (Edited)
Why bother? -- They're all convinced of their oligarchy type powers, -- when in reality, if they ever seriously tried to exercise them, they would be (figuratively speaking) shot down. -- Ahem....
Well,a few of them were shot down,but it had nothing to do with a free America.
BTW,just because something isn't official that doesn't mean it isn't real.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
#36. To: nolu chan (#34)
There were free blacks,browns,and yellows that owned property and had voting rights in the 1700's.And women.
Thanks. I didn't know that.
Do you have any links? I don't doubt your accuracy,but would like to be able to refer others to links when I repeat that and they start demanding proof.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
#37. To: sneakypete, nolu chan (#36) (Edited)
he number of free black slaveholders would start to rise again only after legislation in 1782 allowed emancipation by deed or will. According to Schwarz (1987), legal and political conditions changed dramatically by 1806, making it necessary for many free blacks to hold slaves to assure their own continued residence in Virginia. Anxious over the increasing presence of unenslaved and harder to control blacks, legislators decided that future beneficiaries of emancipation would have to leave the commonwealth within twelve months of their change of status or else be reenslaved and sold for the benefit of the poor whites. This forced the former slaves to acquire new skills for doing business on their own, which obliged some of them to buy a work force in the form of slaves (Schwarz, 1987). After 1832, blacks could acquire no more slaves except spouses, children or those gained by descent. The Code of 1849 added parents to these exceptions, but in 1858, "acting in an atmosphere of sectional crisis and perhaps emboldened by the United States Supreme Court's pronouncement against black citizenship in Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857), the legislature took away what little security free blacks might hope to give to relatives in the future" (Schwarz, 1987, p. 332). Thus black Virginians could no longer buy family members. These changes occurred throughout the United States with some differences by state.http://www.kon.org/urc/v4/tikhomirova.html
There was an effort after the War of Independence was won to disenfranchise Blacks and Indians. You had blacks and Indians that were free men owning slaves and plantations and then the laws changed and attitudes changed.
#38. To: sneakypete (#35)
They're all convinced of their oligarchy type powers, -- when in reality, if they ever seriously tried to exercise them, they would be (figuratively speaking) shot down. -- Ahem....
Well,a few of them were shot down,but it had nothing to do with a free America.
Yep, that's the Warren Commission line, but I'm not so sure..
BTW,just because something isn't official that doesn't mean it isn't real.
You're telling me?
#39. To: sneakypete (#36)
Do you have any links? I don't doubt your accuracy,but would like to be able to refer others to links when I repeat that and they start demanding proof.
http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=36575&Disp=11#C11
In general, see this thread where "the people" and suffrage were extensively discussed.
As regards a constitutional textbook definition of "the people," see:
The People. — When the term the people is made use of in constitutional law or discussions, it is often the case that those only are intended who have a share in the government through being clothed with the elective franchise. Thus, the people elect delegates to a constitutional convention, and determine by their votes whether the completed work of the convention shall or shall not be adopted; the people choose the officers under the constitution, and so on. For these and similar purposes the electors, though constituting but a small minority of the whole body of the community, nevertheless act for all, and, as being for the time the representatives of sovereignty, they are considered and spoken of as the sovereign people. But in all the enumerations and guaranties of rights the whole people are intended, because the rights of all are equal, and are meant to be equally protected. In this case, therefore, the right to assemble is preserved to all the people, and not merely to the electors, or to any other class or classes of the people.
[Italics in original, boldface and underline added.]
Thomas M Cooley, LL.D.; The General Principles of Constitutional Law in the United States of America; Boston; Little Brown, and Company; 1880; pages 267-268.
The Constitution did not guarantee anyone the right to vote. That is up to the states. States constitutionally created statutes restricting who could vote, and they constitutionally restricted women after the Constitution was adopted and after women had already voted. Also, the Constitution affirmatively stated the requirements to be President. It did not prohibit women from running for President.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belva_Ann_Lockwood
Belva Ann Bennett Lockwood (October 24, 1830 – May 19, 1917) was an American attorney, politician, educator, and author. She was active in working for women's rights. The press of her day referred to her as a "suffragist," someone who believed in women's suffrage or voting rights. Lockwood overcame many social and personal obstacles related to gender restrictions. After college, she became a teacher and principal, working to equalize pay for women in education.[1] She supported the movement for world peace, and was a proponent of temperance.Lockwood graduated from law school in Washington, D.C. and became one of the first female lawyers in the United States. In 1879, she successfully petitioned Congress to be allowed to practice before the United States Supreme Court, becoming the first woman attorney given this privilege. Lockwood ran for president in 1884 and 1888 on the ticket of the National Equal Rights Party and was the first woman to appear on official ballots.[2]
http://www.greatwomen.org/women-of-the-hall/search-the-hall/details/2/98-Lockwood
In 1884 she accepted the nomination of the National Equal Rights Party and ran for president. Although suffrage leaders opposed her candidacy, Lockwood saw it as an entering wedge for women. She polled over 4,000 votes and ran again in 1888.
http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=36575&Disp=43#C43
I started to quote the original constitutions of the states regarding who were citizens.
http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=36575&Disp=46#C46
Documenting the early voting of women in New Jersey. Their vote in NJ was revoked in the 1800's.
For example:
http://www.ushistoryscene.com/uncategorized/njsuffrage/
American women did not receive the right to vote until 1920, right? This is a common misconception. A century and a half before the constitutional amendment granting all U.S. women the right to vote, women in New Jersey participated in elections for over thirty-one years. In 1776, the New Jersey Constitution ruled, “all inhabitants of this colony, of full age, who are worth fifty pounds…and have resided in the county, in which they claim a vote for twelve months…shall be entitled to vote.” ((Laws of the State of New Jersey. 1821. Reprint, Trenton: The Authority of the Legislature, 1776))[...]
Female voters in New Jersey celebrated their political rights. Federalist pamphleteer William Griffith estimated the number of unmarried women and widows to be greater than 10,000, a substantial figure, and those eligible voted in great numbers. ((Klinghoffer and Elkins, 177.))
[...]
Female voters echoed Wollstonecraft’s sentiments in the 1800 presidential race between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, when nearly every woman eligible to vote, no matter her race or class, participated in the New Jersey election. ((Bushnell, Horace. “The Report of History.” In Women’s Suffrage; Reform Against Nature. New York: Charles Scribner and Company, 1869. 111))
http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=36575&Disp=78#C78
New Jersey Constitution of 1776 (in effect in 1792 and until 1844)
IV. That all inhabitants of this Colony, of full age, who are worth fifty pounds proclamation money, clear estate in the same, and have resided within the county in which they claim a vote for twelve months immediately preceding the election, shall be entitled to vote for Representatives in Council and Assembly; and also for all other public officers, that shall be elected by the people of the county at large.Any inhabitant of full age with fifty pounds proclamation money, resident twelve months, had the right to vote per the state constitution. As noted previously, women voted there for over thirty years, including before, during, and after 1792.
http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=36575&Disp=83#C83
North Carolina Constitution, 1776
The Constitution or Form of Government[...]
VIII. That all freemen, of the age of twenty-one years, who have been inhabitants of any one county within the State twelve months immediately preceeding the day of any election, and shall have paid public taxes, shall be entitled to vote for members of the House of Commons for the county in which he resides.
State v Manuel, 4 Devereux and Battle 20, 25 (1838), Gaston, J.
Slaves, manumitted here, became freemen, and therefore, if born within North Carolina, are citizens of North Carolina, and all free persons born within the State are born citizens of the State.[...]
The Constitution extended the elective franchise to every freeman who had arrived at the age of twenty-one and paid a public tax, and it is a matter of universal notoriety that, under it, free persons, without regard to color, claimed and exercised the franchise until it was taken from free men of color a few years since by our amended Constitution."
More state constitutions follow.
#40. To: misterwhite (#17)
Today's society is better than the society of the Founders. Yes, I'll tell you that.
Oh, and the Founders recognized that the slaves were people and property. That's why they included them in the census. They were not blind. They were evil, raging hypocrites.
#41. To: sneakypete (#25)
When a quarter of your population are slaves, you are not a free country. Words mean things, and the word "free" doesn't include slavery.
Redefining people as not people doesn't help the case. It's just pathetic and dishonest.
The slavers among the Founding Fathers were evil, hypocritical, murderous, traitorous bastards.
Revolting to establish the principle that "All men are created equal" and really DOING IT may, MAY justify killing the King]s officers and renouncing allegiance to your country. But proclaiming it, murdering your countrymen, and then simply gaining the power for yourself, and leaving a quarter of the population in chains makes you a murderous treasonous hypocrite, a viper. Nothing more. Nothing good. Nothing I'm going to praise.
John Adams. HE was praiseworthy. He was also the minority position. The power and wealth was elsewhere, and they became the leaders. They murdered the officers, replaced the King with themselves, and kept a quarter of the population in chains. Vile hypocrites, murderous villains and traitors. They deserved to swing on a rope, not win. But the Almighty has his own purposes.
#42. To: Vicomte13 (#41)
Words mean things, and the word "free" doesn't include slavery.
Don't tell me,tell the Pope.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
#43. To: sneakypete (#42)
Don't tell me,tell the Pope.
What does the Pope have to do with the Founding Fathers?
#44. To: Vicomte13 (#43)
Don't tell me,tell the Pope.What does the Pope have to do with the Founding Fathers?
Nothing,but Popes have had a lot to do with slavery.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
#45. To: sneakypete (#44)
Nothing,but Popes have had a lot to do with slavery.
They sure did. Also war and torture. We face it squarely, acknowledge the evil, and fix it.
Would that Americans were as honest with themselves as Catholics are.
#46. To: Vicomte13 (#45)
Would that Americans were as honest with themselves as Catholics are.
Thank you for admitting that Catholics aren't Americans.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
#47. To: Vicomte13 (#40)
"Oh, and the Founders recognized that the slaves were people and property. That's why they included them in the census."
It wasn't for the census. It was for the determination of the number of representatives sent to Congress.
Each state was allowed one representative for 30,000 citizens. The south, with a large number of slaves, wanted larger representation. So they were allowed to count each slave as 3/5 of a free person.
#48. To: Vicomte13 (#40)
"Today's society is better than the society of the Founders. Yes, I'll tell you that."
I was only referring to the voting process. That when voters were limited to those with the most to lose, it was a fairer system.
Today's average voter is ignorant of the issues, easily fooled by propaganda, is voting on a single issue, and is heavily influenced by political correctness. 47% of them pay no federal income tax, yet vote in the federal election for people who promise them all kinds of goodies paid for by someone else.
I'd like to see voting in the federal election limited to those who a) could answer the questions in the U.S. Citizenship Test and b) pay federal income taxes.
State office and local elections -- that's up to each state. I don't care.
#49. To: nolu chan (#33)
"The slaves were considered persons."
Only for the apportionment of representatives and direct taxes.
And, technically, they were "other persons". They had no more rights than a table or chair.
#50. To: sneakypete (#46)
Thank you for admitting that Catholics aren't Americans.
Oh, but we are. And we're winning.
.
.
.
Comments (51 - 96) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]