Nationswide protests-will they spread?

[KSMountain]

Wow did this thread come back to life!

I’d like to take a little time to consider eaves’ post. Certainly the description of mountain top removal was apalling.

But I couldn’t let the quote below go unchallenged:

[quote=Arraya]
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/this_is_what_revolution_looks_like_20111115/

Welcome to the revolution. Our elites have exposed their hand. They have nothing to offer. They can destroy but they cannot build. They can repress but they cannot lead. They can steal but they cannot share. They can talk but they cannot speak. They are as dead and useless to us as the water-soaked books, tents, sleeping bags, suitcases, food boxes and clothes that were tossed by sanitation workers Tuesday morning into garbage trucks in New York City. They have no ideas, no plans and no vision for the future

.[/quote]

I wonder, rather than the elites no longer innovating or contributing, is that quote more a reflection of the author’s own sense of inadequacy and despondency?

Innovation has by no means stopped. To give just a few recent examples without even trying:

The Boeing 787 (finally)
The iPhone (passé now but what an amazing device)
Skype

While that author is bemoaning soggy sleeping bags and the unfairness of it all, others are following their dreams and changing the world.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=pri_dk]…I grew up in a coal mining town. In one area where we used to play in the “woods” there was the remains of an old wall and steel fence. At one time in the late 19th century, the mine-workers were not permitted to leave the town without permission. The entire town was fenced off and there was an armed guard at the gate. The reason that the mining company could “legally” treat employees like prisoners is because the employees were indebted to the company. The company paid them in “script” (private currency) that could only be used at the company store. The company didn’t pay employees enough to survive, but it would generously extend credit.[/quote]

My father grew up in NE Pennsylvania coal country, and his Austrian (Slavic) uncles worked in the mines at the time of the Lattimer Massacre, when miners were trying to unionize. You’re right about the “generous” credit policies of the company store, which unfortunately had prices that were 3 or 4 times the costs of higher-quality goods elsewhere. Miners also were not paid an hourly wage – pay was based on coal tonnage. Out of that, they had to pay for all their own tools and equipment, and a variety of bogus fees and charges, including an “Alien Tax” (even though many immigrant miners were American citizens), were assessed every week. When a miner went to the paymaster, he was informed of his coal tonnage and the amount to be paid for it; if there were errors (and, quite often, there were), a miner did not dare protest for fear that he would lose his job, or worse. Then the various charges, fees, and taxes were assessed, and payments for company house rent and “utilities”, and on the debts held by the company store and the company doctor were withheld. If there was ANYTHING left after that, it was paid to the miner in scrip. If a miner was injured on the job, he was thrown out of his job, and his family was evicted from the company house, but they were still liable for the “debts” to the coal company. If a miner died (on or off the job), his wife and children were evicted within 24 or 48 hours.

All in all, a pretty nasty existence. But, that being said, I do like the Tennessee Ernie Ford song.

[quote=pri_dk] The unions that rescued the miners and steelworkers eventually were the cause of their ultimate demise as workers demanded more and labor costs overwhelmed the industries.[/quote]

Saying that the unions caused the loss of jobs is simplistic and short-sighted. There is no question that many of the unions eventually had extremely poor leadership: either those who didn’t have the experience or intellect to realize the impact that labor costs could have on industry, or those who sought to exploit union resources, and negotiated unsustainable wages and benefits for union members as a way to stay in power. But given the human tendency toward greed, unionization is the only way that the average worker can hope to have decent and safe working conditions, a living wage, and freedom from overtly unfair or illegal employment practices.

I challenge anyone to explain to me how the conditions you and I mentioned above would have been banished, or why they won’t come back, in the absence of unions.

The problem is that people, for all their talk about “pulling themselves up by their bootstraps”, really want someone to take care of them. So when a union president offers to do that, or a politician, people don’t question how that will be achieved or sustained, or what the short- or long-term effects will be. They just give the union official or the politician their vote.

So to paraphrase what you said elsewhere in your post, we don’t need to throw out the whole union system. We need to fix it.

And as for the labor costs “overwhelming” the industry, perhaps that’s industry’s fault. Unions have been around for a while now. And there were many decades during which industry did quite well dealing with union labor. The greatest growth of the United States automobile industry took place during a time in which they had to deal with unions. There’s a tendency to automatically believe the guys in suits when it comes to questions about how businesses are run. But the fact is that many of the largest and most-respected American businesses have had piss-poor management over the past several decades. Yes, there have been challenges that have arisen, but there have also been lucrative opportunities. The problem is that many companies grabbed the opportunities, but ignored the challenges, shoving them to the back of the closet so they wouldn’t have to be confronted by them. Until the closet became so full that the door burst open, and all of the challenges that had been avoided came spilling out.

Yes, labor costs, particularly retiree healthcare, have absolutely gone beyond levels that are sustainable. Excuse me, but WHO was at the contract negotiations WITH the unions for those pay and benefit levels?

The successful operation of a business is a cooperative effort between business owners/management and business labor. Business offers a level of pay. Workers can choose to take it and work, or reject it and strike. It’s at that point when a business has to determine whether it can live with idle workstations, and workers have to decide if they can deal with no money. The problem is that no one wants to tough things out, and that’s when they make deals with the devil.

[quote=pri_dk]Yeah, mountaintop removal sucks, but life in coal country was once far worse. Things got better – although mining was always brutal work – but now the underground mines are all gone (some of them are still burning and collapsing though!)

Today, without surface mining, there would be no economy at all. It’s a tough dilemma.[/quote]

You’re mixing up apples and oranges here.

Life is BETTER in coal country? Why don’t you go talk to the people who have lost their houses to flash floods, whose properties have been compromised by MTR mining pollutants, who can no longer fish and hunt to feed their families?

You’re referring to work conditions for coal miners: all 25,000 remaining in West Virginia. West Virginia has a population of 1.85 million people. That’s 1,847,000 WV residents who are NOT coal miners.

In case you missed the stats I posted, there were 65,000 mining jobs in WV in 1983. Since then, hundreds of peaks and millions of acres of forest have been destroyed, and the Appalachian watershed is a small fraction of what it was. Many rivers are now black sludge, or else they’ve completely disappeared from the landscape, buried under millions of tons of mining waste. Entire communities are now uninhabitable. Is all of that worth 65,000 mining jobs in a state of 1.85 million people.

Oh, wait. My bad. It’s 25,000 jobs. During a time in which destruction on a massive, far-reaching scale was taking place, all in the name of saving West Virginia’s thriving coal-mining industry, 35,000 jobs were LOST.

I hear the term “thinking out of the box” a lot. Here’s a true example of thinking out of the box: Maybe the coal mining industry in West Virginia should be shut down if the mine owners can’t make money at it the old-fashioned way, i.e. underground mining.

The fact is that they can. It’s just that the profits won’t be quite as lucrative. Just like they’re not as lucrative when the companies have to handle mine waste properly instead of dumping it directly into the rivers and streams.

Massey Energy and others like them are the ones that are being allowed to endanger the lives of millions of people in the interest of creating jobs. Yes, millions of people. Because the destruction of the Appalachian watershed means severely deleterious effects on rivers, lakes, and streams that feed from it for thousands of miles around: to the Chesapeake Bay on one side, and the Mississippi on the other. And the very real problem of no water far outweighs the problem of no coal.

Oh, yes, and the “job creators” of the West Virginia mining industry somehow managed to LOSE 35,000 jobs in 30 years. Over half of what relatively few jobs had been available.

You know, all the money that’s gone into “saving” West Virginia coal mining could have been spent on establishing 3 or 4 industries there. That’s not “thinking out of the box”. It’s just common sense.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=KSMountain] . . . While that author is bemoaning soggy sleeping bags and the unfairness of it all, others are following their dreams and changing the world.[/quote]

I understand this, KSMountain, but those who can afford to “follow their dreams” and be “innovators” in this day and age are very far and few between. There has to be a market out there for what one would spend time “innovating.” The majority today are just trying to exist month to month and depend upon their employers (or UI, small pension, small SS, public assistance, etc) to survive.

[an]

[quote=pri_dk]Now you just sound like an old person.[/quote]
Very nice post pri_dk. I was thinking about the age thing before you post this statement. I wonder what’s the average age of those who are arguing for the status quo vs those who are arguing for change.

[sdrealtor]

I understand the benefits of protecting exploited coal miners in WV. Last time I drove through WV it still seemed to be operating 30 years in the past. Hard to equate that with fireman, teachers and adminstrators in sunny SoCal though.

[Arraya]

[quote=KSMountain]Wow did this thread come back to life!

I’d like to take a little time to consider eaves’ post. Certainly the description of mountain top removal was apalling.

But I couldn’t let the quote below go unchallenged:

[quote=Arraya]
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/this_is_what_revolution_looks_like_20111115/

Welcome to the revolution. Our elites have exposed their hand. They have nothing to offer. They can destroy but they cannot build. They can repress but they cannot lead. They can steal but they cannot share. They can talk but they cannot speak. They are as dead and useless to us as the water-soaked books, tents, sleeping bags, suitcases, food boxes and clothes that were tossed by sanitation workers Tuesday morning into garbage trucks in New York City. They have no ideas, no plans and no vision for the future

.[/quote]

I wonder, rather than the elites no longer innovating or contributing, is that quote more a reflection of the author’s own sense of inadequacy and despondency?

Innovation has by no means stopped. To give just a few recent examples without even trying:

The Boeing 787 (finally)
The iPhone (passé now but what an amazing device)
Skype

While that author is bemoaning soggy sleeping bags and the unfairness of it all, others are following their dreams and changing the world.[/quote]

Sure, there is always innovation going on. You don’t need “elites”, competition, corporations or capitalism for that. Humans have an innate drive towards mastery.

Actually studies show that large monetary incentives actually stifle innovation.

Innovation rarely comes from CEOs these days or the finiancial parasites making billions. Truth of the matter is, only a tiny tiny fraction people come up with a truely socially beneficial technology and they are STILL standing on other peoples knowledge and work. All innovation rests on the work of others. How many thinker’s work over the millenia have gone into the iphone and the new boeing. Chemical, electrical, aeronautical, ect..

[Anonymous]

[quote=eavesdropper]
You’re mixing up apples and oranges here.

[mountaintop removal rant with miscellaneous statistics]
[/quote]

Why do you think those 1.85 million people live in WV in the first place? One reason: It is the legacy of the mining industry. There are not many people moving into the state these days. The only growth industry is tourism, and that only goes so far.

[quote]You know, all the money that’s gone into “saving” West Virginia coal mining could have been spent on establishing 3 or 4 industries there. That’s not “thinking out of the box”. It’s just common sense.[/quote]

No, that’s common folly. We cannot just “establish” an industry in some location out of thin air.

Which industries? Automotive manufacture, computer-chip design, iPhone software?

Ain’t gonna happen in WV.

Do you know how many “high-tech centers” have been attempted in the US, especially in the rust-belt, in the past 30 years? Lots of areas have attempted the usual bag of tricks: tax incentives, retraining of blue collar employees, etc. There’s probably at least a dozen cities in the rust belt that have poured huge money into trying to become the “next Silicon Valley.” None of them have ever succeeded.

There are basic economic and physical realities in WV, Detroit, Pittsburgh and other historically industrial areas that simply cannot be overcome by government policy. People lived and worked in coal country and river valleys because the natural resources and geography supported the industries of the time. Now it is no longer practical to scrape coal out of tunnels and we don’t need to move raw materials on rivers. The very reasons these communities existed in first place no longer apply.

For WV, we either destroy mountaintops (which, BTW, I don’t agree with) to support at least some industry, or we accept the fact that there is really no viable way to support an economy for two million people living in rugged, isolated country that has been stripped of its natural resources.

WV is already receives a very disproportionate amount of federal funds:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/08/americas-fiscal-union

Throwing more money at the state is not going to help.

You can shoot the messenger, but you can’t change the validity of the message. WV has no bright future. For it’s residents, I suggest they accept the reality or leave (like I did.) Just please don’t ask for more money.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=pri_dk] But eaves, your arguments – once one looks past the eloquence – really don’t make much sense.[/quote]

Thanks, pri. I realize that you’re telling me that I’m full of shit, but I’m vain enough to take it as a compliment, and be pleased that I at least bullshit eloquently.

[quote=pri_dk] [quote=eavesdropper]
So do I. But they weren’t able to collect SS retirement, which is the point I was trying to make. [/quote]

You were talking about SS? (even though you never actually mentioned it.) [/quote]

Actually, I did. The reference you chose was one of 3 points that I was making about Mr. Ryan’s analysis of the CBO’s report, specifically the fact that the income equality could be traced to the difference in allocation of “entitlement” program payments, identified as SS and Medicare. The three points I made were listed under that statement, and were conveniently labeled 1, 2, and 3.

So, while more money from “entitlement” programs, namely SS and Medicare, may be going into an age group of older Americans, the increase is not due to baby boomers retiring, since the report includes data from 1979 to 2007, and boomers didn’t qualify for SS payments until 2008 (only boomers who were age 62 and opted for earlier but decreased amount pmts. Those boomers wanting full amount payments have to wait until age 65; the very first boomers didn’t turn 65 until 2011).

Now, about your in-laws (and I don’t mind anecdotes at all, unless you try to use them as a basis for changing policy).

I empathize with you on this. I know that what you’re seeing with your in-laws pisses the living shit out of you, because it used to do the same thing to me (well, not YOUR in-laws, but….you know what I mean). However, the VAST number of older Americans (baby boomers or not) are not government employees who receive big-ass pensions and retire early. And Mr. Ryan and his buddies are trying to change policy in mid-stream – and, by the looks of this “analysis”, he’s trying to use the tried-and-true method of turning Americans against each other to achieve HIS goals.

My recommendations to you and others are:

a) Go out and get yourself a government job with a big fat pension, and/or
b) Work within the system to get what you consider unfair policies changed.

Yes, there are a lot of slackers on government payrolls, and a lot of nepotism. The system, by its nature, fosters that. But keep in mind that Werner von Braun was a government employee, as was Neil Armstrong. Richard Feynman was, and Thurgood Marshall, too. And countless others who give you, as a taxpayer, more than your money’s worth.

Also, I don’t know what kind of jobs your in-laws held, but keep in mind that ALL government jobs are not equal. Federal differ from state which differ from local, and all of the states and localities have their own wage levels and benefits. I can guarantee that there are a lot of low-paid “government” employees around, just as there are plenty of well-off retirees who never spent an hour on the government payroll. And policies have changed over the years: employees who took a job in 1968 will receive the retirement benefits in place in 1968. Unfair as that may sound, age 50 or 55 is no time to suddenly find out that the pension you were told you’d have, doesn’t exist. Just ask the folks at Enron….but that’s another column.

[quote=pri_dk]I The problem comes in when you look at my kids (their grandkids.) There’s no way my kids will have the same outcome if they choose the same path. [/quote]

That may be. In which segment of the Constitution did I overlook that guarantee?

[quote=pri_dk]….My kids will enter the workforce in a decade or two and they will start making SS payment that will go directly to their grandparents. They will pay federal taxes that will go directly to their grandparents. But, all else being equal, when my kids reach the age of 55, they will be looking at another 20 years of work before they can see any sort of “entitlement” payments or be able to retire.

Much of this can be explained with demographics – every generation lives much longer. But not all of it. For the first time in American history, there is an indisputable wealth inequality between generations. [/quote]

Sorry, pri. That last sentence sounds suspiciously like one that I’ve read in several newspaper and blog stories recently. And trust me: the powers that be want you to believe that the wealth inequality is a generational thing. It will deflect attention from the growing awareness that there IS a divide, and away from the speculation on who, exactly, are the HAVES as opposed to the have-nots.

Look there’s no question that there were some who made very good money during the 1990s and the aughts, invested it, and got out in time, or, at the least, hit that retirement “sweet spot” where they earned good money and followed that up with a generous pension. But relative to the rest of the population?. A significant chunk of those age 46 to 60 will be hit hard: many have been laid off in the last 5 years, and, trust me, age discrimination is alive and well in the workplace.

As for your kids paying federal taxes that go to their grandparents: Not to sound heartless but BFD. Where do you think my Federal taxes have been going for the past several years? What about yours?

I can’t speak for you, but mine are going to support, in part, a generation who spent their childhoods trying to survive the ravages of the Great Depression, only to be taken from their homes for 4 years and sent off to face the horrors of war. When they finally returned, they started the families that became known as the Baby Boomer Generation. They worked hard and made tremendous sacrifices to be able to provide their children with the things they had been deprived of: a safe neighborhood, time to be a child, an education, including college for many.

I’d like to be able to feel bad about the fact that your kids won’t be able to retire at age 55……oh, hell no, I really don’t.

So what? Who the hell should *expect* to retire at age 55? Seriously? At the very least, it appears dramatically at odds with the image of the “independent, tough, pulled-himself-up-by-the-bootstraps American” so popular in certain political circles these days.

I even question age 65, although I will reserve judgement until such time as I’m actually that age.

[quote=pri_dk][quote]Therefore, the Boomers can’t be blamed for the shift in inequality demonstrated by this data.[/quote]

“Blame” isn’t the right word. But you cannot dismiss the fact that there is a generational wealth gap. We can’t blame the boomer generation for causing it – nobody could have seen it coming. But I will blame the boomer generation if they don’t have the ethics to try and fix it. They have the power. They can use it to keep what’s theirs, or they can do the right thing.
[/quote]

Again, I was referring to Mr. Ryan’s assertion about the data in a specific data table, and the fact that, based on the dates, it would have been impossible for Boomers to be responsible for larger SS expense transfers during that time, because payments to Boomers were not included in the data set.

My bad. That’s what I get for actually reading stuff. An accurate understanding of the situation.

And, yeah, I can dismiss a “fact” for which I see NO proof. I have read the studies – not just the abstracts…or, god forbid, the blog reports on the so-called “wealth gap”. Again, stop reading the headlines and listening to the pundits and bloggers, and start reading the reports and analyzing the data.

And, after that, you still feel the same way, let me know. I have a long list of people who actually qualify statistically as the “older Americans” described in these reports. I know they’ll be anxious to talk with someone who will be able to tell them where they can find that gap that is hiding all their “wealth”

[quote=pri_dk][quote]I can’t believe that Paul Ryan is trying to take on older Americans. It’s obvious (at least to a few people) that he’s not terribly bright. But, man!! Someone needs to explain to him and his pals that he’s not playing nice with the group that
a) votes the most (by far!)
b) contributes the most money to political campaigns[/quote]

…But do you realize what you are saying here? Should a politician ignore the realities and simply cater to those that provide campaign contributions?
[/quote]

As a matter of fact I do. It was snide commentary on politicians’ propensity to recognize those groups of voters who either contribute or actually show up to vote. If I believed that this was a sincere effort on the part of Mr. Ryan to serve his constituents, I would not hesitate to praise him. But, given his earlier statements and proposals, I wouldn’t have expected him to have brought up the issue of income inequality on his website either (in fact, I believe that was also the reason UCGal posted the graphic).

As it turned out, he didn’t really want to address income equality, y’know, like it was a bad thing. He spent a lot of time trying to brainwash people into thinking it was income equality was due to, of all things, a “generational wealth gap”, and the rest telling people that income equality isn’t all it’s cracked up to be, and that it will send us over the economic edge (“Just look at Greece”).

Hate to be cynical, but I think Mr. Ryan’s just pissed that the nasty old people (who are all boomers by the way) at AARP said mean things about his plan that all his friends in Congress said was “brilliant”.

[quote=pri_dk][quote]And that illustrates another point: Many older Americans have “wealth” […] because they’ve been much more prudent in their spending habits. [/quote]

You are contradicting yourself here. You argue that older people really don’t have much wealth, but then claim the reason they have more wealth is because they are more prudent.

So your generation was better behaved than these kids today?

Now you just sound like an old person.[/quote]

First, let’s determine whether I’m an old person, or not:

Your statement: “So your generation was better behaved than these kids today?”

My statement: No, my generation has had their heads up their asses for most of their existence, just like every generation before them, and every generation after.

Your statement: “Now you just sound like an old person.”

My statement: Wait a minute: didn’t you just call me an old person in your first statement? If you think I’m an old person, shouldn’t I sound like one? I’m all mixed up now, and feeling highly inadequate.

At any rate, for future reference, when I place quotation marks around the odd word, it’s typically because I am in disagreement with the way the word has been used in something. And I believe that the meaning of the word “wealth” has been seriously, and intentionally, distorted here, to create a “generational wealth gap” where none exists.

But since the word “wealth” is being used to refer to the homes of senior citizens, I stuck with it. There appears to be quite a bit of resentment on the part of younger people about the amount of debt they are carrying, and that older Americans had an unfair advantage because they could buy homes unsaddled by college debt.

This is bullshit. I don’t have time to go into it now, but I cannot begin to tell you how difficult it was for my parents to buy a home. They were married for 9 years, and had 4 children by the time they moved into their first and only home. My mother still lives there, and pays out 1/3 of her income (yes, one-third) on real estate and school taxes every year. She has no other income, and no other “wealth”. She can’t afford to do repairs, and she can’t sell it.

Yes, I recognize that millions of young adults are carrying considerable student debt, some in excess of $300,000. My questions is “Why?” Didn’t they, or their parents, ever sit down and figure out how much the payments were going to be over what period of time? Ask themselves what kind of job would bring in the income necessary to meet the payment schedule? What the job market was in their chosen occupation?

But, then again, why would they? Nobody apparently did that when buying homes in the last 20 years, either. This perplexed me when I first heard about it, but then I learned that it’s supposed to be the bank’s job to tell you if you can’t afford something.

See!!? Another way those bastard bankers set us up! (tongue-in-cheek alert)

Seriously, we all have to get real here. We’re adults, and we’re responsible for ourselves, and those we create. Nobody owes us anything unless they’ve legally incurred a debt with us. We have to stop focusing on what others have that we don’t, because there’s a helluva lot more at stake here than a house or a pension or Benz in the garage. While we’re all bickering with each other over irrelevant shit, the smart people are busy at the courthouses, cutting all of us off at the knees.

But we also have to get real about our expectations. People rant about the need to cut programs and services, but immediately put on the brakes when it comes to those that affect them and their families. Here’s a novel idea: go back to the readily-available statistics on government spending in 1960 Then compare it with not only HOW MUCH we’re spending, but ON WHAT. Unfortunately, Congress has a bad habit of establishing programs, and then distracting themselves with something else.

We can take care of our citizens who truly need it. But not with the current model. “Change” does not have to be synonymous with “bad”, but there is no question that refusing to accept ANY change IS bad. The one problem we do have as an entitled society if that we’ve either forgotten, or never learned, the difference between “need” and “want”. That Difference is the equivalent of Dollars.

[jstoesz]

[img_assist|nid=15579|title=Duty calls|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=300|height=330]

[eavesdropper]

[quote=pri_dk] [quote]You know, all the money that’s gone into “saving” West Virginia coal mining could have been spent on establishing 3 or 4 industries there. That’s not “thinking out of the box”. It’s just common sense.[/quote]

No, that’s common folly. We cannot just “establish” an industry in some location out of thin air.

Throwing more money at the state is not going to help.

You can shoot the messenger, but you can’t change the validity of the message. WV has no bright future. For it’s residents, I suggest they accept the reality or leave (like I did.) Just please don’t ask for more money.[/quote]

pri, I agree with you 100%. This is EXACTLY the kind of thinking we need. Sometimes that “saturation point” is reached….and with regard to mining in WV is has been…long ago.

But that’s how Massey and others have managed to get their way on all this stuff – by pushing the myth that this is all West Virginians know how to do, and the legacy needs to be preserved. And, of course, does anyone look at the actual number of jobs all of this incredible devastation is providing.

My point wasn’t that it was necessarily possible to establish another industry there. It was that I would much rather have seen that money go toward that than to MTR. Hell, put it toward saving a threatened industry in another state. Anything besides MTR. I’m so horrified by it that, 10 years after I first learned about it, I still find it hard to believe that this sort of thing can happen in my country with the full endorsement of legislators from both sides.

But thanks! You made my day!

[eavesdropper]

[quote=jstoesz][img_assist|nid=15579|title=Duty calls|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=300|height=330][/quote]

Priceless!!!

But I like being wrong. And I’m soooo good at it.

[paramount]

There’s strong evidence that Occupy Los Angeles has been hijacked (or even initiated) by public employee union scumbags. I present the following piece of evidence:

[img_assist|nid=15580|title=Professional Signs at OLA|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=401|height=600]

[KSMountain]

[quote=jstoesz][img_assist|nid=15579|title=Duty calls|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=300|height=330][/quote]
Guilty.

[svelte]

Personally, I prefer to be a cunning linguist than a master debater.

[scaredyclassic]

Or a sodden mister.

[Author]

Posts