What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

This is the end result of progressive ideology.

Mr.Nick

VIP Member
Joined
May 10, 2011
Messages
9,604
Reaction score
719
Points
83
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lM3CiH1FE9E]China Culture Revolution - Public Execution & Impact - www.Youtube.com/TibetArchive - YouTube[/ame]
 

theDoctorisIn

Platinum Member
Senior USMB Moderator
Joined
Aug 12, 2009
Messages
37,810
Reaction score
7,309
Points
1,140
Location
In the center of it all
Actually, the Cultural Revolution was the end result of anti-intellectualism, a favorite tactic of the far right in this country.
 

editec

Mr. Forgot-it-All
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
41,421
Reaction score
5,663
Points
48
Location
Maine

You define that as"progressive"?

Really?

Interesting theory.

Totally nuts, of course, but interesting perversion of the meaning of the word.

The Cultural revolution was a REACTIONARY response by the hard core communists against all movements to liberalize society

Liberalize as in make society less communistic.

But while you and I might disagree about the words used to describe the event, but we're on the same page about how BAD it was
 

Bfgrn

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2009
Messages
16,829
Reaction score
2,492
Points
245

You define that as"progressive"?

Really?

Interesting theory.

Totally nuts, of course, but interesting perversion of the meaning of the word.

The Cultural revolution was a REACTIONARY response by the hard core communists against all movements to liberalize society

Liberalize as in make society less communistic.

But while you and I might disagree about the words used to describe the event, but we're on the same page about how BAD it was

Exactly editec!

What Mao Zedong said about liberalism

mao.jpeg


革命的集体组织中的自由主义是十分有害的。它是一种腐蚀剂,使团结涣散,关系松懈,工作消极,意见分歧。它使革命队伍失掉严密的组织和纪律,政策不能贯彻到底,党的组织和党所领导的群众发生隔离。这是一种严重的恶劣倾向。

"Liberalism is extremely harmful in a revolutionary collective. It is a corrosive which eats away unity, undermines cohesion, causes apathy and creates dissension.

It robs the revolutionary ranks of compact organization and strict discipline, prevents policies from being carried through and alienates the Party organizations from the masses which the Party leads. It is an extremely bad tendency."
Combat Liberalism - Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians
 

theDoctorisIn

Platinum Member
Senior USMB Moderator
Joined
Aug 12, 2009
Messages
37,810
Reaction score
7,309
Points
1,140
Location
In the center of it all
Mr. Nick, perhaps you should also take a look at the definition of the logical fallacy Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
 

editec

Mr. Forgot-it-All
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
41,421
Reaction score
5,663
Points
48
Location
Maine
If progressive means turning away from the methods of the past, then CLEARLY China Cultural revolution was NOT progressivism.

Reactionism is the oppposite of progressivism.

Reactionaryists are those who SUPPORT the status quo.

The STATUS QUO of China was hard core COMMUNISM.

The GANG of FOUR were REACTIONARIES NOT PROGRESSIVES.

The problem here is that we are using different definitions.

I'm sort of stuck uing the definitions that are understood in the world of poltical science, while some of us are using the words as defined by TV commentators who clearly don't know what the fuck they're talking about.

Right now, those in America who support the STATUS QUO (that is to say powerful government controlling many aspects of our society) are really REACTIONAIES, not PROGRESSIVES.

Neither of those words stands for any specific political povs, they are terms used to describe political movments in relation to the STATUS QUO.


BOTH political parties are sotto voce REACTIONARY PARTIES.
 
Last edited:

Truthmatters

Diamond Member
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
80,182
Reaction score
2,265
Points
1,283
its this simplistic thinking that helps fuel the hate of thre right.

Some one is feeding them lies and I really wish they would start questioning the people spoon feeding them lies instead of marching to the hate and fear tune their pied piper is playing.
 

code1211

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2009
Messages
5,999
Reaction score
854
Points
48

You define that as"progressive"?

Really?

Interesting theory.

Totally nuts, of course, but interesting perversion of the meaning of the word.

The Cultural revolution was a REACTIONARY response by the hard core communists against all movements to liberalize society

Liberalize as in make society less communistic.

But while you and I might disagree about the words used to describe the event, but we're on the same page about how BAD it was

Exactly editec!

What Mao Zedong said about liberalism

mao.jpeg


革命的集体组织中的自由主义是十分有害的。它是一种腐蚀剂,使团结涣散,关系松懈,工作消极,意见分歧。它使革命队伍失掉严密的组织和纪律,政策不能贯彻到底,党的组织和党所领导的群众发生隔离。这是一种严重的恶劣倾向。

"Liberalism is extremely harmful in a revolutionary collective. It is a corrosive which eats away unity, undermines cohesion, causes apathy and creates dissension.

It robs the revolutionary ranks of compact organization and strict discipline, prevents policies from being carried through and alienates the Party organizations from the masses which the Party leads. It is an extremely bad tendency."
Combat Liberalism - Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians



Liberalism in the world of Mao meant something different than it does in our world.

As an example, the Literal translation of the phrase "Join the Pepsi Generation" translated to Chinese as somthing like, "If You Drink Pepsi, You're Ancestors Will Rise From the Grave and Dance With You".

Liberalism in the USA means that the power of authority should be concetrated at the center of political authority and as far from the average person as is possible.

In that, Mao and the Big 0 are in perfect step.
 

Bfgrn

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2009
Messages
16,829
Reaction score
2,492
Points
245
You define that as"progressive"?

Really?

Interesting theory.

Totally nuts, of course, but interesting perversion of the meaning of the word.

The Cultural revolution was a REACTIONARY response by the hard core communists against all movements to liberalize society

Liberalize as in make society less communistic.

But while you and I might disagree about the words used to describe the event, but we're on the same page about how BAD it was

Exactly editec!

What Mao Zedong said about liberalism

mao.jpeg


革命的集体组织中的自由主义是十分有害的。它是一种腐蚀剂,使团结涣散,关系松懈,工作消极,意见分歧。它使革命队伍失掉严密的组织和纪律,政策不能贯彻到底,党的组织和党所领导的群众发生隔离。这是一种严重的恶劣倾向。

"Liberalism is extremely harmful in a revolutionary collective. It is a corrosive which eats away unity, undermines cohesion, causes apathy and creates dissension.

It robs the revolutionary ranks of compact organization and strict discipline, prevents policies from being carried through and alienates the Party organizations from the masses which the Party leads. It is an extremely bad tendency."
Combat Liberalism - Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians



Liberalism in the world of Mao meant something different than it does in our world.

As an example, the Literal translation of the phrase "Join the Pepsi Generation" translated to Chinese as somthing like, "If You Drink Pepsi, You're Ancestors Will Rise From the Grave and Dance With You".

Liberalism in the USA means that the power of authority should be concetrated at the center of political authority and as far from the average person as is possible.

In that, Mao and the Big 0 are in perfect step.

Bullshit. Liberalism in America means more people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the economy works. Democracy is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the government works.

Communism is conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just the Party Secretary) have any say in how the economy works. Republicans are conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just people controlling the Party figurehead) have any say in how the government works. The conservatives in the US are in the same position as the communists in the 30s, and for the same reason: Their revolutions failed spectacularly but they refuse to admit what went wrong.
 

peach174

Gold Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2010
Messages
26,438
Reaction score
6,988
Points
290
Location
S.E. AZ
Liberalism is giving the minority rule over the majority.
Liberalism has taken away the states rights and has given it over to the government. Unconstitutional.
Liberalism has taken away the rights of the individual and has given it over to collectivism. Also Unconstitutional.
Liberalism has turned the nation into a democracy instead of a republic. To those that argue that we are a democratic republic is how liberals have gotten a democracy, of which our founders never wanted. And you do not see the words Democratic Republic in our constitution. It says we have a guarantee to a Republic form of government.
Liberalism has taken away the rights of the states and in doing so has taken away the power of the people.
Liberals have turned the Constitution into power for the government, instead of government being restricted by the Constitution.

Conservatives want to give the power back to the states and get back the constitution that restricts the government.
 
Last edited:

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
111,859
Reaction score
46,454
Points
2,300
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Actually, the Cultural Revolution was the end result of anti-intellectualism, a favorite tactic of the far right in this country.

Really?

"The Red Banner Youth Brigade

The Kwan family met the Youth Brigade in their living room, which had shrunk to the size of a prison cell due to the number of shouting youth surrounding the family. They gazed at the youth in bewilderment unable to understand the evil that they had done.
“Do you repent? Do you confess to clinging to the old values?”
“Confess and seek reeducation and we will spare you!”
“You are guilty of old thought, old culture, old values…”
“You have built a lackey’s empire on the backs of the people!”
Kwan and his wife, along with their twelve-year-old son were bound and defenseless.
“You are part of the old…”
The tall leader of the cadre engages in a furious dialectic, spittle flying from his mouth.
“You are part of the old! Do you repent?”
With every line he spoke, he swung the black baton, heavy as a cricket bat.
“You will reform your decadent ways!”
“The old ways are a threat to the collective good of the people!”
“You will die if you retain your old beliefs!”
“Repent! Reject the old! Admit you have been seduced by unbeneficial and decadent thought!”
It continued for endless minutes- until the blows the student rained down stole the life from the family. The iron-tipped baton left bloody forms at his feet as he recited the catechism the students thirstily sought to hear."

From the novel “The Stone Monkey,” by Jeffery Deaver


Through 1966, secondary schools and colleges closed in China. Students -- many from the age of nine through eighteen -- followed Maoist directives to destroy things of the past that they believed should be no part of the new China: old customs, old habits, old culture and old thinking -- the "four olds." In a state of euphoria and with support from the government and army, the students went about China's cities and villages, wrecking old buildings, old temples and old art objects. To make a new and wonderful China, the Red Guards attacked as insufficiently revolutionary their parents, teachers, school administrators and everyone they could find as targets, including "intellectuals" and "capitalist roaders" within the Communist Party.
Filled with righteousness, the power of their numbers, and support from Mao, the campaigns for revolutionary change became violent. People seen as evil were beaten to death. Thousands of people died, including many who had committed suicide.
Mao's China

Amazing how much you don't know....

...but one should suspect same from your juvenile avitar.
 

code1211

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2009
Messages
5,999
Reaction score
854
Points
48
Exactly editec!

What Mao Zedong said about liberalism

mao.jpeg


革命的集体组织中的自由主义是十分有害的。它是一种腐蚀剂,使团结涣散,关系松懈,工作消极,意见分歧。它使革命队伍失掉严密的组织和纪律,政策不能贯彻到底,党的组织和党所领导的群众发生隔离。这是一种严重的恶劣倾向。

"Liberalism is extremely harmful in a revolutionary collective. It is a corrosive which eats away unity, undermines cohesion, causes apathy and creates dissension.

It robs the revolutionary ranks of compact organization and strict discipline, prevents policies from being carried through and alienates the Party organizations from the masses which the Party leads. It is an extremely bad tendency."
Combat Liberalism - Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians



Liberalism in the world of Mao meant something different than it does in our world.

As an example, the Literal translation of the phrase "Join the Pepsi Generation" translated to Chinese as somthing like, "If You Drink Pepsi, You're Ancestors Will Rise From the Grave and Dance With You".

Liberalism in the USA means that the power of authority should be concetrated at the center of political authority and as far from the average person as is possible.

In that, Mao and the Big 0 are in perfect step.

Bullshit. Liberalism in America means more people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the economy works. Democracy is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the government works.

Communism is conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just the Party Secretary) have any say in how the economy works. Republicans are conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just people controlling the Party figurehead) have any say in how the government works. The conservatives in the US are in the same position as the communists in the 30s, and for the same reason: Their revolutions failed spectacularly but they refuse to admit what went wrong.



You are not in touch with the reality of your day and your country.

The modern Liberal in the USA favors Federal Power over States Rights. That is the foundation of the Roe v Wade decision that supports Pro Choice justification legally. This is rightfully a States Rights issue, but was ruled on by the Supreme Court illegitimately.

Liberals seek to escalate all power to the Federal Level. Ergo, Federal funding for almost everything. Why is there a Federal Department of Education? Please site the justification in the Constitution.

Jefferson's vision was that the country be viewed as a single entity from outside but as a union of separate and distinct equals from the inside.

Conservatives seek to move all power to the level closest to those governed that will still work. Liberals seek to move all power to the level furthest from those governed regardless of effectiveness.

If you do not understand this, you have no idea which party will best represent your interests. It sounds very likely that you support a party that is actively working against your goals.
 
Last edited:

Greenbeard

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
6,871
Reaction score
1,217
Points
200
Location
New England
Liberalism is giving the minority rule over the majority.
Liberalism has taken away the states rights and has given it over to the government. Unconstitutional.
Liberalism has taken away the rights of the individual and has given it over to collectivism. Also Unconstitutional.
Liberalism has turned the nation into a democracy instead of a republic. To those that argue that we are a democratic republic is how liberals have gotten a democracy, of which our founders never wanted. And you do not see the words Democratic Republic in our constitution. It says we have a guarantee to a Republic form of government.
Liberalism has taken away the rights of the states and in doing so has taken away the power of the people.
Liberals have turned the Constitution into power for the government, instead of government being restricted by the Constitution.

Conservatives want to give the power back to the states and get back the constitution that restricts the government.

Quite a bit of confused thinking there. Liberalism has turned the nation into a democracy, except it gave the minority rule over the majority. Individual rights have been taken away by increasing federal power over states (except the reason the protections of the Bill of Rights extend to protecting individuals from state and local governments--the reason Chicago's gun ban was struck down in favor of 2nd amendment rights, for example--is the expansion of federal power at the expense of states in the 14th amendment). Liberalism has taken away the power of the states--presumably there is a screed against the 17th amendment lurking in there, despite the fact that this handed power directly to the people (rather than taking it away, as you suggest), though we know that's bad because liberalism has made things more democratic, except we want it to be more democratic because those nasty liberals are in favor of minority rule over the majority...

You're making my head spin here.
 

Bfgrn

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2009
Messages
16,829
Reaction score
2,492
Points
245
Liberalism in the world of Mao meant something different than it does in our world.

As an example, the Literal translation of the phrase "Join the Pepsi Generation" translated to Chinese as somthing like, "If You Drink Pepsi, You're Ancestors Will Rise From the Grave and Dance With You".

Liberalism in the USA means that the power of authority should be concetrated at the center of political authority and as far from the average person as is possible.

In that, Mao and the Big 0 are in perfect step.

Bullshit. Liberalism in America means more people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the economy works. Democracy is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the government works.

Communism is conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just the Party Secretary) have any say in how the economy works. Republicans are conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just people controlling the Party figurehead) have any say in how the government works. The conservatives in the US are in the same position as the communists in the 30s, and for the same reason: Their revolutions failed spectacularly but they refuse to admit what went wrong.



You are not in touch with the reality of your day and your country.

The modern Liberal in the USA favors Federal Power over States Rights. That is the foundation of the Roe v Wade decision that supports Pro Choice justification legally. This is rightfully a States Rights issue, but was ruled on by the Supreme Court illegitimately.

Liberals seek to escalate all power to the Federal Level. Ergo, Federal funding for almost everything. Why is there a Federal Department of Education? Please site the justification in the Constitution.

Jefferson's vision was that the country be viewed as a single entity from outside but as a union of separate and distinct equals from the inside.

Conservatives seek to move all power to the level closest to those governed that will still work. Liberals seek to move all power to the level furthest from those governed regardless of effectiveness.

If you do not understand this, you have no idea which party will best represent your interests. It sounds very likely that you support a party that is actively working against your goals.

I am very much in touch what is happening in my country. I've been around since Harry Truman was President, so I lived through a good portion of the liberal era that started with the New Deal and ended with the Great Society. It was America's finest moment. It was an era with huge economic growth and shared wealth, fantastic successes in technology, vast expansion of citizen freedoms and liberties and the growth of a middle class that defined this country and made America the 'city upon the hill', the envy of the world.

That era ended at the close of the 1960's, due to a weak and splintered Democratic party caused by the Vietnam War and political assassinations. It ushered in a conservative era that has continued ever since. It has been a disaster, a negative mirror image of the liberal era. Ronald Reagan was the biggest socialist in history. He is the pied piper on the road to serfdom. He began a systematic dismantling of all the gains the middle class had secured. Reagan transferred wealth from the poor and the middle class to the opulent. He looted Social Security to cover the shortfalls of his tax cuts for the wealthy. And the whole 'small businessman is the engine of growth' was cruel rhetoric. The self-employment tax jumped as much as 66 percent under Reagan.

Conservatives have built nothing in 30 +years...NOTHING. They have only destroyed and torn down everything our grandparents and parents built together as ONE nation, one people. America now lead the world in incarcerating human beings...THINK about THAT...The United States of America, the 'city upon the hill' arrests and imprisons MORE of their citizens per capita that China or Russia!

We just ended the regime of the worst environmental president in history...Ronbo on steroids Bush...the war criminal and murderer. His attack on every environmental law and policy will lead to the premature deaths of thousands of Americans every year. He so severely disabled the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, it will be impossible to force polluters to EVER clean up their toxins and carcinogens. And polluters can dump any debris they want into our streams and tributaries by just filing for a permit from the Corp of Engineers. Something that can be done by mail. Killing human beings is a crime and Bush is a murderer!

I've seen the end of America as we know it, I was an unwilling passenger on the bus conservatives drove to that precipice.
 

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
111,859
Reaction score
46,454
Points
2,300
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Next up will be the "Why liberals are fascists" thread, with a youtube video of Kristallnacht or Buchenwald or some such.

OK, Toro....you asked for it:

Three New Deals: Reflections on Roosevelt's America, Mussolini's Italy, and Hitler's Germany, 1933-1939 [Paperback]
Wolfgang Schivelbusch

Product Description
Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal is regarded today as the democratic ideal, a triumphant American response to a crisis that forced Germany and Italy toward National Socialism and Fascism. Yet in the 1930s, before World War II, the regimes of Roosevelt, Mussolini, and Hitler bore fundamental similarities. In this groundbreaking work, Wolfgang Schivelbusch investigates the shared elements of these three "new deals"--focusing on their architecture and public works projects--to offer a new explanation for the popularity of Europe's totalitarian systems. Writing with flair and concision, Schivelbusch casts a different light on the New Deal and puts forth a provocative explanation for the still-mysterious popularity of Europe's most tyrannical regimes.


Pick up a copy...
 

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
111,859
Reaction score
46,454
Points
2,300
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Bullshit. Liberalism in America means more people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the economy works. Democracy is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the government works.

Communism is conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just the Party Secretary) have any say in how the economy works. Republicans are conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just people controlling the Party figurehead) have any say in how the government works. The conservatives in the US are in the same position as the communists in the 30s, and for the same reason: Their revolutions failed spectacularly but they refuse to admit what went wrong.


You are not in touch with the reality of your day and your country.

The modern Liberal in the USA favors Federal Power over States Rights. That is the foundation of the Roe v Wade decision that supports Pro Choice justification legally. This is rightfully a States Rights issue, but was ruled on by the Supreme Court illegitimately.

Liberals seek to escalate all power to the Federal Level. Ergo, Federal funding for almost everything. Why is there a Federal Department of Education? Please site the justification in the Constitution.

Jefferson's vision was that the country be viewed as a single entity from outside but as a union of separate and distinct equals from the inside.

Conservatives seek to move all power to the level closest to those governed that will still work. Liberals seek to move all power to the level furthest from those governed regardless of effectiveness.

If you do not understand this, you have no idea which party will best represent your interests. It sounds very likely that you support a party that is actively working against your goals.

I am very much in touch what is happening in my country. I've been around since Harry Truman was President, so I lived through a good portion of the liberal era that started with the New Deal and ended with the Great Society. It was America's finest moment. It was an era with huge economic growth and shared wealth, fantastic successes in technology, vast expansion of citizen freedoms and liberties and the growth of a middle class that defined this country and made America the 'city upon the hill', the envy of the world.

That era ended at the close of the 1960's, due to a weak and splintered Democratic party caused by the Vietnam War and political assassinations. It ushered in a conservative era that has continued ever since. It has been a disaster, a negative mirror image of the liberal era. Ronald Reagan was the biggest socialist in history. He is the pied piper on the road to serfdom. He began a systematic dismantling of all the gains the middle class had secured. Reagan transferred wealth from the poor and the middle class to the opulent. He looted Social Security to cover the shortfalls of his tax cuts for the wealthy. And the whole 'small businessman is the engine of growth' was cruel rhetoric. The self-employment tax jumped as much as 66 percent under Reagan.

Conservatives have built nothing in 30 +years...NOTHING. They have only destroyed and torn down everything our grandparents and parents built together as ONE nation, one people. America now lead the world in incarcerating human beings...THINK about THAT...The United States of America, the 'city upon the hill' arrests and imprisons MORE of their citizens per capita that China or Russia!

We just ended the regime of the worst environmental president in history...Ronbo on steroids Bush...the war criminal and murderer. His attack on every environmental law and policy will lead to the premature deaths of thousands of Americans every year. He so severely disabled the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, it will be impossible to force polluters to EVER clean up their toxins and carcinogens. And polluters can dump any debris they want into our streams and tributaries by just filing for a permit from the Corp of Engineers. Something that can be done by mail. Killing human beings is a crime and Bush is a murderer!

I've seen the end of America as we know it, I was an unwilling passenger on the bus conservatives drove to that precipice.



OK, I’ve seen your preparatory spittle-spewing, now for your signature move, soiling your shorts.
 

Toro

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2005
Messages
89,078
Reaction score
27,519
Points
2,250
Location
Surfing the Oceans of Liquidity
Next up will be the "Why liberals are fascists" thread, with a youtube video of Kristallnacht or Buchenwald or some such.

OK, Toro....you asked for it:

Three New Deals: Reflections on Roosevelt's America, Mussolini's Italy, and Hitler's Germany, 1933-1939 [Paperback]
Wolfgang Schivelbusch

Product Description
Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal is regarded today as the democratic ideal, a triumphant American response to a crisis that forced Germany and Italy toward National Socialism and Fascism. Yet in the 1930s, before World War II, the regimes of Roosevelt, Mussolini, and Hitler bore fundamental similarities. In this groundbreaking work, Wolfgang Schivelbusch investigates the shared elements of these three "new deals"--focusing on their architecture and public works projects--to offer a new explanation for the popularity of Europe's totalitarian systems. Writing with flair and concision, Schivelbusch casts a different light on the New Deal and puts forth a provocative explanation for the still-mysterious popularity of Europe's most tyrannical regimes.


Pick up a copy...

lol

Thanks PC!

:thup:
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$142.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top