RE: New York Post Cartoon: Is Obama the chimp... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

MasterHypnotist -> RE: New York Post Cartoon: Is Obama the chimp... (2/20/2009 11:22:39 AM)

[/quote]

This is all flutter to distract from the fact that the neo-cons were bashing Obama over the stim bill,not congress.

While one can sight procedural operations and minutia about how bills form,that didn`t stop the cons from completely associating the stim bill with the president.

How bills form is not the point.Who the cons were bashing, is.This is the context of the flap with the NY Post.Let`s be honest,shall we?

Please, let's not use statements with a rhetorical question that ends in  inclusive pronouns that imply consent, shall we? It is an example of weak argumentation or argumentative manipulation, as demonstrated in the above paragraphs. In that hope, I await your honesty, rather than bluff opinion, so that we may better communicate. ~smiles~

It was Obama that they criticized and complained about"(not being included).They are today,this very moment,complaining that the President wasn`t "bi-partisan"(which is bushit) when he publicly and privately reached out to them on many occations.

~sighs~ The procedure and its result are the point. Anybody can spout opinion at best, and smear if you want to progress it further, but facts are facts. President elect and then President Obama did not publically contribute to the Democrat stimulus package. Considering the resulting product, it is only logical that conservatives want to smear Obama with the fait accompli. It does not make it valid, however. That said, in spite of what neutral economists, national and world economic history, and the Congressional Budget office state, president Obama did embrace the intent of the package handed him, and endorsed it as a necessary next step in economic recovery.
 
That president Obama met with Republicans does not mean that he reached out. One thing I learned in the 70s when I began listening to politicians; Democrat leadership use of the word, "bi-partisan" does not equal what the dictionary says. Jefferson and Jackson reached out to the Native Americans more than Obama reached out to Republicans. The results, while different in scale, are about the same.
 
The fact is, House and Senate Democrats presented their bills, fully birthed. Nowhere in the bill's DNA is there a strand of Republican paternity. Concessions or promises were then made to get three Republican Senators (Senate Democrats only needed three) to vote with the majority, creating a fillibuster proof environment for passage.

Maybe you can explain why the Post apologized,if there`s nothing there.

I felt the Post apology was as sincere as when my little boy apologized for eating the last piece of MY birthday cake. He did it because it was the expedient thing to do. It was probably also done with equal sincerity.

If you said they were a bunch of feckless,back-boneless bottom feeders trying to obfuscate,I might agree.

Big words and vitriol... I like it! Of course, it does go back to that first point that I made about your reply.
 
~~~~~~~~~~~

You also can`t say that Secretary Rice or SCJ Thomas were besmirched without acknowledging that the President was also. Unless you`re selective.

[/quote]

I suspect this is a non-sequitar, but it's getting time for my nap, and I don't care. The primary focus were the examples I stated. That they reflect upon those that appointed them is simply logical.
 
All the best,
 
MH



hardbodysub -> RE: New York Post Cartoon: Is Obama the chimp... (2/20/2009 11:27:25 AM)

[This is a general response to all the posts regarding the justice system, not just domiguy]

In regard to our justice system, it's pretty well documented that blacks have received much worse treatment than whites, in virtually all respects. Higher percentage of arrests made, higher percentage of arrests leading to charges, more charges leading to convictions, tougher sentencing, you name it, they've been screwed. A fair amount of the discrepancy is a class issue; rich people get treated much better than poor people. Part of it is the ability to afford good legal representation, part of it is biased officers and court officials. But, even after adjusting for class, blacks are treated worse than whites.

The OJ case (the murder case, not the recent stuff) was an anomally. The factors of race and class would normally be in conflict with a famous and/or wealthy black man. In his case, however, race appeared to work in his favor, a sort of backlash effect. The police may have been racially biased, but given the evidence, it's almost certain that an OJ of any race would have been charged with the crime. Once the case got to trial, race clearly worked to his advantage. Still, class was probably the most important factor, as his fame (if not wealth) allowed him to retain a high-powered legal team. That, plus the prosecutors were inept.

Madoff's case is one of class also. "White collar criminals" tend to get off pretty easy, and I believe that a lot of it has to do with the wealth/class of the offenders. They can afford better lawyers, they have the money to make bail, they can get away with a lot that others can't. It's a damn shame. Madoff shouldn't be living it up in his mansion, paid for by his illegally obtained riches. He should be in jail awaiting trial. Some would say that he's innocent until proven guilty, and that's fine, but I think he should have been held without bail instead of letting him out to continue living the high life. I hope his assets have been frozen, as I'd hate to think he might be spending illegally-acquired assets that might be used to compensate victims.

BTW domiguy, I agree with you on the vast majority of these issues, and I respect where you're coming from even on the specifics where we don't agree.



hardbodysub -> RE: New York Post Cartoon: Is Obama the chimp... (2/20/2009 11:33:00 AM)

quote:

The fact is, House and Senate Democrats presented their bills, fully birthed. Nowhere in the bill's DNA is there a strand of Republican paternity.


Complete BS. A lot of concessions were made for the House Republicans, particularly tax breaks that do nothing to stimulate the economy. The Republicans asked for and got a lot of things they wanted, as Obama was really trying to gain their support, even though the provisions the Republicans wanted make the bill less effective. Then the Reps turned around and voted against the bill anyway, for purely political reasons.



caringlord -> RE: New York Post Cartoon: Is Obama the chimp... (2/20/2009 11:41:41 AM)

Everyone needs to calm down and use their brains.  Was it stupid for the comic to be published, of course, but only because of the ignorance and desire to find racism in the general public.  There was a city politician in DC a few years back who made a similar mistake.  He used the term niggardly ( http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/niggardly ) and it was the end of his political career because he didn't think to avoid a word that could be mistaken by ignorant morons for a slur. It was poor judgment to publish but when Obama not only didn't write the bill but odds say never even read the bill (it's 1050 or so pages of obtuse legal jargon and he's a busy man.)  It's hard to associate him with writing the bill.  It was in poor taste, it wasn't terribly clever, but anyone who sees racism there is searching for it.  



MasterHypnotist -> RE: New York Post Cartoon: Is Obama the chimp... (2/20/2009 12:38:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hardbodysub

quote:

The fact is, House and Senate Democrats presented their bills, fully birthed. Nowhere in the bill's DNA is there a strand of Republican paternity.


Complete BS. A lot of concessions were made for the House Republicans, particularly tax breaks that do nothing to stimulate the economy. The Republicans asked for and got a lot of things they wanted, as Obama was really trying to gain their support, even though the provisions the Republicans wanted make the bill less effective. Then the Reps turned around and voted against the bill anyway, for purely political reasons.


Complete BS? Oh, but I disagree. Unless it was humor, I don't think I've ever posted complete BS. Cite me facts and their credible, available sources, and I will modify, apologize, or even fully recant whatever I post.
 
"Concessions." Well, this one is touchy, because of what one means by "concessions." While it would be unfair to say that Republicans disagreed with 100% of the House bill, I don't know that having provisions that just make economic sense should be touted as "concessions."
 
Cite some of the concessions in the writing of the House bill. IE: Things that House Democrats took out, or added in, after consulting with their Republican counter-parts participating in bi-partisan governance.
 
You can't. No House Republicans were included in the writing of the bill. That is what I meant by, "fully birthed." It entered committee as is, was voted on along party lines, and then went to the floor. I lost track if any bi-partisan ammendments were made once it got to the House floor. There may have been.
 
Senate, almost as partisan, but they got three Republicans to cross the aisle, and even then there were Democrats who voted against it, weren't there? The House/Senate committee is where a modicum of excess got trimmed.
 
Tax breaks don't stimulate the economy? The economy is an exchange of money for goods and services, right? Our current economy is in trouble because too much money is tied up in principle and interest of over-extended consumer credit (housing, personal transportation, and credit cards), right? So, the government has three choices.
 
1) Fiat debt forgiveness... which really screws up banks and credit institutions which really messes with future personal, corporate, and municipal credit and bonds.
 
2) Fiat the exchange of money for services by "simply" printing more money... which really screws up the future value of our currency... it's called inflation. A little is OK (I haven't figured that out, but I got it right on the econ test), but a lot is bad. (I was there in the late 60s and 70s).
 
3) Cut taxes and influence consumers, businesses and corporations to reduce their debt, which in turn, frees up money to cycle through the economy. Yeah, I know... that one can be tricky... sometimes the population at large, and corporations, don't play along. But it is, to a degree, the least intrusive thing the government can do to the economy.
 
Remember, the government created the problem through it's mishandling of banking and credit guidelines... which in turn, locked up all this capital, to begin with. The government did the same thing to agriculture back in 1985. The question is, what is the mix of government and bank/credit collusion?
 
More effective or less effective is simply from the view point of what it is that you want affected.
 
Of course most Republicans voted against this misnomered Stimulus package. Are there any votes that are not political? While many of the expenditures are "good," Pell grants being the first that comes to mind, Pell grants do nothing to stimulate our current economy. So what is it doing in an economic recovery package?
 
This is NOT the budget, people. The budget STILL needs to be written, debated, compromised, and passed. The quotations that I read or heard from Republican leadership had little to do with something being bad, but that it did not belong in THIS EMERGENCY ECONOMIC STIMULUS PACKAGE, since they had nothing to do with economic emergencies, or near term stimulus.
 
So, sorry hardbodysub, while I appreciate your energy, I remain unmoved.
 
MH



MasterHypnotist -> RE: New York Post Cartoon: Is Obama the chimp... (2/20/2009 1:04:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

Lol, they just apologized......

The rats ran back down the sewer.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/autoNews/idUKTRE51I61D20090220

You guys were saying?......[:D]


Here, by the way, is the apology, as quoted by the Huffington Post, 2/29/09. I couldn't easily find the NYP comment, since I looked a day after it posted.

"Wednesday's Page Six cartoon - caricaturing Monday's police shooting of a chimpanzee in Connecticut - has created considerable controversy.

"It shows two police officers standing over the chimp's body: "They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill," one officer says.

"It was meant to mock an ineptly written federal stimulus bill.

"Period.

"But it has been taken as something else - as a depiction of President Obama, as a thinly veiled expression of racism.

"This most certainly was not its intent; to those who were offended by the image, we apologize.

"However, there are some in the media and in public life who have had differences with The Post in the past - and they see the incident as an opportunity for payback.

"To them, no apology is due.

"Sometimes a cartoon is just a cartoon - even as the opportunists seek to make it something else."

I really didn't think it was necessary to add any emphasis to these concise and pointed words.

Owner59, as the great philosopher Lee puts it,

"'nuff said."

MH

(edited, because some words just should not be misspelled).



MasterShake69 -> RE: New York Post Cartoon: Is Obama the chimp... (2/20/2009 1:08:42 PM)

Is what Rush got simply that Democrats can say certain things about republicans and use certain words that republicans can’t.  Even the slightest hint of such a thing and the race card used on them.  Can republicans use the N word and get away with it?  We know democrats can, like Mr. Byrd. If you notice my issue is the double standard.  One standard for republicans and nothing for democrats.
interesting what comesup when you do a google search for "Curious George bush".  ;)http://www.nysun.com/new-york/cartoon-outrage-or-hypocrisy/82646/Cartoon Outrage Or Hypocrisy By ALICIA COLON, Staff Reporter of the Sun | July 25, 2008
The Women's Media Center on Fifth Avenue claims "it strives to make women visible and powerful in the media." Even though I've written almost a thousand op-ed columns for New York newspapers in the last 10 years, this organization and its president, Carol Jenkins, hasn't a clue that I'm a conservative. Nevertheless, I'm on their mailing list and have never responded to their notices until now. Ms. Jenkins sent me a "Dear Alicia" note asking me to join in the outrage over the insulting Obamas New Yorker cartoon.
To which I responded: "I also have been spending considerable time thinking about the so-called satiric New Yorker cover of the Obamas but my take is somewhat different. Yes, I did find it offensive but at least Michelle Obama is depicted as a strong albeit radical black woman. I don't recall much discussion of the cartoons by noted artists like Doonesbury, Oliphant and Danziger depicting Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice with slavery connotations. I've never seen much outrage at the cartoons labeling Clarence Thomas as an Uncle Tom, either. Apparently, despicable and racist satirical cartoons are fine when mocking conservative black Republicans but are not to be tolerated when Democrats are the foil."
There was no big fuss about Garry Trudeau's "Doonesbury" cartoon of Mr. Bush referring to Ms. Rice as "brown sugar," or Ted Rall's cartoon having Ms. Rice proclaim herself Mr. Bush's "House nigga." Noted political cartoonist Pat Oliphant showed Ms. Rice as a parrot with big lips and Jeff Danziger had her muttering like Butterfly McQueen's character Prissy in "Gone With the Wind." Nor has there been any concerted effort to condemn Don Wright's cartoon showing Justice Thomas as Justice Scalia's lawn jockey.



quote:

ORIGINAL: domiguy

I can't remember when it was...Last year? That a woman called in to Rush and said that her daughter thought Obama looked like Curious George.  Rush laughed.  Then his staff sent him pictures of Curious George and Rush immediately apologized saying that he had no idea who or what "Curious George" was. 

I actually believe Rush.  The next day Rush immediately apologized for his actions and to his audience and he jokingly "fired the caller" which shows a knowledge of the stigma of associating Obama to a monkey. Rush "Gets it."

It is a sad day when I will state that it appears Rush has more on the ball than many of our posters. Sad day indeed.



Arpig -> RE: New York Post Cartoon: Is Obama the chimp... (2/20/2009 1:20:20 PM)

Jesus, all of you need to lighten up...its a friggin cartoon



MasterShake69 -> RE: New York Post Cartoon: Is Obama the chimp... (2/20/2009 1:38:02 PM)

With everyone’s hypersensitivity whether real or politically motivated, we will soon live in a day when Mel Brooks movies are banned for being anti Semitic ;)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

Jesus, all of you need to lighten up...its a friggin cartoon



hardbodysub -> RE: New York Post Cartoon: Is Obama the chimp... (2/20/2009 2:37:56 PM)

quote:

Cite some of the concessions in the writing of the House bill. IE: Things that House Democrats took out, or added in, after consulting with their Republican counter-parts participating in bi-partisan governance.
 
You can't. No House Republicans were included in the writing of the bill.


Don't tell me I can't. I already did, but I'm not about to go line by line to give you more specifics beyond the tax cuts that Republicans insisted on. Provisions that they wanted were included in the bill to bring them on board. It doesn't matter if their hands were on the pens.

[quoteTax breaks don't stimulate the economy?

Many of them don't. When they are targeted at people who will actually spend the money they save, because they need the money, that stimulates the economy quickly. When they are given to people who already have excess money, they do not stimulate the economy as effectively as other uses of the money would. The problem with the Republican sticks-in-the-mud in the House is that their solution to EVERYTHING is "tax cuts", and they're always aimed at the rich. Think about it: when we had a surplus, their mantra was "tax cuts", since we had so much extra money. When we're running a deficit, and in recession, they're still screaming for tax cuts. Well, they didn't work before, and they're not going to work now, but they're sticking with the same old failed ideology.



cloudboy -> RE: New York Post Cartoon: Is Obama the chimp... (2/20/2009 2:44:13 PM)

quote:

It is an attempt to slander a group of people in a manner that has greater depth and is much more insidious than any comparison that has been directed at Bush....


Just as a counterpoint, Bush was portrayed as a stupid chimp all the time, albeit not as a stereotype, but more because he was individually perceived as stupid.



hardbodysub -> RE: New York Post Cartoon: Is Obama the chimp... (2/20/2009 2:45:32 PM)

quote:

they see the incident as an opportunity for payback.

"To them, no apology is due.

"Sometimes a cartoon is just a cartoon - even as the opportunists seek to make it something else."


I agree with you on this. Even though I understand the source of the sensitivity, and I'm not a fan of Murdoch or the NYP, the uproar over this smacks of opportunism to the extreme. It gives liberals a black eye, IMO.



hardbodysub -> RE: New York Post Cartoon: Is Obama the chimp... (2/20/2009 2:50:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: domiguy

I can't remember when it was...Last year? That a woman called in to Rush and said that her daughter thought Obama looked like Curious George.  Rush laughed.  Then his staff sent him pictures of Curious George and Rush immediately apologized saying that he had no idea who or what "Curious George" was. 

I actually believe Rush.  The next day Rush immediately apologized for his actions and to his audience and he jokingly "fired the caller" which shows a knowledge of the stigma of associating Obama to a monkey. Rush "Gets it."

It is a sad day when I will state that it appears Rush has more on the ball than many of our posters. Sad day indeed.


I believe Rush, too, even though I can't stand the guy. I'm also inclined to believe that the girl was referring to the ears, and nothing more.



MasterHypnotist -> RE: New York Post Cartoon: Is Obama the chimp... (2/20/2009 3:05:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hardbodysub

quote:

Cite some of the concessions in the writing of the House bill. IE: Things that House Democrats took out, or added in, after consulting with their Republican counter-parts participating in bi-partisan governance.

You can't. No House Republicans were included in the writing of the bill.


Don't tell me I can't. I already did, but I'm not about to go line by line to give you more specifics beyond the tax cuts that Republicans insisted on. Provisions that they wanted were included in the bill to bring them on board. It doesn't matter if their hands were on the pens.

I didn't ask for line by line, I'm not a factoid sadist! You blurbed. You generalized. You enthused. You bashed. You did not give examples. Yes, it does matter that their hands were NOT on the pens. How can something be bi-partisan if only partisans are involved?

[quoteTax breaks don't stimulate the economy?


Many of them don't. When they are targeted at people who will actually spend the money they save, because they need the money, that stimulates the economy quickly. When they are given to people who already have excess money, they do not stimulate the economy as effectively as other uses of the money would. The problem with the Republican sticks-in-the-mud in the House is that their solution to EVERYTHING is "tax cuts", and they're always aimed at the rich. Think about it: when we had a surplus, their mantra was "tax cuts", since we had so much extra money. When we're running a deficit, and in recession, they're still screaming for tax cuts. Well, they didn't work before, and they're not going to work now, but they're sticking with the same old failed ideology.


I am typing very slowly... if many tax cuts don't stimulate the economy (we won't quibble about self-serving quantifications) then some tax cuts do stimulate the economy. Yes, some tax cuts are pay-backs, but that is one very bi-partisan activity. Even as pay-backs, they probably did some general good.
 
Actually, tax cuts during recession have done good. Check the statistics for the Federal increases in collected funds AFTER the Capital Gain Tax rate was cut in the... 80s?
 
My sincere concern is... how much more can really be cut? The answer is, we won't know until after the fact, IF it were to ever happen.
 
So again, great energy. Great enthusiasm. Fine, but limited use of ad hominems. You certainly are committed.
 
That about covers it,
 
MH
 
 



Vendaval -> RE: New York Post Cartoon: Is Obama the chimp... (2/20/2009 3:15:08 PM)

Fast Reply -
 
The New York Times reports that the phones at The New York Post were flooded by angry callers and that many of the staff viewed the cartoon negatively.


"Chimp-Stimulus Cartoon Raises Racism Concerns"

By Sewell Chan and Jeremy W. Peters
Feb 18, 2009


"A newsroom employee at The Post, who spoke on condition of anonymity because employees were not permitted to comment on the matter, said its newsroom received many calls of complaints on Wednesday morning after the publication of the cartoon. “Every line was lit up for several hours,” the employee said. “The phones on the city desk have never rung like that before.” Many Post staff members were dismayed by the cartoon, the employee added.

The cartoon was on Page 12 of Wednesday’s edition, next to the paper’s Page Six gossip column. On Page 11, the reverse side, was a photograph of President Obama signing the stimulus bill into law in Denver."

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/18/chimp-stimulus-cartoon-raises-racism-concerns/



MasterHypnotist -> RE: New York Post Cartoon: Is Obama the chimp... (2/20/2009 3:27:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vendaval

Fast Reply -
 
The New York Times reports that the phones at The New York Post were flooded by angry callers and that many of the staff viewed the cartoon negatively.


"Chimp-Stimulus Cartoon Raises Racism Concerns"

By Sewell Chan and Jeremy W. Peters
Feb 18, 2009


"A newsroom employee at The Post, who spoke on condition of anonymity because employees were not permitted to comment on the matter, said its newsroom received many calls of complaints on Wednesday morning after the publication of the cartoon. “Every line was lit up for several hours,” the employee said. “The phones on the city desk have never rung like that before.” Many Post staff members were dismayed by the cartoon, the employee added.

The cartoon was on Page 12 of Wednesday’s edition, next to the paper’s Page Six gossip column. On Page 11, the reverse side, was a photograph of President Obama signing the stimulus bill into law in Denver."

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/18/chimp-stimulus-cartoon-raises-racism-concerns/


Vendaval,

No one said that people didn't get angry.

What the NYP is saying is that what they are getting angry about was not the content or intended to be the message of the political cartoon.

The NYP post also clearly stated, they are sorry that the political cartoon created such anger. As someone else posted, it's called "projection." It happens. It's wrong, but it happens.

That people are still publicly expressing anger for something that has had a sincere, pointed, public apology, says more about a portion of American society that just doesn't want to listen, than it does the cartoon, doesn't it?

MH



Vendaval -> RE: New York Post Cartoon: Is Obama the chimp... (2/20/2009 3:43:28 PM)

MH, you don't really think that the public outrage will die out that quickly?
When OJ was first arrested Time magazine ran a photo of him on the cover and made the image darker and the results were the same.
 
(checking for that image, here you go, circa June 27, 1994.)
 
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-10magazinecovers14-july14-pg,0,5472017.photogallery?index=3
 
 
And if members of the Post's staff were already expressing concern about the way the cartoon would be interpreted what does that say about the editor and publisher?
Are they completely unaware of the historical connotations or just not care about the public's reaction or that did they want to generate controversy and sales? 
 
An old adage that applies here is - There is no such thing as bad publicity.



Vendaval -> RE: New York Post Cartoon: Is Obama the chimp... (2/20/2009 3:49:31 PM)

MS,
 
All of these examples of political cartoons that you cite here would be inappropriate and offensive IMO.  If you have the links that would be helpful in the analysis.


quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterShake69
I don't recall much discussion of the cartoons by noted artists like Doonesbury, Oliphant and Danziger depicting Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice with slavery connotations. I've never seen much outrage at the cartoons labeling Clarence Thomas as an Uncle Tom, either.

There was no big fuss about Garry Trudeau's "Doonesbury" cartoon of Mr. Bush referring to Ms. Rice as "brown sugar," or Ted Rall's cartoon having Ms. Rice proclaim herself Mr. Bush's "House nigga." Noted political cartoonist Pat Oliphant showed Ms. Rice as a parrot with big lips and Jeff Danziger had her muttering like Butterfly McQueen's character Prissy in "Gone With the Wind." Nor has there been any concerted effort to condemn Don Wright's cartoon showing Justice Thomas as Justice Scalia's lawn jockey.






hardbodysub -> RE: New York Post Cartoon: Is Obama the chimp... (2/20/2009 4:10:02 PM)

quote:

I am typing very slowly


This is getting boring. I didn't miss the point, you did. The Republican-promoted tax cuts stimulate the economy minimally because of where they are targeted. The money lost could, and should, be put to better use elsewhere, where it stimulates the economy more.



MasterHypnotist -> RE: New York Post Cartoon: Is Obama the chimp... (2/20/2009 4:40:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vendaval

MH, you don't really think that the public outrage will die out that quickly?
When OJ was first arrested Time magazine ran a photo of him on the cover and made the image darker and the results were the same.
 
(checking for that image, here you go, circa June 27, 1994.)
 
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-10magazinecovers14-july14-pg,0,5472017.photogallery?index=3
 
 
And if members of the Post's staff were already expressing concern about the way the cartoon would be interpreted what does that say about the editor and publisher?
Are they completely unaware of the historical connotations or just not care about the public's reaction or that did they want to generate controversy and sales? 
 
An old adage that applies here is - There is no such thing as bad publicity.


I don't expect anything rational out of a group of people, regardless of their age, sex, ethnicity, etc. Group and mob psychology is its own animal, and smarter people than me are pulling the strings.

MH



Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875