Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Senate Repeals DADTFollow

#302 Dec 22 2010 at 9:23 PM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,246 posts
Jophiel wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Bardalicious wrote:
Provide constitutional backing please.
Precedent

Heh.

Come on, I've "LAST"ed this thread twice already. If I can't get a laugh that way then I figure the local libertarian ought to the be able to get a chuckle with judicial review.

Edited, Dec 22nd 2010 9:23pm by MoebiusLord
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#303 Dec 22 2010 at 9:46 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,020 posts
Well, there was at least one.

And others were held elsewhere. Nice try though. And they forced him to renounce his citizenship before they'd release him.

A. Last I checked, citizenship could only be stripped via a trial concerning treason. He never had a trial.

B. The US gov't ruled IN HIS FAVOR once it came out that he was a US citizen, which led to his release back to Saudi Arabia provided he admonish his US citizenship.

That's right, even though they were sure he was working with terrorists, he went free because his rights were violated.

The Bush administration tried to justify themselves by saying that their war-making powers overrode his constitutional liberties. Yes, you did read that right. That was their defense. Is it ANY surprise they lost? No. Because the protection of these rights against the federal gov't is set down in the constitution as being unalienable. They do NOT have the right to do as they please.

Furthermore, even if the rest of the prisoners of Guantanamo aren't US citizens, we are still in violation of the Geneva convention, which we agreed to, signed and expect every other nation to follow when dealing with Americans.

And you aren't getting out of this one by arguing that they weren't torturing these people. Even if you want to claim that "torture" is a strong word (which I don't agree with, but whatever--it doesn't hurt my argument), it is DEFINITELY cruel and unusual punishment and violates the Geneva convention. Water boarding? Blasting music for days on end at decibels that damaged their ears, and then shutting it off to induce silence? Their intentions were to extract information using force. The Geneva Convention protects against that.

You know how the Bush Administration got around that? By saying that all the people they are holding aren't prisoners of war. That's clearly bullsh*t (and every other nation on the planet made it clear that they thought so--including our allies). A PoW is technically defined as someone held during or after an armed conflict--an official declaration of war has nothing to do with it. The GC makes clear that it applies to all times of war AND ARMED CONFLICT.

The fact is that the Bush administration treated international treaties (ones put in place for the sole purpose of protecting the world against the horrors of WWI and II) and its own constitution as rules to be bended or broken, not as something that should be protected for every citizen. And the senate did not agree.

Why? Because the entire basis of the constitution is that the gov't MUST protect these rights.

[EDIT]
Quote:
Quote:
All we have to do is declare someone a POW and all their rights disappear! We can hold them without trial, and without redress, and for as long as we want. OMG! The humanity...


You're ignoring a whole section of the law here.


Thanks for putting words in my mouth. I said terrorist for a reason. We refuse to acknowledge that they are PoWs, even though they clearly are, and so feel like we are justified in treating them like they have no rights.

Furthermore, the very first line of the constitution is that all men are created equal and have unalienable rights to life, liberty and happiness. No where does it say all Americans. The Bill of Rights and additional amendments may refer only to American citizens, but the constitution clearly also says that we can't treat foreigners like they don't have such rights. Which is exactly what the Geneva Convention says.

The reason we aren't considering them PoWs is because, by law, we would then have to give them trials. And because most of the evidence against them was either acquired illegally, or we don't have enough to actually prove they were involved, we'd be forced to release them.

That's right. We don't even know if some of the prisoners actually did anything wrong. Some of them are only SUSPECTED of it, and the gov't thinks it's okay to lock them in a torture camp for the rest of their lives. That's ethical.

Edited, Dec 22nd 2010 10:52pm by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#304 Dec 22 2010 at 11:50 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,230 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Probably because the strategic arms already regulate the use of the tactical arms implicitly in the same way they both regulate the combined arms.

Actually, New START doesn't address tactical weapons but the START treaty and its descendants never have. We haven't had a new tactical arms agreement with Russia/Soviet Union since 1987.

Edited, Dec 22nd 2010 9:23pm by Jophiel


I meant that the fact that we have strategic atomics prevents the use of tactical atomics via deterrence. In the same way that strategic and tactical nukes deter the use of air, sea and ground conventional forces.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#305 Dec 23 2010 at 2:39 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
idiggory wrote:
Well, there was at least one.

And others were held elsewhere. Nice try though. And they forced him to renounce his citizenship before they'd release him.


They didn't know he was a US citizen. I'm not sure what you think that proves. You string a bunch of nice conspiracy theories together, but none of it has to do with the topic at hand.

Quote:
Furthermore, even if the rest of the prisoners of Guantanamo aren't US citizens, we are still in violation of the Geneva convention, which we agreed to, signed and expect every other nation to follow when dealing with Americans.


No we're not. Can you show me what part of the Geneva Convention we violated? It's easy to insist that this is true, but you are making an argument from ignorance and counting on the fact that most people are equally ignorant of what the Geneva Conventions actually say.

Quote:
Their intentions were to extract information using forceinterrogation. The Geneva Convention protects against that.


No. It doesn't. Have you ever in your life actually read the Geneva Conventions?

Quote:
You know how the Bush Administration got around that? By saying that all the people they are holding aren't prisoners of war.


They aren't. They do not meet the criteria set in the 3rd Geneva Convention which are required to qualify for POW status. I'll ask again: Have you actually read the Geneva Conventions?

Quote:
That's clearly bullsh*t (and every other nation on the planet made it clear that they thought so--including our allies). A PoW is technically defined as someone held during or after an armed conflict--an official declaration of war has nothing to do with it. The GC makes clear that it applies to all times of war AND ARMED CONFLICT.


That is not what defines a POW. You haven't read the relevant Convention.

There's a very long list of things qualifying one for POW status, the most relevant is the following:

Quote:
(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.


This is the section under which civilians may choose to join a conflict and still qualify as POWs. Note, that at least 2 of the required conditions have clearly not been met (b and d), and several others likely weren't either.

They were not classified as POWs because they don't meet the criteria to be POWs. This is not a violation of the Geneva Conventions. It's in exact accordance with it. It's largely only ignorant people who don't know what the conventions actually say who continually insist otherwise.


Quote:
The fact is that the Bush administration treated international treaties (ones put in place for the sole purpose of protecting the world against the horrors of WWI and II) and its own constitution as rules to be bended or broken, not as something that should be protected for every citizen. And the senate did not agree.


That is not a fact and it's not true, no matter how many times you keep repeating it. We did not violate the Geneva Conventions, and the only constitutional violation at Gitmo was that the US had not passed a law specifically defining the military commissions process underwhich detainees were being held. Congress clarified that law in 2006, making the detainments completely legal and in accordance with the US constitution (per the Supreme Court even!).


You are just plain wrong.

Quote:
Quote:
All we have to do is declare someone a POW and all their rights disappear! We can hold them without trial, and without redress, and for as long as we want. OMG! The humanity...


Thanks for putting words in my mouth. I said terrorist for a reason.


No. You miss the point. People who are declared to be POWs can be held indefinitely and without trial. Yet you are arguing that terrorists should be given *better* treatment in this regard and be granted trials or be let free. Do you see how that makes no sense?

Quote:
We refuse to acknowledge that they are PoWs, even though they clearly are, and so feel like we are justified in treating them like they have no rights.


But if they were POWs they would not be able to demand speedy trials either. I was specifically responding to your statement that denying these people trials was a violation of their rights. It very clearly isn't. You just have such a poor understanding of these things that it appears that way to you. Ignorance doesn't make you right.

Quote:
The reason we aren't considering them PoWs is because, by law, we would then have to give them trials.


No. We wouldn't. That was the whole point of what I said before. POWs do not get trials. You really do have no clue what you are talking about, do you?

Quote:
That's right. We don't even know if some of the prisoners actually did anything wrong. Some of them are only SUSPECTED of it...


It's not about committing a crime though. It's about committing an act of war. We have exactly as much evidence that these guys were engaged in illegal military actions against our country as we have for "legal" military action in the case of POWs. But you don't understand what I'm talking about, do you?

Edited, Dec 23rd 2010 12:58pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#306 Dec 23 2010 at 7:22 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,020 posts
gbaji, saying it isn't true doesn't change the fact of the matter. We REFUSE to call them PoWs, because then we'd need to give them rights. The Geneva Convention is very clear.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#307Almalieque, Posted: Dec 27 2010 at 10:09 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Ooooooorrrrrrrrr, I decided to spend time during Christmas with my family instead of arguing with you guys as I said. I'm sorry, as much as I love to post here, this forum isn't the center of my universe.
#308 Dec 27 2010 at 10:49 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
20,915 posts
Almalieque wrote:
I not only tell you that I don't have any hatred or fear, I tell you that you're going to respond questioning it and you do just that.

Not that I'm asserting you must be, but do you honestly think the majority of bigots consider themselves to be bigots and that their opinions are based on fear or hatred?
#309 Dec 27 2010 at 11:48 PM Rating: Good
Alma wrote:
this is about "cultural norms" and nothing more.


It's normal for homosexuals to shower with straights in the gym & in your military already & will remain so post DADT. Smiley: schooled
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#310 Dec 28 2010 at 12:27 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
Seriously people.. 3900 is a nice round number to stop at and it was coincidental that I hit that number right as my car was done.

Right.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#311 Dec 28 2010 at 5:56 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Allegory wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I not only tell you that I don't have any hatred or fear, I tell you that you're going to respond questioning it and you do just that.

Not that I'm asserting you must be, but do you honestly think the majority of bigots consider themselves to be bigots and that their opinions are based on fear or hatred?


You're right, but those people also are not able to provide legitimate reasoning without fear or hatred. Besides, posters on this forum have said in the past that the ONLY reason why a person wouldn't support the repeal of DADT or other homosexual related activities is through hatred and fear.

Omega Vegta wrote:
It's normal for homosexuals to shower with straights in the gym & in your military already & will remain so post DADT. Smiley: schooled


No, that would be like forcing men and women to shower together and saying it's "normal" for men and women to shower together, as my example stated. I was referencing to the psychological norm. Just as it is a norm for women not to want to shower or share close rooms with random men, it's a norm that men not to want to shower or share close rooms with homosexual men. That was the whole purpose of DADT. To allow homosexuals to serve under the assumption that they are straight. Add that with the segregation of men and women, you are appealing to both norms. The problem is, it's a double standard where one practice is accepted and the other isn't.
#312 Dec 28 2010 at 7:48 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
No, that would be like forcing men and women to shower together and saying it's "normal" for men and women to shower together, as my example stated.

But it is normal for straight and homosexual men to shower together. They do so in the military, in health clubs, in high schools and colleges, in athletic clubs and sports teams... I can't think of a single place that segregates showers based on sexuality. It's normal. It's the cultural norm. It's not the norm for men and women to shower together (not that it doesn't happen, but it's not the norm). Understand (of course not)? Separation by gender is the norm. Separation by sexuality is not. You can think that this is totally unfair or whatever but then it's on you to convince everyone that it shouldn't be the norm. The fact that it is the norm is pretty solid.

Keep whining about double standards for all the good it will do you.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#313 Dec 28 2010 at 7:56 AM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,246 posts
Alma's secretly hoping to be the last guy in with a **** so he can drop the soap.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#314 Dec 28 2010 at 10:10 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
No, that would be like forcing men and women to shower together and saying it's "normal" for men and women to shower together, as my example stated.

But it is normal for straight and homosexual men to shower together. They do so in the military, in health clubs, in high schools and colleges, in athletic clubs and sports teams... I can't think of a single place that segregates showers based on sexuality. It's normal. It's the cultural norm. It's not the norm for men and women to shower together (not that it doesn't happen, but it's not the norm). Understand (of course not)? Separation by gender is the norm. Separation by sexuality is not. You can think that this is totally unfair or whatever but then it's on you to convince everyone that it shouldn't be the norm. The fact that it is the norm is pretty solid.

Keep whining about double standards for all the good it will do you.


Uh no.

Once again, I'm talking about the norm of preference vs the norm of practice. My entire point is that the norm of preference for one scenario is upheld through the norm of practice but not for the other norm of preference. What you have done is taken the norm of practice and claim that it is. Of course it is, but not by choice. Which is the whole point of me stating the double standard. In one scenario, women say that they prefer not to shower with men and it's accepted. in the other scenario, men say that they prefer not to shower with homosexual men and it's isn't accepted.


You fail to grasp the concept of DADT. The philosophy is that everyone is heterosexual, if you're not heterosexual, keep it to yourself. So, while heterosexual and homosexual men do shower together, it's under the assumption that they are all heterosexual. So when John is showering next Tom, John thinks that Tom is a heterosexual. He doesn't know that Tom isn't, so he isn't bothered. If John knew that Tom was a homosexual, he might have different feelings toward that situation. Likewise in other public situations. I would wager that most men assume that everyone is heterosexual because no one has hinted otherwise.... you know what that sounds like........ you guessed it... DADT.


I don't know what planet you live in if you think men would rather shower exclusively with men (mixed with open homosexuals) than inclusively with women. I assure you that the percentage of men who feel the same way about showering with heterosexuals as they do homosexuals are low.



I remember once I was changing in high school gym class and this girl walked right in and asked this guy something and left. It didn't even dawn on me that she wasn't supposed to be there till after I had left, because no one made a scene. If a guy had walked into the girls locker room, I assure you there would have been some complaints. That story alone doesn't prove anything, but it's an example of my point of the different comfort levels between men and women.

Rather you want to accept it or not, men and women shower together, sleep together and do other things together all around the world. They don't do so in public because they feel uncomfortable being exposed in front of strangers or other people. That's the only reason why women and men are segregated.

It hasn't been till the past few years where people have been open about their sexuality. The assumption is usually and has always been that everyone is heterosexual unless hinted otherwise. This is why there isn't segregation on sexuality, but ***.

***** This is completely in agreement with my claim that marriage is between a man and a woman based on normality. People weren't open about their sexuality (probably against the law) and so the assumption was that everyone was heterosexual. "Why would a man marry another man? That's nonsense!". It probably had a lot less to do with segregation of sexuality and more so on ***, just as you just pointed out.

I do thank you for agreeing with me though... ******

#315 Dec 28 2010 at 10:20 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
Uh no.

Uh, yes.

Quote:
Once again, I'm talking about the norm of preference vs the norm of practice.

Good for you but ultimately pointless. Practice is what matters, not what makes your little heart glow with pleasure.

Quote:
So, while heterosexual and homosexual men do shower together, it's under the assumption that they are all heterosexual.

No, it's under a self-imposed blissful ignorance. Under DADT, it's known that you will be showering with homosexuals because homosexuals are allowed to join the military. If the only way you can handle that is to chant "hemustbestraight... hemustbestraight..." over and over, that's your own lookout.

Again, you need to make the argument about why the norm should be changed since that norm is the current practice. You keep failing to do so.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#316 Dec 28 2010 at 11:15 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
Alma, there may still be men that are *** but choose to not tell. They'll see your bared wiener in the shower. Creepy eh?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#317 Dec 28 2010 at 11:31 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,547 posts
Quote:
So when John is showering next Tom, John thinks that Tom is a heterosexual. He doesn't know that Tom isn't, so he isn't bothered. If John knew that Tom was a homosexual, he might have different feelings toward that situation.


So basically what you are saying is that John is cool when he doesn't know, but if he did know he would be afraid that Tom is now checking him out when showering. Which is exactly what I said earlier. You could be showering with 10 ****'s right now, and no even know it. But you are comfortable around them, even though they could be checking you out right now and over the last X times you shower with each other. You are afraid to shower with people who may be sizing you up, assuming that because they are *** they want you.

Anyhow, the above is mostly redundant because most gays will not tell you they are *** anyway. The majority of them don't want to deal with the situation of being eye-balled and talked about negatively behind their backs. Furthermore, I am quite sure none of them are going to check you out or try and pick you up. They are more likely to ignore your heterosexual *** in favor of finding another *** man/woman, someone that they can likely get together with and play tummy sticks, or lay some carpet.

You are not special, you are just a random dude, if "Tom" hasn't been checking you out for the last X years, Tom isn't going to start checking you out now, just because he is allowed to say if he is *** or not. Nothing is going to change, gays are in the military now, they will be in the future, they have seen you naked, you have seen them naked, and will continue to do so for most of your time left.

____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#318 Dec 28 2010 at 11:32 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
That's okay provided Alma isn't saddled with the crippling knowledge that they might be ***.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#319 Dec 28 2010 at 11:34 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,547 posts
His best bet is to just not leave his room, anyone could be ***, he may as well just lock himself up alone, because at least he knows for sure i he is *** or not. Cut off all ties with the world because a dude might check out your package.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#320Almalieque, Posted: Dec 28 2010 at 12:21 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) My whole point to you all is that people can have legitimate reasons for not wanting to shower or room with homosexuals and not be a homophobe and those reasons are the same exact reasons why women prefer not to do the very same activities with men. Hypocrites, such as yourself, only accept it for one scenario but not for the other, claiming people are "homophobes". At the same time, you don't call women "heterophobes"... so why is that? What's the difference? No one has yet stated the difference.
#321 Dec 28 2010 at 12:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
Almalieque wrote:


If I dressed up as a woman and entered the woman's locker room, the women in there wouldn't care. Why? because they would think I was a woman.


You must be some kind of girlie-man if you think you could pull that off.
#322 Dec 28 2010 at 12:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
My whole point to you all is that people can have legitimate reasons for not wanting to shower or room with homosexuals and not be a homophobe and those reasons are the same exact reasons why women prefer not to do the very same activities with men.
So what are those reasons, and why are they the same as the ones between men and women?
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#323 Dec 28 2010 at 12:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
I don't think you understand the argument here or just slow on the uptake.

I don't think you understand it. I get what you want to be the argument but it's irrelevant.

Quote:
Like I mentioned in the last DADT thread, sodomy and homosexuality is punishable under UCMJ

Currently. Given that the UCMJ will be changed with the repeal of DADT, that's pretty irrelevant as well, at least until the new rules are released by the Dept. of Defense.

You're still failing to make an argument.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#324 Dec 28 2010 at 12:44 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
Almalieque wrote:

My whole point to you all is that people can have legitimate reasons for not wanting to shower or room with homosexuals and not be a homophobe and those reasons are the same exact reasons why women prefer not to do the very same activities with men. Hypocrites, such as yourself, only accept it for one scenario but not for the other, claiming people are "homophobes". At the same time, you don't call women "heterophobes"... so why is that? What's the difference? No one has yet stated the difference.
The difference being that men are men and women are not men. Women have ******'s men have penises. All men be they *** or straight have penises. Do you understand the difference?

Quote:

Just like in all of my other debates, I'm arguing the concept. You and other's claims that this is all about hatred/fear are wrong and I'm just simply pointing that out. What you and the other posters have done, as usual, is attach made up ideas, feelings and attitudes to a topic I wasn't even referencing to in the first place.
I'd say it's more about fear/ignorance but either way you have failed to make any sort of argument - right or wrong, that there is a reason to maintain a DADT policy that doesn't involve 'feelings'.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#325 Dec 28 2010 at 1:33 PM Rating: Good
Alma wrote:
No, that would be like forcing men and women to shower together and saying it's "normal" for men and women to shower together, as my example stated. I was referencing to the psychological norm. Just as it is a norm for women not to want to shower or share close rooms with random men, it's a norm that men not to want to shower or share close rooms with homosexual men. That was the whole purpose of DADT. To allow homosexuals to serve under the assumption that they are straight. Add that with the segregation of men and women, you are appealing to both norms. The problem is, it's a double standard where one practice is accepted and the other isn't.

My whole point to you all is that people can have legitimate reasons for not wanting to shower or room with homosexuals


You can certainly prefer not to shower with the out poofs post DADT, but there are no legitimate reasons why you shouldn't or can't do so. I'd prefer to shower with the nubile co-eds that frequent my gym as opposed to Robert, the fat(& hairy) **** whom seems to frequent the gym around the same time that I do. But since I'm a man, I use the men's locker room as is the "psychological norm" (whatever the fuck that means). If Robert & I soldiered together, we'd still shower together!

What you want to happen under the post DADT world is going to matter very little. Sure, you can ask your commanding officer to shower separately from the poofs that come out in your unit & he might (and that's a very slight might )even let you do it.

But what will be your answer when the straight dudes whom are comfortable with their sexuality ask you why you're acting like such a little ***** about it?

____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#326 Dec 28 2010 at 1:42 PM Rating: Excellent
******
30,646 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
What you want to happen under the post DADT world is going to matter very little.


Honestly, I don't think Alma really has a problem with the fact that when he showers, there are men who enjoy the company of other men in there with him, all naked and soapy. I think it's just his last ditch effort to stick it to those **** homos who have the audacity to consider their lifestyle "acceptable."

Edited, Dec 28th 2010 1:43pm by Belkira
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 1 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (1)