It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Former "Crips" Founder and Nobel Prize Nominee Cleared For Death Penalty

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 27 2005 @ 04:22 PM
link   
Skadi_the_Evil_Elf, why were the crips founded?

Where did these gangs come from?

Connect all the dots and before you run your mouth, I lived in a 'hood' as you like to call them. In a very poor area, where nearly everyone I grew up with is in prison or has been so I know what these areas are like.

So please, why were the crips founded?




posted on Nov, 27 2005 @ 04:48 PM
link   

And Im not right wing or Republican. In fact, I cant stand them. And I blame left wing nuts like you for their rise to power. If the left had not gone so far out of the real world and alienated so many, the right would not have gained the power they have, and we might actually have been spared another 4 years of Bush. But the incompetance of the left has fueled the fires and handed victory to the right.


Damned straight. The vast majority of Americans don't support Bush. They simply haven't been given any other viable options. The Democrats offer nothing but endless bitching about the Republicans, sneering contempt and overt hatred for anyone who doesn't ascribe to their fascistic social engineering, transparent race-baiting, tired policies that were already discredited in the economic bust of the 70s, and slavish devotion to the nanny state coupled with an utter failure to see that empowering the state to control ANYTHING-- not just the things that they don't want controlled-- is an open invitation for tyranny.

At the very least-- if they really wanted to win the 2004 election, they should've nominated a candidate whose disdain for the common people wasn't quite so palpable. And it wouldn't have hurt if they'd actually offered some real policies-- at least something other than "The Republicans are wrong." Hell, of course the Republicans are wrong-- they're politicians. We don't need anyone to tell us that Bush was and is dangerous-- we can see that for ourselves. We need someone who is actually willing to right his wrongs, rather than to simply point them out.



posted on Nov, 27 2005 @ 04:52 PM
link   
the deaths you speak of skadi ( black males killing black males) are deaths that are a result of putting hundreds or thousands of poor people (black or white it doesnt matter) in the "hood". legal opportunities are limited, the best way to get ahead is to sell drugs or other illegal endeavors. these things usually connect you to gangs and if you are not a member you are affiliated. and this is usually how black males get killed. you compare this to the KKK. killing, raping, arson, assult based solely on skin color. this is comparing apples to oranges and shouldnt be compared at all even to prove a point. the thing i am getting at is black males kill black males due to choices made by them. the KKK killed innocent humans because they were black. niether is right. and this man that is doing everything he can from a prison cell to change this is not being punished enough by incarcerating him for the duration of his life



posted on Nov, 27 2005 @ 05:19 PM
link   
the reason republicans have an advantage in getting the "undecided" vote or the vote from a person who has no party affiliation is that they are actually what they say they are. no real democrat runs for office because someone with interests that coincide with the interests of a real life democrat can not afford to run. a real democrat cares about federal aid, lower taxes not just for the rich and other "right wing" issues. no such canidate has run in my lifetime



posted on Nov, 27 2005 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by cantfoolme
jsobecky

nothing involving race has affected me in any way. if tookie were white i would still have the same take on this.


the only reason that i even mentioned race in any of my posts is because the effect tookie may have on a certain group of people. that group of people is black youth. as a white person i hate that history has to have an affect on today. what white people did in the past caused many black people today to be racist. i haven't a racist bone in my body but a black persons first impression of me has my pale skin factored into it.


Thanks for sharing that with us.

The reason debates turn into arguments on ATS is because people do not read for information, or understanding. They read to fulfill their own personal, preconceived notions and biases.

cantfoolme, you see, you missed a big step when you took it that I was speaking of you. I wasn't. So I'll wait for your apology or retraction for this statement:

i find it extremely unfortunate that you have to make this a race issue.


Go back and really read, and find these quotes

That's the thing though, it doesn't have to make sense. It just has to appease the bloodlust of white taxpayers. Them's the breaks I guess, when living in Amerikkka.

If Tookie was an industrialist responsible for a million birth defects, and hundreds of deaths, due to rampant criminal negligence and blatant disregard for public safety, he'd get a fine (if that!). Because he's a black man, and more importantly not a wealthy man, his crime is blown out of proportion and his punishment is severe.

Emphasis mine.

Then you will see that I wasn't talking about you.

Don't just high-five and attaboy somebody who happens to agree with your point of view. Stand on your own two feet.



posted on Nov, 27 2005 @ 05:58 PM
link   

wow fancy that, killing a nobel prize nominee ... gotta hand it to America's legal system

This seems to carry a lot of weight with many people.

Yasser Arafat won (shared ) the Nobel Peace Prize in 1994.

A history professor can name someone for the Nobel Peace Prize.



posted on Nov, 27 2005 @ 05:58 PM
link   


He thought that his race and his reputation would get him off the hook. I can see where it has already affected members of this forum. If Williams were white, would you be so quick to believe him?


becky
if this statement and question didn't make it a race issue then what did it do?
i do apologize for making it seem like i was on the attack i just cant wait to see the day when race is not an issue anywhere at anytime



posted on Nov, 27 2005 @ 06:08 PM
link   
Well you can start by not mangling somebody's username. Very childish of you.

What did it do? It responded to another poster's statements. Or didn't you read that part of my first response to you?

[edit on 27-11-2005 by jsobecky]



posted on Nov, 27 2005 @ 06:17 PM
link   
Im amazed at how many people have an issue with this. The guy is a convicted murderer plain and simple. Regardless of what he has done sence "Tookie" deserves to die for his crimes.

Simply because he is the cause Du Jur for the Hollywood set or a Nobel Prize nominee makes no difference in the fact that he is quilty.



posted on Nov, 27 2005 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
And I blame left wing nuts like you for their rise to power.

The topic of this thread is not the politics of other members. Please stick to the topics and do not insult fellow members.



posted on Nov, 27 2005 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
Skadi_the_Evil_Elf, why were the crips founded?

Where did these gangs come from?

Connect all the dots and before you run your mouth, I lived in a 'hood' as you like to call them. In a very poor area, where nearly everyone I grew up with is in prison or has been so I know what these areas are like.

So please, why were the crips founded?


It doesn't matter! If I bought a gun to protect my house because of a string of robberies in the neighborhood, then run down to the local corner store and shoot the clerk and take the money, it doesn't matter that I bought the gun for a "good" reason.

The crips were formed to combat the bloods. A vigilante group that got just as bad as who it was supposed to be fighting.



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 03:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by DiabolusFireDragon
The crips were formed to combat the bloods. A vigilante group that got just as bad as who it was supposed to be fighting.


Actually, that's wrong.

Where did you get that idea from?

The Crips were formed in 1969.
The Bloods were formed in 1973.

Anyone else like to take a stab at this or would you like me to answer?



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 04:07 AM
link   
When all is said and done, I still think it's a shame one of the suppossedly most civilized nations in the world still practices the death penalty at all. Why can't we just have life without parole. Seems to me a worse fate than death anyway. There are certain crimes that should never be debatable as to whether or not the person is rehabilitated, they are crimes that must have consequences regardless, but the death penalty is going to far, especially since we can never guarantee that some people are - oops - wrong guy, sorry about that.

To me the death penalty is barbaric and backwards, but that's just me. All this debate about this particular guy would be moot in my view if the death penalty were not the sentence. He should never be let out, but the death penalty in this case is what is causing the suppossed merits of the debate.



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 04:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odium

Originally posted by DiabolusFireDragon
The crips were formed to combat the bloods. A vigilante group that got just as bad as who it was supposed to be fighting.


Actually, that's wrong.

Where did you get that idea from?

The Crips were formed in 1969.
The Bloods were formed in 1973.

Anyone else like to take a stab at this or would you like me to answer?


*waits with baited breath* tell us Odium! I too am curious as to your answer

Also I just read this .... so hope is not lost after all ?


Williams' supporters ran-ge from the holy (Archbishop Desmond Tutu) to the street-wise (rapper Snoop Dogg, himself once a Crip).

Don't kill Tookie - celebs plea


Schwarzenegger is likely to hold a rare private meeting next month with the lawyers for the condemned killer and prosecutors to consider the gang founder's plea for clemency.



and even President Bush pleasantly surprised me here :

=http://www.chicagodefender.com/page/editorial.cfm?ArticleID=3029/


William's appeal comes down to whether his good deeds, commendations, including one from President Bush, and other world figures, convince Schwarzenegger that he deserves to live.





[edit on 28-11-2005 by ImJaded]



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 04:41 AM
link   
Why were the Crips (Cowards Run In Packs) formed?
I am curious as well.



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 05:15 AM
link   
Bob


That's a contradiction, and as such is a fundamentally flawed viewpoint, and it's the basis for many, if not most, of the overarching flaws in leftist ideology.


There is no contradiction. You're misunderstanding my analogy, and admittedly it's a clumsy one. Society is an organism, and as such it is responsible for it's actions and its mistakes. Just as the individuals are responsible for their decisions, the society is largely responsible for the context in which all our decisions are made.

Policy makers and pundits do not represent the majority, and they certainly don't act in our best interest. There is an agenda at work, the very same agenda that has been at work here since feudal Europe crossed the ocean and set up shop in the new world.

Society's directors are responsible for this course, just as I am responsible for the decisions I make in my life. That fact is inescapable.



We are all responsible for ourselves, and nobody else is responsible for us. Williams made a conscious decision to pursue a life of violence, and he and he alone is responsible for that decision.


Right. He understands that perfectly I think. Indeed, he understands it so well he's committed himself to a life of attonement. What harm is done to society by allowing him to attempt repentance?



The fact that he now claims to repent that decision does not in any way alter the fact that it was made and that it had specific negative consequences. The results of his choice are his responsibility and his alone.


Yeah, but it doesn't stop there. We are responsible too, for our decision in this matter. If we go ahead and murder this man, we have failed to learn the lesson he himself appreciates and attempts to pass on. This is the bottom line.

Yes, Tookie was a violent criminal in the past. Yes, he should pay for his crimes. But why can't he be allowed to pay for them in a way that benefits society, instead of sullying our collective hands with yet another taxoayer subsidized murder?

Skadi


Its quite obvious you have never lived in the hood. Or seen the violence and problems created by gangs.


I hate to be the one to tell you this, but it's apparent to me that a lot of the things that are obvious to you are in fact, not true. I have lived in bad neighborhoods in the inner city, on both coasts and in Chicago. I moved from Midtown Manhattan (other side of the great divide) to North Hollywood. Then I moved to Humbolt Park in Chicago, during a major sweeping gentrification program that saw the demise of Cabrini Green and brought a great deal of racial tension to the city.

I spent a number of months, off and on, in a squat in Brooklyn. I went to High School for a while in Hell's Kitchen, alongside kids bussed in from 125th st. We had two deaths resulting from beatings my junior year, one kid hit in the head with a free weight, the other beaten to a pulp with a piece of stone. One was the friend of a friend, the other I never knew.

The second place I lived in Chicago, Humbolt Park, (the first was Lincoln Park,
, hardly relevant to any discussion re: slums), was so bad we had gunfire EVERY weekend, and at least one night during the week. On several occasions we had stray bullents smack into the siding on the back of the house. One ended up lodged in my computer desk and another in the wall opposite the porch door.

The people who lived in the apartment left for the suburbs because they feared for their lives. Didn't bother me any. I never had a single problem with individual gang members, because I act respectfully and I demand the same in return. I don't give anybody any crap, and I don't lay down for it myself. It's the only sensible way to conduct oneself.

Our alley was a transit point between streets, used by the gang members to avoid police cars. One at least on occasion drunken bangers made a game out of shooting at out porch lights.

We ended up getting kicked out of our apartment so it could be turned into a condominium (gentrification), so we moved to the north side. I lived there for a couple of years, and in that time witnessed three massive street brawls between dozens of high school students from the north and south side. The cops wouldn't even get out of their cars in my neighborhood.

The corner store was occupied by one gang located in an adjacent building, and they sold weed and coke. The Mexican mafia dealt heroin out of an underground garage a block over. In my building there were two unaffiliated drug dealers, and one working for the cobras, who sold bootleg DVDs on the side. The first week in the new apartment, we woke up to find an entry team creeping up the back steps to bust down a door two down from ours.

When it comes to my knowledge of gangs and the justice system, bad neighborhoods and the inner city, respect my authority.
(South Park fans will laugh, everyone else will take me for a psychopath, such is life.)

I have enough credits for an Associates in criminal justice, and I research the subjects extensively for use in my fiction writing. Criminal psychology is especially interesting to me, as well as the process of rehabilitating violent offenders.

What's obvious to ME is that you don't have any idea what you're talking about, and I'm guessing you're probably not used to having that fact brought up in conversations in real life. People tend to be very tolerant of bull# in a real life situation. I'm not. FYI.



I dont have a bias, like you do.


What's my bias? Please, share with me your perception.



In the REAL world, the gang warfare between Crips and Bloods has killed FAR many more young black men and other innocent victims than any lynching crusade from the KKK.


So Tookie is responsible for the decisions of all those black men? And I still think you're talking nonsense. Back up your claims with some stats please.



Thousands of young black kids have died in the pointless gang warfare committed by rival gangs.


What's so pointless about it? They're fighting over market share for the sake of survival. If you actually lived in this environment for a time you might better understand the context in which one must make decisions.



The Crips and Bloods and other gang scum have created a culture of murder and hatred amongst the blacks.


Absolute nonsense. Africans were engaged in tribal warfare long before white men ever set foot on their shores. How do you think all those African slaves came to America? They were prisoners of tribal warfare sold to the slave traders, sold by their own people.



I dont see these gangs going after and killing bad cops.


I'm sure they do so at every oppurtunity, but usually it makes more sense to partner with them and bribe the officers for protection. This happens fairly frequently if I'm to understand correctly.



But thank you for your blather. You have proved my point why the loony left has lost so much respect in this country.


Once again, for the benefit of the deaf and blind, I am in no way affiliated with the left, or the right. I loathe our political system, with all its smoke and mirrors. The illusion of choice has cuckolded free will in this country.



Your support of anti-social behavior and murderers is why the religous right is gaining so much influence.


How is supporting literacy and anti-gang activism tantamount to supporting anti-social behavior? I have, on more than one occasion, and quite clearly, stated the simple fact that Tookie is guilty of being a violent criminal. I don't support violent criminals. I do however, support reformed criminals who make a concerted effort to pay for their crimes through public service.

You're acccusing me of support for anti-social behavior, when my position is clearly just the opposite, and this tactic is so disingenuous I would think it warn-worthy.



And I blame left wing nuts like you for their rise to power. If the left had not gone so far out of the real world and alienated so many, the right would not have gained the power they have, and we might actually have been spared another 4 years of Bush. But the incompetance of the left has fueled the fires and handed victory to the right.


Hmmm..indeed. You're way off base, in fact, you're in the wrong stadium entirely. I suggest you take your comments and stick them in your PTS.


[edit on 28-11-2005 by WyrdeOne]



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Yes, he should pay for his crimes. But why can't he be allowed to pay for them in a way that benefits society, instead of sullying our collective hands with yet another taxoayer subsidized murder?


Does the law, or does it not, state that his crimes are capital? Was he, or was he not, found guilty of those crimes? Was he, or was he not, sentenced to death?

I oppose the death penalty-- in ALL cases. I feel that the state should never be granted the power to kill citizens for any reason.

If your issue is with the death penalty, then the proper recourse is to work to eliminate it. If your only intention is to somehow demonstrate that, while that person might legitimately be executed, this person, regardless of his conviction and regardless of his guilt should NOT be executed, then you are simply advocating the same inconsistency in application that is one of the chief evils of the death penalty.

If the law exists, it should apply to all equally. If it's unjust, it should not exist. But applying it only to some and not to others is an affront to liberty, society and the rule of law.



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 09:43 AM
link   
Bob


Does the law, or does it not, state that his crimes are capital? Was he, or was he not, found guilty of those crimes? Was he, or was he not, sentenced to death?


Yes and yes.

However, there is a problem with our use of the death penalty. Of criminals, less than 10% are incapable of rehabilitation. The rest can be returned to the community with the proper training and behavior modification. Assuming, of course, that the correctional facilities are geared towards producing these results.

My solution to those ten percent would be to keep them locked up, because I'm not a big fan of "Do as I say, not as I do." In fact it irritates me to no end, that mode of conduct.

If we want to reduce violence in America, the first logical step would be to reduce institutionalized violence, including institutionalized murder.



I oppose the death penalty-- in ALL cases.


As do I. There may be cases where it's warranted in the eyes of some, but I can't find a logical or ethical justification for that sort of behavior.



If your only intention is to somehow demonstrate that, while that person might legitimately be executed, this person, regardless of his conviction and regardless of his guilt should NOT be executed, then you are simply advocating the same inconsistency in application that is one of the chief evils of the death penalty.


What in the world gave you that idea? I'm against the death penalty for all the reasons I've listed, and a whole host more that I'm not going to get into now.



If the law exists, it should apply to all equally. If it's unjust, it should not exist. But applying it only to some and not to others is an affront to liberty, society and the rule of law.


Absolutely. The law is, to me, like a firearm. Used properly it is the great equalizer, a method to ensure a level playing field. Used improperly, by people who are controlled by fear and hate and all the other failures of human will, bad things happen.

The law is a great idea, but it has yet to be fully realized in human society. We're making some progress though, at least in theory. The practice tends to be a lot more complicated, because of the tendency for any given individual's will and decisions to go against the grain.

I am a firm believer in rehabilitation, but there are cases in which that goal is unreasonable. We, as a society, have to decide how to deal with that problem. I thnk incarceration is the only proper thing to do, but this opinion is my own. If the majority of people in American want to institutionalize murder, we have to go along with their wishes.

That doesn't mean we have to agree, and indeed I don't. I do, however, value the opinions of my fellow citizens, and I want us to be able to come to some consensus eventually. Categorically denying the legitimacy of your opponents viewpoint is a good way to halt discussion and start a fight.

So..I think it's best to continue to offer my opinion, and trust in the majority to one day come around. Maybe there is more to be done, but like I said before, I want people to be responsible for their own lives.

Indeed, we all suffer consequences for our decisions. If the citizens of this country continue to support an uncaring, monolithic police state, they will increasingly find themselves victimzed by it. Digging a hole..digging a hole...



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 10:15 AM
link   
jsobecky
i do apologize for shortening your username i did not know that it would offend you, in the future i will be aware. the other thing is that i know it was already a race issue and you were not talking to me directly. at worst you simply perpetuated the racial aspect of this discussion. in this case it may not be possible to overlook the racial aspect. the point i really wanted to get across was that regardless of this mans race MY opinion would be the same. whether he is white or black a reformed criminal doing all that is in his power to stop what he helped create should be allowed to continue to do so.

once again i am sorry that i offended you and i am also sorry that i singled you out when nearly everyone responding to this tread (even those with the same view point as myself) had used race as leverage.



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 10:24 AM
link   
Since one person keeps aksing about the CRIPS formation and no one will answer, I will:


The attack on black political leadership in Los Angeles, and the power vacuum that remained, created a large void for young black youths in the late 1960s that coincided with the resurgence of black gangs. A generation of black teens in Los Angeles saw their role models and leadership decimated in the late 1960s. Raymond Washington, a 15-year-old student at Fremont High School, started the first new street gang in 1969, shortly after much of the Panther power base was eliminated and as other social and political groups became ineffective in Los Angeles. Washington, who was too young to participate in the Panther movement during the 1960s, absorbed much of the Panther rhetoric of community control of neighborhoods (Baker 1988:28) and fashioned his quasi-political organization after the Panther’s militant style, sporting the popular black leather jackets of the time. Washington got together a few other friends and started the first new black gang in Los Angeles on 78th Street near Fremont High School called the Baby Avenues.

In addition to emulating the Panther appearance, Washington also admired an older gang that remained active throughout the 1960s called the Avenues. He decided to name his new quasi-political organization the Baby Avenues, to represent a new generation of black youths. They were also known as the Avenue Cribs, and after a short time they were referred to as the Cribs, which was a comment on their youthfulness. Their initial intent was to continue the revolutionary ideology of the 1960s and to act as community leaders and protectors of their local neighborhoods, but the revolutionary rhetoric did not endure. Because of immaturity and a lack of political leadership, Raymond Washington and his group were never able to develop an efficient political agenda for social change within the community.

The Cribs were successful in developing a style of dress and a recognizable appearance. In addition to their black leather jackets, they would often walk with canes, and wear an earring in their left ear lobe. Some were also avid weightlifters. The Cribs began to venture into their own criminal behavior, committing robberies and assaults. In 1971, several Crib members that were assaulting a group of elderly Japanese women were described by the victims as young cripples that carried canes. These young cripples were the Cribs, but the local media picked up on this description, and referred to this group as the Crips (Los Angeles Sentinel, 2/10/72). The print media first introduced the term Crip, and those that were involved in a life of crime were considered to be Crippin’ by other Crib members who were still trying to be revolutionary, with the same political thinking of the 1960s. According to ______________ Danifu, an original Crib member, the Cribs was the original name of the Crips, but the term Crips was substituted by the use of the word Cribs through a newspaper article that highlighted specific individuals who were arrested for a murder.[8] Because some of the early Cribs carried canes, the entire notion of Crip as an abbreviated pronunciation from crippled caught on. Jerry Cohen wrote that Crip members wore earrings in their left lobe, in addition to carrying canes, but the walking sticks were not the source of the gang’s name that many believed (1972: C3). Danifu continued to add that Crippin’ was a separate thing from being a Crib… “Crippin’ meant robbing, and stealing, and then it developed into a way of life.”[9]

As mentioned earlier, these youths tried to emulate the fashion of the Panthers by developing a style of dress that included black leather jackets. Those youths who had the crippin’ mentality, became excessively concerned with imitating the Panther appearance. By 1972, most Cribs had been completely transformed into the Crippin’ way of life, which often led into criminal activities. For example, the acquisition of leather jackets by unemployed black youths was accomplished by committing robbery and strong-arming vulnerable youths for their jackets. Jerry Cohen (1972) described the early Crips as:

a group of juveniles that committed extortion of merchandise, mugging the elderly, and ripping off weaker youths, particularly for leather jackets that have become a symbol of Crip identity. (p C3)

Ironically, three days after this article was published, the desire for leather jackets led to perhaps the first Crip murder, when a sixteen-year old son of an attorney was beaten to death over a leather coat. The victim, who was not a gang member, was a West side resident who attended Los Angeles High School and played cornerback for the football team. According to the Los Angeles Police Department, the group that assaulted him fled the scene with five leather jackets, two wallets, the victim and his friends. A few days later, nine youths, including members of the infamous Crip gang, were arrested for the murder. The previous month there was a similar incident where 20 black youths had attacked and beaten a 53- year-old white man to death on Figueroa and 109th Street in South Los Angeles. It was believed that the Crips were responsible for this killing, but no arrests were ever made (Los Angeles Sentinel 2/10/72).

The sensational media coverage of the event at the Hollywood Palladium, plus continued assaults by the Crips, attracted other youths to join the Crips. For youths that have been marginalized along several fronts, such gangs represented manliness to self and others (Vigil & Yun 1990:64). Many youths joined the Crips, but others decided to form their own gangs. The increased attention the early Crips received by the police and from the community, because of the violence they were involved in, actually attracted more youths to join these early gangs. The violence was said to have been committed to attract attention and to gain notoriety (Rosenzweig 1972). In addition, several other youths formed other non-Crip gangs, in response to continued Crip intimidation. The idea of Crippin’ had taken over the streets of south Los Angeles, and Mike Davis stated that “Cripmania” was sweeping South side schools in an epidemic of gang shootings and street fights in 1972 (1990:300). In three short years, the first Crip gang on the East side on 78th Street had spread to Inglewood, Compton, and the West side, totaling eight gangs, as ten other non-Crip gangs formed. By years end, there were 29 gang-related homicides in the city of Los Angeles, 17 in unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County, and nine in Compton (Rosenzweig 1972). Gang violence was in the early stages of what would soon become an epidemic in Los Angeles.


www.nagia.org...

Hope that helps.

- One Man Short ®

(edit to fix link)



[edit on 28-11-2005 by One Man Short of Manhood]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join