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.

 

Who here is an expert on the Constitution?

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 06:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by planeman

Originally posted by Roper
No, he wants to make the USA a nation under Islam. His revolution is not one of freedom.

Roper
How is a nation "under" Islam any different in this regard to a nation under God*. And at any rate, since when has AlQeada's aim been to install Muslim law in USA, I thought their aim was to remove the infidel (Christains etc) from the land of the two holy places (i.e. the Arabian peninsular)

But more importantantly, where does the constitution limit the acceptable motivations for the civilian militia that we've been talking about?

Amendment 9 and Amendment 10...These are not under federal jurisdiction if you read these amendments carefully...THey belong to the people or the states...which are the people.


As to the goals of Islam or AlQueda...notice that historically the Goal of Islam has always been to spread the religion by the Sword.

Islam was invading into France where they were finally stopped in 732AD by Charles Martel at the Battle of Tours. Notice this is some 300 years before the first crusade!!?? Check this out it is on the Web..under "Battle of Tours. France is a Islamic Holy site yes???

Later on we see Islam moving again and taking another route into Europe where they were stopped at Vienna...another Islamic Holy site.

Astonishing...dont worry...you wont see this in the media either while they are holding all these talk sessions on religion and Islam today. They will avoid this one.




[edit on 13-12-2006 by orangetom1999]

[edit on 13-12-2006 by orangetom1999]




posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 06:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by planeman
Serious question:

Does a US citizen AlQeada operative have a constitutional right to go about attempting to overthrow the government by violent means, bearing arms as a "militia", as provided for in the constitution. If not, why not?


Ugh, Troll? It's people like you who seriously ruin any big discussion. People die as a result of making statements like that-> next thing you know militia members are labeled terrorists, and then they are put in jail, tortured, and executed.

An Al Qaeda US Citizen in a militia by the US people is completely contraditory to the aims and goals of that terrorist group. They want to see us all dead, our culture destroyed, and Islam to be a mandatory religion for our country.

A state militia's goal is to ensure freedom and that our government is upholding it's promise to value the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Simple in theory.

Any 1776 freedom and constitutional militia would destroy an Al Qaeda member if found amongst their ranks. Hence I say found, as in- they wouldn't be allowed in the militia in the first place. Some crazy militia? Well who knows what they'd do. But any good militia would battle the crazy militia, so don't even worry about it.

Don't forget this argument is no doubt going to be brought up in the next 5 years. Any militia member will be possibly be labeled a terrorist, enemy combatant, non-enemy combatant, etc. However, you can always defeat reactionary individuals spurting half truths and bs with the full truth.

Full Truth: Al Qaeda in a militia run by the people of the US is as silly as putting a Nazi soldier in a company of US troops back in World War II.

I don't know about you, but if I was in a militia and this alternate history scenario was presented, Al Qaeda soldier that is a US citizen or not i'd put two bullets in his chest and one in his head.

[edit on 13-12-2006 by jaguarmike]



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 07:00 AM
link   
Here is what I'm refering to.


"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,"

AlQeada lead House, Senate, Persident would do just that.

www.danielpipes.org... Read this from '98 former CAIR leader.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Roper



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 07:46 AM
link   
"Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."


Nowhere in there does it say it is ok to allow a religion to prosper based upon the total annihilation of another religion. Further, Al Qaeda is a criminally insane (extremist) version of Islam. Islam constantly says not to confuse the two. Islam is a respectable religion, extremist Islamists are terrible.

So let's say hypothetically you and I make a religion that states "if you don't wear red pants on Mondays and Tuesdays, with blue pants on Saturdays- you are Satan spawn and must be killed upon sight." Are you implying that under Amendment I that we would be able to practice that religion under the Constitution? I don't think you are, but this thread needs some stupid humor.

Sorry to say our founding fathers didn't calculate human stupidity and gullibility into their equation. Just because they were of extremely high moral and ethical intellects doesn't mean the next guy will be, or the next generation will be. This is the biggest flaw in the Constitution we have as I see it. As far as i'm concerned, Wilson ruined America back in 1913 when he gave America over to the bankers. It's been a slow generation by generation plan since then to take over America completely and head towards globalization. This is seriously an ugly problem, and is massive in scale.

OrangeTom brings up an awesome point about winning btw...

That's really what it boils down to in any situation like this, hypothetical or not.

I'll leave you with some quotes to think about pertaining to this issue from the deepest person i've ever heard of:

“There are no conflicts which cannot be resolved unless the true promoters of them remain hidden.”- L. Ron Hubbard


“All disturbance and chaos folds up in the teeth of truth.
Don’t ever try to stop truth. It’s the only thing that can go through 16-inch armor plate.”- L. Ron Hubbard

"Ideas and not battles mark the forward progress of mankind. Individuals, and not masses, form the culture of the race. "-LRH

and lastly (I know it's hard but you know it's true),

“Happiness and strength endure only in the absence of hate. To hate alone is the road to disaster. To love is the road to strength. To love in spite of all is the secret of greatness. And may very well be the greatest secret in this universe.”- L. Ron Hubbard quote









Game on.

[edit on 13-12-2006 by jaguarmike]



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 10:07 AM
link   
One of the struggles with the Constitution of the United States is that in its original writing and purpose..the States actually had power and control over the Federal Government.

I have illustrated the concept and purpose of Amendments 9 and Amendment 10.

What is not known by most peoples and not taught in most schools for what it actually is and its application to the power of the individual States is that in its original charter the Senators of each State...two of them were to be voted in by the State Legislators..not by the public. THe purpose of the State senators was to look out for the intrests of the individual states. This concept is clearly stated in Article 1 section 3 of the United States Constitution.

The Represenative of the people of the United States was to be through the House of Represenatives..not the Senate.

Now notice that by the 17th Amendment, dated April 8 1913, that the Senators of each State were now elected by the people..popular vote of the people....not the State Legislatures. YOu now have two Houses of Represenatives ...not a Senate. No one is looking out for the State intrests since it is by popular vote of the people ..not the State Legislatures.

This is one manner in which the power of the States over the Federal Government was broken and weakened.

Find someone in a Government class who will teach you this concept ..yet it is right there in front of you in any copy of the US Constitution.

If you read carefully Article 1 section 3 and contrast this with Amendment 17 it becomes obvious.

For your consideration and information,

Orangetom



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 10:31 AM
link   
Thanks Orangetom.

Though I am a staunch supporter of stronger state power, I agree with these notes, and believe, that at least now, senators have somewhat of a concern for satisfying their constituents. Whereas with the original protocol, senators may have only been concerned with a few hundred legislators that elected them.

I agree, that this has left the states, somewhat voiceless concerning the federal government. Especially because I believe that the people of the United States ironically, probably identify more with being an American, rather than that as a
Georgian, or Ohioan, or Californian. (Texas excluded
)



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 11:33 AM
link   
I think the 2nd ammendant should be redefined to make sure what kind of arms are legal for civilians, some critics of the 2nd ammendant say it's only muzzleloaders and some others mean it's all weapons, and yet others say it's only our militia's or national guard's rights to bear arms.

I support the second ammendant and I feel that we should have access up to a machinegun in a caliber of .50cal and with special permits you even should be able to purchase anti-armor weapons for militia's, including tanks.

This might sound extreme, but criminals on the other hand already have most of these things like RPG-7 rocket propelled grenades, UZI's, MAC-10/11's, AK-47's and all that kind of stuff.

I have no desire to get any of these things since I prefer semi-automatic rifles and have no desire to own explosive weapons but I wouldn't mind having a Bradley as my primary vehicle and beat and run over all those silly Hummers out there
j/k

I feel we should be allowed to be on the same level as the Army and have access to similar comparable equipment, training can be provided by ex-military and police and no ABSOLUTELY NO control will be had BY the government over the militia's since they are there to UPHELD the constitution.



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 12:31 PM
link   
I'm a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment, but I don't think that it authorizes the average citizen to have rocket launchers, grenades, etc..
Firearms yes, to include automatic(if they meet the FFL requirements). The intent was for self defense, not to have the ability to conduct offensive operations. That's what the military is for.



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by jaguarmike
Ugh, Troll? It's people like you who seriously ruin any big discussion. People die as a result of making statements like that-> next thing you know militia members are labeled terrorists, and then they are put in jail, tortured, and executed.

An Al Qaeda US Citizen in a militia by the US people is completely contraditory to the aims and goals of that terrorist group. They want to see us all dead, our culture destroyed, and Islam to be a mandatory religion for our country.

A state militia's goal is to ensure freedom and that our government is upholding it's promise to value the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Simple in theory.

So the militia in the 2nd Amendment IS a State militia. That contradicts the interpretation others here are giving it whereby it provides for individuals regardless of organisation and beyond the bounderies of the National Guard.

It seems that the pro-2nd amendment lobby here are keen to shoot down* the notion that an Al Qeada motivated US citizen is covered by the constitution, bbut the logic of the counter-argument seems very woolly. Where in the 2nd Amendment does it qualify the motivation of the weapon owning individuals covered therein? Last time I looked it didn't say:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed provided that they aren't Muslim and that they approve of the incumbant government"

You not liking AlQeada (I agree with that sentiment BTW) is not really a convincing argument as to why US citizens with those leanings are any less covered by the 2nd amendment than citizens with White Supremacist or other extreme right-wing beliefs are.

Remember that the better regulated a militia is, the less able it is to provide it's apparently necessary function of protecting the freedoms of the people from the government. The 2nd amendment includes a qualification right there, why is it me that has to point that out???? No wait, being well regulated implies limiting the definition of what is and isn't militia in which case that undermines the popular gun ownership argument. Hm,mmm....

* is a pun still funny if you have to explain it in footnotes?


[edit on 13-12-2006 by planeman]



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 12:15 AM
link   
Well I mispoke when I said state, and again, we're thinking way too hard about something that is relatively easy to explain.

A militia organized by the people.

Again, if an Al Qaeda member snuck into a miltia, not only is that rediculous, but he wouldn't survive. Simple.



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 02:14 AM
link   
There is no real debate. Its established that the militia is all able bodied men. That the States can regulate fire arms. That to bear arms means specifically infantry weapons.

And the Federalist papers supports all of this.



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by nextguyinline
Thanks Orangetom.

Though I am a staunch supporter of stronger state power, I agree with these notes, and believe, that at least now, senators have somewhat of a concern for satisfying their constituents. Whereas with the original protocol, senators may have only been concerned with a few hundred legislators that elected them.

I agree, that this has left the states, somewhat voiceless concerning the federal government. Especially because I believe that the people of the United States ironically, probably identify more with being an American, rather than that as a
Georgian, or Ohioan, or Californian. (Texas excluded
)


Nextguyinline and others,

I am not a staunch supporter of stronger state power. I am a staunch supporter of the system of Checks and Balances. The states having certain power over the Federal Government is one of the systems of Checks and Balances.

The 9th and 10th Amendments are part of that system of "Limited Government" As is the origial system of Senators being elected by the State Legislatures....checks and balances.

The 2nd Amendment is one of thoses checks and balances when Government no longer represents the intrests of the people or the States as well as a tool of domestic tranquility. Protection from wildlife..two or four legged varietys.

For Jaguar Mike and others....as to people having other types of weapons..I am not infavor of people owning fully automatic weapons per se. Actually I have seen people who probably shouldnt have weapons..but I also understand the concept of Rights..verses priveleges.

Fully automatic weapons look good on television...however most people have no concept in terms of simple dollars and cents as to how much it costs to feed a weapon like this. And I am refering to even a simple fully automatic weapon in plain .22 long rifle. YOu can go through some ammunition/dollars and cents very quickly. This looks good in the movies and television but believe me you spend more time reloading your weapon than you do enjoying the simple dicipline of shooting. WHen you begin to realize how rapidly your pocket dimensions shrink when you pull the trigger...it will make you rethink many of these philosophys of which we tend to think as "Glorious." or "Fanciful."
If you want to shoot alot in one shot ..buy a shotgun.

However...on the otherhand if you want to own a fully automatic weapon of this type you can. Just fill out the proper paperwork and get approved and you are good to go. This includes silencers and certain explosives.

There are people in this country who own Artillery pieces...and tanks.
Like fully automatic weapons if you can afford the dollar drain ..go ahead.
Those civil war movies you see...with reenactors..some of those artillery pieces are privately owned...and fired. They are sometimes leased or contracted for movies along with the crews/people and uniforms of those owning them.

It is obvious that these peoples have moneys to spare and Wives who are very tolerant of thier excesses. Most of us do not fit this criterion.

THere are several people in this country and even in the UK who own tanks ...and other tracked vehicles. Not many ..but some. As I stated ..the dollar drain is the key here. Those of us who understand how difficult it is to simply keep several ordinary automobiles, trucks or even a pleasure/fishing boat running know this concept intimately.

As to the scenerio posted by PLaneman..of the US Citizen..AL Queda member or supporter owning a firearm..I Have no problem with this. Now when thier beliefs are acted upon ...to the deteriment of my family/domestic tranquility...that is another matter. And this applys to anyone..not just a Al Queda member. IT is thier right as a US Citizen to own/possess firearms. NO problem here with me.
I am not such a drama queen that this is a problem with me.

For those of you who do not know this information..the reason the Palestenians and other have turned to bombs/IED/suicide bomb type weapons ..is that they have discovered that if they go after the Israelis in shooting scenerios...the ordinarly Israeli citizen is armed...and knows how to use them. They have tried shootings in the early days in store and cafes etc. It was not successful. It did not take long at all for the Palestenians to learn this lesson that open shootings of Israelis on the streets was the wrong way to go. You will not find this information on the standard news media for what it is...you have to look for it.

THe muslims in Iraq and other places have discovered that our soldiers will pull the trigger too. Imagine that!!?? And our soldiers know how to hit what they aim at..unlike many in the criminal enterprises so popular today on the our streets. It is the same in other nations...criminal elements are very effective against an unarmed public. By this I also mean mentally unarmed. And by criminal I also include the body politic.

This is why the switch to bombs/IEDs. It is the best they have even with fully automatic weapons at thier disposal. Think this through carefully before someone attempts to sow fear and doubts in your mind as a career opportunity.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 03:04 PM
link   
OrangeTom,

It is not about being a "drama queen" in regards to being worried about Al Qaeda being allowed to have weapons if they are American citizens.

I'm thinking as I write this if I even need to clarify why this is...

Looks like I do because of the above comment you made. If a terrorist, despite his nationality, chooses to obtain a weapon- this is a risk. For you, my family and yours, and innocents.

Same goes for a criminal trying to obtain a weapon. There is no difference except the Al Qaeda member would be treated more severely under the law.

There is no "law-abiding" Al Qaeda member in regards to US law.

And i'm going to disagree heavily with you on the statement made saying all you need is a shotgun. People are uneducated on rifles (and firearms in general) - the main concern is knowing what is beyond your target. A shotgun is a great tool- there is no debate there. However, if a shotgun outweighed the benefits of a military rifle then our troops and special police units would be carrying solely shotguns and not upgraded M4's.

Third, subtly urging people to obtain IED's is a HORRIBLE idea. What the hell are you thinking?

I hope I don't need to clarify this- there is no movie bravado here. If you are worried about emptying the clip in three seconds versus ten in the movies then buy a drum mag, and if you're worried about prices then i've got an excellent penny stock that is about to go sky high...





[edit on 14-12-2006 by jaguarmike]



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by jaguarmike
If a terrorist, despite his nationality, chooses to obtain a weapon- this is a risk. For you, my yours, and innocents.
Anyone with a firearm is a greater danger to your family and innocents than someone without a firearm.

what ids the constitutional PURPOSE of firearms ownership again?



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by planeman

Originally posted by jaguarmike
If a terrorist, despite his nationality, chooses to obtain a weapon- this is a risk. For you, my yours, and innocents.
Anyone with a firearm is a greater danger to your family and innocents than someone without a firearm.

what ids the constitutional PURPOSE of firearms ownership again?


Does this explain why the government has so many firearms?? Are we at risk??? Ammunition too??

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 01:25 PM
link   
I think you misread or misunderstood my post. First off I am not advocating anyone owning IED's. I dont know where you got such a idea from my post. I merely explained why the Palestenians switched to suicide bombers and the Iraqi factions IED's. THey have discovered that they cannot go head to head with the Israelis or our troops even with automatic weapons. Hence the switch to explosives.

Also I never stated that all you needed was a shotgun. I own several but also have other weapons too. I stated that a shotgun can put many rounds downrange with one shot. Since fully automatic weapons are expensive to feed with ammunition one should be satisfied with a shotgun for putting lead down range...rather than send so many dollars downrange. Even a .22 caliber fully automatic weapon goes through ammunition quite rapidly. I also stated that full auto looks good in movies...it is just very expensive to feed these machines. This was my intent..not that the only weapon you will need is a shotgun. Mind you now..a shotgun is a very versatile and practical tool..no doubt..but it is not everything here.

Yes... I understood the concept that there is no law abiding Al Qaeda in the United States...hence my statement to the effect that when thier firearms ownereship...threatens my family or me and mine....that is a different matter. I am fully aware that this group is on the watch/wanted list...even when I made that statement. Planemans position and placebo was to the effect of a Al Qaeda US Citizen. My sentiments are the same way about any other wildlife and my family or me and mine. US Citizen or not. However ..once again..PLaneman"s Placebo scenerio was about a "US Citizen" Al Qaeda. Planeman likes this type of placebo to confuse people. Always questions to confuse people and make things unclear. To sew doubt in our minds. The subtle questions to sew doubt and confusion in us. IT is textbook public political education. After awhile you can see the next one coming. Similar to politics.

Go back and re read my post with this explanation in mind. I understand there is no movie bravado in your post. No problem here.

Since September 12 2001 there is a M1 Garand behind the seat of my truck and 96 rounds. This in addition to the short gun I usually carry. I remove this rifle only for the occasional ops check at the range, a cleaning and inspection. Am I looking for trouble..No ...not at all. I am just aware of the change that has taken place with a pedigree going back long before 11 September 2001.
The operative word here being "my family..me and mine." I do not look for the government to be here as the "Calvary " coming in to rescue my family..me or mine. Not going to happen..they are much better at filing paperwork...for more government. THey would look upon me and mine being as big a threat as Al Qaeda.

THanks,
Orangetom



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 01:40 PM
link   
I forgot to mention in my last post to you my comments on this statement in one of your previous posts.

I agree here totally with this statement of yours. It is in the X ring.


Originally posted by jaguarmike
Sorry to say our founding fathers didn't calculate human stupidity and gullibility into their equation. Just because they were of extremely high moral and ethical intellects doesn't mean the next guy will be, or the next generation will be. This is the biggest flaw in the Constitution we have as I see it. As far as i'm concerned, Wilson ruined America back in 1913 when he gave America over to the bankers. It's been a slow generation by generation plan since then to take over America completely and head towards globalization. This is seriously an ugly problem, and is massive in scale.

I agree...intellect does not necessarily factor in to the concept that all peoples of high intellect will be moral and ethical. For some reason it was years after high school before I began to get a grasp on the concept that our Jails are full of people with high intellectual/knowlege abilitys. What a revalation when I hit the brick wall on this one.

Intellectualism/knowlege does not equal ethical and moral.

I also agree...that what happened in 1913 under Woodrow Wilsons administration and the Federal Reserve Act...is textbook of intellectualism/knowlege brokers. A system of "unjust" weights and measures...replacing and verses a system of "just" weights and measures as outlined in the Coinage Act of April 2, 1792.

Not many people are fully aware of what this portends.

Thanks,
Orangetom










Game on.

[edit on 13-12-2006 by jaguarmike]



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 04:42 PM
link   
I understand now OrangeTom. I apologize for getting angry.

I want that to be clear that it is not a good idea for populations in America to follow the direction of the world's terrorists and related groups. I understand you don't advocate that, but I needed to make sure this wasn't a sublte was of saying, "if all else fails, 'follow the leaders' from Palestine" becuase their system works better. Yes, it does. But we can't have that here in America.

Second, the "Al Qaeda US Citizen" statement... its contradictory. Where is he going with that?

That in 5 years another term will be used, thus making firearms illegal for even more people, then more, and then more terms, and so on and so forth until there are no weapons? Ok maybe, but as of right now our biggest question should be "is this sane" or "is this insane."

Letting an Al Qaeda operative regardless of citizenship should NOT be allowed access to weapons- this is sane.

I'd like this to be clarified, because I seriously have no idea what the argument is about here, maybe i've missed something, but I don't know.



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by planeman

Originally posted by jaguarmike
If a terrorist, despite his nationality, chooses to obtain a weapon- this is a risk. For you, my yours, and innocents.
Anyone with a firearm is a greater danger to your family and innocents than someone without a firearm.

what ids the constitutional PURPOSE of firearms ownership again?



A US citizen protecting his person, property, family, and country from all enemies foreign and domestic.

I know where you are going with this. My retort is this, does that citizen contradict the majorities protection of person, property, family, and country from all enemies foreign and domestic?

If so, there you go.



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 06:03 PM
link   
Jaguarmike,

We are Yanks here..or as the Brits sometimes and appropriately label us.."Bloody Yanks."

We are by nature not fond of following the dictates of our own government much less someone elses.

I am located here on the Cheasapeak Bay of Virginia and south of the Mason Dixon line. As Americans there is naturally a little Rebel in all of us by nature. The kind of Rebel which would cause us to raise our middle "Social Finger" when we are crossed..and reach for our weapons when it goes way to far and the wildlife tries to move in an take over.

There is here in the South (Thank God) still a measure of gentility which has not been totally driven out of us by much of the shallower trappings of what passes for civilization/intellect/knowlege today. Do not mistake this for weakness.

No I dont recommend following the dictates of Islam or Islamic type governments. I am an American..a "Bloody Yank" and proud of it.

I am aware and concerned that our leaders for filty lucre will sell our educational system down the drain to the Islamic system and introduce this religion through the back door...to a unwary public..sneak it in privily for moneys and votes for power.
They were doing it in the 2000 election for Chinese influence they will do it here.

If they sneak in the back door enough they will do so just as they snuck in the 1913 Federal Reserve Act...based on the olde Glass Amendment. IF they succeed it will eventually matter not how many guns we have...they will already have the next generation in mind and soul.

THe Al Qaeda American Citizen term...is used or misused to cause the confusion it did in your mind. It worked. I saw what it was immediately.

No I dont want a Al Qaeda American Citizen armed and in my neighborhood. Nor a armed Al Qaeda non American Citizen. Nor wildlife either....of any kind.

If you are found or even suspected to have Al Qaeda connection here in this country you will immediately be investigated. This area has many military installations and there have been many quiet investigations of certain groups without the knowlege of the general public. I just happen to know this because the woman I am seeing is an Apartment Manager. She has been approached by various Military Investigative Services, The Treasury Department, Secret Service, FBI and local constabulary for vacant apartments for monitoring purposes and other informations on certain tenants.
There is much more of this going on quietly around the country than the public is wont to know. I merely know this because of our relationship. I am not surprised or shook up to realize this. It has been going on much longer than September 11,2001. That infamous day just added new and different concerns to the ongoing mix.

Gotta go now ..have a fine fish and rice dinner ready for me here. Dont want it to get cold. Bon Appetit.

Thanks,
Orangetom



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join