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.

 

Black Caucus: Whites Not Allowed

page: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 03:49 PM
link   

...but only if I get my White Caucus.
Equality for all races, right?




If you understand the definition of the word caucus, then you would know that there is a white caucus. It simply doesn't meet formally. If they did, it wouldn't really matter anyway.


answers.yahoo.com...

I can’t help but wonder why the answer is what it is. In any event, just for the record I found the following under Caucus, perhaps one may interest you:

Adjunct Caucus
American Indian Caucus
Anti-communist caucus
Asian/Asian American Caucus
Autism Caucus
Bicycle Caucus
Congressional Aryan Caucus
Congressional Hispanic Caucus
Congressional Progressive Caucus (Communist caucus)
Cork Caucus
Emergency Services Caucus
Ex-Communist caucus
House Dem caucus
House Substance Abuse Caucus
Iowa Caucus
Italian Caucus
Jewish Caucus
Latino Caucus
Log Cabin Communist Caucus Republican
LPR caucus (Polish)
Pro-Choice Legislative Caucus
Spanish Caucus
Women’s Caucus


[edit on 29-1-2007 by Siren]

[edit on 29-1-2007 by Siren]




posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 12:30 AM
link   
You want us to believe those are all congressional caucuses? I searched and could not find anything on quite a few of them.



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 02:16 AM
link   

You want us to believe those are all congressional caucuses? I searched and could not find anything on quite a few of them.


The titles of the groups are as posted except for the parenthesis which I included only for identification purposes. If within the title it states congressional then that is what it is. They all are evidently not congressional because Congressional is not part of the title. I only copied the titles and put together a list of those that had caucus as part of their name.

There are over 2000 Congressional caucuses please see reference listed below. In addition, there are other groups who have "caucus" as part of their title. View then believe what you will.

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 31-1-2007 by Siren]



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 02:26 PM
link   


View then believe what you will.




Congressional Aryan Caucus

There is no such congressional caucus.



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 05:52 PM
link   
I will probably get a warning for the length of this post, but I feel it needs to be posted to make a point (I apologize in advance to the mods....):

Wikipedia Link on Caucuses

Oh and by the way, there is a Congressional Womans Caucus, and guess what? They are ALL women!!!!!!!!!!!! That is sexist!!!!!!!!!! this is sarcasm for the humor impaired....

Point is there are MANY caucuses for MANY causes. People are making this out to be a racial issue when it isn't.

Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus (1994–)
Congressional Automotive Caucus (2006(?)–)
Congressional Azerbaijan Caucus (2006(?)–)
Congressional Battlefield Caucus (2006(?)–)
Congressional Bike Caucus (CBC) (2006(?)–)
Congressional Biotechnology Caucus (2006(?)–)
Congressional Bipartisan Cerebral Palsy Caucus (2006(?)–)
Congressional Black Caucus (1969–)
Congressional Boating Caucus (2006(?)–)
Congressional Border Caucus (2006(?)–)
Congressional Brain Injury Task Force (2006(?)–)
Congressional Brazil Caucus (2006(?)–)
Congressional Caucus on Armenian Issues (2006(?)–)
Congressional Caucus on Central America (2006(?)–)
Congressional Caucus on Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders (2006(?)–)
Congressional Caucus on Global Road Safety (2006(?)–)
Congressional Caucus on Hellenic Issues (2006(?)–)
Congressional Caucus on the Judicial Branch (2006(?)–)
Congressional Caucus on Sri Lanka and Sri Lankan Americans (2006(?)–)
Congressional Caucus on Turkey and Turkish Americans (2006(?)–)
Congressional Caucus on Uganda (2006(?)–)
Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues (1977–) Note: this was formed as the Congresswomen's Caucus, before changing its name in 1981.
Congressional Caucus on Youth Sports (2006(?)–)
Congressional Entertainment Industries Caucus (2006(?)–)
Congressional Caucus to Fight and Control Methamphetamine (2006(?)–)
Congressional Children's Caucus (2006(?)–)
Congressional China Caucus (2006(?)–)
Congressional Climate Caucus (2006(?)–)
Congressional Coalition on Adoption (2006(?)–)
Congressional Coastal Caucus (2006(?)–)
Congressional Complementary and Alternative Medicine Caucus (2006(?)–)
Congressional Constitution Caucus (2006(?)–)
Congressional Correctional Officers Caucus (2006(?)–)
Congressional Croatian Caucus (2006(?)–)
Congressional Diabetes Caucus (2006(?)–)
Congressional E-911 Caucus (2006(?)–)
Congressional Farmer Cooperative Caucus (2006(?)–)
Congressional Fire Services Caucus (2006(?)–)
Congressional Fitness Caucus (2006(?)–)
Congressional Food Safety Caucus (2006(?)–)
Congressional Forest Task Force (2006(?)–)
Congressional Former Mayors Caucus (2006(?)–)
Congressional Fraternal Caucus (2006(?)–)
Congressional French Caucus (2006(?)–)
Congressional Friends of Denmark (CFD) (2006(?)–)
Congressional Gaming Caucus (2006(?)–)
Congressional Gulf of Mexico Caucus (2006(?)–)
Congressional Hearing Health Caucus (2006(?)–)
Congressional Hispanic Caucus (1976–)
Congressional Hispanic Conference (2003–)
Congressional HUBZone Caucus (2006(?)–)
Congressional Horse Caucus (2006(?)–)
Congressional Human Rights Caucus (2006(?)–)
Congressional Humanities Caucus (2006(?)–)
Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus (2006(?)–)
Congressional Insurance Caucus (2006(?)–)
Congressional Intelligent Transportation Systems Caucus (2006(?)–)
Congressional International Anti-Piracy Caucus (2006(?)–)
Congressional Internet Caucus (2006(?)–)
Congressional Iraqi Women's Caucus (2006(?)–)
Congressional Kidney Caucus (2006(?)–)
Congressional Labor and Working Families Caucus (2006(?)–)
Congressional Life Science Caucus (2006(?)–)
Congressional Management Caucus (2006(?)–)
Congressional Manufacturing Caucus (2006(?)–)
Congressional Manufacturing Task Force (2006(?)–)
Congressional Medical Professionals Caucus (2006(?)–)
Congressional Mental Health Caucus (2006(?)–)
Congressional Mentoring Caucus (2006(?)–)
Congressional Mine Warfare Caucus (2006(?)–)
Congressional Mining Caucus (2006(?)–)
Congressional Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus (2006(?)–)
Congressional Morocco Caucus (2006(?)–)
Congressional Organic Caucus (2006(?)–)
Congressional Pakistan Caucus (2006(?)–)
Congressional Port Security Caucus (2006(?)–)
Congressional Real Estate Caucus (2006(?)–)
Congressional Rural Caucus (2006(?)–)
Congressional Rural Housing Caucus (2006(?)–)
Congressional Scouting Caucus (2006(?)–)
Congressional Savings and Ownership Caucus (2006(?)–)
Congressional Second Amendment Caucus (2006(?)–)
Congressional Serbian Caucus (2006(?)–)
Congressional Shipbuilding Caucus (2006(?)–)
Congressional Ski and Snowboard Caucus (2006(?)–)
Congressional Singapore Caucus (2006(?)–)
Congressional Spina Bifida Caucus (2006(?)–)
Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus (2006(?)–)
Congressional Steel Caucus (2006(?)–)
Congressional Stop DUI Caucus (2006(?)–)
Congressional Submarine Caucus (2006(?)–)
Congressional Taiwan Caucus (2006(?)–)
Congressional Taskforce on International HIV/AIDS (2006(?)–)
Congressional Tourism and Travel Caucus (CTTC) (2006(?)–)
Congressional TRIO Caucus (2006(?)–)
Congressional Ukrainian Caucus (2006(?)–)
Congressional United Kingdom Caucus (2006(?)–)
Congressional Victim's Rights Caucus (2006(?)–)
Congressional Waterways Caucus (2006(?)–)
Congressional Western Caucus (1992–)
Congressional Working Group on Parkinson's Disease (2006(?)–)
Congressional Zoo and Aquarium Caucus (2006(?)–)



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 06:19 PM
link   


Oh and by the way, there is a Congressional Womans Caucus, and guess what? They are ALL women!!!!!!!!!!!! That is sexist!!!!!!!!!! this is sarcasm for the humor impaired....

hahahaha




Point is there are MANY caucuses for MANY causes. People are making this out to be a racial issue when it isn't


Would it be a racial issue if someone of a specific race were not allowed to be on the Congressional Automotive Caucus or the Congressional Battlefield Caucus or the Congressional Brain Injury Task Force ? Of course it would be! Which bring us back to the original point; the fact that persons of a specific race are not allowed to be on the caucus on the basis of the persons skin color is raceist.
Do you think all persons on the Congressional Caucus on Central America are Central Americans? Are all the persons on the Congressional Brazil Caucus Brazilians? Are all the persons on the Congressional French Caucus French? Of course not. Why do all the persons on the Congressional Black Caucus have to be black?



Perhaps because a percentage of his constituency is black? Perhaps to understand their needs and better serve the black residents in his district. Isn't the "black" in black caucus discriptive of their concerns more than the race of their members?





"Mr. Cohen asked for admission, and he got his answer. ... It's time to move on," the younger Clay said. "It's an unwritten rule. It's understood. It's clear."

Still think its ok?



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by shooterbrody

Would it be a racial issue if someone of a specific race were not allowed to be on the Congressional Automotive Caucus or the Congressional Battlefield Caucus or the Congressional Brain Injury Task Force ?


No, but these Caucuses dont represent a racial minority group so the point is null and void.


Originally posted by shooterbrody
Do you think all persons on the Congressional Caucus on Central America are Central Americans?


Very good question, I honestly couldn't find any info on them. How about this gem though, here is the list for the congressional hispanic caucus, notice anything about the names?

Xavier Becerra (CA-31) (D)
Dennis Cardoza (CA-18) (D)
Jim Costa (CA-20) (D)
Henry Cuellar (TX-28) (D)
Charles A. Gonzalez (TX-20) (D)
Luis V. Gutierrez (IL-4) (D)
Rubén Hinojosa (TX-15) (D)
Senator Bob Menendez (NJ-D)
Solomon Ortiz (TX-27) (D)
Ed Pastor (AZ-4) (D)
Silvestre Reyes (TX-16) (D)
John Salazar (CO-3) (D)
Linda T. Sánchez (CA-39) (D)
Loretta Sanchez (CA-47) (D)
José Serrano (NY-16) (D)
Hilda Solis (CA-32) (D)
Nydia Velázquez (NY-12) (D)


Originally posted by shooterbrody
Are all the persons on the Congressional Brazil Caucus Brazilians? Are all the persons on the Congressional French Caucus French? Of course not. Why do all the persons on the Congressional Black Caucus have to be black?



Do you have any stats or lists of member names for the French Caucus, or the Brazil Caucus that says they aren't all french, or that they aren't all brazilian?


Originally posted by shooterbrody

Still think its ok?



I honestly see nothing wrong with it. It is their caucus. As i have said countless times in this thread, give it some time. If this thread was about any of the other groups I listed above, there would be no issue. If a man tried to get on the Womans caucus, would you be all up in arms? They are all women there, is that sexist? No, its a group of women, FOR women. Not all caucuses are limited to the members they support, HOWEVER many of them are. I think people who have hidden feelings against black people are up in arms over this, and it gives them a reason to complain. I think that is the underlying issue here. I think anyone who honestly has an issue with this needs to take a look inside themselves and ask why you honestly feel this way.

Sorry for the formatting, I cannot get this to work right.


[edit on 31-1-2007 by LogansRun]

[edit on 31-1-2007 by LogansRun]



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 06:48 PM
link   
What does that have to do with the congressional black caucus excluding a member because of his skin color?
I guess you think it is ok?

Also are you implying that the hispacnic caucus would discriminate on the basis of race?

I do have a problem with it because all of the discrimination blacks face does it make it ok for the blacks to discriminate?

[edit on 31/1/2007 by shooterbrody]

[edit on 31/1/2007 by shooterbrody]



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by shooterbrody
What does that have to do with the congressional black caucus excluding a member because of his skin color?
I guess you think it is ok?

Also are you implying that the hispacnic caucus would discriminate on the basis of race?

[edit on 31/1/2007 by shooterbrody]


No I am not implying anything. All I am saying is that it is their caucus and they can do what they please. If you are so offended, then by all means, start a white caucus. You know why there isn't one? Most white people wouldn't support it, nor feel that one was needed. Give it some time. Why are you so uppity about this? What do YOU have against black people?



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 06:54 PM
link   
Gosh, I thought I had settled this already..


Make him an hororary member of the Caucus.
It would be a positive move for those (who are truthfully) interested in improving race relations.

Why not?



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 07:08 PM
link   


I think people who have hidden feelings against black people are up in arms over this, and it gives them a reason to complain. I think that is the underlying issue here. I think anyone who honestly has an issue with this needs to take a look inside themselves and ask why you honestly feel this way.

Thank you very much for musing that it is me that has the problem. Don't discuss the issue attack the opposing side.



If a man tried to get on the Womans caucus, would you be all up in arms? They are all women there, is that sexist? No, its a group of women, FOR women.

I would be just as upset. It is still discrimination. Are those caucus meetings on government time,in government buildings? If so then it is VERY wrong. I believe just about half of any senator or congressmans constituancy is female. How do you expect your elected officials to champion minority causes if they are denied access to the discussions?



All I am saying is that it is their caucus and they can do what they please.

I disagree again if it is on government property and on government time I believe the discrimination is illegal. This isn't some private club on private property.



Why are you so uppity about this? What do YOU have against black people?

Again with the attacks on those with opposing view points.


[edit on 31/1/2007 by shooterbrody]



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 07:16 PM
link   
law-guru.net...



Discrimination is a violation of civil rights law defined by unfavorable or unfair treatment of a person or class of persons in comparison to others who are not members of the protected class because of race, sex, color, religion, national origin, age, physical/mental handicap, sexual harassment, sexual orientation or reprisal for opposition to discriminatory practices.




TextEEO or Equal Employment Opportunity Laws are designed to prevent discrimination. EEO Laws demands that all persons receive the same opportunities for hiring, training, and promotion. Unfair treatment is not necessarily unlawful discrimination. Treating a person unfavorably in comparison to others may violate EEO laws only when that person's protected status is a factor in the treatment.



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by shooterbrody
[Thank you very much for musing that it is me that has the problem. Don't discuss the issue attack the opposing side.


Apparantly you missed the my last 30 posts exhaustingly discussing the "issue".


Originally posted by shooterbrody
I would be just as upset.


Considering your attitude in other posts from this thread, i highly doubt it. You have an issue because this is a black and white thing, period. Why dont you go and read up on the members of the other caucuses. this discussion is just absurd at this point.


Originally posted by shooterbrody
Again with the attacks on those with opposing view points.


[edit on 31/1/2007 by shooterbrody]


It is a perfectly legitimate question and I in no way attacked you - I simply drew a conclusion based on your previous posts, and called you on it. I could be wrong, I could be right. If you dont have anything against them, then simply explain your position and I will recant. The question still stands.

[edit on 1-2-2007 by LogansRun]



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 04:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by rocknroll
There are lot's of successful black people out there. How did they make it? How do you account for this?

Selling out, mostly. Or, being a modern minstrel. Those other, like, two truly 'successful' black people, got there through hard work and luck.

Take this from a person who has resisted the temptation to sell-out, knows others who succumbed, and those who have become successful the other way.

You probably won't believe me, though.




What exactly do you want, HH? List out what you want America to do for the African American.

It's not about me, and I would prefer you keep the attitude to yourself.

If you were in a position to actually affect some change, I would go about finding that information.

However, I doubt it. Therefore, what you're asking me to do is, waste a large amount of my time, post here, and then-- what?-- talk about it?

Not a good enough cost-benefit ratio, imo.



If you want us to relentlessly kiss your ass, it's not gonna happen?

So, you think we want you to 'kiss our ass'? Nice language. You sound like you're in high school.




Grab life by the balls and go for it.



Oh, I forgot, you're new. Well, 'rocknroll,' I do okay for myself. I'm certainly not sitting around somewhere, mad that I'm not working. From what I understand of the job market, employers want young employees, straight out of school. I know other people in your predicament. IMO, assuming that 'old people' won't be good employees because of their age is just as bad as thinking black people won't be good employees because of their race.

Of course, it seems that I'm better with empathy than you are.



Originally posted by LogansRun
if you repeatedly hit a person and then stop, they cant just get up and think everything is fine. there has to be some consequences for what has happened.

It's funny you would say that. My mom said the same exact thing to me the other day, right down to the 'hitting' analogy.

And you're right, there has to be some consequences...eventually. The longer people fight it, the more explosive things will be when it all 'comes to a head'.



i am hoping within the next generation or two, this type of mentality will be wiped out.

We always hope... but things don't change. Sadly.



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by HarlemHottie



i am hoping within the next generation or two, this type of mentality will be wiped out.

We always hope... but things don't change. Sadly.


Well, it starts with one person at a time. Eventually there will be more people who are like minded with progress, AND willing to do something about it. Personally, I attack ingnorance whenever I encounter it, and strive to accept everyone around me without bias - we are only human and we are all guilty of it but every little bit helps. Wounds need time to heal. It saddens me to know that the civil rights act was enacted a mere 14 years before I was born. People are still alive today that experienced institutionalized hate and segregation.
I grew up thinking we had made so much progress since the abolition of slavery and as I grew older, I realized how very far we still had to go.



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 03:46 PM
link   


Apparantly you missed the my last 30 posts exhaustingly discussing the "issue".

You in no way have discussed the issue. You sidestepped the issue by bringing up other caucuses and other minorities. The other caucuses and minorities are not the one to deny admission to someone based on skin color.


"Mr. Cohen asked for admission, and he got his answer. ... It's time to move on," the younger Clay said. "It's an unwritten rule. It's understood. It's clear."

Again I have a problem with this because it is discrimination plain and simple. I would have the same problem if the people involved were blue,purple or green; I would have the same problem if it was based on gender or sexual preferance. This is an official government activity paid for by tax dollars; which makes the discrimination not only wrong but illegal. Imo this was the type of discrimination the civil rights movement was about in the first place. There were no signs and no laws it was just an unwritten rule that blacks had to sit in the back of the bus.


I think people who have hidden feelings against black people are up in arms over this, and it gives them a reason to complain. I think that is the underlying issue here. I think anyone who honestly has an issue with this needs to take a look inside themselves and ask why you honestly feel this way



Why are you so uppity about this? What do YOU have against black people?



Considering your attitude in other posts from this thread, i highly doubt it. You have an issue because this is a black and white thing, period.



It is a perfectly legitimate question and I in no way attacked you - I simply drew a conclusion based on your previous posts, and called you on it. I could be wrong, I could be right. If you dont have anything against them, then simply explain your position and I will recant. The question still stands

If these do not constitute attacks then I don't know what does. I do not appreciate you infering that I have a problem with any minority. I do not appreciate you falling back on baseless race baiting because you have no legitimate explaination for the actions of the caucus in question. I have stated my position many many times only to have you return and imply prejudice and "attitude" problems with my posts. The fact is what was done with the caucus in question is illegal according to anti-discrimination laws.



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by shooterbrody

You in no way have discussed the issue. You sidestepped the issue by bringing up other caucuses and other minorities. The other caucuses and minorities are not the one to deny admission to someone based on skin color.


You in no way read my posts then.


Originally posted by shooterbrody
If these do not constitute attacks then I don't know what does. I do not appreciate you infering that I have a problem with any minority. I do not appreciate you falling back on baseless race baiting because you have no legitimate explaination for the actions of the caucus in question.


I have offered several reasons, not in response to your posts, but earlier in this thread I stated and restated. Go back thru and re read ALL of my posts before you come to this conclusion.

On a side note, I do owe you an apology as I was confusing your posts with another person's in here. You in no way inferred that you had any issues with black people - this was my mistake and again I apologize and recant the question/ accusation. The other person I was debating with in length earlier was the one who was heavilly inferring this.

I will attempt to explain my thoughts on this as I dont wish to continue this battle - our efforts could be put better to use in other ares.

Bottom line, I feel as though not enough time has elapsed since the civil rights act. The members who are in the caucus today lived thru institutionalized hate - there are wounds that need to heal. You cannot kick someone repeatedly when they are down, stop, and expect them to get up and be your buddy. In a way, that is exactly what our society has done to the black community ever since we started bringing them over hear on boats to be our cattle. Even after slavery was aboloshed, they were still second class citizens - yes other minorities were as well, but disproportionately against the black community. Many of these people are still hurt by what happened and dont necessarily trust white people - unfortunate yes, but considering what they have been thru, understandable. In another generation or two, then perhaps a white person would be accepted with open arms into the caucus. Even the politician who was rejected into the caucus isn't really making that big a deal out of it. We are a mere 3 decades out of the "dark ages" that we experienced prior to the civil rights act. Most people are still alive today that allowed segregation to happen, and also people are alive that fought very hard against it. My grandmother hated black people to the day she died, and that was back in 1999 - I never did, and I always got into arguments with her over the topic. Old habits die hard, and we need to let time take its course.

Again, I apologize for my misunderstanding of your posts.

[edit on 1-2-2007 by LogansRun]



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 07:46 PM
link   
Logansrun,

Your apology speaks volumes about your integrity and it is greatly appreciated.



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 08:43 PM
link   
The black caucus in essence is wrong. By the same token, being divided by race in any situation is discrimination and should not be tolerated. As far as I'm concerned 'we the people' are all the same and it is imperative that we refuse to be sorted into groups by age, sex, religion, ideology, race, or anything else.

America has a serious problem as far as race relations goes, and things didn't get this way by chance. Our differences are perpetuated through the mass media as well as our political and educational systems. This racial division trickles down into every aspect of our lives and distracts our attention from the real issues. Rodney King, O.J., Helio Gonzales, and most recently the Duke lacrosse team case.... are all examples of social wedges put in place by the media.

My white daughter learned about slavery in public school before she could read. Her 1st grade teacher and most of her classmates whom she'd been friends with since the daycare era were black. She came home from school upset and crying every day that week because she somehow felt responsible for the atrocities described in detail by her teacher. Her class also learned about Kwanza, which was a new idea back then. It's no wonder that blacks demonize whites. Our lawmakers don't even send their kids to public schools, so who cares what's on the curriculum?

Most people don't stop and think about who is/was really running the show in America. The slave owners were basically the same wealthy families whose decendants still retain control of the country. The same bankers, lawyers, politicians, prospectors, etc who stole the native americans' land, enslaved them, created boundaries and phony deeds of ownership, claimed the natural resources as their own, and made up the rules/laws/borders to suit their needs as they went along.

What I'm trying to say is that practically all of us are in the same leaky boat. We're born poor and naked at the mercy of our parents. We didn't agree to any of the rules that were imposed on this earth. It's not fair, so we need to do something about it. But we'd better start looking for common ground now while we're still at liberty to do so.



posted on Feb, 9 2007 @ 02:08 AM
link   
God damn.

We can't have anything, can we?

"Waaaa, the BLACK Caucus doesn't want to let white people in." WTF? Did you miss BLACK Caucus? This reminds me of a guy who wanted to know why white people couldn't join the Black Panthers.


There's a new idiotic show called "The White Rapper Show."

White people wear dreadlocks.

White people wear braids.

Suburban white kids buy more rap CDs than urban black kids.

Slang constantly changes because white people start using slang terms.

Hell, I even hear white kids call each other "my nigga."

Now, white people are upset because the Black Caucus is exclusive. Damn, give it a rest. Like a comedian said, everybody wants to be black until the cops show up.




new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join