Smokers are people too!

page: 17
6
<< 14  15  16    18  19 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 7 2008 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
And you should learn how to use the "Quote" button. Get over it !


Wha?



Only irrational smokers would think this.


So because you make less and less sense, i'm irrational?.....think about that for a moment....i'll wait.



And you're proving your ignorance or lack of understanding of the english language. I, at no point have EVER said we should eliminate the rights of smokers. My only point is that smokers should not eliminate non-smokers rights. I don't care if people smoke. People do a lot of things that are bad for them. My only point was that non-smokers should not be subjected to smoke if they don't want to be subjected to it. In other words, I was suggesting that maybe smokers could be more courteous when in crowds of people? My bad for thinking they might consider how other people feel.


You advocate that we indeed SHOULD be forced to go outside to smoke...that's curtailing our freedom of choice, for the sake of your comfort. You're still going with the "why should we be forced to smell your cigarettes" argment, eh'?

You're not forced...you can always go elsewhere. It really is that simple

I'm all about being nice, and courteous, but on the flip side of that, how courteous is it to expect us to be the ones to "go away"?

I mean, if it's nice out, i really don't mind stepping out for a smoke....gives me the opportunity to get away from situations i find undesirable. But if i want to smoke indoors, i should be able to...the business owner should be able to decide if there will be smoking in their establishment, and people like you should be able to decide to not go there.



Yet you're here denying reality. By your argument that makes your comment both hypocritical and moronic-Your words.


How so?



Smoking is a cause of COPD.
Smoke, among other things is a lung irritant and can initiate asthmatic episodes. Smoking has been scientifically linked to lung and other cancers.


Look, i know you say it triggers an episode in your experience, and i'm not gonna argue that, because i'm not you, i don't know you, so i can't say your full of it, because that would just be retarded...but let's ignore your personal experiences...can you show me scientific evidence of it triggering episodes in others, that ISN'T psychosomatic?



What if someone decided to pee into the crowd because it's their bad habit? Urine is sterile so there is no health threat. So why should be person be inconvenienced to find a bathroom?


You're kidding, right?

Could it possible be because pulling out your penis in public is illegal?

Jesus christ, you're really bad at analogies...


So nicotine isn't an addictive drug?
There's an international underground cigarette smuggling trade.


ok, so people are smuggling counterfeit smokes...what does that have to do with the price of tea in china?



The reason I know it's a valid argument is that I have asthma and it happened to me. There you go.


ok, so your personal experience is now representative of the norm?



Yeah me too as I also have asthma. What's your point? Do you smoke around them? If not, why not?


Yeah, i smoke around him...he doesn't mind. He comes out with me when i smoke, to talk....



Actually its blatantly accurate. Read the posts and you'll see the lashing out.


Yes, i'm lashing out..but it's not because of any addiction. It's because the things you are saying are dumb, and it pisses me off.



I've never used absolutes.


this one's gonna take a whole post, and a pot of coffee...i'll deal with it later..


Actually it's very valid. I'm sorry you fail to understand it.


wow....please excuse me and my feeble, drug addled mind...could you explain it to me, so maybe i can grow up to be as smart as u?



NOPE. I have said on more then one occasion that it increases risk ONLY. I've never implied more. Stop reading into something that just isn't there.


Bull...go back and read your posts in this thread....more than once, you make the direct implication that smoking WILL CAUSE cancer, or emphysema, or copd, without actually saying "smoking WILL cause (insert disease here)"



Very true. Some people can smoke their entire lives with minimal consequences while others can develop serious problems in a short amount of time.


Thank you.



I have never said my experiences were indicative of everyone.


"The reason I know it's a valid argument is that I have asthma and it happened to me. There you go."

That's just from this post that i'm replying to...i know i can find more examples if you want me to...


Would you smoke in a bus full of kids?


Nope...but not because i'm afraid it would hurt them in some way....it's because i wouldn't wanna listen ti their dumbass mothers whine and bitch at me about how i'm killing their babies..




Would you smoke around someone on oxygen?


sure...as long as they're cool with it....



Would you smoke next to a baby?


Absolutely.

[edit on 7-3-2008 by Daedalus]




posted on Mar, 7 2008 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by DYepes
I almost find it laughable, accomodate you? I don't see anyone accomodating fat people, where do you see this?


New Jersey.

Fat people can be classified as "disabled" and live off the taxpayer's dime for the rest of their lives...they also get handicapped plates, so they don't hafta walk far to get into the eatery to maintain their hefty shape.



posted on Mar, 7 2008 @ 01:44 AM
link   
I smoke so that you can live. Not the non-smoker, the whining prissy anti-smoker. You see if the magic wand was waved and all tobacco (and non tobacco) products disappeared from existance. You would not have anything to upset you. Very stressful to not have that release your blood pressure would go through the rough crying about nothing and having nothing to cry about.

Personally the anti-smoking crusade has hit the breaking point with me. I think all smokers should rally behind their rights...by enacting the Second Ammendment. Hear that annoying little "ahem, excuse me" cough, shoot that MF right in the head. Someone gasps in horror at the sight, inform them that maybe second hand smoke does kill after all.

And to let you know I am a sport about it, if you got the stones to plug me for lighting up go for it. I will caution you that you best be sure that it is a fatal shot because I will return fire.

Honestly, the anti-smoker duped the non-smoker to voting for the indoor areas to be smoke free. And what happens. The businesses that you never went to in the first place fail. Good job ***hole, you contributed to the failing economy. There were a few non-smoking bars, resturants, night clubs, dance halls, bingo halls, casinos and every other business you can name. Business was not as brisk, but you could freely go there and no one smoked. And smokers said, good go there. But it wasn't enough. Now people that you do not know, and let's be honest here, people you could not give two flying farts about are losing their behinds for what?

Your Pollyanna happiness? You do not deeply care about the health of others. You do not care about the future wellfare of society. You care about yourself, and that is what the whole issue is about. You and only You.

Chew on this the next time You think You need to tell someone else what to do, they don't care enough about their own self to not smoke, why should they care about You?

As for me, well; all enemies foriegn and domestic. Personally I can't wait until you realise that lack sunlight kills and you stay indoors while I have the outside.



posted on Mar, 7 2008 @ 03:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by sparda4355
Smokers rights…

If you don’t live in an area with a smoking ban… this probably isn’t the thread for you!

I personally think the way they are treating smokers in several areas, is simply unconstitutional! Smokers are not a protected class, but in today’s society, we should be!

Just for example… At the company I work for, they literally make us walk approximately 2-300 feet (maybe more?), through a gate, some days through 2 feet of piled up snow, with no walls for protection in the windy city sometimes below 20 degrees wind-chill…

Employers and companies have to accommodate for handicap, breast feeding, even fat people (I’m sorry obese people) nowadays… They should have to accommodate for smokers too…

Being forced outside in some cases extreme weather conditions we should have a legally classified comfortable place to smoke! It should include weather and element protection, seating, and proper disposal containers… This should be mandated and enforced!


[edit on 4-3-2008 by sparda4355]



Here's an interesting URL about the history of smoking bans, Most didn't
work.
www.sadireland.com...



posted on Mar, 7 2008 @ 05:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus
Originally posted by jfj123
And you should learn how to use the "Quote" button. Get over it !

Wha?

I think the word you're looking for is
WHAT?
My point is that nobody posts perfectly and if you're going to pick on the way somebody posts, then it's going to happen to you. Pick your battles.


Only irrational smokers would think this.

So because you make less and less sense, i'm irrational?.....think about that for a moment....i'll wait.

I have the same argument for you. Calling me irrational gets the same. It does nothing to support your argument and is inflammatory.



And you're proving your ignorance or lack of understanding of the english language. I, at no point have EVER said we should eliminate the rights of smokers. My only point is that smokers should not eliminate non-smokers rights. I don't care if people smoke. People do a lot of things that are bad for them. My only point was that non-smokers should not be subjected to smoke if they don't want to be subjected to it. In other words, I was suggesting that maybe smokers could be more courteous when in crowds of people? My bad for thinking they might consider how other people feel.

You advocate that we indeed SHOULD be forced to go outside to smoke...that's curtailing our freedom of choice, for the sake of your comfort. You're still going with the "why should we be forced to smell your cigarettes" argment, eh'?

But you're arguing that I should be forced to go outside to avoid breathing your smoke for your comfort so you can smoke. Are you still not getting this? And you say I'm irrational.


You're not forced...you can always go elsewhere. It really is that simple

Same with you. You're not forced to smoke and you can also go elsewhere such as outside.


I'm all about being nice, and courteous, but on the flip side of that, how courteous is it to expect us to be the ones to "go away"?

Why not, you expect it of the non-smokers.



Smoking is a cause of COPD.
Smoke, among other things is a lung irritant and can initiate asthmatic episodes. Smoking has been scientifically linked to lung and other cancers.

Look, i know you say it triggers an episode in your experience, and i'm not gonna argue that, because i'm not you, i don't know you, so i can't say your full of it, because that would just be retarded...but let's ignore your personal experiences...can you show me scientific evidence of it triggering episodes in others, that ISN'T psychosomatic?

I've posted the info already. Here it is again.



WEBMD
Smoke from cigars, cigarettes, and pipes harms your body in many ways, but it is especially harmful to the lungs of a person with asthma. Tobacco smoke is a powerful trigger of asthma symptoms.

When a person inhales tobacco smoke, irritating substances settle in the moist lining of the airways. These substances can cause an attack in a person who has asthma.

In addition, tobacco smoke damages tiny hair-like structures in the airways called cilia. Normally, cilia sweep dust and mucus out of the airways. Tobacco smoke damages cilia so they are unable to work, allowing dust and mucus to accumulate in the airways.

Smoke also causes the lungs to make more mucus than normal. As a result, even more mucus can build up in the airways, triggering an attack.

Second-hand smoke is the combination of smoke from a burning cigar or cigarette and smoke exhaled by a smoker.

Inhaling second-hand smoke, also called "passive smoke" or "environmental tobacco smoke," may be even more harmful than actually smoking. That's because the smoke that burns off the end of a cigar or cigarette contains more harmful substances (tar, carbon monoxide, nicotine, and others) than the smoke inhaled by the smoker.

Second-hand smoke is especially harmful to people who already have asthma. When a person with asthma is exposed to second-hand smoke, he or she is more likely to experience the wheezing, coughing and shortness of breath associated with asthma.


Oh then there's this. A single example.


Recently, a group of Finnish researchers conducted a population-based, case-control study to determine the effects of current and past smoking on the incidence of asthma in an adult population. They concluded that smoking is a significant cause of asthma in adulthood.1

“Previously, it has been controversial whether smoking causes asthma or only causes COPD,” said Maritta S. Jaakkola, MD, DSc, Senior Clinical Lecturer in Respiratory and Occupational Medicine at the University of Birmingham in the United Kingdom. “We were able to show that smoking causes asthma. This means that reducing smoking can prevent a considerable portion of adult-onset asthma cases.”

How does smoking cause asthma? “Tobacco smoke contains several irritants that have been shown to cause chronic inflammation in the airways and in the alveoli. Such chronic inflammation can lead to asthma,” Dr. Jaakkola explained. “In addition, smoking has been shown to modulate the immune system and to impair normal repair systems leading, potentially, to asthma.” She added that in both animals and humans, hypersensitivity to allergens is enhanced in the presence of tobacco smoke.




What if someone decided to pee into the crowd because it's their bad habit? Urine is sterile so there is no health threat. So why should be person be inconvenienced to find a bathroom?

You're kidding, right?

Could it possible be because pulling out your penis in public is illegal?

And what did I say in my post about this? You must have read it as you edited it out. I wrote this in the post also:

Let's take another extreme analogy and lets set aside legal implications for a moment:

So setting aside the legal implications, why is it a problem?
If you don't want to get urinated on, just go somewhere else.
There's no health threat, as urine is sterile.
Nobodies forcing you to be there to be urinated on.


Jesus christ, you're really bad at analogies...

Jesus Christ your really bad at understanding analogies.


The reason I know it's a valid argument is that I have asthma and it happened to me. There you go.

ok, so your personal experience is now representative of the norm?

If you read what I've posted, you know that cigarette smoke is a lung irritant and yes, it can cause asthmatic episodes along with actually CAUSING an asthmatic condition. And YES smoking can give people asthma.


Yeah me too as I also have asthma. What's your point? Do you smoke around them? If not, why not?

Yeah, i smoke around him...he doesn't mind. He comes out with me when i smoke, to talk....

Wow, that's incredibly irresponsible. Do you also trip old people?


Actually it's very valid. I'm sorry you fail to understand it.

wow....please excuse me and my feeble, drug addled mind...could you explain it to me, so maybe i can grow up to be as smart as u?

Your excused



NOPE. I have said on more then one occasion that it increases risk ONLY. I've never implied more. Stop reading into something that just isn't there.

Bull...go back and read your posts in this thread....more than once, you make the direct implication that smoking WILL CAUSE cancer, or emphysema, or copd, without actually saying "smoking WILL cause (insert disease here)"

Smoking CAN, not WILL cause cancer, COPD, asthma. Does that clarify it for you?


Very true. Some people can smoke their entire lives with minimal consequences while others can develop serious problems in a short amount of time.

Thank you.

Your welcome



Would you smoke in a bus full of kids?

Nope...but not because i'm afraid it would hurt them in some way....it's because i wouldn't wanna listen ti their dumbass mothers whine and bitch at me about how i'm killing their babies..

wow


Would you smoke around someone on oxygen?

sure...as long as they're cool with it....

In awe


Would you smoke next to a baby?

Absolutely.

I honestly hope you're being sarcastic. If you're not.....WOW



posted on Mar, 7 2008 @ 09:06 AM
link   
If its so bad, maybe they need to stop taxing cigarettes. Then watch them shut their mouths about smoking if this is proposed. Looks like conflict of interest, to say the least.

If I'm not smoking around YOU, then stop whining about it. Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness, remember?



posted on Mar, 7 2008 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by ibgrimme
If I'm not smoking around YOU, then stop whining about it. Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness, remember?


Thank you for being a reasonable smoker



posted on Mar, 7 2008 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by sparda4355
reply to post by jfj123
 


He misunderstood... Yes, smoke can trigger an asthma attack just won't cause somebody to develop asthma, and just for the record... I agree with you about not smoking around people that don't enjoy cigarette smoke! That is just a kind thing to do... All I am saying and I think it got lost a while ago is that....

We smoke outside now...

In some cases it is extreme weather...

Please vote for us so that we get a comfy place to smoke away from all of you who don't like smoke!

Not that much to ask! A little smoking fort if you will, with a heater would be nice! Then you will never have to witness us or breathe in our smoke again!


That is fair, I don't think you should have to go to the Arctic to smoke. I don't think you should be banned from smoking in your private home either, as some would want. Everyone should be free to make their own choices as long as what they do doesn't hurt others.

I don't want to totally ban smoking, I don't think you could even if you wanted to. Even if you raised the tax to $10 a pack, people still will buy.

Smokers should be free to smoke in areas designated and Non smokers should have places that are free from smoke and any unwanted issues that COULD arise from the smoke.

Sorry for the sarcasm earlier, sparda.



posted on Mar, 7 2008 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by pavil

Sorry for the sarcasm earlier, sparda.



It's cool dude... Everybody does it when they feel like they can't get their point accross... I always try not too... but it just happens! After all we are on the internet and we can't really use voice inflection to get our point accross...

So... All we have are witty smarcastic responces! (by the way smarcastic is my word, it is a combination between smart @$$ and sarcastic!)



posted on Mar, 7 2008 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by scientist
 

I second that. One of My biggest pet peeves, along with 2nd hand smoke is perfume. Not too much perfume-perfume in general. Being a former olfactory offender Myself I'm dumb founded at the levels people go to make themselves 'smell better'. Soap and water people-soap and water.

Peace. K*



posted on Mar, 8 2008 @ 03:36 PM
link   
The reason that smokers are not a protected class is because smoking is acknowledged as a activity one choses to participate in. Handicapped parking privelages are given because being handicapped is not considered a choice one makes. I know you can argue that obesity is a choice, but I am just stating what is the "correct" opinion.

That being said, I still think the anti-smoking push is hysteria. The whole "second hand smoke" thing is bunk. Sure, it is a factor if you live with a smoker, but you're not going to catch cancer (lol) by smelling some smoke. A smoker takes it all into the lungs. You walking by might get 1% of the volume of smoke.



posted on Mar, 8 2008 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by spaznational
The reason that smokers are not a protected class is because smoking is acknowledged as a activity one choses to participate in. Handicapped parking privelages are given because being handicapped is not considered a choice one makes. I know you can argue that obesity is a choice, but I am just stating what is the "correct" opinion.

That being said, I still think the anti-smoking push is hysteria. The whole "second hand smoke" thing is bunk. Sure, it is a factor if you live with a smoker, but you're not going to catch cancer (lol) by smelling some smoke. A smoker takes it all into the lungs. You walking by might get 1% of the volume of smoke.


Well one could argue that a smoker made a choice, but once the "addiction" took over it there became a chemical dependency one could argue that the smoker no longer has a "choice"... Sure there are steps he can take to get over the addiction, but until he "gets help" he should be a protected class!

Look, I know there are people that are born with handicaps, and I am not referring to them, but there are people who just get hurt and get handicap status... While they are getting help to "heal" and become not handicap they reap the handicap benefits... Same with FAT PEOPLE... don't even get me started on that, they should get special parking if you ask me...

IN THE BACK OF THE FREAKING PARKING LOT… Make them walk so they can lose that "extra person" they carry around with them!!! (sorry I think that law is ridiculous too)

So if you can be in a protected class while healing, while eating too much, you should be in a protected class while giving up an addiction that lead to a chemical dependency...

Wow… I am taking that to the supreme court! Wish me luck fellow smokers! They will have to cater to our every need if I can make us a protected class!!! Who is with me?



posted on Mar, 8 2008 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by sparda4355
Originally posted by spaznational


Well one could argue that a smoker made a choice, but once the "addiction" took over it there became a chemical dependency one could argue that the smoker no longer has a "choice"... Sure there are steps he can take to get over the addiction, but until he "gets help" he should be a protected class!

Don't know if this is true but I've read nicotine is as addictive as heroin.


Look, I know there are people that are born with handicaps, and I am not referring to them, but there are people who just get hurt and get handicap status... While they are getting help to "heal" and become not handicap they reap the handicap benefits... Same with FAT PEOPLE... don't even get me started on that, they should get special parking if you ask me...

IN THE BACK OF THE FREAKING PARKING LOT…

ABSOLUTELY !!!!!


Make them walk so they can lose that "extra person" they carry around with them!!! (sorry I think that law is ridiculous too)

Correct.



So if you can be in a protected class while healing, while eating too much, you should be in a protected class while giving up an addiction that lead to a chemical dependency...

Sounds logical.


Wow… I am taking that to the supreme court! Wish me luck fellow smokers! They will have to cater to our every need if I can make us a protected class!!! Who is with me?

Just remember, when you're arguing your case, call it a DISEASE and refer to , "YOUR ADDICTION" often and you should be all set.

[edit on 8-3-2008 by jfj123]

[edit on 8-3-2008 by jfj123]



posted on Mar, 8 2008 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


Wow... dude... Honestly I think you are the LAST person I would have expected to actually agree with me on this! I guess it was actually a valid way of thinking! Thanks man!

You have been like the longest lasting "non-smoker" on the thread! Awesome! Thanks for the backing! I think I will have to call you up as a witness when I am on the supreme court... I will be like... come on, if this guy agrees with me.................. YOU KNOW ITS A VALID POINT!!!



posted on Mar, 8 2008 @ 08:00 PM
link   
I would consider myself quite a considerate smoker, I agree with smoking laws in the UK and feel that smokers should stand outside. I am well aware of the damages of smoking and to inflict it on others.. well it's just not cricket!

I do have one problem however, I pay all my taxes and tax on cigarettes and feel I should be entitled to health care from the NHS. I think smokers pay a lot more into the system than what they get out (I may be wrong though).
My problem lies with obese people. Smokers can be called anti-social and disguisting and most people wouldn't bat an eyelid, call someone obese and tell them they are putting you off your meal and there would be an uproar. The fatter people get the more of a drain on the NHS they are becoming with a wide range of illnesses on the increase due to more people becoming obese within our society. Why don't we bring in this fat tax? Why should fat people be tolerated and accepted whereas people who smoke and pay full tax be looked down upon?

Thats my two cents anyway!



posted on Mar, 8 2008 @ 08:50 PM
link   
Close your windows,breath deep the formaldehyde that seeps into your body,the clothes you wear,the hair you prepare,the entertainment system.

Everything you own is made someway by oil,they all emit some level of fumes according to their use or just the stabilities of the properties themselves.Maybe much worse than the hated tobacco.

Fight the good fight and reduce these hazards in your home and in the industries that put these products in all homes and leave the smokers to smoke in a comfortable area.(forgot to mention all workplace hazards).



posted on Mar, 8 2008 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ahabstar

Honestly, the anti-smoker duped the non-smoker to voting for the indoor areas to be smoke free. And what happens. The businesses that you never went to in the first place fail. Good job ***hole, you contributed to the failing economy.

Oh man, you're entire post was gold but this is especially true.

By exercising undo authority American citizens ROUTINELY $#*@ up eachother and everything around them... what a great example.



posted on Mar, 8 2008 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Knights

My problem lies with obese people. Smokers can be called anti-social and disguisting and most people wouldn't bat an eyelid, call someone obese and tell them they are putting you off your meal and there would be an uproar. The fatter people get the more of a drain on the NHS they are becoming with a wide range of illnesses on the increase due to more people becoming obese within our society. Why don't we bring in this fat tax? Why should fat people be tolerated and accepted whereas people who smoke and pay full tax be looked down upon?

Thats my two cents anyway!


Well you probably already know that statistically speaking both smokers and drinkers are actually considered considerably more social than non smokers and non drinkers! If you think about it, it is quite obvious.... Especially now that we are all forced outside together, we have no choice but to strike up conversation! This is actually one of the reasons I don't mind going outside, just wish I had my smoking fort I keep talking about! lol

BTW... Yes I am aware that you were agreeing with me, I just used your post to make this point because you mentioned that anti-social thing...

As far as fat people... and I mean obese not just a little over weight... Although I agree with the insurance aspect... I think it IS their right to be fat, it is their right to consume as much food as they want and nobody should be able to say a thing! That is the whole point of our freedoms!

What if the average weight of a human changed from 150 or whatever to 400... Then there would be bigger seats on planes, bigger seats in theaters, and they wouldn't have to pay for two seats instead of one just becuase they enjoy food a little more than the rest of us!

Leave the fat people ALONE!!! This is America people!



posted on Mar, 8 2008 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by sparda4355
I think it IS their right to be fat, it is their right to consume as much food as they want and nobody should be able to say a thing! That is the whole point of our freedoms!


This is where I slightly disagree with you. In the UK we are taxed heavily on all tobacco products. If it were my right to smoke as much as I want I should be able to do so, but in doing so I would be paying a small fortune toward healthcare. An obese person would be able to pile on the pounds and because food isn't taxed in the UK (or very little), that obese person can eat as much as they want, get ill and WE have to pay for it!


What if the average weight of a human changed from 150 or whatever to 400... Then there would be bigger seats on planes, bigger seats in theaters, and they wouldn't have to pay for two seats instead of one just becuase they enjoy food a little more than the rest of us!


I am not saying we should charge more, I wouldn't agree with it. I am saying all fatty food products should be taxed through the roof to cover medical expenses for the NHS. Fat people should be able to eat what they want, but they should also have to pay to keep eating those 'little' luxuries.



posted on Mar, 8 2008 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Knights
 


Oh... I see your point there! I do agree that "if" we are forced to carry our weight and the weight of all the other smokers through our INSANE cigarette taxes than obese people should as well!

I am with you there... I just think it is unfair to charge them for two seats on a plane or two seats at a theater because the plane and theater didn't create seats big enough for them!

The only problem with your fat food tax is that ALL of the foods that I eat are high in fat, so now just because I eat food that tastes good (and stay well under 400 pounds) I have to pay that tax too


I think that they should be taxed monthly for every month that they stay at a medically determined OBESITY level! (for the healthcare only not uncle sam!) Would you agree this is a fair compromise?





top topics
 
6
<< 14  15  16    18  19 >>

log in

join