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.

 

ATS visiting the Tea Party!

page: 2
12
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 01:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ahabstar


I felt I needed the special tags for this question to make it clear that I am asking as member and not a moderator.

The TEA Party as a whole is a grassroots organization that strives to bring a voice to the common person in the form of representation that is woefully lacking by the Dems and the GOP. The sad consequence is that local affiliates deal more in local issues and as such branches in the American Southwest generally do not express the same issues that the ones in the Southeast or Midwest do with the exception of a couple issues.

Will the local and regional TEA Parties begin steps to organize, send representation and form a true National TEA Party with a clear agenda and platform to finally let both the Democrats and Republicans know that the US is indeed governed by the People and not lobbyists and corporations? In other words, embody the well known expression, "If you don't want to listen, then maybe you can feel."


I was going to ask this same question, more specifically, "If you feel your movement is so popular right now, why aren't you running under your own party banner and putting the democrats and republicans to the side?"

Edit: 'I was' as opposed to 'I wasn't'

[edit on 15-7-2010 by links234]




posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by prionace glauca
 



As far the posters maligning Sarah Palin Tea Party, they need to get off the hate wagon. The Tea Party selected her not the other way around.


This is entirely wrong! Not only did we not select her, her addition to McCain's ticket probably cost him the election. Almost every Tea Partier that I know was all for McCain until he made the bone-headed decision of selecting a running mate that he had never even met? How can someone that wants to lead a country, just blindly select a partner based on demographics? Palin latched on to the Tea Party movement. We did not "select" her. The ones that like her, do so grudgingly because she does bring a lot of press and attention to the movement, but most of the original organizers would prefer to not have her kind of attention.

Anyhow, nobody that I know in the Tea Parties plan to vote for Palin if she runs for something, and everybody that I know wishes that she would get off the TV!



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 





We live in a Democracy. We vote our leaders in as opposed to installing a regime via violence and if the TP feels it has the right to overrule the American People's vote via violence then I would hope the government would smack the TPM down with prejudice.


You need to re-read my post. We want the Democracy to succeed. We want to take back the Government through the Political channels.

What I said is, "if the polls do not reflect what we know the voters did." In other words, if all the popular sentiment, and polls, and word on the street says one thing, but the MSM and Voting results report something else, then we know the Democracy has failed. We know that the voting is rigged, we know that there is no hope of removing entrenched politicians in a democratic way. Then what is the next action?

I totally agree with you. We don't want a dictatorship. We don't want a violent revolution. BUT, we do want the Republic Restored, and the Government to be REPRESENTATIVE of the people.

Right now we don't have that, but we have hope that the grassroots movements will restore it. If we are certain that the people voted in one direction, but the winners come from the entrenched parties, then we will know that there is a disconnect between the will of the voters and the reported results. We will know that our government has been hijacked. I hope that is not the case. I hope the November results show exactly what most Americans know in their hearts, and I hope that we begin to fix the government from within.

If a lot of incumbents win during this election, look for an escalation of the talk of violence and maybe even some real violence, because I think we all know that the voters will not put incumbents back into office. If the incumbents get back in, it will be as a result of voter fraud and big corporate money, and it will be evidence that the democracy is broken.



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
Almost every Tea Partier that I know was all for McCain


Interesting comment in the context of the claim that the TPM is a collection of Dems and GOP that are disillusioned.



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by maybereal11

Originally posted by getreadyalready
Almost every Tea Partier that I know was all for McCain


Interesting comment in the context of the claim that the TPM is a collection of Dems and GOP that are disillusioned.


Out of context. Nice try. That statement reads "all for McCain until" and then goes on.

Personally I voted for Obama. I know some that voted for McCain, but still resented Palin. I know some that voted for Ron Paul. I know a whole bunch that really wanted to vote for Huckabee, and I expect him to be a front-runner in 2012.

Yes, the TPM is extremely disillusioned with both parties, and we are seeking qualified people with good morals and values that intend to represent their districts. Paul McKain is a big time Congressional Candidate in my area. I hope he wins. We asked him to switch from Libertarian to Independent. He didn't want to, but he finally did.

Sitting Governor Charlie Crist really fell out of favor with the Tea Party, and as a result he didn't even get his Republican Parties endorsement for the Senate race. He is now running as an independent, but he is behind in all the polls.

The TPM is very powerful. People are watching, and people are listening. And since most people don't want to do their own research on candidates, they usually trust the MSM and the campaign promises, but this year will be different!! This year the common folks are listening to the TPM, and they will vote with them. They trust that the TPM is thoroughly vetting out the people it supports, and that the TPM has the best interests of the Country at heart. Therefore, I think the popular vote will follow the TPM, and this is a good thing!



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 09:25 AM
link   
If I was there, then here is the following questions that I would want to know:
1) If a canidate that you support actually got into a position of power or authority, would that individual be willing to take a pay cut, to match what the voters in their district actually make, rather than what is offered by the federal government.
2) How would that canidate deal with the massive amount of corruption that runs rampent in the halls of power.
3) Would they be willing to be a one term canidate, that means they sit in the seat for one term and then get out?
4) How would they deal with the current problems of the country: a) Would they demand and force the equal application of the law across the board, no matter what the race of the people are? b) Demand and deport the millions of illegale immigrants from this country, no amnesty? c) How would they improve the economic condition of the country, to assist in improving the job market?
d) Improve our standing in the world, especially with our allies around the world?
e) And hold their collegues in the halls of power accountable for their actions, no matter who it is, or what position they hold, including those in all three branches of the country?



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 09:38 AM
link   
I have a question you could ask, coming from an outsider that saw great potential for the TPM when it first arose.

How do the rank and file members of the TPM feel about their movement being co-opted by one of the major parties when it started out as a nonpartisan, grassroots conservative/libertarian movement or was it a Republican movement from the start, as evidenced by Scott Browns election in Mass.



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
If I was there, then here is the following questions that I would want to know:
1) If a canidate that you support actually got into a position of power or authority, would that individual be willing to take a pay cut, to match what the voters in their district actually make, rather than what is offered by the federal government.


Willing? Most of the candidates that we are supporting have regular jobs. There is a great chance that they could not afford to give up the salary, but also that they would be willing to only take a replacement in the wages lost while in session. GREAT QUESTION!! Also important to note that the salary isn't that much, but the benefits and staff allowance is huge! That is where a big cut is possible.


2) How would that canidate deal with the massive amount of corruption that runs rampent in the halls of power.

Another great question, and since the Tea Party is endorsing mostly newbies to the political game, I think it would be hard to answer. Nobody really knows just how rampant it is until they get there, and then it is overwhelming.


3) Would they be willing to be a one term canidate, that means they sit in the seat for one term and then get out?

Yes. TPM supports term limits. 1 term may be too restrictive, but 6 - 8 years seems more than enough! Depending on the office the term limits would have to vary a little, but the TPM does ask its candidates this question, and we want to hear them say they would support term limits.


4) How would they deal with the current problems of the country: a) Would they demand and force the equal application of the law across the board, no matter what the race of the people are? b) Demand and deport the millions of illegale immigrants from this country, no amnesty? c) How would they improve the economic condition of the country, to assist in improving the job market?
d) Improve our standing in the world, especially with our allies around the world?
e) And hold their collegues in the halls of power accountable for their actions, no matter who it is, or what position they hold, including those in all three branches of the country?


Now that is a lot to ask. TPM wants the borders enforced, but we don't entirey oppose amnesty in some form. See my threadHow to Fix Immigration for more detail.

EVERYBODY wants laws enforced uniformly across the nation, but this is a local problem. Local Politicians, Police, Judges need to be held accountable. The TPM being a grassroots movement means that even local politicians are being affected by it. Hopefully we will see an improvement in the quality of elected officials, both nationally and locally!

TPM is a pretty varied bunch. We have ultra-conservative as well as hippy war protestors. The cool thing is that both ends of the spectrum want what is best for the country, and both ends of the spectrum are appalled by the apology tour of Obama. Yes, any TPM endorsed candidate will try to improve the USA standing in the world, and they will do it with debate, logic, honor, and strength rather than hand-holding, bowing, and apologizing!

DISCLAIMER: I am but one member of one Tea Party in one town. The great thing about this TPM is no National affiliation. My opinion is my opinion, and in many cases I have referred to the opinion of others in my local group. Answers across the country are going to vary according to the local climate, but the overall idea of SACK THE INCUMBENT, and MAKE OUR REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENT US, will be the same. Flame me if you wish, but please don't flame the movement.

If you disagree with anything I have said, or the TPM as a whole, that is great. Go to their meetings, make your opinion heard, join the movement, and help reach a consensus that reaches everyone's goals!!

[edit on 15-7-2010 by getreadyalready]



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 09:53 AM
link   
I guess instead of asking questions, what I'd like to get out of ATS' visit is a fair, honest assesment of the TEA Party. I think ATS is probably one of the few sites out there that I would trust do such an unbiased assesment.

A few topics I'd like covered to put them to rest once and for all are:

1. Are there racists groups intermingled with crowd? If so, what percent do they make-up in ATS' eyes? How do other TEA Partiers address those racists?

2. What's the demographic make-up of the crowd as a whole?

3. Is this a sincere grassroots effort, or an appendage of a political machine in ATS' unbiased view?

4. What is the over-riding message that most people there want to express?

I look forward to viewing the ATS report (and video). Maybe we'll find out once and for all if this is the real deal (the embyonic stage of a new political party), or just another "hoax".



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 02:31 PM
link   
Just wanted to add one thing to some of the things GetReadyAlready stated and the other guy,(whos name escapes me currently) about our "Democracy". This has been ingrained in our heads since we were children, we have been indoctrinated. WE DO NOT LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY! WE LIVE IN A REPUBLIC!

Anyway, very important to remember. As far as removing these guys by force, I truly don't think our system has been compromised by anything more than a bunch of slick talking attorneys. I heavily doubt TPTB have placed anyone in power in such a way that the voters don't truly have the power to remove them. I still think its pretty much impossible to have infiltrated our government in such a way that the incumbents will remain that way just because they are incumbents and have received some mythical appointment by some mythical person in some mythical office.

That said, if the incumbents win, I agree, I must be wrong and our system has been infiltrated and broken. Is this worth a violent revolution? Probably not yet, read my thread to form your opinion on that, but we have not reached a point where violence is needed yet, IMHO.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I also agree, however, with GetReadyAlready that we can cut expenses drastically by removing many staffers from Washington. We did not elect these people, we elected our representatives to do the jobs they have hired others to do. This is where the real problem is I believe. Slick talking lawyers have argued through loop holes in courts, judges have allowed this and agreed with the lawyers while comfortably stating, "Well the law does read that way, I guess we do have to rule the way you say this time" and they set a new precedent. As a result our lawmakers have no choice except to hire all these overpriced staffers to write more and more legislation. This propagates the problem and forces our system to grow uncontrollably.

We need to find a way to get rid of all those unneeded staffers and explain to the judges that it is up to them to Interpret the law, not just read it and take it as literal. Our law is supposed to be adaptive and if we forget to put one word in a sentence somewhere it doesn't make sense to interpret it differently! We know what was intended, any laymen knows what was intended, it is absurd that our judges and lawmakers have allowed this ridiculous situation to continue in such a way!

I would ask nothing. I know Paul McKain, the representative that GetReadyAlready talks about above, and he is different than he was in the beginning. He, like so many other politicians that I have met and we all see spew lies on television, is just another politician. He started off as the regular guy who cared about changing the government but as his campaign progressed he became the fork tongued politician that all of us are all to familiar with. I would ask nothing b/c I believe the majority of the people who we attempt to elect are this way.

The best we can do is vote for the lesser of the perceived evils we observe. Until we have a similar list of problems with our government that our founders had no violence is worth it. And, no matter what question we ask we will get the same lies we wish to hear.

[edit on 15-7-2010 by memarf1]



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by ATSmediaPRO
 


Joe, I know that if you are with ATS, and wish to maintain it's integrity, you won't ask:



why they aren't organizing armed citizens militias to deal with the problem instead of relying on the ineffective government.


That would make ATS seem like a bunch of rednecks wanting to point guns at brown people.



Doesn't anyone realize the American people are being held hostage by our President stating that we will not move to protect the borders until an amnesty bill is passed?


That would cause ATS to fall into the same inflammatory hogwash groups like the Tea party that makes them so controversial. (and piss off a lot of ATS members.)




ask them what they think about the whole "being born in the US makes you a citizen even if you're parents aren't" thing.


That would anger tea party members who are strict constitutionalists, and who know that this is not a "thing", but a huge part of America's Constitution, and a source of pride for all Americans, as it was for their fathers, and their father's fathers going back over two centuries.




When will you be ready to take up arms and follow our nations heritage of removing tyrants from control over we the people?


This would be asking them, not if, but when they will be engaging in armed insurrection against their democratically elected government officials that they don't like. Unless they want to incriminate themselves in a felony, I doubt you will get an answer, and you will embarrass a lot of ATS members.




"What will be your next action if the results of the polls in November do not match what you know to be true about how people voted?" In other words if the Tea Party is very successful, and the people turnout and spea out, and vote their conscious, but the results are the same ol same ol. Will the next action be violent? Will entrenched politicians be forcibly removed?


And this coming from a admitted Tea Partier....great. Let's rearrange the question this way: "Is the Tea Party willing to kill fellow Americans to get a political position?" Once again, forcibly removing politicians because you believe your party candidate should have won, is against the law of our democratic election process. I do believe the punishment for that is death. This doesn't sound like a very admirable attitude for Tea Partiers to adopt, nor credible question for ATS to ask.


How about:
"Why do you allow paranoid, inflammatory, unsubstantiated claims of government tyranny from your party members, that discredits the integrity of your movement's real issues?"



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by 12GaugePermissionSlip
 



And this coming from a admitted Tea Partier....great. Let's rearrange the question this way: "Is the Tea Party willing to kill fellow Americans to get a political position?" Once again, forcibly removing politicians because you believe your party candidate should have won, is against the law of our democratic election process. I do believe the punishment for that is death. This doesn't sound like a very admirable attitude for Tea Partiers to adopt, nor credible question for ATS to ask.



I qualified that statement in a later post. It isn't about who wins, it is about whether the announced winners are the people that got the most votes. It will be readily apparent this November if the elections are real or rigged. If the elections do not reflect the popular sentiment of the majority, then we have to look at another process.

It is also a very valid question, because Beck, Limbaugh, and FOX, and many fringe groups are indeed calling for an armed revolution. I don't thing an armed revolution is a good thing, and neither does the Tea Party. It is important to ask the question to get the appropriate answer. It is also important to ask the question in that manner, because if the Democratic process is broken or fraudulent, then we need a good, well-respected group that is willing to say so, and step up to fix it.

As the Declaration Says:


For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury.

That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes;



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 





If the elections do not reflect the popular sentiment of the majority,


Like when Gore won the popular vote?




Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes;


I love this last line. Tell me, is a "light or transient cause" removing a sitting president because of rumors he is a socialist, Nazi, communist, Marxist, Kenyan, Muslim, anti-Christ, black supremacist dictator? That is all the things Tea party members have called him. There must be raging debate at Tea parties between members and their beliefs, because you can't be all those things at the same time. Do they fight about this a lot over there, or is there some kind of bond because yall all hate the same person? Sounds like a cult, not a party.



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by 12GaugePermissionSlip
 


LOL! Yes, the courts are not supposed to be deciding who is president. That is exactly my point. And yes, nobody has taken enough action before now. We can't change the past, it took a series of bad elections to get to this point.


I love this last line. Tell me, is a "light or transient cause" removing a sitting president because of rumors he is a socialist, Nazi, communist, Marxist, Kenyan, Muslim, anti-Christ, black supremacist dictator?

I'm glad you liked it, I put it in there just for you. This is exactly correct. The TPM won't be doing anything based on rumors, innuendos, or incindiery rhetoric. That is what the problem now. We are trying to change the status quo, not go along with it.

It isn't a race thing, or an Obama thing, it is an "enough is enough" thing. Just like Bush didn't ask for 9/11, Obama didn't ask for this Economic debacle or the BP leak. BUT, after almost 10 years of continuous war, 3 bad elections, an economic crisis that may turn out to be unprecedented, and so many failed campaign promises from everybody involved (including Obama), it is time for the common people to step up.

And, believe it or not, the Tea Parties don't spend a lot of time debating Obama, we spend much more time debating our Senators and Congressmen, and local political races. As a matter of fact, I don't think anybody gets to vote for president this November?


Do some Tea Party members call Obama all of those things...yes. But it is far, far more prevalent on television than it is at an actual Tea Party meeting or event.

In general (very general) the Tea Party is AGAINST all INCUMBENTS. We want the entire government replaced (through elections). We want people that are more representative of the population in office, instead of Ivy Leaguers and lawyers. In my area the group is pretty evenly split between Republican, Democrat, and Independent. The candidates that we like typically are Independent, Libertarian, or Republican, although there are some Democrats that look pretty good.



[edit on 15-7-2010 by getreadyalready]



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by 12GaugePermissionSlip
 


For the record, I voted FOR OBAMA! He has let me down the way politicians typically do. I would be a Tea Party member even if Obama had followed through on all his promises. IMHO, the $1T bailout was ridiculous and it only helped the corporations and banks. Sure, it staved off a deep depression for a little while, but it extended the recession indefinitely and it encumbered the average American with more tax debt than we can handle, while the "stimulus" part never reached us at the bottom.

I was all for Healthcare Reform, but I did not want him to reinvent the wheel, I wanted him to extend Medicare and Medicaid benefits (for a price) to people who could not get regular insurance. A sort of "public option" for a program that already existed along with reform of the way benefits are administered.

I support the military, and I supported both invasions, and I think Gitmo was important for awhile. I also think the time has come to withdraw, and I think normal human rights should have been extended to all of our captives the same as if they were our own citizens. If rights are inalienable and self-apparent, then we should apply that equally to all humankind. If we are going to war on moral grounds, then we better show extremely high moral rectitude in our dealings. So, I was a fan of Obama's plans to close Gitmo, start withdrawals, and extend normal rights to our captives, but he didn't do any of that?

Is any of this getting through? There is no Conservative vs. Liberal or Republican vs. Democrat. There is no TPM that hates a particular person or race or office or political party.

The TPM is a collection of people with differing views. We are highly Conservative when it comes to the Constitution, and Personal Responsibility, and Smaller Government and State's Rights, but we are highly Liberal when it comes to Human Rights, and Environmental Concerns, and Drug Laws, and Mandatory Sentencing, and other key issues. We want to see less Government, less Laws regarding the individual and more laws regarding big business. We want to see less people in prisons and more people at work. We want to see less foreign dependence and more foreign exports. We want to see less rhetoric and more action. We are willing to take our lumps for the good of the country. We are willing to serve in the military, pay our taxes, and endure some hard economic times, if it gets us over the hump and back to where the country belongs. We endorse politicians that will look at every situation open-mindedly and vote with their conscience and the good of the country in their heart, instead of making backroom deals and following the party lines to get re-elected. As of this November, it will not get you elected to follow party lines, or cater to special interests, or even spout feel-good rhetoric to your constituents. If you want to get elected this fall, or if you want to participate as a voter this fall, you better walk the walk and stand up for what you believe and vote with your conscience!



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Well Stated. Star for you! Now if only the people who are against you read your ENTIRE posts they may agree too! lol.

Remove and Replace, CTRL-ALT-DELETE our government this November!

Vote your conscience, don't just vote for who you think will win! Vote for who you think SHOULD win!



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


It seems you and I have hijacked this thread started by an ATS dude.
Was this thread about questions to ask Tea Partiers? Oh well, it's our thread now, muhahahaha!

I agreed with a large chunk of you last post. It was like somebody else took over for you. I identified with you here: "while the "stimulus" part never reached us at the bottom". Why didn't he just hand over 1 trillion dollars to working families making under $30,000. Talk about recovery. SPROING!!




Is any of this getting through?

All of it. The only things I disagree with was your support for Gitmo, and the invasions. We definitely had some @ss to kick, but not invade countries with civilians. Gitmo was a mistake from it's inception because of human rights.

In summation, I wish your movement luck, however, just voting out incumbents doesn't address the root of the problem; political campaigns financed by special interests. Fix this first, everything else will be easy.

[edit on 15-7-2010 by 12GaugePermissionSlip]



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by 12GaugePermissionSlip
 


This is highly encouraging, and I hope you visit a Tea Party meeting or event near you. I don't agree with everybody at every meeting, but we all have the Country's best interest at heart, and we are all willing to work toward a mutual goal.

If you and I can start off entirely disagreeing based on a couple of comments that gave false impressions, and then in a matter of minutes lay out our cases and reach a lot of agreement, then there is hope for the entire country!!


I think the OP should print this thread and take it with them!

As far as going off topic:
While this discussion wasn't about "questions" for the meeting, I hope it at least helped the OP to get a feeling of the sentiment on both sides of the debate and develop more insight into whatever questions they choose to ask. There are really not "2" sides to any of these arguments. There are thousands of paths, but all to 1 goal. When we start to communicate, the paths start to align, and the goal gets much easier to see. Hopefully that is how the Tea Party Movement is utilized. As long as we can keep radicals off the TV set speaking on our behalf, maybe we can get somewhere!



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 05:51 PM
link   
I have covered most of the TPM meetings in my area as a producer for our local cable public access channel. And the question I would like to see asked by the ATS group is the same one that I always ask at the meetings I attend.

"If the TPM is successful and incumbents are voted out, Obama is a lame duck, and people are voted into office that embrace the TPM platform"

"What then???"

All I get are blank stares and silence.

The TPM and most Americans have bought into the fantasy and charade that passes for American politics. Like 12ga said, until the real power behind the scenes is changed ala special interest, corporate structure and influence; it's all just masturbatory rhetoric and sign waving. It feels good but in reality; it's pretty much meaningless.



[edit on 15-7-2010 by whaaa]



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
I hope it at least helped the OP to get a feeling of the sentiment on both sides of the debate and develop more insight into whatever questions they choose to ask.


We're definitely taking all points in this thread to heart, and especially want to make the effort to get our member's questions in front of some of the "VIPs" and presenters at the event.

Our goal here, however, is not to stage a "gotcha" type scenario to embarrass "tea baggers," or, to even prop-up the core values of the "tea party" movement. As we (ATS) branch out with our dedicated efforts in video coverage, this combination tea party/border security event here in Arizona is an issues bulls-eye, in the epicenter of where people are exasperated with their government's apparent lack of concern for critically important border problems. We hope to showcase frustrated citizens while searching for the truth of these matters.

As a follow-up, we may very well find ourselves at an Arizona rally focused against the new law in Arizona, and (hopefully) showcasing the concerns from the other side of this rather complex and emotionally-charged coin.



edit on by SkepticOverlord because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
12
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join