Does the 13th amendment make forced Child support illegal?

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by sonnny1
 


I agree. The Children should be thought of first and not the money. steady court battles between parents (even if the children aren't present) causes tension between the two parental units which is never good for the children. That is exactly why the Ex and I chose to work out our problems between us and not through the courts. I just wish that more people would think of the Children first and not how to screw their Ex just because the relationship didn't work out.




posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 05:15 PM
link   
Remember - the child you do not support usually knows and won't forget either.

My father never paid court ordered child support and got away with it.

And it was HIS CHOICE to leave my Mom and I. They were married for 7 years. He left when my Mom was still pregnant with me - for booze and another woman. Left her too and did not support the kids he had with her, either.

So not only did my relatives not get the support they were due for me - they also *blamed* me - I was nothing but a burden to them that cost too much. And they never let me forget how much I cost either. So that was an additional gift. Speaking of gifts - there was also NO acknowledgement of me on birthdays, holidays - NOTHING. Not even ONE phone call. Ever.

And you bet I remember this. My "father" is an old man now - if he suddenly felt remorse and asked for forgiveness- I would NOT forgive him.

And if he asked for help in his old age, was sick, etc - he will get NONE from me. I would not even expend the energy to spit on the SOB's grave.

ASSHOLE.

Money aside - I would've been happy with some simple acknowledgement and even a half assed attempt at "caring". I would've been happy to receive a birthday card.

So just remember - the child usually knows and will treat YOU as you deserve in the future.

Consider the wreckage you might be making. Oh and my father's child support was ordered at $40 per month. And he could not even come up with THAT. To me - that was the ultimate slap in the face - I wasn't even worth the cost of a cable TV bill.

And no, my relatives had not much money and no, my mother never remarried nor had any boyfriends to help her.

"A man who creates a child and does not support it commits the moral equivalent of a drive by shooting." - Judge Larry Elder

Thanks. DAD.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by SevenBeans
Men cannot "choose to create offspring."
They can have unprotected sex ten times a day and never end up with a baby.
Only the unilateral choice of a female can create a baby that requires 20 years of support.
Being forced to pay for the results of another person's unilateral choices is a form of slavery.
edit on 29-1-2011 by SevenBeans because: (no reason given)


The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Children are not the product of a unilateral decision. Portraying it as such is a very opportunistic logical fallacy, in my opinion. This is like saying that if one bank robber decides to "off" a teller, that all the other bank robbers present should be immune from responsibility.

While your position may sound appealing to some, the reality is that a mutual act created life and a mutual responsibility exists for sustaining that life, beyond the point of birth. If you want to take it down do the lowest common denominator, legally, fatherhood is literally being an accessory before and after the fact.

The child support system in the US, at least, is laughable. My wars in that arena are well documented in other threads on ATS, so I will not rehash them here. But suffice it to say that, whatever any male might come along and posts here, I can assure you that I have experienced just as bad, and maybe even worse.

But my ordeal never justified my lack of participation. The wrong I experienced never morally gave me the right to try and opt out.

When thinking of people as abstract ideas, as topics such as this one tend to tempt us to do, we run the risk of losing all semblance of humanity, reason, and morality.

You simply cannot take a very complex process and break it down to "1+1=2". Doing so, while it may look good on paper, totally ignores the variables.

Child support is not slavery at all. It is an obligation, upon us, to ensure that our offspring are afforded their Constitutionally guaranteed rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. When we participate in procreative acts we do so knowing that the end result may be the production of an heir and we implicitly accept the terms of that by our consensual participation in that act.

~Heff
edit on 1/29/11 by Hefficide because: typo
extra DIV



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Whiffer Nippets
Remember - the child you do not support usually knows and won't forget either.

My father never paid court ordered child support and got away with it.

And it was HIS CHOICE to leave my Mom and I. They were married for 7 years. He left when my Mom was still pregnant with me - for booze and another woman. Left her too and did not support the kids he had with her, either.

So not only did my relatives not get the support they were due for me - they also *blamed* me - I was nothing but a burden to them that cost too much. And they never let me forget how much I cost either. So that was an additional gift. Speaking of gifts - there was also NO acknowledgement of me on birthdays, holidays - NOTHING. Not even ONE phone call. Ever.

And you bet I remember this. My "father" is an old man now - if he suddenly felt remorse and asked for forgiveness- I would NOT forgive him.

And if he asked for help in his old age, was sick, etc - he will get NONE from me. I would not even expend the energy to spit on the SOB's grave.

ASSHOLE.

Money aside - I would've been happy with some simple acknowledgement and even a half assed attempt at "caring". I would've been happy to receive a birthday card.

So just remember - the child usually knows and will treat YOU as you deserve in the future.

Consider the wreckage you might be making. Oh and my father's child support was ordered at $40 per month. And he could not even come up with THAT. To me - that was the ultimate slap in the face - I wasn't even worth the cost of a cable TV bill.

And no, my relatives had not much money and no, my mother never remarried nor had any boyfriends to help her.

"A man who creates a child and does not support it commits the moral equivalent of a drive by shooting." - Judge Larry Elder

Thanks. DAD.



I feel ya, I was in the same boat except my "Father" couldn't be bothered to pay a measly $32 a month. When my Mother was diagnosed with a mental illness and institutionalized my Aunt called out to tell him and told him I wanted to come stay with him and the bastard couldn't even be bothered to return the call at all. So Maybe that's why I feel such an obligation to be a part of my Children's life both monetarily and emotionally.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 04:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Golf66
And, no once your name goes on the birth certificate you no longer have the right to chose to be a "bum" you would have to prove inability to work for some physical or psychological reason; rather than a desire not to.



Acutally, if you're a custodial parent and a bum you'll get welfare, subsidized daycare etc. etc. (or they'll make the non-custodial pay more support), if you're a non-custodial parent they'll take your drivers license and eventually put you in jail.

I know it sucks not to get support though, my wife had a duaghter before we met and Dad never paid her a dime, she went 30k into debt in the years before I met her and I ended up paying it all off.
edit on 31-1-2011 by SevenBeans because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by sonnny1
reply to post by Adamanteus
 


I payed child support for three kids,2 different mothers. Not only did I pay for the support,that didnt go to my children,I payed for fees to process the paperwork,and fees that wernt stipulated under child support,like clothing,medical,food,etc.... all the things a normal father who loves his kids would do,regardless if someone is telling you ,you need to do this,and its the law. Child Support is a billion dollar industry. If you pay your support,it most likely takes two weeks before that actual money is even sent to the mother/father. Meaning,it sits in the agency's account collecting interest. Think of how much money is collected in that way. The laws are different,from state to state,country to country. My suggestion is to join a fathers advocacy group.
Groups

By the way,Fathers are being looked at with kinder eyes,by judges nowadays.
Happy ending to my story,I fought both ex's to get all my kids.Not only was my chances 1 in 20k to get one child,I fought for all three. Guess what,I dont receive ANY child support from the mothers,nor do I want any. I dont want or need the system in my life.


What a whinger!
Sorry, I have no sympathy whatsoever, and thanks for confirming my suspicion as to why most men want custody of their children.
Actually, from what I have read about the USA (Phyllis Chesler's book for one) you're havering when you say your chances were 1 in 20 to get one kid. Chesler's study showed that males have an 80% chance of getting custody. Unless things have changed radically since the 1980s, you'd have had to be an axe murderer not to have got your kids.
The chances are, they won't thank you for ripping them away from their mothers just to save money.

Vicky



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by matrix12
dude i feel your pain!!!!!, i have to pay 300 a month for one kid, i have custody of 3 kids which i have raised since birth , plus i got with a girl that has 5 kids, and we get no child support at all for the 8 kids we have in total!!!! but i still get slammed with that 300 a month life is not fair, and the mom that i pay to uses the money on twinkies and beer.

I call b.s, as the saying goes. Almost certainly untrue, especially the last line.
Word to the wise, someone who is a mother (especially of 5 kids) is a woman, as the word "girl" means someone under 18. If you think otherwise, you must be very old, lol: as the term "girl" meaning any woman between the ages of 0-60, went out of use in the mid-1960s..
Vicky:



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Whiffer Nippets
Remember - the child you do not support usually knows and won't forget either.

My father never paid court ordered child support and got away with it.

And it was HIS CHOICE to leave my Mom and I. They were married for 7 years. He left when my Mom was still pregnant with me - for booze and another woman. Left her too and did not support the kids he had with her, either.

So not only did my relatives not get the support they were due for me - they also *blamed* me - I was nothing but a burden to them that cost too much. And they never let me forget how much I cost either. So that was an additional gift. Speaking of gifts - there was also NO acknowledgement of me on birthdays, holidays - NOTHING. Not even ONE phone call. Ever.

And you bet I remember this. My "father" is an old man now - if he suddenly felt remorse and asked for forgiveness- I would NOT forgive him.

And if he asked for help in his old age, was sick, etc - he will get NONE from me. I would not even expend the energy to spit on the SOB's grave.

ASSHOLE.

Money aside - I would've been happy with some simple acknowledgement and even a half assed attempt at "caring". I would've been happy to receive a birthday card.

So just remember - the child usually knows and will treat YOU as you deserve in the future.

Consider the wreckage you might be making. Oh and my father's child support was ordered at $40 per month. And he could not even come up with THAT. To me - that was the ultimate slap in the face - I wasn't even worth the cost of a cable TV bill.

And no, my relatives had not much money and no, my mother never remarried nor had any boyfriends to help her.

"A man who creates a child and does not support it commits the moral equivalent of a drive by shooting." - Judge Larry Elder

Thanks. DAD.


My youngest son has had exactly the same experience, Whiffer, and he feels the same way about his father. I was in the same position as your Mum, except that I never made my son feel as if he was a burden, even though I had to raise him on welfare..
I never remarried (not for want of trying) but I could never find a man I could trust!
Vicky



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 04:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Adamanteus
Section 1 of the Thirteenth Amendment:

“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”

If one is ordered to pay child support and has no job then they WILL be incarcerated once the amount owed reaches a certain amount.

I have two children and DO Pay my child support (of my own free will) and would never dream of NOT paying it. I was just wondering if this could be interpreted to make forced Child support unconstitutional?


Yes. Child support and forced alimony first existed in America as a part of the peonage system that existed in the territories America conquered from Mexico. After the Civil War Congress and the Courts had to decide if the 13th Amendment applied to just the Southern Institution of Slavery or all forms of Slavery(such as peonage in the South West and the particular form of slavery Chinese Americans where under).

Back then they determined all forms of SLAVERY where illegal. Which is why such brute force(jail guards and police officers beating men who lost their job and couldn't afford to pay to near death or sadly in some cases to death) because they rely on the Law of Man, the Law of brute force.

Infact the only enforcement of Child support and alimony that can exist is being held in contempt of court. No prosecutor can try you for the "crime" of not paying because such criminal provisions would be illegal and unconstitutional. Basically you have a bunch of man-haters and traditionalist man-haters(as conservatives, neo-conservatives and conservatives are very much the enemies of boy's and men)doing an illogical run-around the constitution.

Anyone who supports slavery is evil, any slave master who is hurt by their slave seeking freedom deserves it. It was true with Americans of African descent doing what they had to do to escape to freedom in our darker past and it is still true today.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide
Children are not the product of a unilateral decision. Portraying it as such is a very opportunistic logical fallacy, in my opinion. This is like saying that if one bank robber decides to "off" a teller, that all the other bank robbers present should be immune from responsibility.


That's a terribly inept analogy. A better analogy is the one in which I give you a gun and subsequently you make the entirely unilateral decision to kill someone with it. I'm not equally responsible even though you couldn't have shot someone without a gun.

According to the law only the unilateral choice of a female can produce a child. All a man can help create is a lump of tissue that can be thrown in the garbage for absolutely any reason.


Originally posted by Hefficide
While your position may sound appealing to some, the reality is that a mutual act created life and a mutual responsibility exists for sustaining that life, beyond the point of birth.


Once again, the law says only the unilateral choice of a female can create a child that requires 20 years of support.

It really is that simple.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by SevenBeans
 


So if the law says that, then penalizing someone for something they had no choice in is in fact unjust from a legal stand point?



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Adamanteus
So if the law says that, then penalizing someone for something they had no choice in is in fact unjust from a legal stand point?


Correct, can you think of any other occasion that the government holds you equally responsible under threat of jail for the unilateral choice of someone else?
edit on 1-2-2011 by SevenBeans because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Adamanteus
reply to post by SevenBeans
 


So if the law says that, then penalizing someone for something they had no choice in is in fact unjust from a legal stand point?


The only reason this is an issue is because in the early 1900's Social Conservatives tried to legislate morality with Prohibition. Force temperance down the throats of American's because they viewed alcohol as inherently immoral.

And in-case anyone hasn't noticed neo-conservatives and social conservatives haven't dropped that tactic. Take a hint from their sex ed government program of abstinence only as a clue. For as much as they want to, they would love for a chance to regulate all sexuality. But they could never get the popular support and we wouldn't tolerate a Sharia like state period. So they have to do it in a round about way.

First you gut the safety net's to get the "opposition"(at this point they already took over the Republican Party in the late 80's-06) to agree. And since your opposition is controlled by people who hate the intended targets(Dem's had heavily incorporated feminism since the 70's-80's as a way to get the female vote), well you can create severe physical pressures to discourage certain activities.

And since the intended target doesn't have reliable, autonomous control over their reproduction, you can force them under threat of negative force to cease reproductive activity(remember Traditionalist's see sex only as an act of reproduction).

They have to target men because women have already received autonomous control over their sexuality. Traditionalist's can't touch them yet. But by forcing men into traditional roles or face severe consequence the door is left half way open so they can turn the clock backwards at a later date.

Anyone find it "odd" that every 10 years they say the male birth control pill is just "5 years away!"? While in some countries it has been a reality for over a decade?

I am going to be honest, yeah us guy's have a moral and ethical responsibility to take care of our kid's.

But we do not have a legal responsibility. Because we are free, we have the inherent right to decide. And our freedom is something that can't be taken away, bartered or given. We live and die free, our freedoms are just being unlawfully detained

You can say "what about the children?", ok what about them? Do you want to leave a world where there is distrust, slavery and oppression? A world where all their choices are made for them because it is what's best? One thing leads to another, and if we don't have the ability to exercise our freedom to choose what we as free men and women decide, then do we have any real freedoms left? Is that the kind of world that should be left to future generations? A world without choice, a world without freedom?





edit on 1-2-2011 by korathin because: last paragraph rewording
edit on 1-2-2011 by korathin because: reversed "choice" and "freedom",last sentence.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide

Originally posted by SevenBeans
Men cannot "choose to create offspring."
They can have unprotected sex ten times a day and never end up with a baby.
Only the unilateral choice of a female can create a baby that requires 20 years of support.
Being forced to pay for the results of another person's unilateral choices is a form of slavery.
edit on 29-1-2011 by SevenBeans because: (no reason given)


The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Child support is not slavery at all. It is an obligation, upon us, to ensure that our offspring are afforded their Constitutionally guaranteed rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. When we participate in procreative acts we do so knowing that the end result may be the production of an heir and we implicitly accept the terms of that by our consensual participation in that act.

~Heff
edit on 1/29/11 by Hefficide because: typo

P.S, there is no Constitutionally Protected right of "Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness", that is the Declaration of Independence.

There is a Constitutional right to:
Freedom from unwarranted Search or seizure. Writ of Habeas Corpus. Freedom from slavery, indentured servitude and peonage. Freedom of a speedy trial. The right just compensation if our personnel property is seized for public use(one of the key argument is "public safety", one of the conditions that "Writ of Habeas Corpus is suspended".



Just like prohibition, birth-control and condoms this is a moral issue. Segregation, inter-racial sex, eugenics, even genocide where done for "moral reasons". Inconsequentially the first organization to enforce child support and alimony after it was outlawed along with the other forms of slavery was the KKK, unofficially of course(illegally, outside the law). extra DIV



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by korathin
 


The Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution declare that governments cannot deprive any person of "life, liberty, or property" without due process of law.


Source

Our unalienable rights, are indeed, Constitutionally protected.

~Heff



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by SevenBeans
 


The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Ah, and the abortion issue finally sneaks its way into yet another thread about paternity issues.


The "she can abort, so why should I be accountable" argument was done to death in this thread already. My thoughts about the subject are already on record there.

But the premise of this thread does not involve abortion. To try and make it so would be to move this thread off topic. This OP involved discussion of the 13th amendment to the US Constitution, or:


Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


Source

IE the OP is attempting to equate the enforcement of child support as slavery. In my opinion this is simply an appeal to emotion and fallacious as a married person is legally bound to provide for their offspring. Divorce does not remove this burden.

~Heff

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Ah, and the abortion issue finally sneaks its way into yet another thread about paternity issues.


The "she can abort, so why should I be accountable" argument was done to death in this thread already. My thoughts about the subject are already on record there.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.


It's a very simple argument and we don't really have to to talk about abortion. If it's her unilateral choice than you cannot ethically hold someone else equally responsible for the results of that choice.
edit on 1-2-2011 by SevenBeans because: (no reason given)




edit on 2/1/2011 by 12m8keall2c because: fixed bbcode skewing formatting



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 11:51 AM
link   
I'm glad to see the other dads out there! I was beginning to think I was the only one getting a$$ raped by the State. I have two kids, and though I just recently found employment, while on unemployment, the dumb ass judge wanted me to pay 20% of that? So let me get this straight? I was making 1600 a month on unemployments, fell behind on ALL of my bills, but as long as the ex-Antichrist got her money, the state was happy? How is it fair to make sure the man in the situation lives in a card board box, as long as the ex-Devil spawn lives the high life.
In my situation, the ex-Antichrist not only was making 50k a year, but was living with mommy and daddy with no rent, and no bills to speak of. And yet, at one time I lived in my truck for about 4 weeks straight, and thats ok in the judges eyes?
Talk about family court needing reform?! This only further suggests that the judicial system is in need of a massive overhaul. I'm all for paying for my kids, I mean...come on...there my children....but I think both parents need to have 50-50 responsibility!
edit on 1-2-2011 by Whereweheaded because: (no reason given)
edit on 1-2-2011 by Whereweheaded because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by SevenBeans
 


The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Ah, and the abortion issue finally sneaks its way into yet another thread about paternity issues.


The "she can abort, so why should I be accountable" argument was done to death in this thread already. My thoughts about the subject are already on record there.

But the premise of this thread does not involve abortion. To try and make it so would be to move this thread off topic. This OP involved discussion of the 13th amendment to the US Constitution, or:


Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


Source

IE the OP is attempting to equate the enforcement of child support as slavery. In my opinion this is simply an appeal to emotion and fallacious as a married person is legally bound to provide for their offspring. Divorce does not remove this burden.

~Heff

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.


No I wasn't trying to equate it to slavery I was questioning it more along the lines of involuntary servitude.

I stated in all my previous posts I support my children without being forced to by the courts ( and think all men should) and have no agenda other than determining the legality (not morality) of it all.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Vicky32
 


Sorry vicky, but your source of information is so far off, it not even funny? Where you get off, using a liberally biased book as your only source of information only further suggests that you are unable to conjure up a constructive thought on your own. Here are some known facts for you to ponder:


61% of all child abuse is committed by biological mothers
25% of all child abuse is committed by natural fathers Statistical Source: Current DHHS report on nationwide Child Abuse
79.6% of custodial mothers receive a support award
29.9% of custodial fathers receive a support award
46.9% of non-custodial mothers totally default on support
26.9% of non-custodial fathers totally default on support
20.0% of non-custodial mothers pay support at some level
61.0% of non-custodial fathers pay support at some level
66.2% of single custodial mothers work less than full-time
10.2% of single custodial fathers work less than full-time
7.0% of single custodial mothers work more than 44 hours weekly
24.5% of single custodial fathers work more than 44 hours weekly
46.2% of single custodial mothers receive public assistance
20.8% of single custodial fathers receive public assistance Statistical Source: Technical Analysis Paper No. 42 - U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services -
Office of Income Security Policy 90.2% of fathers with joint custody pay all the support due
79.1% of fathers with visitation privileges pay all the support due
44.5% of fathers with no visitation pay all the support due
37.9% of fathers are denied any visitation
66.0% of all support not paid by non-custodial fathers is due to inability to pay Statistical Source: 1988 Census "Child Support and Alimony: 1989 Series P-60, No. 173 p. 6-7. and U.S. General Accounting Office Report" GAO/HRD-92-39FS January, 1992
50% of mothers see no value in the father's continued contact with his children. --See "Surviving the Breakup" by Joan Berlin Kelly



There are: 11,268,000 total U.S. custodial mothers and 2,907,000 total U.S. custodial fathers --Current Population Reports, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Series P-20, No. 458, 1991



My evidence further suggests that you have no idea what your talking about, or you bought into the propaganda your one book research presented to you.

Take note in the next evidence:


Child custody for fathers following a divorce is one of the most important aspects of a dissolving marriage. Throughout history the legal presumptions about child custody for fathers has changed significantly. Before the twentieth century children were regarded as the property of their father. Under common law, child custody for fathers was commonly awarded, as children were considered a father's rightful property.
A major shift occurred after this period in history, as family courts came to favor mothers in child custody cases. It was presumed that under normal circumstances, children did better when placed in the sole custody of their mothers. This paradigm of thought shifted again after experts and lawmakers discovered that custody for fathers was worthy of equal credence. The legal system began to understand that, in many cases, children benefited most from having both parents in their lives growing up. Many family courts still hold the belief, however, that the primary caregiver during a marriage should remain the primary caregiver after a divorce.

As a result of this view on custody for fathers and mothers, moms are still awarded custody in seventy percent of all child custody cases. Joint custody for fathers and mothers is awarded about twenty percent of the time. Family law statistics show that sole custody for fathers is awarded less than ten percent of the time. Statistics from 1991 indicate that forty percent of all child custody cases allowed no custody for fathers, barring them from both visitation and access rights.




Please take note in the above statistic:



moms are still awarded custody in seventy percent of all child custody cases.


As well as this:




Statistics from 1991 indicate that forty percent of all child custody cases allowed no custody for fathers, barring them from both visitation and access rights



So what was that you were saying? Are you sure about your source? Are you absolutely sure?





new topics
top topics
active topics
 
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join