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.

 

I need help creating a solution to a problem we are about to face

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 4 2011 @ 09:31 PM
link   
I meant this to be a reply to a post by Vitchilo www.abovetopsecret.com... but it became something more than a reply and I feel that I have a better chance of getting a response this way.

I never thought that pat downs and security checks would become commonplace in our everyday activities but this really does seem like the steps we would take should another terror attack take place. After realizing that this is less a possibility and more a certainty, I immediately thought that this would be the catalyst for widespread rioting over civil rights that would lead to the authorities slamming everyone that shows up with an iron fist and a hefty jail term. We need a solution to prevent this from happening now. The lawyers and legal inclined members need to pool together to work on a law that absolutely protects against unnecessary search and seizure that leaves no uncertain terms with every situation and circumstance included as to leave no loophole open. Everyone here needs to tout this new law as necessary to protect American ideals and humanity's ideals as whole and "not let the terrorists win" by making us prisoners of fear in our own neighborhoods. Tell your coworkers and your friends that you are not afraid and that you will live and die free under any and all circumstances. That you will not allow our values and way of life to corrode to the point where trials are unnecessary to gain convictions and sentences can be meted out without the use of a courtroom "because that's what the terrorists want us to do". That you will not watch your children be attacked on their school campuses by police in full military gear because that's " us letting the terrorists win".

We can still turn this around and I am tired of waiting for a messiah. We need to act together and we need to do it now. The people have been lied to, robbed, battered and bruised and need guidance and someone to remind them of what society stands for and where our moral ground is. I am ready to undertake this project myself but lack the opportune skills for the task, so any help would be appreciated. I am also Canadian and do not have a full grasp of the American legal system and will have difficulties learning what I would need to in a timely fashion.
I am also just one person and although I firmly believe that one person can make a difference, the entire community here operating together can make a swift and sudden change in the right direction,

Please tell me I am not alone and that there are others that are ready to work within the system while we are still able.
edit on 4-5-2011 by DrunkNinja because: deleted a word




posted on May, 4 2011 @ 09:35 PM
link   
I don't mind the pat downs, I don't get what's the big deal? If you a woman being pat down by a woman TSA, or a man by a man TSA agent, what's the matter?
I was actually planning on wearing a bikini through an airport next time
No joke.



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by EternalThought
 


Whats the big deal? How about the 4th amendment of our constitution?




The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by EternalThought
 


There was a time not to long ago when one country's soldiers would ask citizens for their identification at checkpoints in the streets and detained those that didn't. They also patted people down and conducted search's of their citizens to help deal with security issues in that country. They marked those that they deemed more apt to commit crime or incite violence with a symbol so they could be readily identified. Do you know which country I'm speaking about ? It was Nazi era Germany and we pooled together to stop their tyranny, now we need to pool together to prevent us from becoming the same type of tyrant. What's the big deal ? Freedom and liberty.



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 09:47 PM
link   
I hate to say it, but all the legal back and forth won't do a damn thing. I hope I am wrong,
but it will take an army.



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by DrunkNinja
 


Dear DrunkNinja,

We have such a law, it is the Constitution and it protects against "unreasonable" search and seizure. There was an attorney named "Art Bell" and he wrote a series of pamphlets called "Courtroom Compendium" which summarized all the cases which made determinations regarding search and seizure (worked for him as a kid, great guy and sorely missed). You might be able to find his pamphlets at a law library if it is big enough.

The question is always one of reasonableness and that depends on the situation. Short answer is that it must be more likely than not that the person is guilty, it is necessary to protect the policemans lives or you have consented to it. If you choose to fly, you have consented to it. This is why I no longer fly and won't, I don't consent to it. If we really wanted to stop the TSA groping our children, we would exercise civil disobedience by refusing to fly. It would end all of this immediately.



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by DrunkNinja
 


Well... You know MY answer. LOL! Pass the idea that We now have what it takes to get rid of the need for money (plenum energy does that) and robots to cast slavery onto. The Interweb is available for communication and coordination.

Please read the two threads linked in my sig - The End of Entropy and The Ethical Planetarian Party Platform.

If We can spread these Ideas widely enough, to the tipping point, many MANY problems will be solved.



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by AQuestion
 


Right I understand that there is such a thing as the fourth amendment, I'm Canadian not an imbecile. What I want to do is flesh it out with addendum's that define what is reasonable in every possible situation and circumstance. These types of addendum are extremely common in dealing with outdated or irrelevant legislation and it shouldn't be that hard to pass if proper support is gathered. If you do this to every piece of your constitution you will be able to protect yourselves from the chronic abuse of your constitution that is commonplace. Think about it the "protect the constitution law" what could be more American than that ? The other thing is that you actually believe that the way to deal with unjust laws is civil disobedience ? It isn't that's what we have courtrooms for. It seems to me that someone has lead you to believe that civil disobedience is the answer and sadly you have been lead astray. I would think that members of a group of megalomaniac "elites" would definitely want the people to believe that there is no alternative than to simply disobey, that way you do whatever you want and no one challenges you in court, they just disobey and then you just lock them up.
edit on 4-5-2011 by DrunkNinja because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by DrunkNinja
 


Dear DrunkNinja,

I didn't assume you were dumb; but, you said you are not trained in law. That is why I referenced Mr. Bells "Courtroom Compendium", it included every case that impacted search and seizure law. Because it is an issue of reasonableness, we cannot possibly list every situation that might arise, we have to deal with them on a case by case situation and ask if the people in the given situation were being reasonable. We cannot possibly anticipate every future possibility.

It was illegal to listen into people's phone calls on land lines without a warrant, that means a judge had to determine for the police if there was a sufficient threat. His decision could later be reviewed by other judges. When radios became popular, this right did not carry over to radio calls because they were in the air and anyone could listen in, you had no right to expect that your conversations were private when anyone could hear them. This then led to why cell phones are not protected, because they go out over the air waves rather than being on land lines. If you have the know how and the technology then you can listen into anyone's cell phone conversations and there are people on this site that can tell you how.

Technology changes what is a reasonable expectation. People use the net to hack other people's e-mail, programs and even to sabotage others. We know the internet is not "safe", we no we have no privacy on the internet, we trade the risk for the cookie, for the ease that it adds to our lives. I prefer privacy over convenience, that is why I do not fly anymore. I think we are not being reasonable and that we are overreacting to a perceived threat; but, the threat of terrorism is very real. No matter what conspiracy people think is being conducted, there really are muslims who hate our country and want us dead, that is real. The balance we choose is still being developed, we are choosing it.

Most of my family was in the military, I had five in war zones at one time. They all assured me that people in those countries did in fact not like us very much. Regardless of who made 9/11 happen, people cheered in the muslim world, not all, not most; but, many cheered. The threat is real, how we deal with it is a choice and if the majority support torture to protect ourselves then we cannot complain if we also lose some privacy. My thoughts, be well.



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by DrunkNinja
 


Here is my standard answer to this type of question. I know it does not address your problem directly but it may give you some ideas....


The key is to remember we have been given the weapons to fight TPTB, and no I am not talking about guns.

The biggest Achilles Heel of TPTB is the local and state governments. TPTB has tried to control it by using controlled "grassroots" organizations called NGOs who lure young "Activists" into the likes of the World Wildlife Federation. SEE: www.ogiek.org...


FREE SPEECH:
For a couple years now I have pass out information on index cards at farmers markets, flea markets and auctions. I ask people to get educated about the FED and Fractional Reserve Banking and pass the information on to ten others. Stay away from big shopping malls that do not allow "solicitating" 501c Churches are not allowed to be active in politics, however since you are not campaigning but educating you may be able to hand out the index cards at churches. My list is at the bottom of this post. you can use a similar plan to attack the issue closest to your heart - Grope-N-Fly.

Second: Take a leaf out of The fully informed jury movement www.fija.org...

Inform the public and THEN pass state laws.

We have a RIGHT to a trial by jury in criminal matters or in civil matters over $20. Jurors have the RIGHT to NULLIFY laws. That is what "case law" is all about.

The fully informed jury movement: www.fija.org...

FIJA seeks to require that juries be informed of their nullification rights. Informed jury amendments have been filed as an initiative in seven states and legislation has been introduced in the Alaska state legislature.

...the right of juries to judge both the law and the facts -- to nullify the law if it chose -- became part of British constitutional law.

It ultimately became part of American constitutional law as well, but you'd never know it listening to jury instructions today almost anywhere in the country....

Now a remarkable coalition has sprung up to challenge this secrecy as undemocratic, unconstitutional and dangerous. Though organized by libertarian activists, the Fully Informed Jury Amendment movement includes liberals and conservatives...

...many groups in this country feel the government has overstepped its power in some way and that there must be protection for the natural rights of American citizens. They are defending not only the right to protest or carry a gun or not wear seatbelts but challenging the right of the government to decide such matters without the mediating effect of a jury's judgement of fairness in a particular case.


State Nullification - Tenth Amendment
State nullification is the idea that the states can and must refuse to enforce unconstitutional federal laws.

In the many discussions across several states, questions have arisen concerning exactly how the "Tenth Amendment Resolution" will help....

The principal motivation came from the myriad of federal mandates which have been placed and are planned to be placed on the states. State legislatures feel they have little choice but to implement these mostly-unfunded mandates and pass the cost for implementation to the state taxpayers. For most state legislators, this is a very frustrating dilemma.

The Tenth Amendment assures that we, the people of the United States of America and each sovereign state in the Union of States, now have, and have always had, rights the federal government may not usurp. Article IV, Section 4 says, "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a republican form of government.....", and the Ninth Amendment states that..."The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people".

We have, through apathy and lack of will, allowed federal legislators and bureaucrats to assert their will over us and commandeer our funds for their own use.... most of it today outside the authority granted to them by the Constitution.

When a state passes this resolution proclaiming its sovereignty, that state may then claim exemption to most federal mandates under the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution....
by Colorado State Senator Charles Duke
www.sweetliberty.org...



Another weapon, one every single one of us should be pushing for, is state law allowing voters to recall federal Senators and Representatives as well as state officials.
Recall Congress Now Org

However this will be a bitterly fought battle. The last thing TPTB wants is their pet legislators worried about what the voters want instead of what they have been bribed to do.


While 18 of the 50 United States offer their citizens an opportunity to recall their elected officials, it is a fact that in our nation’s history, no federal legislator has yet been recalled.

It has not been for lack of interest. Rather, the process has languished in part due to debates on whether or not legal authority exists for recall of U.S. Senators and Congressmen; and, in the case of Idaho, interference by a state court prevented recall of a federal legislator....

After reviewing the body of law and opinion concerning recall, it is apparent that if recall of federal legislators is to succeed, it will likely only be after an intense battle in the federal court system as to the degree to which the courts will go to allow the literal meaning of the Tenth Amendment to be in force and effect.

As this author reads this language, it appears clear that " the States ‘ and " the people " living with in them, should be recognized to have the right of recall.

But in order to implement a strategy that will enable recall petitions to result in actual removal of errant Senators and Congressmen, considerable legal and political obstacles will present themselves and can only be overcome by understanding the lengths to which those opposed to recall can be expected to go...

Eighteen states have recall provisions. Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, and Wisconsin all have recall of some kind available to their voters. Only seven of these states require any grounds.
www.uscitizensassociation.com...


Judges: Appointed vs elected? That is another question we as voters need to think very very carefully about.

Fight at the Federal level if we can but we must ATTACK at the state level NOW. Recently I ran across Freedom Force International started by G. Edward Griffin who wrote The Creature from Jekyll Island: Federal Reserve His suggestion is the best way to BEAT the government is to BE the government. The stuff listed on the issues page is interesting reading and confirms a lot of the stuff I found on my own.

REFERENCES:
EASY READS:
Web of Debt: How Banks Secretly Create Money: www.webofdebt.com...

Web of Debt: CAMPAIGNING FOR STATE-OWNED BANKS.www.webofdebt.com...

The Creature from Jekyll Island: Federal Reserve,A talk by G. Edward Griffin: www.bigeye.com...

More scholarly Reads:
A PRIMER ON MONEY -SUBCOMMITTEE ON DOMESTIC FINANCE. COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND CURRENCY www.devvy.com...

SECRETS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE By Eustace Mullins
www.whale.to...
BIBLIOGRAPHY for SECRETS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE www.whale.to...

Mises on Money www.lewrockwell.com...


(the takeover of the media)
U.S. Congressional Record February 9, 1917: J.P. Morgan interests bought 25 of America's leading newspapers, and inserted their own editors, in order to control the media.

JP Morgan: Our next big media player? (April 13, 2010) JP Morgan controls 54 U.S. daily newspapers,and owns 31 television stations. www.newsandtech.com...

Media Conglomerates, Mergers, Concentration of Ownership: www.globalissues.org...



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 11:42 PM
link   
reply to post by AQuestion
 


I really feel sad that you believe that there is no way to accomplish lofty goals that would actually make a difference because "technology changes". You know what doesn't change ? Peoples needs and basic rights and that has absolutely nothing to do with radios and cellphones. I understand what your trying to say but your missing the picture. To fight for your rights means just that and just like the poster below says there are weapons for you to fight back but there not guns. No #, that's what I'm saying, I am also saying that the message needs to be wrapped in an American flag so to speak as there isn't anything more American than protecting your constitution. You want people to listen? Talk to them the way fox does and use your courtroom not the farmers market, no offense but people have been handing out pamphlets since the 50's and things have only gotten worse not better. Think what were doing now is working ? Think Again



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by DrunkNinja
 


I applaud your goal
but I think if you look at the progression from 911 till now, formus like this one are widely read
and polls indicate that those people that are questioning the status quo
are NOW in the majority

I'm sure this will have to get to an action state though at some point
but for now
the more people that at least question why they are
broke, homeless, starving, lied to, patted down, wiretapped, arrested, and dying for nothing
the better

can't all be mushrooms all the time
edit on 4-5-2011 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by DrunkNinja
 


Dear DrunkNinja,

I did not say that we could not improve, I said that your goal was not dead on. It is not about us telling the people of the future what is allowable, it is about remaining ever vigilant and fighting for what is right on a daily basis, that is the nature of the constitution. I fight by not flying and a number of other choices. You seek to find the ultimate answer, to understand every possible solution and we cannot, we are limited beings and cannot know every possibility, each generation is responsible for itself and it's decisions, that should not be taken away from future people, we should not answer their questions for them, we don't even know what they will be. That is what I am trying to say to you.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 12:04 AM
link   
reply to post by DrunkNinja
 


Why on Earth are people so willing to give up freedom for security?

I wish we could just round up the scaredy cats and put them on a secure little island somewhere so they could huddle together naked, (Cant have clothes someone might conceal a weapon) eating mush, (but all organic and it has to be cooked soft so no one chips a tooth) and being totally politically correct to one another.

This is just ridiculous that you guys are willing to let your government behave in ways GUARANTEED to make people want to kill you, and then moo about how scared you are and want everyone to give up their freedom to protect you from the consequences of letting your leaders storm around the globe like Hitler on meth.

/rant.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by AQuestion
 


Whats with you and the future ? We can right now use think tanks to evaluate all of the present situations we are facing in regards to our liberty's and freedoms and write laws that deal with each one specifically as to never allow for abuses. Yes that can be done we live in the 21st century we can do that, despite what you have been told. Explain to me this, If a law is passed today that says children under 12 are by no means to be searched in a physical manner but rather only subjected to metal detectors and bomb/drug sniffing dogs, how will that change with the next technological breakthrough ? If we pass a law or addendum that states that no pregnant woman would have to undergo a cavity search for any means and rather only be subjected to bomb/drug sniffing dogs and metal detectors, how would future technology's change that ? If we passed a law that said artificial paralysis by chemical, audio trigger, psychological response, electronic wave or impulse, injection of nanobots, light application and solar ray, was absolutely and outright banned from use on the populace how would that change in the future ? You forgot biological growth inducement application, add it to the list. You see what I am saying ?



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


Or they could just move somewhere like the UK, or china, where everyone is safe singing kumbuya because they are not allowed to arm themselves and such things.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by DrunkNinja
 





....You want people to listen? Talk to them the way fox does and use your courtroom not the farmers market, no offense but people have been handing out pamphlets since the 50's and things have only gotten worse not better. Think what were doing now is working ? Think Again

(I am switching gears between my two big concerns, the FED and FOOD both of which I passed on info about)

Actually it did work. NO NAIS (farm animal ID) made the top ten in the Change.org list and got over 5000 HECK NOs! on the Federal Registar which killed it at least for a couple of years.

We (activist farmers) staged a heck of a fight and delayed passage of HR-875 by a couple of years. Unfortunately TPTB snuck a watered down version through Congress during the lame duck session....GRRRrrrr The fight is STILL not over. We are gearing up for the second round.

Yes the court room is part of the battle and that is why I also support R-CALF USA and Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund but the mass media is OWNED by TPTB. We found that out the hard way so that leaves the internet and word of mouth. You can contact a heck of a lot of people over a five year period if you work at it and I did!

You speak of the court room, here is an example from my other concern, the FED:

...First National Bank of Montgomery vs. Daly (1969) was a courtroom drama worthy of a movie script.

Defendant Jerome Daly opposed the bank's foreclosure on his $14,000 home mortgage loan on the ground that there was no consideration for the loan. "Consideration" ("the thing exchanged") is an essential element of a contract. Daly, an attorney representing himself, argued that the bank had put up no real money for his loan.

The courtroom proceedings were recorded by Associate Justice Bill Drexler, whose chief role, he said, was to keep order in a highly charged courtroom where the attorneys were threatening a fist fight. Drexler hadn't given much credence to the theory of the defense, until Mr. Morgan, the bank's president, took the stand. To everyone's surprise, Morgan admitted that the bank routinely created money "out of thin air" for its loans, and that this was standard banking practice. "It sounds like fraud to me," intoned Presiding Justice Martin Mahoney amid nods from the jurors. In his court memorandum, Justice Mahoney stated:


Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, . . . did create the entire $14,000.00 in money and credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. That this was the consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the same date. The money and credit first came into existence when they created it. Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law or Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note.


....To Daly, the implications were enormous. If bankers were indeed extending credit without consideration – without backing their loans with money they actually had in their vaults and were entitled to lend – a decision declaring their loans void could topple the power base of the world. He wrote in a local news article:

This decision, which is legally sound, has the effect of declaring all private mortgages on real and personal property, and all U.S. and State bonds held by the Federal Reserve, National and State banks to be null and void. This amounts to an emancipation of this Nation from personal, national and state debt purportedly owed to this banking system. Every American owes it to himself . . . to study this decision very carefully . . . for upon it hangs the question of freedom or slavery.


Needless to say, however, the decision failed to change prevailing practice, although it was never overruled....

Justice Mahoney... went so far as to threaten to prosecute and expose the bank. He died less than six months after the trial, in a mysterious accident that appeared to involve poisoning.... www.webofdebt.com...


So without spreading the word a court room win means nothing because it can be covered up as the Daly win was.


Oh, I forgot to add.
One of the people I talked to from out of state was friends with his state Rep. He passed on the information I gave him to his rep who was co-sponsor for HR-875 and she withdrew her support of the bill!!!!

So yes talking at a farmers markets CAN make a difference.
edit on 5-5-2011 by crimvelvet because: Added last paragraph



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 12:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrunkNinja
reply to post by AQuestion
 


Whats with you and the future ? We can right now use think tanks to evaluate all of the present situations we are facing in regards to our liberty's and freedoms and write laws that deal with each one specifically as to never allow for abuses. Yes that can be done we live in the 21st century we can do that, despite what you have been told. Explain to me this, If a law is passed today that says children under 12 are by no means to be searched in a physical manner but rather only subjected to metal detectors and bomb/drug sniffing dogs, how will that change with the next technological breakthrough ? If we pass a law or addendum that states that no pregnant woman would have to undergo a cavity search for any means and rather only be subjected to bomb/drug sniffing dogs and metal detectors, how would future technology's change that ? If we passed a law that said artificial paralysis by chemical, audio trigger, psychological response, electronic wave or impulse, injection of nanobots, light application and solar ray, was absolutely and outright banned from use on the populace how would that change in the future ? You forgot biological growth inducement application, add it to the list. You see what I am saying ?


It is about the future, deciding for others. If a law is passed today that says nobody under 12 can be searched, we tried that and drug sellers began using people under 12. We had women fake pregnancy to hide bombs during the Vietnam war (watch Apocalypse Now), we do intentionally induce paralysis to save lives (doctors induce comas to save people, read about it). What changes in the future are the questions we cannot know today. If you do not know all the answers why do you believe others do? They don't, it is a process, not perfection and well all have our opinions, even people that are not on this earth yet, we cannot say what their freedom will require them to say. Your question presumes controlling the future rather than letting them decide for themselves.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 12:29 AM
link   
reply to post by crimvelvet
 


I see your point and applaud your efforts. I did not mean to undermine your accomplishments or your goals and the struggle that comes with, as I have served in similar groups at great capacity and have had nothing but failure. I have watched as the political message that we try to relay is watered down and put in the same pile as ufo's and little green men. I have spoken out against my government and have tried to explain to students how the banking establishment controls governments and breaks international law to be met with "Do you like, listen to Alex Jones or something" I worked in marketing for long enough to know that it isn't the actual product your selling as much as it is the wrapper it comes in. see patriot act We need a wrapper and we need to attack at the core of the problem and on the largest scale. The civil rights and labor lobbies are losing ground every hour and need a boost. Get people to sway towards true justice and they may start to care about what true justice means and help out in the trenches your embattled in now, Know what I mean ?



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 12:35 AM
link   
Original text from Aquestion altered a bit
It is about the future, deciding for others. If a law is passed today that says nobody under 12 can be searched, we tried that and drug sellers began using people under 12.
(((((DRUG DOGS))))
We had women fake pregnancy to hide bombs during the Vietnam war (watch Apocalypse Now)
((((((((BOMB SNIFFING DOGS))))))))),
we do intentionally induce paralysis to save lives (doctors induce comas to save people, read aboutt).(((((((((((((MEDICAL CONSENT FORMS))))))))
What changes in the future are the questions we cannot know today. If you do not know all the answers why do you believe others do? They don't, it is a process, not perfection and well all have our opinions, even people that are not on this earth yet, we cannot say what their freedom will require them to say. Your question presumes controlling the future rather than letting them decide for themselves.
((((((((CONTROLLING GOVERNMENT ABUSES))))))


Also by your reasoning that we should ensure that we do not control people in the future by not passing laws today, would mean that we should have no laws. I mean when they passed a law that says that murder is a punishable offense that was wrong because you never know murder might be useful in the future, just about as useful as cavity searches for 12 year old's, do you think about what your writing or do you just type ?
edit on 5-5-2011 by DrunkNinja because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join