Home | Community | Message Board


World Seed Supply
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom

Jump to first unread post. Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]
Anonymous

Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: Xlea321]
    #2259968 - 01/21/04 03:43 PM (17 years, 3 months ago)


No, you've given me your pretty shaky opinion.


if it is so shaky, how about refuting just a single one of my actual arguments?

Because the second amendment states in utterly clear terms "THE MILITIA".

seriously alex. i already presented arguments about what the militia clause means for the second amendment in the other thread, and you offered no response save an appeal to authority. why must i keep repeating myself? this is getting old. you are running around in circles now.

here's where we've been:

1. you say that the militia clause means that the second amendment doesn't protect the right of ordinary citizens to keep arms.
2. i present an argument claiming otherwise.
3. you address none of my assertions, but appeal to the authority of the courts.
4. i ask you why you think the courts are right.
5. you say that it's because the militia clause means that the second amendment doesn't protect the right of ordinary citizens to keep arms.

shall i present my argument about the militia clause again? will you answer me with an empty appeal to authority? will i have to again ask you why you think the judges are right? will you again respond with your original assertion?

this is circular logic combined with a blind appeal to authority. how about refuting some of my actual arguments (especially considering how "shaky" they are)?


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,245
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: Xlea321]
    #2260223 - 01/21/04 05:21 PM (17 years, 3 months ago)

Well that was a short lived burst of honesty.

Actually PinocchiALPO, the term you used was "down a hole", not "underground.

And as I've never claimed there were or were not WMD's, there is nothing for me to accept one way or the other.

It's a shame you aren't honorable enough to be honest.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: ]
    #2261841 - 01/22/04 03:31 AM (17 years, 3 months ago)

if it is so shaky how about refuting just a single one of my actual arguments?

You can find it refuted by dozens of legal experts everywhere on the net. I'm not a lawyer.

combined with a blind appeal to authority

What is this mysterious "authority" you keep talking about? Do you the mean countless legal experts who have studied the subject for the last 100 years?

What "authority" do they have except the authority of truth? Or are they all part of some communist conspiracy to "keep neocon down"?

why must i keep repeating myself?

Because the Supreme court doesn't agree with you?

Have you ever asked yourself why the legal experts don't agree with you? What answer did you get?

shall i present my argument about the militia clause again?

What difference does it make? If no legal experts believe you what does it matter what I say? Have you ever considered addressing these questions to a judge in a court of law? I presume the NRA have and realised they would lose - which is why they don't risk challenging it.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2261853 - 01/22/04 03:37 AM (17 years, 3 months ago)

the term you used was "down a hole", not "underground.

:lol:

The difference being?

And as I've never claimed there were or were not WMD's, there is nothing for me to accept one way or the other.

No, you have refused to accept WMD arn't there. You have provided no evidence whatsoever they were there in the first place. In the world of honest men, evidence comes before a claim. Perhaps one day you'll learn that. Doubtful tho  :smile2:


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,245
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: Xlea321]
    #2262055 - 01/22/04 05:37 AM (17 years, 3 months ago)

The difference being had you been man enough to say bunker, I could only have challenged your incredibly moronic 11 hours claim. Instead you allowed your hatred to yet again disable your thought processes and then say something stupid.

Quote:

No, you have refused to accept WMD arn't there.



Liar. I've never made any such claim. You're well aware that all I pointed out to you was the stupidity of claiming the inability to find them is proof they don't exist. Nowhere did I claim they do exist.


Quote:

In the world of honest men, evidence comes before a claim.



You, the most disingenuous person in this forum are foolish enough to even use the word honest? Perhaps you'll show me where I claimed the weapons did indeed exist?

No? Didn't think so.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2262104 - 01/22/04 06:40 AM (17 years, 3 months ago)

The difference being had you been man enough to say bunker

So a bunker isn't a hole in the ground? What an incredible liar you are. 

Instead you allowed your hatred to yet again disable your thought processes and then say something stupid.

Was he down a hole in the ground or not? Simple enough question even for one as filled with hatred as you. 

Main Entry: hole
Pronunciation: 'hOl
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English hol (from neuter of hol, adjective, hollow) & holh; akin to Old High German hol, adjective, hollow and perhaps to Old English helan to conceal -- more at HELL
Date: before 12th century
1 a : an opening through something : PERFORATION b : an area where something is missing

Liar. I've never made any such claim

Liar. You have repeatedly refused to accept WMD arn't there. You have spent the last 9 months demanding "proof" before you accept they arn't there.  What evidence did you have that WMD were there in the first place? You have played dodgeball whenever you were called on this.

As I said, in the world of honest men, evidence comes BEFORE a claim.

You, the most disingenuous person in this forum

Are you talking to the mirror now luvdemlies?  :lol:

Perhaps you'll show me where I claimed the weapons did indeed exist?

Then why have you spent 9 months refusing to accept they arn't there? You have repeatedly demanded "proof" before you accept they arn't there. You have played dodgeball when asked to answer what "proof" you are seeking. Perhaps you will finally answer now? Or will you go on lying for another year?


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblecarbonhoots
old hand

Registered: 09/11/01
Posts: 1,351
Loc: BC Canada
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: Xlea321]
    #2262107 - 01/22/04 06:44 AM (17 years, 3 months ago)

Sometimes you two sound like a couple of grumpy old men in an old-folks home.


--------------------
  -I'd rather have a frontal lobotomy than a bottle in front of me

CANADIAN CENTER FOR POLICY ALTERNATIVES


Edited by carbonhoots (01/22/04 06:45 AM)


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: carbonhoots]
    #2262109 - 01/22/04 06:47 AM (17 years, 3 months ago)

I know, I find it very tiresome, but what else would he understand? I think it's time to add him to the ignore list.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: Xlea321]
    #2262297 - 01/22/04 10:37 AM (17 years, 3 months ago)

You can find it refuted by dozens of legal experts everywhere on the net. I'm not a lawyer.

i have a feeling that you won't find a single "legal expert" anywhere that can offer a decent counter-argument to what i've said about the militia clause. if you can, please provide it. i would expect that if there are "dozens" of them, you could find at least one that addresses my arguments. you seem pretty reluctant to do so.

What is this mysterious "authority" you keep talking about?

the nebulous "legal experts" you continuously refer to. as of yet, you haven't provided a single link or article from just one "legal expert". let's see one, eh?

Do you the mean countless legal experts who have studied the subject for the last 100 years?

yes, those. where are they? where can i read some of their work?

What "authority" do they have except the authority of truth?

they don't have the authority of truth. that's why if you actually cite one's argument, i will very likely be able to show you why they are wrong without much difficulty. i ask you again... who are these "experts" and where can i read some of their work?

What difference does it make?

probably none, because you've chosen to ignore, and i suspect you will continue to ignore, the substance of my argument in favor of some as-of-yet unnamed "legal experts".

if there is an argument to be made against what i've said about the militia clause and someone has made it (you have said that this exists in "dozens" of places on the internet), could you provide a link or something to just one? so far the only "legal experts" cited in this thread are the ones in my original post.

i'd like to read an actual argument. an appeal to the authority of nameless "experts" is no argument at all.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: ]
    #2262640 - 01/22/04 01:32 PM (17 years, 3 months ago)

i have a feeling that you won't find a single "legal expert" anywhere that can offer a decent counter-argument to what i've said about the militia clause

So why doesn't the US supreme court and judicial system accept your opinion?

the nebulous "legal experts"

Nothing nebulous about them mush. Clearly someone is advising the US supreme court and judicial system that the second amendment doesn't mean what you say it means.

where are they? where can i read some of their work?

You mean you really can't find any? I found this in 10 seconds.

Here's 68 pages for you to work through:

WASHINGTON, DC?U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton last night dismissed a National Rifle Association (NRA)-backed lawsuit challenging the constitutionality on Second Amendment grounds of Washington, DC's ban on the sale and possession of handguns. Judge Walton's 68-page ruling in Seegars v. Ashcroft upholds the ban, which was adopted by the City Council in 1976.

http://www.vpc.org/press/0401dcban.htm

Let me know when you want some more.

i will very likely be able to show you why they are wrong without much difficulty.

Then why don't you take this to a court of law mush? Sounds like you wouldn't have any difficulty getting your interpretation passed. You could be a hero and probably secure yourself financially for the rest of your life. You could even stop worrying about tax's. Have you written to the NRA and told them you can prove their case for them? Give it a try.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleEvolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: Xlea321]
    #2262660 - 01/22/04 01:40 PM (17 years, 3 months ago)

Still playing dodge ball Alex?


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: Xlea321]
    #2262854 - 01/22/04 03:20 PM (17 years, 3 months ago)

So why doesn't the US supreme court and judicial system accept your opinion?

at the beginning of this thread, i cited 3 different US supreme court cases which agreed with my opinion. i then showed how later courts misinterpreted their rulings to mean something quite different than what they had said. even then, i would never base my argument on that alone. please alex... show me an actual argument in favor of your interpretation of the second amendment. let's talk reason and sense, not the opinions of politically charged groups of men.

Nothing nebulous about them mush.

as you've given not a name or title of even a single one of these "experts", nor any of their testimony about the second amendment, i still see them as quite nebulous.

Clearly someone is advising the US supreme court and judicial system that the second amendment doesn't mean what you say it means.

who is that "someone", and what arguments have they been using? specifics please.

and why do you keep referring to the supreme court as not agreeing with my interpretation? i've given you 3 examples of rulings in which they have.

You mean you really can't find any? I found this in 10 seconds.

:lol:

you mean the same case i was talking about when this whole thing got started? read the judges commentary. his only justification for the rulings is where he cites the the cruikshank, presser, and miller cases, all of which actually conclude that private gun ownership is an individual right protected by the second amendment. i'm afraid that unsupported opinions of politically charged men, even judges, do your case no good unless they is backed by a sound rational argument.

Let me know when you want some more.

seeing as that judge walton offered no rationale for his decision, i would like some more. i would like to here some reason. i'd like to hear the actual logic behind the decisions, if it does in fact exist.

Then why don't you take this to a court of law mush? Sounds like you wouldn't have any difficulty getting your interpretation passed. You could be a hero and probably secure yourself financially for the rest of your life. You could even stop worrying about tax's. Have you written to the NRA and told them you can prove their case for them? Give it a try.

if i did argue it in front of them, what arguments do you think they would use? what rebuttals would they give to my arguments?

so far you've been standing behind an un-named set of arguments argued by an un-named set of arguers. please. all i want to hear is the arguments. tell me why your position is reasonable. tell me why it's right.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: Evolving]
    #2262871 - 01/22/04 03:27 PM (17 years, 3 months ago)


Still playing dodge ball Alex?


it would appear so.

will we hear a rational argument from alex123 in support of his beliefs... or will he continue hiding behind the unsupported authority of a politically-charged (and disagreeing) body of bureaucrats?

i'll take just about any odds on the latter.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,245
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: Xlea321]
    #2263073 - 01/22/04 04:57 PM (17 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

I know, I find it very tiresome, but what else would he understand? I think it's time to add him to the ignore list.



Please do. You have no comprehension of the what truth is. Being put on your ignore list would be quite nice. I'll still be here to point out your dishonesty to others.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: ]
    #2263086 - 01/22/04 05:06 PM (17 years, 3 months ago)

not the opinions of politically charged groups of men.

Who are these? You mean the vast bulk of lawyers advising the Supreme court and US judicial system for the last 100 years? They were all in on some communist conspiracy?

Why do you think they don't agree with you?

as you've given not a name or title of even a single one of these "experts", nor any of their testimony about the second amendment

Do you really need me to find you the lawyers and judges who have served on the US supreme court for the last 100 years?

and why do you keep referring to the supreme court as not agreeing with my interpretation? i've given you 3 examples of rulings in which they have.

Then why are the NRA still trying to overturn their ruling?

his only justification for the rulings is where he cites the the cruikshank, presser, and miller cases, all of which actually conclude that private gun ownership is an individual right protected by the second amendment.

Where did you study law mush? Clearly the judge doesn't agree with you.

seeing as that judge walton offered no rationale for his decision

You mean apart from the 68 pages..

if i did argue it in front of them, what arguments do you think they would use? what rebuttals would they give to my arguments?

You can find that out as easily as me mush. Email the NRA and ask them why they can't win.

all i want to hear is the arguments. tell me why your position is reasonable. tell me why it's right.

As I said mush, I'm no lawyer. And neither are you. Clearly the vast bulk of lawyers disagree with you on this issue. If you think you have a case, take it to the Supreme court. I'm sure the NRA will fund you if they think you are a good enough cause.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,245
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: Xlea321]
    #2263089 - 01/22/04 05:06 PM (17 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

So a bunker isn't a hole in the ground?



No. It's a structure in the ground.


Quote:

Was he down a hole in the ground or not?



No, he was not.


Quote:

You have repeatedly refused to accept WMD arn't there.



Wrong again liar. I have merely stated that the inability to find them is not proof. Look up the difference. There is one. You're just not man enough to admit it.


Quote:

What evidence did you have that WMD were there in the first place? You have played dodgeball whenever you were called on this.



Actually oh dishonest one, the dodging came from you when I asked you to show me where I made such a claim.


Quote:

As I said, in the world of honest men, evidence comes BEFORE a claim.



Sadly, honest is something you'll never be accused of being.


Quote:

Are you talking to the mirror now luvdemlies?



Weak, but that's to be expected of you.


Quote:

Then why have you spent 9 months refusing to accept they arn't there?



A pre-schooler seems to have a better level of comprehension than do you. I've merely pointed out your lack of comprehension of the English language. And of course the fact that if it wasn't for lies, you'd have little left.

Sad, because a liar is a contemptuous person who merely wastes air when they breath.

Unless of course you'll finally back up where I claim they exist?


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,245
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: Evolving]
    #2263098 - 01/22/04 05:08 PM (17 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Evolving said:
Still playing dodge ball Alex?



Of course he is. The man doesn't have the balls of a newborn.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,245
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: Xlea321]
    #2263101 - 01/22/04 05:10 PM (17 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Then why are the NRA still trying to overturn their ruling?



So last week they weren't even trying. This week they are trying.

What will it be next week PinocchiALPO?


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: ]
    #2263102 - 01/22/04 05:10 PM (17 years, 3 months ago)

or will he continue hiding behind the unsupported authority of a politically-charged (and disagreeing) body of bureaucrats?

So the US judicial system and supreme court is a hotbed of communists all determind to keep the NRA down? Must admit I've never considered the US supreme court to contain too many anarchists. If it was long-haired drug-using commie anarchists disagreeing with you then maybe I'd think "Old mush might have a point". But when it's lawyers and judges throwing your case out time and time again I've got grave doubts.

i'll take just about any odds on the latter.

Well I'm definately gonna continue to have more faith in the countless lawyers and judges who have considered this in courtrooms for decades than some kid on a shroom board who has never proved anything to a court in his life. Do you blame me?


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,245
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment [Re: Xlea321]
    #2263116 - 01/22/04 05:14 PM (17 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Do you blame me?



When you are honest enough to not post out of context snippets, and actually read the decisions, maybe you'll realize what crap you're trying to pass.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* 2nd amendment to justify shooting pigs?
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )
dee_N_ae 12,089 131 09/19/02 03:08 PM
by francisco
* The 2nd Amendment Anonymous 626 2 08/03/03 12:31 AM
by Anonymous
* Sen. Santorum Defends Remarks in Gay Court Case I_Fart_Blue 696 1 04/23/03 04:19 PM
by wingnutx
* Which amendment to the bill of rights is your favorite?
( 1 2 all )
Senor_Doobie 2,038 34 01/30/03 12:52 PM
by Sinistar
* Supreme court and Cross Burning
( 1 2 all )
JohnnyRespect 1,891 31 04/21/03 04:41 PM
by JohnnyRespect
* Flag Burning Amendment ToTheSummit 1,958 19 08/02/01 03:21 PM
by Beery
* Congrats Luvdemshrroms and Alex123 Innvertigo 613 7 02/20/03 01:14 AM
by Innvertigo
* Supreme Court Legalized Child Porn.
( 1 2 all )
Ellis Dee 4,713 31 06/08/02 04:59 AM
by Anonymous

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
6,713 topic views. 0 members, 0 guests and 21 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Print Topic ]
Search this thread:
Gaiana.nl
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2021 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.033 seconds spending 0.011 seconds on 13 queries.