Jump to content

Poilievre tells Trudeau to 'butt out' of New Brunswick's policy on LGBTQ students


Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, herbie said:

So in the very few instances the teacher knows and the parent doesn't, there's a damn good reason for that isn't there?

Listen class, if your parents are rednecks or Bible thumpers and you're gay or trans, please don't tell me or I'm required by law to rat you out to them.

A teachers job is to teach and if a kid learns better being called he instead of she, so be it.

I’ll trust the Bible thumper parents long before I’ll trust a teacher who presumes to understand whether changing one’s gender from the biological one is better for the child.  What special training qualifies the teacher to affirm this?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, herbie said:

Tell me all about your parental rights. Are they written down somewhere? Like the right to refuse your child a blood transfusion? Your right to know if a doctor wrote your 14 yr old daughter a scrip for the pill? Your right to discipline your kid with a switch?

Of course, a parent owns their child just as they might own a lawn mower.

Anything that they think they should be able to do, they can do. Including assaulting them but not including letting a little boy wear a dress, because that's just sick.

Here's a picture of me and our daughter at Christmas with our AK-47s.

 

 

Edited by Michael Hardner
  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Of course, a parent owns their child just as they might own a lawn mower.

Anything that they think they should be able to do, they can do. Including assaulting them but not including letting a little boy wear a dress, because that's just sick.

Here's a picture of me and our daughter at Christmas with our AK-47s.

 

 

Why do you assume that parents don’t have their kids’ best interests at heart?  No one is saying that if a parent has a past history of abuse that a different approach may be needed to protect the child.  You take extreme examples because you’re an extreme person, like Herbie. You’re a radical leftist pretending to be moderate.  As a political influencer, you’re antithetical to reality.  You buy into gender ideology.  At least admit that.

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Of course, a parent owns their child just as they might own a lawn mower.

Sarcasm aside, a parent is responsible for their child. If a teacher doesn't feel a parent is capable of carrying out this responsibility, it isn't their job to take it over.

I remember in grade school, I was favoring my ribs, and a teacher asked me a few questions. It wasn't my first time struggling to move, or favoring a body part in that class.

She knew my mother had hit me quite seriously (based on my answers always telling her that I fell to protect my mom), so they were likely considering contacting social services for child abuse.

I pull no punches about it. My mother was tough on us. She whooped us when we were disrespectful. The worst a** whooping I have ever gotten, was after listening to my white friends on my mom having no right to hit us, and as a result calling her a b**** because she ordered me to do dishes. Apparently I also had the right to refuse, according to these friends. I had a crazy immigrant mom, who didn't care much for western rights. She paid the bills, and we were to abide by the house rules.

All I remember, is her grabbing a broom, me hitting the ground hard, and a broken broom stick (she broke while striking me) being used to beat me into an apology. I never disrespected my mother, again.

But we grew up in a very tough environment. My fear of my mother, kept me getting good grades and focusing on a college education.

One of my best friends who was from Africa, failed the 6th grade, and was hysterically crying. All white kids in class tried to comfort him about the grade. All immigrant kids knew why he was crying. His dad was going to put an a** whopping on him he may not survive. Did he ever, plus was sent to a school in Africa to straighten him out. He later in life became an entrepreneur, so that a** whopping likely saved his life from the path he was headed on.

Gang members with guns didn't scare me at all. They could kill me.

My mother could whoop me, kill me, plus could be very disappointed in me. Thats worse than death.

But for a teacher to call social services in such a setting, would be a tough call.

We were taken care of, clothed, and clearly got good grades.

We loved our mother. She just held an insanely high standard for our behavior.

While I wouldn't have resented that teacher for feeling I needed help, I don't think its within a teacher's jurisdiction to play activist on a child's future, unless the child is truly at risk, vs a perceived risk.

There are professionals who can help, and its your job to get the kid the help they need, if so.

Attempting to administer this help while meaning well, is an overstep on your responsibilities as a teacher.

IE guiding kids to clinics where they could get medical care, or taking it beyond that point.

I wouldn't blame a parent for being irate for being kept in the dark.

My mother had antiquated views on gay people, as does my wife.

That said, she loves her daughter as much as she needs air in her lungs. She was be disappointed, but would love her daughter no matter what.

Making that determination, isn't the business of the teacher.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

I'd be willing to bet that if we were all being honest, children in leftard households are subjected to far more harm than those in conservative households.

Hey there's that agenda thingy again! Somebody PLEASE show up with that on a sign at a Poilievre rally. ?

I feel for the poor moderate conservatives that must be cringing when they hear this. But the simple fact remains that whatever the moral panic of the moment may be it is merely the thin skin of an underlying enduring ideological panic that never goes away.  There's got to be a better way of dealing with it or expressing it. Poilievre is not the guy for the job.

Edited by eyeball
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Army Guy said:

This is not about a few cases it is about all children every case... 

The issue will be resolved through social services and child welfare... 

Only after the courts resolve things. It started out with just a few cases but its the resulting conservative moral panic and their reaction that will force these into a court that will make them about all children. And how do you think that's going to work out?

Stronger rights for all kids would be my guess.

Is that really what conservatives were hoping for or is it more like a proverbial unintended consequence? Good job in ether case.

Edited by eyeball
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, CdnFox said:

That applies to gov'ts, not individuals. The charter outlines what the rights and duties are between people and the gov'ts and gov't orgs, not parents and children.

 

The Charter limits the power of the state over the individual. Its only a matter of time before the government of New Brunswick's policy forces a challenge to its power, a challenge that will likely result in more rights for kids.

If parents want intervenors to make arguments in their favor they better hope you're not the lawyer making their case in court. ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Only after the courts resolve things. It started out with just a few cases but its the resulting conservative moral panic and their reaction that will force these into a court that will make them about all children. And how do you think that's going to work out?

Stronger rights for all kids would be my guess.

Is that really what conservatives were hoping for or is it more like a proverbial unintended consequence? Good job in ether case.

The consequences of free range parenting and mamby pamby permissive activism are disregulated kids who don’t know how to interact, can’t handle responsibility, and rely on adults to baby them into an adulthood where there are increasingly fewer adults.  The overriding theme is a refusal to guide and a lack of character.  The adults have abandoned their responsibilities, left the wife, bought the weed, and turned on the PlayStation.

We are reaping what we have sown.  Eyeball and Hardner won’t get it because they’ve forgotten how hard it is to parent amidst the chaos of media-fed amorality and self-indulgence.  Religion was a bulwark, but the Catholics are generally ignoring or abandoning the Catechism. Governments shy away from controversy though many members would never want this reckless disregard for good sense for their own kids, so everyone pretends to support what they don’t believe in.  No one wants to lose their jobs in our radically “progressive” cancel culture.

Hopefully biological reality such as the desire for a healthy family life prevails as our confused kids grow up, but I think that’s getting to be a tall order.  The state is overriding parents in the name of safety.  Of course we oppose the bullying of kids, but in the name of making a few very different kids feel embraced we’re no longer teaching boys how to become men and girls to become women.  What are the mental health consequences of this I wonder?  What are the long term consequences for society?  Don’t dare ask and be called retrograde or alt right or a bigot.  

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Of course, a parent owns their child just as they might own a lawn mower.

Anything that they think they should be able to do, they can do. Including assaulting them but not including letting a little boy wear a dress, because that's just sick.

Here's a picture of me and our daughter at Christmas with our AK-47s.

 

 

Naaawwww you're wrong - Parents have NO right or responsibility to look after children at all. Kids are 100 percent capable of making all their own decisions and are no different than adults in cognitive abilities. 

A child should be free to make decisions about what drugs they take, what their diet is, when they go to bed and if they want to play in traffic that's just who they are and parents shouldn't interfere!

Here's a picture of me and our 7 year old at Christmas with me asking when she's going to get a job and move out already.

 

Seriously what kind of !diot do you have to be to suggest that a parent making decisions about their children  is the same as owning a lawn mower.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Eyeball and Hardner won’t get it because they’ve forgotten how hard it is to parent amidst the chaos of media-fed amorality and self-indulgence.

I can't speak for Michael but I grew up through all that just fine.

And don't forget I was forced to attend free-school where the Hells Angles provided building security.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, eyeball said:

 

The Charter limits the power of the state over the individual. Its only a matter of time before the government of New Brunswick's policy forces a challenge to its power, a challenge that will likely result in more rights for kids.

 

Yes - the charter limits the power of the state.  Not parents As i just said. Glad you figured it out. ! LOL

 And the case will more likely hinge on the parental rights and the states duty to inform

 

Quote

If parents want intervenors to make arguments in their favor they better hope you're not the lawyer making their case in court. ? 

Sure - They'd be much better off with you. You could explain all about how the charter limits parents abilities and Powers and how the human rights tribunals have been there since before they're even was provinces!  LOLOLOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I can't speak for Michael but I grew up through all that just fine.

And don't forget I was forced to attend free-school where the Hells Angles provided building security.

Eyeball I care about you but don’t think you turned out very wise.  You’re the classic permissive parent.  Herbie already shared how confused his family is.  I won’t speculate on yours.  Don’t get me wrong, I’ve made my own share of mistakes.  If I could go back I’d be much more strict. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Yes - the charter limits the power of the state.  Not parents As i just said. Glad you figured it out. ! LOL

 And the case will more likely hinge on the parental rights and the states duty to inform

Parent's rights override the Charter?  That'll be the argument New Brunswick's government makes when it appeals the first court's ruling against it?  Good luck with that too.

Quote

Sure - They'd be much better off with you. You could explain all about how the charter limits parents abilities and Powers and how the human rights tribunals have been there since before they're even was provinces!  LOLOLOL

Why would I waste a moment's time arguing whatever you just wrote?

And what parental rights and powers are you talking about? Where are those written down - above the Charter somewhere presumably.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Eyeball I care about you but don’t think you turned out very wise.  You’re the classic permissive parent.  Don’t get me wrong, I’ve made my own share of mistakes.

I'm confused, you've described me as being more of a classic totalitarian several times these last few years. Was I getting you wrong or were you making a mistake?  

Quote

If I could go back I’d be much more strict.

What about when you move forward into the future?

Quote

Herbie already shared how confused his family is.  I won’t speculate on yours.

My daughter is a self-made millionaire and my son makes a very good living for himself producing educational software for autistic kids. As you may recall my son had to overcome schizophrenia.

They are all lefties though so you got me there I guess. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

You’ll never convince people like Treebeard or Herbie or Eyeball.  They don’t believe in personal responsibility.  They believe that governments know better than parents how children should be raised.  

But in a totally non-communist, free country kinda way, right? And omg those little bastards had better take the "super-important, highly effective vaccine" or they'll be cut off from society.

Quote

The irony is of course that it’s this anti-family mentality that brought us residential schools to “civilize” and help the natives by removing kids from their families who couldn’t possibly know best how to raise their own children.  Make no mistake, the scariest and most damaging abuse is coming from the people who want to keep parents out of the loop of kids’ most sensitive concerns.

BOOM! That's right in their kitchen. So nasty. 

Quote

 They want to feed them bullshit like the idea that one can choose a gender and that this choice to pretend that biological fact isn’t real is somehow no big deal and without consequence.  It’s setting kids up for failure, because reality doesn’t go away.

Leftists: "Hold my de-alcoholized, organic, non-binary, ethically harvested, fair-trade beer spritzer!!!"

Quote

Given the track record of abuse in institutional settings, why on Earth would any responsible person trust schools to take better care of kids than kids’ parents? Clearly governments learned nothing from the 60’s Scoop and residential schools. 

TBH I think that the push for residential schools was just as strong, maybe stronger, from liberal-leaning people than from "GENUHCIDIL RAYSIST CRAKKURS!!!!!"

Anyone who has lived through a prairie winter and has a heart wouldn't be able to sleep at night knowing that kids in 1985 were living in stone age houses with zero access to a formal education ever, and the population in the northern 75% of the country is so widely dispersed that making enough schools so that kids could walk/ride horses to and from school each day was not economically feasible. 

The whole "rez schools were set up as a form of actual (not just cultural) genocide" is just a hateful, divisive leftist political narrative. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Parent's rights override the Charter?  That'll be the argument New Brunswick's government makes when it appeals the first court's ruling against it?  Good luck with that too.

Why would I waste a moment's time arguing whatever you just wrote?

And what parental rights and powers are you talking about? Where are those written down - above the Charter somewhere presumably.

Children don’t have decision making power in a number of areas for good reason.  Parents make decisions on behalf of their kids for their wellbeing, such as feeding and clothing them, getting them to school, ensuring they get to bed at a reasonable hour, get medical attention as needed, and on and on.  Undermine this most fundamental support for kids at your peril.  If you think that theories about gender should take precedence over biological reality and the most basic and essential social unit, the family, that’s a declaration of war.  You know the impacts of children removed from parents in the Holocaust.  No sane politician in a democratic society will pursue this course.  Trudeau is a total fool to poke this bear.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

But in a totally non-communist, free country kinda way, right? And omg those little bastards had better take the "super-important, highly effective vaccine" or they'll be cut off from society.

BOOM! That's right in their kitchen. So nasty. 

Leftists: "Hold my de-alcoholized, organic, non-binary, ethically harvested, fair-trade beer spritzer!!!"

TBH I think that the push for residential schools was just as strong, maybe stronger, from liberal-leaning people than from "GENUHCIDIL RAYSIST CRAKKURS!!!!!"

Anyone who has lived through a prairie winter and has a heart wouldn't be able to sleep at night knowing that kids in 1985 were living in stone age houses with zero access to a formal education ever, and the population in the northern 75% of the country is so widely dispersed that making enough schools so that kids could walk/ride horses to and from school each day was not economically feasible. 

The whole "rez schools were set up as a form of actual (not just cultural) genocide" is just a hateful, divisive leftist political narrative. 

Residential schools were part of the progressive push for publicly funded education.  There was noble intent and by the standards of that time, they were considered a huge leg up in terms of literacy, skills development, and even living conditions.  There were well intentioned people involved whose work was widely revered at the time.  Of course we judge yesterday through today’s lenses, and we will be judged for our institutional stupidity a century from now.  Imposing highly experimental ideology to serve a minority of activist voices will get us right back inside the residential schools, with parents out of the loop and an overburdened workforce of institutional caregivers imposing the “progressive” mores of the day.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

If you think that theories about gender should take precedence over biological reality and the most basic and essential social unit, the family, that’s a declaration of war.

Blah blah blah, that's what you people said about vaccines and free schools too. We've heard it all before.

You can't wait to move to the promised land of Florida I bet - will that be before or after the shooting starts?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Zeitgeist said:

Residential schools were part of the progressive push for publicly funded education.  There was noble intent and by the standards of that time, they were considered a huge leg up in terms of literacy, skills development, and even living conditions.  There were well intentioned people involved whose work was widely revered at the time.  Of course we judge yesterday through today’s lenses, and we will be judged for our institutional stupidity a century from now.  Imposing highly experimental ideology to serve a minority of activist voices will get us right back inside the residential schools, with parents out of the loop and an overburdened workforce of institutional caregivers imposing the “progressive” mores of the day.  

I don't even think we're "being judged" per se, I just think that some people believe that they can never let a good crisis go to waste, and they want to twist the abject/sub-human failures of the residential school issue into a "winning political strategy". 

Our own PMtard called our treatment of first nations people "a genocide" in no uncertain terms and he didn't say that because he felt like it was true, he just thought that it made him look good, but the people who hate western society will never forget that moment. Members of Al Qaeda, the Taliban, islamic state, etc can roll out the video of the PMOC saying that Canadians/white people are genocidal losers 100 years from now and I don't know why their adherents wouldn't take that message to heart. What Trudeau said will echo through eternity - and our future generations are stuck with that. Compare that with Turkey, where everyone knows that they committed genocides but until they stop flatly denying it, it will never have traction with a lot of people.  

Did I mention I hate Trudeau? I don't know if people got that message yet...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Children don’t have decision making power in a number of areas for good reason.  Parents make decisions on behalf of their kids for their wellbeing, such as feeding and clothing them, getting them to school, ensuring they get to bed at a reasonable hour, get medical attention as needed, and on and on.  Undermine this most fundamental support for kids at your peril.  If you think that theories about gender should take precedence over biological reality and the most basic and essential social unit, the family, that’s a declaration of war.  You know the impacts of children removed from parents in the Holocaust.  No sane politician in a democratic society will pursue this course.  Trudeau is a total fool to poke this bear.  

Exactly.

If you raised a kid in a home with Fruit Loops in the cupboard and iPads/tech galore, and just let them decide for themselves if they wanted to eat some green vegetables and go to school or eat Fruit Loops and take the week off to play Roblox and Fortnite, you'd have a diabetic imbecile on your hands in no time. 

This idea that leftists are putting forth where little kids can choose a gender and then live a fairy tale life is just not beneficial to children at all. It's a sick lie that will definitely catch up with them at some point, and by then their lives will be ruined. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

I don't even think we're "being judged" per se, I just think that some people believe that they can never let a good crisis go to waste, and they want to twist the abject/sub-human failures of the residential school issue into a "winning political strategy". 

Our own PMtard called our treatment of first nations people "a genocide" in no uncertain terms and he didn't say that because he felt like it was true, he just thought that it made him look good, but the people who hate western society will never forget that moment. Members of Al Qaeda, the Taliban, islamic state, etc can roll out the video of the PMOC saying that Canadians/white people are genocidal losers 100 years from now and I don't know why their adherents wouldn't take that message to heart. What Trudeau said will echo through eternity - and our future generations are stuck with that. Compare that with Turkey, where everyone knows that they committed genocides but until they stop flatly denying it, it will never have traction with a lot of people.  

Did I mention I hate Trudeau? I don't know if people got that message yet...

Yup he lied to score virtue points, not that residential schools didn’t have many terrible aspects.  It has financial implications, implications for our sense of self-worth as a society, and so on.  Where there is evidence of failure, it must be owned by the people responsible, most of whom aren’t alive.  It’s hard not to see narratives being used to win free stuff.  That opportunism of course just feeds more negative stereotypes.  The cycle continues.  Individuals must be assessed individually on their own merit, which is already difficult.  Claims require evidence, and people are free to bring it.  The courts are liberal dominated and so the bias is almost always towards free-spending and gushing apologizing, but only for the designated victim groups.  That’s today’s Canada.  

Edited by Zeitgeist
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Parent's rights override the Charter?  That'll be the argument New Brunswick's government makes when it appeals the first court's ruling against it?  Good luck with that too.

Oh crap = i forgot about your abysmal  comprehension skills :)    The charter doesn't apply to people's rights when it comes to the actions of the parents. The charter governs gov'ts and orgs they control.

Honestly this would go SO much faster if i didn't have to explain this to you more than 5 times.

Quote

Why would I waste a moment's time arguing whatever you just wrote?

You shouldn't.  Its correct. And yet frequently i see you arguing for things that are not correct.  So - who knows what you're going to do  ;)

Quote

And what parental rights and powers are you talking about? Where are those written down - above the Charter somewhere presumably.

There are numerous acts that spell them out. For example the Criminal code actually.  Section 215. Parents have a "DUTY" to care for their child and provide the necessaries and care for their health. If they have such a duty as established by law then they have the right to execute the necessary actions and nobody can interfere with that duty directly or indirectly by withholding health information for example.

Theres a lot of other acts provincial and federal. There's the Parental responsibility act of 2000 for example, and many others.

Together they (and common law) make up what is called Parental Authority in canada and it is a very real thing.

LOL - did you really believe there were no laws about this?  ROFLMAO - man you really are not afraid to take a firm stand on things you don't know anything about aren't you :)  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

The charter doesn't apply to people's rights when it comes to the actions of the parents. The charter governs gov'ts and orgs they control.

Yes that's what I said.

Quote

Honestly this would go SO much faster if you didn't have to explain this to me more than 5 times

 

I agree.

Quote

 

There are numerous acts that spell them out. For example the Criminal code actually.  Section 215. Parents have a "DUTY" to care for their child and provide the necessaries and care for their health. If they have such a duty as established by law then they have the right to execute the necessary actions and nobody can interfere with that duty directly or indirectly by withholding health information for example.

Theres a lot of other acts provincial and federal. There's the Parental responsibility act of 2000 for example, and many others.

Together they (and common law) make up what is called Parental Authority in canada and it is a very real thing.

 

And you think these should trump the Charter if it takes issue when the parent uses a two by four to carry out their duty?

Yes Parental Authority is a real thing, it speaks to the duty and responsibility parents have towards their kids, not over them, or the Charter, for good reason.

Quote

LOL - did you really believe there were no laws about this?  ROFLMAO - man you really are not afraid to take a firm stand on things you don't know anything about aren't you :)  

I'm certainly not lawyer a but you don't have to be to argue against the hooey you stand your arguments on.  And Poilievre is on your side you say? ?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Yes that's what I said.

The thing is you also say the opposite :)   So it's kind of hard to tell. 

 

Quote

I agree.

ell start to pay attention then. We'll both be happier.

 

Quote

And you think these should trump the Charter if it takes issue when the parent uses a two by four to carry out their duty?

OH my GOD...... for the last time... THE CHARTER DOES NOT APPLY TO PARENTS!!!!  We JUST DISCUSSED THIS MOMENTS AGO!!! Can you not pay attention for 5 seconds? Holy crap you have the attention span and memory capacity of a goldfish.

Quote

Yes Parental Authority is a real thing, it speaks to the duty and responsibility parents have towards their kids, not over them, or the Charter, for good reason.

The charter doesn't apply to.... oh never mind, you're too stupid to understand the charter - lets try to stick to one thing

If a parent has a duty to provide for the child then the have both authority OVER them AND responsibility to them.  THat's why it's called parental AUTHORITY.  How the fack did you miss that? It's RIGHT IN THE NAME!

Quote

I'm certainly not lawyer

You're kidding!

 

Quote

but you don't have to be to argue against the hooey you stand your arguments on.  

 

You don't need to be a lawyer to undrestand the charter doesn't apply to parents either but you can't manage even that :)

3 minutes ago, eyeball said:

So do Poilievre's morally panicked deplorables want him to follow their stampede to trample the Charter or lead it? Before, after or during the next election campaign? ?

Talk about a proverbial unintended consequence.  

The... charter..... does....not.....apply.... to .... parents

Say it with me now....

Hey - how about this? The parents could use the notwithstanding clause in conjunction with the bedtime rule!!! That'll solve it!!!

You're an !diot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,770
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Akalupenn
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...