0
   

SHOULD SEN. LARRY CRAIG RESIGN?

 
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Sep, 2007 04:31 pm
squinney wrote:
That's a bit much to swallow.

<snork>
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Sep, 2007 04:42 pm
The police lie a lot. Ask any defense lawyer. Did you hear the tape of Craig being questioned. I think the cop did a lot to mislead Craig.
0 Replies
 
eoe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Sep, 2007 04:47 pm
happycat wrote:
So, I'm in a ladies room today and there are women in the stalls on either side of me.
I could see their feet.
I said out loud that I can't help but think how difficult it would be for me to slide my foot under the partition - on either side - in order to touch their foot.

The woman on the left of me finished my sentence for me, and then the several other women in the bathroom all started to laugh.
0 Replies
 
happycat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Sep, 2007 04:49 pm
Advocate wrote:
The police lie a lot. Ask any defense lawyer. Did you hear the tape of Craig being questioned. I think the cop did a lot to mislead Craig.


Wrong. If the police want to make the case, and not get it thrown out on some bs technicality they don't lie.
I think in this case, Craig was clearly intimidated by the cop simply because he knew he was caught.
It's the cop's job to be intimidating during questioning....and it worked.
0 Replies
 
happycat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Sep, 2007 04:52 pm
eoe, it was funny. There was about 6 or 7 of us in there laughing - in the stalls and at the sinks.
It must've sounded funny from outside the bathroom. Laughing
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Sep, 2007 05:26 pm
engineer wrote:
okie wrote:
Rush had a right on summary opinion today. If Craig was a Democrat, Democrats would be bragging about him and defending him completely.

According to Democrats, what he did was probably to be complimented, but its the hypocrisy they attack. This allows Democrats to do anything they want, without holding themselves to any standards whatsoever. Agreed with Rush, this is exactly my assessment of it before I heard his.

Another point is that any Republican problem is characterized as a Republican Party problem, not an individual problem. Craig is just a typical Republican hypocrit, but William Jefferson is just having a few problems as an individual, but he is still a good Democrat, very socially moral (even if he is an outright criminal on a personal basis), so let him stay where he's at if he weathers the personal problems. Thats the spin put out by the Democrats. Very clever, and the main stream press reinforces the same spin.

I have to pinch myself to check and see if I am not dreaming about some of these events they are so bazaar and whacked out. Hillary could probably rob a bank in broad daylight and the press would say she just had a temporary lapse of judgement, so that makes her more human and more like us, and her poll numbers would go up. Thats actually similar to the spin placed on her husband, Bill.


I don't think your intrepretation matches the facts. Jefferson was rejected by his fellow Democrats and stripped of his house committees. Since the justice department hasn't bothered to convict him yet (??) and his home district re-elected him, I guess they're stuck with him. No one is out there praising his morals or asking him to say until "he works out his personal problems". There were a few out there saying "innocent until proven guilty", but that does not represent the entire party by a long stretch. Money in the freezer is pretty damning. Members of both parties protested his office search, but more on the grounds of congressional priviledge than any love of WJ. Maybe the question you should ask is why hasn't the Justice Department got around to having a trial.

If Craig was a Democrat, I think there would have been a lot more sympathy for his plight from fellow Dems. The Dems haven't been the ones throwing Craig under the bus. I saw some headline on a liberal blog suggesting that law enforcement has better things to do than chase men trying to mate. All that hate has come directly from his own party. If he had been caught in a bar asking to buy some lady a drink, no problem, but when he does the gay equivalent, his former buds lynch him.


I am tempted to agree with you on this,but there is a lot of evidence to support the claim that the dems rally around and defend their members that either break the law or otherwise commit acts that they shouldnt.

For Example...
Ted Kennedy, killed a woman and still serves in the Senate.
Patrick Kennedy, runs his car into a barrier at the Capitol building, either because he was drunk or high on some kind of drug.
He still serves in Congress.
William Jefferson, we all know his problems.
Alcee Hastings, former judge who was impeached AND removed from the bench for accepting bribes.
He now serves in Congress.
Bill Clinton, accused of rape,accused of groping a woman,lied to the grand jury,was forced to pay a settelment of a sexual harrassment case,etc.

There are many more on this list.

Now, I am not saying the repubs are any better,but the repubs seem to react and force the person to resign from Congress instead of allowing them to stay.

Many on the left seem to want to call the repubs hypocrites because of people like Craig,who pay lip service to having some standards and morals yet they act the way he did.

It seems to me that the left is calling the repubs hypocrites, yet ignoring the behavior that both repubs and dems are doing.

If its hypocritical to fail to meet the standards you have set for yourself,do the dems have any standards at all?
Is there any behavior that the dems will condemn,or is it just the perceived hypocrisy they are condemning?
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Sep, 2007 06:55 pm
Non of the people you mentioned, MM, plead guilty to the accusations, as Craig did.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Sep, 2007 07:11 pm
Courtesy of the posters at The Plank - Larry Craig haikus and a limerick Smile

Quote:
I am not a gay

And have never been a gay

I have a wide stance


Quote:
I'll never come out

Like that pussy McGreevey

Closet-bound, I fight!


Quote:
What you don't know is

I also met my wife in

an airport bathroom.


Several from a poster named rhubarbs that were composed of quotations from Sen. Craig's various statements:

Quote:
Being Arrested

----

Your foot came toward mine

Apparently we were close

Was that natural?

----

Tell me where I am

Am I gonna have to fight you?

I'm not going to fight.


Quote:
Press Conferences

----

I'd just like to say

Thank you all very much for

Coming out today

----

I have brought a cloud

A cloud over Idaho

I did nothing wrong


Quote:
The once was a man they called Craig

whose political future was vague

When he dropped down his pants,

and assumed his wide stance,

it's almost as if he had plague.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Sep, 2007 07:12 pm
squinney wrote:
Non of the people you mentioned, MM, plead guilty to the accusations, as Craig did.


Don't confuse MM with facts.
0 Replies
 
kuvasz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Sep, 2007 09:36 pm
Good god almighty! Reading the likes of okie and the lonely trucker you would think that since Republicans have now been found to be public perverts the Democrats now can reveal their true natures as Sodomites and 21st century wild things.

But hold on there, we have a US Senator, a Republican Senator who admits breaking the law by engaging in multiple acts of hiring prostitutes to swath him in diapers so he execrate prior to sexual intercourse, the later being crimes of prostitution and adultery, if not the rules of personal hygiene, let alone the sheer creepiness of it. (Naturally, as most civilized people do I wait until after sex to crap in my drawers).

He was also "allegedly" a pimp back home with a stable of hookers, one who has Vetter illegitimate child.

Senator Vetter stands proudly in the Senate and likely his "Depends" too if the police report is true.

And it is, as Senator Vetter admitted.

If Harry Reid or even Ted Kennedy or hell even Hillary Clinton been found to have done that kind of behavior they would have resigned. But not Vetter, had he done so the Democratic Governor of Louisiana would have selected a Democrat to take Vetter's seat and shifted more the Senate to Democratic control.

So I apologize for not taking seriously the remarks of my political opponents about those ethically challenged Democrats playing politics instead of morality. Senator Craig hails from a state with a Republican Governor and will be replaced by another Republican., so showing such sanctimonious garment tearing is only for the gullible, like my political opponents. But when the time comes for ethics and morality, and at least personal hygiene, the Republicans stand with the Diaper Boy and their ethics is about as pure as Senator Vetter's used diaper.

In each case debated the Republican has publicly admitted their guilt; that the description of the unlawful behavior was a true fact. I don't see any of that with Jefferson, (and note that Jefferson has contested the allegations and with the US Justice Dept not seeing fit to charge him in over after nearly a year one can believe that there isn't any there there on corruption allegations. Seriously if the politicized Justice Dept had anything they assuredly charge the man, so why not?

So pardon me for laughing aloud when reading from Republican apologists' who hallucinate into believing that after Republican Senators are arrested for sex-trolling public bathrooms that the Democrats received a sort of holy imprimatur for opening the doors to Sodom…..and Gomorrah to boot.

I don't see any plausible data to date, raw material data that would lead an objective adult that if Senator Craig were a Democrat they would be high-fiving this guy. That is a pretty ignorant remark… but I have seen the senatorial friends of the senate Diaper Boy of Louisiana supporting him, for ONLY political reasons.

Also, how does emphasizing the contrast between Craig's public pronouncement and actions toward homosexuals versus his personal behavior "ALLOW" Democrats to act without boundaries?

What the hell?

Likely, what would be the reaction from you guys to any Democrat coming out with remarks as nasty as Craig's fellow Republicans?

I can tell you, you'd be screaming about how the Democrats were playing politics.

I don't care what politicians do as long as they don't steal from the people whom they govern or harm people. I said a long time ago, leave senator Craig alone, but fer' crissakes can a single morally imbued Republican apologists explain why the Diaper Boy of Louisiana, Vetter gets a free pass and remains in the Senate if Craig is forced by the Republican Party to resign?

is the republican eleventh commandment "thou shalt not attempt to suck dick in public, (but its okay to f&*k hookers and $hit in your diapers if you can gain the US Senate?)
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Sep, 2007 11:15 pm
happycat wrote:
Advocate wrote:
The police lie a lot. Ask any defense lawyer. Did you hear the tape of Craig being questioned. I think the cop did a lot to mislead Craig.


Wrong. If the police want to make the case, and not get it thrown out on some bs technicality they don't lie.
I think in this case, Craig was clearly intimidated by the cop simply because he knew he was caught.
It's the cop's job to be intimidating during questioning....and it worked.



Lying is not a "bs technicality." Police officers do lie--they lie often--and they almost always get away with it. They also tamper with evidence (e.g., plant incriminating evidence, destroy exculpatory evidence) and they abuse their positions of official power and "trust" in many other ways far too numerous to list.

As much as some people may despise Craig and desire to lynch him for tapping his shoe while he sat on a toilet--he didn't do anything illegal.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Sep, 2007 11:29 pm
Peeping through the stall and touching another person's foot in the next stall constitutes disorderly conduct. What did Craig in is his awareness of guilt, shame and self-loathing.

I hope Craig fights this all the to the Supreme Court though.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Sep, 2007 01:07 am
Roxxxanne wrote:


Debra, the chances of Craig successfully withdrawing his plea are slim and none. If you can cite a precedent in which a defendant was able to withdraw a guilty plea under these circumstances, I will stand corrected.

Craig was not coerced in any way. He agreed to the plea weeks after the arrest, willfully, voluntarily and with sound mind.

Evenj if Craig were to get another trial, he would face a far more potentially damaging scenario as now that this case is in the spotlight, John Does are certainly to surface to tell their story, one apparently already has.


His chances of success depend upon the skill of his defense attorney and the intellectual ability of the judge to recognize meritorious arguments.

It is highly unlikely that you will find a Minnesota case directly on point involving the exact same circumstances as this case. Again, it is highly unlikely that most people would care enough to fight a disorderly conduct charge in the first place. An indigent person would be stuck with court-appointed counsel--which generally means the indigent person can expect a crummy attorney who won't even look at the file. Others cannot justify spending thousands of dollars for a moderately skilled lawyer. After all, the monetary fine for a disorderly conduct violation is a drop in the bucket in comparison to the cost of retaining effective counsel. For most people, the decision to plead guilty is a simple cost/benefit analysis. Hence, most people (guilty or not) will plead guilty, pay the fine, and get on with their lives.

Craig had several valid defenses to the charges against him. As previously mentioned, a meritorious argument can be made that the disorderly conduct statute is unconstitutionally vague "as applied" to Craig's conduct. Also, the State may not criminalize constitutionally protected activity. Even if Craig (an adult) was impliedly soliciting the man in the next stall (also an adult) to engage in consensual sexual conduct as alleged, he still hasn't done anything illegal. Under Lawrence v. Texas, it is unconstitutional for a State to criminalize sexual relations between two consenting adults even if they are of the same sex. If the State cannot criminalize the actual sex act itself, the State cannot criminalize an invitation to engage in the constitutionally protected conduct. The undercover agent in the next stall acknowledged that he encouraged the alleged invitation/solicitation by moving his foot up and down.

It is a manifest injustice for any person to be punished for doing something that the law plainly allows. Craig has several other meritorious defenses, but you get the picture. With effective assistance of counsel, it is possible for Craig to withdraw his guilty plea and start anew. With effective assistance of counsel in the pretrial phase, motions can be made that would most likely result in the dismissal of the criminal complaint.

In the highly unlikely event that this matter would ever go to trial, the rumors that Craig engaged in homosexual trysts in the past would not be admissible as evidence against him. The only issues would be whether standing three feet away from the stalls and fidgeting and glancing at the stall doors while waiting for a stall to open constitutes "invasion of privacy" in violation of the criminal code and whether tapping your shoe while sitting on the toilet constitutes disorderly conduct in violation of the criminal code. Considering how frivolous and weak the prosecution case, the jury would most likely enter a verdict of "not guilty."
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Sep, 2007 02:09 am
Brand X wrote:
Thomas wrote:

That's all very interesting, but it's irrelevant. Debra didn't say there is an absolute right to withdraw a guilty plea. She said there's a conditional right, the condition being that the withdrawal is "necessary to correct a manifest injustice." She also said that "Meritorious arguments can be made in Craig's case."


I don't see how it would ease the tension in the Party about his original conduct. He knew the protocols for soliciting gay sex in the mens room.


However, allegedly "knowing" the "protocols" for soliciting sex isn't a crime. From what I understand, another senator knows the protocols for soliciting the services of prostitutes, but the Party hasn't demanded his resignation. There are probably a few senators who troll the internet and engage in sexually explicit conversations with children. There are probably many married senators who troll night spots, ply attractive women with drinks, and solicit adulterous sexual encounters.

I don't agree with Craig's politics. He probably is a hypocrite. He might be registering one vote after another in Congress in support of anti-gay legislation and, at the same time, he might be a closeted gay who trolls for consensual sexual encounters with other men. However, as things stand now, Craig was convicted of a relatively minor disorderly conduct offense for tapping his shoe. If the people in Idaho think Craig is too morally repugnant to be casting anti-gay votes on their behalf, they can voice their displeasure in the voting booth. Craig should not be forced to resign the Senate seat that he was duly elected to sit in.

Regardless of all of the above, Craig's alleged conduct as set forth in the arrest report did not constitute a crime. I find it offensive that he was charged in the first place. The security officer told Craig that it would just be a fine and that the media would not be called. I find it offensive that the security officer played upon Craig's fears and induced him to plead guilty to a crime he didn't commit.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Sep, 2007 02:38 am
Roxxxanne wrote:
Peeping through the stall and touching another person's foot in the next stall constitutes disorderly conduct. What did Craig in is his awareness of guilt, shame and self-loathing.

I hope Craig fights this all the to the Supreme Court though.


The arrest report states that Craig was standing three feet away from the stalls for a very short period of time, maybe a minute or two, and during that time he was fidgeting, looking down, looking up, etc., while he was waiting for a stall to open. He did not put his eyeball up to the miniscule door-hinge crack to peep. If the thousands of people who visit that public restroom everyday can readily view people in the enclosed stalls doing their private business through "door cracks" simply by standing there and waiting for a stall to open, then the "door cracks" are much too wide and Minneapolis airport needs to to have the stalls replaced. The frivolous charge alleging an invasion of privacy was dismissed, and rightly so.

How can the alleged brushing of someone's shoe constitute disorderly conduct especially when the person in the next stall admits he invited the alleged shoe brush by moving his own foot up and down in an approving (receptive) manner? Neither a toe tap nor a shoe brush constitutes disorderly conduct.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Sep, 2007 03:11 am
squinney wrote:
Non of the people you mentioned, MM, plead guilty to the accusations, as Craig did.


So, unless they plead guilty, they shouldnt have to resign?
Then why did you and others demand that Tom Delay resign?
He didnt plead guilty and he hasnt been convicted of anything.

But,Alcee Hastings WAS convicted,so he shouldnt be in Congress.

Patrick Kennedy did say...

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/05/kennedy.accident/index.html

Quote:
I am deeply concerned about my reaction to the medication and my lack of knowledge of the accident that evening. But I do know enough to know that I need to seek expert help," he said Friday.


Quote:
Sometime around 2:45 a.m., I drove the few blocks to the Capitol complex believing I needed to vote," he said. "Apparently, I was disoriented from the medication."

In his comments Friday, Kennedy said, "The recurrence of an addiction problem can be triggered by things that happen in every day life, such as taking a common treatment for a stomach flu.

"That's not an excuse for what happened Wednesday evening, but it is a reality of fighting a chronic condition for which I'm taking full responsibility," he said.


Those two statements sure look like he is admitting that he is guilty to me.

Then there is this...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,199290,00.html

You still want to say that Patrick Kennedy didnt plead guilty?


http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/25/newsid_2763000/2763525.stm

Quote:
1969: Kennedy pleads guilty over car crash
Senator Edward Kennedy has pleaded guilty to leaving the scene of a crime and has been sentenced to a two-month suspended jail sentence
.

So,apparently Ted Kennedy did plead guilty also.

Alcee Hastings was convicted after a trial,so it doesnt matter if he pled guilty or not.

Personally,I dont think that anyone that has ever been convicted of anything more then a traffic ticket should be allowed to serve in Congress,and anyone that has pled guilty to any type of cfime other then a traffic ticket should be forced to resign their office.

But for you to say that the repubs that have only been charged with a crime should resign (Tom Delay, Bob Foley) yet to then turn around and say that only the dems that pled guilty should resign,is a huge double standard.

I have said before,Craig should resign because he pled guilty.
You dont seem to care about the dems that have either pled guilty or have been found guilty in court.

Why is that?
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Sep, 2007 03:21 am
eoe wrote:
But, according to an article in the NYTimes today, now he's changed his mind and wants to rethink that resignation. Shocked
That's gotta be a first.


This certainly indicates that he's not in the proper frame of mind to be making monumental life decisions in the face of enormous pressure. He has been plagued with overwhelming stress for two months. His worst fear--being exposed to public obloquy and ridicule--has come to fruition. Certainly, he should take sufficient time to think things through. I don't think he has done anything that requires him to resign in shame and then slink off somewhere to hide under a rock.

He kowtowed to the pressure before when he decided to plead guilty to the frivolous criminal charge, and he again kowtowed to the pressure when he announced his intent to resign at the end of this month. Maybe he now recognizes that kowtowing to pressure might not be the prudent course of action. He needs to take a step back from the immediate panic of public exposure, get his stress levels under control, and start thinking rationally about his situation. Hopefully he will now have the benefit of counsel.
0 Replies
 
kuvasz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Sep, 2007 08:32 am
mysteryman wrote:
squinney wrote:
Non of the people you mentioned, MM, plead guilty to the accusations, as Craig did.


So, unless they plead guilty, they shouldnt have to resign?
Then why did you and others demand that Tom Delay resign?
He didnt plead guilty and he hasnt been convicted of anything.

But,Alcee Hastings WAS convicted,so he shouldnt be in Congress.

Patrick Kennedy did say...

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/05/kennedy.accident/index.html

Quote:
I am deeply concerned about my reaction to the medication and my lack of knowledge of the accident that evening. But I do know enough to know that I need to seek expert help," he said Friday.


Quote:
Sometime around 2:45 a.m., I drove the few blocks to the Capitol complex believing I needed to vote," he said. "Apparently, I was disoriented from the medication."

In his comments Friday, Kennedy said, "The recurrence of an addiction problem can be triggered by things that happen in every day life, such as taking a common treatment for a stomach flu.

"That's not an excuse for what happened Wednesday evening, but it is a reality of fighting a chronic condition for which I'm taking full responsibility," he said.


Those two statements sure look like he is admitting that he is guilty to me.

Then there is this...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,199290,00.html

You still want to say that Patrick Kennedy didnt plead guilty?


http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/25/newsid_2763000/2763525.stm

Quote:
1969: Kennedy pleads guilty over car crash
Senator Edward Kennedy has pleaded guilty to leaving the scene of a crime and has been sentenced to a two-month suspended jail sentence
.

So,apparently Ted Kennedy did plead guilty also.

Alcee Hastings was convicted after a trial,so it doesnt matter if he pled guilty or not.

Personally,I dont think that anyone that has ever been convicted of anything more then a traffic ticket should be allowed to serve in Congress,and anyone that has pled guilty to any type of cfime other then a traffic ticket should be forced to resign their office.

But for you to say that the repubs that have only been charged with a crime should resign (Tom Delay, Bob Foley) yet to then turn around and say that only the dems that pled guilty should resign,is a huge double standard.

I have said before,Craig should resign because he pled guilty.
You dont seem to care about the dems that have either pled guilty or have been found guilty in court.

Why is that?

blah blah blah.... buddy, complain about Hastings to his congressional district they actually voted him into Congress AFTER he was convicted.

This latest public debachery by a Republican occured with Craig WHILE he was in office. You ought to note that Congress itself can reject a Representative or Senator from being seated and no Republican controlled House ever prevented Hastings from taking his seat, so actually it was a Republican Congress that allowed Hastings into the House for the last decade. They could have stopped him but they didn't and I don't hear a peep from you about it.

So much for your fidelity to your morality. It called hypocrisy, by the way.

Patrick Kennedy ought to have resigned, that is IF convicted while driving impaired precludes elective office in your philosophy, but go ahead show us all your inate wisdom and give us a detailed reason why you voted for a ticket that collectively was convicted of multiple driving while drunk or impaired charges.

what's sauce for the Democratic goose is also sauce for Republican gander, or is that too strenuous an application of logic for poor, delicate you?

btw What about your Diaper Boy, whore-master Senator Vetter? That guy is a frigging pervert for sure and by your silence of his actions you obviously condone and agree that his behavior of evaculating his bowels into a diaper while screwing a hooker is um .....shall we say "senatorial?"

Yeap its always "politics," with you folks, until yet another Republican is caught with dead women or live boys.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Sep, 2007 08:33 am
mysteryman wrote:
Alcee Hastings was convicted after a trial,so it doesnt matter if he pled guilty or not.



Alcee Hastings? Are you effing kiddding me? How does the Hastings matter have anything to do with this? He was impeached after the conviction then he ran for Congress and won. It is called Democracy. Were not you the one who posted a thread whining that the "Democrats" were hypocrites because the Democrats didn't believe that every vote should count?


http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=102456

Quote:
Personally,I dont think that anyone that has ever been convicted of anything more then a traffic ticket should be allowed to serve in Congress,


Oh but that doesn't apply to the office of President of the United States in your mind?

You are even a bigger hypocrite than Craig.

And besides being a hypocrite, MM doesn't tell the truth:
mysteryman wrote:
Ted Kennedy, killed a woman and still serves in the Senate.

Bill Clinton, accused of rape,accused of groping a woman,lied to the grand jury...


kuvasz, do you think for one minute that the Republicans would be drumming Craig out of the Senate if the Governor was a Democrat and they would lose that Senate seat?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Sep, 2007 09:07 am
Always a pleasure to read your analyses, deborah.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/10/2025 at 02:50:28