new hormone they are makin sched 3 steroid

Page 2 of 2 First 12

  1. Let’s face it, alcohol is a terrible drug. Look at all the people that die from it, are harmed by it, or get killed by it each year. Alcohol is a big factor in traffic accidents, the abuse of children, the abuse of women, and in murders. Look at all the lives that have been devastated by alcohol. You’d think it would be illegal, just like heroin, but no. Anybody over 21 can go down to the local store, and buy it. Why? Because this is America.

    Tobacco is horribly addictive. People who have been able to quit heroin even find it difficult to stop smoking. If you smoke, it’s like being 100 pounds overweight. It’s really hard on your heart, and it takes years off of your life. It’s really bad stuff. But just like alcohol, anybody can go down to the store and get themselves a pack of cigarettes. Why? Because this is a free country.

    Cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine are also really nasty, but are they any worse than alcohol?

    The very fact that these substances are illegal, when tobacco and alcohol are not, is hipocracy! Yet call for their re-legalization, and you’ll be labeled as a nut! You’ll face the same uphill battle, when you call for the re-legalization of anabolic steroids.

    America is supposed to be the land of the free, yet we keep electing leaders that keep taking our freedoms away. As a wise man once said, "those who sacrifice a little liberty for a little security deserve neither". Similarly, those who sacrifice individual liberty for societal good deserve neither.

    Our nation, and its establishing document, the Constitution, were born out of a struggle to obtain greater individual liberty. Most people had come to America seeking greater freedom, only to see a self-centered monarchy eroding it away. After winning independence from England, our founding fathers wrote our constitution to ensure that the notion of inalienable rights held by the people would not be similarly eroded in the future. The Federal government should under no circumstances infringe upon the rights of the people, even when "the ends" were supposedly a greater social good.

    The only way to turn this around, is to get out and vote for people who believe in the constitution and won’t keep legislating your rights away. Until the next election, write you senators and congressmen, and let them know how you feel. Otherwise, your silence is tacit approval of the ban.


  2. Quote Originally Posted by cable626
    Doesn't food build muscle?
    BAN IT!


    I can't imagine 50 and 60 year olds getting arrested for posession of a controlled substance.
    You heard it here first...


    In 2010, there will be a quota on how much protein you can have in your diet.
    •   
       


  3. Quote Originally Posted by BoxingFool01
    Don't worry next up the governments will ban vitamins. Wasn't there some swimmer who flagged a drug test and blamed it all on his multi vitamin? What will they come up with next?
    Actually, banning vitamins is not as crazy as it sounds. I believe the government is in tight enough with the pharmaceutical companies that they would like to make everything, including vitamins, prescription-only products. Even the skinny tofu-eaters are concerned about government encroachment on herbs and vitamins. They also see the writing on the wall.

  4. Quote Originally Posted by davisville64
    This is slightly off topic, but it got me thinking. I am probably just some 17 year old that doesnt know much about the world, but...
    Whether you know it or not, you're a libertarian in the making. And thank god for that.

  5. I already emailed all my senators and my local representative to vote against the bill that is supposed to ban DHEA. I urge everyone on this board to do it if they havent already.
    •   
       


  6. Quote Originally Posted by INYTOAD
    Let’s face it, alcohol is a terrible drug. Look at all the people that die from it, are harmed by it, or get killed by it each year. Alcohol is a big factor in traffic accidents, the abuse of children, the abuse of women, and in murders. Look at all the lives that have been devastated by alcohol. You’d think it would be illegal, just like heroin, but no. Anybody over 21 can go down to the local store, and buy it. Why? Because this is America.

    Tobacco is horribly addictive. People who have been able to quit heroin even find it difficult to stop smoking. If you smoke, it’s like being 100 pounds overweight. It’s really hard on your heart, and it takes years off of your life. It’s really bad stuff. But just like alcohol, anybody can go down to the store and get themselves a pack of cigarettes. Why? Because this is a free country.

    Cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine are also really nasty, but are they any worse than alcohol?

    The very fact that these substances are illegal, when tobacco and alcohol are not, is hipocracy! Yet call for their re-legalization, and you’ll be labeled as a nut! You’ll face the same uphill battle, when you call for the re-legalization of anabolic steroids.

    America is supposed to be the land of the free, yet we keep electing leaders that keep taking our freedoms away. As a wise man once said, "those who sacrifice a little liberty for a little security deserve neither". Similarly, those who sacrifice individual liberty for societal good deserve neither.

    Our nation, and its establishing document, the Constitution, were born out of a struggle to obtain greater individual liberty. Most people had come to America seeking greater freedom, only to see a self-centered monarchy eroding it away. After winning independence from England, our founding fathers wrote our constitution to ensure that the notion of inalienable rights held by the people would not be similarly eroded in the future. The Federal government should under no circumstances infringe upon the rights of the people, even when "the ends" were supposedly a greater social good.

    The only way to turn this around, is to get out and vote for people who believe in the constitution and won’t keep legislating your rights away. Until the next election, write you senators and congressmen, and let them know how you feel. Otherwise, your silence is tacit approval of the ban.

    Well said. I agree. But I fear that we will not be able to vote for someone who truly believes in civil liberties, because those politicians wont even be on the ballots. Im sorry to seem pessimistic, but I really truly (and regretfully) believe this to be the case. Even if someone like that were able to rise through the ranks within the next few years, its possible they might change their stance based on peer pressure. Theese would be savior's of freedom are afraid to stick there neck out and go against the grain of the popular school of thought of the time, even if it compromises their own principals to a degree. I mean look at the address Arnold gave to the antendees of the Arnold classic. He was supposed to be our voice. But he has to conform to a degree to the popular (though less then enlightened) point of view the country has on AAS. Sure he's trying to keep other supplements legal, but I believe that is partly because there is less negative stigma around non -steroidal compounds, and subsequently would not shed an unfavorable light on him to support them. So supporters of civil liberties are likely to "cut their losses" so to speak, in order to maintain credibility with vhe masses who have extreme predjudices against anything even distantly related to anabonic androgenic steroids. Even the word steroid has become like a bad word among the underinformed public, invoking all kinds of negative images. And even though DHEA is two enzymatic conversion processes' away from anything remotely anabolic the anti supplement zealots are inexplicably in the drivers seat. It IS hypocricy. In fact it is hypocricy of the highest order, but thanks to mass distribution of misinformation and half baked accounts of non fact orientated speculation and opinions, the number of people against the hypocricy is woefully insufficient. I allready e-mailed two senators, but I fear the worst.

  7. Quote Originally Posted by UnicronSpawn
    Well said. I agree. But I fear that we will not be able to vote for someone who truly believes in civil liberties, because those politicians wont even be on the ballots. Im sorry to seem pessimistic, but I really truly (and regretfully) believe this to be the case. Even if someone like that were able to rise through the ranks within the next few years, its possible they might change their stance based on peer pressure. Theese would be savior's of freedom are afraid to stick there neck out and go against the grain of the popular school of thought of the time, even if it compromises their own principals to a degree. I mean look at the address Arnold gave to the antendees of the Arnold classic. He was supposed to be our voice. But he has to conform to a degree to the popular (though less then enlightened) point of view the country has on AAS. Sure he's trying to keep other supplements legal, but I believe that is partly because there is less negative stigma around non -steroidal compounds, and subsequently would not shed an unfavorable light on him to support them. So supporters of civil liberties are likely to "cut their losses" so to speak, in order to maintain credibility with the masses who have extreme predjudices against anything even distantly related to anabolic androgenic steroids. Even the word steroid has become like a bad word among the underinformed public, invoking all kinds of negative images. And even though DHEA is two enzymatic conversion processes' away from anything remotely anabolic the anti supplement zealots are inexplicably in the drivers seat. It IS hypocricy. In fact it is hypocricy of the highest order, but thanks to mass distribution of misinformation and half baked accounts of non fact orientated speculation and opinions, the number of people against the hypocricy is woefully insufficient. I allready e-mailed two senators, but I fear the worst.
    Vote libertarian. The only way these issues stand a chance of turning out the right way is if the libertarian movement continues to grow and gets a foothold on the national scene. Republicans and Democrats are not your representatives. The sooner people realize this and realize that voting for a third party isn't "wasting a vote", the sooner this country will be able to make a change for the better. If the ignorant people can't get over that horrible stigma, we deserve the disgusting two party system that we continuely put in power.

  8. i ****ing hate washington! what i eat dont make you **** so stay out of my ****ing life and my gym bag!!!!!!!!!!!! and thats all i have to say about that

  9. The problem at hand here isn't the politicians but the people who elect them. When talking to my Senator (Grassley R-IA), he stated that for the PH ban, letters came pouring in demanding he ban them and when he was one of the people that co-signed the bill, he received lots of "Thank you" letters from people for banning the substances. So as much as we'd all like to think the big bad Pfizer was responsible, the responsibility comes from the people. They decided they did not want these substances to be purchased and written to their Representatives and Senators.

    As for alcohol and tobacco, just because they are legal doesn't mean they are safe. The government makes a killing collecting taxes for these substances. They also force the companies to make advertisements to make sure they make responsible decisions. How many of these supplement companies today can put round the clock advertisements advising the safety usages of steroids? None. Also, when supplement companies advertise a product and state, "ITS 5000% ANABOLIC THAN STEROIDS" on the bottle and a mother reads it, what is she going to think:

    1) Oh wow, I hope Billy is using proper PCT
    2) Gee, I'll just forget I read that advertisement and hope everything is ok
    3) I better spend tens of hours of research finding out if it is an appropriate product
    4) Holy ****, my son is taking steroids

    Its #4. Then she confronts her son and a big argument ensues. She think its from the steroids and anything he does wrong (no matter how little or big) is because of it. Then she'll tell her friends and relatives. Then they'll tell their friends. Then one and more call up or write their representatives and demand something be done about it. Then it gets brought up and then banned.
  10. Exclamation


    Quote Originally Posted by knox
    Last summer my doctor told me creatine will give me gyno...
    Are you joking or being serious? If you're being serious...that's a criminal lack of knowledge!

  11. Quote Originally Posted by TINYTOAD
    America is supposed to be the land of the free, yet we keep electing leaders that keep taking our freedoms away. As a wise man once said, "those who sacrifice a little liberty for a little security deserve neither". Similarly, those who sacrifice individual liberty for societal good deserve neither.

    Our nation, and its establishing document, the Constitution, were born out of a struggle to obtain greater individual liberty. Most people had come to America seeking greater freedom, only to see a self-centered monarchy eroding it away.

    After winning independence from
    England, our founding fathers wrote our constitution to ensure that the notion of inalienable rights held by the people would not be similarly eroded in the future. The Federal government should under no circumstances infringe upon the rights of the people, even when "the ends" were supposedly a greater social good.
    Ok, first off I support the arguement for legalized steroids, prohormones, etc. but some of these statements are non-sense. To be in a democracy (which you learn in any basic government high school class) means the very thing you're talking down: Everyone agrees to give up some rights in order to live under the protection of the United States government,which is ruled by a majority rule. In this case you do have individual freedoms, but only those allowed by the U.S. So, really they're not infringing upon your rights because they were never really yours in the first place. By living here you give up some of those individual rights.

    Secondly, if the government didn't infringe upon the rights of many people in our country this would be a horrible, and I mean HORRIBLE place to live. If everyone in this country got their way whenever they wanted; their rights never taken away, there would be utter chaos, confusion, etc.

    Basically, I'd stick with the arguement on steroids alone, and not all the other rights people would like to have. That's too bold of a statement, as many rights people want shouldn't be had period.

  12. Quote Originally Posted by The Experiment
    As for alcohol and tobacco, just because they are legal doesn't mean they are safe. The government makes a killing collecting taxes for these substances. They also force the companies to make advertisements to make sure they make responsible decisions. How many of these supplement companies today can put round the clock advertisements advising the safety usages of steroids? None
    You're right on the advertisement issue. Supplement companies can be their own worst enemy, many will make outrageous BS claims and bicker with each to the point where personal insults are thrown at each other.

  13. Yeah, I strongly disagreed with TINYTOAD's post. Justifying one bad thing for another is wrong. Alcohol also is pretty much a tool used for people to express themselves. Then if they **** up royally, they can say, "I was drunk." Think of all the times girls woke up to some ugly dude (or guy with an ugly chick) where they can get a free pass with the drunk excuse. Happens all the time. The only thing I see wrong with alcohol is drunk driving accidents.

    As the saying goes, two wrongs do not make a right. Lets face it, most of the public (not just Americans) are impulsive and probably can't even handle a light cycle, let alone any cycle. Thats why they were banned. It was seeping too much into areas where it shouldn't have belonged.

    Supplement companies are their own worst enemy. They make outrageous claims and then their CEOs whine about how they're being treated unfairly. Well, its a no brainer that the government will have raised eyebrows about a claim how X Corp's new supplement is 1000% more anabolic than steroids. The DSHEA gave a lot of leeway and is being heavily abused. While I think the outlandish claims deserve to be attacked, these measures are screwing the small percentage of companies that are legitimate, trying to make good products without the bull****.

    The anti-supplement wars are here to stay and will be for a while. Its best to support the USFA and like causes and keep doing what we're doing. Although I think it will be hilarious to stockpile kilos of CEE.
  14. Lightbulb


    Also, when supplement companies advertise a product and state, "ITS 5000% ANABOLIC THAN STEROIDS" on the bottle and a mother reads it, what is she going to think:

    1) Oh wow, I hope Billy is using proper PCT
    2) Gee, I'll just forget I read that advertisement and hope everything is ok
    3) I better spend tens of hours of research finding out if it is an appropriate product
    4) Holy ****, my son is taking steroids
    Now THAT is funny. LOL

    When talking to my Senator (Grassley R-IA), he stated that for the PH ban, letters came pouring in demanding he ban them and when he was one of the people that co-signed the bill, he received lots of "Thank you" letters from people for banning the substances. So as much as we'd all like to think the big bad Pfizer was responsible, the responsibility comes from the people.
    So where is the supplement lobby? Why is it that every idiot group that wants to ban something or take something away can get organized easily yet those who want something good to stay legal are absent when it counts? If the industry doesn't band together soon and get over their petty rivalries, we'll all lose out. The PH bill was just the beginning.

    To be in a democracy (which you learn in any basic government high school class) means the very thing you're talking down: Everyone agrees to give up some rights in order to live under the protection of the United States government,which is ruled by a majority rule. In this case you do have individual freedoms, but only those allowed by the U.S. So, really they're not infringing upon your rights because they were never really yours in the first place. By living here you give up some of those individual rights.
    That's the silliest thing I've ever heard. Where in the Constitution does it say that? Was that something you heard on Fox News or something? No one should have to give up personal freedom if it does not infringe upon the freedoms of others. As long as you don't hurt anyone or destroy any property, what business is it of the government what you do in your free time? And what purpose would such laws serve? Who would they protect?

    Secondly, if the government didn't infringe upon the rights of many people in our country this would be a horrible, and I mean HORRIBLE place to live. If everyone in this country got their way whenever they wanted; their rights never taken away, there would be utter chaos, confusion, etc
    Uh, we have laws to protect people from other people. We should have laws to protect us from those that would intend to do us harm, including greedy food and/or supplement companies. However, the burden of evidence was legally not even enough to ban ephedra, let alone androstenediol. Regulation is key, not deprivation.

    As the saying goes, two wrongs do not make a right. Lets face it, most of the public (not just Americans) are impulsive and probably can't even handle a light cycle, let alone any cycle. Thats why they were banned. It was seeping too much into areas where it shouldn't have belonged.
    Sounds like a regulation issue, not a deprivation issue. Alcohol and cigarettes seep too much into areas they don't belong. Did a ban on alcohol work? Do I see the FDA banning cigarettes when there is absolutely no upside to them and millions die from conditions related to their use? So it's ok for people to kill themselves with cigarettes and alcohol, but if they die from being too stupid to properly use prohormones that's somehow worse? Or the fault of the companies involved? I didn't see "Joe Andro" on a bottle of 4-AD. The problem is that we are moving toward a society in which the weak are extolled over the strong. This is great for a consumer-driven capitalist economy, but where will we be when a major war occurs? S.O.L., and you know what that means.

    Supplement companies are their own worst enemy. They make outrageous claims and then their CEOs whine about how they're being treated unfairly. Well, its a no brainer that the government will have raised eyebrows about a claim how X Corp's new supplement is 1000% more anabolic than steroids.
    So you think I should return that Muscle Tech?

    Seriously, regulation, not deprivation. Say it over and over in your head until it sticks. Regulation, not deprivation. False advertising is false advertising. If Pfizer can't have guys looking too happy that they are on Viagra in their commercials, then supplement companies should not be allowed to make outlandish claims without actual, credible scientific evidence. For example, "Tribulus-Z will make you bigger than Ronnie Coleman in just 3 weeks!" Regulation, not deprivation.

  15. Quote Originally Posted by UnicronSpawn
    ..... I mean look at the address Arnold gave to the antendees of the Arnold classic. He was supposed to be our voice. But he has to conform to a degree to the popular (though less then enlightened) point of view the country has on AAS. Sure he's trying to keep other supplements legal, but I believe that is partly because there is less negative stigma around non -steroidal compounds, and subsequently would not shed an unfavorable light on him to support them...
    Arnold will never be the voice for "us" he is now trying to get elected and if that means throwing us to the proverbal wolves, then so be it in his mind...

  16. Quote Originally Posted by The Experiment
    Yeah, I strongly disagreed with TINYTOAD's post. Justifying one bad thing for another is wrong. Alcohol also is pretty much a tool used for people to express themselves...The only thing I see wrong with alcohol is drunk driving accidents.
    I guess you have never had to live with an alcoholic? Because if you had you would not even the above statements. I really can't find any redeeming qualities about alcohol. Many of the studies that came out with some small benefit to the use of alcohol have been proven to be inncorrect http://alcoholism.about.com/library/bluc-junerussel.htm
    So to me it is not a tool, not even close

  17. Quote Originally Posted by builtolast
    Ok, first off I support the arguement for legalized steroids, prohormones, etc. but some of these statements are non-sense. To be in a democracy (which you learn in any basic government high school class) means the very thing you're talking down: Everyone agrees to give up some rights in order to live under the protection of the United States government,which is ruled by a majority rule.
    Majority rule, yes. But read on.

    Quote Originally Posted by builtolast
    In this case you do have individual freedoms, but only those allowed by the U.S. So, really they're not infringing upon your rights because they were never really yours in the first place. By living here you give up some of those individual rights.
    Only those allowed by the U.S.? Never our rights in the first place? You gotta be kidding me. The constitution guarantees us the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as long as we don't infringe upon someone else's right to the same things. The government is in place to insure that the constitution is upheld and protected, not to "allow" me certain rights. The constitution already does that, which is why the regulation of steroids and several other things appears to be unconstitutional to me. But the gov. justifies it by creating the FDA and telling the public that they are protecting us. We don't need the gov to be our parents.

    Quote Originally Posted by builtolast
    Secondly, if the government didn't infringe upon the rights of many people in our country this would be a horrible, and I mean HORRIBLE place to live. If everyone in this country got their way whenever they wanted; their rights never taken away, there would be utter chaos, confusion, etc.
    Basically, I'd stick with the arguement on steroids alone, and not all the other rights people would like to have. That's too bold of a statement, as many rights people want shouldn't be had period.
    That is just hysterical. I do understand that some things have to be controlled for the good of the population. Antibiotics, for instance, can cause disease causing organism to become resistant if they are overused (which they are anyway by our so knowledgeable doctors). This leaves us with a disease that might have had a treatment, but now we don't because the treatment was abused. If this scenario is what you are refering to when you say they have to infringe on our rights, then I apologize. But in your post, you sound just like one of them. "We'll allow the things we like and ban the things we don't care about". I'm sure you have good intentions but you have some very inaccurate ideas about how our forefathers meant for this country to be.

  18. "The mother principle [is] that 'governments are republican only in proportion as they embody the will of their people, and execute it.'" --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:33

    ------------------

    "A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate." --Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774. ME 1:209, Papers 1:134

    ------------------

    All human situations have their inconveniences. We feel those of the present but neither see nor feel those of the future; and hence we often make troublesome changes without amendment, and frequently for the worse.
    Benjamin Franklin ----------------------

    Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.
    -Benjamin Franklin

    ------------------------------------------

    Benjamin Franklin, before the Constitutional Convention, (June 2, 1787):
    "... as all history informs us, there has been in every State & Kingdom a constant kind of warfare between the governing & governed: the one striving to obtain more for its support, and the other to pay less. And this has alone occasioned great convulsions, actual civil wars, ending either in dethroning of the Princes, or enslaving of the people. Generally indeed the ruling power carries its point, the revenues of princes constantly increasing, and we see that they are never satisfied, but always in want of more. The more the people are discontented with the oppression of taxes; the greater need the prince has of money to distribute among his partisans and pay the troops that are to suppress all resistance, and enable him to plunder at pleasure. There is scarce a king in a hundred who would not, if he could, follow the example of Pharaoh, get first all the peoples money, then all their lands, and then make them and their children servants for ever ..."
    -Benjamin Franklin

    -----------------------------------

    All men having power ought to be mistrusted.
    James Madison

    ----------------------

    If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
    James Madison

    ----------------------------

    It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad.
    James Madison

    -----------------------------

    The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse.
    James Madison

    ---------------------------

    The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted.
    James Madison

    -------------------------------

    "In no instance have . . . the churches been guardians of the liberties of the people."
    -James Madison

    --------------------
    No power on earth has a right to take our property from us without our consent.
    John Jay
    --------------------------------

    INFOHAZARD




    Quote Originally Posted by builtolast
    Ok, first off I support the arguement for legalized steroids, prohormones, etc. but some of these statements are non-sense. To be in a democracy (which you learn in any basic government high school class) means the very thing you're talking down: Everyone agrees to give up some rights in order to live under the protection of the United States government,which is ruled by a majority rule. In this case you do have individual freedoms, but only those allowed by the U.S. So, really they're not infringing upon your rights because they were never really yours in the first place. By living here you give up some of those individual rights.

    Secondly, if the government didn't infringe upon the rights of many people in our country this would be a horrible, and I mean HORRIBLE place to live. If everyone in this country got their way whenever they wanted; their rights never taken away, there would be utter chaos, confusion, etc.

    Basically, I'd stick with the arguement on steroids alone, and not all the other rights people would like to have. That's too bold of a statement, as many rights people want shouldn't be had period.

  19. Quote Originally Posted by Matthew D
    I guess you have never had to live with an alcoholic? Because if you had you would not even the above statements. I really can't find any redeeming qualities about alcohol. Many of the studies that came out with some small benefit to the use of alcohol have been proven to be inncorrect http://alcoholism.about.com/library/bluc-junerussel.htm
    So to me it is not a tool, not even close
    Actually, I did have to live with an alcoholic.

    So where is the supplement lobby?
    There is no supplement lobby because there's no unified front. There are lots of companies abusing the leniency that DSHEA provides. There was no corporate responsibility as well. GNC and other retailers (online and offline) did not put age restrictions on their products. They could have taken the initiative but they didn't. They'd rather make a few quick bucks and now its banned. The only reason why PHs were discovered was because a lot of teenagers were using them, the same market that angered the people over steroids.

    The same thing will happen to the post PH products: Superdrol, Ergomax, MAX LMG, etc. Next control act could be a lot more restrictive. But a buck is a buck to most companies and would rather make $10 million in profit quickly selling to whomever than make $50 million over 10 years by restricting the age. I predict these post PH supplements will be banned in 2-3 years. They're just waiting for the right ESPN story to break through to push the new restrictions.

  20. Quote Originally Posted by punta
    I personally dont think it will be added, does congress even know what DHEA does?
    They know it has to do with a healthy lifestyle. That makes them angry

  21. perspective. these things will not be changed in a day, or a week, or a year. we will have to get there incrementally.
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. The Reference Point Threads - what they are for
    By Strateg0s in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 11-27-2005, 04:43 PM
  2. Replies: 14
    Last Post: 01-31-2005, 06:30 PM
  3. New hormone soon?
    By SJA in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 10-08-2004, 08:03 PM
  4. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 04-13-2004, 11:02 PM
  5. Germany can kiss that ass they are so aptly displaying...
    By windwords7 in forum General Chat
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 03-06-2003, 11:15 PM
Log in
Log in