 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
History Forum / General / British History / November 2007NYU Students Would Trade Right To Vote For An iPod
Most at NYU say their vote has a price By: Lily Quateman - Washington Square News Nov 14, 2007 Two-thirds say they'll do it for a year's tuition. And for a few, even an iPod touch will do. That's what NYU students said they'd take in exchange for their right to vote in the next presidential election, a recent survey by an NYU journalism class found. Only 20 percent said they'd exchange their vote for an iPod touch. But 66 percent said they'd forfeit their vote for a free ride to NYU. And half said they'd give up the right to vote forever for $1 million. But they also overwhelmingly lauded the importance of voting. Ninety percent of the students who said they'd give up their vote for the money also said they consider voting "very important" or "somewhat important"; only 10 percent said it was "not important." Also, 70.5 percent said they believe that one vote can make a difference — including 70 percent of the students who said they'd give up their vote for free tuition. The class — "Foundations of Journalism," taught by journalism department chairwoman Brooke Kroeger — polled more than 3,000 undergraduates between Oct. 24 and 26 to assess student attitudes toward voting. "The part that I find amazing is that so many folks think one vote can make a difference," Sociology Department Chairman Dalton Conley said. He added, "If we take them at their word, then perhaps they really think votes matter, and that's why someone might pay a year's tuition to buy theirs." Sixty percent of the students who said they'd give up their vote for tuition also described their families' income as upper-middle or high. Their reasons for giving up their votes varied. "At the moment, no candidate who truly represents my political beliefs has a chance of winning a presidential election," one male junior studying film and television at the Tisch School of the Arts wrote on the survey. "It is very easy to convince myself that my vote is not essential," wrote a female CAS sophomore. "After all, I'm from New York, which will always be a blue state." Other students wrote that they were disgusted by the thought. "I would be reversing history — a lot of people fought so that every citizen could be enfranchised," said a female in her second year at the Stern School of Business. One CAS junior went even further, writing that "anyone who'd sell his lifelong right to vote should be deported." Lily Quateman reports for New York University's Washington Square News. Washington Square News is partnering with Campus Politico for the 2008 elections. > Most at NYU say their vote has a price > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > to vote in the next presidential election, a recent survey by an NYU > journalism class found. those type of surveys are stupid and the students give them stupid answers. when the results come out they all have a good laugh. > > Most at NYU say their vote has a price > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > those type of surveys are stupid and the students give them stupid answers. > when the results come out they all have a good laugh. This is probably true Ray though I think we cannot avoid the fact that people are becoming disillusioned with politicans and politics. take for example the Northern Ireland assembly, I have never seen as many U- turns in the last 6 months. On water rates, the DUPs Iris Robinson on the Health budget and Sinn Feins Caitriona Ruane on the pay and conditions of teachers assistants. > > > That's what NYU students said they'd take in exchange for their > > right [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > the Health budget and Sinn Feins Caitriona Ruane on the pay and > conditions of teachers assistants. in the U.S. they like to take these absurd surveys all the time. they ask college students history and geography questions. the students being like kids everywhere see these questions as insulting and give absurd answers. the survey takers then use the "data" to show how out of touch and undereducated students are and hwadlines will scream "survey finds students don't know blah blah woof woof". its all a big joke > in the U.S. they like to take these absurd surveys all the time. > they ask college students history and geography questions. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > don't know blah blah woof woof". > its all a big joke So how come they elected a President that fits the joke?  SignatureJohn Cartmell john@finnybank.com 0845 006 8822 or 0161 969 9820 Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.qercus.com Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing > > in the U.S. they like to take these absurd surveys all the time. > > they ask college students history and geography questions. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > So how come they elected a President that fits the joke? he wasn't elected by college students thats why. but then you are a limey. how come you guys elected tony blair, it was blair who gave the chimp the bad yellowcake story. > > > in the U.S. they like to take these absurd surveys all the time. they > > > ask college students history and geography questions. the students [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > > > So how come they elected a President that fits the joke? > he wasn't elected by college students thats why. but then you are a limey. > how come you guys elected tony blair, it was blair who gave the chimp the > bad yellowcake story. If you ever manage to find a President capable of fielding open questions from members of the UK Press and UK MPs then get back to us. Until such time bog off. SignatureJohn Cartmell john@finnybank.com 0845 006 8822 or 0161 969 9820 Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.qercus.com Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing >> > > in the U.S. they like to take these absurd surveys all the time. they >> > > ask college students history and geography questions. the students [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > bog > off. Yeah - I can just imagine that can't you? G W Bush standing up and answering pointed questions - live on air, every week, in front of millions of people and with no 'one line only' prompt cards. ROFL Yeah right - Dream on Yanks. >>> > > in the U.S. they like to take these absurd surveys all the time. >>> > > they [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > ROFL > Yeah right - Dream on Yanks. I take it you didn't vote for Bush. In soc.history.medieval John Cartmell <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> > > in the U.S. they like to take these absurd surveys all the time. they >> > > ask college students history and geography questions. the students [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> > >> > So how come they elected a President that fits the joke? >> he wasn't elected by college students thats why. but then you are a limey. >> how come you guys elected tony blair, it was blair who gave the chimp the >> bad yellowcake story. >If you ever manage to find a President capable of fielding open questions from >members of the UK Press and UK MPs then get back to us. Until such time bog >off. We've had them. Clinton was quite good at it. Signature--- Paul J. Gans > >If you ever manage to find a President capable of fielding open questions > >from members of the UK Press and UK MPs then get back to us. > We've had them. Clinton was quite good at it. Accepted. My pessimism is for the future. SignatureJohn Cartmell john@finnybank.com 0845 006 8822 or 0161 969 9820 Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.qercus.com Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing > In soc.history.medieval John Cartmell <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > We've had them. Clinton was quite good at it. Sorry! Do you think you might attempt to re-post that in reasonable English? >> in the U.S. they like to take these absurd surveys all the time. >> they ask college students history and geography questions. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > So how come they elected a President that fits the joke? To be fair to them they didn't. Under the American system the people have no constitutional role whatsoever in the selection of a president, that is the function of a tiny elite (less than 0.00018% of the population) called the Electoral College. Apart from Colorado in 1876 state legislatures grant ordinary citizens the privilege of choosing members of the Electoral College known as Electors. That is the extent of popular participation in the selection process. The Electors may with very few restrictions (age, place of birth etc.) appoint anyone they please to the office of president. For example In the last US election the Electors could have chosen Hillary Clinton or Billy Carter or Barbra Striesand or the doorman at the New York Hilton and the people of America would have no legal means to prevent that person becoming president. The Founding Fathers of America were a very cynical bunch. They spoke of government by the people while making damned sure that the great unwashed had no say in who ruled them. Mens sana. > >> in the U.S. they like to take these absurd surveys all the time. > >> they ask college students history and geography questions. [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Mens sana. the FFs actually thought they made congress in charge. >> >> in the U.S. they like to take these absurd surveys all the time. >> >> they ask college students history and geography questions. [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > the FFs actually thought they made congress in charge. The congress they set up consisted of the house of representatives (elected) and the senate (unelected). It was meant to be the equal of the executive (unelected) and the judiciary (unelected). The idea being that these institutions would maintain a system of checks and balances on each other to prevent concentration of power. Two things are clear: (1) 5/6 of the government was to be in the hands of unelected men (and they did mean men). Only 1/6 of the power was to be in the hands of elected representatives. So they clearly had no desire to institute a democracy. (2) The 'checks and balances' experiment was an abject failure. As we have seen these past few years the president has absolute power. Any American may be seized, thrown in prison and held there indefinitely without charge or trial. They can even be tortured and killed on the whim of the president who merely has to declare them an enemy combatant to strip them of all 'rights' listed in their constitution. It's not a coincidence that the US constitution has never been copied. Mens sana. > "Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmucci@rcn.com> wrote in message > > the FFs actually thought they made congress in charge. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > institutions would maintain a system of checks and balances on each other to > prevent concentration of power. congress was created in the 1st article of the constitution. it was given the power to make all the laws, make all the taxes and make war > Two things are clear: > > (1) 5/6 of the government was to be in the hands of unelected men (and > they did mean men). Only 1/6 of the power was to be in the hands of elected > representatives. So they clearly had no desire to institute a democracy. all the "appointees" were appointed by elected representitives. governors appointed the senators and governors are elected. > (2) The 'checks and balances' experiment was an abject failure. As we have > seen these past few years the president has absolute power. Any American may > be seized, thrown in prison and held there indefinitely without charge or > trial. They can even be tortured and killed on the whim of the president who > merely has to declare them an enemy combatant to strip them of all 'rights' > listed in their constitution. only since bush had a tame congress of his party. now the congess is regrowing some balls, slowly but surely, scalia and thomas are disgraces to the court, how the new guys will pan out is yet to be determined. >> "Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmucci@rcn.com> wrote in message >> > the FFs actually thought they made congress in charge. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > it was given the power to make all the laws, make all the taxes and make > war ------------------------------------------------------------------------ But the president has a power of veto or he use a 'signing statement' laying how he will interpret a law to effectively nullify or pervert it. MS. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Two things are clear: >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > all the "appointees" were appointed by elected representitives. > governors appointed the senators and governors are elected. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The unelected president and the unelected senate (as originally set up) appointed between them the cabinet and the senior judiciary. The great bulk of the power over the lives of ordinary citizens was vested in unelected officials. Having an elected house of representatives was little more than a cynical nod in the direction of no taxation without representation. MS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> (2) The 'checks and balances' experiment was an abject failure. As we > have [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > out > is yet to be determined. The precedent is now established. If congress were to mount a serious challenge to Bush he could have the troublesome members 'rendered' to some place where they could be tortured or killed at his whim. Mens sana. > >> "Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmucci@rcn.com> wrote in message > >> > the FFs actually thought they made congress in charge. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > MS. there is nothing in the constitution that allows signing statements. bush had a tame congress that allowed him to get away with it. when congress allowed harry truman to commit troops to korea without a declaration of war they laid the seeds to tadays failed adventure in iraq. the president being CinC of the army was meant for him to actually command the militia in the field and not that the army was his personal tool. congress has the power but they have consistanly allowed various presidents to usurp more power. In soc.history.medieval Mens sana <Spambush@area51.cia> wrote: >>> in the U.S. they like to take these absurd surveys all the time. >>> they ask college students history and geography questions. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> >> So how come they elected a President that fits the joke? >To be fair to them they didn't. >Under the American system the people have no constitutional role whatsoever >in the selection of a president, that is the function of a tiny elite (less >than 0.00018% of the population) called the Electoral College. >Apart from Colorado in 1876 state legislatures grant ordinary citizens the >privilege of choosing members of the Electoral College known as Electors. >That is the extent of popular participation in the selection process. >The Electors may with very few restrictions (age, place of birth etc.) >appoint anyone they please to the office of president. For example In the >last US election the Electors could have chosen Hillary Clinton or Billy >Carter or Barbra Striesand or the doorman at the New York Hilton and the >people of America would have no legal means to prevent that person becoming >president. >The Founding Fathers of America were a very cynical bunch. They spoke of >government by the people while making damned sure that the great unwashed >had no say in who ruled them. All true. However many, if not most states have *state laws* requiring their electors to vote for the winner of the popular vote on the first ballot of the electoral college. Of course the only way there is a second ballot is if nobody wins on the first one -- which has happened. Signature--- Paul J. Gans > However many, if not most states have *state laws* > requiring their electors to vote for the winner of the popular > vote on the first ballot of the electoral college. > > Of course the only way there is a second ballot is if nobody > wins on the first one -- which has happened. --------------Cordon Sanitaire------------------------------- Pogue Gans, the professor of chemistry at New York University [NYU], has done it again!... Posted Bum Dope... Brain Dead... The Electoral College NEVER meets as a single body and takes MULTIPLE votes. THE Electors vote in EACH STATE. Pogue Gans has CONFUSED and CONFLATED the Electoral College with the House of Representatives. The President and Vice President of the United States are elected by the STATES -- NOT the People. If no candidate receives a Majority of the Electoral Votes of ALL the States the Election is then thrown to the new House of Representatives. THEY may, in unusual circumstances, be required to take a second ballot. "If no candidate for President receives an absolute electoral majority 270 votes out of the 538 possible, then the new House of Representatives is required to go into session immediately to vote for President." "In this case, the House of Representatives chooses from the three candidates who received the most electoral votes. Each state delegation has a single vote, decided by majority decision (an evenly divided state delegation is considered to abstain)." "A candidate receiving the majority of votes of all states (currently 26) is declared the _president-elect_. If no candidate receives a majority, the House proceeds to a second ballot and continues balloting until a candidate receives a majority of the state unit votes." <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College> Pogue Gans receives a Failing Grade in Civics 101 and is required to: 1. Retake the course 2. Report grade 3. Await further instructions. Dividend: "It is also theoretically possible to win the election by winning all of eleven states and disregarding the rest of the country." "If one ticket were to take California (55 votes), Texas (34), New York (31), Florida (27) Illinois (21), Pennsylvania (21), Ohio (20), Michigan (17), Georgia (15), New Jersey (15), and North Carolina (15), that ticket would have 271 votes, which would be enough to win." "(In theory, if a minimum number of voters were to vote in those eleven states, the other major ticket could have a landslide victory in the popular vote and still lose the election.)" "But such exercises are just that - exercises. There is no election in American history in which such an event has occurred or come close to occurring. In the close elections of 2000 and 2004, these eleven states gave 111 votes to Republican candidate George W. Bush and 160 votes to Democratic candidates Al Gore and John Kerry." DSH Lux et Veritas Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum > In soc.history.medieval Mens sana <Spambush@area51.cia> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > requiring their electors to vote for the winner of the popular > vote on the first ballot of the electoral college. Such laws have never been tested but obiter dicta in a number of US supreme court cases seem to indicate that they would be found unconstitutional. The Electors perform a federal function that derives from the constitution and does not pre-date it. The states have no authority over the discharge of federal functions so they cannot control how an Elector votes. Indeed if they would not be Electors but messengers if they merely followed instructions from the state. Mens sana. >> In soc.history.medieval Mens sana <Spambush@area51.cia> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > supreme court cases seem to indicate that they would be found > unconstitutional. No - there is nothing unconstitutional about States instructing the electors how to vote. What might be unconstitutional would be laws punishing electors for disregarding those instructions. > The Electors perform a federal function that derives from the > constitution and does not pre-date it. The states have no authority > over the discharge of federal functions so they cannot control how an > Elector votes. Indeed if they would not be Electors but messengers if > they merely followed instructions from the state. It's not as simple as that (and the whole Constitution is a mess, anyway). The States can make arrangements for how the electors will cast their votes. They can require undertakings from the electors that they will follow those arrangements. SignatureJohn Briggs >>> In soc.history.medieval Mens sana <Spambush@area51.cia> wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > electors how to vote. What might be unconstitutional would be laws > punishing electors for disregarding those instructions. ----------------------------------------------------- If there's no punishment for transgression it's not a law it's a suggestion. MS. ----------------------------------------------------- >> The Electors perform a federal function that derives from the >> constitution and does not pre-date it. The states have no authority [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > votes. They can require undertakings from the electors that they will > follow those arrangements. Undoubtedly the US constitution is a mess, as I said elsewhere in this thread it's no coincidence that it has never been copied but I would be interested to see what evidence you would adduce in support of your other 2 claims. Mens sana. >>>> In soc.history.medieval Mens sana <Spambush@area51.cia> wrote: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > If there's no punishment for transgression it's not a law it's a > suggestion. It's not that there are no laws punishing such transgression, it's that the Supreme Court hasn't ruled on whether they are constitutional. SignatureJohn Briggs Scríobh "John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com>: >>> No - there is nothing unconstitutional about States instructing the >>> electors how to vote. What might be unconstitutional would be laws [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >It's not that there are no laws punishing such transgression, it's that the >Supreme Court hasn't ruled on whether they are constitutional. If your Supreme Court works like ours, then any law carries a presumption of constitutionality until found otherwise. Signature'Donegal: Up Here It's Different' © Féachadóir > Scríobh "John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com>: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > If your Supreme Court works like ours, then any law carries a > presumption of constitutionality until found otherwise. It's not my Supreme Court :-) My Supreme Court seems more concerned with mundane matters (I am staring at a form headed "Cash Lodgement into the Supreme Court".) SignatureJohn Briggs >> > > That's what NYU students said they'd take in exchange for their >> > right [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > don't know blah blah woof woof". > its all a big joke I agree. Plus it depends on what is meant by 'losing you right vote'? If as a reasonably skint 18 year old someone said to me don't vote in this general election then I'll give you a £160 worth of new Ipod then I imagine I'd consider it. After all in the real world what difference would me not voting in that one instance make anyway? On the other hand if they said take this Ipod and you can never vote again then that would be different. Allan >> its all a big joke > don't vote in this general election then I'll give you a £160 worth of new > Ipod then I imagine I'd consider it. Here in Oz, where we are currently in the death throes of an election campaign, the comedy team "The Chasers War on Everything" ( the ones who recently brought you 'Osama Bin Laden' breaching Bush's multi-million dollar security screen in Sydney) tried out just such a scenario. They approached 'ordinary people' in the street incognito (inasmuch as there is any such thing as an 'ordinary person' in Australia) and blatently offered them 200 bucks in cash on the spot if they would agree to vote for the (opposition) Labour Party. Almost all of them took the cash on a promise to vote for the local Labour candidate. Incidentaly, in another skit, they asked 'ordinary Americans' (a Red List endangered species apparently) to name the date that the 9/11 attacks took place. The most popular answer was "sometime in November?" Interestingly some of them were also of the opinion that "millions died". > Incidentaly, in another skit, they asked 'ordinary Americans' (a Red List > endangered species apparently) to name the date that the 9/11 attacks took > place. The most popular answer was "sometime in November?" > Interestingly some of them were also of the opinion that "millions died". See? And you always said we were stooopid.... >> Most at NYU say their vote has a price >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > answers. > when the results come out they all have a good laugh. Taking the ipod would be the most intelligent course of action. Since they don't actually have a right to vote in the presidential election they would be getting something for nothing. Sweet. MS. > >> Most at NYU say their vote has a price > >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Sweet. very few college students are under 18, 18 is the age you can vote. >> >> Most at NYU say their vote has a price >> >> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > very few college students are under 18, > 18 is the age you can vote. The key word here is 'right'. US citizens do not have the right to vote in presidential elections. When they are allowed to participate in the process it is a privilege granted by their state legislatures. Even when they are granted this privilege (and Colorado did not grant it in 1876) it only extends to voting for Electoral College candidates not presidential candidates. The clever students would take the ipod - it costs them nothing. Mens sana. Further... DSH ------------------------------------------------- "There are laws to punish faithless electors in 24 states." "While no faithless elector has ever been punished, the constitutionality of state pledge laws was brought before the Supreme Court in 1952 (Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214). The court ruled in favor of state laws requiring electors to pledge to vote for the winning candidate, as well as remove electors who refuse to pledge." "As stated in the ruling, electors are acting as a function of the state, not the federal government. Therefore, states have the right to govern electors." "The constitutionality of state laws punishing electors for actually casting a faithless vote, rather than refusing to pledge, has never been decided by the Supreme Court. In any event, a state may only punish a faithless elector after-the-fact; it has no power to change his or her vote." DSH Lux et Veritas et Libertas > However many, if not most states have *state laws* > requiring their electors to vote for the winner of the popular > vote on the first ballot of the electoral college. > > Of course the only way there is a second ballot is if nobody > wins on the first one -- which has happened. --------------Cordon Sanitaire------------------------------- Arrant, Errant, Rampant Twaddle... Pogue Gans, the professor of chemistry at New York University [NYU], has done it again!... Posted Bum Dope... Brain Dead... The Electoral College NEVER meets as a single body and therefore NEVER takes MULTIPLE votes. There ARE no SECOND ballots of the Electoral College -- nor is there a FIRST ballot of the Electoral College. THE Electors vote in EACH STATE. Pogue Gans has CONFUSED and CONFLATED the Electoral College with the House of Representatives -- and perhaps with the Party Nominating Conventions as well. The President and Vice President of the United States are elected by the STATES -- NOT the People. If no candidate receives a Majority of the Electoral Votes of ALL the States the Election is then thrown to the new House of Representatives. THEY may, in unusual circumstances, be required to take a second ballot. "If no candidate for President receives an absolute electoral majority 270 votes out of the 538 possible, then the new House of Representatives is required to go into session immediately to vote for President." "In this case, the House of Representatives chooses from the three candidates who received the most electoral votes. Each state delegation has a single vote, decided by majority decision (an evenly divided state delegation is considered to abstain)." "A candidate receiving the majority of votes of all states (currently 26) is declared the _president-elect_. If no candidate receives a majority, the House proceeds to a second ballot and continues balloting until a candidate receives a majority of the state unit votes." <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College> Pogue Gans receives a Failing Grade in Civics 101 and is required to: 1. Retake the course 2. Report grade 3. Await further instructions DSH Lux et Veritas et Libertas Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum > However many, if not most states have *state laws* > requiring their electors to vote for the winner of the popular > vote on the first ballot of the electoral college. > > Of course the only way there is a second ballot is if nobody > wins on the first one -- which has happened. --------------Cordon Sanitaire------------------------------- Arrant, Errant, Rampant Twaddle... Pogue Gans, the professor of chemistry at New York University [NYU], has done it again!... Posted Bum Dope... Brain Dead... The Electoral College NEVER meets as a single body and therefore NEVER takes MULTIPLE votes. There ARE no SECOND ballots of the Electoral College -- nor is there a FIRST ballot of the Electoral College. THE Electors vote in EACH STATE. Pogue Gans has CONFUSED and CONFLATED the Electoral College with the House of Representatives -- and perhaps with the Party Nominating Conventions as well. The President and Vice President of the United States are elected by the STATES -- NOT the People. If no candidate receives a Majority of the Electoral Votes of ALL the States the Election is then thrown to the new House of Representatives. THEY may, in unusual circumstances, be required to take a second ballot. "If no candidate for President receives an absolute electoral majority 270 votes out of the 538 possible, then the new House of Representatives is required to go into session immediately to vote for President." "In this case, the House of Representatives chooses from the three candidates who received the most electoral votes. Each state delegation has a single vote, decided by majority decision (an evenly divided state delegation is considered to abstain)." "A candidate receiving the majority of votes of all states (currently 26) is declared the _president-elect_. If no candidate receives a majority, the House proceeds to a second ballot and continues balloting until a candidate receives a majority of the state unit votes." <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College> Pogue Gans receives a Failing Grade in Civics 101 and is required to: 1. Retake the course 2. Report grade 3. Await further instructions DSH Lux et Veritas et Libertas Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.