View Poll Results: who do you support for Ca Governor

Voters
18. You may not vote on this poll
  • Jerry Brown

    2 11.11%
  • Meg Whitman

    3 16.67%
  • Chelene Nightingale

    9 50.00%
  • Other

    3 16.67%
  • I will help pro gun candidates with time

    3 16.67%
  • I will help pro gun candidates with money

    3 16.67%
  • I will attend events

    2 11.11%
  • I have skills to help campaigns

    0 0%
  • I have media access.

    0 0%
  • I won't get involved.

    2 11.11%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: California Governors race.

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Fresno, California, USA
    Posts
    40

    California Governors race.

    The California governor's race is a dead heat which means that gun rights activists can swing the vote.

    From a gun rights point of view, I would take Jerry Brown even though I have issues with him.
    Meg Whitman would be a disaster for us.

    Sure we have incorporation, but with her as governor, we are going to have to fight for everything.

    Personally I prefer Chelene Nightingale, the American Independent candidate.

    Chelene Nightingale probably won't win, but what she will do is draw votes away from Whitman because Whitman is wrong on many issues that Conservatives do care about.

    Those issues are borders, language, culture, abortion and gun rights.

    I have attended a few open carry events and they were well attended here in the San Francisco Bay Area.
    Chelene definitely supports right to carry, both openly and concealed.

    The first time I met her she was UOC herself.

    Since the RCC event in Campbell was cancelled today, I just wanted to float a quick post and poll.

    Nicki

  2. #2
    Regular Member demnogis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Orange County, California, USA
    Posts
    912

    Cool

    I've met Dale Ogden and Chelene Nightingale in person.

    Both are strong Constitutional supporters.
    Both believe in liberty over government control.

    Both would get my vote...

    But only Chelene will. She's the most determined to put this state in the right direction... No Public unions, no non-essential spending, cutback on entitlements, cut back redundant public sector jobs... Up against some strong opposition, but I'm voting with my conscience. We all need to. Otherwise we end up the "Lesser of two evils".
    Gun control isn't about guns -- it is about control.

  3. #3
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Sons of Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Riverside, California, USA
    Posts
    638
    I'm not sure who I will vote for...but I am sure I will not vote for Meg Witman nor Jerry Brown. Both belong to parties that are responsible for the mess California is in!

  4. #4
    Regular Member PincheOgro1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Perris, Ca., California, USA
    Posts
    420

    Ditto

    Quote Originally Posted by Sons of Liberty View Post
    I'm not sure who I will vote for...but I am sure I will not vote for Meg Witman nor Jerry Brown. Both belong to parties that are responsible for the mess California is in!
    I voted for Poizner in the primary. Unfortunately he lost. I will not vote for Whitman or Brown. I am thinking I will vote for Nightingale. I have never voted for anyone NOT republican ever since I started voting. This will be a first.

    Maybe we can "ROCK THE BOAT" this election.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Sacramento, California, USA
    Posts
    328
    Quote Originally Posted by demnogis View Post
    but I'm voting with my conscience. We all need to. Otherwise we end up the "Lesser of two evils".
    When you add Chelene, it ends up being the lesser of three evils.

  6. #6
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586
    Quote Originally Posted by demnogis View Post
    I've met Dale Ogden and Chelene Nightingale in person.

    Both are strong Constitutional supporters.
    Both believe in liberty over government control.

    ...
    You know, until now I was thinking I'd not vote for a governor at all this election cycle... a way of telling the Rs and Ds to get better candidates.

    However, after reading Nightingale's website and seeing where she stands on the big issues... I gotta say she'll probably get my vote.

    (I gotta fill out a ballot anyhow to vote YES on 19.)

    ETA: Already voted "other" in the above poll, and I can't find a way to change it... so add one more to Nightingale!
    Last edited by CA_Libertarian; 07-29-2010 at 07:27 AM.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  7. #7
    Regular Member wewd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    664
    In the past I would have voted for Dale Ogden, as I am and have always been a registered Libertarian, am generally in agreement with the platform of the Libertarian Party (less so these days than before), and have always refused to vote for Republicans or Democrats in statewide offices. Since the last major election I have become more principled and I will now abstain from voting altogether. Why, you ask? Because voting is an act of violence.

    Those of you who opposed candidate Obama are probably horrified by what has taken place since he was elected president, and wish that "your guy" (or "gal") had gotten in instead. He's raised your taxes, taken away more of your freedoms, grown the size and scope of government, and done innumerable other things that go against what you believe. All of these things are true. But the real truth is that those who voted for him have committed an act of violence against you. They wanted him to do all of those things (or most of them, anyway), and now you are suffering for it. That is what democracy, in any form, brings us. 51% of the people forcing their will on the other 49%. Or two wolves and one lamb voting on what to have for dinner.

    Now I believe that the only way for any of us to be free is to be free of the state itself. And because of that I cannot support or participate in any part of it, no matter how good my intentions are. I'm sure that all of those Obama supporters who voted for him had the best of intentions in their hearts. They really think that more taxes, more government, more "security" (code for less freedoms and an empowered police state), etc., are good things for all of us. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

    Dale Ogden and I probably see eye to eye on more things than we don't, but someone, somewhere, is going to suffer because of my vote for him. Especially if he manages to win. So I won't cast that vote. I want to live in a world with more peace, and less violence. Not taking part in a system of violence is a first step toward that goal. I can't in good conscience participate in a system that is based on violence and coercion, and that is ultimately what you get with any form of government. After all, government is really nothing more than a monopoly on the use of force.

    Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.
    -- George Washington
    The next step in not participating in the system of violence is to stop funding that system. I would love to vote Yes on Prop 19, not because I love pot, but because I don't think anyone should be thrown into a cage for smoking it. I want to cast that vote, but I won't, because I have never and will never vote for anything that raises or creates a tax. It saddens me to think that the people who advocated for cannabis legalization felt the only way they could legitimize their cause was to give it over to government regulation and revenue generation. That is really, really horrible. If compassion for your fellow human beings can't bring you to do the right thing, then all is truly lost.

    I'm going to stop paying taxes soon. Wish me luck.
    Do you want to enjoy liberty in your lifetime?

    Consider moving to New Hampshire as part of the Free State Project.

    "Live Free or Die"

  8. #8
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691
    I can't vote for Whitman. All I see from her is negative ads. A big turn off for me. She won't say what she is going to do for Calif.

    Voting for Nightingale would be like voting for Donald Duck. She can't possibly win.

    So, that leaves JB and prop 19.
    A citizen may not be required to offer a ―good and substantial reason-- why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs.

  9. #9
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748
    Quote Originally Posted by wewd View Post
    The next step in not participating in the system of violence is to stop funding that system. I would love to vote Yes on Prop 19, not because I love pot, but because I don't think anyone should be thrown into a cage for smoking it. I want to cast that vote, but I won't, because I have never and will never vote for anything that raises or creates a tax. It saddens me to think that the people who advocated for cannabis legalization felt the only way they could legitimize their cause was to give it over to government regulation and revenue generation. That is really, really horrible. If compassion for your fellow human beings can't bring you to do the right thing, then all is truly lost.

    I'm going to stop paying taxes soon. Wish me luck.
    I certainly respect the highly moral stance that contributing to a government that spends money on killing people. I know the idea from "Civil Disobedience" by Thoreau, a great essay for anybody who hasn't read it.

    However, Prop 19 doesn't mandate taxing of marijuana (I believe). I think it grants local governments the ability to tax the sale of marijuana, but people can still possess and grow and consume it without paying a tax or worrying about being fined or arrested. While I agree that more government equals more evil in the world, I see Prop 19 as a small disassembly of our state government and a sticking of the tongue out at the federal government.

    Either way wewd, you certainly will always have my support and respect.

  10. #10
    Regular Member PincheOgro1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Perris, Ca., California, USA
    Posts
    420
    Quote Originally Posted by Gundude View Post
    I can't vote for Whitman. All I see from her is negative ads. A big turn off for me. She won't say what she is going to do for Calif.

    Voting for Nightingale would be like voting for Donald Duck. She can't possibly win.

    So, that leaves JB and prop 19.
    A vote for JB will be the same as voting for MW. You'll get the same government. She has even said there's not that much difference between her and him. I will vote for neither. (This coming from a life long republican). I'm placing my bet on Nightingale.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Susanville, California, USA
    Posts
    529
    If Nightingale dont win, Im thinking of leaving this state to a free state !
    My vote is for Nightingale.

    Robin47

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Sacramento, California, USA
    Posts
    328
    Quote Originally Posted by Gundude View Post
    Voting for Nightingale would be like voting for Donald Duck. She can't possibly win.
    You're wrong. It would be like voting for Daffy Duck.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Sacramento, California, USA
    Posts
    328
    Quote Originally Posted by Robin47 View Post
    If Nightingale dont win, Im thinking of leaving this state to a free state !
    My vote is for Nightingale.

    Robin47
    Nightingale has never, repeat...never exhibited or practiced freedom for others. She speaks of it, but does not practice it. While she was in control of Save Our State she banished, silenced, or edited the writings of anyone who challenged or questioned her, directly or indirectly. She is still the same today, and I have never seen her any other way.
    This is why she holds tightly controlled events, and won't open herself to scrutiny.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691
    Quote Originally Posted by AyatollahGondola View Post
    You're wrong. It would be like voting for Daffy Duck.
    A citizen may not be required to offer a ―good and substantial reason-- why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs.

  15. #15
    Regular Member PincheOgro1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Perris, Ca., California, USA
    Posts
    420
    Quote Originally Posted by Gundude View Post
    Why don't you have scuba gear on ?

  16. #16
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660
    Quote Originally Posted by CA_Libertarian View Post
    You know, until now I was thinking I'd not vote for a governor at all this election cycle... a way of telling the Rs and Ds to get better candidates.

    However, after reading Nightingale's website and seeing where she stands on the big issues... I gotta say she'll probably get my vote.

    (I gotta fill out a ballot anyhow to vote YES on 19.)

    ETA: Already voted "other" in the above poll, and I can't find a way to change it... so add one more to Nightingale!
    Not voting won't send the message you want. It will send the message of not being engaged, it will not send the message of give me better candidates. I think, at this point in history, the absolute best way to get the D's and R's attention is to vote for a third party candidate. Higher third party candidate votes will alert the ears and raise the eyebrows of the establishment because it is a direct threat to their normal tyrannical plodding along. Not voting is not a threat at all, in fact it makes it easier for them to just continue along with the destruction of our liberties.

    Chelene won't win, but anything better than 2% will get their attention. I'm planning on voting for Chelene.

  17. #17
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660
    Quote Originally Posted by wewd View Post
    In the past I would have voted for Dale Ogden, as I am and have always been a registered Libertarian, am generally in agreement with the platform of the Libertarian Party (less so these days than before), and have always refused to vote for Republicans or Democrats in statewide offices. Since the last major election I have become more principled and I will now abstain from voting altogether. Why, you ask? Because voting is an act of violence.

    Those of you who opposed candidate Obama are probably horrified by what has taken place since he was elected president, and wish that "your guy" (or "gal") had gotten in instead. He's raised your taxes, taken away more of your freedoms, grown the size and scope of government, and done innumerable other things that go against what you believe. All of these things are true. But the real truth is that those who voted for him have committed an act of violence against you. They wanted him to do all of those things (or most of them, anyway), and now you are suffering for it. That is what democracy, in any form, brings us. 51% of the people forcing their will on the other 49%. Or two wolves and one lamb voting on what to have for dinner.

    Now I believe that the only way for any of us to be free is to be free of the state itself. And because of that I cannot support or participate in any part of it, no matter how good my intentions are. I'm sure that all of those Obama supporters who voted for him had the best of intentions in their hearts. They really think that more taxes, more government, more "security" (code for less freedoms and an empowered police state), etc., are good things for all of us. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

    Dale Ogden and I probably see eye to eye on more things than we don't, but someone, somewhere, is going to suffer because of my vote for him. Especially if he manages to win. So I won't cast that vote. I want to live in a world with more peace, and less violence. Not taking part in a system of violence is a first step toward that goal. I can't in good conscience participate in a system that is based on violence and coercion, and that is ultimately what you get with any form of government. After all, government is really nothing more than a monopoly on the use of force.



    The next step in not participating in the system of violence is to stop funding that system. I would love to vote Yes on Prop 19, not because I love pot, but because I don't think anyone should be thrown into a cage for smoking it. I want to cast that vote, but I won't, because I have never and will never vote for anything that raises or creates a tax. It saddens me to think that the people who advocated for cannabis legalization felt the only way they could legitimize their cause was to give it over to government regulation and revenue generation. That is really, really horrible. If compassion for your fellow human beings can't bring you to do the right thing, then all is truly lost.

    I'm going to stop paying taxes soon. Wish me luck.
    Yes, government is force. But voting is not. At least not in a constitutional representative republic...which is what we are supposed to be. Wewd, I understand your frustrations, but choosing to not vote is not the answer. In order to be represented your voice must be heard and voting is the key manner in which this is accomplished. Yes, you can call your reps (and should), but also one must vote.

    That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. -- Declaration of Independence

    Do not forget these great words. Without limited government, there is anarchy, and with the voids that anarchy creates the destruction of liberty is sure to ensue. During the first 100 or so years of this nation, much of the original intentions were well understood and left alone, even protected. And the nation prospered beyond belief. It's only been the last 100 years or so that the progressives have become more and more powerful and have slowly and continuously de-constructed the founding ideas and principles. Sure, it (our original form of government) wasn't perfect, but it was the best thing to come around in, well, virtually ever.

    If you vote in a manner that upholds the Constitution, then your vote is not an act of violence. Any vote that supports, defends, and promotes liberty is not a violent act. It may not help someone, but then again the idea of limited government is not help someone, but rather to allow them to help themselves. For example, voting down a social program is not a violent act. If you feel guilty about it, then freely donate to their cause from your own pocket, and not from the pockets of others. To vote for a social program is an act of violence, because it forces the taking from one to give to another.

    A truer, more loyal position to your statements would be to not vote in any of CA's referendums. That is democracy, that is force, and that is dangerous. The problem with CA is not only those in the legislature, but also the state constitution itself. While I have never read it in its entirety, the fact that its so long and drawn out is the problem. In a nutshell, there are many other states with much better state constitutions, and without much surprise those states in general have been able to protect individual freedoms and liberties.

    Regarding taxes I agree 100%, defunding the government and its social programs is one good way to stop the carnage.

    During the past couple of years, I have really awoken myself to the realities about our federal, state, and local forms of government. To this day as I continue to research more and learn more, it becomes more and more clear just how far we have gone astray. At this point all I, or anyone, can do is make the voice of liberty a little louder, continue to educate ourselves to the true form of government we were given, teach our children what should be, not what is, hold our elected representatives accountable, and persevere.
    Last edited by coolusername2007; 08-02-2010 at 04:49 PM.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Sacramento, California, USA
    Posts
    328
    Quote Originally Posted by coolusername2007 View Post
    Not voting won't send the message you want. It will send the message of not being engaged, it will not send the message of give me better candidates. I think, at this point in history, the absolute best way to get the D's and R's attention is to vote for a third party candidate. Higher third party candidate votes will alert the ears and raise the eyebrows of the establishment because it is a direct threat to their normal tyrannical plodding along. Not voting is not a threat at all, in fact it makes it easier for them to just continue along with the destruction of our liberties.

    Chelene won't win, but anything better than 2% will get their attention. I'm planning on voting for Chelene.
    This could send the wrong message too. Chelene is less of a freedom oriented candidate than you're willing to accept, and more of an extremist than you're willing to see at present. A vote for her may just convice them that you will not research a candidates history as much as you will believe what they are marketed as.
    How can voting Nightingale send a message that you want better candidates? She is a proven liar, has established a record of destruction as far as management goes, and cannot account for her own money, even since the bankruptcy. What's left? She SAYS what you want to hear. How does that differ from meg?
    from my perspective, a vote for Chelene might send the same message as a rebellious teen girl dating the absolute worst kid from school to get back at the parents. You know the one....He wrecks cars, steals, high school drop out, smokes weed all day, practices unsafe sex, no job, no future, careless, haphazard....
    That should show 'em...

  19. #19
    Regular Member wewd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    664
    I don't want to be represented. I don't want a voice or a franchise. I don't want protection. I don't want programs or services. I did not consent to be governed, therefore the state has not been granted just powers or authority to govern me. I don't want to support the constitution, because it does not support me. I am not bound to it, because I did not sign it nor did I swear any oath to it. The only people who are bound to it are the men who signed it 220 years ago, and they are all dead. I do not recognize they authority of anyone to bind me to a contract that I never signed, and certainly not one that was signed almost 200 years before I was born. The constitution has no authority, and it cannot jump up and start enforcing itself. The men who swear to uphold it are under no obligation to actually do so. They are free to simply ignore it if they wish. There will be no consequences for doing so. The state enforces their rules through violence and coercion, and so there are very real consequences for us if we violate those rules, but there are no enforcers of the constituion. We could start using force against them to enforce it ourselves, but I have no interest whatsoever in doing such a thing. I have moved away from any thoughts of using force except in extreme cases of self defense. My beliefs are derived from the non-aggression principle, and to initiate force against the state would violate that principle. I have taken the moral high ground, and I will not debase myself in their manner. I want peace and liberty, and the only way to achieve that is to free your mind from the statist paradigm.
    Do you want to enjoy liberty in your lifetime?

    Consider moving to New Hampshire as part of the Free State Project.

    "Live Free or Die"

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Sacramento, California, USA
    Posts
    328
    Quote Originally Posted by wewd View Post
    I don't want to be represented. I don't want a voice or a franchise. I don't want protection. I don't want programs or services. I did not consent to be governed, therefore the state has not been granted just powers or authority to govern me. I don't want to support the constitution, because it does not support me. I am not bound to it, because I did not sign it nor did I swear any oath to it. The only people who are bound to it are the men who signed it 220 years ago, and they are all dead. I do not recognize they authority of anyone to bind me to a contract that I never signed, and certainly not one that was signed almost 200 years before I was born. The constitution has no authority, and it cannot jump up and start enforcing itself. The men who swear to uphold it are under no obligation to actually do so. They are free to simply ignore it if they wish. There will be no consequences for doing so. The state enforces their rules through violence and coercion, and so there are very real consequences for us if we violate those rules, but there are no enforcers of the constituion. We could start using force against them to enforce it ourselves, but I have no interest whatsoever in doing such a thing. I have moved away from any thoughts of using force except in extreme cases of self defense. My beliefs are derived from the non-aggression principle, and to initiate force against the state would violate that principle. I have taken the moral high ground, and I will not debase myself in their manner. I want peace and liberty, and the only way to achieve that is to free your mind from the statist paradigm.
    The native indian tribes probably thought along those lines as well.

  21. #21
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660
    Quote Originally Posted by wewd View Post
    I don't want to be represented. ...snip...
    Well now, that's a whole different deal altogether.

  22. #22
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231
    I'm pretty disgusted with the choices. There isnt a candidate that I feel comfortable throwing my support behind and I dont know who I will vote for at present. Upon first glance, Ogden appeared to share many of my views, but I do not approve of his stand on open borders. I suppose I will write in another AIP candidate.
    New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...

    NA MALE SUBJ ON FOOT, LS NB 3 AGO HAD A HOLSTERED HANDGUN ON HIS RIGHT HIP. WAS NOT BRANDISHING THE WEAPON, BUT RP FOUND SUSPICIOUS.
    CL SUBJ IN COMPLIANCE WITH LAW


    Support the 2A in California - Shop Amazon for any item and up to 15% of all purchases go back to the Calguns Foundation. Enter through either of the following links
    www.calgunsfoundation.org/amazon
    www.shop42a.com

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Sacramento, California, USA
    Posts
    328
    Quote Originally Posted by ConditionThree View Post
    I'm pretty disgusted with the choices. There isnt a candidate that I feel comfortable throwing my support behind and I dont know who I will vote for at present. Upon first glance, Ogden appeared to share many of my views, but I do not approve of his stand on open borders. I suppose I will write in another AIP candidate.
    I don't remember exactly, but during the primary I think it was mendocino that had around a 35 per cent write in on the AIP ticket. Alameda or contra costa was a close second at 32 percent. When I asked both counties to know the names of the write ins on those ballots. Both said they don't track write ins who are not authentic pre-qualified candidates

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Sacramento, California, USA
    Posts
    328
    Saturday, June 12, 2010 8:36 AM >>>
    Hello,I am interested in obtaining some results of the 2010 gubernatorial election that are not posted on the website. Specifically, the AIP party shows a bigger percentage of write-in candidates than either certified candidate. I am wondering if the names of the write in candidate(s) in this race can be released for research purposes.Davi RodriguesPublic Document DistributorsPO Box 160965Sacramento, CA 05816



    Hi Davi
    Unfortunately, we only track and publish certified write-in candidates.

    Thank you
    Katrina

    Katrina Bartolomie
    Assistant Registrar of Voters
    Mendocino County
    Clerk Recorder/Elections

    __________________________________________________ ________________


    From: Davi Rodrigues [Davi@PublicDocumentDistributors.com]
    Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 6:58 PM
    To: Macdonald, Dave, ITD
    Subject: Re: Write in candidate results

    Is there any way to obtain the results. Once again, the number of write-in for that particular race seems rather out of line with other races. I believe it was 40%, which I've never seen before. I was trying to find out what was the driving factor

    ____________________________________________

    I think your numbers are a little off. The AIP write ins for Governor is around 28%. Just as a credibility check I looked at Contra Costa totals. The write ins for the same race are over 26%. I don't know what other counties experienced but it should be easy to look at their web sites to see if they had the same experience. What you are asking for is not impossible but it will take quite a bit of staff time. If you wait until after the results are certified we may be able to look at some ballots and see if there are any patterns.

    Dave Macdonald

    ________________________________
    Last edited by AyatollahGondola; 08-03-2010 at 12:51 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •