HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » No candidate over 50 year...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 02:46 PM

No candidate over 50 years old should be considered as a SCOTUS appointee


We need Obama's SCOTUS appointments over the next 4 years to be on the bench for decades.

So please... stop with the "Hillary for SCOTUS" or "Big Dawg for SCOTUS" or "Joe Biden for SCOTUS" or whatever.


The next judge should be a liberal in their 40s. That should be the only litmus test.

Liberal? Check.

Under 50? Check.


Throw out all other resumes.

70 replies, 2893 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 70 replies Author Time Post
Reply No candidate over 50 years old should be considered as a SCOTUS appointee (Original post)
scheming daemons Nov 2012 OP
sadbear Nov 2012 #1
hifiguy Nov 2012 #35
MadHound Nov 2012 #2
scheming daemons Nov 2012 #7
JustAnotherGen Nov 2012 #18
bluestate10 Nov 2012 #9
sadbear Nov 2012 #45
Whisp Nov 2012 #64
demosincebirth Nov 2012 #3
LiberalFighter Nov 2012 #8
cali Nov 2012 #4
scheming daemons Nov 2012 #10
cali Nov 2012 #50
scheming daemons Nov 2012 #61
LaydeeBug Nov 2012 #65
Melinda Nov 2012 #5
scheming daemons Nov 2012 #29
Melinda Nov 2012 #40
scheming daemons Nov 2012 #43
Melinda Nov 2012 #67
HappyMe Nov 2012 #6
calico1 Nov 2012 #14
scheming daemons Nov 2012 #15
Logical Nov 2012 #53
HappyMe Nov 2012 #63
Art_from_Ark Nov 2012 #70
1-Old-Man Nov 2012 #11
mindfulNJ Nov 2012 #12
mindfulNJ Nov 2012 #16
JudyM Nov 2012 #54
scheming daemons Nov 2012 #19
mindfulNJ Nov 2012 #25
HappyMe Nov 2012 #37
JustAnotherGen Nov 2012 #24
scheming daemons Nov 2012 #30
Whisp Nov 2012 #48
Logical Nov 2012 #55
calico1 Nov 2012 #13
RebelOne Nov 2012 #20
scheming daemons Nov 2012 #21
Le Taz Hot Nov 2012 #17
scheming daemons Nov 2012 #26
mindfulNJ Nov 2012 #28
scheming daemons Nov 2012 #33
Whisp Nov 2012 #49
LisaL Nov 2012 #32
scheming daemons Nov 2012 #56
calico1 Nov 2012 #22
scheming daemons Nov 2012 #27
slackmaster Nov 2012 #23
calico1 Nov 2012 #42
LisaL Nov 2012 #31
scheming daemons Nov 2012 #34
mindfulNJ Nov 2012 #36
scheming daemons Nov 2012 #38
StarryNite Nov 2012 #39
slackmaster Nov 2012 #41
StarryNite Nov 2012 #44
scheming daemons Nov 2012 #46
cali Nov 2012 #51
scheming daemons Nov 2012 #59
StarryNite Nov 2012 #66
hogwyld Nov 2012 #47
LisaL Nov 2012 #52
Logical Nov 2012 #57
dem4ward Nov 2012 #58
scheming daemons Nov 2012 #60
treestar Nov 2012 #62
liberal_at_heart Nov 2012 #68
AsahinaKimi Nov 2012 #69

Response to scheming daemons (Original post)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 02:47 PM

1. I say 55.

I can live with 30 years on the bench instead of 35.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sadbear (Reply #1)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 03:43 PM

35. Yep. Mid 50s is just fine

She or he will be on the SCOTUS for a long, long time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Original post)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 02:48 PM

2. Nice to see that you believe in age discrimination,

 

You do realize that age discrimination is against the law, don't you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #2)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 03:12 PM

7. The President can use whatever criteria he wants in selecting a nominee

I suggest that one of his criteria be the expected amount of years that the nominee will serve.


We need justices that will be on the bench for 30-40 years, not 10.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Reply #7)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 03:22 PM

18. I'm in agreement

I'm 39 - I don't want to have any worries for a very very long time. When I explained it to my mom that way - she agreed. She thought I was being discriminatory UNTIL I pointed out that she ALSO had grand daughters to consider here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #2)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 03:15 PM

9. The poster is right. The goal should be to set the national policy over 2-3 decades.

Younger people can do that better than a person that will be around for maybe 10-15 years. But putting a young person on the bench does not insure that person will make decisions the we agree with. Harry Blackmun, Louis F Powell, John Brennan were all staunch conservatives when appointed, Blackmun and Brennan were legendary liberal Lions on the bench and Powell routinely broke the hearts of conservatives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestate10 (Reply #9)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 04:00 PM

45. Has the opposite ever occurred (or at least occurred recently)?

That a person was appointed to be a liberal, but turned out to be conservative?

I don't think Blackmun, Powell, Brennan, (or Souter) were coincidences.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #2)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 04:20 PM

64. what if someone aged 103 was nominated?

 

Last edited Fri Nov 9, 2012, 05:30 PM - Edit history (1)

would you be okay with that?

what is 'your' definition of too old? because there has to be one. And what makes yours an acceptable number and others not?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Original post)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 03:01 PM

3. ...or a Republican only if you're over 80.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demosincebirth (Reply #3)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 03:13 PM

8. I would prefer over 96

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Original post)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 03:05 PM

4. ridiculous.

Just absurd. and ugly as dog shit too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #4)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 03:16 PM

10. Sorry... no... we need liberal justices on the bench for 30-40 years... instead of 10


Simple math.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Reply #10)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 04:07 PM

50. No. We need outstanding Justices and as long as they're under 60

they stand an excellent chance of sitting for 20 years. 40 years? fuck that kind of long term "thinking". It's not thinking at all. It's just
shit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #50)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 04:17 PM

61. Ok... so you basically agree with me... you just set the bar at 60 and I set it at 50...

... so you're "ageist" too.... just slightly less so?



Now who's being absurd?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Reply #61)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 04:31 PM

65. That's right...and unless your bar is 60, it's SHIT. Under 60? kosher, Under 50?

"Ugly and shit"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Original post)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 03:08 PM

5. I personally want the most outstanding of judicious social liberal thinkers...

I want superior minds and intellects who makes well reasoned decisions that benefit us all.

I'll pass on the ageism... there is much to be learned and shared thru experience.

Of course, this is just me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Melinda (Reply #5)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 03:30 PM

29. What good is a superior intellect if the person is only on the bench for a few years...

....and gets replaced by a GOP President (potentially)?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Reply #29)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 03:53 PM

40. Because good open, free-thinking minds uphold good laws which in turn become settled law.

Using your age criteria, neither Ruth B Ginsberg or Sonia Sotomayor would be justices on the SC. We'd not have had the Warren Court... Hugo Black, William O. Douglas (the longest-serving Justice in the Court's history) and William J. Brennan. Or Louis Brandeis. The list is long.


Look at a list of SCOTUS justices. These justices last a very long time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Melinda (Reply #40)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 03:57 PM

43. Ruth Bader Ginsberg was named justice when she was in her late 50s....


And she has served nearly 20 years. That's in the good range, but it would have been better if she were named 10 years earlier so she could've given us another decade on the bench.


As for Sottomayor... she is in her 50s. She might get us 25-30 years. That's not bad.


But I want the next ones to be there as long as humanly possible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Reply #43)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 06:11 PM

67. I understand your position, I really do.

And it's okay in my book to feel that way. I just think your viewpoint too restrictive, that's all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Original post)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 03:08 PM

6. I'm getting kind of tired

of the age crap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HappyMe (Reply #6)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 03:19 PM

14. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HappyMe (Reply #6)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 03:20 PM

15. It is simple math.


We want liberal justices on the bench for 30 to 40 years, instead of 10 to 15 years.

We don't want liberal justices replaced very often, because odds are they might end up getting replaced by Republican Presidents.


Naming an elderly justice means that justice will not be on the bench as long. Simple math.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HappyMe (Reply #6)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 04:10 PM

53. I guess math is hard for you!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #53)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 04:20 PM

63. Why, yes it is!

I won't bother my pretty little head with it anymore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HappyMe (Reply #6)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 09:28 PM

70. I'm getting tired of the age crap,

the South-bashing crap, the red-states-are-leeches crap, the he's-a-creepy-looking-guy-'cause-he's-over-50 crap, the he-drives-an-SUV-so-he-obviously-has-a-small-penis crap, and on and on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Original post)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 03:17 PM

11. I agree, she should be young

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Original post)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 03:18 PM

12. What is is with you and people over 50?

Obama's over 50...should he resign?


WTF.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mindfulNJ (Reply #12)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 03:21 PM

16. this is the second ageist post in as many days

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mindfulNJ (Reply #16)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 04:10 PM

54. That is kind of gross. Why don't you think before you make arbitrary ageist comments, SD?! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mindfulNJ (Reply #12)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 03:23 PM

19. It is about *LIFETIME* appointments.... and we want those appointments to last a long time


If SCOTUS terms were limited to 4 or 8 years, then the age of the nominee is not important.


Since SCOTUS terms are *for life*... we want those nominees to be on the bench for a very long time.


Nominating a 70-year-old means that justice will have to be replaced sooner... Not a good place to be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Reply #19)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 03:25 PM

25. Unfortunately

it takes a lifetime of experience to be qualified for a *LIFETIME* appointment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mindfulNJ (Reply #25)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 03:49 PM

37. Exactly.

Nobody under 40 has near the bench experience, life experience nor enough intestinal fortitude for a lifetime job.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mindfulNJ (Reply #12)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 03:25 PM

24. Nope

But he's limited. He can only be in his position until 2016.

For younger DU'ers - and for those who are older that have grand daughters - think about it . . .

I'm a black 39 year old woman. I want my full civil liberties in place for a long time to come.

The best way to accomplish that? Put someone in that position that can sit there for the next 40 years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #24)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 03:31 PM

30. EXACTLY

Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #24)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 04:05 PM

48. exactly. I don't find that ageist at all, but practical and self preserving.

 

we don't let 12 year olds drive cars, is that ageist? no. it's practical.

This is a practical matter as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mindfulNJ (Reply #12)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 04:10 PM

55. You really do not understand this logic? Really???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Original post)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 03:18 PM

13. Age discrimination? How nice!

How very Liberal of you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calico1 (Reply #13)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 03:23 PM

20. Gotta agree with you.

Age discrimination is as bad as racial discrimination.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calico1 (Reply #13)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 03:24 PM

21. It isn't age discrimination. It is making sure that *OUR* justices are on the court for as long as

possible.

You want to protect Roe v Wade? Then we need liberal justices on the court for a VERY long time, so that GOP Presidents won't have opportunities to replace them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Original post)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 03:22 PM

17. That's two days in a row

with your ageist crap. Some 50-year-old scare you as a child or something? What is it with you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Le Taz Hot (Reply #17)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 03:26 PM

26. There is nothing "ageist" about wanting liberal appointees for 30-40 years instead of for 10-15.


I want our rights protected. I want liberal justices that are there for a long time so they can't be replaced by GOP Presidents.


Putting an older person on the court means that that person will have to be replaced sooner... which means that there is a chance they are replaced by a GOP President and Senate.

Having a judge on the court for 40 years denies them the opportunity for a much longer time period.



It is simple math.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Reply #26)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 03:29 PM

28. You have an ageist agenda

Two threads in two days denigrating over 50 people. I call that ageism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mindfulNJ (Reply #28)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 03:38 PM

33. Yesterday's thread didn't denigrate people over 50 AT ALL.....


All it said was that YOUNGER women have no concept of a time period where they were expected to be subservient, so the entire concept is foreign to them.

OLDER women had to *FIGHT* for that world to exist, and they know what it would be like to go back. They have *PERSONAL* memories of a time when they were expected to stay home and be subservient to men.

The women over 50 are the heroes who FOUGHT for the better world that younger women live in.


You completely misinterpreted (and are misrepresenting) my thread from yesterday.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mindfulNJ (Reply #28)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 04:07 PM

49. I don't see the denigrating of 'over 50 people' here at all.

 

the talk is about the longevity of a left leaning supreme court justice.

gawd alfriggen mighty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Reply #26)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 03:33 PM

32. Aren't there quite a number of supreme court justices in their mid eighties?

So a 50 year old could easily have 30-40 years ahead of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LisaL (Reply #32)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 04:11 PM

56. No... the oldest current is Ginsberg... she is 79... and retiring this month, likely.

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Original post)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 03:24 PM

22. I would rather have a 50+ year old who is

very smart and a Liberal who can give me 10-15 years, than to settle for a more Moderate judge because they are younger and can serve longer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calico1 (Reply #22)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 03:27 PM

27. That is why the first criteria is "liberal". The second criteria is "young".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Original post)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 03:25 PM

23. People over 50 generally know a lot more about life than do people under 50

 

And they also tend to have more experience in their professions.

ETA in the words of Juror #6:

"Despite a premise (and conclusion) based on a logical fallacy, the post is certainly not over the top or disruptive; merely... passionately misguided."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #23)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 03:56 PM

42. Exactly! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Original post)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 03:32 PM

31. I disagree.

A 50 year old could easily have a good 35 or longer term ahead of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LisaL (Reply #31)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 03:41 PM

34. Yes.... but a 70 year old would not


People are talking about Hillary (65)... Bill (66)... and Joe (69). That's crazy talk.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Reply #34)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 03:46 PM

36. So Hillary Clinton

one of the most competent, well qualified candidates,who has worked her entire life to gain the wisdom and knowledge she would need to do one of THE most important jobs in this country, should be disqualified because of her age?

That's crazy talk.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mindfulNJ (Reply #36)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 03:52 PM

38. And then we have to replace her in a decade? Would be better for her to run for President


Since the term is maximum 8 years, her age would not be an issue.


It would be tactically bad for Obama to appoint a SCOTUS who would serve for such a (relatively) short time.



Hillary should run for President.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Original post)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 03:52 PM

39. You seem to have a thing about 50

Age 50 and below for judges. Age 50 and below for women who care about the rights to their own bodies? I'm over 50, trust me, life doesn't end at 50. And we don't stop caring about things once we hit 50 either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarryNite (Reply #39)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 03:54 PM

41. Heh - Time has a way of fixing that kind of problem

 



(I'm 54.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #41)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 03:57 PM

44. He'll realize that one day. LOL

I think he's having a midlife crisis. Just because we hit 50 doesn't mean it's time for this.... Or that we should sit down and shut up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarryNite (Reply #44)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 04:01 PM

46. I'm 46. I will turn 50 when Obama's term ends. In 10 years, I wouldn't put myself on the court.


Even if I was qualified, because my term would likely not be long enough to protect my daughters' and granddaughters' rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Reply #46)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 04:09 PM

51. bwahahahahah. you are getting ever more absurd.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #51)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 04:13 PM

59. Please explain. What is absurd?

SCOTUS appointments are VERY important. If I were the President, I would want my SCOTUS appointments to last many, many, many years after my term ended.

To accomplish that... I would choose that absolute finest liberal nominee I could find who was in good health and under 50 years old.


Explain the absurdity of that to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Reply #59)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 04:42 PM

66. Then your perfect choice

steps out into the street as he's sipping the latest trendy coffee drink and gets hit by a bus.

There are no absolutes in life. Just because somebody hasn't reached the age of 50, it doesn't mean they will. Maybe you should lower that age to 25?

&feature=related

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Original post)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 04:02 PM

47. I wholeheartedly agree with you!

As someone over 50, I agree that we need SC justices that we won't have to worry about for 40 years. While I would love Hillary on the bench, I think it is much more important to protect our rights for generations to come. We might be feeling good and invincible now, but who knows what the goobers do in 10 years to retake the gubmint back. The SC might be our only firewall to GOP hell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hogwyld (Reply #47)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 04:09 PM

52. You can pick a 30 year old, and that 30 year old can get hit by a car and die within a year.

I don't think a qualified person should be discriminated against because of their age.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LisaL (Reply #52)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 04:11 PM

57. LOL, yes, because that happens a lot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Original post)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 04:12 PM

58. Replace a woman w/woman & a man w/minority! LOL

 

Let's see an Asian American, African American or even a GAY nominee!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dem4ward (Reply #58)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 04:15 PM

60. I'm ok with any of those... as long as they're LIBERAL and YOUNG

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Original post)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 04:19 PM

62. This is the second thread about the age of 50!

You still have 5 years to go! It's not going to be that bad!

The idea they are there for a lifetime is the kicker. So they can change, too. Though I don't see Scalia changing, but the ability is there. And we can be optimistic - Rs may not get into power again, especially ones so right wing they would nominate Scalia or Bork or the like.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Original post)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 09:06 PM

68. I strongly disagree

what are we doing to our Supreme Court? First both parties turn the Supreme Court into a partisan court and now we demand they be young so they can hand us judgments in our favor for as many years as possible? This is wrong. We are destroying our court. It is losing all credibility.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal_at_heart (Reply #68)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 09:24 PM

69. I totally agree with you..

Whats next ? Death Sentence at age 30?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread