Jump to content

Changing Demographics


Andrea

Recommended Posts

I do not think you're a racist. But I do believe that you're wrong. You're right that before 1965, America's immigration policy was weighted toward European immigrants. But there were not as my Europeans immigrating to America at that time. The wars and famines of previous years were over and Europe was experiencing a time of prosperity. In order to keep our edge, America began accepting driven people from all over the world. Also it was a racist policy for a country that prided itself on being colorblind. This new wave of immigration from Mexico and S. America (I say new even though it's been happening for a long time) is different inasmuch that many of the people still feel strong allegiences to their old country. But really, come to think of it, is it that much different? I have an English flag, does that make me unpatriotic? Half the people on my block fly the Irish flag at St. Pat's Day, and the Irish Pub across the street from my house flies the Irish flag all year. Are they unpatriotic?

Pillsbury, you really can't compare the European waves of immigration with the modern day waves of Latin American and Asian waves. For one, Europeans were of the same race as the predominate population of the United States. Within a generation, assimilation of such a family was a possibility. Why is it different today? For one, a large percentage of Latin American immigrants flaunt their "ethnic identity" as a way of trying to distinguish themselves as being different, namely because they look different. They know that they are of a different race, and they don't wish to become one with the "gringo". Some do, but you'll find an overwhelming percentage who don't. Secondly, the dominate population will never see newcomers of a different race as the same. Socially, they can't. Race is a part of life, and there is a reason why nations form allegiances alongside race and culture. The latter is one of those things that can be overcome, but the former can't, in terms of the whole nation. The definition of a nation is a group of people of the same race, culture, and background, who live on a piece of land confined within borders, and who are ruled by a government. Hence, the United States of today is not a true nation, but more of an empire. Prior to 1965, with the exception of a small black minority, mostly located in the south, the country could be said to be a true nation.

I have several friends of different races and, while I think that they are good people, I realize that on the national level such a country is prone to fracture and weakening. It simply isn't smart. Furthermore, it takes away the "white" nation that was America. In my opinion, it is unethical to destroy white America via multiracial immigration and a failure to properly guard the borders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 79
  • Created
  • Last Reply

scraper racist, you are truly a bigot- I feel sorry that yo still hold on to such archaic and close minded beliefs. Life for you must be very cruel. I know this sounds cliche, but I would really advise you to look on the bright side of things. Immigrants are changing our country for the better in countless ways too; if you can't see that, then you're more diluted that I thought. (which is saying something) I also don't know why you think America should be a white nation. Why? Because you think whites are superior? I'm a defender of civil liberties, so I'll agree that you have every right to say what you're saying, but as you can tell it disgusts me.

Archaic? Wow! I don't know whether to laugh or feel sad for you. From what I can tell, you show signs of a young man who is detached from his country and his history. You also seem unable to separate the rights of nations staying the same race and racism. I figure you were brainwashed to believe such, either through such mental bombardment via the media, or perhaps schoolteachers, college professors, whatnot. I'm only guessing.

Civil Liberties? Why is it that nearly everyone who expresses "Civil Liberties" desires fall within the Marxist camp? Why is it that under the guise of securing civil liberties, they take civil liberties, namely from white people.

In what ways are immigrants improving life for the common citizen? I'm not talking about a wealthy businessman who is gaining huge profits from all the serfs he is employing, but the common citizen. To do an analysis, one must consider all the variables. You know, economic, social, cultural, etc.

Its a free country isnt it? Why should anyone have to "acclimate" to the culture of Americans? Im glad our area (the SE in general) is becoming more diverse. I enjoy seeing faces other than black and white and also enjoy learning about all of these other cultures.

You learn about other cultures via the internet and encyclopedias. If you want cultural immersion, you don't have to have others come here and change your society.

What specifically makes you glad to see the southeast becoming more diverse?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I myself don't disagree with this; however, I also don't think that all of a sudden this means that immigrants should drop every single vestige of their native cultures, go under the knife to make their physical features more Caucasian, and buy a house out in the 'burbs with a picket fence and an SUV. What's wrong with ethnic restaurants? What's wrong with ethnic clothing? The delicate balance in all of this is that acculturation does not mean obliteration of the native culture; the two can certainly exist in harmony.

I don't think that very many people have a problem with ethnic restaurants, as long as you are spoken to in English in those restaurants. What I'm referring to goes much deeper. From what I've noticed, most individuals owning restaurants are more acculturated, as they have to be to communicate with the majority population.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Race in America is a very sensitive topic on all sides.

I think that Scraper and Newnan are both expressing opinions I find offensive. When I started reading this topic, I was a bit taken back when I came across Newnan's remark about the WASPs in Alpharetta (and no, I don't live there). First, WASP doesn't just stand for "White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant" - it is also an acronym for something that stings you...something that is nasty and racist. If we are going to be fair here, why is there something wrong with being white and protestant? Just because it is the majority nationally doesn't make it a bad thing. Being a white person, I find it a racially degrading term - period. (I realize that it may sound like I'm taking up for Scraper...trust me, I'm not. However, racism against white people is overly socially accepted. Racism against ANY race is wrong - period.)

Then, reading on down, Scraper had equally, if not more so racially degrading comments. Scraper, America, like it or not, is a mixed bag...the proverbial melting pot. I always find going into the ethnic areas of the larger cities exciting and stimulating. It is the United States plus any country you'd like to visit. A wonderful thing. Accept it as such and life will be much easier!

Unfortunately, some (SOME) white areas in the south are used to being the dominant population. There will always be a tendancy for birds of a feather to flock together - which may drive people from certain areas. It is human nature to cling to the familiar - China Town, Little Havana, Little Italy, White Folk Alpharetta, etc. So everyone lighten up. White isn't bad, black isn't bad, Korean isn't bad, Mexican isn't bad. People are people, folks, so chill.

WASP stings? Why? I have no problem proclaiming that I'm of the WASP culture. It's not racist, nor is calling black culture "black culture" racist.

Ryan, of course the United States is a melting pot. However, today it is a "chamber pot". Immigrants aren't required to acculturate. They're provided documentation in their own language. They can find ethnic communities and live within them. They have their own newspapers, radio stations, stores, restaurants, etc. If they wanted to live here and not acculturate a bit, they could. That's the problem. I believe that if you come to America, you should acculturate yourself.

However, regarding the melting pot, I'll just come out and say that the melting pot only works when you have individuals of the same race. Many of you downplay the role that race plays in society, but all you have to do is be honest with yourself. Just look at "white flight", group politics, as well as racial and ethnic conflict on the rise. It's only bound to escalate.

I wonder why none of you seem to look at the big picture. The fact that "White America" is dissappearing means little to many of you. I keep hearing statements like, "you can move", or look, "white Alpharetta". Twenty five years ago, one could say White Chamblee, and ten years ago, one could say "White Norcross". Given the asceleration of the trends, there isn't going to be a "white anything" in twenty years. It doesn't have to be this way, but the government continues to allow it to happen. The sad thing is that it used to be "white" nearly everywhere, and many of you excuse such white genocide as nothing but "diversity".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pillsbury, you really can't compare the European waves of immigration with the modern day waves of Latin American and Asian waves. For one, Europeans were of the same race as the predominate population of the United States. Within a generation, assimilation of such a family was a possibility. Why is it different today? For one, a large percentage of Latin American immigrants flaunt their "ethnic identity" as a way of trying to distinguish themselves as being different, namely because they look different. They know that they are of a different race, and they don't wish to become one with the "gringo". Some do, but you'll find an overwhelming percentage who don't. Secondly, the dominate population will never see newcomers of a different race as the same. Socially, they can't. Race is a part of life, and there is a reason why nations form allegiances alongside race and culture. The latter is one of those things that can be overcome, but the former can't, in terms of the whole nation. The definition of a nation is a group of people of the same race, culture, and background, who live on a piece of land confined within borders, and who are ruled by a government. Hence, the United States of today is not a true nation, but more of an empire. Prior to 1965, with the exception of a small black minority, mostly located in the south, the country could be said to be a true nation.

I have several friends of different races and, while I think that they are good people, I realize that on the national level such a country is prone to fracture and weakening. It simply isn't smart. Furthermore, it takes away the "white" nation that was America. In my opinion, it is unethical to destroy white America via multiracial immigration and a failure to properly guard the borders.

I agree with you that the immigration of today and in the past is different, but for different reasons. I believe that the immigration of today is much more widespread than it was 100 years ago. Therefore, the demographics of places change very drastically in a short period of time. For that reason, I do believe that immigration should be slowed down a bit to give people time to adjust to their surroundings. I also agree with you that many of the immigrants today still hold strong allegiances to their old country, even going so far as to feel contempt for this country. I find that very troubling.

As far as your other points, however, I disagree. Different races can live within the same country and still exhibit nationalism. The USA is not an empire, though I believe we are headed in that direction thanks to our current administration. The USA will not cease to be a country if the white majority is eroded no more than Atlanta ceased to exist as a city when its white majority displaced itself.

Furthermore, many states in the South, including this one, were mostly black before the great exodus of blacks to the North in search of jobs and safety.

There are negative and positive aspects of immigration and I think people should be able to discuss those issues without being branded a racist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I'm young and obviously I know everything :thumbsup:

I'm not for a white nation or anything close to it. I would like for someone to name one country that has survived the test of time being multi-cultural? I don't mean 220 years either. I just dont believe a multi-cultural nation can survive. I am NOT advocating the U.S. become a white nation or black nation, but in the future, I could see the United States falling from within. The country at that time would then separate into huge ethnice enclaves.

I think some cultural diversity is good, but when that diversity includes completely dismantling the values and cultural norms that a society has thrived under, well thats not healthy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WASP stings? Why? I have no problem proclaiming that I'm of the WASP culture. It's not racist, nor is calling black culture "black culture" racist.

Ryan, of course the United States is a melting pot. However, today it is a "chamber pot". Immigrants aren't required to acculturate. They're provided documentation in their own language. They can find ethnic communities and live within them. They have their own newspapers, radio stations, stores, restaurants, etc. If they wanted to live here and not acculturate a bit, they could. That's the problem. I believe that if you come to America, you should acculturate yourself.

However, regarding the melting pot, I'll just come out and say that the melting pot only works when you have individuals of the same race. Many of you downplay the role that race plays in society, but all you have to do is be honest with yourself. Just look at "white flight", group politics, as well as racial and ethnic conflict on the rise. It's only bound to escalate.

I wonder why none of you seem to look at the big picture. The fact that "White America" is dissappearing means little to many of you. I keep hearing statements like, "you can move", or look, "white Alpharetta". Twenty five years ago, one could say White Chamblee, and ten years ago, one could say "White Norcross". Given the asceleration of the trends, there isn't going to be a "white anything" in twenty years. It doesn't have to be this way, but the government continues to allow it to happen. The sad thing is that it used to be "white" nearly everywhere, and many of you excuse such white genocide as nothing but "diversity".

I am white but why does it have to be "white" anywhere ? This was originally a Red nation and we immigrated here and didn't exactly try to fit in. Central and South American people speak Spanish and Portugese because of immigrants from Spain and Portugal. Nobody tried to blend in there either.

Why can't we evolve to a light-brown society where we all speak at least 2 languages ? Races have been intermingling for years and it's only where they're kept pure and try to co-exist are there problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I'm young and obviously I know everything :thumbsup:

I'm not for a white nation or anything close to it. I would like for someone to name one country that has survived the test of time being multi-cultural? I don't mean 220 years either. I just dont believe a multi-cultural nation can survive. I am NOT advocating the U.S. become a white nation or black nation, but in the future, I could see the United States falling from within. The country at that time would then separate into huge ethnice enclaves.

I think some cultural diversity is good, but when that diversity includes completely dismantling the values and cultural norms that a society has thrived under, well thats not healthy.

I don't think we've had enough time to tell if a multicultural (specifically, substantially multiracial) nation can survive. The world is a smaller place now than it was 100 years or even 50 years ago. The closest country that I can think of that might qualify is Mauritius. But I largely agree with what you've said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you that the immigration of today and in the past is different, but for different reasons. I believe that the immigration of today is much more widespread than it was 100 years ago. Therefore, the demographics of places change very drastically in a short period of time. For that reason, I do believe that immigration should be slowed down a bit to give people time to adjust to their surroundings. I also agree with you that many of the immigrants today still hold strong allegiances to their old country, even going so far as to feel contempt for this country. I find that very troubling.

As far as your other points, however, I disagree. Different races can live within the same country and still exhibit nationalism. The USA is not an empire, though I believe we are headed in that direction thanks to our current administration. The USA will not cease to be a country if the white majority is eroded no more than Atlanta ceased to exist as a city when its white majority displaced itself.

Furthermore, many states in the South, including this one, were mostly black before the great exodus of blacks to the North in search of jobs and safety.

There are negative and positive aspects of immigration and I think people should be able to discuss those issues without being branded a racist.

I never once stated that different races couldn't exist within the same nation and exhibit nationalism. I believe that is blatantly obvious when once considers that Americans of various races participate in patriotic festivities, the singing of the national anthem, military service, or various other forms of nationalism.

In the political realm, the U.S. isn't technically an empire, though it does operate like one with its multiple bases, embassies, and troops scattered around the world. However, demographically, it is an empire. Demographically speaking, the U.S. isn't a true nation.

Whether or not the U.S. will cease to be a country with a non-white majority is up for debate. With increased multiracialism one can often find increased multiculturalism. Both, in and of themselves, are sources of conflict. Such conflict has historically been the source of national fracture. I'm not saying that the U.S. will split, but at the very least you're likely to find a weakened nation, culturally, socially, even economically. The U.S. will plummet to second world status.

Atlanta didn't cease to be a city because it's a smaller entity, and because the city was able to stay afloat with significant income via the wealthier sections of town. Furthermore, even without a significant base of wealth, such a city would apt to be economically bailed out by the state. Detroit would be a good example. If not bailed out, a city-county consolidation is in order. Since counties are generally more white (less diverse) than the central city, and since whites have traditionally been more wealthy, revenue isn't as much of a problem under this type of government system. Hence, they're able to stay afloat. However, if the nation becomes less diverse, with substantial increases in the numbers of lower-income people, there will not be very many wealthy areas to 'bail out' the cities. Ultimately, it will become bankrupt.

One might argue that minority groups will climb the economic ladder, and there is no doubt that many are. The problem, though, is that there are generalities and, statistically speaking, some groups are more proned to wealth than others. However, that's only part of the problem. A nation isn't strengthened via diversity (differences), it is strengthened by homogeneity (sameness/uniformity).

Prior to the "black exodus", most states were predominately white. While it is true that one or two states were majority black, the states weren't considered poor, as most of their "diverse" populations were slaves. Even before the black exodus in the fifties and sixties, southern states were predominately white. You have to go back to the first half of the 1800s to find black populations on par with the white population in a few states.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am white but why does it have to be "white" anywhere ? This was originally a Red nation and we immigrated here and didn't exactly try to fit in. Central and South American people speak Spanish and Portugese because of immigrants from Spain and Portugal. Nobody tried to blend in there either.

Why can't we evolve to a light-brown society where we all speak at least 2 languages ? Races have been intermingling for years and it's only where they're kept pure and try to co-exist are there problems.

The United States was not originally a "red nation", for the United States did not exist. White colonists established the nation. While there were "red nations" established in parts of the present-day U.S., they weren't true nations. They were ethnic-cultural-racial enclaves, for they had no government and no borders. While the Cherokee, just prior to their removal, did have borders and a government, this is one of the few exceptions to the idea of Indian Nations.

The primary reason the Indians were removed was because many believed them to be incompatible with the national culture. Given their as-likely nature to attack and kill whites in relation to befriending whites, many didn't want to trust them, or even deal with them. Hence, they were viewed as being a group of people who would never assimilate in their total form. Their removal and the establishment of reservations was the outcome of this belief.

Why would you want to "evolve" to a light brown society? What's wrong with a white society, or even a black society in black nations? I appreciate differences, and part of maintaining those differences is limiting "diversity".

You are also incorrect about problems always resulting from races trying to remain "pure". While it is true that some individuals have done evil things under such a belief, more problems actually arise from diversification, as it brings out mankind's underlying prejudices. It increases conflict, hostility. It is a source for hate, chaos, and national fracture. Examples include South Africa, Zimbabwe, India, France, as well as other places. At the very least, however, a "nation" is weakened with increased diversification, for it undermines the very definition of "nation".

Language is a national glue. For a nation to be strong, united, and able to stand the test of time, it has to have ONE language: (the national language). Diversification of languages within a country is a source of conflict. Only small, insignificant "city" countries can survive with such a setup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well...By 2030 was it? America's black, hispanic, asian population will become over 50% combined of the population. America is still a young nation, it was not always predominatly white. There was a time when there were millions of Native Americans but they were killed off and account for like 1% of the population. Aren't most urban areas in America less white anyways. I can't really name a major city thats 70% white. I know there are a few but not that much

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well...By 2030 was it? America's black, hispanic, asian population will become over 50% combined of the population. America is still a young nation, it was not always predominatly white. There was a time when there were millions of Native Americans but they were killed off and account for like 1% of the population. Aren't most urban areas in America less white anyways. I can't really name a major city thats 70% white. I know there are a few but not that much

The United States of America has ALWAYS BEEN predominately white. With the exception of parts of the south, the country was very homogeneously white. Such a homogeneous nature is in existence today, where one can see the majority of counties over ninety percent white outside of the major metropolitan areas with the midwest and northeast. The south has greater diversity, as it was home to greater amounts of slavery on the coastal plains. This is why you find significant black populations in the rural areas of eastern Virginia, eastern North Carolina, eastern and southern South Carolina, south Georgia, south Alabama, Mississippi, Lousiana, and West Tennessee. In the hillier parts of the south, namely north Georgia, western North Carolina, upstate South Carolina, western Virginia, middle and east Tennessee, northern Alabama, and Kentucky, it is very much predominately white. In the west, most rural areas have high white percentages, but that is starting to change, much like it is in other parts of the country, as illegal Mexicans move-in to work in agriculture.

As far as metropolitan areas go, most suburban areas of most major cities are still predominately white. However, that is changing fast, and it's likely not to be the case in ten or fifteen years. Today, we can get a sense of where many of the "less diverse" suburban areas will be, as we can look at some of the suburban areas of the largest metro regions, such as Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York, Houston, Dallas, Chicago, DC, and, yes, even Atlanta. While the suburbs of metro Atlanta are still predominately white, there has been a huge shift. Given current trends, I wouldn't doubt if the suburban population becomes majority non-white within ten years. The city may become majority white once again, but the overall shift is obvious, as it is all over the country: falling white percentage, rising minority percentages.

Regarding the American Indians, it can be debated whether a "majority' of the Indians were killed. While it is true that many were killed in battles that they themselves initiated, not to mention the fact that many died on the "Trail of Tears", or died from various European diseases, it is "up in the air" whether a majority of them died. Some have argued that the "90%" fatality figure to European diseases is inaccurate, a product of individuals with an agenda to make the European colonizers look evil. Whatever the true figure, there wasn't a comparable population of Indians to the masses of Europeans who were arriving every year. They were simply overwhelmed by numbers. Thus, it is no surprise that their percentage is no more than one percent today. Despite intermarriage and mixing with the white community, much of the one percent includes "Indians" who have a very small amount of "Indian blood" and who look white.

You mention not knowing of many major cities which are at least seventy percent white. You're right, there aren't very many major cities with metro populations over one million that are over seventy percent white. Portland, Oregon, perhaps a few others may be it. Yet, their suburban areas are predominately white. The white population fleed over the years, or other groups came and added to a diversifying city. Look at pictures of America's largest cities prior to the 1960s. What will you see? If it's outside the south, you'll namely see white faces. These individuals worked in the factories, lived in the places of today's "ghettos". Many youth don't realize this, as they haven't been taught about America's history. Instead, they're learning about a "diverse history" which is more historically inaccurate than accurate. This was an almost uniform white country outside the south.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

Lizella, illegal immigration is a big problem but I suspect there are about a dozen other forces that are going to causes the downfall of the United State long before loss of identity from illegal immigration. Even if illegal immigration stopped today, I suspect that before mid century the US will have split into four or five separate countries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lizella, illegal immigration is a big problem but I suspect there are about a dozen other forces that are going to causes the downfall of the United State long before loss of identity from illegal immigration. Even if illegal immigration stopped today, I suspect that before mid century the US will have split into four or five separate countries.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could see a scenario where the U.S. breaks apart into ethnic enclaves. I've asked this before, but if anyone can name one country that has survived while being multi-cultural, I'd like to hear it. There are just too many different cultures trying to have influence and we all want different things. Add to the fact that our government is as inept as the University of Georgia's offense, and well things are going to go wrong. Unless, we can get people in the legislative branch that care about whats happening, its not going to change. I think the South had it right(not Slavery mind you) to believe that states should have the power and not the central government. Ok I am off my political rant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ Thanks man, you've officially ruined Halloween!! Are you happy now? :)

Really though, I do agree with you on a lot of that---although I haven't put quite that much thought into it. I could see the Southwest area of the US slipping perhaps into Mexico or even an independent state, but I'm having trouble imagining the Northeast doing the same. Any reason you have why the richest part of the country would leave? Or is that the reason???

The USA has been coasting for too long. We expect greatness but we're not willing to work for it. Bill Maher agreed that America has been coasting on the accomplishments of our past generations. We're like rich kids in that way--we accept as divine providence that we are the greatest in the world, and insult anything that is different, not understanding that we're not the best anymore. We're spoiled rich kids using the family money to party, not caring that our kids or grandkids won't get a dime---which is probably why we identify so well with George Bush.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ Thanks man, you've officially ruined Halloween!! Are you happy now? :)

Really though, I do agree with you on a lot of that---although I haven't put quite that much thought into it. I could see the Southwest area of the US slipping perhaps into Mexico or even an independent state, but I'm having trouble imagining the Northeast doing the same. Any reason you have why the richest part of the country would leave? Or is that the reason???

The USA has been coasting for too long. We expect greatness but we're not willing to work for it. Bill Maher agreed that America has been coasting on the accomplishments of our past generations. We're like rich kids in that way--we accept as divine providence that we are the greatest in the world, and insult anything that is different, not understanding that we're not the best anymore. We're spoiled rich kids using the family money to party, not caring that our kids or grandkids won't get a dime---which is probably why we identify so well with George Bush.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ Um, I don't agree with everything Bill Maher says and I don't consider him a prophet, but I do enjoy his program and I don't really find it much different than watching Hardball or any other cable news shows except that Bill Maher has better guests and everybody cusses a lot.

I didn't say that we are a bunch of rich kids, just that we act like a bunch of rich kids. There is an entitlement philosophy that has settled in this country, where people, especially young people, expect things rather than work for them. There is a feeling that we are entitled to the spoils of the world, simply because we are Americans. This is dangerous. It leads to us supporting our leaders blindly, accepting something as outrageous as torture, as somehow being necessary for our survival. It is wrong, yet we lack the moral courage to stand up and say no. What would future generations say of this one, where we spend money with reckless abandon, putting it all on our charge cards, while cutting taxes, waging wars, and digging ourselves an early grave with our blatant refusal to deal with the environment---our President doesn't even believe that global warming is caused by our factories and cars!!!!! And then what's going to happen to our kids, when the air has gone sour, the money is all gone, and they're paying off debts to even third-world countries.

What has America done lately? If we're the moral compass of the world, then where are we leading the world? Unprovoked wars, torture, secret prisons, come on man, what is the vast majority of people in America smoking? Oh, I know, it's an Ignorance is Bliss pipe, the drug of choice!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Soviets didn't think their union would dissolve so quickly. I doubt there were even many in the US government who thought it would happen so quickly. History is full of empires that collapsed relatively quickly and for the most part, they all thought that they were somehow special and would last forever.

The US in it's current state is in no danger of falling apart but throw in $200/barrel oil, hyperinflation, and a government unable to borrow any more money to cover even the basic bills mixed in with a devastated tax base from a crashing economy and you could see a rapid collapse.

Difficult times are rarely advertised ahead of time. They almost always catch the majority off guard.

I hope that I'm wrong because we have it pretty darn good the way things are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.