I thought this was going to lead to "there shouldn't be a voting age let us vote" but it didn't. Good, good.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Oh no, not at all. I'm already old enough to vote, but unlike a lot of people my age I'm aware that I shouldn't, I don't understand politics enough to have a say in them, and I think it's ridiculous that I should be allowed to have a say in my country's future while a 15 year old who had a developed and genuine opinion on politics has to wait for three years before what they think matters.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

How can someone vote for the wrong reasons? It's their vote, they can use it as they see fit.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Yeah, they can, which is exactly the problem. Do you genuinely believe that a person, just because they have been alive 18 years, has a right to say who runs a country if their reason for choosing that person is, for example, because that's who their dad told them to vote for, or because they got a flyer through their door and it said they'd have more money if they voted that way?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Yeah, because it's their vote. No matter who they vote for or why them vote for them, they're not voting for the wrong reasons. Just because it's not an informed vote, doesn't mean that they're voting for the wrong reasons.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Yes it does! "It's their vote" isn't a reasonable argument here. That's like if I'd posted "Murder should be legal" and you replying with "no, because it's illegal" Yes, it is their vote, but it shouldn't be, because if their vote is just them ticking a random box, they don't deserve to have a vote to tick a random box with.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I'm going to assume you live in America. As an American citizen, you have the right to vote for whomever you want. That's it, it's a constitutional right. Yes, I agree that perhaps they shouldn't tick a random box, but that's not really your place to decide.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I don't. I'm not saying they don't have the right, I'm saying they shouldn't, otherwise the post would say "You don't have to be over 18 to vote, you just have to take a test" and this post would probably have a slightly worse score.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Okay, and I'm saying that that view is slightly unconstitutional. And I'm explaining why that view is wrong. Because it's unconstitutional. Although since you don't live in America I suppose this argument doesn't apply.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Just because something is Unconstitutional doesn't mean that it's necessarily wrong. Your Supreme Court has the power of judicial review. Saying that something is wrong because it's Unconstitutional is a rather silly argument. Plessy V. Fergusson, for example, which said that segregation was okay in the 1800s was a part of the Constitution. Was that right? No. Which is why segregation was eventually overturned, despite the all-knowing Constitution saying it was okay.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Okay, but what I'm getting at here is it's unconstitutional, it's taking away people's rights. Revised, as it is now, the constitution says every American citizen has a right to vote. What I'm arguing is it is in fact, every American citizen's right to be able to vote. What this post is proposing is the taking away of people's right to vote. Essentially, it's taking away a certain aspect of the american citizen's freedom. It's not only unconstitutional to take away certain people's right to vote, it's morally unethical.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I really don't think tetsing people to see if they have an informed opinion is morally unethical, and there are these things called amendments.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

No neither do I, I think taking away that citizen's right to vote because they didn't pass the test is unethical.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

They have the ability to pass the test, they have the ability to vote.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

And if they don't, you're taking away their right as an American citizen to vote. Glad that's established.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

So what? It's not going to ruin their life, and it's better for the country. Who really cares if some people get butt hurt, they didn't even know what they were voting for obviously because they didn't pass. The world shouldn't be a shittier place than it needs to be just so some people can feel better.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

That's it. That's my argument against this post. It's unethical to take away the rights of American citizens.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

That doesn't address anything I said in my previous comment. You have no reason for it being unethical except that it's unethical.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

In a democracy its rule of the people, not rule of the moral, or the intelligent, or those who have any higher capacity for thought. If they people are down right evil its still there vote. that is why its unethical. It has happened its why we have such minimum requirements for voting, after blacks gained the right to vote tests were made in the south to keep out against the "uneducated" black voters to keep them from voting. It was wrong than, that is why such practices were outlawed, and its just as wrong now.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

The democracy would still be in place, you don't need to be intelligent or moral to study up on what you're voting for. Democracy isn't rule of the moral, so lets not do anything to make it better. We should just leave it as it is and run our world into the ground because people don't want to study. They gave them tests they knew they probably wouldn't pass that were irrelevant to the ability to make a decision, and it was to keep minorities from voting just because they were racist, not because they wanted to make sure they knew what they were voting for. The test wouldn't be used for the sole purpose of leaving out certain people, and everyone would have to take it, not just a certain group of people. So no, it would not be just as wrong, it's silly you would even say that.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Who gets to decide what qualities are deemed adequate for voting. Your making it better for you, but shit for others. your ideas of acceptable voting requirements probably doesn't match with very many peoples. Also, democracy is a rule of the people you can't do what you suggest without taking control away from the people. if its the peoples choice than it is the democracy's job to carry it out even if it rubs you the wrong way.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Qualities are deemed adequate for voting? You're not gonna get tested on your qualities. You're gonna get tested on if you know what you're voting for. How does that take control away from the people in any way shape or form?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

So you get judged based on if your voting for the right thing. Why not cut out the middle man and just vote for us?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

what?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Okay, sorry about that last comment. I for some reason thought you only said "so what?" in that comment, so that's what I replied to. Obviously people are going to be "butt hurt" since they got a civil right, maybe the most important, taken away. The ability of the public to choose who leads the public is the prime factor in a democratic society. Without the entire population giving their vote on who leads them, how will we function as a complete society? Tell me, what is a citizen without it's ability to in some way control who leads them? They are only sheep, they are not citizens. Tell me, what is a democratic society without the option to choose who leads the public?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Everyone still would have the ability to vote. They have the ability to pass the test, which wouldn't be that difficult. Does it really matter if someone ignorant on the policies trying to be imposed doesn't get a say in them? Do you really think those ignorant people care anyway? Wouldn't it be better if they didn't get a say? The right to vote is not being taken away. Oh well, some people would just have to be butt hurt. We would still be a democratic society.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Yes it does matter if a person ignorant of the policies trying to be imposed doesn't get a say in them. No matter how uneducated that person is, they should get a say in who leads them. That moral is what America was based upon, the right to //choose//.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Wow. Reread your Constitution. Not all American citizens have the right to vote. In Kentucky and Virginia there's a long-life denial of the right to vote to all citizens with a felony record. Furthermore, this post doesn't say anywhere "this will only affect America". I also find the fact that you assumed the poster was American was suspect, considering it really had no relevance. At all. Whatsoever. The poster has also not said "if you failed the test you could never take it again" they have said that the test should be taken at least once, implying the opportunity for people to actually get educated on politics and take the test again, which would surely increase democracy as it would involve increased political participation--many people don't get involved in politics, and this might actually increase turnout at elections if people have to actually know about politics to be able to vote.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

1. I knew everything you said in that first paragraph. I was obviously not arguing about the rights of a felon. 2. Remember when I said "I'm going to assume you live in America."? Yeah, that should have indicated that I was arguing from America's standpoint. With America's laws and constitution. Please read my other comments, as I don't want to continue repeating the same thing.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

So in your view, anyone who has comitted a crime or been prosecuted of committing a crime of any size is no longer an American citizen. Alrighty then. What do they become? When you said "I'm going to assume you live in America" it just indicated you were too lazy to go and check where the poster was from, which was just plain stupid really. The post itself doesn't actually look at it from the American perspective. It doesn't look at it from within any country, so why bother arguing it from one specific country's perspective? I like how you didn't respond to my earlier point that your Constitution isn't always right. And that it has been Amended to fit the changes within your society. I mean, the Constitution didn't allow women to vote until the 20th Century. What if everyone had just sat around and said "THAT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL" instead of actually changing the Constitution to change it for the better?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

omfg remember when i said I wasn't arguing the rights of a felon? Because I do not remember saying anything about someone who has committed a crime. I actually believe I have not given my view on them at all in this discussion, so, awks. Please stop stating my opinions for me. WOW no it didn't obviously I'm going to argue it from America's point of view because I'm American so I know the law best over here. Thanks for the lazy and stupid comment though, appreciate it. I don't even remember that earlier point. I do remember saying I didn't want to argue with you because I'm already discussing this with like 4 other people. I mean, that point is so invalid because that was a discussion of people who did not have the right to vote, and this discussion is about people who want to take away other people's right to vote. DIfferent cases. K talk to you later.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

... If you call that knowing your laws, I fear for your other knowledge. It may be lacking. And hey, if you're already arguing with four other people about the same thing you should take the hint: You're wrong.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Okay, what did I say about America's laws that was wrong? And hey, since people have different opinions than mine it means I'm just plain wrong? Obviously the debate is one of opinion, so I guess opinions can be wrong now. Please go away. You continue to be rude and demeaning, without actually proving your point.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I disagree with your opinion that the constitution takes precedence over what is fair, but there isn't much either of us can do about that. You keep your opinion and I will keep mine.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

That comment's a bit backwards, as taking away people's right to vote because you don't agree on how they are using that freedom is unfair. The constitution is fair. That's what I'm trying to argue here.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

It wouldn't be taking away their right to vote, it would be making sure that those who wanted to vote formed their own opinion. Okay, lets say the thing I said happened, and you could only vote if you showed that you understood politics, and you wanted to vote on a coming election, but you didn't think you'd pass the test, would you be more likely to read up on the election, considering all the candidates and reading up an all the issues and how the propose to resolve them, or would you just not vote, and complain about how your rights were taken away while thinking "if only the constitution were here". People would still have the right to vote, but not if they were going to abuse it.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Okay, I get where you're coming from now. I agree, a test to make sure people understood what they're voting on would be beneficial. But the actual act of saying "No, you don't understand the topic well enough, you may not vote." is unethical.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

It's about as unethical as saying "No, you are a dangerous driver, you may not drive" or "No, you are under qualified to work as an electrician, you may not be an electrician"

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Driving is a privelege, not a right. Voting is a right.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

At the risk of repeating myself, this isn't an argument about whether voting is a right, this is an argument about why that right is given freely to those who would abuse it and kept from those who haven't been alive long enough. Surely if you believe that saying "No, you don't understand the topic well enough, you may not vote." is unethical, then you agree that saying "No, you have not been alive long enough, you may not vote." is even worse.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

everybody has a voice. No matter how inane, stupid, or evil it is, it should be given a forum to speak among the intellects so we don't wind up creating a system that is no longer a rule of the people, why we have voters in the first place, but a rule of the "educated", but really who gets to define what "educated" is anyhow, someone with a silver tongue could easily contort that to their will.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Are people just ignoring my comments? If you wanted a voice you'd get one, I'm not saying that you need to pass three quantum mechanics exams, I'm saying you have to know about what you're intending to vote on, if you didn't know enough about politics then you'd just read a book or something, it wouldn't make it a rule of the educated, it would make it a rule of the people who actually care.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I understand that. The right is given freely because our forefathers wanted citizens of America to have the right to choose their political leaders. If they want to abuse their own civil rights, so be it, as it is their civil right to abuse. If they want a certain person to lead them because of any reason, it is their right, and their right alone to vote for that person. You cannot simply take away one's civil right because they did not pass your test that supposedly tells if one has an adequate understanding of politics. No, I agree with the age limit. 18 is the legal age of adulthood, it makes sense that an adult who now has the other freedoms an adult can enjoy, would be able to enjoy the freedom of voting.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

If you voted for someone because they have a bitchin' hair cut, that is the wrong reason to vote for someone. That doesn't mean the reasoning is going to be right just because you made a decision.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

If someone voted because they liked the candidate's haircut, let them. They are a citizen and are allowed to use their vote as they see fit. It's not wrong just because of something like that. Taking away their right to vote just because they can't pass some test, is wrong. No matter what their reasoning behind voting for someone, it can't be wrong. That is all I'm saying.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Yes, it can. That's just plain silly to really say that voting for someone's hair cut isn't the wrong reason to vote for them.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

My friend's friend voted for Obama because she thought he seemed like a nice guy. She says that she thinks if they payed attention to the issues they wouldn't have voted for him.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Even the village idiot should get a say in things

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Then why not under 18s?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Being an adult means that you can make decisions for yourself and are independent from your parents, in most cases.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Yeah, but that doesn't happen the day you turn 18, it happens when you can make decisions for yourself and are independent from your parents, you don't know that someone has reached that point by knowing what age they are, you know by checking.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Yes, but you shouldn't have to take a test to have rights.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

You should if your rights have a chance at ruining your country.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

You have to take a test to have the right to drive on the road, because your stupidity will hurt other people. It's the same in politics, just in a different way.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

You do know that we have an indirect democracy, yes?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

okay first off no, one vote does not a president make. secondly who decides what a stupid choice is. What's to say that voting for Romney is a stupid choice, or Obama, or anybody for that matter. If its a democracy than the people choose the leader. emphasis here on PEOPLE, not person, if the majority chose it, than by the very definition of a democracy it was the "right" choice. It may not be moral or smart, but any other choice would have been unpopular and undemocratic. Who will determine what is right or wrong, probably the politicians. What will they do? bend it to exclude those who would vote against them. One person, or even multiple choosing what is right or wrong isn't a democracy, a democracy's leaders and rules come from a mandate of the masses, and they should choose what is appropriate.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Why does everyone keep arguing this purely from an American point of view? This post isn't about one country. If anything, it's written about the UK, which is where the poster is from. A lot of people in the UK are politically unaware, so many don't vote and if they do vote they just vote the way The Sun (most circulated newspaper; owned by Rupert Murdoch, highly conservative--reading age of 8.) tells them to. So they're not actually making an informed choice, they're just following what the paper tells them is right. So then the Conservatives got voted in with a Liberal Democrat coalition and since then massive changes have been happening with tuition fees, health care and massive cuts all over. While the richest, of course, gain. And now everyone regrets voting Conservative. But the fact of the matter is, if the majority had been more politically aware and actually looked to see what every candidate stood for instead of following what one newspaper said, we wouldn't be in this situation.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

First off america is currently in an election year and it makes for a good example. Secondly, it's irrelevant which country i use. Replace mit romney with david cameron and obama with someone else. My point was that you shouldn't get to decide if voting for somebody is the wrong choice otherwise its not voting at all and this point is the same regardless of the country. Now as for your second point, let's say Rupert Murdoch did convince all these people to cast an uniformed vote. If these people we're truly making uninformed decisions why not propose a reform to the education system? Or if Murdoch(or any corrupt leader) is spreading lies, why not stop him? These would both address the problem at its source. The fact of the matter is in your scenario its not the voters who are the problem, the problem is murdoch, or really a lack of information. This would make a lot more sense than removing the voting rights of the huge demographic. In essence changing the voting system would be attacking a symptom, and would not eliminate the underlying cause. Treat the cause, not the symptom.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

1) France is also in an election year. And their elections are happening this month. 2) The post doesn't say you should get to decide who people vote for, just that it should be made sure they're politically aware before they vote of all of the options and how their system works. 3) Opinions cannot be classed as lies, however the way that his newspaper presented the Conservative Party made people believe they would be the best option. 4) Yes, the problem is the lack of education. So making a test which could be taken multiple times before someone was allowed to vote, ensuring people had to learn about their political system and the candidates up for election would be a good thing. Again, the post doesn't mention removing the rights of people providing they can learn about or have a knowledge of what's going on in their country.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

1.America's elections are a big deal. It's one of the few elections that is watched closely by other countries, not as closely as Americans watch their own election of course. I think we can all admit france doesn't have any where near the global political swing of america, or Germany, u.k., etc. 2.its a definite possibility that the test could be influenced by some corrupt fellow like let's say, Rupert Murdoch, and all the people he got elected get to right the test, now they get reelected with an even larger majority. Apparently that is a solved problem. 3. So you want a test that would overtly weed out Murdoch's conservative opinion, because you don't agree with it. What about the people who believe in the same ideas as he does because they think its sound business reasoning, yeah they do exist. They would get eliminated to even though they were well informed. like i said your eliminating an idea you don't agree with. 4. No a test would not be as good. For example: If you don't know what calculus is, a test sure as hell won't teach you it. Even if it did a solid education doesn't mean people will vote opposite the way they normally would.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

1) America's elections are a big deal to Americans... Know who's going to be more powerful than America fairly soon? China. 2) There would be a lot of regulations for a test like that. 3) No. You didn't understand when I said people should just understand their political system and what all the candidates stand for. I didn't say the test would make sure one kind of person didn't get elected, before the test people would be educated on what each candidate stood for. Then, whatever they choose is their problem. But at least they'll have had to find out more before just choosing someone based on what they read in one tabloid newspaper. 4) People would be educated before taking the test; something I've been writing all along but you haven't been reading. Of course it won't change the way some people vote, but it will give each candidate a clear chance instead of the majority of people being ignorant and just following what one strand of the media says.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Being educated on your political system, the political parties and their candidates and being any age at the same time means you can make decisions for yourself and are independent from your parents in all cases. providing you can vote.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

You're not making a decision for yourself, your decision effects the entire country.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

They used to give tests to exclude minorities from having a say in the vote. I think the potential for misuse is far too high here.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Yes, but those were mainly "literacy tests," and poll clerks gave more difficult tests to minorities than they did to white men. Nonetheless, a political knowledge test would probably have to be carefully administered and regulated.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

That's what I meant -- but I would worry about the people that can't read English or come from a different culture being underrepresented simply because they were too spooked by said test. Before they made any such test though, I'm sure they would consider these possibilities. :/

by Anonymous 11 years ago

They gave them tests they knew they probably wouldn't pass that were irrelevant to the ability to make a decision, and it was to keep minorities from voting just because they were racist, not because they wanted to make sure they knew what they were voting for. The test wouldn't be used for the sole purpose of leaving out certain people, and everyone would have to take it, not just a certain group of people.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

but it would be written by politicians, because who else would right it? so therefore it will be bent to some political affiliation in order to keep out certain demographics, and thus the cycle of corruption begins.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

It would be written by political scientists, who actually study politics. You don't need to have a degree in politics to be a politician.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

But political scientists don't run the country so politicians would still ultimately decide.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

The whole purpose of voting is to see what the general opinion of the people is, not exclusively the educated. Would a good compromise be to allow people under 18 to test on their political knowledge, and let them vote of they passed?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I've read all the comments so far, and this is THE best thing I've come accross.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

That's a really dangerous road to go down. Of course there are people who vote who are very uninformed. But testing people to see if they can vote is just a horrible idea. Sure, it might help root out some uninformed voters, but it's a very slippery slope. Once you start taking away fundamental rights like that, who knows where it will lead to.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

As I said above, the right would still be there, you'd just have to read up a little before you voted.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

you can't guarantee that the right will remain, thats the danger of the slippery slope.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Well no, but you can't guarantee it will remain now either, they can change the voting age if they want, or if they wanted they could make it so you had to have certain qualifications to vote, saying that changing something will put us at risk of them being able to change it isn't exactly a strong argument.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

"Foryoublue" said that there is a possibility the right could be taken away. To which you responded, and i quote: "the right would still be there." Your counterargument to "foryoublue" was based on the premise that the right "would still be there". I pointed out that due to the "slippery slope" you can't guarantee the right will still be there. You than promptly argued that i was wrong in saying that "you can't guarantee the right remain". Your brilliant counterargument to prove that the right will remain is that "you can't guarantee it (the right) will remain". So you literally said the right will be there, and than you essentially said no wait the right won't be there. You are undoing your own argument. so i think you just proved the right can be taken away.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Your last post is saying that if we change something, rights can be taken away. That is precisely why i am arguing against your point. You want to add a test which could easily take away some peoples right to vote. You said, the right won't remain because "if they wanted they could make it so you had to have certain qualifications to vote." First, you just admitted that your voter test (a qualification to vote) could take away rights, aren't trying to disprove that? Secondly, i am against these kinds of qualifications, its why we are arguing, so how do they apply to me? Also, voter restrictions "can be added" does not refute my side of the argument. The argument is that you claim that your idea is better than they way things are currently. This means that saying a "change could be made" doesn't disprove me, because it is not in place currently. So the current "rights" aren't changing in this discussion. you may be wondering why only the "rights" in your argument change? You're proposing a change that may eventually change the "rights". However, you could easily point a drawback of the current system, but not the idea that the current system is broken because of future changes.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

But then it's no longer a right, it's a privilege. A right isn't something you earn, you receive it simply because you are a citizen. Which is why this is a terrible idea. No democracy should ever make suffrage a privilege for certain people while others have no voice.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

People under 18 are people.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Yeah, but it's a guaranteed right for all adults. Obviously you don't give a four year old all the same rights as an adult citizen. But as long as you are of the ago of majority, it's a right, not a privilege.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Okay, say you're 17, and you have strong and justifiable opinions on who you want to be governed by, do you think it's fair that you don't get any kind of say, but someone who genuinely doesn't care gets one, and can, if they choose to, vote for the guy with the silliest name, and the reason behind that is that "it's their right and not yours"?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Which is why Galileo's suggestion is so perfect.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

No I wouldn't be thrilled about it, but I would realize that my time would come. Everyone has to wait to do certain things until they become an adult. That doesn't mean I really like it, but that's just the way it is, and it's not unfair because everyone has to wait.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

If voting really changed anything, we wouldn't be able to vote. Really, the general vote of the citizens is minute compared to the electoral votes.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

and thats why were all going to die!

by Anonymous 11 years ago

You gotta have an age limit because some people under 18 are morons and would probably vote for Justin Bieber or something. And yeah, after 18 your understanding is better.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I'm not sure you read the post at all. Some people over 18 are morons too.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

18 is cut off line for pretty much everything. Its where your now considered an adult. Why? well the line had to be made somewhere in order to keep people from making false votes for their children. why is the drinking age is 21, its an arbitrary date of age. The age line leaves a little room for error, but essentially its supposed to be the end of school and the beginning of the real world. Yes it has some flaws, however, it allows for far less corruption than a test ever would. As a side note: A test has to be selective, and as such will always be biased thanks to its writers, however, an arbitrary age line is an equal cut off for all.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Again. Not just about America. In the UK the drinking age is 18, the voting age is 18 and the age for joining the army and having sex is 16.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

As good as an idea it is, who would arrange this testing for everyone in the world? Depending on their understanding of the world, people would be 'ready' at different ages; have fun testing everybody the moment they become ready to vote (so as not to make them wait). Also, you couldn't just test someone at the age of 10 (for example), have them not understand politics, and say they could never vote again. There would need to be a specific age at which you 'could' test them - which at the moment is 18. But yes, I do agree that some people are ready to vote before 18 and other, older people couldn't care less. But there's got to be an average unless you want to investigate everyone depending on their understanding of politics.

by Anonymous 11 years ago