Should Catholics be concerned about animals?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Marfran
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Here is a documentary film produced by HSUS concerning the Christian perspective on factory farming. It is called Eating Mercifully. There is a Catholic nun featured about halfway through the film. It is quite interesting. Please view so that we can discuss.

video.hsus.org/?fr_story=fddfc1d63c358bb2db36b53597ceeb7b724f5771&rf=bm
Someone told me that there is trouble with this link. Works for me. Anyone else have trouble let me know. The title of the piece is Eating Mercifully. If you are getting something different then I’ll have to figure out how to fix this.
 
Someone told me that there is trouble with this link. Works for me. Anyone else have trouble let me know. The title of the piece is Eating Mercifully. If you are getting something different then I’ll have to figure out how to fix this.
I’m just getting a black screen…😦 But I think this is because of this stupid office computer not letting me view it! :mad:

lol 😃
 
The obvious answer is yes. It’s not just the responsible stewardship issue. Though inferior to humans, animals and plants are connected to us by virtue that they come from the same Creator. Daniel 3:57-88 makes it plain that the entire material universe reflects God’s glory. If not being concerned about them (including plants) is perfectly okay with God then we shouldn’t be suffering from the consequences of not taking good care of them.We have cut down too many trees and whacked the pigs’ immune system, and now we’re experiencing global warming and witnessing swine flu kill hundreds of its victims.

What’s good about this video is that it doesn’t bash meat eaters in the head, it just offers the suggestion of cutting back on meat. I personally do not recommend meat, but the thing is that we cannot make everyone in the planet stop eating meat even with all these arguments. As long as men are free they will always have the choice of eating animal flesh. God knew that for Himself that’s why He made all animals clean. But what we can do is help others realize that there are other options–healthier, more environment- and animal-friendly choices.
 
The obvious answer is yes. It’s not just the responsible stewardship issue. Though inferior to humans, animals and plants are connected to us by virtue that they come from the same Creator. Daniel 3:57-88 makes it plain that the entire material universe reflects God’s glory. If not being concerned about them (including plants) is perfectly okay with God then we shouldn’t be suffering from the consequences of not taking good care of them.We have cut down too many trees and whacked the pigs’ immune system, and now we’re experiencing global warming and witnessing swine flu kill hundreds of its victims.

What’s good about this video is that it doesn’t bash meat eaters in the head, it just offers the suggestion of cutting back on meat. I personally do not recommend meat, but the thing is that we cannot make everyone in the planet stop eating meat even with all these arguments. As long as men are free they will always have the choice of eating animal flesh. God knew that for Himself that’s why He made all animals clean. But what we can do is help others realize that there are other options–healthier, more environment- and animal-friendly choices.
Nicely put raw vegan girl! 😃

xxx zundrah xxx
 
Here is a documentary film produced by HSUS concerning the Christian perspective on factory farming. It is called Eating Mercifully. There is a Catholic nun featured about halfway through the film. It is quite interesting. Please view so that we can discuss.

video.hsus.org/?fr_story=fddfc1d63c358bb2db36b53597ceeb7b724f5771&rf=bm
I am not a vegan, and won’t consider becoming one. Before you consign me to Purgatory (hopefully in Colorado:o) I hope y’all remember that JESUS Himself ate fish, and never counselled anybody to cease doing so.

God Bless and ICXC NIKA
 
I am not a vegan, and won’t consider becoming one. Before you consign me to Purgatory (hopefully in Colorado:o) I hope y’all remember that JESUS Himself ate fish, and never counselled anybody to cease doing so.

God Bless and ICXC NIKA
We are discussing the video ***Eating Mercifully ***from HSUS (Humane Society of the United States). I don’t believe that Jesus ate anything that was factory farmed. This is an issue of modern times. It would be great if you would view the video and rejoin our discussion with your comments on the piece!!!
 
I have only been in one hog confinement facility, ever. So, I can’t say what’s typical; only that the pictures in the film were not typical of what I saw.

I have been in poultry plants. The latter showed the nastiest part of the process; called “live dock”, but I suppose that was the point, to show the nastiest part. I will add, however, that we raised what are called “range chickens” now, when I was a kid, and there’s just no way to kill a chicken much more humanely than what they do on “live dock”. The way farmers used to kill them was nastier.

Chicken catching is similar to what was shown. But they don’t throw them around. Catching crews get penalized for any kind of bruising, cuts or whatever, so they avoid it.

I have been in integrator houses and egg houses, and the film was accurate in some respects, but not in others; particularly not the egg houses. I have never been in an egg house where several chickens were in some little cage. There are individual cages that the hens go into on their own to lay their eggs, then go back out into open areas where there is food and water.

If people don’t think chicken houses in “old time farming” operations were full of feces, they don’t know much about “old time farming”. Chickens drop their loads wherever they are, including sometimes in their own nests. Yet, in “old time farms” they went into the chicken houses readily to roost or lay eggs. In modern integrator houses, they line the floors with deep linings of either wood shavings or rice hulls. They take out the whole floor lining after each flock. You smell fecal material, all right, but certainly no worse than “Grandma’s and Grandpa’s” chicken house; better, really.

Perhaps the most laughable part of the chicken tale was that business about chickens’ legs breaking because their breasts are so big. Yes, they do breed them to have big breasts. But there is a poultry processing plant in my town, and a hatchery. They give away baby chicks that aren’t perfectly conformed, and people raise them to maturity. There’s nothing wrong with them. There is also a rule that if a chicken gets outside the plant fence, it’s free to anybody who wants to bother to catch it. People do, all the time. They take them home for their own eggs or meat or whatever, and there’s nothing wrong with them at all. Their legs don’t break. I think the producers of the film were sold a bill of goods on that one.

The treatment to beef cattle shown is totally inaccurate. Reality is much more like the idyllic scene toward the end of the film. Steers and heifers destined for slaughter do, indeed, get fed grain for a short time just before slaughter, and that’s true. Feed lots are not pleasant, but neither was Grandpa’s cow barn. In fact, most beef producers (around here anyway) never put cows in barns because it’s unhealthy for them. They do just fine out in the open. And no cow-calf producer with half a brain (and the right climate) would feed them on anything but grass or hay. I’ll grant that some do feed grain supplements, but it’s unnecessary, expensive and, in my view, not very smart. Mistreating cattle is stupid. Buyers can spot every injury and defect, and you’ll lose money mistreating the animals.

I don’t personally dehorn, brand or castrate. Almost nobody brands anymore, so I don’t know where they came up with that as being “typical”. It’s hard on the animal and ruins part of the hide, and can get infected. I don’t know anybody who brands. I have the vet come to do dehorns and castrations. My impression of both is that it’s something equivalent to having a tooth pulled for a human. Not pleasant. Obviously painful. Very short-lived. If an animal has good-sized horns, the vets will inject painkiller into the flesh at the base of the horn before doing it.

Why do people dehorn? Two reasons. First, the buyers want them that way, and that’s related to the second reason. A cow, steer or bull with horns can very seriously injure another animal, and will often do it no matter what the environment is like. I personally leave the horns on herd bulls and on “lead cows”. The lead cows are the dominant animals in a herd no matter what. Since no animal will challenge them anyway, they don’t hurt the others. It’s the struggle for dominance lower down in the “pecking order” where horns will cause injuries. Bulls only fight other bulls, so you don’t keep two of them in the same pasture unless it’s an enormous huge pasture and there are too many cows for one bull. Even then, it’s risky. Why do I leave any of the horns on? Because I think they’re picturesque and I like to see a few of them, and one or two in a herd do no harm. No other reason. Well, I ought to add, as a negative, that horned stock are harder to get into a stanchion for veterinary treatment. It takes more skill to do it. I guess I would also have to admit that any cow can kill you, given the right circumstance. Easier to kill you with horns, I guess, though a dehorned cow can kill a human very quickly too. I had to laugh at the farmer (I guess he really was one, not some fool of an actor) who went up to the newborn calf in an open field with what I think was the mother right there. I can’t think of a single thing one can do with cattle that can more easily lead to one being killed than that. I don’t care how tame cattle are, mother cows will often try to kill you if you get too close to a newborn calf, and in an open field, there’s no place to go. Cattle are remarkably fast when they want to be. She’s got you.

On the whole, (and admitting there are gaps in my knowledge) I would say the film is fundamentally sentimental, not really very realistic in a number of ways.
 
Ridgerunner: I appreciate that you **did **view the film–so many people on the “meat” threads won’t even view the video that is the topic of discussion–but post anyway, whatever they feel like posting whether it is pertinent or not. So thank you for that!!! I understand that you have firsthand experience raising beef cattle. Unfortunately, the general public has NO idea how their meat is raised, and some perhaps fancifully think it just a shape of food, and disassociate themselves from the idea that it was once a living animal.

This short film is on the HSUS (Humane Society of the United States) web site. I don’t know if they produced it, or just endorse it. What is your opinion of HSUS?? Is the HSUS a problem for farmers/ranchers? Does this organization pose a threat to farming and ranching? Should animals as pets, only fall under the umbrella of HSUS and not farm animals??? Do all animals deserve consideration by the HSUS?

Is it a help or a hindrance to have the general public more informed about the conditions and the methods in which their meat/dairy/eggs are produced?

If no animals are ever abused, mistreated, and are mercifully killed at slaughter, there would be NO videos available anywhere. So even if there is only one facility where all this occurs, shouldn’t we all have the right to know about it, and address those issues with that facility?

You said that you thought the film was sentimental. Do you feel that the HSUS is a sentimental organization, or do you think it is concerned for the welfare of animals and issues of mistreatment, and is generally not neccssarily sentimental? And how do you feel about the Christain perspective of the film?
 
Ridgerunner: I appreciate that you **did **view the film–so many people on the “meat” threads won’t even view the video that is the topic of discussion–but post anyway, whatever they feel like posting whether it is pertinent or not. So thank you for that!!! I understand that you have firsthand experience raising beef cattle. Unfortunately, the general public has NO idea how their meat is raised, and some perhaps fancifully think it just a shape of food, and disassociate themselves from the idea that it was once a living animal.

This short film is on the HSUS (Humane Society of the United States) web site. I don’t know if they produced it, or just endorse it. What is your opinion of HSUS?? Is the HSUS a problem for farmers/ranchers? Does this organization pose a threat to farming and ranching? Should animals as pets, only fall under the umbrella of HSUS and not farm animals??? Do all animals deserve consideration by the HSUS? I hate to disappoint, but I have no idea whether HSUS poses any threat to farming and ranching. Judging by the film (which appears to be that of some religious organization; perhaps not HSUS) I would say the attitudes and approaches demonstrated by the film are well-meaning but uninformed. I would not want to see the moderators of this film in charge of meat production in any way.

Is it a help or a hindrance to have the general public more informed about the conditions and the methods in which their meat/dairy/eggs are produced? **I don’t know that it matters, particularly. If it was some horror, then doubtless they should. But as I do not think it is, it seems irrelevant to me. **

If no animals are ever abused, mistreated, and are mercifully killed at slaughter, there would be NO videos available anywhere. So even if there is only one facility where all this occurs, shouldn’t we all have the right to know about it, and address those issues with that facility? ** I am not sure about “we all”, since the likelihood is that people will extend the aspects of the worst to all. In my mind, it is more properly a function of local governmental agencies whose job it is to prevent animal cruelty. **

You said that you thought the film was sentimental. Do you feel that the HSUS is a sentimental organization, or do you think it is concerned for the welfare of animals and issues of mistreatment, and is generally not neccssarily sentimental? And how do you feel about the Christain perspective of the film?** I was so distracted by some of the errors in the film that I largely missed the “Christian perspective”. Since, in addition, it has a heavy protestant overlay to it, I guess I filtered most of that out, since I do not adhere to protestant ways of approaching these things. I do think HSUS is fundamentally sentimental when it deals with corporate farming, since it expresses conclusions without adequate foundation. In other areas of its concern, I don’t think so. I have seen HSUS go after “puppy mills”; complain to local law enforcement, etc., and I think that’s appropriate. I do not disrespect the organization, and feel it has its place. But if it wants to examine agribusiness, it needs to educate itself better than is demonstrated in this film.**
I will say this in addition. In my opinion it is a bad idea to anthropomorphize farm animals, or to fail to take into consideration their particular natures. The woman who features so prominently in the film evidently has hogs running around loose in areas in which people, presumably including children, are active. I have never raised hogs, but my parents did. Hogs are exceedingly dangerous animals, potentially. They can and sometimes will kill and eat a human being; particularly a child. Perhaps three years ago, a farmer relative of mine came within an ace of death when a hog suddenly turned on him and tore open his femoral artery with one bite. He had raised hogs all his life, in the classic “farmer in the Dell” way. This segment of the film reminded me of that woman who raised the chimpanzee that attacked another woman unexpectedly and nearly killed her. Some animals simply cannot be trusted, no matter how they act a good part of the time, and the fact that the woman in the film was treating them as if they were dogs or children tells me she has a blind spot in her approach to swine; perhaps to all farm animals. I realize the film was attempting to achieve a dramatic effect, but for my part, I would rather see total, dispassionate accuracy in a film about agribusiness.

From my perspective as a Catholic, I believe humans should feel a moral obligation to be good stewards of the earth, consistent, always, with the primacy of human life. Unnecessary cruelty to animals bespeaks a mindset that one might fear could extend into the treatment of humans, and shows disrespect for God’s handiwork. Further, it shows disrespect for one’s own obligation to stewardship. One does not open one’s Christmas present and immediately mistreat or destroy it. I will add, however, that there is an aspect of “cruelty”, if you will, attendant upon killing an animal, no matter how you do it. I think, though, that we need to separate that in our minds from how we would view the killing of a human. God has told us we can use animals for food. That necessarily involves killing. I truly don’t know how it could be more humane than the “live dock” kills when it comes to chickens, for example. By the way, there was an inaccuracy there too. “Live dock” operations actually take place under black light. Chickens go somnolent in the dark. They see nothing under black light, but the workers can see the chickens vividly because they’re white. (they breed them for that, too, and primarily for that reason) The chickens are already asleep or virtually so when they receive the shock mentioned in the film.
 
I have only been in one hog confinement facility, ever. So, I can’t say what’s typical; only that the pictures in the film were not typical of what I saw.

I have been in poultry plants. The latter showed the nastiest part of the process; called “live dock”, but I suppose that was the point, to show the nastiest part. I will add, however, that we raised what are called “range chickens” now, when I was a kid, and there’s just no way to kill a chicken much more humanely than what they do on “live dock”. The way farmers used to kill them was nastier.

Chicken catching is similar to what was shown. But they don’t throw them around. Catching crews get penalized for any kind of bruising, cuts or whatever, so they avoid it.

I have been in integrator houses and egg houses, and the film was accurate in some respects, but not in others; particularly not the egg houses. I have never been in an egg house where several chickens were in some little cage. There are individual cages that the hens go into on their own to lay their eggs, then go back out into open areas where there is food and water.

If people don’t think chicken houses in “old time farming” operations were full of feces, they don’t know much about “old time farming”. Chickens drop their loads wherever they are, including sometimes in their own nests. Yet, in “old time farms” they went into the chicken houses readily to roost or lay eggs. In modern integrator houses, they line the floors with deep linings of either wood shavings or rice hulls. They take out the whole floor lining after each flock. You smell fecal material, all right, but certainly no worse than “Grandma’s and Grandpa’s” chicken house; better, really.

Perhaps the most laughable part of the chicken tale was that business about chickens’ legs breaking because their breasts are so big. Yes, they do breed them to have big breasts. But there is a poultry processing plant in my town, and a hatchery. They give away baby chicks that aren’t perfectly conformed, and people raise them to maturity. There’s nothing wrong with them. There is also a rule that if a chicken gets outside the plant fence, it’s free to anybody who wants to bother to catch it. People do, all the time. They take them home for their own eggs or meat or whatever, and there’s nothing wrong with them at all. Their legs don’t break. I think the producers of the film were sold a bill of goods on that one.

The treatment to beef cattle shown is totally inaccurate. Reality is much more like the idyllic scene toward the end of the film. Steers and heifers destined for slaughter do, indeed, get fed grain for a short time just before slaughter, and that’s true. Feed lots are not pleasant, but neither was Grandpa’s cow barn. In fact, most beef producers (around here anyway) never put cows in barns because it’s unhealthy for them. They do just fine out in the open. And no cow-calf producer with half a brain (and the right climate) would feed them on anything but grass or hay. I’ll grant that some do feed grain supplements, but it’s unnecessary, expensive and, in my view, not very smart. Mistreating cattle is stupid. Buyers can spot every injury and defect, and you’ll lose money mistreating the animals.

I don’t personally dehorn, brand or castrate. Almost nobody brands anymore, so I don’t know where they came up with that as being “typical”. It’s hard on the animal and ruins part of the hide, and can get infected. I don’t know anybody who brands. I have the vet come to do dehorns and castrations. My impression of both is that it’s something equivalent to having a tooth pulled for a human. Not pleasant. Obviously painful. Very short-lived. If an animal has good-sized horns, the vets will inject painkiller into the flesh at the base of the horn before doing it.

Why do people dehorn? Two reasons. First, the buyers want them that way, and that’s related to the second reason. A cow, steer or bull with horns can very seriously injure another animal, and will often do it no matter what the environment is like. I personally leave the horns on herd bulls and on “lead cows”. The lead cows are the dominant animals in a herd no matter what. Since no animal will challenge them anyway, they don’t hurt the others. It’s the struggle for dominance lower down in the “pecking order” where horns will cause injuries. Bulls only fight other bulls, so you don’t keep two of them in the same pasture unless it’s an enormous huge pasture and there are too many cows for one bull. Even then, it’s risky. Why do I leave any of the horns on? Because I think they’re picturesque and I like to see a few of them, and one or two in a herd do no harm. No other reason. Well, I ought to add, as a negative, that horned stock are harder to get into a stanchion for veterinary treatment. It takes more skill to do it. I guess I would also have to admit that any cow can kill you, given the right circumstance. Easier to kill you with horns, I guess, though a dehorned cow can kill a human very quickly too. I had to laugh at the farmer (I guess he really was one, not some fool of an actor) who went up to the newborn calf in an open field with what I think was the mother right there. I can’t think of a single thing one can do with cattle that can more easily lead to one being killed than that. I don’t care how tame cattle are, mother cows will often try to kill you if you get too close to a newborn calf, and in an open field, there’s no place to go. Cattle are remarkably fast when they want to be. She’s got you.

On the whole, (and admitting there are gaps in my knowledge) I would say the film is fundamentally sentimental, not really very realistic in a number of ways.
Exactly.👍
We used to castrate by banding the calves & lambs.Works well for docking tails, too.No blood or shock involved.
 
GET INVOLVED! A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.

Tell the USDA You Want to Know How Animals Are Raised: Every five years the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA… tinyurl.com/kvzrna
 
HSUS is not the local shelter that takes in strays.It’s a pretty extreme animal rights lobbying group.
Re. the question as to what threat HSUS may pose to farmers & ranchers , contact your local Farm Bureau office & see what they say.Or, if you already are a Farm Bureau member, you probably know the answer.
(Hunters & fishermen aren’t very fond of HSUS, either.)
 
Hunters & fishermen aren’t very fond of HSUS, either.
I would image not since HSUS is concerned about the WELFARE of animals.

Thank you CrackM for participating in this thread without watching the video we are discussing.

Back to OUR DISCUSSION on the short film Eating Mercifully, found on the HSUS web site, concerning the Christian perspective on factory farming.
 
(Edited)
Here’s another site with another opinion:SafeFoodLink.com Also the Farm Bureau has good info online re. livestock care.
Meanwhile, back to our discussion…:rolleyes:
 
I am not a vegan, and won’t consider becoming one. Before you consign me to Purgatory (hopefully in Colorado:o) I hope y’all remember that JESUS Himself ate fish, and never counselled anybody to cease doing so.

God Bless and ICXC NIKA
Yup, & back in Bible days my bet is folks cared even less about how animals were treated.Excepting following kosher slaughter, etc.The Jews had a well balanced approach to it-like everything else.The rest of the pagan world…:eek:
 
CrackM:confused:
Is there some presumption here re. watching videos?
Here’s another site with another opinion:SafeFoodLink.com Also the Farm Bureau has good info online re. livestock care.
Meanwhile, back to our discussion…:rolleyes:
CrackM: Based on your (name removed by moderator)ut there is NO EVIDENCE that you watched the video that we are discussing. It is disingenous to join a discussion which revolves around having viewed the material, when you have in fact not viewed it. Kind of like discussing a book that you have not read.

Based on past history, I would prefer that you voluntarily remove yourself from this thread. If you would like to remain, I request that you view the material that we are discussing and limit your comments to what is pertinent to the material. I am well aware of your AGENDA, and suggest that perhaps you start your own thread.

And in that breath, I would again like to say that I appreciate Ridgerunner’s comments and (name removed by moderator)ut–Ridgerunner is a cattle rancher, and is honest and forthwright, and openly shares his experience. And thank you again, Ridgerunner, for viewing the video that we are discussing, and making pertinent discourse to the material.
 
CrackM: Based on your (name removed by moderator)ut there is NO EVIDENCE that you watched the video that we are discussing. It is disingenous to join a discussion which revolves around having viewed the material, when you have in fact not viewed it. Kind of like discussing a book that you have not read.

Based on past history, I would prefer that you voluntarily remove yourself from this thread. If you would like to remain, I request that you view the material that we are discussing and limit your comments to what is pertinent to the material. I am well aware of your AGENDA, and suggest that perhaps you start your own thread.

And in that breath, I would again like to say that I appreciate Ridgerunner’s comments and (name removed by moderator)ut–Ridgerunner is a cattle rancher, and is honest and forthwright, and openly shares his experience. And thank you again, Ridgerunner, for viewing the video that we are discussing, and making pertinent discourse to the material.
Don’t you think it requires a certain amount of presumption to assume a poster has or has not viewed a video? Sensational animal rights propaganda, though it may be? In my humble meat -eating opinion.
I’ve watched it, am not impressed nor in agreement & have also raised beef cattle & sheep on a commercial basis & poultry/eggs, rabbits & hogs for home consumption.Kept bees & dairy cattle, too.
I’m reminded here of comments re. liberals & free speech.It’s only tolerated when one is in agreement.:rolleyes: I do not agree with animal rights lobbying groups such as PETA & HSUS-both of which have been represented in the CAF forums via sensationalized videos.But you have every right to show them & express your viewpoint.And I respect your right to do so.Would it was mutual.🙂
Based on past history…:rolleyes: ?
 
Don’t you think it requires a certain amount of presumption to assume a poster has or has not viewed a video? Sensational animal rights propaganda, though it may be? In my humble meat -eating opinion.
I’ve watched it, am not impressed nor in agreement & have also raised beef cattle & sheep on a commercial basis & poultry/eggs, rabbits & hogs for home consumption.Kept bees & dairy cattle, too.
I’m reminded here of comments re. liberals & free speech.It’s only tolerated when one is in agreement.:rolleyes: I do not agree with animal rights lobbying groups such as PETA & HSUS-both of which have been represented in the CAF forums via sensationalized videos.But you have every right to show them & express your viewpoint.And I respect your right to do so.Would it was mutual.🙂
Based on past history…:rolleyes: ?
We would like to continue to discuss the HSUS short film. You are disingenous, you have not made any statement, other than a hollow claim that you have viewed the film, that indicates that you so in fact actually did view it. Past history suggests that you have a very strong agenda, and purposefully mention PETA, an organization that is inflammatory, and to which I, and most other CAF members are not associated with.

Please do not post here again. Start your own thread.

These comments are specific to this poster only.
 
We would like to continue to discuss the HSUS short film. You are disingenous, you have not made any statement, other than a hollow claim that you have viewed the film, that indicates that you so in fact actually did view it. Past history suggests that you have a very strong agenda, and purposefully mention PETA, an organization that is inflammatory, and to which I, and most other CAF members are not associated with.

Please do not post here again. Start your own thread.

These comments are specific to this poster only.
I’m a firm believer in respecting free speech-yours, mine & everyone else’s and have never reported a poster for lack of charity to the forums admin. but I think your response goes a wee bit over the top.Why would you accuse a poster of not watching a video if they have clearly stated they have indeed watched it? That’s basically accusing one of a lie.As Christians we should assume the best in each other.We do not have to agree but we can surely act in charity & not slander.
You have shown 2 videos on CAF that I’m aware of -one earlier this year that was produced by PETA, & this one from HSUS. That is absolutely your right.Many people support both groups.My take is that these lobbying groups have an radical agenda & do not help the American consumer, outdoors man, nor livestock producer.That opinion is my right to express.And pointing out the source of the media you have links to is appropriate to the conversation I would think.Maybe I’m wrong? I don’t know all the forum rules details.
If forum rules are that the original poster can ban another who disagrees, then so be it.That sounds more like Cuba than America to me…:confused:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top