Page 1 of 10 12345 ... Last
  1. #1
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts

    School Bans Lunches Brought From Home for Health & Profit — Mostly Profit

    From the Chicago Tribune: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/e...,4567867.story



    [i]
    Chicago school bans some lunches brought from home
    To encourage healthful eating, Chicago school doesn't allow kids to bring lunches or certain snacks from home — and some parents, and many students, aren't fans of the policy

    Fernando Dominguez cut the figure of a young revolutionary leader during a recent lunch period at his elementary school. "Who thinks the lunch is not good enough?" the seventh-grader shouted to his lunch mates in Spanish and English.

    Dozens of hands flew in the air and fellow students shouted along: "We should bring our own lunch! We should bring our own lunch! We should bring our own lunch!"

    Fernando waved his hand over the crowd and asked a visiting reporter: "Do you see the situation?"

    At his public school, Little Village Academy on Chicago's West Side, students are not allowed to pack lunches from home. Unless they have a medical excuse, they must eat the food served in the cafeteria. Principal Elsa Carmona said her intention is to protect students from their own unhealthful food choices. "Nutrition wise, it is better for the children to eat at the school," Carmona said. "It's about the nutrition and the excellent quality food that they are able to serve (in the lunchroom). It's milk versus a Coke. But with allergies and any medical issue, of course, we would make an exception."

    Carmona said she created the policy six years ago after watching students bring "bottles of soda and flaming hot chips" on field trips for their lunch. Although she would not name any other schools that employ such practices, she said it was fairly common.

    A Chicago Public Schools spokeswoman said she could not say how many schools prohibit packed lunches and that decision is left to the judgment of the principals. "While there is no formal policy, principals use common sense judgment based on their individual school environments," Monique Bond wrote in an email. "In this case, this principal is encouraging the healthier choices and attempting to make an impact that extends beyond the classroom."

    Any school that bans homemade lunches also puts more money in the pockets of the district's food provider, Chartwells-Thompson. The federal government pays the district for each free or reduced-price lunch taken, and the caterer receives a set fee from the district per lunch.

    At Little Village, most students must take the meals served in the cafeteria or go hungry or both. During a recent visit to the school, dozens of students took the lunch but threw most of it in the garbage uneaten. Though CPS has improved the nutritional quality of its meals this year, it also has seen a drop-off in meal participation among students, many of whom say the food tastes bad. "Some of the kids don't like the food they give at our school for lunch or breakfast," said Little Village parent Erica Martinez. "So it would be a good idea if they could bring their lunch so they could at least eat something."

    "(My grandson) is really picky about what he eats," said Anna Torrez, who was picking up the boy from school. "I think they should be able to bring their lunch. Other schools let them. But at this school, they don't."

    But parent Miguel Medina said he thinks the "no home lunch policy" is a good one. "The school food is very healthy," he said, "and when they bring the food from home, there is no control over the food."

    At Claremont Academy Elementary School on the South Side, officials allow packed lunches but confiscate any snacks loaded with sugar or salt. (They often are returned after school.) Principal Rebecca Stinson said that though students may not like it, she has yet to hear a parent complain. "The kids may have money or earn money and (buy junk food) without their parents' knowledge," Stinson said, adding that most parents expect that the school will look out for their children.

    Such discussions over school lunches and healthy eating echo a larger national debate about the role government should play in individual food choices. "This is such a fundamental infringement on parental responsibility," said J. Justin Wilson, a senior researcher at the Washington-based Center for Consumer Freedom, which is partially funded by the food industry. "Would the school balk if the parent wanted to prepare a healthier meal?" Wilson said. "This is the perfect illustration of how the government's one-size-fits-all mandate on nutrition fails time and time again. Some parents may want to pack a gluten-free meal for a child, and others may have no problem with a child enjoying soda."

    For many CPS parents, the idea of forbidding home-packed lunches would be unthinkable. If their children do not qualify for free or reduced-price meals, such a policy would require them to pay $2.25 a day for food they don't necessarily like. "We don't spend anywhere close to that on my son's daily intake of a sandwich (lovingly cut into the shape of a Star Wars ship), Goldfish crackers and milk," education policy professor Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach wrote in an email. Her son attends Nettelhorst Elementary School in Lakeview. "Not only would mandatory school lunches worsen the dietary quality of most kids' lunches at Nettelhorst, but it would also cost more out of pocket to most parents! There is no chance the parents would stand for that."

    Many Little Village students claim that, given the opportunity, they would make sound choices. "They're afraid that we'll all bring in greasy food instead of healthy food and it won't be as good as what they give us at school," said student Yesenia Gutierrez. "It's really lame. If we could bring in our own lunches, everyone knows what they'd bring. For example, the vegetarians could bring in their own veggie food."

    "I would bring a sandwich or a Subway and maybe a juice," said seventh-grader Ashley Valdez.

    Second-grader Gerardo Ramos said, "I would bring a banana, orange and some grapes."

    "I would bring a juice and like a sandwich," said fourth-grader Eric Sanchez. "Sometimes I would bring the healthy stuff," second-grader Julian Ruiz said, "but sometimes I would bring Lunchables."
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  2. # ADS
    Circuit advertisement
    Join Date
    Always
    Location
    Advertising world
    Posts
    Many
     

  3. #2
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    Chicago School Accuses Parents of Poisoning Children
    http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/publ...-children.html


    Do you think this has anything to do with the “no lunch from home” policy?

    Any school that bans homemade lunches also puts more money in the pockets of the district’s food provider, Chartwells-Thompson. The federal government pays the district for each free or reduced-price lunch taken, and the caterer receives a set fee from the district per lunch.
    I’m sure it’s all about health though. The fact that unions are the ones who profit the most from government health initiatives is purely coincidental.

    Here’s a little side challenge: Look at the photo that accompanies the story and try to figure out exactly what in the world is on those food trays. I’m afraid to guess. If they’re trying to get kids to lose weight, that should do it.

    Finally, here’s the nanny-state’s dream citizen:

    But parent Miguel Medina said he thinks the “no home lunch policy” is a good one. “The school food is very healthy,” he said, “and when they bring the food from home, there is no control over the food.”
    Um, here’s a wacky suggestion: You, the parent, could control your kid’s lunch. Just a thought. I’ll just get down off my “rugged individualism” soapbox now.

    All things being equal, when it comes to setting kids up for a lifetime of subjugation to the nanny state or having too much sugar in his or her lunch from home, I say “give me Gummi Bears or give me death.”

    comments

    I hope the school doesn’t allow children to stay home for spring break or teacher work days. Who knows what the poor children might eat without our government there to “control” what they eat.

    So, if a few bad parents means we shouldn’t trust ANY parent to do the right thing, then what about teachers? Shouldn’t a few bad teachers mean we can’t trust ANY teacher to do the right thing?

    ---

    Why do liberals who have spent decades engineering school populations that are as “diverse” as humanly possible now think that all of these young students should eat exactly the same thing for lunch?

    Where is their tolerance for diverse tastes and nutritional needs?

    Shouldn’t the kids be allowed to honor their cultural heritage with their food choices?

    Oh I forgot… it is all about CONTROL.

    ---

    Actually, this is a good idea, providing that…

    Every teacher, administrator, government official in the Chicago area can no longer bring their own lunch or go out to lunch. They must buy and eat the same exact meals they are forcing these children to eat.

    If a lobbyist wants to buy lunch or dinner for his favorite politician, they he can reimburse the city for one of these Chartwells-Thompson culinary delights.

    After all, we are concerned and our “intention is to protect students/government minions from their own unhealthful food choices”.

    ----

    Some of our modern problems are completely without precedent. Before the 1950s (and all the way back through pre-history), the only problem there had ever been with food was that there wasn’t enough, and people starved sometimes.

    Now the biggest health problem among the lowest income bracket people in developed countries is obesity – too much food. On a societal level, a completely new problem.

    Of course the Dems have a solution – their same solution to everything: bigger government, more Dem power. (Shame on us for letting them fool us so often.)

    We should be very careful with this new problem – all proposed “solutions” could easily make the situation worse.





    The food profiteers & self-appointed nutrition cops stampede onward. http://michellemalkin.com/2011/02/16...ichelle-obama/
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  4. #3
    pepperpot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    exactly where I should be...
    Posts
    8,566
    Thanks
    4,402
    Thanked 3,793 Times in 2,027 Posts
    I thought school was about learning to read, write and do math, etc.? Are they now responsible for our children's nutrition? (on our dime of course)


    *80% of the food is thrown away and not eaten. I've seen it for fact. *
    Mrs Pepperpot is a lady who always copes with the tricky situations that she finds herself in....

  5. #4

    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Posts
    3,639
    Thanks
    650
    Thanked 502 Times in 277 Posts
    Ok I am not a health nut by any means but I pack my kids lunch and always include some type of fresh fruit or vege. Occasionally I let her have chips or some type of sweet snack....its my choice.....Heads would roll and my kid would continue to have a packed lunch!

  6. #5
    jasmine's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Out in the sticks, on a long dirt road that leads to no-where
    Posts
    6,156
    Thanks
    1,481
    Thanked 1,466 Times in 856 Posts
    Be careful cowgirl, if you admit you let your kids eat chips, or god-forbid cookies or something, you might just want to go hide under a rock.
    Everyone always says that they eat and feed there children soooo healthy ...... I just wonder if that's really true, or just all talk to sound good. I would really love to go look and see what they have in their cubbards/fridge.

    I posted this in the other thread, before it got closed. My response was:

    *They didn't mention those that bring lunches because perhaps they can't afford to buy one at school because they don't qualify for free or reduced lunches.*
    Also, if the government wants to control what kids eat, and what parents can and can not feed their children, then they should pay for all the lunches. It's not fair to put the cost on parents that can't afford it.
    Last edited by jasmine; 04-15-2011 at 06:20 PM.

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to jasmine For This Useful Post:

    Jolie Rouge (04-15-2011)

  8. #6

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,593
    Thanks
    118
    Thanked 545 Times in 251 Posts
    My parents let all of my siblings eat & drink (tea, coke, pepsi, coffee, mt dew.) whatever we wanted. None of us has ever been overweight or unhealthy... I will also say, I have always allows my son to eat & drink whatever his lil heart desires. There you have it - I have been a bad mother for 19 yrs & I have been eating whatever the hell I want for 38 yrs...

    As long as people let the Government control them they will continue to do so.


    ETA: I better add a disclaimer - When I mentioned "drink", I do not mean alcoholic beverages.
    Last edited by Bliss; 04-15-2011 at 09:39 PM. Reason: Add my disclaimer

  9. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Bliss For This Useful Post:

    jasmine (04-16-2011), SLance68 (04-19-2011)

  10. #7

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    2,400
    Thanks
    849
    Thanked 444 Times in 312 Posts
    School food is NOT made fresh that day. Many of the items are frozen and then ZAPPED at the school. When I was a mere child, our food was made fresh every day and the meals were balanced. We were not asked if we wanted veggies, they were put on our plates. Todays school cafeterias cannot be compared to what I received.

    As a heavily taxed property owner, if I had kids in school and the principal tried to dictate what I could and could not give my kids, I would hold the door open and wave goodbye to them (and not let them leave with any benefits). What makes these people think they are smarter than I am? It's like the mayor of NYC who wants to dictate what we can eat yet he acknowledges that his favorite food are the hotdogs from the carts on the street! Another case of do as I say and not as I do.

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to boopster For This Useful Post:

    Jolie Rouge (04-17-2011)

  12. #8
    BeanieLuvR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    a small town in Ohio
    Posts
    9,661
    Thanks
    5,488
    Thanked 1,514 Times in 1,167 Posts
    I pack my son's lunch every day and fur would fly if the school told me I couldn't.

  13. #9
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    APRIL 19, 2011
    The Unwise War Against Chocolate Milk
    Schools that ban it find that kids drink less milk, period.

    By JEN SINGER


    One by one, the children trooped to our table and put their apples in front of my son. By the fourth apple, I asked Christopher—my date for "Lunch with Your Second Grader" at the local elementary school in Kinnelon, N.J.—what was going on. "Oh, they don't like the apples that come with lunch, so they give them to me," he reported, shrugging. "I can't eat them all."

    I'm the mother of two boys, now middle-schoolers, one a good eater and one who would live on pizza and root beer if I let him. Christopher eats apples, and Nicholas leaves his on the lunch tray. He's the one who needs his chocolate milk. Yes, chocolate.

    And so it was disturbing to hear about the recent chocolate milk ban in the Fairfax County, Va., school system and elsewhere around the country. Ditching chocolate milk to cut down on our children's sugar intake might be the right sentiment, but it's the wrong solution.

    Let's face it: Chocolate milk is parents' way of sneaking nutritional content into something palatable.

    Most of us know that our children's public-school lunches are filled with lousy choices. Jamie Oliver, a British television chef, recently tried to enter Los Angeles schools and revamp the menu. After being banned from doing so, he invited families to bring food from school cafeterias to him. What he got reads like a diabetic's nightmare: waffles, icing-covered donuts, french fries, pizza and fruit soaking in corn syrup.

    Still, at 'Lunch with Your Second Grader', I managed to scrounge up a salad and bottled water after skipping the fries and whatever was in that giant white bread bun. My son also ate healthy (though didn't get through all those apples)—largely because he's my good eater. I could pat myself on the back for his proclivity toward healthier foods, except I know that his taste buds have something to do with it. This is a child who, at age two, begged for lobster, opening his mouth like a baby bird and demanding, "More monster."

    Meanwhile, his brother's four food groups looked pretty much like this: apple juice, Girl Scouts cookies, chicken nuggets, and anything shaped like Elmo. He needed the chocolate milk when he was in elementary school because it was the spoonful of sugar—or four—that made the medicine go down. He got his vitamin D and calcium, plus some protein, and I got peace of mind.

    I offset this dietary indiscretion at home by serving my kids healthier foods, occasionally organic, sans all that corn syrup. I held dessert hostage in exchange for some quality veggie intake, and I banned soda outright. I made healthy choices for my family, and I taught my sons to make them, too. I shared food labels with them, explaining why we try to choose items with shorter lists of ingredients that are easy to spell and identify. ("If it has a lot of long words with Xs and Zs in them, skip it.") I taught them to eat something green every day (icing and sprinkles don't count), and to eat their fruit instead of just drinking it from a little box. I taught them that milk does a body good—and that a little chocolate in it now and then is okay.

    Let's face it: Chocolate milk is like broccoli hidden in mashed potatoes. It's the way parents sneak nutritional content into something palatable to kids who choose their breakfast cereal not by the quality of its content but by the cartoon characters on the box.

    In fact, the Washington Post reports that removing flavored milk from schools reduces children's milk consumption by 37%. And for many kids, school is the only place they drink any milk all week long. Take it away, and they don't get those nutrients anywhere.

    Unfortunately, even TV's Mr. Oliver wants to rid our schools of chocolate milk. What he and all the rest seem not to realize is that targeting chocolate milk while there are still "Honey Buns"—some sort of iced lard item that I witnessed at 'Lunch with Your Second Grader'—is like running around blowing out candles while your house is on fire. You might say we have bigger fish to fry first.

    Ms. Singer is the editor in chief of mommasaid.net.


    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...wsreel_opinion



    When ever I go on fieldtrips with my son's classes I collect the untouched and uneaten stuff - pounds of fresh carrot sticks, whole apples and bring them back home. Kids eat the meat from the sandwiches ( no mayo or dressings ) and feed the bread to whatever wildlife is nearby and the rest is mostly waste. Sad.
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  14. #10
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    It's always mom's fault....

    Pregnant mothers' diet linked to child obesity
    ABC News – Tue Apr 19, 2:34 am ET



    WELLINGTON (AFP) – An expectant mother's diet during pregnancy can alter her baby's DNA in the womb, increasing its risk of obesity, heart disease and diabetes in later life, an international study has found.

    Researchers said the study provided the first scientific evidence linking pregnant women's diet to childhood obesity, with major implications for public health. "This a a major breakthrough because for the first time it gives us the potential to work out the optimal diet a mother should eat," Professor Peter Gluckman from Auckland University's Liggins Institute told AFP. "That's likely to vary slightly from mother to mother, but it could be a major tool in addressing the obesity epidemic."

    The study, conducted by scientists in Britain, New Zealand and Singapore, showed that what a mother ate during pregnancy could change the function of her child's DNA through a process called epigenetic change.

    Children with a high degree of epigenetic change were more likely to develop a metabolism that "lays down more fat" and become obese, researchers found.

    Such children were around three kilograms (6.6 pounds) heavier than their peers by the time they were aged six to nine, Gluckman said. "That's a hell of a lot of extra weight at that age," he said, adding that the extra fat was likely to be carried into adulthood, raising the chances of developing diabetes and heart disease.

    The researchers used umbilical cord tissue to measure the rate of epigenetic change in 300 babies, then examined whether it was linked to the children's weight when they were aged six to nine. "The correlation was very strong, we didn't believe it at first, so we replicated it again and again," Gluckman said.

    The study found the effect was not linked to either the mother or the baby's weight at birth, meaning a slim woman could deliver a small baby which still went on to became obese because of changes triggered by diet in the womb.

    Gluckman said the rate of epigenetic change was possibly linked to a low carbohydrate diet in the first three months of pregnancy but it was too early to draw a definitive conclusion and further studies were needed.

    He said one theory was that an embryo fed a diet containing few carbohydrates -- which provide the body with energy -- assumed it would be born into a carbohydrate-poor environment and altered its metabolism accordingly. This meant it stored more fat, which could be used as fuel when food was scarce.

    Gluckman said the study, which will be published in the journal Diabetes next week, confirmed long-held suspicions that poor prenatal nutrition could have a major impact on adult heath.

    This meant health officials battling soaring obesity rates should look at policies designed to improve the health of expectant mothers, rather than simply focusing on trying to help overweight adults, he said. "It provides the most compelling argument yet to give greater weight to improving maternal and infant health as a means of reducing the burden of chronic disease."

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110419...egnancyobesity

    comments/

    I once read that women who have morning sickness (although I'd like it to be renamed "pregnancy nausea" because it isn't just in the morning) in the first trimester go on to have healthier babies (possibly less type2 diabetes). When you're feeling nauseated mostly what you can deal with eating are crackers and such (carb-rich foods). When read in conjunction with this article it brings up intriguing possibilities.

    But I agree that this needs further study before we start leaping to conclusions.

    ---

    I like this explanation. Probably only explains a tiny fraction of the whole. But it is another link in the chain. I'd like to see more replication and independent verification though, before we start trying to engineer pregnant women's diet. I for one, would not appreciate being treated as a lab rat on a strict diet. People are always tinkering with pregnant women... gain more, gain less, exercise less, exercise more, drink one alcoholic beverage a day, drink no alcohol, don't smoke, smoking is ok... Common sense and moderation seems the best prescription.

    ---

    Very interesting. I wonder then if the increase in child obesity could be a result of all the processed, refined foods we have been eating in recent generations. It's just a guess but if Moms were eating quick food in early pregnancy which is a relatively new phenomenon, then it would explain why there is such a rapid rise in childhood obesity. I have always said that the answer will be complex, not just a simple "we all suddenly decided to start eating a ton of calories". I don't think this is the only piece of the puzzle but it is one piece of a large puzzle.
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  15. #11
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    oh wait ... it's mom's fault ....

    Pregnant mothers' diet linked to child obesity
    Tue Apr 19, 2:34 am ET



    WELLINGTON (AFP) – An expectant mother's diet during pregnancy can alter her baby's DNA in the womb, increasing its risk of obesity, heart disease and diabetes in later life, an international study has found.

    Researchers said the study provided the first scientific evidence linking pregnant women's diet to childhood obesity, with major implications for public health.

    "This a a major breakthrough because for the first time it gives us the potential to work out the optimal diet a mother should eat," Professor Peter Gluckman from Auckland University's Liggins Institute told AFP.

    "That's likely to vary slightly from mother to mother, but it could be a major tool in addressing the obesity epidemic."

    The study, conducted by scientists in Britain, New Zealand and Singapore, showed that what a mother ate during pregnancy could change the function of her child's DNA through a process called epigenetic change.

    Children with a high degree of epigenetic change were more likely to develop a metabolism that "lays down more fat" and become obese, researchers found.

    Such children were around three kilograms (6.6 pounds) heavier than their peers by the time they were aged six to nine, Gluckman said.

    "That's a hell of a lot of extra weight at that age," he said, adding that the extra fat was likely to be carried into adulthood, raising the chances of developing diabetes and heart disease.

    The researchers used umbilical cord tissue to measure the rate of epigenetic change in 300 babies, then examined whether it was linked to the children's weight when they were aged six to nine.

    "The correlation was very strong, we didn't believe it at first, so we replicated it again and again," Gluckman said.

    The study found the effect was not linked to either the mother or the baby's weight at birth, meaning a slim woman could deliver a small baby which still went on to became obese because of changes triggered by diet in the womb.

    Gluckman said the rate of epigenetic change was possibly linked to a low carbohydrate diet in the first three months of pregnancy but it was too early to draw a definitive conclusion and further studies were needed.

    He said one theory was that an embryo fed a diet containing few carbohydrates -- which provide the body with energy -- assumed it would be born into a carbohydrate-poor environment and altered its metabolism accordingly.

    This meant it stored more fat, which could be used as fuel when food was scarce.

    Gluckman said the study, which will be published in the journal Diabetes next week, confirmed long-held suspicions that poor prenatal nutrition could have a major impact on adult heath.

    This meant health officials battling soaring obesity rates should look at policies designed to improve the health of expectant mothers, rather than simply focusing on trying to help overweight adults, he said. "It provides the most compelling argument yet to give greater weight to improving maternal and infant health as a means of reducing the burden of chronic disease."

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110419...egnancyobesity

    Very interesting. I wonder then if the increase in child obesity could be a result of all the processed, refined foods we have been eating in recent generations. It's just a guess but if Moms were eating quick food in early pregnancy which is a relatively new phenomenon, then it would explain why there is such a rapid rise in childhood obesity. I have always said that the answer will be complex, not just a simple "we all suddenly decided to start eating a ton of calories". I don't think this is the only piece of the puzzle but it is one piece of a large puzzle.

    ---
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

Posting Permissions

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

Log in

Log in