Vile Requiem Posted July 17, 2004 Report Posted July 17, 2004 Look Everyone, Bush is claiming he's a conduit of God on July 9th! I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn’t do my job. Source -http://lancasteronline.com/pages/news/local/4/7564
Dr.Worthless Posted July 17, 2004 Report Posted July 17, 2004 No. You proide substantial proof that they are not. I just looked up plenty of stuff, its your turn, since you haven’t backed anything up yet.Um, ROFL? No way dude, I just looked up plenty of stuff!!! Its you're turn!! Dude, You haven't posted any of your proof, you can't look stuff up and then state it in an arguement without posting the proof that you read. Case in point. People like to have sex with things they can procreate with. The most basic instinct is that for survival of the species, the instinct to procreate. So again I state the arguement against born sexual orientation. If the most basic instinct of a species is to procreate, why would a species be born with the preference to have sex with something it cannot procreate with? And if someone wants to bone another dude, that is their right. What are you nuts? Breaking out some “freedom†argument in defense of not allowing gays to get married? Following the directives of the church to lead your life has nothing to do with telling other people how to lead their lives.Sorry, No where in the quote did i break out any "freedom" arguement in defense of anything. The point I'm trying to make is, if you want to be a part of the catholic church, you have to abide by its laws. If the pope says -*BAD WORD*-ing other men in the -*BAD WORD*- is wrong, guess what.. if you want to be catholic, you cant -*BAD WORD*- other men. Plus I find something unsettling about what happens when there is a Catholic President and Rome decides to conquer Europe (again). Will the word of god command the mighty arm of the US Armed Forces to destroy the sinners (Muslims, Jews, Protestants… do you believe anyone besides you is going to heaven)? Huh? The Holy Roman Empire officially dissolved in the early 1800's. I don't believe they ever completely held Europe either. None the less, are you -*BAD WORD*-ing insane?(BTW, I don't believe there is a heaven, if you'd like to discuss the possibility, make a thread. ) Nice cover up for not being able to explain it yourself.I never claimed to have a complete knowledge of how the government works either, unlike you. Since you were so free to share the fact that you know so much, that was simply an invitation for you to share it with us. I’m on my high horse because my horse is -*BAD WORD*-ing bigger than yours. Please, take your arguementive "better than though" -*BAD WORD*- back to your mommy. She may praise your antics, but here they make you seem like a 14 year old -*BAD WORD*- that thinks he's billy bad!@#$%^&* cause he's on the internet.
Dr.Worthless Posted July 17, 2004 Report Posted July 17, 2004 Look Everyone, Bush is claiming he's a conduit of God on July 9th! QUOTE I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn’t do my job. As a Christian I believe that God speaks through everyone who would let him do it. Sorry guys, as much as you try and paint Bush as a claimed divine right despote, you'll never reach far enough.
Bacchus Posted July 17, 2004 Report Posted July 17, 2004 [drunk]please humor me...but what's the difference between an extremist muslim and you? I mean, you seem to think that christianity is better suited to the welfare of the human race than another one... if you haven't notice yet GOD IS DEAD![/drunk]
Aileron Posted July 17, 2004 Author Report Posted July 17, 2004 There is a big difference between an EXTREMIST Muslim and a normal Christian. There isn't much between a NORMAL Muslim and a normal Christian, but hey, you typed "extremist". BTW, when we refer to God, we don't mean an old guy in the clouds. If you knew what we mean by God, you would be more certain of His existence than your own. I don't expect you to imeadiately convert, but I do expect you to atleast be respectfull of our beliefs. The biggest problem with Kerry is that he seems to be a blank slate at this point, with no definitive policy. This could be because its early in the election season. Still Kerry has his work cut out for him, and needs to come up with a stance soon.
»Ducky Posted July 17, 2004 Report Posted July 17, 2004 My comment was merely pointed towards your views on us. It seemed that your post had no significance other than to call down others. As stated, it was dressed in pretty clothes with a botch of make-up, but was still in the end just a worthless rant that did not pertain to anyones topic in general.An excuse for slander. I could have taken the whole post, changed maybe 3 words, and it would have been well suited for it's own topic outside this one.
Bacchus Posted July 17, 2004 Report Posted July 17, 2004 yea i know, sorry about that. It's a bush or Kerry thread...i'll refrain from posting.
Dr.Worthless Posted July 17, 2004 Report Posted July 17, 2004 [drunk]please humor me...but what's the difference between an extremist muslim and you? I mean, you seem to think that christianity is better suited to the welfare of the human race than another one... if you haven't notice yet GOD IS DEAD![/drunk] Rofl, I find it terribly simplistic to believe that there isnt a higher power. Look around at everything you see, to believe what we have is simply a matter of chance is being ignorant and egotistical. Lets use the classic watch analogy. Lets pretend for a second that you are an alien who has never seen a watch before. If you happened up an abandoned watch, in the middle of a field, you would naturally start examining it. You would see the nice leather straps, the gl!@#$%^&* on the top, the gears that run the hands, etc. Natural reasoning would have to lead you to believe that what you're holding isnt natural, someone with knowledge of how this works had to have made it, it's just simply to complex to occur by pure chance. Now, Take the same analogy, and lets apply it to say, a human eye. You get the idea. I really enjoy when people assume things, when they were never said. See.. !@#$%^&*umptions are subjective, so you can't really use them in a conversation against someone. I've never said christianity is better suited to the welfare of the human race, though I do believe as a species we need some form of higher power that dictates moral responsibilities. The fact that you would compare me to an extremist muslim is at most quite entertaining. Denying the power of religion is just as ignorant as denying the power of "education". Oh, and incase you haven't noticed, GOD CAN'T DIE, he will exist as long as people believe in him.
»nintendo64 Posted July 17, 2004 Report Posted July 17, 2004 The Pope shouldn't have a say in politics, if he has a say in politics then every other major figure of others religions should have a say too. Also, Stop trying to force your beliefs into someone else, I hate it when people believe in some kind of religion and believe everyone else should follow it, what is this? the middle ages? i though we were over that period. Nobody cares if you believe a pancake is your God, as long as you don't obligate everyone to follow that same pancake. Freedom of religion is a very important aspect in a country, and which that, what Live has said is truth. The President should be impartial to all religions. I didn't know George W Bush mentioned God and all the christian faith in his speeches, that's reason enough for me not to vote for him if i was from the USA. -nintendo64
Aileron Posted July 17, 2004 Author Report Posted July 17, 2004 The problem is that atheism is a religion too. By removing God from all monuments and all public speech, they are effectively forcing atheism on everyone. The first amendment grants freedom to practice religion not freedom from religion. But, Bacchus is right for once, this topic is way off track. How comes nobody replied to the Tort Law reform post I made a short while ago?
»nintendo64 Posted July 17, 2004 Report Posted July 17, 2004 Actually, i like the turn this topic has taken. As i understand the people of the USA will support a President just because he is catholic and/or The Pope supports him, i don't see religion as a important factor to qualify an individual for President. George W Bush, probably, knows this and he's using it. -nintendo64
Bacchus Posted July 17, 2004 Report Posted July 17, 2004 Rofl, I find it terribly simplistic to believe that there isnt a higher power. Look around at everything you see, to believe what we have is simply a matter of chance is being ignorant and egotistical. Typical creationist argument. Believer's always get mixed up with nature's work and moral. "God is dead" refer to the fact that IT failed in providing a "transcendental" framework for morality. What was called "good and evil" by a God died with the rise of individualism. Once you recognized that fact, there's no need for salvation, no need to be "saved", no need convert or to proselitised (spl), no need for a messiah. No need for "A nation under God", then you're free to act and choose as you will according to civil laws as discussed by individuals. You seem to believe that God weaved "moral highgrounds" into Nature? Do you believe that since you follow god's rules you'll be saved from your miserable natural life and that your immortal soul will go to heaven? Because this leads to war, intolerance and coercitive behavior...isn't it how USA is justifying it's role of "peace bringer"?
Vile Requiem Posted July 17, 2004 Report Posted July 17, 2004 The problem is that atheism is a religion too. By removing God from all monuments and all public speech, they are effectively forcing atheism on everyone.This is absolute -*BAD WORD*-. Nobody's taking the Gideon bibles from hotels, and nobody's telling you you can not go to church, or practice your faith at home, or tell you you can't do anything you can do right now. The problem is when a public official makes it appear as if his public policies are directly influenced by some sort of dogma rather then what's best for everyone. There's a -*BAD WORD*-LOAD of Jews, Muslims, Athiests, Bhuddists, Protestants, etc... in the United States, the Government should not be just Christian because then it promotes only one side of an issue, and leads to religious wingnuts influencing public policy. The largest such lobbiest group in the United States is the Southern Baptists, who have a big meeting every year to determine political strategy. If you pander to them, you have a very good chance at winning the south, which is many many electoral votes. So you see, there is a reason why a publically religious government official would be a problem, paticularly one who publically says God speaks through him. What could this problem be? THE US will mount a concerted attempt to overturn the regime in Iran if President Bush is elected for a second term. It would work strenuously to foment a revolt against the ruling theocracy by Iran’s “hugely dissatisfied†population, a senior official has told The Times. The United States would not use military force, as in Iraq, but “if Bush is re-elected there will be much more intervention in the internal affairs of Iranâ€, declared the official, who is determined that there should be no let-up in the Administration’s War on Terror. To what extent the official, known to be hawkish, was speaking for the White House was unclear, but his remarks are nevertheless likely to cause alarm in Europe. He hinted at a possible military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities, saying that there was a window of opportunity for destroying Iran’s main nuclear complex at Bushehr next year that would close if Russia delivered crucial fuel rods. To destroy Bushehr after the delivery would cause huge environmental damage. The rods would allow the Iranians to obtain enough plutonium for many dozens of nuclear weapons, he said. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly...1181969,00.html Questions:1) Why is the US not going after Russia for supplying a member of the "axis of evil" with nuclear fuel? 2) The last "inspired revolution" we tried backfired at the hands of one Mr. Hussein. Odds are troops are going to have to go in, and if they do...draft time. I hope Alieron and Worthless like the military, that's where we're headed considering as we're already calling up reserves for Iraq, and Iran won't go peacefully into the night either. 3) WTF happened to Osama? Won't this create more terrorists? Because we all know how much the Arab world loves our pandering to Isreal. 4) Hasn't this war in Iraq proven Destabalizing the Middle East = BAD? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- But ya, let's get back on some kind of track... From Congressman Ryan's Speech (is quoted by BCG Insider newsletter volume 3 - edition 4 - July 2004): This election is the most important in decades. It will determine if we ....return to the undesirable history of Social Security and Medicare and other defined benefits.... Social Security and Medicare are based on collectivism. (Election will determine if we continue to move to) ... a society built on individual responsibility. IRA and Health savings accounts should define the future Employers should facilitate access, not provide benefits. Now, let's not have any more of this "Congress isn't controlled by the President" -*BAD WORD*-, they all belong to the same party and they all work together to create some sort of agenda. The President has Veto power you know. Or can someone explain to me how the Patriot Act was Vetoed and then passed by 2/3rds of both houses? The agenda of the Bush Administration is becoming sadly and blatently obvious when it comes to domestic agenda. Republicans over the years have expressed anger at FDR's New Deal programs, the last two major vestiges of which are Social Security and Medicare. These programs are paid for by the government so that Americans can have some form of aid when they need it most (being elderly, being sick). Due to rising Health Care costs in both prescriptions and hospital bills (disclaimer: I am a biomedical engineer, I see this firsthand), many people even in the Middle Class need at least Medicare to assist them. But back to that bit about the "government paying for these programs". Guess what Bush has run up?That's right, a record defecit based on military spending. That is how the deficit bill will come due. When Medicare and Social Security are eliminated. And public education too, to be replaced by religious schools. And we will be the ones to suffer. Or did you think Michael Moore put Bush's words in his mouth when he said "The Rich and the Richer, you are my base?"
Dr.Worthless Posted July 17, 2004 Report Posted July 17, 2004 http://www.jibjab.com/thisland.html Here's something to lighten the mood alittle bit. I could watch this over and over. Rofl, I find it terribly simplistic to believe that there isnt a higher power. Look around at everything you see, to believe what we have is simply a matter of chance is being ignorant and egotistical. Typical creationist argument.There's a reason its typical.. When I present a logical arguement for something, it is in hopes that you address the arguement, not byp!@#$%^&* it. Instead of saying "Typical argument", reply to the given argument for my views. Believer's always get mixed up with nature's work and moral. "God is dead" refer to the fact that IT failed in providing a "transcendental" framework for morality. What was called "good and evil" by a God died with the rise of individualism. Rather, Individualism has always existed. The foundation of the christian faith (as I believe in it) states that god gave humans free will. On the contrary, Non-Believers always get mixed up with the "church's" will and "gods" will, and yes, they can be and often times are different. That is how the deficit bill will come due. When Medicare and Social Security are eliminated. And public education too, to be replaced by religious schools. And we will be the ones to suffer. Or did you think Michael Moore put Bush's words in his mouth when he said "The Rich and the Richer, you are my base?" Wow, is there something in the water today?. Sorry, you're getting alittle radical. Moore did take bush's words out of context. That being said its never been a secret that republican administrations tend to be friendly to big business.
Vile Requiem Posted July 17, 2004 Report Posted July 17, 2004 (edited) It would be most radical if it wasn't directly supported by a quote by Congressman Ryan, a republican from Wisconsin, saying that at least one Republican in Congress feels that Social Security and Medicare are "undesirable". Considering as the Repubs shot down Hillary's Health Care bill as being Socialist (not that i'm defending that bill), it's pretty easy to see they don't like these sort of programs in favor of the big buisness that is the Health Care industry. Perhaps you can explain to me with the government in all sorts of debt, how we can afford to retain all of these programs? Instead of calling it radical, which is just dismissing something you don't like to hear. Speaking of something you don't like to hear, please prove your Moore !@#$%^&*ertation, because you'd think Bush could have sued him for Libel if it was true. (See, we CAN tie John Edwards into this somehow ) (edit) I mean, he does have a criminal lawyer retained about the Iraq Torture Scandal after all <_< (/edit) Edited July 17, 2004 by Vile Requiem
Dr.Worthless Posted July 17, 2004 Report Posted July 17, 2004 Perhaps you can explain to me with the government in all sorts of debt, how we can afford to retain all of these programs? Instead of calling it radical, which is just dismissing something you don't like to hear. Speaking of something you don't like to hear, please prove your Moore !@#$%^&*ertation, because you'd think Bush could have sued him for Libel if it was true. (See, we CAN tie John Edwards into this somehow ) At the current rate, we won't be able to afford all these programs, partly due to the current war, mostly due to the massive influx of people into the said programs (read baby boomers.) What I found radical is jumping from money shortage straight to cancelation of every social program. Last estimates were roughly 2/1, with baby boomers being the 2, contributing workers being 1. The simpliest answer would be to increase taxes double. Obviously that would cause huge upheaval. Stopping frivilous lawsuits would be another start. There's TONS of solutions, many of which neither a democratic nor republican candidate will do. Bush is evil, Kerry sounds like a savior, but rest !@#$%^&*ured no matter who's in office, the little guys (us) is gonna get -*BAD WORD*-ed. My !@#$%^&*ertion of Bush's comment being out of context? I'll have to see if the full speech is up someplace. Somehow I doubt Bush flat out said what he said with the contexted meaning that you all are trying to pin it as. That is the context of "HAHAHA -*BAD WORD*- YOU GUYS THE RICH ROCK YOU GUYS ARE GONNA KEEP ME IN POWER HAHAHA -*BAD WORD*- THE POOR" BTW please watch the film at the link I provided, It fits the feelings of this forum to a T, you'll get a laugh out of it like I did.
MasterDrake Posted July 17, 2004 Report Posted July 17, 2004 I gonna sue mcdonalds for making me fat o wait I'm not fat yet -*BAD WORD*-
»Ducky Posted July 18, 2004 Report Posted July 18, 2004 I don't see the arguement being about a "creator" more than the actual public image of the word God itself. Obviously there was something in the very beginning; perhaps not creating man.. But creating the very elements and atoms that lead to the creation of other things.Currently, I don't believe there is a suitable arguement about that. Things begin from certain cir-*BAD WORD*-stances, but there needs to be 'someone' implementing those cir-*BAD WORD*-stances in the first place. I believe it inane to think that you yourself were created in someones image and that your entire life is preplanned towards someone elses will. You are either a puppet, or just lost. That is my opinion, and I am -*BAD WORD*- near adament when it comes to anyone attempting to change it. Faith is completely fine, towards all things including the hindu pineapple jamuda I reflect on while brushing my teeth. Whether it be my pineapple or your christian god that allows such civil morals as "Don't take what you have not earned and Don't kill," the message is recieved either way. It's alright because he said god, where primarily christians own the states. But what if it were a different name replaced there? What if he had said "Vishnu speaks through me." He would have ultimately LOST the election before it started.Not to say that christians don't accept other religions, but you can't tell me people would not stand around come sunday speaking about it in the more harsh of tones.
Live-Wire Posted July 18, 2004 Report Posted July 18, 2004 No. You proide substantial proof that they are not. I just looked up plenty of stuff, its your turn, since you haven’t backed anything up yet. Um, ROFL? No way dude, I just looked up plenty of stuff!!! Its you're turn!! Dude, You haven't posted any of your proof, you can't look stuff up and then state it in an arguement without posting the proof that you read. Case in point. People like to have sex with things they can procreate with. The most basic instinct is that for survival of the species, the instinct to procreate.So again I state the arguement against born sexual orientation. If the most basic instinct of a species is to procreate, why would a species be born with the preference to have sex with something it cannot procreate with? And if someone wants to bone another dude, that is their right. What are you nuts? Breaking out some “freedom†argument in defense of not allowing gays to get married? Following the directives of the church to lead your life has nothing to do with telling other people how to lead their lives. Sorry, No where in the quote did i break out any "freedom" arguement in defense of anything. The point I'm trying to make is, if you want to be a part of the catholic church, you have to abide by its laws. If the pope says -*BAD WORD*-ing other men in the -*BAD WORD*- is wrong, guess what.. if you want to be catholic, you cant -*BAD WORD*- other men. Plus I find something unsettling about what happens when there is a Catholic President and Rome decides to conquer Europe (again). Will the word of god command the mighty arm of the US Armed Forces to destroy the sinners (Muslims, Jews, Protestants… do you believe anyone besides you is going to heaven)?Huh? The Holy Roman Empire officially dissolved in the early 1800's. I don't believe they ever completely held Europe either. None the less, are you -*BAD WORD*-ing insane?(BTW, I don't believe there is a heaven, if you'd like to discuss the possibility, make a thread. ) Nice cover up for not being able to explain it yourself. I never claimed to have a complete knowledge of how the government works either, unlike you. Since you were so free to share the fact that you know so much, that was simply an invitation for you to share it with us. I’m on my high horse because my horse is -*BAD WORD*-ing bigger than yours.Please, take your arguementive "better than though" -*BAD WORD*- back to your mommy. She may praise your antics, but here they make you seem like a 14 year old -*BAD WORD*- that thinks he's billy bad!@#$%^&* cause he's on the internet.This is why I can't talk to you people. Quoting yourself making !@#$%^&*umptions about human nature doesn't cons!@#$%^&*ute proof. Citing reliable sources cons!@#$%^&*utes proof. Not only did you not provide that link the first time, but that link's first line begins quoting a "famous english cop show." I'm sorry if quoting newsweek and the US Consitution was interpretted by you as me NOT citing sources. How does basic instinct of a species have anything to do with sexual orientation? Your blindly ignorant Catholicism has obviously enbedded into your mind the !@#$%^&*umption that humans aren't free willed. You're remarkably simple minded and boring. In 1556 Phillip II took over Spain and the Netherlands from his father. Philip, much like Louis XIV, believed it was his duty as a king appointed by God to go to battle for the Catholic church. With the power of the the Spanish Inquisition he repressed the large Protestant Dutch population until it led them into open rebellion. Spanish Inquisition? Why surely the Catholics would never command a world leader to do something like this! Or maybe you've heard of the Thirty Years' War? I know its a stretch to assume you know anything, but hopefully this is common enough knowledge. I hate to keep bringing it up, but it is quite obvious that my arguements inability to convince you is based on your mal-education and intellectual blindness. I continue to make valid arguements and you continue to fail at rebuffing them, instead spouting personal propoganda and !@#$%^&*umptions. You're simply incorrect, I do not sound like a 14 year old. Everyone here is quite impressed with my entertaining delivery of witty reparte, now that you bring it up, and you just sound like you're clawing for the edges of of the pedestal you were pretending to stand on that I so handily shattered. Your attempt at trying to diffuse my arguement by claiming I am trying to make myself look like an online bad!@#$%^&* sheds light on your interest in this topic; impressing me, instead of trying to reach some knowledgable conclusion. Bringing something like this up is just sad, and I hope you get well soon. Sorry, I'm here to try to educate you so you don't make such poor decisions in life as you have made so far. Consider this shock therapy. Trying to compare -*BAD WORD*- sizes with me instead of addressing the issues at hand isn't a bad strategy when your intellect can't keep up, but I have some bad news - my -*BAD WORD*- is bigger than yours, and I swing it where I please.
Live-Wire Posted July 18, 2004 Report Posted July 18, 2004 Note: If you ask me to cite sources for this unbelievably important period in world history again, I will eat your face. If you don't know it, you should go read a book. Fast.
Live-Wire Posted July 18, 2004 Report Posted July 18, 2004 Live stfu u uneducated prick all you can do is insult people to get you points across here is a little article that expresses both view points on sexual orientation neither are right or wrong so don't start -http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_fixe.htmYou're kidding right? Without even dipping my toes into the issue, lets quote your source for a minute here. Who holds "the most conservative view"? "typically ... the conservative religious groups, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, etc." Who holds "the most liberal view"? "typically ... by religious liberals, gays, lesbians, mental health professionals and human sexuality researchers." Well okay, lets look at what the conservative and liberal views are then. When answering "What should a homosexual do?", the conservatives say "Choose celibate, or attempt to change their orientation." Lets ignore their improper verbage and continue on. Change their orientation? Is that possible? The conservatives say, "Yes, through counseling and prayer. But it requires effort because it is so addictive." Okay, what effort does it require? The conservatives say that "[repartive therapy] is an effective method to changing homosexuals into heterosexuals." Great, but maybe it could be a problem that Mental Health Professionals say that this is a "potentially dangerous therapy that can lead to suicide"! WHY WOULD WE EVER TRUST THEM!?!?!?! After all, conservatives believe that homosexuality is "perhaps [caused by] demon possession." Do you read your sources? That is, if I can call this a source ... who the -*BAD WORD*- are these people? Ontario what now? Should I put up a website that says the opposite and call it official?
Vile Requiem Posted July 18, 2004 Report Posted July 18, 2004 And just so we don't have any misconceptions about Cheney being a hypocrite.... http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washingt...uts_questioned/
Vile Requiem Posted July 18, 2004 Report Posted July 18, 2004 And here's yet another terrorist group publically endorsing Bush (besides al Queda) The statement tells American voters that Abu Hafs al-Masri supports the re-election campaign of President Bush: "We are very keen that Bush does not lose the upcoming elections." The statement said Abu Hafs al-Masri needs what it called Bush's "idiocy and religious fanaticism" because they would "wake up" the Islamic world.http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,114489,00.html But yet: A bumper sticker being circulated in Louisville that reads "Kerry is bin Laden's Man/Bush is Mine" was applauded by a Republican leader yesterday but decried by Democrats. Jack Richardson IV, chairman of the Jefferson County GOP, said he didn't know the bumper sticker's origins, but agreed with its message. "If bin Laden could vote based on Kerry's voting record in the Senate -- where he has decimated our national security and defense -- is there anybody that can honestly say bin Laden wouldn't prefer Kerry over Bush? Of course he would," Richardson said in a telephone interview. http://www.kentucky.com/mld/heraldleader/n...ate/9176679.htm Where he has decimated our national security and defense? See my above post for that -*BAD WORD*-. And once again: "It is not possible to find a leader more foolish than Bush, who deals with matters by force rather than with wisdom. Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilization. Because of this we desire Bush to be elected." - al Qaeda statement 3/17/04 Hypocracy is HILARIOUS
MasterDrake Posted July 18, 2004 Report Posted July 18, 2004 Hey -*BAD WORD*- head do you read my posts correctly "Live stfu u uneducated prick all you can do is insult people to get you points across here is a little article that expresses both view points on sexual orientation neither are right or wrong so don't start -http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_fixe.htm "
»nintendo64 Posted July 18, 2004 Report Posted July 18, 2004 I will like for the insults to go to a minimiun please, i believe they are getting out of control. -nintendo64
Recommended Posts