Poll Question: Both statements are false. But which is a *worse* error?

Total: 6

texaspackerbacker
10 years ago

On a related note, I have far more trust in a good muslim like Yousef Islam (formerly Cat Stevens) than a good Christian like Newt Gingrich. I have never heard a muslim tell me I was going to hell, whereas I have had Christians tell me that because I didn't get my homework done. (Sister Mary at St. Bede's)

I didn't answer the poll question because they amount to the same thing.

Originally Posted by: OlHoss1884 



Go ahead and trust the shitheads - right up until they blow you to hell. Your God damned IGNORANT comment about Newt Gingrich really gets me - damned fool know nothings repeating the garbage spewed by the left wing assholes of the mainstream media.


Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.
Formo
10 years ago

On a related note, I have far more trust in a good muslim like Yousef Islam (formerly Cat Stevens) than a good Christian like Newt Gingrich. I have never heard a muslim tell me I was going to hell, whereas I have had Christians tell me that because I didn't get my homework done. (Sister Mary at St. Bede's)

Originally Posted by: OlHoss1884 



I tend to just trust. Eventually the character of the PERSON (read: religion/beliefs withstanding) will expose their worthiness of my extended trust.

I didn't answer the poll question because they amount to the same thing.

Originally Posted by: OlHoss1884 



Good boy. I will refuse to partake in that poll and it's argument.

So does that mean you're not going to join the "Republic will Rise" boys when they take up arms against the U.S. government. What are you, a luke warm tea party boy? Just want the tax evasion part of the movement, not actually willing to rise up, huh?

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 



If the Gubment decides to trample my Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration, you damn right I will. Anyone who would not is a sheep and coward.

You grew up when minorities were openly treated like shit, which is part of the reason you're the bigot everyone has called you. Believing you are part of a group of people that is superior to everyone else, makes you a fool - and is very un-Christian-like.

Calling everyone that disagrees with you a leftist self hater proves how completely out of touch with reality you are. Maybe you should spend your golden years trying to figure out why you hate everything and everybody different than you, your soul may depend on it.

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 



lol Pot, meet Kettle. You and Texas are cut from the same cloth, just on separate ends. It's funny.
UserPostedImage
Thanks to TheViking88 for the sig!!
texaspackerbacker
10 years ago

What the fuck are you talking about? He grew up when the boofers were rioting. Not MY boofers, YOUR commie boofers. MY boofers were RIGHT BESIDE ME, MY ELDERS, and MY DUCKLINGS... white, black, Asian, whatever...

They were MEN, just like me. Not whiny, not union, not cry-baby self-entitled bitches...

Men.
Kandahar AFB in Afghanistan was secured and now protected with a one mile perimeter radius by the Marines. The Army, Navy and Air Force stay within that protected zone, with a corridor going to the city protected by the Army. That corridor was also initially secured by the Marines.

Skin color DID become an issue, because we went to Africa, and frankly, we white-boys were teaching our black-boys, Senegalese Woolof, for example... Gambiand and Senegalese preferred to hear it from homie...

Originally Posted by: dfosterf 



What the hell is a "boofer"? hahahaha. I googled it, and this is what came up: "a girl that keeps a porn dude up! for his next scene". Somehow, I don't think that's what you have in mind hahahaha.


Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.
texaspackerbacker
10 years ago

You grew up when minorities were openly treated like shit, which is part of the reason you're the bigot everyone has called you. Believing you are part of a group of people that is superior to everyone else, makes you a fool - and is very un-Christian-like.

Calling everyone that disagrees with you a leftist self hater proves how completely out of touch with reality you are. Maybe you should spend your golden years trying to figure out why you hate everything and everybody different than you, your soul may depend on it.

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 



First of all, I have a helluva lot more respect for Dakota, misguided as he might be, than some idiot who tries to stifle a good honest discussion and who bad mouths Michelle Bachman and Sarah Palin.

Dakota, you keep trying to drag racism/bigotry into every discussion. Tell me, what constitutes racism/bigotry to you? A. hatred based on racial difference? or B. recognizing and expressing the differences between the races? If it's B., you got me. If it's A., no way. Also, when you say "racism/bigotry", do you literally mean according to race? Or do you also throw in members of a terrorist-sympathizing bogus excuse for a religion and/or practicers of a behavior identified by the Bible as an abomination? On the former, a big no way for me. On the latter ......., yep, you got me there too hahahahaha.

I'm comfortable in my own skin (no pun intended). When I call you a "self-hater", Dakota, maybe the better term would be "reverse ethnocentrist" - or bringing the language down to a more understandable level for you, "a bigot against your own kind" - all the categories you fit into - white Christian American male or whatever. Note: I've stopped calling you a leftist since, to your credit, you claim not to be one. I still say, however, you were sickly and sadly influenced/brainwashed by the leftist political correctness assholes who have infested our educational system for a few decades now.

Oh yeah, just to stir the pot a little bit, minorities were better off and generally happier back then with the racism you describe. Their children grew up decent and respectful, and mostly with good Christian and American values instilled by normal nuclear families - as opposed to now, with their children free to "be black" with all the negative things that connotes. Go ahead and call that racist hahaha, but I think even Martin Luther King would disagree with you.
Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.
Wade
  • Wade
  • Veteran Member Topic Starter
10 years ago



Every organized use of arms is a political solution. Almost never does one army move without the consent or the approval of their leadership. (Both national and religious leaders) Even when the use of arms springs up from the masses (Like French and Russian Revolutions) it is still politically based.

Originally Posted by: wpr 

Yes. Clausewitz had this bit nailed.


How can the French, English or Italians “take back” that which they never possessed previously? Jesus does not look for mankind to enforce by force of arms.

John 18:36
Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.




Yes. Thank you for this. I was trying to think of the passage in my earlier post, but couldn't remember where it was.]



The Crusades like all wars had atrocities committed on both sides. The Europeans were particularly cruel at times. I do not approve of their actions. See John 18:36 above.


Everyone is responsible for their actions. I doubt the percent of Muslim males in the West is any higher than it is for others who participate in these actives. I was actually speaking about these items as they make their way into THEIR countries. But they do not like it where ever it may be found. Based on your argument does this mean you are for it?



Never did I say I excuse them or anyone for any action. I simply pointed out a few of the reasons they hate Westerners.



I do not defend any of their anti-Semitic actions. Actually Semitic is a misnomer. It means “Son of Shem”. Nearly the entire region is a decedent of Shem. I merely stated that no matter what the problem is, they blame Israel.



When it comes to religious beliefs I am probably more conservative than you are. Women should have long hair and not wear pants. Men should have moderately short hair. Neither should dress provocatively.

Oh, pooh.

I understand the bit about not dressing provocatively [even though I tend to enjoy it when good looking women do so. [grin1] ]. But why should women not have short hair?

I do not wear shorts in public. My shirts have sleeves. I do not drink or smoke. I try to not curse (Although this site has pushed me to the limits at times.) or take the Lord’s name in vain. We use to worship 3 times a week. As our congregation grew older we have changed it to twice a week. I think most if not all organized religion is manmade and does not serve the Lord. I do not believe in a Trinity.



Agree 100% with point about organized religion.

I'd be interested in hearing sometime about your reason for not believing in a Trinity. Or anyone else's opinion, for that matter. [Anyone else interested in starting a new thread on such a topic?] I must admit that I have trouble getting my mind around the concept. Oh, I have no doubt that God might be triune (God's God, He can be an Octagon if He wants to be). And I do believe that He is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, all wrapped up in one "package". But not because I've reasoned my way to that conclusion, but only because I believe that is part of what I must be willing to take on faith.




The West set their colonies free not because they were kind. They did so only when they had to. It became too difficult to maintain any of these empires by force of arms.



Yep. Empire is an expensive proposition. Unless the empire is voluntarily assented to by its imperial subjects, its costs will invariably exceed its benefits. The projection of coercive power on an imperial scale is hugely expensive. Just ask Venice, Spain, Portugal, Holland, and Britain. Or Russia. Or the Ottomans. Or, for that matter, the empire of the Great Khan.

Every one of them eventually came up against the fact. The only reason the United States-as-empire continues is its domestic productive capacity. Empire is still a net drain on the American economy, just as it was for Britain long before 1953; but, like Britain for much of the century before Suez, it has had sufficient productive capacity to "cover" those costs.

The real question is whether the US economy is in a position akin to Britain in 1953 or akin to Britain in 1815. Thanks to its "winning" of the war against Napoleon, Britain's national debt c. 1815 was on the order of 225% of GDP (twice as big a burden as ours is today). Yet because it had the productive oomph of the Industrial Revolution, its economy handled that debt with relative ease. But by 1953, Britain found it could no longer do so, not if it wanted to do all the other things a modern social-democratic state wants to do, because it no longer had the productive ability to cover the net cost of empire, too.

My personal belief is that the USA today is far closer to the position of the Brits in 1953 than people realize. Despite our aging capital stock, and notwithstanding the downturn/stagnation of the last half-decade, we are still the most productive nation in human history. But we are so addicted to government-as-transfer-payment (another characteristic we share with the Britain of 1953), that a huge fraction of our economy is no longer devoted to productive activities but in simply transferring wealth from one pocket to another.
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
Formo
10 years ago

First of all, I have a helluva lot more respect for Dakota, misguided as he might be, than some idiot who tries to stifle a good honest discussion and who bad mouths Michelle Bachman and Sarah Palin.

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 



See, that is where you got me all wrong. I don't hold any ill will or feelings towards Bachman nor Palin. Some people here, generally, hate them so it's why I used them as an analogy. You wanna lose respect for people bad mouthing those ladies, then look no further than the fellow you have been debating ever since you dove in the Random Babble/Back Alley forums.

And I'm hardly stifling any sort of debate. I just found this thread topic to be loaded and think anyone who feels a need to pick either side is nothing more than a goat.
UserPostedImage
Thanks to TheViking88 for the sig!!
texaspackerbacker
10 years ago

See, that is where you got me all wrong. I don't hold any ill will or feelings towards Bachman nor Palin. Some people here, generally, hate them so it's why I used them as an analogy. You wanna lose respect for people bad mouthing those ladies, then look no further than the fellow you have been debating ever since you dove in the Random Babble/Back Alley forums.
.

Originally Posted by: Formo 



Your words, Formo: "Seriously, and y'all think Bachman/Palin said some crazy shit." They are what they are. If you say you've got nothing against Bachman/Palin, fine, I don't know what's in your head. I'm just going by your words. As for Dakota, my respect for him basically comes from the fact that at times, anyway - like if you poke him in the eye with a sharp enough stick hahaha, he will do some debating - which is what makes forums worthwhile IMO. Never mind the fact that he's wrong about 99 1/2% of the time. He and anybody else hating Bachman and/or Palin is showing serious symptoms of anti-Americanism, as both of them do a very good job of expressing and promoting strongly PRO-American positions - for which they get thoroughly and maliciously bad-mouthed by the America-hating assholes of the leftist mainstream media.
Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.
texaspackerbacker
10 years ago

Yes. Clausewitz had this bit nailed.


Yes. Thank you for this. I was trying to think of the passage in my earlier post, but couldn't remember where it was.]

Oh, pooh.

I understand the bit about not dressing provocatively [even though I tend to enjoy it when good looking women do so. [grin1] ]. But why should women not have short hair?



Agree 100% with point about organized religion.

I'd be interested in hearing sometime about your reason for not believing in a Trinity. Or anyone else's opinion, for that matter. [Anyone else interested in starting a new thread on such a topic?] I must admit that I have trouble getting my mind around the concept. Oh, I have no doubt that God might be triune (God's God, He can be an Octagon if He wants to be). And I do believe that He is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, all wrapped up in one "package". But not because I've reasoned my way to that conclusion, but only because I believe that is part of what I must be willing to take on faith.



Yep. Empire is an expensive proposition. Unless the empire is voluntarily assented to by its imperial subjects, its costs will invariably exceed its benefits. The projection of coercive power on an imperial scale is hugely expensive. Just ask Venice, Spain, Portugal, Holland, and Britain. Or Russia. Or the Ottomans. Or, for that matter, the empire of the Great Khan.

Every one of them eventually came up against the fact. The only reason the United States-as-empire continues is its domestic productive capacity. Empire is still a net drain on the American economy, just as it was for Britain long before 1953; but, like Britain for much of the century before Suez, it has had sufficient productive capacity to "cover" those costs.

The real question is whether the US economy is in a position akin to Britain in 1953 or akin to Britain in 1815. Thanks to its "winning" of the war against Napoleon, Britain's national debt c. 1815 was on the order of 225% of GDP (twice as big a burden as ours is today). Yet because it had the productive oomph of the Industrial Revolution, its economy handled that debt with relative ease. But by 1953, Britain found it could no longer do so, not if it wanted to do all the other things a modern social-democratic state wants to do, because it no longer had the productive ability to cover the net cost of empire, too.

My personal belief is that the USA today is far closer to the position of the Brits in 1953 than people realize. Despite our aging capital stock, and notwithstanding the downturn/stagnation of the last half-decade, we are still the most productive nation in human history. But we are so addicted to government-as-transfer-payment (another characteristic we share with the Britain of 1953), that a huge fraction of our economy is no longer devoted to productive activities but in simply transferring wealth from one pocket to another.

Originally Posted by: wade 



Regarding the trinity, it is a pagan/non-Biblical concept that crept into organized Christian teachings. The Holy Spirit is basically a force - an "it" rather than a "who" - the answer to the "how" questions about God's power and glory. "Holy Ghost" is basically a faulty translation.

Regarding empires, I say again, America has never had an empire unless you want to count Puerto Rico, Guam, and a couple other fairly insignificant possessions (my Philippine connections better not read that hahahaha). Empires generally are NOT "expensive". According to the practice of Mercantilism, the colonies exist to benefit the colonizing power. Of course, pervasive do-gooderism overruled anything like that for the very limited dabbling in colonialism the U.S. ever did. Britain, France, etc., though, absolutely thrived on that. The "expense" came in when their/our Cold War enemies enabled rebel groups to disrupt what had been a pretty much symbiotic situation. The succession of empires/dominant nations, therefore, did not take place because of expense or economics, but because of the loss of military dominance.

Regarding economics past and present, I'm not sure if the concept of a "reserve currency" existed in 1815, but the British pound certainly dominated to the extent that it was that at least in a de-facto sense. The extreme debt did not harm them then, just as it will not harm us now. By 1953, the sun had pretty much set on the British Empire and the dominance of the pound. Then and now, the dollar was king. That - and the dollar as the reserve currency - should continue indefinitely - as long as we are militarily dominant. Thus, any debt is just turned over and turned over ad infinitum - paid with dollars backed by our debt instruments - a BEAUTIFUL system hahahaha. The fact that we are no longer as productive a country is meaningless when we can acquire whatever we need with reserve currency dollars. Domestically, people can survive and thrive just as well or better in the distributive sector - working at Walmart - compared to production - working in a factory.
Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.
Formo
10 years ago

Your words, Formo: "Seriously, and y'all think Bachman/Palin said some crazy shit." They are what they are. If you say you've got nothing against Bachman/Palin, fine, I don't know what's in your head. I'm just going by your words.

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 



You are right.. that's EXACTLY what I said. Read it again, I didn't say "I thought Bachman/Palin said crazy shit". I said, "and Y'ALL think ..." Which you know means that I was talking about OTHER'S impressions of the Bachman/Palin words.

As for Dakota, my respect for him basically comes from the fact that at times, anyway - like if you poke him in the eye with a sharp enough stick hahaha, he will do some debating - which is what makes forums worthwhile IMO. Never mind the fact that he's wrong about 99 1/2% of the time. He and anybody else hating Bachman and/or Palin is showing serious symptoms of anti-Americanism, as both of them do a very good job of expressing and promoting strongly PRO-American positions - for which they get thoroughly and maliciously bad-mouthed by the America-hating assholes of the leftist mainstream media.

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 



I get your point here. I just don't find this particular topic and how it was presented as worthy of my time to debate, as I said, it was a loaded poll in the first place.
UserPostedImage
Thanks to TheViking88 for the sig!!
DakotaT
10 years ago

Your words, Formo: "Seriously, and y'all think Bachman/Palin said some crazy shit." They are what they are. If you say you've got nothing against Bachman/Palin, fine, I don't know what's in your head. I'm just going by your words. As for Dakota, my respect for him basically comes from the fact that at times, anyway - like if you poke him in the eye with a sharp enough stick hahaha, he will do some debating - which is what makes forums worthwhile IMO. Never mind the fact that he's wrong about 99 1/2% of the time. He and anybody else hating Bachman and/or Palin is showing serious symptoms of anti-Americanism, as both of them do a very good job of expressing and promoting strongly PRO-American positions - for which they get thoroughly and maliciously bad-mouthed by the America-hating assholes of the leftist mainstream media.

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 



You really are a piece of work, Texas. You should write a book called: America, how I know it should be. You'd have a best seller, oh wait, rubes don't read books - they watch TV. Intelligent people see right through your load of bovine fecal matter. According to the last couple of elections, your way of thinking has gone by the wayside. Maybe the Republicans can rebound and save us all. [roflmao] Oh wait, minorities know that the Republicans have been holding them down forever and won't vote for them; and not only holding them down - they know the Republicans hate their guts.

Ah shucks Texas - guess you'll have to watch your greatest nightmare come to fruition in your golden years - the rise of socialism. Just don't be too judgmental while you cash your Social Security check and abuse your Medicare.
UserPostedImage
Fan Shout
dfosterf (3h) : Maybe
Mucky Tundra (3h) : Yes
Zero2Cool (4h) : No.
Mucky Tundra (6h) : End of a Degu-era
dhazer (7h) : Steelers sign Patterson because of new kickoff rule interesting
Zero2Cool (9h) : Former #Packers TE Josiah Deguara is signing a 1-year deal with the Jaguars, per source.
Zero2Cool (11h) : They do not do it for "content sake".
dfosterf (21h) : For the record, I enjoy Beast and Mucky drafts
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Haha
Mucky Tundra (27-Mar) : No time for talking! Back to work beast!
beast (27-Mar) : You saw only 4,201 of my mocks? 🥺 I think that means you missed more than half of them 😢
dfosterf (27-Mar) : Does anyone know what Lambeau field improvements got put on hold? My guess would be for the 2025 draft
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : It's like listen, you made 4,201 mocks, no shit.
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Cuz during the draft "I had them mocked there!" as if it's amazing.
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : They're fun to do once in awhile. It's people who think they are "content" that annoy me.
dfosterf (27-Mar) : Against tbd
dfosterf (27-Mar) : Answer to your question is yes, it's a Thursday, will be the Chiefs aga
dfosterf (27-Mar) : Luckily for all concerned, I don't post them. I did one, but that was like 25 mocks ago
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : NFL 2024 gonna start Sept 5th isn't it???
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Ugh... kids these days!
dfosterf (27-Mar) : I'm gonna go do some more mock draft hell instead 🤪
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Did we do one of those prediction threads yet for 2024 season?
dfosterf (27-Mar) : In my city, they are playing the nimby game, in order to keep some railroad tracks vs. 2 professional sports teams and a concert venue.
dfosterf (27-Mar) : And/Or a city council, of which I haven't seen a good one in a very long time
dfosterf (27-Mar) : That sounds like a Mayor, not a city.
buckeyepackfan (26-Mar) : Packers halt scheduled 80mil upgrade of stadium until lease agreement talks are restarted
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : City of Green Bay puts Packers' Lambeau Field lease talks on hold
buckeyepackfan (26-Mar) : Packers 1 of 3 teams to vote no on new kickoff rule.
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Packers sign another Kicker
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Lengthy explanation at PFF if you click the link
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Kickoff rules officially changed.ngthy explan
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : lol
Cheesey (26-Mar) : 2009? No thanks! One open heart surgery is enough!
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Good for you!
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Yes. That's the one.
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Is that "Lady Dugan" per chance?
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Crystal?
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Please refresh my memory
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Alan posts. Crystal back in my life. It's 2009 all over again! Lol
Mucky Tundra (26-Mar) : BAH GAWD! THAT'S CHEESEYS MUSIC!
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Gutekunst said early stages of Jordan Love contract being discussed.
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Shouldn't be penalized cuz official screwed up
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Yeah, challenge until you are incorrect twice.
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Fining them is the goal, per the people who made the rule anyway.
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Still waiting on the kickoff rule changes. Did hear yesterday that the touchback proposal will now be the 30 yard line, not the 35
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Probably speed of game issues with your proposal
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Hopefully the refs don't get in the habit of throwing flags on this
beast (25-Mar) : I think when it comes to Challenges should get two strikes, so unlimited challenges as long as they keep winning them, but 2 wrong then done
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Still subject to the fines etc
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Yes, I should have been more specific. Also, they are now saying it would be a 15 yard penalty. That makes more sense .
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2023 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 10 @ 3:25 PM
Bears
Sunday, Sep 17 @ 12:00 PM
Falcons
Sunday, Sep 24 @ 12:00 PM
SAINTS
Thursday, Sep 28 @ 7:15 PM
LIONS
Monday, Oct 9 @ 7:15 PM
Raiders
Sunday, Oct 22 @ 3:25 PM
Broncos
Sunday, Oct 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Nov 5 @ 12:00 PM
RAMS
Sunday, Nov 12 @ 12:00 PM
Steelers
Sunday, Nov 19 @ 12:00 PM
CHARGERS
Thursday, Nov 23 @ 11:30 AM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 3 @ 7:20 PM
CHIEFS
Monday, Dec 11 @ 7:15 PM
Giants
Sunday, Dec 17 @ 12:00 PM
BUCCANEERS
Sunday, Dec 24 @ 12:00 PM
Panthers
Sunday, Dec 31 @ 7:20 PM
Vikings
Sunday, Jan 7 @ 3:25 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Jan 14 @ 3:30 PM
Cowboys
Saturday, Jan 20 @ 7:15 PM
49ers
Recent Topics
3h / Green Bay Packers Talk / buckeyepackfan

21h / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

21h / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

27-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

27-Mar / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

27-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

25-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

25-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

24-Mar / Around The NFL / dhazer

24-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

24-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

22-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.