It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama's anti christian speech

page: 7
12
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 11:12 PM
link   
reply topost by ravenshadow13
 
sta

Ravenshadow...

You do understand by the very wording of the text that Obama is not talking at all about limits on government..on democracy. Not at all. He is talking about limits on peoples religion and religious beliefs ceding to government.

What Obama and his handlers know ..is that religion is the ultimate political power and it belongs in the hands of government ..not the people.

Only the government by a higher mandate, a higher morality, a higher purpose can wisely use religion to help people out universally. To help society out of its backwardness.
People living their daily lives by their religious beliefs are not intelligent enough to think for themselves..but must cede their beliefs and compromise...against their will and over their objections. Compromise to universality...to Society. In this case..society means the government.

I too think religion and politics should be way apart..not from the people ..but from the politicians and body politic....the government. The limits are on government ..not on the people.

This speech is debating the point of the people ceding their religion or religious beliefs to the government for the governments ability to rule.
Another way of putting it is Hegel's position..."The State is God on Earth." or "The State is God."


I am also Pagan and think religion and politics should be way apart...but REGARDLESS
Obama is Christian.


This is not a Christian speech..it is anti Christian and anti American both.

No Christian and American would make such a speech telling someone else that they cannot live or vote their conscience on issues or on politics by their beliefs.

Also...


if anything. I'd rather someone use facts and statistics,


In any college level statistics class they will eagerly tell you that statistics can be made to read any position one desires if they know how to move the statistics around against the uneducated and unperceptive. I don't get all excited over statistics when someone promotes them...especially polling data. Be very careful of statistics and even what the media often claims are facts. They are often used or misused to keep people on an emotional string..a puppet string.


Orangetom



[edit on 28-8-2008 by orangetom1999]




posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 06:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999


This is not a Christian speech..it is anti Christian and anti American both.

No Christian and American would make such a speech telling someone else that they cannot live or vote their conscience on issues or on politics by their beliefs.


Exactly where did he say no one could vote their conscience on issues or politics? I don't remember hearing him say anything of the sort.



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 10:03 AM
link   
Valhall,


Exactly where did he say no one could vote their conscience on issues or politics? I don't remember hearing him say anything of the sort.


OK...lets try this again.

from page 6 of this thread..Buck Divisions transcription of what is stated in the video.

second paragraph.


"Although this may offend evangelicals, in a pluralistic society, we have no choice except to compromise with others. We must persuade people by referencing a commonly agreed to reality. We must compromise, and assess what is really possible. This contradicts religion, which is, at a fundamental level, uncompromising, and practices the art of dealing with the impossible. Basing your life on this may be sublime, but basing policies on this is dangerous."


Notice the wording in describing a pluralistic society. This is the same as a universal society described in paragraph 1 of Buck Division's transcript. It is a world society. Pluralistic and universal are words used to describe the world system...not American beliefs.
Obama then goes on to state..."we have no choice in a pluralistic society."
"We must persuade people by referencing a commonly agreed to realty." Not individual liberty in conscience or religious beliefs.
He is saying we must persuade people to compromise their religious beliefs...their conscience. Their very souls.
He is talking about doing this persuasion to people..not to government.
He is saying the end justifies the means.

First paragraph of Buck Divisions transcript.


"Democracy demands that participants translate their beliefs into universal rather than religious specific values. It requires that religious proposals be subject to argument, and agreeable to reason. If someone seeks to pass a law, it must be based on something OTHER than just the teachings of the church. You can't simply point to what your pastor said last Sunday, or evoke "God's Will", and expect that argument to be accepted by everyone without further debate.


"democracy demands that participants translate their beliefs into universal rather than religious specific values. "

This statement uses the word "demands". It does not say..asks or asks politely. This is not compromise. It is demanding. It is coercion...it is force.

Notice again in the second sentence..the use of the word.."requires" implying mandatory. In other words one is not justified in living out their religious beliefs if it conflicts with the changing winds of government...in this case...universal pluralistic social changing winds.

Yet the office of president requires that one take the oath of office to defend the Constitution. Including the first amendment on freedom of religion among many rights which belong to the people..not the government.


"You can't simply point to what your pastor said last Sunday, or evoke "God's Will", and expect that argument to be accepted by everyone without further debate.


People have the right to vote or live their conscience in America...as long as it does not physically hurt others. But Obama is implying here that you don't have that right...in the face of universal or pluralistic requirements...even demands.

Once again..this is not Christian and it most certainly is not American. You can find this belief system in philosophers like Hegel and later translated over to writers like Fredrick Engels and Karl Marx..which became the Internationale...which became the Communist Manifesto.

What Obama is talking about is Government supplanting peoples conscience or religious beliefs...and becoming god.

Hegel....the state is god. The state is god on earth.

The actual name for this type of belief system in which the government is god..is Luciferianism. And it is very popular among politicians ..world wide.

Thanks,
Orangetom


[edit on 29-8-2008 by orangetom1999]



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 09:27 PM
link   
Okay, let's try again.

He didn't say what you are accusing him of saying. I don't care how many words you slap in the next response, previous response, or multiple responses. He didn't say that people couldn't vote according to their religious beliefs and he didn't even say they SHOULDN'T vote according to their religious beliefs.

Let me say it louder...

HE DIDN'T SAY WHAT YOU ARE ACCUSING HIM OF SAYING.

I know some times having to admit you're wrong can be painful, but go get some Aleve and a big glass of water...because you're wrong!



[edit on 8-29-2008 by Valhall]



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 12:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Valhall
 


Ok...lets try this again...


"Although this may offend evangelicals, in a pluralistic society, we have no choice except to compromise with others.


Notice the use of the words "no choice except to compromise"
Did you notice this usage?

Watch the very next two sentances...


We must persuade people by referencing a commonly agreed to reality. We must compromise, and assess what is really possible.


Notice that they are going to persuade people..to compromise people in assessing what is really possible. This is not a free choice..this is being compromised...persuaded...coerced.
Notice again the view of a "commonly agreed to reality? This is not individuality and individual freedom/liberty in choice but mob mentality...herd mentality...what we all have in common ..not individual freedom...individual liberty.

Do I need to go on???


This contradicts religion, which is, at a fundamental level, uncompromising, and practices the art of dealing with the impossible. Basing your life on this may be sublime, but basing policies on this is dangerous."


What are the policys and practices of being a govenment or a public official who champions the forcing of compromise on others?? They are in fact ..uncompromising..the very thing they dislike in others.
THe main historical track record of all governments is "force" not compromise. This can be seen in government after government in their writings and records. Force is not compromise...it is force.


"Democracy demands that participants translate their beliefs into universal rather than religious specific values.


Notice the use of the word.."democracy demands" This is not liberty and freedom.. The demand is that they swictch ..by demand to universal values..not the religious values the people hold..but democracy is an automatic default by "demand." You are to default over to democracys values...


It requires that religious proposals be subject to argument, and agreeable to reason.


notice the usage here of the word "requires" THe new paradigm is "reason" not ones own individual private beliefs..no matter what it is on which one bases their beliefs. Especially evangelicalism.

When you get through all the verbage...he is saying that the :State is God" by reason and logic of the state. We are going to replace/compromise your individual religious beliefs with the religion of the logic and reason of the state.

That is exactly what Obama is saying here.

Orangetom



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 08:53 AM
link   
orange,

The flaw in you argument is that he is discussing the politician's side of the equation; not the voter's. He never intimates that the voter should not employ all facets of their personal make-up in exercising their vote. It is wrong to take the comments he states concerning how a political leader should do their job and apply it to the voter's side of the equation.

I don't know why you want to paint him as being opposed to religious people (in particular Christians) based off the comments in this speech. It's just not there.

While you have every right to decide he's not your cup of tea, applying statements to him that he has not made is disingenuous at best, dishonest at worst.

EDIT: Note that we have gone from picking his allusion to the Abraham story as evidence, to applying false statements that he doesn't think voters should vote according to their personal convictions. That's a clear sign of grasping at straws. As I stated in my first post on this thread - this is not an "anti-Christian" speech...it is an anti-sectarian speech. And it so at the level of discussing sectarianism on the politician side of the equation...not the individual voter.

[edit on 8-30-2008 by Valhall]



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Valhall
 


Valhall,
Surely you jest here....


It is wrong to take the comments he states concerning how a political leader should do their job and apply it to the voter's side of the equation.


In this country a political leader is the servant of the public..ie...me...they work for us. We examine every statement they make. WE can do this and use it by which to measure them....every day...24/7 ...if we so desire. They are not sovereign and we subject...they work for us.
Let me translate that for you....we have an duty and obligation and duty to examine everything a politician says...or ever said...and be an informed voter..an informed public.

Political Leaders in this country are not royalty. The are not sovereignty.
They work for us...they are our employees. They are subject to us...not the other way around. Everything they do and say publicly affects us and much of what they do privately affects us.

Only public education can cause an individual to get this wrong and backwards.

They are our servants. Not our masters.

Since you don't get it ...I will translate this for you once again.i]


Democracy demands that participants translate their beliefs into universal rather than religious specific values. It requires that religious proposals be subject to argument, and agreeable to reason. If someone seeks to pass a law, it must be based on something OTHER than just the teachings of the church. You can't simply point to what your pastor said last Sunday, or evoke "God's Will", and expect that argument to be accepted by everyone without further debate.


This is a slick job of Pharisee ism...
IN history and in the Bible..the Pharisees craftily and subtlety, privily, overlaid the traditions of men on the Word of God...and attempted to pass this new paradigm off as if it was the Law of Moses. They were counterfeiting God's Word. Many of the Hebrews bought into this system but it was the Hebrew Leadership who were doing this..in the temples.

Here Obama attempts to water down our religious beliefs by logic and reason..in like manner as the Pharisees. To the unknowlegable and untutored it makes perfect logic and reason. EXCEPT...that he like the Pharisees is attempting the same substitution and for the same goals.
Counterfeiting. He is a Pharisee.

If you think this is idle talk...Observe the story of the woman caught in adultery in John Chapter 8 about verse 4. Caught in the very act. They brought this woman...yet they did not bring the man. IN the Law of Moses ..it says .."they both shall be stoned." Not only one. They asked Jesus what he thought of this woman caught in adultery ..in the very act.
Most Preachers/Pastors will stop at the point where Jesus says "Go and sin no more." However..the Pharisees were privily overlaying the new logic and reason over the Law of Moses as if it was the Law of Moses when it was in fact no such thing. The Pharisees had counterfeited..they had even switched gods...to another god and another bible. They were disobedient.

IN like manner Obama here attempts by logic and reason to imply that there is something wrong with Believers who choose to live their Bibles. They are "demanded" that they Cede...modified ..yield their beliefs to "universal , pluralistic societal definitions/requirements."
They have no choice but to compromise with others.

Notice the wording.. 'Democracy demands that participants translate their beliefs into universal rather than religious specific values. "Demands" ..not asks...but demands.

Later on the words are used...Democracy "requires"....We have "no choice" but to compromise with others.

One thing is clear in this speech...Obama is not talking about putting limits on government or government peoples..but on the private American Citizen. This comes across quite clearly.

He is attempting by logic and reason...to violate the very thing he takes an oath of office to support...freedom of religion. Exactly the same tack that the Pharisees took over two thousand years ago. Nothing new here.

In case you miss the point here again...The Pharisees had secretly switched gods..to the counterfeit god. Yet they claimed to be following the Law of Moses in all parts.

Obama by this tack is attempting to get people to compromise ...Just like the Pharisees did ..away from their religious beliefs...away from their Godly principles and scruples..to the new paradigm of logic and reason.

To the counterfeit god...and away from the God of the Bible.

For you see Valhall...there are those of us out here who know the name of the counterfeiter ..by name. It does not matter whether the Pharisees are doing it or anyone else...we still know the name.

There are many ways to seduce Believers into changing their conduct..most have to do with subtlety ..as is being done here. Some have to do with outright force..coercion. But nonetheless they are all of the counterfeiter.

Obama's paradigm here is a counterfeit...and I now know the name of his god as well.

This became clear..even before I read the transcript of this speech..back when he made his now famous statement..

"That's above my pay grade."

For you see...he claims Christianity ..yet he does not make his yes's ..yes..and his no's ...no. For you see Valhall...nether is this Christian in replying to a question..."That's above my pay grade."

Thanks,
Orangetom



[edit on 30-8-2008 by orangetom1999]



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999

For you see Valhall...there are those of us out here who know the name of the counterfeiter ..by name. It does not matter whether the Pharisees are doing it or anyone else...we still know the name.


AWWW! Okay, you've shown yourself now. With all your italicized verbosity lacking any real substance to the argument, you've said all you need to say to me in this one statement. You've got that ol' all seeing third eye going.

Well - there you have it. Since you got spidey-sense that's making you feel hinky about him you ought to be able to spew all manner of unfounded and downright false accusations against the man.

I see no reason to insert any more facts in this conversation as your metaphysical omniscience has it solved!



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 01:33 PM
link   
I learned a long time ago

You can't argue with a rushbaby

Whatever the golden microphone tells you is straight from God himself, as Mr. Limbaugh so bluntly puts it in his own words

Its best to either ignore them and move on - or never come back tot he D'08 forums again

you're doing a good job though


Keep fighting the good fight.

66 more days until the election - and we can finally bid adue to the harbingers of the moronic masses.



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin
 


Sorry Andrew..I dont put any stock in Rush here to teach this concept or line of thinking. Rush doesnt dare to take his listeners here either...
To many of them would realize that Rush is in fact ...not the last word in thinking...and begin seeking elsewhere.
Rush will stay away from this tack..to many would begin using this prizm to peel back the veneer on the Republican Party as well. They would begin to realize the difference in the two partys is mostly cosmetic.

Valhall,

Please think through what you are saying in your post in lieu of trying to debate point by point..my statements. You seem not wont to do so to show me where I am incorrect...just dismiss what I am saying as being in error..yet you do not specifically show me where my positions are in error..point by point.

Here..you state..


The flaw in you argument is that he is discussing the politician's side of the equation; not the voter's.


It does not seem to occur to you that as a politician he works for us..not other politicians. This is once again an example of Hijacking. What other position is there for a politician to take than that of the voters? IF they take another position they obviously work for someone else than the voters. They are like the Pharisees ...switching doctrines and practice...ie ..Hijacking. Another term for such Hijacking..is Revolution..overthrow.

It seems that you are using a flaw in the argument to show that I am making a flawed point here.
At the same time you are not wont to debate the points I am making to show where my analysis of what Obama states is in error.
No problem with me here..I just make note of it.

Thanks,
Orangetom


[edit on 31-8-2008 by orangetom1999]



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by orangetom1999
 


Sorry Andrew..I dont put any stock in Rush here to teach this concept or line of thinking.


I never said you did.

But he certainly takes stock in you and others like you

how else did he get a 400 million resign deal just recently?



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin
 


No you didnt Andrew..not specifically....just like Obama.. more like inferred. No problem either way with me Andrew.

However..I think you meant to say renewed ..not resign..as in quitting.
He renewed his contract.

400 million...Wow!! He's getting that much?? Thats alot of dough!! Someone must be willing to pay it. Not me!! He must have willing sponsors.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999

Valhall,

Please think through what you are saying in your post in lieu of trying to debate point by point..my statements. You seem not wont to do so to show me where I am incorrect...just dismiss what I am saying as being in error..yet you do not specifically show me where my positions are in error..point by point.


Wait a minute, you don't get to set the rules on this debate. I don't have to waste my time with your un-ending, and usually unrelated, points. There's one point to this thread - whether this speech was anti-Christian or not. There's is no need to respond to your ad nauseum points because there is only one answer to all of them. The speech was not anti-Christian, it was anti-Sectarian.

But you've claimed your uber-spidey-sense trumps all fact and therefore facts don't play in.

You know, orange, you can continue to respond and claim I'm some way manipulating the conversation, or you can accept that my response is going to remain the same.

You're wrong...the OP was wrong...the video creator was wrong. I can accept you in your wrongness, but I won't stay silent to public false statements concerning this speech. It was not anti-Christian.

[edit on 8-31-2008 by Valhall]



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Valhall
 


Valhall,

Thank you for finally making for me my point about Obama's speech. I was thinking you would never get around to it..but you finally did. Thank you.


The speech was not anti-Christian, it was anti-Sectarian.


You should know that Christians are sect. Sect meaning...to "come out from amongst them and be ye seperate and touch not the unclean thing."

Sect means seperate from ...not joining into. Not part of. You are quite correct in your definition or usage of the term anti-sectarian.

Anti sectarian means anti Christian.

You will find this as a record of history in the Letters of Pliney the Elder in writing to the Emperor Trajan concerning the problems he was having with the Christians. Pliney was quite tolerant of the other pagan religions taking place round him with the blessings of the government. But these Christians who wanted nothing to do with the others were not to be tolerated. You can find this information on the web by looking up Pliney's letters to the Emperor Trajan.

Obama's position is exactly the same. "demands, requires, must compromise," etc etc.

This pattern is replete ,over and over in history for those who know and are trained in how to spot it. Obama's position is precisely Hegel's position.
"The State is God" "The State is God on Earth."

Anti Sectarian is also a term for Gnostic, Sophist, Wisemen religion. It is a watch word, a code word. It is religious and goes back very very far in pedigree historically.

I am now in posession of both yours and Obama's god ..by name.

Obama is not Chrisitian..He is Pagan..concealing himself as a Christian. He is a wolf in sheeps clothing.

No probem. I have known this from the begining of this post. I was just wondering when you would finally get down to the fundamentals. Thank you for doing just that.

You need to understand that there are those of us out here who make a study of Occult Pagan religions and patterns..in their multitudes of variations..going all the way back through the prizm of the "prisca theologica." THe commonality of all these religions.

Politics has taken up the mantle of the "prisca theologica" and concealed themselves behind a counterfit mantle but practicing gnosticism, sophism, and the other ancient religions.
I have had this confirmed to me by two Occult Luciferians with some very startling results when questioning them.

This thread to Mopusvindictus...about one third of the way down the post.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This is what confirmed to me the validity of the anti sectarian position and its pedigree way back in history....these two Occult Luciferians.

Dont worry Valhall..most of what passes for Christianity today is to pre occupied to ever get it. You will have a easy time dealing with and confusing them with your tack for most of them haven't a clue.

Nonetheless..thank you for finally confirming my position that Obama's speech is in fact anti Christian...by being anti sectarian.

Orangetom


[edit on 1-9-2008 by orangetom1999]



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Valhall
 


Valhall,

Thank you for finally making for me my point about Obama's speech. I was thinking you would never get around to it..but you finally did. Thank you.


The speech was not anti-Christian, it was anti-Sectarian.


You should know that Christians are sect. Sect meaning...to "come out from amongst them and be ye seperate and touch not the unclean thing."

Sect means seperate from ...not joining into. Not part of. You are quite correct in your definition or usage of the term anti-sectarian.

Anti sectarian means anti Christian.

You will find this as a record of history in the Letters of Pliney the Elder in writing to the Emperor Trajan concerning the problems he was having with the Christians. Pliney was quite tolerant of the other pagan religions taking place round him with the blessings of the government. But these Christians who wanted nothing to do with the others were not to be tolerated. You can find this information on the web by looking up Pliney'ss letters to the Emperor Trajan.

Obama's position is exactly the same. "demands, requires, must compromise," etc etc.

This pattern is replete ,over and over in history for those who know and are trained in how to spot it. Obama's position is precisely Hegel's position.
"The State is God" "The State is God on Earth."

Anti Sectarian is also a term for Gnostic, Sophist, Wisemen religion. It is a watch word, a code word. It is religious and goes back very very far in pedigree historically.

I am now in posession of both yours and Obama's god ..by name.

Obama is not Chrisitian..He is Pagan..concealing himself as a Christian. He is a wolf in sheeps clothing.

No probem. I have known this from the begining of this post. I was just wondering when you would finally get down to the fundamentals. Thank you for doing just that.

You need to understand that there are those of us out here who make a study of Occult Pagan religions and patterns..in their multitudes of variations..going all the way back through the prizm of the "prisca theologica." THe commonality of all these religions.

Politics has taken up the mantle of the "prisca theologica" and concealed themselves behind a counterfit mantle but practicing gnosticism, sophism, and the other ancient religions.
I have had this confirmed to me by two Occult Luciferians with some very startling results when questioning them.

This thread to Mopusvindictus...about one third of the way down the post.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This is what confirmed to me the validity of the anti sectarian position and its pedigree way back in history....these two Occult Luciferians.

Dont worry Valhall..most of what passes for Christianity today is to pre occupied to ever get it. You will have a easy time dealing with and confusing them with your tack for most of them haven't a clue.

Nonetheless..thank you for finally confirming my position that Obama's speech is in fact anti Christian...by being anti sectarian.

Orangetom



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 12:57 PM
link   
Valhall,

I also wanted to let you know that there is a dictum among certain knowledgable politicians. It is part of the occult/concealed religion and not known by most outsiders not sufficiently trained spotting the dogma/dictum at work.

This dictum is very olde and goes like this ..

"It least doth mean what it most doth say"

Now mind you concerning this dictum...it applies to the whole of the body politic. Particularly ..in this case..both republican and democrat both.

Thanks,
Orangetom

[edit on 5-9-2008 by orangetom1999]



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Alora
 


Let me be honest. Why do you even write, when you speak of things you don't understand.

You write the bible is "too archaic to be useful in modern society, and the parts that are too outlandish to be taken as historical accuracy.", Yet, there is more evidence that even the as you put it "outlandish" events are actually accurate. Also, considering you think it is archaic I would not be surprised if you supported something as outlandish as complete drunkenness and orgies, because in our "modern society" we are suppose to do what feels good.

Just because you like Obama (and believe it our not I prefer him over Mc Cain). It doesn't mean you have the write to speak about things you don't even understand. Supporters of Obama like you make me question why I support him in the first place.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 02:46 PM
link   
I don't know if I would characterize the speech as "anti-Christian," but only because I think Barack is unconcerned with which flavor of belief people espouse.

His view is definitely anti-religion.

What he says is, religious motivation is suspect. Unless it can be explained in purely secular terms, a religious motive is unnacceptable in a pluralistic society.

Basically, it's just one instance of many to be found amongs our ruling elites of both parties, where religious people OF ANY STRIPE are second-class citizens in the US.

Your religious convictions are irrelevant as long as they are religious. Unless you will couch them in secular language, you're are being what Obama called "unreasonable."

Valhall can "explain it" all e wants, but this is just one more instance of the left's animosity toward ALL religion. Jew, Buddhist, Muslim, Native American, Presbyterian.

Basically,


American law and politics "trivialize" religion by forcing the religiously faithful to subordinate their personal views to a public faith largely devoid of religion.


Source: Commentary on "The Culture of Disbelief"



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dan Tanna
He is the nastiest little piece of c### thats ever walked the earth.

He is a chameleon of the worst kind. Worse than Tony B'Liar, and he was aweful.


[edit on 23-8-2008 by Dan Tanna]
'



this coming from the guy who had aliens walk in on him and his wife



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by dr_strangecraft
 


Doc,

My understanding of secular issues ..in particular secular humanism is that it is concerned with human issues and human values...that these are the highest values, the ultimate reality in the universe. ..the epitome of everything. When I came to understand this concept...I came to understand that secular humanism is in fact a religion.
What came across clearly in this speech is that this kind of secularism will brook no competition. This was clear to me. This is concealed totalitarianism.

Thanks,
Orangetom



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join