Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: That the lamestream media is so focused on Tiger Woods, who they claim is "black", yet refuse to focus on Obama eligibility who claims to be black
0 views
Skip to first unread message
climber
Dec 20, 2009, 6:31:13 PM12/20/09
to
On Dec 19, 11:08 pm, "US Army Veteran" <inva...@invalid.com> wrote:
> Also Known As (AKA) Obama is fifty percent (50%) white, by his mother; and,
> by some accounts, of the other 50% from his father, he is 43.75% Arab
> (descended of slave traders) and 6.25% Kenyan Black.
>
> AKA is predominantly white even though he obviously looks black and claims
> to be African-American. But African-Americans have made it clear that AKA is
> not African-American as he did not descend from people brought to the United
> States on slave ships. If anything, AKA's ancestors were profiting from the
> enslavement of the ancestors of real African-Americans.
>
> Nor can AKA claim to be black; he is predominantly white.
>
> That the lamestream media is so focused on Tiger Woods, who they claim is
> "black", yet refuse to focus on AKA who claims to be black but isn't really,
> raises some interesting questions.
>
> Does the lamestream media focus on Tiger Woods have anything to do with the
> fact that he looks black but doesn't claim to be? Can we surmise that all
> the lamestream media attention, focused on Tiger Woods, is really about race
> baiting?
>
> This would follow the lamestream media throwing the (black) race card at
> anyone opposing AKA and his Marxist agenda even though AKA is predominately
> white.
>
> What does this say about the lamestream media and their continual hi-pitched
> squealing about racial discrimination? Is the continual squealing,
> legitimate or not, in the best interests of a cohesive American society; or
> does it have the effect of breaking American society, as a whole, down into
> warring tribal factions, such that the different tribes look on each other
> as the enemy, ignoring the real enemy? Isn't this what Hitler did in order
> to achieve and maintain his power?
>
> Tiger Woods is a private citizen. What he does is his business, and that of
> his family, even though his actions reflect on society as a whole,
> indicating a breakdown of moral standards. To say his actions reflect on
> blacks or any of the other races that constitute his ethnic makeup is a
> misnomer as, first and foremost, he is an American; his actions reflect on
> American society as a whole, irrespective of his ethnicity.
>
> AKA is a public figure. What he does and has done is not a private matter,
> but must be open to the scrutiny of the people. The people have the right to
> know that the people they elect are upstanding citizens of this nation, with
> the honesty and integrity being an upstanding citizen requires.
>
> Yet AKA's life is a closed book, including all medical, education, travel
> and citizenship records. Lamestream media is and has been complicit in
> keeping that book closed.
>
> AKA is alleged to have had sexual relations with at least one man. Another
> man with whom sexual relations may have occurred is dead, murdered; his
> murder unsolved. That man was a choir director at the church of Reverend
> Jeremiah Wright, frequented for twenty some years by AKA.
>
> AKA is of dubious citizenship. The document (Certification of Live Birth)
> that he and his followers have offered as proof of his citizenship has been
> seen by no one outside that circle. Pictures of the document, showing up on
> the internet, are not a legal representation and, therefore, cannot be
> claimed as proof of anything, including citizenship. No one, including his
> followers, has seen AKA's actual birth certificate, issued at the time of
> his birth. Yet in his book, Dreams from My Father, AKA admits finding his
> actual birth certificate among papers in his maternal grandparents' home
> where he was living at the time. That being the case, he no doubt has that
> birth certificate just like John McCain who produced his for all to see. And
> that being the case, AKA could produce his actual birth certificate,
> bringing into question the why of the laser printed document he claims is
> his birth certificate; lending credence to the claim that it is a forgery.
>
> In a resolution before the Senate, sponsored by AKA among others, setting
> forth a sense of the Congress regarding the question of John McCain being a
> natural-born citizen, AKA admits that a natural born citizen has two
> American parents, to wit: "Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to
> American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in
> 1936..."
>
> Why is this important? Because where AKA was actually born is up for grabs.
> His mother was under the age of 19 at the time of his birth. Under the laws
> in force at that time, if AKA was born outside the United States, his mother
> had to have been 19 or over at the time of his birth in order to confer her
> citizenship to him. There is also the matter of newspaper reports out of
> Kenya, dated 2004, in which it is claimed that AKA was born in Kenya. This
> tends to substantiate the claims of his paternal step-grandmother, Sarah,
> that she was present at his birth in Kenya. Under Act 96, Laws of the
> Territory of Hawaii, Session Laws of 1911, Special Session of 1909, and the
> Organic Act, in force from 1911 until repealed in 1972, the birth of
> foreign-born children could be registered in Hawaii. Until the actual birth
> certificate, issued at the time of his birth, is produced and scrutinized,
> where AKA was actually born is unknown.
>
> At the time of AKA's birth, Kenya was a British colony; his father,
> therefore, a British subject. If AKA was actually born in Hawaii, he would
> have held dual citizenship at birth. If he was born outside the United
> States, he would have been a British subject at birth as the British
> Nationality Act of 1948, in force at the time, states the nationality of the
> child follows the father.
>
> AKA, himself, has stated that he held dual citizenship at birth. Such
> precludes his eligibility to the office of president as he must be-under
> Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, United States Constitution-a natural born
> citizen, defined historically as having two American parents (Law of
> Nations); SR 511, quoted above, following that historical definition and
> precedence.
>
> An American citizen would have no problem applying for and obtaining a
> social security number. A very large question looms around two social
> security numbers, one issued by the State of Connecticut, the other by the
> State of Michigan, both used by the Barack Hussein Obama occupying the White
> House. Like mother, like son; Stanley Anne Dunham also used social security
> numbers that did not belong to her; not something an American citizen would
> need to do.
>
> The registration of AKA at the Fransiskus Assisi Primary School in Jakarta,
> Indonesia on January 1, 1967 states that AKA was the child of Lolo Soetoro
> and listed AKA's citizenship as Indonesian. The divorce papers of Obama Sr
> and Stanley Anne (Dunham) Soetoro indicate that AKA was over the age of 18
> at the time but "dependent on the parties for education."
>
> This raises some interesting questions.
>
> If AKA was not actually adopted by Lolo Soetoro, why would the divorce
> papers list him as a legal dependent of Lolo Soetoro? A legal dependent can
> only be so if a legal relationship (legal adoption or biological) exists;
> step children are not legal dependents; and a step child would have been
> what Barry Soetoro was if not legally adopted.
>
> If AKA was adopted by Lolo Soetoro and his name changed to Barry Soetoro,
> where are the legal documents changing his name back to Barack Hussein
> Obama? And where are the documents that had to have been filed in order for
> Barry Soetoro to reclaim his American citizenship (if eligible to do so) at
> the age of 18? Was Barry Soetoro listed as a dependent for the purposes of
> education in the Soetoro divorce papers so Barry could claim Indonesian
> citizenship and thereby receive foreign student aid? If that is the case,
> then he was an Indonesian citizen when he attended Occidental College in
> California. This also means he did not (if eligible to do so) reclaim his
> American citizenship at age 18. Since AKA would not become a United States
> citizen by virtue of his Indonesian citizenship expiring or by virtue of his
> domiciling in the United States, such would mean that AKA is not an American
> citizen.
>
> In a 2004 debate between AKA and Alan Keyes, when both were candidates for
> the open U.S. Senate seat for Illinois, AKA responded to a Keyes comment
> about him not being a natural born citizen thusly, "That's okay, I'm not
> running for President, I'm only running for the Senate." One does not need
> to be natural-born to become a senator; one does have to be natural-born to
> become president.
>
> The Obama Constitutional Crisis far out-weighs the Tiger Scandal in import.
> The Tiger Scandal, while reflecting on the moral standard of America, does
> not reach the level of the Obama Constitutional Crisis which threatens the
> very freedom that the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights set
> forth and guarantee for every American citizen.
>
> Yet the lamestream media, while going all googly-eyed about the Tiger
> Scandal, is silent about the Obama Constitutional Crisis.
>
> One can only conclude that the lamestream media is in on the fix; they are
> complicit in the foisting of the Obama Constitutional Crisis on the American
> people.
>
> And so are the courts who have refused to address the question of the
> eligibility of AKA to the office of president, claiming the plaintiffs have
> no standing.
>
> As established, the flow of power, under the Declaration of Independence,
> declaring the independence of America from Britain, is from God to the
> people to the government. Such means the people, singly or severally, have
> the "first cause", the first right, and therefore standing in regard to any
> question of offense committed against the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
> If such is not the case, then America has been transformed from a
> Constitutional Republic (rule of law) to a Democracy (rule based on the
> passions, opinions and prejudices of those in power); in other words, a
> tyranny.
>
> It cannot be both ways. There is no gray area; this is a situation of
> either/or. Either the American people have the right to redress of
> grievances committed against the Constitution and Bill of Rights, or they
> are nothing more than subjects under a tyrannical government. If the
> American people are mere subjects, chattel to be used, abused and discarded
> by the government, at whim (as is happening), the Declaration of
> Independence instructs that the American people should dissolve the
> government that has made them so.
>
> As for the Tiger Scandal vs Obama Constitutional Crisis; those who are
> lapping up the lamestream media coverage of the Tiger Scandal have misplaced
> priorities. There is nothing more important to the future of this nation and
> its people than the Obama Constitutional Crisis and the truth of AKA's
> eligibility to the office he holds.
>
> The people need to know that AKA is eligible. If he is not, he is a usurper.
> Indications are, the evidence grows, that such is exactly what he is. That
> he has spent somewhere in the neighborhood of $1.4 million, keeping his life
> a closed book to the American people, makes the case that if he had nothing
> to hide, if he was eligible, he would simply produce his actual birth
> certificate. As liberals like to quip when citizens complain about
> government invasion of their privacy, "If AKA has nothing to hide, he has
> nothing to worry about."
>
> No matter how many people voted for him, if AKA is not eligible, the United
> States Constitution demands he be removed. Any judge who refuses to address
> that, violates his/her oath to uphold and defend the United States
> Constitution; he/she is committing an act of treason. The same is true for
> Congress.
>
> Whether AKA is eligible to the office he holds is paramount to the continued
> freedom and liberty of each and every American; whether Tiger Woods has
> mistresses is not.
>
> If one has any ability to think for oneself, one has to question why the
> lamestream media is so focused on the Tiger Scandal but ignores the Obama
> Constitutional Crisis. The conclusion of complicity is obvious as is the
> conclusion that the lamestream media does not have the best interests of
> America or the American people at heart.
>
> What can you do?
>
> Don't go to the lamestream media for your news. Boycott Katie Couric and the
> rest of the lamestream media goons. If you do watch, boycott those who
> advertise on their shows. Taking back America means reclaiming and
> reasserting our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
> Also Known As (AKA) Obama is fifty percent (50%) white, by his mother; and,
> by some accounts, of the other 50% from his father, he is 43.75% Arab
> (descended of slave traders) and 6.25% Kenyan Black.
>
> AKA is predominantly white even though he obviously looks black and claims
> to be African-American. But African-Americans have made it clear that AKA is
> not African-American as he did not descend from people brought to the United
> States on slave ships. If anything, AKA's ancestors were profiting from the
> enslavement of the ancestors of real African-Americans.
>
> Nor can AKA claim to be black; he is predominantly white.
>
> That the lamestream media is so focused on Tiger Woods, who they claim is
> "black", yet refuse to focus on AKA who claims to be black but isn't really,
> raises some interesting questions.
>
> Does the lamestream media focus on Tiger Woods have anything to do with the
> fact that he looks black but doesn't claim to be? Can we surmise that all
> the lamestream media attention, focused on Tiger Woods, is really about race
> baiting?
>
> This would follow the lamestream media throwing the (black) race card at
> anyone opposing AKA and his Marxist agenda even though AKA is predominately
> white.
>
> What does this say about the lamestream media and their continual hi-pitched
> squealing about racial discrimination? Is the continual squealing,
> legitimate or not, in the best interests of a cohesive American society; or
> does it have the effect of breaking American society, as a whole, down into
> warring tribal factions, such that the different tribes look on each other
> as the enemy, ignoring the real enemy? Isn't this what Hitler did in order
> to achieve and maintain his power?
>
> Tiger Woods is a private citizen. What he does is his business, and that of
> his family, even though his actions reflect on society as a whole,
> indicating a breakdown of moral standards. To say his actions reflect on
> blacks or any of the other races that constitute his ethnic makeup is a
> misnomer as, first and foremost, he is an American; his actions reflect on
> American society as a whole, irrespective of his ethnicity.
>
> AKA is a public figure. What he does and has done is not a private matter,
> but must be open to the scrutiny of the people. The people have the right to
> know that the people they elect are upstanding citizens of this nation, with
> the honesty and integrity being an upstanding citizen requires.
>
> Yet AKA's life is a closed book, including all medical, education, travel
> and citizenship records. Lamestream media is and has been complicit in
> keeping that book closed.
>
> AKA is alleged to have had sexual relations with at least one man. Another
> man with whom sexual relations may have occurred is dead, murdered; his
> murder unsolved. That man was a choir director at the church of Reverend
> Jeremiah Wright, frequented for twenty some years by AKA.
>
> AKA is of dubious citizenship. The document (Certification of Live Birth)
> that he and his followers have offered as proof of his citizenship has been
> seen by no one outside that circle. Pictures of the document, showing up on
> the internet, are not a legal representation and, therefore, cannot be
> claimed as proof of anything, including citizenship. No one, including his
> followers, has seen AKA's actual birth certificate, issued at the time of
> his birth. Yet in his book, Dreams from My Father, AKA admits finding his
> actual birth certificate among papers in his maternal grandparents' home
> where he was living at the time. That being the case, he no doubt has that
> birth certificate just like John McCain who produced his for all to see. And
> that being the case, AKA could produce his actual birth certificate,
> bringing into question the why of the laser printed document he claims is
> his birth certificate; lending credence to the claim that it is a forgery.
>
> In a resolution before the Senate, sponsored by AKA among others, setting
> forth a sense of the Congress regarding the question of John McCain being a
> natural-born citizen, AKA admits that a natural born citizen has two
> American parents, to wit: "Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to
> American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in
> 1936..."
>
> Why is this important? Because where AKA was actually born is up for grabs.
> His mother was under the age of 19 at the time of his birth. Under the laws
> in force at that time, if AKA was born outside the United States, his mother
> had to have been 19 or over at the time of his birth in order to confer her
> citizenship to him. There is also the matter of newspaper reports out of
> Kenya, dated 2004, in which it is claimed that AKA was born in Kenya. This
> tends to substantiate the claims of his paternal step-grandmother, Sarah,
> that she was present at his birth in Kenya. Under Act 96, Laws of the
> Territory of Hawaii, Session Laws of 1911, Special Session of 1909, and the
> Organic Act, in force from 1911 until repealed in 1972, the birth of
> foreign-born children could be registered in Hawaii. Until the actual birth
> certificate, issued at the time of his birth, is produced and scrutinized,
> where AKA was actually born is unknown.
>
> At the time of AKA's birth, Kenya was a British colony; his father,
> therefore, a British subject. If AKA was actually born in Hawaii, he would
> have held dual citizenship at birth. If he was born outside the United
> States, he would have been a British subject at birth as the British
> Nationality Act of 1948, in force at the time, states the nationality of the
> child follows the father.
>
> AKA, himself, has stated that he held dual citizenship at birth. Such
> precludes his eligibility to the office of president as he must be-under
> Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, United States Constitution-a natural born
> citizen, defined historically as having two American parents (Law of
> Nations); SR 511, quoted above, following that historical definition and
> precedence.
>
> An American citizen would have no problem applying for and obtaining a
> social security number. A very large question looms around two social
> security numbers, one issued by the State of Connecticut, the other by the
> State of Michigan, both used by the Barack Hussein Obama occupying the White
> House. Like mother, like son; Stanley Anne Dunham also used social security
> numbers that did not belong to her; not something an American citizen would
> need to do.
>
> The registration of AKA at the Fransiskus Assisi Primary School in Jakarta,
> Indonesia on January 1, 1967 states that AKA was the child of Lolo Soetoro
> and listed AKA's citizenship as Indonesian. The divorce papers of Obama Sr
> and Stanley Anne (Dunham) Soetoro indicate that AKA was over the age of 18
> at the time but "dependent on the parties for education."
>
> This raises some interesting questions.
>
> If AKA was not actually adopted by Lolo Soetoro, why would the divorce
> papers list him as a legal dependent of Lolo Soetoro? A legal dependent can
> only be so if a legal relationship (legal adoption or biological) exists;
> step children are not legal dependents; and a step child would have been
> what Barry Soetoro was if not legally adopted.
>
> If AKA was adopted by Lolo Soetoro and his name changed to Barry Soetoro,
> where are the legal documents changing his name back to Barack Hussein
> Obama? And where are the documents that had to have been filed in order for
> Barry Soetoro to reclaim his American citizenship (if eligible to do so) at
> the age of 18? Was Barry Soetoro listed as a dependent for the purposes of
> education in the Soetoro divorce papers so Barry could claim Indonesian
> citizenship and thereby receive foreign student aid? If that is the case,
> then he was an Indonesian citizen when he attended Occidental College in
> California. This also means he did not (if eligible to do so) reclaim his
> American citizenship at age 18. Since AKA would not become a United States
> citizen by virtue of his Indonesian citizenship expiring or by virtue of his
> domiciling in the United States, such would mean that AKA is not an American
> citizen.
>
> In a 2004 debate between AKA and Alan Keyes, when both were candidates for
> the open U.S. Senate seat for Illinois, AKA responded to a Keyes comment
> about him not being a natural born citizen thusly, "That's okay, I'm not
> running for President, I'm only running for the Senate." One does not need
> to be natural-born to become a senator; one does have to be natural-born to
> become president.
>
> The Obama Constitutional Crisis far out-weighs the Tiger Scandal in import.
> The Tiger Scandal, while reflecting on the moral standard of America, does
> not reach the level of the Obama Constitutional Crisis which threatens the
> very freedom that the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights set
> forth and guarantee for every American citizen.
>
> Yet the lamestream media, while going all googly-eyed about the Tiger
> Scandal, is silent about the Obama Constitutional Crisis.
>
> One can only conclude that the lamestream media is in on the fix; they are
> complicit in the foisting of the Obama Constitutional Crisis on the American
> people.
>
> And so are the courts who have refused to address the question of the
> eligibility of AKA to the office of president, claiming the plaintiffs have
> no standing.
>
> As established, the flow of power, under the Declaration of Independence,
> declaring the independence of America from Britain, is from God to the
> people to the government. Such means the people, singly or severally, have
> the "first cause", the first right, and therefore standing in regard to any
> question of offense committed against the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
> If such is not the case, then America has been transformed from a
> Constitutional Republic (rule of law) to a Democracy (rule based on the
> passions, opinions and prejudices of those in power); in other words, a
> tyranny.
>
> It cannot be both ways. There is no gray area; this is a situation of
> either/or. Either the American people have the right to redress of
> grievances committed against the Constitution and Bill of Rights, or they
> are nothing more than subjects under a tyrannical government. If the
> American people are mere subjects, chattel to be used, abused and discarded
> by the government, at whim (as is happening), the Declaration of
> Independence instructs that the American people should dissolve the
> government that has made them so.
>
> As for the Tiger Scandal vs Obama Constitutional Crisis; those who are
> lapping up the lamestream media coverage of the Tiger Scandal have misplaced
> priorities. There is nothing more important to the future of this nation and
> its people than the Obama Constitutional Crisis and the truth of AKA's
> eligibility to the office he holds.
>
> The people need to know that AKA is eligible. If he is not, he is a usurper.
> Indications are, the evidence grows, that such is exactly what he is. That
> he has spent somewhere in the neighborhood of $1.4 million, keeping his life
> a closed book to the American people, makes the case that if he had nothing
> to hide, if he was eligible, he would simply produce his actual birth
> certificate. As liberals like to quip when citizens complain about
> government invasion of their privacy, "If AKA has nothing to hide, he has
> nothing to worry about."
>
> No matter how many people voted for him, if AKA is not eligible, the United
> States Constitution demands he be removed. Any judge who refuses to address
> that, violates his/her oath to uphold and defend the United States
> Constitution; he/she is committing an act of treason. The same is true for
> Congress.
>
> Whether AKA is eligible to the office he holds is paramount to the continued
> freedom and liberty of each and every American; whether Tiger Woods has
> mistresses is not.
>
> If one has any ability to think for oneself, one has to question why the
> lamestream media is so focused on the Tiger Scandal but ignores the Obama
> Constitutional Crisis. The conclusion of complicity is obvious as is the
> conclusion that the lamestream media does not have the best interests of
> America or the American people at heart.
>
> What can you do?
>
> Don't go to the lamestream media for your news. Boycott Katie Couric and the
> rest of the lamestream media goons. If you do watch, boycott those who
> advertise on their shows. Taking back America means reclaiming and
> reasserting our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Taking back America is going to require massive social/racial chaos.
It
will be aided by a steadily declining economy.
America was founded in a crucible of violence; stoning of British
troops,
their retaliation, lynching of tories. And the combatants were of the
same
stock.
Best to do everything legally possible to speed up the process.
Then build anew.
climber
The parties, ah, dems, repubs, conservative, liberals, and dreamers
don't have a chance.
Hiccum Blurpaedius
Dec 20, 2009, 6:40:53 PM12/20/09
to
Tiger er Cheetah Woods suffers from a disease opposite of what Michael
Jackson had.
michael turned white. Cheetah is turning black
Anlatt the Builder
Dec 20, 2009, 8:33:44 PM12/20/09
to
On Dec 20, 3:31 pm, climber <coledenk...@gmail.com> wrote:
They focus on Tiger Woods because he is the best golfer in the world,
a major celebrity, and had a public persona that was competely at odds
with the recent revelations.
What makes you think that it's tied to how "black" he is?
The media also focus on Obama, quite a bit. They just don't focus on
his eligibility to be president, because that is a dead issue, of
interest only to conspiracy theorists.
>
> Taking back America is going to require massive social/racial chaos.
>
Look at this: ONE African-American president (out of 44) is elected by
the American people, and has served ONE year so far, and insecure
white supremecists feel like they have lost so much power and prestige
that they're already screaming about "taking back America" and hoping
for "massive social/racial chaos." What a bunch of crying, whiny, anti-
American, unpatriotic babies.
America has the best record in the world for regime change without
violence. Let's not screw it up now. If you want your "country back,"
then vote for your preferred candidate. That's the way we do it.
First, however, you might want to brush up on the values of the
country you claim you want back. You don't seem to know any of them.
Hiccum Blurpaedius
Dec 22, 2009, 2:26:55 AM12/22/09
to
> First, however, you might want to brush up on the values of the
> country you claim you want back. You don't seem to know any of them.
Alot of military is pure shit anyway. Nothing but tax sucking
egomaniacs turning the land into a police state. Obama better make
changes or else he is just another christian piece of capitalist shit.
Patriot Games
Dec 22, 2009, 5:06:58 PM12/22/09
to
On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 15:31:13 -0800 (PST), climber
<coled...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Taking back America is going to require massive social/racial chaos.
>It will be aided by a steadily declining economy.
>America was founded in a crucible of violence; stoning of British
>troops, their retaliation, lynching of tories.
<coled...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Taking back America is going to require massive social/racial chaos.
>It will be aided by a steadily declining economy.
>America was founded in a crucible of violence; stoning of British
>troops, their retaliation, lynching of tories.
And today we have AR-15s...
And my personal fav: Gasoline.
>Best to do everything legally possible to speed up the process.
Taking back America IS legal:
"I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and
defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to
the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the
United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me,
according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So
help me God."
David Johnston
Dec 22, 2009, 5:11:55 PM12/22/09
to
You know, that isn't really an oath to destroy the United States.
Hiccum Blurpaedius
Dec 22, 2009, 10:57:48 PM12/22/09
to
On Dec 22, 5:06 pm, Patriot Games <Patr...@America.Com> wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 15:31:13 -0800 (PST), climber
>
> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 15:31:13 -0800 (PST), climber
>
Then kill yourself
fuck god. It is a piece of shit
Hiccum Blurpaedius
Dec 22, 2009, 10:58:21 PM12/22/09
to
Exterminate god god dammit
Patriot Games
Dec 23, 2009, 1:53:34 PM12/23/09
to
On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 22:11:55 GMT, David Johnston <da...@block.net>
wrote:
wrote:
Its none of your business, Canadian.
0 new messages