|
|
Joined: Feb 2018
Posts: 1,221
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Feb 2018
Posts: 1,221 |
Normalization of deviance and the erosion of morality, morale, and national identity. Destabilization is the name of the game.
History provides many examples of the same tactic. It's leftist 101. My exact take on it. It's divisive and destabilizing.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 6,024
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 6,024 |
Got to thinking about this last night. I was watching a couple videos about the climate change hoax, and it got me thinking.
Climate change, electric cars, I can understand the motive for the agenda. Energy, control of energy gives one great power over the population.
Same as disarmament of civilians.
Power equals money. The more power you have, the easier it is to extort money from people.
The end game is a totally cashless society, every thing controlled by computers. That gives them absolute complete control. That is their ultimate goal.
Every nickel you make, every breath you take. From the womb to the tomb.
Occam’s razor isn’t needed, you can pick this turd up with your fingers. (If if you don’t mind the dirt getting rich)
The LGBTQ thing is sorta puzzling me though. What do they gain by pushing something that 90% of the population identifies as mental illness
People who are pretending to woke won’t admit it on transgender, but I’m sure if truth be known, they think these idiots are freaking crazy. (Outside of government and media, woke drops in an intelligent mind)
I looked up the stats. Currently 7,6% of the population now call themselves LGBTQ according to the numbers the search brought up. I figure that might be like Bribems approval rating, at least slightly inflated. (Ten years ago it was below 4% gays and cross dressing) trans gender sounds exotic to some who can’t figure out their own plumbing😀, and I sincerely doubt the number given!
But Occam’s razor doesn’t work well for this mess. I can understand legalized pedophilia, but without that and human trafficking, it like trying to pick up marbles with a pitchfork!😀
Care to enlighten me?
Reon 90% of the population no longer believes it is a mental illness. In fact, the opposite appears to be true: a large percentage of the population believes that opposition to the LGBTQ political agenda is the mental illness, as evidenced by society's completely uncritical acceptance of the epithets "homophobe" and "transphobe" to describe anyone who opposes the LGBTQ political agenda. The "appropriateness" of these epithets is so thoroughly and uncritically accepted now that it's perfectly okay to call "mentally ill" anyone who opposes the moral equation of homosexuality with heterosexual eros, as it once was acceptable to claim as "mentally ill" any man who insisted on having rectal intercourse (sodomy) with another man. In other words, there has been a complete moral inversion; which raises the obvious question: since the acceptability of an epithet to describe another person entails a "normative" claim (a moral claim) about the beliefs of that other person, what exactly is the non-relative basis of the claim that opponents of the homosexual or trans rights movements are mentally ill and deserve to be called names? What is the objective ground for declaring "mentally ill" (phobic) and deserving of name-calling someone who believes homosexuality is undesirable (or at least not morally equivalent to heterosexuality)? Since they are enthusiastic apologists for homosexuality (and never shy about hurling epithets at those who have reservations about their enthusiasm!) perhaps DBT or Paul Barnard can enlighten us! What is the non-relative (i.e. the objective) ground that justifies calling names (calling mentally ill as in "homophobic") anyone who questions the wisdom of the LGBT movement? So ur ghey? Can you read? The post questions the premise of the homosexual and trans rights movements that anyone who questions their agenda is mentally ill and deserves to be called names and invites our Campfire apologists for homosexuality, DBT, Paul Bernard (and apparently Jim Conrad too), to explain to us why they are objectively correct in their name calling. I'm 100% certain they won't be able too because their own premises entail a complete denial of any ground for distinguishing right from wrong.
Last edited by Tarquin; 03/24/24.
Tarquin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 6,024
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 6,024 |
Got to thinking about this last night. I was watching a couple videos about the climate change hoax, and it got me thinking.
Climate change, electric cars, I can understand the motive for the agenda. Energy, control of energy gives one great power over the population.
Same as disarmament of civilians.
Power equals money. The more power you have, the easier it is to extort money from people.
The end game is a totally cashless society, every thing controlled by computers. That gives them absolute complete control. That is their ultimate goal.
Every nickel you make, every breath you take. From the womb to the tomb.
Occam’s razor isn’t needed, you can pick this turd up with your fingers. (If if you don’t mind the dirt getting rich)
The LGBTQ thing is sorta puzzling me though. What do they gain by pushing something that 90% of the population identifies as mental illness
People who are pretending to woke won’t admit it on transgender, but I’m sure if truth be known, they think these idiots are freaking crazy. (Outside of government and media, woke drops in an intelligent mind)
I looked up the stats. Currently 7,6% of the population now call themselves LGBTQ according to the numbers the search brought up. I figure that might be like Bribems approval rating, at least slightly inflated. (Ten years ago it was below 4% gays and cross dressing) trans gender sounds exotic to some who can’t figure out their own plumbing😀, and I sincerely doubt the number given!
But Occam’s razor doesn’t work well for this mess. I can understand legalized pedophilia, but without that and human trafficking, it like trying to pick up marbles with a pitchfork!😀
Care to enlighten me?
Reon 90% of the population no longer believes it is a mental illness. In fact, the opposite appears to be true: a large percentage of the population believes that opposition to the LGBTQ political agenda is the mental illness, as evidenced by society's completely uncritical acceptance of the epithets "homophobe" and "transphobe" to describe anyone who opposes the LGBTQ political agenda. The "appropriateness" of these epithets is so thoroughly and uncritically accepted now that it's perfectly okay to call "mentally ill" anyone who opposes the moral equation of homosexuality with heterosexual eros, as it once was acceptable to claim as "mentally ill" any man who insisted on having rectal intercourse (sodomy) with another man. In other words, there has been a complete moral inversion; which raises the obvious question: since the acceptability of an epithet to describe another person entails a "normative" claim (a moral claim) about the beliefs of that other person, what exactly is the non-relative basis of the claim that opponents of the homosexual or trans rights movements are mentally ill and deserve to be called names? What is the objective ground for declaring "mentally ill" (phobic) and deserving of name-calling someone who believes homosexuality is undesirable (or at least not morally equivalent to heterosexuality)? Since they are enthusiastic apologists for homosexuality (and never shy about hurling epithets at those who have reservations about their enthusiasm!) perhaps DBT or Paul Barnard can enlighten us! What is the non-relative (i.e. the objective) ground that justifies calling names (calling mentally ill as in "homophobic") anyone who questions the wisdom of the LGBT movement? So ur ghey? He is well studied! Looks to be he stepped out tha closet in a few paragraphs LOL It's unfortunate that you can't comprehend simple English.
Tarquin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 14,539
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 14,539 |
Got to thinking about this last night. I was watching a couple videos about the climate change hoax, and it got me thinking.
Climate change, electric cars, I can understand the motive for the agenda. Energy, control of energy gives one great power over the population.
Same as disarmament of civilians.
Power equals money. The more power you have, the easier it is to extort money from people.
The end game is a totally cashless society, every thing controlled by computers. That gives them absolute complete control. That is their ultimate goal.
Every nickel you make, every breath you take. From the womb to the tomb.
Occam’s razor isn’t needed, you can pick this turd up with your fingers. (If if you don’t mind the dirt getting rich)
The LGBTQ thing is sorta puzzling me though. What do they gain by pushing something that 90% of the population identifies as mental illness
People who are pretending to woke won’t admit it on transgender, but I’m sure if truth be known, they think these idiots are freaking crazy. (Outside of government and media, woke drops in an intelligent mind)
I looked up the stats. Currently 7,6% of the population now call themselves LGBTQ according to the numbers the search brought up. I figure that might be like Bribems approval rating, at least slightly inflated. (Ten years ago it was below 4% gays and cross dressing) trans gender sounds exotic to some who can’t figure out their own plumbing😀, and I sincerely doubt the number given!
But Occam’s razor doesn’t work well for this mess. I can understand legalized pedophilia, but without that and human trafficking, it like trying to pick up marbles with a pitchfork!😀
Care to enlighten me?
Reon 90% of the population no longer believes it is a mental illness. In fact, the opposite appears to be true: a large percentage of the population believes that opposition to the LGBTQ political agenda is the mental illness, as evidenced by society's completely uncritical acceptance of the epithets "homophobe" and "transphobe" to describe anyone who opposes the LGBTQ political agenda. The "appropriateness" of these epithets is so thoroughly and uncritically accepted now that it's perfectly okay to call "mentally ill" anyone who opposes the moral equation of homosexuality with heterosexual eros, as it once was acceptable to claim as "mentally ill" any man who insisted on having rectal intercourse (sodomy) with another man. In other words, there has been a complete moral inversion; which raises the obvious question: since the acceptability of an epithet to describe another person entails a "normative" claim (a moral claim) about the beliefs of that other person, what exactly is the non-relative basis of the claim that opponents of the homosexual or trans rights movements are mentally ill and deserve to be called names? What is the objective ground for declaring "mentally ill" (phobic) and deserving of name-calling someone who believes homosexuality is undesirable (or at least not morally equivalent to heterosexuality)? Since they are enthusiastic apologists for homosexuality (and never shy about hurling epithets at those who have reservations about their enthusiasm!) perhaps DBT or Paul Barnard can enlighten us! What is the non-relative (i.e. the objective) ground that justifies calling names (calling mentally ill as in "homophobic") anyone who questions the wisdom of the LGBT movement? So ur ghey? Can you read? The post questions the premise of the homosexual and trans rights movements that anyone who questions their agenda is mentally ill and deserves to be called names and invites our Campfire apologists for homosexuality, DBT, Paul Bernard (and apparently Jim Conrad too), to explain to us why they are objectively correct in their name calling. I'm 100% certain they won't be able too because their own premises entail a complete denial of any ground for distinguishing right from wrong. Can you dum that down for me my homophobia is kickin in
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 60,368
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 60,368 |
Got to thinking about this last night. I was watching a couple videos about the climate change hoax, and it got me thinking.
Climate change, electric cars, I can understand the motive for the agenda. Energy, control of energy gives one great power over the population.
Same as disarmament of civilians.
Power equals money. The more power you have, the easier it is to extort money from people.
The end game is a totally cashless society, every thing controlled by computers. That gives them absolute complete control. That is their ultimate goal.
Every nickel you make, every breath you take. From the womb to the tomb.
Occam’s razor isn’t needed, you can pick this turd up with your fingers. (If if you don’t mind the dirt getting rich)
The LGBTQ thing is sorta puzzling me though. What do they gain by pushing something that 90% of the population identifies as mental illness
People who are pretending to woke won’t admit it on transgender, but I’m sure if truth be known, they think these idiots are freaking crazy. (Outside of government and media, woke drops in an intelligent mind)
I looked up the stats. Currently 7,6% of the population now call themselves LGBTQ according to the numbers the search brought up. I figure that might be like Bribems approval rating, at least slightly inflated. (Ten years ago it was below 4% gays and cross dressing) trans gender sounds exotic to some who can’t figure out their own plumbing😀, and I sincerely doubt the number given!
But Occam’s razor doesn’t work well for this mess. I can understand legalized pedophilia, but without that and human trafficking, it like trying to pick up marbles with a pitchfork!😀
Care to enlighten me?
Reon 90% of the population no longer believes it is a mental illness. In fact, the opposite appears to be true: a large percentage of the population believes that opposition to the LGBTQ political agenda is the mental illness, as evidenced by society's completely uncritical acceptance of the epithets "homophobe" and "transphobe" to describe anyone who opposes the LGBTQ political agenda. The "appropriateness" of these epithets is so thoroughly and uncritically accepted now that it's perfectly okay to call "mentally ill" anyone who opposes the moral equation of homosexuality with heterosexual eros, as it once was acceptable to claim as "mentally ill" any man who insisted on having rectal intercourse (sodomy) with another man. In other words, there has been a complete moral inversion; which raises the obvious question: since the acceptability of an epithet to describe another person entails a "normative" claim (a moral claim) about the beliefs of that other person, what exactly is the non-relative basis of the claim that opponents of the homosexual or trans rights movements are mentally ill and deserve to be called names? What is the objective ground for declaring "mentally ill" (phobic) and deserving of name-calling someone who believes homosexuality is undesirable (or at least not morally equivalent to heterosexuality)? Since they are enthusiastic apologists for homosexuality (and never shy about hurling epithets at those who have reservations about their enthusiasm!) perhaps DBT or Paul Barnard can enlighten us! What is the non-relative (i.e. the objective) ground that justifies calling names (calling mentally ill as in "homophobic") anyone who questions the wisdom of the LGBT movement? So ur ghey? Can you read? The post questions the premise of the homosexual and trans rights movements that anyone who questions their agenda is mentally ill and deserves to be called names and invites our Campfire apologists for homosexuality, DBT, Paul Bernard (and apparently Jim Conrad too), to explain to us why they are objectively correct in their name calling. I'm 100% certain they won't be able too because their own premises entail a complete denial of any ground for distinguishing right from wrong. Can you dum that down for me my homophobia is kickin in Simple. Tardqueen likes it in the butt. And not voting.
I am MAGA.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 6,024
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 6,024 |
Got to thinking about this last night. I was watching a couple videos about the climate change hoax, and it got me thinking.
Climate change, electric cars, I can understand the motive for the agenda. Energy, control of energy gives one great power over the population.
Same as disarmament of civilians.
Power equals money. The more power you have, the easier it is to extort money from people.
The end game is a totally cashless society, every thing controlled by computers. That gives them absolute complete control. That is their ultimate goal.
Every nickel you make, every breath you take. From the womb to the tomb.
Occam’s razor isn’t needed, you can pick this turd up with your fingers. (If if you don’t mind the dirt getting rich)
The LGBTQ thing is sorta puzzling me though. What do they gain by pushing something that 90% of the population identifies as mental illness
People who are pretending to woke won’t admit it on transgender, but I’m sure if truth be known, they think these idiots are freaking crazy. (Outside of government and media, woke drops in an intelligent mind)
I looked up the stats. Currently 7,6% of the population now call themselves LGBTQ according to the numbers the search brought up. I figure that might be like Bribems approval rating, at least slightly inflated. (Ten years ago it was below 4% gays and cross dressing) trans gender sounds exotic to some who can’t figure out their own plumbing😀, and I sincerely doubt the number given!
But Occam’s razor doesn’t work well for this mess. I can understand legalized pedophilia, but without that and human trafficking, it like trying to pick up marbles with a pitchfork!😀
Care to enlighten me?
Reon 90% of the population no longer believes it is a mental illness. In fact, the opposite appears to be true: a large percentage of the population believes that opposition to the LGBTQ political agenda is the mental illness, as evidenced by society's completely uncritical acceptance of the epithets "homophobe" and "transphobe" to describe anyone who opposes the LGBTQ political agenda. The "appropriateness" of these epithets is so thoroughly and uncritically accepted now that it's perfectly okay to call "mentally ill" anyone who opposes the moral equation of homosexuality with heterosexual eros, as it once was acceptable to claim as "mentally ill" any man who insisted on having rectal intercourse (sodomy) with another man. In other words, there has been a complete moral inversion; which raises the obvious question: since the acceptability of an epithet to describe another person entails a "normative" claim (a moral claim) about the beliefs of that other person, what exactly is the non-relative basis of the claim that opponents of the homosexual or trans rights movements are mentally ill and deserve to be called names? What is the objective ground for declaring "mentally ill" (phobic) and deserving of name-calling someone who believes homosexuality is undesirable (or at least not morally equivalent to heterosexuality)? Since they are enthusiastic apologists for homosexuality (and never shy about hurling epithets at those who have reservations about their enthusiasm!) perhaps DBT or Paul Barnard can enlighten us! What is the non-relative (i.e. the objective) ground that justifies calling names (calling mentally ill as in "homophobic") anyone who questions the wisdom of the LGBT movement? So ur ghey? Can you read? The post questions the premise of the homosexual and trans rights movements that anyone who questions their agenda is mentally ill and deserves to be called names and invites our Campfire apologists for homosexuality, DBT, Paul Bernard (and apparently Jim Conrad too), to explain to us why they are objectively correct in their name calling. I'm 100% certain they won't be able too because their own premises entail a complete denial of any ground for distinguishing right from wrong. Can you dum that down for me my homophobia is kickin in Simple. Tardqueen likes it in the butt. And not voting. In previous posts, when I've shown that both the Declaration and the Constitution (the laws of nature and of Nature's God, as understood by the Founders), condemn homosexuality you've falsely claimed that the Founder's understanding of morality is "Sharia Law" (your exact words) and you've consistently defended Barnard's defense of homosexuality, or rather defended him from attack by others who are critical of his support for deviance. If words mean anything at all, I'm not the one who like it "in the butt" because its you who unfailingly insist homosexuality is both moral and Constitutional, when in fact, its neither.
Last edited by Tarquin; 03/24/24.
Tarquin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 14,539
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 14,539 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 60,368
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 60,368 |
So, Tardqueen still likes it in the butt.
I am MAGA.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 60,368
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 60,368 |
Yes he is. He wants to make it illegal not to be gay as well.
I am MAGA.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 6,024
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 6,024 |
Yes he is. He wants to make it illegal not to be gay as well. Actually, I've not advocated for criminalizing it, though I think the Supreme Court 's decision in Bowers v. Hardwick was flatly wrong. It might interest you to know that Jefferson, in a criminal code written for the Commonwealth of Virginia, made homosexual sodomy a felony punishable by castration. In this, Jefferson only followed Blackstone and the common law. My own view is that we should return homosexuality to the closet where it was of relatively little harm to homosexuals and to others. And it is this which bothers you so deeply---the idea of homosexuality being made illegal or returned to the closet from whence it sprang. That the possibility incenses you is evidenced by the fact you've consistently condemned the Founders' understanding of the Constitution, which condemns homosexuality, calling in "Sharia Law". It's no accident that in this thread you've raised the possibility of it being made illegal as an argument against my condemnation of it here. You've consistently opposed any moral condemnation of homosexuality. Can it be any clearer Conrad? Any interpretation of the Constitution and Declaration (to say nothing of the Common Law and "the laws of nature") that condemns rectal intercourse between men offends you deeply. Can it be anymore obvious why that is?!  Look, what you do in the privacy of your own sheep farm is no one's business but yours. But you have no right to claim that the perversion for which you are an assiduous apologist is remotely moral let alone "Constitutional" because it isn't, no matter how much you, Barnard and DBT wish that it was.
Last edited by Tarquin; 03/24/24.
Tarquin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 14,539
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 14,539 |
So ur ghey and want to be a closet ghey ok
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 6,024
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 6,024 |
So ur ghey and want to be a closet ghey ok It's comical when People like you make that claim to try to defeat arguments made against the LGBTQ agenda because it's so utterly impotent. Is that all you've got? If you want to defend the LGBTQ agenda kock yourself out, but, at least make a coherent argument!
Tarquin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 14,539
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 14,539 |
Yo So ur ghey and want to be a closet ghey ok It's comical when People like you make that claim to try to defeat arguments made against the LGBTQ agenda because it's so utterly impotent. Is that all you've got? If you want to defend the LGBTQ agenda kock yourself out, but, at least make a coherent argument! Kock ur own self out all you want
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 6,024
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 6,024 |
Yo So ur ghey and want to be a closet ghey ok It's comical when People like you make that claim to try to defeat arguments made against the LGBTQ agenda because it's so utterly impotent. Is that all you've got? If you want to defend the LGBTQ agenda kock yourself out, but, at least make a coherent argument! Kock ur own self out all you want Why, when you're the critic of the critic of the LGBT movement?
Tarquin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 14,539
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 14,539 |
Ur phaagutry is on display congrats
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 6,024
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 6,024 |
There is a lot of deep philosophy packed into this quote. One of my favorites:
"Man is a social animal, and no one can secure what is desirable for himself except in partnership with others. According to Aristotle, if a man had all the health, wealth, freedom and power that he desired, but lacked friends, he would not even wish to live. But the root of all friendships, as it is the ground of the existence of the species, is that of a man and a woman. As nature is the ground of morality, the distinction of the sexes is the ground of nature. Nature---which forbids us to eat or enslave out own kind---is that which has within it the principle of coming-into-being. Mankind as a whole is recognized by its generations, like a river which is one and the same while the ever-renewed cycles of birth and death flow on. But the generations are constituted---and can only be constituted---by the acts of generation arising from the conjunction of male and female. The root of all human relationships, the root of all morality, is nature, which itself is grounded in the generative distinction of male and female.....Abraham Lincoln once said that if slavery is not unjust, then nothing is unjust. With equal reason it can be said that if homosexuality is not unnatural, nothing is unnatural. And if nothing is unnatural then nothing---including slavery and genocide---is unjust"
Harry V. Jaffa, Original Intent and the Framers of the Constitution: A Disputed Question.
Last edited by Tarquin; 03/24/24.
Tarquin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 14,539
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 14,539 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 2,576
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 2,576 |
My Instagram account is suspended because I said homos are queers and trannies are mentally unhinged. That happened last May. The wheels are slow, but they turn. I'm afraid it means I won't get a boat ride.
NRA-Benefactor
TSRA-Life
"It's a terrible thing when governments send their young men to kill each other." Charles Byrne,WW2 Vet.
On the day Desert Storm began.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 14,539
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 14,539 |
We mentioned lint lickers yet?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 8,745
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
OP
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 8,745 |
Excellent quote!
I had checked out of this thread. The question I had posed was well answered.
As a Christian I believe that Satan is trying to destabilize everything so that when the Antichrist appears, he can bring chaos to order. The people will accept this as a miracle.
Those who know Christ will know better, but that number is down. Many believe there are other paths to God. “I have been a good person. Surely I’ll be judged as such”. Others believe in no god at all.
But Christ told us over and over, that He is the only true way to Gods salvation.
It’s simple really. So simple that most people miss it. We search for things that will make us worthy, when all that we need to do is have faith!
Reon
"Preserving the Constitution, fighting off the nibblers and chippers, even nibblers and chippers with good intentions, was once regarded by conservatives as the first duty of the citizen. It still is." � Wesley Pruden
|
|
|
|
|
613 members (160user, 2500HD, 10gaugemag, 257 mag, 1936M71, 06hunter59, 53 invisible),
2,470
guests, and
1,215
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,191,782
Posts18,477,172
Members73,942
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
