See other Ron Paul Articles
Title: All of the Oxygen has Been Sucked Out of the Trump Movement, Presidency on Life-Support
Source:
[None]
URL Source: https://dailystormer.name/all-of-th ... nt-presidency-on-life-support/
Published: Mar 8, 2019
Author: Andrew Anglin
Post Date: 2019-03-08 08:49:08 by Ada
Keywords: None
Views: 1027
Comments: 22
All of the energy is gone from the Trump movement, and the presidency is being exclusively propped-up by Fox News, which doesn’t even really support him that much. The CPAC speech was a testing of the messaging of “we need more people,” and that is apparently going to be included in the 2020 campaign. Thanks for that, Jared. It isn’t just people on the far-right who are getting exhausted trying to support a man who won’t support his own supporters. At time of writing, this is a “most popular” story on Breitbart AKA Boomerbart: People don’t even know what the hell is going on. Breitbart: Ahead of the 2020 presidential election, President Trump is abandoning his prior “America First” legal immigration reforms to support increases of legal immigration levels in order to expand profits for businesses and corporations. For the fourth time in about a month, Trump suggested increasing legal immigration levels. With Apple CEO Tim Cook sitting next to him at the White House on Wednesday, Trump said he not only wanted more legal immigration but that companies needed an expansion of new arrivals to grow their business. “We’re going to have a lot of people coming into the country. We want a lot of people coming in. And we need it,” Trump said Breitbart is one of the key sites that played a lead role in getting Trump elected. And despite the fact that the site has gotten more hardcore, it is still a cuck site. This is also in “most popular”: And no, it’s not because they support the super team-up of David and Ilhan. It is all about “dems are the real racists.” The thing that boomercons are most excited about with Trump is that he is calling Democrats anti-Semites, as that means that Republicans love Jews the most. Other than the humiliating kikesucking Trump is engaged in, his entire support base appears to be fed-up. The wall is a dead-in-the-water jerk around, the border is being overwhelmed, normie conservatives are getting banned from everything on the internet, there has been literally no policy enacted at all. The only thing he could do to get boomers fired up without going against the new Kushner agenda is to sign an executive order banning partial birth abortion. I think he is probably planning on doing that, because he keeps talking about that issue, and he probably thinks that is going to be more powerful than it is. The fact of reality is that he got elected on an immigration platform. Going out there and saying “we need more people” makes him a pointless president. It’s fun and all that he “triggers the dems,” and he has been very good for the culture war in general. But we don’t want any more fucking people in this country, man. I don’t even care where they come from, let alone whether they are “legal” or not. Until something is done about the suicide rate of white men, and the opioid epidemic, I don’t even want to entertain the idea of European immigration. And in America, the word “immigration” never means “European immigration” anyway. It always means more brown people. Trump did an incredible job creating a cult of personality, and I guess he thinks he can just rely on that in 2020, but there is no evidence that he can. If the CPAC speech was a test for a 2020 platform – and I think it absolutely was – then he’s going to run on a platform of: Being against Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and “socialism” This isn’t viable. His platform should be: Total shutdown of immigration completely He could at least say all of that stuff. He went ahead and allowed all of his supporters to be banned from the internet, so there is no engine to support him even if he had support. Honestly, I would go into diehard fanatic mode if he passed an internet Bill of Rights and got us all of our internet services back – even if he was saying this stuff about needing people. That has become the primary issue for me and my people. If he was able to protect our free speech, it wouldn’t matter what he was saying – we could speak directly to the people. But look – there is currently no path here. Whoever is telling him it’s a good idea to start being pro-immigration is also telling him he can win without a problem in 2020 and that is simply not obvious to me. I just can’t understand what the guy is doing. If he loses in 2020, he’s going to prison. At the very least, his entire business empire will be taken away from him, and he will die tied up in lawsuits and criminal investigations. I would think he would want to win. And he could at least lie and say he’s going to do things people want. Instead, he’s coming out with a platform no one wants. What it looks like is that Jared Kushner has been tasked with ensuring he doesn’t get reelected. I mean, that is just the simplest explanation for all of this. We know that Kushner, via Ivanka, has an incredible amount of influence on him, especially since Bannon left. It’s sad. If MAGA has failed, then the only option is nuclear war. If it’s not love that will bring us together, then it’s the bomb. The bomb. The bomb.
War in South America
Some vague stuff about freedom
That he’ll eventually get around to building a wall
That the economy is grrrrrreat
That the economy is so great we need LEGAL brown people stealing our home from us
Something about taxes
Ending birthright citizenship
Ending wars
Free speech on the internet
Arresting Antifa on RICO charges
Stopping partial birth abortion
And I guess also being against the Green New Deal – I personally can’t even take that shit seriously, but I guess boomers care
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Ada (#0)
Correct. The best bet is he's a one-termer. Whether a one-termer or not, he is the last.
A rainbow coalition against Jews doesn't require Whites or Pro-Whites. It can be just as brown or anti-white as you like.
Even Calvin Coolidge is against the Trump big stupid gov agenda. It's a conspiracy! Trump's base are so-called evangelical (Zionist) Christians. Amazing what machinations that owning both wings of One Party can do... I haven't heard "Triangulation" used in a long time. Probably because that is just mainstream Partisanship now. The Hegelian Dialectic – Pressure from above, pressure from below “I am not one of those weak-spirited, sappy Americans who want to be liked by all the people around them. I don’t care if people hate my guts; I assume most of them do. The important question is whether they are in a position to do anything about it. My affections, being concentrated over a few people, are not spread all over Hell in a vile attempt to placate sulky, worthless shits.” - William S Burroughs
"Triangulation" is a term I've always associated with Clinton regime. Leftist psychos have to keep making up new words as the public catches on to what they're up to.
“I am not one of those weak-spirited, sappy Americans who want to be liked by all the people around them. I don’t care if people hate my guts; I assume most of them do. The important question is whether they are in a position to do anything about it. My affections, being concentrated over a few people, are not spread all over Hell in a vile attempt to placate sulky, worthless shits.” - William S Burroughs
Phillip Drew, Administrator... wow.
Well, maybe it rubbed off on Trump ??
When someone attacks your imagination “I am not one of those weak-spirited, sappy Americans who want to be liked by all the people around them. I don’t care if people hate my guts; I assume most of them do. The important question is whether they are in a position to do anything about it. My affections, being concentrated over a few people, are not spread all over Hell in a vile attempt to placate sulky, worthless shits.” - William S Burroughs
Last time "triangulaion" was in public lexicon prior to Clintons involved a school book depository in Dallas.
“I am not one of those weak-spirited, sappy Americans who want to be liked by all the people around them. I don’t care if people hate my guts; I assume most of them do. The important question is whether they are in a position to do anything about it. My affections, being concentrated over a few people, are not spread all over Hell in a vile attempt to placate sulky, worthless shits.” - William S Burroughs
Ugh
A sharp rhetorical in the morning always does the trick ?
Do you know which past President Trump has hanging on the wall in the Oval Office? It is Andrew Jackson. Jackson was known as the "Bane of the Bankers". He said of them, "You are a den of vipers and thieves and by the Almighty I shall rout you out." ;) "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
Unfortunately for US, Trump isn't made of the same stuff, or have the same beliefs, as Jackson.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
No doubt there. I hear Jackson's home in Nashville, The Hermitage is open to visitors. Old Hickory was a grand man indeed. ;) "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
No fear as Trump is a lock in 2020, pay attention to the setup in place for him to bully right in ,he will slay Bernie. Keep the Faith
Andrew Jackson got the nickname during the Battle of New Orleans in he War of 1812. He was known for being a strict general, but was still loved by his troops, who remarked that he's "tough as old hickory" wood. Needless to say, the name stuck.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
Using the opposition to get your way The Hegelian Dialectic is a philosophical approach that in principle explains how human beings progress toward a better and more egalitarian condition but in practice provides the power elite with a strategy for controlling society. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (August 27, 1770 -- November 14, 1831) was among the most consequential philosophers of the Age of Enlightenment. His was heavily influenced by Plato, whose social ideal was rule by an elite composed of philosopher-kings. Though Hegel may not have intended to provide a Platonic methodology for the modern-day control of the many by the few, that is how his insights have been used. The Platonic influence on Hegel was reinforced by the age in which he worked. Hegel accepted that "enlightened" human beings are responsible for their own destiny, and that culture and history are a product of human development, which in turn is driven by reason. Hegel subscribed to the Rousseauian notion that humans are a blank slate, a tabula rasa. In fact, Hegel was a big fan of the French, including the authoritarian leader Napoleon and the French Revolution itself, a bloodbath he described as the realization of more perfect freedom. Today most behavioral scientists see human beings not as purely rational or perfectly elastic but as complex creatures, many of whose behaviors are instinctual or biologically programmed. This has not hindered the practical application of Hegel's conceptual tools, however, which have been used as an effective methodology of control for at least the past century. It is necessary to examine the dialectic in a little more detail to understand this. Hegel postulated that each stage of human advance -- and the course of history itself -- was driven by an argument (thesis), a counterargument (anti-thesis) and finally a synthesis of the two into a more advanced argument, at which point the process restarted. For Hegel, the dialectic could explain everything -- art, culture, history, even nature. From our more modern vantage point, Hegel's dialectic may not seem so persuasive as an explanation of all things -- and in fact, it probably is not. But for the elite of his day, and for the monetary elite today, the Hegelian dialectic provides tools for the manipulation of society. To move the public from point A to point B, one need only find a spokesperson for a certain argument and position him or her as an authority. That person represents Goalpost One. Another spokesperson is positioned on the other side of the argument, to represent Goalpost Two. Argument A and B can then be used to manipulate a given social discussion. If one wishes, for instance, to promote Idea C, one merely needs to promote the arguments of Goalpost One (that tend to promote Idea C) more effectively than the arguments of Goalpost Two. This forces a slippage of Goalpost Two's position. Thus both Goalpost One and Goalpost Two advance downfield toward Idea C. Eventually, Goalpost Two occupies Goalpost One's original position. The "anti-C" argument now occupies the pro-C position. In this manner whole social conversations are shifted from, say, a debate over market freedom vs. socialism to a debate about the degree of socialism that is desirable. The Hegelian dialectic is a powerful technique for influencing the conversations of cultures and nations, especially if one already controls (owns) much of the important media in which the arguments take place. One can then, as the monetary elite characteristically do, emphasize one argument at the expense of the other, effectively shifting the positions of Goalposts One and Two. The Hegelian Dialectic – Pressure from above, pressure from below | SheepleTV.com | Added by Sheeple1 on 07/08/2013 Most people find it difficult to combat all of this. It’s uncomfortable being the odd one out. It’s exhausting to fight for every inch of ground, every word, every phrase, every idea … and then look up to find that what was said isn’t there. It’s hard to go back and do it again the next day. (And if one’s job depends on getting along with the people who run that committee, it can be a devastating choice one makes to continually try to get a solid word in edgewise. I think most employees won’t dare fight that battle.) And so, most people give up and get quiet – or they suddenly find they have time conflicts and must drop out. Those who remain on the committee tend to be supporters of the institutional agenda, or they’re willing to go along to get along, or they become convinced they’re being heard. Dissent evaporates, and things quiet down. The few who continue to present an opposing view are easily managed and dismissed. Voila! “Consensus.” 1. I experienced this technique in Los Alamos, NM, where my children attended school a few years ago. The School District planted teachers (employees) in each group to direct "Public" comment. Even so there were so many angry parents that they could not control our opinions. So they rejected the results of the first meeting and called a 2nd meeting. When enough of us showed up at the 2nd meeting to dominate against their employees pretending to be parents, they rejected the results of the 2nd meeting and called a 3rd meeting. By the 3rd meeting a lot of parents had gotten discouraged. Our loud voice was not going to be heard. By the 3rd meeting there wasn't enough people to drown out their employee shills, so they adopted the voice of their shills and called it "public comment approval." It was a total scam. 2. this is exactly what happened in the Seattle Elementary Math Adoption. They had this facilitator flown in from California for the purpose of pressing an agenda. It backfired and the Seattle schools got the curriculum they did not want (TERC). The Chief Academic Officer had to come in [to] "suggest" an alternative. Then, she and her underlings proceeded to browbeat the opposition until EveryDay Math was selected. It was a Circus of Fools. EDM is failing miserably now in Seattle. They were warned this would happen during the process, but "facilitators" kept running interference. Saxon Math was eliminated within 30 minutes of the actual consensus building process. 3. What you have just named and described is what I have encountered with District 81 any time "public comment" has been requested. Yet the results are always what the District wanted in the first place and achieved by its dog-and-pony shows, smoke and mirrors. Meanwhile, more of the District's waning resources have been spent. Consensus sounds so productive and yet is a tool to control outcomes and quash dissent. Beware! Targeted and now former teacher ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Bingo! and thank you for your post. Great research. “The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
To move the public from point A to point B, one need only find a spokesperson for a certain argument and position him or her as an authority. That person represents Goalpost One. Another spokesperson is positioned on the other side of the argument, to represent Goalpost Two. Argument A and B can then be used to manipulate a given social discussion. If one wishes, for instance, to promote Idea C, one merely needs to promote the arguments of Goalpost One (that tend to promote Idea C) more effectively than the arguments of Goalpost Two. This forces a slippage of Goalpost Two's position. Thus both Goalpost One and Goalpost Two advance downfield toward Idea C. Eventually, Goalpost Two occupies Goalpost One's original position. The "anti-C" argument now occupies the pro-C position. In this manner whole social conversations are shifted from, say, a debate over market freedom vs. socialism to a debate about the degree of socialism that is desirable. The Hegelian dialectic is a powerful technique for influencing the conversations of cultures and nations, especially if one already controls (owns) much of the important media in which the arguments take place. One can then, as the monetary elite characteristically do, emphasize one argument at the expense of the other, effectively shifting the positions of Goalposts One and Two. The Daily Bell source linked in the [YouTube video's] Description for that printout is unavailable. This is an alternate source that also includes the video of [G. Edward] Griffin's commentary on the same page: The Hegelian Dialectic – Pressure from above, pressure from below | SheepleTV.com | Added by Sheeple1 on 07/08/2013 Steve compares Orwell's '1984' to today's politics - YouTube, 12 minutes | Published on Jul 1, 2019 by Fox News | The Next Revolution with Steve Hilton @ 2:47-4:26, Hilton: "George Orwell's '1984' was published almost exactly 70 years ago and warns of the dangers of government overreach, the surveillance state and totalitarian repression. Orwell was writing in the early days of the Soviet Union, before its full horrors became known, but he could see where it was heading and the world he describes in '1984' is his prediction of where Socialism inevitably ends up. It's a world where the ruling elites make up just 2% of the population with a small middle class and the majority of citizens as the Proletariat: uneducated workers." ... "a hierarchical society was only possible on a basis of poverty and ignorance. ... From government surveillance of citizens to social media mobs influencing public thought to the growing push to rewrite history, our world is starting to resemble George Orwell's frightening view of the future ..." ; Intro for Comedian and Host of the Adam Carolla Show podcast, Adam Carolla. Transcription of 3.25-minute segment @ 4:43-7:54. @ 4:43, Hilton: "I just want to start with the kind of big theme of the whole thing which is highly relevant, especially when you're looking at the way the Democratic Party's moving" ..."the way in which Socialism has really quickly become normalized within the Democratic debate. Do you think that there's a sense in which it inevitably ends up, when you look at what's happened around the world - that ends up moving in that direction of the totalitarian/authoritarian state that controls people?; where, however it starts, that's where it ends up?" @ 5:21-7:36, Carolla: "Well, you know, if you think about the phrase or the term 'Progressive Movement', it says: 'Moving Progressively.' It's never sort of: 'Stop and take inventory of where we're going or how fast we're going'. It's just: 'Move Forward'. And I always sort of think of it like: When I was kid, you could smoke cigarettes in an airplane. You could smoke cigarettes anywhere. But you just take a look at cigarettes as sort of a metaphor. So, at some point, somebody said: 'Look, we can't have you smoking in the restaurant, around the kids with other people who are eating. Why don't we have a smoking section?' And people went: 'Oh, okay.' And they picked up their plate and their ashtray and [the Anti-Smoking policers] they went: 'Smoking section - over there.' And [the extra-taxed Smokers] they went: 'Oh, okay.' They moved to a smoking section. Ten minutes later, they [the Anti-Smoking policers] came to those people again and they went: 'We don't want smoking in the restaurant but if you'd like to go to the bar and smoke, you can go to the bar and smoke.' And [the extra-taxed Smokers] they went: 'Oh, okay. I'll have a drink at the bar and smoke,' and then went to the bar. Then they [the Anti-Smoking policers] came to those people, they said: 'We don't want anything in the restaurant but if you just want to step out onto the sidewalk and have a cigarette, have a cigarette.' And [the extra-taxed Smokers] they went: 'Well, it's cold but - oh, okay.' And then walked out. And then [the Anti-Smoking policers] they said: 'You know, you're too close to the front door. We need you to move it down the street to the park." And they went: 'Okay,' and then went to the park. And then somebody said: 'We don't want smoking at the park.' And it's a progressive movement. You think the thought is: 'Let's get this cigarette smoke out of the restaurant.' No, no. That's not the end of the movement. It's a movement that never stops. We're going to keep going after you until you can't smoke in your own apartment because the kid above you is going to get secondhand smoke. They don't stop and that's the thing. And that's what I've realized. I realized the NRA caught on to this and they're sitting in the restaurant and [the Anti-2nd Amendment Proglodytes] they say: 'We'd like to outlaw banana clips on AK-47s.' And [the NRA] they go: 'No, we're not getting up and moving because we know, if we get up and move, eventually we're going to be out on the sidewalk. It's snowing outside.'" @ 7:38, Hilton: "Everyone will relate to that and it just captures it, doesn't it? Because, in the end - it starts, you can say: good intentions ... you know: 'free health care and no one to be poor,' whatever, but the end result is this progression towards more and more control over people." Sweden's new tobacco law has banned smoking from outdoor cafes, bus stops, and other public places. The ban even applies to electronic cigarettes and herbs used as tobacco substitutes. Prior to 1 July, smoking was prohibited in several places, mainly indoors, but the ban has been extended to shop entrances, school yards, train platforms, hospitals, fenced sports grounds, and special care establishments. The enforcement of the ban has been delegated to the owners of the premises involved. They are obliged to remove all ashtrays and clearly inform about the smoking ban with signs. Anyone who lights up a cigarette should be asked to quit. If the owner doesn't do enough to comply with the smoking ban, a penalty will be imposed. Smokers will be fined for unlawful infringement. The smoking ban is seen as part of the government's goal for Sweden to become a non-smoking society by 2025. Social Minister Annika Strandhäll assured that the ban would make the next generation smoke less. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
For a dead politician, Pres. Trumps rally's are packing in more folks than EVERYBODY ELSE combined. Kinda hard to argue with that kinda math.
“With the exception of Whites, the rule among the peoples of the world, whether residing in their homelands or settled in Western democracies, is ethnocentrism and moral particularism: they stick together and good means what is good for their ethnic group." 20% of Dallas rally attendees were self described Democrats. I'd say the Democrats have had the life sucked out of their party: they've imploded and are DOA, it's over...
“With the exception of Whites, the rule among the peoples of the world, whether residing in their homelands or settled in Western democracies, is ethnocentrism and moral particularism: they stick together and good means what is good for their ethnic group."
#2. To: Ada (#0)
DACA Shithole Dreamers - Make America Great Again?
#3. To: Ada all (#0)
Other than the humiliating kikesucking Trump is engaged in, his entire support base appears to be fed-up.
"Define yourself as one beloved by God. This is the true self. Every other identity is illusion."—Brennan Manning
#4. To: All (#3)
"Define yourself as one beloved by God. This is the true self. Every other identity is illusion."—Brennan Manning
#5. To: Rotara, Horse, lod, Esso, GreyLmist, noone222, X-15, Ada, FormerLurker, AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt, BTP Holdings (#4)
I've got the fear again! :)
#6. To: Rotara (#4)
#7. To: Dakmar (#5)
"Define yourself as one beloved by God. This is the true self. Every other identity is illusion."—Brennan Manning
#8. To: Dakmar (#6)
"Define yourself as one beloved by God. This is the true self. Every other identity is illusion."—Brennan Manning
#9. To: Rotara (#8)
But nobody has any respect
Anyway they already expect you
To all give a check
To tax-deductible charity organizations
You've been with the professors
And they've all liked your looks
With great lawyers you have
Discussed lepers and crooks
You've been through all of
F. Scott Fitzgerald's books
You're very well read
It's well known
But something is happening here
And you don't know what it is
Do you, Mister Jones?
#10. To: Rotara (#4)
#11. To: Dakmar (#10)
"Define yourself as one beloved by God. This is the true self. Every other identity is illusion."—Brennan Manning
#12. To: Dakmar (#9)
"Define yourself as one beloved by God. This is the true self. Every other identity is illusion."—Brennan Manning
#13. To: hondo68 (#2)
(Edited)
the Trump big stupid gov agenda.
#14. To: BTP Holdings (#13)
#15. To: Lod (#14)
Trump isn't made of the same stuff, or have the same beliefs, as Jackson.
#16. To: BTP Holdings (#15)
#17. To: BTP Holdings (#15)
#18. To: Dakmar, 4 (#5)
(Edited)
The Hegelian Dialectic – Pressure from above, pressure from below - YouTube, 7.75 minutes | Published on Dec 6, 2011
Archiving this additional information printed in the video Description section: Published on Dec 6, 2011
How it works...
The Daily Bell source linked in the video Description for that printout is unavailable. This is an alternate source that also includes the video of Edward G. Griffin's commentary on the same page:
This is a link and article excerpts for a topic of relevance to the issues referenced above, with emphasis on America's schools: "To me consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies in search of something in which no one believes, but to which no one objects—the process of avoiding the very issues that have to be solved, merely because you cannot get agreement on the way ahead. What great cause would have been fought and won under the banner 'I stand for consensus'?" -- British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, 1981
A new definition of “dialogue.” Concerned that we weren’t allowed to debate anything, I asked that “dialogue” be added to our “norms” (our rules for behavior.) The word was added, but at the next meeting, the secondary math coordinator explained at length how “dialogue” means to not discuss the issues. In each group, he said, a person was to say something, and then tablemates were to respond, one by one, each with a thought that was brief, not an opinion, and not a challenge. We were then to move on.
From the Comment section:
#19. To: GreyLmist (#18)
"To me consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies in search of something in which no one believes, but to which no one objects—the process of avoiding the very issues that have to be solved, merely because you cannot get agreement on the way ahead. What great cause would have been fought and won under the banner 'I stand for consensus'?" -- British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, 1981
#20. To: All (#18)
(Edited)
for the elite of [Hegel's] day, and for the monetary elite today, the Hegelian dialectic provides tools for the manipulation of society.
Anti-smoking metaphor | a comparison to "Progressive" agendas: The panel discusses today's political landscape and compares it to the dystopian outlook of Orwell's '1984'. [Impropriety warnings @ 8:34 and 11:17 of the discussions.]
Alternate article-site w/video: Kira Davis: Free Speech Suppression Might Actually Be Reaching Critical Mass | July 1, 2019 | redstate.com [Impropriety warnings: video @ 8:34 and 11:17.]
... Sweden's Smoking Ban Lights Up Debate - Sputnik International | 02.07.2019 [July 2, 2019] While the smoking ban is part of the government's ambitious goal for Sweden to become a non-smoking society by 2025, it has sparked a lot of criticism among ordinary Swedes.
#21. To: Ada (#0)
-Alex Kurtagic 
#22. To: Ada, All (#0)
-Alex Kurtagic
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest