Bush named Time magazine's person of the year...

I suppose the problem here is that you see the Spreading of the Word of God in places where I don't. In talking about the Spreading the Word, you use examples such as abstinence education and a gay marriage ban.

Neither of those two points is exclusively Christian, let alone religious. Although personally, I do not oppose gay marriage, it is entirely possible for someone to both oppose gay marriage and the Spreading of the Word of God at the same time. As a matter of fact, W is pushing the gay marriage thing not to recruit new Christians, but rather, to retain the votes of the Christians that already exist. Do you disagree?

Another point, abstinence only education will never exist in the United States. Never. There are far too many parties interested in the alternatives - namely teenagers.

Bottom line. Bush may be dancing on a fine line with the god thing, but the points you've brought to the table only illustrate that Bush is doing what he thinks is best for society, not that he is using my tax dollar to convert new Christians.

Doing what you think is right based on your beliefs, and trying to convert people to your beliefs are not the same thing.

What sounds more accurate to me is that you morally disagree with some of W's social policy - I do too - but then you make the fallacious jump to saying the he's using tax dollars to Spread the Word of God.

Believe me, as soon as my money starts being used to recruit new people to the Word of God (outside of prison, that is), I'll be the first one on the front lines.

[quote name='camoor']
Return, as in it's already been done, and it's just being expanded.

It wasn't just prisons either, much of Bush's Christian policy wish-list is already implemented and funded, such as abstinence-only sex education and the legislative push to put a ban on gay marriage in the constitution (you really think that tacking fundamentalist christian morality on our most sacred document is going to pay for itself?)
[/quote]

Proudly.

[quote name='camoor']
So Continental, your thanks for pointing out that you voted for Bush, Gonzales, Mike Powell and the rest of the JC fan club is accepted in full. :lol:[/quote]
 
[quote name='The_Continental']I suppose the problem here is that you see the Spreading of the Word of God in places where I don't. In talking about the Spreading the Word, you use examples such as abstinence education and a gay marriage ban.

Neither of those two points is exclusively Christian, let alone religious. Although personally, I do not oppose gay marriage, it is entirely possible for someone to both oppose gay marriage and the Spreading of the Word of God at the same time. As a matter of fact, W is pushing the gay marriage thing not to recruit new Christians, but rather, to retain the votes of the Christians that already exist. Do you disagree?
[/quote]

The ban on gay marriage is part of the fundamentalist and evangelical christian movement to move American law in line with their interpretation of biblical teachings (similar to sharia in the middle east). A desire to strip gays of rights afforded to other Americans may not be the sole province of fundamentalist christians (after all, the middle-east fundamentalists and nazis would also agree that gay people should have less rights) but in the "land of the free" it is a definining characteristic of this powerful political group.

[quote name='The_Continental']
Another point, abstinence only education will never exist in the United States. Never. There are far too many parties interested in the alternatives - namely teenagers.
[/quote]

Never say never continental, we're already well on our way...
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20041202/ts_alt_afp/us_education_sex_041202233602
[quote name='The_Continental']
Bottom line. Bush may be dancing on a fine line with the god thing, but the points you've brought to the table only illustrate that Bush is doing what he thinks is best for society, not that he is using my tax dollar to convert new Christians.

Doing what you think is right based on your beliefs, and trying to convert people to your beliefs are not the same thing.

What sounds more accurate to me is that you morally disagree with some of W's social policy - I do too - but then you make the fallacious jump to saying the he's using tax dollars to Spread the Word of God.

Believe me, as soon as my money starts being used to recruit new people to the Word of God (outside of prison, that is), I'll be the first one on the front lines.
[/quote]

Well, it is true that Bush is not Torquemada, torturing anyone who doesn't accept Jesus as their personal savior. However he is funding most of the bills that will legalize Christian morality.

Bush is also using his enormously powerful position to market Jesus Christ every chance he gets. If that isn't spreading the word of the Christian god, I don't know what is. When asked for a favorite political philosopher, Bush replied “Christ, because he changed my heart.” Prompted to elaborate on how Jesus changed his heart, Bush said: “Well, if they don’t know, it’s going to be hard to explain.” IE If you have the same emotional reaction that I do when I think of JC, you'll understand me and my actions as the president. If you're not in the big Jesus fanclub, then you're out of luck. If I had just arrived in America, and I felt marginalized by this neo-conservative climate (just going through an airport check will do that), a comment like Bush's would sure make me think about jumping on the Christian bandwagon.

I guess it's all OK by you as long as he doesn't hold any federally funded "Christian god rallies" or "Jesus walks". Me, well I start to draw the line when I can't do something because a group of desert-dwellers from 2000+ years ago thought it was a bad idea.
 
What rights exactly are homosexuals being stripped of? I'm interested to hear your answer.

As far as I know, the only right in question, that of homosexual marriage, is not a right that has been "stripped away," but rather, has never been granted in the first place.

Think about it - states that allow gay marriage can do so through new legislation, not by repealing old legislation. It's not like Mass. llifted some ban gay marriage, they created new legislation to allow it - as all states should.

So, what rights are you talking about?

Also, based on both the tone (as difficult as that is to discern on a message board) of your post as well your Stop Christianty Now mentality, it seems that you must really hate JC.

For me, I simply don't believe in or care about Jesus Christ or god, it's just mythology to me - I don't care what people believe in. For that same reason, I'm not offended when Yudhoyono, the newly elected president of Indonsia, the coutry I'm from incidentally, mentions mohammad or the qoran during political rallies or within social programs.

I'm purely Atheist, but I'm not gonna go get offended when someone mentions a belief he or she is passionate about from the lectern.

Would you opt to stamp out religion altogether - or just Christianity?



[quote name='camoor']A desire to strip gays of rights afforded to other Americans .....

[/quote]
 
[quote name='The_Continental']What rights exactly are homosexuals being stripped of? I'm interested to hear your answer.

As far as I know, the only right in question, that of homosexual marriage, is not a right that has been "stripped away," but rather, has never been granted in the first place.

Think about it - states that allow gay marriage can do so through new legislation, not by repealing old legislation. It's not like Mass. llifted some ban gay marriage, they created new legislation to allow it - as all states should.

So, what rights are you talking about?

Also, based on both the tone (as difficult as that is to discern on a message board) of your post as well your Stop Christianty Now mentality, it seems that you must really hate JC.

For me, I simply don't believe in or care about Jesus Christ or god, it's just mythology to me - I don't care what people believe in. For that same reason, I'm not offended when Yudhoyono, the newly elected president of Indonsia, the coutry I'm from incidentally, mentions mohammad or the qoran during political rallies or within social prgrams.

I'm purely Atheist, but I'm not gonna go get offended when someone mentions a belief he or she is passionate about from the lectern.

Would you opt to stamp out religion altogether - or just Christianity?
[/quote]

I know that in Hawaii gays have been able to marry for a long time. They would be stripped of that right in that state, for one. I could have sworn that there were other states that had laws like this on the books.

As for religion - I am a big advocate of protecting religious freedom. I think it's fine that people have found a religion that they love and believe in, I just don't want to be forced by the US government to live according to any particular religion's morality.

And what do you know about how I feel about the teachings of the actual Jesus Christ? The only people I'm talking about in my post is a former alcoholic and business failure who believes he can read a 2000+ year old mythology in a literal way and his emphatic followers who want to force me to live according to rules of the Christian bible as they see it.
 
One example I can think of where religion has mixed with politics is the US position in the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Recently US evangelicals have become very supportive of Israel because of their interpretations of Armageddon. This administration has ignored that conflict for the most part even before 9/11. I believe we should be demanding concessions from both sides to try to put an end to the violence.

As a caveat, I know the Israel-Palestinian problem is not going to be solved simply and other Presidents have taken Israel's side as well. Clinton tried to reach some sort of peace agreement and Bush dropped the ball when he took office. I don't see Bush ever getting tough with Israel because of his personal beliefs and evangelical support.

I am for complete religious freedom for everyone without any government support or suppression.
 
Camoor, I don't really think we should be aguing about the gay marriage thing, because from the looks of it, we agree. I think that state government should be responsible for the definition of marriage, not the federal government, and for sure not the Constitution. It sounds like you agree.

[quote name='camoor']
I know that in Hawaii gays have been able to marry for a long time. They would be stripped of that right in that state, for one. I could have sworn that there were other states that had laws like this on the books.
[/quote]

Cool, me too. You perceive W mentioning god during press conferences as "being forced by the US government to live according to any particular religion's morality."

I just percieve it as a guy being passionate about what he believes in - like most world leaders - as they should be.

You and just have a difference of opinion on that issue, not really worth arguing about either.

[quote name='camoor']
As for religion - I am a big advocate of protecting religious freedom. I think it's fine that people have found a religion that they love and believe in, I just don't want to be forced by the US government to live according to any particular religion's morality.
[/quote]

In what ways have you been forced to live by the word of god? What are some real world examples?

I'm an Atheist in this country and I'm doing just fine, how come I haven't been "forced to live according to rules of the Christian bible as they see it?"

Let me know. Thanks...

[quote name='camoor']
And what do you know about how I feel about the teachings of the actual Jesus Christ? The only people I'm talking about in my post is a former alcoholic and business failure who believes he can read a 2000+ year old mythology in a literal way and his emphatic followers who want to force me to live according to rules of the Christian bible as they see it.[/quote]
 
Bad Example, I was waiting for you to show up in this thread! You and I haven't done this for awhile - since at least before the election.

[quote name='MrBadExample']One example I can think of where religion has mixed with politics is the US position in the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Recently US evangelicals have become very supportive of Israel because of their interpretations of Armageddon. This administration has ignored that conflict for the most part even before 9/11. I believe we should be demanding concessions from both sides to try to put an end to the violence.

As a caveat, I know the Israel-Palestinian problem is not going to be solved simply and other Presidents have taken Israel's side as well. Clinton tried to reach some sort of peace agreement and Bush dropped the ball when he took office. I don't see Bush ever getting tough with Israel because of his personal beliefs and evangelical support.

I am for complete religious freedom for everyone without any government support or suppression.[/quote]
 
Not to discount your post - it is very valid - but if we're gonna start talking Israel/Palestine, I think we should do it in a new thread.

It could get a helluva lot longer than the CC $5 sale thread.

[quote name='MrBadExample']One example I can think of where religion has mixed with politics is the US position in the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Recently US evangelicals have become very supportive of Israel because of their interpretations of Armageddon. This administration has ignored that conflict for the most part even before 9/11. I believe we should be demanding concessions from both sides to try to put an end to the violence.

As a caveat, I know the Israel-Palestinian problem is not going to be solved simply and other Presidents have taken Israel's side as well. Clinton tried to reach some sort of peace agreement and Bush dropped the ball when he took office. I don't see Bush ever getting tough with Israel because of his personal beliefs and evangelical support.

I am for complete religious freedom for everyone without any government support or suppression.[/quote]
 
[quote name='The_Continental']In what ways have you been forced to live by the word of god? What are some real world examples? [/quote]

Sure.

The television and radio programming that I get, as someone without cable, has been dramatically censored because a middle-aged woman showed her left boob and 127 Americans sent mimeographed copies of the same form letter to the FCC. Thank goodness I don't live in the boonies, I could have missed one of my favorite movies (Saving Private Ryan)

Even if I'm not affected by the other biblical legislation for the time being, I have always liked this poem:

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Pastor Martin Niemöller
Click to expand...

The groups that are oppressed may change, but the central lesson remains the same.
 
What does that have to do with W exactly?

Also, who exactly are "they" coming for right now?

I am an Atheist southeast Asian American with Muslim parents, and I feel pretty darn free and comfortable in this country - I'm guessing, and I could be wrong, that you're a white dude, who exactly is "coming after you?"

[quote name='camoor'][quote name='The_Continental']In what ways have you been forced to live by the word of god? What are some real world examples? [/quote]

Sure.

The television and radio programming that I get, as someone without cable, has been dramatically censored because a middle-aged woman showed her left boob and 127 Americans sent mimeographed copies of the same form letter to the FCC. Thank goodness I don't live in the boonies, I could have missed one of my favorite movies (Saving Private Ryan)

Even if I'm not affected by the other biblical legislation for the time being, I have always liked this poem:

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Pastor Martin Niemöller
Click to expand...

The groups that are oppressed may change, but the central lesson remains the same.[/quote]
 
[quote name='The_Continental']What does that have to do with W exactly?

[quote name='camoor'][quote name='The_Continental']In what ways have you been forced to live by the word of god? What are some real world examples? [/quote]

Sure.

The television and radio programming that I get, as someone without cable, has been dramatically censored because a middle-aged woman showed her left boob and 127 Americans sent mimeographed copies of the same form letter to the FCC. Thank goodness I don't live in the boonies, I could have missed one of my favorite movies (Saving Private Ryan)
[/quote][/quote]

Mike Powell, head of the FCC and leader of the crusade against "indecency" on the airwaves, was appointed by George Bush Jr.
 
So are you saying that W and Powell mind-controlled people into being offended by the sight of Janet's saggy boob?

Listen dude, when people are offended, ratings go down, and advertising money decreases. Networks are interested in making MONEY . . . When people say that they're gonna quit watching unless things change, things are gonna change.

Seems pretty simple to me.

[quote name='camoor'][quote name='The_Continental']What does that have to do with W exactly?

[quote name='camoor'][quote name='The_Continental']In what ways have you been forced to live by the word of god? What are some real world examples? [/quote]

Sure.

The television and radio programming that I get, as someone without cable, has been dramatically censored because a middle-aged woman showed her left boob and 127 Americans sent mimeographed copies of the same form letter to the FCC. Thank goodness I don't live in the boonies, I could have missed one of my favorite movies (Saving Private Ryan)
[/quote][/quote]

Mike Powell, head of the FCC and leader of the crusade against "indecency" on the airwaves, was appointed by George Bush Jr.[/quote]
 
[quote name='camoor'] Thank goodness I don't live in the boonies, I could have missed one of my favorite movies (Saving Private Ryan)
[/quote]

I missed it and I live in Dallas, TX :(

Nobody wants to take responsibility for anything anymore. If parents think it might "harm" their children, then don't let them watch it. If they had done their job in the first place (the parents), then their children would have good values/morality/ethics and wouldn't be affected by a movie anyway.
 
[quote name='The_Continental']So are you saying that W and Powell mind-controlled people into being offended by the sight of Janet's saggy boob?

Listen dude, when people are offended, ratings go down, and advertising money decreases. [/quote]

I don't think that many people were offended - a few people made a giant stink and ruined it (not her boob, but censorship in general) for everyone else.

Edit: PS: When's the next trivia contest? :)
 
Ah - the next trivia contest - It should be coming up soon, the prize is gonna be KUF: Crusaders for the xbox, but I need to come up with a question that Kaw can't answer - he's gotten the last three prizes in a row.

I'll probably post the question on Friday afternoon.

also, are you insinuating that her boob was already ruined? If so, I agree.

[quote name='Backlash'][quote name='The_Continental']So are you saying that W and Powell mind-controlled people into being offended by the sight of Janet's saggy boob?

Listen dude, when people are offended, ratings go down, and advertising money decreases. [/quote]

I don't think that many people were offended - a few people made a giant stink and ruined it (not her boob, but censorship in general) for everyone else.

Edit: PS: When's the next trivia contest? :)[/quote]
 
Oh btw camoor, if boobs are what "they" have taken away from you, I think I know some CAGers that can hook you up with some sites to fill that gap in your life.
 
Looking forward to the question, but you don't have any other comments about my post? Other than our agreement about her boob not really doing anything for us?
 
Sure - I was looking on-line for a specific number of complaints the FCC received after the incident. I'm curious to know the exact figure.

Also, I don't really watch much TV, just Twilight Zone on DVD and games baby! What sort of stuff has been censored?

I do know that between the boob and the memos, CBS' rating had gone to crap a couple of months ago. I wonder if they ever recovered.

[quote name='Backlash']Looking forward to the question, but you don't have any other comments about my post? Other than our agreement about her boob not really doing anything for us?[/quote]
 
[quote name='The_Continental']What does that have to do with W exactly?

Also, who exactly are "they" coming for right now?

I am an southeast Asian American with Muslim parents, and I feel pretty darn free and comfortable in this country - I'm guessing, and I could be wrong, that you're a white dude, who exactly is "coming after you?"[/quote]

No one's coming after me yet.

The fundamentalist Christians don't like the gays, and want to pass laws in the constitution outlawing their unions.

They also don't like anything that interferes with pregnancy and the cycle of life as their group sees it, so they are going after the planned parenthood community that uses "The Pill", other "morning-after pills", and abortion. They are also going after doctors and medical scientists who use fetus cells to try and find a cure to horribly debilitating diseases.

They don't like "indecency" and have started going after the "liberal hollywood types".

They don't like evolution and have started going after scientists who are teaching only the scientific theories of life in HS biology.

And if you take the poll in this forum as fact, they want to limit the rights of Muslims (we already have a determent camp in Guantanamo, I can see this escalating to the scale of the Japanese-American determent camps of WWII)

However, I am safe for the time being.
 
In an appearance before Congress in February, when the controversy over Janet Jackson’s Super Bowl moment was at its height, Federal Communications Commission chairman Michael Powell laid some startling statistics on U.S. senators.

The number of indecency complaints had soared dramatically to more than 240,000 in the previous year, Powell said. The figure was up from roughly 14,000 in 2002, and from fewer than 350 in each of the two previous years. There was, Powell said, “a dramatic rise in public concern and outrage about what is being broadcast into their homes.”


What Powell did not reveal—apparently because he was unaware—was the source of the complaints. According to a new FCC estimate obtained by Mediaweek, nearly all indecency complaints in 2003—99.8 percent—were filed by the Parents Television Council, an activist group.

This year, the trend has continued, and perhaps intensified.

Through early October, 99.9 percent of indecency complaints—aside from those concerning the Janet Jackson “wardrobe malfunction” during the Super Bowl halftime show broadcast on CBS— were brought by the PTC, according to the FCC analysis dated Oct. 1. (The agency last week estimated it had received 1,068,767 complaints about broadcast indecency so far this year; the Super Bowl broadcast accounted for over 540,000, according to commissioners’ statements.)

The prominent role played by the PTC has raised concerns among critics of the FCC’s crackdown on indecency. “It means that really a tiny minority with a very focused political agenda is trying to censor American television and radio,” said Jonathan Rintels, president and executive director of the Center for Creative Voices in Media, an artists’ advocacy group.
Click to expand...

http://www.mediaweek.com/mediaweek/headlines/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000731656

Basically it's a small, very vocal minority who are raising a fuss over "indecency on the airwaves." It's ridiculous that the FCC is listening to these would-be censors so much that they wouldn't tell stations that Saving Private Ryan" was okay to show on broadcast tv. I don't blame stations for being skittish, I blame the FCC for being overzealous.
 
[quote name='The_Continental']Oh btw camoor, if boobs are what "they" have taken away from you, I think I know some CAGers that can hook you up with some sites to fill that gap in your life.[/quote]

LOL I'm sure!

Seriously though, if I want to see an episode of ER that is *somewhat* medically realistic, in a Post-SuperbowlBoob Special world I am out of luck.

If I want to hear Stern talk to the stars about their sex life, I'm out of luck.

If I want to see a movie on network TV where soldiers, cops, or firefighters actually talk and act like real soldiers, cops, or firefighters, I am out of luck.
 
I switch it over to TLC when I want medical realism. I wonder why the FCC hasn't censored the boobs I keep on seeing on the show Operation.

As for your saying [quote name='camoor']want to see a movie on network TV where soldiers, cops, or firefighters actually talk and act like real soldiers, cops, or firefighters, I am out of luck.[/quote]

Your statement is true this year, it was true last year, it was true 5 years, ago, 10 years ago, pretty much since the beginning of television. It's certainly not W's fault.

I challenge anyone ot name a TV show that accurately portrays soldiers, cops, or firefighters.

and no, you can't say "Cops."
 
[quote name='The_Continental']

You need a clearer picture? Pull out your calculator. Let’s say that a single mother with two children spends $45 a week on groceries. The removal of the 22% embedded tax would bring the price of those groceries down to $35.10. The sales tax at 23% would be $8.07. This brings the total price to $43.17. That’s less than would have paid under today’s tax system. This single mother, whom we’ll consider “poor,” has just received a 12% to 15% increase in her weekly paychecks, and she’s paying less at the grocery story for her basic necessities.
[/quote]

Now if the poor and everyone else has a net increase in their pocket books doesn't that mean that the government has a net decrease? That is of course if I assume that all the BS about companies dropping their prices exactly 22% on everything actually works from just payroll and income taxes alone, I reallly doubt food prices will will drop and housing will stay about the same. This of course is solved with a rebate that somehow the goverment can afford even though its total tax revenue will decrease and it still has to pay for social security and medicare.

This plan might work but the tax will probably be significantly higher, closer to 30% and consumers might see a 15% drop in overall prices. Which would not be a good deal for the average american.
 
I see your point. I've read several different economists' predictions of how the Fair Tax Act would be implemented, and a couple of them, Thomas Sowell I think, predicted the 22% reduction based on the removal of the embedded tax.

All I'm saying is that I think that piece of legislation is a good idea, but I can see why people still have reservations.

Hey as long as people are reading about it and considering it, whatever thier conclusions, I am happy.

[quote name='zionoverfire'][quote name='The_Continental']

You need a clearer picture? Pull out your calculator. Let’s say that a single mother with two children spends $45 a week on groceries. The removal of the 22% embedded tax would bring the price of those groceries down to $35.10. The sales tax at 23% would be $8.07. This brings the total price to $43.17. That’s less than would have paid under today’s tax system. This single mother, whom we’ll consider “poor,” has just received a 12% to 15% increase in her weekly paychecks, and she’s paying less at the grocery story for her basic necessities.
[/quote]

Now if the poor and everyone else has a net increase in their pocket books doesn't that mean that the government has a net decrease? That is of course if I assume that all the BS about companies dropping their prices exactly 22% on everything actually works from just payroll and income taxes alone, I reallly doubt food prices will will drop and housing will stay about the same. This of course is solved with a rebate that somehow the goverment can afford even though its total tax revenue will decrease and it still has to pay for social security and medicare.

This plan might work but the tax will probably be significantly higher, closer to 30% and consumers might see a 15% drop in overall prices. Which would not be a good deal for the average american.[/quote]
 
[quote name='The_Continental']I switch it over to TLC when I want medical realism. I wonder why the FCC hasn't censored the boobs I keep on seeing on the show Operation.

As for your saying [quote name='camoor']want to see a movie on network TV where soldiers, cops, or firefighters actually talk and act like real soldiers, cops, or firefighters, I am out of luck.[/quote]

Your statement is true this year, it was true last year, it was true 5 years, ago, 10 years ago, pretty much since the beginning of television. It's certainly not W's fault.

I challenge anyone ot name a TV show that accurately portrays soldiers, cops, or firefighters.

and no, you can't say "Cops."[/quote]

ER was going to show an elderly woman with a breast exposed in a medical situation a week after the superbowl. That was cancelled.

NYPD Blue had been pushing the bounds of censored TV as well, showing realistic depictions of sexual situations with brief nudity. Noone will dare do that now. (NYPD Blue is about cops)

And if you listen to Stern, his show doesn't get up to half of the schenanegans that it used to.

Compared to last year, more content is being censored by the government.

Almost no TV shows depict American life realistically, that's their appeal. However, some of us who don't pay the outrageous prices for cable TV still want to see a world that has more then platonic relationships between adults and a way of talking that went out in the 1950s.

W put Mike Powell in office. As far as I'm concerned, he's responsible for all of the censorship that Powell has decided to enact.
 
[quote name='The_Continental']I see your point. I've read several different economists' predictions of how the Fair Tax Act would be implemented, and a couple of them, Thomas Sowell I think, predicted the 22% reduction based on the removal of the embedded tax.

All I'm saying is that I think that piece of legislation is a good idea, but I can see why people still have reservations.

Hey as long as people are reading about it and considering it, whatever thier conclusions, I am happy.
[/quote]

Well if buisnesses ever start paying their share of taxes again then your plan might be quite useful and it would do a very good job of eliminating the need for anything like the IRS.
 
Man, been away from this forum too long due to the holidays. But better late than never!:

dubya-suck-up-magazine.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top