Concenik
Velociraptor
Joined: 27 Mar 2009
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 441
Location: not in average tinfoil fanlnand teeth optional
21 Apr 2009, 11:49 am
Concenik
Velociraptor
Joined: 27 Mar 2009
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 441
Location: not in average tinfoil fanlnand teeth optional
21 Apr 2009, 11:54 am
Concenik
Velociraptor
Joined: 27 Mar 2009
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 441
Location: not in average tinfoil fanlnand teeth optional
21 Apr 2009, 11:58 am
Quote:
The Federal Reserve claims that nobody owns it – that it is an "independent entity within the
government." The Federal Reserve is subject to laws such as the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act which cover Federal agencies but not private corporations; yet Congress gave the Federal Reserve the autonomy to carry out its responsibilities insulated from political pressure. Each of the Fed's three parts – the Board of Governors, the regional Reserve banks, and the Federal Open Market Committee – operates independently of the federal government to carry out the Fed's core responsibilities. Once a member of the Board of Governors is appointed, he or she can be as independent as a U.S. Supreme Court judge, though the term is shorter. As the nation's central bank, the Federal Reserve derives its authority from the U.S. Congress. It is considered an independent central bank because its decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branch of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by the Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms. (The Fed's financial independence arises because it is hugely profitable due to its ownership of government bonds. (It gives the government billions of dollars each year.) However, the Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by the Congress, which periodically reviews its activities and can alter its responsibilities by statute. Also, the Federal Reserve must work within the framework of the overall objectives of economic and financial policy established by the government.
The only statements of ownership made by the Federal Reserve Board is an allusion to the twelve Federal district banks. This circle puts us back at the beginning, for no information is provided regarding the ownership of the twelve Federal district banks. However, a 1976 government study commissioned by the Federal Reserve Directors revealed the following:
OWNERSHIP OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE Most Americans, if they know anything at all about the Federal Reserve, believe it is an agency of the United States Government. This article charts the true nature of the "National Bank." Chart 1 Source: ** Federal Reserve Directors: A Study of Corporate and Banking Influence ** - - Published 1976 Chart 1 reveals the linear connection between the Rothschilds and the Bank of England, and the London banking houses which ultimately control the Federal Reserve Banks through their stockholdings of bank stock and their subsidiary firms in New York. The two principal Rothschild representatives in New York, J. P. Morgan Co., and Kuhn, Loeb & Co. were the firms which set up the Jekyll Island Conference at which the Federal Reserve Act was drafted, who directed the subsequent successful campaign to have the plan enacted into law by Congress, and who purchased the controlling amounts of stock in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in 1914. These firms had their principal officers appointed to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and the Federal Advisory Council in 1914. In 1914 a few families (blood or business related) owning controlling stock in existing banks (such as in New York City) caused those banks to purchase controlling shares in the Federal Reserve regional banks. Examination of the charts and text in the House Banking Committee Staff Report of August, 1976 and the current stockholders list of the 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks show this same family control.
government." The Federal Reserve is subject to laws such as the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act which cover Federal agencies but not private corporations; yet Congress gave the Federal Reserve the autonomy to carry out its responsibilities insulated from political pressure. Each of the Fed's three parts – the Board of Governors, the regional Reserve banks, and the Federal Open Market Committee – operates independently of the federal government to carry out the Fed's core responsibilities. Once a member of the Board of Governors is appointed, he or she can be as independent as a U.S. Supreme Court judge, though the term is shorter. As the nation's central bank, the Federal Reserve derives its authority from the U.S. Congress. It is considered an independent central bank because its decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branch of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by the Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms. (The Fed's financial independence arises because it is hugely profitable due to its ownership of government bonds. (It gives the government billions of dollars each year.) However, the Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by the Congress, which periodically reviews its activities and can alter its responsibilities by statute. Also, the Federal Reserve must work within the framework of the overall objectives of economic and financial policy established by the government.
The only statements of ownership made by the Federal Reserve Board is an allusion to the twelve Federal district banks. This circle puts us back at the beginning, for no information is provided regarding the ownership of the twelve Federal district banks. However, a 1976 government study commissioned by the Federal Reserve Directors revealed the following:
OWNERSHIP OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE Most Americans, if they know anything at all about the Federal Reserve, believe it is an agency of the United States Government. This article charts the true nature of the "National Bank." Chart 1 Source: ** Federal Reserve Directors: A Study of Corporate and Banking Influence ** - - Published 1976 Chart 1 reveals the linear connection between the Rothschilds and the Bank of England, and the London banking houses which ultimately control the Federal Reserve Banks through their stockholdings of bank stock and their subsidiary firms in New York. The two principal Rothschild representatives in New York, J. P. Morgan Co., and Kuhn, Loeb & Co. were the firms which set up the Jekyll Island Conference at which the Federal Reserve Act was drafted, who directed the subsequent successful campaign to have the plan enacted into law by Congress, and who purchased the controlling amounts of stock in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in 1914. These firms had their principal officers appointed to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and the Federal Advisory Council in 1914. In 1914 a few families (blood or business related) owning controlling stock in existing banks (such as in New York City) caused those banks to purchase controlling shares in the Federal Reserve regional banks. Examination of the charts and text in the House Banking Committee Staff Report of August, 1976 and the current stockholders list of the 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks show this same family control.
http://news.goldseek.com/GoldSeek/1095269452.php
It might be worth noting at this juncture that it was the primarily the House of Hesse amongst the old European Monarchical lines that helped fund and establish the Rothschild dynasty. Flying Elvis' and Lizards notwithstanding.
The NWO is just another term for the OWO, IMO
which goes wayy back before America even existed *shrugs*
21 Apr 2009, 2:36 pm
Concenik
Velociraptor
Joined: 27 Mar 2009
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 441
Location: not in average tinfoil fanlnand teeth optional
21 Apr 2009, 2:46 pm
21 Apr 2009, 2:49 pm
Concenik wrote:
Yes, that is clearly your MO, I agree. Somewhat pathetic all in all. I've met much worse' internet tough guys' than you and other manner of egoistic pedants, by all accounts.
Oh, ok. How wonderful. I guess I have new heights to aspire to!
Quote:
'Larger issues' tend to be comprised of specific events
They also tend to have real and meaningful impacts on the way the world works, and are not just an ad hoc theory for combining a set of instances.
Quote:
Issues of stubbornness aside, I think my emotional intelligence is high enough to register that deigning further replies to this BS in nonsensical.
Thank goodness.
Quote:
You will notice that I bolded 'lizardy freaks' - this is because you do not seem willing nor able to desist from such flaming - even though I initially attempted with civility to get you to desist. Rather than respond in kind and end up getting banned, I have agreed to simply refer such incidents of targeted hostility to the moderation staff from this point on..it's your choice, if you want to carry on using such a puerile tactic *shrugs*
Umm... Concenik, I already told you where that usage of "lizard" came from, a response to your overly bold claims to how obvious your stances were. As for your civility, honestly, you fail to establish your points, critically analyze things, and once you lost a particular point about the economics, you try to establish a position based upon statements about a term used. Then you try to shift the discussion and goad me into doing so using foul language(your excuse is that you were drunk, but it still is a lame excuse). I do not see much civility from you at all, and that is even compared to Orwell or Sand or other relatively aggressive posters on this forum. To take that as your "higher ground" is just ludicrous and an insult to any thinking person, I will not say that I was kind, but I attempted to escalate my commentary in response to your own, and I even have edited posts because your own comments and pushing went too far and out of line from my perspective and I was unwilling to follow you that far, as I was perfectly willing to tell you to go f*** yourself by this point given the crudity of your efforts so far.
So really, I don't agree with your assessment. Other people might, but I have outlined where this "lizard" comment first emerged in the thread.
Concenik
Velociraptor
Joined: 27 Mar 2009
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 441
Location: not in average tinfoil fanlnand teeth optional
21 Apr 2009, 3:01 pm
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Concenik wrote:
Yes, that is clearly your MO, I agree. Somewhat pathetic all in all. I've met much worse' internet tough guys' than you and other manner of egoistic pedants, by all accounts.
Oh, ok. How wonderful. I guess I have new heights to aspire to!
Quote:
'Larger issues' tend to be comprised of specific events
They also tend to have real and meaningful impacts on the way the world works, and are not just an ad hoc theory for combining a set of instances.
Quote:
Issues of stubbornness aside, I think my emotional intelligence is high enough to register that deigning further replies to this BS in nonsensical.
Thank goodness.
Quote:
You will notice that I bolded 'lizardy freaks' - this is because you do not seem willing nor able to desist from such flaming - even though I initially attempted with civility to get you to desist. Rather than respond in kind and end up getting banned, I have agreed to simply refer such incidents of targeted hostility to the moderation staff from this point on..it's your choice, if you want to carry on using such a puerile tactic *shrugs*
Umm... Concenik, I already told you where that usage of "lizard" came from, a response to your overly bold claims to how obvious your stances were. As for your civility, honestly, you fail to establish your points, critically analyze things, and once you lost a particular point about the economics, you try to establish a position based upon statements about a term used. Then you try to shift the discussion and goad me into doing so using foul language(your excuse is that you were drunk, but it still is a lame excuse). I do not see much civility from you at all, and that is even compared to Orwell or Sand or other relatively aggressive posters on this forum. To take that as your "higher ground" is just ludicrous and an insult to any thinking person, I will not say that I was kind, but I attempted to escalate my commentary in response to your own, and I even have edited posts because your own comments and pushing went too far and out of line from my perspective and I was unwilling to follow you that far, as I was perfectly willing to tell you to go f*** yourself by this point given the crudity of your efforts so far.
So really, I don't agree with your assessment. Other people might, but I have outlined where this "lizard" comment first emerged in the thread.
My god man, you're still harping on? Cozy yourself in your fantasy if you need to but with an attempt at objective oversight you'd find that the more realistic appraisal is that you started out with a prominent chip on your shoulder about 'conspiracy theorists' f4rom the get go
Anyhow, being an admin myself it's clear now that after having made attempts to return to topic at hand in the last handful of posts I made you are actively engaging either consciously or not in 'forum sliding'.
I think 'you started-no, you started it' is rubbish tbh. (it is untrue that I am without civility - but claim as you wish) We both dealt it out in good measure- but seemingly only one of us has the ability or honesty to observe that *shrugs*
I'd prefer for the thread to go back on topic now, personally.
21 Apr 2009, 3:17 pm
Concenik wrote:
My god man, you're still harping on? Cozy yourself in your fantasy if you need to but with an attempt at objective oversight you'd find that the more realistic appraisal is that you started out with a prominent chip on your shoulder about 'conspiracy theorists' f4rom the get go
Concenik, I really don't care that much about conspiracy theorists. I don't like them. I think they are terrible, but I *really* don't care. It is sort of on the level of an atheist who just sees God as a joke not even worthy to talk to. They don't care about religion, they just want to move past it, and if dragged into such a topic, they might engage it somewhat, but at a certain point, it becomes pointless to them.
In any case, your own aggressiveness likely pushed a lot of what happened into being anyway. You can dispute that, but you are just wrong, and out and out wrong at that.
Quote:
Anyhow, being an admin myself it's clear now that after having made attempts to return to topic at hand in the last handful of posts I made you are actively engaging either consciously or not in 'forum sliding'.
I could have addressed them, but they were all circumstantial evidences anyway and basically constituted link spam more than much else as they were mostly just posting of links rather than actual argumentation, and not anything that explains the great monetary wrong that the OP wanted, just attempts to provide circumstantial evidence. Not only that, but I am not beholden to respond to your latest post. If you want to let the matter drop, then stop responding.
Quote:
I think 'you started-no, you started it' is rubbish tbh. (it is untrue that I am without civility - but claim as you wish) We both dealt it out in good measure- but seemingly only one of us has the ability or honesty to observe that *shrugs*
Well, I don't usually get into these kinds of fights, nor am I usually so accused, so it seems to me that the changed variable lies in yourself, not in my own behavior.
Quote:
I'd prefer for the thread to go back on topic now, personally.
Ok, then stop responding.
21 Apr 2009, 3:28 pm
Concenik
Velociraptor
Joined: 27 Mar 2009
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 441
Location: not in average tinfoil fanlnand teeth optional
21 Apr 2009, 3:34 pm
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Concenik wrote:
My god man, you're still harping on? Cozy yourself in your fantasy if you need to but with an attempt at objective oversight you'd find that the more realistic appraisal is that you started out with a prominent chip on your shoulder about 'conspiracy theorists' f4rom the get go
Concenik, I really don't care that much about conspiracy theorists. I don't like them. I think they are terrible, but I *really* don't care. It is sort of on the level of an atheist who just sees God as a joke not even worthy to talk to. They don't care about religion, they just want to move past it, and if dragged into such a topic, they might engage it somewhat, but at a certain point, it becomes pointless to them.
In any case, your own aggressiveness likely pushed a lot of what happened into being anyway. You can dispute that, but you are just wrong, and out and out wrong at that.
Quote:
Anyhow, being an admin myself it's clear now that after having made attempts to return to topic at hand in the last handful of posts I made you are actively engaging either consciously or not in 'forum sliding'.
I could have addressed them, but they were all circumstantial evidences anyway, and not anything that explains the great monetary wrong that the OP wanted. Not only that, but I am not beholden to respond to your latest post. If you want to let the matter drop, then stop responding.
Quote:
I think 'you started-no, you started it' is rubbish tbh. (it is untrue that I am without civility - but claim as you wish) We both dealt it out in good measure- but seemingly only one of us has the ability or honesty to observe that *shrugs*
Well, I don't usually get into these kinds of fights, nor am I usually so accused, so it seems to me that the changed variable lies in yourself, not in my own behavior.
Quote:
I'd prefer for the thread to go back on topic now, personally.
Ok, then stop responding.
I don't know how you ordinarily expect people to behave - but I am bot beholden to bow to your demands - I'll reply as much as I darn well wish. I don't really care now eif the matter drops or not - it's clear no one has the 'temerity' to stand up to you usually edit) I'm thinking of the doormice here specifically - so I don't mind doing it. You may 'not like' 'conspiracy theorists' but I equally don't like those who attempt employ of intellectual domineering and tactics of mockery when that fails to stifle any debate which isn't in accordance with their own world view.
You don't like 'conspiracy theorists' - well, tally ho, that would suggest a healthy attitude from the outset in posting on a thread titled 'NWO monetary system' - case in point being you arrived with the proverbial club under your arm looking to go a bashing.
The posts I have made you may declare as circumstantial - I imply that they do indeed supply factual evidence that the caveat you initially presented as being ludicrous is actually very well founded and as I initially stated - clear...the factor that wound you up and caused you to cast aspersions as to me being remedial.
Sorry friend, you might expect to walk all over people here generally as a 'big man' but it won't fly with me.
Last edited by Concenik on 21 Apr 2009, 3:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Concenik
Velociraptor
Joined: 27 Mar 2009
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 441
Location: not in average tinfoil fanlnand teeth optional
21 Apr 2009, 3:36 pm
21 Apr 2009, 4:08 pm
21 Apr 2009, 4:20 pm
Concenik wrote:
I don't know how you ordinarily expect people to behave - but I am bot beholden to bow to your demands - I'll reply as much as I darn well wish. I don't really care now eif the matter drops or not - it's clear no one has the 'temerity' to stand up to you usually edit) I'm thinking of the doormice here specifically - so I don't mind doing it. You may 'not like' 'conspiracy theorists' but I equally don't like those who attempt employ of intellectual domineering and tactics of mockery when that fails to stifle any debate which isn't in accordance with their own world view.
And I didn't stifle a debate. I refused to go and talk about the London Bombings, and you got really upset about that. I didn't stifle a debate, and the situation about lizards started off as a mild mock, with the rest of the discussion being hampered by that, and partially because you are unclear with your goals, and your evidences suck. Once again, I point to the fact that you wanted to shift past economics(even though a major part of the monetary discussion is based upon economics), you were terrible at elaborating the supposed problem with one of my arguments just trying to use a word "compartmentalization" even though that was irrelevant to the point, and so on.
In any case, I would have probably just left you alone if you did in fact start a thread about London, or whatever stuff you wanted to talk about, but no, you really wanted to say "Oh, AG's is copping out because he isn't actually interested in London", and you attempted to suggest what I should or shouldn't be interested in. I made my points, and the past few pages were just your whinings.
And yes, Orwell's comment is actually misplaced, because our long debate was a *lot* better than this one.
Quote:
You don't like 'conspiracy theorists' - well, tally ho, that would suggest a healthy attitude from the outset in posting on a thread titled 'NWO monetary system' - case in point being you arrived with the proverbial club under your arm looking to go a bashing.
And you like conspiracy theories. Ok then. Yeah, I will admit that I wasn't looking to change my mind, because I am not. I admit to that. But I also haven't been dishonest, and have made my points clearly. This entire line of speculative evidence on your point is just your own bs, and attempt to construct a conspiracy of your own.
Quote:
The posts I have made you may declare as circumstantial - I imply that they do indeed supply factual evidence that the caveat you initially presented as being ludicrous is actually very well founded and as I initially stated - clear...the factor that wound you up and caused you to cast aspersions as to me being remedial.
You are trying to argue that the Federal Reserve is corrupt because finance companies will donate a lot of money to politics, and because it happens to be private. The former establishes nothing. The latter doesn't establish a lot either, particularly given that once again, there is a significant academic component of the rulership of the Federal reserve, and either we have to argue that the academics are dishonest and either engaged in a massive lie with the world, or that there really isn't a problem.
In any case, it is more like link spam and rather weak evidence more than it is an argument.
Quote:
Sorry friend, you might expect to walk all over people here generally as a 'big man' but it won't fly with me.
Umm..... no. I actually do not expect to just have you shut up, but I expect for you to be honest rather than dishonest, and from you I see the latter. As this conversation from you is much worse than others that I have had.
Concenik
Velociraptor
Joined: 27 Mar 2009
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 441
Location: not in average tinfoil fanlnand teeth optional
21 Apr 2009, 4:57 pm
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Concenik wrote:
I don't know how you ordinarily expect people to behave - but I am bot beholden to bow to your demands - I'll reply as much as I darn well wish. I don't really care now eif the matter drops or not - it's clear no one has the 'temerity' to stand up to you usually edit) I'm thinking of the doormice here specifically - so I don't mind doing it. You may 'not like' 'conspiracy theorists' but I equally don't like those who attempt employ of intellectual domineering and tactics of mockery when that fails to stifle any debate which isn't in accordance with their own world view.
And I didn't stifle a debate. I refused to go and talk about the London Bombings, and you got really upset about that. I didn't stifle a debate, and the situation about lizards started off as a mild mock, with the rest of the discussion being hampered by that, and partially because you are unclear with your goals, and your evidences suck. Once again, I point to the fact that you wanted to shift past economics(even though a major part of the monetary discussion is based upon economics), you were terrible at elaborating the supposed problem with one of my arguments just trying to use a word "compartmentalization" even though that was irrelevant to the point, and so on.
In any case, I would have probably just left you alone if you did in fact start a thread about London, or whatever stuff you wanted to talk about, but no, you really wanted to say "Oh, AG's is copping out because he isn't actually interested in London", and you attempted to suggest what I should or shouldn't be interested in. I made my points, and the past few pages were just your whinings.
And yes, Orwell's comment is actually misplaced, because our long debate was a *lot* better than this one.
Quote:
You don't like 'conspiracy theorists' - well, tally ho, that would suggest a healthy attitude from the outset in posting on a thread titled 'NWO monetary system' - case in point being you arrived with the proverbial club under your arm looking to go a bashing.
And you like conspiracy theories. Ok then. Yeah, I will admit that I wasn't looking to change my mind, because I am not. I admit to that. But I also haven't been dishonest, and have made my points clearly. This entire line of speculative evidence on your point is just your own bs, and attempt to construct a conspiracy of your own.
Quote:
The posts I have made you may declare as circumstantial - I imply that they do indeed supply factual evidence that the caveat you initially presented as being ludicrous is actually very well founded and as I initially stated - clear...the factor that wound you up and caused you to cast aspersions as to me being remedial.
You are trying to argue that the Federal Reserve is corrupt because finance companies will donate a lot of money to politics, and because it happens to be private. The former establishes nothing. The latter doesn't establish a lot either, particularly given that once again, there is a significant academic component of the rulership of the Federal reserve, and either we have to argue that the academics are dishonest and either engaged in a massive lie with the world, or that there really isn't a problem.
In any case, it is more like link spam and rather weak evidence more than it is an argument.
Quote:
Sorry friend, you might expect to walk all over people here generally as a 'big man' but it won't fly with me.
Umm..... no. I actually do not expect to just have you shut up, but I expect for you to be honest rather than dishonest, and from you I see the latter. As this conversation from you is much worse than others that I have had.
If you're going to say so little why use so many words?
'link spam' - sure, whatever. You're two options are not all encompassing. I suggest that the 'significant academic component' that you place so much stock in, is actually that 'purely academic'. 'link spam' LOL
00h, my conversations were Soo much better with Orwell and the others! - I am hurt
Oh well, I'll just continue to 'whine' in the face of your 'honest' discourse
And considering all the 'ufo chasing' 'lizard believing' all CT's are infected with a 'mind virus' slurs etc - your cop out when offered a platform to debate me on a specific topic which I would attest to being able to prove a conspiracy in, with the reason 'i'm just not interested' is very weak in itself.
Your reply is so obviously laced with attempts to undermine and discredit my integrity yet paradoxically you harp on about my lack of honesty. You're quite a piece of work oh 'reaver of souls and destroyer of worlds'
'link spam' lulz
and believe me, I've had better exchanges than this too. It is not my problem if you cannot bare to concede anything whatsoever to the fact that your reasoning is not infallible. *shrugs*
and so the merry go round blandly creaks on.
21 Apr 2009, 5:32 pm
Concenik wrote:
If you're going to say so little why use so many words?
To explain what little I have to say to make sure it is understood.
Quote:
'link spam' - sure, whatever. You're two options are not all encompassing. I suggest that the 'significant academic component' that you place so much stock in, is actually that 'purely academic'. 'link spam' LOL
Are you explaining your links? Are you using them in a broader argument? Or are you just posting something without explanation? Well, clearly the latter.
Quote:
00h, my conversations were Soo much better with Orwell and the others! - I am hurt
Using that as a baseline for reference.
Quote:
Oh well, I'll just continue to 'whine' in the face of your 'honest' discourse
Right.
Quote:
And considering all the 'ufo chasing' 'lizard believing' all CT's are infected with a 'mind virus' slurs etc - your cop out when offered a platform to debate me on a specific topic which I would attest to being able to prove a conspiracy in, with the reason 'i'm just not interested' is very weak in itself.
It is an attack upon a worldview, and frankly, I can do that and just be fine.
Also, I really am not interested. I don't know how many times I have to say that until you cease your false attribution, but if Orwell really continues to care to explain both sides to each other, then he knows that I show almost no interest in discussing events and history, unless I can do so quickly.
Quote:
and believe me, I've had better exchanges than this too. It is not my problem if you cannot bare to concede anything whatsoever to the fact that your reasoning is not infallible. *shrugs*
I don't have to concede that my reasoning is fallible if you haven't clearly shown where it has been fallible, and you don't tend to do that. If you did do that, then the discussion would move on more quickly rather than me having to ask you to be specific on an issue of logical fallacies, which has already happened. I mean, you seem to want to dismiss me about as unjustly as you claim I want to dismiss you, so I don't see what grounds you can honestly attack me, as although I am very dismissive towards your position, I do not think I am making most of my arguments on this situation too dishonestly about this matter, maybe using some weak arguments in some sections, but I am uncertain that I have made any argument *that* weak so that I am just being dismissive rather than being dismissive and with some reasonably valid reason.
Concenik
Velociraptor
Joined: 27 Mar 2009
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 441
Location: not in average tinfoil fanlnand teeth optional
21 Apr 2009, 6:00 pm
