search results matching tag: infanticide

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (8)     Sift Talk (0)     Blogs (0)     Comments (61)   

bobknight33 (Member Profile)

newtboy says...

Today’s MAGA weaponization of government, today Missouri republicans voted to strip funding from libraries out of pure spite because they dared to oppose the book banning of any non extremist Christian based books, but Christian books in support of rape, sex with children, murder, infanticide are protected…but reading is for liberals anyway so it’s no surprise they cut all funding.

Voting yes to ban books on religious grounds is republican Mike Moon who also voted to allow marriage and sex with 12 year old girls if their parents force or sell them into it.

Baby Fresh Out Moms Womb

newtboy says...

You are such a dishonest moron. Just the biggest lying douche bag I’ve ever encountered, and the stupidest.

Politically, legally, and by definition you are 100% wrong, as usual. Infanticide has never been legal in the USA despite the lies from the right.

Wrap your head around that, it’s empty, you can fit it in.

bobknight33 said:

Thanks to Democrats this child can still be aborted.

Wrap you head around that. You voted for it.

bobknight33 (Member Profile)

newtboy says...

Neither. I fully support legalizing sex work, and regulating it strongly….and I have always warned against sticking your dick in crazy. Also, I’ve never paid for sex…not with money anyway.

(Edit: Hmmmm….are you saying whoring is how most women earn a living? It wouldn’t be inconsistent with your previous stances, Mr MGTOW.)

I’m against vitriolic hypocrites in power making it criminal to do the same things they did repeatedly. I think laws enacted by representatives should be retroactive against any representatives who vote for them, for life….meaning if abortions become murder charges, Boebert gets charged twice with infanticide.
I’m also against high school dropout, ged failing, lying, stealing hookers being representatives. They’ve proven they have a price for anything and I can expect them to be easily “bought”.

Not so flimsy, not near as flimsy as her denials. Wait for her deposition….IF she sues which I doubt she will. (She’s terrified to be deposed by people who might know all her dumb secrets that would prove who she really is, a dishonest, thieving, corrupt, know nothing, child sex abusing, repeated abortion having, tax evading, business failure and hypocritical whore.)

Derp. The group that smeared her is Republican, Bob. Actual conservative, which is anti sedition. Absolutely not Democrats….these are Republicans using Republican tactics against a fake Republican. Hang your head in shame.

? No, I don’t remember any stupid lie about Obama in an elderly white gay bathhouse (with no corroborating evidence whatsoever, unlike Boebert), I tend to not pay attention to the thousands of idiotic lies Republicans made up about him, like Trump’s popular racist birther movement based on pure lies and racism, but the outrageous stories about Trump and the sedition caucus all turn out to be true, verified in courts, or turn out to be vast under estimates of their criminality.

Lol. You telling someone to live in reality is the pot calling the clear glass pitcher black, buddy. You’re been living in a con. fantasy world since 08 at least, likely longer. So much that most people believe you are really a Russian attempting to spread misinformation (and failing miserably). You believe any stupid con. lie, the dumber the better like blaming Jan 6 on BLM and ANTIFA, like blaming Ukraine for its own invasion, like denying Cawthorn, Green, Gohbert, Boebert, Munez, and Gaetz are all sexual deviants that have sex with, or who personally help others sexually abuse children.
You calling someone else turd boy is also hilarious considering how consistently full of shit your positions are, unlike mine that can be backed up with citation and fact every time. Must get under your skin.
Poor boob.

PS- How you liking Walkers new admission, that even as he railed against deadbeat and absentee fathers, saying it should be criminalized, he actually has 3 secret children he neither raised nor supported. More blatant insane Republican hypocrisy from certifiably criminally insane Republican candidates. (He threatened to murder his wife then himself while holding a loaded gun to her head)

bobknight33 said:

So you are against women earning a living or are you just pissed that you didn't bang her?


Flimsy at best information from a leftest smear group.

You remember that Obama white old men gay bathhouse club in Chicago.
Or is that equally fake BS?

Turd boy. slow you roll and just live in reality.

Hayes: NRA "Good Guy With A Gun" Theory Failed In Real Time

luxintenebris says...

the rub of "good guys w/guns" is the "good guys" requirement.

if the argument is "those that can be proven to be responsible, safe, and sane can own guns" then why fear the 'proof' part of the equation?

it's in their motto!

'bad guys' helping 'bad guys' get guns is bad guys, bad guys...whatcha gonna do?

plus

the idea that teachers/school kids can be expected to keep the doors closed - turn on the a/c or the heat up and just see if YOUR home doors are kept shut!

more fantasy from the infanticidally idiots. as if the uncompromising are themselves 'compromised'.




just think...this song is 30 yrs old...and it doesn't raise an eye brow now...

BSR said:

If I remember correctly God said something to the effect of "Thou shalt not kill".

What other weapons do you have left in your arsenal that your God gave you?

TX law & tattoos

newtboy says...

No, but you must be.
Baby murder gets the death penalty in Texas. This law calls for civil penalties, not even a parking ticket. It's an infraction of a regulation other citizens can profit from enforcing, not murder in any way shape or form, by Texas law.

You gave me the definition!!! ROTFLMFAHS!!!!
" Definition
Murder: the unlawful premeditated killing of one HUMAN BEING by another"
But you intentionally ignore the fact that the unborn aren't yet people. You can't murder non people. I've pointed this out repeatedly. It seems you must have the illiteracy problem along with your reality problem.

It's true, I WOULD and HAVE defended infanticide, especially historically, but I absolutely have not mentioned it before now in this thread. Supporting abortion is not defending murder by any accepted definition of those words, you have to skew the definitions of human beings and the definition of murder before your position makes sense. Duh. I expect your verbal SAT score was awful, you have a tenuous grasp of English.

According to the bible, yep, not people. Sorry. Try reading it and interpreting what's actually there instead of having someone do it for you.

So, you are advocating Baptist Sharia law.

America has legalized abortions in every state by law because the majority wants it. Don't like it, fuck right off. As easy as that, but your ilk didn't fuck off, you prefer end runs around the constitution and the destruction of codified rights and using legal trickery and convolutions to enact laws that are knowingly unconstitutional but will effectively end abortions before the legal process can invalidate them by bankrupting providers. Anything BUT fucking right off. Take your own advice first, maybe.

Again, the majority in Texas don't want this, didn't vote for it, and absolutely don't want the consequences....which is an exodus of multi national corporations who won't support this nonsense with their wallets.

The majority of Americans are Christians, and a large majority want abortion to be legal and easy to access. Your logic is fatally flawed, being Christian doesn't mean you're anti abortion any more than it means you're anti murder, in fact it means you're more likely to support and defend murder, the bible prescribes it for almost any infraction from actual murder to mowing your lawn on Sunday. The bible says nearly nothing about abortion, what little it does say indicates it's not a crime. Holy fuck, learn your own religion before trying to impose it on others!

Texas was already teetering on the brink of bankruptcy, no doubt the backlash for this move will push them hard over the edge. I already cancelled my trip there, and won't be buying any Texas made products. I'm not alone.
Enjoy!

Anom212325 said:

Are you really retarded or just pretending ? Making things up like I or Texans want them executed are not really helping your argument. It just makes you seem desperate and shows you have no moral issue on spreading fake info/news.

I gave you the definition. Your the one not recognizing it... I'll repeat it for you considering you lack the capability to read.

Definition
Murder: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another

Regarding reality. Again your the one defending murder... Your the one ignoring it.

Regarding legality. Again your the one bitching about the legal re-precautions and calling for people to break it.

"The unborn are not human beings" Not according to Christians, you know, the majority in Texas. The ones supporting the law. So we are back to square on. Don't like it, fuck off. As easy as that.

Baby Monitor Captures Parents Switching Places to Trick Baby

newtboy says...

Better title might be “baby spends all night tea bagging mom”.

When I read the title, I expected to see parents tricking the baby for laughs. Instead I saw why the Spartans decided infanticide is not a crime.

Brett Kavanaugh Is a Terrible Judge & a Liar...

newtboy says...

Lol. Wow did you miss the mark with "caring tolerant leftist"....the advocating mass infanticide, that's more my style.

Asmo said:

You wouldn't be a Spartan... While all the men would be doing manly things, you'd be whining about how no one cares about your feelings and how oppressed you were. Fuck, even the women would be more manly than you. And the children. Possibly also the domesticated animals (seriously, Spartan chickens would be badass...)

But I like where you're going with the whole "caring, tolerant leftist advocates mass infanticide" shtick. Really gives you tonnes of moral high ground to ride that high horse around on. X D

Brett Kavanaugh Is a Terrible Judge & a Liar...

Asmo says...

You wouldn't be a Spartan... While all the men would be doing manly things, you'd be whining about how no one cares about your feelings and how oppressed you were. Fuck, even the women would be more manly than you. And the children. Possibly also the domesticated animals (seriously, Spartan chickens would be badass...)

But I like where you're going with the whole "caring, tolerant leftist advocates mass infanticide" shtick. Really gives you tonnes of moral high ground to ride that high horse around on. X D

newtboy said:

were I Spartan I would toss you all from a cliff before you reach childhood.

H/Ts Smack Down On The CDC Regarding Alcohol and Pregnancy

gorillaman says...

The real problem here is everyone's hysterical attitude to abortion and infanticide.

So you shit out a retard baby? Toss it in a skip and, if you want, make a better one later.

Reducing the Male Population by 90% Will Solve Everything

newtboy says...

How exactly are they intending to have only female children (and to force everyone else to follow along)? Is this an infanticide movement?
And why the sexism girly? Can't we just reduce the number of children by 90%, male and female? Wouldn't that also solve most of the problems you complain about? It would certainly solve many of mine.

Emily's Abortion Video

charliem says...

Believer in euthanasia? Yes, as a basic human right. If someone has suffered through a terminal illness for so long, that they no longer have the will to live, and medical science has expended all treatment options available, is it morally correct to let that person to continue to suffer through the agonising pain until their body collapses? Or is it more moral to allow them to have control over when they leave this earth, and in what manner it is done?

Either case - this isnt about euthanasia.

An abortion can only be medically acheived safely up to the 2nd trimester, and it gets tricky in the third as the embryo is large enough and involved into the mothers own body that it has the potential to cause more harm than if it was done earlier.

'Abortion' (lets just call it what it is, murder..) after birth, at 10 months old...is infanticide, and you can be thrown in prison for a very long time for doing something like that. The child's brain has developed, they breathe, they love, they hear, see, smell, taste, comprehend, communicate....they do everything that a fetus does not do.

They have developed into a human being.

Thats murder.

Terminating an unwanted or unsafe pregnancy is not murder, because its just a couple of thousand cells, not yet developed.

lantern53 said:

You people are all believers in euthanasia, aren't you?
If a person is unwanted, just kill them.

Why not have abortion to the 19th month? or more? The mother decides she doesn't want the child, she should be able to terminate it, right? It probably is not participating to her satisfaction.

why do we prosecute such women for murder after the child has exited the birth canal?

The Incoherence of Atheism (Ravi Zacharias)

shinyblurry says...

Actually, that's exactly what I say, and average modern human morality is considerably superior to the filth that the biblical God advocates.

The moral standard of western civilization is founded upon judeo-christian beliefs. Read:

http://www.amazon.com/Book-that-Made-Your-World/dp/1595555455/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1366921071&sr=8-1&keywords=book+that+made+your+world

Following the morality the biblical God advocates is the hardest thing you will ever do. The standard of today is a superficial, politically correct morality where you pretend to be nice to people but curse them when they aren't around. God requires a transformation on the inside where you have genuine love for your fellow man.

I am only saying that they are wrong by todays generally agreed upon moral standards. Some of these moral standards are extremely effective and have been around since very early human communities, so they only have the illusion of being absolute due to high adherence rate.

Are you saying nigh universal adherence to certain moral standards isn't evidence for an absolute standard of morality?

Murder, theft, oppression and incest are three fairly obvious examples. The evolutionarily advantageous trait of society building tends to list it's effectiveness when such things are widespread. But we have a very long human tradition of sanctioning and celebrating murder and theft as long as it occurs well outside our cohort. Killing other tribes is celebrated in the bible, as is stealing their possessions. Ethically justified slavery took another 4000 years to mostly get rid of, and hell, it was common practice to fuck your fifteen year old cousin all the way up to about the late 1800s here in the good old US of A as long as it was under the marital auspices of the church, of course.

Yep, but thank God that his just definition of morality - if we didn't have god's guidance through scripture, we'd probably do crazy shit!


You don't understand what God was doing in the Old Testament, or why He did it the way He did. It is morally consistent with His goodness and holiness, and there are logical reasons for why this is so. So far you are not interested in hearing them or discussing them. When you are let me know. In the end you don't have any excuse for suppressing the truth about Jesus, no matter what you think about how God acted in the Old Testament.

Using the word 'absolute' is a concession to brevity, but nice try - seriously dude, this is laughable and it wouldn't even stand up in Jr. High debate - absolutes do exist, they just need to be well justified, and yes if you want to be nitpicky about it there is an ever so remote chance that 1+1 is not equal to two in some distant corner of the universe. But as humans with an admittedly limited scope of understanding, we have to accept that level of certainty. If you want to relegate your theory to claiming its space somewhere in the possibility that we might be wrong about the whole 2+2=4 thing, go right on ahead.

There, that's what I meant by absolute. happy?


Basically, what you're saying is that because 2+2 probably equals four everywhere in the Universe, you are free to make absolute statements about morality? The fact is that your belief system leaves you with no justification for any absolute statement what so ever. Why should 2 + 2 always equal 4 in the first place? Can you tell me why the laws of physics should work in the same way 5 seconds from now without using circular reasoning?

Can you justify any piece of knowledge without God? If you can then tell me one thing you know and how you know it. Could you be wrong about everything you know?

Well then thanks for the offer, but I think I'll pass in the whole god based morality thing. I prefer to have a really good reason to never slaughter innocent kids. But thanks for finally answering my question: there has been a good reason to butcher a toddler after all! Praise The Lord, for he is good!

It comes back to the same question: As the giver of life, and the adjudicator of His Creation, is it wrong for God to take life?

And here's another interesting brain tickler. If everything god commands is right, and god has a track record of testing his faithful with their willingness to commit infanticide, how can you say that this lady isn't moral?

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2001-08-17/news/0108170166_1_baby-s-death-baby-s-father-documents


The scripture is finished and anything which contradicts it is not of God.

Wrong, I know that things are wrong because humans and cultures have a long history of interacting with reality, and certain strategies have been more successful than others. You haven't spent one iota of your time discrediting this notion, whereas I have given you plenty of examples crediting mine and discrediting yours.

What I am supposed to be discrediting? You're asking me to nail jello to a wall. You have not even defined what "successful" is supposed to mean beyond pure survival. In that case, every civilization has been successful. Tell me what your definition of success is supposed to be.

For the millionth time, I have no hopes of convincing you of anything - you'll defend your stance against literally any proof. But you seem to come here on the sift with the intent of demonstrating to others that there is some logical basis for your beliefs.

What proof? The foundation of atheism stands upon the shifting sands of relative truth. You, the atheist, ultimately make yourself the measure of all truth. Because of that, you can't tell me a single fact about the world that you can justify.

Well you're failing miserably, mainly because you are only capable of restating the following sentence as if it is an agreed upon truth:

"Not only is the entire concept logically contradictory, but it doesn't match our experience, which is that some things are absolutely wrong. "

I don't expect you to have any good support for that, but the audience out there just waiting to be convinced, they will need at least something.


Torturing babies for fun; not absolutely wrong?

I'm still waiting for you to give Stalin some kind, any kind of argument as to why he should adopt your morality and abandon his own. If you can't tell Stalin why he is wrong, then you have no hope of escaping the charge of incoherency.

shveddy said:

"You know they are wrong because you have a God given conscience which tells you that they are. Therefore, you are living like a theist but denying it with your atheism."

Wrong, I know that things are wrong because humans and cultures have a long history of interacting with reality, and certain strategies have been more successful than others. You haven't spent one iota of your time discrediting this notion, whereas I have given you plenty of examples crediting mine and discrediting yours.

For the millionth time, I have no hopes of convincing you of anything - you'll defend your stance against literally any proof. But you seem to come here on the sift with the intent of demonstrating to others that there is some logical basis for your beliefs.

Well you're failing miserably, mainly because you are only capable of restating the following sentence as if it is an agreed upon truth:

Not only is the entire concept logically contradictory, but it doesn't match our experience, which is that some things are absolutely wrong.

I don't expect you to have any good support for that, but the audience out there just waiting to be convinced, they will need at least something.

The Incoherence of Atheism (Ravi Zacharias)

The Incoherence of Atheism (Ravi Zacharias)

shinyblurry says...

@alcom

I hear you shinyblurry, but I feel that your argument meanders back to the original appeal to authority that most believers resort to when justifying their positions. I also find that the related video links provided by TheGenk provide a valid refutation of the idea that God is The One who put values of good and evil inside each of us.

There is always an appeal to authority, either to God or to men. There are either objective moral values which are imposed by God, or morality is relative and determined by men. If morality is relative then there is no good or evil, and what is considered good today may be evil tomorrow. If it isn't absolutely wrong to murder indiscriminately, for instance, then if enough people agreed that it was right, it would be. Yet, this does not cohere with reality because we all know that murdering indiscriminately is absolutely wrong. The true test of a worldview is its coherence to reality and atheism is incoherent with our experience, whereas Christian theism describes it perfectly.

If you feel the videos provide a valid refutation, could you articulate the argument that they are using so we can discuss them here?

In my mind, Zacharias' incoherence with the atheist's ability to love and live morally is influenced by his own understanding of the source of moral truth. Because he defines the origin of pure love as Jesus' sacrifice on behalf of mankind, it is unfathomable to him that love could be found as a result of human survival/selection based of traits of cooperation, peace and mutual benefits of our social structure. His logic is therefore coloured and his mind is closed to certain ideas and possibilities.

The idea of agape love is a Christian idea, and agape love is unconditional love. You do not get agape love out of natural selection because it is sacrificial and sacrificing your well being or your life has a very negative impact on your chance to survive and pass on your genes. However, Christ provided the perfect example of agape love by sacrificing His life not only for His friends and family, but for people who hate and despise Him. In the natural sense, since Jesus failed to pass on His genes His traits should be selected out of the gene pool. Christ demonstrated a higher love that transcends the worldly idea of love. Often when the world speaks of love, it is speaking of eros love, which is love based on physical attraction, or philial love, which is brotherly love. The world knows very little of agape love outside of Christ. Christ taught agape love as the universal duty of men towards God:

Luke 6:27 "But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,
Luke 6:28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you.
Luke 6:29 To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either.
Luke 6:30 Give to everyone who begs from you, and from one who takes away your goods do not demand them back.
Luke 6:31 And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them.
Luke 6:32 "If you love those who love you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them.
Luke 6:33 And if you do good to those who do good to you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners do the same.
Luke 6:34 And if you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to get back the same amount.
Luke 6:35 But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil.
Luke 6:36 Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful.

Indeed, moral foundations can and must change with the times. As our understanding of empathy, personal freedoms and the greater good of mankind develops with our societal and cultural evolution, so too must our standards of morality. This is most evident when concepts such as slavery and revenge (an eye for an eye) are seen as commonplace and acceptable throughout old scripture where modern society has evolved a greater understanding of the need for equality and basic human rights and policing and corrections as a measure of deterrence and rehabilitation for those individuals that stray from the path of greatest utility.

This is why slavery is no more, why racism is in decline and why eventually gay rights and green thought will be universal and our struggle to stifle the rights of gays and exploit the planet's resources to the point of our own self-extinction simply will be seen by future historians as sheer ignorance. Leviticus still pops up when people try to brand gays as deviant, even though most it is itself incoherent by today's standards. Remember that "defecating within the camp was unacceptable lest God step in it while walking in the evening." Well, today we just call that sewage management.


Some people, like Richard Dawkins, see infanticide as being the greatest utility. Some believe that to save the planet around 70 percent of the population must be exterminated. Green thought is to value the health of the planet above individual lives; to basically say that human lives are expendable to preserve the collective. This is why abortion is not questionable to many who hold these ideals; because human life isn't that valuable to them. I see many who have green thoughts contrast human beings to cattle or cockroaches. Utility is an insufficient moral standard because it is in the eye of the beholder.

In regards to the Levitical laws, those were given to the Jews and not the world, and for that time and place. God made a covenant with the Jewish people which they agreed to follow. The covenant God made with the world through Christ is different than the Mosaic law, and it makes those older laws irrelevant. If you would like to understand why God would give laws regarding slavery, or homosexuality, I can elucidate further.

In regards to your paraphrasing of Deuteronomy 23:13-14, this is really a classic example of how the scripture can be made to look like it is saying one thing, when it is actually saying something completely different. Did you read this scripture? It does not say that:

Deuteronomy 23:13 And you shall have a trowel with your tools, and when you sit down outside, you shall dig a hole with it and turn back and cover up your excrement.

Deuteronomy 23:14 Because the LORD your God walks in the midst of your camp, to deliver you and to give up your enemies before you, therefore your camp must be holy, so that he may not see anything indecent among you and turn away from you.

Gods home on Earth was in the tabernacle, and because God dwelled with His people, He exorted them to keep the camp holy out of reverence for Him.

The rules that God gave for cleanliness were 2500 years ahead of their time:

"In the Bible greater stress was placed upon prevention of disease than was given to the treatment of bodily ailments, and in this no race of people, before or since, has left us such a wealth of LAWS RELATIVE TO HYGIENE AND SANITATION as the Hebrews. These important laws, coming down through the ages, are still used to a marked degree in every country in the world sufficiently enlightened to observe them. One has but to read the book of Leviticus carefully and thoughtfully to conclude that the admonitions of Moses contained therein are, in fact, the groundwork of most of today's sanitary laws. As one closes the book, he must, regardless of his spiritual leanings, feel that the wisdom therein expressed regarding the rules to protect health are superior to any which then existed in the world and that to this day they have been little improved upon" (Magic, Myth and Medicine, Atkinson, p. 20). Dr. D. T. Atkinson

What's interesting about that is that Moses was trained in the knowledge of the Egyptians, the most advanced civilization in the world at that time. Yet you will not find even a shred of it in the bible. Their understanding of medicine at that time led to them doing things like rubbing feces into wounds; ie, it was completely primitive in comparison to the commands that God gave to Moses about cleanliness. Moses didn't know about germs but God did.

Paedophilia will never emerge as acceptable because it violates our basic understanding of human rights and the acceptable age of sexual consent. I know this is a common warning about the "slippery slope of a Godless definition of morality," but it's really a red herring. Do you honestly think society would someday deem that it carries a benefit to society? I just can't see it happening.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty_in_Ancient_Greece

alcom said:

I hear you shinyblurry, but I feel that your argument meanders back to the original appeal to authority that most believers resort to when justifying their positions.

Louis CK - If God Came Back

shinyblurry says...

Well, you mention the unborn, yet on the main the thinking in environmental circles is that we have too many humans and that the Earth is unable to support them. Therefore, abortion (over 70 million unborn children murdered in the US since the 70s) is to be embraced, and even more extreme methods of population control are not only openly pondered, but have resulted in mass sterilization programs which have been mercilessly implemented in third world countries. Here are some of the greater atrocities committed in the name of preserving "mother earth":

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-population-control-holocaust

Among the intellectual elite, human lives are reduced to being paid the same consideration as one might the lowly cockroach. Contrary to your assertion, it is the Christian who affirms the sanctity of life and the inherent value of every person, whereas it is the opponents of Christianity that affirm infanticide:

Dawkins approves of infanticide

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFWt9cj3uj4

If you would reread my prior comment, you will see that I am in agreement with @RFlagg that we should be good stewards of the Earth. However, the mania of the environmentalists is to devalue human life and subordinate it to their misguided notions of preservation. The sickness of this world is sin, and the only one who can cure it is God. This world will continue to degenerate until the Lord returns because it is in rebellion against its Creator:

2 Chronicles 7:14

if my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land.

cosmovitelli said:

Let me help you reconcile these points:



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon