What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

CDZ Covid Vaccine Thread - what's your take on them?

GalileoSmith

Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2021
Messages
71
Reaction score
43
Points
21
Location
Columbus, Ohio
Thursday, March 13, 2008
LifeSite News: A Study in Bias and Propaganda

On any given day, a reader with any semblance of critical reading skills can take a day's sample of LifeSiteNews' headlines and find error, lies, and distortions of the truth. (I have blogged about several egregious example previously). As my friend Jane Know said one time, when a person cites LifeSiteNews believing that it's honest, accurate, or unbiased journalism, it sort of automatically discredits that person as an arbiter of competence or journalistic integrity.
-------
I don't think much has changed in 13 years at LifeSiteNews.

The only thing that is more accurate than science is better science, not an opinion site on the net.

Again, all the focus is on the messenger (in this case, the site) and not on the message. I said in the OP that, if certain claims concerning the LifeSite News site were true, I was opposed to them. That being said, the article I referenced in the OP seems to be on point.
The only thing that tops science is better science, and that has not been provided here, I think.

Ideally, in a discussion, we would discuss the evidence and why we think it's good or bad, not say "so and so doesn't like your source". But I guess we get what we get.
Let me give you an analogy... let's say I am walking down a street in Baltimore with 10 foresters, i.e. tree experts. I point to a tree 20 feet away in a yard and ask the group what species of tree it is knowing no one has seen that specific tree until that moment. Nine of the ten foresters state it is a cherry tree. One of the foresters states it is a fake tree with a brown rubber trunk with phony leaves made of green paper. He gives no further explanation other than he thinks it is a fake tree. My question is; why should I accept the answer from the forester who states it is a fake tree over the other opinions? If that one forester writes a book called The Fake Cherry Trees of Baltimore, a book denounced by 98% of tree experts, am I being biased if I refuse to read it?

I can explain the rationale of my thinking only so many times (and I just explained it once more) before I realize that some people are simply going to believe the forester who claims the tree to be fake.
 

Likkmee

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2015
Messages
12,469
Reaction score
3,732
Points
215
Location
Second World
Thursday, March 13, 2008
LifeSite News: A Study in Bias and Propaganda

On any given day, a reader with any semblance of critical reading skills can take a day's sample of LifeSiteNews' headlines and find error, lies, and distortions of the truth. (I have blogged about several egregious example previously). As my friend Jane Know said one time, when a person cites LifeSiteNews believing that it's honest, accurate, or unbiased journalism, it sort of automatically discredits that person as an arbiter of competence or journalistic integrity.
-------
I don't think much has changed in 13 years at LifeSiteNews.

The only thing that is more accurate than science is better science, not an opinion site on the net.

Again, all the focus is on the messenger (in this case, the site) and not on the message. I said in the OP that, if certain claims concerning the LifeSite News site were true, I was opposed to them. That being said, the article I referenced in the OP seems to be on point.
The only thing that tops science is better science, and that has not been provided here, I think.

Ideally, in a discussion, we would discuss the evidence and why we think it's good or bad, not say "so and so doesn't like your source". But I guess we get what we get.
Let me give you an analogy... let's say I am walking down a street in Baltimore with 10 foresters, i.e. tree experts. I point to a tree 20 feet away in a yard and ask the group what species of tree it is knowing no one has seen that specific tree until that moment. Nine of the ten foresters state it is a cherry tree. One of the foresters states it is a fake tree with a brown rubber trunk with phony leaves made of green paper. He gives no further explanation other than he thinks it is a fake tree. My question is; why should I accept the answer from the forester who states it is a fake tree over the other opinions? If that one forester writes a book called The Fake Cherry Trees of Baltimore, a book denounced by 98% of tree experts, am I being biased if I refuse to read it?

I can explain the rationale of my thinking only so many times (and I just explained it once more) before I realize that some people are simply going to believe the forester who claims the tree to be fake.
Trump is a forester too ?
:stir:
 

StormAl

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2021
Messages
1,744
Reaction score
986
Points
893
I don 't think Trump is a forester, but that would be a step up from where he was and is.
 
OP
phoenyx

phoenyx

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2016
Messages
1,982
Reaction score
428
Points
140
Location
Canada
this is how covid and vaccines tie in with the reset. it is a must see.


I've seen a bit of that video in the past. I'm skeptical of some of her statements, but I think she does make some good points too. As a general rule, when discussing things, I prefer articles as they are much easier to quote. So I went looking for some articles that include Katherine in them from one of my trusted sources, here's one regarding vaccine mandates:
 
OP
phoenyx

phoenyx

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2016
Messages
1,982
Reaction score
428
Points
140
Location
Canada

I've been a fan of Dr. Sherri Tenpenny for a while now, mainly because I would follow her on Facebook. Perhaps I still do, but I don't log on to facebook nearly as much these days.


watch this 2005 briefing to the CIA on gel nanotechnology changing the way one thinks. some say it is not bill gates, but the subject matters is what should scare the bejezus out of everyone.

Bill Gates Briefing to CIA 2005

I think it's crazy that he actually thinks that vaccines will help stop terrorism -.-

if it alters emotion, imagine how easily they could take our money, property, children, and more.

right now the military has set up a gym only for vaccinated soldiers. are they lab rats to see if who mutates the virus and how many get it? are they afraid the unvaccinated will infect them and they in turn infect everyone with a stronger virus.

something doesn't feel right about this.

Where did you hear about this gym?
 
OP
phoenyx

phoenyx

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2016
Messages
1,982
Reaction score
428
Points
140
Location
Canada
Thursday, March 13, 2008
LifeSite News: A Study in Bias and Propaganda

On any given day, a reader with any semblance of critical reading skills can take a day's sample of LifeSiteNews' headlines and find error, lies, and distortions of the truth. (I have blogged about several egregious example previously). As my friend Jane Know said one time, when a person cites LifeSiteNews believing that it's honest, accurate, or unbiased journalism, it sort of automatically discredits that person as an arbiter of competence or journalistic integrity.
-------
I don't think much has changed in 13 years at LifeSiteNews.

The only thing that is more accurate than science is better science, not an opinion site on the net.

Again, all the focus is on the messenger (in this case, the site) and not on the message. I said in the OP that, if certain claims concerning the LifeSite News site were true, I was opposed to them. That being said, the article I referenced in the OP seems to be on point.
The only thing that tops science is better science, and that has not been provided here, I think.

Ideally, in a discussion, we would discuss the evidence and why we think it's good or bad, not say "so and so doesn't like your source". But I guess we get what we get.
Let me give you an analogy... let's say I am walking down a street in Baltimore with 10 foresters, i.e. tree experts. I point to a tree 20 feet away in a yard and ask the group what species of tree it is knowing no one has seen that specific tree until that moment. Nine of the ten foresters state it is a cherry tree. One of the foresters states it is a fake tree with a brown rubber trunk with phony leaves made of green paper. He gives no further explanation other than he thinks it is a fake tree. My question is; why should I accept the answer from the forester who states it is a fake tree over the other opinions? If that one forester writes a book called The Fake Cherry Trees of Baltimore, a book denounced by 98% of tree experts, am I being biased if I refuse to read it?

I can explain the rationale of my thinking only so many times (and I just explained it once more) before I realize that some people are simply going to believe the forester who claims the tree to be fake.

Not a big fan of analogies here- don't think they're needed and they can make the conversation appear to be fairly silly. If you don't like a given source, one thing you might try is seeing if they link to sources that you -do- like. If you do, then you can basically do an end run around the source you don't like and double check with the sources you do. Children's Health Defense links to a lot of mainstream sources, so this is frequently quite doable in this case.
 
Last edited:

Turtlesoup

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2020
Messages
6,928
Reaction score
8,018
Points
2,118
I started thinking that it might make more sense to have a single thread concerning Covid Vaccine articles and perspectives in general. If it gets a lot of traffic, I might subdivide it a bit more, but thinking it'd be good to start with this. To start things off, I thought I'd start with an article from a website I don't think I've sourced from before, lifesitenews.com. Before we begin, I imagine that someone will chime in saying that mediabiasfactcheck doesn't like them. I know. I'm not that keen on mediabiasfactcheck a lot of the time either. I even decided to make a thread a bit ago with 3 articles from 3 different sites giving reasons why these sites also don't like them. It's here for anyone interested:


That being said, I don't know much about Lifesitenews, so I will quote a bit about what mediabiasfactcheck's article on them says and then make a few comments:
**
In review, LifeSiteNews primarily reports on anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, and pro-Evangelical Christian issues. An example of a pro-Christian story is why being Christian means traveling with Jesus from Bethlehem to Calvary. LifeSiteNews also has a favorable opinion of former President Trump, as evidenced by this piece: How Trump brought Christmas back to America. Editorially, every story is right-leaning, including this story that sources non-credible sources such as Rush Limbaugh and CNSNews. In general, story selection favors the Christian right and denigrates the left, while not always being factual in reporting.
**

If what they say is true on this, then I'll say that I am pro abortion, pro gay marriage, not a Christian (I'm a Pantheist) and have always disliked Trump. When I perused the article below, I didn't see them getting into any of those subjects, so I think we're in the clear. Now, on to quoting a bit from one of their articles:
**
April 7, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — Dr. Michael Yeadon, Pfizer's former Vice President and Chief Scientist for Allergy & Respiratory who spent 32 years in the industry leading new medicines research and retired from the pharmaceutical giant with “the most senior research position” in his field, spoke with LifeSiteNews.

He addressed the “demonstrably false” propaganda from governments in response to COVID-19, including the “lie” of dangerous variants, the totalitarian potential for “vaccine passports,” and the strong possibility we are dealing with a “conspiracy” which could lead to something far beyond the carnage experienced in the wars and massacres of the 20th century.

**

Their full article is here:

Constructive feedback welcome.
Think everyone else should take them first----------IF they survive and the drugs work, then I shouldn't have to take a "vaccine" myself.
 

amethyst

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2016
Messages
1,489
Reaction score
1,042
Points
2,025

I've been a fan of Dr. Sherri Tenpenny for a while now, mainly because I would follow her on Facebook. Perhaps I still do, but I don't log on to facebook nearly as much these days.


watch this 2005 briefing to the CIA on gel nanotechnology changing the way one thinks. some say it is not bill gates, but the subject matters is what should scare the bejezus out of everyone.

Bill Gates Briefing to CIA 2005

I think it's crazy that he actually thinks that vaccines will help stop terrorism -.-

if it alters emotion, imagine how easily they could take our money, property, children, and more.

right now the military has set up a gym only for vaccinated soldiers. are they lab rats to see if who mutates the virus and how many get it? are they afraid the unvaccinated will infect them and they in turn infect everyone with a stronger virus.

something doesn't feel right about this.

Where did you hear about this gym?

I saw it on liberty daily last week but this is the only article I can find

 

Orangecat

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2020
Messages
3,795
Reaction score
4,336
Points
1,918
170628700_10219962375153183_1199796079735776607_n.jpg
 
OP
phoenyx

phoenyx

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2016
Messages
1,982
Reaction score
428
Points
140
Location
Canada

I've been a fan of Dr. Sherri Tenpenny for a while now, mainly because I would follow her on Facebook. Perhaps I still do, but I don't log on to facebook nearly as much these days.


watch this 2005 briefing to the CIA on gel nanotechnology changing the way one thinks. some say it is not bill gates, but the subject matters is what should scare the bejezus out of everyone.

Bill Gates Briefing to CIA 2005

I think it's crazy that he actually thinks that vaccines will help stop terrorism -.-

if it alters emotion, imagine how easily they could take our money, property, children, and more.

right now the military has set up a gym only for vaccinated soldiers. are they lab rats to see if who mutates the virus and how many get it? are they afraid the unvaccinated will infect them and they in turn infect everyone with a stronger virus.

something doesn't feel right about this.

Where did you hear about this gym?

I saw it on liberty daily last week but this is the only article I can find


Ah ok. I think that's just a way to pressure people into taking the vaccine. Shouldn't be happening, but there you have it.
 

amethyst

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2016
Messages
1,489
Reaction score
1,042
Points
2,025
this is how covid and vaccines tie in with the reset. it is a must see.


I've seen a bit of that video in the past. I'm skeptical of some of her statements, but I think she does make some good points too. As a general rule, when discussing things, I prefer articles as they are much easier to quote. So I went looking for some articles that include Katherine in them from one of my trusted sources, here's one regarding vaccine mandates:

just read the transcript- interesting. those doctors are trying to warn us about the dangers of untested vaccines and the upcoming tyrannical rule over our bodies. the article points to California taking away medical exemptions and this is the barbaric news today:


Los Angeles police are force-vaccinating special needs children in heinous "Operation Homebound" program that resembles Nazi euthanasia of the retarded.
Los Angeles police are force-vaccinating special needs children in heinous
 

HaShev

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
13,296
Reaction score
3,476
Points
265
I started thinking that it might make more sense to have a single thread concerning Covid Vaccine articles and perspectives in general. If it gets a lot of traffic, I might subdivide it a bit more, but thinking it'd be good to start with this. To start things off, I thought I'd start with an article from a website I don't think I've sourced from before, lifesitenews.com. Before we begin, I imagine that someone will chime in saying that mediabiasfactcheck doesn't like them. I know. I'm not that keen on mediabiasfactcheck a lot of the time either. I even decided to make a thread a bit ago with 3 articles from 3 different sites giving reasons why these sites also don't like them. It's here for anyone interested:


That being said, I don't know much about Lifesitenews, so I will quote a bit about what mediabiasfactcheck's article on them says and then make a few comments:
**
In review, LifeSiteNews primarily reports on anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, and pro-Evangelical Christian issues. An example of a pro-Christian story is why being Christian means traveling with Jesus from Bethlehem to Calvary. LifeSiteNews also has a favorable opinion of former President Trump, as evidenced by this piece: How Trump brought Christmas back to America. Editorially, every story is right-leaning, including this story that sources non-credible sources such as Rush Limbaugh and CNSNews. In general, story selection favors the Christian right and denigrates the left, while not always being factual in reporting.
**

If what they say is true on this, then I'll say that I am pro abortion, pro gay marriage, not a Christian (I'm a Pantheist) and have always disliked Trump. When I perused the article below, I didn't see them getting into any of those subjects, so I think we're in the clear. Now, on to quoting a bit from one of their articles:
**
April 7, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — Dr. Michael Yeadon, Pfizer's former Vice President and Chief Scientist for Allergy & Respiratory who spent 32 years in the industry leading new medicines research and retired from the pharmaceutical giant with “the most senior research position” in his field, spoke with LifeSiteNews.

He addressed the “demonstrably false” propaganda from governments in response to COVID-19, including the “lie” of dangerous variants, the totalitarian potential for “vaccine passports,” and the strong possibility we are dealing with a “conspiracy” which could lead to something far beyond the carnage experienced in the wars and massacres of the 20th century.

**

Their full article is here:

Constructive feedback welcome.
A. I got my shot back in August as part of the moderna trial. I've had no ill effects, nor have I contracted the virus. Last week I still had high levels of "neutralizing antibodies" as well.

B. We do have a forum specifically for wacky conspiracy theories. I'd suggest using it.
They are already talking about boosters for you, so by time the rest of the Population is vaccinated you'll be on your booster. In fact if antibodies last only six months, you might need a booster by now.
 

StormAl

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2021
Messages
1,744
Reaction score
986
Points
893
Thursday, March 13, 2008
LifeSite News: A Study in Bias and Propaganda

On any given day, a reader with any semblance of critical reading skills can take a day's sample of LifeSiteNews' headlines and find error, lies, and distortions of the truth. (I have blogged about several egregious example previously). As my friend Jane Know said one time, when a person cites LifeSiteNews believing that it's honest, accurate, or unbiased journalism, it sort of automatically discredits that person as an arbiter of competence or journalistic integrity.
-------
I don't think much has changed in 13 years at LifeSiteNews.

The only thing that is more accurate than science is better science, not an opinion site on the net.

Again, all the focus is on the messenger (in this case, the site) and not on the message. I said in the OP that, if certain claims concerning the LifeSite News site were true, I was opposed to them. That being said, the article I referenced in the OP seems to be on point.
The only thing that tops science is better science, and that has not been provided here, I think.

Ideally, in a discussion, we would discuss the evidence and why we think it's good or bad, not say "so and so doesn't like your source". But I guess we get what we get.
Let me give you an analogy... let's say I am walking down a street in Baltimore with 10 foresters, i.e. tree experts. I point to a tree 20 feet away in a yard and ask the group what species of tree it is knowing no one has seen that specific tree until that moment. Nine of the ten foresters state it is a cherry tree. One of the foresters states it is a fake tree with a brown rubber trunk with phony leaves made of green paper. He gives no further explanation other than he thinks it is a fake tree. My question is; why should I accept the answer from the forester who states it is a fake tree over the other opinions? If that one forester writes a book called The Fake Cherry Trees of Baltimore, a book denounced by 98% of tree experts, am I being biased if I refuse to read it?

I can explain the rationale of my thinking only so many times (and I just explained it once more) before I realize that some people are simply going to believe the forester who claims the tree to be fake.

Not a big fan of analogies here- don't think they're needed and they can make the conversation appear to be fairly silly. If you don't like a given source, one thing you might try is seeing if they link to sources that you -do- like. If you do, then you can basically do an end run around the source you don't like and double check with the sources you do. Children's Health Defense links to a lot of mainstream sources, so this is frequently quite doable in this case.
No credible expert has given scientific evidence to say that vaccine is no good.
 

GalileoSmith

Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2021
Messages
71
Reaction score
43
Points
21
Location
Columbus, Ohio
Thursday, March 13, 2008
LifeSite News: A Study in Bias and Propaganda

On any given day, a reader with any semblance of critical reading skills can take a day's sample of LifeSiteNews' headlines and find error, lies, and distortions of the truth. (I have blogged about several egregious example previously). As my friend Jane Know said one time, when a person cites LifeSiteNews believing that it's honest, accurate, or unbiased journalism, it sort of automatically discredits that person as an arbiter of competence or journalistic integrity.
-------
I don't think much has changed in 13 years at LifeSiteNews.

The only thing that is more accurate than science is better science, not an opinion site on the net.

Again, all the focus is on the messenger (in this case, the site) and not on the message. I said in the OP that, if certain claims concerning the LifeSite News site were true, I was opposed to them. That being said, the article I referenced in the OP seems to be on point.
The only thing that tops science is better science, and that has not been provided here, I think.

Ideally, in a discussion, we would discuss the evidence and why we think it's good or bad, not say "so and so doesn't like your source". But I guess we get what we get.
Let me give you an analogy... let's say I am walking down a street in Baltimore with 10 foresters, i.e. tree experts. I point to a tree 20 feet away in a yard and ask the group what species of tree it is knowing no one has seen that specific tree until that moment. Nine of the ten foresters state it is a cherry tree. One of the foresters states it is a fake tree with a brown rubber trunk with phony leaves made of green paper. He gives no further explanation other than he thinks it is a fake tree. My question is; why should I accept the answer from the forester who states it is a fake tree over the other opinions? If that one forester writes a book called The Fake Cherry Trees of Baltimore, a book denounced by 98% of tree experts, am I being biased if I refuse to read it?

I can explain the rationale of my thinking only so many times (and I just explained it once more) before I realize that some people are simply going to believe the forester who claims the tree to be fake.

Not a big fan of analogies here- don't think they're needed and they can make the conversation appear to be fairly silly. If you don't like a given source, one thing you might try is seeing if they link to sources that you -do- like. If you do, then you can basically do an end run around the source you don't like and double check with the sources you do. Children's Health Defense links to a lot of mainstream sources, so this is frequently quite doable in this case.
I know you don't see it this way, but the conversation is pretty silly. That's one more reason why my analogy is valid. The Children's Health Defense likely has people who believe in healthy diets and good hygiene. But it is not a creditable source.
 
Last edited:
OP
phoenyx

phoenyx

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2016
Messages
1,982
Reaction score
428
Points
140
Location
Canada
this is how covid and vaccines tie in with the reset. it is a must see.


I've seen a bit of that video in the past. I'm skeptical of some of her statements, but I think she does make some good points too. As a general rule, when discussing things, I prefer articles as they are much easier to quote. So I went looking for some articles that include Katherine in them from one of my trusted sources, here's one regarding vaccine mandates:

just read the transcript- interesting. those doctors are trying to warn us about the dangers of untested vaccines and the upcoming tyrannical rule over our bodies. the article points to California taking away medical exemptions and this is the barbaric news today:


Los Angeles police are force-vaccinating special needs children in heinous "Operation Homebound" program that resembles Nazi euthanasia of the retarded.
Los Angeles police are force-vaccinating special needs children in heinous

Horrible :-/.
 
OP
phoenyx

phoenyx

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2016
Messages
1,982
Reaction score
428
Points
140
Location
Canada
No credible expert has given scientific evidence to say that vaccine is no good.

You're embarassing yourself here. The OP has an article citing the former VP of Pfizer.
 
OP
phoenyx

phoenyx

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2016
Messages
1,982
Reaction score
428
Points
140
Location
Canada
Not a big fan of analogies here- don't think they're needed and they can make the conversation appear to be fairly silly. If you don't like a given source, one thing you might try is seeing if they link to sources that you -do- like. If you do, then you can basically do an end run around the source you don't like and double check with the sources you do. Children's Health Defense links to a lot of mainstream sources, so this is frequently quite doable in this case.

I know you don't see it this way, but the conversation is pretty silly.

I kind of agree. I'm tired of wasting time on people who would rather waste time talking about how they don't like the source instead of focusing on what the source is saying, and the evidence they bring to the table.
 

blackhawk

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2012
Messages
29,272
Reaction score
9,937
Points
900
Location
Deep in the heart of Texas.
I got the vaccine back in February no ill effects from it. If you want the vaccine get it if you don’t then don’t it’s the individual’s choice and I’m not going to bust anyone’s chops over no matter what decide to do.
 

GalileoSmith

Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2021
Messages
71
Reaction score
43
Points
21
Location
Columbus, Ohio
Not a big fan of analogies here- don't think they're needed and they can make the conversation appear to be fairly silly. If you don't like a given source, one thing you might try is seeing if they link to sources that you -do- like. If you do, then you can basically do an end run around the source you don't like and double check with the sources you do. Children's Health Defense links to a lot of mainstream sources, so this is frequently quite doable in this case.

I know you don't see it this way, but the conversation is pretty silly.

I kind of agree. I'm tired of wasting time on people who would rather waste time talking about how they don't like the source instead of focusing on what the source is saying, and the evidence they bring to the table.
I could go on and on with examples. Let's say an experienced hiker warns me about going into the forest due to concerns of Sasquatch roaming the woods. I express doubts that there is reason for concern. The hiker cites a book by a forest ranger about the existence of Sasquatch. Do you think such a book should be read based on the hiker's warning? That's an actual question because you are, in effect, that hiker. So, should I feel compelled to read the book?
 

StormAl

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2021
Messages
1,744
Reaction score
986
Points
893
No credible expert has given scientific evidence to say that vaccine is no good.

You're embarassing yourself here. The OP has an article citing the former VP of Pfizer.
That is not what the VP said or you would have quoted the full statement.


Ongoing trial shows Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine remains highly ...
www.cnn.com › 2021/04/01 › health
Apr 01, 2021 · Pfizer/BioNTech says its Covid-19 vaccine is 100% effective and well tolerated in adolescents The findings indicate protection will last even longer than six months, vaccine experts said. "The...


Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine Overview and Safety | CDC
www.cdc.gov › coronavirus › 2019-ncov
Apr 05, 2021 · Based on evidence from clinical trials, the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was 95% effective at preventing laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 illness in people without evidence of previous infection. CDC will continue to provide updates as we learn more about how well the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine works in real-world conditions.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$350.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top