The Political Fray - Political Forum
Go Back   Political Fray > The Political Fray > Religion

Religion For discussion about different religions and belief structures - Please be respectful of other's beliefs


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old February 21st, 2010, 03:15 PM   #21
Intern
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 21

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seer Travis Truman View Post
There is no such things as "religious" Truth.
If read that quote in context, then you would know that I was talking about what certain religions claim to hold as truth.

Quote:
The proof is in human behaviour and psychological analysis. I demonstrate via argument. Thus far, I have outlined why humans selectively invent god creatures.
We have both demonstrated that it is essentially a need of comfort, reassurance about death and fear of the unknown.

Quote:
Firstly this does not relate to what I wrote before/
Yes, there are limitations. However, My Superiority allows Me to recognise, analyse, desire and embrace all Truth.
Yes, it does indeed relate to what you wrote before, as I quoted your post. "My Superiority" only makes me think of you as an ego maniac that gets off on making himself look big on an internet forum. Really, I've seen nothing of significance regarding your "superiority" or what you claim to be truth (I'll put it in a lower case "t" for now because you can't seem to be able to prove it just yet.)

Quote:
My point is that I don't need to disprove god, they need to prove. You can falsify the god creature, but failure to completely falsify the god creature does not matter, as long as there is evidence against the god creature claims.
Both need to present their sides of the argument, although the burden of proof overwhelmingly lies with the theists.


Quote:
You are laughable. I told you already. If you cannot understand what Truth is, society has done a perfect job of breaking your mind.
I never said you were laughable, so cool it. I refuse to accept anything as truth until that truth can be properly verified repeatedly and passed the requirement of evidence. If anything, you could be considered laughable because every time you post, you claim truth yet you can never demonstrate it, prove it or show it to even one person.

Last edited by Ice Age; February 21st, 2010 at 03:19 PM.
Ice Age is offline  
Old February 21st, 2010, 03:17 PM   #22
GOP
Representative
 
GOP's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2010
From: United Kingdom
Posts: 360

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seer Travis Truman View Post
It applies to all god-addicts. They will not and cannot face up to a single Truth regarding their addiction. Some do break free, but usually only to a degree.
So what you're saying is that having a religious belief is being addicted? I find your way judging so many people as arrogant and it really gives me the impression of you not knowing what you're talking about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seer Travis Truman View Post
They are not cold nor brutal. You just make these descriptors up.
Like you make up that people who believe in a God are having an almost unbeatable addiction?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seer Travis Truman View Post
What accusation?
This one:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seer Travis Truman View Post
You are incorrect. All god-addicts are mentally ill and suffering from a delusional complex. Their brains are actually physically diseased both in the first place and further so due to god-myth infection.
GOP is offline  
Old February 21st, 2010, 03:49 PM   #23
Banned
 
Joined: Feb 2010
From: Australia
Posts: 151

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice Age View Post
If read that quote in context, then you would know that I was talking about what certain religions claim to hold as truth.
Does not matter. Being a claim does not make their words Truth. They are based on Truth-denial and lies.

Quote:
We have both demonstrated that it is essentially a need of comfort, reassurance about death and fear of the unknown.
Yes, this is one of the cornerstones of addiction to the insane god myth.

Quote:
Yes, it does indeed relate to what you wrote before, as I quoted your post.
I cannot see the relevance.

Quote:
"My Superiority" only makes me think of you as an ego maniac that gets off on making himself look big on an internet forum. Really, I've seen nothing of significance regarding your "superiority" or what you claim to be truth (I'll put it in a lower case "t" for now because you can't seem to be able to prove it just yet.)
I am Superior. I am a Seer of Forbidden Truth. I know the Forbidden Truth. My posts and website clearly are Forbidden Truth to any sane, rational thinker.

What you think of Me is not important.

Quote:
Both need to present their sides of the argument, although the burden of proof overwhelmingly lies with the theists.
I already have shown that there is not a single shred of legitimate evidence that a god creature even might so much exists, proving that no such creature exists.

Certainly, the christian god is falsifiable, but why bother going into that when there is nothing to challenge?

Quote:
I never said you were laughable, so cool it.
I never got upset or experienced any other emotion due to your post.
By suggesting My core philosophy is laughable, you infer that I am laughable. However, the Superior never experiences any negative emotion due to the attacks or inability to recognize his Forbidden Truth knowledge.

Quote:
I refuse to accept anything as truth until that truth can be properly verified repeatedly and passed the requirement of evidence. If anything, you could be considered laughable because every time you post, you claim truth yet you can never demonstrate it, prove it or show it to even one person.
What you ask is "what is Truth." Your question is stupid. Truth itself cannot be proven nor demonstrated. If you cannot know what Truth is, then your mind is not functioning correctly. Just as a tortoise finds water by instinct, the ability to know what Truth is will always be just a matter inherent understanding of same.
Seer Travis Truman is offline  
Old February 25th, 2010, 01:32 AM   #24
Intern
 
markopete's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 6

What is possible and what is impossible.

For me to make the claim that something is possible, I need to offer proof that it is.

The same criteria apply for the contrary.
For some one to make the claim that something that something is impossible, I need to see proof that would substantiate that claim.

Some dictionary excerpts:
Evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
A: The cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact B: the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning.

Our concept of the truth can only be based on our CONCEPT of validity!

Last edited by markopete; February 25th, 2010 at 01:36 AM.
markopete is offline  
Old February 25th, 2010, 04:54 AM   #25
Banned
 
Joined: Feb 2010
From: Australia
Posts: 151

Quote:
Originally Posted by markopete View Post
What is possible and what is impossible. For me to make the claim that something is possible, I need to offer proof that it is.
This is a claim of existence, not impossibility. Notwithstanding that, proof is required.

Quote:
The same criteria apply for the contrary.
Incorrect. Proof is only required for the actual positive claim. You cannot present proof of something that does not exist. The idea that something with no basis whatsoever, that is illogical, contradictory and against all the known facts, as the god myth is, needs no evidential basis is utterly retarded and deranged.

Quote:
For some one to make the claim that something that something is impossible, I need to see proof that would substantiate that claim.
That statement makes no sense. You need to ask for proof from the ones making the claims.

Quote:
Some dictionary excerpts:
Evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
Exactly. To estabish it is TRUE not false.

Quote:
Our concept of the truth can only be based on our CONCEPT of validity!
Wrong. 99.99999% of humans do not base their concept of what constitutes Truth on anything but deranged lies and myths.


There is no such thing as a god creature. Thats just a fact. It's a make believe delusional construct. There is not a shred of legitimate evidence that a god creature might exist. There is a mountain of evidence that the god creature does not exist. This is proof right there that the god creature does not exist.

Last edited by Seer Travis Truman; February 25th, 2010 at 04:59 AM.
Seer Travis Truman is offline  
Old February 25th, 2010, 05:21 AM   #26
Intern
 
markopete's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 6

Quote:
You cannot present proof of something that does not exist.
What does not exist?

Quote:
The idea that something with no basis whatsoever, that is illogical, contradictory and against all the known facts is utterly retarded and deranged
No idea what you are saying there?

Quote:
Wrong. 99.99999% of humans do not base their concept of what constitutes Truth on anything but deranged lies and myths.
How did you come to that conclusion?
Seems to me you have based your arguments, on assumptions and conclusions, from which you will not divert...That is a dangerous stance to take......

I have not declared any particular stance on what this whole thread is about, it sounds to me that you have made assumptions on what my views are, which simply are one of keeping an open mind and being aware that I could be 100% wrong about any of my beliefs.
markopete is offline  
Old February 25th, 2010, 06:21 AM   #27
Anarchist
 
Dirk's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2009
From: Disunited Queendom
Posts: 1,943

*sigh* Can't prove a negative.

Haven't we gone over this?
Dirk is offline  
Old February 25th, 2010, 06:43 AM   #28
Intern
 
markopete's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 6

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirk View Post
*sigh* Can't prove a negative.

Haven't we gone over this?
You have made some made some statements in reference to this.. Which one you are referring too?

I will repeat my question, how can anyone say that something is impossible with out offering the means of how they arrived at that conclusion?
markopete is offline  
Old February 25th, 2010, 06:53 AM   #29
Anarchist
 
Dirk's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2009
From: Disunited Queendom
Posts: 1,943

Quote:
Originally Posted by markopete View Post
You have made some made some statements in reference to this.. Which one you are referring too?

I will repeat my question, how can anyone say that something is impossible with out offering the means of how they arrived at that conclusion?
I cannot speak for the Seer, who speaks only the Truth.

But i will say:

Nobody's claiming, not even the Seer, that a god is impossible. But that until the claim is proven beyond reasonable doubt, for all intents and purposes, a god does not exist.

It's about empiricism - the whole point of the process is to ascertain fact by demonstrable proof, from the position of scepticism.

Does that help, comrade?
Dirk is offline  
Old February 25th, 2010, 07:21 AM   #30
Intern
 
markopete's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 6

[COLOR=#323232]
Quote:
[COLOR=#323232] Nobody's claiming, not even the Seer, that a god is impossible
[COLOR=#323232]
[COLOR=#323232] Well then perhaps we are in grievance of sorts, what I am saying is relative to this thread but I am not being specific about whether God, does or does not exist.
[COLOR=#323232]
[COLOR=#323232] I am not in a position to conclude that the answer is affirmative or negative, and that is my whole point. I simply say that proof IS needed before anyone can make a statement either way, albeit about the existence God or anything else for that matter.
[COLOR=#323232]
[COLOR=#323232] I speak of facts and not about beliefs. As in science, evidence is required.
[COLOR=#323232]
[COLOR=#323232] [COLOR=#323232]
Quote:
[COLOR=#323232] Incorrect. Proof is only required for the actual positive claim.
Can you expalin what you mean by the statement above?
markopete is offline  
Old February 25th, 2010, 07:43 AM   #31
Anarchist
 
Dirk's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2009
From: Disunited Queendom
Posts: 1,943

Quote:
Originally Posted by markopete View Post
[COLOR=#323232] [COLOR=#323232]Can you expalin what you mean by the statement above?
I've just explained - did i not do so clearly enough?

Oh, and i am not Seer Travis Truman. I am myself.

Last edited by Dirk; February 25th, 2010 at 07:58 AM.
Dirk is offline  
Old February 25th, 2010, 05:57 PM   #32
Banned
 
Joined: Feb 2010
From: Australia
Posts: 151

Quote:
Originally Posted by markopete View Post
Well then perhaps we are in grievance of sorts, what I am saying is relative to this thread but I am not being specific about whether God, does or does not exist.
You are. Agnostics are just god-addicts who cannot face up to themselves that that is what they are. They are in denial over their god-addiction.

Quote:
I am not in a position to conclude that the answer is affirmative or negative, and that is my whole point. I simply say that proof IS needed before anyone can make a statement either way, albeit about the existence God or anything else for that matter.
Incorrect. There is already a false, lie-based claim that a god creature exists. That is a statement of positive claim. You say that proof is needed before this happens, and yet in this case you not only have not evidence whatsoever, but a mountain of evidence to the contrary.

Quote:
I speak of facts and not about beliefs. As in science, evidence is required.
So you reject My rejection of the god myth because of lack of evidence, even though you refuse to do reject the actual god myth itself. How utterly deranged!

If you Truly followed rational thinking, you would have rejected the god myth.

Quote:
Can you explain what you mean by the statement above?
{Above was Seer TT : "Incorrect. Proof is only required for the actual positive claim."}

Simple. Claim made by god-addicts : "A god creature exists."...plus whatever christian babble is attached to it. That is a positive claim - it claims god exists as described.

My retort "God does not exist." That is a negative. Essentially, it is simply the rejection of their insane claim.
Seer Travis Truman is offline  
Old February 25th, 2010, 08:52 PM   #33
Intern
 
markopete's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 6

Quote:
Above was Seer TT : "Incorrect. Proof is only required for the actual positive claim."}

[FONT=Times New Roman]Perhaps not THE most ridiculous statement I have ever heard, but with out a doubt right up there in the top ten!
[FONT=Times New Roman]
[FONT=Times New Roman]Where did I make the declaration that God exists? You continually make assumptions and assertions, which is why your arguments are flawed to say the least. Perhaps if you applied some rational and challenged your own beliefs occasionally you may see that perspective?s can and do vary on any given subject material.
[FONT=Times New Roman]
[FONT=Times New Roman]In the scheme of total knowledge, we as human?s beings are privy to how much of that information. Most likely next to nothing. You claim to know the answer that God does not exist by reverting to the absurd (I hesitate to use the word rational) that Proof is only required for the actual positive claim.
[FONT=Times New Roman]
[FONT=Times New Roman] History is full of maniacs that justified there actions on beliefs based on ideals and dismissing any argument that threatened there own beliefs. Creationists included.
[FONT=Times New Roman]
[FONT=Times New Roman] You often post a quote of something I have said, and then you misquote me in your answer. If you do not have the ability to answer me subjectively, then do not answer me at all, particularly by misrepresenting my answers in a vain attempt to rationalize your own conclusions..
markopete is offline  
Old February 25th, 2010, 10:22 PM   #34
Banned
 
Joined: Feb 2010
From: Australia
Posts: 151

Quote:
Originally Posted by markopete View Post
Perhaps not THE most ridiculous statement I have ever heard, but with out a doubt right up there in the top ten!
You feel the need to ridicule Truth.

Quote:
Where did I make the declaration that God exists? You continually make assumptions and assertions, which is why your arguments are flawed to say the least.
You presume, not Me. I never said you believe in god because no evidence exists. I never said you declared god exists.

Quote:
Perhaps if you applied some rational and challenged your own beliefs occasionally you may see that perspective’s can and do vary on any given subject material.
I dont say that "perspectives" dont vary. I say that My revelations are the Truth, and they are. All other "perspectives" are simply wrong.

I am showing you how evidence is required to suggest god exists. You start it, you quoted Me. Dont you understand what you have written yourself?

Quote:
In the scheme of total knowledge, we as human’s beings are privy to how much of that information. Most likely next to nothing. You claim to know the answer that God does not exist by reverting to the absurd (I hesitate to use the word rational) that Proof is only required for the actual positive claim.
Your position is a lie, it is a form of denial and it is absurd. Not Mine. It is True that humans possess limited knowledge. However, does that matter? NO!

Take a sum. 1+1=2. I am correct. Do I need to know the answer to every single conceivable sum to know I am correct? Of course not.

Take the fact that human societies engage in the insane war ritual. I know that. Do I need to know the location of every satellite currently orbiting the earth to know it is so? Of course not. Do I need to know the names of every slave-weapon or "soldier" in order to know the insane ritual of war is engaged in? No!

Take the fact that the "easter bunny" does not exist. Do I need know the temperature of Venus to make this claim? Of course not. Should scholars group around and make careers out of examining carrots and spying on children's pillows under the ridiculous justification that they need to impossibly find "negative proof" of the "easter bunny" to say he does not exist? Of course not - and of course its a fact that the "easter bunny" does not exist.

To suggest that the "easter bunny" exists, or that its not a fact that he does not exist, is utterly ridiculous! Do I need some form of impossible and phantom "proof" to refute the "easter bunny" claim? Of course not!

The Truth is that the person who makes the affirmative claim need to present the evidence. There is not a single shred of evidence to suggest that there might even be a god creature, to give anyone any reason to even think that a god creature might exist.

Quote:
History is full of maniacs that justified there actions on beliefs based on ideals and dismissing any argument that threatened there own beliefs. Creationists included.
99.99999% of humans operate under this perverse system. I do not.

Quote:
You often post a quote of something I have said, and then you misquote me in your answer. If you do not have the ability to answer me subjectively, then do not answer me at all, particularly by misrepresenting my answers in a vain attempt to rationalize your own conclusions.
I reproduce your quotes 100% accurately, then I show why you are wrong. You just cannot think of any way to promote your crazy assertion that a total lack of evidence can somehow trump the mountain of evidence that god might exist.

The fact is that no god creature exists. That is a proven fact that most choose to reject.

Last edited by Seer Travis Truman; February 25th, 2010 at 10:38 PM.
Seer Travis Truman is offline  
Old February 25th, 2010, 11:30 PM   #35
Intern
 
markopete's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 6

Analogies along the lines of yours, and I mean by comparisons of how improbable they sound, not the analogies themselves, were scoffed and laughed at in the area of just 150 years ago. Today they are facts.

Scientists scoffed at certain concepts and theory’s less then 5 years ago are now gaining a widening acceptance as being probable. Some of these sound one hell of a lot wilder then the probability that the Easter bunny is out there.

You are stuck in the same loop with your repetitive arguments because you lock your logic processes into a small two-dimensional idealism, which you cannot expand on.

You continually fail to recognize what I am saying, even though I have repeated it again and again, I welcome a discussion about whether or not there is a God or not, But I would do so with an open mind and with respect to those that do not agree with me regardless of what ever stance I may have on the question..

I have my opinions about the subject and I choose to keep it to my self, make your usual assumptions and insert your usual ridicule here >>>>> <<<<

Lock the following into that restricted area where your brain resides: I am taking issue about how you have concluded your opinions and challenge the validity of the process you use to reach them.

You continually make the claim that YOU are right and belittle those that do not agree with your opinions.

I would get more sense by having a discussion with a banana then you. I will leave you to live your life in the constant arrogance that you are obviously accustomed too; however I still do wish you well.
markopete is offline  
Old February 26th, 2010, 05:10 AM   #36
Banned
 
Joined: Feb 2010
From: Australia
Posts: 151

Quote:
Originally Posted by markopete View Post
Analogies along the lines of yours, and I mean by comparisons of how improbable they sound, not the analogies themselves, were scoffed and laughed at in the area of just 150 years ago. Today they are facts.
That is because evidence was found to support them as facts. The insane god myth has ZERO evidence to support it, and a mountain of evidence against the claims made.

The thing is there was some reason to believe in them. The earth was first thought round because of FACTS and reasons, then later proven.

Quote:
Scientists scoffed at certain concepts and theory?s less then 5 years ago are now gaining a widening acceptance as being probable. Some of these sound one hell of a lot wilder then the probability that the Easter bunny is out there.
There is ZERO probability that an easter bunny exists. Its a fairy-tale.

Quote:
You are stuck in the same loop with your repetitive arguments because you lock your logic processes into a small two-dimensional idealism, which you cannot expand on.
No, My argument is looping because you fail to comprehend it and keep repeating the same error.

Quote:
You continually fail to recognize what I am saying, even though I have repeated it again and again,
I recognise what you suggest, and reject it because it has no rational or sane basis.

Quote:
You continually make the claim that YOU are right and belittle those that do not agree with your opinions.
That is because I am right, I am correct, and your answers make you feel belittled because they are so ridiculous.


Typical. Another human being who cannot understand the simply Truth that there is no god creature or easter bunny.
Seer Travis Truman is offline  
Old February 26th, 2010, 01:45 PM   #37
Representative
 
dave's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: Alaska
Posts: 131

If you want to believe there is no God, or if you want to believe there is a God, that's up to each person to determine.

But you, seer travis truman, made the claim that its a fact that God does not exist. You don't state its your opinion, you say its a fact. I've read through this thread, and it was painfull, but I haven't seen that fact proven. You've given a lot of sophomoric statements, some opinion, and some philosophical double speak, but you haven't proven that God does not exist. Simply saying someone else hasn't proven God does exist and complaining that religious people are diseased is not proof that God does not exist.

So if you can prove God doesn't exist, spit it out. There are a zillion people that need to know so they can get their lives back on the right track.
dave is offline  
Old February 26th, 2010, 03:13 PM   #38
Banned
 
Joined: Feb 2010
From: Australia
Posts: 151

Quote:
Originally Posted by dave View Post
If you want to believe there is no God, or if you want to believe there is a God, that's up to each person to determine.
How utterly ridiculous! It is not up to each person to determine any more than the fact that the moon exists is not up to each person to determine.

The current total lack of evidence for the god creature PROVES that the god creature does not exist. Insanely, god addicts claim that the endless contradictions, lies, faults etc in their story are not important, and that those rejecting their claims have to prove why they are rejecting them. How deranged! That is just not how normal, sane and natural brain function works.

Quote:
But you, seer travis truman, made the claim that its a fact that God does not exist. You don't state its your opinion, you say its a fact.
I am 100% correct, too.

Quote:
I've read through this thread, and it was painfull, but I haven't seen that fact proven. You've given a lot of sophomoric statements, some opinion, and some philosophical double speak, but you haven't proven that God does not exist.
There currently is not a single shred of evidence that a god creature might exist, instantly proving the claims made by god-addicts to be lie-based.

Quote:
Simply saying someone else hasn't proven God does exist and complaining that religious people are diseased is not proof that God does not exist.
Ah, totally incorrect. Although I must add that there is a mountain of evidence against the god myth. Such evidence includes :

1. The lie that the earth was created in 8 days by a being.
2. The lie that a creature created all the animals as is.
3. The endless stream of disproven god-myth claims.
4. The scientific facts regarding the "big bang" clearly show there was no god creature.
5. The fact that the god myth is completely illogical.
6. A million other reasons.

Quote:
So if you can prove God doesn't exist, spit it out. There are a zillion people that need to know so they can get their lives back on the right track.
They dont want to get on track, because that involves accepting the Truth that god does not exist. Again, you suggest that ridiculous fairy-tale scenarios need to be disproven. How perverse!

The easter-bunny fairy-tale is actually less insane and ridiculous than a god-myth fairy-tale. Again, do you actually suggest that there is a easter bunny, or even MIGHT be an easter bunny? It is just so obviously made up and false that it is laudable that anyone could investigate such a claim and take themselves seriously.
Seer Travis Truman is offline  
Old February 26th, 2010, 03:21 PM   #39
myp
Founding Father
 
myp's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
From: US
Posts: 5,841

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seer Travis Truman View Post
Ah, totally incorrect. Although I must add that there is a mountain of evidence against the god myth. Such evidence includes :

1. The lie that the earth was created in 8 days by a being.
2. The lie that a creature created all the animals as is.
Well these two are more Christian ideas and all religions do not believe in this. Even all groups of Christians don't, as some see the 8 days as a symbol for a longer period.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seer Travis Truman View Post
4. The scientific facts regarding the "big bang" clearly show there was no god creature.
You are wrong here. Not only if the "big bang" also not proven, but even within the theory, there is a lot of ambiguity and the question of who or what caused the big bang or what was there before still stand. This could potentially be attributed to a god.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seer Travis Truman View Post
5. The fact that the god myth is completely illogical..
The question of "who created everything" always remains and the answer could be God. The idea of God is not illogical- it is simply a way to give meaning to what we might never be able to understand. Even if one doesn't believe in Gods such as those found in religious texts, they may believe in a God that exists in the universe around us. Einstein, after all, believed in just that- Spinoza's God.
myp is offline  
Old February 26th, 2010, 03:33 PM   #40
Anarchist
 
Dirk's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2009
From: Disunited Queendom
Posts: 1,943

This has really become pretty exhausted now. It's become pretty damned circular. However provocatively worded it has been by STT, it is not the place of the sceptic to prove a negative.

It's stupid, to be honest. I'm sorry, but it's late and it gets on my nerves. If i told you to prove i don't have any bread in my house, you can't look for "no bread", you have to look for bread. You cannot search for an absence of something.

This is why when scientists argue for something, they argue from a position of scepticism. They don't go, "well, i COULD be *insert example here*, but prove that i'm NOT - aaaahhh." They demonstrate why it is.
Dirk is offline  
Reply

  Political Fray > The Political Fray > Religion

Tags
exist , fact , god


« defining sin | - »

Search tags for this page
Click on a term to search for related topics.
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Jesus did not exist? Akuma Conspiracy Theories 17 March 9th, 2017 01:33 PM
Israel pulled the 9/11 ...these are the fact Carpediem Conspiracy Theories 8 January 26th, 2012 04:50 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2009-2013 Political Fray. All rights reserved.