| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
Billyboy
1283 Posts
Most evangelical churches teach that homosexual behavior is sinful, citing passages from Leviticus, Romans, and Corinthians. They typically uphold heterosexual marriage as the only acceptable context for sex. According to Pew Research (2023), about 29% of white evangelicals say homosexuality should be accepted by society, compared with around 71% of Americans overall. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21961 Posts
On September 24 2025 01:28 maybenexttime wrote: And if your talking about external pressure on Meta I think EU pressure was a lot higher then US pressure. Zuckerberg claimed that Facebook's COVID fact checking was introduced after Biden's administration pressured Meta. The only problem is that the fact checking started under Trump. ;-) Meta started fact checking because they desperately want to avoid EU regulation forcing them to do it with a whole laundry list of requirements must stricter then Meta imposes on itself, a sentiment that really came alive in the EU after Trump won the election based off of a huge amount of disinformation, and that disinformation machine was then turning its sights onto EU elections. | ||
|
Luolis
Finland7140 Posts
On September 24 2025 02:54 oBlade wrote: Yes it's funny because you're perpetuating stereotypes from 50 years ago to wrap your prejudice against one group inside your prejudice against another. The point is the obvious hypocrisy that the party that wants to eliminate LGBTQ+ people from the public really loves gay sex on the down low (for more information, see the stats on red states and watching transgender porn). | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45078 Posts
On September 24 2025 05:00 Luolis wrote: The point is the obvious hypocrisy that the party that wants to eliminate LGBTQ+ people from the public really loves gay sex on the down low (for more information, see the stats on red states and watching transgender porn). Yeah it's weird that the point had to be explained to oBlade. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21961 Posts
On September 24 2025 05:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Really? I think oBlade purposefully misunderstanding a point might be in contention for the most normal thing I have read today.Yeah it's weird that the point had to be explained to oBlade. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45078 Posts
He pretended that he’s ended seven wars, while pointing to approval ratings that exist only in his mind. He renewed his pathetic lobbying for a Nobel Peace Prize, falsely claiming that “everyone” wants him to get one. He took pointless shots at ostensible U.S. allies in NATO and at the United Nations itself. He told unnamed officials that their countries are “going to hell.” He bragged about campaign swag sales. He attacked clean, renewable energy, while insisting that climate science is an elaborate “con job” and a “hoax” concocted by nefarious people with “evil intentions.” And for good measure, he claimed that unnamed “environmentalists” want to ban cows. https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/maddow-blog-bizarre-remarks-u-163153451.html Perhaps most importantly, Trump told one of his favorite lies, bragging that international respect for the U.S. has reached all-time highs now that he’s back in power. This is, of course, the opposite of the truth — global surveys have shown support for the U.S. has collapsed in recent months — and it was an especially painful lie, given that Trump was alienating the world while delivering the ludicrous comment. Trump additionally brought up the following topics, in bizarre, unhinged, and inaccurate rants: "Trump’s claims about immigrants deported to El Salvador and the Biden administration’s border control policies; Trump’s criticisms of the United Nations and his claims to have ended ‘seven wars’; Trump’s comments on Europe’s approach to immigration; Trump on the war between Russia and Ukraine; Trump’s comments about climate change and efforts to address it" https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/23/trump-un-speech-fact-check-claims | ||
|
oBlade
United States5770 Posts
On September 24 2025 05:00 Luolis wrote: The point is the obvious hypocrisy that the party that wants to eliminate LGBTQ+ people from the public really loves gay sex on the down low (for more information, see the stats on red states and watching transgender porn). You are manufacturing the hypocrisy. John is a Republican. He thinks gay marriage should be illegal. Dave is a Republican also. He's gay. Therefore Dave is a hypocrite because he believes gay marriage should be illegal but he's gay, since he and John are the same person since they're both Republicans. I have no idea what "eliminate LGBTQ+ people from the public" is supposed to mean. The only LGBTQ+ issue the right cares about is not exposing and transitioning children, and not undoing the existence of women's sports. Those are T. They don't care about adults doing their own thing. Go slightly outside the average and you get active concerns about gay adoption/surrogacy's prevalence. Framing these as "anti-gay" would presuppose your own worldview that society is sure it can handle a certain amount of families that look a certain way without drawbacks. Society isn't sure. For the same reasons that we're suspicious of the practice of polygamy despite not "eliminating" the FLDS from the public - whatever that means. Your new contribution is founded on yet more dated assumptions. First, that G is related to T. Second, that anybody's private sexuality should be in the public square. It shouldn't. Whether that's a pride parade, flashing tits on the White House lawn, or a Playboy Parade. States watch transgender porn? As long as it's not child porn, and as long as it's not children watching it, nobody cares. You don't care, and they don't care, but because you think they are supposed to care, you care. We may certainly care at a societal level if we end up having too many porn and tiktok addicted imbeciles to run a functioning economy. They aren't all secretly gay homophobes. And even if they were secretly gay - who are you and what do you know? We should be accepting of gays unless they're closeted? Like a gay man who has a 30 year marriage and fathers children and raises a family doesn't count unless he votes the right way, doesn't go to church, definitely doesn't go to a memorial, but wears all that fetish crap at some parade? I'm still trying to wrap my head around why people think this is not just an acceptable thing to say, but some kind of tolerant moral high ground. You need to actually open your mind and not just pretend. Let me ask differently. You said they "really love" gay sex. Is "really" too much? How many gay Republicans is okay, and how many is too many? Is it an inverse thing? The more gay Republicans there are, the more disapproval they get from some guy in Europe? They need to all fit your stereotype, and never, ever be homosexual because that would transgress your expectations. But oh yeah the straight ones are trash anyway because they're Republicans, right Luolis? Hey, question, what do you think is worse, a gay Republican or a straight Republican? | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4478 Posts
Yes, conservatives are hypocrites. Quod erat demonstrandum. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45078 Posts
On September 24 2025 05:09 Gorsameth wrote: Really? I think oBlade purposefully misunderstanding a point might be in contention for the most normal thing I have read today. That's true. Given his very silly "Dave is a hypocrite because he believes gay marriage should be illegal but he's gay, since he and John are the same person since they're both Republicans" follow-up rant, it sounds like he's still processing. | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States1887 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26087 Posts
On September 24 2025 04:08 Billyboy wrote: Evangelicals and Charlie Kirk are still extremely anti gay. You're just wrong wombat, he called being gay an “error” and compared the LGBTQ pride movement with encouraging drug addicts. Most evangelical churches teach that homosexual behavior is sinful, citing passages from Leviticus, Romans, and Corinthians. They typically uphold heterosexual marriage as the only acceptable context for sex. According to Pew Research (2023), about 29% of white evangelicals say homosexuality should be accepted by society, compared with around 71% of Americans overall. What’s your point? I’m wrong because specifically white evangelicals feel a certain way, despite my post not specifically zoning in on that demographic? Ok. Sure fucking showed me and circumvented the actual point I made. Good job there | ||
|
Luolis
Finland7140 Posts
On September 24 2025 06:14 oBlade wrote: You are manufacturing the hypocrisy. John is a Republican. He thinks gay marriage should be illegal. Dave is a Republican also. He's gay. Therefore Dave is a hypocrite because he believes gay marriage should be illegal but he's gay, since he and John are the same person since they're both Republicans. I have no idea what "eliminate LGBTQ+ people from the public" is supposed to mean. The only LGBTQ+ issue the right cares about is not exposing and transitioning children, and not undoing the existence of women's sports. Those are T. They don't care about adults doing their own thing. Go slightly outside the average and you get active concerns about gay adoption/surrogacy's prevalence. Framing these as "anti-gay" would presuppose your own worldview that society is sure it can handle a certain amount of families that look a certain way without drawbacks. Society isn't sure. For the same reasons that we're suspicious of the practice of polygamy despite not "eliminating" the FLDS from the public - whatever that means. Your new contribution is founded on yet more dated assumptions. First, that G is related to T. Second, that anybody's private sexuality should be in the public square. It shouldn't. Whether that's a pride parade, flashing tits on the White House lawn, or a Playboy Parade. States watch transgender porn? As long as it's not child porn, and as long as it's not children watching it, nobody cares. You don't care, and they don't care, but because you think they are supposed to care, you care. We may certainly care at a societal level if we end up having too many porn and tiktok addicted imbeciles to run a functioning economy. They aren't all secretly gay homophobes. And even if they were secretly gay - who are you and what do you know? We should be accepting of gays unless they're closeted? Like a gay man who has a 30 year marriage and fathers children and raises a family doesn't count unless he votes the right way, doesn't go to church, definitely doesn't go to a memorial, but wears all that fetish crap at some parade? I'm still trying to wrap my head around why people think this is not just an acceptable thing to say, but some kind of tolerant moral high ground. You need to actually open your mind and not just pretend. Let me ask differently. You said they "really love" gay sex. Is "really" too much? How many gay Republicans is okay, and how many is too many? Is it an inverse thing? The more gay Republicans there are, the more disapproval they get from some guy in Europe? They need to all fit your stereotype, and never, ever be homosexual because that would transgress your expectations. But oh yeah the straight ones are trash anyway because they're Republicans, right Luolis? Hey, question, what do you think is worse, a gay Republican or a straight Republican? That's a whole lot of words to make an argument that stands up to no scrutiny. You are manufacturing the hypocrisy. John is a Republican. He thinks gay marriage should be illegal. Dave is a Republican also. He's gay. Therefore Dave is a hypocrite because he believes gay marriage should be illegal but he's gay, since he and John are the same person since they're both Republicans. The hypocrisy comes from John thinking gay marriage should be illegal, but using grindr on the down low. As for Dave, he's a useful idiot for a party that wants to overturn Obergefell. have no idea what "eliminate LGBTQ+ people from the public" is supposed to mean. The only LGBTQ+ issue the right cares about is not exposing and transitioning children, and not undoing the existence of women's sports. Those are T. They don't care about adults doing their own thing. Now this is just a straight up lie. Republicans absolutely don't want trans people around, that's why they're doing their best to make laws forbidding adults from gender affirming care on the pretense of "protecting children". There's a reason why you have high profile republicans yelling that Charlie Kirk was actually murdered by trans people, and that trans people are a public danger to manufacture consent on eliminating them from normal life. One could also point out to kicking transgender people out of the military, but that's probably just ok for you oBlade. As for the transgender people in sports thing, i've already made my points on it clear (needs more studies, i am apprehensive) but no matter what your opinion on it is, surely you understand how overblown the topic is in american media and politics. Go slightly outside the average and you get active concerns about gay adoption/surrogacy's prevalence. Framing these as "anti-gay" would presuppose your own worldview that society is sure it can handle a certain amount of families that look a certain way without drawbacks. Society isn't sure. For the same reasons that we're suspicious of the practice of polygamy despite not "eliminating" the FLDS from the public - whatever that mean Studies show that children of same sex parent couples seem to do well on average, so i don't really buy this "society cant handle this"-shit. It's just an easy way to have plausible deniability to say "maaan im not really sure about these gays" without saying it out loud. Your new contribution is founded on yet more dated assumptions. First, that G is related to T. Second, that anybody's private sexuality should be in the public square. It shouldn't. Whether that's a pride parade, flashing tits on the White House lawn, or a Playboy Parade. States watch transgender porn? As long as it's not child porn, and as long as it's not children watching it, nobody cares. Gay and Trans people absolutely share the same fight. The exact same arguments used against trans people "theyre groomers, they want to make our kids trans" are exactly whst gay people had to fight against. You seriously are not comparing a Pride parade to someone flashing their tits in public. No way. I refuse to accept someone intellectually honest would make this argument. As for the porn thing, yeah its incredbly hypocritical. Republicans want to make being a trans person as hard as they can, but they're completely fine with using our bodies as sex objects. I'm sure you can see the hypocrisy. They aren't all secretly gay homophobes. And even if they were secretly gay - who are you and what do you know? We should be accepting of gays unless they're closeted? Like a gay man who has a 30 year marriage and fathers children and raises a family doesn't count unless he votes the right way, doesn't go to church, definitely doesn't go to a memorial, but wears all that fetish crap at some parade? Amazing strawman there. I couldn't care less if a gay person lives a "straight persons life". I have issues if a person actibely votes to take rights away from lgbt minorities, but then also is completely fine with himself doing lgbt stuff. It's the hypocrisy, not the acts. Let me ask differently. You said they "really love" gay sex. Is "really" too much? How many gay Republicans is okay, and how many is too many? Welcome to today's episode of oBlade doesn't understand hyperbole. more gay Republicans there are, the more disapproval they get from some guy in Europe? I hate to play the card, but what made you assume i was a guy? They need to all fit your stereotype, and never, ever be homosexual because that would transgress your expectations. I presume this is just hyperbole, but if not, this is obviously putting words in my mouth. But oh yeah the straight ones are trash anyway because they're Republicans, right Luolis? Hey, question, what do you think is worse, a gay Republican or a straight Republican? I think being a Republican is bad. Doesn't matter if you're gay or straight lol. What sort of debatebro question even is this, oBlade? I honestly regret i wasted like 30 minutes answering back to this condescending post that willfully misunderstood what i typed, but i hope you will get better as a person one day. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26087 Posts
You can be openly gay now in the GOP, or in the wider political commentariat. This is a thing now. To pretend it is not, is fucking daft. They got dragged by societal drift, but that’s the lay of the land Like, fucking deal with the lay of the land. Which includes many people who would have been ostracised for being gay years ago in that very same party, extending the same ‘privilege’ to others now. ‘Oh look at Grindr’, who gives a fuck? It’s useless nonsense ‘Oh look at me I’ve found some hypocrisy in the party, and wider support base that does not give a FUCK about it’ I’ll not do anything else, I’ll just point to that. My TL post, I’m doing my part. Useless | ||
|
Billyboy
1283 Posts
On September 24 2025 06:14 oBlade wrote: You are manufacturing the hypocrisy. John is a Republican. He thinks gay marriage should be illegal. Dave is a Republican also. He's gay. Therefore Dave is a hypocrite because he believes gay marriage should be illegal but he's gay, since he and John are the same person since they're both Republicans. I have no idea what "eliminate LGBTQ+ people from the public" is supposed to mean. The only LGBTQ+ issue the right cares about is not exposing and transitioning children, and not undoing the existence of women's sports. Those are T. They don't care about adults doing their own thing. Go slightly outside the average and you get active concerns about gay adoption/surrogacy's prevalence. Framing these as "anti-gay" would presuppose your own worldview that society is sure it can handle a certain amount of families that look a certain way without drawbacks. Society isn't sure. For the same reasons that we're suspicious of the practice of polygamy despite not "eliminating" the FLDS from the public - whatever that means. Your new contribution is founded on yet more dated assumptions. First, that G is related to T. Second, that anybody's private sexuality should be in the public square. It shouldn't. Whether that's a pride parade, flashing tits on the White House lawn, or a Playboy Parade. States watch transgender porn? As long as it's not child porn, and as long as it's not children watching it, nobody cares. You don't care, and they don't care, but because you think they are supposed to care, you care. We may certainly care at a societal level if we end up having too many porn and tiktok addicted imbeciles to run a functioning economy. They aren't all secretly gay homophobes. And even if they were secretly gay - who are you and what do you know? We should be accepting of gays unless they're closeted? Like a gay man who has a 30 year marriage and fathers children and raises a family doesn't count unless he votes the right way, doesn't go to church, definitely doesn't go to a memorial, but wears all that fetish crap at some parade? I'm still trying to wrap my head around why people think this is not just an acceptable thing to say, but some kind of tolerant moral high ground. You need to actually open your mind and not just pretend. Let me ask differently. You said they "really love" gay sex. Is "really" too much? How many gay Republicans is okay, and how many is too many? Is it an inverse thing? The more gay Republicans there are, the more disapproval they get from some guy in Europe? They need to all fit your stereotype, and never, ever be homosexual because that would transgress your expectations. But oh yeah the straight ones are trash anyway because they're Republicans, right Luolis? Hey, question, what do you think is worse, a gay Republican or a straight Republican? You can't prove everyone is not a secret gay, so there for they are. Boom, MAGA logic. On September 24 2025 06:59 WombaT wrote: What’s your point? I’m wrong because specifically white evangelicals feel a certain way, despite my post not specifically zoning in on that demographic? Ok. Sure fucking showed me and circumvented the actual point I made. Good job there Were talking about the people who went to Kirk the funeral which are for the most part MAGA, who a large part are Evangelical. So well you brought your head cannon, I decided to bring polling. You did make a point, it just was not relevant to the discussion, but I guess that is on brand along with missing the point. In a Monmouth poll, among those who identify as strong MAGA supporters, 60% are evangelical. | ||
|
Jankisa
Croatia920 Posts
Kirk certainly did, Trump doesn't give a fuck about human conditions enough to care either way, but he'll use this hate as a cudgel all the same, so did Kirk. I personally don't care and wouldn't bring up the Grindr story, to me, it's something that guys like Ryzada would bring up as a gotcha for their side, just chum in the water for the masses. Just because it comes from my side it doesn't make it important or interesting to me, that, of course, doesn't mean that if we indulge in it here and there in these dark times it makes us the same as them, as long as we can be self aware. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9728 Posts
Then it turned into an actual argument? The only actual hyprocrisy here is oblade being so quick to label his opponents homophobic while also being one of the ones who cries whenever he gets called racist. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26087 Posts
On September 24 2025 07:53 Billyboy wrote: You can't prove everyone is not a secret gay, so there for they are. Boom, MAGA logic. Were talking about the people who went to Kirk the funeral which are for the most part MAGA, who a large part are Evangelical. So well you brought your head cannon, I decided to bring polling. You did make a point, it just was not relevant to the discussion, but I guess that is on brand along with missing the point. In a Monmouth poll, among those who identify as strong MAGA supporters, 60% are evangelical. Given my initial point was more about general GOP voters, and not you know specifically white evangelicals, your stats on white evangelicals sure showed me! Believe it or not, many mainstream GOP voters are totally fine with one being gay, they may be perfectly happy to throw many other marginalised groups under the bus, but that’s basically normalised to such a degree that being gay isn’t really a big deal. Progress of a sort. ‘Hur hur Republicans use Grindr’ like who gives a fuck? Cool, many of them aren’t even anti gay to begin with. What a political victory! We sure showed em! It’s not even remotely comparable to like 15-20 years ago. Also request for a week’s ban please mods. Plox User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
Billyboy
1283 Posts
On September 24 2025 08:09 Jockmcplop wrote: I just thought it was a funny, ironic story meant as rage bait to conservatives and something for lefties to chuckle at. Then it turned into an actual argument? The only actual hyprocrisy here is oblade being so quick to label his opponents homophobic while also being one of the ones who cries whenever he gets called racist. You were correct. Sorta, ya strange. I got another chuckle from all that. | ||
KwarK
United States43262 Posts
They insist that it is because homosexuality is inherently sexual, that a male teacher can’t say the words “my husband” without graphic descriptions of buggery. The children shouldn’t be exposed to graphic descriptions of buggery, they say, and therefore they can’t possibly comprehend two men in a loving committed relationship. And yet this same standard isn’t applied to heterosexual relationships. Simba can get down with Nala and nobody thinks that’s inappropriate. Nobody is wringing their hands claiming that they can’t possibly explain the relationship between Anna and Kristoff in Frozen to their children. The Bible, with its graphic sexual references, is allowed in school libraries. It is not, and never has been, about preventing the exposure of children to sexual material. It has always been about the erasure of homosexuals. Oblade is simply lying. | ||
|
Razyda
894 Posts
On September 24 2025 01:52 WombaT wrote: Or when they went right, politically speaking. It’s borderline insane naivety. If not something worse. Trust me bro, if we just let people say whatever they want with no consequences on social media, the good information will win in the Free Marketplace of IdeasTM, and nobody has any legit reasons to intervene in that process ever. Which totally works, as we’ve seen with the improvements in how informed average Joe are, and how noticeably more cohesive our societies have become over the last 15+ years. Also masked police detaining brown people is cool, they should be able to obscure their identities because AntifaTM will get them if they can’t do that that. Left wing political violence makes up about 80% of the pie in the Us. Oh wait sorry, my lazy eye problem saw me misread various reports by various body and it’s actually totally the opposite. Razy doesn’t even have the excuse my unemployed boomer uncle has, left to the mercy of increasingly extreme algorithms and fuck all else to do but dive down that rabbit hole for 6 hours a day while waiting for the pub to open. He actively contributes in a space that has frequent counter-points, sometimes they might even be good ones. Do they consider them, have they gone out and looked into it to see if maybe there’s something in those? Nah. Let’s not do that. And no, this isn’t an attack on your views. It’s that you don’t appear to listen to alternative ones, go off and look into them and come back going ‘I still think most of my views stand up, here’s why’. There is a fundamental incoherence in them, they don’t all pull in the same general direction "Trust me bro, if we just let people say whatever they want with no consequences on social media, the good information will win in the Free Marketplace of IdeasTM, and nobody has any legit reasons to intervene in that process ever. Which totally works, as we’ve seen with the improvements in how informed average Joe are, and how noticeably more cohesive our societies have become over the last 15+ years." Yes, it will win. You do realise that censorship actually backfired? What happened is that all insane conservatives got banned, but all insane liberals stayed. There are entire channels Libs of TikTok style now doing pretty damn well and liberals dont have answer because insane conservatives werre banned for advising drinking effing silver to fight covid... "Also masked police detaining brown people is cool, they should be able to obscure their identities because AntifaTM will get them if they can’t do that that. Left wing political violence makes up about 80% of the pie in the Us. Oh wait sorry, my lazy eye problem saw me misread various reports by various body and it’s actually totally the opposite. " Were did I use Antifa in masks argument?? (You kinda spiraling down so to cool you off: what do you have against brown people? I didnt mention skin colour single time seems like projection  )It is not a lazy eye. You may not know but BLM riots arent counted counted as political violence, Tesla thing is no no also, dude who shot guy for voting Trump - not political violence too. "He actively contributes in a space that has frequent counter-points, sometimes they might even be good ones. Do they consider them, have they gone out and looked into it to see if maybe there’s something in those? Nah. Let’s not do that. And no, this isn’t an attack on your views. It’s that you don’t appear to listen to alternative ones, go off and look into them and come back going ‘I still think most of my views stand up, here’s why’ " I do consider them, otherwise how i could reply?? Just in case - you are perfectly fine attacking my views, I would say that this is very idea behind forum. The issue is that if I have to repeat the same thing ad nauseum, or when I use a word in specified context, and then I am told that it is in different context i just check out. (I mean seriously BJ has patience of a god and you guys should give him some reward or something) "There is a fundamental incoherence in them, they don’t all pull in the same general direction" I am pretty sure there isnt. I think what you have issue with is the fact that you cant pinpoint me into some generalised world view. ( in all honesty I think it should be pretty easy if you werent so focused on left vs right, dems vs rep, conservatives vs liberals. I'll give you a hint: Who do you think I disdain the most in Kirk murder case?? On September 24 2025 05:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Yeah it's weird that the point had to be explained to oBlade. Oh please. Billyboy post basically says "hehe Republicans are gay" can we please stop with tribal defence? On September 23 2025 10:02 GreenHorizons wrote: This. This is the sort of protesting that need to be happening in the US right now apnews.com You sure about that? Some more footage from said "strike" | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Other Games |
|
RSL Revival
Zoun vs Classic
SHIN vs TriGGeR
herO vs Reynor
Maru vs MaxPax
WardiTV Korean Royale
Replay Cast
RSL Revival
WardiTV Korean Royale
SC Evo League
IPSL
Julia vs Artosis
JDConan vs DragOn
OSC
BSL 21
TerrOr vs Aeternum
HBO vs Kyrie
RSL Revival
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
