Imaginary Friend. credit to sickipedia<br /> Also, you might like these<br /> /funny_pictures/1663470/Challenge+Accepted/<br /> /funny_picture imaginary friend
Click to expand

Imaginary Friend

  • Recommend tagsx
Views: 29098
Favorited: 127
Submitted: 02/14/2011
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to lickmyteabag submit to reddit


What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#400 - ScottishKayaker (02/15/2011) [-]
User avatar #472 to #400 - ningyoaijin (02/15/2011) [-]
Comment 91 and the rest of the comment chain, my friend :P
#416 to #400 - Heireau (02/15/2011) [-]
#25 - antistar (02/15/2011) [-]
Prepare for a religious flame war.  
Figure 1, left, demonstrates the basics of a flame war.
Prepare for a religious flame war.
Figure 1, left, demonstrates the basics of a flame war.
User avatar #32 to #25 - Crusader (02/15/2011) [-]
he reaches in with his right, but hits the guy with his left.
#42 to #32 - pineapplepeople (02/15/2011) [-]
While we're pointing out problems with the physics, he's also hitting him through a computer.
#98 - iusememeswrong (02/15/2011) [-]
I used to have sex every night...

Until I stopped babysitting.
#45 - itsstvn **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#48 - americanjam (02/15/2011) [-]
Even kids with the best imagination get older and then start having a really dirty imagination.
#57 to #48 - bigshowsteveo (02/15/2011) [-]
User avatar #58 to #57 - americanjam (02/15/2011) [-]
it actually is very good porn, I highly recommend it.
#60 to #58 - IAmManbearpig (02/15/2011) [-]
i can has link?
User avatar #67 to #60 - americanjam (02/15/2011) [-]
If I give you a link to rule34, you will get hetero and homo content, plus my url will most likely be deleted.
I suggest just going there yourself, if you do not have a problem with all the content you may not like.
User avatar #72 to #67 - IAmManbearpig (02/15/2011) [-]
is it rule 34 paheal?
#75 - Diggaholic (02/15/2011) [-]
I had an imaginary friend that I walked to school with!!
But he was real.
And by walking to school I mean he massacred everyone I know and love.
#96 - runstart **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#192 - sillypiggy (02/15/2011) [-]
Dont you mean when I stopped visiting fosters?
User avatar #89 - Nekatroz (02/15/2011) [-]
I'm catholic and I found this Hilarious
#206 - anon (02/15/2011) [-]
#166 - JKerg **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#179 to #172 - anon (02/15/2011) [-]
or a V8 hemi
#232 to #180 - therealbojack (02/15/2011) [-]
Or the new 2016 Lamborghini Ankonian Concept...
#238 to #232 - durpface (02/15/2011) [-]
thats not an engine.
thats not an engine.
#313 to #238 - therealbojack (02/15/2011) [-]
You're right, I fail. I was just looking for any excuse to post that picture. What can I say? I came, when I saw it. Here's another, for your trouble. (And fapping pleasure, if applicable...)
User avatar #174 to #172 - Sandisky (02/15/2011) [-]
#7 - benmartin **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#11 to #7 - bagvka has deleted their comment [-]
#37 to #11 - funnyjunkscreator (02/15/2011) [-]
oh your cool.
#54 to #37 - LtSarcasm **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #36 to #7 - billymayss (02/15/2011) [-]
im majorly offended but i must i say also lol'd
#205 - Taerocker (02/15/2011) [-]
Listen, I'm not going to try and complain or say this is offensive. I just want to ask this:

My fellow FJer's, what's with the recent bashing on religion? I get it, a lot of you are athiest, but I don't really see why people go out of their way to look at one's ideals and mock it. I mean, I understand if you're talking about the preachers who go "OH LAWD SPARE THIS 'ERE FIY-UN MAN, FOR HE BELIEVES IN YA, LAWD. AND ANY Y'ALL N*****S AND F*****S WHO DUN'T BUH-LEEVE WILL FEEL THE FIRES OF HELL-AH!"

I mean, I make fun of them, and I believe those specific people are hypocrites and assholes who give religion a bad name. But they don't make up for 100% of religious people, so why's everyone here been making posts/comments like this?
User avatar #220 to #205 - sillypiggy (02/15/2011) [-]
People want to find new ways to get thumbs. making religion jokes is just a new way to do so.
User avatar #233 to #220 - Taerocker (02/15/2011) [-]
Good point, but we're not talking about a false claim of a penis tatoo or a justin beiber joke, it's making fun 1/3 of the entire world because they don't have the EXACT ideals as the OP. Reminds me a whole lot of Seth McFarlane and how he's been ruining Family Guy for the past year-and-a-half.
User avatar #237 to #233 - sillypiggy (02/15/2011) [-]
But there are many jokes with me being the butt of the joke (atheist and black people especially) but I laugh at them. a joke is a joke. its main goal should be to be funny and that is all.
#247 to #237 - gateguardian (02/15/2011) [-]
I agree with what your saying. a joke should be a joke, but religion is the few that will start one big debate until no one backs down and in the end got nowhere. it just one of those things.
User avatar #249 to #247 - sillypiggy (02/15/2011) [-]
Well if someone wants to be apart of a flame war then thats there problem. someone could just look at a joke laugh and press next. I mean if we hade sure no one got offended by a joke then there would be no jokes ever.
User avatar #276 to #249 - Taerocker (02/15/2011) [-]
When talking a person jokes around and says "God(s) is/are fake.", it's the equivalent of saying "Your momma's a whore." It can go 4 ways:
1. If they do not have a religion/Do not like their mothers, they'll agree with you and laugh.
2.If they're agnostic/know you're joking, they'll laugh a little, but in a concerned way.
3. People who have integrated lifestyle with religion/Peopl who love their mothers, but won't stand for it, will usually ask you to stop saying such things.
4. Religious zealots/People who love their mothers more tan ife itself would become violent or try and make a "flame-war" with others on the internet.

It's just the same way any joke can go.
User avatar #282 to #276 - sillypiggy (02/15/2011) [-]
Yea but same can be said about any joke and anyone can get offended at anything. A joke is a joke and if someone cant take a joke then thats there problem.
User avatar #315 to #282 - Taerocker (02/15/2011) [-]
Oh, friend, you have an optimism that most don't, and that I envy. However, the impact of culture and ideaology don't strike you as important as they should. These influence everything for a person: what they do, how they'll do it, and what they'll become. So when a person makes fun of that, it's making fun an entire community's commitments andachievements.

Picture this, you spend 20 years of your life working on a house (let's assume it's pretty big). But every now and then, a group likes to come over and graffitti it, mocking you and all the work you've put into it. They'd laugh, but I'll tell you right now, you wouldn't. Now try and take it from a house, and make it your life. It's a whole lot less funny.
User avatar #339 to #315 - sillypiggy (02/15/2011) [-]
Yea but the difference is this is a joke and isnt destroying anything. If this was the early 18th century and this was a slave trader joke people would get offended.
User avatar #350 to #339 - Taerocker (02/15/2011) [-]
But grafitti doesn't destroy anything either. It's just mockery and insults. You can paint right over them. The only thing is, they'll be back again tomorrow.
User avatar #259 to #249 - gateguardian (02/15/2011) [-]
Why is abbreviation such a long word.
User avatar #261 to #259 - sillypiggy (02/15/2011) [-]
Because the creators of the English language are trolls.
User avatar #327 to #205 - VeryAwkwardPenguIn (02/15/2011) [-]
Why does religion have the power not to be mocked? If I disagree with you I'll argue my point. If I went into school I would be mocked if I believed in an imaginary friend.
User avatar #345 to #327 - Taerocker (02/15/2011) [-]
That's it? That's your big argument? I could say "If I was a kid and I didn't go to church, all the other kids would make fun of me."

It's not some big joke, kid, it's a belief. Have you ever actually tried just talking with people who have a religion? Just try talking to 5 people you know, but don't interject your ideals with theirs. When your finished, try putting yourself in their shoes, and truly think how different your life would be. It's not some "imaginary friend crack-pot scam" it's religious ideaology, and I just hope that people understand and respect that.
User avatar #348 to #345 - VeryAwkwardPenguIn (02/15/2011) [-]
Why do we have to respect people's belief!?
User avatar #354 to #348 - Taerocker (02/15/2011) [-]
The same reason you don't walk up to a black person and shout as many racist things to him as you can. It's offensive.

Also, later in life, it can get you fired, arrested, sued, assaulted, and/or shunned from the rest of your community.
User avatar #356 to #354 - VeryAwkwardPenguIn (02/15/2011) [-]
But being black isn't just some stupid belief, you're perfectly ok for bashing someone's political views but beliefs are off limit.
User avatar #367 to #356 - Taerocker (02/15/2011) [-]
I'm actually not associated with either the democrat or republican parties, and I DON'T agree in political bashing. I avoid it like the plague, because I think it's pointless to say that one party is absolutely right, and the other is wrong.

Speaking of which, nice touch on the "stupid" beliefs part. It's not like over 70% of the world has some "stupid" belief. Wow, your "opinion" is far more "superior" to my "stupid" belief. If only everyone thought like you and proclaimed "my thought is the only thought! look at me! look at me! I'm not taking any other person or culture into consideration, because I'm right! I don't have a religion, therefore it's pointless!"
User avatar #470 to #367 - VeryAwkwardPenguIn (02/15/2011) [-]
I'm sorry if you're offended but find any religious belief just superstition not worthy of my respect.
#208 to #205 - CaptainObviousMan (02/15/2011) [-]
So? The religious guys are free to bash science and atheism anytime they want. We're not going to stop them.
User avatar #228 to #208 - Taerocker (02/15/2011) [-]
(Mouse screwed up and I accidentally deleted my last post...)

But see, the point is is that I don't enjoy making fun of ideals/religion/cultrue/etc. And a lot of people who are religious are under fire from stuff like this, and feel the same way I do. I mean, just because I believe in a higher power doesn't make me a blithering idiot. I know what I'm saying and say what I must when times call for it, but at the same time, I prefer hold my tongue when it becomes offensive to people I've never met or have yet to experience their lifestyle on a mass scale with multiple references. So, yeah. I'm not going to make fun of science, because people forget... most religious folk in America and Europe believe in religion AND science.
User avatar #240 to #228 - CaptainObviousMan (02/15/2011) [-]
Criticism is a good thing. Because we don't actively point out flaws and exchange new ideas, then humanity will never improve. Plus religion is kinda silly in a sense. There's no conclusive evidence supporting any particular religion and for most people it's not about belief, it's about where you happen to be born and what your parents believe. Those two factors usually determine one's religion. Plus, those that "believe" in science and religion only acknowledge science's impact on the world. They usually don't utilize the actual scientific method, which dictates non-belief until proven (which would nullify their religion).
User avatar #244 to #240 - Taerocker (02/15/2011) [-]
What about Albert Einstein? He did say "Religion without science is blind, but science without religion is lame."

He was a pretty successful scientist, and he was Jewish.
User avatar #250 to #244 - CaptainObviousMan (02/15/2011) [-]
I don't idolize any scientist because they're not all knowing or wise, so a mere quote doesn't really sway me. I'm sure Einstein was a man of science. But humans can be quite hypocritical. There are people out there who use the scientific method in their work but don't think about applying it to their personal beliefs because it was so deeply ingrained.
User avatar #263 to #250 - Taerocker (02/15/2011) [-]
I'm kind of tired and I've been re-writing my comments because I've been apt to ramble, so let me try again...

No, he's not this all-knowing scientist, but it doesn't mean, in any way, that he wasn't a smart man. Now, does his belief in a God and in science automatically make him a hypocrite, or was it just a personal ideaology he held close to him?
User avatar #269 to #263 - CaptainObviousMan (02/15/2011) [-]
Both. By using the scientific method to scrutinize physics while ignoring his religion, that is being hypocritical. The reason for this is because of his personal ideology (which is not always rational).
User avatar #296 to #269 - Taerocker (02/15/2011) [-]
Sorry, but I've never read anythinghe Torah or Bible that states that "Technology is evil and damned be him who attempts to make machines."

So, that's not really hypocritical. Especially when you take into account that bronze-making, iron-making, farming, and masonry are all ancient forms of technology that are talked about and discovered in the chronology of the bible/Torah. So, yeah, I don't believe that furthering an idea or creating a theory makes you ignore your religion.
User avatar #318 to #296 - CaptainObviousMan (02/15/2011) [-]
Um, that is hypocritical. Saying that technology is bad while using technology? That's hypocrisy because you are saying one thing while doing an action that goes against what you said. No, furthering an idea or creating theories doesn't make you ignore your religion. My point was if you were to strictly follow the scientific method and apply it to everything, then you have to come to the conclusion that you can't declare your religion as correct. You can keep your religion if you don't put it under the scrutiny of analytic, unbiased scientific thought. But I don't see why not. All things should be explored, tested and questioned.
User avatar #337 to #318 - Taerocker (02/15/2011) [-]
Uh, I just said that I had NEVER read anything in religious text that said technology was evil... So, I really don't see that as hypocritical.
User avatar #349 to #337 - CaptainObviousMan (02/15/2011) [-]
Oh, sorry, the "anythinghe" confused me. But yeah, religion can be compatible with technology and even use of the scientific long as it is not used on religion itself. Let me think of a good analogy. It's like this: a business man uses the method of cutting costs to make his company more efficient and successful. But then when it comes to applying that method to his lifestyle, he just shuts it out and spends his money on extravagant things. He's being hypocritical by using his methods on everything except when it comes to his own personal spending. He can still do both at the same time, as long as he doesn't think about using the method on himself. That's the only way to believe in both science and religion.
User avatar #363 to #349 - Taerocker (02/15/2011) [-]
anything in the*
I apologize for my sloppy typing, I'm still very tired, and I think I'm going to bed after 1 or 2 more comments.

Anyway, that's a good analogy, but take this into consideration: it is rather unfair to say that their is only ONE way to believe in something. That's like saying "Oh, did you like both of the movies? Well it HAD to have been for this ONE reason. There's no other reason you could have like them."
I mean, people can try and avaoid violence but still be able to defend themselves, right? Is that hypocritical? People could be pacifistic but still believe that war is unavoidable, right? Is that pacifistic.

Maybe I'll be able to further this discussion later tomorrow. Good night.
User avatar #365 to #363 - CaptainObviousMan (02/15/2011) [-]
Oh, sure you can believe in more than one thing at the same time. But the question is, why would you do that for religion? Why would you specifically avoid thinking or questioning the belief that you were told? Is that not ignorance, bias and close-mindedness? Are you willing to stick your head in the sand just so you can continue believing in something that you haven't bothered checking to see if it was true or not? Because to me, you should question and test EVERYTHING. If it really is true, then there's no harm in doing so. If it's false, then good, you've corrected yourself.
User avatar #256 to #240 - CaptainBewbs (02/15/2011) [-]
But if you believe in evolution then your beliefs are nullified as well. No conclusive evidence has been shown to prove evolution. Sure there's macro evolution but that's not a species turning into another species. Therefore making evolution not scientific at all, for it cannot be proved through the scientific method.
User avatar #287 to #256 - CaptainObviousMan (02/15/2011) [-]
And we do have records on macro evolution by the way. The list includes bacteria, sheep, fruit flies, the pacific Robin, the Mayr bird, esatina salamaders, certain seagulls, warblers, most of our cultivated crops, etc.
User avatar #292 to #287 - CaptainBewbs (02/15/2011) [-]
You still haven't answer my previous questions down below.
User avatar #280 to #256 - CaptainObviousMan (02/15/2011) [-]
If you want to disprove evolution, you need to disprove all of these facts:

1. DNA determines traits and species
2. DNA can change each generation
3. Some traits are better than other in terms of surviving/reproducing
4. Those with the better traits become more common over time

Evolution can stand on it's own even with just the first two facts.
User avatar #268 to #256 - CaptainObviousMan (02/15/2011) [-]
I can tell right off the bat that you got your sources from the typical creationist propaganda sources. First off the argument is that "sure there's MICRO evolution" because macro evolution is the one about species turning into new species. And besides macro and micro evolution are the exact same thing, the only difference is the time scale. The principals that micro evolution acts on is the same as macro. But obviously you can't get a new species in just one generation. But what about a million generations? Each generation changes DNA slightly. So what happens if those changes accumulate over millions of years? They add up to become bigger changes, thus creating a drastically different species.
#272 to #268 - CaptainBewbs (02/15/2011) [-]
Then why are there still inferior species on earth? Isn't evolution basically evolving into better species, more suitable to survive? Why are there still apes? Why haven't we seen any new species of ape come from another?
User avatar #284 to #272 - Taerocker (02/15/2011) [-]
Guys. Here's my thought.

Why can't evolution be the reason for HOW instead of WHY?
Sorry, but this reminds me of the people who bitch about which political party is the ABSOLUTE right one for 2 hours straight. The answer is, they're both good, you just gotta make sure they can work with eachother.
User avatar #485 to #272 - CaptainObviousMan (02/16/2011) [-]
Hey dude, did you actually learn anything or do you plan on ignoring this and carry on believing that evolution is a lie?
User avatar #359 to #272 - CaptainObviousMan (02/15/2011) [-]
You seem to think of evolution as a linear progression. It's not, it's exactly like a family tree. Let's say you have a cousin. That cousin moves to Ecuador and starts a family there. After several dozen generations, the two sides of the family meet again. On the original side of the family, your descendants are still light skinned. Your cousin's descendants have developed naturally tan skin to withstand the sun. So your cousin's side genetically changed to fit that particular environment. Yet the original fairskinned family still exists. Likewise, the apes are still around because they still live in their tree habitat. Humans became upright and hairless to run better in open areas, thus more suited to survive... in that particular habitat.
User avatar #332 to #272 - CaptainObviousMan (02/15/2011) [-]
I wouldn't call humans superior either. If we were to go extinct, nature wouldn't pause for a second. If bacteria were to vanish, then most animals will die (because bacteria are vital for nutrient absorption in animals including humans). If plants die, the rest of life would fall asuite because there's no base food source. So human beings? Not the most important species on the planet in terms of necessity.
User avatar #310 to #272 - CaptainObviousMan (02/15/2011) [-]
But if you are serious: evolution is not about being better in the sense of domination, strength or intelligence. It's about being good enough to survive in particular environments. Why are there still apes? Because the current apes can survive just fine in the trees eating fruit. There's no need to evolve more differently or to go extinct. That's why we still have bacteria, because they can still survive incredibly well just by feeding on small particles, infecting hosts or decomposing dead bodies. The same applies to all other animals. Why haven't we seen new apes from other apes? Because evolution is slow, most cases of directly observed speciation comes from rapidly reproducing organisms like bacteria, insects, or crops.
#222 to #208 - therealbojack (02/15/2011) [-]
User avatar #242 to #222 - Taerocker (02/15/2011) [-]
Not really. I'm not bashing anyone, and as soon as I got off of FJ, I go on with the rest of my day. On a side note, I haven't seen anyone in this thread bash at eachother, but rather raise valid points for their arguments.
I actually believe that this is pretty civilized, surprisingly. I was expecting to get at least -50 thumbs and 20 comments saying "LOL, you retard!!1!10NE!!!"
#351 to #242 - therealbojack (02/15/2011) [-]
I totally agree with you, man. And sorry. I didn't mean to rant, there. I just get annoyed when people argue over and make fun of other people's beliefs, both religious and otherwise. The decisions of that nature that people make are personal, and shouldn't be criticized by others, when the decision is not theirs to make, you know? And, yes, FunnyJunk may not be the best place to offer advice, but I just felt like I should say it. Anyway, here's a GIF of a cute kitty, for your trouble! (I'll also throw a thumb your way, cause of the whole golden rule thing...)
I totally agree with you, man. And sorry. I didn't mean to rant, there. I just get annoyed when people argue over and make fun of other people's beliefs, both religious and otherwise. The decisions of that nature that people make are personal, and shouldn't be criticized by others, when the decision is not theirs to make, you know? And, yes, FunnyJunk may not be the best place to offer advice, but I just felt like I should say it. Anyway, here's a GIF of a cute kitty, for your trouble! (I'll also throw a thumb your way, cause of the whole golden rule thing...)
#215 to #208 - gateguardian (02/15/2011) [-]
I almost never see people making hate comments about science and atheism. When do we bash you?
#224 to #215 - Bourky (02/15/2011) [-]
He isn't saying you guys do (but you do anyway so yea, watever) he was just saying that you guys are more than welcome to show your findings that support your views whenever you want, they won't stop you.
#239 to #224 - gateguardian (02/15/2011) [-]
For some one asking for findings i see none other then quote"but you do anyway so yea watever" If you ask most people on this site they will say. there is more anti-god then anti-atheism. which was my point to the commenter above.

Many people have posted their views and lost there ten-your. some for as little as an e-mail. Watch the movie "Expelled no intelligences allowed" SO as far as we want stop you is a bunch of bull.
#243 to #239 - Bourky (02/15/2011) [-]
Can you like, reword that so it makes some sort of sense? Thank you.
#255 to #243 - gateguardian (02/15/2011) [-]
OK here's the sparknotes of it.
1. I pointed out that you asked for finding but provided none.
2. I pointed out there are people who try to stop proof of a god,
3. I said the name of the video that shows this.
#298 to #255 - Bourky (02/15/2011) [-]
1. I don't need to provide anything because I couldn't say anything that hasn't already come to attention to the masses already.
2. That's just the heat of debating, proving and disproving for you. If you are at all interested in supporting your side, then finding flaws with the opposition is a great and commonly used technique to gain support.
3. I don't care
#307 to #298 - gateguardian (02/15/2011) [-]
In everything you just said. Ha Ha made my day, no wait week.
#331 to #307 - LesterDragon **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #344 to #331 - gateguardian (02/15/2011) [-]
No,Just a slow week,
#347 to #344 - LesterDragon **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #355 to #347 - gateguardian (02/15/2011) [-]
Actually in my time zone it's Tuesday.
#358 to #355 - LesterDragon **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#340 to #307 - Bourky (02/15/2011) [-]
firstly, read what I just said in reply to Taerocker. Secondly, get over yourself.
User avatar #360 to #340 - gateguardian (02/15/2011) [-]
1. Hey buddy Taerocker has commented all over this page so could you at least give me the comment number

2. if you didn't get there no need to be offensive
#376 to #360 - Bourky (02/15/2011) [-]
Try reading the only response I gave to him which just so happens to be the comment on top of your stupid dribble.
User avatar #387 to #376 - gateguardian (02/15/2011) [-]
Well, you sure did put a lot of effort in to not trying to get in a debate, for someone who commented back with opposing points. instead of just stating your purpose was to do something simple.
#412 to #387 - Bourky (02/15/2011) [-]
I shouldn't have to state the obvious...
User avatar #415 to #412 - gateguardian (02/15/2011) [-]
I am going to keep debating on a topic that has never been settled.
#418 to #415 - Bourky (02/15/2011) [-]
Good for you?
User avatar #326 to #298 - Taerocker (02/15/2011) [-]
It doesn't count as a flame war if I tell off someone who obviously doesn't know what he's talking about, right? Well, let's just assume the answer is yes.

Mr. Bourky, try and make a valid argument with valid claims and a valid sense of reason. I think I should say vali more because not a single thing you just posted was. If you're a troll, I'm aware of it. If not, try reading about this subject before acting like the opionions of others are invalid. Oh, and try reading about this guy named Socrates while you're at it. You might just learn something about debates.
#338 to #326 - Bourky (02/15/2011) [-]
You do realize I wasn't even trying to get into a debate about religion yea? I was just merely correcting gateguardian because he misinterpreted what captionobviousman said... but in the process, he managed to misunderstand what I was doing as well... /golfclap. Personally, I don't care about religion or atheists so yea =/
User avatar #271 to #255 - lostandgoneforever (02/15/2011) [-]
You have. a green. tie... AWESOME
#217 to #208 - Taerocker has deleted their comment [-]
#149 - IamPinhead (02/15/2011) [-]
User avatar #154 to #149 - sillypiggy (02/15/2011) [-]
#157 to #154 - IamPinhead (02/15/2011) [-]
User avatar #170 to #157 - FJHippieChick (02/15/2011) [-]
screen capped
#158 to #154 - nsfwdavid (02/15/2011) [-]
I am chiming in as the sensible, seemingly unbiased third party who comments, but uses quotes that are completely out of context to prove a point that I know nothing about.
User avatar #142 - ADeadlYLepricoN (02/15/2011) [-]
Religion war in 5...4...3...
User avatar #70 - sketchysketchist (02/15/2011) [-]
Mine told me to spill the blood of the innocent.
There were no survivors.
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)