Square Zero

Lemmings for Obama

Posted by Eric (February 13, 2007 at 10:20 am)

Lemmings for ObamaAt our protest at the Barack Obama presidential candidacy announcement, we got a chuckle from this guy’s sign: Lemmings for Obama. As things were winding down, I walked over and talked to him a bit.

“That’s an interesting sign,” I said. “What’s it all about?” He told me he wanted to make the point that people don’t know what they’re supporting.

“So what are some of the kinds of things the people out here don’t know about Obama?” I asked.

At this he squinted and grew suspicious. “Why do you want to know? Are you with the media or something?” I had a big camera around my neck, so it was a reasonable question.

“Well, I was here protesting Obama’s support for abortion. A lot of the people out here cheering him didn’t know about that, or weren’t thinking about it.” He didn’t deny it. “So are there other issues that people aren’t aware of?” No response. “Or are you just pointing out, in general that people are just jumping on the Obama bandwagon?” He began to roll up his sign.
“Well, anyway,” I said, “I like your sign.” He said something like “Okay,” and that was it.

In the end, he couldn’t really tell me why he was out there with that sign, exactly what it was that had inspired him to come out on a bitterly cold day to the Old State Capitol and join the crowd.

In the end, I suppose his sign was simply perfectly honest—he really was a lemming for Obama.

This entry is filed under What Not. You can follow responses through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

17 Responses to “Lemmings for Obama”

  1. Very Rev. Fr. Gregori says:

    I believe that the majority of modern day voters, especially on the liberal side, are lemmings for what ever candidate they run, and this includes Hillary.

    I hear so many democrats here in New York State, who constantly repeat the mantra that Hillary (and Bill) are such “brilliant” individuals and what a wonderful senator Hillary has been for New York, yet none of these people can show me one example to back up their statements. they have heard the MSM spew out this tripe for so long that they have just automatically accepted it as gospel truth. As far as Obama goes, I guess most people feel that just because he is young and good looking, that is enough to make him presidential.

    I for one, do not care for anything Hillary, Obama, Edwards or any of those running on the Republican side, stand for. I cannot vote for any one who supports abortion, same-sex marriage euthanasia, strict gun-control, open borders, etc, no matter what party they cliam to represent.

    Comment posted February 13th, 2007 at 11:04 pm
  2. James says:

    ‘same-sex marriage euthanasia’ sounds like a great idea!
    Un-PC in a PC way. love it.

    A bit like saying you support selective abortion for those with a so-called ‘gay gene’. makes people’s minds boggle, and great fun with the pro-gay and pro-abort lot.

    Comment posted February 15th, 2007 at 6:49 am
  3. James Macchione says:

    Yeah, you wouldn’t want stricter gun-control laws…I mean, those life affirming devices are fantastic and nothing but goodness and godliness comes from my handguns. I like the part where they kill people…that’s all about God.

    Comment posted March 4th, 2007 at 6:12 pm
  4. Eric says:

    Jim—I don’t know if stricter gun control laws would save lives or not—I’ve heard reasonable arguments on both sides. But I’m more concerned about the weapons of abortion, which take 3,400+ lives every day (as compared to 81 firearm deaths per day).

    Comment posted March 5th, 2007 at 11:46 am
  5. James Macchione says:

    I have always understood your cause, going back to our days in high school, however I will not diminish a single life of any age. All life is worth fighting for, from the convict on death row to the gunshot victim, to the life of a child; however, as you have your cause, I have mine. Where you fight one battle diligently, I fight several less diligently; where you place your major struggle on that of abortion; I place mine on that of hypcrisy. I just want people to understand that not everyone who has problems with abortion is a far right bigot, listens to Limbaugh, reads Coulter, or votes Republican; many of us are raging liberals who will vote democratic contiuously because only through social justice and education can diminish and eventually eliminate the need for abortions completely.

    Comment posted March 5th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
  6. Eric says:

    James Macchione writes: “I will not diminish a single life of any age. All life is worth fighting for . . . “

    So you say, yet in both your comments here and in your previous statement about the election (demanding that Christians vote Democrat to end the Iraq War), it does seem rather as if the lives of unborn children count for less to you.

    But how does on weigh one group of lives against another? It seems significant to me, a comparative measure of evil, that 40 times the number of human beings are killed through abortion than through gun violence. Or that 70 times more unborn babies have been killed in the U.S. since the start of the Iraq War than total deaths due to that conflict.

    But even those numbers don’t get to the heart of the matter. I agree with you that every deliberate killing of a human being is an evil thing—even if necessary, say, to defend the innocent!—but it seems to me that some of these evils are graver than others.

    I’m sure we would agree that there is more evil in the murder of an eight-year-old girl than in the homicide of a man who in defense of the life of an eight-year-old girl.

    But have you really contemplated the killing of the unborn child in her own mother’s womb? There is no human being more vulnerable, more fragile than an unborn child—nor none so innocent; there is no place on earth more ordered towards the protection of life than the womb; and there is nor manner of death more grisly and cold-blooded than abortion.

    As for hypocrisy, perhaps you could explain what you mean. Personally, I don’t listen to Rush Limbaugh or read Ann Coulter. I do vote pro-life, or if you prefer, anti-abortion—which most of the time means I vote for the Republican. But I do so on the basis of my judgment which candidate will do more to restrain, or less to advance, what I consider for the reasons touched on above to be the greatest evil of our time.

    Or is it hypocrisy to come to a different judgment about these matters from yourself?

    Comment posted March 5th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
  7. James Macchione says:

    I don’t prefer anti-abortion, and you should know that for as long as you have known me, but no amount of legislation, no amount of “voting pro-life” is going to make abortion disappear. Whether it is legal or illegal does not take care of the issue at its core….there is no instant political solution to abortion. There never has been, there never will be. Education and compassion are the keys to reducing and eliminating abortion. Voting for the party that reduces the amount of money for social programs while increasing the amount of money budgeted towards mass murder (the war in Iraq) sends a very mixed message. A party supported by the tobacco lobby, a party supported by big business and corporations who make decisions based on profit rather than on what is good for society—all of these things send a rhetorical F U to anyone looking on. Why should I care about an abortion when the government doesn’t care about me; why should I care about an unborn fetus when I was laid off and I can’t feed my family that’s OUT of my stomach. Why should I care about the health of a baby, when this idiot next to me is blowing his cigarette smoke right into my face. If you want abortion to be eliminated, you do it by treating every person with dignity and respect, something Republicans do not do. Fear mongering, gay bashing, using God as a tool in election rhetoric when secretly doing all that you “condemn” is not what makes people feel better about life. It makes them feel worse. You want to have someone value a fetus, have someone value their neighbor. That is the problem. The culture of death and instant gratification was not brought on by left wing nuts like me, far from it—it was brought on by people who use fear as tool, who use violence as a means to maintain their power, and who use ignorance as a weapon in their favor. It is no surprise that when preachers and priests are pedophiles or secretly gay and addicted to drugs, it is no shock when government or religions cover up the truth to protect the “institution” that society takes a turn for the worse. We may never agree on the method to make a more morally acceptable society. We may never agree on the way to eliminate abortion, but the message that the right wing (Republicans in particular) send out is one of hate, lies, greed and distortion. As long as this is the pervading attitude, as long as those in power seek to belittle and use fear as their ally, abortions will continue to exist, because to them most of our lives are nothing more than a means to an end.

    “But how does on weigh one group of lives against another?”
    This is easy, there are some who would say that a mother of three killed in a bombing is worth 10 unborn fetuses for the value she would have to those who remain alive. Some would say that. What about the 400,000 smoking related deaths each year? Who is responsible for those? Why is smoking still legal, how many have died in smoking related deaths since how many will die in the future…What about the 20 million illegal abortions performed worldwide each year…are these lives less significant to you? Generally speaking, the nations with the lowest abortion rates not only have legalized abortion, but they also have the most left leaning social policy. Give people a sense of worth, and suddenly their understanding of humanity increases. Again, the right has marginalized the middle class, has used race and fear to push its ideas through; it is no wonder that abortion levels are just about unchanged during Bush’s rule.

    Eric,when you say something like “there is no place on earth more ordered towards the protection of life than the womb; and there is nor manner of death more grisly and cold-blooded than abortion.” You are doing yourself a disservice, you are far more intelligent than this sort of rote response. Sure there are more grisly deaths, the raping and maiming of a three year old girl whose corpse is then chopped up or eaten; a misguided bomb falling on a house, partially exploding as the residents scream in pain while their bodies slowly burn; an elderly woman forced an knifepoint to turn over her purse only to end up gutted…and there are many, many more examples. Human life deserves protection on all levels, and while you make abortion your number one cause, I see it rather as an effect. Change other things, and you will eliminate abortion.

    So while it may seem like I place more worth in some life than others, in actuality I am placing much more worth on one way of solving a problem over another. People do not make decisions based on the legality or illegality of something. Promoting an administration that minimizes people will foster abortion REGARDLESS of the political nature of their argument. Thinking that the “secular” left somehow values human life less is also ridiculous. I know that we will never see eye to eye on methods or politics, but we must remember the sort of person that Jesus was. He was someone who understood that the way to change someone’s heart was to walk among them and live as one of them, this is much more the way I view the mode of change.

    Good luck with your fast and keep in touch.

    Comment posted March 7th, 2007 at 12:38 am
  8. Eric says:

    Jim writes: “[N]o amount of legislation, no amount of ‘voting pro-life’ is going to make abortion disappear. Whether it is legal or illegal does not take care of the issue at its core . . . there is no instant political solution to abortion.”

    That’s a straw man, Jim. Nobody is saying there’s an instant political solution to abortion. Nobody. But there certainly are ways that politics can increase or decrease abortion, or move us closer or farther away from legal protection for the unborn.

    Moreover, our work at the Pro-Life Action League has very little to do with politics. My father founded the League—our freshman year of high school, by the way—precisely because he didn’t believe in waiting for a political solution, but that changing hearts on minds on abortion was the necessary foundation for any lasting protection for the unborn.

    But is it demonstrably untrue that the legality of an action has no bearing on its practice. The abortion rate in this country skyrocketed after Roe v. Wade, and for many the fact that abortion is legal is all they need to know; what’s legal is what’s moral.

    What’s more, abortion was decriminalized in this country a decade after the establishment of the kinds of massive welfare programs you want to maintain and expand. Is there a connection? Maybe, maybe not, but it belies the notion that social programs will tend to reduce abortion.

    “Voting for the party that reduces the amount of money for social programs while increasing the amount of money budgeted towards mass murder (the war in Iraq) sends a very mixed message.”

    But Jim, I don’t think voting sends any message other than, “Given these choices, I pick X.” In other words, the only “message” of a vote is the vote itself.

    You choose to attribute motives to people’s votes—that those who vote for a Republican House candidate, say, “don’t care” about deaths in the Iraq War, poverty, etc. But you don’t really know that at all.

    It isn’t self-evident that the particular policies you prefer are the right ones. Welfare programs, in particular, have a pretty dubious history in this country. Declaring that anyone who would cut funding to Program X is utterly indifferent to those meant to be helped by Program X is simply unfair. Could be the opponent of Program X judges that program to be a failure.

    By the way, the canard that conservatives don’t care about the poor is debunked in Arthur C. Brook’s new book, Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism. The “surprising truth” is that conservatives actually give more to charity, volunteer more hours, even give more pints of blood than liberals.

    So you see, your effort to argue backwards to hypocrisy or ignorance from what little you know about people’s policy positions really fails.

    “Why should I care about the health of a baby, when this idiot next to me is blowing his cigarette smoke right into my face.”

    I have to hand it to you, Jim. As the Communications Director of the Pro-Life Action League, I receive a constant stream of e-mails from disgruntled liberals demanding that we solve problems X, Y and Z first before spending any more time on abortion. But this is the very first time someone has suggested to me that second hand smoke is a more pressing problem than abortion.

    “If you want abortion to be eliminated, you do it by treating every person with dignity and respect . . .”

    Except perhaps Republicans.

    “Eric,when you say something like ‘there is no place on earth more ordered towards the protection of life than the womb; and there is nor manner of death more grisly and cold-blooded than abortion.’ You are doing yourself a disservice, you are far more intelligent than this sort of rote response.”

    I’m sorry you consider that a “rote response,” because in actual fact it is not. Everything you have written here suggests to me that you really have not contemplated the meaning of abortion. The way you speak of “fetuses” and people “OUT of my stomach”—this is not the language of someone who has really learned to sympathize with the unborn child.

    You clearly do sympathize with the poor, the unemployed, the displaced. If you do also sympathize with the unborn, it really isn’t coming out very clearly in your words.

    “Change other things, and you will eliminate abortion.”

    Yes, perhaps you’re right that banning cigarettes will stop abortion. But have you considered the way the abortion undermines the effort to “change other things”?

    Why should we provide assistance to poor children, for example, when, really, they ought to have been aborted in the first place? Is there not a monumental contradiction in a social policy that says both “feed the poor” and “kill the poor”?

    But in any case, aren’t you really contradicting yourself here? Above you declare that “there is no instant political solution to abortion,” but fill in the blank, man. There’s no instant political solution to anything. Why are we supposed to eschew addressing abortion politically, but seek political solutions to poverty and violence?

    “[Jesus] was someone who understood that the way to change someone’s heart was to walk among them and live as one of them, this is much more the way I view the mode of change.”

    On this week agree—though if you feel you have to say this, perhaps you are not as thoroughly familiar with the pro-life movement as you say. Take a look at the recent Time Magazine article on crisis pregnancy centers, or read up on what we’re doing at the League.

    Our #1 effort to to provide a pro-life presence at the abortion clinics, offering help to men and women desperate enough to kill their unborn children. The most Christ-like people I know are the ones who dedicate their time to this work.

    Comment posted March 7th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
  9. James Macchione says:

    “for many the fact that abortion is legal is all they need to know; what’s legal is what’s moral.”

    When you say this, this shows me how much contempt you must have for certain sorts of people. Who are the “many” who think in this manner, I would like to know. You seem to think that people make moral decisions based on legality…so these same people when they go over 65 mph suddenly feel immoral and are racked with guilt…I don’t think so. I would agree that perhaps some are able to rationalize an abortion because of its legality, but I do not think this frees them IN ANY WAY from moral culpability or remorse or guilt. People are much more complex than simply assuming that legal = moral for the majority of them. This sells people short, particularly the people that you hope to reach the most.

    “abortion was decriminalized in this country a decade after the establishment of the kinds of massive welfare programs you want to maintain and expand.”

    I could just as easily (and incorrectly) argue that the plight of abortion was at its peak during staunch Republican control of the White House…which administration had the highest abortion rates?…Why Reagan and Bush I of course. I could say their economic squeezing of the lower and middle class led to a higher abortion rate and therefore was responsible for millions of deaths, but that is of course a logical fallacy, just as your implication would be.

    “You choose to attribute motives to people’s votes—that those who vote for a Republican House candidate, say, “don’t care” about deaths in the Iraq War, poverty, etc. But you don’t really know that at all.”

    This certainly isn’t the case, and if I implied that I apologize. People’s votes are motivated by a ton of factors and in the case of recent elections, they were motivated by fear. Fear of the unknown, of more “evildoers” attacking, fear of Muslims, of the Democrats being “with” the terrorists, being told it was better to “fight them over there, instead of over here”…all votes have a motive. With the pathetically low turnout of voters that this country has, those that do go out to vote ARE motivated, they would have to be. Apathetic, unmotivated people don’t bother voting, the numbers show that. Many of those who voted Republican originally did so because they were duped by the government into thinking Iraq was a danger to us, were told that we would be safe if we became aggressive and took it to ‘em. People want to believe in their leaders, it is their nature, so of course motives enter in to elections.

    “The “surprising truth” is that conservatives actually give more to charity, volunteer more hours, even give more pints of blood than liberals.”

    I’ve heard of the book but haven’t read it, the topic alone leads to the following questions: What constitutes a charity? Was the NRA considered a charity? Is Greenpeace a charity? How could someone like me, who is a public school teacher in Chicago, who devotes his life to helping those who need it most, who makes very little money…how could I afford to help with cash, when I’ve given my life to helping? I might give this book a read so I could thoroughly destroy it at some other time. I could of course also say that conservatives give more because they feel guilty for wrecking the country and the lives of those in it (but that’s a joke…at least it’s mostly a joke).

    “But this is the very first time someone has suggested to me that second hand smoke is a more pressing problem than abortion.”

    I used the suggestion as an example…you have your fight to fight and I understand that, but these things are all problems that exist because of the same inherent problem with our government in general. The government makes too much money from cigarette and liquor taxes, therefore these things will never be made illegal, though they are arguably just as deadly and evil as abortion. A cigarette does one thing, it destroys your lungs (and the lungs of the people around you)…that’s it. Shockingly it is quite similar to abortion. When society accepts certain destructive elements, it inevitably leads to the acceptance of other destructive elements. If you are going to support the tobacco industry, don’t be shocked when something like abortion remains an option for pregnant women.

    “Everything you have written here suggests to me that you really have not contemplated the meaning of abortion. The way you speak of “fetuses” and people “OUT of my stomach”—this is not the language of someone who has really learned to sympathize with the unborn child.”

    When I wrote that I was using the “voice” of someone who might speak that way based on how they feel the government has treated them, particularly when I gave the “Out of my stomach” example. As for the use of the word fetus, it is an accepted word, just as baby, infant, adolescent, and teen discuss stages of development, so does fetus…so while it may not be the same as unborn child, it is still a completely acceptable word and no more diminishes the child than the word teenager.

    There are differences in our opinions to be sure. I have always been of the mindset that people are designed to make choices – good and bad. It is societies job to guide those choices and provide a solid framework for them. To help them become better decision makers in the long term. To stop the girl before she gets pregnant, to teach that every action has a consequence, to show that small decisions can sometimes lead to huge results…both good and bad. That’s why I teach adolescents, that’s why I’m in the middle of the city doing everything I can to help them become better humans. To teach them what humanity is, what society is, what a difference each of them can make. So while you may find that the people who are most Christ-like are those who stand outside the clinics and fight your one fight, I find that people who stand among the children and fight all the fights, teach all the lessons, create sound moral fiber- to be equally Christ-like. I prefer to think that stopping children from making bad decisions as adults, teaching them the significance of themselves and other humans on this planet is as profound and significant as what you do.

    In fact, the stories that you linked to, ask yourself who is responsible for many of these children for a good chunk of their lives…it is people like me. Working mothers have children, they have support, but it is the teacher that is in front of these children 6, 7, or 8 hours a day, five days a week. I’ve had students come to me with real issues (gunshot wounds, gang problems even rape; or problems with drugs or alcohol – and this is elementary school I’m talking about) and I’ve had to deal with it and provide guidance and sympathy and compassion and call the police or the DCFS or make sure they had a safe trip home… So while your fight is important, there are decades that follow, where my fight should take precedence. That is why I strive for social reform and social justice. Every unborn child that is saved, now has a life that will impact those around them, a life that needs to be full of love, understanding and compassion. For every hour you spend protesting abortion and providing support for the parents, you need to spend another hour volunteering your time at a local public school or doing something to support the children who are born. That is the real challenge. And I am not talking about donated furniture or hand-me-down cribs I’m talking about math problems and rape counseling and advice on why they probably shouldn’t be listening to that Jay-Z song when they’re only 11 and why a game like Crackdown isn’t right for someone in 5th grade. So you may feel that you are fighting the most important fight in the last 50 years, you are actually only firing the first salvos, the real challenge lies in the NEXT 50 years.

    Comment posted March 8th, 2007 at 7:26 pm
  10. Eric says:

    James M writes: “When you say this, this shows me how much contempt you must have for certain sorts of people. Who are the ‘many’ who think in this manner, I would like to know.”

    Actually, Jim, the fact that you can read contempt into such an simple statement of fact tells me a lot about who you think I am, and how fruitful I might expect further dialog with you to really be.

    I did not originate the idea that law is an important teacher. That’s a very old observation.

    As to who these people are who hold this view, I can only say that I meet them all the time. “It’s legal, leave it alone,” is something that I hear all the time. Maybe the “it’s legal” thing is a cover for some deeper willingness to accept abortion, but it’s a cover I don’t think we should grant them.

    Do you really deny that there are people out there who believe that if something is legal, it’s okay? What about the corporate executives who hide behind just such a view?

    Gotta go—that’s all I’ve got time for right now . . .

    Comment posted March 9th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
  11. James Macchione says:

    Actually many corporate executives do NOT hide behind that view at all, they knowingly break the law, knowingly hide the truth, from Enron to the tobacco industry to Scooter Libby, these people were not only ignoring the boundaries of the morality, they were also ignoring the boundaries of law. Very little people use law as a crutch for morality.

    I apologize if my overly dramatic use of the word “contempt” caused problems, that sort of was my intent. I have a tendency to overdramatize things, that’s my nature. I can equally say that I do not know very many people who hold that view and I’m in contact with just as many regular people as you. Theoretically, morality is the basis of law, but as you and I both know (as does most of civilization) that many laws have no reflection on morality.

    So accept my apology and it is not really the picture I have of you at all. The picture I still have is you sitting on the edge of my couch in your bike shorts in fact….

    Comment posted March 9th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
  12. Eric says:

    Jim, the whole thrust of your argument in #9 seems to be this: that your job is more important than mine. What a strange thing to say—to anyone!

    And what a strange demand to make, that “for every hour you spend protesting abortion and providing support for the parents, you need to spend another hour volunteering your time at a local public school or doing something to support the children who are born”!

    Why aren’t you likewise required to spend an hour fighting abortion for every hour you spend working with kids?

    Why is Sr. Helen Prejean not required to spend an hour at a soup kitchen for every hour she spends ministering to death row inmates?

    Was Mother Teresa to be chided for dedicating her time exclusively to the dying poor of Calcutta—for failing to give an equal number of hours to teaching children to read?

    Do you accuse Mr. Rogers of ignoring the plight of adolescents because he devoted his ministry to preschoolers?

    It seems to me that different people are called to do different work. No one can do everything, and there’s no hypocrisy in discerning the main work one is meant to do, and doing it.

    Comment posted March 10th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
  13. James Macchione says:

    It was actually your comment about who the most Christ-like people were that prompted that portion of my post. It was you who said “The most Christ-like people I know are the ones who dedicate their time to this work. “

    As far as I know, Christ was the whole package. He didn’t just talk about one aspect of morality or how to live one’s life or how to right one wrong. He taught lessons from the ground up focusing on all aspects of the human experience. He did not fight one fight, he fought all fights.

    So the point of my argument was to show that the people who fight abortion are certainly not more Christ-like than people who teach children or MANY OTHERS for that matter. I never would have even discussed something like this had you not made the statement that you made–which is equally strange.

    Comment posted March 11th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
  14. Eric says:

    I beg you, once again, Jim, to read my words a little more closely. That is to say, to read my words, and not read “into” them.

    I said nothing like “those who fight abortion are more like Christ than others.” I said only—in response to a comment from you suggesting that we do not understand what it even means to be Christ-like (see #7)—that the most Christ-like people I know (I who, by the way, only know so many people) are the ones who stand outside of abortion clinics trying to help abortion-bound women.

    I will invite any objective reader of this discussion—if there happens to be one—to discern which of us first assumed an antagonistic, accusing, even dismissive tone.

    Comment posted March 12th, 2007 at 8:17 am
  15. James Macchione says:

    It is my nature to take the antagonistic tone. I never denied that I was the one who might have been a little more confrontational, however it was your comment that brought the discussion in that direction. Way, way, way back in post #7 I said “He was someone who understood that the way to change someone’s heart was to walk among them and live as one of them, this is much more the way I view the mode of change.” Nowhere does that comment imply that you and your movement didn’t understand what it is like to be Christlike, nowhere. That was your inference not my implication…so while I may have taken this discussion into a slightly (and believe me by my loud, obnoxious, Italian standards – very slightly) more antagonistic mode, it is your misinterpretation of what I said in #7.

    In fact, in #8, you AGREE with me, it is your comments that followed your agreement that brought on this latest branch of the argument. You also say that the “whole thrust of #9” is regarding which job is more noble, that is but two paragraphs of a LONG post….

    Comment posted March 12th, 2007 at 10:05 am
  16. Eric says:

    James Macchione says: “It is my nature to take the antagonistic tone.”

    Alas!

    Comment posted March 12th, 2007 at 10:46 am
  17. Square Zero » Blog Archive » Damon and the Dinosaurs, Part II says:

    […] a matter of fact, I care deeply about many issues. The abortion issue is paramount to me, as you know—and often it’s the make or break issue for how I cast my vote. During the primaries, when […]

    Comment posted September 14th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
hd teen porn
bahis siteleri