ADVERTISEMENT

A National Conversation about Leftist Violence?

I'm sorry, can you point me to who on "the left" said it was ok to destroy property and beat up people? (Almost all protests "disrupt traffic").

I mean I've gone to all the "leftist meetings," and I've not heard anything about saying it was ok. I mean sure, supporting evil as a general preference, that's always there as a leftist, but otherwise, last I checked violence by protestors occurs both fairly rarely and across the political spectrum.
 
qazplm said:
I'm sorry, can you point me to who on "the left" said it was ok to destroy property and beat up people? (Almost all protests "disrupt traffic").

I mean I've gone to all the "leftist meetings," and I've not heard anything about saying it was ok. I mean sure, supporting evil as a general preference, that's always there as a leftist, but otherwise, last I checked violence by protestors occurs both fairly rarely and across the political spectrum.
Click to expand...
For all the crap the Tea Partiers took in the past (and I'm no fan of the Tea Party), I don't remember any of them turning over police cars, breaking out police car windows, smashing windows of local businesses, burning candidates in effigy, blocking major highways, trying to keep people from entering public buildings, etc.

I find it hypocritical that the illegal hooligans doing this damage are never called out by the Democrat politicians like Clinton or their stooges in the media. In fact, both Bernie and Hillary seem to encourage this behavior at times.
 
SDBoiler1 said:
For all the crap the Tea Partiers took in the past (and I'm no fan of the Tea Party), I don't remember any of them turning over police cars, breaking out police car windows, smashing windows of local businesses, burning candidates in effigy, blocking major highways, trying to keep people from entering public buildings, etc.

I find it hypocritical that the illegal hooligans doing this damage are never called out by the Democrat politicians like Clinton or their stooges in the media. In fact, both Bernie and Hillary seem to encourage this behavior at times.
Click to expand...
So, it's not ok, and no one has said it's ok, you just don't like that Bernie or Hillary haven't spoken out about it.

Like I said, no one thinks "it's ok." And conservatives have done all sorts of things up to and including killing people in protesting abortion clinics. There is violence on all sides.

I have no issue with "burning candidates in effigy" so that seems a weird thing to toss in there.
 
TopSecretBoiler said:
Obama's friend Bill Ayers. What do I win?
Click to expand...
He's not a member of "the left." He was condemned by Obama, is not his "friend", and he was part of a radical organization.

Wanna try again? Or should I start naming right-wing whackos as part of "the right?"
Because I can come up with some doozies...but usually I don't attempt the silliness of tying crazies on one side to the rest of that side, particularly when that side has particularly condemned said crazies.
 
qazplm said:
He's not a member of "the left." He was condemned by Obama, is not his "friend", and he was part of a radical organization.

Wanna try again? Or should I start naming right-wing whackos as part of "the right?"
Because I can come up with some doozies...but usually I don't attempt the silliness of tying crazies on one side to the rest of that side, particularly when that side has particularly condemned said crazies.
Click to expand...
wow...the delusion is strong with this one. Actually, he's a prominent left winger, as is his family in Chicago.
They were at least professional acquaintances. It's public record! Don't you remember BO playing it off as "just some guy who lived in my neighborhood"? Ayers hosted a meet-the-candidate gathering at his home as Barack Obama prepared to run for his initial election to the Illinois state senate (supposedly a state senator asked him to host it, so how is he not a member of the left?), the two worked with the same charity and social service organizations in Chicago (particularly the Chicago Annenberg Challenge), and Ayers contributed $200 to Obama's re-election campaign for the Illinois state senate in 2001. The UIC records show that Obama and Ayers attended board meetings, retreats and at least one news conference together as the education program got under way. The two continued to attend meetings together during the 1995-2001 operation of the program, records show.
 
TopSecretBoiler said:
wow...the delusion is strong with this one. Actually, he's a prominent left winger, as is his family in Chicago.
They were at least professional acquaintances. It's public record! Don't you remember BO playing it off as "just some guy who lived in my neighborhood"? Ayers hosted a meet-the-candidate gathering at his home as Barack Obama prepared to run for his initial election to the Illinois state senate (supposedly a state senator asked him to host it, so how is he not a member of the left?), the two worked with the same charity and social service organizations in Chicago (particularly the Chicago Annenberg Challenge), and Ayers contributed $200 to Obama's re-election campaign for the Illinois state senate in 2001. The UIC records show that Obama and Ayers attended board meetings, retreats and at least one news conference together as the education program got under way. The two continued to attend meetings together during the 1995-2001 operation of the program, records show.
Click to expand...

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/10/he-lied-about-bill-ayers/

Pretty much everything you cite above is discredited in the linked article.
 
gr8indoorsman said:
That Ayers and Obama are friends or even "close". They went to some of the same meetings for a group. Big whoop.
Click to expand...
Of course you would miss the main point of me responding to qaz: "I'm sorry, can you point me to who on "the left" said it was ok to destroy property and beat up people? (Almost all protests "disrupt traffic")."
So I gave him one. Then he hilariously cries that he is not a member of the left, which of course he so obviously is. But whatever, you can be pedants all day. It's practically a liberal policy.
clinton.png
 
I didn't miss it. You tied him to Obama as a close friend. He isn't.

Would I say Ayers is representative of the left? He's a representative of some section of the left, sure. As qaz said, there are equally embarrassing members of the right.

JMO, but you guys are making a big ol' mountain out of a molehill by politicizing this stuff. As whacked out as I think some of these "violent" protest groups are, I don't think they're driven by liberal politics in particular. That many of them likely happen to vote Democrat is correlation, not causation, IMO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ecouch
gr8indoorsman said:
I didn't miss it. You tied him to Obama as a close friend. He isn't.

Would I say Ayers is representative of the left? He's a representative of some section of the left, sure. As qaz said, there are equally embarrassing members of the right.

JMO, but you guys are making a big ol' mountain out of a molehill by politicizing this stuff. As whacked out as I think some of these "violent" protest groups are, I don't think they're driven by liberal politics in particular. That many of them likely happen to vote Democrat is correlation, not causation, IMO.
Click to expand...
We're politicizing this stuff? Wouldn't be brought up at all if these illegal protestors haven't been doing what they've done. They wave their Mexican flags, destroy property, wreck police cars, punch people in the face, stop the free flow of traffic - the list goes on and on...

Would they be doing this if people like Obama hadn't promised them a path to citizenship and sponsored the "Dreamers"? They act like they're owed something. This is totally driven by liberal politics. Democrats absolutely support these illegals because they know that most of them will end up being solid Democrat voters. It is a cynical way to look at it, but it's true. America doesn't owe these people anything. Either they or their parents broke the law and now they are demanding the same rights as people who did come here legally. They have no leg to stand on.

Ronald Reagan did an amnesty in the '80s with a promise from the Democrats that the wall would be completed and that amnesty would not happen again. Ted Kennedy and others cut this deal. Of course, the Democrats reneged on the deal and now we have the current situation we have. Not political? My ass, it's not political.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sluggo69
TopSecretBoiler said:
wow...the delusion is strong with this one. Actually, he's a prominent left winger, as is his family in Chicago.
They were at least professional acquaintances. It's public record! Don't you remember BO playing it off as "just some guy who lived in my neighborhood"? Ayers hosted a meet-the-candidate gathering at his home as Barack Obama prepared to run for his initial election to the Illinois state senate (supposedly a state senator asked him to host it, so how is he not a member of the left?), the two worked with the same charity and social service organizations in Chicago (particularly the Chicago Annenberg Challenge), and Ayers contributed $200 to Obama's re-election campaign for the Illinois state senate in 2001. The UIC records show that Obama and Ayers attended board meetings, retreats and at least one news conference together as the education program got under way. The two continued to attend meetings together during the 1995-2001 operation of the program, records show.
Click to expand...
lol no he isn't. He is not a "prominent left-winger" whatever that means. He is not leading any meaningful left-wing organization, he is not leading anything meaningful or participating in anything meaningful. He's a whacko. Left, right, whackos are whackos.

I could contribute 200 bucks to Ted Cruz's campaign, does that mean I know him? That we are friends? Nothing you listed: makes them friends, makes them close, means Obama supports his ideas or what he did when Obama was 8 years old. I attend meetings with all sorts of people who I'm sure I don't share their political views or condone every act they've ever done or even know much of either.

Gr8 summed it up just fine, they were partners, they weren't friends, Obama is not tied to him in any way. And he's not a representative of the left anymore than David Duke is of the right (then again, of the two, only one of them has actually held public office).
 
gr8indoorsman said:
I didn't miss it. You tied him to Obama as a close friend. He isn't.

Would I say Ayers is representative of the left? He's a representative of some section of the left, sure. As qaz said, there are equally embarrassing members of the right.

JMO, but you guys are making a big ol' mountain out of a molehill by politicizing this stuff. As whacked out as I think some of these "violent" protest groups are, I don't think they're driven by liberal politics in particular. That many of them likely happen to vote Democrat is correlation, not causation, IMO.
Click to expand...
I never said close. You said close. I said "friend" then qualified later to "at least professional acquaintances". Why do you two argue that there are embarrassing members of the right? Who cares? I'm not defending the right, I'm not on the right. It doesn't insult me, I'm not religious and pro choice, it's a false dichotomy anyway, and that's not what this thread is about. All I did was correctly answer his question and he had a temper tantrum.

The latest Ras poll has the race narrowing (with Trump leading!?) and I believe these violent little pricks are part of the reason. The way to beat Trump is through policy debate. Ad hominem and attacking free speech is just going to push people to him.
 
SDBoiler1 said:
We're politicizing this stuff? Wouldn't be brought up at all if these illegal protestors haven't been doing what they've done. They wave their Mexican flags, destroy property, wreck police cars, punch people in the face, stop the free flow of traffic - the list goes on and on...

Would they be doing this if people like Obama hadn't promised them a path to citizenship and sponsored the "Dreamers"? They act like they're owed something. This is totally driven by liberal politics. Democrats absolutely support these illegals because they know that most of them will end up being solid Democrat voters. It is a cynical way to look at it, but it's true. America doesn't owe these people anything. Either they or their parents broke the law and now they are demanding the same rights as people who did come here legally. They have no leg to stand on.

Ronald Reagan did an amnesty in the '80s with a promise from the Democrats that the wall would be completed and that amnesty would not happen again. Ted Kennedy and others cut this deal. Of course, the Democrats reneged on the deal and now we have the current situation we have. Not political? My ass, it's not political.
Click to expand...
I'm always perplexed when you mix in random things that don't match...destroying property et al I get, but waving a flag or stopping the flow of traffic??

At any rate...Democrats support "illegals" for a whole host of reasons. Because they contribute meaningfully to our economy, because many of our citizens have illegals in their families, because the vast majority of them are just trying to better their lives and the lives of their children, because some of them serve in our military, and because reality says we ain't rounding up and deporting 12 million people.

Has nothing to do with "they might vote for us one day." This is the problem with politics, you can't just stop with, you're wrong and here's why, it's always got to be "you're evil" or "you're only concerned with the most base of things."

What current "situation" do we have? What's the crime rate for illegals vice the general population? What is the benefit in reduced costs to our construction and food growing industries? How much do we get in taxes paid by illegals vice benefits received by illegals?

Do you know? Have you looked at all the pros and cons, or is it just illegals suck!?
 
TopSecretBoiler said:
I never said close. You said close. I said "friend" then qualified later to "at least professional acquaintances". Why do you two argue that there are embarrassing members of the right? Who cares? I'm not defending the right, I'm not on the right. It doesn't insult me, I'm not religious and pro choice, it's a false dichotomy anyway, and that's not what this thread is about. All I did was correctly answer his question and he had a temper tantrum.

The latest Ras poll has the race narrowing (with Trump leading!?) and I believe these violent little pricks are part of the reason. The way to beat Trump is through policy debate. Ad hominem and attacking free speech is just going to push people to him.
Click to expand...
lol

Progress...we've moved from "friend" to "professional acquaintance" which means absolutely nothing.

No one cared about Bill Ayers prior to the 08 election and prior to Obama being in the race...no one cares about Bill Ayers after that attack went nowhere.

But sure...he's "part of the left." lol He's about as part of the left as David Duke is part of the right.
 
qazplm said:
lol

Progress...we've moved from "friend" to "professional acquaintance" which means absolutely nothing.

No one cared about Bill Ayers prior to the 08 election and prior to Obama being in the race...no one cares about Bill Ayers after that attack went nowhere.

But sure...he's "part of the left." lol He's about as part of the left as David Duke is part of the right.
Click to expand...
right. you are so right. I mean obviously duke hosted the meet and greet for the republican presidential candidate for the 2008 election. Obviously. How did I miss that. yawwwn. I'm done with you. You have nothing to add but logical fallacies.
 
TopSecretBoiler said:
right. you are so right. I mean obviously duke hosted the meet and greet for the republican presidential candidate for the 2008 election. Obviously. How did I miss that. yawwwn. I'm done with you. You have nothing to add but logical fallacies.
Click to expand...
Nah, he just won election as a republican congressman from LA ;)
totally not the same as hosting a meet and greet. Ya got me.

Let me clear, LA house, not Congress congress.
 
Last edited:
qazplm said:
Nah, he just won election as a republican congressman from LA ;)
totally not the same as hosting a meet and greet. Ya got me.
Click to expand...
so? good for you. you're finally right about something that had nothing to do with your question.
 
TopSecretBoiler said:
don-amp-039-t-go-full-retard_o_2323335.jpg
Click to expand...
See the problem you have is a joke has to have a kernel of truth in it to be funny.

No one here thinks I'm unintelligent. My worst detractors don't think that.

So why you keep up with that particular insult is beyond me.

I mean it would be like me trying to ridicule you for being too erudite, or overly complicated. No one's going to believe that.
 
TopSecretBoiler said:
I never said close. You said close. I said "friend" then qualified later to "at least professional acquaintances". Why do you two argue that there are embarrassing members of the right? Who cares? I'm not defending the right, I'm not on the right. It doesn't insult me, I'm not religious and pro choice, it's a false dichotomy anyway, and that's not what this thread is about. All I did was correctly answer his question and he had a temper tantrum.

The latest Ras poll has the race narrowing (with Trump leading!?) and I believe these violent little pricks are part of the reason. The way to beat Trump is through policy debate. Ad hominem and attacking free speech is just going to push people to him.
Click to expand...

Actually, McCain's ads said "close".

You are on the right. Stop denying that. No one's falling for it. It's as absurd as me saying I'm an "independent".
 
qazplm said:
I'm always perplexed when you mix in random things that don't match...destroying property et al I get, but waving a flag or stopping the flow of traffic??

At any rate...Democrats support "illegals" for a whole host of reasons. Because they contribute meaningfully to our economy, because many of our citizens have illegals in their families, because the vast majority of them are just trying to better their lives and the lives of their children, because some of them serve in our military, and because reality says we ain't rounding up and deporting 12 million people.

Has nothing to do with "they might vote for us one day." This is the problem with politics, you can't just stop with, you're wrong and here's why, it's always got to be "you're evil" or "you're only concerned with the most base of things."

What current "situation" do we have? What's the crime rate for illegals vice the general population? What is the benefit in reduced costs to our construction and food growing industries? How much do we get in taxes paid by illegals vice benefits received by illegals?

Do you know? Have you looked at all the pros and cons, or is it just illegals suck!?
Click to expand...
qaz,

Come on. You and I both know that the politicians are not as benevolent as you make them out to be. They will do (most of the time) what is politically expedient for 1) themselves, 2) for their friends and contributors, 3) their party, and 4) the country (in this order). It is politically expedient for Democrats to support the illegals in this country. And one of the major reasons is because these people will vote for Democrats in the more near-term future if they are given the right to vote as part of a path to citizenship.

You are a lawyer. What legal basis do these people have to be in this country permanently? Right now, none. Why should they be rewarded for breaking the law?

I would venture to say that the costs of the benefits that the states provide to illegals in this country outweigh the taxes they pay. Many of the illegals are paid "under the table" and are employed by businesses that do not use E-Verify. As to trying to quantify this, we both know it is not a simple thing to do.
 
gr8indoorsman said:
Actually, McCain's ads said "close".

You are on the right. Stop denying that. No one's falling for it. It's as absurd as me saying I'm an "independent".
Click to expand...
what am I on the right about? probably gun control. Other than that I'm pretty middle of the road. I have voted for R's D's I's and L's buddy. In fact, I've actively supported D's campaigns at local levels of government like county council, etc... I've told you before, I'm for a properly functioning government. It causes me great personal hassle and risk when the federal government is run by a bunch of do-nothing idiots who can't pass a budget, so I'm not a big fan of this administration. However, that doesn't mean I don't agree with them on certain subjects. I know I don't fit into your little pigeon holes so you don't know what to do with me. That's fine.
 
qazplm said:
See the problem you have is a joke has to have a kernel of truth in it to be funny.

No one here thinks I'm unintelligent. My worst detractors don't think that.

So why you keep up with that particular insult is beyond me.

I mean it would be like me trying to ridicule you for being too erudite, or overly complicated. No one's going to believe that.
Click to expand...
I didn't say you were unintelligent, but sometimes you act like an idiot, thus the simple jack reference. Instead of understanding why what you wrote was ridiculous, you just immediately go on the attack. I have no patience for zealots on either side. I'm sorry if I offended you, I'll try to tone it down.
 
TopSecretBoiler said:
I didn't say you were unintelligent, but sometimes you act like an idiot, thus the simple jack reference. Instead of understanding why what you wrote was ridiculous, you just immediately go on the attack. I have no patience for zealots on either side. I'm sorry if I offended you, I'll try to tone it down.
Click to expand...
I don't care if you tone it down or not...I find you a joke, humorous...I just was giving you some friendly advice that if you want to actually be funny, you need to actually understand the person you are trying to make fun of, and have some truth in there.

You bring nothing to the board, and it's not because you are a conservative by the way.
 
qazplm said:
I don't care if you tone it down or not...I find you a joke, humorous...I just was giving you some friendly advice that if you want to actually be funny, you need to actually understand the person you are trying to make fun of, and have some truth in there.

You bring nothing to the board, and it's not because you are a conservative by the way.
Click to expand...
Well I must bring something to the board. You're clearly crushing on me.
 
SDBoiler1 said:
qaz,

Come on. You and I both know that the politicians are not as benevolent as you make them out to be. They will do (most of the time) what is politically expedient for 1) themselves, 2) for their friends and contributors, 3) their party, and 4) the country (in this order). It is politically expedient for Democrats to support the illegals in this country. And one of the major reasons is because these people will vote for Democrats in the more near-term future if they are given the right to vote as part of a path to citizenship.

You are a lawyer. What legal basis do these people have to be in this country permanently? Right now, none. Why should they be rewarded for breaking the law?

I would venture to say that the costs of the benefits that the states provide to illegals in this country outweigh the taxes they pay. Many of the illegals are paid "under the table" and are employed by businesses that do not use E-Verify. As to trying to quantify this, we both know it is not a simple thing to do.
Click to expand...

Has nothing to do with "benevolence." Most politicians are trying to do what fits what their view of right looks like...whether it is objectively so or not is besides the point. Being the uber cynic like you clearly are is a waste of time and it's intellectually lazy. It allows you to do the whole, they all suck, and move on without any deeper thought or examination.

Recognizing instead that most are trying for the most part to do what they think is the right answer, allows you to then actually look at policies and proposals at face value and ask, will this work, for whom? Whether you are left, right, or middle.

People violate the law all of the time. Do you ever speed? Jaywalk? Breaking the law is not some black/white construct. An infant can't even break the law first of all, they don't have the mens rea and they can't control that they were brought over some imaginary line. And determining if someone "broke the law" is only half the equation, the next step is, what do you do about it...and the answer for 11 million people, the vast majority of whom have not committed any crimes while here, who often pay into the system more than they get out and who greatly contribute to our cheap food and construction costs is not...everybody out.

You would venture to say...why don't you research it first? People are out there who have done the work for you...the Google would help. I think you will find the OVERALL benefits from having illegals with you are a lot larger than you think, and the OVERALL negatives are a lot smaller than you think.

Does that mean it's a simple problem? No. Would construction costs rise so much with Americans at minimum wage or higher that it would cancel out the increase in available jobs and the wages they would pay? I honestly don't know. maybe, maybe not. Would that affect new homes starts? New home prices?

What about food? Would that mean more jobs for Americans picking strawberries? Or would it mean more modernization? Would the increased food prices hurt the poor? Again, pretty complicated question. Yes?
 
qazplm said:
Has nothing to do with "benevolence." Most politicians are trying to do what fits what their view of right looks like...whether it is objectively so or not is besides the point. Being the uber cynic like you clearly are is a waste of time and it's intellectually lazy. It allows you to do the whole, they all suck, and move on without any deeper thought or examination.

Recognizing instead that most are trying for the most part to do what they think is the right answer, allows you to then actually look at policies and proposals at face value and ask, will this work, for whom? Whether you are left, right, or middle.

People violate the law all of the time. Do you ever speed? Jaywalk? Breaking the law is not some black/white construct. An infant can't even break the law first of all, they don't have the mens rea and they can't control that they were brought over some imaginary line. And determining if someone "broke the law" is only half the equation, the next step is, what do you do about it...and the answer for 11 million people, the vast majority of whom have not committed any crimes while here, who often pay into the system more than they get out and who greatly contribute to our cheap food and construction costs is not...everybody out.

You would venture to say...why don't you research it first? People are out there who have done the work for you...the Google would help. I think you will find the OVERALL benefits from having illegals with you are a lot larger than you think, and the OVERALL negatives are a lot smaller than you think.

Does that mean it's a simple problem? No. Would construction costs rise so much with Americans at minimum wage or higher that it would cancel out the increase in available jobs and the wages they would pay? I honestly don't know. maybe, maybe not. Would that affect new homes starts? New home prices?

What about food? Would that mean more jobs for Americans picking strawberries? Or would it mean more modernization? Would the increased food prices hurt the poor? Again, pretty complicated question. Yes?
Click to expand...
governments numbers. feel free to peruse...not just aimed at qaz, but this may help to focus this debate some.https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/110th-congress-2007-2008/reports/12-6-immigration.pdf
 
TopSecretBoiler said:
governments numbers. feel free to peruse...not just aimed at qaz, but this may help to focus this debate some.https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/110th-congress-2007-2008/reports/12-6-immigration.pdf
Click to expand...
not really:

1. it's ten years old
2. It only discusses state and local impact, not national.
3. "Most available studies conclude that the unauthorized population pays less in state and local
taxes than it costs state and local governments to provide services to that population. However,
those estimates have significant limitations; they are not a suitable basis for developing an
aggregate national effect across all states."
4. It only appears to compare taxes collected vice direct costs. It doesn't assess the value of cheap labor across multiple, important areas (food production, construction)
The linked study as much as admits that last point " Are all costs and revenues captured? Many of the estimates took into account certain selected costs and revenues; no study, including those that
reported net costs, attempted to look at total costs and revenues."

So, the bottom line is, in some states, the costs between taxes collected and direct costs are roughly equal, and in some states, they are weighted more towards the latter. But the big question remains...how is housing and new construction impacted if we magically got rid of all illegals? How are food prices impacted?
 
TopSecretBoiler said:
what am I on the right about? probably gun control. Other than that I'm pretty middle of the road. I have voted for R's D's I's and L's buddy. In fact, I've actively supported D's campaigns at local levels of government like county council, etc... I've told you before, I'm for a properly functioning government. It causes me great personal hassle and risk when the federal government is run by a bunch of do-nothing idiots who can't pass a budget, so I'm not a big fan of this administration. However, that doesn't mean I don't agree with them on certain subjects. I know I don't fit into your little pigeon holes so you don't know what to do with me. That's fine.
Click to expand...
Yep, you're such an anomaly. Really like a unicorn leprechaun. I spend hours trying to figure out what to do with you.
 
qazplm said:
He's not a member of "the left." He was condemned by Obama, is not his "friend", and he was part of a radical organization.

Wanna try again? Or should I start naming right-wing whackos as part of "the right?"
Because I can come up with some doozies...but usually I don't attempt the silliness of tying crazies on one side to the rest of that side, particularly when that side has particularly condemned said crazies.
Click to expand...

Obama never condemned Ayers. Per CNN he did condemn violence but he did not condemn Ayers. He was on the Board of Annennberg and Wood Foundations, both left leaning groups. He worked together with Ayers on projects for five years or more. He was at Ayres house for a coming out party, all verified by CNN a long time ago. Axlerod was quoted as saying that when Obama was at Ayers house he had no knowledge of Ayers terrorist past. LOL Obama has a very long history of associating and being mentored by people from the left and Communists. Ever heard of "Uncle Frank Marshall Davis"?

The left wing attacks on Trump started in Wisconsin and then followed him to subsequent states. It was documented in Wisconsin that people were paid to protests against Trump.

CerZwwsW8AA6eNC.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

tjreese

This can't be true or we would have heard about it on CNN, MSNBC, CBS and ABC or other media. Besides,

Replies
14
Views
2K
Free Board: General Discussion Forum
typeviic
typeviic
DocRon

Highlights from the Dig City Podcast 9/21/2023

Replies
3
Views
340
Purdue Women's Sports
purduedavie
P
BlackGoldTexas

DGL Visiting Illinois Today (Selected Excerpts)

Replies
29
Views
2K
The Depot
Casey Bartley
Casey Bartley
Y

Officially confirmed by the NY Times: Democratic men are NancyBoys

Replies
26
Views
1K
Free Board: General Discussion Forum
Crayfish57
Crayfish57
BlackGoldTexas

Best of the Best Basketball Message Boards (Selected Excerpts)

Replies
6
Views
2K
The Depot
greeneman
G
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back