21
   

Congratulations Iowa! (only 47 states to go).

 
 
DrewDad
 
  3  
Reply Tue 14 Apr, 2009 10:58 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
The Supreme court has always said that you are wrong, precedence does matter.

You are incorrect. The Supreme Court is not bound by previous rulings, and has overturned itself before. (e.g., Plessy v. Ferguson/Brown v. Board of Education)
parados
 
  3  
Reply Tue 14 Apr, 2009 11:09 am
@DrewDad,
The USSC gives deference to previous rulings which means they are unlikely to overturn them.

But this is a sword that cuts both ways but it seems to cut hawkeye more than it helps him.

1. There is no USSC ruling stating gays can't marry so that is not a precedent
2. USSC has ruled that states must recognize marriages and divorces from other states. They don't get to ignore them under that precedent. Allowing states to ignore gay marriage opens to door to revisiting the previous rulings on whether states have to accept marriages and divorces from other states.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Apr, 2009 11:43 am
@parados,
Quote:
1. There is no USSC ruling stating gays can't marry so that is not a precedent
2. USSC has ruled that states must recognize marriages and divorces from other states. They don't get to ignore them under that precedent. Allowing states to ignore gay marriage opens to door to revisiting the previous rulings on whether states have to accept marriages and divorces from other states


I have said before that I believe that the courts will generally side with the gay rights argument, I don't think that precedence will change that. What I am arguing is the the legal concept of precedence is a codification of the cultural norm that we give consideration to what has been done in the past. I am countering the argument that what has been acceptable behaviour in the past has no relevance to what we must find acceptable behaviour now.

We do have the right as individuals to change our minds, we do as a collective have the right to change our minds. My argument is though that we must not change our minds on a whim, we need to have good reason. I am concerned that if we a society allow full rights to gays, and then later find out that this behaviour and way of forming families is bad for the health of the collective, then we will be screwed. It is much more difficult to remove rights once they have been granted then it is too refuse to expand rights. It was not very long ago that we had a whole different opinion on gay behaviour and gay rights than we do now. This what gays are allowed to do now is too new to properly judge the results. There is no way to know right now what the ramifications of full gay rights will be.

Allowing gay marriage at this time is foolish behaviour. It would be a least another decade before we could have any confidence that were were doing the right thing. Gays have never had the rights that they seek, I don't see where allowing for a proper evaluation of the effects of gay life on the collective is such an onerous burden on the gays that we must gave in to their demand immediately.

I also don't think that the gay rights crowd is smart to push so hard for emergency legal remedy. As we know all to well the courts don't have much effect on mass psychology, and as the feminists have learned change pushed for too hard results in push back (backlash) that after goes for to undue good works.
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Apr, 2009 11:50 am
Our courts are not slaves to "tradition." They examine the PURPOSE of the law to determine if discriminatory classifications serve a LEGITIMATE government interest.

Iowa Supreme Court wrote:
As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes poignantly said, “It is revolting to have no better reason for a rule of law than that so it was laid down in the time of Henry IV. It is still more revolting if the grounds upon which it was laid down have vanished long since, and the rule simply persists from blind imitation of the past.”


We live in a society of "ordered liberty." Because our marriage & family laws are designed in a myriad of ways to bring order to familial relationships with respect to rights and responsibilities, and because both heterosexuals and homosexuals are forming families in our society (as it exists today), the state cannot express a legitimate government interest that is served by excluding homosexuals from participating in the same uniform regulatory scheme that was established for heterosexuals.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Apr, 2009 12:12 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
What I am arguing is the the legal concept of precedence is a codification of the cultural norm that we give consideration to what has been done in the past.

Again, appealing to tradition is a logical fallacy. Give it up, already.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Apr, 2009 12:18 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
What I am arguing is the the legal concept of precedence is a codification of the cultural norm that we give consideration to what has been done in the past.

If that is what you are arguing, then you don't have much to stand on. The legal concept of precedence has little to do with what has been done in the past outside the legal area.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Apr, 2009 12:21 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
What I am arguing is the the legal concept of precedence is a codification of the cultural norm that we give consideration to what has been done in the past.


This is a false argument on your part. Legal precedence is not a codification of the cultural norm in any way; instead, it is respect of prior logical argument on issues. Cultural norms are nothing of the sort; they instead are in many cases biases based on bigotry such as yours.

Quote:
I am countering the argument that what has been acceptable behaviour in the past has no relevance to what we must find acceptable behaviour now.


No, you really aren't countering that argument at all. Nobody cares what you find to be acceptable behavior, bigot. All we care about is whether or not people are treated equally under the law; and court after court across the nation are deciding that the only way to treat people equally is to treat them equally, not discriminate against them as you would do.

Quote:

I also don't think that the gay rights crowd is smart to push so hard for emergency legal remedy. As we know all to well the courts don't have much effect on mass psychology, and as the feminists have learned change pushed for too hard results in push back (backlash) that after goes for to undue good works.


Well, your arguments do not display a great deal of intelligence themselves, so why should the gay rights crowd care if you think they are being smart for pushing for equality?

I wonder what sort of 'backlash' you think Feminists have suffered, and what good works were undone by it. Because I sure can't see any of their pushes for reform being undone when I look, and they sure enjoy the rights they fought for.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Apr, 2009 05:45 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Right now the claim is that we can **** all over the beliefs and claims of all of those who came before us, without even taking the time or trouble to prove that they were wrong. This is unacceptable.


it's called progress.

i mean wtf? some people are acting like homosexuality is a new thing.

somehow i doubt that most people who are against gay marriage would be happy if they were told that even though they no longer had the right to self determination in their personal lives, they'd still be required to pay taxes.

i know that would piss me off to no end.

i, and a lot of other people grew up in an era of change when gays first began coming out. hasn't had any effect on my sexual preference. but then i'm not superstitious and paranoid.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  3  
Reply Tue 14 Apr, 2009 05:52 pm
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:

hawkeye10 wrote:
that is trumped by precedence. The entire history of the USA is one where it was accepted [blah, blah, blah]....

An appeal to tradition is not a compelling argument.


no kidding...
  http://www.donponder.com/images/pix16.jpg





0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Apr, 2009 05:58 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

I also don't think that the gay rights crowd is smart to push so hard for emergency legal remedy. ...


emergency legal remedy?? man, you gotta be joking. gay folks have been patient nearly to the point of docility waiting around for equal rights.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  2  
Reply Sat 18 Apr, 2009 07:44 pm
@Diest TKO,
Quote:
Change for the sake of change? That's saying that people advocating for equal rights are simply bored with the way things are and want to mix things up. This is NOT change for the sake of change. This is overdue change to follow through on the promised creed of America for all of it's citizens.


You need to reread the statement you quoted.

Quote:
There is yet another goal which is of lesser importance to gays and their straight supporters, but is, nevertheless, critical to a certain segment of this interest group that is actually part of the broader movement of Progressivism: Change for the sake of change; the breaking down of long established societal standards in part simply because of their long standing.


I am not characterizing the overall support for same-sex marriages as seeking change for the sake of change. I am contending that there is a segment of the supporters who believe, fundamentally, that standing still is detrimental to society and that tradition is essentially fueled by ignorance.

Quote:
There are any number of wedddings you may disapprove of in your lifetime. You disapprove of two people you don't know marrying. You believe you should be able to stop them from marrying?


You wrote this in response to my comment that there are people who believe that the traditional definition of marriage has served society very well for thousands of years and should not be tampered with; and that many of these people support the concept of civil unions that provide all of the legal rights of marriage.

Obviously there are people who disapprove of sex between members of the same gender, and who disapprove of their being engaged in relationships based on romantic love, however, it does not follow that all people who wish to preserve the traditional definition of marriage disapprove of gay relationships.

Whether or not I personally know the individuals who wish to be married is immaterial. I am not making a judgment about the individuals; I am making a judgment about the value of preserving a tradition.

Quote:
Progressives do not have some default position. To choose for them that they do and that it is just change for the heck of it only makes you sound dumb Finn. Further, "stability" is not something that conservatives exclusively value. Further, nothing about gay marriage challenges "stability." Those straight married couples in MA are just as married happily or otherwise as any couple in a state like TX where gay marriage is illegal.

An argument about "stability" is a pure red herring.


I'm sure I care about you thinking I sound dumb as much as you care about me thinking the same of you.

You really need to read what I am writing if you are going to debate my points.

"Just as Progressives believe that if there is a default position it should be change..." is not the same as "Progressives always opt for change."

Progressives do believe there is an inherent value in change, just as Conservatives believe there is an inherent value in stability or, if you prefer, stasis.

Of course it is not only Conservatives who value stability, just as it is not only Progressives who value change, and I never suggested otherwise.

You, and others in this thread, have misinterpreted my comments concerning legalized same-sex marriages as weakening the traditional institution of marriage to mean that same-sex marriages somehow threatens actual existing "straight "marriages. Of course it doesn't, but then I've never contended that it does. Every gay couple in America could be legally married tomorrow and it would have no impact on my marriage or the marriages of any other heterosexual couples. It might, very possibly, have a negative impact on the institution of marriage. Then again, it might not, but the view of many conservatives is that if gay couples can share civil unions which are functionally identical to marriage in terms of legal rights, the risk should not be taken.

I appreciate that you believe that there is no significant risk and that even if there is, it should be taken, but you have a much greater faith in change than I do, and less regard for the importance of tradition. This makes sense because you are, essentially, a Progressive and I am conservative. It doesn't necessarily mean that you have a deliberate desire to pervert American values anymore than it necessarily means that I loathe homosexuals.

Quote:
Judicial Overreach? If the Legislature creates laws which contradict the foundation of the constitution or other laws, this is exactly what the SC is for. This conservative talking point is void of any sort of understanding.


Void of any understanding of what? Your judicial philosophy?

Quote:
The "collective" is becoming a phrase in this thread to incorrectly label the majority. The "collective" includes all groups, including homosexuals. Making decisions based on the good of the collective assumes that something about gay marriage threatens the whole of society. I've been waiting for years to hear what that is. If making decisions is based on the want of a majority, it cannot infringe on the equal rights of others. There is no right to majority oppression. This is the same reasons we do not have state sponsored churches.


You argue that the majority’s expressed will to not change the traditional definition of marriage is oppressive and illegal because it infringes upon a right that is granted and protected by the constitution, and yet existence of this right has yet to be confirmed by the US Supreme Court and only by a handful of state supreme courts. It may eventually be confirmed across the board, but until then the force of your argument is driven primarily by your own calculus of justice. Although absolutism is often seen by liberals as a dangerous constraint on tolerance when employed by conservatives, it never seems to be recognized as a manifestation of intolerance or narrow mindedness when practiced by these liberals themselves.

You are convinced that on this issue you are absolutely right and unable to understand, let alone appreciate arguments that might conflict with your position.

One such argument is that since marriage between a man and a woman has been a recognized cornerstone of society for centuries, fundamentally altering it presents a significant risk. The risk is not that it will somehow alter existing heterosexual marriages, but that it will contribute to the undermining of an essential societal cornerstone. You are right that all of the happily married couples in Texas or Massachusetts will not see their relationship change if same sex marriage is made legal, but I don’t know anyone who opposes same sex marriage who bases that opposition on it presenting a threat to existing marriages. This non-existent threat is raised only by supporters who want an easy debate with a strawman.




Quote:
Well if marriage has been eroding, then it's been a "straight's only" club. Can't blame the gays for that. If you'd like to present any sort of reason to believe that the presence of gays marrying would somehow contribute negitively, you're welcome to present it.


Why can’t gays be blamed for the erosion of marriage? There are numerous external forces that have combined to erode the institution of marriage and while I don’t believe homosexuality per se is one of them, there is no reason it could not be simply because homosexuals have not been allowed to marry.

The argument for how legalized same-sex marriages will erode the institution has been made repeatedly and if you actually have not heard it, you get a good idea for it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

In essence, the argument is that if the definition of marriage is expanded to include same sex partners the door will have been opened to the inclusion of various other combinations and eventually the societal benefit of the institution will be seriously diminished.

Quote:
Like I said, those married in MA are still just as happy, just as sad as before.


Again, the argument doesn’t involve existing heterosexual marriages




Quote:
your phrase "in actuality" is normally used to refute someone's claim, but nothing you posted above contradicts Advocate's post.

If the Republican's are tryig to "protect" marriage, what are they protecting it from? What is the threat? I'd argue that some dumb 18 year olds getting married and having no idea what they are doing deliever a larger blow to the institution of marriage than two gay people will ever do. Where's the legislation to "protect" marriage from that? It's total hypocritical crap.


You're repeating yourself.

The Republican platform seeks to protect the definition of marriage as being a union between a man and a woman. They seek to protect it from those who would change the definition by legalizing same sex marriages. The threat of an altered definition has already been addressed.

Once again, it is not the personalities or motivation of the individuals getting married that present a threat to the institution. A “bad” heterosexual marriage doesn’t threaten the institution, it is merely an example of a failed application.

BTW: What is hypocritical about the GOP platform? That it doesn't include wording about protecting marriage from dumb teenagers?

Quote:
The challenge that polygamous people face is not the same challenge that gays face. It is not the test of marrying who they wish, but the number. The matter of "who" has been dicussed at great length.

See, someone who believes in polygamy, can marry who they wish. You want to marry Jane? Do it. Want to marry Tina now? Do it, but you have to divorce Jane first. In this secario, the polygamist's dilemma is not if they can marry who they want, but rather the choice between people they want. The inclusion of multiple husbands/wives raises new legal territory outside of anything gay marriage offers. Theoretically, polygamist groups could end up benefitting more than monogamist couples (gay or straight) in terms of filing taxes, for instance.

This is a part of the whole slippery slope logicla fallacy you present. You see, no matter how legal gay marriage is, it doesn't open the door for polygamy. Polygamy must satify other legal and philosophical challenges unrelated to the issues of gay marriage.


This is a weak argument but goes to proving my point that supporters of same sex marriage, typically, work hard to manufacture a distinction between same sex marriage and polygamy that extends beyond the obvious numerical difference.

Frankly I would have more respect for your position if you argued that polygamy should be given the same legal standing as heterosexual and homosexual marriages.

Do you doubt that polygamists can have loving and committed relationships or that they can provide loving and nurturing parenting to their children? If not then why is the number of partners in a marriage any less arbitrary or bigoted a reason for restriction than gender?

If there is a legally protected right to get married afforded all citizens then the question is whether or not any restrictions on this right can be legally imposed. We know that there are restrictions imposed on the right that involve both the number and gender of the partners

Quote:
False premise. As listed above, objective reasons can be created to question polygamy. Your insistance on subjectivism, is false.


What are these objective reasons?

I am certainly not insisting on subjectivity, merely recognizing it. The reasons for outlawing polygamy are as subjective as the reasons for outlawing same-sex marriage.

Quote:
As an example: Granting gays the right to marriage will not grant gays the right to serve openly in the millitary. That is another stand alone issue that has it's own challenges.


Of course it won’t but you are being disingenuous if you do not acknowledge that once the legal restrictions on gay marriages are lifted throughout the nation, additional restrictions such as the one contained in the military policy of “Don’t Ask; Don’t Tell” will more readily fall. In fact, I’m fairly certain you are counting on such a trend. This is what many opponents of same-sex marriages fear.

Quote:
No, it doesn't. The effort is to gain acceptance for gays in society yes, but the persuit of equal legal rights is solely a single part of it. Law can only go so far. People will or will not accpet gays regaurdless of the law, but our laws still must be fair and offer them the same rights and protections offered to every other straght citizen.


The effort is to gain acceptance for gays in society, and the right to marry will greatly enhance that effort; far more so than securing functionally identical civil unions.


Quote:
The LGBT community is carrying their own torch and have no need to carry anyone else's torch. You accusation that they don't carry the polygamy torch because it would be inconvieniant to their cause is vacant.

You trying as hard as you can to put that torch in their hand doesn't make it so Finn.


Then why don’t they carry that torch?


Quote:
Oh don't get me wrong. I think those politicians, especially the democrats, lost an opportunity to be brave.

I'm not here to defend some party, I'm advocating equal rights for my fellow citizen. The Dems may lack the will to do it right, but the GOP is certainly the opposition on this matter.


An honest opposition at least. “Losing an opportunity to be brave” is an interesting euphemism for “hypocritical betrayal.”

Quote:
Do you drink from the same water fountain as you fellow black citizens as well?


I don’t drink from any water fountain, but not because blacks or gays might as well. I am as concerned about the germs of blacks and gays as I am of straight whites.



Quote:
Sorry Finn, but bigotry is a part of the dialog. I understand why the opposition would want that to be off limits though.


Bigotry need not be off limits, merely employed when it actually applies.

Quote:
Equality they "deserve," not "want," not "crave" Finn.


Reread what I wrote Diest: “…want more that the legal equality…the legal equality they deserve…the social acceptance that they crave…” You seem to have a penchant for responding to what you either think I wrote or what you would prefer I had written

Quote:
Let them have legal equality, and I'm perfectly resolved to let the social aspect play out on its own.


With great expectations that if the legal equality comes in the form of marriage rather than civil union, social acceptance will play out more easily.

Quote:
Kind of like the bigot that thinks they are superior to gays enjoys their perch knwing that the law reenforces his beliefs.


Not really. Your analogy is forced.

Quote:
I do believe that the moral and ethical high ground rests with supporting the LGBT community's persuit of equal rights. It's the high ground, because it's an uphill walk, and all the people at the bottom are claiming they can see father.

They don't


Get that from a fortune cookie?

It’s good to believe you are taking the moral and ethical high road, and I’m sure you sincerely do, but it is intellectually immature to assume that all who do not agree with you are immoral and unethical.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Sat 18 Apr, 2009 08:07 pm
@parados,
Depends upon your definition of "equivalent," but I can see your point.

This is why party platforms are debated for long periods of times by packs of partisans, and that, while I vote with Republicans 9 out of 10 times, I don't consider myself a Republican.

My guess is that the intent of the wording is as I have interpreted it, but that "equivalent" was a term born of compromise and used so as to placate those who either do not want gays to have identical legal rights within the vehicle of a civil union or who want to be able assure a certain segment of their constituency that such is the case.


Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Sat 18 Apr, 2009 08:20 pm
@Diest TKO,
Actually, I don't think an understanding of what LGBT stands for is any gauge whatsoever for the depth of one's understanding of the issues, and I don't think I would at all be taken seriously if I used the acronym.

I guess the acronym is not silly, merely the religious use of it.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Sat 18 Apr, 2009 10:06 pm
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:
You are incorrect. The Supreme Court is not bound by previous rulings, and has overturned itself before. (e.g., Plessy v. Ferguson/Brown v. Board of Education)


You are correct, of course, but it's quite ironic to see a liberal so willing to de-emphasize precedent.

For the last eight years an avowed commitment to stare decisis was an absolute requirement for Democratic Senators to even consider voting on confirmation of a Bush judicial appointee.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Apr, 2009 12:06 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
One such argument is that since marriage between a man and a woman has been a recognized cornerstone of society for centuries, fundamentally altering it presents a significant risk. The risk is not that it will somehow alter existing heterosexual marriages, but that it will contribute to the undermining of an essential societal cornerstone. You are right that all of the happily married couples in Texas or Massachusetts will not see their relationship change if same sex marriage is made legal, but I don’t know anyone who opposes same sex marriage who bases that opposition on it presenting a threat to existing marriages. This non-existent threat is raised only by supporters who want an easy debate with a strawman.


You really need to back up......the argument is that society has no right to intrude on individual relationships. This includes the right to define terms and sanction relationships. The fact that this argument is attached to gay marriage does not mean that the argument is about gay marriage. The end result is supposed to be removing the states ability to say when two people are married, in the near future the hope is that an two people who say they are married will be said to be married. As the definition of a word widens to include more variations it loses it meaning, if everyone who claims to be married is to be married then the word means very little. The laws of linguistics do not change when they become inconvenient to you, there can be no rational debate on what the results of widening the definition of marriage will do. We are close the the point where when a person tells me they are married the pronouncement will mean nothing at all, much like the pronouncement of being in a family is. A family is getting to mean nothing more than a collection of two or more people who hang together for some intermediate or extended period of time. Being married is on its way to meaning two people who are currently hanging together. Both terms no longer convey usable information, and we are all impoverished when communication breaks down. Better to use words that say something rfather than gobbledygook.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Apr, 2009 01:53 am
@hawkeye10,
What you are describing is erosion of the traditional institution of marriage, not a negative impact on existing heterosexual marriages.

If gays win the right to get married tomorrow, how will that negatively impact your marriage?

(Your individual marriage, not marriage as an institution)

parados
 
  2  
Reply Sun 19 Apr, 2009 07:12 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
So, you are arguing that wording allows for civil unions to be equal to marriage like you suggested but not "equivalent."?


That seems like some twisting of the English language on your part Finn. When the wording says they don't want something equivalent, it seems pretty clear to me. You seem to be trying to justify their stance with what you have said it is rather than taking them at their words.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Apr, 2009 09:29 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
What you are describing is erosion of the traditional institution of marriage, not a negative impact on existing heterosexual marriages.

If gays win the right to get married tomorrow, how will that negatively impact your marriage?

(Your individual marriage, not marriage as an institution)



we have been through this a couple of times in different threads in different ways: the concepts that exist within the minds of individuals are irrevocably connected (dependent) upon the conceptualizations that float around in the collective consciousness. The movement to redefine words will if successful alter the collective consciousness, it is the entire rational for "political correct speech". One can see how this works by looking at the example of how the concept of rape has been purposefully altered over our lifetimes.

Changing what marriage means may or may not be a good idea, but I am sure that complete individual freedom in relationship, the removal of all social constraints on what it appropriate and supported by the collective, will lead to relationship turmoil as well as problems with individual identity and thus a weakening of the c0llective. The battle to hold the line at gay marriage is almost certainly already lost, who knows what the next freedom of relationship will be demanded where the same arguments that have been used by the gay rights crowd will be used to tell the rest of us that we have no right to say no. There will however be a continual push from those who want what they want no matter what the long and short term effects on them as well as the collective are.

We need to draw the line someplace, and before we do we need to think this through. The place to start is to decide where the right of individuals to do what ever they want ends and the right of the collective to look after the collectives best interests begin when it comes to individuals. Individuals are are majorly defined by their relationships, a degradation in the quality of relationships will lead to the degradation of the health of individuals and thus a weakening of the collective. All those who have come before us have believed this, and I don't think that there is any evidence that they were wrong.
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Apr, 2009 09:37 am
Your concern that the word "marriage" will lose its meaning seems pretty bizarre to me. SF has been dealing with concepts of group marriage, same-sex marriage, contract marriage, etc. for a long time, and without much trouble.

Language evolves, and if we need to invent a new word, then we will. But you can still be married. (Or I can still be married; I really have no idea about what your prospects for marriage are.)
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  2  
Reply Sun 19 Apr, 2009 10:08 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
Right now the claim is that we can **** all over the beliefs and claims of all of those who came before us, without even taking the time or trouble to prove that they were wrong. This is unacceptable.


so the Pope who banned same sex marriage was wrong?

~~~

times change, and change again
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 12/21/2024 at 07:11:57