9
   

Here Are 5 Ways You Know Trump Knows Trump Is Losing

 
 
McGentrix
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 15 Sep, 2016 06:31 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

Trump can't "disband" NATO. It's a treaty organization, and only the Senate can ratify or rescind a treaty, and then it takes a two thirds vote. The Senate is not that far down the road to lunacy at this point.

So much of what Trump says, and so much of what the teabaggers blab about shows a complete ignorance of the constitution. It's not that difficult a document to read, even teabaggers should be able to read it in an hour. Of course, understanding it, that could take them much, much longer. Trump is just a popularity whore, he will say whatever he thinks the lunatic fringe of the right wants to hear. He is probably the least qualified, the least informed candidate for this office in our history.


I don't know Set, I know a lot of liberals that have problems understanding the Constitution as well. Just look at the simply written 2nd amendment and how far it gets twisted around.
hingehead
 
  3  
Reply Thu 15 Sep, 2016 06:36 am
@McGentrix,
Quote:
I don't know Set, I know a lot of liberals that have problems understanding the Constitution as well. Just look at the simply written 2nd amendment and how far it gets twisted around.

Um but still it stands - so you're not actually arguing against Set's point.
McGentrix
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 15 Sep, 2016 06:46 am
@hingehead,
He had several points. I chose just one and I didn't realize that I had to argue against his point. Instead, I chose to show equal time to all the dumb ass liberals in the world.
hingehead
 
  3  
Reply Thu 15 Sep, 2016 07:19 am
@McGentrix,
Oh, I thought you were specifically addressing "Trump can't "disband" NATO. "

I'm glad you made the effort ensure dumb ass RWNJs got equal time.
bobsal u1553115
 
  2  
Reply Fri 16 Sep, 2016 10:27 am
@hingehead,
As if the defense industry would allow the disbanding of NATO. I bet most of tRumps supporters, at least those not part of the Basket of Deplorables disagree with leaving NATO.

Sometimes it is difficult to discern the thrust of a McG ramble.
woiyo
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 16 Sep, 2016 12:29 pm
@bobsal u1553115,
Who said anything about dismantling NATO??? What are you trying to misrepresent now? Trump idea of equitable cost sharing?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Fri 16 Sep, 2016 01:58 pm
@McGentrix,
Oh yeah, and the conservatives are just brilliant in understanding the constitution, eh? Such as the first clause of the second amendment: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State . . . . Article one, section eight details the powers explicitly given to Congress, including this paragraph: [Congress shall have Power . . .] To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;--which means Congress has the power to select what weapons the people may keep and bear under their power to provide for arming the militia. Run the by your NRA buddies sometime. I've had rightwingnuts tell me that the first clause doesn't really mean anything, as though lawyers ever write such things idly.
McGentrix
 
  -3  
Reply Mon 19 Sep, 2016 11:58 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

Oh yeah, and the conservatives are just brilliant in understanding the constitution, eh? Such as the first clause of the second amendment: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State . . . . Article one, section eight details the powers explicitly given to Congress, including this paragraph: [Congress shall have Power . . .] To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;--which means Congress has the power to select what weapons the people may keep and bear under their power to provide for arming the militia. Run the by your NRA buddies sometime. I've had rightwingnuts tell me that the first clause doesn't really mean anything, as though lawyers ever write such things idly.


Why does the last clause say the rights of the people instead of the right of the militia then? No one has ever argued that the government is not in charge of the militia, arming the militia, training the militia, but the people (read: not the militia) have a right to keep and bear arms BECAUSE the government runs the militia.

Of course all of this has bearing only on the Federal Govt and not the states, unfortunately. They seem fine with violating peoples gun rights left and right.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Tue 20 Sep, 2016 02:40 am
The Supremes held in McDonald versus Chicago (2010) that the second amendment is incorporated by the fourteenth amendment's due process clause. Of course, your response dodges the question of whether or not any particular body of the electorate understand the constitution. But, in response to the vague claim that states violate people's gun rights, anyone who feels that is the case can appeal the provisions of a law in Federal courts and refer to the decision in McDonald versus Chicago--that's how it works. If the second amendment is now incorporated, the states would have the same right, even duty, to regulate the militia well. The Militia Act of 1903 divides "the people" into the organized militia (i.e., the National Guard) and the unorganized militia, everybody else.

Ideological propaganda is always made much easier by using vague and unsubstantiated allegations.
McGentrix
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 20 Sep, 2016 06:22 am
@Setanta,
Are you suggesting that I make "vague and unsubstantiated allegations"? I certainly do not try to be neither vague nor unsubstantiated.

I think your commentary alone shows that liberals have no understanding of the 2nd amendment. I mean you understand that the words say things but you want to warp them into something that was neither intended or plain.

"the people" is mentioned in several places within the Constitution yet it seems that only in the second amendment do liberals opposed to guns wish to make "the people" something that it is not.

Do you believe that women should not be entitled to the rights enumerated within the Constitution? Militias did not allow women, so they shouldn't be entitled under "the people" then, right? What about people over 45? They also would not be expected to be in the militia of the 1700's. Why do you hate women and old people Setanta?
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Tue 20 Sep, 2016 06:31 am
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:
What about people over 45? They also would not be expected to be in the militia of the 1700's.
Life expectancy was about 35 years at that time, btw.
McGentrix
 
  0  
Reply Tue 20 Sep, 2016 06:32 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
What about people over 45? They also would not be expected to be in the militia of the 1700's.
Life expectancy was about 35 years at that time, btw.


They didn't have AR-15's either, but that's not the point of the discussion.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Tue 20 Sep, 2016 06:36 am
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:
What about people over 45? They also would not be expected to be in the militia of the 1700's.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Tue 20 Sep, 2016 07:16 am
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

Are you suggesting that I make "vague and unsubstantiated allegations"? I certainly do not try to be neither vague nor unsubstantiated.


That's just exactly what you did when you claimed that states violate peoples' second amendment rights, but failed to provide any examples.

Quote:
I think your commentary alone shows that liberals have no understanding of the 2nd amendment. I mean you understand that the words say things but you want to warp them into something that was neither intended or plain.


Another vague and unsubstantiated charge on your part.

Quote:
"the people" is mentioned in several places within the Constitution yet it seems that only in the second amendment do liberals opposed to guns wish to make "the people" something that it is not.


Nonsense--educate yourself for a change. Read the Militia Act of 1903, also known as the Dick Act (from the name of its sponsor). It is Congress who categorized the people as being divided into the organized militia as constituted by that Act as the National Guard, and all others as the unorganized militia.

Quote:
Do you believe that women should not be entitled to the rights enumerated within the Constitution? Militias did not allow women, so they shouldn't be entitled under "the people" then, right? What about people over 45? They also would not be expected to be in the militia of the 1700's. Why do you hate women and old people Setanta?


This is just emotive hysterical BS, and a bad recitation of the conservative party line. Nothing i said remotely supports these wild accusations of yours. Your claim about the age of militia members is something you just made up in your head. Israel Putnam, a veteran of the French and Indian War, who had served with distinction, was 57 years old when he heard of the fights at Lexington and Concord, and he rode 100 miles in eight hours to get to Boston to offer his services--which were accepted. He became second in command to Artemis Ward, 47 years old. William Prescott, an officer in the Massachusetts militia who commanded the troops who built and manned the redoubt on Breed's Hill during the battle called Bunker Hill, was 48 years old. He was supported by John Stark of New Hampshire, a colonel in the New Hampshire militia, 47 years old.

I can go on like that all day. All you offer is more vague and unsubstantiated claims, which end up being straw man fallacies. I've provided the text of the constitution, and cited case law. All we've gotten from yoiu is hysterical accusations.
DrewDad
 
  3  
Reply Tue 20 Sep, 2016 07:20 am
@bobsal u1553115,
Trump's implicit assumption that he'll either lose or be a terrible President.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Sep, 2016 07:24 am
By the way, i'm not a "librul," i'm an anarcho-syndicalist. That means i believe in as little government as will be needed, and that that should be in the hands of organized labor.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 20 Sep, 2016 07:37 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

Are you suggesting that I make "vague and unsubstantiated allegations"? I certainly do not try to be neither vague nor unsubstantiated.


That's just exactly what you did when you claimed that states violate peoples' second amendment rights, but failed to provide any examples.


I thought you knew about the several states that have violated our 2nd amendment rights and therefore I did not feel i needed to give examples. Forgive me for thinking more highly of your knowledge than what actually exists.

New York State is a great example of a state that violates the 2nd amendment and there are always several law suits about those violations. The process of getting a handgun license is also a violation of our 2nd amendment right. It is prejudicial against low wage earners and people that do not have the time to jump through every hoop that NYS puts in place. Also, that permit does not allow you to carry everywhere within the state. That violates the 2nd amendment as well.

Setanta wrote:
Quote:
I think your commentary alone shows that liberals have no understanding of the 2nd amendment. I mean you understand that the words say things but you want to warp them into something that was neither intended or plain.


Another vague and unsubstantiated charge on your part.


Nothing vague about that at all. You read the words and interpret them into something that isn't there.

Setanta wrote:
Quote:
"the people" is mentioned in several places within the Constitution yet it seems that only in the second amendment do liberals opposed to guns wish to make "the people" something that it is not.


Nonsense--educate yourself for a change. Read the Militia Act of 1903, also known as the Dick Act (from the name of its sponsor). It is Congress who categorized the people as being divided into the organized militia as constituted by that Act as the National Guard, and all others as the unorganized militia.


The Constitution begins "We the People"... do you think they meant "We, some of the people that will only have rights to certain things in the future and other people that will have different rights based on the geologic location within the boundaries of this nation..."?

SCOTUS has commented on "the people" a couple times. One case was United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez that said that "the people" has a consistent meaning throughout the Constitution. This was also referenced in District of Columbia v. Heller which, as I think you know, was a landmark case for gun rights.

Do I need to link these or do you believe that these are true and not vague?

Setanta wrote:
Quote:
Do you believe that women should not be entitled to the rights enumerated within the Constitution? Militias did not allow women, so they shouldn't be entitled under "the people" then, right? What about people over 45? They also would not be expected to be in the militia of the 1700's. Why do you hate women and old people Setanta?


This is just emotive hysterical BS, and a bad recitation of the conservative party line. Nothing i said remotely supports these wild accusations of your. Your claim about the age of militia members is something you just made up in your head. Israel Putnam, a veteran of the French and Indian War, who had served with distinction, was 57 years old when he heard of the fights at Lexington and Concord, and he rode 100 miles in eight hours to get to Boston to offer his services--which were accepted. He became second in command to Artemis Ward, 47 years old. William Prescott, an officer in the Massachusetts militia who commanded the troops who built and manned the redoubt on Breed's Hill during the battle called Bunker Hill, was 48 years old. He was supported by John Stark of New Hampshire, a colonel in the New Hampshire militia, 47 years old.

I can go on like that all day. All you offer is more vague and unsubstantiated claims, which end up being straw man fallacies. I've provided the text of the constitution, and cited case law. All we've gotten from yoiu is hysterical accusations.


I am sure you could go on all day, but lets look at the facts, shall we?

Quote:
See, e.g., Militia Act of May 8, 1792, ch. 33, § 1, 1 Stat. 271, 271 (repealed 1903) (stating "each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall . . . be enrolled in the militia"); Militia Act, 10 U.S.C. § 311 (1994) (defining militia to consist of "all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and . . . under 45 years of age [plus some re-enlisted National Guard members up to age 64] who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard"); Miller, 307 U.S. at 179 ("The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from [late 18th-century writings]. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense."). State constitutions generally have similar definitions, though some contain slight variations. Compare Ariz. Const. art. XVI, § 1 (1910); Ark. Const. art. XI, § 1 (1874); Ind. Const. art. XII, § 1 (1851); Iowa Const. art. VI, § 1 (1857); Ky. Const. § 219 (1890); N.M. Const. art. XVIII, § 1 (1911); N.D. Const. art. 13, § 188 (1889); S.C. Const. art. XIII, § 1 (1868); S.D. Const. art. XV, § 1 (1889); Utah Const. art. XV, § 1 (1895); Wyo. Const. art. XVII, § 1 (1889) (referring to all able-bodied male citizens, or sometimes all able-bodied males, from 18 to 45, with other slight variations), with Kan. Const. art. 8, § 1 (1859) (referring to all able-bodied male citizens from 21 to 45) and with Fla. Const. art. 10, § 2 (1968 revision); Ill. Const. art. XII, § 1 (1970); Ind. Const. art. 12, § 1 (1851) (amended 1974); and Mont. Const. art. VI, § 13, cl. 2 (1972) (referring to all able-bodied persons or all able-bodied persons over 17). See generally Don B. Kates, Jr., Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment, 82 Mich. L. Rev. 204, 215 n.46 (1983) (stating that militia in colonial times included males aged 15, 16, or 18 through 45, 50, or 60, depending on colony). Following the Court's sex equality decisions, the militia now probably includes able-bodied women in the proper age category as well as able-bodied men. See United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996) (striking down sex classification in context of state military college); Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976) (holding that sex classifications are constitutional only if substantially related to important state interest). But see Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57 (1981) (upholding sex classification in context of draft registration law).


But I just made that up... right. How about you get over yourself and realize that you don't actually know everything about everything.

Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Tue 20 Sep, 2016 01:53 pm
@McGentrix,
Given that the lawsuits do not succeed, the courts obviously do not agree with your analysis. You claim i "interpret the words into something that isn't there," but once again, that's a vague and unsubstantiated claim. Specifically, i said that Congress has the power to determine what arms people may bear. See the majority opinion in The United States versus Miller (1939), in which the Supremes upheld the 1934 National Firearms Act. I've already alluded to the 1903 Militia Act. It makes no reference to geographical locations . . . you're reaching, and your grasp is failing. Your reference to The District of Columbia versus Heller is a glaring example of how vague and unsubstantiated your remarks are. Perhaps you didn't actually read that opinion. Here, i'll help you out.

Quote:
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.


None of the militia acts you cite state that people over the age of 45 may not participate in the militia. They simply require those under the age of 45 (and over 18) to be enrolled.

How about you get over yourself, and stop making sh*t up or attempting to twist the meanings? You have never even bothered to establish what my opinions on gun control are. You just come up with your "libruls think this or that" bullsh*t--it seems to me that you don't know much about anything.
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Tue 20 Sep, 2016 01:56 pm
Why do you hate the People and the Constitution, McG?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 20 Sep, 2016 04:52 pm
@Setanta,
Why do you keep moving the goal posts?

You said wrote:
So much of what Trump says, and so much of what the teabaggers blab about shows a complete ignorance of the constitution. It's not that difficult a document to read, even teabaggers should be able to read it in an hour. Of course, understanding it, that could take them much, much longer.

Which is an attack on my side of the field. Obviously such a blatant attack needs to be responded to.
I said wrote:
I don't know Set, I know a lot of liberals that have problems understanding the Constitution as well. Just look at the simply written 2nd amendment and how far it gets twisted around.

Easy peasy. now both sides can have some dumb asses that can't read the Constitution. But noooooooo... You gotta move them goal posts a bit.
You said wrote:
Oh yeah, and the conservatives are just brilliant in understanding the constitution, eh?

I made no suggestion that anyone was brilliant at anything. Now you've introduced a topic I am well versed in along with a cute little straw man to kick around.
You then went on to say wrote:
Such as the first clause of the second amendment: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State . . . . Article one, section eight details the powers explicitly given to Congress, including this paragraph: [Congress shall have Power . . .] To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;--which means Congress has the power to select what weapons the people may keep and bear under their power to provide for arming the militia.

This is a perfect example of what I am talking about when I say to look at how simply it is written and write a diatribe about just the first 12 words. Puff out the chest, get the chin in the air, Setanta is going to learn us something about the second amendment!
Now look how far away from your original post we are. I simplify it for you
I said wrote:
Why does the last clause say the rights of the people instead of the right of the militia then? No one has ever argued that the government is not in charge of the militia, arming the militia, training the militia, but the people (read: not the militia) have a right to keep and bear arms BECAUSE the government runs the militia.

Of course all of this has bearing only on the Federal Govt and not the states, unfortunately. They seem fine with violating peoples gun rights left and right.

A normal person reading that would have seen that I agreed with some of what you have written. The federal govt can be in charge of the militia. They can arm it, train, teach it to love puppies, what ever. But, and this is important, the operative clause states, and remember when you said "as though lawyers ever write such things idly." The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Doesn't say the right of the militia. correct? You do agree that it does say "the people"? This is important to my followups of your continued movement of the goal posts.
now you say wrote:
The Supremes held in McDonald versus Chicago (2010) that the second amendment is incorporated by the fourteenth amendment's due process clause. Of course, your response dodges the question of whether or not any particular body of the electorate understand the constitution. But, in response to the vague claim that states violate people's gun rights, anyone who feels that is the case can appeal the provisions of a law in Federal courts and refer to the decision in McDonald versus Chicago--that's how it works. If the second amendment is now incorporated, the states would have the same right, even duty, to regulate the militia well. The Militia Act of 1903 divides "the people" into the organized militia (i.e., the National Guard) and the unorganized militia, everybody else.


States violate peoples gun rights all the time. The courts in some states just agree with that violation otherwise we would have uniform gun laws throughout the country. We can't even get states to recognize the permits of gun owners from other states. You say "anyone who feels that is the case can appeal the provisions of a law in Federal courts" and they do, believe me they do.
Then, you have the audacity, after expressly saying "as though lawyers ever write such things idly." to say "The Militia Act of 1903 divides "the people" into the organized militia (i.e., the National Guard) and the unorganized militia, everybody else." So, then the drafters of the Constitution were idly writing stuff? I don't understand what you are attempting to say as you've complicated it. For the first part, the drafters were super serious that only the militia should have guns, but the rest is just gibberish that can be ignored because it disagrees with your "librul" frame of mind when gun law is in question? Which is it? Are "the people" the militia or not? Because,
I stated wrote:
"the people" is mentioned in several places within the Constitution yet it seems that only in the second amendment do liberals opposed to guns wish to make "the people" something that it is not.
. Now, as at the time of the writing of the 2nd amendment, the militia consisted primarily (I didn't realize I had to be so exact and this was going to be graded) white men between 17 and 45 as stated in the Militia act of 1792 I facetious asked you about women and old people based on my over estimation of your historical knowledge. I figured you would know that at the time only white men between 17-45 were primarily the ones that made up the militia.

Boy did you prove me wrong.

Then you continue that based on the Militia Act of 1903 "The people" no longer exist. It is only the militia!

According to UNITED STATES v. VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ

Quote:
The Fourth Amendment provides: [494 U.S. 259, 265]

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
That text, by contrast with the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, extends its reach only to "the people." Contrary to the suggestion of amici curiae that the Framers used this phrase "simply to avoid [an] awkward rhetorical redundancy," Brief for American Civil Liberties Union et al. as Amici Curiae 12, n. 4, "the people" seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and established by "the people of the United States." The Second Amendment protects "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms," and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to "the people." See also U.S. Const., Amdt. 1 ("Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble") (emphasis added); Art. I, 2, cl. 1 ("The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the people of the several States") (emphasis added). While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that "the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community. See United States ex rel. Turner v. Williams, 194 U.S. 279, 292 (1904) (Excludable alien is not entitled to First Amendment rights, because "[h]e does not become one of the people to whom these things are secured by our Constitution by an attempt to enter forbidden by law"). The language of these Amendments contrasts with the words [494 U.S. 259, 266] "person" and "accused" used in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments regulating procedure in criminal cases.


Why isn't the militia mentioned in this? Are the writing idly? I mentioned Heller not to say anything about gun rights or gun laws, but only to show that there, too, is "the people" referenced as being not the militia. Now you've made out that my "reference to The District of Columbia versus Heller is a glaring example of how vague and unsubstantiated your remarks are.".

I say bullshit, my reference directly substantiated my claim that "the people" does not directly reference "the militia" in the second amendment. In that, my reference is perfectly valid.

Now, with this last post you continue your strawman. I've never once argued anything about the second amendment beyond the fact that liberals like to tie themselves up in knots about it and enjoy making it something it is not. As you have exhibited in this chain of posts.

I've not made up a single thing with the exception of my belief that you knew that militias in the 1700 were white men between 17 and 45. I thought you knew that. I mean you were so quick to show the exceptions that I figured for sure you knew.

Finally, your last and final strawman of the day, as I am done with you for now,

you say wrote:
How about you get over yourself, and stop making sh*t up or attempting to twist the meanings? You have never even bothered to establish what my opinions on gun control are. You just come up with your "libruls think this or that" bullsh*t--it seems to me that you don't know much about anything.


I never cared what your opinion was. Still don't. But, I know that there are a whole bunch of liberals that have problems understanding the Constitution. Like I said.

0 Replies
 
 

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
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/08/2021 at 04:05:31