1
   

STUPID AIRPORT SECURITY

 
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Aug, 2006 04:55 pm
Sweet Thistle Pie wrote:
I was mostly referring to your "99 out of 100" comment. That's how racists speak. They exaggerate things to distort the facts, hoping not to get called on it. If you hadn't been called out on that, you would have stuck with your exaggerated lie, which stops just short of saying, "they're all alike." The racism that you spout is not overt, but it's there just the same.

I'm not trying to be personally insulting. I just wanted to point it out, because I think most people who say things like this don't even realize the racial undercurrent behind their words.

I sincerely hope you will hear what I've said without any hurt feelings. Have a nice day. Smile


Well I suggest you make a list of all the terrorist attacks on Americans, Israelis, Europeans, Middle Easterners. and Indonesians over say the last ten to twenty years and note the known organization/people who have taken responsibility for them or are known to have been responsible. Then separate out the non Middle Eastern looking terrorists from the Middle Eastern looking terrorists. Then see how close my percentage was. If I was substantially off base, then we'll talk.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Aug, 2006 05:32 pm
Quote:
Then fine. You fly on planes in which they scrutinize all the white Europeans and don't worry about who is more likely to be a terrorist, and I'll hope to fly on planes in which they pay closer attention to the people most likely to be terrorists. And I wish you well.


No can do, Foxy!

Unfortunately your plane will still have to fly over inhabited areas. When your plane get attacked because someone failed to stop a white looking terrorist, your burning wreckage will have to land somewhere and innocent people could get killed.

I am not willing to take that risk. You will have to undergo the scrutiny just like the rest of us macacas.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Aug, 2006 05:35 pm
ebrown_p wrote:
Quote:
Then fine. You fly on planes in which they scrutinize all the white Europeans and don't worry about who is more likely to be a terrorist, and I'll hope to fly on planes in which they pay closer attention to the people most likely to be terrorists. And I wish you well.


No can do, Foxy!

Unfortunately your plane will still have to fly over inhabited areas. When your plane get attacked because someone failed to stop a white looking terrorist, your burning wreckage will have to land somewhere and innocent people could get killed.

I am not willing to take that risk. You will have to undergo the scrutiny just like the rest of us macacas.


You really don't read the posts before you respond do you.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Aug, 2006 05:41 pm
Yes Foxy, I do... you go read again. Ok, I will spell it out for you.

You want to fly on a plane where terrorists who don't "look like Middle Easterners" are given less scrutiny than non-terrorists who do.

This means that is will be easier for a white skinned beardless terrorist to destroy your plane. I am just saying I don't want to take the risk of your prejudice getting in the way of either security or decency.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Aug, 2006 06:04 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Well, however politically incorrect it may be, with exception of the OKC bombing, how many terrorist attacks have been committed against the USA by Asians? Europeans? Africans? Black people? Native Americans? Nuns? Little old ladies in wheel chairs? School children?


I have little moral qualm with intelligent use of racial profiling, but I have a strong intellectual distaste for plain BS. There is precious little cause for profiling in terrorism despite the simply ignorant claims I see its proponents make. The fact of the matter is that terrorism in the US is diverse and more dominated by caucasians than Arabs.

Here, I'll do the homework for you:

Here are all the terrorist attacks on US soil or on flights to or from the US.

And no, the majority of these were not commited by mid-east looking individuals.

Oklahoma City bombing

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/09/Nichols2.jpg
http://www.lvrj.com/lvrj_home/2001/Jun-07-Thu-2001/photos/news.jpg

Centennial Olympic Park bombing

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cd/Ericrudolph.jpg

16th Street Baptist Church bombing

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/LAW/05/17/bomb.timeline/custom.chambliss.jpg

http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/6069/mvc012spo9.jpg

5 May 2005 British consulate in New York bombing

Unknown

American Airlines Flight 444

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/57/Mn_kaczynski.jpg

2001 anthrax attacks

unknown

Bombing of the Hebrew Benevolent Congregation Temple

Five white separatists from the National States Rights Party were tried and aquitted.

1995 Palo Verde derailment

"Sons of the Gestapo" (most likely right-wing caucasians)

Preparedness Day bombing

Two caucasians convicted.

1983 United States Senate bombing

3 caucasian women from the "Resistance Party"

http://www.prisonactivist.org/pps+pows/marilynbuck/MJBJan00q2.jpg

http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/profiles/laura.jpg

Wall Street bombing

Most likely sicillian anarchists.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/89/Sacvan.jpg

U.S. Capitol shooting incident

4 Puerto Ricans

Dawson's Field hijackings

Note: despite this being terrorism linked to Palestinians a Nicaraguan-American participated in carrying it out.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/94/PatrickArguello.gif

Weathermen bombing of capitol

Left-wing caucasians

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/ba/WEATHERUNDERGROUND3.jpg/250px-WEATHERUNDERGROUND3.jpg

Fraunces Tavern bombing

Fuerzas Armadas de Liberación Nacional (Puerto Ricans)

Black Tom explosion

Slovak/German participation

Sterling Hall bombing

left-wing caucasians

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f1/Sterling_Hall_Bombers.jpg

Bombing of the City Hall of Portland

unknown (most likely left-wing caucasians)

LaGuardia Airport bombing

unknown

Orlando Letelier carbomb assasination in DC

Dirección de Inteligencia Nacional (Chilean)

Washington DC District Building, B'nai B'rith building, and Islamic Center takeover

Hanafi Muslims

Statue of Liberty bombing

Most likely croatians

Alex Odeh Bombing

Most likely the Jewish Defense League.

World Trade Center bombing

Here ya go, this one fits your view point.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/59/Ramzi_yousef.jpg


Brooklyn Bridge shooting of Lubavitch Hasidic sect

here too is a Lebanese for ya.

9/11

http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/penttbom/aa11/alsuqami.jpg

http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/penttbom/aa11/alshehr5.jpg

http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/penttbom/aa11/alshehri.jpg

http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/penttbom/aa11/attamoha.jpg

http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/penttbom/aa11/alomari2.jpg

Bah.. I'm tired of posting pictures of the 9/11 dudes, you can find all of them here:

http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/penttbom/penttbomb.htm


El-Al counter shootings

Here too, is an Egyptian for your viewpoint.

=====================

And then there were those who tried....

Jose Padilla (Puerto Rican)
Sikh terrorists attempting to assasinate Rajiv Gandhi in NY
Kevin James (I don't remember his ethnicity, but do know he's American and his cohorts were with one exception)
Toledo plot - 3 ohians who would fit your viewpoint
Hudson River plot - Assem Hammoud would fit your viewpoint
Richard Reid - Jamaican/British
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Aug, 2006 06:06 pm
The knee-jerk "profile Arabs!" reactions are based on a few high-profile cases and the knee-jerkers remain ignorant to the fact that terrorism in the US has been very diverse and that Arab terrorism in the US has only happened a handful of times.

That being said, this whole debate tends to be axe-grinding about "PC" and has little to do with knowledge of terrorism or law enforcement.

Arabs are being profiled extensively, and tossing in an old white lady or two helps prevent terror in addition to being "PC". If old white ladies are exempt then it becomes easy again. An element of randomness is a huge part of detterence.

Edit: the above list should not read "all". It's probably close, but it's merely all I can recall at present (and I'm sure that I'm missing a lot of white separatist bombings).
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Aug, 2006 06:18 pm
But we are not talking about JUST those attacks on US soil or US flights, and we are talking about the last 10 to 20 years. Now if you expand your list to emcompass all terrorist activity--I mentioned Europe, Israel, Indonesia, USA, and the Middle East--and narrow it to that 10 to 20 year span, I think it might look very different.

Even Brit security has come around to the point of view that doing some profiling makes some sense.

It also makes sense to do the behavior profiling that has been suggested, but its a lot easier to spot a Middle Eastern looking guy as opposed to spotting one with unusual eye movement, dilated pupils, facial twitch or whatever criteria they'll use to identify suspicious behavior.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Aug, 2006 06:23 pm
Perhaps, but it would be a silly thing to do given that activities in areas with few old-white ladies have little bearing on their scrutiny where they do exist and this is about US airport security.

It's pretty damn simple, an element of randomness is a huge deterrent, and should be touted to amplify this effect. Arabs are still being profiled and there's no good reason to make anyone exempt.

This is all just silly axe-grinding about "PC" debates that have nothing to do with effective detterence.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Aug, 2006 06:28 pm
as some security experts have pointed out - see also my earlier posting - , airplane bombing is not of the greatest concern .
security measures must really concentrate on possible future targets that might involve much greater loss of life if attacked by a variety of 'terrorists' - whoever they are .
airports , water supplies , atomic powerstations ... represent much greater risks a/t some security experts .
this is somewhat like preparing for a war : the armed forces of a nation usually prepare for the last war that was just fought , rather than preparing for the next war that will likely be different from the last one.
hbg
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Aug, 2006 06:31 am
hamburger wrote:
as some security experts have pointed out - see also my earlier posting - , airplane bombing is not of the greatest concern .
security measures must really concentrate on possible future targets that might involve much greater loss of life if attacked by a variety of 'terrorists' - whoever they are .
airports , water supplies , atomic powerstations ... represent much greater risks a/t some security experts .
this is somewhat like preparing for a war : the armed forces of a nation usually prepare for the last war that was just fought , rather than preparing for the next war that will likely be different from the last one.
hbg


Good point. I certainly have no notion that all terrorists in the world are Arab or even Islamic, and I certainly know that Arabs are not the only Islamic peoples out there. I am well aware that all national, ethnic, racial, religious, ideological, etc. groups are capable of producing their criminal element who commit violent acts or may include indivduals who are capable of wigging out and going postal on any given day. There is little or no hope of anticipating or stopping all these random acts of violence, but we do hope that airline security is sufficient to keep them from getting on passenger planes.

But when you're looking for people who are widespread throughout the world, are well connected, organized, and financed, and whose mission in life consists of inflicting the maximum amount of death, mayhem, and damage on another nation's people, economy,and, infrastructure, it remains that those Middle Eastern looking guys are far more likely to be involved than is any other group these days. And that's why I think some extra scrutiny there only makes good sense.

Craven's list clearly illustrates why we can't afford to relax security related to all other people, too. Just pay additional attention to the statistically more likley suspects. Again the Middle Eastern looking guys who are not terrorists, which would be the vast majority of them, benefit from such policies as much as anybody else does. I don't think they want to be blown up in the airport or on their flight either.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Aug, 2006 08:20 am
Apparently this thing of wanting to just (or mostly) single out Middle Eastern looking guys is a talking point among fox and viewers.

Fox News Airs Call for 'Muslim-Only' Line
Quote:

Reported by Judy - August 15, 2006 - 209 comments
A Fox News guest proposed having a "Muslims only" line for airport travelers, an idea that "Dayside" co-host Mike Jerrick called attention to it so that viewers did not overlook the proposal.

Conservative radio host Mike Gallagher suggested the idea during a segment Tuesday (August 15, 2006) with constitutional lawyer Michael Gross discussing racial profiling.

"Dayside" co-host Juliet Huddy set up the debate by noting that all terrorists have been Muslim extremists, and Jerrick claimed that some people oppose racial profiling as "politically incorrect."

"It's not just a matter of political correctness, please," responded Gross. "It's illegal, it's unconstitutional, unethical, immoral, it shouldn't be done. We do not in this country prejudge a person based upon their race, creed, color, country of national origin and it's wrong to do so and it addition it's not effective. It doesn't work. It actually perpetuates the problem. That is, it separates us."

Gallagher responded that Gross's statements were "absolutely absurd" and claimed that the Traffic Safety Administration is aggressively targeting uniformed members of the military. "Let's have a Muslim-only line," Gallagher said, as Gross started to talk.

Jerrick asked Gallagher to repeat what he said.

"It's time to have a Muslims check-point line in America's airports and have Muslims be scrutinized. You better believe it, it's time," Gallagher said, garnering tepid audience applause.

Gross attacked the proposal as "absolutely wrong" because "most Arabs are not Muslims, most Muslims are not Arabs. You don't even have your facts straight. How would you feel if we had a line for the Irish, which the English proposed during the IRA problems?" He pleaded not to turn the United States into a "tyrannical, imperial country." Still, a woman in the audience asked a question about being "politically correct" by not allowing racial profiling.

Gallagher claimed that opposition to racial profiling amounted to not wanting to hurt people's feelings.

"Most Americans want prejudice. Let's be prejudiced against those who want to slaughter innocent American men, women and children. It's time we start exercising some prejudice and stop these bloody terrorists," Gallagher said, this time drawing more robust applause.

The segment had all the attributes of a typical "fair and balanced" debate. Although Gross was effective with his comments, Fox News did all it could to favor Gallagher. Jerrick's set-up downplayed the significance of the issue by labeling opposition to racial profiling as merely "politically incorrect" rather than unconstitutional, creating a larger burden for Gross.

Then, when the two men first appeared on the screen, Gallagher's image was on the left and Gross's on the right. When Gallagher complained, Fox News flipped the images to accommodate him.

Nor did Huddy or Jerrick attempt to press Gallagher as to the specifics of the proposal. How, for example, would the airport screeners determine whether someone is a member of the Muslim religion? Or would Gallagher make all Arabs, including Christian ones, go in the "Muslim-only line"? And how do we tell who is an Arab? Jerrick might have asked Gallagher for these kinds of specifics when he asked him to repeat the proposal, but he chose not to, making the idea seem more plausible and feasible than it is.

And when it came time for the wrap-up, Jerrick went first to Gross, allowing Gallagher to go last so that his fear-mongering rhetoric could go unrebutted.

With such a lax journalistic performance, Jerrick and Huddy deserve to go from the national Fox News Channel line-up to that morning show for a Chicago station that Roger Ailes has planned for them. The sooner the better


I wonder if Gallauger remembers the speech the president made shortly after 9/11?

"Islam is Peace" Says President
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Aug, 2006 08:35 am
Hmm, Revel, I can't find any verification of the authenticity of that article other than on BLOGS quoting the News Hound piece. News Hound is a site dedicated to excoriating Fox News and rarely represents them fairly or accurately. So, what do you think? Real? Made up?

(I don't doubt that at some point there was a news story or clip showing somebody suggesting a 'Muslim only" line, but I have a real hard time thinking that is the position of Fox News.)
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Aug, 2006 08:37 am
Foxfyre wrote:
Hmm, Revel, I can't find any verification of the authenticity of that article other than on BLOGS quoting the News Hound piece. News Hound is a site dedicated to excoriating Fox News and rarely represents them fairly or accurately. So, what do you think? Real? Made up?


You can find the video on think progress.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/16/muslim-checkpoint/
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Aug, 2006 08:44 am
revel wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Hmm, Revel, I can't find any verification of the authenticity of that article other than on BLOGS quoting the News Hound piece. News Hound is a site dedicated to excoriating Fox News and rarely represents them fairly or accurately. So, what do you think? Real? Made up?


You can find the video on think progress.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/16/muslim-checkpoint/


Yeah, apparently he said it unless the video is rigged which you never know these days. Would be a dumb idea though because you really can't tell if somebody is a Muslim or not just by looking, and, as I've said, I'm not willing to give everybody else less scrutiny. I just want them to give those Middle Eastern looking guys a little more scrutiny.

The disingenuous part of the News Hound article is the attempt to show that Fox News was favoring Gallagher. Fox News is pretty good about giving both sides of any of these shouting matches equal time.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Aug, 2006 09:03 am
Foxfyre wrote:
revel wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Hmm, Revel, I can't find any verification of the authenticity of that article other than on BLOGS quoting the News Hound piece. News Hound is a site dedicated to excoriating Fox News and rarely represents them fairly or accurately. So, what do you think? Real? Made up?


You can find the video on think progress.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/16/muslim-checkpoint/


Yeah, apparently he said it unless the video is rigged which you never know these days. Would be a dumb idea though because you really can't tell if somebody is a Muslim or not just by looking, and, as I've said, I'm not willing to give everybody else less scrutiny. I just want them to give those Middle Eastern looking guys a little more scrutiny.

The disingenuous part of the News Hound article is the attempt to show that Fox News was favoring Gallagher. Fox News is pretty good about giving both sides of any of these shouting matches equal time.


Rolling Eyes You're a piece of work, foxfyre.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Aug, 2006 09:08 am
Thank you Revel. We can always count on the Left to make it personal when discussing an issue can't we. I'm rarely disappointed on that score.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Aug, 2006 09:17 am
Now here is a non-emotional, thoughtful, and rational counter argument on the profiling issue.

What do you think. Is Debra Saunders more persuasive in her argument here? Or is the writer of the piece starting the thread more persuasive?

August 18, 2006
Go Ahead, Search Granny
By Debra Saunders

In the wake of last week's London terrorist-plot arrests, some Americans are calling on the U.S. government to apply racial profiling to airport screening. Their argument goes something like this: Why should the federal Transportation Security Authority search little old white ladies, when young Arab and Muslim men were behind the Sept. 11, 2001, attack and other terrorist plots?

The answer is: The feds should avoid racial profiling because it breeds discontent without enhancing security. Strict profiling can't work, as it will prompt terrorist cells to recruit outside the profile. They already are. The London suspects include the English son of a conservative politician, a convert to Islam, as well as a young mother and father whom authorities believe planned to bring their six-month-old baby on their target plane.

In 1986, British authorities stopped a pregnant Irish woman whose Palestinian boyfriend packed her off with a bomb as he flew her to Tel Aviv, ostensibly to meet his family. And don't forget the very white Timothy McVeigh, of Oklahoma City bombing fame. Follow the profile at your own risk.

Nico Melendez of the Department of Homeland Security told me that his agency is "100 percent" opposed to racial profiling because behavior is a better indicator of a threat than race or religion. What kind of behavior? The twitching of the eyes was an example. One advantage, according to Melendez: "The more a person tries to stop that, the more it happens."

As to complaints that seniors and children are searched needlessly, Melendez cited the 67-year-old man who hid a 9-inch knife in his prosthetic leg and the 10-year-old boy who unwittingly brought a teddy bear with a loaded gun -- a gift -- to the airport. Although, I should note, Melendez failed to establish that these weapons would have been used in an attack.

Of course, I think some security practices are overkill. I miss metal knives with airline meals, although Melendez tells me the government only bans serrated metal knives. Still, I don't complain -- much anyway -- because if a plane plot ever succeeds, I know that the same people who have been grousing about niggling security regulations will stomp all over the TSA for not doing everything possible to prevent an attack.

When people complain about the granny searches, I want to say to them: Get over it. Learn the difference between a nuisance and a hardship.

Law professor John Banzhaf of George Washington University Law School sent out an e-mail Tuesday that argued that racial profiling was constitutional since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that colleges could consider race for admissions because there was a "compelling state interest."

Then again, many conservatives -- I'm one -- oppose racial profiling for college admissions because it practices invidious discrimination. Or as Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., a Christian Lebanese American, noted, "The national interest is in treating people like human beings and not differentiating them unless absolutely, positively necessary."

Like me, Issa sees times when authorities might focus on an ethnic group or other profile -- such as, when intelligence points to a certain group. But, Issa added, "The difference between a lead and racial profiling is the difference between police work and group punishment." Profiling could poison an entire generation of American Arabs and Muslims.

And: "Why take millions of people who would be described as Arabs or Muslims for purposes of profiling and suddenly cause them to have a reason to doubt what's special about America?"

Unlike the United Kingdom, the United States has not seen a terrorist attack since Sept. 11, 2001. This country must be doing something right. Why go down the road of racial profiling when it likely will create new enemies without stopping old enemies?
SOURCE
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Aug, 2006 09:19 am
Just came across this study. I think it's relevant to this topic in regards of our perception of risks.

Quote:
Out of the frying pan into the fire: Behavioral reactions to terrorist attacks

A low-probability, high-damage event in which many people are killed at one point of time is called a dread risk. Dread risks can cause direct damage and, in addition, indirect damage mediated though the minds of citizens. I analyze the behavioral reactions of Americans to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, and provide evidence for the dread hypothesis:
(i) Americans reduced their air travel after the attack;
(ii) for a period of one year following the attacks, interstate highway travel increased, suggesting that a proportion of those who did not fly instead drove to their destination; and
(iii) for the same period, in each month the number of fatal highway crashes exceeded the base line of the previous years. An estimated 1,500 Americans died on the road in the attempt to avoid the fate of the passengers who were killed in the four fatal flights.


(source: Max Planck institute/social and behavioral studies)
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Aug, 2006 09:24 am
I'm sure the study is on target OE. It was pretty easy to fly with an empty middle seat in the year following 9/11. I didn't cut down on my air travel at all and, while hating to go to the airport two hours earlier than I used to, I really enjoyed that empty middle seat.

Isn't the case now though. I haven't been on a plane that wasn't full full FULL with folks on standby all year this year.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Aug, 2006 01:24 pm
foxfire :
since most airlines have been through chapter 11 , re-organization , out-of-business ... you name it , they have developed new load factors - how to cram more passengers on a plane .
except for south-west , there doesn't seem to be a north-american airline making money (i've stopped counting how many canadian airlines have gone belly-up in the last 20 years) .
the problem is easy to define : lots of competition , plenty of investors willing to risk their money (what's the saying i've heard about starting an airline : start with a billion dollars and keep going 'till it's gone ... or something like it).
i don't see an easy solution .
we all like to fly at the lowest possible price , want lots of choices , plenty of room ...
some attempts have been made to try and bring some sanity into the business , such as charging a sliding scale of departure fees - flights leaving during busy hours would have to pay "premium" landing fees - and likely higher ticket prices - but there doesn't seem to any agreement between the rivals .
now that more corporations seem to go to business charter flights(private jets) , it will likely cut the revenues of the airlines even more since they are making their money on the business people paying full price .
seems to me it will make life for airlines and the 'regular' passengers even more difficult .
i still find the business of south-west airlines intriguing . they are NOT flying overseas , they are not flying money-losing routes , boarding is : first come , first served (i understand they do not allow seat reservation ; if you want to get on the flight "be there early" !) .
they are flying one type of plane : boeing 737 .
yet , they are making money !
they must be doing something right .
(too bad they are not flying from canada - probably can't make any money here flying to resolute in the arctic Sad ) .
wish i could afford to fly first class - I DESERVE IT Very Happy .
hbg
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
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.42 seconds on 03/15/2025 at 12:45:01