Eat it Prop H8!

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

Re: Eat it Prop H8!

Postby High Sierras » Mon Jul 01, 2013 4:03 pm

slowshooter wrote:
High Sierras wrote:
slowshooter wrote:
High Sierras wrote:Eat it prop 8...wow.

Regardless of where you fell on this issue, all it means is the will of the people be damned when it's against the wishes of the Democrats when they're in power. So much for the 'party of the people". :no:


Well, it's a conservative court and it still went the way of the Gays.

Just because the majority votes for something doesn't mean they are going to get their way. That the court knocked the case out based on standing has little to do with how the Dems or the Courts view the issue of Gay marriage itself.

Sometimes folks don't have standing, other times what people want is unconstitutional. Sometimes it's neither and voters get their way.

Don't vilify the Dems because the chips fell their way this time. It's not like they influenced the courts.
Slow,

Maybe you can set me straight (no pun intended... let's not go that direction!) on the background. The voters approved prop 8. The Homosexual community filed that it violated their civil rights. 9th circuit overturned the prop (no, not overturned, but filed an injunction to prevent it from taking effect???) based on the lawsuit. Prop 8 backers (NOT the state govt.) appealed to the SCOTUS, which declined to hear it since the 'appealers' (I know that's not the right word, but it gets the meaning across) were not representatives of the State, and the official State position (the Democrat-controlled state government, under Jerry Brown) was / is something along the lines of "We won't bother to defend what the people of this state voted for, because our ideology does not agree with the will of the people", which made the appeal invalid.

Yes, it was a conservative court, and they did just what they legally had to do...I have no problem there. What I'm bitching at was the fact that the Democrat held State government under Jerry chose not to defend a voter approved proposition, which (in my mind) means they did not pursue what the voters wanted, but instead chose to follow their agenda. Thus the will of the people was overturned by political ideology.


And Clamp, if you think that this ruling will protect gun owners in this State at some future point, and my analysis is correct, think again. If this was a prop to outlaw handguns, assault weapons, semi auto weapons, whatever... And a gun rights group filed an injunction to stop it, do you think a democrat-controlled State government would not bother to appeal that injunction to the SCOTUS and enforce the ban? How the State chooses to defend a lawsuit doesn't necessarily cut both ways, it depends on who is in control in Sacramento at the time...the will of the people be damned.
HS,
That's a good question. I think that some administrations have to look at legislation/propositions and determine if they believe that the stuff is even constitutional. That the Brown administration chose not to defend it meant that they felt it probably wasn't going to pass constitutional muster. In this case, that and the fact that it was a Dem administration was more coincidental than anything else. That prop could have been sent to Sac with Arnold in office.

What is interesting to me is that no one has definitively answered if it's "constitutional" or not (although I may have missed that). And I don't believe anyone will. Why? Because polygamy and polyandry are right around the corner. The Fed and State governments know this - and so do the courts. If you accept one set of folks that are in a non-standard marriage minority, then you would have accept all the non-standard marriage minorities out there... That's why you won't see a proclamation from the Feds that protects various marriage architectures.

While the Gay community gets the protections I believe they deserve, those protections will be based moving forward via an administrative bureaucracy - not declaring actual freedom. And the government won't have it any other way.

The Mormons, Islamists and Polyandrous are going to have to continue to operate in the shadows.

Regardless of whether the D’s in office think it was constitutional, don’t you think they had a duty to try to uphold the appeal since it was the will of the voters, and SEE if it’s constitutional? I see what happened as a lame end-run by a bunch of gutless politicians (with 'D's after their name) around what the people of California wanted, since it did not align with their ideology.

And as I’ve said in a lot of past threads… once we ‘normalize’ homosexual marriage as some sort of ‘civil right’, there’s absolutely no legal way you can discriminate against incestuous, polygamist or polyandrous unions. And don’t think the pedophiles aren’t watching this one as well. Slippery slopes are a b#^ch, aren’t they?

What I’m thinking would have happened if Jerry Brown had the balls to do his job and defend prop 8 in the US Supreme Court, we would have found out that there is no discrimination in prop 8. The law allowed any single male to ‘marry’ any single female, regardless of race, color, creed, sexual orientation, etc. Just because a gay couple doesn’t want to marry an opposite-sex partner doesn’t mean they’re being discriminated against by prop 8, they have the same right to marry an opposite sex partner as everyone else in the state does.

Then the next logical step would have been to amend the ‘civil union’ definition to include all legal benefits afforded to heterosexuals under ‘marriage’ to the homosexuals, neatly sidestepping the whole slippery slope into deviancy, while allowing gay couples the protection you think they deserve.

Turning down DOMA on the federal level allows federal benefits to remain available to homosexual couples in the Golden State, and allows each state to determine if they want to allow homosexual unions or not.
High Sierras
hunter
 
Posts: 676
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2012 11:34 pm
Location: above the snow line most of the year


Re: Eat it Prop H8!

Postby slowshooter » Mon Jul 01, 2013 4:08 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:I implied no one was inbred. At least I don't think that is slow's problem. :huh: My point was that slow's ridiculous statement proves that the prohibition on incest has failed to protect us from inbred intellect becoming common because it is ideology over biology that leads to such recalcitrant ignorance based on attacking fictional strawmen that we stereotype as an inbred intellect.


If you are going to talk about intellect you should probably work on clarity. :lol3: :lol3:

Your time away apparently didn't help you.


The truth must withstand every counter argument.


Not if the argument is nonsensical.


The left only addresses the most foolish ones and often ones that they just made up in their crazy little brains. For examples that h8 is the best argument for government only recognizing non-incestuous so-called traditional marriage. This is the kind of thing that passes for enlightenment when you have an inbred intellect.


Nonsensical just like the above paragraph. :lol3:

Incest is the next step and not polygamy. Partially because it hasn't protected us from the inbred intellect. But primarily even someone with an inbred intellect can see that there is no logical argument for the government banning incestuous marriages as most if not all states currently do, particularly same-sex incestuous marriage. Even liberals know the difference between 2 and 3, but apparently they can't tell any pairs apart.


It looks like wishful thinking on your part. You an only child?

http://www.today.com/entertainment/jeremy-irons-voices-incest-concerns-over-gay-marriage-1B9229241

"Could a father not marry his son?" Irons asked during an interview with The Huffington Post. He said this technically would not be incest if it were between men, because "incest is there to protect us from inbreeding, but men don't breed.”


They should have just argued in court that marriage is just affirmative action for the breeders. Affirmative action is good, but breeders are bad, so it would have confound the liberal inbred intellect.


Well that settles that. Jeremy Irons is always the go to guy when discussing having sex with your Dad. No wonder you quoted him. :lol3:

slowshooter wrote:I guess it begs the question... Why the heck would you care? It's not your life.


What was the argument for Obamacare? Oh yeah, your behavior effects me because of the way government works today so we have the right to force you to do what I want or some such nonsense. If you want to ban the government from recognizing all marriages, I can and would support that fully. But you pick and choose. The ONLY reason for the government to recognize any marriage is because the FAMILY is the smallest unit of an ordered society. Two guys will NEVER make a baby and neither will a single person without divine intervention. Single people adopt children all the time, but we don't call them married and we don't argue for calling an individual married.
[/quote]

So you don't have a legitimate answer as to why you would/should care. Even though it's not your life. And per my message to HS, the government has already picked and chosen. There are no government proclamation around the idea that anyone can get married. If that was the case it would be settled at the federal level.

The ONLY relevant societal interest is that we need a next generation and that next generation is produced by one man and one woman, granted there are almost infinite paths for one man and one woman to make a baby as well as the eventual course of that child's life or premature death if it is for example aborted.


As a childless couple all you are saying is that you and your beloved have nothing to add to the future. So just sit back and enjoy life.

The IDEAL conditions for raising the next generation is unquestionably a large stable family which includes not just one father and one mother, but siblings, 4 grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, ... all related in the traditional biological way. You want lots of redundancy. Also adoption in any form is necessary in reality but it is clearly not ideal. Granted adoption is vastly superior to being executed, but many adopted kids have a sense of abandonment, confusion, wonder, whatever it is that is not dissimilar to kids that are abandoned by their father or mother and it is far from ideal whatever form it takes. Recognizing the ideal does not mean deny what is real and I have no doubt that in this vast nation that there are some cases where a gay couple was the best available option for some particular child nor should we preclude it by law when it is not.


Thanks for letting us know where you stand. But that's your ideal. Not everyone else's.

The only reason government should care is 100% about the children and subsidizing and encourage as close to the ideal circumstance as possible for children being born and raised in that environment. Our social welfare system creates an environment that destroys that. It's not gay marriage and those that think it is have the same inbred intellect that you are afflicted with, granted a very different ideological inbreeding. It's welfare that is orders of magnitude more destructive. The "tolerance" of gay marriage is but a minor symptom of that social decay. Two men living together and calling themselves married should not be crime, but it should not be subsidized by government. But I can't counter the argument that no marriages should be, however subsidizing the baby makers is not that dissimilar to the argument for public education, child and youth services organizations, and the many other things that are supposed to ensure the next generation thrives, supposed to even though they fail miserably all too often and arguably the good they do is exceeded by the unanticipated harm that results in the real world.


So if you are not interested in carrying your line into the future, why would you care if someone else can't? You are effectively in a Gay marriage because you can't/won't create offspring that are genetically from both you and your wife.

If that's the case then per your diatribe, you should get zero tax breaks as well.

Just sayin.

:lol3:
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9011
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Eat it Prop H8!

Postby assateague » Mon Jul 01, 2013 4:15 pm

slowshooter wrote:
assateague wrote:
slowshooter wrote:If it makes adults happy and/or is part of respecting religious freedom then I'm all for it. :grooving: :grooving:



You mean like that cross that the same California court ordered to be removed? That the sort of thing you're talking about?

Hey, I know. Let's substitute "cross" for "gay marriage", and see how many still agree with the precept you put forth:

slowshooter wrote:And so the h8rs have to go and live empty, horrible lives, with their beliefs ruined and devalued because someone else is happy by seeing a cross on a hill outside town.

Bhwaaahaaa!!!


That's not even apples and oranges it's more like apples and feet. Maybe that works for you. :smile:



Really? How so? It'll be interesting to see how you can advance the adherents of one abstract concept (gay love) and the "benefits" they should receive (gay marriage) and denigrate the adherents of another abstract concept (Christianity) and the "benefits" they should receive (putting a cross on a hillside).

Particularly when your argument is "it doesn't hurt anybody else, so what's the problem?"
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Eat it Prop H8!

Postby slowshooter » Mon Jul 01, 2013 4:23 pm

High Sierras wrote:Regardless of whether the D’s in office think it was constitutional, don’t you think they had a duty to try to uphold the appeal since it was the will of the voters, and SEE if it’s constitutional? I see what happened as a lame end-run by a bunch of gutless politicians (with 'D's after their name) around what the people of California wanted, since it did not align with their ideology.

Their duty is to run the State. Not be run by whatever the population wants. If getting what we wanted was as simple as voting on it, then we could just vote free ice cream to be served on 22 year old hotties every Friday in the town square. No spoons required.


And as I’ve said in a lot of past threads… once we ‘normalize’ homosexual marriage as some sort of ‘civil right’, there’s absolutely no legal way you can discriminate against incestuous, polygamist or polyandrous unions. And don’t think the pedophiles aren’t watching this one as well. Slippery slopes are a b#^ch, aren’t they?


Polygamy? It's part of a couple of religions. Polyandry? It's part of a couple of religion as well. Incest? Yuck... But as adults people can do what they want. Pedophilia? That's a crime and will remain that way. Unless of course you get your way and everyone decides they can vote in whatever they want. Then all the pervs can band together and get Proposition Sick in the Head on the ballot. If they win then the State can fight for that one too, right? I'm being a little facetious but, at that point you would be glad if the State didn't defend that proposition.


What I’m thinking would have happened if Jerry Brown had the balls to do his job and defend prop 8 in the US Supreme Court, we would have found out that there is no discrimination in prop 8. The law allowed any single male to ‘marry’ any single female, regardless of race, color, creed, sexual orientation, etc. Just because a gay couple doesn’t want to marry an opposite-sex partner doesn’t mean they’re being discriminated against by prop 8, they have the same right to marry an opposite sex partner as everyone else in the state does.


That's a failed argument. And will remain a failed argument.


Then the next logical step would have been to amend the ‘civil union’ definition to include all legal benefits afforded to heterosexuals under ‘marriage’ to the homosexuals, neatly sidestepping the whole slippery slope into deviancy, while allowing gay couples the protection you think they deserve.


Why bother. Just let folks marry and call it done. Did the wedding happening this weekend turn your world upside down? Nope. Didn't bother me or my wife either. So no harm done. Heck, even if I felt bad about it I wouldn't be able to prove harm.


Turning down DOMA on the federal level allows federal benefits to remain available to homosexual couples in the Golden State, and allows each state to determine if they want to allow homosexual unions or not.


True. I think that most states should decide their own fate. And likely they will. Ultimately though, the fight for Gay marriage in the states will end up being solved as a discrimination case, and on a state by state level.
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9011
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Eat it Prop H8!

Postby clampdaddy » Mon Jul 01, 2013 4:24 pm

High Sierras wrote: ........once we ‘normalize’ homosexual marriage as some sort of ‘civil right’, there’s absolutely no legal way you can discriminate against incestuous, polygamist or polyandrous unions. And don’t think the pedophiles aren’t watching this one as well. Slippery slopes are a b#^ch, aren’t they?



Thank you. This is exactly where I was going when I asked if polygamy had been legalized? If one form of sexual/marital perversion must be legitimized then where do you draw the line, and how do you justify where that line has been drawn? Pedophiles still have to contend with the "consenting adults" hurdle but that is not even a natural law. It is one that we have arbitrarily come up with. Once upon a time many relationships that would now be considered pedophilia were perfectly normal and acceptable. This slope could lead to all sorts of unions that must be recognized and treated as normal by our government
User avatar
clampdaddy
hunter
 
Posts: 3657
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Where spoonies go to die

Re: Eat it Prop H8!

Postby slowshooter » Mon Jul 01, 2013 4:31 pm

clampdaddy wrote:
High Sierras wrote: ........once we ‘normalize’ homosexual marriage as some sort of ‘civil right’, there’s absolutely no legal way you can discriminate against incestuous, polygamist or polyandrous unions. And don’t think the pedophiles aren’t watching this one as well. Slippery slopes are a b#^ch, aren’t they? [quote/]


Thank you. This is exactly where I was going when I asked if polygamy had been legalized? If one form of sexual/marital perversion must be legitimized then where do you draw the line, and how do you justify where that line has been drawn? Pedophiles still have to contend with the "consenting adults" hurdle but that is not even a natural law. It is one that we have arbitrarily come up with. Once upon a time many relationships that would now be considered pedophilia were perfectly normal and acceptable. This slope could lead to all sorts of unions that must be recognized and treated as normal by our government



Again. The states and the Fed have not declared Gay marriage as a right. They have not issued a blanket edict that forces every state to comply. The Roberts court avoided the whole issue by putting the decision on the States.

IMO they saw the future and felt that the nation wasn't ready for Polygamy/polyandry/group marriages or anything else.

It's good for the Gay community but not for all the rest of the non-standard marriage hopefuls.
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9011
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Eat it Prop H8!

Postby clampdaddy » Mon Jul 01, 2013 4:34 pm

slowshooter wrote: .....It's good for the Gay community but not for all the rest of the non-standard marriage hopefuls.


My point exactly.
User avatar
clampdaddy
hunter
 
Posts: 3657
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Where spoonies go to die

Re: Eat it Prop H8!

Postby slowshooter » Mon Jul 01, 2013 4:56 pm

assateague wrote:
Really? How so? It'll be interesting to see how you can advance the adherents of one abstract concept (gay love) and the "benefits" they should receive (gay marriage) and denigrate the adherents of another abstract concept (Christianity) and the "benefits" they should receive (putting a cross on a hillside).

Particularly when your argument is "it doesn't hurt anybody else, so what's the problem?"


The crosses were erected on public land without permits. So they went away.

Despite your fervent wishes, people don't need permits to be gay on public land. And so can't be removed for being someplace they shouldn't be.
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9011
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Eat it Prop H8!

Postby assateague » Mon Jul 01, 2013 5:01 pm

Why do you need a permit to openly express your religion, but not to openly express your homosexuality?
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Eat it Prop H8!

Postby slowshooter » Mon Jul 01, 2013 5:03 pm

Okay. To me I don't care how folks want to live. Gays deserve to live their lives as fully as anyone else. Same with the religious folks out there. But the courts were wise to take this path. It didn't open a Pandora's box. The case for the religious should be carried by the religious not piggybacked on some marriage omnibus legislation.
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9011
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Eat it Prop H8!

Postby slowshooter » Mon Jul 01, 2013 5:09 pm

assateague wrote:Why do you need a permit to openly express your religion, but not to openly express your homosexuality?


You don't a permit to express your religion on public property. You need a permit to erect a structure of any kind which, to the cross lover's chagrin, the original cross planters did not have.

And so, feet.

:lol3:
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9011
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Eat it Prop H8!

Postby clampdaddy » Mon Jul 01, 2013 5:49 pm

slowshooter wrote:
assateague wrote:Why do you need a permit to openly express your religion, but not to openly express your homosexuality?


You don't a permit to express your religion on public property.......


Tell that to the Presbyterian preacher in Delaware that was just denied a permit to hold a beach service on independence day.
User avatar
clampdaddy
hunter
 
Posts: 3657
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Where spoonies go to die

Re: Eat it Prop H8!

Postby assateague » Mon Jul 01, 2013 7:07 pm

Thank you.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Eat it Prop H8!

Postby slowshooter » Mon Jul 01, 2013 11:59 pm

I would be happy to say that to him.

Then I would tell him that he does need a permit to hold an organized event that uses public property. In short, just because the church requests a permit to hold an event that doesn't mean they are entitled to one.

Whether it's because the locals feels it's a matter of church and state or if they think that blocking off a public beach for 8 consecutive Sundays is a PIA and forces the public to accommodate a church. In the end, the city gets to decide what and who gets to use the public grounds.

If he wants to go to the beach and pray a rosary? Great! If he wants to commune with God by saying a Hail Mary? Wonderful!

But he wants to block off part the beach to hold a church service… At that point, the city can tell him "no" and they did.

So, if he wants to express his religion he is free do do so. He just isn't free to pitch his tent wherever he wants... Any more than the folks that didn't have a permit to erect crosses in California had the right to put them up where ever they wanted.

Feet.
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9011
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Eat it Prop H8!

Postby clampdaddy » Tue Jul 02, 2013 7:09 am

slowshooter wrote:Whether it's because the locals feels it's a matter of church and state.......In the end, the city gets to decide what and who gets to use the public grounds.


This is the argument that the city manager is using and it is a nonsensical one. Granting a permit to a church to conduct a service on a public beach has nothing to do with the government adopting a religion. In fact they have impeded upon citizens right to peacefully assemble.
Last edited by clampdaddy on Tue Jul 02, 2013 7:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
clampdaddy
hunter
 
Posts: 3657
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Where spoonies go to die

Re: Eat it Prop H8!

Postby assateague » Tue Jul 02, 2013 7:13 am

slowshooter wrote:In the end, the city gets to decide what and who gets to use the public grounds.



slowshooter wrote: In the end, the city gets to decide what and who gets to get married.




I decided to play the substitution game again. If it's ok for one "civil right", then it should certainly be ok for another "civil right". Unless you're just a hypocrite.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Eat it Prop H8!

Postby lancej » Tue Jul 02, 2013 9:35 am

clampdaddy wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:
clampdaddy wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:
clampdaddy wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:
clampdaddy wrote:Why hasn't polygamy been legalized?

Incest has got to go. Clearly it hasn't stopped what was feared. This quote proves it clearly......


Seriously?

Do I think the government should recognize marriage between any two people that wish to call themselves married? Of course not.


Agreed, but why would you insinuate that my sarchastic question about polygamy pointed in a direction that I am inbred?

I implied no one was inbred. At least I don't think that is slow's problem. :huh: .....


Gotcha'. I misunderstood your post.



Don't feel bad. Most of the time Spinner's posts are misunderstood. :biggrin:

Lance
It is the shared experiences of companionship that make loss bearable.
RIP Orion, May where you are be full of Rabbits.

when you start explaining what you're seeing, you see what you've been looking at
User avatar
lancej
hunter
 
Posts: 3215
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 2:19 pm
Location: Mount Aukum, CA

Re: Eat it Prop H8!

Postby WoodyWhiffingMG » Tue Jul 02, 2013 9:49 am

assateague wrote:
slowshooter wrote:In the end, the city gets to decide what and who gets to use the public grounds.



slowshooter wrote: In the end, the city gets to decide what and who gets to get married.




I decided to play the substitution game again. If it's ok for one "civil right", then it should certainly be ok for another "civil right". Unless you're just a hypocrite.


Internet HIGH FIVE Assa!

If the past has proven anything, slow will not give in, even when proven to be an *** HAT. So I'm sure he will ignore you or come back with some asinine retort.
There are only two types of people in the world, those who love duck hunting and those who never have duck hunted.
User avatar
WoodyWhiffingMG
hunter
 
Posts: 8648
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 9:30 pm
Location: Back in SW MICHIGAN

Re: Eat it Prop H8!

Postby SpinnerMan » Tue Jul 02, 2013 9:56 am

slowshooter wrote:
The truth must withstand every counter argument.


Not if the argument is nonsensical.

It sounds like you are arguing that the truth may not be able to withstand an argument that is nonsensical. :lol3:

Didn't really think that one through, did ya?

Of course most of the liberal positions can only withstand the nonsensical counter arguments, which is why those are the ones they refer to :thumbsup:
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16324
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Previous

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: macdaddy and 10 guests