What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (2 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
TobiasFunke said:
Hey GB, since I know Clinton "owning the mistake" is a concern of yours I wanted to make sure you didn't miss this in all the alt-right hubbub:
 
Click to expand...
I think this is a good response from her, not sure why it took so long to come up with it but to me it is the best way for her to address the issue.  I did chuckle at her describing the issue as her wanting a single email account, I bet that line tested well.  She should be on cruise control at this point and avoid any conflicts with Powell or really anyone not named Trump.

 
Baloney Sandwich said:
I think this is a good response from her, not sure why it took so long to come up with it but to me it is the best way for her to address the issue.  I did chuckle at her describing the issue as her wanting a single email account, I bet that line tested well.  She should be on cruise control at this point and avoid any conflicts with Powell or really anyone not named Trump.
Click to expand...
I believe Comey reached this same conclusion- that the evidence suggested her motivation was just convenience, not wanting to duck FOIA or anything else.

 
TobiasFunke said:
I believe Comey reached this same conclusion- that the evidence suggested her motivation was just convenience, not wanting to duck FOIA or anything else.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't it been more convenient to use the normal email for that position instead of all the lengths she went to set up her own server?

 
TobiasFunke said:
I believe Comey reached this same conclusion- that the evidence suggested her motivation was just convenience, not wanting to duck FOIA or anything else.
Click to expand...
single was the key word that made me laugh...Comey's words:

I have so far used the singular term, “e-mail server,” in describing the referral that began our investigation. It turns out to have been more complicated than that. Secretary Clinton used several different servers and administrators of those servers during her four years at the State Department, and used numerous mobile devices to view and send e-mail on that personal domain. As new servers and equipment were employed, older servers were taken out of service, stored, and decommissioned in various ways. Piecing all of that back together—to gain as full an understanding as possible of the ways in which personal e-mail was used for government work—has been a painstaking undertaking, requiring thousands of hours of effort.

For example, when one of Secretary Clinton’s original personal servers was decommissioned in 2013, the e-mail software was removed. Doing that didn’t remove the e-mail content, but it was like removing the frame from a huge finished jigsaw puzzle and dumping the pieces on the floor. The effect was that millions of e-mail fragments end up unsorted in the server’s unused—or “slack”—space. We searched through all of it to see what was there, and what parts of the puzzle could be put back together.

 
BeaverCleaver said:
Wouldn't it been more convenient to use the normal email for that position instead of all the lengths she went to set up her own server?
Click to expand...
No, it wasn't more convenient. that was the problem, she wanted (like anyone) to have coordination to one device. They (career IT) should have been able to set this up, they couldn't. She set something up, and then clarified and apologized for knuckleheads, but I don't know why she even bothers because partisans still ask obtuse questions like "wouldn't it have been more convenient to use the normal email yada yada" 

It's sad that this is a focus for some, emails for crying out loud, but since it's basically what they have in their hand, I guess they have to play it.

Cue: Benghazi and the Foundation!!

 
Grace Under Pressure said:
No, it wasn't more convenient. that was the problem, she wanted (like anyone) to have coordination to one device. They (career IT) should have been able to set this up, they couldn't. She set something up, and then clarified and apologized for knuckleheads, but I don't know why she even bothers because partisans still ask obtuse questions like "wouldn't it have been more convenient to use the normal email yada yada" 

It's sad that this is a focus for some, emails for crying out loud, but since it's basically what they have in their hand, I guess they have to play it.

Cue: Benghazi and the Foundation!!
Click to expand...
She created this situation for herself. I wonder if BleachBit has considered using her for an endorsement?

 
Baloney Sandwich said:
single was the key word that made me laugh...Comey's words:

I have so far used the singular term, “e-mail server,” in describing the referral that began our investigation. It turns out to have been more complicated than that. Secretary Clinton used several different servers and administrators of those servers during her four years at the State Department, and used numerous mobile devices to view and send e-mail on that personal domain. As new servers and equipment were employed, older servers were taken out of service, stored, and decommissioned in various ways. Piecing all of that back together—to gain as full an understanding as possible of the ways in which personal e-mail was used for government work—has been a painstaking undertaking, requiring thousands of hours of effort.

For example, when one of Secretary Clinton’s original personal servers was decommissioned in 2013, the e-mail software was removed. Doing that didn’t remove the e-mail content, but it was like removing the frame from a huge finished jigsaw puzzle and dumping the pieces on the floor. The effect was that millions of e-mail fragments end up unsorted in the server’s unused—or “slack”—space. We searched through all of it to see what was there, and what parts of the puzzle could be put back together.
Click to expand...
And that was money well spent? To determine she could have been more careful and wanted this out of convenience, but they didn't find anything to move forward with?

 
TobiasFunke said:
The Commish said:
Agree here...it's also said that Powell's recommendation was to use her own email...no mention of going beyond that and setting up a full on server (at least that's what the article says).  TF, this is an example of not owning the mistake IMO.  "Colin told me to" and "Colin did it too" (even though he didn't) aren't owning anything...they are weak attempts at deflecting from poor decision making.  The article also points out she had already made the decision to use the private email server, so I don't even know why she was bringing Powell into the discussion other than to deflect.
Click to expand...
Hey GB, since I know Clinton "owning the mistake" is a concern of yours I wanted to make sure you didn't miss this in all the alt-right hubbub:
 

Well, look, I have the utmost respect for Secretary Powell. And he was incredibly gracious and helpful after I was nominated and before I took the job. I appreciated the time he took when I was preparing to become secretary. And I valued his advice. I’m not going to relitigate in public my private conversations with him.

I’ve been asked many, many questions in the past year about e-mails. And what I’ve learned is that when I try to explain what happened it can sound like I’m trying to excuse what I did. And there are no excuses. I want people to know that the decision to have a single e- mail account was mine. I take responsibility for it. I’ve apologized for it. I would certainly do differently if I could.

But obviously, I’m grateful the justice department concluded there was no basis to pursue this matter further. And, I believe, the public will be and is considering my full record and experience as they consider their choice for president.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
When I heard the comments, I thought of you.  If she is to be believed, I'm glad she's finally come around.  This isn't the first time she's said these words and then just a few days later went back to her old words.  Either way, it'd be nice to hear this sort of ownership right out of the box instead of after months and months and months of making excuses and trying to twist the narrative with misdirection and false equivalency.  It's a lot easier to believe that way and doesn't feel like an apology my kid would give when I caught them with their hand in the cookie jar.

 
Grace Under Pressure said:
And that was money well spent? To determine she could have been more careful and wanted this out of convenience, but they didn't find anything to move forward with?
Click to expand...
How is it convenient to use several different servers and administrators of those servers?  

I think it is reasonable to argue about a lot of aspects of this email issue but you really stretch the plausable defending Hillary's position that this was about convenience.

 
TobiasFunke said:
I believe Comey reached this same conclusion- that the evidence suggested her motivation was just convenience, not wanting to duck FOIA or anything else.
Click to expand...
Comey didn't go here did he?  I don't remember if he did or not, so I'm asking.  I do remember him pointing out several different accounts in several different locations etc.

 
The Commish said:
When I heard the comments, I thought of you.  If she is to be believed, I'm glad she's finally come around.  This isn't the first time she's said these words and then just a few days later went back to her old words.  Either way, it'd be nice to hear this sort of ownership right out of the box instead of after months and months and months of making excuses and trying to twist the narrative with misdirection and false equivalency.  It's a lot easier to believe that way and doesn't feel like an apology my kid would give when I caught them with their hand in the cookie jar.
Click to expand...
It is tough to believe her. She's not 100% clean on everything, to be frank, and the moniker "Crooked Hillary" may not always be entirely false. She should just actually be more free with her words sometimes. These lawyer politicians, which she is both, just come across like they're hiding something. 

 
Baloney Sandwich said:
I think this is a good response from her, not sure why it took so long to come up with it but to me it is the best way for her to address the issue.  I did chuckle at her describing the issue as her wanting a single email account, I bet that line tested well.  She should be on cruise control at this point and avoid any conflicts with Powell or really anyone not named Trump.
Click to expand...
Agree. She should stick with it.

 
Baloney Sandwich said:
How is it convenient to use several different servers and administrators of those servers?  

I think it is reasonable to argue about a lot of aspects of this email issue but you really stretch the plausable defending Hillary's position that this was about convenience.
Click to expand...
For her? More convenient, yes. She's not in the basement administering the servers.

Defend her position? Frankly, I'm not at all hung up on the issue. It's being used as a false equivalency argument that the Trump supporters have grasped on to, and I've mostly refrained from a position on it because it's two-bit level nonsense for the most part.

 
TobiasFunke said:
The Commish said:
Comey didn't go here did he?  I don't remember if he did or not, so I'm asking.  I do remember him pointing out several different accounts in several different locations etc.
Click to expand...
link
Click to expand...
This must have been during his questioning from Congress?  I'd have liked to see his face during that answer.  Did he at least deliver it with a smirk or sarcastic tone?  That'd have been :moneybag:   Multiple servers,multiple devices, multiple accounts over multiple locations is the definition of convenient.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke said:
link
Click to expand...
Hillary won on intent and lost on content and authorization. Her response was a huge improvement and someone must have wisely yanked her chain after the Kimmel appearance. She needs to stick with that response. I will say that she couldn't really truly say this before Comey because she was under investigation. The first key for the press and critics to move on is for Hillary herself to accept what Comey said and move on. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hillary is also going to lose on the issue of what she deleted, i.e. It was not just personal/private material. Foia documents in the thousands are going to start rolling out first week of September. When that happens I hope she and her supporters stick with the 'no excuses' mantra because there really aren't any.

 
TobiasFunke said:
link
Click to expand...
Comey's full comment.

[Caps original, sorry].
 

>> IN THAT TOP SECRET INFORMATION YOU FOUND, WOULD SOMEBODY WHO IS SOPHISTICATED IN THOSE MATTERS, SHOULD IT HAVE BEEN ONIOUS THAT WAS SENSITIVE INFORMATION?

>> YES.

>> I GUESS MY ISSUE ABOUT KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS IN ORDER FOR SECRETARY CLINTON TO HAVE ACCESS TO TOP SECRET FBI INFORMATION, DIDN'T SHE HAVE TO SIGN A FORM WITH THE STATE DEPARTMENT ACKNOWLEDGING HER DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER THE LAW TO SAFEGUARD THIS INFORMATION? >> YES. ANYBODY WHO GETS ACCESS TO SCI, SENSITIVE COMPARTMENT INFORMATION WOULD SIGN A READ-IN FORM THAT LAYS THAT OUT. I'M SURE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS HAVE SEEN THE SAME THING.

>> AND IT STRESSES IN THAT DOCUMENT AND OTHER TRAINING PEOPLE WOULD GET THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS TO HANDLING CERTAIN LEVELS OF INFORMATION. FOR EXAMPLE, A TOP SECRET DOCUMENT, THAT CAN'T EVEN BE ON YOUR SECRET SYSTEM AT THE FBI, CORRECT?

>> CORRECT.

>> SO YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW CERTAIN GUIDELINES. AND I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, IS SHE'S VERY SOPHISTICATED PERSON. SHE DID EXECUTE THAT DOCUMENT, CORRECT?

>> YES.

>> AND HER AIDES WHO WERE GETTING THE CLASSIFIED INFORMATION, THEY EXECUTED SIMILAR DOCUMENTS TO GET A SECURITY CLEARANCE, CORRECT? >> I BELIEVE SO.

>> AND SHE KNOWINGLY CLEARLY SET UP HER OWN PRIVATE SERVER IN ORDER TO -- LET ME ASK YOU THAT. WAS THE REASON SHE SET UP HER OWN PRIVATE SERVER IN YOUR JUDGMENT BECAUSE SHE WANTED TO SHIELD COMMUNICATIONS FROM CONGRESS AND THE PUBLIC?

>> I CAN'T SAY THAT. OUR BEST INFORMATION IS THAT SHE SET IT UP AS A MATTER OF CONVENIENCE. IT WAS AN EXISTING SYSTEM HER HUSBAND HAD AND SHE DECIDED TO HAVE A DOMAIN ON THAT SYSTEM.

>> SO THE QUESTION IS, IS VERY SOPHISTICATED. THIS IS INFORMATION THAT CLEARLY ANYBODY WHO HAD KNOWLEDGE OF SECURITY INFORMATION WOULD KNOW THAT IT WOULD BE CLASSIFIED. BUT I'M HAVING A LITTLE BIT OF TROUBLE TO SEE HOW WOULD YOU NOT THEN KNOW THAT THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS INAPPROPRIATE TO DO?

>> WELL, I JUST WANT TO TAKE ONE OF YOUR ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT SOPHISTICATION. I DON'T THINK THAT OUR INVESTIGATION ESTABLISHED SHE WAS ACTUALLY PARTICULARLY SOPHISTICATED WITH RESPECT TO CLASSIFIED INFORMATION AND THE LEVELS AND TREATMENT, AND SO FAR AS WE CAN TELL .
Click to expand...
https://www.c-span.org/video/?412315-1/fbi-director-james-comey-testifies-hillary-clinton-email-probe

So it's not really that she was doing it for convenience, someone who had the requisite intent could have done the exact same thing, the intent element failed for Hillary because she was deemed not sophisticated enough about classified information to know what was classified.

Not a good look at all but she should take it and she does.

In other words if someone else had done what Hillary had done, someone who knew what was classified and what wasn't, they would have been committing an illegal act.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
Some truths about the Clintom Foundation: 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2016/08/25/clinton_foundation_scandal_aids_relief_work_is_a_success.html

The attacks against this foundation are beginning to remind me of the attacks last year against Planned Parenthood, which were made by many of the same people and turned out to be just as false. 
Click to expand...
The activities of the Foundation - and Teneo - are completely and totally separate from the issue of the ethics of the Clintons with regard to them. The latter is the problem, not the former.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Comey's full comment.

[Caps original, sorry].
 

https://www.c-span.org/video/?412315-1/fbi-director-james-comey-testifies-hillary-clinton-email-probe

So it's not really that she was doing it for convenience, someone who had the requisite intent could have done the exact same thing, the intent element failed for Hillary because she was deemed not sophisticated enough about classified information to know what was classified.

Not a good look at all but she should take it and she does.

In other words if someone else had done what Hillary had done, someone who knew what was classified and what wasn't, they would have been committing an illegal act.
Click to expand...
"In other words" my ###.  There is absolutely nothing in that text or to my knowledge in the law that remotely suggests this.

This is the wolf-crying I refer to so frequently.

 
TobiasFunke said:
"In other words" my ###.  There is absolutely nothing in that text or to my knowledge in the law that remotely suggests this.

This is the wolf-crying I refer to so frequently.
Click to expand...


>> SO THE QUESTION IS, IS VERY SOPHISTICATED. THIS IS INFORMATION THAT CLEARLY ANYBODY WHO HAD KNOWLEDGE OF SECURITY INFORMATION WOULD KNOW THAT IT WOULD BE CLASSIFIED. BUT I'M HAVING A LITTLE BIT OF TROUBLE TO SEE HOW WOULD YOU NOT THEN KNOW THAT THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS INAPPROPRIATE TO DO?

COMEY: >> WELL, I JUST WANT TO TAKE ONE OF YOUR ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT SOPHISTICATION. I DON'T THINK THAT OUR INVESTIGATION ESTABLISHED SHE WAS ACTUALLY PARTICULARLY SOPHISTICATED WITH RESPECT TO CLASSIFIED INFORMATION AND THE LEVELS AND TREATMENT, AND SO FAR AS WE CAN TELL .
Click to expand...
:shrug: How about we all hang our hat on what Comey said?

 
BleachBit quickly frees disk space and tirelessly guards your privacy. Free cache, delete cookies, clear Internet history, shred temporary files, delete logs, and discard junk you didn't know was there. Designed for Linux and Windows systems, it wipes clean a thousand applications including Firefox, Internet Explorer, Adobe Flash, Google Chrome, Opera, Safari,and more. Beyond simply deleting files, BleachBit includes advanced features such as shredding files to prevent recovery, wiping free disk space to hide traces of files deleted by other applications, and vacuuming Firefox to make it faster. Better than free, BleachBit is open source.
Click to expand...
https://www.bleachbit.org/

Huh. Did not know such things existed in the world.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
:shrug: How about we all hang our hat on what Comey said?
Click to expand...
Agreed. He says "our best information is that she set it up as a matter of convenience" and that she doesn't appear to be particularly sophisticated when it comes to treatment of classified information. 

So where's the part that says "if someone else had done what Hillary had done, someone who knew what was classified and what wasn't, they would have been committing an illegal act"?  Those where your words.  You want to hang you hat on what he said, show me where he said what you said.  Not your interpretation of what he said as it applies to criminal statutes (statutes that you wrongly interpreted and applied before, btw).  Like you said, hang you hat on what Comey said.

 
TobiasFunke said:
"In other words" my ###.  There is absolutely nothing in that text or to my knowledge in the law that remotely suggests this.

This is the wolf-crying I refer to so frequently.
Click to expand...
Not sure about this TF....."ignorance" (willful or otherwise) does seem to be a component.  We have a guy in the Navy who's in a TON of trouble because he knowingly transmitted classified information.  One of the most significant differences between that officer's incident and Hillary's is that Hillary said she didn't know what she was doing.  This, of course, helps with the "intent" portion of the program if we believe ignorance is really a defense.  N No question there.  FWIW....ignorance is the best defense one could have in a situation like this IMO, but if successful it's still not a good look.

ETA:  And I am not hanging my hat on Comey, so feel free to ignore.  I'm hanging my hat on relatively similar acts performed by other people and the repercussions they faced from their respective leadership.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke said:
Agreed. He says "our best information is that she set it up as a matter of convenience" and that she doesn't appear to be particularly sophisticated when it comes to treatment of classified information. 

So where's the part that says "if someone else had done what Hillary had done, someone who knew what was classified and what wasn't, they would have been committing an illegal act"?  Those where your words.  You want to hang you hat on what he said, show me where he said what you said.  Not your interpretation of what he said as it applies to criminal statutes (statutes that you wrongly interpreted and applied before, btw).  Like you said, hang you hat on what Comey said.
Click to expand...
This quote also belies your contention, SID, that  "So it's not really that she was doing it for convenience..."

 
The Commish said:
Not sure about this TF....."ignorance" (willful or otherwise) does seem to be a component.  We have a guy in the Navy who's in a TON of trouble because he knowingly transmitted classified information.  One of the most significant differences between that officer's incident and Hillary's is that Hillary said she didn't know what she was doing.  FWIW....ignorance is the best defense one could have in a situation like this IMO, but if successful it's still not a good look.
Click to expand...
I've explained why the Navy case was totally different before. So have many others. If you're still comparing the two you're doing it wrong.

 
dutch said:
My firm employs similar whenever we change out computers or phones.  I thought it was common practice.
Click to expand...
Did not realize. I thought when Hillary, or Samuelson or Mills or whoever was at the keyboard, did the deleting they would have had to it manually. I guess there are other ways to do it.

 
TobiasFunke said:
Agreed. He says "our best information is that she set it up as a matter of convenience" and that she doesn't appear to be particularly sophisticated when it comes to treatment of classified information. 

So where's the part that says "if someone else had done what Hillary had done, someone who knew what was classified and what wasn't, they would have been committing an illegal act"?  Those where your words.  You want to hang you hat on what he said, show me where he said what you said.  Not your interpretation of what he said as it applies to criminal statutes (statutes that you wrongly interpreted and applied before, btw).  Like you said, hang you hat on what Comey said.
Click to expand...
It's in the dialogue.

Comey points out that he says they believe Hillary did it for convenience because she used Bill's server.

The Congressman says hey so what she still knew it was classified.

Comey says that assumption is incorrect.

So obviously it seems to me that if Hillary had known it was classified material then the fact she had used Bill's server would not have saved her. That's where she wins on intent, not the fact that she just used her husband's server (ie because of convenience).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish said:
Missed it...sorry...also, had an edit to my comment.
Click to expand...
Don't get me wrong, intent/knowledge is an element of the crime and its absence here likely informed the decision not to prosecute.  But there were other factors, too- most notably that she didn't remove anything from anywhere and send it to someone "not entitled to receive it."

 
dutch said:
This quote also belies your contention, SID, that  "So it's not really that she was doing it for convenience..."
Click to expand...
I've already she said she won on intent, and I realize that of course, I was just explaining why Comey made that determination, it had nothing to do with the devices.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
It's in the dialogue.

Comey points out that he says they believe Hillary did it for convenience because she used Bill's server.

The Congressman says hey so what she still knew it was classified.

Comey says that assumption is incorrect.

So obviously it seems to me that if Hillary had known it was classified material then the fact she had used Bill's server would not have saved her. That's where she wins on intent, not the fact that she just used her husband's server.
Click to expand...
You summarized the dialogue as concluding that she would have been committing an illegal act if she'd been more knowledgeable.  The words "illegal" and "crime" and "criminal" don't even appear in the dialogue as far as I can tell.  There's no discussion of legality.

 
TobiasFunke said:
You summarized the dialogue as concluding that she would have been committing an illegal act if she'd been more knowledgeable.  The words "illegal" and "crime" and "criminal" don't even appear in the dialogue as far as I can tell.  There's no discussion of legality.
Click to expand...
Well Tobias I think you can reach a logical conclusion.

This is the Congressman's question:

SO THE QUESTION IS, IS VERY SOPHISTICATED. THIS IS INFORMATION THAT CLEARLY ANYBODY WHO HAD KNOWLEDGE OF SECURITY INFORMATION WOULD KNOW THAT IT WOULD BE CLASSIFIED. BUT I'M HAVING A LITTLE BIT OF TROUBLE TO SEE HOW WOULD YOU NOT THEN KNOW THAT THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS INAPPROPRIATE TO DO?
Click to expand...
Comey doesn't tell the Congressman his conclusion is wrong, he tells him his assumption of the facts is wrong.

Do you think someone who knew that the information was classified would then be saved by saying they did it for convenience? It's entirely irrelevant at that point as to whether they used a thumb drive or their spouse's private server.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Well Tobias I think you can reach a logical conclusion.

This is the Congressman's question:

Comey doesn't tell the Congressman his conclusion is wrong, he tells him his assumption of the facts is wrong.

Do you think someone who knew that the information was classified would then be saved by saying they did it for convenience? It's entirely irrelevant at that point as to whether they used a thumb drive or their spouse's private server.
Click to expand...
You said you wanted to "hang your hat on what Comey said."  You also said "in other words" what she did would have been illegal with more knowledge. 

Both of those statements imply that no further analysis of the dialogue is needed to reach your conclusion.  Yet here you are doing further analysis- and still not linking anything in the dialogue to a specific criminal charge.

Stop digging, GB.

 
TobiasFunke said:
You said you wanted to "hang your hat on what Comey said."  You also said "in other words" what she did would have been illegal with more knowledge. 

Both of those statements imply that no further analysis of the dialogue is needed to reach your conclusion.  Yet here you are doing further analysis- and still not linking anything in the dialogue to a specific criminal charge.

Stop digging, GB.
Click to expand...
I'm fine, we disagree. You're right about the IOW vs Comey's words, but I have been using Comey's words and that is what I will rely on.

Just my POV and I've pointed to Comey's own statements here so I feel good about that. I stand by my point. (eta) I was just asking you for your opinion.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
The activities of the Foundation - and Teneo - are completely and totally separate from the issue of the ethics of the Clintons with regard to them. The latter is the problem, not the former.
Click to expand...
If that's true, then why do the Clinton's critics routinely refer to the foundation as a giant slush fund? Why do they suggest, without any evidence, that the Clintoms skim money from it? Why the constant false accusations about how much goes to overhead? 

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

mr. furley
Long Island serial killer suspect in custody
Replies
34
Views
2K
Dezbelief
Dezbelief
krista4
In this thread I rank my favorite Beatles songs: 204-1.
138 139 140
Replies
7K
Views
254K
rockaction
rockaction
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
2K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top