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 (8 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sand said:
This administration seems to be able to shunt money all over the place when it comes to escorting and relocating illegals, shoring up the disaster-that-is-Obamacare, and many others.  Somehow, though, they don't have any ability to internally allocate more resources to FOIA requests.  Huh - it's like they don't want them to be able to respond to these requests...
Click to expand...
What in God's name are you talking about?

1. Congress controls the budget, not the president.

2. Even if they had money (which, again, they don't), they'd still have to hire and train people before they could get them to turn around the data, a process that would take several months at least.

3 "Shunting money to escort and relocate illegals"?

Listen, I know you all think the "government" is just some monolithic thing run by a couple elites who get together to figure out how to screw you over, but here's what this stuff actually looks like:

The agency (in this case State) has a group of retired foreign service officers working part time, probably with one person in charge, in an office somewhere in the bowels of a federal office building.  None of these people has ever met or spoke with Obama or any of the Clintons or John Kerry or Loretta Lynch. They're not rich or powerful and they spend a lot more time dealing with commuting problems or worrying about whether Ryan Zimmerman will ever be productive again than they do  conspiring with political elites or pleasing some right-wing conspiracy theorist's need to have information in time to win an argument on the internet before the election. These decent, hardworking people  are currently burdened with 3x as much work as they were a couple years ago thanks to said right-wing conspiracy theorists + a GOP Congress that has not adjusted their office's budget accordingly. 

When you have way more work than you can do and you can't hire anyone new to help you, what happens?  It takes longer to do the work and you make more mistakes.  And that's what's happening here, as this motion describes. They're trying to get a bunch of stuff out and their initial estimates about the stuff were off due to human error, so now they realize that have a lot more to do and they still don't have any more resources to do it.  Maybe a judge will yell at them to work faster, which likely won't do much from a practical standpoint since resources are limited, and maybe he/she won't.  Who knows.

And that's it.  End of story.  Sorry to be the bearer of sane news.

 
timschochet said:
If Donald Trump served as Secretary of State (what a disaster that would be!) I wouldn't care how he handled his emails. 
Click to expand...
That's a pity.  You should care how a government employee (from military, GS employee, all the way up to the president) handles emails, especially when some of those emails may contain classified information.  To say you don't care (much like Bernie Sanders with regard to HRC's email issues) shows a lack of understanding with regard to protecting sensitive, Department of Defense, information.  Sanders never served in the military and I'm guessing neither did you.

HRC is in the driver's seat to become the Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful military in the world.  She is not above the law.  She wants to set up an email server to handle/manage personal emails.  Fine.  But you can't circumvent military protocol when it comes to safeguarding classified material.  There is not a general or admiral in the history of the US military whose career would survive processing emails/documents with classified information outside of the established DoD regulations and frameworks.  Many careers have ended for things like this (e.g. Gen Petraeus).  

Should she serve time?  Of course not.  Petraeus served a couple years probation and a $100k fine.  That's lunch money to HRC.  But it caused him (and the others) to resign from his post and retire.  HRC should not be eligible to hold a security clearance, let alone be the Commander-in-Chief of the US military.  

Whether she's indicted on criminal charges or gets off scot-free (i'm betting on the latter), she should not be allowed an appointment to the position of Commander-in-Chief.  It will set a precedent where violations of information security regulations may or may not be punishable depending on your last name.  Maybe she'll order an addendum to stipulate those regulations do not apply to her.  

I understand that you don't care.  But it doesn't matter if you, or me, or Sanders cares about the email issue.  There are regulations and protocols in place for a reason.  Allowing HRC to be above those frameworks is simply mind-blowing.  Absolutely amazing.  

 
Courtjester said:
But for those of us that aren't on here day and night, can you just break it on down to

YES

or

NO.
Click to expand...
Fine. The answer is yes. I trust James Comey. If Hillary is indicted, I will change my mind on this and believe that what she did must be far worse than I thought it was, and that she committed a crime. It will change my overall opinion of Hillary and I will be tremendously disappointed. 

Now I hope that other people will answer my question. 

 
timschochet said:
Fine. The answer is yes. I trust James Comey. If Hillary is indicted, I will change my mind on this and believe that what she did must be far worse than I thought it was, and that she committed a crime. It will change my overall opinion of Hillary and I will be tremendously disappointed. 

Now I hope that other people will answer my question. 
Click to expand...
Tim she's not under criminal investigation- what recommendation?

 
timschochet said:
So question for the anti-Hillary crowd: you now know that Lynch is not going to interfere, she'll do whatever Comey recommends. 

So if Comey recommends no indictment, will you accept that Hillary is not a criminal? Or will you come to believe that Comey is himself corrupt? 
Click to expand...
Yes.  I'll accept that she isn't a criminal.  I'd have respect for Clinton if she admitted her wrong doing with the email server, and went through the due process the way others have when charged with such violations of military regulations.  Instead, it's the "I didn't do anything wrong" attitude that tarnishes her career, past and present, in public government service,  imo.  

 
Jayrok said:
That's a pity.  You should care how a government employee (from military, GS employee, all the way up to the president) handles emails, especially when some of those emails may contain classified information.  To say you don't care (much like Bernie Sanders with regard to HRC's email issues) shows a lack of understanding with regard to protecting sensitive, Department of Defense, information.  Sanders never served in the military and I'm guessing neither did you.

HRC is in the driver's seat to become the Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful military in the world.  She is not above the law.  She wants to set up an email server to handle/manage personal emails.  Fine.  But you can't circumvent military protocol when it comes to safeguarding classified material.  There is not a general or admiral in the history of the US military whose career would survive processing emails/documents with classified information outside of the established DoD regulations and frameworks.  Many careers have ended for things like this (e.g. Gen Petraeus).  

Should she serve time?  Of course not.  Petraeus served a couple years probation and a $100k fine.  That's lunch money to HRC.  But it caused him (and the others) to resign from his post and retire.  HRC should not be eligible to hold a security clearance, let alone be the Commander-in-Chief of the US military.  

Whether she's indicted on criminal charges or gets off scot-free (i'm betting on the latter), she should not be allowed an appointment to the position of Commander-in-Chief.  It will set a precedent where violations of information security regulations may or may not be punishable depending on your last name.  Maybe she'll order an addendum to stipulate those regulations do not apply to her.  

I understand that you don't care.  But it doesn't matter if you, or me, or Sanders cares about the email issue.  There are regulations and protocols in place for a reason.  Allowing HRC to be above those frameworks is simply mind-blowing.  Absolutely amazing.  
Click to expand...
I myself am not an expert on our security apparatus so I can't answer your assertions. But I feel secure in the fact that there are plenty of actual security experts who take strong issue with your position on this. I would also note that the reality is that the government State Department email system that Hillary was supposed to have used proved to be less safe than the private one that she used; we have no idea if the private one was hacked, but we do know that the public one was hacked. 

 
Jayrok said:
Yes.  I'll accept that she isn't a criminal.  I'd have respect for Clinton if she admitted her wrong doing with the email server, and went through the due process the way others have when charged with such violations of military regulations.  Instead, it's the "I didn't do anything wrong" attitude that tarnishes her career, past and present, in public government service,  imo.  
Click to expand...
She has admitted her wrongdoing with the email server.  And she was never a member of the military so I have no idea what military regulations she could have violated that would necessitate "going through the due process," whatever that means.  So .... you respect her now I guess?

 
timschochet said:
I would also note that the reality is that the government State Department email system that Hillary was supposed to have used proved to be less safe than the private one that she used; we have no idea if the private one was hacked, but we do know that the public one was hacked. 
Click to expand...
Be that as it may, it's apples and oranges.  Whether it was hacked or not isn't what I have issue with. I don't even care if she set up a private mail server.  It's the traffic that she used on the server that I have issue with.  Even a gov't State Department email system will have protocols and frameworks to process classified and nonclassified material (e.g. SIPR/NIPRnet).  If any of her emails contained such material and was stored/processed on a private, non-vetted, email server... then shame on her and those in her cabinet who told her it was ok.  She should own it and face the consequences.  Not criminal charges necessarily.  

 
Moving along: 

The NRA shows their tastelessness in this new ad against Hillary. First it was filmed in a national cemetery, which is illegal. Second, Chris Stevens' family has asked that his death not be used for political purposes. But what does the NRA care? This is the sort of #### they pull. 

 
TobiasFunke said:
She has admitted her wrongdoing with the email server.  And she was never a member of the military so I have no idea what military regulations she could have violated that would necessitate "going through the due process," whatever that means.  So .... you respect her now I guess?
Click to expand...
Petraues said he was sorry.  Of course she's sorry.  So what should happen...nothing?   She's campaigning as if her saying "I'm sorry" is enough for it to be swept under the carpet.  She's never been a member of the military, yes.  And that's ok.  But in order to view and process the kind of material that she had access to, she had briefings and training, believe me.  If she truly didn't know how to safeguard such material, then our government is more broken than we can imagine.  

 
Jayrok said:
Petraues said he was sorry.  Of course she's sorry.  So what should happen...nothing?   She's campaigning as if her saying "I'm sorry" is enough for it to be swept under the carpet.  She's never been a member of the military, yes.  And that's ok.  But in order to view and process the kind of material that she had access to, she had briefings and training, believe me.  If she truly didn't know how to safeguard such material, then our government is more broken than we can imagine.  
Click to expand...
sorry she got caught

 
timschochet said:
Moving along: 
Click to expand...
Timschochet -  I'm all for this.  And I won't print another thing on that issue unless quoted or asked something.  My point has been that there are those, like myself, who do have issue with the email topic.  I know it may be boring to some.  But there is more to it than just oops, I messed up, sorry.  If nothing comes out of it and she wins in November, it just sets a bad precedent, imo. Anyone who has worked or works in information security supporting the government... or has been involved in the cleanup of classified spillages and all that is involved.. hopefully knows what I'm talking about.  

 
Threads like this give anti-Hillary people the errant notion that they're really onto something big, when the fact is the only reason we're talking about it is because we're bored and it's all you've got.

 
Jayrok said:
Petraues said he was sorry.  Of course she's sorry.  So what should happen...nothing?   She's campaigning as if her saying "I'm sorry" is enough for it to be swept under the carpet.  She's never been a member of the military, yes.  And that's ok.  But in order to view and process the kind of material that she had access to, she had briefings and training, believe me.  If she truly didn't know how to safeguard such material, then our government is more broken than we can imagine.  
Click to expand...
Petraues broke the law.  It's not at at all clear that Clinton did so, as we have broken down repeatedly in this thread. Yes she received training on handling classified material. She thought she was in compliance with the requirements by using a private server. I don't know if that's true or not, but it doesn't really matter to me. Even if it's not I think she showed poor judgment and I hold that against her ... but every candidate in history has shown poor judgment at one time or another, and she is IMO very clearly the vastly superior option of the two people remaining with a real chance to win the presidency. If you disagree, vote accordingly I suppose.

I'm not sure what else you want from her. She made a mistake.  She said as much.  What else do you want her to do on her campaign?  Should she start every stump speech with an apology?

Also- "our government is more broken than we can imagine"?  Really?  Fifty things worse than that happen every day.  Right now funding for Zika research is being blocked in the Senate because the GOP threw riders on the bill stripping Obamacare funding and protecting the right to fly the confederate flag and the Dems balked ... and you think Hillary Clinton using a .com email instead of her assigned .gov email (just like her predecessors did btw) is beyond any governance problems we previously imagined?  I think maybe a little perspective is in order, no?

 
pantagrapher said:
Threads like this give anti-Hillary people the errant notion that they're really onto something big, when the fact is the only reason we're talking about it is because we're bored and it's all you've got.
Click to expand...
I was thinking about the story this morning involving Trump using Trump Foundation funds to buy himself a signed Tim Tebow helmet and was thinking about the outrage there would be if Bill Clinton did that with Clinton Foundation funds.  Instead, it is barely a blip because it is about the 1000th worst thing about Trump.

 
Don Quixote said:
I was thinking about the story this morning involving Trump using Trump Foundation funds to buy himself a signed Tim Tebow helmet and was thinking about the outrage there would be if Bill Clinton did that with Clinton Foundation funds.  Instead, it is barely a blip because it is about the 1000th worst thing about Trump.
Click to expand...
It was posted in the Trump thread (by you) and it's pretty well established that Hillary matches Trump and Trump matches Hillary almost flaw for flaw. It's really remarkable.

- IMO if foundation cash goes to persons individually it should be investigated.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Pretty much every feminist in my timeline is going bonkers over this right now.

Dear readers,

I know that today is the final day of The Toast, and I wanted to take a moment to reflect on what this space — and spaces like it — mean for women. 

In nearly every industry, from publishing to scientific research, women have had to forge their own paths against overwhelming odds and less-than-friendly welcomes. When I arrived in the Senate in 2001, I was one of just 13 women, and I remember how thankful I was for my female colleagues on both sides of the aisle. My friend Barbara Mikulski famously started a tradition of dinner parties for all the women of the Senate. Over a glass of wine — okay, maybe three — we’d give each other support, advice, and highly relevant tips to navigate being in such an extreme minority.

I’ve always had great admiration for women like Barb who take it upon themselves to create spaces where women can speak their minds freely. With this site, Mallory, Nicole and Nikki did the same for so many women — and they made us laugh and think along the way. 

I’m looking forward to seeing what they — and the many great writers who’ve contributed to The Toast — do next. (At least two are working for my campaign!) As we look back at what this site has meant to so many of you, I hope you’ll also look forward and consider how you might make your voice heard in whatever arenas matter most to you. Speak your opinion more fervently in your classes if you’re a student, or at meetings in your workplace. Proudly take credit for your ideas. Have confidence in the value of your contributions. And if the space you’re in doesn’t have room for your voice, don’t be afraid to carve out a space of your own. You never know — you might just be the next Nicole Cliffe, Mallory Ortberg or Nikki Chung.

Thank you, and as my friend Barb would say — keep giving them hell. We’re counting on you.

Hillary
Click to expand...
:thumbup:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
So question for the anti-Hillary crowd: you now know that Lynch is not going to interfere, she'll do whatever Comey recommends. 

So if Comey recommends no indictment, will you accept that Hillary is not a criminal? Or will you come to believe that Comey is himself corrupt? 
Click to expand...
We don't know that Lynch won't interfere.  We know that she said she won't interfere.  Those aren't the same thing.  We also don't know that one of her subordinates won't interfere, etc.

Assuming I was willing to take her statement at face value, my answer would be this.  If the FBI comes up with nothing, I will believe all of the following:

  • The primary purpose of Hillary's private server was to actively avoid FOIA and other public/government oversight.
  • She and her people did a piss poor job of securing the server.
  • She used extremely poor judgment on this issue.
  • She has repeatedly lied about what she and her people did and why.
  • There were multiple conflicts of interest between her (and her people's) role as SOS, with the Foundation, with her/Bill's speaking engagements, etc.
  • Ethically, her actions were wrong.  Period.
  • Whether any of the above was officially illegal or not, it should be disqualifying for public office.
None of those statements have anything to do with Trump, the GOP, Sanders, etc.  They are purely my view on Hillary herself, separate from this current election.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
It was posted in the Trump thread and it's pretty well established that Hillary matches Trump and Trump matches Hillary almost flaw for flaw. It's really remarkable.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I posted it there.  It just seems like the level of outrage would be a lot higher if the names/foundations were switched around.

 
The Commish said:
Oh you've done it now MT...you don't tell others what your vote means to you.  That's their job.  THEY tell YOU what your vote means to you.

And to save a couple pages, this is how it works:

If you are conservative and don't vote for Trump you are essentially voting for Hillary.  If you're a liberal and don't vote for Hillary you are essentially voting for Trump, even though you've pulled the lever for neither :loco:   
Click to expand...
How it actually works is that if you rely on other people to prevent a Trump presidency you can no longer claim to be a sane, rational individual.

 
Don Quixote said:
Yeah, I posted it there.  It just seems like the level of outrage would be a lot higher if the names/foundations were switched around.
Click to expand...
And I responded. Hey you, know what, I agree. However I think they're just getting started on Trump, beginning with WaPo. And personally I think the Clintons have a lot of obviously good professional help on their Foundation, between the foundation itself and everything else like accountants and lawyers and pr they are top of the line in terms of who is handling things. Trump, I don't think he's been paying attention and things are sloppy.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
The main political danger that has always existed for Hillary has been the situation if there is a decision to not indict followed by a leak that the FBI recommended otherwise, so really nothing has changed. If the FBI found no crimes possibly broken then the decision to not indict wouldn't have been a problem anyway. 

ETA - however maybe Bill's little gambit backfired spectacularly. If true this would actually be a de facto recusal leaving the decision entirely in Comey's hands.
Click to expand...
That's not what she said.  She's not ceding the decision to the FBI, she's ceding the decision to the career prosecutors.  The FBI will make their recommendation and then the prosecutors will decide if the case is sufficient to proceed.  

 
pantagrapher said:
Pretty much every feminist in my timeline is going bonkers over this right now.

:thumbup:
Click to expand...
Useful reminder that while this board is certainly more anti-Trump than the public given the demographics, our demographics are probably even more anti-Clinton.  There's only a handful of people here who passionately support her and a handful more (like me) who support her but have dome reservations.  But there are a lot of people out there who absolutely adore her and they have very good reasons to do so- this is one example. She connects with a lot of women in a way none of us can appreciate.  Her Broad City appearance is another example.

 
timschochet said:
So question for the anti-Hillary crowd: you now know that Lynch is not going to interfere, she'll do whatever Comey recommends. 

So if Comey recommends no indictment, will you accept that Hillary is not a criminal? Or will you come to believe that Comey is himself corrupt? 
Click to expand...
I will accept the recommendation, provided there are not leaks and resignations because there was tampering.  Remember, the "career prosecutors" that Lynch referenced are DOJ.  But I believe we would hear if there is interference, and if there isn't I will not pound the drum that she should be in jail.

However, there's criminality and there's poor character / poor judgment.  She has demonstrated the latter two, and her fundamental lack of honesty has been mind-boggling throughout.  So I will never come to a belief that she is pure.  She's been a sleaze throughout the scandal.  But I'll accept the recommendation.

I still cannot vote for her, as much as I revile Trump.  

Best analogy that comes to mind in electing Hillary would be like having an inspector come in to look at a house you've made an offer on, and finding major foundation issues.  Then you bring in engineers and they tell you they may be able to fix it, but unless they raze the the thing they can guarantee you'll have more issues in the next four years.  Then you find out the owners aren't willing to provide any discount whatsoever on the price.  And then it dons on you...  Holy ####, we really need to buy a different house.  

"Sorry, there aren't any other houses on the market," you say.  "#### you then.  I'm not buying this house."  

 
dparker713 said:
How it actually works is that if you rely on other people to prevent a Trump presidency you can no longer claim to be a sane, rational individual.
Click to expand...
So you think there's some way that I, all by myself, without help from anybody else, can prevent a Trump presidency -- and you're calling other people irrational?

 
Jayrok said:
Petraues said he was sorry.  Of course she's sorry.  So what should happen...nothing?   She's campaigning as if her saying "I'm sorry" is enough for it to be swept under the carpet.  She's never been a member of the military, yes.  And that's ok.  But in order to view and process the kind of material that she had access to, she had briefings and training, believe me.  If she truly didn't know how to safeguard such material, then our government is more broken than we can imagine.  
Click to expand...
You'd just said you wanted her to say she's sorry.  5 posts later that doesn't matter.  

 
dparker713 said:
That's not what she said.  She's not ceding the decision to the FBI, she's ceding the decision to the career prosecutors.  The FBI will make their recommendation and then the prosecutors will decide if the case is sufficient to proceed.  
Click to expand...


Lynch to Accept Guidance of F.B.I. in Clinton Email Inquiry


  • Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch will accept whatever prosecutors and the F.B.I. director decide on charges related to Hillary Clinton’s email server, an official said.
  • Backlash over a private meeting between Ms. Lynch and former President Bill Clinton this week made the decision all but inevitable.
Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch plans to announce on Friday that she will accept whatever recommendation career prosecutors and the F.B.I. director make about whether to bring charges related to Hillary Clinton’s personal email server, a Justice Department official said. Her decision removes the possibility that a political appointee will overrule investigators in the case.

...
Click to expand...


- Ohhhh, you know what, I think you're right. So what, I agree, Sally Yates and her subalterns will be making the decision anyway, they're just as subject to influence and political decision making as she is. Good point.

- eta - Now I'm confused. So who's making the decision? US Attorneys who are not appointed? Would that be Dana Boente? - eta2 - He was appointed too. - Who's not politically appointed?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
dparker713 said:
You'd just said you wanted her to say she's sorry.  5 posts later that doesn't matter.  
Click to expand...
What I actually said was:   "I'd have respect for Clinton if she admitted her wrong doing with the email server, and went through the due process the way others have when charged with such violations of military regulations."

She admitted using a private server was wrong and she apologized.  Good for her and I'm glad she did.  I said I also want her to go through the due process for what happens when one mishandles classified information.  The criminal indictment issue is a separate process.  

 
Jayrok said:
What I actually said was:   "I'd have respect for Clinton if she admitted her wrong doing with the email server, and went through the due process the way others have when charged with such violations of military regulations."

She admitted using a private server was wrong and she apologized.  Good for her and I'm glad she did.  I said I also want her to go through the due process for what happens when one mishandles classified information.  The criminal indictment issue is a separate process.  
Click to expand...
What does this mean?

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
So you think there's some way that I, all by myself, without help from anybody else, can prevent a Trump presidency -- and you're calling other people irrational?
Click to expand...
I'm saying the risk of a Trump presidency is greater than any benefits you'd derive from any other vote.  Think of it as a game theory matrix.  The potential negative outcome (Trump presidency) is so awful relative to the benefits of any other action that the only logical action is to vote in the manner most likely to prevent that outcome - even if it winds up being meaningless.  

Relying on others in this case is the irrational choice, just as those protest voters for Brexit made the irrational choice. 

 
Baloney Sandwich said:
Phil Elliott said:
Lynch explains what was discussed in meeting with Bill. That doesn't mean there wasn't some written information exchanged.  Just saying politicians like to thread the needle when they are describing what happened. 
Click to expand...
Is your theory that Hillary, through Bill, decided to bribe/influence Lynch after months and months during a meeting no one tried to hide and used a paper trail so that they could claim the words spoken at the meeting were innocuous?  That's what you think happened?  
Click to expand...
You're the one suggesting the details. I am just saying there probably was more information exchanged besides personal family highlights - who knows what form that took.  Its not everyday you stop a friend on the tarmac and climb aboard their plane and ask how the grandchildren are.  This is a worse lie than trying to blame Benghazi on a video.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jayrok said:
What I actually said was:   "I'd have respect for Clinton if she admitted her wrong doing with the email server, and went through the due process the way others have when charged with such violations of military regulations."

She admitted using a private server was wrong and she apologized.  Good for her and I'm glad she did.  I said I also want her to go through the due process for what happens when one mishandles classified information.  The criminal indictment issue is a separate process.  
Click to expand...
So, you'll only respect her if she's indicted and acquitted?  Not if she's not indicted?  And these are not military regulations she'd have potentially violated.  She is not subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, nor is any other civilian - and for that we should all be thankful.  

 
dparker713 said:
Relying on others in this case is the irrational choice, just as those protest voters for Brexit made the irrational choice. 
Click to expand...
I think you've got this exactly backwards. The mistake of the protest voters for Brexit was voting for something they didn't actually want to have happen. If I vote for Hillary, I'd be voting for something I don't actually want to have happen (a Clinton presidency) just as a protest against Trump. If I vote for Johnson, I'd be voting for what I really want, just like the Brexit voters should have done, and just like I hope everyone else in this election does.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
- Ohhhh, you know what, I think you're right. So what, I agree, Sally Yates and her subalterns will be making the decision anyway, they're just as subject to influence and political decision making as she is. Good point.

- eta - Now I'm confused. So who's making the decision? US Attorneys who are not appointed? Would that be Dana Boente? - eta2 - He was appointed too. - Who's not politically appointed?
Click to expand...
AUSAs aren't appointed - though they're hardly unambitious.  Also, it seems unlikely a case of this notoriety would pass through any USA office without being decided by the USA. 

 
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
260K
rockaction
rockaction
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
2K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 6 (members: 0, guests: 6)
Back
Top