Jump to content

We Are in a Political Cold War

TahoeHorn

By TahoeHorn
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

elfenix

elfenix 34228

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, cactusflinthead said:

Where is @EMAWesome?

@Thetexashammer?

@Zavaia or is it 

@Zavala?

@Clearlakehorn?

@Iconoclast Texan has had himself blocked from here. Because...I don't know. 

@Iceman might be helpful 

You need some back up Tahoe.

FC and his snark are gone.

Go ask for help from the gutless wonders. 

Maybe, they are going to give an attaboy.

I scrolled right past it. I really don't give a damn what you think.

iceman is just slorch.  icono has a permanent case of bad idea jeans that leads to him posting shit like wanting to shoot immigrants at the border and that UH should be a P5 school.  he posts dumbass shit here and thinks it's a circle jerk, but he's ok with posting dumbass shit in football and getting negged for it. 

Edited by elfenix
Link to comment
Share on other sites
formermav43

formermav43 4606

Posted
Posted
39 minutes ago, cactusflinthead said:

When I first discovered this place it had nothing to do with politics. It wasn't even sports of any kind except tangentially. I lurked a while before I said anything and then it was a thread on divorce or crazy exs. Can't remember, too long ago. 

I do recall that the CR was much more conservative in tone. The same names were here, but there wasn't much enthusiasm on the left. 

My how things have changed. Almost all the old names on the right have abandoned the field. Some didn't even make the jump. Some changed names. The sudden loss of the protection of rep must have been a shock. It was easy to lose a bunch of it and go into the red if you decided to go guns a blazing. 

Don't miss seeing Escriva avoid the question and absolutely refuse to be pinned down. It was remarkable. 

Meh. They voted for him. They made it a war long ago. If they want to come back to the field of battle that's fine. But, I don't think the left is going to be quiet or forgiving. 

 

The party out of power is always noisier. Trump has magnified that-the dissent is larger in raw numbers than before-but the board seemed liberal in the days of W before it seemed conservative in the days of Obama. Squeaky wheels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mdhorn

Mdhorn 5947

Posted
Posted (edited)

Sarah Palin was the precursor to the real stupid tsunami of shit forthcoming so none of this comes as a huge surprise. The fact that she almost happened as a VP was telling. Now they hold her in esteem while pissing on McCain.  They elected a man with 5 derements to be Commander in Chief which also happens to be the same guy that filed 6 bankruptcies and is now running the nation.  Stupid won with dumbfucks, religious zealots and political infrastructure that was laid long ago.  

Edited by Mdhorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mdhorn

Mdhorn 5947

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

The party out of power is always noisier. Trump has magnified that-the dissent is larger in raw numbers than before-but the board seemed liberal in the days of W before it seemed conservative in the days of Obama. Squeaky wheels.

Not true--a lot of us used to be conservatives and would be again if the train hadn't been hijacked by oligarchs and their sycophants.   Also, crimes were committed and continue.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites
formermav43

formermav43 4606

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, Mdhorn said:

Not true--a lot of us used to be conservatives and would be again if the train hadn't been hijacked by oligarchs and their sycophants.   Also, crimes were committed and continue.    

Hence, “Trump has magnified that-the dissent is larger in raw numbers than before.” 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
High Plains Drifter

High Plains Drifter 11035

Posted
Posted
15 hours ago, TahoeHorn said:

We are in a political Cold War.  We have not had such a war in over a century.  I'm not clear how it ends.

Each day I look at the work of the Senate and of the President.  This is not the crap you see on TV, hear about on the radio or read about on the Net, like Trump drawing sharpie marks on a hurricane chart.  It is the actual work - the bills signed into law, the nominations confirmed and the Presidential Actions taken.  Like who was confirmed Commissioner on Children, Youth and Families, Department of Human Services.

https://www.dailypress.senate.gov/

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/

We are in a vicious circle of having the minority behave like total dicks and have the majority respond by ignoring the minority.  The President has about 715 spots to fill which need confirmation by the Senate.  The minority can't stop any if the majority stays united, but they can dramatically slow them down.  So for the past two and a half years the Dems have been Grade A asses about virtually every nomination.  The Ambassador to SurlyLand has to wait years to get confirmed.  In fact there will never be such because it isn't one of the places the Senate will spend its time.  Even in a week like this week where the Senate is dedicating all time to nominations and maximizing the rules only 14 relatively low-level nominees get confirmed.  In a typical week it's more like four.  Voice votes for uncontroversial spots are rare.

The Senate has made the confirmation of federal judges its highest priority.  It has confirmed 146 Article III judges.  That's roughly the number of vacancies which have come open during Trump's term.  As such the 103 spots to fill are about the same number as when he entered office (although the SCOTUS spot is zero instead of one, and Circuit seats are four instead of 17).  Of Administrative spots only 480 of 732 have been confirmed.  Spots like the Ambassador to SurlyLand will never get filled because they are too far down in the queue.  It doesn't make sense to have a nominee which will just sit, waiting to get Dem action till the end of Trump's term.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-administration-appointee-tracker/database/

So how does it end?

Surely you don't think that the Dems will or even can end the filibuster?  (That would be insane and there have been enough GOP with good sense to avoid new nuclear options.  There will be enough Dems with good sense as well [to refrain from a crazy escalation].)  Or will change the rules for minority review of nominees? They have utilized the Harry Reid nuclear option, to the chagrin of Dems.  The Harry Reid nuclear option was a bad idea.  I think.  But maybe it's necessary if the minority is going to behave like a total ass.  (We have to have SOME government.)  But it would be absolutely nutty to eliminate current rights for the minority party in the Senate.

Suppose Warren is elected Prez and the Dems get control of the Senate.  I am certain the there will be some Dems that have the good sense not to turn a Cold War into a Hot War.  (No elimination of the filibuster, no court packing scheme, no elimination of a drawn out hearing process for nominees).  That means Warren would have an Administration with Trump appointees and civil servants in many, many places.  It means she'll have a bitch of a time getting new judges confirmed.  And it means that she'll get no controversial legislation.  (The last such was ObamaCare when the Dems had 60 Senators.)  And it means that even pissant legislation (e.g. a$6 B for a Wall) will be blocked by the GOP if it means making her look bad on a key campaign promise.

So:

A.  Some new peace plan?

B. Continued Cold War?

C.  A real war?

I predict a continued Cold War unless there is a President who acts in a bipartisan fashion.  Clinton was the last President who had any major bipartisan positions.

 

 

I say: War.

As in civil war. As in the Republican party is completely eliminated as an organization, and DOTARD,  his administration, Turtle fuckface, Graham, and all the grifters, enablers, apologists, and donut bringers are either executed for treason or serving life in prison. Then we start at the top (Gorsuch and Kavano-means-yes) and work our way down (the POS immigration judge who threatened to sick his dog on a two year old immigrant), impeaching every mother fucker DOTARD appointed and the Senate "confirmed".

It is too late for "bipartisanship". It is too late for "peace". One does not negotiate with terrorists or traitors.

You, Tahoe,  do not get to support a lying, traitorous, senile bigot, claim the other side is acting like an "ass", and expect anything less than scorn, derision, hate, or a "fuck you" reply to anything you post.

Until the GOP is completely destroyed and utterly rejected-- war. Until DOTARD and his cabinet are executed or in prison- war.

 

 

tldr: DIAF you POS.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105086

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

I say: War.

As in civil war. As in the Republican party is completely eliminated as an organization, and DOTARD,  his administration, Turtle fuckface, Graham, and all the grifters, enablers, apologists, and donut bringers are either executed for treason or serving life in prison. Then we start at the top (Gorsuch and Kavano-means-yes) and work our way down (the POS immigration judge who threatened to sick his dog on a two year old immigrant), impeaching every mother fucker DOTARD appointed and the Senate "confirmed".

It is too late for "bipartisanship". It is too late for "peace". One does not negotiate with terrorists or traitors.

You, Tahoe,  do not get to support a lying, traitorous, senile bigot, claim the other side is acting like an "ass", and expect anything less than scorn, derision, hate, or a "fuck you" reply to anything you post.

Until the GOP is completely destroyed and utterly rejected-- war. Until DOTARD and his cabinet are executed or in prison- war.

 

 

tldr: DIAF you POS.

source.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fozzz

Fozzz 152

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, Mdhorn said:

Not true--a lot of us used to be conservatives and would be again if the train hadn't been hijacked by oligarchs and their sycophants.   Also, crimes were committed and continue.    

Hijacked by oligarchs? My God the naivety is breathtaking.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hpslugga

hpslugga 4058

Posted
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

I say: War.

As in civil war. As in the Republican party is completely eliminated as an organization, and DOTARD,  his administration, Turtle fuckface, Graham, and all the grifters, enablers, apologists, and donut bringers are either executed for treason or serving life in prison. Then we start at the top (Gorsuch and Kavano-means-yes) and work our way down (the POS immigration judge who threatened to sick his dog on a two year old immigrant), impeaching every mother fucker DOTARD appointed and the Senate "confirmed".

It is too late for "bipartisanship". It is too late for "peace". One does not negotiate with terrorists or traitors.

You, Tahoe,  do not get to support a lying, traitorous, senile bigot, claim the other side is acting like an "ass", and expect anything less than scorn, derision, hate, or a "fuck you" reply to anything you post.

Until the GOP is completely destroyed and utterly rejected-- war. Until DOTARD and his cabinet are executed or in prison- war.

 

 

tldr: DIAF you POS.

There is no value in bipartisanship...at all, at least not in the US. Here's why:

This, ladies and gentlemen, is the best representation of the political compass I have ever seen-

PhPdn.png

When people speak of Democrats and Liberals interchangeably as if the two meant the same thing, you see them for what they are. They are people who think that the center of the aisles of the Senate and the House represent the center of the political spectrum. They're catastrophically wrong. 

The Republicans, by and large, are right above the "i" in "Traditionalism" along the border between it and Fascism, and the Democrats, again by and large, are around the "r" in "Conservatism." 

So when we're talking about "bipartisanship," understand that's all for show. The difference between these two parties is a flea's hop, and there's nothing noble about splitting that narrow difference, especially when you consider that the bulk of the population is well to the left of all of that. When you also consider how this current crop of Republicans want to drag their spot on the compass even further Northeast, it's especially inappropriate to consider bipartisanship as some sort of moral good. All it really amounts to is the DNC chasing the GOP to the right and begging them to meet them halfway, but "halfway" means "exactly what the GOP was like 10 years ago." 

Right now, for example, the DNC's claim about anthropogenic climate change is that it's happening and we have to take moderate steps to alleviate it while the GOP just flatly denies that it's happening. With the way we're going, in about 10-15 years, the DNC position will be "it MIGHT be happening" while the GOP position will be "there's no such thing as climate."

Edited by hpslugga
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hpslugga

hpslugga 4058

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

Why would you place National Socialism next to Communism when the Nazis were privatizers?  Were the Nazis not authentic National Socialists under this schema?  

There's no doubt that some of the terms are a little off in terms of where they're located, but in terms of inclusiveness, that's about the best I've seen so far.

Although I will say, to your point, the Nazi's were Fascist, and that's located exactly where it should be. 

Edited by hpslugga
Link to comment
Share on other sites
elfenix

elfenix 34228

Posted
Posted
Why would you place National Socialism next to Communism when the Nazis were privatizers?  Were the Nazis not authentic National Socialists under this schema?  
Hitler took the organization over, sacked all the socialists, kept the name, and changed the political orientation to fascist.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hpslugga

hpslugga 4058

Posted
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

What does it mean when it shows progressivism on the right side? I'm on the libertarian side of it.

That word doesn’t mean what it used to. When it’s affixed there, it indicates “progressivism” as being associated with the Progressive Era of 1890-1920, not the social justice movements of today, which I would agree belongs more along the lines of where Social Democratism is located.

Wiki has a rather good summary:

”Initially the movement operated chiefly at local level, but later it expanded to state and national levels. Progressives drew support from the middle class, and supporters included many lawyers, teachers, physicians, ministers, and business people.[8] Some Progressives strongly supported scientific methods as applied to economics, government, industry, finance, medicine, schooling, theology, education, and even the family. They closely followed advances underway at the time in Western Europe[9] and adopted numerous policies, such as a major transformation of the banking system by creating the Federal Reserve System in 1913[10] and the arrival of cooperative banking in the US with the founding of the first credit union in 1908.[11]Reformers felt that old-fashioned ways meant waste and inefficiency, and eagerly sought out the "one best system".[12][13]”

Edited by hpslugga
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29348

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, elfenix said:
1 hour ago, Fozzz said:
Why would you place National Socialism next to Communism when the Nazis were privatizers?  Were the Nazis not authentic National Socialists under this schema?  

Hitler took the organization over, sacked all the socialists, kept the name, and changed the political orientation to fascist.

The German Workers Party was a small nationalist party that never had any socialists in it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zavala

Zavala 1384

Posted
Posted
18 hours ago, cactusflinthead said:

Where is @EMAWesome?

@Thetexashammer?

@Zavaia or is it 

@Zavala?

@Clearlakehorn?

@Iconoclast Texan has had himself blocked from here. Because...I don't know. 

@Iceman might be helpful 

You need some back up Tahoe.

FC and his snark are gone.

Go ask for help from the gutless wonders. 

Maybe, they are going to give an attaboy.

I scrolled right past it. I really don't give a damn what you think.

It's too many socks, thats pretty cute that someone made an exact sock of me though, same profile pic and everything. 

If I want insane TDS people, I could always go on twitter.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/rKSlHwL0hkbo/

Link to comment
Share on other sites
EMAWesome

EMAWesome 101

Posted
Posted
21 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

Here is a real problem in Tahoe's discussion: when he talks about the "majority," he's talking about the Senate majority.  But that is not representative of the majority of Americans.  The majority of Americans voted Democratic.  Three million more Americans voted for Hillary Clinton than voted for Donald Trump.

And yet when the Senate minority--which actually represents the will of the majority of Americans--doesn't acquiesce to this Administration's incompetence, immorality, and abuse of power, they're being "dicks" and "assholes."

Take that horseshit to the Fuckville County Trumpkin Party meeting along with a box of donuts, fuckface. 

The Senate isn't about the majority of the people.  The Senate is about the majority of the states.  Hence why every state has the same amount of senators no matter it's population.  The name of the country is not the United People of America.  It is the United States of America.  This way the states with the largest populations do not have control over the rest of the country, instead they have to compromise with the states that have smaller populations to work things out.  It is another check and balance against one portion of the country having tyrannical control over the rest of the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
elfenix

elfenix 34228

Posted
Posted

once we started with direct election of senators instead of the (hilariously corrupt) process of state governments selecting senators, we demolished that argument.  people in states don't vote in lock step.  they never have.  it was a vastly overblown fear. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
EMAWesome

EMAWesome 101

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, hpslugga said:

There is no value in bipartisanship...at all, at least not in the US. Here's why:

This, ladies and gentlemen, is the best representation of the political compass I have ever seen-

PhPdn.png

When people speak of Democrats and Liberals interchangeably as if the two meant the same thing, you see them for what they are. They are people who think that the center of the aisles of the Senate and the House represent the center of the political spectrum. They're catastrophically wrong. 

The Republicans, by and large, are right above the "i" in "Traditionalism" along the border between it and Fascism, and the Democrats, again by and large, are around the "r" in "Conservatism." 

So when we're talking about "bipartisanship," understand that's all for show. The difference between these two parties is a flea's hop, and there's nothing noble about splitting that narrow difference, especially when you consider that the bulk of the population is well to the left of all of that. When you also consider how this current crop of Republicans want to drag their spot on the compass even further Northeast, it's especially inappropriate to consider bipartisanship as some sort of moral good. All it really amounts to is the DNC chasing the GOP to the right and begging them to meet them halfway, but "halfway" means "exactly what the GOP was like 10 years ago." 

Right now, for example, the DNC's claim about anthropogenic climate change is that it's happening and we have to take moderate steps to alleviate it while the GOP just flatly denies that it's happening. With the way we're going, in about 10-15 years, the DNC position will be "it MIGHT be happening" while the GOP position will be "there's no such thing as climate."

Any chart that has progressivism sitting next to capitalism and completely on the other side of the scale from socialism is an absolutely worthless chart.  The biggest progressives in Washington D.C. are AOC and Bernie Sanders.  When was the last time either defended capitalism or criticized socialism?

It also has authoritarianism halfway across the chart from communism.  Communism is absolutely impossible to impose without authoritarianism.  If this chart is the best representation of the political compass you have ever seen then it is either the only chart representing the political compass you have ever seen or you are an idiot.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
elfenix

elfenix 34228

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

Any chart that has progressivism sitting next to capitalism and completely on the other side of the scale from socialism is an absolutely worthless chart.  The biggest progressives in Washington D.C. are AOC and Bernie Sanders.  When was the last time either defended capitalism or criticized socialism?

897872_v9_ba.jpg

Edited by elfenix
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
formermav43

formermav43 4606

Posted
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

Any chart that has progressivism sitting next to capitalism and completely on the other side of the scale from socialism is an absolutely worthless chart.  The biggest progressives in Washington D.C. are AOC and Bernie Sanders.  When was the last time either defended capitalism or criticized socialism?

It also has authoritarianism halfway across the chart from communism.  Communism is absolutely impossible to impose without authoritarianism.  If this chart is the best representation of the political compass you have ever seen then it is either the only chart representing the political compass you have ever seen or you are an idiot.

 

1) That’s progressivism in the classical sense of the late 19th/early 20th century. You’re correct that it’s potentially misleading based on current usage, but there is a bit more art than science in the terminology they’re using to describe particular ideologies. Which relates to 

2) You’re hung up on the “authoritarianism” label without realizing that y-axis is all about authoritarianism (whatever they actually called it, since the pic isn’t labeled). In other words, communism is more “authoritarian” than the “authoritarianism” on the chart, not less.

Edited by formermav43
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105086

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

1) That’s progressivism in the classical sense of the late 19th/early 20th century. You’re correct that it’s potentially misleading based on current usage, but there is a bit more art than science in the terminology they’re using to describe particular ideologies. Which relates to 

2) You’re hung up on the “authoritarianism” label without realizing that y-axis is all about authoritarianism (whatever they actually called it, since the pic isn’t labeled). In other words, communism is more “authoritarian” than the “authoritarianism” on the chart, not less.

Well, he can't read, so....yeah.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DDD Dad

DDD Dad 14331

Posted
Posted
22 hours ago, TahoeHorn said:

We are in a political Cold War.  We have not had such a war in over a century.  I'm not clear how it ends.

Each day I look at the work of the Senate and of the President.  This is not the crap you see on TV, hear about on the radio or read about on the Net, like Trump drawing sharpie marks on a hurricane chart.  It is the actual work - the bills signed into law, the nominations confirmed and the Presidential Actions taken.  Like who was confirmed Commissioner on Children, Youth and Families, Department of Human Services.

https://www.dailypress.senate.gov/

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/

We are in a vicious circle of having the minority behave like total dicks and have the majority respond by ignoring the minority.  The President has about 715 spots to fill which need confirmation by the Senate.  The minority can't stop any if the majority stays united, but they can dramatically slow them down.  So for the past two and a half years the Dems have been Grade A asses about virtually every nomination.  The Ambassador to SurlyLand has to wait years to get confirmed.  In fact there will never be such because it isn't one of the places the Senate will spend its time.  Even in a week like this week where the Senate is dedicating all time to nominations and maximizing the rules only 14 relatively low-level nominees get confirmed.  In a typical week it's more like four.  Voice votes for uncontroversial spots are rare.

The Senate has made the confirmation of federal judges its highest priority.  It has confirmed 146 Article III judges.  That's roughly the number of vacancies which have come open during Trump's term.  As such the 103 spots to fill are about the same number as when he entered office (although the SCOTUS spot is zero instead of one, and Circuit seats are four instead of 17).  Of Administrative spots only 480 of 732 have been confirmed.  Spots like the Ambassador to SurlyLand will never get filled because they are too far down in the queue.  It doesn't make sense to have a nominee which will just sit, waiting to get Dem action till the end of Trump's term.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-administration-appointee-tracker/database/

So how does it end?

Surely you don't think that the Dems will or even can end the filibuster?  (That would be insane and there have been enough GOP with good sense to avoid new nuclear options.  There will be enough Dems with good sense as well [to refrain from a crazy escalation].)  Or will change the rules for minority review of nominees? They have utilized the Harry Reid nuclear option, to the chagrin of Dems.  The Harry Reid nuclear option was a bad idea.  I think.  But maybe it's necessary if the minority is going to behave like a total ass.  (We have to have SOME government.)  But it would be absolutely nutty to eliminate current rights for the minority party in the Senate.

Suppose Warren is elected Prez and the Dems get control of the Senate.  I am certain the there will be some Dems that have the good sense not to turn a Cold War into a Hot War.  (No elimination of the filibuster, no court packing scheme, no elimination of a drawn out hearing process for nominees).  That means Warren would have an Administration with Trump appointees and civil servants in many, many places.  It means she'll have a bitch of a time getting new judges confirmed.  And it means that she'll get no controversial legislation.  (The last such was ObamaCare when the Dems had 60 Senators.)  And it means that even pissant legislation (e.g. a$6 B for a Wall) will be blocked by the GOP if it means making her look bad on a key campaign promise.

So:

A.  Some new peace plan?

B. Continued Cold War?

C.  A real war?

I predict a continued Cold War unless there is a President who acts in a bipartisan fashion.  Clinton was the last President who had any major bipartisan positions.

 

tenor.gif?itemid=12349893

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hpslugga

hpslugga 4058

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, EMAWesome said:

Any chart that has progressivism sitting next to capitalism and completely on the other side of the scale from socialism is an absolutely worthless chart.  The biggest progressives in Washington D.C. are AOC and Bernie Sanders.  When was the last time either defended capitalism or criticized socialism?

It also has authoritarianism halfway across the chart from communism.  Communism is absolutely impossible to impose without authoritarianism.  If this chart is the best representation of the political compass you have ever seen then it is either the only chart representing the political compass you have ever seen or you are an idiot.

 

Amazing...every word in that post was wrong.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13050

Posted
Posted
14 hours ago, formermav43 said:

1) That’s progressivism in the classical sense of the late 19th/early 20th century. You’re correct that it’s potentially misleading based on current usage, but there is a bit more art than science in the terminology they’re using to describe particular ideologies. Which relates to 

2) You’re hung up on the “authoritarianism” label without realizing that y-axis is all about authoritarianism (whatever they actually called it, since the pic isn’t labeled). In other words, communism is more “authoritarian” than the “authoritarianism” on the chart, not less.

This. I am a fan of old school progressivism. That is how we got kindergarten in the United States among other things. When one squawks words like a parrot without recognizing context and usage, it creates problems in comprehension.

14 hours ago, DDD Dad said:

6tzw5gxt1k311.jpg

Marysha Bordenikova?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...