Jump to content

DC statehood

Nice Guy Eddie

By Nice Guy Eddie
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

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

What is this in response too? I never thought you were too conservative, just a moron who can’t make one post a day that isn’t offensive to women or a crutch on funny movie references.  My inheritance is having two parents in their late 60s with stocks at a million and a half. Hardly a gotcha

Wait, so you don't have red hair?  

I think I made a post earlier today on the baseball forum that didn't have any movie references.  Hard to say, because nobody knows what to get Millie or Jimmy for their wedding though.  And I made a post about City council members where I restrained myself from calling Ann Kitchen what I really want to call her which is a Fucking Criminal.  Not because she's a woman but because she's a fucking shitstain of humanity that keeps breaking the law.  

But I will take your wildly inaccurate hyperbole that every post I make is offensive to women to heart and remember you're a bigger moron than me who only remembers what they choose to remember because it's easier than reality.  Report my sexist, offensive posts or don't.  Nobody actually cares, this isn't real life.  

Back to D.C.  It ain't happening this term.  Pick your battles.  

Edited by Lobo
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, fattyflattie said:

I’m certain that will make the AA’s on this board feel better. 

Like you care.

you keep yapping about this hill of yours and it’s not gonna work because it’s based on a lie. Just like your support of  trump. It’s all a lie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fattyflattie

fattyflattie 4636

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, JimmyJames said:

Like you care.

you keep yapping about this hill of yours and it’s not gonna work because it’s based on a lie. Just like your support of  trump. It’s all a lie.

I do care. You should too.  Its ok to say you overstepped and are embarrassed about your language, and that it offended anyone that you are sorry.  It offended me, I’m sure it offended others.   

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

I do care. You should too.  Its ok to say you overstepped and are embarrassed about your language, and that it offended anyone that you are sorry.  It offended me, I’m sure it offended others.   

So far absolutely nobody has your back on that though because it’s dumb and you are full of shit. Maybe you should create a sock and have them chime in for support?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fattyflattie

fattyflattie 4636

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

So far absolutely nobody has your back on that though because it’s dumb and you are full of shit. Maybe you should create a sock and have them chime in for support?

I don’t expect support in here.  If that’s the trash the mods will tolerate, well, it’s their site.  Good for someone like you that needs to blow that steam off a bit, I suppose. 

Edited by fattyflattie
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bullneck

Bullneck 18987

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, fattyflattie said:

Thank you for your honesty. It’s refreshing.  I’m certain you wouldn’t feel that way if it wasn’t your team winning, but is what it is.  DC and PR literally game the math where it will never be overcome. Congrats. 

We're not a "team."  We are people who believe in American values.

Eliminating taxation without representation is not "gaming the math."  It's doing what is right for all Americans.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bullneck

Bullneck 18987

Posted
Posted
50 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Do you feel NY or CA will vote red in your lifetime?   Or DC?    

Quote

32. Edmund G. "Pat" Brown (1959-1967)

33. Ronald Reagan (1967-1975)

34. Edmund G. "Jerry" Brown (1975-1983)

35. George Deukmejian (1983-1991)

36. Pete Wilson (1991-1999)

37. Gray Davis (1999-2003)

38. Arnold Schwarzenegger (2003-2011)

39. Edmund G. "Jerry" Brown (2011-2019)

40. Gavin Newsom (2019-Present)

Are you counting governors? Because there are a couple of Republicans on that list.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fattyflattie

fattyflattie 4636

Posted
Posted
Just now, Bullneck said:

Are you counting governors? Because there are a couple of Republicans on that list.  

No. I’m aware state politics have more latitude for play. Ann Richards and all that jazz. I’m more interested in the ones that actually matter.   Texas will turn blue in my lifetime (easily).   Cali and NY and DC will not flip in the next 100 years.  Our citizens should not be taxed without (full) representation.  But this is about the next 50 years of one party senate control.  It’s ok to admit that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bullneck

Bullneck 18987

Posted
Posted
45 minutes ago, bolverk said:

I wouldn't be so cocksure about Montana. After all, they currently have one Democratic Senator and had two from 2006 through 2015. So, yes, Democrats have tried to court those voters and have recent wins in doing so. 

 

44 minutes ago, StassneyHorn said:

Thinking Montana is solid Republican or that Puerto Rico is solid Democrat is DUMB

This.  After seeing what happened in Miami-Dade last year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hobbes2702

hobbes2702 12846

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

No. I’m aware state politics have more latitude for play. Ann Richards and all that jazz. I’m more interested in the ones that actually matter.   Texas will turn blue in my lifetime (easily).   Cali and NY and DC will not flip in the next 100 years.  Our citizens should not be taxed without (full) representation.  But this is about the next 50 years of one party senate control.  It’s ok to admit that. 

Why? Tell me why those states won’t flip? This isn’t fucking hard dude.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bullneck

Bullneck 18987

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, fattyflattie said:

No. I’m aware state politics have more latitude for play. Ann Richards and all that jazz. I’m more interested in the ones that actually matter.   Texas will turn blue in my lifetime (easily).   Cali and NY and DC will not flip in the next 100 years.  Our citizens should not be taxed without (full) representation.  But this is about the next 50 years of one party senate control.  It’s ok to admit that. 

I'm not just admitting it, I'm rejoicing in it.  And when that's done (whenever, since like everything seems to hinge on Joe Manchin), we'll take a look at the Supreme Court.  

Hell, I'd take another look at ol' Brett:

Quote

FBI facing allegation that its 2018 background check of Brett Kavanaugh was ‘fake’

A Democratic senator has asked attorney general Merrick Garland to facilitate ‘proper oversight’ into concerns on the investigation

 

Brett Kavanaugh is sworn in during his Senate judiciary committee hearing on 27 September 2018.Brett Kavanaugh is sworn in during his Senate judiciary committee hearing on 27 September 2018. Photograph: Pool/Getty Images

 
Stephanie Kirchgaessner in Washington
Tue 16 Mar 2021 03.00 EDT
 

The FBI is facing new scrutiny for its 2018 background check of Brett Kavanaugh, the supreme court justice, after a lawmaker suggested that the investigation may have been “fake”.

Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democratic senator and former prosecutor who serves on the judiciary committee, is calling on the newly-confirmed attorney general, Merrick Garland, to help facilitate “proper oversight” by the Senate into questions about how thoroughly the FBI investigated Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearing.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fattyflattie

fattyflattie 4636

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Bullneck said:

I'm not just admitting it, I'm rejoicing in it.  And when that's done (whenever, since like everything seems to hinge on Joe Manchin), we'll take a look at the Supreme Court.  

Hell, I'd take another look at ol' Brett:

 

That’s fine.  To the victor goes the spoils.  

 

5 minutes ago, Satchel said:

Representation is a matter of justice. 

Can you remind me why 44 didn’t find it important enough to tackle when they held the entire legislative and exec?  Serious question.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fattyflattie

fattyflattie 4636

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Why? Tell me why those states won’t flip? This isn’t fucking hard dude.

Because different people have different beliefs?  Heavy O&G states don’t gaf about any new green deals any more than New Yorkers care about opening up fracking in public lands.   You are correct, this isn’t hard.   That’s but 1 reason, of hundreds.  I understand you think you’re way is the right way, but there’s what, 40% of the county that currently disagrees.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bullneck

Bullneck 18987

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, fattyflattie said:

Heavy O&G states don’t gaf about any new green deals any more than New Yorkers care about opening up fracking in public lands.   

Everyone should care about climate change.  

Also, I didn't realize you know how New Yorkers feel about fracking on public lands. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hobbes2702

hobbes2702 12846

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Because different people have different beliefs?  Heavy O&G states don’t gaf about any new green deals any more than New Yorkers care about opening up fracking in public lands.   You are correct, this isn’t hard.   That’s but 1 reason, of hundreds.  I understand you think you’re way is the right way, but there’s what, 40% of the county that currently disagrees.  

So the problem is that republicans can’t come up with policy that appeals to those voters. You just said Texas is turning blue. Dems are finding ways to appeal to this state including the O&G people, otherwise you wouldn’t be worried about Texas turning blue. So if Dems can appeal to voters in Red states, why can’t Pubs appeal to voters in blue ones? Again, the job is to win voters. You’re anti representation because it hurts you politically. Instead you should think how can we appeal to voters since that’s how this democracy thing works. Seriously dude what the fuck is so hard for you to understand?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GRHorn

GRHorn 105

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

Here you go. Maybe you can figure it out. 
 

 

Ohhhh Jimmer, Jimmer. That’s rather unseemly. You’ll get away with it though like most Democrats do, but I’m gonna call you Jimmy Northam from now on. 

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
fattyflattie

fattyflattie 4636

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Bullneck said:

It's not "spoils."  We just want a government made up of decent people.  

Yes.  Politicians become decent as soon as the put the correct letter by their name. They instantly no longer crave power and money. Cuomo out front should have told me. 

8 minutes ago, Bullneck said:

Also, I didn't realize you know how New Yorkers feel about fracking on public lands. 

Eh, some of my companies major financial backing is there. I can only go off polls and what I glean from them. 

6 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Dems are finding ways to appeal to this state including the O&G people, otherwise you wouldn’t be worried about Texas turning blue.

Hahahahah. Yeah. 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hobbes2702

hobbes2702 12846

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, fattyflattie said:

Yes.  Politicians become decent as soon as the put the correct letter by their name. They instantly no longer crave power and money. Cuomo out front should have told me. 

Eh, some of my companies major financial backing is there. I can only go off polls and what I glean from them. 

Hahahahah. Yeah. 
 

 

Cool so you’ve basically got nothing but “this hurts my team so representation is bad”. Very American of you

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bolverk

bolverk 29402

Posted
Posted

It should be no surprise, but the people of DC have been fighting against their status since the very beginning of its creation and have often suffered at the hands of a federal government that's been too often callous to the needs of its people.

Here's one such quote from 1801:

"We shall be completely disfranchised in respect to the national government, while we retain no security for participating in the formation of even the most minute local regulations by which we are to be affected. We shall be reduced to that deprecated condition of which we pathetically complained in our charges against Great Britain, of being taxed without representation."

And another from a Mississippi representative who was member of a House committee in the 1930s responding to citizens' complaints about inadequate funding for local affairs:

 "My constituents wouldn't stand for spending money on n****rs."

This shit has a history that goes way back. It's way past time to make it right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fattyflattie

fattyflattie 4636

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, hobbes2702 said:

Cool so you’ve basically got nothing but “this hurts my team so representation is bad”. Very American of you

We’d like to hold power forever so it’s important now.  Not important enough for Obama to do something about, but it is now.  And we’ve cared FOREVER.  Cool. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hobbes2702

hobbes2702 12846

Posted
Posted
Just now, fattyflattie said:

We’d like to hold power forever so it’s important now.  Not important enough for Obama to do something about, but it is now.  And we’ve cared FOREVER.  Cool. 

It’s literally been pointed out in the post directly above yours that we’ve cared about it forever. But honestly you should need that. Perhaps you’ve heard of the American Revolution?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gmr548

gmr548 16517

Posted
Posted
Yeah. I specifically asked if the board thinks the country is ready for one side to have power indefinitely, which is what this will bring.   I know this particular board wants that, but I’m guessing that’s not indicative of most of the country.  So kindly go fuck yourself.  

This is such a phenomenally disingenuous thing to say. The GOP enjoys a major structural advantage in the senate and would continue to do so if DC and PR were admitted. Particularly because PR is not a Democratic lock.

And beyond that, the Republican party is a minority party. If representation were 1:1 with votes they would in fact be out of power. They still are despite major structural advantages. It’s not the majority of this board that wants no part of them. It’s the majority of America. A party interested in preserving the integrity of the republic would look at a platform change as opposed to ratfuckery. GOP gonna GOP though.

Further, Democrats control the senate only because they won the presidency and control senate seats in place like MT, WV, and GA x 2. Whining like a little bitch that giving American citizens representation in DC and PR grants the Democrats power for life is a tacit admission that the Republican Party is so unpopular it can’t even reverse those. The solution there, again, should be to come up with something more appealing to American voters. But GOP gonna GOP.
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GRHorn

GRHorn 105

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

No bro. He didn’t use it like a slur, so it’s been deemed OK. 

Oh, is that a fact? 
 

I wonder if I would have gotten the same reception if I had typed the exact same sentence?

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bolverk

bolverk 29402

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

We’d like to hold power forever so it’s important now.  Not important enough for Obama to do something about, but it is now.  And we’ve cared FOREVER.  Cool. 

Bills for DC statehood have been introduced into Congress every year since 1993 but have never before made it to the floor. Both Clinton and Obama supported DC statehood.

Here's a quote from Obama on the subject: 

"I'm in D.C., so I'm for it ... Folks in D.C. pay taxes like everybody else ... They contribute to the overall well-being of the country like everybody else. They should be represented like everybody else. And it's not as if Washington, D.C., is not big enough compared to other states. There has been a long movement to get D.C. statehood and I've been for it for quite some time. The politics of it end up being difficult to get it through Congress, but I think it's absolutely the right thing to do."

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
fattyflattie

fattyflattie 4636

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Bills for DC statehood have been introduced into Congress every year since 1993 but have never before made it to the floor. Both Clinton and Obama supported DC statehood.

Here's a quote from Obama on the subject: 

"I'm in D.C., so I'm for it ... Folks in D.C. pay taxes like everybody else ... They contribute to the overall well-being of the country like everybody else. They should be represented like everybody else. And it's not as if Washington, D.C., is not big enough compared to other states. There has been a long movement to get D.C. statehood and I've been for it for quite some time. The politics of it end up being difficult to get it through Congress, but I think it's absolutely the right thing to do."

So he held it all, and was in favor, but couldn’t rally to get it thru? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bolverk

bolverk 29402

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

So he held it all, and was in favor, but couldn’t rally to get it thru? 

Not sure how you don't understand that, while they hold a lot of power, US presidents don't actually control who runs committees or what happens in them to get bills to the floor for a vote. And they certainly don't control the Senate. Fuck, even with Biden's full-throated support, the rules of the Senate will likely keep this from happening.

In America, presidents are not dictators. It's too bad the former one, and many of his supporters, don't understand the concept of separation of powers and that Congress doesn't work for the president. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
fattyflattie

fattyflattie 4636

Posted
Posted
Just now, hobbes2702 said:

You realize a main criticism from the left of Obama is that he was not particularly effective at passing his agendas.

I’ve rarely seen any criticism of him, so no, I did not know that. I assume he blew his political capital load on his healthcare initiatives, and didn’t have room for DC.  Which goes back to my question, obviously people have wanted it for a century (per the articles listed above) so why didn’t it get prioritized at any point?   Also curious how long PR has been coveted.  Surely not as long as DC. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hobbes2702

hobbes2702 12846

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Not sure how you don't understand that, while they hold a lot of power, US presidents don't actually control who runs committees or what happens in them to get bills to the floor for a vote. And they certainly don't control the Senate. Fuck, even with Biden's full-throated support, the rules of the Senate will likely keep this from happening.

In America, presidents are not dictators. It's too bad the former one, and many of his supporters, don't understand the concept of separation of powers and that Congress doesn't work for the president. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hobbes2702

hobbes2702 12846

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, fattyflattie said:

[b]I’ve rarely seen any criticism of him, so no, I did not know that[/b]. I assume he blew his political capital load on his healthcare initiatives, and didn’t have room for DC.  Which goes back to my question, obviously people have wanted it for a century (per the articles listed above) so why didn’t it get prioritized at any point?   Also curious how long PR has been coveted.  Surely not as long as DC. 

You’re either a troll or incredibly obtuse. 
 

You’re not sure why no one prioritized enfranchising hundreds of thousands of black people? Because this is America and racism is kind of our thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, bolverk said:

It should be no surprise, but the people of DC have been fighting against their status since the very beginning of its creation and have often suffered at the hands of a federal government that's been too often callous to the needs of its people.

Here's one such quote from 1801:

"We shall be completely disfranchised in respect to the national government, while we retain no security for participating in the formation of even the most minute local regulations by which we are to be affected. We shall be reduced to that deprecated condition of which we pathetically complained in our charges against Great Britain, of being taxed without representation."

And another from a Mississippi representative who was member of a House committee in the 1930s responding to citizens' complaints about inadequate funding for local affairs:

 "My constituents wouldn't stand for spending money on n****rs."

This shit has a history that goes way back. It's way past time to make it right.

Those are compelling narratives, but the "people of D.C." and their plight?........that's never going to tilt the Federal Government towards statehood for them.  People who were stuck in rural pockets of the deep south needing better representation, or in remote territories of the Old West needing federal protection.  That was a real dilemma.  I know it's been a centuries-long plight.  But if you knowingly moved to D.C. for 200 years;  then got there and thought, "Holy shit, we don't have any voting Members of Congress"...well, that's on you.  In the last 100 years of easy mobility, if you're living in Queens Chapel neighborhood of D.C. and are too fucking lazy to move across 4 blocks to Chilum Road in Maryland so you can have your Congressional Representation, that's on you too.  It was no grand conspiracy to fuck people over.  Just an arbitrary set of 3 lines of Maryland lopped off near a river so we can maintain some jurisdictional clauses and keep some nice real estate set aside for administrative buildings.  

That said, what will tilt this (after the continued hollow whining of the people is over) is the pure political grab.  Democrats have tried this gambit a dozen times over the years and always failed.  It's not about the Courts, it's not about political tailwinds, it's not about what the good people of D.C. want, it's not about the will of the States, or any of that other feel-good social studies bullshit.  It's about fundraising.  What if donors take their eye off the ball in competitive races?  We know in deep, deep red and blue states...the real race for dollars isn't the General...it's the Primary.  There isn't that much domiciled donor money in DC or PR to fund 3 races in D.C. and 6 in PR.  That's a lot of Democrat Primaries where people in the Existing 50 would want to start playing kingmaker among a pool of probably 30 or so legit D candidates in those two new states.  That takes a lot of money away from the critical races back in their own swing states.  It really fucks up traditional fundraising and lobbying models.  

But oh yeah, DC isn't a state because people were mean to Clinton in 1993.  Mmmmkay.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bolverk

bolverk 29402

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, Lobo said:

Those are compelling narratives, but the "people of D.C." and their plight?........that's never going to tilt the Federal Government towards statehood for them.  People who were stuck in rural pockets of the deep south needing better representation, or in remote territories of the Old West needing federal protection.  That was a real dilemma.  I know it's been a centuries-long plight.  But if you knowingly moved to D.C. for 200 years;  then got there and thought, "Holy shit, we don't have any voting Members of Congress"...well, that's on you.  In the last 100 years of easy mobility, if you're living in Queens Chapel neighborhood of D.C. and are too fucking lazy to move across 4 blocks to Chilum Road in Maryland so you can have your Congressional Representation, that's on you too.  It was no grand conspiracy to fuck people over.  Just an arbitrary set of 3 lines of Maryland lopped off near a river so we can maintain some jurisdictional clauses and keep some nice real estate set aside for administrative buildings.  

That said, what will tilt this (after the continued hollow whining of the people is over) is the pure political grab.  Democrats have tried this gambit a dozen times over the years and always failed.  It's not about the Courts, it's not about political tailwinds, it's not about what the good people of D.C. want, it's not about the will of the States, or any of that other feel-good social studies bullshit.  It's about fundraising.  What if donors take their eye off the ball in competitive races?  We know in deep, deep red and blue states...the real race for dollars isn't the General...it's the Primary.  There isn't that much domiciled donor money in DC or PR to fund 3 races in D.C. and 6 in PR.  That's a lot of Democrat Primaries where people in the Existing 50 would want to start playing kingmaker among a pool of probably 30 or so legit D candidates in those two new states.  That takes a lot of money away from the critical races back in their own swing states.  It really fucks up traditional fundraising and lobbying models.  

But oh yeah, DC isn't a state because people were mean to Clinton in 1993.  Mmmmkay.  

Poor representation in existing states is still representation, correct? The lack of federal protection in the Old West was granted through statehood, correct? American citizens living on US soil asking for equal representation isn't fucking "whining." Goddamn.

Now, I understand and can agree that outsiders getting involved in this fight may be in favor of it for pure political reasons. But, at its most basic level, politics is about power and, in this case, empowering people to have a say in Congress is still the right thing to do. The fundraising thing I'm sure can take care of itself, especially in DC.

That last bolded line is just you being an asshole by intentionally distorting the situation and waving away the point being made about the history of a building consensus on this issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Satchel

Satchel 6908

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, fattyflattie said:

That’s fine.  To the victor goes the spoils.  

 

Can you remind me why 44 didn’t find it important enough to tackle when they held the entire legislative and exec?  Serious question.  
 

Sure. Obama, in fulfilling a campaign commitment, prioritized healthcare as his most urgent legislative initiative. There’s only so much one can do without a supermajority:


Because Republicans were contesting the election of Al Franken, when President-elect Obama was sworn into office there were 58 Democrats. A supermajority is composed of 2/3 the Senate, and since 60 voters are required to overcome the filibuster rules, Obama didn’t even have the basic majority that he needed in order to pass legislation when he took office.

 

The idea that Obama had a two-year supermajority is yet another Romney and Republican lie. I cannot be sure how Mitt Romney defines a super majority, but the truth is that Mr. Obama and Democrats only had a filibuster-proof majority from July 7, 2009 whenAl Franken (D-MN) was ultimately seated , until August 25, 2009, when Ted Kennedy (D-MA), passed away. 

- In January 2009, there were 56 Senate Democrats and two (2) independents who caucused with Democrats. This combined total of 58 included Sen. Ted Kennedy, who was ailing and unable to serve. So in actuality, in the early months of Obama's presidency, the Senate Democratic caucus had 57 members on the floor for day-to-day legislating.

- In April 2009, Pennsylvania's recently deceased Republican Sen. Arlen Specter switched parties. This meant there were 57 Democrats, and 2 independents who caucused with Democrats, for a caucus of 59. But with Kennedy absent, there were still only 58 Democratic caucus members in the chamber.

- In May 2009, Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) was hospitalized, bringing the number of Senate Dems in the chamber back down to 57.

 

President Obama never had a two year supermajority. The President never had a one year supermajority. There was never a supermajority for Obama or Democrats. It is yet another lie told by a man and a campaign that need not be concerned with fact checkers or truth.

Read more:  http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/335459#ixzz6t6STiumC

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 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...