Story Comments
Posted by: Karlyc 1 year, 3 months ago
This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
-
33%
Karlyc1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This article presents a good analysis of the tactic of Obama and his followers to accuse his critics of being racist, rather than presenting the facts about his policies.
Reply
"Daniel does no reporting to back this up. He accuses Palin of racism because in his mind, terrorist implies Muslim, Muslim implies dark-skinned, and dark-skinned implies black."
"This exercise in free association scarcely qualifies as analysis. Nonetheless, let us consider it step by step:
"Terrorist implies Muslim. It is certainly true that America's terrorist enemies today are Muslims who justify their actions in Islamic terms. The terrorist fringe of the 1960s far left, by contrast, has withered away (or "sold out," in the parlance of the times). But there is nothing distinctively Islamic about tactics like bombing and kidnapping, which were used by outfits like the Weather Underground in their time "-
67%
mesodude1 year, 3 months ago
-
63%
kennrich2221 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Republicans love to bait the Democrats with this racist crap. It is the ultimate distractor, they make it look like Obama is accusing everyone who disagrees with him of racism. It's more Republican bull. Ignore. Get them the hell out of office while there is still something left to the country. They just use the poor and the ignorant by supporting stupid positions like prolife, flag burning bans, and anti-gay sentiments to line up these voters and then they adopt policies that only benefit the rich and corporations and they screw over their the poor, dumb bastards that vote for them. Just look at the last 8 years of war on the poor and the middle class. I don't have to go far to show you what these sons of bitches have done to this country! If you are not rich and you vote for McCain and Palin, you are an idiot.
Reply-
capecoralMComment removed: Retracted by user
-
capecoralMComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
50%
BB641 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If the banking failures are truly only a Republican caused problem, where are the congressional hearings? Where is the rage from little Nancy and Harry? That's easy. Freddie and Fanny were huge money pits for the DNC operatives. Silence is a very good indication that this is a DNC caused problem.
Reply-
67%
dunkirk1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ROFLMAO, so you;re saying the Dems did this all the while the Repugsa controlled the govt?? So I want to elect someone who cant see a monay scam happening whe4n they control ALL legislation??? Its more the other way around, the Repubs HELD ALL THE Power (you always said the Dems have no power did tht change??) so now that the failed policies of the REPUIBLICANS are being shown fo rwhat they are you trty spinnig it into a Dem problem?? ROFLMAO.
Reply-
30%
BB641 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm not saying the GOP has some accountability here but the problems with the banking started when the anti-red lining of the 70's became part of the mainstream lefty policies. Again I ask, if the DNC wasn't hiding something why wouldn't there be hearings already? This deal was little more than a cover up.
Reply-
80%
quackpot1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The start was a good one, but some time during the past seven-plus years of republican control of congress and administration, it accelerated to become too fast to be sustained.
Reply
Good start + push too hard = fall on the face = disaster of a finish.
Hint: look at the BIG SHOVE, not the start. -
83%
hamy1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Um...what about when the republicans were in charge just a year and a half ago? Why didn't they stop it? If it was stoppable for the democrats, why didn't the republicans stop it before? It can't be about filibusters because they threatened to take away the filibuster last time the democrats didn't agree with them. It must have to do with their OWN money.
Reply
Your point is moot.
-
-
-
71%
mesodude1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"If the banking failures are truly only a Republican caused problem, where are the congressional hearings? Where is the rage from little Nancy and Harry? "
Reply
A) Republicans controlled Congress from the early 90s til a couple of years ago and a Republican President has been in the White House for the last 8 years. If the shoe fits...
B)You really have NO idea what your Congress is doing, do you? -
donald51Comment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
53%
antibrainwasher1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The republicowards would have us talk about anything at all but the reality of economic collapse from unfettered unregulated republican ignorance and greed.
Reply
Any topic but the murder of 5000 american soldiers for a neocon lie.
Republislime swiftboating is all they have left, with no ideas or any viable candidates, all they have is hate mongering, fear mongering, racism, religious zealotry, ignorance and greed.
Republicowards are incapable of examining their bankrupt morality and psychopathetic irrationality, the house of cards is falling, the ship is burning, and the cowards will never admit its reaganomic trickel down voodoo rich richer economics that have destroyed the economy, and neocon lies that have murdered 5000 soldiers for a lie. -
-
100%
GWHayduke1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The reality of Bush induced failed policy usurps qualifications for anyone who would support those policies. Continued failure at every turn has taken its toll on this country. McW wants to prolong the misery.
Reply
Seriously, what definable good has come from the W administration's policy making?
Unless, of course, your wealth ranks in the top 5% in the US, are you better off now than you were when the fraternity boy Prezudint took office?
There is a place in this world for smart people and that is leadership.
There is a place in this world for slack jawed neophytes as well, unfortunately the Oval Office is not one of them.
-
-
41%
Endoscopy1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Poor mesodude. he can't remember from one day to the next.
Reply
CRA was passed by the compassionate Democrats and signed by Carter. That compassion was for the poor minorities who wanted to get a house of their own. Then under Clinton in 1992 the compassionate Democrats passed the upgrade to CRA and it was signed by Clinton and took effect in 1995. This compassionate act expanded the CRA from minorities to everybody. Lots of compassion for the poor. Banks were graded by the CRA for expansion and growth and they looked at bad mortgages as a cost of doing business. So the sub prime mortgages went from $48 billion to $1 trillion at present. Housing prices increased sharply with all the new demand. That is a lot of compassion. Uh oh. Getting a bunch of foreclosures. Empty houses increasing till today over 14% of homes are vacant. Oops the housing prices fell sharply. The bubble burst.
http://mysite.verizon.net/vodkajim/housingbubble/
Oh my, all that paper in loans is based on the current sale price of the real estate. My goodness look at all of the banks in trouble because of all those mortgages are red ink now. Crash go banks. Takeovers by the dozen. Big firms bailed out. Fannie and Freddy federalized. Massive bailout.
Who warned it was coming? McCain
Who fought it in 2003, 2005, and 2006? Democrats
Thank you liberals.-
43%
dunkirk1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Signed by carter?? In the 70's?? Hmmmm AND since then we;ve had Rayg8n, Bush I and Dumya. So what your saying is after 20 years of REPUBLICAN rule they seemed incapable of changing it?? But wait you say it was a DEM Congress blocking it?? Hmmmm but we;ve had Repuiblicna control of Congress since 92 thats 14 years. Oh but CLinton was Pesident?? Dam that leaves us with 6 years of REPUBLICNA DOMINATED government and they couldnt address it?? AND you say they fought it in 2003,2004 and 2005?? When the REpublicans dominatesd the govt and the bill couldnt make its way OUT OF A REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED COMMITTEE?? ROFLMAO
Reply-
-
67%
dunkirk1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ROFLMAO, exactly how did Dems stifle reforms in a REPUBLICAN controlled congress?? please be specific, the REPUBLICNAS HAD the majority which means they had more votes and controlled the committees. It would seem the stifling being done was by teh REPUBLICANS in quashing oversight.
Reply
-
-
25%
Endoscopy1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Poor dunkirk forgot Clinton who put it on steroids.
Reply
Signed by carter in 1977 for minorities only. Updated to everybody in 1992 by Clinton. Updates went into effect in 1995. At that point there were $48 billion in sub prime loans. Then it skyrocketed to $1 trillion today.
What happened in 2003, 2005, and 2006?
Democrats went to the wall to defend Fannie and Freddy.
Why couldn't the Republicans do anything. Threat of filibuster kills anything in the senate.
So liberals thank your senators for stopping this bad (in their eyes) legislation. Thank them for the mess we are in now.-
75%
djn3nunez31 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Not surprisingly given the higher degree of supervision, loans made under the CRA program were made in a more responsible way than other subprime loans. CRA loans carried lower rates than other subprime loans and were less likely to end up securitized into the mortgage-backed securities that have caused so many losses, according to a recent study by the law firm Traiger & Hinckley (PDF file here).
Reply
Finally, keep in mind that the Bush administration has been weakening CRA enforcement and the law’s reach since the day it took office. The CRA was at its strongest in the 1990s, under the Clinton administration, a period when subprime loans performed quite well. It was only after the Bush administration cut back on CRA enforcement that problems arose, a timing issue which should stop those blaming the law dead in their tracks. The Federal Reserve, too, did nothing but encourage the wild west of lending in recent years. It wasn’t until the middle of 2007 that the Fed decided it was time to crack down on abusive pratices in the subprime lending market. Oops.
http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blo...-
75%
hyperbola1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That information has been available for awhile now, but the sock puppets prefer to scream about other things.
Reply
The fact of the matter is that the bad debts at Fanny and Freddy are less than half of the size of the $700 trillion bailout. The real problem is the ponzi scheme leveraging (and not only in housing) done by Wall Street in unregulated "investment" banks, insurance businesses and hedge funds. At Lehmann Bros. for example, the leveraging was over 30-fold, i.e. they were gambling with debts over 30-fold greater than their capital.
The real problems are not F and F but things like the growth of "credit default swaps" at AIG from $1 trillion in 2001 to $62 trillion in 2008. -
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ROTFLMAO
Reply
That act is where the sub prime loans came from. The rules were lax ALL the time. Always trying to blame Republicans when it is a Democrat fault. Compassionate loans are a Democrat process not a Republican one. CRA did away with the rules except that banks were graded for the CRA rating if they wanted to expand and open branches.
Conservative NEVER have thought that compassion belongs in finance, only liberals. Why can't you take the heat when your side makes a mistake. That is right, liberals never do anything wrong.
The CRA was enhanced by Clinton and went into effect in 1995. In 2000 Clinton asked Congress to reform Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. Bush has called for reform since 2001. 17 times in 2008 alone.
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/09/bush-cal...
Read it and weep. There are several sites with similar information. Of course that makes the liberals in the wrong so they will just say it is a lie. Clinton has said the problem was caused by Democrats.
-
-
-
-
50%
willottica1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Thank you, republicans, for your "attempts" to take oversight power AWAY from government and give it into the hands of a privately-owned, unaccountable corporation. Maybe if you had tried to fix the system in place, instead of completely re-inventing the wheel, you might have come up with a bill that could pass.
Reply
"But we tried!" you cry. Or maybe you came up with a bill so offensive and implausible that it was guaranteed to fail, thus preserving the illusion of trying to do the right thing while ensuring that unregulated greed could proceed unchecked.-
-
25%
Endoscopy1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The CRA changed the rules for giving covered people mortgages.
Reply
They could not demand 20% down.
They could not check credit history.
They could not check earnings.
This was the compassion the Democrats had for the covered people. They really wanted to make sure those people could get a house. Such compassion.
Create the housing bubble and watch it pop.
You obviously didn't see the videos on youtube of the House committee discussing the issue. The issue was NEVER the legislation in front of them. It was an attack on the person bringing in the report that there was a problem with Fannie and Freddy. The Democrats attacked him and told him they thought he was lying. It was a vicious attack by angry Democrats. Barney Frank was one of the worst. He earned his pay from Fannie and Freddy that day. "There is absolutely no problem with Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac."-
75%
djn3nunez31 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The Community Reinvestment Act, passed in 1977, requires banks to lend in the low-income neighborhoods where they take deposits. Just the idea that a lending crisis created from 2004 to 2007 was caused by a 1977 law is silly. But it’s even more ridiculous when you consider that most subprime loans were made by firms that aren’t subject to the CRA. University of Michigan law professor Michael Barr testified back in February before the House Committee on Financial Services that 50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject comprehensive federal supervision and another 30% were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts which are not subject to routine supervision or examinations.
Reply
http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blo...-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You are ignoring what happened to the act in 1992. It was put on steroids by the Clinton Administration in 1992 and went into effect in 1995. You also ignore a cause and effect. It is not the foreclosures that are the problem. They only sparked the real problem. The housing bubble burst.
Reply
http://mysite.verizon.net/vodkajim/housingbubble/
Do you think about what you write?
"requires banks to lend in the low-income neighborhoods where they take deposits.
That is the place where the people who can afford a 20% down with no more than 2 weeks pay for the mortgage right? This is the heart of where the compassionate sub prime loans were born.
1995 $48 billion sub prime loans from minorities and today $1 trillion from everybody. Lots of loans and the housing industry could not keep up with demand and up shot the price of homes. In 2006 the foreclosures were starting to climb. The bubble was bursting. Down it came. Lots of empty homes now. 14.3% of homes in the US are vacant. Mortgages value to banks are based on the current resale value of the real estate. 20%+ drop in prices of homes. mortgages turned from black ink to red ink in two plus years and the institutions that held the paper backed by mortgages had the money disappear out of them.
The CRA rating of loans required in poor neighborhoods cause the sub prime loans.
It was saturation of those more able to pay that caused the riskier loans.
It was the riskier sub prime loans that caused the foreclosures to increase.
It was the high foreclosure rate starting a little before 2006 that caused the housing prices to fall.
The fall of the housing prices caused the papers issued backed by mortgages to go from black to red ink.
It was the loss of money in the papers for mortgages that caused the crash of the institutions.
Is that cause and effect simple enough for you?
-
-
-
-
60%
most_reasonable1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
John what did they do to you?
Reply
Remember when you were running for president elect in 2000 and the GOP machine claimed that you had sired a black child out of wedlock?
How the dirt smear of the GOP hurt you and caused you to proclaim that there is a "special" place in hell for those who partake in such evil.
Now it is your turn to stand as the flag bearer for the GOP, and while you claimed to be a "maverick" you have accepted the same dirty politics of the GOP hate mongers that attacked you. Your financial advisers (you rightlyfully claim no expertise beyond that of GWB are the same cast of characters like Phil (Americans are a bunch of Whiners) Gramm. The man behind the GOP efforts to dismantle all of the oversites on banking.
There you go again McSame, spouting the failed policies, and hate so previlent of the Bush administration. No wonder they call you McSame.
John WHAT DID THEY DO TO YOU? -
75%
djn3nunez31 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with subprime crisis
Reply
Fresh off the false and politicized attack on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, today we’re hearing the know-nothings blame the subprime crisis on the Community Reinvestment Act — a 30-year-old law that was actually weakened by the Bush administration just as the worst lending wave began. This is even more ridiculous than blaming Freddie and Fannie.
The Community Reinvestment Act, passed in 1977, requires banks to lend in the low-income neighborhoods where they take deposits. Just the idea that a lending crisis created from 2004 to 2007 was caused by a 1977 law is silly
http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blo...-
100%
Endoscopy1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I responded to your foolishness above. CRA ratings are required for banks to grow and expand. They therefore looked at bad mortgages as a cost of doing business. The problem is nobody knew what would happen when there were too many of them.
Reply -
-
-
-
50%
cassysue1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I find the bobbleheads for obamma to be so very amusing, if it were not for the dire consequences of their abject stupidity... IT WAS BARNEY FRANK AND COMPANY who are at the bottom of this mess. The refused to allow the freddy may and mac to be controlled, less they stop giving the bad loans to minorities. IT was Janet (baby killer) Reno who insisted that the loans be made regardless of what the potential down side was, because it helped the deamoncrats to get more support from their "minorities"
Reply
Well bobble heads you got what you wanted, America spiraling down to disaster.
THIS IS NOT CONJECTURE IT IS FACT.
Per obamas ayres connection... it has just come out that obamma was ayres bag man for dispersing a grant of 60,000,000 not to the schools that it was supposed to go to, but to every left wing marxist organization he could find.. so yet another lie by obamma.\
Seems that lying, and vote stealing (acorn being just one of the tools) has become the mainstay of the deamoncrats. AND BOBBLE HEADS.. I DETEST GEORGE BUSH AND THE REPUBLICANS TOO, BUT THE MORONS IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY ALWAYS BUT THE WORST OF THE WORST UP AGAINST THE REPUBLICANS.
-
-
-
70%
Candida1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Karlyc,
Reply
You and your friends remind me of a dog with a bone. You just won't let it go. This is a non-issue from the get go.
I agree with you that it's doubtful that the remark was racist. It's the same kind of remark as the pig with the lipstick. Just because it conjures up certain images in some people's minds, it doesn't mean that that's how it was meant.
In my view, Sarah Palin's comment was not racist. It was ordinary, run of the mill slime.-
-
40%
StillUnashamed1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Don't know how this ended up here. It was meant as a reply to Will1313 below.
Reply
This is where my earlier comment was supposed to be. Don't know how my first comment got there and don't know how this comment got here. (I added this paragraph after I posted by hitting edit.) -
50%
BB641 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually you're both wrong. She was explaining the feelings of protection the mother of a hockey player has for her child. While funny, most normal parents feel that way about their kids. The pig comments from Barry are typical of a liberal. Attack your opponent and then run away claiming you misspoke or were misunderstood. I'm sure before the day was out he was claiming it was a racist attack too. His hope & change message rings very much like the old liberal crap of the 60's right along with his promises of higher taxes for all.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
71%
willottica1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
lol, he's not a terrorist anymore. Hasn't committed a terrorist act in over 30 years... and even when he committed so-called "terrorist" acts, they never met the accepted definition of terrorism, which is the targeting of innocents. The weathermen were all about property damage, and their bombs never injured anyone but their own.
Reply-
60%
nostalgia1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
October 20, 1981 -- long after the Weather Underground had ceased to exist -- former Underground member Kathy Boudin and her soon-to-be husband, David Gilbert, were accomplices in the robbery of a Brinks armored car in Nyack, New York. In the course of that heist, one Brinks guard and two Nyack police officers were murdered
Reply-
40%
willottica1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Boudin and Gilbert? Where is the Ayers in that story? Where is Obama?
Reply
They have nothing to do with it! A guard and 2 police do not count as civilian casualties, thus these two are criminals and cop-killers, but still not terrorists.
Do you know what a terrorist is? Can you SAY terrorist? Clearly, you can, but can you use it properly in a sentence? I don't think so.
Btw, uncredited quotations like that are a form of plagiarism.
-
-
50%
Georgia501 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
willotica,
Reply
1. By Ayers' own admission, he has never stopped being a terrorist and has no regrets or remorse.
2. Obama was 40 years old when Ayers himself stated he only wished they could have done more bombings.
3. The "accepted definition" of terrorism is actually Ayers' own definition of terrorism. I know you'll find this to be an astonishing fact, but in civilized nations, we do not let criminals define criminality. A terrorist is not someone who targets innocents, but someone who executes violence to advance a political or ideological agenda a) outside the color of law, b) outside the auspices of a sovereign nation, and c) a+b + not attempting to expel a foreign invader.
4. Ayers stated that he had no problem with innocent victims of his bombs.
5. Never killed anyone? True. Filth like you don't police officers to be human beings. Do the survivors of Edward O'Grady and Waverly Brown have your permission to feel otherwise? Pretty pleeeeezzzze....
You people are pathetic.-
-
100%
willottica1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Are those the people who died in the attack on the Armored Brinks truck? An event that was not a bomb (read my post) and did not involve Ayers?
Reply
Look, you can colour Ayers by association with fellow members of the Weathermen. This is completely fair because he was also a member. However, to paint Obama with association with Ayers who is guilty of those deaths by HIS association is taking your associative guilt thing a little too far.
Was Obama ever a member of the Weather Underground? No. Did he ever support or advocate their acts? No.
What is the point of the second ammendment? To allow protestors to fire warning shots against tyranny? I'm not claiming that the guard and the police officers who were killed were tyrants. In fact, they have little to do with Ayers at all. What I'm questioning is why should we defend the second ammendment, if anyone who attempts to use it is labeled a terrorist and a traitor? These are things to think about.
-
-
-
-
-
-
50%
JaimieM1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yes you are correct. They cannot stand it when an article exposing their biases and supporting Sarah Palin comes out. The same persons try to raise hysteria to divert the fair- minded people reading the article. They get very hysterical over the fact such articles are popular.
Reply-
redtomatoComment removed: Spammer
-
-
-
65%
kobzikov1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You picked this "article", Karlyc. If you wanted to talk about Obama's policies, I imagine you wouldn't have submitted anything by James Taranto who has a penchant for not talking about anyone's policies, but can engage in politics of slime and subterfuge at great lengths.
Reply
There is little doubt in my mind that both Palin and McCain are racists and I go by both their policies and what they said. So since you are itching to talk about policies, let's discuss Palin's policies toward Native Alaskan Tribes. Please explain to me, how is opposing native lifestyle, tribal Sovereignty and voting rights for Native Alaskan Tribes does not amount to racism?
http://community.freespeech.org/palin_opposes_alas...
And please take all the time you need to defend the non-racist policies.-
67%
techsupport1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This article is highly significant. Why has no one brought up Gov. Palin's consistently poor record on Native Alaskan issues? What does she have against these people? Considering the language component, it seems evident it's more than just the her belief that they interfere with her sacred sport hunting and fishing...
Reply
Maybe you should post this article to a separate thread, Kobzikov!-
Neutral
kobzikov1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
techsupport, unfortunately the articles that I submit have a tendency to not get a very high rating, nor do they usually feature a lot of discussion even from my friends.
Reply
And I doubt that I have anyone else to blame for it except myself, since I don't promote the stories aggressively enough, though currently I don't have enough time to fully participate on the boards and post and promote most of the articles that I find important. So currently I limit my participation to commenting and propping worthy articles that my friends submit whenever I'm not too busy with school.
So if you can dedicate the time to promoting the article and giving it attention that it needs, then I'd be glad if you posted it instead of me. User participation on the topic is more important to me, then having my name as a submitter. I can still submit it, but I doubt that it will make it to the front page.
-
-
-
71%
looter1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ahahahaha.. I can't help laughing... The Gallup poll says Obama is leading by 9 points, Fox poll says Obama leading in all battleground states. Palin's racist idea is to wake up extreme right is not going to work. Because even those extreme right people are facing the harsh realities of the economy, wars and above all outright lies by McCain and Palin. Lets face it buddies, Barrack Obama is the next president and right now, McCain and Palin or any other Christian extremists or Islamic Extremists can't do anything about it.
Reply
-
loading ...
ningyo
Patience
Klarissa
BB64
slate
nostalgia
Sludge-Guzzler
jimdoze
Wolfie2007
DropkickaLib
redtomato
stalemate
Ciera-Marie
BronxBomber
Mulder
german-shepard
ETproductions
gamahuche
miklkit
hamy
jovial
Natureboy
dadesider
fsev41
quackpot
mesodude
puffin
dunkirk
GWHayduke
CRYMTYPHON
dissent
sumptuousdigs
MacBookForMe
Post Reply
You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.