brlSo for the libs, I often see a lot of negative atruther2014-03-11 01:16:59comments on con gun owners. Do these comments apply to inner-city black men and boys that have illegal guns? At one point a person on here posted a study claiming gun owners are racist. I found the study flawed, in that it did not account for illegal gun owners.pdxThat water stream looks like the way I pee. No VS162014-03-11 01:16:56wonder the wife is always complaining about me missing the bowl.FYI: one state alone has over 18,000 foster VS162014-03-11 01:00:36care children. Now add in the others and I often wonder why these straight people even make a claim that it is all about family.I have given you 3 multiple choices § commie__bastard2014-03-11 00:37:37Study Links Low I.Q. To Conservatism, Prejudice, lie______detector2014-03-11 00:02:04Study Links Low I.Q. To Conservatism, Prejudice, Racism Are racists dumb? Do conservatives tend to be less intelligent than liberals? A provocative new study from Brock University in Ontario suggests the answer to both questions may be a qualified yes. The study, published in Psychological Science, showed that people who score low on I.Q. tests in childhood are more likely to develop prejudiced beliefs and socially conservative politics in adulthood. I.Q., or intelligence quotient, is a score determined by standardized tests, but whether the tests truly reveal intelligence remains a topic of hot debate among psychologists. Dr. Gordon Hodson, a professor of psychology at the university and the study's lead author, said the finding represented evidence of a vicious cycle: People of low intelligence gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, which stress resistance to change and, in turn, prejudice, he told LiveScience. Why might less intelligent people be drawn to conservative ideologies? Because such ideologies feature "structure and order" that make it easier to comprehend a complicated world, Dodson said. "Unfortunately, many of these features can also contribute to prejudice," he added. Dr. Brian Nosek, a University of Virginia psychologist, echoed those sentiments. "Reality is complicated and messy," he told The Huffington Post in an email. "Ideologies get rid of the messiness and impose a simpler solution. So, it may not be surprising that people with less cognitive capacity will be attracted to simplifying ideologies." But Nosek said less intelligent types might be attracted to liberal "simplifying ideologies" as well as conservative ones. In any case, the study has taken the Internet by storm, with some outspoken liberals saying that it validates their suspicions about conservatives and conservatives arguing that the research has been misinterpreted. How to Determine If Your Religious Liberty Is Be lie______detector2014-03-10 23:58:05How to Determine If Your Religious Liberty Is Being Threatened... 1. My religious liberty is at risk because: A) I am not allowed to go to a religious service of my own choosing. B) Others are allowed to go to religious services of their own choosing. 2. My religious liberty is at risk because: A) I am not allowed to marry the person I love legally, even though my religious community blesses my marriage. B) Some states refuse to enforce my own particular religious beliefs on marriage on those two guys in line down at the courthouse. 3. My religious liberty is at risk because: A) I am being forced to use birth control. B) I am unable to force others to not use birth control. 4. My religious liberty is at risk because: A) I am not allowed to pray privately. B) I am not allowed to force others to pray the prayers of my faith publicly. 5. My religious liberty is at risk because: A) Being a member of my faith means that I can be bullied without legal recourse. B) I am no longer allowed to use my faith to bully gay kids with impunity. 6. My religious liberty is at risk because: A) I am not allowed to purchase, read or possess religious books or material. B) Others are allowed to have access books, movies and websites that I do not like. 7. My religious liberty is at risk because: A) My religious group is not allowed equal protection under the establishment clause. B) My religious group is not allowed to use public funds, buildings and resources as we would like, for whatever purposes we might like. Scoring key: If you answered "A" to any question, then perhaps your religious liberty is indeed at stake. But just remember this one little, constitutional, concept: this means you can fight for your equality -- not your superiority. If you answered "B" to any question, then not only is your religious liberty not at stake, but there is a strong chance that you are oppressing the religious liberties of others. This is the point where I would invite you to refer back to the tenets of your faith, especially the ones about your neighbors. What Jesus says about homosexuality is.... he lie______detector2014-03-10 23:53:51 What Jesus says about homosexuality is.... he doesn't mention it. He does however, have a lot to say about taking care of the Poor: Luke 6:20-21 Luke 6:20-21 Then he looked up at his disciples and said: 'Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. 'Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you will be filled. 'Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh. uke 4:16-19 Luke 4:16-19 When he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, he went to the synagogue on the sabbath day, as was his custom. He stood up to read, and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written: 'The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. Matthew 25:34-36 Matthew 25:34-36 Then the king will say to those at his right hand, "Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me." Mark 10:21-22 Mark 10:21-22 Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said, "You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me." When he heard this, he was shocked and went away grieving, for he had many possessions. unk"Tea Party hatches quiet-but-insane plot against lie______detector2014-03-10 23:51:45"Tea Party hatches quiet-but-insane plot against democracy: Meet the “12 Percent Solution” I listened in to a recent conference call with conservative activists. Their latest scheme? Nullify laws they hate. What if there were a fourth branch of government that would allow the fans of “Duck Dynasty” to overturn Roe v. Wade, repeal Obamacare and pretty much nullify any federal law or Supreme Court decision they don’t like, based on the support of as little as 12 percent of the nation’s population? And what if that fourth branch already existed in the American constitutional order, just waiting to be properly realized? That’s basically the dream of conservative activist Charles Kacprowicz, as described in a recent conference call with supporters, effectively summing up many of the deepest hopes and fears of right-wing America in the post-Bush era. “The best that we have now is the idea of nullification. But the states right now do not have a provision in the Constitution that allows them to countermand laws,” Kacprowicz said. But he’s crafted a proposal that would change all that. “With this provision, in the Sovereignty and States Rights Amendment, they can countermand it, and they can disallow it when 30 states say ‘let’s stop.’ ” Naturally, Kacprowicz had a red meat example close at hand. “Obamacare right now has at least 26 states who have already filed lawsuits against the government for imposing on them the tax and the imposition of Obamacare on the states,” he continued. “That’s already going forward. So you have that right there. We need four more states and Obamacare is history. And so that’s the kind of power that this has in this sovereignty amendment.” Kacprowicz isn’t presently a leading player, but as this passage shows, he straddles two rising, radical state-level tendencies that the national media have woefully underreported so far: one an explosion of clearly unconstitutional “nullification” legislation, and the other a growing movement to call a constitutional convention (Kacprowicz prefers “amendment convention”) to pass a set of conservative dream amendments. Because he provides a uniquely crafted bridge between these two efforts, his ideas could prove significant in the near future. unk‘Bette in Spokane’ For the last several months, lie______detector2014-03-10 23:42:21‘Bette in Spokane’ For the last several months, conservative opponents of the Affordable Care Act, including congressional Republicans, have encouraged Americans to contact the GOP with “Obamacare horror stories.” To that end, Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), the House Republican Conference chair, used her party’s official response to the State of the Union to highlight a woman in her home state who, she claimed, was better off before the law. “Not long ago, I got a letter from Bette in Spokane, who had hoped the president’s health care law would save her money, but found out instead her premiums were going up nearly $700 a month…. No, we shouldn’t go back to the way things were, but this law is not working.” Almost immediately, red flags went up among those who follow the health care debate closely. And for good reason: over the last several months, Republicans and their allies have put a spotlight on quite a few “Obamacare victims,” but the stories invariably fell apart after modest scrutiny. The local newspaper, the Spokeman-Review, tracked down Bette Grenier, who wrote the letter used in McMorris Rodgers’ remarks. [T]he “nearly $700 per month” increase in her premium that McMorris Rodgers cited in Tuesday night’s GOP response to the State of the Union address was based on one of the pricier options, a $1,200-a-month replacement plan that was pitched by Asuris Northwest to Grenier and her husband, Don. The carrier also offered a less expensive, $1,052-per-month option in lieu of their soon-to-be-discontinued catastrophic coverage plan. And, Grenier acknowledged the couple probably could have shaved another $100 a month off the replacement policy costs by purchasing them from the state’s online portal, the Health Plan Finder website, but they chose to avoid the government health exchanges. In a familiar situation, the horror story isn’t as horrible as we’d been led to believe. In this case, “Bette in Spokane” didn’t have a health care plan so much as she had insurance that covered catastrophic coverage – and nothing else – with a $10,000 deductible. In the official Republican Party’s SOTU response, all of these relevant details were ignored. Viewers were led to believe the law forced higher premiums on this consumer as part of some kind of inherent flaw in the system, but that’s not at all what happened in reality. i'm sorry, since WHEN???? 2014-03-10 23:40:51THE PRESIDENT: In the past, the relationship between Social Security and Medicare has been very important to provide some modicum of aid for senior citizens in the retention of health benefits. Governor Reagan, as a matter of fact, began his political career campaigning around this nation against Medicare . . . . REAGAN: There you go again [Laughter]. When I opposed Medicare, there was another piece of legislation meeting the same problem before the Congress. I happened to favor the other piece of legislation and thought it would be better for the senior citizens and provide better care than the one that was finally passed. I was not opposing the principle of providing care for them. I was opposing one piece of legislation versus another. http://ift.tt/1i2otgN
unk Republican plan: Audit rape victims, don't prot lie______detector2014-03-10 23:38:40 Republican plan: Audit rape victims, don't protect pregnant workers Republicans must really, really want to distract voters from the economy, given how hard they're trying to change the subject to abortion, abortion, abortion, and also abortion. The March for Life is an annual event, which they're frantically trying to wring as much out of as they can. Then there's the proposed RNC resolution encouraging Republican candidates to talk about abortion more. Most of all, though, there's the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act. There are already sharp limits on anything that could be construed as government funding for abortion. But this bill takes it the next step: It would ban medical-expense tax deductions for abortion, allowing exceptions only for rape, incest, and protecting the woman's life. It's so extreme it could lead to rape victims being audited by the IRS to be sure they weren't getting a prohibited tax subsidy. During a male-dominated House committee hearing on the bill, Democratic Rep. Jerry Nadler tried to substitute a bill that would really protect women's and fetal health: the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. But his effort was voted down, and: I am proud to announce that next week, the House will vote once and for all to end taxpayer funding for abortions. #MarchForLife — @GOPLeader That's right. Rather than passing a bill that would require employers to make reasonable accommodations to protect the health of pregnant women, Republicans are going to pass a bill (in the House, anyway) that would audit rape victims. They're going to focus on raising taxes on people who get medical care they don't like rather than protecting the jobs of pregnant women like the Walmart worker fired for carrying a water bottle or the hospital cleaner who was forced onto unpaid leave rather than being allowed a lifting restriction. Or the Albertsons worker whose baby was born prematurely and died after the mother's request—backed up by doctors' notes—for light duty was turned down and after she was told to keep working despite being in pain. For these women, Republicans have nothing, not even as the fig leaf preserving the notion that life and women's health are what motivates their latest anti-abortion push. unk★ I took a selfie for you! § Crazy_Queer2014-03-10 23:35:58unkSTOP! Crazy_Queer2014-03-10 23:33:01craigslist > Error We're sorry, we were unable to complete your request Please wait a moment and try your request again. If this problem persists for more than 5 minutes, please visit our Help Desk forum for realtime answers by staff and other users. Full many a glorious morning have I seen Flatter the mountain tops with sovereign eye, Kissing with golden face the meadows green, Gilding pale streams with heavenly alchemy; Anon permit the basest clouds to ride With ugly rack on his celestial face, And from the forlorn world his visage hide, Stealing unseen to west with this disgrace: unkI'm not fundamentally opposed to the taxes part DBagain12014-03-10 22:06:39I'm opposed to the idea that We, The People are backwards children that must be cared for because we can't be trusted to make a choice of our free will.I think the Events are greater than the men DBagain12014-03-10 22:05:28and the voting public is more and more self centeredsfoWhat explains the shitty quality of presidents Anak_ni_Rico2014-03-10 22:04:26nowadays? I think the duopoly is stronger. It would help if 3rd party candidates got a decent percentage of the vote. Everybody's too chicken to vote for a 3rd party candidate.sfonope but I bet you are.......lol § doggie4152014-03-10 22:02:22an old link JohnnyTrigger2014-03-10 22:00:14I was going thru some of my archives seems marin county govt moved some files aroundare you wasting your vote? JohnnyTrigger2014-03-10 21:57:39do you think that you must vote for the lesser of evils party? because if you don't the other party will win? your chances of being the tie breaker vote are mathematically miniscule. and besides, most districts or gerrymandered and most states are clearly red/blue that the outcome is often pretty obvious. I think it is better to vote for a candidate that you believe in, rather than voting for a guy you think sucks less. at least by voting for third parties you send a message to Reps/Dems that their performance is weak. and you begin making third parties truly viable. nycGOP to kill off the TP 2014-03-10 21:57:16oh well, they had to flip the kill switch. I feel bad for the people who believed it was a real movement.Yes I did. You just didn't see it. Zaphod__Beeblebrox2014-03-10 21:55:04The answer is that its not really clear from public knowledge. But certainly under Bush and probably in the first year or so after 9/11.Very true. I like health savings accounts and 2014-03-10 21:55:03the ability to buy insurance across state lines, that spur competition.sdoartwork illegal to sell, IRS taxes it $29M JohnnyTrigger2014-03-10 21:53:25New York Times article about the Internal Revenue Service demanding $29 million for a piece of art that cannot legally be sold deserves a longer, more painful look. Excerpt: The object under discussion is "Canyon," a masterwork of 20th-century art created by Robert Rauschenberg that Mrs. Sonnabend's children inherited when she died in 2007. Because the work, a sculptural combine, includes a stuffed bald eagle, a bird under federal protection, the heirs would be committing a felony if they ever tried to sell it. So their appraisers have valued the work at zero. But the Internal Revenue Service takes a different view. It has appraised "Canyon" at $65 million and is demanding that the owners pay $29.2 million in taxes. "It's hard for me to see how this could be valued this way because it's illegal to sell it," said Patti S. Spencer, a lawyer who specializes in trusts and estates but has no role in the case. http://ift.tt/LCfrEL --- As we gear up for a week of largely phony fiscal cliff/debt ceiling/tax cut politics, this story is a timely reminder that when the federal government is borrowing 40 cents on every dollar, not only is it a reflection of deep political mismanagement and cowardice, but it's a virtual license for the I.R.S. to go scrounging through your pockets, regardless of fairness or plain common sense. ldnNew Blog: Appreciating the Gift of Democracy 81positive2014-03-10 21:53:19Hey folks, I am a political scientist leaving in US. I have recently opened a political blog with the goal to help citizens to assess policy and their elected representatives in a more efficient and productive manner. Here is the link: citizenpositive.blogspot.com sdoI have read maybe 5 true liberal posts in 4 mont § 2014-03-10 21:52:59sdoI agree with you mostly - however 2014-03-10 21:52:54I think ACA was a necessary foot in the door because of the problem of pre-existing condition denial and skyrocketing premiums and sleazier and sleazier games the insurance agencies were playing that were going unaddressed or even facilitated by Republicans. Otherwise, you're right. It needs to get fixed.sdoliberals for ACA are not real liberals JohnnyTrigger2014-03-10 21:51:11seriously, I am amazed at so-called liberals defending this "Affordable Healthcare Act". It is a boondoggle for corporations.... using coercive govt power to force people to buy from the very same insurance companies that we have been so pissed off about in the first place. The insurance model for healthcare is a FLAWED model. Since it insulates the consumer from the true cost of healthcare, it gives suppliers the ability to raise prices without the customer feeling the full amount of pain... and gives incentives to patients to place excessive demand on the system, which in turn translates to higher prices. ACA just forces more of this type of economic activity, which will NOT make prices "affordable". There are really two options to solve this: a. The option I choose is to eliminate insurance as much as possible... pay for healthcare services with cash. This will put the consumer in the driver's seat and create a more competitive marketplace. Look at Lasics surgery. Such a competitive marketplace has driven prices DOWN. You can keep an insurance policy for catastrophic cases... which frankly is what insurance should be for. b. The other option is the true single payer, universal healthcare model. I do not support this. But this is the model that liberals should be pushing for. So-called Liberals that defend a forced corporate model are NOT liberals. These people are pawns to the corporate interests, and they don't really seem to care. sfoOR THE OTHER 6-7 I CANT REMEMBER RIGHT NOW ? § GETREEEL2014-03-10 21:48:40slcObama Promised more troops in AFghanistan & igvard2014-03-10 21:47:30cons complain because he kept his promise. Weird. I wonder if he hadn't what they'd do? I'm kidding, they complain no matter what sfoI see the racist is here acting the fucking beachbum900642014-03-10 21:47:00asshole as always but let one person say anything about his tribe..and the pee panty victim mindset goes in overdrive
unk Republican plan: Audit rape victims, don't prot lie______detector2014-03-10 23:38:40 Republican plan: Audit rape victims, don't protect pregnant workers Republicans must really, really want to distract voters from the economy, given how hard they're trying to change the subject to abortion, abortion, abortion, and also abortion. The March for Life is an annual event, which they're frantically trying to wring as much out of as they can. Then there's the proposed RNC resolution encouraging Republican candidates to talk about abortion more. Most of all, though, there's the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act. There are already sharp limits on anything that could be construed as government funding for abortion. But this bill takes it the next step: It would ban medical-expense tax deductions for abortion, allowing exceptions only for rape, incest, and protecting the woman's life. It's so extreme it could lead to rape victims being audited by the IRS to be sure they weren't getting a prohibited tax subsidy. During a male-dominated House committee hearing on the bill, Democratic Rep. Jerry Nadler tried to substitute a bill that would really protect women's and fetal health: the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. But his effort was voted down, and: I am proud to announce that next week, the House will vote once and for all to end taxpayer funding for abortions. #MarchForLife — @GOPLeader That's right. Rather than passing a bill that would require employers to make reasonable accommodations to protect the health of pregnant women, Republicans are going to pass a bill (in the House, anyway) that would audit rape victims. They're going to focus on raising taxes on people who get medical care they don't like rather than protecting the jobs of pregnant women like the Walmart worker fired for carrying a water bottle or the hospital cleaner who was forced onto unpaid leave rather than being allowed a lifting restriction. Or the Albertsons worker whose baby was born prematurely and died after the mother's request—backed up by doctors' notes—for light duty was turned down and after she was told to keep working despite being in pain. For these women, Republicans have nothing, not even as the fig leaf preserving the notion that life and women's health are what motivates their latest anti-abortion push. unk★ I took a selfie for you! § Crazy_Queer2014-03-10 23:35:58unkSTOP! Crazy_Queer2014-03-10 23:33:01craigslist > Error We're sorry, we were unable to complete your request Please wait a moment and try your request again. If this problem persists for more than 5 minutes, please visit our Help Desk forum for realtime answers by staff and other users. Full many a glorious morning have I seen Flatter the mountain tops with sovereign eye, Kissing with golden face the meadows green, Gilding pale streams with heavenly alchemy; Anon permit the basest clouds to ride With ugly rack on his celestial face, And from the forlorn world his visage hide, Stealing unseen to west with this disgrace: unkI'm not fundamentally opposed to the taxes part DBagain12014-03-10 22:06:39I'm opposed to the idea that We, The People are backwards children that must be cared for because we can't be trusted to make a choice of our free will.I think the Events are greater than the men DBagain12014-03-10 22:05:28and the voting public is more and more self centeredsfoWhat explains the shitty quality of presidents Anak_ni_Rico2014-03-10 22:04:26nowadays? I think the duopoly is stronger. It would help if 3rd party candidates got a decent percentage of the vote. Everybody's too chicken to vote for a 3rd party candidate.sfonope but I bet you are.......lol § doggie4152014-03-10 22:02:22an old link JohnnyTrigger2014-03-10 22:00:14I was going thru some of my archives seems marin county govt moved some files aroundare you wasting your vote? JohnnyTrigger2014-03-10 21:57:39do you think that you must vote for the lesser of evils party? because if you don't the other party will win? your chances of being the tie breaker vote are mathematically miniscule. and besides, most districts or gerrymandered and most states are clearly red/blue that the outcome is often pretty obvious. I think it is better to vote for a candidate that you believe in, rather than voting for a guy you think sucks less. at least by voting for third parties you send a message to Reps/Dems that their performance is weak. and you begin making third parties truly viable. nycGOP to kill off the TP 2014-03-10 21:57:16oh well, they had to flip the kill switch. I feel bad for the people who believed it was a real movement.Yes I did. You just didn't see it. Zaphod__Beeblebrox2014-03-10 21:55:04The answer is that its not really clear from public knowledge. But certainly under Bush and probably in the first year or so after 9/11.Very true. I like health savings accounts and 2014-03-10 21:55:03the ability to buy insurance across state lines, that spur competition.sdoartwork illegal to sell, IRS taxes it $29M JohnnyTrigger2014-03-10 21:53:25New York Times article about the Internal Revenue Service demanding $29 million for a piece of art that cannot legally be sold deserves a longer, more painful look. Excerpt: The object under discussion is "Canyon," a masterwork of 20th-century art created by Robert Rauschenberg that Mrs. Sonnabend's children inherited when she died in 2007. Because the work, a sculptural combine, includes a stuffed bald eagle, a bird under federal protection, the heirs would be committing a felony if they ever tried to sell it. So their appraisers have valued the work at zero. But the Internal Revenue Service takes a different view. It has appraised "Canyon" at $65 million and is demanding that the owners pay $29.2 million in taxes. "It's hard for me to see how this could be valued this way because it's illegal to sell it," said Patti S. Spencer, a lawyer who specializes in trusts and estates but has no role in the case. http://ift.tt/LCfrEL --- As we gear up for a week of largely phony fiscal cliff/debt ceiling/tax cut politics, this story is a timely reminder that when the federal government is borrowing 40 cents on every dollar, not only is it a reflection of deep political mismanagement and cowardice, but it's a virtual license for the I.R.S. to go scrounging through your pockets, regardless of fairness or plain common sense. ldnNew Blog: Appreciating the Gift of Democracy 81positive2014-03-10 21:53:19Hey folks, I am a political scientist leaving in US. I have recently opened a political blog with the goal to help citizens to assess policy and their elected representatives in a more efficient and productive manner. Here is the link: citizenpositive.blogspot.com sdoI have read maybe 5 true liberal posts in 4 mont § 2014-03-10 21:52:59sdoI agree with you mostly - however 2014-03-10 21:52:54I think ACA was a necessary foot in the door because of the problem of pre-existing condition denial and skyrocketing premiums and sleazier and sleazier games the insurance agencies were playing that were going unaddressed or even facilitated by Republicans. Otherwise, you're right. It needs to get fixed.sdoliberals for ACA are not real liberals JohnnyTrigger2014-03-10 21:51:11seriously, I am amazed at so-called liberals defending this "Affordable Healthcare Act". It is a boondoggle for corporations.... using coercive govt power to force people to buy from the very same insurance companies that we have been so pissed off about in the first place. The insurance model for healthcare is a FLAWED model. Since it insulates the consumer from the true cost of healthcare, it gives suppliers the ability to raise prices without the customer feeling the full amount of pain... and gives incentives to patients to place excessive demand on the system, which in turn translates to higher prices. ACA just forces more of this type of economic activity, which will NOT make prices "affordable". There are really two options to solve this: a. The option I choose is to eliminate insurance as much as possible... pay for healthcare services with cash. This will put the consumer in the driver's seat and create a more competitive marketplace. Look at Lasics surgery. Such a competitive marketplace has driven prices DOWN. You can keep an insurance policy for catastrophic cases... which frankly is what insurance should be for. b. The other option is the true single payer, universal healthcare model. I do not support this. But this is the model that liberals should be pushing for. So-called Liberals that defend a forced corporate model are NOT liberals. These people are pawns to the corporate interests, and they don't really seem to care. sfoOR THE OTHER 6-7 I CANT REMEMBER RIGHT NOW ? § GETREEEL2014-03-10 21:48:40slcObama Promised more troops in AFghanistan & igvard2014-03-10 21:47:30cons complain because he kept his promise. Weird. I wonder if he hadn't what they'd do? I'm kidding, they complain no matter what sfoI see the racist is here acting the fucking beachbum900642014-03-10 21:47:00asshole as always but let one person say anything about his tribe..and the pee panty victim mindset goes in overdrive This post has been generated by Page2RSS
via forums - craigslist http://ift.tt/1i2orFD
No comments:
Post a Comment