Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Wed Nov 25 21:16:02 PST 2020

Utopia Talk / Politics / "The 1st Amendment has a design flaw"
Rugian
Member
Mon Nov 16 12:34:27
Joe Biden transition official wrote op-ed advocating free speech restrictions
By Steven NelsonNovember 13, 2020 | 5:15pm | Updated

President-elect Joe Biden’s transition team leader for US-owned media outlets wants to redefine freedom of speech and make “hate speech” a crime.

Richard Stengel is the Biden transition “Team Lead” for the US Agency for Global Media, the US government media empire that includes Voice of America, the Middle East Broadcasting Networks and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.

Stengel, an Obama administration alumnus, wrote last year in a Washington Post op-ed that US freedom of speech was too unfettered and that changes must be considered.

He wrote: “All speech is not equal. And where truth cannot drive out lies, we must add new guardrails. I’m all for protecting ‘thought that we hate,’ but not speech that incites hate.”

Stengel offered two examples of speech that he has an issue with: Quran burning and circulation of “false narratives” by Russia during the 2016 election.

“Even the most sophisticated Arab diplomats that I dealt with did not understand why the First Amendment allows someone to burn a Koran. Why, they asked me, would you ever want to protect that?” Stengel wrote.

“It’s a fair question. Yes, the First Amendment protects the ‘thought that we hate,’ but it should not protect hateful speech that can cause violence by one group against another. In an age when everyone has a megaphone, that seems like a design flaw.”

Stengel wrote that “our foremost liberty also protects any bad actors who hide behind it to weaken our society,” adding, “Russian agents assumed fake identities, promulgated false narratives and spread lies on Twitter and Facebook, all protected by the First Amendment.”

Stengel until recently worked as a paid MSNBC contributor. He led the National Constitution Center from 2004 to 2006, and was under secretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs from 2014 to 2016 during the final years of the Obama administration.

“Since World War II, many nations have passed laws to curb the incitement of racial and religious hatred. These laws started out as protections against the kinds of anti-Semitic bigotry that gave rise to the Holocaust. We call them hate speech laws, but there’s no agreed-upon definition of what hate speech actually is. In general, hate speech is speech that attacks and insults people on the basis of race, religion, ethnic origin and sexual orientation,” Stengel wrote.

“I think it’s time to consider these statutes. The modern standard of dangerous speech comes from Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) and holds that speech that directly incites ‘imminent lawless action’ or is likely to do so can be restricted. Domestic terrorists such as Dylann Roof and Omar Mateen and the El Paso shooter were consumers of hate speech. Speech doesn’t pull the trigger, but does anyone seriously doubt that such hateful speech creates a climate where such acts are more likely?”

USAGM and VOA leadership ranks were gutted this year as Trump-nominated CEO Michael Pack, a conservative filmmaker, sought to reform the agency. Pack fired and suspended executives over a pro-Biden video produced by VOA Urdu and for allegedly faulty security checks in hiring foreign workers.

http://nyp...ote-op-ed-against-free-speech/
Rugian
Member
Mon Nov 16 12:37:19
So, apparently the Biden administration is opposed to the 1st Amendment. Fucking lovely.

We already knew their position on the 2nd Amendment.

Biden was of course VP when the US maintained the secret mass surveillance program that Edward Snowden exposed (rip 4th Amendment).

And Democrats act as if the 10th Amendment simply doesn't exist.

Is there any part of the Bill of Rights that this administration DOES respect?
Dakyron
Member
Mon Nov 16 12:44:35
According to this guy...

Burning US flag = free speech
Burning Quaran = Inciting hate


The other stuff, who gives a shit, but that is worrying.
Rugian
Member
Mon Nov 16 12:46:47
You mean you're not on board with his stance that Arab diplomats should determine our free speech rights?
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Mon Nov 16 12:47:15
who was Trump's transition team leader for US-owned media outlets?
Habebe
Member
Mon Nov 16 12:48:20
This is a mainstream idea in the liberal mindset and Democratic party.

The oldschool hippies of the 60s were the saviour of freedom of expression, no longer is that true.

Freedom of expression should have almost no exceptions. Yes you cant yell fire in a theatre, or lie under oath.But that is abput it. In the sense of expressing an idea or beleif no matter how abhorrent should be limitless. We don't ban the communist manifesto and I cant think of anything more dangerous than that other than a home made guide to make nukes.
Rugian
Member
Mon Nov 16 12:48:43
1. Who gives a shit

2. We have four years' worth of Trump being in office. Please demonstrate how he has reduced free speech rights in any way.
Rugian
Member
Mon Nov 16 12:49:02
^that was for tw, obviously
Dakyron
Member
Mon Nov 16 12:50:25
"2. We have four years' worth of Trump being in office. Please demonstrate how he has reduced free speech rights in any way. "

The left hates him so much that expressing support for him or his ideas often leads to being fired, suspended, or something beaten/killed.
Habebe
Member
Mon Nov 16 12:54:40
Notice how controlled freedom of expression much like a.right to bear arms is another issue those Euro groups ignore wjen discussing how free a nation is. Try to start a nationalist Socialist party in most westetn European nations and give a speech under a swastika banner and see how much freedom of expression is.

But commies can no problem.Absurdity.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Mon Nov 16 12:57:37
"Please demonstrate how he has reduced free speech rights in any way."

-gassing peaceful protesters for a photo op... anti-protester in general

-finding twitter's 'trending' topics illegal

-wanting kneeling athletes fired

-asking fans to boycott numerous things related to free speech


seems like jumping the gun on this random Biden guy who hasn't done anything & probably won't
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Mon Nov 16 13:00:32
also google Trump & Voice of America

his people have been trying to turn it into a partisan propaganda outlet
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Mon Nov 16 13:01:07
(Voice of America noted in OP as something this Stengel guy would be involved in)
Habebe
Member
Mon Nov 16 13:03:22
Biden afaik is rather moderate in this sense. Even Obama was rather pro free speech.But many liberals are not so supportive.

Tw, "peacefully" protestors?

Twitter is very anti free speech.

As much as I disagree with the kneeling BS, they shouldnhave the right. But peopl also have the right to speak against it.

Boycotting places that banned maga hats? That's anti free speech/expression?
Dakyron
Member
Mon Nov 16 13:04:18
"Even Obama was rather pro free speech"

Hahahaha... tell that to Manning or Snowden...
obaminated
Member
Mon Nov 16 13:14:47
Let the left drown themselves. The right controls the senate so nothing radical will pass. In 2 years we will have a majority in the house and senate and president Harris will be a complete failure.
habebe
Member
Mon Nov 16 13:29:27
Daky, Everything is relative. Compared to say a typical west coast liberal Obama was Larry flint in regards to the first amendment.
werewolf dictator
Member
Mon Nov 16 13:56:54
obama/biden was also good at national crackdown on ows protestors.. and not just some local peaceful hate group protestors who just burn church
werewolf dictator
Member
Mon Nov 16 14:03:56
rfe/rl is designed to be hate speech against russia.. even youtube warns you they are usa propaganda when you watch their videos

btw what false narratives did russians present

dnc emails was legit and hillary really had rigged dnc with "cancer" against bernie.. podesta emails legit too

no evidence russia behind release of also authentic hunter biden photos and texts.. but sure.. say it is "russian disinformation" and censor it

supporting blm ideology was only fake narrative some russians support that i remember.. and this stengel guy probably thinks blm ideology is truth
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Mon Nov 16 14:06:09
that wasn't his only boycott, he's called for many

"Everybody should boycott the @megynkelly
show. Never worth watching. Always a hit on Trump! She is sick, & the most overrated person on tv."

how about his general 'the media is the enemy of the people' (which his cultists echo)

that's pretty anti 1st amendment
Rugian
Member
Mon Nov 16 14:18:15
Asking consumers to willingly alter their shopping habits based on a company's stated political views is an example of cancel culture, not 1st Amendment suppression. Thanks for playing though.
Rugian
Member
Mon Nov 16 14:19:03
"how about his general 'the media is the enemy of the people' (which his cultists echo)

that's pretty anti 1st amendment"

It's not. Criticism of the media is valid speech.
Rugian
Member
Mon Nov 16 14:19:26
I can see why your CNN-adled brain might think otherwise though.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Mon Nov 16 14:54:03
"@FCC THIS IS A DISGRACE, EVEN WORSE THAN @NBC
USUALLY IS, WHICH IS REALLY BAD. SLEEPY EYES MUST BE FIRED!"
~ Trump angry at Chuck Todd for allegedly taking Barr out of context

& he's tweeting to FCC to take action (as he's a moron)
sam adams
Member
Mon Nov 16 14:59:38

“Even the most sophisticated Arab diplomats that I dealt with did not understand why the First Amendment allows someone to burn a Koran. Why, they asked me, would you ever want to protect that?” Stengel wrote.

Because we arent arabs you vile piece of shit.
sam adams
Member
Mon Nov 16 15:01:23
Inagine trying to destroy a sacred tradition of america to appease some filthy muslims?

Godamn, that guy should actually be tarred and feathered.

With tar from chernobyls roof.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Mon Nov 16 15:03:55
probably wise not to be burning Korans on our international media outlets (which seems to be what his role involves)
sam adams
Member
Mon Nov 16 15:06:42
It seems wise to burn korans wherever the fuck we want.
Dakyron
Member
Mon Nov 16 15:13:50
I agree with Sam. If its OK to burn American flags, then burn all the Korans you want.
Rugian
Member
Mon Nov 16 15:24:04
I hope those Arab diplomats get raped by a pack of niggers and then get executed by their shithole country for having engaged in homosexual sex. That's how much I value their fucking input.

And news to Mr. Stengel, I can say all of this because of the 1st Amendment. Fuck you and I hope your mother gets AIDS-infused Covid.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Mon Nov 16 15:50:51
Stengel has taken no action to stop you

Trump has though w/ his assault on section 230... which if successful might make Turtle Crawler have to squash you
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Mon Nov 16 15:52:47
actually that probably would threaten beloved Parler most

the haven R's flocking to so they can spread whatever misinformation & hate they want
obaminated
Member
Mon Nov 16 15:55:36
Tw, explain section 230 and how it threatens us.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Mon Nov 16 16:04:33
it is my understanding 230 prevents the people providing public platforms from being sued for what the users post

"REPEAL SECTION 230!!!"
~ Trump
Hrothgar
Member
Mon Nov 16 16:25:20
So - electronic information age has produced a scenario where free speech nations are straining to remain stable as citizens drown under a deluge of bad electronic format information.

And the suggestion that perhaps the ideas of the late 1700s may need to be updated to account for this situation is a threat to the constitution to you?

How about the damn threat of the constitution being thrown in the garbage because the nation falls apart over click bait political conspiracy theory and foreign intelligence trolling?

If the constitution fails it will to the torches and pitchforks of a mob chanting "protect the constitution".
Rugian
Member
Mon Nov 16 16:29:19
Hrothgar

I'm not too hot on the idea that a handful of unaccountable factcheckers should be able to engage in mass censorship of the internet.

Maybe you are. And if so, the Western world probably isn't where you should be living.
Habebe
Member
Mon Nov 16 16:30:30
Mon Nov 16 14:19:03
"how about his general 'the media is the enemy of the people' (which his cultists echo)

that's pretty anti 1st amendment"

It's not. Criticism of the media is valid speech"

To add to Rugians point, the media plays gatekeeper to news.

And lets face it they are aggressively bias to non liberals. Thanks to DNC email leaks we have seen how cozy they are to the DNC. That is propaganda at that point, which by itself isn't wrong, but propaganda mixed with monopolistic control of information is.

When ypu mix mainstream media and social networking companies together and have them actively pushing one narrative and blocking others, that is the enemy of the people.

Now listen, im not saying the right/Trump have perfectly.clean records, and they should be rightly called out If and when they assault the 1st amendment too.


*wraps Quran in gasolone soaked American Flag*
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Mon Nov 16 16:31:58
Trump's lies have gone 99.9% through w/ no action, & Twitter only flagging not deleting his constant election misinformation

what is the mass censorship allegedly going on?
jergul
large member
Mon Nov 16 16:57:36
Secular Bible studies with constitutional pseudo religious scholar Ruggy.
Nekran
Member
Mon Nov 16 17:40:24
"And the suggestion that perhaps the ideas of the late 1700s may need to be updated to account for this situation is a threat to the constitution to you?"

Very much this. Though I do also very much agree that burning whatever books you own should be a perfectly legal, if usually pointless and stupid act, of course.

But your unhealthy obsession with your own holy scripture from the 1700's is only about a 1000 years removed from that of radical muslims for the quran.

It applies poorly to this world nowadays and it gets worse every day.
Pillz
Member
Mon Nov 16 17:55:16
Hrothgar we enjoy living in chine or the uk
Habebe
Member
Mon Nov 16 17:56:46
"But your unhealthy obsession with your own holy scripture from the 1700's"

I hear this a lot from Euros, Im not sure why people have a problem with Americans cherishing a tangible creed that is the basis for our federation and supreme law of the land.

Its a living document that can and has been changed plenty. It jas served us well as a good structure considering we are the oldest Democratic Republic in existence.
kargen
Member
Mon Nov 16 18:20:08
Most your examples tumbleweed is a call to have citizens use their rights to voice disapproval. Asking people to quit watching the NBA is a hell of a lot different than having the government deciding what is hate speech and then banning it.

And why wasn't Stengel all bent out of shape when people were burning bibles?
Habebe
Member
Mon Nov 16 18:58:28
To add to Kargens, asking people to not watch a tv show isnt even ad harsh as fire someone. Its literally a show of support for opposition that's easily measurable.

Telling people to boycott the Mandalorian or Disney because of the actresses views isnt as bad as fire her and blacklist her because she posted a meme that was against the Democratic party....thats craziness.
Wrath of Orion
Member
Mon Nov 16 20:22:44
She's done a lot more than just share a meme. Calls to have her fired go back at least a couple months, if not more. There's a wide array of pretty shitty stuff from her on Twitter.

Is that reason to have her fired? I don't know, nor do I give a shit.
jergul
large member
Mon Nov 16 20:41:27
"And why wasn't Stengel all bent out of shape when people were burning bibles?"

They burned that holy book two? Jesus will judge them hard on judgement day as he sits at the side of Mohammed and God.
jergul
large member
Mon Nov 16 20:43:52
Burning that Muslim holy book too* Way to mangle a point.
Forwyn
Member
Mon Nov 16 20:46:36
"There's a wide array of pretty shitty stuff from her on Twitter."

Jokes, memes, and being an outspoken conservative on a left-wing platform.
Forwyn
Member
Mon Nov 16 20:47:05
This is the same group of deplorables that wants to cancel Chris Pratt for going to church.
obaminated
Member
Mon Nov 16 20:54:47
Woo, what has she done that you consider extreme?
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Mon Nov 16 20:55:56
"isnt as bad as fire her"

Trump has tried to get people fired often (so not just boycotts)

such as the Chuck Todd example above, although it's fairly standard behavior by him, destroy all perceived enemies (which means any minor insult or obstacle)
kargen
Member
Mon Nov 16 21:21:39
Let's let government define acceptable speech is many levels worse than calling for someone to be fired.
Most times I would say calling for someone to be fired is a shit move but it still is letting someone else make the decision.

What Stengel is advocating makes it the governments business what we say and it would be the government that decides what to do about it. To even attempt to in any way equate government control of free speech and individuals calling for boycotts or having others fired is asinine and imbecilic.
obaminated
Member
Mon Nov 16 21:39:38
And when confronted woo has nothing to say. That is his character.
jergul
large member
Mon Nov 16 21:53:18
Kargen
If only there was some institution that could overrule government if it passes legislation that is incompatible with your constitution.

You should look into that.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Mon Nov 16 21:55:43
Stengel hasn't advocated any of it in his role on transition team, and I really doubt it will ever come up...

and Trump -does- want government intervention that's why he mentioned FCC on Chuck Todd, and calling twitter trends illegal... (god, he's such a fucking moron)
habebe
Member
Mon Nov 16 22:01:31
I don't know what Twitter trends is.

As for Chuck Todd, well, I do hope he gets fired. BUT not by government intervention, just because he doesn't deserve to sit in in Timm Russerts chair.Absolute shill.
habebe
Member
Mon Nov 16 22:02:20
So yes, if Trump wanted to fire Todd through the FCC for talking shit on Trump that would be anti Free speech.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Mon Nov 16 22:10:10
Twitter tracks what topics or phrases are popular at any given time... when Trump does crazy shit, negative trending topics appear as expected... he finds it illegal as he thinks it's rigged (sounds familiar)... and wouldn't be illegal even if rigged... as a president or a half-wit should know


also Trump has called for expanding libel laws so right in same ball park as Stengel on that one
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Nov 17 08:54:43
"And the suggestion that perhaps the ideas of the late 1700s may need to be updated to account for this situation is a threat to the constitution to you?"

Is it out of date, on the specific issue of free speech and saying and doing things that other people get violently upset over? I feel like there are two different questions being mixed here. One is the legal document that is feckless (in reality parts of the democratic process as well) in the face of the avalanch of manufactured "facts" and asorted (increasingly difficult to unravel) bullshit and the other, having the right to burn a book.
jergul
large member
Tue Nov 17 08:56:36
Nimi
The appeal to authority fallacy is vexing, not the principle itself.
Rugian
Member
Tue Nov 17 09:21:09
ITT: a bunch of faggots who literally view the institution of the state as a 21st- century substitute for God accuse freedom-loving Americans of having a religious fidelity to the founding principle of their country.

You people are absolutely insufferable.
Nekran
Member
Tue Nov 17 09:34:33
"a bunch of faggots who literally view the institution of the state as a 21st- century substitute for God"

What a horrible idea... also very baseless. How would that even work? Like... I would worship the state and believe it will take care of me after I die while it doesn't actually exist?

It can't be that, as none of those statements are sensible, but I can't imagine what you do mean.

Considering I did make the religious fidelity accusation you speak of, I'd love to hear your explanation of this view.
hood
Member
Tue Nov 17 10:44:52
Rugian justifies his retardedness by convincing himself that others are also and/or moreso retarded. That's all you really need to understand, Nekran.
obaminated
Member
Tue Nov 17 11:58:03
Just posting to once again point out that woo has bowed out after being questioned.
kargen
Member
Tue Nov 17 23:11:57
"If only there was some institution that could overrule government if it passes legislation that is incompatible with your constitution."

What institution would that be? I hope you are not thinking of the courts because they are a part of the government.
Habebe
Member
Tue Nov 17 23:31:37
Kargen, I think the term is armed populace.
jergul
large member
Wed Nov 18 01:05:45
Kargen
You are usually not that disingenious. Except is discussion of Trump's fitness of course.

Your constitution protects you from government overreach by giving the Supreme court sweeping powers.
kargen
Member
Wed Nov 18 01:31:27
The Supreme court is one of three equal branches according to the constitution.

Thing is there is a good number of Democrats that would have no problem bumping the number of justices up to 12 or more. President-elect Biden probably wouldn't go for that and I hope he has more spine than a lot on the right think he has. That of course would require Democrats flipping the Senate.
I tend to like when the party that has the white house doesn't have congress. Seemed to work best with a Democrat as president and Republicans having both the Senate and the House. With how the Democrats treated President Trump all bets are probably off for a good long while.

And again the Supreme Court is a part of government.
jergul
large member
Wed Nov 18 01:47:39
Kargen
Just stop it. This is getting autistic.

The supreme court protects you from government overreach from the other branches of government.

habebe
Member
Wed Nov 18 05:28:41
"Just stop it. This is getting autistic."

My ears are burning.... and not just because I lit a a-tip and tried to see inside.
Dakyron
Member
Wed Nov 18 09:46:17
"The supreme court protects you from government overreach from the other branches of government. "

Unless the government hides their overreach so you can never have the standing to file a lawsuit.
TJ
Member
Wed Nov 18 11:20:06
Eric Arthur Blair
Forwyn
Member
Wed Nov 18 11:20:06
"The supreme court protects you from government overreach from the other branches of government."

LOL

Gold Clause Cases
Wickard v. Filburn
Kelo v. New London
Korematsu v. US
Gonzales v. Raich

Just to name a few. Horrifically wrong, even by jergul standard.
jergul
large member
Wed Nov 18 12:54:25
Forwyn: Look a black bird! I have proven all birds are black!
Forwyn
Member
Wed Nov 18 13:27:43
Look, my personal idea of what the court should represent trumps what it actually is throughout history!
obaminated
Member
Wed Nov 18 15:00:56
Woo is still hiding.
habebe
Member
Wed Nov 18 15:06:14
"Forwyn: Look a black bird! I have proven all birds are black!"

That's not what he said at all. Now who is being disingenuous?
jergul
large member
Wed Nov 18 15:29:45
Habebe
He is listing 5 cases to prove that the supreme court does not in fact uphold the constitution.

It is exactly what he said.
Dakyron
Member
Wed Nov 18 15:40:57
No, there would be five black birds among a flock of a few thousand.
Forwyn
Member
Wed Nov 18 15:51:22
Selection bias is not inherently negative when discussing a system that relies on the precedent of said cases.

There are more, of course, and a handful of exceptions (generally limited to ensuring equal application of the law in the face of racism or sexism), but in general, SCOTUS has not protected us from overreach of the other branches.

Most often, that overreach is upheld, justified, and enshrined for future generations to use as a template.
Forwyn
Member
Wed Nov 18 15:56:02
But please, tell us more about how the court that justified the Drug War, agricultural quotas (even to feed owned livestock), internment based on race, executive criminalization of gold ownership, asset forfeiture, and commercial eminent domain, created qualified immunity, overturned state term limits, ruled your pastures and yards and forests are not subject to 4A protections, etc etc etc, is protecting us from overreach.

Lulz
obaminated
Member
Wed Nov 18 22:37:29
Woo is still hiding.
Habebe
Member
Wed Nov 18 22:43:17
Obama, Nothing woo posts is worth waiting on, if your really curious just watch some liberal tv talking points on YouTube.
jergul
large member
Thu Nov 19 01:21:25
Forwyn
Its not overreach if upheld by the supreme court. By constitutional definition.

The constitution is a living document. 3 times you are out might eventually prove to be cruel and unusual for example, but not yet for now.
habebe
Member
Thu Nov 19 01:35:37
In all fairness though, even the SC is wrong at times.

At one time in history Negroes would only be 3/5ths of a person while Norweigans would have been considered whole people.
jergul
large member
Thu Nov 19 02:38:00
That was for census purposes. Which in turn determines political power. The clause ultimately weakened slave states politically, giving less representatives and electoral votes than they might otherwise have had.

Habebe
Member
Thu Nov 19 02:44:42
My point was that even today we regard ( legally) Norweigans as 5/5ths of a person which is 3/5ths too much.
Forwyn
Member
Thu Nov 19 03:49:45
"The supreme court protects you from government overreach from the other branches of government.

Its not overreach if upheld by the supreme court."

Lulz

"By constitutional definition."

Care to point to that clause?
jergul
large member
Thu Nov 19 03:50:24
Norwegians are highly overrepresented in your system. 2 Senators for 750 thousand people.

A deep red state of course. We truly did export our huddled masses.

jergul
large member
Thu Nov 19 03:51:57
Forwyn
I cannot help you if you do not understand that the Supreme court has defining power. What is rules is literally what is constitutional.
Forwyn
Member
Thu Nov 19 09:33:12
Right. So you made it up.

Like your invention of overreach protection.
jergul
large member
Thu Nov 19 10:36:27
Like I said, I cannot help you if you do not understand the role of the supreme court.

Its rulings are quite literally the law.
Forwyn
Member
Thu Nov 19 11:42:28
Again. No Constitutional clause to point to.

And a convenient paradox wherein the court protects us from overreach, but never protects us from overreach, because if they enshrine overreach, it's not overreach.

Lulz
jergul
large member
Thu Nov 19 12:38:30
No paradox given the court's power to define. Its literally what it does.
Forwyn
Member
Thu Nov 19 13:04:47
And historically, the handful of times SCOTUS has stopped overreach can be counted on one hand.

Instead they expand and empower and enshrine it, and make it not overreach in jergulmind
jergul
large member
Thu Nov 19 13:35:12
Roe vrs Wade is an example of stopping overreach. There are countless other examples.

Forwyn
Member
Thu Nov 19 13:49:43
Ah yes, that one time they invented a right to trample state rights. lulz

"Countless"

lol

Nice blackbird
jergul
large member
Thu Nov 19 14:46:11
Fowyn
Well, I am not going to count them :D.

Don't be mad at me. I am a firm believer is state rights to the point of disolving the union.

It had a nice run, but seems to make too many people miserable these days.
show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message:
Bookmark and Share