2016 US Presidential Election Thread
-
-
shaft.ed dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- Posts: 4998
- Joined: August 15, 2007
- Location: St. Louis
-
-
CooLDoG Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4575
- Joined: September 2, 2009
- Location: A grand nominal wizard from the peripheral
In post 18, Drench wrote:In post 16, CooLDoG wrote:I can't make myself vote for Hilary because I know she will basically be the same as a generic republican, thus when she gets the now I will not vote in this election, probably. It really depends on what local shit is going down.
???????
??????????????????
??
?????????????
?????????
She is literally performing fellatio for money right now. I am not joking, it is happening. If you think there will be any economic difference between her and fucking rand paul you are wrong. Her stances on social issues are also so safe a mediocre that I can't be bothered to vote for her.after a wank.-
-
SleepyKrew he/himSnark Attackhe/him
- Snark Attack
- Snark Attack
- Posts: 15746
- Joined: April 27, 2011
- Pronoun: he/him
- Location: quack
-
-
Vi Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Posts: 11768
- Joined: June 29, 2008
- Location: GMT-5
this this this this thisIn post 25, shaft.ed wrote:if you want lasting impact of a presidency, then you should be talking about SCOTUS
this is why 2016 is a fight that Dems/humanity can't afford to loseEverything you say and do matters. People will respond in ways you may never see. May those responses be what you intend.-
-
MonkeyMan576 Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7900
- Joined: November 7, 2008
- Location: Colorado Springs, CO
In post 28, Vi wrote:
this this this this thisIn post 25, shaft.ed wrote:if you want lasting impact of a presidency, then you should be talking about SCOTUS
this is why 2016 is a fight that Dems/humanity can't afford to lose
This is pretty much a moot argument, it is said every election.-
-
shaft.ed dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- Posts: 4998
- Joined: August 15, 2007
- Location: St. Louis
In post 29, MonkeyMan576 wrote:In post 28, Vi wrote:
this this this this thisIn post 25, shaft.ed wrote:if you want lasting impact of a presidency, then you should be talking about SCOTUS
this is why 2016 is a fight that Dems/humanity can't afford to lose
This is pretty much a moot argument, it is said every election.
its only a moot argument when SCOTUS isnt ridiculously politicized
The current bench is just doing whatever the fuck it wants
Its also not a moot argument given the ages of some very key positions on the court-
-
MonkeyMan576 Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7900
- Joined: November 7, 2008
- Location: Colorado Springs, CO
In post 30, shaft.ed wrote:In post 29, MonkeyMan576 wrote:In post 28, Vi wrote:
this this this this thisIn post 25, shaft.ed wrote:if you want lasting impact of a presidency, then you should be talking about SCOTUS
this is why 2016 is a fight that Dems/humanity can't afford to lose
This is pretty much a moot argument, it is said every election.
its only a moot argument when SCOTUS isnt ridiculously politicized
The current bench is just doing whatever the fuck it wants
Its also not a moot argument given the ages of some very key positions on the court
True, but SCOTUS judges do what they can to avoid retiring during an administration of the opposite ideology. Of course if they die there is nothing they can do.
And SCOTUS has always been politicized. This will happen when the president nominates the judges and the judges are a check and balance against the other branches as much as a judicial body.
For Example, the last 10 SCOTUS Retirees(as opposed to having died or resigned)
Justice - Nominating Prez - Retirement Prez
David Souter - Bush I - Obama
Sandra Day O Conner - Reagan - Bush II
John Paul Stevens - Ford - Bush II
Lewis F Powell Jr - Nixon - Clinton
Harry Blackmun - Nixon - Clinton
Thurghood Marshall - Johnson - Clinton
Byron White - Kennedy - Clinton
Potter Stewart - Eisenhower - Reagan
William J Brennan Jr - Eisenhower - Bush I
John Marshall Harlann II - Eisenhower - Nixon
So 7 of the last 10 justices to retire retired with a presidident of the same party of the president that elected them.
Also, never in US History has 4 consecutive presidents won reelection and finished both terms(Clinton>Bush>Obama>???), so history is against that happening this time.-
-
AniX NoneUCalledNone
- UCalled
- UCalled
- Posts: 3509
- Joined: September 14, 2003
- Pronoun: None
In post 31, MonkeyMan576 wrote:In post 30, shaft.ed wrote:In post 29, MonkeyMan576 wrote:In post 28, Vi wrote:
this this this this thisIn post 25, shaft.ed wrote:if you want lasting impact of a presidency, then you should be talking about SCOTUS
this is why 2016 is a fight that Dems/humanity can't afford to lose
This is pretty much a moot argument, it is said every election.
its only a moot argument when SCOTUS isnt ridiculously politicized
The current bench is just doing whatever the fuck it wants
Its also not a moot argument given the ages of some very key positions on the court
True, but SCOTUS judges do what they can to avoid retiring during an administration of the opposite ideology. Of course if they die there is nothing they can do.
And SCOTUS has always been politicized. This will happen when the president nominates the judges and the judges are a check and balance against the other branches as much as a judicial body.
For Example, the last 10 SCOTUS Retirees(as opposed to having died or resigned)
Justice - Nominating Prez - Retirement Prez
David Souter - Bush I - Obama
Sandra Day O Conner - Reagan - Bush II
John Paul Stevens - Ford - Bush II
Lewis F Powell Jr - Nixon - Clinton
Harry Blackmun - Nixon - Clinton
Thurghood Marshall - Johnson - Clinton
Byron White - Kennedy - Clinton
Potter Stewart - Eisenhower - Reagan
William J Brennan Jr - Eisenhower - Bush I
John Marshall Harlann II - Eisenhower - Nixon
So 7 of the last 10 justices to retire retired with a presidident of the same party of the president that elected them.
Also, never in US History has 4 consecutive presidents won reelection and finished both terms(Clinton>Bush>Obama>???), so history is against that happening this time.
Are you really of the opinion Stevens and Brennan were rubbing their hands going "I better resign now or a LIBERAL might take my seat"?Official Gimmick List:
INVENTOR OF UPICK!LORD OF THE 11TH HOUR!ASEXUAL!KING SCAR APOLOGIST!DREAMER OF THE NE0N DREAM (SUPP 2021 LAST PLACE WINNER)!
I have donned theRED CROWN-
-
zoraster He/HimDisorganized CrimeHe/Him
- Disorganized Crime
- Disorganized Crime
- Posts: 21680
- Joined: June 10, 2008
- Pronoun: He/Him
- Location: Belmont, CA
In post 31, MonkeyMan576 wrote:Also, never in US History has 4 consecutive presidents won reelection and finished both terms(Clinton>Bush>Obama>???), so history is against that happening this time.
This is kind of a nonsense stat for predictive purposes. Is it REALLY less likey? If I flip a coin 4 times, it is unlikely to end up heads every single time. But if I've flipped 3 heads it's still 50/50 i'll get a heads next time.
Unless you can come up with a cogent theory on WHY this is a phenomenon, given the small sample size (43 presidents [not counting Cleveland twice]) this isn't very convincing..-
-
AniX NoneUCalledNone
- UCalled
- UCalled
- Posts: 3509
- Joined: September 14, 2003
- Pronoun: None
In post 33, zoraster wrote:In post 31, MonkeyMan576 wrote:Also, never in US History has 4 consecutive presidents won reelection and finished both terms(Clinton>Bush>Obama>???), so history is against that happening this time.
This is kind of a nonsense stat for predictive purposes. Is it REALLY less likey? If I flip a coin 4 times, it is unlikely to end up heads every single time. But if I've flipped 3 heads it's still 50/50 i'll get a heads next time.
Unless you can come up with a cogent theory on WHY this is a phenomenon, given the small sample size (43 presidents [not counting Cleveland twice]) this isn't very convincing.
To say nothing of the fact that people in the past got sick more and died earlier, it isn't all that surprising that historically we haven't seen a sequence of four old men going a full eight years at a hyper-stressful job.Official Gimmick List:
INVENTOR OF UPICK!LORD OF THE 11TH HOUR!ASEXUAL!KING SCAR APOLOGIST!DREAMER OF THE NE0N DREAM (SUPP 2021 LAST PLACE WINNER)!
I have donned theRED CROWN-
-
Aeronaut He/HimJack of All TradesHe/Him
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7236
- Joined: September 8, 2013
- Pronoun: He/Him
- Location: Boston, MA
In post 26, CooLDoG wrote:In post 18, Drench wrote:In post 16, CooLDoG wrote:I can't make myself vote for Hilary because I know she will basically be the same as a generic republican, thus when she gets the now I will not vote in this election, probably. It really depends on what local shit is going down.
???????
??????????????????
??
?????????????
?????????
She is literally performing fellatio for money right now. I am not joking, it is happening. If you think there will be any economic difference between her and fucking rand paul you are wrong. Her stances on social issues are also so safe a mediocre that I can't be bothered to vote for her.
Eh, yea, I really don't know who I'm voting. It's the first time I've been able to, so that's kind of new.
I really kind of just wanted Chris Christie, but that's kind of down the shitter at this point
Hillary is OK, but also hasn't really wowed me or done much to make me see her as a president who's going to be any different (besides being female, o/c)2023 W/L | 1-0-
-
MonkeyMan576 Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7900
- Joined: November 7, 2008
- Location: Colorado Springs, CO
In post 32, AniX wrote:In post 31, MonkeyMan576 wrote:In post 30, shaft.ed wrote:In post 29, MonkeyMan576 wrote:In post 28, Vi wrote:
this this this this thisIn post 25, shaft.ed wrote:if you want lasting impact of a presidency, then you should be talking about SCOTUS
this is why 2016 is a fight that Dems/humanity can't afford to lose
This is pretty much a moot argument, it is said every election.
its only a moot argument when SCOTUS isnt ridiculously politicized
The current bench is just doing whatever the fuck it wants
Its also not a moot argument given the ages of some very key positions on the court
True, but SCOTUS judges do what they can to avoid retiring during an administration of the opposite ideology. Of course if they die there is nothing they can do.
And SCOTUS has always been politicized. This will happen when the president nominates the judges and the judges are a check and balance against the other branches as much as a judicial body.
For Example, the last 10 SCOTUS Retirees(as opposed to having died or resigned)
Justice - Nominating Prez - Retirement Prez
David Souter - Bush I - Obama
Sandra Day O Conner - Reagan - Bush II
John Paul Stevens - Ford - Bush II
Lewis F Powell Jr - Nixon - Clinton
Harry Blackmun - Nixon - Clinton
Thurghood Marshall - Johnson - Clinton
Byron White - Kennedy - Clinton
Potter Stewart - Eisenhower - Reagan
William J Brennan Jr - Eisenhower - Bush I
John Marshall Harlann II - Eisenhower - Nixon
So 7 of the last 10 justices to retire retired with a presidident of the same party of the president that elected them.
Also, never in US History has 4 consecutive presidents won reelection and finished both terms(Clinton>Bush>Obama>???), so history is against that happening this time.
Are you really of the opinion Stevens and Brennan were rubbing their hands going "I better resign now or a LIBERAL might take my seat"?
I am of the opinion that justices don't want their retirement to cause a major shift of ideology on the court.
http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2014/04/24/s ... retirement
YOUNG: But what about this idea that justices consider who their replacement might be? Ruth Marcus(ph) writes about the Washington Post, and she says of course justices can't be insensitive to the identity of their successors because they care about their work, and they want to care about who will pick up or, as she writes, dismantle it. The late Chief Justice William Rehnquist has said in the past that it's not 100 percent true that they calculate, but sometimes they do.
What about that calculation, thinking about who the president will be when they retire?
TOTENBERG: Well, I think that they must think about it, but they also think about themselves and their contributions and whether they want to stay and think they have something yet to contribute, perhaps even more to contribute.
Here is another article supporting my argument:
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/poli ... reme-court
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer should soon retire. That would be the responsible thing for them to do. Both have served with distinction on the Supreme Court for a substantial period of time; Ginsburg for almost 18 years, Breyer for 17. Both are unlikely to be able to outlast a two-term Republican presidential administration, should one supersede the Obama administration following the 2012 election. What’s more, both are, well, old: Ginsburg is now 78, the senior sitting justice. Breyer is 72.
Is such a suggestion an illicit politicization of the Court? No. It is simply a plea for realism, which is often difficult to muster in the face of the idolatry that suffuses popular thinking about the justices and their role in American democracy. There is no question that the justices are often strategic in deciding when to depart the bench, even if they are quiet about their aims.
zoraster wrote:
This is kind of a nonsense stat for predictive purposes. Is it REALLY less likey? If I flip a coin 4 times, it is unlikely to end up heads every single time. But if I've flipped 3 heads it's still 50/50 i'll get a heads next time.
Unless you can come up with a cogent theory on WHY this is a phenomenon, given the small sample size (43 presidents [not counting Cleveland twice]) this isn't very convincing.
I'm not saying that it's less likely statistics wise, I'm saying that it's unlikely for it to have happened to 3 consecutive presidents, and I wouldn't be surprised for something to happen to the next sitting president from a historical perspective to cause them not to be reelected, especially considering Bush and Obama have had issues towards the end of their presidency.
The Republican party is stronger than the mainstream media makes them out to be, so, for example, if Hillary is elected, it all depends on the viability of the 2020 GOP candidate.-
-
AniX NoneUCalledNone
- UCalled
- UCalled
- Posts: 3509
- Joined: September 14, 2003
- Pronoun: None
In post 36, MonkeyMan576 wrote:In post 32, AniX wrote:In post 31, MonkeyMan576 wrote:In post 30, shaft.ed wrote:In post 29, MonkeyMan576 wrote:In post 28, Vi wrote:
this this this this thisIn post 25, shaft.ed wrote:if you want lasting impact of a presidency, then you should be talking about SCOTUS
this is why 2016 is a fight that Dems/humanity can't afford to lose
This is pretty much a moot argument, it is said every election.
its only a moot argument when SCOTUS isnt ridiculously politicized
The current bench is just doing whatever the fuck it wants
Its also not a moot argument given the ages of some very key positions on the court
True, but SCOTUS judges do what they can to avoid retiring during an administration of the opposite ideology. Of course if they die there is nothing they can do.
And SCOTUS has always been politicized. This will happen when the president nominates the judges and the judges are a check and balance against the other branches as much as a judicial body.
For Example, the last 10 SCOTUS Retirees(as opposed to having died or resigned)
Justice - Nominating Prez - Retirement Prez
David Souter - Bush I - Obama
Sandra Day O Conner - Reagan - Bush II
John Paul Stevens - Ford - Bush II
Lewis F Powell Jr - Nixon - Clinton
Harry Blackmun - Nixon - Clinton
Thurghood Marshall - Johnson - Clinton
Byron White - Kennedy - Clinton
Potter Stewart - Eisenhower - Reagan
William J Brennan Jr - Eisenhower - Bush I
John Marshall Harlann II - Eisenhower - Nixon
So 7 of the last 10 justices to retire retired with a presidident of the same party of the president that elected them.
Also, never in US History has 4 consecutive presidents won reelection and finished both terms(Clinton>Bush>Obama>???), so history is against that happening this time.
Are you really of the opinion Stevens and Brennan were rubbing their hands going "I better resign now or a LIBERAL might take my seat"?
I am of the opinion that justices don't want their retirement to cause a major shift of ideology on the court.
http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2014/04/24/s ... retirement
YOUNG: But what about this idea that justices consider who their replacement might be? Ruth Marcus(ph) writes about the Washington Post, and she says of course justices can't be insensitive to the identity of their successors because they care about their work, and they want to care about who will pick up or, as she writes, dismantle it. The late Chief Justice William Rehnquist has said in the past that it's not 100 percent true that they calculate, but sometimes they do.
What about that calculation, thinking about who the president will be when they retire?
TOTENBERG: Well, I think that they must think about it, but they also think about themselves and their contributions and whether they want to stay and think they have something yet to contribute, perhaps even more to contribute.
You misunderstand. I'm not saying the justices don't care about who replaces them, I'm saying that if those justices were basing their retirements off getting a President who agreed with them, those two were so exceedingly liberal they certainly wouldn't have done so during Bush II. Sometimes elderly people need to retire. Let's not mistake correlation with causation, especially given there are only two choices.Official Gimmick List:
INVENTOR OF UPICK!LORD OF THE 11TH HOUR!ASEXUAL!KING SCAR APOLOGIST!DREAMER OF THE NE0N DREAM (SUPP 2021 LAST PLACE WINNER)!
I have donned theRED CROWN-
-
MonkeyMan576 Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7900
- Joined: November 7, 2008
- Location: Colorado Springs, CO
In post 37, AniX wrote:In post 36, MonkeyMan576 wrote:In post 32, AniX wrote:In post 31, MonkeyMan576 wrote:In post 30, shaft.ed wrote:In post 29, MonkeyMan576 wrote:In post 28, Vi wrote:
this this this this thisIn post 25, shaft.ed wrote:if you want lasting impact of a presidency, then you should be talking about SCOTUS
this is why 2016 is a fight that Dems/humanity can't afford to lose
This is pretty much a moot argument, it is said every election.
its only a moot argument when SCOTUS isnt ridiculously politicized
The current bench is just doing whatever the fuck it wants
Its also not a moot argument given the ages of some very key positions on the court
True, but SCOTUS judges do what they can to avoid retiring during an administration of the opposite ideology. Of course if they die there is nothing they can do.
And SCOTUS has always been politicized. This will happen when the president nominates the judges and the judges are a check and balance against the other branches as much as a judicial body.
For Example, the last 10 SCOTUS Retirees(as opposed to having died or resigned)
Justice - Nominating Prez - Retirement Prez
David Souter - Bush I - Obama
Sandra Day O Conner - Reagan - Bush II
John Paul Stevens - Ford - Bush II
Lewis F Powell Jr - Nixon - Clinton
Harry Blackmun - Nixon - Clinton
Thurghood Marshall - Johnson - Clinton
Byron White - Kennedy - Clinton
Potter Stewart - Eisenhower - Reagan
William J Brennan Jr - Eisenhower - Bush I
John Marshall Harlann II - Eisenhower - Nixon
So 7 of the last 10 justices to retire retired with a presidident of the same party of the president that elected them.
Also, never in US History has 4 consecutive presidents won reelection and finished both terms(Clinton>Bush>Obama>???), so history is against that happening this time.
Are you really of the opinion Stevens and Brennan were rubbing their hands going "I better resign now or a LIBERAL might take my seat"?
I am of the opinion that justices don't want their retirement to cause a major shift of ideology on the court.
http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2014/04/24/s ... retirement
YOUNG: But what about this idea that justices consider who their replacement might be? Ruth Marcus(ph) writes about the Washington Post, and she says of course justices can't be insensitive to the identity of their successors because they care about their work, and they want to care about who will pick up or, as she writes, dismantle it. The late Chief Justice William Rehnquist has said in the past that it's not 100 percent true that they calculate, but sometimes they do.
What about that calculation, thinking about who the president will be when they retire?
TOTENBERG: Well, I think that they must think about it, but they also think about themselves and their contributions and whether they want to stay and think they have something yet to contribute, perhaps even more to contribute.
You misunderstand. I'm not saying the justices don't care about who replaces them, I'm saying that if those justices were basing their retirements off getting a President who agreed with them, those two were so exceedingly liberal they certainly wouldn't have done so during Bush II. Sometimes elderly people need to retire. Let's not mistake correlation with causation, especially given there are only two choices.
I was making a general statement, not saying it qualifies for every justice. Some obviously more so than others.-
-
Drench he/himcrucial waukesha voterhe/him
- crucial waukesha voter
- crucial waukesha voter
- Posts: 1834
- Joined: September 25, 2008
- Pronoun: he/him
- Location: crucial waukesha county
In post 26, CooLDoG wrote:In post 18, Drench wrote:In post 16, CooLDoG wrote:I can't make myself vote for Hilary because I know she will basically be the same as a generic republican, thus when she gets the now I will not vote in this election, probably. It really depends on what local shit is going down.
???????
??????????????????
??
?????????????
?????????
She is literally performing fellatio for money right now. I am not joking, it is happening. If you think there will be any economic difference between her and fucking rand paul you are wrong. Her stances on social issues are also so safe a mediocre that I can't be bothered to vote for her.
talking to you is like travelling to a parallel universe honestlyjoin your union-
-
AniX NoneUCalledNone
- UCalled
- UCalled
- Posts: 3509
- Joined: September 14, 2003
- Pronoun: None
In post 38, MonkeyMan576 wrote:
I was making a general statement, not saying it qualifies for every justice. Some obviously more so than others.
But as many Justices on your list who were appointed and retired under the same party DISAGREE with the party they retired under as agree with the party. I don't think even your general statement stands up.Official Gimmick List:
INVENTOR OF UPICK!LORD OF THE 11TH HOUR!ASEXUAL!KING SCAR APOLOGIST!DREAMER OF THE NE0N DREAM (SUPP 2021 LAST PLACE WINNER)!
I have donned theRED CROWN-
-
Sudo_Nym Pseudo Newbie
- Pseudo Newbie
- Pseudo Newbie
- Posts: 1144
- Joined: March 12, 2007
- Location: Washington
In post 39, Drench wrote:In post 26, CooLDoG wrote:In post 18, Drench wrote:In post 16, CooLDoG wrote:I can't make myself vote for Hilary because I know she will basically be the same as a generic republican, thus when she gets the now I will not vote in this election, probably. It really depends on what local shit is going down.
???????
??????????????????
??
?????????????
?????????
She is literally performing fellatio for money right now. I am not joking, it is happening. If you think there will be any economic difference between her and fucking rand paul you are wrong. Her stances on social issues are also so safe a mediocre that I can't be bothered to vote for her.
talking to you is like travelling to a parallel universe honestly
And then playing chess with your clone.One time, back in 'nam, Sudo was set upon by an entire squadron of charlies. He challenged them all to a game of Pictionary, which he won resoundingly. The charlies were forced to not only surrender the skirmish, but also their world-famous chili recipe, which Sudo sold to Texas for a hefty profit. Sudo is a master of diplomacy.-
-
shaft.ed dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- Posts: 4998
- Joined: August 15, 2007
- Location: St. Louis
-
-
Aeronaut He/HimJack of All TradesHe/Him
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7236
- Joined: September 8, 2013
- Pronoun: He/Him
- Location: Boston, MA
Before he became bridge-mafia don, I mean. I feel like he'd be a stronger leader foreign relations wise, mostly.
I'm also an independant and don't really lean either direction, because I honestly think going into an election with the ideal of "I will only vote this party" is sort of silly; if you like some of what the candidate on the other side is saying, then keeping an open mind is really the best thing to do.2023 W/L | 1-0-
-
shaft.ed dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- Posts: 4998
- Joined: August 15, 2007
- Location: St. Louis
In post 43, Aeronaut wrote:Before he became bridge-mafia don, I mean
he's always been that guy
he has decades long track record of this behavior
I also dont know what "stronger on foreign relations" you would expect from a guy like Christie. Maybe more of an asshole, but I wouldnt call that a strength-
-
OhGodMyLife Silent But Deadly
- Silent But Deadly
- Silent But Deadly
- Posts: 4352
- Joined: February 28, 2006
- Location: Riding on the City of New Orleans
-
-
OhGodMyLife Silent But Deadly
- Silent But Deadly
- Silent But Deadly
- Posts: 4352
- Joined: February 28, 2006
- Location: Riding on the City of New Orleans
-
-
zoraster He/HimDisorganized CrimeHe/Him
- Disorganized Crime
- Disorganized Crime
- Posts: 21680
- Joined: June 10, 2008
- Pronoun: He/Him
- Location: Belmont, CA
-
-
Sudo_Nym Pseudo Newbie
- Pseudo Newbie
- Pseudo Newbie
- Posts: 1144
- Joined: March 12, 2007
- Location: Washington
I'm hoping this is Nader's year.One time, back in 'nam, Sudo was set upon by an entire squadron of charlies. He challenged them all to a game of Pictionary, which he won resoundingly. The charlies were forced to not only surrender the skirmish, but also their world-famous chili recipe, which Sudo sold to Texas for a hefty profit. Sudo is a master of diplomacy.-
-
MonkeyMan576 Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7900
- Joined: November 7, 2008
- Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Copyright © MafiaScum. All rights reserved.