Home · Maps · About

Home > OTChat

[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]

[1 2 3 4]

< Previous Page  

Page 3 of 4

Next Page >  

(913170)

view threaded

Re: Re: ality gap

Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sun Feb 26 15:16:51 2012, in response to Re: Re: ality gap, posted by bingbong on Sun Feb 26 13:54:59 2012.

Overpopulation is not imagined,when there is a drought, war or crop failure the starvation is very very real. And avoidable.

That's a distribution/transportation problem, *not* a population problem. There is plenty of food/nutrients and space to produce it. It's just not getting to people who need it. Having less babies stateside isn't going to magically give a starving kid in Africa more food.

Post a New Response

(913174)

view threaded

Re: Re: ality gap

Posted by JayMan on Sun Feb 26 15:20:43 2012, in response to Re: Re: ality gap, posted by bingbong on Sun Feb 26 13:54:59 2012.

I forgot to make clear in my response to you that I have no problem with birth control and am in fact all for it. It's especially important to bring it to parts of the Third World, particularly Africa.

That said, my main point was against the importance you give "overpopulation" as being the reason we need birth control (which is true in some instances) and against, more importantly, the mentality you seem to have on the subject, which mistakes their overpopulation for our (lack of) overpopulation.

How about being able to feed these children? Just the economic hardship (relative) the past few years raise the concern of unfettered reproduction.

The numbers in the developed world speak for themselves. It's clearly not a problem, and if anything quite the opposite.

A primary source of that economic hardship (and the primary reason this "recovery" will only be temporary) is because of the poor fertility among the productive groups in society; i.e., the exact opposite of what you claim.

Existing children need to be cared for first.

Agreed, but...

Family size must be kept to a maintainable level.

What do you think that size is in the developed world? A sizable percentage of people (mostly people who unfortunately think about this like you do) can easily afford to support many more children than they're currently having (like the Commander-in-chief himself, and his preceding Democrating President). The world would not suffer if well-educated and accomplished people reproduced more, even they did so much more.

Obviously I think Santorum is nuts (because he is nuts). And I believe birth control is here to stay, as it should. The problem I have is when educated, productive individuals feel (who, really, are pretty much the only ones who do feel this way) they need to curb their own reproduction because of "overpopulation". Their population isn't overpopulated. As well, the people who are actually causing overpopulation don't feel that way, nor will most of them.

In Third World countries, contraceptives are incredibly popular when available, as it enables families to focus even the most meager available resources on already existing children. Many medical advances are available even there....especially those which fight childhood disease, immunization, so your point about replacement value is well outdated.

You need to visit some of these hellholes sometime. Yes, in the "developing" parts, where a middle class of sorts is emerging, some of those things are coming to pass. In a lot of others however, it is still very much a Malthusian trap, where large families and high childhood mortality is the rule. And even better, this just serves to amplify the problem: the people who are curbing their fertility in these developing nations are typically the more highly-educated and productive (i.e., high-IQ) individuals, replicating the same problems the world as whole is having on that scale.

As malaria and dysentery deaths are now being minimized through well funded focus on these plagues, the need for contraceptives will be universal.

Agreed. Let's hope that this happens fast enough though.

Overpopulation is not imagined,when there is a drought, war or crop failure the starvation is very very real. And avoidable.

Yes, but I think you're turned around on where it is a real threat. Overpopulation is a problem of the Third World, not the First. The First World suffers from severe depopulation (true even in the United States—population growth here is driven entirely by minorities, mostly Hispanics), a problem that will only grow.

The way to fight lunatics like Santorum is to let him win the nomination and get crushed in the general not to tout the importance of birth control to fight "overpopulation," because in America and the rest of the developed world, that is far from being a problem. But the battle over birth control really isn't about birth control, but other issues. Ultimately it is about fertility. White Americans have one of the highest fertility rates among European-descended populations around the world, and most of that is in the red states. People like Santorum, Romney, the Duggars, and the Bachmanns demonstrate this: in general, conservatives are more fecund. They feel that birth control is a threat to their survival is it might drive their fertility—already dipping underwater (below ~2.05 children per child-baring woman total lifetime fertility) may sink further, leading to a population crash which is already happening in the blue states in the rest of the Euro-world. I'm not sure if birth control is really to blame for that, but to be sure, individuals holding off on having children when they have the means to support such children because of "overpopulation" in far-off lands doesn't help this.

Post a New Response

(913175)

view threaded

Re: Re: ality gap

Posted by JayMan on Sun Feb 26 15:21:32 2012, in response to Re: Re: ality gap, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sun Feb 26 15:16:51 2012.

Haha a much simpler way of saying what I said in my post. ;)

Post a New Response

(913178)

view threaded

Re: Re ality gap

Posted by JayMan on Sun Feb 26 15:27:11 2012, in response to Re: Re ality gap, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Sun Feb 26 14:13:19 2012.

Good point. I guess they're just fucked. As much I hate to say it, maybe Olog was on to something about this EU thing (because the Eastern European nations, despite having abysmal fertility rates, don't have economies that are in the toilet like the PIGS because no one was pumping cash to EE to fund unsustainable spending there, unlike the PIIGS).

Post a New Response

(G00GLE)

Re: Re: ality gap


(913198)

view threaded

Re: GOP Super Tuesday: LOLwut?

Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Feb 26 16:45:35 2012, in response to Re: GOP Super Tuesday: LOLwut?, posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Feb 26 12:23:34 2012.

Heh. Saved me some typing there ... absolutely correct. AND (EIN/tax ID number: 53-0196620) to boot. For those who do not know what an EIN is, it's EMPLOYER Identification Number. EMPLOYER.

Thanks, guy! :)

Post a New Response

(913199)

view threaded

Re: GOP Super Tuesday: LOLwut?

Posted by bingbong on Sun Feb 26 16:50:15 2012, in response to Re: GOP Super Tuesday: LOLwut?, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Feb 26 14:12:26 2012.

Which has nothing, nada to do with corporate status. Or the obligation of the corporation to follow the law.

Why don't you just give up on this? You guys lost the war on sex. Get over it.

Post a New Response

(913200)

view threaded

Re: GOP Super Tuesday: LOLwut?

Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Feb 26 16:53:02 2012, in response to Re: GOP Super Tuesday: LOLwut?, posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Feb 26 13:02:54 2012.

There are many types of corporations whose "purpose for incorporation" may vary. But under the law, they're all the same. And that goes for EMPLOYERS under LABOR laws in particular. If the church doesn't want to comply with labor rules, then they are free to not have employees and put priests and nuns behind the desks. Then there would be no issue.

But one you have employees, you're required to follow the law.

Post a New Response

(913201)

view threaded

Re: GOP Super Zogby: LOLwut?

Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Feb 26 16:54:09 2012, in response to Re: GOP Super Zogby: LOLwut?, posted by Fred G on Sun Feb 26 13:17:54 2012.

Ah for the good old days when republicans were business people instead of carnival barkers. :)

Post a New Response

(913205)

view threaded

Re: Re: ality gap

Posted by bingbong on Sun Feb 26 17:01:23 2012, in response to Re: Re: ality gap, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sun Feb 26 15:16:51 2012.

That may be true,however when the African mother can control the number of children *she* has (and where ever contraceptives are available they are used in numbers paralleling AmericanCatholics - 98%) you can bet she won't have more than she can feed.

Post a New Response

(913211)

view threaded

Re: Re: ality gap

Posted by bingbong on Sun Feb 26 17:16:04 2012, in response to Re: Re: ality gap, posted by JayMan on Sun Feb 26 15:20:43 2012.

You don't get it. Women do NOT want to spend their lives pregnant. It takes a toll on the body. It makes one unable to work, and unsuitable for the workplace. Time off for sick care and obligations is still not looked upon favorably in the workplace, which has an impact on women's ability to earn and succeed in a career. Obligations for one or two are barely tolerated, usually hold the woman back from advancement, and that is reflected in subpar pay/compensation.

Conservatives don't necessarily have more children, they use contraceptives just as much as anyone else. They're just less happy about just about everything. Look at Sanitorium, that's one unhappy person.

Post a New Response

(913215)

view threaded

Re: GOP Super Zogby: LOLwut?

Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Feb 26 17:19:27 2012, in response to Re: GOP Super Zogby: LOLwut?, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Feb 26 13:11:17 2012.

Zogby's a republican? :)

Post a New Response

(913217)

view threaded

Re: GOP Super Tuesday: LOLwut?

Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Feb 26 17:22:12 2012, in response to Re: GOP Super Tuesday: LOLwut?, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Feb 26 14:12:26 2012.

Let's stop with the "organization" crap ... churches can do organizations without filing any paperwork. This is a CORPORATION which is chartered by, and acts on behalf of GOVERNMENT. They didn't have to incorporate, they DID and thus are held to the requirements of any other government chartered corporation like PBS.

Post a New Response

(913219)

view threaded

Re: GOP Super Tuesday: LOLwut?

Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Feb 26 17:23:51 2012, in response to Re: GOP Super Tuesday: LOLwut?, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Feb 26 13:29:06 2012.

It IS a business! And it's an EMPLOYER too!

EIN, bro ... EIN ...

Post a New Response

(913221)

view threaded

Re: GOP Super Tuesday: LOLwut?

Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Feb 26 17:27:22 2012, in response to Re: GOP Super Tuesday: LOLwut?, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Feb 26 12:31:07 2012.

No, always. Government charter, limited liability. Communist Party USA was also a corporation. How's that for a mind fuck? :)

Post a New Response

(913225)

view threaded

Re: GOP Super Tuesday: LOLwut?

Posted by JayZeeBMT on Sun Feb 26 17:32:47 2012, in response to Re: GOP Super Tuesday: LOLwut?, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Feb 26 17:27:22 2012.

Does that mean that the CPUSA was a "person", too, with unlimited ability to make PAC contributions? LOL!



Post a New Response

(913229)

view threaded

Re: GOP Super Tuesday: LOLwut?

Posted by RockParkMan on Sun Feb 26 17:38:34 2012, in response to Re: GOP Super Tuesday: LOLwut?, posted by JayZeeBMT on Sun Feb 26 17:32:47 2012.

Was?

http://www.cpusa.org/

The bunch that is as left as Olog is on the Right.

Post a New Response

(913235)

view threaded

Re: GOP Super Tuesday: LOLwut?

Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Feb 26 17:43:13 2012, in response to Re: GOP Super Tuesday: LOLwut?, posted by RockParkMan on Sun Feb 26 17:38:34 2012.

Still embracing Jew-killers, are you?

Post a New Response

(913236)

view threaded

Re: GOP Super Tuesday: LOLwut?

Posted by RockParkMan on Sun Feb 26 17:44:11 2012, in response to Re: GOP Super Tuesday: LOLwut?, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Feb 26 17:43:13 2012.

Those commies I posted the URL to are as fucked up as you are.

Post a New Response

(913237)

view threaded

Re: Re: ality gap

Posted by JayMan on Sun Feb 26 17:44:51 2012, in response to Re: Re: ality gap, posted by bingbong on Sun Feb 26 17:16:04 2012.

Women do NOT want to spend their lives pregnant. It takes a toll on the body.

That's what women's bodies are for. Women's lib is great, and I support it, but let's not lose sight of basic natural facts.

It makes one unable to work, and unsuitable for the workplace. Time off for sick care and obligations is still not looked upon favorably in the workplace, which has an impact on women's ability to earn and succeed in a career.

Perhaps those two conflicting factors are supposed to be in conflict. I don't know what the cause of the poor fertility in the developed world is, but it could be that the conflict between work and family is keeping fertility down, which is suggested by...

Conservatives don't necessarily have more children, they use contraceptives just as much as anyone else.

Again, the numbers speak for themselves. Fertility is higher in red states, and it seems to increase as one goes up the wealth scale:
Adam Carstens of North Star Leadership Group looked up some useful information in the General Social Survey database. He found that for incomes below $50k (in 1998), white Republicans only have a very small advantage in number of children over white Democrats. But at higher incomes, Republicans have significantly more children. For example, white "Strong Republicans" with incomes of $50k or more average 2.16 children versus 1.62 children for white Democrats of either "Strong" or "Not Strong" fervency of the same income range. That's 1/3 more children.

At $90k and above, "Strong Republicans" average 2.47 children versus 2.04 kids for "Not Strong Republicans," and 1.56 for Democrats as a whole. The sample sizes are little small for slicing and dicing too narrowly, but the pattern seems apparent.

It'll be my guess that greater marriage stability (which weighs on women's decision to have children) X greater religious fervor (no opposition to large families in principle) X greater incidence of stay-at-home moms (as per you comment on women in the work place) is responsible for these results. I suppose I might take a new look at the GSS data to see if the pattern holds as of late. But my point is not that women need to "spend their lives pregnant", but that people of means and health shouldn't curb the number of children they have (unless you are Santorum, that could have done us a favor) because of "overpopulation" and ideally not because of the demands of their careers. I admit the latter is easier said than done.

Post a New Response

(913244)

view threaded

Re: GOP Super Tuesday: LOLwut?

Posted by JayZeeBMT on Sun Feb 26 17:52:58 2012, in response to Re: GOP Super Tuesday: LOLwut?, posted by RockParkMan on Sun Feb 26 17:38:34 2012.

Too far left for me...and if you think about it, Soviet-style Communism was RIGHTIST, not LEFTIST in its administration...

Post a New Response

(913251)

view threaded

Re: Re: ality gap

Posted by bingbong on Sun Feb 26 18:01:23 2012, in response to Re: Re: ality gap, posted by JayMan on Sun Feb 26 17:44:51 2012.

They also are accompanied by higher healthcare expenses, lower wages, poverty and hunger. Education goes underfunded. The things they go to the government to fund programs for, which they then decry and attempt to cut. Take contraception out of the pot and you'll have needless, pointless starvation.

Post a New Response

(913252)

view threaded

Re: GOP Super Tuesday: LOLwut?

Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Feb 26 18:02:02 2012, in response to Re: GOP Super Tuesday: LOLwut?, posted by JayZeeBMT on Sun Feb 26 17:32:47 2012.

Indeed! Much to Olog's chagrin given that he's been their biggest advertiser. :)



Post a New Response

(913253)

view threaded

Re: Re: ality gap

Posted by JayZeeBMT on Sun Feb 26 18:02:47 2012, in response to Re: Re: ality gap, posted by JayMan on Sun Feb 26 17:44:51 2012.

That's what women's bodies are for.

You're not married, are you, because if your wife ever saw that statement, you'd be eating your meals through a straw, after she clobbered you across the face with a lead pipe! LOL!

Post a New Response

(913258)

view threaded

Re: Re: ality gap

Posted by RockParkMan on Sun Feb 26 18:08:55 2012, in response to Re: Re: ality gap, posted by JayZeeBMT on Sun Feb 26 18:02:47 2012.

Geez, Nate. most women aren't THAT violent.
OTOH,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWiajiC69po

Post a New Response

(913260)

view threaded

Re: Re: ality gap

Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Feb 26 18:12:51 2012, in response to Re: Re: ality gap, posted by JayZeeBMT on Sun Feb 26 18:02:47 2012.

Heh. Bingbong was so happy to see that, I got some. :)

Post a New Response

(913263)

view threaded

Re: Re: ality gap

Posted by JayZeeBMT on Sun Feb 26 18:15:09 2012, in response to Re: Re: ality gap, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Feb 26 18:12:51 2012.

LOL!!!

Post a New Response

(913266)

view threaded

Re: GOP Super Tuesday: LOLwut?

Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Feb 26 18:54:16 2012, in response to Re: GOP Super Tuesday: LOLwut?, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Feb 26 16:45:35 2012.

Yes, it's workers aren't volunteers, the point?

Post a New Response

(913267)

view threaded

Re: GOP Super Tuesday: LOLwut?

Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Feb 26 18:55:45 2012, in response to Re: GOP Super Tuesday: LOLwut?, posted by bingbong on Sun Feb 26 16:50:15 2012.

There is no war on sex. It's only an issue to people like you. Where have I ever said birth control is bad? I put condoms out with the kitchen trash as much as anyone. Don't know how you seem to blanket everyone with the same point.

Post a New Response

(913268)

view threaded

Re: GOP Super Tuesday: LOLwut?

Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Feb 26 18:56:12 2012, in response to Re: GOP Super Tuesday: LOLwut?, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Feb 26 18:54:16 2012.

The point is that Catholic Charities is a US Government chartered corporate entity, not a church. So you can kiss that argument byebye.

Post a New Response

(913272)

view threaded

Re: GOP Super Tuesday: LOLwut?

Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Feb 26 18:59:29 2012, in response to Re: GOP Super Tuesday: LOLwut?, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Feb 26 17:23:51 2012.

Of course they are an employer, my cousin is an employee of theirs. So?

Post a New Response

(913275)

view threaded

Re: GOP Super Tuesday: LOLwut?

Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Feb 26 19:07:02 2012, in response to Re: GOP Super Tuesday: LOLwut?, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Feb 26 18:59:29 2012.

You seem to continue to argue that it isn't a corporation, isn't an employer and isn't subject to labor law because it's a church. It isn't.

Post a New Response

(913283)

view threaded

Re: GOP Super Tuesday: LOLwut?

Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Feb 26 19:17:00 2012, in response to Re: GOP Super Tuesday: LOLwut?, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Feb 26 18:55:45 2012.

There is no war on sex

She must think so. Member of the Senior Anti-Sex League perhaps?

Post a New Response

(913285)

view threaded

Re: GOP Super Tuesday: LOLwut?

Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Feb 26 19:19:20 2012, in response to Re: GOP Super Tuesday: LOLwut?, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Feb 26 18:56:12 2012.

It's a non profit religious organization.

Post a New Response

(913286)

view threaded

Re: GOP Super Tuesday: LOLwut?

Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Feb 26 19:19:38 2012, in response to Re: GOP Super Tuesday: LOLwut?, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Feb 26 19:17:00 2012.

I guess, she's obsessed with it.

Post a New Response

(913287)

view threaded

Re: GOP Super Tuesday: LOLwut?

Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Feb 26 19:20:36 2012, in response to Re: GOP Super Tuesday: LOLwut?, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Feb 26 19:07:02 2012.

Labor law? Who said differently? We were talking about the health insurance they cover.

Post a New Response

(913291)

view threaded

Re: GOP Super Tuesday: LOLwut?

Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Feb 26 19:25:27 2012, in response to Re: GOP Super Tuesday: LOLwut?, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Feb 26 19:19:20 2012.

No, it's a non-profit US Domestic CORPORATION. Just like ACORN.

Post a New Response

(913292)

view threaded

Re: GOP Super Tuesday: LOLwut?

Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Feb 26 19:30:01 2012, in response to Re: GOP Super Tuesday: LOLwut?, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Feb 26 19:20:36 2012.

Apparently the issue falls under labor law. But do keep diverting ...

Post a New Response

(913297)

view threaded

Re: GOP Super Tuesday: LOLwut?

Posted by bingbong on Sun Feb 26 19:33:13 2012, in response to Re: GOP Super Tuesday: LOLwut?, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Feb 26 18:55:45 2012.

Accordingto Sanitorium there is.

You get blanketed in when you support creeps like Sanityignorium instead of doing the right thing and working to stop them. What would you do if there were no condoms? Sanitorium wants to see that happen, after all sex is solely for procreation according to him....and therefore according to those that would bring him to office. After all, if you disagree you'd vote for *anyone* else.

Post a New Response

(913298)

view threaded

Re: GOP Super Tuesday: LOLwut?

Posted by bingbong on Sun Feb 26 19:36:24 2012, in response to Re: GOP Super Tuesday: LOLwut?, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Feb 26 19:19:38 2012.

Nowhere near what your preferred candidate is. He's the one looking to put an end to it.

Post a New Response

(913321)

view threaded

Re: GOP Super Tuesday: LOLwut?

Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Feb 26 20:47:42 2012, in response to Re: GOP Super Tuesday: LOLwut?, posted by bingbong on Sun Feb 26 19:36:24 2012.

Uh huh.

Post a New Response

(913326)

view threaded

Re: GOP Super Tuesday: LOLwut?

Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Feb 26 20:51:30 2012, in response to Re: GOP Super Tuesday: LOLwut?, posted by bingbong on Sun Feb 26 19:33:13 2012.

LOL!!!!!!

Post a New Response

(913330)

view threaded

Re: GOP Super Tuesday: LOLwut?

Posted by bingbong on Sun Feb 26 21:15:59 2012, in response to Re: GOP Super Tuesday: LOLwut?, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Feb 26 20:47:42 2012.

So why are you supporting him?

Post a New Response

(913332)

view threaded

Re: GOP Super Tuesday: LOLwut?

Posted by bingbong on Sun Feb 26 21:17:52 2012, in response to Re: GOP Super Tuesday: LOLwut?, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Feb 26 20:51:30 2012.

So why are you supporting him?

Post a New Response

(913338)

view threaded

Re: GOP Super Tuesday: LOLwut?

Posted by gp38/r42 chris on Sun Feb 26 21:46:23 2012, in response to Re: GOP Super Tuesday: LOLwut?, posted by bingbong on Sun Feb 26 21:17:52 2012.

Because as I said, hell will freeze over before I vote for another 4 years of what we have now. And i never said i supported santorum...i rather have romney....but if romney loses, the one asset santorum would have would be not "four more years of the same".

Post a New Response

(913345)

view threaded

Re: GOP Super Tuesday: LOLwut?

Posted by SMAZ on Sun Feb 26 22:00:58 2012, in response to Re: GOP Super Tuesday: LOLwut?, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Feb 26 19:20:36 2012.

Labor law? Who said differently? We were talking about the health insurance they cover.



health insurance rules fall under ERISA

ERISA = labor law.

Post a New Response

(913412)

view threaded

Re: GOP Super Tuesday: LOLwut?

Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Feb 27 02:13:15 2012, in response to Re: GOP Super Tuesday: LOLwut?, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Feb 26 13:28:27 2012.

How was it propaganda?

Post a New Response

(913422)

view threaded

Re: GOP Super Tuesday: LOLwut?

Posted by Train Dude on Mon Feb 27 02:22:04 2012, in response to Re: GOP Super Tuesday: LOLwut?, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Feb 26 19:17:00 2012.

Nah - she just kills the desire.

Post a New Response

(913480)

view threaded

Re: GOP Super Zogby: LOLwut?

Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Mon Feb 27 08:45:51 2012, in response to Re: GOP Super Zogby: LOLwut?, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Feb 26 13:28:12 2012.

Proff or shens.

Proff

Post a New Response

(913488)

view threaded

Re: GOP Super Zogby: LOLwut?

Posted by AlM on Mon Feb 27 09:10:10 2012, in response to Re: GOP Super Zogby: LOLwut?, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Feb 26 14:11:46 2012.

The word "business" isn't rigorously defined the way the word "corporation" is. I wouldn't call a non-profit organization a "business", but that's more a matter of opinion than fact.


Post a New Response

(913674)

view threaded

Re: GOP Super Zogby: LOLwut?

Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Feb 27 17:03:40 2012, in response to Re: GOP Super Zogby: LOLwut?, posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Mon Feb 27 08:45:51 2012.

Shens, since you have no proff.

Post a New Response

[1 2 3 4]

< Previous Page  

Page 3 of 4

Next Page >  


[ Return to the Message Index ]