It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Top problematic Democrat Rep out of the picture
page: 5share:
a reply to: Shamrock6
Do you not realize what you are calling an HR complaint is against the Law? These people didn't only break employer policies they broke the law. The fund was used and compliant office set up to encourage victims to use this to file complaints against their employer. And as a way for the employer to circumvent the law and mediate it behind closed doors. A mediation that was viewed by the court as a legal binding process that committed the victim to confidentiality agreements.
These mediations are usually upheld by the courts and viewed as a completed legal process.
Argue all you want but these mediations were and are legal processes and were used to circumvent the law and protect the accused. I think you're just hung up on wither these particular mediations were honored by the court. Maybe not who knows? But we so seem to agree these processes were set up in an attempt to silence the victim not encourage them to approach law enforcement and file the complaint publicly.
Do you not realize what you are calling an HR complaint is against the Law? These people didn't only break employer policies they broke the law. The fund was used and compliant office set up to encourage victims to use this to file complaints against their employer. And as a way for the employer to circumvent the law and mediate it behind closed doors. A mediation that was viewed by the court as a legal binding process that committed the victim to confidentiality agreements.
These mediations are usually upheld by the courts and viewed as a completed legal process.
Argue all you want but these mediations were and are legal processes and were used to circumvent the law and protect the accused. I think you're just hung up on wither these particular mediations were honored by the court. Maybe not who knows? But we so seem to agree these processes were set up in an attempt to silence the victim not encourage them to approach law enforcement and file the complaint publicly.
a reply to: GuidedKill
Uh...yea, that's why everybody is up at arms about how they do things in Congress when somebody wants to file a complaint.
Yep, because they're legally binding. They're not a "court process" as you keep calling them though. The whole point of workplace mediation is to prevent things from becoming a court matter.
That's not what we've been debating, but okay? Workplace mediation is not court mediation. No member of the court orders workplace mediation to take place, until they do. I can go file a complaint against my supervisor now and mediation will be part of the process to resolve the issue. The court isn't involved in any way, shape, or form.
Not really, since I've said from the beginning that they're generally considered to be legally binding.
Yay! You said a thing that's correct!
Do you not realize what you are calling an HR complaint is against the Law?
Uh...yea, that's why everybody is up at arms about how they do things in Congress when somebody wants to file a complaint.
These mediations are usually upheld by the courts and viewed as a completed legal process.
Yep, because they're legally binding. They're not a "court process" as you keep calling them though. The whole point of workplace mediation is to prevent things from becoming a court matter.
Argue all you want but these mediations were and are legal processes and were used to circumvent the law and protect the accused.
That's not what we've been debating, but okay? Workplace mediation is not court mediation. No member of the court orders workplace mediation to take place, until they do. I can go file a complaint against my supervisor now and mediation will be part of the process to resolve the issue. The court isn't involved in any way, shape, or form.
I think you're just hung up on wither these particular mediations were honored by the court.
Not really, since I've said from the beginning that they're generally considered to be legally binding.
But we so seem to agree these processes were set up in an attempt to silence the victim not encourage them to approach law enforcement and file the complaint publicly.
Yay! You said a thing that's correct!
a reply to: Krazysh0t
I am all for equality between parties as well... but you mentioned Moore in a Conyers thread, so let's compare (and I'll toss Franken in for good measure):
Roy Moore: Accused by several women of misconduct and statutory rape, not one of whom has presented any evidence of wrongdoing (and before you mention the yearbook, it is only evidence he knew her, if the signature is genuine; the accuser will not release it to prove it's genuineness.)
Conyers: Accused by several women of harassment, and has paid money to his accusers to resolve the complaint using taxpayer funds.
Al Franken: Accused by several women of harassment, with photographic evidence.
Roy Moore: Has vehemently denied all allegations of wrongdoing at every opportunity. Has a spotless record with no previous indication of impropriety, except for discredited accounts of stalking which were never mentioned during the previous 40 years.
Conyers: Settled the claims against him, while refusing to admit guilt openly. No known record of impropriety previously disclosed. Has responded to allegations by withdrawing from the House Judiciary Committee, and now is claiming mental duress over them.
Al Franken: Openly admits the actions, while denying any improper intentions. Several instances in his past life as a comedian indicate a flippant attitude towards using women as sex objects. Has responded to allegations with apologies.
Roy Moore: Is accused of wrongdoing while he was a deputy state Attorney General, not very powerful and certainly not a powerhouse of leadership.
Conyers: Allegations refer to his tenure as a sitting member of the United States House of Representatives.
Al Franken: Allegations refer to both time as a leading comedian wielding power over female supporting comedians, and as a United States Senator.
Roy Moore: Allegations made within 30 days of an important election where he was up in the polls, and too close to election day for the ballots to be changed.
Conyers: Allegations made after similar allegations against Weinstein, Franken, Moore, et al, without regard to or timed to coincide with, election dates.
Al Franken: Allegations made after similar allegations against Weinstein, Moore, et al, without regard to or timed to coincide with, election dates.
Taken as a whole, the potential for truth in these allegations would seem to indicate that Franken is the most likely to be guilty, with Conyers second and Moore a distant last place. Conversely, while the potential for these allegations against all three to be politically motivated is high, Moore and the Republican party would be harmed the most, with Conyers and Franken (and their Democratic party) harmed the least.
And yet, media coverage and political outrage (faux or not) is greater toward Moore than against either Conyers or Franken. Moore has been tried, judged, and found guilty immediately by the media and the pundits, while Conyers originally was only in need of perhaps some counseling, and Franken was simply 'misunderstood.'
Now, you want to talk about fair treatment under the law?
TheRedneck
I'm not looking to ridicule anyone. I'm not ridiculing Moore on a regular basis. I'm just asking for equal application of demands on handling people outed for this behavior.
I am all for equality between parties as well... but you mentioned Moore in a Conyers thread, so let's compare (and I'll toss Franken in for good measure):
Roy Moore: Accused by several women of misconduct and statutory rape, not one of whom has presented any evidence of wrongdoing (and before you mention the yearbook, it is only evidence he knew her, if the signature is genuine; the accuser will not release it to prove it's genuineness.)
Conyers: Accused by several women of harassment, and has paid money to his accusers to resolve the complaint using taxpayer funds.
Al Franken: Accused by several women of harassment, with photographic evidence.
Roy Moore: Has vehemently denied all allegations of wrongdoing at every opportunity. Has a spotless record with no previous indication of impropriety, except for discredited accounts of stalking which were never mentioned during the previous 40 years.
Conyers: Settled the claims against him, while refusing to admit guilt openly. No known record of impropriety previously disclosed. Has responded to allegations by withdrawing from the House Judiciary Committee, and now is claiming mental duress over them.
Al Franken: Openly admits the actions, while denying any improper intentions. Several instances in his past life as a comedian indicate a flippant attitude towards using women as sex objects. Has responded to allegations with apologies.
Roy Moore: Is accused of wrongdoing while he was a deputy state Attorney General, not very powerful and certainly not a powerhouse of leadership.
Conyers: Allegations refer to his tenure as a sitting member of the United States House of Representatives.
Al Franken: Allegations refer to both time as a leading comedian wielding power over female supporting comedians, and as a United States Senator.
Roy Moore: Allegations made within 30 days of an important election where he was up in the polls, and too close to election day for the ballots to be changed.
Conyers: Allegations made after similar allegations against Weinstein, Franken, Moore, et al, without regard to or timed to coincide with, election dates.
Al Franken: Allegations made after similar allegations against Weinstein, Moore, et al, without regard to or timed to coincide with, election dates.
Taken as a whole, the potential for truth in these allegations would seem to indicate that Franken is the most likely to be guilty, with Conyers second and Moore a distant last place. Conversely, while the potential for these allegations against all three to be politically motivated is high, Moore and the Republican party would be harmed the most, with Conyers and Franken (and their Democratic party) harmed the least.
And yet, media coverage and political outrage (faux or not) is greater toward Moore than against either Conyers or Franken. Moore has been tried, judged, and found guilty immediately by the media and the pundits, while Conyers originally was only in need of perhaps some counseling, and Franken was simply 'misunderstood.'
Now, you want to talk about fair treatment under the law?
TheRedneck
a reply to: TheRedneck
I've seen quite a bit of coverage for all three, to be honest. And this thread shows that Conyers is "not in need of counseling". They, the Dems, want him out.
Let me out lay out a difference I see:
The Democrats who are accused tend to recognize when the media has them dead to rights and will come out and admit wrongdoing and at the least apologize.
The Republicans who get accused spend every waking minute denying the allegations
I've seen quite a bit of coverage for all three, to be honest. And this thread shows that Conyers is "not in need of counseling". They, the Dems, want him out.
Let me out lay out a difference I see:
The Democrats who are accused tend to recognize when the media has them dead to rights and will come out and admit wrongdoing and at the least apologize.
The Republicans who get accused spend every waking minute denying the allegations
edit on 30-11-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason
given)
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Well other posters in this thread are telling me that liberal politicians should be forced out of office without convictions. To be honest, I think a lot of these things on both the left and the right are being blown out of proportion. "sexual harrassment" is the new "witch", but regardless I just want to see equal application of the law.
People are following Hollywood. A place where until like 2 months ago you could be the biggest ass on the planet and no one cared as long as you brought in the ratings, but now it is villagers with pitchforks and touches. All this inappropriateness is nothing new and EVERYONE in Hollywood participated in it one way or another or knew all about it and treated it as business as usual. There is always the extremes and what is illegal but the vast majority of all this was seen more as a norm than anything else.
Now it is all about coming out and getting on the #metoo band wagon and everything is dumped into the same bucket as many want to be a victim too for this movement. Takei tried to touch my junk in 1981 as example... We also see this all being used for political/monetary gains, or even ways to fire someone that you may have wanted too, but those damn contracts...etc.
The problem I have with all this is whether we become desensitized to true sexual predators as we just start to ignore it all with the onslaught of so much as real victims get lost in the sea of those who should be more with #whogivesash@t and #getoverit groups.
The problem politically is that this has been a weapon of choice for about a decade now and I think it is coming back to bite people in the butt.
edit on 30-11-2017 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)
a reply to: TheRedneck
Everybody knows that Franken is guilty. We've seen the photo of him assaulting the Sleeping Lady. Why he has not voluntarily resigned or been forced out by Mitch McConnell, is beyond me.
Everybody knows that Franken is guilty. We've seen the photo of him assaulting the Sleeping Lady. Why he has not voluntarily resigned or been forced out by Mitch McConnell, is beyond me.
a reply to: Xtrozero
That's exactly what I was talking about. This is a modern day witch hunt. Might as well set up a gallows on the hill and start hanging them right? I know! Let's try this:
I'm all for exposing sexual predators, but throwing the dirty laundry out of everyone's closet really isn't the way to do it.
That's exactly what I was talking about. This is a modern day witch hunt. Might as well set up a gallows on the hill and start hanging them right? I know! Let's try this:
I'm all for exposing sexual predators, but throwing the dirty laundry out of everyone's closet really isn't the way to do it.
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Now, they do, yes. however, when the allegations first started coming in, the story was different. Franken is still safe in his position so far as I can see.
These same people, like Pelosi, who took a week or two to decide Conyers needed to go were screaming for Moore's head before his first accuser finished her press conference.
You out yourself.
That comparison is only valid if all accusations are assumed 100% truthful. It is a ridiculously easy exercise in simplicity itself to prove that is a false assumption. Every single day, in almost every court in the country, likely across the globe, witnesses are discredited and cases are thrown out because of dishonesty.
It is also quite simple to show that your blanket assumption of truthfulness has some strict limits: you are on record here as outing many a politician, usually Republicans, as liars... sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't, but you do seem to call them on their honesty.
Thus, your blanket assumption of honesty is actually a conditional assumption of honesty toward those who accuse others of things you wish were true. As in, you wish Roy Moore were a child molester. Where Franken and Conyers are concerned, the evidence has mounted against them to the point it is difficult to defend them, but not against Moore. Moore's accusers have only their word.
This directly contradicts your earlier statement asking for fairness and equity over these allegations. Worse, it can be translated as "if someone is guilty, they can apologize and get off, but someone who is innocent must be severely punished for not apologizing for something they are innocent of." That is NOT fairness and equity.
I won't call you a liar, sir... but I believe you may do so to yourself.
TheRedneck
I've seen quite a bit of coverage for all three, to be honest. And this thread shows that Conyers is "not in need of counseling". They, the Dems, want him out.
Now, they do, yes. however, when the allegations first started coming in, the story was different. Franken is still safe in his position so far as I can see.
These same people, like Pelosi, who took a week or two to decide Conyers needed to go were screaming for Moore's head before his first accuser finished her press conference.
The Democrats who are accused tend to recognize when the media has them dead to rights and will come out and admit wrongdoing and at the least apologize.
The Republicans who get accused spend every waking minute denying the allegations
You out yourself.
That comparison is only valid if all accusations are assumed 100% truthful. It is a ridiculously easy exercise in simplicity itself to prove that is a false assumption. Every single day, in almost every court in the country, likely across the globe, witnesses are discredited and cases are thrown out because of dishonesty.
It is also quite simple to show that your blanket assumption of truthfulness has some strict limits: you are on record here as outing many a politician, usually Republicans, as liars... sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't, but you do seem to call them on their honesty.
Thus, your blanket assumption of honesty is actually a conditional assumption of honesty toward those who accuse others of things you wish were true. As in, you wish Roy Moore were a child molester. Where Franken and Conyers are concerned, the evidence has mounted against them to the point it is difficult to defend them, but not against Moore. Moore's accusers have only their word.
This directly contradicts your earlier statement asking for fairness and equity over these allegations. Worse, it can be translated as "if someone is guilty, they can apologize and get off, but someone who is innocent must be severely punished for not apologizing for something they are innocent of." That is NOT fairness and equity.
I won't call you a liar, sir... but I believe you may do so to yourself.
TheRedneck
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Xtrozero
That's exactly what I was talking about. This is a modern day witch hunt. Might as well set up a gallows on the hill and start hanging them right? I know! Let's try this:
I'm all for exposing sexual predators, but throwing the dirty laundry out of everyone's closet really isn't the way to do it.
As example I truly dislike Al Franklin. I think he is a big ass that bloviates forever before even gets to a question that ends up being confusing as to what he is trying to ask.
With that said....He was an A list...famous comedian. Comics do funny and many times inappropriate things... #whogivesash@t.....
a reply to: carewemust
Oh, I think you know why. Franklin cried on national TV, and apologized profusely. Whether or not that apology was sincere is irrelevant... he confessed.
KrazyShot likens this to a modern-day witch hunt. I disagree. It more closely approximates the Holy Roman Inquisition than it does the Salem Witch Trials. Only those who confess their sins, and are guilty, are offered absolution. Those who do not confess their sins, whether that refusal is due to innocence or arrogance, are offered no such absolution and must be destroyed at all costs.
I shudder to think where this will lead, but I do believe it will not be where those who started these allegations intended.
TheRedneck
Oh, I think you know why. Franklin cried on national TV, and apologized profusely. Whether or not that apology was sincere is irrelevant... he confessed.
KrazyShot likens this to a modern-day witch hunt. I disagree. It more closely approximates the Holy Roman Inquisition than it does the Salem Witch Trials. Only those who confess their sins, and are guilty, are offered absolution. Those who do not confess their sins, whether that refusal is due to innocence or arrogance, are offered no such absolution and must be destroyed at all costs.
I shudder to think where this will lead, but I do believe it will not be where those who started these allegations intended.
TheRedneck
originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: carewemust
Oh, I think you know why. Franklin cried on national TV, and apologized profusely. Whether or not that apology was sincere is irrelevant... he confessed.
Actually I think he never confessed and said he doesn't remember those incidences the same way...like he doesn't remember slipping his tongue down Tweeden's throat...I think I would remember that...
BUT he did say he is so sorry if these woman "feel" that he was inappropriate. I wonder if Trump said three times he was so sorry for his words would the left forgive him too.
a reply to: Xtrozero
The confession wasn't that he played tongue-hockey... it was that he was wrong for being caught doing anything that hurt the goals of his owners (aka the Elite). As I said, only by confessing the true sins can one receive absolvement from their god: the establishment (aka Swamp, Deep State, Illuminati, Elite...)
A confession that he swapped saliva would in itself be a sin that possibly couldn't be absolved, because it would harm his god's' goals.
TheRedneck
The confession wasn't that he played tongue-hockey... it was that he was wrong for being caught doing anything that hurt the goals of his owners (aka the Elite). As I said, only by confessing the true sins can one receive absolvement from their god: the establishment (aka Swamp, Deep State, Illuminati, Elite...)
A confession that he swapped saliva would in itself be a sin that possibly couldn't be absolved, because it would harm his god's' goals.
TheRedneck
originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Krazysh0t
I'm not looking to ridicule anyone. I'm not ridiculing Moore on a regular basis. I'm just asking for equal application of demands on handling people outed for this behavior.
I am all for equality between parties as well... but you mentioned Moore in a Conyers thread, so let's compare (and I'll toss Franken in for good measure):
Roy Moore: Accused by several women of misconduct and statutory rape, not one of whom has presented any evidence of wrongdoing (and before you mention the yearbook, it is only evidence he knew her, if the signature is genuine; the accuser will not release it to prove it's genuineness.)
Conyers: Accused by several women of harassment, and has paid money to his accusers to resolve the complaint using taxpayer funds.
Al Franken: Accused by several women of harassment, with photographic evidence.
Roy Moore: Has vehemently denied all allegations of wrongdoing at every opportunity. Has a spotless record with no previous indication of impropriety, except for discredited accounts of stalking which were never mentioned during the previous 40 years.
Conyers: Settled the claims against him, while refusing to admit guilt openly. No known record of impropriety previously disclosed. Has responded to allegations by withdrawing from the House Judiciary Committee, and now is claiming mental duress over them.
Al Franken: Openly admits the actions, while denying any improper intentions. Several instances in his past life as a comedian indicate a flippant attitude towards using women as sex objects. Has responded to allegations with apologies.
Roy Moore: Is accused of wrongdoing while he was a deputy state Attorney General, not very powerful and certainly not a powerhouse of leadership.
Conyers: Allegations refer to his tenure as a sitting member of the United States House of Representatives.
Al Franken: Allegations refer to both time as a leading comedian wielding power over female supporting comedians, and as a United States Senator.
Roy Moore: Allegations made within 30 days of an important election where he was up in the polls, and too close to election day for the ballots to be changed.
Conyers: Allegations made after similar allegations against Weinstein, Franken, Moore, et al, without regard to or timed to coincide with, election dates.
Al Franken: Allegations made after similar allegations against Weinstein, Moore, et al, without regard to or timed to coincide with, election dates.
Taken as a whole, the potential for truth in these allegations would seem to indicate that Franken is the most likely to be guilty, with Conyers second and Moore a distant last place. Conversely, while the potential for these allegations against all three to be politically motivated is high, Moore and the Republican party would be harmed the most, with Conyers and Franken (and their Democratic party) harmed the least.
And yet, media coverage and political outrage (faux or not) is greater toward Moore than against either Conyers or Franken. Moore has been tried, judged, and found guilty immediately by the media and the pundits, while Conyers originally was only in need of perhaps some counseling, and Franken was simply 'misunderstood.'
Now, you want to talk about fair treatment under the law?
TheRedneck
This is a truly effective analysis, and I quoted it to prevent it from drifting up in the thread.
The multi-color distinctions present a clear contrast between two of those cases and the other (Conyers and Franken, and then Moore). I can't believe some are trying to equate accusations (without any evidence & timed to impact elections) with admissions of wrongdoing, settlements, actual evidence and non-timed releases.
a reply to: Krazysh0t
How can you possibly consider these admitted/evidence backed accusations to be a witch hunt?
A witch hunt is accusing someone of something without any credible evidence, and then demonizing them after they deny it.
A witch hunt is claiming the President is all sorts of terrible things (including treasonous, seditious, "colluding") without evidence, hoping that just one of those things will be true and result in impeachment. When allegations appear suddenly during an election cycle without evidence to back them up, you can't blame people for being skeptical. Franken and Conyers have no such defense.
Another example is Judge Moore, who totally denies the allegations as well as challenged any accusers to produce evidence (who have not done so, despite claiming to posses evidence). It is continuing to attack those same people by trying to falsely equate baseless allegations that happen during election time (political hit jobs) with legitimate complaints of harassment and even abuse. That does a huge disservice to true victims of crimes or harassment.
How can you possibly consider these admitted/evidence backed accusations to be a witch hunt?
A witch hunt is accusing someone of something without any credible evidence, and then demonizing them after they deny it.
A witch hunt is claiming the President is all sorts of terrible things (including treasonous, seditious, "colluding") without evidence, hoping that just one of those things will be true and result in impeachment. When allegations appear suddenly during an election cycle without evidence to back them up, you can't blame people for being skeptical. Franken and Conyers have no such defense.
Another example is Judge Moore, who totally denies the allegations as well as challenged any accusers to produce evidence (who have not done so, despite claiming to posses evidence). It is continuing to attack those same people by trying to falsely equate baseless allegations that happen during election time (political hit jobs) with legitimate complaints of harassment and even abuse. That does a huge disservice to true victims of crimes or harassment.
a reply to: Xcalibur254
You mean the ex-wife that disavowed those claims?
abcnews.go.com...
If you're going to push blatant falsehoods, at least make sure they can't be debunked with a simple Google search.
I'll ask again, do you believe everything you read in the anti-Trump echo chambers? Consider the fact that you were wrong about this statement, and ask yourself how many other things you may be wrong about. Good exercise, for those who can handle facts outside their typical paradigm and world view.
I do it frequently, and it has greatly reduced my number of ER visits from recto-cranial inversion syndrome
What about his ex-wife that took him to court for raping her?
You mean the ex-wife that disavowed those claims?
abcnews.go.com...
Donald Trump's first wife, Ivana Trump, said today that she is "the best of friends" with her ex-husband, responding to a report in the Daily Beast on Monday that cited her 1989 divorce case deposition in which the former Mrs. Trump claimed Trump allegedly raped her once.
A statement today from Ivana Trump appeared to refute the allegations in the deposition, which were revealed in a 1993 book, "The Lost Tycoon: The Many Lives of Donald J. Trump."
"I have recently read some comments attributed to me from nearly 30 years ago at a time of very high tension during my divorce from Donald," she said in the statement today. "The story is totally without merit. Donald and I are the best of friends and together have raised 3 children that we love and are very proud of."
Ivana Trump had already walked back the rape allegation in 1993 as the book was about to be published.
If you're going to push blatant falsehoods, at least make sure they can't be debunked with a simple Google search.
I'll ask again, do you believe everything you read in the anti-Trump echo chambers? Consider the fact that you were wrong about this statement, and ask yourself how many other things you may be wrong about. Good exercise, for those who can handle facts outside their typical paradigm and world view.
I do it frequently, and it has greatly reduced my number of ER visits from recto-cranial inversion syndrome
edit on 11/30/2017 by
JBurns because: (no reason given)
new topics
-
Cold Blooded Killers on Christmas!! GRRRRrrr!!
Pets: 1 hours ago -
Plane Crash Today --Azerbaijanian E190 passenger jet
Mainstream News: 6 hours ago -
Orange County Makes Shoplifting a Felony
Other Current Events: 10 hours ago
top topics
-
Orange County Makes Shoplifting a Felony
Other Current Events: 10 hours ago, 16 flags -
It's Offical Now
US Political Madness: 12 hours ago, 15 flags -
The reason it works is.....
General Chit Chat: 13 hours ago, 8 flags -
Dick Van Dyke saved from Wildfire by neighbours on his 99th birthday
People: 16 hours ago, 7 flags -
Plane Crash Today --Azerbaijanian E190 passenger jet
Mainstream News: 6 hours ago, 5 flags -
Cold Blooded Killers on Christmas!! GRRRRrrr!!
Pets: 1 hours ago, 3 flags
active topics
-
It's Offical Now
US Political Madness • 15 • : Imhere -
Plane Crash Today --Azerbaijanian E190 passenger jet
Mainstream News • 11 • : rickymouse -
Cold Blooded Killers on Christmas!! GRRRRrrr!!
Pets • 4 • : Flyingclaydisk -
Political Warfare & The Resister Special Forces Underground
Political Ideology • 2 • : NoCorruptionAllowed -
London Christmas Market BANS Word ‘Christmas’
Social Issues and Civil Unrest • 49 • : NorthOS -
Post A Funny (T&C Friendly) Pic Part IV: The LOL awakens!
General Chit Chat • 7956 • : KrustyKrab -
Drones everywhere in New Jersey ---and Elsewhere Master Thread
Aliens and UFOs • 229 • : yuppa -
DefCon Teetering on Escalation
World War Three • 49 • : ADVISOR -
Orange County Makes Shoplifting a Felony
Other Current Events • 22 • : FeeshJefe -
The reason it works is.....
General Chit Chat • 4 • : randomuser2034