Log In

Your email is not your username

Register

If you were a member of the old Bodybuilding.com forums and would like to reuse your previous username, you can request it below. We use your email only for registration and do not store it. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy.

Confirm your email

A registration code was sent to your email. Enter it here.

Welcome

You have successfully setup your account.

Sign in

Quick Navigation Bottom Misc
Forum » More General Categories » Religion and Politics » Colorado bill SB-42 passed states senate today
  1. Results 61 to 90 of 145
  2. Page 3 of 5
  3. First
  5. 1
  6. 2
  7. 3
  8. 4
  9. 5
  11. Last

Thread: Colorado bill SB-42 passed states senate today

post 1572518551 01-30-2019, 09:33 PM
-
#61
  1. climberbrah
  2. Banned
  1. climberbrah
  2. Banned
  3. Join Date: Aug 2013
  4. Posts: 5,281
  5. Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted By Luc1fer⏩
The liberal media just wouldn’t talk about popular vote anymore.
/Democrats were actually concerned Trump would win the pop vote but lose the EC in 2016. Serious - it was discussed a lot beforehand.
post 1572519011 01-30-2019, 09:40 PM
-
#62
  1. TrueTruth
  2. Registered User
  1. TrueTruth
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: May 2018
  4. Age: 56
  5. Posts: 5,766
  6. Rep Power: 67869
Originally Posted By elterrible987⏩
popular vote makes it easier to rig elections.

Some liberal hellhole like california or broward county can just pump in fradulent votes with little oversight because the entire voting system there is ran by liberals with no morals. It doesnt matter how good of a job they are doing in texas or georgia, they will just pump in more fake votes until they win.

They pumped california (west coast, late time zone) full of votes after it was clear that Trump won the election. This was to save face for hillary so they could claim she still "won". Night of the election Trump was ahead in popular votes too when he was declared the winner. Next morning, oh hillary now has another million+ fraudulent votes we pumped in. No paper trail.
This.

They found 58K+ illegal alien fake votes in recent Texas election. God knows how many fraudulent votes they didn't find...

And that's in TX. Now take California, the proud "sanctuary state" psychiatric ward that rolls a red carpet for illegals and all kinds of criminals and encourages them to vote. The fraudulent vote count will easily surpass a few million.

I like the idea of a popular vote, but until the system is fixed I don't want to hear any noise about it. Start off with a simple Voter ID and we'll go from there.
post 1572519271 01-30-2019, 09:43 PM
-
#63
  1. Steve707
  2. somewhat srs
  1. Steve707
  2. somewhat srs
  3. Join Date: Jul 2010
  4. Location: California, United States
  5. Age: 38
  6. Posts: 9,461
  7. Rep Power: 47681
Originally Posted By sandaltan⏩
lol well then the minority demographic DEFINITELY shouldnt get to tell the majority demographic how to live, especially when it involved things like rights and taxes. thats even more fukked up.

and you can ban gay marriage all you want - as long as a majority supports it. last i checked plenty of straight people support gay marriage too. if only every straight person voted to ban gay marriage!
California voted to ban gay marriage.
☆☆☆USA Crew☆☆☆
I always pay it forward.
□|||||||□
post 1572519501 01-30-2019, 09:45 PM
-
#64
  1. Seatard
  1. Seatard
  3. Join Date: Sep 2012
  4. Posts: 19,149
  5. Subscribers: 3
  6. Rep Power: 98570
Originally Posted By TrueTruth⏩
They found 58K+ illegal alien fake votes in recent Texas election.
You're misunderstanding fake news. Perfect Trumper.
post 1572520131 01-30-2019, 09:55 PM
-
#65
  1. Seatard
  1. Seatard
  3. Join Date: Sep 2012
  4. Posts: 19,149
  5. Subscribers: 3
  6. Rep Power: 98570
Originally Posted By lexbishop⏩
The founding fathers specifically warned about this. It's time to start planning local militias.
Haha. What the fuk is a militia going to do?

Just LOL at solving every problem by shooting at it.
post 1572521201 01-30-2019, 10:16 PM
-
#66
  1. MikeLowrrrey
  1. MikeLowrrrey
  3. Join Date: Jul 2018
  4. Age: 56
  5. Posts: 35,133
  6. Subscribers: 2
  7. Rep Power: 120067
I'm a retard. Under electoral college, the minority gets a voice.....but how? If more people voted Republican, that state is red. How does the minority get their voice heard in a red/blue state?
post 1572521251 01-30-2019, 10:18 PM
-
#67
  1. Jrd86
  2. Registered User
  1. Jrd86
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Sep 2015
  4. Age: 40
  5. Posts: 6,698
  6. Rep Power: 41280
Originally Posted By sandaltan⏩
we should be governing for the majority

the electoral college allows minority populations to have a disproportionately large voice

whats wrong with popular vote? is it because most of the country is liberal?
We do use the popular vote. Just not the one that allows california to dictate who runs the entire country. The popular vote we have now is used on a state by state basis. The reason the founders went with the electoral college was for individual state representation.

I dont believe this is constitutional. And this supreme court is unlikely to uphold states invoking a referendum on general elections for a federal government executive position. Only congress and the senate can do that.

But it is quite telling Democrats are worried enough about winning on a state by state basis that they want to bypass state rights and let big liberal states dictate policy to the rest of the country. That's one way to invite a civil war if they're not careful.
EMT/Firefighter Crew

Bench 405
Deadlift 700
Sqaut 550
post 1572521401 01-30-2019, 10:21 PM
-
#68
  1. anonymous
  2. Guest
  1. anonymous
  2. Guest
  3. Join Date:
  4. Posts: 12,500
  5. Rep Power: 1
Originally Posted By ghostfacedup⏩
This can't be happening. Liberals have gone berzerk.
It was HER TURN
post 1572521691 01-30-2019, 10:28 PM
-
#69
  1. Jrd86
  2. Registered User
  1. Jrd86
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Sep 2015
  4. Age: 40
  5. Posts: 6,698
  6. Rep Power: 41280
Originally Posted By Maestro⏩
It still doesn't seem fair.

According to the op's bill, if, in 2020 trump wins Colorado, but Elizabeth Warren wins the popular vote in the US overall, then that means Warren also wins Colorado.

However, in order for trump to be awarded electoral votes for a state like colorado, the vast majority of its residents would have to vote for him. So no matter how you spin it trump would unjustly lose that state.

Granted colorado is pretty damn blue after the mj laws, but hypothetically if trump could win colorado it wouldn't be in his favor.

As long as swing states or larger states like texas don't try to enact this I think trump will be okay.
Colorado isnt as blue as you think. It was red in 2004. And had Gary johnson not ran away with 5% of the vote in the state, Trump probably would have won Colorado in 2016.



Green is johnson, red trump...blue...you get it.
EMT/Firefighter Crew

Bench 405
Deadlift 700
Sqaut 550
post 1572521931 01-30-2019, 10:34 PM
-
#70
  1. ThaJerzeyDevil
  2. ☆★Bangin Moms since 03★☆
  1. ThaJerzeyDevil
  2. ☆★Bangin Moms since 03★☆
  3. Join Date: Sep 2010
  4. Location: Florida, United States
  5. Posts: 11,777
  6. Rep Power: 29211
Originally Posted By jeffl1980⏩
Can someone suggest another county to move to?
one where they have a 2nd amendment that protects ur right to bear arms and if this **** happens u gonna see some non gillette shaving men stand up
post 1572521961 01-30-2019, 10:35 PM
-
#71
  1. sandaltan
  2. Registered User
  1. sandaltan
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Sep 2009
  4. Posts: 15,265
  5. Rep Power: 12438
Originally Posted By Jrd86⏩
We do use the popular vote. Just not the one that allows california to dictate who runs the entire country. The popular vote we have now is used on a state by state basis. The reason the founders went with the electoral college was for individual state representation.

I dont believe this is constitutional. And this supreme court is unlikely to uphold states invoking a referendum on general elections for a federal government executive position. Only congress and the senate can do that.

But it is quite telling Democrats are worried enough about winning on a state by state basis that they want to bypass state rights and let big liberal states dictate policy to the rest of the country. That's one way to invite a civil war if they're not careful.
if the electoral college were abolished, all the conservatives in california would have a vote that counted.

and the reason california matters so much in elections is because a large portion of the nation lives there
post 1572521971 01-30-2019, 10:36 PM
-
#72
  1. sandaltan
  2. Registered User
  1. sandaltan
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Sep 2009
  4. Posts: 15,265
  5. Rep Power: 12438
Originally Posted By ThaJerzeyDevil⏩
one where they have a 2nd amendment that protects ur right to bear arms and if this **** happens u gonna see some non gillette shaving men stand up
lol and do what
post 1572522231 01-30-2019, 10:44 PM
-
#73
  1. Jrd86
  2. Registered User
  1. Jrd86
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Sep 2015
  4. Age: 40
  5. Posts: 6,698
  6. Rep Power: 41280
Originally Posted By sandaltan⏩
if the electoral college were abolished, all the conservatives in california would have a vote that counted.

and the reason california matters so much in elections is because a large portion of the nation lives there
Sure they do. They also have the largest population of illegal aliens, who get counted in the census, and give california unfair representation in the senate. A nation wide popular vote is a different election tho.

Candidates will only cater to states with bigger populations while neglecting smaller states. The electoral college makes candidates have to fight for the people of every state.

Remember, this is a union of 50 states. We are a representative republic. That's why we have an electoral college.
EMT/Firefighter Crew

Bench 405
Deadlift 700
Sqaut 550
post 1572522761 01-30-2019, 10:56 PM
-
#74
  1. Seatard
  1. Seatard
  3. Join Date: Sep 2012
  4. Posts: 19,149
  5. Subscribers: 3
  6. Rep Power: 98570
Originally Posted By Jrd86⏩
We do use the popular vote. Just not the one that allows california to dictate who runs the entire country. The popular vote we have now is used on a state by state basis. The reason the founders went with the electoral college was for individual state representation.

I dont believe this is constitutional. And this supreme court is unlikely to uphold states invoking a referendum on general elections for a federal government executive position. Only congress and the senate can do that.

But it is quite telling Democrats are worried enough about winning on a state by state basis that they want to bypass state rights and let big liberal states dictate policy to the rest of the country. That's one way to invite a civil war if they're not careful.
The reason the founders went with the electoral college was becuase the didnt trust the people to not vote in a crazy person. They didnt trust democracy.

The states can choose to allocate their electoral votes however they wish.
post 1572522981 01-30-2019, 11:00 PM
-
#75
  1. spatchcock
  2. dont call me shirley
  1. spatchcock
  2. dont call me shirley
  3. Join Date: Apr 2014
  4. Location: Australia
  5. Posts: 3,206
  6. Rep Power: 18626
Can not believe how stupid you *******s are for real

Candidate runs on reducing latte prices

Inner city yuppies come out in droves

Farmers starve, agricultural industry crashes, America becomes reliant on crappy Chinese imports, they defrost Mao and go on a rampage in WW3 against a limp American military because president soy believes flowers are stronger than guns

God bless the popular vote
Sig line can't be a novel
post 1572523451 01-30-2019, 11:11 PM
-
#76
  1. sandaltan
  2. Registered User
  1. sandaltan
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Sep 2009
  4. Posts: 15,265
  5. Rep Power: 12438
Originally Posted By Jrd86⏩
Sure they do. They also have the largest population of illegal aliens, who get counted in the census, and give california unfair representation in the senate. A nation wide popular vote is a different election tho.

Candidates will only cater to states with bigger populations while neglecting smaller states. The electoral college makes candidates have to fight for the people of every state.

Remember, this is a union of 50 states. We are a representative republic. That's why we have an electoral college.
no, they wouldnt cater to states at all. theyd cater to the individual voters within the states. the opposite of what you said is true. a popular vote and abolishing the electoral college makes candidates have to fight for the people of every state. the conservatives in an otherwise blue state like california would be campaigned for. GOP candidates wouldnt just give up on california - theyd have to campaign there for the conservative voters.

youre literally arguing to support my point
post 1572523531 01-30-2019, 11:14 PM
-
#77
  1. Jrd86
  2. Registered User
  1. Jrd86
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Sep 2015
  4. Age: 40
  5. Posts: 6,698
  6. Rep Power: 41280
Originally Posted By Seatard⏩
The states can choose to allocate their electoral votes however they wish.
Thats actually wrong. Familiarize yourself with the compact clause. It states that"no state shall, without the consent of Congress enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power."

Only congress and the senate can do away with the electoral college. This compact would undoubtedly be challenged, and the supreme court would never uphold it.
EMT/Firefighter Crew

Bench 405
Deadlift 700
Sqaut 550
post 1572523621 01-30-2019, 11:17 PM
-
#78
  1. sandaltan
  2. Registered User
  1. sandaltan
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Sep 2009
  4. Posts: 15,265
  5. Rep Power: 12438
Originally Posted By Jrd86⏩
Thats actually wrong. Familiarize yourself with the compact clause. It states that "no state shall, without the consent of Congress enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power."

Only congress and the senate can do away with the electoral college. This compact would undoubtedly be challenged, and the supreme court would never uphold it.
wow amazing analysis.

except nothing here involves two states conspiring together or entering into a contract together. its not like california and new york made a pact or an agreement between themselves. they each independently passed these laws regarding their electoral votes.

i honestly have no idea why you think that clause even remotely applies here.

actually curious, because its so off point
post 1572523781 01-30-2019, 11:20 PM
-
#79
  1. Jrd86
  2. Registered User
  1. Jrd86
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Sep 2015
  4. Age: 40
  5. Posts: 6,698
  6. Rep Power: 41280
Originally Posted By sandaltan⏩
no, they wouldnt cater to states at all. theyd cater to the individual voters within the states. the opposite of what you said is true. a popular vote and abolishing the electoral college makes candidates have to fight for the people of every state. the conservatives in an otherwise blue state like california would be campaigned for. GOP candidates wouldnt just give up on california - theyd have to campaign there for the conservative voters.

youre literally arguing to support my point
Think so? Because the way I see it is that you're essentially supporting the current system we already have. I personally see nothing wrong with making candidates campaign in every state if necessary, to win a general election. I dont see anything wrong with the current system that justifies it needing to be changed.
EMT/Firefighter Crew

Bench 405
Deadlift 700
Sqaut 550
post 1572523881 01-30-2019, 11:23 PM
-
#80
  1. Jrd86
  2. Registered User
  1. Jrd86
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Sep 2015
  4. Age: 40
  5. Posts: 6,698
  6. Rep Power: 41280
Originally Posted By sandaltan⏩
wow amazing analysis.

except nothing here involves two states conspiring together or entering into a contract together. its not like california and new york made a pact or an agreement between themselves. they each independently passed these laws regarding their electoral votes.

i honestly have no idea why you think that clause even remotely applies here.

actually curious, because its so off point
This is a compact...an agreement between states. It's literally what the compact clause argues against. LMAO Good luck explaining that case to the supreme court. The fact is, congress and the Senate make thefederallaws. And you are talking about states partaking in afederalelection...
EMT/Firefighter Crew

Bench 405
Deadlift 700
Sqaut 550
post 1572523901 01-30-2019, 11:25 PM
-
#81
  1. sandaltan
  2. Registered User
  1. sandaltan
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Sep 2009
  4. Posts: 15,265
  5. Rep Power: 12438
Originally Posted By Jrd86⏩
Think so? Because the way I see it is that you're essentially supporting the current system we already have. I personally see nothing wrong with making candidates campaign in every state if necessary, to win a general election. I dont see anything wrong with the current system that justifies it needing to be changed.
uh the current system we have = GOP candidates dont campaign in california and new york. i srsly have no idea what youre talking about here. candidates CURRENTLY DONT HAVE TO CAMPAIGN IN EVERY STATE, because of the electoral college.

CA and NY are lost causes for them, so why waste their time?
post 1572523941 01-30-2019, 11:26 PM
-
#82
  1. FreedomPenguin
  2. Registered User
  1. FreedomPenguin
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Jan 2016
  4. Age: 36
  5. Posts: 3,613
  6. Rep Power: 20067
Might as well name america -americali. because Californias stupid rules and its stupid people are going to decide everything here on out.
Former
*Combat veteran crew*
*US Army crew Abn11B*
*Knee Draggers Unite*
*Leo crew*
*Chocobo crew*
post 1572523951 01-30-2019, 11:26 PM
-
#83
  1. sandaltan
  2. Registered User
  1. sandaltan
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Sep 2009
  4. Posts: 15,265
  5. Rep Power: 12438
Originally Posted By Jrd86⏩
This is a compact...an agreement between states. It's literally what the compact clause argues against. LMAO Good luck explaining that case to the supreme court. The fact is, congress and the Senate make thefederallaws. And you are talking about states partaking in afederalelection...
what the HELL are you even talking about? do you know what a compact is? its an agreement. a contract.

HOW IS THIS A CONTRACT BETWEEN TWO STATES. please explain yourself because i guarantee you CANNOT explain how these laws = contracts between two different states.

states partaking in a federal election? what are you even babbling about bro?
post 1572524421 01-30-2019, 11:37 PM
-
#84
  1. bigcat3655
  2. Registered User
  1. bigcat3655
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Jun 2017
  4. Age: 43
  5. Posts: 10,214
  6. Rep Power: 87942
Originally Posted By leafs43⏩
Basically telling Colorado residents their votes dont matter.

Literally doesn't matter who you vote for, the rest of the country gets to decide how your state votes
Came to post this, leaving satisfied. Repped.

This is the biggest issue for me, a coloradan. My vote now means squat. This law doesn't say that the electoral vote goes to the candidate who has the most votes IN COLORADO. The libs in power here here have tied Colorado's electoral votes to the national popular vote. If colorado was 100% voted Republican, wouldn't matter for chit if the Democrat candidate has the most votes nationally. Colorado's electoral college votes would all go to the Democrat candidate completely overruling the vote of Coloradans.

The dems are hedging their bet that with all the biggest cities voting dem, they will always have at least a slight edge in the total popular vote, and are changing the idea of the electoral college to suit their means
post 1572524861 01-30-2019, 11:48 PM
-
#85
  1. ghostfacedup
  2. Registered User
  1. ghostfacedup
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Apr 2005
  4. Posts: 16,948
  5. Rep Power: 80672
Originally Posted By bigcat3655⏩
Came to post this, leaving satisfied. Repped.

This is the biggest issue for me, a coloradan. My vote now means squat. This law doesn't say that the electoral vote goes to the candidate who has the most votes IN COLORADO. The libs in power here here have tied Colorado's electoral votes to the national popular vote. If colorado was 100% voted Republican, wouldn't matter for chit if the Democrat candidate has the most votes nationally. Colorado's electoral college votes would all go to the Democrat candidate completely overruling the vote of Coloradans.

The dems are hedging their bet that with all the biggest cities voting dem, they will always have at least a slight edge in the total popular vote, and are changing the idea of the electoral college to suit their means
Yup, it's one of the more nefarious bills I've seen. Who even thought of this thing? It's genius in how evil it is.
post 1572524991 01-30-2019, 11:52 PM
-
#86
  1. Jrd86
  2. Registered User
  1. Jrd86
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Sep 2015
  4. Age: 40
  5. Posts: 6,698
  6. Rep Power: 41280
Originally Posted By sandaltan⏩
uh the current system we have = GOP candidates dont campaign in california and new york. i srsly have no idea what youre talking about here. candidates CURRENTLY DONT HAVE TO CAMPAIGN IN EVERY STATE, because of the electoral college.

CA and NY are lost causes for them, so why waste their time?
Sure, and youre correct. But how many democrats do you see campaigning in ruby red states. So if anything, they cancel one another out. Then you have finite resources to spend on your campaign. Are you going to waste those finite resources in a state youre unlikely to win? Hell nah!
Originally Posted By sandaltan⏩
what the HELL are you even talking about? do you know what a compact is? its an agreement. a contract.

HOW IS THIS A CONTRACT BETWEEN TWO STATES. please explain yourself because i guarantee you CANNOT explain how these laws = contracts between two different states.

states partaking in a federal election? what are you even babbling about bro?
The compact clause applies here because you have states attempting to join a compact. It doesnt just have to be two states. And in this case, federal supremacy is threatened. Congressional consent will have to be required to move it forward. I doubt they get to the 270 they'd need. Not enough red or purple states would ever sign on for this. But if they ever did get there, it would likely be challenged, and again, the supreme court would never rule in its favor.
EMT/Firefighter Crew

Bench 405
Deadlift 700
Sqaut 550
post 1572525601 01-31-2019, 12:13 AM
-
#87
  1. bigcat3655
  2. Registered User
  1. bigcat3655
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Jun 2017
  4. Age: 43
  5. Posts: 10,214
  6. Rep Power: 87942
Originally Posted By sandaltan⏩
look man, as ive stated before im a strong supporter in states rights. if a state wants to do something, then whatever, as long as it doesnt infringe on the floor level rights required by the constitution.

but for federal law and federal election, SOME people are gonna have to make sacrifices and not get their way. I'm trying to get the number of those people who dont get their way as small as possible. thats why federal law should be majority/popular vote - so that MOST people have their voices heard - regardless of where those people are situated.

this strikes me as less fukked up than having a MINORITY of voices heard.
Ok, let me ask you this then, because I also support states' rights most of the time.

This happened because the libs want to change how the electoral college works, no denying this as every state that has implemented it is blue.

How is it following states rights to enact a law that could hypothetically render every one of its citizens votes invalid because Democrat politicians enacted it? This bill wasn't votes on by the citizens, it was pushed through by lib politicians. So like I said in my last post, if 100% of Coloradans vote for one candidate, this bill gives all of Colorado's electoral votes to the candidate that zero Coloradans voted for if that other person holds the nationwide popular vote.

How is this states' rights?
post 1572526311 01-31-2019, 12:35 AM
-
#88
  1. goodapple
  2. Registered User
  1. goodapple
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Aug 2013
  4. Age: 40
  5. Posts: 543
  6. Rep Power: 974
Originally Posted By MikeLowrrrey⏩
I'm a retard. Under electoral college, the minority gets a voice.....but how? If more people voted Republican, that state is red. How does the minority get their voice heard in a red/blue state?
Heres my understanding of it.

In the current system, each state has a number of electoral votes. That number is the sum of the number of representatives they have in the house, plus the number of representatives they have in the senate.

The number of representatives they have in the house is proportional to that state's population (benefits big states).
The number of representatives they have in the senate is of course 2 (same for all states) (makes things "more equal" for small states).

By giving all states 2 electors from the senate, it allows smaller states to have a chance to be competitive against big states.

For example, California has 55 electors - 53 from the house and 2 from the senate. Utah has 6 electors - 4 from the house and 2 from the senate.

This is also why our congress is a bicameral legislature made up of the house and senate. Its a way to balance power between big and small states.

Feel free to correct me if im mistaken.
post 1572528651 01-31-2019, 01:49 AM
-
#89
  1. Maestro
  2. отличнo!
  1. Maestro
  2. отличнo!
  3. Join Date: Oct 2002
  4. Location: New Mexico, United States
  5. Posts: 58,400
  6. Rep Power: 203698
Originally Posted By Jrd86⏩
Colorado isnt as blue as you think. It was red in 2004. And had Gary johnson not ran away with 5% of the vote in the state, Trump probably would have won Colorado in 2016.

Green is johnson, red trump...blue...you get it.
back then, a certain green herb wasn't legal recreationally and Californians weren't moving there by the hundreds of thousands year after year for the cheaper cost of living.
post 1572529831 01-31-2019, 02:23 AM
-
#90
  1. A-GAME
  2. Pedicabo ego vos et irrum
  1. A-GAME
  2. Pedicabo ego vos et irrum
  3. Join Date: Nov 2006
  4. Posts: 47,648
  5. Rep Power: 280053
Originally Posted By spatchcock⏩
Can not believe how stupid you *******s are for real

Candidate runs on reducing latte prices

Inner city yuppies come out in droves

Farmers starve, agricultural industry crashes, America becomes reliant on crappy Chinese imports, they defrost Mao and go on a rampage in WW3 against a limp American military because president soy believes flowers are stronger than guns

God bless the popular vote
This kunt is on fire today LOL
Still Cuckin On Four Fours, Wrapped In Four Voes
Quick Navigation Top Misc
« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Bookmarks
Digg.com
Digg
del.icio.us
del.icio.us
Stumbleupon.com
StumbleUpon
Google.com
Google
Facebook.com
Facebook
Posting Permissions
  1. You may not post new threads
  2. You may not post replies
  3. You may not post attachments
  4. You may not edit your posts