1. #14761
    Merely a Setback cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    29,165
    I feel bad we closed the RBG thread because of the political spill-over from her replacement. She deserved better from us.

    That being said...

    Lisa Murkowski becomes second Republican senator to oppose taking up Supreme Court nomination before election.

    I believe I'm seeing a strategy here. McConnell needs only 50 GOP Senators to vote for the SCOTUS nominee (Pence will break the tie). So, in the best intentions of Machiavellian statecraft, he might be seeing who can't afford to vote for it - and is allowing three GOP Senators "off the hook".

    So Far
    Collins
    Murkowski

    Possible for the 3rd Slot
    Romney (Utah)
    McSally (AZ) - unlikely though, she's a loser through and through (/knocks-wood-anyways)

    Not sure who else. Really, it looks like the RBG replacement is going to happen. I don't see four GOP Senators who need to wait. Plus, everyone is talking "until the election", but everyone (not you guys - I mean out there) seems to forget there is no rule against filling a seat during a lame duck session. And of course McConnell would do that, just as a parting "fuck you" to the world.

  2. #14762
    I am Murloc! Thekri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A highly disgruntled constituent of Lindsey Graham.
    Posts
    5,726
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    I feel bad we closed the RBG thread because of the political spill-over from her replacement. She deserved better from us.

    That being said...

    Lisa Murkowski becomes second Republican senator to oppose taking up Supreme Court nomination before election.

    I believe I'm seeing a strategy here. McConnell needs only 50 GOP Senators to vote for the SCOTUS nominee (Pence will break the tie). So, in the best intentions of Machiavellian statecraft, he might be seeing who can't afford to vote for it - and is allowing three GOP Senators "off the hook".

    So Far
    Collins
    Murkowski

    Possible for the 3rd Slot
    Romney (Utah)
    McSally (AZ) - unlikely though, she's a loser through and through (/knocks-wood-anyways)

    Not sure who else. Really, it looks like the RBG replacement is going to happen. I don't see four GOP Senators who need to wait. Plus, everyone is talking "until the election", but everyone (not you guys - I mean out there) seems to forget there is no rule against filling a seat during a lame duck session. And of course McConnell would do that, just as a parting "fuck you" to the world.
    McSally already made it incredibly clear they will support it. Romney might go either way.

    I think there is a decent chance that someone like Grassley will block it though. Not because Grassley is a good person, but because he really likes rules, and really doesn't like Mitch telling him what to do. He is basically lawful evil, he doesn't get along with chaotic evil all that well.
    "We have it totally under control. It’s one person coming in from China. We have it under control. It’s going to be just fine." DJT- Jan 22, 2020
    "And again, when you have 15 people, and the 15 within a couple of days is going to be down to close to zero, that’s a pretty good job we’ve done." DJT- Feb 26, 2020
    “It’s going to disappear. One day — it’s like a miracle — it will disappear.” DJT- Feb 27, 2020

  3. #14763
    Merely a Setback cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    29,165
    (putting in CAPS and red just to make requests clear - those obviously weren't your quotes)

    Quote Originally Posted by Bodakane View Post
    None of this is true.

    Not your summation of my point. Not the recount of the arguments I've made. Not the reasoning behind your stance.

    And you're doing all that while demanding I give more reasoning (which I have) while providing literally nothing more than, "they are the same just trust me". You have not in any size shape or form explained why they are indicative of the general. You've discounted every factual reasoning I've given REPOST THOSE "FACTUAL REASONING[S] PLEASE - WE'VE ONLY SEEN YOUR FEELS, NOT "FACTS", like the pool is diluted in the primaries to the strategy dems traditionally use to vote in primaries, with.....nothing. Not a single solitary fact, piece of logic, piece of reasoning, sliver of evidence...nothing. WE POSTED THE FACTS AT THE BEGINNING - YOU MUST HAVE FORGOTTEN - BERNIE DIDN'T BRING OUT THE VOTE IN THE PRIMARY AS PEOPLE CLAIMED HE WOULD - GUESS YOU MISSED THAT FACT
    We can't have a conversation if you refuse to face logic and reasoning.

    Please provide the "more reasoning (which I have)" you've provided in responses to me. Because I haven't seen it. All you say in the end, is that a Primary is different from a General, and therefore what you feel is truth. While logic and objective evidence tells us your entirely wrong.

    You say the "pool is diluted" - and I've agreed, over and over again - but enthusiasm transcends all of that. People are excited, period. You yet to argue against this basic, entirely logical and objectively factual point - please cut and paste this point and provide your reasoning if I've missed it. So far all I see you say is that "they are different so what I claim is true".

    Have you linked any facts to show that enthusiasm doesn't transcend Primary vs General? Remember, the voters Bernie was supposed to bring out in the Primary never showed. Why are you struggling with providing evidence for you claims? Did you post a link that we missed? Please repost if you did - otherwise we'll assume you are arguing all of this from "feels" without any objective evidence or logic.

    It's pretty clear you just can't admit when you're wrong, which is disappointing.
    Last edited by cubby; 2020-09-20 at 05:36 PM.

  4. #14764
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    I feel bad we closed the RBG thread because of the political spill-over from her replacement. She deserved better from us.

    That being said...

    Lisa Murkowski becomes second Republican senator to oppose taking up Supreme Court nomination before election.

    I believe I'm seeing a strategy here. McConnell needs only 50 GOP Senators to vote for the SCOTUS nominee (Pence will break the tie). So, in the best intentions of Machiavellian statecraft, he might be seeing who can't afford to vote for it - and is allowing three GOP Senators "off the hook".

    So Far
    Collins
    Murkowski

    Possible for the 3rd Slot
    Romney (Utah)
    McSally (AZ) - unlikely though, she's a loser through and through (/knocks-wood-anyways)

    Not sure who else. Really, it looks like the RBG replacement is going to happen. I don't see four GOP Senators who need to wait. Plus, everyone is talking "until the election", but everyone (not you guys - I mean out there) seems to forget there is no rule against filling a seat during a lame duck session. And of course McConnell would do that, just as a parting "fuck you" to the world.
    It is what it is. For whatever reason, Democratic voters did not show up in 2016. Hopefully, this and the last 4 years remind them that there are consequences to elections.

  5. #14765
    Merely a Setback cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    29,165
    Quote Originally Posted by Thekri View Post
    McSally already made it incredibly clear they will support it. Romney might go either way.

    I think there is a decent chance that someone like Grassley will block it though. Not because Grassley is a good person, but because he really likes rules, and really doesn't like Mitch telling him what to do. He is basically lawful evil, he doesn't get along with chaotic evil all that well.
    It's still not enough (hear me out). Romeny saying "wait" is fine, but he also can be pushed around. Grassley might like the rules, but in the end, he'll want a conservative to replace RBG - I mean, who the fuck wouldn't on that side of the table.

    I just don't see four GOP Senators being able and willing to say "wait".

  6. #14766
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    We can't have a conversation if you refuse to face logic and reasoning.

    It's entirely true, you just can't seem to face it.

    Please provide the "more reasoning (which I have)" you've provided in responses to me. Because I haven't seen it. All you say in the end, is that a Primary is different from a General, and therefore what you feel is truth. While logic and objective evidence tells us your entirely wrong.

    You say the "pool is diluted" - and I've agreed, over and over again - but enthusiasm transcends all of that. People are excited, period. You yet to argue against this basic, entirely logical and objectively factual point - please cut and paste this point and provide your reasoning if I've missed it. So far all I see you say is that "they are different so what I claim is true".

    Have you linked any facts to show that enthusiasm doesn't transcend Primary vs General? Remember, the voters Bernie was supposed to bring out in the Primary never showed. Why are you struggling with providing evidence for you claims? Did you post a link that we missed? Please repost if you did - otherwise we'll assume you are arguing all of this from "feels" without any objective evidence or logic.

    It's pretty clear you just can't admit when you're wrong, which is disappointing.
    You are saying they are the same, without providing any reasoning as to why. Scroll to the top of this page to read my laid out explanation. Where the fuck can I scroll to see why you keep acting like primary results are not different than general election results. You are literally saying if someone is enthusiastic about eating a meal then they'd be equally enthusiastic about cooking it. You keep talking about my feels, while providing no reasoning whatsoever for your stance at all. Give me a fact or some logic.
    When I despair, I remember that all through history, there have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time, they seem invincible.
    But in the end, they always fall. Always.- Mahatma Gandhi


  7. #14767
    Merely a Setback cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    29,165
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodakane View Post
    You are saying they are the same, without providing any reasoning as to why. Scroll to the top of this page to read my laid out explanation. Where the fuck can I scroll to see why you keep acting like primary results are not different than general election results. You are literally saying if someone is enthusiastic about eating a meal then they'd be equally enthusiastic about cooking it. You keep talking about my feels, while providing no reasoning whatsoever for your stance at all. Give me a fact or some logic.
    Why would a candidate's enthusiasm not show up in the Primary election? Lay that out logically for us, with EVIDENCE, or we'll assume you're done with this conversation.

  8. #14768
    Void Lord Felya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    solve coagula
    Posts
    52,747
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodakane View Post
    I'm going to explain this one last time for you. Please read it slowly, get an adult close to you to help if necessary, because I'm pretty sick of you willfully misconstruing my stance.
    Dude... I’m 41...

    Part 1: Independents are not moderate.
    I say this because if they were moderate they would NOT have voted for Trump in 2016. He was an extreme right candidate espousing extreme right ideals. He didn't even moderately grab someone by the pussy. Hillary on the other hand, is the walking embodiment of moderate. So, if these moderates are just so moderate why did they not vote the very moderate moderate into office?
    Again, that’s irrelevant to what I’m saying. You keep going on about undefined independents, which lets me use math with a random data set. You are wrong, not because of political leaning defining independents, but because they are a random number set, which lets us use very basic math. As soon as you define independents as random, I get to apply math that applies to all random data sets.

    Your political definitions means jack shit to math.

    Also, I gave you a link that showed how Trump ran as a moderate. Basically, he ran as a populist against the elites... Alt right calls Trump a classic liberal. Half the country is not extreme right... read the article and tell me how either my summery, or something I missed, is wrong.

    This clearly shows that the independents that flipped the 2016 are either.....far right which is not moderate or over the status quo (which Hillary also perfectly embodied) which is also, get this....not moderate. Sure, I'm letting hope tell me they were just over the status quo and not far right shitbags, but its hope based in reality and logic. Either way, they very clearly were not moderate.
    My way doesn’t assume political leaning of independents. I have no interest in discussing why independents voted for either candidate. As I said, I don’t read minds.
    (Don't read further until you show the adult helping you, you that you've grasped what I'm saying in Part 1. Maybe take a quiz?)
    What do you think it makes you look like, when I don’t stoop to these levels? Think about it...

    Part 2: People are fatigued with the status quo, due in large part to social media and information overload.

    (Again don't read further until you show the adult helping you, you that you've grasped what I'm saying in Part 2. Maybe use flash cards?)
    Nope... in fact, I cut it out, because it’s just rambling. Your argument that populace is fatigued on Trump, so you are arguing that Bernie would represent that, better than Biden... doesn’t make sense. You are just acting status quo the last 3 years was the same as 3 years ago... why should I bother? Trump is the incumbent... if you think the status quo now, is the same as it was before Trump, we are at an impasse that cannot be overcome. The reason I voting for Biden, is because of being fatigued with status quo of Trump.

    Part 3: Trump's massive Covid failure gives Biden a chance.
    Based on people who are sick of the status quo, not voting against Trump, because shit is the same as it was 4 years ago? Absurd...

    (Again don't read further until you show the adult helping you, you that you've grasped what I'm saying in Part 3. Maybe get a second tutor?)
    What adult does this? What adult do you know, that posts like this? Trump?

    Part 4: Bernie or my actual choice overall Warren, could beat Trump but Dems voted safe in the primaries.
    Dems are notoriously cowards politically. Most dems actually wanted Berni/Warren level plans and programs but voted Biden because they, like you, stupidly think dependents still equal moderate. But if one of them or even Pete had gotten the nom, then this election would be about Not Typical Politician A Whose A Functioning Adult vs. Not Typical Politician B Whose Not A Functioning Adult. By going this route, Trump's incompetence comes into play because these independents weren't going further down the list then Question #1: Is this candidate a typical politician?
    If they made the safe choice, everyone you are arguing against is 100% right. Your bullshit about independents is meant less. My guess... by the time you finally finished writing out your arguments, that’s exactly what you realized.

    (Don't respond until you show the adult helping you, you that you've grasped what I'm saying in Parts 1-4. Maybe increase blood flow to your thinking bone?)
    Figured out any adults that act like this yet? No?

    FTR: Just so you and Cubby know, I'm voting Biden without hesitation or compunction. I actually wanted Biden over Obama in their 2008 primary because Biden is actually an excellent strategist with foreign affairs and I knew little of Obama.
    Don’t care... due to WA rules at the time, public voting in primary was irrelevant for both, 2008 and 2016.
    As above, so below.
    Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
    The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
    That which is Below corresponds to that which is Above, and that which is Above corresponds to that which is Below, to accomplish the miracle of the One Thing.

  9. #14769
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    I feel bad we closed the RBG thread because of the political spill-over from her replacement. She deserved better from us.

    That being said...

    Lisa Murkowski becomes second Republican senator to oppose taking up Supreme Court nomination before election.

    I believe I'm seeing a strategy here. McConnell needs only 50 GOP Senators to vote for the SCOTUS nominee (Pence will break the tie). So, in the best intentions of Machiavellian statecraft, he might be seeing who can't afford to vote for it - and is allowing three GOP Senators "off the hook".

    So Far
    Collins
    Murkowski

    Possible for the 3rd Slot
    Romney (Utah)
    McSally (AZ) - unlikely though, she's a loser through and through (/knocks-wood-anyways)

    Not sure who else. Really, it looks like the RBG replacement is going to happen. I don't see four GOP Senators who need to wait. Plus, everyone is talking "until the election", but everyone (not you guys - I mean out there) seems to forget there is no rule against filling a seat during a lame duck session. And of course McConnell would do that, just as a parting "fuck you" to the world.
    Don’t for a minute pretend Democrats wouldn’t do the same thing if given the chance. In fact they tried in Obama’s last year with Merrick Garland. Maybe Ginsburg should have retired early on in Obama’s second term and this wouldn’t be an issue for Democrats.
    “A trillion six hundred billion worth. A trillion 400 hundred billion worth. A billion 400 million. A trillion 400 billion. 740 million billion dollars.” - Joe Biden

  10. #14770
    Merely a Setback cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    29,165
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasulis View Post
    It is what it is. For whatever reason, Democratic voters did not show up in 2016. Hopefully, this and the last 4 years remind them that there are consequences to elections.
    I hope the Blue Wave from 2018 continues to build. This fuckery with the USPS is frightening.

    (does Canada do dual citizenship? Asking for a friend....)

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by muto View Post
    Don’t for a minute pretend Democrats wouldn’t do the same thing if given the chance. In fact they tried in Obama’s last year with Merrick Garland. Maybe Ginsburg should have retired early on in Obama’s second term and this wouldn’t be an issue for Democrats.
    I love that you think the Garland situation is the same as the RBG. And tell us again why McConnell's words/rules don't apply here? He's drowning in his own hypocrisy.

  11. #14771
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    Why would a candidate's enthusiasm not show up in the Primary election?
    Jesus.

    There's more people to get enthused than the people that can vote in a primary.

    Your argument is essentially saying, if a person doesn't vote in a primary they likely won't in the general and if they do then their vote isn't worth anything.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by muto View Post
    Don’t for a minute pretend Democrats wouldn’t do the same thing if given the chance. In fact they tried in Obama’s last year with Merrick Garland. Maybe Ginsburg should have retired early on in Obama’s second term and this wouldn’t be an issue for Democrats.
    Yeah, we tried because it was never a really issue before then. Your side lost their shit and said it was wrong.

    Now your side is going to do it and our side is merely asking you to play by the rules your side invented.

    You cannot honestly not see the disgusting hypocrisy of your side.
    When I despair, I remember that all through history, there have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time, they seem invincible.
    But in the end, they always fall. Always.- Mahatma Gandhi


  12. #14772
    Void Lord Felya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    solve coagula
    Posts
    52,747
    Quote Originally Posted by muto View Post
    Don’t for a minute pretend Democrats wouldn’t do the same thing if given the chance. In fact they tried in Obama’s last year with Merrick Garland. Maybe Ginsburg should have retired early on in Obama’s second term and this wouldn’t be an issue for Democrats.
    Because GOP set as a precedent... Democrats doing the same, was just how it was, before GOP pulled this bullshit.

    Edit: They made the rules to stop Obama... now they don’t like the rules... wtf?
    As above, so below.
    Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
    The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
    That which is Below corresponds to that which is Above, and that which is Above corresponds to that which is Below, to accomplish the miracle of the One Thing.

  13. #14773
    Merely a Setback cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    29,165
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodakane View Post
    Jesus.

    There's more people to get enthused than the people that can vote in a primary.

    Your argument is essentially saying, if a person doesn't vote in a primary they likely won't in the general and if they do then their vote isn't worth anything.
    /sigh

    No, you continue to not understand my point. Listen:

    If a candidate is going to "bring out the vote", then we will see, OVERALL, an increased number of people voting, in whatever category of person, during the Primary - in relation to the Primary itself (meaning not in relation to the General). Bernie was supposed to bring out the young vote, but the young vote did not show up for the Primary, so the idea that Bernie would "bring out the vote" in the General, is factually/objectively/logically wrong.

    Explain to me how that is wrong, according to you.

  14. #14774
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    GOP thinks there are 4 women in DNC that are the biggest threat to them... AOC is the biggest threat, if you judge by GOP action. They are building her to be their next Hillary.
    I personally just think she's the future of the party if she can unite all the different bits.

  15. #14775
    Void Lord Felya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    solve coagula
    Posts
    52,747
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    I hope the Blue Wave from 2018 continues to build. This fuckery with the USPS is frightening.
    If all else fails...

    https://www.newzealandnow.govt.nz/wh...ew-zealand/usa

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Valkyrst View Post
    I personally just think she's the future of the party if she can unite all the different bits.
    She is, but they need to go on the offensive. I’m watching history repeat, they did this to Hillary.
    As above, so below.
    Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
    The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
    That which is Below corresponds to that which is Above, and that which is Above corresponds to that which is Below, to accomplish the miracle of the One Thing.

  16. #14776
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    Dude... I’m 41...



    Again, that’s irrelevant to what I’m saying. You keep going on about undefined independents, which lets me use math with a random data set. You are wrong, not because of political leaning defining independents, but because they are a random number set, which lets us use very basic math. As soon as you define independents as random, I get to apply math that applies to all random data sets.

    Your political definitions means jack shit to math.

    Also, I gave you a link that showed how Trump ran as a moderate. Basically, he ran as a populist against the elites... Alt right calls Trump a classic liberal. Half the country is not extreme right... read the article and tell me how either my summery, or something I missed, is wrong.



    My way doesn’t assume political leaning of independents. I have no interest in discussing why independents voted for either candidate. As I said, I don’t read minds.


    What do you think it makes you look like, when I don’t stoop to these levels? Think about it...



    Nope... in fact, I cut it out, because it’s just rambling. Your argument that populace is fatigued on Trump, so you are arguing that Bernie would represent that, better than Biden... doesn’t make sense. You are just acting status quo the last 3 years was the same as 3 years ago... why should I bother? Trump is the incumbent... if you think the status quo now, is the same as it was before Trump, we are at an impasse that cannot be overcome. The reason I voting for Biden, is because of being fatigued with status quo of Trump.



    Based on people who are sick of the status quo, not voting against Trump, because shit is the same as it was 4 years ago? Absurd...



    What adult does this? What adult do you know, that posts like this? Trump?



    If they made the safe choice, everyone you are arguing against is 100% right. Your bullshit about independents is meant less. My guess... by the time you finally finished writing out your arguments, that’s exactly what you realized.



    Figured out any adults that act like this yet? No?



    Don’t care... due to WA rules at the time, public voting in primary was irrelevant for both, 2008 and 2016.
    You ignored most of my points and the ones you did address you either, again, misrepresented or discounted for reasons that don't make sense.

    Yes, I insulted you, because you've purposely tried to annoy me by misrepresenting my arguments to fit your own made up arguments. That's not something adults do either, except Trump and his supporters. So I guess we're both guilty.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    /sigh

    No, you continue to not understand my point. Listen:

    If a candidate is going to "bring out the vote", then we will see, OVERALL, an increased number of people voting, in whatever category of person, during the Primary - in relation to the Primary itself (meaning not in relation to the General). Bernie was supposed to bring out the young vote, but the young vote did not show up for the Primary, so the idea that Bernie would "bring out the vote" in the General, is factually/objectively/logically wrong.

    Explain to me how that is wrong, according to you.
    I understand your point. It is just wrong and not founded in anything other than your mind.

    Increasing voter turnout can happen in just the general election. There is nothing anywhere that says it must happen in the primaries other than your head. You still haven't given anything in the way of a fact or logic or solid reasoning as to why you think that.
    When I despair, I remember that all through history, there have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time, they seem invincible.
    But in the end, they always fall. Always.- Mahatma Gandhi


  17. #14777
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    If all else fails...

    https://www.newzealandnow.govt.nz/wh...ew-zealand/usa

    - - - Updated - - -



    She is, but they need to go on the offensive. I’m watching history repeat, they did this to Hillary.
    Better bring a lot of money. Real estate is expensive. Not SF expensive. However, Auckland is about SD expensive.

  18. #14778
    Void Lord Felya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    solve coagula
    Posts
    52,747
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    Explain to me how that is wrong, according to you.
    If it’s any conciliation, note that in his reply to me, he said Biden was the safe choice. Consider what it means to your argument.

    Just saw another Biden ad attacking insurance companies... Jets vs 49ers... the way the game is going, healthcare is very apt. Bosa down... even as a seahawk fan and not a fan of his politics, what a stud... that sucks...
    As above, so below.
    Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
    The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
    That which is Below corresponds to that which is Above, and that which is Above corresponds to that which is Below, to accomplish the miracle of the One Thing.

  19. #14779
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    If it’s any conciliation, note that in his reply to me, he said Biden was the safe choice. Consider what it means to your argument.

    Just saw another Biden ad attacking insurance companies... Jets vs 49ers... the way the game is going, healthcare is very apt. Bosa down... even as a seahawk fan and not a fan of his politics, what a stud... that sucks...
    No I didn't. I said Dems believe he's the safe choice based on their wrongheaded notion that independents are moderate. But yeah, keep making shit up post after post.
    When I despair, I remember that all through history, there have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time, they seem invincible.
    But in the end, they always fall. Always.- Mahatma Gandhi


  20. #14780
    Merely a Setback cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    29,165
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    Sold! I'll see you there - we can adopt some Koala Bears or something.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •