Warpath  

Home | Forums | Salary Cap Info | Shop | Donate | Stay Connected




Go Back   Warpath > Off-Topic Discussion > Parking Lot


Obama Nominates Sotomayor to SCOTUS

Parking Lot


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-27-2009, 06:02 PM   #46
Quietly Dominating the East
 
Hog1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Naples, Florida
Posts: 9,772
Re: Obama Nominates Sotomayor to SCOTUS

p.s. The future looks bright...everyone will be singing a different tune in 2050
---will we be singing it in English? (The recent Supreme nom. notwithstanding)
__________________
Goodbye Sean..........Vaya Con Dios
thankyou Joe.......
“God made certain people to play football. He was one of them.” – Joe Gibbs
Hog1 is offline   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
Old 05-27-2009, 06:13 PM   #47
Registered User
 
saden1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Seattle
Age: 35
Posts: 10,069
Re: Obama Nominates Sotomayor to SCOTUS

Quote:
Originally Posted by firstdown View Post
So give me an example of a man and a women both have the same case (to the T) where a women or the man for that fact get a different ruling from a court because of their gender.
Easy...cases dealing with womens issues are not viewed the same by a man and a woman.
saden1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 06:43 PM   #48
Registered User
 
saden1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Seattle
Age: 35
Posts: 10,069
Re: Obama Nominates Sotomayor to SCOTUS

For those interested (not you TTL, I know comprehension isn't your forté) here is Sotomyor's "controversial" lecture in its entirety. The last page is a marvelous read:

Quote:
In our private conversations, Judge Cedarbaum has pointed out to me that seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination cases have come from Supreme Courts composed exclusively of white males. I agree that this is significant but I also choose to emphasize that the people who argued those cases before the Supreme Court which changed the legal landscape ultimately were largely people of color and women. I recall that Justice Thurgood Marshall, Judge Connie Baker Motley, the first black woman appointed to the federal bench, and others of the NAACP argued Brown v. Board of Education. Similarly, Justice Ginsburg, with other women attorneys, was instrumental in advocating and convincing the Court that equality of work required equality in terms and conditions of employment.

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.

Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.

However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.

I also hope that by raising the question today of what difference having more Latinos and Latinas on the bench will make will start your own evaluation. For people of color and women lawyers, what does and should being an ethnic minority mean in your lawyering? For men lawyers, what areas in your experiences and attitudes do you need to work on to make you capable of reaching those great moments of enlightenment which other men in different circumstances have been able to reach. For all of us, how do change the facts that in every task force study of gender and race bias in the courts, women and people of color, lawyers and judges alike, report in significantly higher percentages than white men that their gender and race has shaped their careers, from hiring, retention to promotion and that a statistically significant number of women and minority lawyers and judges, both alike, have experienced bias in the courtroom?

Each day on the bench I learn something new about the judicial process and about being a professional Latina woman in a world that sometimes looks at me with suspicion. I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.

Last edited by saden1; 05-28-2009 at 10:22 AM.
saden1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 06:50 PM   #49
Living Legend
 
GTripp0012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 27
Posts: 15,994
Re: Obama Nominates Sotomayor to SCOTUS

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmootSmack View Post
You're still on that stupid claim aren't you? I may disagree with saden often when it comes to politics, but I believe he's pretty intelligent and educated on such matters.

You, on the other hand...it amazes me how nearly every time you post in a thread about politics how ignorant you are. Just stuns me. Where do you come off claiming that Republicans hate women in power? What proof do you have?

By the way, do you remember which party was sitting in the White House when the first female Supreme Court Judge was selected?

Do the names Elizabeth Dole, Margaret Spellings, Elaine Chao, Gale Norton, Christine Todd Whitman, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Margaret Chase Smith, Kay Orr (country's first female governor), Jodi Rell, Jeannette Ranking (first congresswoman), Marsha Blackburn, or Jean Schmidt ring a bell at all?

I think you mean well and it's great you like to be involved in the whole political process...but it's just not your forte. I think I could speak Aramaic more eloquently than you could speak politics. You're probably better off just sitting on the sidelines and letting saden and 70Chip debate each other
Oh, if I could only be so arrogant
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation.
GTripp0012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 07:46 PM   #50
Playmaker
 
Slingin Sammy 33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Virginia Beach
Posts: 4,347
Re: Obama Nominates Sotomayor to SCOTUS

Quote:
Originally Posted by saden1 View Post
At this point I don't even know what you're getting at. Justice is about fairness for both the majority and minority. The blindness of justice is a mater of fairness and I don't see what the issue is with respect to weather her Hispanic heritage should or shouldn't be considered an asset.
Based on her own statement about a Latina woman making a better judgement than a white male she is alleging that her sex & heritage makes her better qualified. I disagree with that premise.

Quote:
As for the broader notion that justice should be blind to race and sex you are absolutely wrong on the matter -- with prejudice.
Here we have a fundamental disagreement -- with prejudice.

Quote:
We are a Constitutional Republic is to combat majoritarianism. Protecting the minority from the majority is at the core of this nations and the single most important job carried out by our judicial branch.
Interpreting the laws and Constitution of the U.S., with regards to the cases presented to it, is the single most important job of the judicial branch not to protect a minority, majority, or certain race/sex/creed.

Quote:
Race and sex (the minority requiring protection) can be and are a factor in decision making because their social standing is still below that of white males (the majority that wields power). This isn't intended to be an indictment of white males, it's just the current fact of life. You still got the best hands in the deck bro even if Obama is president.
I don't think I've ever mentioned my ethnicity....but yes I'm a white male. I'm not sure what "best hands" I'm supposed to be holding. I grew up lower-middle class, went to public school, financed my own education, served in the military, haven't received any promotions because I'm a white male. I haven't received any government assistance or loans because of being a white male. So I disagree with the premise that the "deck is stacked" in my favor. On the contrary, I've been involved in Federal contracting for over 15 years and if I was a minority based on my contacts and knowledge, I would've started my own 8(a) company and be significantly better off financially than I am now.

Is the country completely color-blind, of course not, but we have made tremendous strides in the last 50 years.

Quote:
The truth is the Supreme Court never takes on a case unless it deems the findings of the lower court questionable. This is their function so the 83% is meaningless. If you really are interested in numbers the number that should interest you is what percentage of all the cases heard by Sotomayor did the Supreme Court review. One has to wonder about Roberts and Alito disagreements with the Supreme Court as appellate judges.
The 83% number isn't meaningless, unless you can show that the number is consistent among other SC nominees. You are right and I thought about this also, is that the number of her cases reveiwed by the Supreme Court should be referenced against other SC nominees. If the numbers are in-line than they are of no consequence, if the numbers are skewed then they need to be taken into consideration.
__________________
"I would bet.....(if), an angel fairy came down and said, '[You can have anything] in the world you would like to own,' I wouldn't be surprised if you said a football club and particularly the Washington Redskins.'' — Jack Kent Cooke, 1996.
Slingin Sammy 33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 08:05 PM   #51
MVP
 
dmek25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: lancaster,pa
Age: 53
Posts: 10,525
Re: Obama Nominates Sotomayor to SCOTUS

thanks alot SS. ill take your advice. only i wish i could be as smart as some around here
__________________
"It's better to be quiet and thought a fool than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt."
courtesy of 53fan
dmek25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 08:47 PM   #52
Registered User
 
saden1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Seattle
Age: 35
Posts: 10,069
Re: Obama Nominates Sotomayor to SCOTUS

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33 View Post
Based on her own statement about a Latina woman making a better judgement than a white male she is alleging that her sex & heritage makes her better qualified. I disagree with that premise.

Here we have a fundamental disagreement -- with prejudice.

Interpreting the laws and Constitution of the U.S., with regards to the cases presented to it, is the single most important job of the judicial branch not to protect a minority, majority, or certain race/sex/creed.

I don't think I've ever mentioned my ethnicity....but yes I'm a white male. I'm not sure what "best hands" I'm supposed to be holding. I grew up lower-middle class, went to public school, financed my own education, served in the military, haven't received any promotions because I'm a white male. I haven't received any government assistance or loans because of being a white male. So I disagree with the premise that the "deck is stacked" in my favor. On the contrary, I've been involved in Federal contracting for over 15 years and if I was a minority based on my contacts and knowledge, I would've started my own 8(a) company and be significantly better off financially than I am now.

Is the country completely color-blind, of course not, but we have made tremendous strides in the last 50 years.

The 83% number isn't meaningless, unless you can show that the number is consistent among other SC nominees. You are right and I thought about this also, is that the number of her cases reveiwed by the Supreme Court should be referenced against other SC nominees. If the numbers are in-line than they are of no consequence, if the numbers are skewed then they need to be taken into consideration.
This is where deep understanding of the founding of our governmental structure is and the reasoning behind it is required. You won't get this information for the Levins of the world for they betray you at the expense of making a buck. Me, I go straight to the source...the writings of John Adams a.k.a. Marchmont Nedham and James Madison.

Quote:
If by the people is meant all the inhabitants of a single city they are not in a general assembly at all times the best keepers of their own liberties nor perhaps at any time unless you separate from them the executive and judicial power and temper their authority in legislation with the maturer counsels of the one and the few If it is meant by the people as our author explains himself a representative assembly such as shall be successively chosen to represent the people still they are not the best keepers of the people's liberties or their own if you give them all the power legislative executive and judicial They would invade the liberties of the people at least the majority of them would invade the liberties of the minority sooner and oftener than an absolute monarchy such as that of France Spain or Russia or than a well checked aristocracy like Venice Bern or Holland.

An excellent writer has said somewhat incautiously that a people will never oppress themselves or invade their own rights This compliment if applied to human nature or to mankind or to any nation or people in being or in memory is more than has been merited If it should be admitted that a people will not unanimously agree to oppress themselves it is as much as is ever and more than is always true All kinds of experience show that great numbers of individuals do oppress great numbers of other individuals that parties often if not always oppress other parties and majorities almost universally minorities All that this observation can mean then consistently with any color of fact is that the people will never unanimously agree to oppress themselves But if one party agrees to oppress another or the majority the minority the people still oppress themselves for one part of them oppress another.


-John Adams
Quote:
The essence of Government is power and power lodged as it must be in human hands will ever be liable to abuse In monarchies the interests and happiness of all may be sacrificed to the caprice and passions of a despot In aristocracies the rights and welfare of the many may be sacrificed to the pride and cupidity of the few In republics the great danger is that the majority may not sufficiently respect the rights of the minority Some gentlemen consulting the purity and generosity of their own minds without adverting to the lessons of experience would find a security against that danger in our social feelings in a respect for character in the dictates of the monitor within in the interests of individuals in the aggregate interests of the community But man is known to be a selfish as well as a social being Respect for character though often a salutary restraint is but too often overruled by other motives When numbers of men act in a body respect for character is often lost just in proportion as it is necessary to control what is not right We all know that conscience is not a sufficient safe guard and besides that conscience itself may be deluded may be misled by an unconscious bias into acts which an enlightened conscience would forbid As to the permanent interest of individuals in the aggregate interests of the community and in the proverbial maxim that honesty is the best policy present temptation is often found to be an overmatch for those considerations These favourable attributes of the human character are all valuable as auxiliaries but they will not serve as a substitute for the coercive provision belonging to Government and Law They will always in proportion as they prevail be favourable to a mild administration of both but they can never be relied on as a guaranty of the rights of the minority against a majority disposed to take unjust advantage of its power The only effectual safeguard to the rights of the minority must be laid in such a basis and structure of the Government itself as may afford, in a certain degree directly or indirectly a defensive authority in behalf of a minority having right on its side.

To come more nearly to the subject before the Committee viz that peculiar feature in our community which calls for a peculiar division in the basis of our government I mean the coloured part of our population It is apprehended if the power of the Commonwealth shall be in the hands of a majority who have no interest in this species of property that from the facility with which it may be oppressed by excessive taxation injustice may be done to its owners It would seem therefore if we can incorporate that interest into the basis of our system it will be the most apposite and effectual security that can be devised Such an arrangement is recommended to me by many very important considerations It is due to justice due to humanity due to truth to the sympathies of our nature in fine to our character as a people both abroad and at home that they should be considered as much as possible in the light of human beings and not as mere property As such they are acted upon by our laws and have an interest in our laws They may be qonsidered as making a part though a degraded part of the families to which they belong <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=B0waAAAAYAAJ&dq=James%20Madison%20minorit y%20majority&pg=PA362&ci=185,209,793,644&source=bo okclip">The Writings of James Madison : 1819-1836. comprising his public papers and his private correspondence, including numerous letters and documents now for the first time printed By James Madison, Gaillard Hunt</a>

-James Madison
saden1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 08:57 PM   #53
Quietly Dominating the East
 
Hog1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Naples, Florida
Posts: 9,772
Re: Obama Nominates Sotomayor to SCOTUS

You know D, it is not a matter of IQ......and I take a quote from someone we all know.
Have a take....don't suck!
It seems to me in the political arena, you squander your oppurtunities at debate on useless name calling, baseless anti-(anything but raging demspeak) GOP.... AND, George Bush is no longer in office.........give it a rest. Anyway, we have both been around here for a while. SOMETIMES you have to have a thick skin.......
HTTR
__________________
Goodbye Sean..........Vaya Con Dios
thankyou Joe.......
“God made certain people to play football. He was one of them.” – Joe Gibbs
Hog1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 09:17 PM   #54
Playmaker
 
Trample the Elderly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Three Chopt Virginia
Age: 37
Posts: 2,906
Re: Obama Nominates Sotomayor to SCOTUS

Quote:
Originally Posted by dmek25 View Post
better go back and re read the previous posts. it was my man trample
My main man DMEK, she brought it up in front of a meeting of La Raza, aka the race. So I can't see how race isn't an issue when she brought it up in front of a group named, The Race?

This apointment has identity politics written all over it. After she said she was more qualified than a white man because she was a poor Puerto Rican I needed nothing else.

What I see Obama or whoever came up with this lady doing was this, they looked for a particular race and gender and then saw if she was a good judge. I don't think she is. That's just my gut. She has Ruth Commie Ginsburg II written all over her.

The whole of my argument is that, they should see if a person is a good judge FIRST, and if he or she should be a blind homosexual Eskimo vegetarian, then so be it.

The last time I checked Alito isn't an Anglo Saxon Protestant, neither is Scalia or Thomas. In fact I don't see how Scalia isn't the first Latin Justice since Italians / Romans invented the language? How many Cherokee or Monacan Justices have we had? Oh that's right! They don't have a huge voting block.

Forgive me, but my dog needs a species sensitive brushing. Peace!
Trample the Elderly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 10:01 PM   #55
Playmaker
 
Slingin Sammy 33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Virginia Beach
Posts: 4,347
Re: Obama Nominates Sotomayor to SCOTUS

Quote:
Originally Posted by saden1 View Post
This is where deep understanding of the founding of our governmental structure is and the reasoning behind it is required. You won't get this information for the Levins of the world for they betray you at the expense of making a buck. Me, I go straight to the source...the writings of John Adams a.k.a. Marchmont Nedham and James Madison.
I wouldn't consider Levin a sell-out. You may not agree with his views but to label him as a sell-out is incorrect. A lot more substance to Levin than most of the talking heads.

Good read on your quotes, but as I knew they would, they refer to the overall structure of government, not the judical branch in particular. I agree that the primary function of the overall structure of our government is to protect the rights of the few against the will of the many. Lately, this appears to be good news for us poor conservatives

To my point: "Interpreting the laws and Constitution of the U.S., with regards to the cases presented to it, is the single most important job of the judicial branch"

from whitehouse.gov: ".....The courts only try actual cases and controversies — a party must show that it has been harmed in order to bring suit in court. This means that the courts do not issue advisory opinions on the constitutionality of laws or the legality of actions if the ruling would have no practical effect....
.....Federal courts enjoy the sole power to interpret the law, determine the constitutionality of the law, and apply it to individual cases. "

The Judicial Branch
__________________
"I would bet.....(if), an angel fairy came down and said, '[You can have anything] in the world you would like to own,' I wouldn't be surprised if you said a football club and particularly the Washington Redskins.'' — Jack Kent Cooke, 1996.
Slingin Sammy 33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 10:05 PM   #56
Uncle Phil
 
SmootSmack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 45,116
Re: Obama Nominates Sotomayor to SCOTUS

Quote:
Originally Posted by GTripp0012 View Post
Oh, if I could only be so arrogant
Keep trying
__________________
You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You
SmootSmack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 10:06 PM   #57
Uncle Phil
 
SmootSmack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 45,116
Re: Obama Nominates Sotomayor to SCOTUS

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hog1 View Post
You know D, it is not a matter of IQ......and I take a quote from someone we all know.
Have a take....don't suck!
It seems to me in the political arena, you squander your oppurtunities at debate on useless name calling, baseless anti-(anything but raging demspeak) GOP.... AND, George Bush is no longer in office.........give it a rest. Anyway, we have both been around here for a while. SOMETIMES you have to have a thick skin.......
HTTR
Well put
__________________
You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You
SmootSmack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 11:07 PM   #58
Swearinger
 
GMScud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Washington, DC
Age: 36
Posts: 12,623
Re: Obama Nominates Sotomayor to SCOTUS

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmootSmack View Post
You're still on that stupid claim aren't you? I may disagree with saden often when it comes to politics, but I believe he's pretty intelligent and educated on such matters.

You, on the other hand...it amazes me how nearly every time you post in a thread about politics how ignorant you are. Just stuns me. Where do you come off claiming that Republicans hate women in power? What proof do you have?

By the way, do you remember which party was sitting in the White House when the first female Supreme Court Judge was selected?

Do the names Elizabeth Dole, Margaret Spellings, Elaine Chao, Gale Norton, Christine Todd Whitman, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Margaret Chase Smith, Kay Orr (country's first female governor), Jodi Rell, Jeannette Ranking (first congresswoman), Marsha Blackburn, or Jean Schmidt ring a bell at all?

I think you mean well and it's great you like to be involved in the whole political process...but it's just not your forte. I think I could speak Aramaic more eloquently than you could speak politics. You're probably better off just sitting on the sidelines and letting saden and 70Chip debate each other
It's stuff like that that keeps me for the most part out of the political threads. I love to read the arguments, and both sides of the aisle have some very intelligent posters around here. Occasionally I chime in, but largely I lurk. Sometimes I have to put my fist in my mouth. I know if I get started I'll spend untold hours on this site that I just don't have.

Anyway, I'm not going to criticize Sotomayor because Obama and Co. warned us critics to be "exceedingly careful." I have nightmares of Rahm-bo standing over my bed with a knife.

White House to Sonia Sotomayor critics: Be 'careful' - Alexander Burns and Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com
__________________
Insert witty signature here

Last edited by GMScud; 05-27-2009 at 11:57 PM.
GMScud is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2009, 11:19 AM   #59
Playmaker
 
over the mountain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: close to the edge
Posts: 3,947
Re: Obama Nominates Sotomayor to SCOTUS

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly View Post
F you Saden. I am so-called Hispanic. It's a made up term and so is Latino. You're not as smart as you think you are.
actually i have to agree with TTE here. "hispanic" wasnt a word until US immigration made it up as a category of race to my knowledge . . . .older hispanic persons ive talked to about this said it was at one time viewed as a derogatory term among "hispanics" b/c it took away their actual identity and lumped them all into one easy category whether you were from south america, mexico puerto rico, spain etc., you, for americans convenience, were all branded as "hispanic".

now its just an accepted term i doubt most young hispanics even know the origin of.

go skins!!
over the mountain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2009, 01:26 PM   #60
Playmaker
 
Trample the Elderly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Three Chopt Virginia
Age: 37
Posts: 2,906
Re: Obama Nominates Sotomayor to SCOTUS

Quote:
Originally Posted by over the mountain View Post
actually i have to agree with TTE here. "hispanic" wasnt a word until US immigration made it up as a category of race to my knowledge . . . .older hispanic persons ive talked to about this said it was at one time viewed as a derogatory term among "hispanics" b/c it took away their actual identity and lumped them all into one easy category whether you were from south america, mexico puerto rico, spain etc., you, for americans convenience, were all branded as "hispanic".

now its just an accepted term i doubt most young hispanics even know the origin of.

go skins!!
You know the term Redneck came about when American's with Indian blood were told their necks were too red to vote. Now people run around like it has something to do with working class WASPs and it's some kind of badge of honor.

Thank you for recognizing that old schoolers don't like being put into some made up ethnic group with people from another race and culture. I can't speak for everyone else but I don't appreciate people speaking on my behalf.

I would find it insulting to find out that I was elevated to a position because I've got a dash of Indian blood and some egg head thinks I'm some kind of minority. The last time I checked I was surrounded by my fellow country-men.

Judge Soda-Maker thinks because she's Puerto Rican that makes her smarter than Caucasians. That is racist BS. Had it been a white man saying these things the liberal media would've shat.
Trample the Elderly is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site is not officially affiliated with the Washington Redskins or the NFL.
Page generated in 0.46975 seconds with 9 queries

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25