Jump to content
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. IpMan

    What are you watching on TV now?

    Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee - this shit is addicting! Watched six episodes straight (they are only 15 min long on average). Favorite one so far: Mel Brooks and Carl Reiner. Jesus Christ Mel has more energy than a 17 year old. I wonder if they gave him a dose or something. Just brilliant!
  3. IpMan

    MSM

    Journalism, the 4th estate is not perfect and will have bias due to human nature. However, the 4th estate is essential and the 1st amendment is our most important amendment. It is incumbent of all peoples to be educated, do their research, and to separate chaff from wheat and know the truth. The MSM may not be perfect, but it is essential and I include Fox News as well. I think Fox News is 100% BS but they have every right to be on the air as long as they do not directly lie, and I include ALL media outlets in this regard. I get my news from BBC News, Al Jazeera, and NPR as my primary sources. I also watch The Young Turks and am donating to the Justice Democrats. If you don't know who the Justice Democrats are I suggest you look them up. They refuse to take one dime of corporate money, refuse to accept money from lobbyists or wealthy donors. They only accept donations from real, living, American individuals. You may not agree with their politics but the very fact that their #1 cause is to get money out of politics is extremely compelling and important. Republican, Democrat, or Indépendant... if you take one dime from corporations, lobbyists, or wealthy donors (PACs) you will not get my vote. The corruption must stop to regain any semblance of a true constitutional republic. They can call them donations until the cows come home but everyone knows what it really is, blatant bribery, pay for play. There is no democratic process in pay for play as those two terms are the exact opposite of one another.
  4. Today
  5. apantherfrommd

    MSM

    Main Stream Media and Press This has had so muc influence over so many people over the years throught publications, tabloids, posters,illustrations, caricatures. It's influence has over-vailed over all sorts of things. Led Zeppelin receives such negative coverage it was pathetic. But they didn't care. That's the attitude needed against all those brainwashed people that read this BS media. The times have changed from then to now. We are all grown up and most read the Main Stream Media. Regarding News media, I think Fox is a meh one. But here are worse and more biased. I don't know how anyone can read anything so biased as the Washington Post or the NY Times. The toilet paper of news. It says a lot about a person's character to read those things. Most biased and lowest of the low peple get their sources of news from here. IMO Just my Random thought for the day. Where do you good people get your sources from?
  6. kingzoso

    What are you watching on TV now?

    I caught the last 2 hours of the game and it was very exciting. Back and forth with a record breaking amount of Home Runs in the final innings. Did Saint Louis Cardinals Yadier Molina get to play?
  7. The Only Way To Fly

    Is it true that Keith Moon named Led Zeppelin?

    What fun they must have had. I can only imagine the after show party.....
  8. IpMan

    If you had a time machine...

    Right on Kip, I agree on this 100%. Just imagine a world where Hitler became the German equivalent of Bob Ross. There was an interesting movie on this subject with John Cusak called Max, you should check it out. It is truly amazing what impact environment has on a single human being and what they become.
  9. IpMan

    Random Thoughts v.3

    Actually, Churchill's mother was an American and explain how Churchill was responsible for the Lusitania? The Germans posted the general area where the U-Boats were operating. The captain of the Lusitania navigated the waters he did knowing full well the U-Boats were in the area even though he could have easily avoided that area by taking a longer route. Also, the Lusitania was carrying war munitions which violated neutrality. The fact is the Lusitania was set up as a casus belli by both the US & UK governments. Of course anti-war sentiment was so high in the US at the time that the general American population did not want to join the war. This is the reason why the US did not announce formal involvement until AFTER the 1916 elections. Literally weeks after Wilson's second inauguration "Mr. I will not Spill American Blood for a European War" had congress declare war and commit US forces. Of course Churchill was a prick, a racist, and responsible for the deaths of possibly millions. However that does not make him the singular mastermind behind a failed reason for war.
  10. IpMan

    Imagine There's No Countries

    1. I have no idea how such a one-world government would take shape, nor did I offer specifics. I was simply asking a very, very simple question. 2. You need to give me a criteria for equality Kip. All peoples are indeed equal, it is the actions of a peoples which dictate position. Do you believe brute strength should hold greater power and weight? Population? Human rights record? The overall happiness and satisfaction of the peoples governed? 3. Ah yes, the most dangerous of all opinions. Why? Because who decides which cultures are better or more evolved? Again, does this mean a more powerful but more brutal culture should be superior to a culture which favors human rights, arts, education, etc. over military strength? What is your criteria for the ranking of cultures as superior, acceptable, and unacceptable?
  11. IpMan

    Imagine There's No Countries

    In The Federalist Papers, James Madison and others argued that the proposed U.S. Constitution would protect the liberty and property of the citizens from usurpations of power from the federal government. Power in the new government was to be divided into three branches: legislative, executive, and judicial. This would create a system of checks and balances necessary to hinder the unwarranted expansion of political power. The division of power would also make it more difficult for a majority to oppress a political minority and political stability would more likely result. In the following passage James Madison discusses the problems of “mutable policy” (governmental activism). Madison believed that the new Constitution would establish a consistent, stable set of laws necessary to promote prosperity. Otherwise, he warned: The internal effects of a mutable policy are still more calamitous. It poisons the blessings of liberty itself. It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed? Another effect of public instability is the unreasonable advantage it gives to the sagacious, the enterprising, and the monied few over the industrious and uninformed mass of the people. Every new regulation concerning commerce or revenue, or in any manner affecting the value of the different species of property, presents a new harvest to those who watch the change, and can trace its consequences; a harvest, reared not by themselves, but by the toils and cares of the great body of their fellow citizens. This is a state of things in which it may be said with some truth that the laws are made for the few, not the many. In another point of view, great injury results from an unstable government. The want of confidence in the public councils damps every useful undertaking, the success and profit of which may depend upon a continuance of existing arrangements. What prudent merchant will hazard his fortunes in any new branch of commerce when he knows not but that his plans will be rendered unlawful before they can be executed? What farmer or manufacturer will lay himself out for the encouragement given to any particular cultivation or establishment, when he can have no assurance that his preparatory labors and advances will not render him a victim of inconsistent government? In a word, no great improvement or laudable enterprise can go forward which requires the auspices of a steady stream of national policy.3 Alexander Hamilton contended that the new federal Constitution would protect private property and liberty from abuses arising at the state level. Between the end of the Revolutionary War in 1781 and the ratification of the Constitution in 1788 state governments faced debtor uprisings, such as Shays’ Rebellion. State legislatures sometimes granted debt relief or “stays” on the payments of debts. Hamilton believed the proposed Constitution had “precautions against the repetition of those practices on the part of the State governments which have undermined the foundations of property and credit.”4 He referred to Article I section 10 of the Constitution which explicitly protects creditors by forbidding states to pass laws “impairing the obligation of contract” or even devaluing debt obligations by making “any thing but gold and silver a tender in payment of debts.” The “impairment of contract” clause remains effective today. New state laws affecting long-standing agreements may only alter future contracts, not existing ones. This protects interstate commerce, such as insurance and banking, from potential abuses by state and local politicians who may be tempted to rewrite contracts to redistribute income from outsiders to local constituents. In the body of the Constitution, Article I sections 9 and 10, also expressly forbids both federal and state governments to grant titles of nobility. This prohibits the establishment of a formal, hereditary class in the United States. In England, the titles “Prince,” “Duke,” and “Earl” consisted of much more than a prefix to a name. Nobility also laid feudal claim to the land held by the common people. Feudal titles, such as Prince of Wales and Duke of York, pretend ownership to the entire realm, subordinating the rights of the landholdings of commoners. America’s framers hated the European class system and the feudal pretense to the land that it represented. The United States are forbidden to ever establish feudal land tenures to lands because sovereign landholdings are essential to a free “Republican form of government.” The U.S. Constitution contained a number of flaws, most notably, the official sanctioning of slavery. Nor did the Constitutional framers advocate laissez-faire capitalism. Some of the framers, including Alexander Hamilton, believed that the government should actively encourage economic growth through protective tariffs. Nonetheless, the framers all held private property in high esteem. Indeed, commercial prosperity seems to be the chief end of good government to them. The economic system under the Constitution is capitalism with a very few specific exceptions explicitly delegating limited powers to Congress, i.e., coin money, establish a Post Office, lay customs duties, etc. James Madison summarized, “The powers delegated to the federal government are few and defined.”5 The Bill of Rights on Private Property Many people were fearful that the Constitution still concentrated too much power in the hands of the federal government. The electorate in key states insisted upon a “Bill of Rights” lest they would reject the proposed Constitution. These amendments soon became incorporated into the new Constitution. Six of these ten amendments pertain either directly or indirectly to private property rights. The Third Amendment states, “No soldier shall in times of peace be quartered in any house, without consent of the owner, nor in times of war, but in a manner prescribed by law.” This amendment grew out of abuses by the British, who had forced people to allow troops into their homes. The amendment clearly protects the rights of homeowners, but is too specific for wider applications. The Fourth Amendment includes the clause, “The rights of people to be secure in their persons, houses, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause . . .” The “search and seizure” clause has been interpreted to pertain primarily to criminal cases, but the stated intent of this statement is to make people secure in their persons and possessions. In civil cases law enforcement officials presently are able to seize property without a warrant and place the burden of proof upon the owner to show that he did not commit a crime. In fact, some local governments now use civil seizures to supplement their budgets. The Seventh Amendment requires that for civil cases in federal courts, “no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States than according to common law.” The common law, as we have seen, rests upon three pillars, including private property rights. This indirect recognition of private property only protects individual owners against other private parties. These common law property claims become enforceable against the federal government under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Amendment Nine states, “The enumeration of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Amendment Ten further stipulates, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states are reserved to the states and the people.” The original intent of the “enumeration” and the “reservation” clauses clearly reaffirm the contract theory of government held by John Locke and James Madison alike. All “powers not delegated to the federal government” includes any and all private property rights described under the common law. Historically, however, U.S. courts have never used the “reservation” clause to decide important cases. The most explicit recognition of private property comes in the Fifth Amendment which states “Nor shall [anyone] be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; Nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.” The first clause is called the “due process” clause while the second part is referred to as the “takings” clause. Until the middle of the twentieth century, the “due process” clause was often used to strike down regulations imposed on private property especially if they amounted to confiscation by regulation or if they exceeded the federal government’s constitutionally delegated authority. For example, when President Franklin Roosevelt’s National Recovery Act required all trades and businesses to form trade associations, restrict entry, and establish minimum wages and prices, the Supreme Court overturned this wholesale reorganization of U.S. industry as a violation of the “due process” clause. This prompted President Roosevelt to threaten to “pack” the Supreme Court. Although Roosevelt failed to gain congressional approval to expand the Supreme Court from nine to fifteen members, the Court no longer overturned New Deal policies. Subsequently, Courts have created an artificial distinction between “property liberties” and “personal liberties.” Rarely, do Courts use the “due process” clause to uphold “property liberties” anymore. Current judicial theorists argue that the Constitution does not prescribe a particular economic system (capitalism). Therefore, private property liberties are not protected while “personal liberties” such as First Amendment guarantees of free speech are still upheld under the “due process” clause. The “takings” clause requires all levels of government to justly compensate owners for property taken for public use. Whenever land is condemned or taken for highway construction, military bases, and so forth, courts must estimate the fair value of the property to be paid to the owners. The “takings” clause also requires governments to compensate owners when confiscatory taxes are imposed or regulatory acts render property worthless. The “takings” clause was intended to prevent the government from forcing a few property owners to bear the burdens of legislative measures intended to benefit the general public. It reduces the uncertainties of property ownership arising out of the political system, helping to mitigate the problems of “mutable” policy alluded to by Madison. Requiring government to compensate owners for the resources that it takes for public use also enhances proper cost-benefit planning on the part of policymakers; but the primary purpose of this clause is to protect property owners from arbitrary governmental power, not to assist bureaucratic planners–or else the framers would have added a “givings” clause entitling the State to be compensated for the public benefits it claims to generate. Until the twentieth century, U.S. courts never applied the “takings” clause to regulations falling short of transferring legal title to the government. Courts, however, did respect private property. Owners could find relief under the “due process” clause which could overturn state and federal legislation altogether. Indeed, the failure to apply the “due process” clause in property cases places the “takings” clause as the final barrier to full governmental supremacy over private property rights. At present, courts are evolving their opinions regarding the “takings” clause. They are willing to allow the regulation of property to some extent, but if the regulation goes too far it may become a taking. The current legal uncertainty results from the clashing views on the nature of private property. Does property constitute the rights of individual owners to actions which enjoy constitutional protections against arbitrary government actions or is the government supreme? In our forefathers’ day, the latter view was known as “the divine right of kings.” During the middle of the twentieth century, the economic system which allows ownership on paper while the government made all of the important decisions regarding the uses of property was called fascism. Today, in the United States government supremacy over individual property owners means that the government may temporarily permit us to hold title to certain of its possessions and use them in limited ways at its pleasure. So far, the opponents of constitutional property rights have refused to give their system a new name, but it amounts to the same old system called tyranny. The essence of private property is the bundle of actions which owners may rightfully perform. Logically, any legislation restricting these ownership acts amounts to a regulatory “taking” and the owner ought to be entitled to be compensated for the decline in value of his assets. The Constitution did not establish unlimited majority rule. Even the legislature must be subject to the rule of law. Nevertheless, many regulations would not involve compensation under the Fifth Amendment because they either do not involve a regulatory “taking” or measurably reduce the fair market value of property. For example, if landowners have a right to be free of pollution under the common law of nuisance and the owners are too disorganized to protect their rights against polluters, a governmental statute may empower the executive to bring the polluters to court under the common law and even impose special statutory penalties upon them. Since the right to pollute did not exist, no “taking” is involved and the government is merely performing its legitimate role in defense of private property. Other regulations, such as Civil Rights public accommodations cases, the regulatory requirement to serve all patrons would not adversely affect the value of the property. Zoning laws often increase land values. No compensation would be required unless the value of the “takings” is measurably reduced. Under any interpretation, the “takings” clause is a comparatively weak protection of private property. The government may still impose taxes and acquire resources for public use. Courts must still determine “fair” value by making very imprecise approximations. Finally, some government regulations inhibit trade while actually augmenting the value of certain properties. For example, a zoning ordinance which severely restricts the land available for commercial use might increase the value of the property already employed in trade. Although such laws stifle growth and commercial liberty, the “takings” clause offers no relief to prospective businessmen who are unable to enter the market. The broad interpretation of the “takings” clause is no substitute for the judicial protection of “property liberties” under the “due process” clause. Following the Civil War, the Thirteenth Amendment ended slavery and the Fourteenth Amendment extended the application of the “Bill of Rights.” Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment reads, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor deny any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The application of the “due process” clause to the states gives to individuals and businesses the same Fifth Amendment grounds to challenge state regulations as they already possessed against federal law. The “equal protection” clause extends the basic rights of citizenship to all Americans, regardless of race and sex. Both clauses were specifically intended to protect the property and liberty of blacks from outrageous actions on the part of southern states. It obviously outlaws the old southern “separate but equal” segregation laws. Thanks to the Fourteenth Amendment, all citizens are joint heirs to the old Saxon and English Whig concepts of liberty and property. Where Have All Our Property Rights Gone? The constitutional history discussed above clearly shows that the founders did take private property seriously and designed the Constitution accordingly. In order to limit the potential for tyranny the framers: (1) Divided the powers into three separate branches (legislative, executive and judicial). (2) Further separated the functions of government between federal and state levels, giving the federal level only a few enumerated powers. (3) Incorporated a “Bill of Rights” which specifically listed some of the most important applications of individual rights for all people to read and the courts to uphold. The constitutional protections of our liberties have withered over the years. The division of powers within the federal government may have checked the expansion of one part of the federal government into the domain of another, but there is no protection for the people and states against collusions and the conspiracies among the different branches to exceed the delegated powers of federal authority. For example, the Constitution does not grant the federal government jurisdiction over education, housing, agriculture, or energy, but these functions have been elevated to cabinet level status in Washington by Congress, administered by the executive branch and approved by the courts. Federal regulations have become so extensive that Congress often delegates its rule-making powers to numerous, non-elected agencies, such as the FTC, FDA, OSHA, SEC, and EPA. These agencies combine executive and judicial functions with their rule-making authority–subverting the division of power concept becoming laws unto themselves with feudal-like dominions in command over the private property held by commoners. James Madison condemned “the accumulation of all powers legislative, executive, and judicial in the same hands, whether of one, few or many and whether hereditary, self-appointed or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. Were the Constitution chargeable with this accumulation of power or with a mixture of powers, having a dangerous tendency to such an accumulation, no further arguments would be necessary to inspire a universal reprobation of the system.”6 Most recently, the federal government’s appetite for power exceeds its capacity to raise revenues. Instead of taxation and spending, Congress prefers to subvert the rights of private property owners by imposing unfunded mandates upon them, such as “family leave” and employer mandates or forced “contributions” to proposed health-care legislation. The words of Madison decrying the problems of “mutable” policy have been drowned out amidst a flood of ever wider calls for new government powers. The usurpation of powers and rights belonging to the states and people by the federal government is partly due to defects in the Constitution itself. The framers, unfortunately, never established an effective check or balance that state governments could invoke against the encroachment of federal power into their proper domains. Ever since the Civil War, the threats by states to secede or nullify laws are not taken seriously, no matter how intrusive federal regulations become. Abuses of federal power may only be addressed in federal courts, hardly an independent or adequate restraint on federal authority. The unfortunate legacy of slavery also made it more difficult to defend both private property and federalism. The framers granted the same constitutional protections to slave-holding as it accorded to legitimate private property. This has led to the mistaken notions among scholars, including noted Civil War historian James McPherson who called the abolishment of slavery in the Thirteenth Amendment as representing one of “the greatest seizures of property in world history.” In fact, no one can ever legitimately own another human being. The English Whigs understood that the first right was self-ownership. The emancipation of slaves recognized the legitimate claims by southern blacks to self-ownership. The United Stated did not “seize” the slaves as third world governments take over factories. The Thirteenth Amendment set the captives free. Following the Civil War, the southern states frequently violated the property rights and liberties of black people. The Fourteenth Amendment gave the federal Congress the power to protect their civil rights. This amendment was necessary, but it also established a precedent, “a hook” which the federal government has used to exceed its legitimate powers. Today, federal usurpation of the domain belonging to the states and people goes unchecked. “Liberal” scholars consider private property rights to be government grants of privilege–to be tolerated when convenient to the government, but no longer as a significant human right in itself. The concept of “states’ rights” holds even less respect because it reminds one of past injustices committed by states, rather than as safeguards against the centralization of power. The “Bill of Rights” provides very explicit words guaranteeing the rights of the common people. Unfortunately, words are not self-enforcing. The constitutional contract between the people and the government must provide incentives, counterforces, etc. to ensure that politicians remain the servants of the people, rather than the other way around. Even the most ingenious constitutional safeguards will wither and die if the public no longer appreciates the importance of liberty and property and if they can be made to believe that the crises of the day invariably requires extra-constitutional remedies. Modern intellectuals do not take private property seriously, nor do they wish to constrain the makers of public policy. Ever since the “New Deal” of the 1930s, “liberal” scholars have rejected the belief that any economic system is proper for all periods of history. To them, political economy does not reveal any enduring set of legal principles. Political economy instead molds itself to the crises of the moment. The Great Depression, The War on Poverty, Projected Environmental Disasters, and the Health-Care Crisis, all supposedly require radical reorganization of the economy. Property rights and the rule of law must give way to the reformers. In truth, no crisis is ever bigger than the Constitution. A solid education in economics would teach that private property and markets normally align the interests of property owners with the public. Most of the attempts by government to eliminate poverty, regulate prices, control macro-economic fluctuations, or otherwise manage the economy have proven very costly and usually counterproductive. It is also probable that many of the recent ecological scares are scientifically unfounded. Real world problems can usually be addressed within the context of private property and market economics. Infrequently, a government regulation may provide a convenient route in mitigating a particular problem of the day, but the benefits of infringing property rights are small compared to the sheer costs of government and the uncertainties found in the law today. Moreover the Constitution contains an amendment process to handle situations where the need to act is great and normal remedies appear to be inadequate. This amendment process, however, is a slow, deliberate one which enables the people and the experts alike to investigate, study, and analyze the problem and the costs of alternative remedies. Prudent, reasoned solutions require time. Neither the Constitution, nor the rule of law can long endure the blight of a misinformed public. As friends of liberty, our eternally vigilant task must be an educational one. The people must ever remember the words of the founders, the wisdom of economists, and the lessons of history. Let us endeavor to turn back the regulatory lords in Washington, the twentieth-century pretenders to our property. 1. Bernard Bailyn, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1967). 2. Thomas Jefferson, “A View on the Rights of British America” (1774) in The Portable Jefferson, Merrill D. Peterson (editor), pp. 17-18. 3. James Madison, The Federalist Papers, no. 62, pp. 381-82 (New York: 1961). 4. Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, no. 85, p.521. 5. James Madison, The Federalist Papers, no. 45, p. 292. 6. James Madison, The Federalist Papers, no. 47, p. 301. You have got to be the worse teacher of all time Steve. Everything you posted is both irrelevant and has nothing to do with the question I posted. Case in point: Does the nonsense you posted still hold true if the United States decided to go pre-1789 and become a confederacy again? 50 equal nation-states in mutual agreement like the EU? And talking about the EU...did the UK loose property rights when it became a part of the EU? Are they going to now have property rights once Brexit is completed? Or how about this: What if the US went full Roman Empire and conquered the world making every nation a vassal state of the new US Empire, kinda like the old Warsaw Pact. Would property rights then cease to exist? Finally, please point out where I stated this one-world government would be socialist? Or, that I mentioned what form of government it would be in general. That's right, I never mentioned it as I have no idea what the possibilities of such a universal government would be. You go and ramble on about, quite literally, nothing based on what? Emotion? Now is that anyway to debate or answer a simple question? Nope, instead of proving a point you go and borem on the forum.
  12. Walter

    What are you watching on TV now?

    I was but it’s starting to drag a bit.
  13. ebk

    What are you watching on TV now?

    MLB All Star Game It's a hard habit to break...
  14. ebk

    Photography

    ^^Really cool!!
  15. zepscoda

    What are you watching on TV now?

    Sharp Objects
  16. paul carruthers

    Beautiful Women

  17. Yesterday
  18. John M

    My Television shows.

    Another good show was Halt and Catch Fire For comedy my favorite is Monty Python's Flying Circus. A close second is the original BBC TV series The Hitch hikers guide to the Galaxy. It is based on the original BBC radio scripts which were amazing as well. They were so faithful to the books, unlike the travesty of a movie version that Hollywood released awhile back.
  19. chef free

    New Yardbirds

    "It's just like that loin movie, kids!"
  20. chef free

    The Movie Thread II: Thoughts on Incredibles ii?

    I liked the way it picked up right where the original left off. However, that decision caused the overall pace of the movie to be too frantic. Because to the high speed pace, the quieter parts seemed to drag a bit. The bit with Edna and baby Jack Jack was hilarious, I loved Mr. Incredible's "Incredicar", and "Rick Dicker" cracked me up because I had watched Men in Black the night before! (He's a copy of Agent K.) I have only seen it once so far. We'll see if it holds up as well as the first one...
  21. Strider

    New Yardbirds

    You got it. The full circle of life.
  22. chef free

    New Yardbirds

    Wait! You mean the last Yardbirds show was on the same date (July 7th) as the last Led Zeppelin show?
  23. Anjin-san

    Make me laugh!

  24. Anjin-san

    Beautiful Women

  25. Anjin-san

    Random Thoughts v.3

    Gallipoli
  26. Walter

    2018 MLB season thread

    Doing as well as I could’ve hoped for. Too bad we’re in the same division as the best record in baseball. Still got a few more left to play though...
  27. Walter

    MLB 2018 Picks Pool

    Here we go...the All-Star Break update: Still holding a slim lead is Strider with 552 total wins. Current standings are: Strider 552 Walter 550 Paplbojo 546 ebk 541 zepscoda 537 Paul 511 Rick 507 Kingzoso 499 IF the season were to end today, here’s the standings with bonus points awarded. 10 points for nailing the division winner and 5 points for being a wild card team. Srider 602 Walter 600 ebk 596 zepscoda 587 Paplbojo 576 Paul 556 Rick 552 Kingzoso 539
  28. SteveAJones

    Random Thoughts v.3

    Oh, I've seen her photo. I'd love to meet her. We'd be inseparable.
  1. Load more activity
×