SATURDAY, APRIL 22, 2023
Georgia man dies in jail: During his recent trip to Ireland, Joe Scarborough spoke with Bill Clinton, a former American president.
One chunk of the interview was broadcast on Morning Joe this week. At the start of the segment, Clinton made a strange remark—a remark with which we agree.
You can watch the whole segment here:
SCARBOROUGH: You were president when Columbine happened. And at the time, obviously we were all horrified, but almost thought of that as a one-off. It's now become a regular occurrence.
You and I grew up in a culture where everybody we went to church with, everybody that was in our neighborhood, they all went out hunting. You've talked about shotguns growing up? Same here.
But it's gotten so extreme. What do we do?
CLINTON: Well, one thing that's pretty clear is, whatever we do, we need to do it more together. And I think we need to start talking across this divide.
Say what? "We need to start talking across this divide?" Plainly, Clinton had made a very strange remark.
As the conversation continued, Clinton returned to events which took place five years before the mass slaughter at Columbine. For the record, he's discussing the "Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act" of 1994:
CLINTON (continuing directly): I remember when Jack Brooks, who was a congressman from Texas and enjoyed the support of the NRA in every election he was ever in, and Tom Foley, the Speaker of the House from Washington, they both told me that when the Senate put in the assault weapons ban into the crime bill, which I wanted, that if I signed it, we would lose the House.
And we did! And they lost their seats, because of the ability of the NRA to terrify people, but also because we were beginning to lose touch with each other across cultural divides that had always existed but hadn't been barriers you couldn't breach.
The conversation continued from there, as you can see on the tape. For the record, it's widely believed that Candidate Gore lost the 2000 election because of massive, last minute NRA ad campaigns in Tennessee and West Virginia—a pair of states which went red that year and have never looked back.
(In the wake of Columbine, Gore had favored new gun control measures. The NRA fought back.)
When MSNBC posted the tape, many commenters were incredulous about Clinton's strange remarks. Here are a few of the first comments posted:
COMMENTER: This is like Chamberlain saying we need to make "peace in our time." What we need is to vote so overwhelmingly against the un-American party that they crawl away.
COMMENTER: I agree but it's hard to have a conversation when half of the country don't agree on the meaning of words, on reality, and on live and let live
COMMENTER: How, exactly, do I talk to people who openly hate me and wish me dead because my views aren't their own?
COMMENTER: Chamberlain "peace in our times." Reward the aggressor for aggression. This is what I'm hearing.
COMMENTER: How do I talk to people who have threatened my life? Bill has no clue what's really going on out here in the real world.
Just for the record, the first of those comments came from "Commando Soto." The last came from "Mr. Sharpie."
Bill Clinton got elected two times, by six and then by eight points. Commando Soto and Mr. Sharpie feel that he has no idea what's going on in the world.
For ourselves, we're inclined to agree with the general thrust of Clinton's remarks. For what it's worth, he makes a key point hear the end of this segment:
"You don't have to win them all."
You don't have to persuade the most intransigent of The Others—the people who openly hate you and wish you were dead, the ones who don't agree on reality. You have to peel a certain percentage away, and then continue from there.
In our view, there's a lot to discuss in what Bill Clinton said. We're also inclined to think that the war is going to come, and that such wars can't be won.
More on such matters next week. At some point, we'll also discuss the Georgia man whose death has gone undiscussed.
ReplyDelete"You have to peel a certain percentage away, and then continue from there."
But what if instead of peeling a certain percentage of them off, dear Bob, your plea for not hating the Others will lead to them peeling a certain percentage of yours away?
...and it actually seems like more likely outcome, y'know. Worrying about wimmin trapped into men's bodies is hardly an appealing concept...
And so, maybe you should just get along with the program, dear Bob?..
Clinton’s advice of course sounds reasonable: “we need to come together to discuss the issue.”
ReplyDeleteThat’s all well and good, but it only works if both sides agree to come together. We live in an age where even civil discussion has become anathema.
Clinton acknowledged that his gun legislation caused the Democrats to lose the House, and they did, big time. And a couple of Republicans who voted for it lost their seats too. Does anyone realistically feel that that wouldn’t happen again, and that the GOP would be any more willing to compromise than they were then? Clinton is saying it took political courage to pass the bill back then, but it seems to be Democrats who are mostly the ones asked to show political courage, which seems to result in Republican control, which endangers far more than gun legislation.
This is the reality. Those YouTube commenters that Somerby quotes are simply expressing this reality. (Are YouTube commenters really the best representative of anything?)
The recent events in Nashville show what happens when kids try to get Republicans to listen to their pleas.
I’m down with much of what you’re saying, but frankly content creators like Somerby, or YouTube channels, are not particularly impressive, most of the value is in the comments section.
DeleteMy comments are worthless.
DeleteThe second amendment is evil.
ReplyDeleteSomerby’s “peel” theory has been long debunked, as such, he uses it as a veneer in an attempt to hide his right wing notions that are devastating to society.
ReplyDeleteThe ban on assault weapons started in CA (the 5th largest economy in the world, outpacing every other state by miles), the ban was championed by CA Senator Feinstein but Clinton acquiesced and compromised to a ridiculous degree, the ban lost most of its potential impact and only had a 10 year lifespan.
Thanks Clinton, your third way, neoliberal stance really did a disservice to society!
The ban did have an impact during its brief existence of reducing gun violence, but Clinton’s compromising had no impact that was helpful to Dems, as it’s toothlessness was not motivating for Dems, while it’s mild gun control was highly motivating for right wingers, as they took over Congress.
Compromising is good when it is between conflicting interests that are both serving a public good. To not understand why compromise with right wingers is not good is to fundamentally misunderstand society and the conflict between left and right.
The left/right divide is an emergent circumstance arising from humans transitioning from immediate return societies to surplus/commodification based societies about 10k years ago; it is egalitarianism and equality versus hierarchy and dominance. Humans are naturally communal and egalitarian, whereas dominance emerges from resource competition and resultant trauma.
A decent example of recent reasonable compromise is with South Carolina Rep Nancy Mace, who is a Republican but is fighting to keep the abortion pill legal. Since abortion is a public good that is widely approved of and Mace is in a purple district, this example only goes so far.
Dems outnumber Repubs (Dems closer representing our natural human state) so it’s unsurprising Dems often do well in the popular vote in national elections, but so called compromising with right wingers by neoliberals has been devastating to our society over the last 50 years.
It is in fact the circumstance of our society that winning elections hinges on partisan motivation and the degree of right wing corruption. Persuasion plays no significant role, the amount of so called swing voters is insignificant. While Somerby, in tone, authoritatively states his case, he is unable to demonstrate it, since it is false.
Humans are naturally dominant and submissive. Nomadic hunting and gathering was mere apprenticeship for our mature state: fascism.
DeleteDominance is a personality trait, but people as a species are cooperative, especially during dire circumstances and under threat. People form dominance hierarchies which are a form of social organization, not conflict. In fact, the pecking orders based on dominance prevent conflict because each person knows their place in a social group.
DeleteIt may be that the use of guns in casual situations may be happening because the social hierarchy in which minorities are at the bottom and white men are at the top is being threatened and white men are asserting their dominance using guns.
My personal theory is that Trayvon Martin was shot by Zimmerman because Martin was mouthy and didn't respect his authorita (as a pseudo-cop with neighborhood watch). I think cops abuse black people during arrests for the same reason.
If Republicans were to stop revving up the status insecurities of its base to get votes, our social status hierarchies might stablize and white men might feel less threatened, leading to less violence by overwrought men with guns.
Your personal theory is rubbish. Zimmerman got out of his car to read the street sign, and Martin, who was hiding from him, attacked him from behind.
DeleteNo, I don't think so. The dumb ass got out of his truck because the police wanted to know and he didn't know where the fuck he was.
DeleteThen the dumb ass ignored the police and didn't stay with his vehicle. The murder occurred some distance away from his truck.
dominance and hierarchies are emergent from society, as 2:10 noted, and they not only do cause conflict, they are a primary cause, though not the root
DeleteRemember when Somerby said “hey that Florida law is perfectly reasonable not to say gay to K-3 students, what are you blue tribe people on about?” That didn’t age well, as predicted by the “dumb” blue tribe, Florida has now, per DeSantis, expanded the law to K-12.
Somerby’s resilience, in light of him always being wrong, is something else.
No one gets out of a truck to read a street sign. Those signs are designed to be read from vehicles. Zimmerman got out because he thought Martin was getting away.
DeleteThe signs are good for showing you what street you’re about to intersect. They’re not so good for showing what street you’re on.
DeleteZimmerman is innocent.
Zimmerman got out of the truck after being told to stay in his vehicle. If a cop told you to stay in your car, would you suddenly have a burning itch to go read a street sign? If you were black and did that, you would get shot by the cops.
DeleteHe was told, “We don’t need you to do that,” after he got out of the car.
DeleteZimmerman got out of his truck, because he's a typical Right-wing bigot, and he wanted to put that ni**er kid in his place.
Delete9:13,
DeleteZimmerman was innocent? Zimmerman was a pussy with a loaded gun who couldn't be bothered to push a 158 lb. kid off his fat, supine body, although he did manage to free his arms enough to pull a gun out of his pockets and murder him.
If I was on the jury I would have urged jury nullification to convict Zimmerman of murder.
This is interesting, but Morning Joe made reference to something else Clinton said, to the effect that you can’t get to be President by holding grudges or not letting things roll of your back. Hmmmm…….
ReplyDeleteGiven some of that crappy things Mrs. Morning Joe had said about Hillary Clinton She must think that way too, seeing as they seem to be best pals now. Hmmmmm……
A couple of years into the Trump Administration Morning Joe had on the late Ken Starr. They treated him as a God. Joe himself was literally frothing at the mouth over how horrible President Clinton had been to this great man. His sidekick couldn’t agree more! A few days later Starr went on the record as endorsing everything William Barr was doing for Trump. That was the last you heard about Starr on morning Joe til this well established creep shuffled off the mortal coil.
And you know who had NOTHING to say about that particular broadcast? Saint Bob f@cking Somerby!
The fair conclusion to this is that Both Morning Joe and The Daily Howler are insane outlets from which something of value might on rare occasion be gleaned. In the latter case, the occasion grows evermore occasional. .
Long ago the Howler was great. Now it's garbage.
DeleteEh, only about 90 % of the time.
DeleteI agree, formerly it was great about 90% of it, now it is utter garbage
DeleteI am a troll.
DeleteWell, you are free to be a troll but what is your viewpoint?
DeleteI’m a bot.
DeleteThere is no reason to believe that A) Democrats would not welcome any Republican peeling away to support of sane gun legislation, or that B) there is much they could do to facilitate that occurrence.
ReplyDeleteDouble negatives are confusing. No reason ... not welcome. Yuck.
DeleteGet a life, even a single one.
DeleteWith double negatives, simply remove both of the negatives and what is left will be the meaning of the sentence. With a single negative, read the sentence without the negative and then put NOT in front of it and that will be the meaning. That is what people do anyway when they read a negative sentence (without being aware that they are doing it). If this is hard for you to do mentally, write the sentence down and cross out the negatives, then read the sentence again.
DeleteOr you could write clear sentences in the first place.
DeleteWake me up when you have a counter argument, my dull witted non friend.
DeleteStupid people complaining about complicated sentences is just a sign that someone isn't well educated and wants the rest of the world to adjust to his or her inadequacies. That is going to be increasingly unlikely to happen.
DeleteIt’s not false that your misstatements aren’t incorrect.
Delete"CLINTON: Well, one thing that's pretty clear is, whatever we do, we need to do it more together. And I think we need to start talking across this divide."
ReplyDeleteThis is Clinton's diplomatic way of saying that we cannot do anything about guns unless the Republicans yield in their opposition to reasonable gun control.
As long as this is tied to political power, that isn't going to happen. It is odd that Somerby doesn't recognize that Clinton is not bothsidesing this issue but pointing out that the Democrats cannot do this alone and it is the Republicans who are blocking progress.
Somerby keeps blaming Democrats, but it is the Republicans who need to change. I can see us reaching the same state over things like the debt ceiling and other programs that are important to Democrats, where Republicans use blackmail to get what they want and their voters do not hold them accountable for doing so. As long as Republican voters tolerate the way their elected politicians behave in office, this stalemate is going to continue and get worse as Republican find other issues to hold hostage.
At heart, it is Republican voters who need to pressure their politicians to stop this counter-productive way of governing and start being response to constituents again. And this is very much a Republican problem, so when Somerby preaches to Democrats, he is wasting breath and demonstrating his lack of understanding of the issues at hand. And then he personalizes it and calls us names. And this makes me think Somerby has gone senile or is an idiot (or both).
Imagine DeSantis compromising on gun control, and then understand that he is running for President! This is what we are facing. And then Somerby complains about Biden's age. At least Biden doesn't support shooting children.
Very well stated. Thank you.
Delete4:18 PM
DeleteI hope this correspondence finds you well. I am writing to address a matter of import, namely, this comment of yours which contains more than a few instances of faulty reasoning.
As a proponent of critical thinking and articulate discourse, it behooves me to bring this to your attention. I recognize that it may be challenging to identify instances of faulty reasoning in our own arguments, especially when we are passionate about a particular issue. Nevertheless, it is crucial to acknowledge and rectify such instances for the sake of promoting constructive and meaningful exchange.
In my estimation, it would prove mutually beneficial for us to further explore these instances of faulty reasoning. I would be delighted to furnish you with relevant sources and additional elucidation to assist you in identifying and avoiding such instances in future discourse.
It merits emphasizing that recognizing and addressing instances of faulty reasoning should not be construed as a means of winning or losing an argument but rather as a means of erecting a more accurate and holistic comprehension of the issue under discussion. By acknowledging and rectifying such instances, we can engender a more fruitful and efficacious conversation.
I eagerly anticipate your reply and further discussion on this matter.
Republicans should support statehood for Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia.
Delete8:59, it would be nice if you stopped clogging up the comment section with your tired smartassery. It’s promising that in this instance you refrained from going through the tired elements of you schtick. So what is this poster supposed to do, get your notes in a private session? If you are not Bob, go vote for Trump again and stop wasting everyone’s time. Your joke is spent.
ReplyDeleteI beseech thee to accept my sincerest apologies for any confusion that may have arisen. In relation to the comment thou hast presented, it is of utmost importance to uphold a decorous and constructive dialogue, notwithstanding any disparities in opinions or humor. In circumstances where remarks may be considered unhelpful or inappropriate, it is expedient to express concerns with graciousness and concoct a favorable resolution. Resorting to disparaging language or personal attacks is not conducive to a fruitful discourse and may lead to further division between parties.
DeleteShouldst thou require any further assistance or information, please do not hesitate to contact me. I would be most pleased to be of assistance to thee in any way possible and offer thee the option to exchange information regarding thy reasoning errors or cognitive biases at play in the comment through any medium that is most suitable for thy needs.
It’s possible the right strategy would shame a few Trump people into rediscovering their self respect. But mostly it will come from the fringe losing enough elections. As we saw last week, suing their wretched Press outlets into submission is a promising hope as well. But throwing this edition of American Know Nothings onto the scrap heap of history will take time.
ReplyDeleteCont.
ReplyDelete"
In an armed society, the perceived insult of being asked not to cuss at a child is a shooting offense. Opening someone’s car door is a shooting offense. Pulling into a driveway where the owner was tired of people using their little stretch of blacktop to turn around is a shooting offense. Asking someone to slow down is a shooting offense. Anything that might have ended with an exchange of fists, or just hot words, a raised finger behind a window, or even with one person just mumbling under their breath is a shooting offense.
That’s the point of the saying. In an armed society, you don’t dare offend anyone, at any time, about anything. Because everything, no matter how trivial, is a shooting offense.
America … is an armed society. We’ve reached that dystopia where a child fetching a basketball, or a cheerleader touching the wrong car on her way back from practice, or a kid stepping onto the wrong porch doesn’t get words or glares. It gets bullets.
Forget for a moment the big shooting sprees, those in which someone decides to show that their wonder weapon is capable of wiping out a school full of children, or a crowded nightclub, or an office packed with former coworkers. These incidents aren’t about plans drawn up by people who spent weeks making those final adjustments to their manifestos.
These are such tiny, ordinary, everyday events that they should be forgotten in a moment. That guy next door? Sorry, I don’t remember. What was his name again? Except they turn into trauma, or injury, that can last a lifetime. Or they cut that lifetime hugely short. The guy who thought you turned in front of him at the stoplight becomes the most important figure in your life, and the life of your family. Because, when you add a gun, every momentary loss of control is a murderous rage.
This is what gun culture has brought us and the people who love their guns more than their children are happy about it. They’ve turned every disagreement into a potentially lethal encounter. How can we live among these people?"
I post the first part of this and it was instantly deleted. Here it is again:
Deletehttps://digbysblog.net/2023/04/22/an-armed-society-is-a-polite-society/
"This piece by Mark Sumner at DKos summarizes our current dilemma and it’s horrifying:
The aphorism “an armed society is a polite society” is a frequently used saying among gun supporters on the right. It’s also been featured on banners, buttons, and T-shirts from the National Rifle Association. But no one ever seems to ask what it really means.
This is what it means. All of this. It means in a society with more guns than people, even the slightest provocation ends with someone getting shot.
The origin of the phrase, usually described as “a Robert Heinlein quote,” is actually the dystopian novel “Beyond This Horizon.” The antihero of his novel is a privileged product of eugenics who happily shoots people for the slightest infraction, real or perceived.
The context of the quote—which ends with the character saying, “We do not have enough things to kill off the weak and the stupid these days, but to stay alive as an armed citizen a man has to be either quick with his wits or with his hands, preferably both”—rarely makes a T-shirt or bumper sticker. Neither does the novel’s lavish praise of eugenics, telepathic powers, and general weirdness.
But even if it were a fictional quote taken completely out of context, the saying turns out to be true, in a way. In a sufficiently armed society, any small transgression is met with bullets. America is sufficiently armed.
The shooting of Kinsley White and her family—that’s the 6-year-old who tried to chase down a basketball—illustrates this perfectly.
As reported by The Guardian, several neighborhood children were playing basketball when the ball bounced away and rolled into the yard of 25-year-old Robert Singletary. Singletary responded by screaming and cursing at the children. The ages of all the children weren’t given, but this included screaming and cursing directed toward at least one kindergarten-aged girl. In response, one of the fathers told Singletary he needed to stop yelling at children, and that if he had a problem, he needed to come over to the adults and work it out. Instead, Singletary went into his house, got a gun, came back outside, and began shooting.
Somewhere in this process, Kinsley White’s father also grabbed a gun and returned fire. Singletary unloaded at least one full clip, hitting Kinsley’s father, the father of another child present, and leaving Kinsley with bullet fragments in her cheek.
“Why did you shoot my daddy and me?” Kinsley said into the camera in an interview with a local television station. “Why did you shoot a kid’s dad?”
If you were ever a child in this country, or likely any country, you’re bound to have run into a situation like this at some point. The neighborhood asshole who yells at any kid who steps on his perfect grass, or who has some utterly nuts feelings about the inviolability of his patch of earth. The guy who, old or not, screams, “Get off my lawn!” or something worse at the first provocation. Maybe that’s the end of it. Maybe it comes down to two neighbor guys squaring off across the invisible boundary between one patch of green and the next and glaring at each other. Oh yeah? Yeah! That’s not how things work in an armed society.
As USA Today reported in March, the United States is also seeing a sharp increase in “road rage” incidents that lead to shootings. Among the more than 550 incidents last year were a man who was shot while driving kids to a birthday party when he asked another driver to slow down, and a man who was shot while driving his son home from a Little League game. As states drop requirements on concealed carry, these incidents continue to rise." Cont.
Read about the media coverage here:
ReplyDeletehttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Trayvon_Martin
Teach children to run toward the sound of gunfire, because that's where the "freedom" is.
ReplyDeleteThe second amendment is evil.
ReplyDeleteIMO it's vacuous to say we 'need to come together'. Where do we need to come together? What policies shall we come together on?
ReplyDeleteE.g., liberals favor more restrictions on gun ownership. Conservatives favor fewer restrictions on gun ownership. Would liberals be willing to compromise on leaving gun control exactly where it is? I don't think so.
IMO the reality is that liberals favor more controls on guns, period. That's part of their identity. They would never agree to stop pushing for more and more restrictions on guns.
We see it as pushing for fewer and fewer gun deaths.
DeleteGo fuck yourself, David. e.g., stick your head back up your ignorant ass.
DeleteDemocrats have been compromising on gun regulations for decades. I know of no democratic politician advocating the abolishment of the 2nd amendment. Compromise would be a death sentence for any republican politician.
Obviously they favor more restrictions, are you soft in the head? There is substantial evidence that most Americans favor them too. Republican seem to be streetwalkers for the Gun Industry pimps, period. It will only really change when the voters convince them it will help put them out of office, by voting. Some one like David in Ca looks at slaughtered kids and goes home and laughs. Only voters will change our throughly debauched Conservative Party, not Democrats.
DeleteDavid was a good decent person until he let conservative media poison his mind.
DeletePolling indicates a 90% approval for criminal background checks and 75% for banning assault weapons. In Florida the latest pro gun bill that was passed polled out at over 75% disapproval rating. So no, we don't have to come together on these issues, we already have, with the exception of Republican whores known as legislators. And when rubes like DIC come forth with the usual pablum about how Democrats always want to limit gun rights it is because they are either stupid or liars or a combination of both.
DeleteCherry picking polling data doesn't strengthen your argument.
Delete7:04 AM,
DeleteWhat's the argument, trollboy?
Name calling doesn't help it either.
DeleteSorry, trollboy, I didn't mean to trip you up with a question.
DeleteNot a problem. Sorry you are unable to engage at this point in time.
DeleteOK, trollboy, carry on with your ignorant trolling. Let me know when you want to answer the question.
DeleteName-calling is not an effective or ethical way to engage in a discussion or argument. Instead, it is important to focus on the substance of the argument and address it in a respectful and logical manner.
DeleteWhat is the argument?
DeleteClaiming that citing polling data from of all places Fox is cherry picking is ignorant. You have no data to suggest that this is cherry picking so get off your high horse. DIC engages in broad and unsubstantiated statements about liberals on a very regular basis in the context of this blog. You fail here.
DeleteGore WON the 2000 election, and everybody goddamn well knows it.
ReplyDelete"Gun Violence Is Actually Worse in Red States
ReplyDeleteApril 23, 2023 at 4:53 pm EDT By Taegan Goddard
Politico: “Listen to the southern right talk about violence in America and you’d think New York City was as dangerous as Bakhmut on Ukraine’s eastern front.”
“In reality, the region the Big Apple comprises most of is far and away the safest part of the U.S. mainland when it comes to gun violence, while the regions Florida and Texas belong to have per capita firearm death rates (homicides and suicides) three to four times higher than New York’s. On a regional basis it’s the southern swath of the country — in cities and rural areas alike — where the rate of deadly gun violence is most acute, regions where Republicans have dominated state governments for decades.”
Mike Pence said:
ReplyDelete"I can't imagine the circumstances that I read about in the press in either of those cases," he remarked. "But at the end of the day, I just wonder, I wonder if it is some reflection of the fear the American people feel about the crime wave that's impacting our country, literally from coast to coast."
But our country is not experiencing any crime wave. Crime has been decreasing and is 30-40% lower than in 1990. Murders have increased nationwide since covid by 4% last year (coupled with a 4% decrease this year), but murders account for 0.2% of all major crimes. Mass shootings have increased and they are counted in murder statistics.
As the article cited below (Oct, 2022) says, the ability to measure crime has changed because the FBI has changed how it records crime statistics and not all police departments are on board with reporting the new way, so it is difficult to tell whether murders are up or down this year. Before that FBI change in reporting, all crimes except murder were decreasing as part of a decades-long trend.
https://www.npr.org/2022/10/27/1131825858/us-crime-data-midterm-elections
It may be that Pence's idea that fear causes such shootings may be correct -- and that, coupled with the increase in gun sales during covid -- may have caused the increase in murders. But the fear and gun buying cannot be justified by overall crime statistics. Pence's claim that there is a nationwide crime wave is disinformation. It is not a coincidence that the higher murder rates are in the states with more red voters and conservative leadership.
If we cannot ban gun ownership, perhaps we can address this murder rate increase by requiring media outlets and politicians, especially the right-wing media, to accurately report crime rates and stop scaring their voters into shooting each other (and our kids). Maybe it is time to enact some responsible journalism legislation when it comes to crime reporting.
Somerby's complaints against the media may be exactly what is needed, but he has identified the wrong target. It isn't black teens who are shooting white people over Trayvon Martin's death. It is right-wing nutcases who are shooting black kids and targets of ire (in their angry outrage) over false notions that crime is rampant and they are going to be attacked at any moment. Self-defense shouldn't involve slapping pizza shop servers when they are out of pepperoni. The right wing press needs to stop winding these people up.
Seems like a really dumb way to view the issue. Doesn't make sense.
Deletebapesta
ReplyDeleterussell westbrook shoes
air jordan
Golden Goose Deluxe Brand
fear of god hoodie