BasicHumanUnit
Diamond Member
FOOL
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Harvard law professor: Twitter cannot violate the First Amendment
- Thread starter pyetro
- Start date
FOOL
progressive hunter
Diamond Member
- Dec 11, 2018
- 62,639
- 38,405
- 2,615
hes no fool,,, hes a dishonest liar,,That is exactly why they banned him.thats not the issue,,,Nutcase, Twitter banned Impeached Trump to prevent him from further incitement of violence.yes they do,, but thats not what twitter is doing and you know it,,You're a moron. This site bans members and deletes posts for rules violations just as Twitter does.no they dont so stop lying,,,This forum does the same. That would mean this forum is fascist, according to you. Why do you participate in what you believe is a fascist site?Yes, they have the legal right. It just shows what fascists they are.A basic lesson about free speech from Laurence Tribe:
[/URL]To begin with, the First Amendment applies to the government — not to private actors like Twitter. So, when the company adds warnings to tweets or even — going a step further for users other than Trump — removes tweets, it can’t possibly violate the First Amendment, because it simply isn’t a governmental entity. You can love or hate how Twitter is regulating its own private platform — but you can’t call it a First Amendment violation.
and you playing word games to fit your false narrative is the same as lying,,, so stop lying,,,
FOOL
he knows exactly what hes saying and that its a lie,,
Faun
Diamond Member
- Nov 14, 2011
- 124,353
- 81,127
- 2,635
True, it applies to all Twitter members who do what Trump did. Same as this forum.liar,,, this goes far beyond just trump,,That is exactly why they banned him.thats not the issue,,,Nutcase, Twitter banned Impeached Trump to prevent him from further incitement of violence.yes they do,, but thats not what twitter is doing and you know it,,You're a moron. This site bans members and deletes posts for rules violations just as Twitter does.no they dont so stop lying,,,This forum does the same. That would mean this forum is fascist, according to you. Why do you participate in what you believe is a fascist site?Yes, they have the legal right. It just shows what fascists they are.A basic lesson about free speech from Laurence Tribe:
[/URL]To begin with, the First Amendment applies to the government — not to private actors like Twitter. So, when the company adds warnings to tweets or even — going a step further for users other than Trump — removes tweets, it can’t possibly violate the First Amendment, because it simply isn’t a governmental entity. You can love or hate how Twitter is regulating its own private platform — but you can’t call it a First Amendment violation.
and you playing word games to fit your false narrative is the same as lying,,, so stop lying,,,
BasicHumanUnit
Diamond Member
hes no fool,,, hes a dishonest liar,,That is exactly why they banned him.thats not the issue,,,Nutcase, Twitter banned Impeached Trump to prevent him from further incitement of violence.yes they do,, but thats not what twitter is doing and you know it,,You're a moron. This site bans members and deletes posts for rules violations just as Twitter does.no they dont so stop lying,,,This forum does the same. That would mean this forum is fascist, according to you. Why do you participate in what you believe is a fascist site?Yes, they have the legal right. It just shows what fascists they are.A basic lesson about free speech from Laurence Tribe:
[/URL]To begin with, the First Amendment applies to the government — not to private actors like Twitter. So, when the company adds warnings to tweets or even — going a step further for users other than Trump — removes tweets, it can’t possibly violate the First Amendment, because it simply isn’t a governmental entity. You can love or hate how Twitter is regulating its own private platform — but you can’t call it a First Amendment violation.
and you playing word games to fit your false narrative is the same as lying,,, so stop lying,,,
FOOL
he knows exactly what hes saying and that its a lie,,
Yeah, these Leftists are about as evil and twisted as it gets
Satan has em all by the ........
Faun
Diamond Member
- Nov 14, 2011
- 124,353
- 81,127
- 2,635
Oh, that hurts.That is exactly why they banned him.thats not the issue,,,Nutcase, Twitter banned Impeached Trump to prevent him from further incitement of violence.yes they do,, but thats not what twitter is doing and you know it,,You're a moron. This site bans members and deletes posts for rules violations just as Twitter does.no they dont so stop lying,,,This forum does the same. That would mean this forum is fascist, according to you. Why do you participate in what you believe is a fascist site?Yes, they have the legal right. It just shows what fascists they are.A basic lesson about free speech from Laurence Tribe:
[/URL]To begin with, the First Amendment applies to the government — not to private actors like Twitter. So, when the company adds warnings to tweets or even — going a step further for users other than Trump — removes tweets, it can’t possibly violate the First Amendment, because it simply isn’t a governmental entity. You can love or hate how Twitter is regulating its own private platform — but you can’t call it a First Amendment violation.
and you playing word games to fit your false narrative is the same as lying,,, so stop lying,,,
FOOL
pyetro
Diamond Member
- Jul 21, 2019
- 5,538
- 5,755
- 1,940
- Thread starter
- #206
you are so nutty that even your right wing friends have not claimed that what Twitter did was illegal.What ruleswhats that got to do with equal application of the rules as per their agreement to get their license and protections???they should be required to apply their rules equally across the board,,Twitter and Facebook should be able to block anyone and everyone they desire.
However, it reveals their intolerance of opposing viewpoints to do so.
I disagree.
You are not required to use facebook OR Twitter.
It's not their fault that you didn't create or patronize a competing service.Show me a Supreme Court ruling punishing a company for doing what Twitter did.A basic lesson about free speech from Laurence Tribe:
[/URL]To begin with, the First Amendment applies to the government — not to private actors like Twitter. So, when the company adds warnings to tweets or even — going a step further for users other than Trump — removes tweets, it can’t possibly violate the First Amendment, because it simply isn’t a governmental entity. You can love or hate how Twitter is regulating its own private platform — but you can’t call it a First Amendment violation.
Totally wrong.
ORIGINALLY, the first amendment was not just restricted to government, but only the federal government, and the states and cities were free to infringe as they wanted to.
But NOT after the 14th amendment.
The 14th amendment "incorporated" individual rights as implied by the Bill of Rights, to be protected from ALL infringement, by anyone.
And Twitter most definitely is NOT a "private actor", but a public medium that is supported by the government created Internet. If Twitter wants to be private and make its own rules, then it should go make its own global network and stop using the public internet, because the public internet comes with rules against infringement of individual rights.
Twitter most certainly be capable of being prosecuted for violating individual rights.
Just not sure that applies in this particular case.
That is for the courts to decide.
Nope. The incorporation doctrine selectively extends the Bill of Rights to the States. Not to 'anyone'.
"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive 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."
Neither the incorporation doctrine nor the 14th amendment have a thing to do with twitter or other private businesses. They are about extending the limitations on the federal government to the states.
That is wrong.
Look as cases like where companies were denying abortion rights to employees, or fired people who campaigned for certain candidates off work hours.
The 14 amendment no only prohibits state laws from being used to infringe upon individual rights, but also to uphold individual rights when states have failed to pass legislation that would defend individual rights.
If you go back to the original context of the the Reconstruction era, what you are suggesting is that there was no legal recourse to stop the KKK from extorting and murdering Blacks, because the KKK was not an official act by government. And clearly that is wrong. The feds sent in troops to arrest KKK type private groups.
The 'denying abortion rights to employees' was an ACA violation. Its a specific federal law that was being violated. It had nothing to do with the 'selective incorportion doctrine'. As it was a federal law....you don't need the 14th amendment to extend the Bill of Rights to the Federal Government. The constitution already did that.
You need to actually read the arguments being offered by Bingham and Howard when presenting the 14th amendment to congress. The states were flagrantly violating the rights of recentl released slaves. And they had no recourse as the Bill of Rights didn't extend to the States. The express purpose of the 14th was to do exactly that: extend the bill of rights to the states.
A supreme court ruling Barron v. Baltimore prevented that, explicitly finding that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States. The 14th was created to rectify that.
Senator Howard went so far as to read the 1st through 8th amendment.
"Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution. To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be - for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature - to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as the freedom of the speech and of their press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house with the consent of the owner; the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him; and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments....
The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these fundamental guarantees. "
- Senator Howard introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate
It was about restraining State power. Not about private busineses.
You're simply mistaken
There is no argument at all that the original point of the 14th amendment was only to prevent state violations of individual rights, and was specifically over ex-slave rights.
But the POINT is that put the federal government in the position of having jurisdiction over individual rights protection, and that is NOT at all limited. It can't be limited. And the SCOTUS has continually expanded its incorporation over time, to now also include all individual rights against abuse by ANYONE.
And it obviously had to be that way. NO ONE has the authority or right to ever abuse or infringe upon any individual rights at all.
The mistake you are making is that you think there has to be specific legislation authorizing federal protection of individual rights before any action could be prosecuted. That is not a correct understanding of law. Rights and protects are infinite. They do not have to be codified and really can't be since they are infinite. When rights not listed specifically are violated, such as rights to privacy, then the violator is still prosecuted under some more general statute.
So can employers punish political expressions?
Absolutely and definitely NOT!
That has always been totally and completely illegal.
You can not possibly have a democratic republic with fair elections if you allow any political extortion.
While legislators are slow to actually write the specific legislation, it is easy to see political extortion is illegal, and it could be prosecuted under dozens of more general existing legislation, and would even violate privacy rights.
Again, just as the SCOTUS used to allow slavery and no longer does, the interpretation of individual rights being supreme is always the goal of any democratic republic, and the fact that trend has been slow is only due to confusion over who should ensure those individual rights best.
Anyone who thinks individuals can legally abuse the inherent rights of others, just does not at all understand what a democratic republic is.
No one has ever done what Twitter did because it is so obviously illegal.
But here is discussion showing that a pivate company can not block political activity of any sort that does not harms its business.
{...
But that doesn't mean that businesses can curb all employee speech. For instance, private-sector employees have the right to engage in concerted activity under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). This applies to workers in both union and nonunion settings.
The NLRA protects employees' right to discuss the terms and conditions of their employment, said Steve Hernández, an attorney with Barnes & Thornburg in Los Angeles. For example, workers are protected if they discuss their wages with each other, decide they're not being paid enough and seek raises from their employer.
Employees also have the right to talk about possible unlawful conduct in the workplace. Under various federal laws, employees may complain about harassment, discrimination, workplace safety violations and other issues. "However, employees don't have the freedom or right to express racist, sexist or other discriminatory comments where such comments constitute violations of these laws," Olmsted noted.
Social Media
Employers should be mindful of how social media and policies affecting the use of social media interact with employee rights, Alexander said. In certain states, employees have the right to engage in lawful conduct when they are off the clock, and that may impact how social media policies are crafted and implemented, he added.
[SHRM members-only toolkit: Managing and Leveraging Workplace Use of Social Media]
Employers must also be careful not to run afoul of the NLRA when disciplining employees for their social media activities, Hernández noted.
An employee's posts on social media platforms might be considered protected concerted activity if the employee is discussing working conditions and other labor relations matters. In recent years, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and courts have found that social media posts might be protected even if they contain profanities or sound disloyal to the business.
Thus, employers should ensure that their social media policies and practices can't be reasonably perceived as restricting such discussions.
Now that the NLRB has a Republican majority, it has shifted a bit in its stance to a more employer-friendly position, Hernández noted. But employers still can't stop workers from discussing the terms and conditions of their employment, he said.
State Laws
State laws may also enhance workers' rights to discuss certain topics. State laws protecting lawful off-duty conduct vary, so employers should check the laws in their states to see what is covered.
Although private employers may regulate political speech in the workplace without violating the Constitution, some state laws specifically protect political expression. In California, employees cannot be discriminated against based upon their political affiliation or political activity, Alexander noted. However, the protection does not necessarily give employees a right to speech in the workplace, he added.
In Oregon, the Worker Freedom Act prohibits employers from forcing workers to attend political meetings and distribute political communications.
Most states have a presumption of at-will employment, which means either the employer or the worker can terminate the employment for any lawful reason, but employers should be mindful that employees still have certain rights in the workplace that cannot be curbed, Alexander said.
...}
What Employee Speech Is Protected in the Workplace?
Employees don’t have a constitutional right to free speech at work, but employers still need to be aware of other federal and state laws that do protect workers’ speech in certain situations.www.shrm.org
Political expression obviously is essential to any democratic republic, but in the US we just have not yet totally figured out if that should be protected by federal or state legislation.
Papageorgio
The Ultimate Winner
A basic lesson about free speech from Laurence Tribe:
[/URL]To begin with, the First Amendment applies to the government — not to private actors like Twitter. So, when the company adds warnings to tweets or even — going a step further for users other than Trump — removes tweets, it can’t possibly violate the First Amendment, because it simply isn’t a governmental entity. You can love or hate how Twitter is regulating its own private platform — but you can’t call it a First Amendment violation.
They can ban whoever they want. I 100% agree, just as radio stations can broadcast whatever they want and should not have a so called fairness doctrine imposed on them.
Personally, I have never liked Twitter, people don’t have enough control to shut up and let things go, over the years I have seen morons post stupid crap and put their lives in turmoil over it.
Before Trump was elected I said he should get off Twitter, now Twitter has done it, they should have done it years ago and could have saved what we have gone through since the election.
BasicHumanUnit
Diamond Member
Oh, that hurts.
Yeah, the truth sometimes does.
I feel for ya........not
progressive hunter
Diamond Member
- Dec 11, 2018
- 62,639
- 38,405
- 2,615
but its only enforced against one political side,,,True, it applies to all Twitter members who do what Trump did. Same as this forum.liar,,, this goes far beyond just trump,,That is exactly why they banned him.thats not the issue,,,Nutcase, Twitter banned Impeached Trump to prevent him from further incitement of violence.yes they do,, but thats not what twitter is doing and you know it,,You're a moron. This site bans members and deletes posts for rules violations just as Twitter does.no they dont so stop lying,,,This forum does the same. That would mean this forum is fascist, according to you. Why do you participate in what you believe is a fascist site?Yes, they have the legal right. It just shows what fascists they are.A basic lesson about free speech from Laurence Tribe:
[/URL]To begin with, the First Amendment applies to the government — not to private actors like Twitter. So, when the company adds warnings to tweets or even — going a step further for users other than Trump — removes tweets, it can’t possibly violate the First Amendment, because it simply isn’t a governmental entity. You can love or hate how Twitter is regulating its own private platform — but you can’t call it a First Amendment violation.
and you playing word games to fit your false narrative is the same as lying,,, so stop lying,,,
but you knew that and why you lied,,
BasicHumanUnit
Diamond Member
A basic lesson about free speech from Laurence Tribe:
[/URL]To begin with, the First Amendment applies to the government — not to private actors like Twitter. So, when the company adds warnings to tweets or even — going a step further for users other than Trump — removes tweets, it can’t possibly violate the First Amendment, because it simply isn’t a governmental entity. You can love or hate how Twitter is regulating its own private platform — but you can’t call it a First Amendment violation.
They can ban whoever they want. I 100% agree, just as radio stations can broadcast whatever they want and should not have a so called fairness doctrine imposed on them.
Personally, I have never liked Twitter, people don’t have enough control to shut up and let things go, over the years I have seen morons post stupid crap and put their lives in turmoil over it.
Before Trump was elected I said he should get off Twitter, now Twitter has done it, they should have done it years ago and could have saved what we have gone through since the election.
So you're saying that if Trump had just stayed off Twitter....the Left would have been happy?
HUH?
Tumblin Tumbleweed
Platinum Member
- Mar 16, 2015
- 22,757
- 8,007
- 465
its more about free speech than the 1st amendment,, most people dont know the difference,,,A basic lesson about free speech from Laurence Tribe:
[/URL]To begin with, the First Amendment applies to the government — not to private actors like Twitter. So, when the company adds warnings to tweets or even — going a step further for users other than Trump — removes tweets, it can’t possibly violate the First Amendment, because it simply isn’t a governmental entity. You can love or hate how Twitter is regulating its own private platform — but you can’t call it a First Amendment violation.
the issue with twiiter is they dont apply their rules equally and base it on political leanings favoring one side over the other,,
Which is totally their prerogative to do with their product.
BasicHumanUnit
Diamond Member
but its only enforced against one political side,,,True, it applies to all Twitter members who do what Trump did. Same as this forum.liar,,, this goes far beyond just trump,,That is exactly why they banned him.thats not the issue,,,Nutcase, Twitter banned Impeached Trump to prevent him from further incitement of violence.yes they do,, but thats not what twitter is doing and you know it,,You're a moron. This site bans members and deletes posts for rules violations just as Twitter does.no they dont so stop lying,,,This forum does the same. That would mean this forum is fascist, according to you. Why do you participate in what you believe is a fascist site?Yes, they have the legal right. It just shows what fascists they are.A basic lesson about free speech from Laurence Tribe:
[/URL]To begin with, the First Amendment applies to the government — not to private actors like Twitter. So, when the company adds warnings to tweets or even — going a step further for users other than Trump — removes tweets, it can’t possibly violate the First Amendment, because it simply isn’t a governmental entity. You can love or hate how Twitter is regulating its own private platform — but you can’t call it a First Amendment violation.
and you playing word games to fit your false narrative is the same as lying,,, so stop lying,,,
but you knew that and why you lied,,
They live to lie and decieve
BasicHumanUnit
Diamond Member
its more about free speech than the 1st amendment,, most people dont know the difference,,,A basic lesson about free speech from Laurence Tribe:
[/URL]To begin with, the First Amendment applies to the government — not to private actors like Twitter. So, when the company adds warnings to tweets or even — going a step further for users other than Trump — removes tweets, it can’t possibly violate the First Amendment, because it simply isn’t a governmental entity. You can love or hate how Twitter is regulating its own private platform — but you can’t call it a First Amendment violation.
the issue with twiiter is they dont apply their rules equally and base it on political leanings favoring one side over the other,,
Which is totally their prerogative to do with their product.
Agreed on that
The Right must enjoy being censored.....they never leave
Faun
Diamond Member
- Nov 14, 2011
- 124,353
- 81,127
- 2,635
Nah, twisted is being stupid enough to let Impeached Trump convince you he really won the 2020 election; and evil is storming the Capitol to start a revolution because you feel robbed because you're stupid enough to be fooled by Trump.hes no fool,,, hes a dishonest liar,,That is exactly why they banned him.thats not the issue,,,Nutcase, Twitter banned Impeached Trump to prevent him from further incitement of violence.yes they do,, but thats not what twitter is doing and you know it,,You're a moron. This site bans members and deletes posts for rules violations just as Twitter does.no they dont so stop lying,,,This forum does the same. That would mean this forum is fascist, according to you. Why do you participate in what you believe is a fascist site?Yes, they have the legal right. It just shows what fascists they are.A basic lesson about free speech from Laurence Tribe:
[/URL]To begin with, the First Amendment applies to the government — not to private actors like Twitter. So, when the company adds warnings to tweets or even — going a step further for users other than Trump — removes tweets, it can’t possibly violate the First Amendment, because it simply isn’t a governmental entity. You can love or hate how Twitter is regulating its own private platform — but you can’t call it a First Amendment violation.
and you playing word games to fit your false narrative is the same as lying,,, so stop lying,,,
FOOL
he knows exactly what hes saying and that its a lie,,
Yeah, these Leftists are about as evil and twisted as it gets
Satan has em all by the ........
BasicHumanUnit
Diamond Member
Nah, twisted is being stupid enough to let Impeached Trump convince you he really won the 2020 election; and evil is storming the Capitol to start a revolution because you feel robbed because you're stupid enough to be fooled by Trump.hes no fool,,, hes a dishonest liar,,That is exactly why they banned him.thats not the issue,,,Nutcase, Twitter banned Impeached Trump to prevent him from further incitement of violence.yes they do,, but thats not what twitter is doing and you know it,,You're a moron. This site bans members and deletes posts for rules violations just as Twitter does.no they dont so stop lying,,,This forum does the same. That would mean this forum is fascist, according to you. Why do you participate in what you believe is a fascist site?Yes, they have the legal right. It just shows what fascists they are.A basic lesson about free speech from Laurence Tribe:
[/URL]To begin with, the First Amendment applies to the government — not to private actors like Twitter. So, when the company adds warnings to tweets or even — going a step further for users other than Trump — removes tweets, it can’t possibly violate the First Amendment, because it simply isn’t a governmental entity. You can love or hate how Twitter is regulating its own private platform — but you can’t call it a First Amendment violation.
and you playing word games to fit your false narrative is the same as lying,,, so stop lying,,,
FOOL
he knows exactly what hes saying and that its a lie,,
Yeah, these Leftists are about as evil and twisted as it gets
Satan has em all by the ........
Well....as long as you're stupid enough to believe the summers riots were 'peaceful"
Oh...and that biden or Harris couldbe "good" for America. Yeah, only a sucker would believe any of that
Faun
Diamond Member
- Nov 14, 2011
- 124,353
- 81,127
- 2,635
Oh, that hurts.
Yeah, the truth sometimes does.
I feel for ya........not
Tumblin Tumbleweed
Platinum Member
- Mar 16, 2015
- 22,757
- 8,007
- 465
republicans are leftwing not right,,,,Right wingers are being forced to come up with caveats to explain fascism and free speech. It sounded easy at the beginning, didn't it?what did their rules say about lying???Because I said Republicans are fascists.why??Free republic.com banned me once. Fascists!Yes, they have the legal right. It just shows what fascists they are.A basic lesson about free speech from Laurence Tribe:
[/URL]To begin with, the First Amendment applies to the government — not to private actors like Twitter. So, when the company adds warnings to tweets or even — going a step further for users other than Trump — removes tweets, it can’t possibly violate the First Amendment, because it simply isn’t a governmental entity. You can love or hate how Twitter is regulating its own private platform — but you can’t call it a First Amendment violation.
Stroke out again?
BasicHumanUnit
Diamond Member
Oh, that hurts.
Yeah, the truth sometimes does.
I feel for ya........not
Awww.....your feewings hurt ???
Good !
Faun
Diamond Member
- Nov 14, 2011
- 124,353
- 81,127
- 2,635
I didn't lie just because you're an ignorant buffoon. Here's Twitter banning an Antifa group because they used Twitter to incite violence...but its only enforced against one political side,,,True, it applies to all Twitter members who do what Trump did. Same as this forum.liar,,, this goes far beyond just trump,,That is exactly why they banned him.thats not the issue,,,Nutcase, Twitter banned Impeached Trump to prevent him from further incitement of violence.yes they do,, but thats not what twitter is doing and you know it,,You're a moron. This site bans members and deletes posts for rules violations just as Twitter does.no they dont so stop lying,,,This forum does the same. That would mean this forum is fascist, according to you. Why do you participate in what you believe is a fascist site?Yes, they have the legal right. It just shows what fascists they are.A basic lesson about free speech from Laurence Tribe:
[/URL]To begin with, the First Amendment applies to the government — not to private actors like Twitter. So, when the company adds warnings to tweets or even — going a step further for users other than Trump — removes tweets, it can’t possibly violate the First Amendment, because it simply isn’t a governmental entity. You can love or hate how Twitter is regulating its own private platform — but you can’t call it a First Amendment violation.
and you playing word games to fit your false narrative is the same as lying,,, so stop lying,,,
but you knew that and why you lied,,
Twitter Bans Antifa Student Group
The Revolutionary Student Front is an Antifa student group at the University of Texas at Austin that thinks “bricks belong best thrown at pig heads” and yet also hosts “self-defense” classes. The group boasted a little over 2,000 Twitter followers until getting suspended, apparently for no...
campusunmasked.com
Faun
Diamond Member
- Nov 14, 2011
- 124,353
- 81,127
- 2,635
Oh, that hurts.
Yeah, the truth sometimes does.
I feel for ya........not
Awww.....your feewings hurt ???
Good !
Similar threads
- Replies
- 122
- Views
- 3K
- Replies
- 3
- Views
- 956
- Replies
- 54
- Views
- 4K
- Replies
- 6
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 29
- Views
- 9K
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 567
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 299
- Views
- 3K
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8506
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 483
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-