U.S. Politics

Page 820 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Re:

Scott SoCal said:
ChewbaccaDefense said:
Maybe Sanders is a player in some massive scheme to placate the populace by running as the candidate for moderately intelligent liberals like myself, who still believe that there is a sliver of hope left in our system of elections? If so, then call me a rube. I'm really a single issue voter, that being my belief that we need a constitutional amendment to reform our system of elections to take out special interest money, and place the emphasis on the single voter or group of voters who use only their votes to try to sway policy. Sanders is the only candidate who has put any real effort into that pursuit. I also believe that he is doing so out of a sincere desire to see a reform of our elections, and not as some ruse to further subjugation. Sorry, I just don't believe in massive conspiracy theories. Note too that it is irrelevant to me whether he succeeds in his goal of reforming elections, it is simply my belief that to function in society, we need to hold true to what we think is of vital importance, regardless of its efficacy.

Donald Trump sincerely wants to promote how great Donald Trump is. He is the embodiment of the American Dream for many in the Republican Party, who see that kind of shallow accumulation of wealth as the precipice of human accomplishment. They deserve such a man as their spiritual soul. I hope they embrace him and his message, as the theory is a vapid and repugnant one deserving of the adulation of such a group.

EDIT: Actually, I have a second issue: I believe that one more justice like Scalia or Thomas on the Supreme Court will bring an American dark ages the likes of which we have yet to see, because of their dark ages religious mindset.
Interesting to note who the special interest groups are.

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php
If that's news to you, then welcome to the world of information as it relates to our system of elections. It isn't news to me, and the constitutional amendment proposed by Sanders prohibits donations from all of the people on that list, so the information is minimally useful to my point.

EDIT: I also note that you seem to be completely unaware that there are things other than direct donations to candidates, and that is where the big bucks is going these days. Again, if this is news to you, welcome to the world of our system of elections.
 
Re: Re:

Scott SoCal said:
VeloCity said:
Alpe d'Huez said:
Amsterhammer said:
Agree. If, and I concede that it is a huge if, Bernie can win the nomination, he can take the general.
Bernie is a seed planter, first and foremost.
“Unchecked growth – especially when 99 percent of all new income goes to the top 1 percent – is absurd,” he said. “Where we’ve got to move is not growth for the sake of growth, but we’ve got to move to a society that provides a high quality of life for all of our people. In other words, if people have health care as a right, as do the people of every other major country, then there’s less worry about growth. If people have educational opportunity and their kids can go to college and they have child care, then there’s less worry about growth for the sake of growth.”
Imagine any other candidate saying something as common sense as that.

Then you've got The Donald.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-us-invade-mexico

I honestly never get tired of him.

And btw, Rick Perry thinks voters are idiots.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/07/rick-perry-kelcy-warren-super-pac-energy-transfer-partners
It's Pollyannaish to an extreme. Economic growth pays for all the **** that you want for free. Do you get that?
That is a dishonest statement. You are aware that there are a myriad of examples of corporations in that growth who paid almost no taxes for their profit? Right? You do know that, right? You are aware of things like the fact that my former state of North Carolina reduced the tax burden on the top income brackets, and that the tax bills for middle income earners went up, right? The idea that the actual amount is representative of the proportional share is ludicrous. Every time I hear one of you guys roll out the corporate tax rate, I chuckle at the dishonesty of it all, because the effective tax rate is nowhere near that figure, but it looks good to rubes who think Donald Trump is a worthy candidate for president...so hey, misinformation has always worked like that, no reason to do something that will actually inform people, am I right?
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
Re: Re:

ChewbaccaDefense said:
Scott SoCal said:
VeloCity said:
Alpe d'Huez said:
Amsterhammer said:
Agree. If, and I concede that it is a huge if, Bernie can win the nomination, he can take the general.
Bernie is a seed planter, first and foremost.
“Unchecked growth – especially when 99 percent of all new income goes to the top 1 percent – is absurd,” he said. “Where we’ve got to move is not growth for the sake of growth, but we’ve got to move to a society that provides a high quality of life for all of our people. In other words, if people have health care as a right, as do the people of every other major country, then there’s less worry about growth. If people have educational opportunity and their kids can go to college and they have child care, then there’s less worry about growth for the sake of growth.”
Imagine any other candidate saying something as common sense as that.

Then you've got The Donald.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-us-invade-mexico

I honestly never get tired of him.

And btw, Rick Perry thinks voters are idiots.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/07/rick-perry-kelcy-warren-super-pac-energy-transfer-partners
It's Pollyannaish to an extreme. Economic growth pays for all the **** that you want for free. Do you get that?
That is a dishonest statement. You are aware that there are a myriad of examples of corporations in that growth who paid almost no taxes for their profit? Right? You do know that, right? You are aware of things like the fact that my former state of North Carolina reduced the tax burden on the top income brackets, and that the tax bills for middle income earners went up, right? The idea that the actual amount is representative of the proportional share is ludicrous. Every time I hear one of you guys roll out the corporate tax rate, I chuckle at the dishonesty of it all, because the effective tax rate is nowhere near that figure, but it looks good to rubes who think Donald Trump is a worthy candidate for president...so hey, misinformation has always worked like that, no reason to do something that will actually inform people, am I right?

No, but you're entertaining. Please continue.
 
Re: Re:

Scott SoCal said:
No, but you're entertaining. Please continue.
What's the point in doing that? You carry water for a party that has Donald Trump as its leading candidate. It isn't like facts or reality are necessary to achieve such an auspicious outcome.

EDIT: Hope the predictions of El Nino are correct, and you guys don't ask to deport it because it has a Mexican sounding name. :D
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
Re: Re:

ChewbaccaDefense said:
Scott SoCal said:
ChewbaccaDefense said:
Maybe Sanders is a player in some massive scheme to placate the populace by running as the candidate for moderately intelligent liberals like myself, who still believe that there is a sliver of hope left in our system of elections? If so, then call me a rube. I'm really a single issue voter, that being my belief that we need a constitutional amendment to reform our system of elections to take out special interest money, and place the emphasis on the single voter or group of voters who use only their votes to try to sway policy. Sanders is the only candidate who has put any real effort into that pursuit. I also believe that he is doing so out of a sincere desire to see a reform of our elections, and not as some ruse to further subjugation. Sorry, I just don't believe in massive conspiracy theories. Note too that it is irrelevant to me whether he succeeds in his goal of reforming elections, it is simply my belief that to function in society, we need to hold true to what we think is of vital importance, regardless of its efficacy.

Donald Trump sincerely wants to promote how great Donald Trump is. He is the embodiment of the American Dream for many in the Republican Party, who see that kind of shallow accumulation of wealth as the precipice of human accomplishment. They deserve such a man as their spiritual soul. I hope they embrace him and his message, as the theory is a vapid and repugnant one deserving of the adulation of such a group.

EDIT: Actually, I have a second issue: I believe that one more justice like Scalia or Thomas on the Supreme Court will bring an American dark ages the likes of which we have yet to see, because of their dark ages religious mindset.
Interesting to note who the special interest groups are.

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php
If that's news to you, then welcome to the world of information as it relates to our system of elections. It isn't news to me, and the constitutional amendment proposed by Sanders prohibits donations from all of the people on that list, so the information is minimally useful to my point.

EDIT: I also note that you seem to be completely unaware that there are things other than direct donations to candidates, and that is where the big bucks is going these days. Again, if this is news to you, welcome to the world of our system of elections.
You excel at jumping to conclusions. I'll give you that. Interestingly enough, I don't disagree with you very much on this subject.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
Re: Re:

ChewbaccaDefense said:
Scott SoCal said:
No, but you're entertaining. Please continue.
What's the point in doing that? You carry water for a party that has Donald Trump as its leading candidate. It isn't like facts or reality are necessary to achieve such an auspicious outcome.

EDIT: Hope the predictions of El Nino are correct, and you guys don't ask to deport it because it has a Mexican sounding name. :D
Two words: Hillary Clinton.

And we sure do need the rain.
 
Re: Re:

jmdirt said:
Based on the poll that I refereed to, the kids don't want to run the country (except for the religious fringers).
Right. But as I inferred in my post, come back and ask me how these same millenials think in a couple decades.

Thanks for the link Scott. I've visited Open Secrets before, but reposting never hurts. Toxic gas spreads across both parties, and all directions across the spectrum. However, you post appears as though you were subtly trying to use the link as a tool, to insinuate that it's the liberals and the union workers who are the cause of the problem. As if that should be the focus. One could play the same exact game and supply this link:

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=s

The reality is, if you were unbiased and honestly wanted change, you'd campaign against all of this corruption. Instead, your post makes you look like a Republican shrill and a fraud. But if you'd like to prove me otherwise, I'll give you that chance. Show me.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
Re: Re:

Alpe d'Huez said:
jmdirt said:
Based on the poll that I refereed to, the kids don't want to run the country (except for the religious fringers).
Right. But as I inferred in my post, come back and ask me how these same millenials think in a couple decades.

Thanks for the link Scott. I've visited Open Secrets before, but reposting never hurts. Toxic gas spreads across both parties, and all directions across the spectrum. However, you post appears as though you were subtly trying to use the link as a tool, to insinuate that it's the liberals and the union workers who are the cause of the problem. As if that should be the focus. One could play the same exact game and supply this link:

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=s

The reality is, if you were unbiased and honestly wanted change, you'd campaign against all of this corruption. Instead, your post makes you look like a Republican shrill and a fraud. But if you'd like to prove me otherwise, I'll give you that chance. Show me.
Yup, no good deed goes unpunished. Think the worst first.

When money in politics is discussed there's almost universal condemnation for the loathsome corporatists (which there are plenty) who have single handedly ruined our system of elections. So if we are going to discuss who or whom is buying influence (and the problems associated with this level of influence purchasing) then it makes sense to know who or whom those entities are and it would be refreshing if those that are concerned about this would acknowledge all of various bribers (not just the ones that fit agendas).

That was my main thrust but feel free to assign whatever motives make you feel good.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Re: Re:

Scott SoCal said:
VeloCity said:
Alpe d'Huez said:
Amsterhammer said:
Agree. If, and I concede that it is a huge if, Bernie can win the nomination, he can take the general.
Bernie is a seed planter, first and foremost.
“Unchecked growth – especially when 99 percent of all new income goes to the top 1 percent – is absurd,” he said. “Where we’ve got to move is not growth for the sake of growth, but we’ve got to move to a society that provides a high quality of life for all of our people. In other words, if people have health care as a right, as do the people of every other major country, then there’s less worry about growth. If people have educational opportunity and their kids can go to college and they have child care, then there’s less worry about growth for the sake of growth.”
Imagine any other candidate saying something as common sense as that.

Then you've got The Donald.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-us-invade-mexico

I honestly never get tired of him.

And btw, Rick Perry thinks voters are idiots.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/07/rick-perry-kelcy-warren-super-pac-energy-transfer-partners
It's Pollyannaish to an extreme. Economic growth pays for all the **** that you want for free. Do you get that?
Lol. He's not saying end economic growth, dude, he's saying that economic growth for the sake of pumping up GDP numbers is absurd and that it's pointless if it doesn't improve people's lives. We should be paying less attention to GDP as an indicator of "success" and more attention to how economic growth improves the country, in other words. Economic growth pays for s**t if most of it just ends up in the pocket of a small handful of the population.

Do you get that?

all the **** that you want for free
Like I said before, the great thing about being a conservative is you get to make s**t up and then pretend that the s**t you just made up is true. Trump does that all the time.
 
Re: Re:

Scott SoCal said:
VeloCity said:
Alpe d'Huez said:
Amsterhammer said:
Agree. If, and I concede that it is a huge if, Bernie can win the nomination, he can take the general.
Bernie is a seed planter, first and foremost.
“Unchecked growth – especially when 99 percent of all new income goes to the top 1 percent – is absurd,” he said. “Where we’ve got to move is not growth for the sake of growth, but we’ve got to move to a society that provides a high quality of life for all of our people. In other words, if people have health care as a right, as do the people of every other major country, then there’s less worry about growth. If people have educational opportunity and their kids can go to college and they have child care, then there’s less worry about growth for the sake of growth.”
Imagine any other candidate saying something as common sense as that.

Then you've got The Donald.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-us-invade-mexico

I honestly never get tired of him.

And btw, Rick Perry thinks voters are idiots.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/07/rick-perry-kelcy-warren-super-pac-energy-transfer-partners
It's Pollyannaish to an extreme. Economic growth pays for all the **** that you want for free. Do you get that?
In a 'perfect' world maybe, but in the USA, that is not an accurate statement.
 
Re: Re:

Scott SoCal said:
Alpe d'Huez said:
jmdirt said:
Based on the poll that I refereed to, the kids don't want to run the country (except for the religious fringers).
Right. But as I inferred in my post, come back and ask me how these same millenials think in a couple decades.

Thanks for the link Scott. I've visited Open Secrets before, but reposting never hurts. Toxic gas spreads across both parties, and all directions across the spectrum. However, you post appears as though you were subtly trying to use the link as a tool, to insinuate that it's the liberals and the union workers who are the cause of the problem. As if that should be the focus. One could play the same exact game and supply this link:

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=s

The reality is, if you were unbiased and honestly wanted change, you'd campaign against all of this corruption. Instead, your post makes you look like a Republican shrill and a fraud. But if you'd like to prove me otherwise, I'll give you that chance. Show me.
Yup, no good deed goes unpunished. Think the worst first.

When money in politics is discussed there's almost universal condemnation for the loathsome corporatists (which there are plenty) who have single handedly ruined our system of elections. So if we are going to discuss who or whom is buying influence (and the problems associated with this level of influence purchasing) then it makes sense to know who or whom those entities are and it would be refreshing if those that are concerned about this would acknowledge all of various bribers (not just the ones that fit agendas).

That was my main thrust but feel free to assign whatever motives make you feel good.
Though what does it matter? The fact that the left is as culpable as the right doesn't alter the status. Everything else is apology. Think about it.
 
Re: Re:

Alpe d'Huez said:
jmdirt said:
Based on the poll that I refereed to, the kids don't want to run the country (except for the religious fringers).
Right. But as I inferred in my post, come back and ask me how these same millenials think in a couple decades
I hope that you are correct, but if they are disenfranchised, apathetic, flat out mad, whatever, why when they turn 40 would they suddenly get all excited about getting involved in politics? I guess that as they mature their frustration could turn to motivation to make their city/state/country a better place. We'll see...
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
Re: Re:

VeloCity said:
Scott SoCal said:
And now for something completely different :D ;

Winter is Coming: Scientist Says Sun Will Nod Off in 15 Years

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/van-winkles/winter-is-coming-scientis_b_7787664.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

Don't know if Professor Vlentina Zharkova's findings/presentation was peer reviewed.
Even if true all it would do is slow future warming a bit, that's about all.

You really need to learn how this all works, dude.
I think you guys could use it as a bonafide excuse as to why the modeling is so far off in the weeds.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
Re: Re:

VeloCity said:
Scott SoCal said:
VeloCity said:
Alpe d'Huez said:
Amsterhammer said:
Agree. If, and I concede that it is a huge if, Bernie can win the nomination, he can take the general.
Bernie is a seed planter, first and foremost.
“Unchecked growth – especially when 99 percent of all new income goes to the top 1 percent – is absurd,” he said. “Where we’ve got to move is not growth for the sake of growth, but we’ve got to move to a society that provides a high quality of life for all of our people. In other words, if people have health care as a right, as do the people of every other major country, then there’s less worry about growth. If people have educational opportunity and their kids can go to college and they have child care, then there’s less worry about growth for the sake of growth.”
Imagine any other candidate saying something as common sense as that.

Then you've got The Donald.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-us-invade-mexico

I honestly never get tired of him.

And btw, Rick Perry thinks voters are idiots.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/07/rick-perry-kelcy-warren-super-pac-energy-transfer-partners
It's Pollyannaish to an extreme. Economic growth pays for all the **** that you want for free. Do you get that?
Lol. He's not saying end economic growth, dude, he's saying that economic growth for the sake of pumping up GDP numbers is absurd and that it's pointless if it doesn't improve people's lives. We should be paying less attention to GDP as an indicator of "success" and more attention to how economic growth improves the country, in other words. Economic growth pays for s**t if most of it just ends up in the pocket of a small handful of the population.

Do you get that?

all the **** that you want for free
Like I said before, the great thing about being a conservative is you get to make s**t up and then pretend that the s**t you just made up is true. Trump does that all the time.
Which economic growth is for the sake of pumping up GDP numbers? Please be specific.

Unless I'm mistaken, Sanders wants healthcare and higher education paid for. As in by someone else. Free to the recipient, no?
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
Re: Re:

jmdirt said:
Scott SoCal said:
VeloCity said:
Alpe d'Huez said:
Amsterhammer said:
Agree. If, and I concede that it is a huge if, Bernie can win the nomination, he can take the general.
Bernie is a seed planter, first and foremost.
“Unchecked growth – especially when 99 percent of all new income goes to the top 1 percent – is absurd,” he said. “Where we’ve got to move is not growth for the sake of growth, but we’ve got to move to a society that provides a high quality of life for all of our people. In other words, if people have health care as a right, as do the people of every other major country, then there’s less worry about growth. If people have educational opportunity and their kids can go to college and they have child care, then there’s less worry about growth for the sake of growth.”
Imagine any other candidate saying something as common sense as that.

Then you've got The Donald.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-us-invade-mexico

I honestly never get tired of him.

And btw, Rick Perry thinks voters are idiots.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/07/rick-perry-kelcy-warren-super-pac-energy-transfer-partners
It's Pollyannaish to an extreme. Economic growth pays for all the **** that you want for free. Do you get that?
In a 'perfect' world maybe, but in the USA, that is not an accurate statement.
That's true. Much of the free *** is monetized. Personally, I think that is dumb and the price to pay will come in future decades but there are those on this very thread that will tell you debt does not matter.
 
Re: Re:

Scott SoCal said:
ChewbaccaDefense said:
Scott SoCal said:
No, but you're entertaining. Please continue.
What's the point in doing that? You carry water for a party that has Donald Trump as its leading candidate. It isn't like facts or reality are necessary to achieve such an auspicious outcome.

EDIT: Hope the predictions of El Nino are correct, and you guys don't ask to deport it because it has a Mexican sounding name. :D
Two words: Hillary Clinton.

And we sure do need the rain.
I'm glad it's you defending Trump and not me. As for Hillary, as you well know, I don't support her (though I will vote for her if she is the nom, because of my concerns with giving the keys to a conservative who will have an appointment or two to SCOTUS). However, to suggest that the idiocy of Clinton is in any way similar to Trump is mind boggling. But hey, you guys are the one with him leading your race, so I guess you have to come up with something...
 
Re: Re:

Scott SoCal said:
That's true. Much of the free **** is monetized. Personally, I think that is dumb and the price to pay will come in future decades but there are those on this very thread that will tell you debt does not matter.
...or Ronald Reagan...

Plus, it only seems to matter to R's when there's a D in the Whitehouse, but selective outrage has come to be expected.
 
Scott SoCal said:
It's Pollyannaish to an extreme. Economic growth pays for all the **** that you want for free. Do you get that?
Not when those reaping the growth can avoid taxation, and we certainly can and do. It needs to change. I'm in the tax bracket which would feel it, and I'll still vote for someone like Sanders. The best thing we could do in this country is make higher education accessible to everyone. Our economy would see more boost from that in the long term than anything I can imagine.

If all the growth goes to the top as it is now, it doesn't help pay for anything. It largely sits in our bank accounts or investments and we don't spend it. Mostly because we're smart and we know enough to put away money when it comes in droves because we're going to need it the next time the economy tanks. Some businesses definitely will expand, but will they expand in the US and create more high-paying jobs? Very few.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
Re: Re:

rhubroma said:
Scott SoCal said:
Alpe d'Huez said:
jmdirt said:
Based on the poll that I refereed to, the kids don't want to run the country (except for the religious fringers).
Right. But as I inferred in my post, come back and ask me how these same millenials think in a couple decades.

Thanks for the link Scott. I've visited Open Secrets before, but reposting never hurts. Toxic gas spreads across both parties, and all directions across the spectrum. However, you post appears as though you were subtly trying to use the link as a tool, to insinuate that it's the liberals and the union workers who are the cause of the problem. As if that should be the focus. One could play the same exact game and supply this link:

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=s

The reality is, if you were unbiased and honestly wanted change, you'd campaign against all of this corruption. Instead, your post makes you look like a Republican shrill and a fraud. But if you'd like to prove me otherwise, I'll give you that chance. Show me.
Yup, no good deed goes unpunished. Think the worst first.

When money in politics is discussed there's almost universal condemnation for the loathsome corporatists (which there are plenty) who have single handedly ruined our system of elections. So if we are going to discuss who or whom is buying influence (and the problems associated with this level of influence purchasing) then it makes sense to know who or whom those entities are and it would be refreshing if those that are concerned about this would acknowledge all of various bribers (not just the ones that fit agendas).

That was my main thrust but feel free to assign whatever motives make you feel good.
Though what does it matter? The fact that the left is as culpable as the right doesn't alter the status. Everything else is apology. Think about it.
The govt is made up of varying degrees of the left and right. Both are corrupt and both are looking to expand central govt. Horribly corrupt govt is not made less corrupt with expansive growth. In my opinion of course.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
Re: Re:

ChewbaccaDefense said:
Scott SoCal said:
ChewbaccaDefense said:
Scott SoCal said:
No, but you're entertaining. Please continue.
What's the point in doing that? You carry water for a party that has Donald Trump as its leading candidate. It isn't like facts or reality are necessary to achieve such an auspicious outcome.

EDIT: Hope the predictions of El Nino are correct, and you guys don't ask to deport it because it has a Mexican sounding name. :D
Two words: Hillary Clinton.

And we sure do need the rain.
I'm glad it's you defending Trump and not me. As for Hillary, as you well know, I don't support her (though I will vote for her if she is the nom, because of my concerns with giving the keys to a conservative who will have an appointment or two to SCOTUS). However, to suggest that the idiocy of Clinton is in any way similar to Trump is mind boggling. But hey, you guys are the one with him leading your race, so I guess you have to come up with something...
I'm not defending Trump. If somehow I'm carrying Trumps water then you're carrying Hillary's. Simple.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,773
1
0
Re: Re:

ChewbaccaDefense said:
Glenn_Wilson said:
He is a socialist maniac. F-ck him. He can go get a circle jerk and then f off.
Drinking again?...
Yeah I was knee deep into some single barrel.

I have to admit that I was trying to joke around with Hugh. But as Hugh pointed out I need to get some comedy lessons.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,773
1
0
Re: Re:

ChewbaccaDefense said:
Glenn_Wilson said:
ChewbaccaDefense said:
Glenn_Wilson said:
He is a socialist maniac. F-ck him. He can go get a circle jerk and then f off.
Drinking again?...
Yeah I was knee deep into some single barrel.

I have to admit that I was trying to joke around with Hugh. But as Hugh pointed out I need to get some comedy lessons.
Fair enough.
Right at this moment peeps be taking trump serious. WTF is happening.

Then again I known you guys like Sanders and that is fair enough but for me and my opinion NO joke He is over the top socialist.

Who knows maybe that is what we need now. Life in Merikah is a tough gambit. We get what we get. Life goes on. I'm so trapped at the time. NO money NO job. NO insurance. I'm so thankful that my daughter is in Japan and living the life with the social system. What does that say for me. WHO THE F&CK knows but it goes on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
MarieDGarzai Non-Cycling Discussions 2
Similar threads
The Politics of Sport

ASK THE COMMUNITY