[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

"America Must Slash Red Tape to Make Nuclear Power Great Again!!"

"Why the DemocRATZ Activist Class Couldn’t Celebrate the Cease-Fire They Demanded"

Antifa Calls for CIVIL WAR!

British Police Make an Arrest...of a White Child Fishing in the Thames

"Sanctuary" Horde ASSAULTS Chicago... ELITE Marines SMASH Illegals Without Mercy

Trump hosts roundtable on ANTIFA

What's happening in Britain. Is happening in Ireland. The whole of Western Europe.

"The One About the Illegal Immigrant School Superintendent"

CouldnÂ’t believe he let me pet him at the end (Rhino)

Cops Go HANDS ON For Speaking At Meeting!

POWERFUL: Charlie Kirk's final speech delivered in South Korea 9/6/25

2026 in Bible Prophecy

2.4 Billion exposed to excessive heat

🔴 LIVE CHICAGO PORTLAND ICE IMMIGRATION DETENTION CENTER 24/7 PROTEST 9/28/2025

Young Conservative Proves Leftist Protesters Wrong

England is on the Brink of Civil War!

Charlie Kirk Shocks Florida State University With The TRUTH

IRL Confronting Protesters Outside UN Trump Meeting

The UK Revolution Has Started... Brit's Want Their Country Back

Inside Paris Dangerous ANTIFA Riots

Rioters STORM Chicago ICE HQ... "Deportation Unit" SCRAPES Invaders Off The Sidewalk

She Decoded A Specific Part In The Bible

Muslim College Student DUMBFOUNDED as Charlie Kirk Lists The Facts About Hamas

Charlie Kirk EVISCERATES Black Students After They OPENLY Support “Anti-White Racism” HEATED DEBATE

"Trump Rips U.N. as Useless During General Assembly Address: ‘Empty Words’"

Charlie Kirk VS the Wokies at University of Tennessee

Charlie Kirk Takes on 3 Professors & a Teacher

British leftist student tells Charlie Kirk facts are unfair

The 2 Billion View Video: Charlie Kirk's Most Viewed Clips of 2024

Antifa is now officially a terrorist organization.

The Greatness of Charlie Kirk: An Eyewitness Account of His Life and Martyrdom

Charlie Kirk Takes on Army of Libs at California's UCR

DR. ALVEDA KING: REST IN PEACE CHARLIE KIRK

Steven Bonnell wants to murder Americans he disagrees with

What the fagots LGBTQ really means

I watched Charlie Kirk get assassinated. This is my experience.

Elon Musk Delivers Stunning Remarks At Historic UK March (Tommy Robinson)

"Transcript: Mrs. Erika Kirk Delivers Public Address: ‘His Movement Will Go On’"

"Victor Davis Hanson to Newsmax: Kirk Slaying Crosses Rubicon"

Rest In Peace Charlie Kirk

Charlotte train murder: Graphic video captures random fatal stabbing of young Ukrainian refugee

Berlin in July 1945 - Probably the best restored film material you'll watch from that time!

Ok this is Funny

Walking Through 1980s Los Angeles: The City That Reinvented Cool

THE ZOMBIES OF AMERICA

THE OLDEST PHOTOS OF NEW YORK YOU'VE NEVER SEEN

John Rich – Calling Out P. Diddy, TVA Scandal, and Joel Osteen | SRS #232

Capablanca Teaches Us The ONLY Chess Opening You'll Ever Need

"How Bruce Springsteen Fooled America"

How ancient Rome was excavated in Italy in the 1920s. Unique rare videos and photos.


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

United States News
See other United States News Articles

Title: CBS News Caught Blatantly Distorting Cannabis Study, Says Legal Pot Doubles Fatal Car Crashes
Source: Free Thought Project
URL Source: http://thefreethoughtproject.com/cb ... pot-doubles-fatal-car-crashes/
Published: May 11, 2016
Author: Claire Bernish
Post Date: 2016-05-11 20:21:36 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 12417
Comments: 80

In what could only be described as a desperate smear campaign evidencing the last vestiges of propaganda from the failed war on drugs, corporate media warped the findings of a study about cannabis-related car crashes to the point of being unrecognizable.

On Tuesday, AAA’s safety foundation released a report concerning cannabis impairment and driving, which proved blood testing drivers for THC holds no scientific validity and should be abandoned. But a second part of the report found that — strictly statistically speaking — car crashes involving drivers who had consumed cannabis were on the rise.

In fact, the number of people involved in fatal crashes who tested positive for cannabis did rise — a statistical doubling — but several caveats that should have also been reported by the mainstream press were flatly ignored.

First, and of no small importance, cannabis isn’t even close to the leading cause of fatal crashes. In fact, when it comes to deadly accidents where the driver tested positive for cannabis, “most” had also consumed alcohol or other drugs.

According to the Washington Traffic Safety Commission, of 592 drivers involved in fatal crashes in 2013, 38 tested positive for cannabis. In the following year, of 619 deadly crashes, the number testing positive for cannabis jumped to 75. However, as Staci Hoff, Research Director for WTSC, explained:

“Most of these drivers, these 75 drivers, also had alcohol or other drugs” in their systems. Over a five-year period, just 1.8 percent of fatal crashes involved drivers who tested positive only for cannabis.

“So, in our study, we looked at all five years of date, 2010 to 2014,” Hoff continued, “and there were never 3,000 drivers involved in these fatal crashes during that time period. Only 56 of them had THC and only THC, nothing else.”

WTSC is indeed concerned about drivers who consume cannabis — when they also consume alcohol. So though the number of fatal cannabis-involved deadly accidents did, indeed, double, the number represents a tiny proportion of the total and most of those drivers had consumed other substances.

“There’s still a lot of work to do to figure out the impact of marijuana as a substance alone,” Hoff added, “but what I can say is that the combo of alcohol and marijuana is a scary concept we are seeing; it’s where our largest concern lays right now.”

But if you rely on corporate media for information about the same report, your perception of cannabis-related traffic fatalities would be entirely different.

CBS News’ national report on this same information proves how the misrepresentation of data can irresponsibly warp facts to bordering on outright misinformation — Report: Fatal marijuana-related crashes up where drug is legal. Though the headline could easily be redeemed through accurate information, the CBS article immediately capitalizes on people’s worst fears by beginning with an anecdotal account of a fatal accident involving a cannabis-impaired driver.

At a time when policy-makers and the American public consider ending cannabis prohibition — a massively-failed policy whose biggest benefactor has arguably been the for-profit prison industry — such feckless reporting reduces the opportunity for worthy debate on the subject.

CBS not only failed to mention how statistically minuscule the doubling of cannabis-related fatal crashes actually was, it also inexplicably — and inexcusably — left out that most of those drivers had consumed other substances. Worst of all, the CBS News article ends with the factual statement, “More than a dozen states are considering legalizing marijuana” — implying to readers, ‘look out, if you don’t stop this legislation, wantonly reckless weed-smoking drivers will be coming to your city.’

Of course, this simply isn’t the case, and the study the article was supposedly reporting about proves that — but CBS News’ audience would never know that if they were relying on the single source. And that is what makes propaganda so effective — its ability to distort facts to stoke baseless fear for other ends. Fortunately, such capricious and questionable media tactics are being exposed as more people turn to independent sources for good information otherwise obscured from public discussion.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Comments (1-40) not displayed.
      .
      .
      .

#41. To: misterwhite (#39)

The "effect" was not my point.

If you want to end the War on Drugs you have to legalize ALL drugs, not just marijuana.

You proposed your analogy right after your claim that legalizing any recreational drug less lethal than alcohol "fixes nothing"; I pointed out that your analogy didn't support your claim. Have you dropped that claim in favor of your current near-tautology?

I think fixing the problems caused or aggravated by marijuana criminalization, by ending that criminalization, is more prudent than legalizing all drugs in one swoop (not that the latter is a political possibility anyway).

A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-05-14   16:12:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#42. To: Deckard (#0)

There is nothing surprizing here. The MSM has been lieing to the publick for decades.

buckeroo  posted on  2016-05-14   16:22:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#43. To: misterwhite (#17)

"And one wonders: did youth use rise again after the 1990 measure was struck down in 2003 by the Alaska Court of Appeals ... and if so, why did Alaskans vote to legalize in 2014?"

Yes, one does wonder.

One need wonder no longer: SAMHSA finds that between 2002-2003 and 2013-2014, past-month marijuana use in Alaska dropped among 12-17-year-olds and 18-25 (while rising among 26 and up).

A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-05-14   16:35:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#44. To: ConservingFreedom (#35)

I raised AN alcohol argument - but not the one you're rebutting.

Don't lie.

Roscoe  posted on  2016-05-14   16:58:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#45. To: Roscoe (#44)

Go nip at someone else's ankles, pee-wee - you're no longer amusing.

A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-05-14   17:08:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#46. To: ConservingFreedom (#45)

you're no longer amusing.

You're funnier than hell. Inadvertently, of course.

Roscoe  posted on  2016-05-14   17:11:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#47. To: ConservingFreedom (#41)

"I think fixing the problems caused or aggravated by marijuana criminalization, by ending that criminalization, is more prudent than legalizing all drugs in one swoop (not that the latter is a political possibility anyway)."

Are you calling for decriminalization or legalization?

"I pointed out that your analogy didn't support your claim."

My analogy is valid. The problems caused by alcohol being illegal was solved by ending Prohibition, not legalizing one form of alcohol. Similarly, the problems caused by recreational drugs being illegal is only solved by ending the War on Drugs, not legalizing just those drugs less lethal than alcohol.

misterwhite  posted on  2016-05-14   18:37:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#48. To: ConservingFreedom (#43)

And nationwide?

misterwhite  posted on  2016-05-14   18:40:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#49. To: misterwhite (#48) (Edited)

Roscoe  posted on  2016-05-15   3:34:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#50. To: Roscoe (#49)

You're duplicating his post.

misterwhite  posted on  2016-05-15   9:38:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#51. To: misterwhite (#48) (Edited)

And nationwide?

Nationwide there was a smaller drop than Alaska's for 12-17, and a rise for 18-25. Alaska's re-relegalization of personal-use possession did no harm in the area of youth use.

A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-05-15   14:46:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#52. To: misterwhite (#47)

Are you calling for decriminalization or legalization?

Legalization.

the problems caused by recreational drugs being illegal is only solved by ending the War on Drugs, not legalizing just those drugs less lethal than alcohol.

The problems caused by recreational drugs less lethal than alcohol being illegal are solved by ending the illegality of recreational drugs less lethal than alcohol; doing so does not "fix nothing" as you claimed.

A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-05-15   14:50:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#53. To: ConservingFreedom (#52)

"The problems caused by recreational drugs less lethal than alcohol being illegal are solved by ending the illegality of recreational drugs less lethal than alcohol"

I'll say it again. Ending the illegality of only recreational drugs less lethal than alcohol solves nothing. No courtrooms, prisons or jails are closed. No judges lose their jobs. Neither do guards, prosecutors or cops.

The War on Drugs costs the same. No-knock warrants are still issued. Civil asset forfeiture continues. People still go to jail.

And now, due to legalization, we have twice as many people using recreational drugs less lethal than alcohol, many of them children.

misterwhite  posted on  2016-05-15   16:26:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#54. To: misterwhite (#53)

I'll say it again.

And for the first time you'll attempt to support it.

Ending the illegality of only recreational drugs less lethal than alcohol solves nothing. No courtrooms, prisons or jails are closed. No judges lose their jobs. Neither do guards, prosecutors or cops.

The War on Drugs costs the same. No-knock warrants are still issued. Civil asset forfeiture continues. People still go to jail.

Here's a big difference you overlooked: the $40 billion that Americans spend on marijuana (2010 ONDCP figure) would no longer be paid to cartels or other criminals.

And now, due to legalization, we have twice as many people using recreational drugs less lethal than alcohol

Only if you comically extrapolate fatal crashes to the entire population.

A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-05-15   18:02:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#55. To: Deckard (#0)

First, and of no small importance, cannabis isn’t even close to the leading cause of fatal crashes. In fact, when it comes to deadly accidents where the driver tested positive for cannabis, “most” had also consumed alcohol or other drugs.

I stated this a long time ago. People just have a distorted view of pot.

There really isn't a good reason to ban it and it only hurts the real drug war. Once you lose the people you lost the war and thats what has happen to the war on drugs. People have cried wolf too many ties with pot and it has caused a huge back lash.

Justified  posted on  2016-05-15   18:14:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#56. To: ConservingFreedom (#54)

"Here's a big difference you overlooked: the $40 billion that Americans spend on marijuana (2010 ONDCP figure) would no longer be paid to cartels or other criminals."

Meaning what? They're going to go out and find honest work? If this is a good idea, lets legalize all drugs and really hit them hard!

The bottom line is that the cartels will double down and continue to sell any drug that remains illegal and will sell them to anyone who is not old enough to buy them legally.

misterwhite  posted on  2016-05-15   19:09:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#57. To: misterwhite (#56)

Meaning what? They're going to go out and find honest work?

Some may, while others turn to crimes that more readily result in arrest and conviction because not everyone involved is cooperating in the commission of the crime (as is the case with drug transactions).

If this is a good idea, lets legalize all drugs and really hit them hard!

That might turn out to be the best approach, but prudence dictates we start with the most renumerative and least harmful drug.

The bottom line is that the cartels will double down and continue to sell any drug that remains illegal and will sell them to anyone who is not old enough to buy them legally.

That's being done already - and cartels are no more able than any other seller to create new demand through force of will.

A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-05-15   19:30:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#58. To: ConservingFreedom (#54)

"Only if you comically extrapolate fatal crashes to the entire population."

Perfectly logical when you consider that the only other conclusion is that only people who smoke dope are those involved in fatal car crashes.

misterwhite  posted on  2016-05-16   9:22:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#59. To: ConservingFreedom (#57)

"That's being done already ..."

... and will continue. You've solved nothing.

misterwhite  posted on  2016-05-16   9:24:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#60. To: misterwhite (#58)

the only other conclusion is that only people who smoke dope are those involved in fatal car crashes.

Laughably false - another conclusion, as I've said, could be that the sort of people otherwise disposed to have fatal crashes are disproportionately likely to jump on the newest legal intoxicant.

A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-05-16   14:23:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#61. To: misterwhite (#59)

... and will continue. You've solved nothing.

Continue but unlikely to increase, so I have solved the problem of criminals previously profiting from the now-legal drug. Cartels are no more able than any other seller to create new demand through force of will.

A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-05-16   14:24:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#62. To: ConservingFreedom (#60)

"could be that the sort of people otherwise disposed to have fatal crashes are disproportionately likely to jump on the newest legal intoxicant."

Or, people likely to jump on the newest legal intoxicant could be the sort of people otherwise disposed to have fatal crashes.

Not that there's a cause and effect at work. Merely a coincidence.

misterwhite  posted on  2016-05-16   15:48:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#63. To: misterwhite (#62)

Or, people likely to jump on the newest legal intoxicant could be the sort of people otherwise disposed to have fatal crashes.

Could be.

Not that there's a cause and effect at work.

Not sure what you're hinting at here - did the word "otherwise" go right over your head?

A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-05-16   15:55:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#64. To: ConservingFreedom (#63)

"did the word "otherwise" go right over your head?"

I ignore all weasel words.

misterwhite  posted on  2016-05-17   10:34:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#65. To: Roscoe (#9)

"The only evidence here is that pot use very possibly doubled among the sort of people likeliest to have fatal crashes"

"That's okay then."

How about that. You legalize marijuana and the only people affected are those prone to fatal crashes.

I'm thinking that this just might be a good reason not to legalize it.

misterwhite  posted on  2016-05-17   10:44:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#66. To: misterwhite (#64)

I ignore all weasel words.

You claim qualifiers are weasel words - you're an unqualified moron.

A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-05-17   12:05:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#67. To: misterwhite (#65)

the only people affected

Nobody said that - that's just the latest of the many straw men you prop up to beat because you can't rebut what's actually been said.

A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-05-17   12:09:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#68. To: ConservingFreedom (#67)

"Nobody said that ..."

You did. You said the data supported ONLY that conclusion.

Are you now changing your statement?

misterwhite  posted on  2016-05-17   12:30:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#69. To: misterwhite (#68)

Learn to read.

A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-05-17   13:23:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#70. To: ConservingFreedom (#69)

"Learn to read."

Let's see. You posted, "The only evidence here is that pot use very possibly doubled among the sort of people likeliest to have fatal crashes ..."

How did I read that wrong? Time to spread the sand and start tap-dancing.

misterwhite  posted on  2016-05-17   14:23:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#71. To: misterwhite (#70)

"The only evidence here is that pot use very possibly doubled among the sort of people likeliest to have fatal crashes ..."

How did I read that wrong?

I'm glad you asked. The quoted statement is completely neutral as to whether OTHER evidence may support a conclusion that pot use increased among OTHER people - so your distortion, "the only people affected are those prone to fatal crashes" was not stated nor implied.

Further, I've already explicitly said otherwise:

Post #27: "I consider it quite plausible that alcohol abusers are readier than others to jump on the newest legal intoxicant." Note that's "readier than others" NOT "the only ones at all ready".
#60: "another conclusion, as I've said, could be that the sort of people otherwise disposed to have fatal crashes are disproportionately likely to jump on the newest legal intoxicant." Note that's "disproportionately" NOT "the only ones".

A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-05-17   14:43:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#72. To: ConservingFreedom (#71)

"the only people affected are those prone to fatal crashes" was not stated nor implied.

Sure it was. Why else make the statement, "That twice as many abusers of alcohol and other substances may possibly have marginally increased their likelihood of crashing by adding pot to the mix appears to be a piss-poor reason for banning it for all adults."

You're NOT saying the ONLY people affected are those prone to fatal crashes? And since the only people affected are those prone to fatal crashes, we shouldn't ban it for all adults?

You're now trying to have it both ways. I ain't gonna let you ... you qualified moron.

misterwhite  posted on  2016-05-17   16:21:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#73. To: misterwhite (#72)

Why else make the statement, "That twice as many abusers of alcohol and other substances may possibly have marginally increased their likelihood of crashing by adding pot to the mix appears to be a piss-poor reason for banning it for all adults."

You're NOT saying the ONLY people affected are those prone to fatal crashes? And since the only people affected are those prone to fatal crashes, we shouldn't ban it for all adults?

No, I'm not. This is a thread starting with an article about a certain body of evidence; that evidence proves no more than that twice as many abusers of alcohol and other substances may possibly have marginally increased their likelihood of crashing by adding pot to the mix; so I said that the most that can be concluded from the evidence under discussion adds up to a piss-poor reason for banning marijuana for all adults ... without implying anything about other arguments and evidence that might be presented for that ban.

A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-05-17   16:36:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#74. To: ConservingFreedom (#73) (Edited)

"... so I said that the most that can be concluded from the evidence under discussion adds up to a piss-poor reason for banning marijuana for all adults."

Because you believe that pot legalization results in the doubling of people only prone to fatal crashes.

According to the evidence presented.

misterwhite  posted on  2016-05-17   18:32:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#75. To: misterwhite (#74)

Because you believe that pot legalization results in the doubling of people only prone to fatal crashes.

According to the evidence presented.

I believe the evidence presented supports no more than that pot legalization resulted in the doubling of pot use among people prone to fatal crashes. I further believe that the evidence presented here is not the totality of evidence regarding the results of pot legalization.

A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-05-17   19:49:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#76. To: misterwhite (#15)

A 1988 snapshot showed Alaskan teen use at double the U.S. average

Segal himself wrote: "because of differences in sampling procedures and time of sampling, these differences should be interpreted as a relative comparison rather than exact differences. Nevertheless, the question that arises is: Why are the differences so extensive? One answer may lie in the sampling procedure; youth may be less reluctant to report drug use in a questionnaire than in a personal interview."

A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-05-30   17:54:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#77. To: ConservingFreedom (#76)

"Segal himself wrote: "because of differences in sampling procedures and time of sampling, these differences should be interpreted as a relative comparison rather than exact differences."

Of course. But 10 years after pot became illegal in Alaska, teen use dropped to close to the national average.

misterwhite  posted on  2016-05-30   19:43:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#78. To: misterwhite (#77)

10 years after pot became illegal in Alaska, teen use dropped

Perhaps - or perhaps, as Segal said, the apparent disparity was caused by youth being less reluctant to report drug use in a questionnaire (Alaska) than in a personal interview (lower 48).

A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-05-30   19:54:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#79. To: ConservingFreedom (#78)

"Perhaps - or perhaps, as Segal said, the apparent disparity was caused by youth being less reluctant to report drug use in a questionnaire (Alaska) than in a personal interview (lower 48)."

I said I agreed. That could explain the difference in the 1988 snapshot. Or, everyone was telling the truth and Alaskan teen use was indeed double.

But Segal does a support a relative comparison -- ie., 1988 usage vs. 1998 usage. If illegality in Alaska had no effect we should see the same disparity in 1998. We don't.

misterwhite  posted on  2016-05-30   20:10:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#80. To: misterwhite (#79)

But Segal does a support a relative comparison -- ie., 1988 usage vs. 1998 usage.

Sorry, Segal's 1988 paper said nothing about 1998 - and there's no evidence on the table that Segal's 1988 methodology was repeated in 1998.

A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-05-30   20:14:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com