United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: College QB arrested, suspended after claiming ‘cocaine’ on his car was bird poop. It was bird poop.
Source:
Saturday Down South
URL Source: https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/s ... on-car-was-actually-bird-poop/
Published: Aug 3, 2019
Author: SDS Staff
Post Date: 2019-08-11 09:33:59 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 27397
Comments: 348
Chalk another one up to faulty drug field tests: Georgia Southern QB Shai Werts has been suspended following an arrest earlier in the week. Werts was arrested following a traffic stop on Wednesday night in Saluda, South Carolina. According to reports, Werts was originally pulled over for speeding. When the officer attempted to pull him over, however, he kept going and reportedly called 911 to explain that he wasn’t pulling over in a dark area. After reaching town, Werts then pulled over and was arrested for speeding. The QB was then asked about the white powder on the hood of his car, and he claimed it was bird poop that he tried to clean off at the car wash. The officer tested the powder, and it tested positive for cocaine with two different kits and in two different places on the hood of the car. “Everything about him and inside his vehicle made him appear as a clean person but the hood of his car was out of place,” the police report states. Werts denied any knowledge of the origin of the cocaine. The officer wrote that the powder appeared to have been “thrown on the vehicle and had been attempted to be washed off by the windshield wipers, and wiper fluid as there was white powder substance around the areas of the wiper fluid dispensary.” In addition to speeding, he was charged with a misdemeanor possession of cocaine. This is all really bad news because Georgia Southern plays LSU Week 1. Al Eargle, the Deputy Solicitor for the 11th Judicial Circuit which includes Saluda County, told Werts’ attorney, Townes Jones IV, that these kinds of charges would not be pressed on “his watch,” Jones said. South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED) tests were conducted on the substance samples collected from the hood of Werts’ 2016 Dodge Charger, but the results confirmed that no controlled substance was present in the samples. “I have not seen (the SLED results) yet,” Eargle said on a phone call Thursday night. “But I was informed that the test did come back and that there was no controlled substance found.”
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 106.
#1. To: Deckard (#0)
The officer tested the powder, and it tested positive for cocaine with two different kits … Damn … You libertarian drug promoters even birds doing cocaine now. What is this frickin world coming to …
Which is essentially your admission that drug tests conducted by police departments are either completely corrupt or completely incompetent. I can't quite imagine how big a dumbass any cop would have to be to be so unaware of the properties of crystal cocaine and how it looks if exposed to moisture. What, did the cop think that the QB had, in the process of being pulled over, thrown his coke stash forward (into the wind) onto his windshield and then tried to wash it away with wiper fluid? There is no other way to read this. Corrupt lab and/or corrupt cops. Probably both. Oh, look. It's a black QB. Let's just frame his black ass with phony drug tests that make any pile of poop test positive for cocaine. Thanks for playing. If you were a decent human being, you'd be ashamed of what you've posted here. It does matter to have a black man falsely accused of narcotics and to have such an arrest on his record. Like you even care about this victim of false arrest. I hope he can sue their asses off for defamation of character. He should never have been charged with cocaine possession without a full lab test.
It could have been wet/damp powdered cocaine. "What, did the cop think that the QB had, in the process of being pulled over, thrown his coke stash forward (into the wind) onto his windshield and then tried to wash it away with wiper fluid?" I think that was the theory, actually.
You know as little as the cop did. He was trained. He has no excuse for being so ignorant.
What's he supposed to do when the substance tests positive -- twice? Let the guy go because he's black?
Should the police department keep using these field tests since they have been proven to give inaccurate results? If they use them again should they be held accountable and sued? Does the real victim the quarterback have a case against the police department for not using a reliable drug test? Why didn't the police know the drug test was inaccurate, don't they test them? If the police knew it gives false readings and it did int he past should the be sued for even more money? Do you go down on cops?
I heard he does suck a few nightsticks. Not wanting to intrude here but I thought I'd pass along this ugly rumor. After all, if it's a false accusation, whitey shouldn't mind at all that he's being falsely accused. whitey loves to defend cops making false charges in unlawful arrests, even corrupt cops. I also heard he once went down on a state trooper for a gallon of gas but that could just be an ugly rumor someone here at LP made up.
So you don't know that it's true, you did not ensure that it's true, yet you published it anyways. And, based on your previous posts about me, you published that with actual malice. This means it must have been made with disregard for the truth, and with the intention of doing harm to my reputation on this forum. I'd say I have an airtight defamation lawsuit. Or at least enough to get you kicked off this forum.
A K A Stone to misterwhite: After all, if it's a false accusation, whitey shouldn't mind at all that he's being falsely accused. whitey loves to defend cops making false charges in unlawful arrests, even corrupt cops. I also heard he once went down on a state trooper for a gallon of gas but that could just be an ugly rumor someone here at LP made up. So you don't know that it's true, you did not ensure that it's true, yet you published it anyways. And, based on your previous posts about me, you published that with actual malice. This means it must have been made with disregard for the truth, and with the intention of doing harm to my reputation on this forum. I'd say I have an airtight defamation lawsuit. Or at least enough to get you kicked off this forum. I say that you are wrong about ever getting Stone to kick TC off this forum. He will never do it, albeit the right thing to do with the malicious and vulgar defamation of character displayed by TC. I predict Stone will not do shit about it. We shall see …
misterwhite v AKA Stone, Tooconservative et al? Yeah good luck with that Parsons.
I know, this seems petty, but hear me out. “Good luck” is not a religious or emotional statement in any way. It’s something we say to each other to communicate ‘I want the best for you (in this matter).’ But “good luck” is a terrible way to say this. Despite being a common phrase, it’s got a couple of significant problems. First, “good luck” is a pessimistic phrase. It encourages, as the psychologists say, an external locus of control. In non-psychology-speak, this means the phrase “good luck” encourages us to see events as outside of our control (as opposed to within our control). When we perceive outcomes as outside our control, we don’t work to affect them, leaving us in the passenger seat of our lives. Second, “good luck” implies, to the person you’re saying it to, that they need luck to succeed. Instead of encouraging or helping them, you’re wishing for the world to conspire in their favor. If you had a friend who was about to compete in a contest, you wouldn’t tell them “I hope the judge is feeling lenient today,” but to say “good luck” is to say the same thing. Last, “good luck” is a terrible phrase no matter what your religious orientation. If you are a theist, and believe in god, it’s bordering on blasphemous. Why are you appealing to a nonexistent ‘luck’ when it is God who directs the events of the world? If you are an atheist, it’s a meaningless statement because it acknowledges there is no way for you to affect this luck. Either way, you’re out of luck (get it?) Some obvious religious alternatives to “good luck” include “blessings” and “thoughts and prayers.” But there are some great secular options as well.
Eccl. 9:11 I returned and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favor to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all. I sometimes find myself saying "good luck" to the unbeliever...because that's about all they have...time and chance.
Isn't that just some variety of "Good luck on your little path to hell"? It's not surprising the country is turning atheist. The organized churches seem like smug self-interested morality clubs, often using their tax status to provide entertainment/services to their members at discount, that do very little for anyone but their own. And possibly the larger influence is with the charismatics and healers and other flim-flam people you can see on those awful cable channels. And it is difficult to discern anything that resembles a serious doctrinal view in modern churches. I look at local churches and people I know in them and they all seem to believe most anything they want, even if it opposes the church's offical doctrine. Preachers won't even get close to doctrinal preaching. So, if you're talking to me, I'd rather not hear any smug "Good luck in hell" talk. It got old a long time ago. Little wonder that people want nothing to do with religion any more. It's more a rejection of the sales force than Christianity itself.
It's not surprising the country is turning atheist. The organized churches seem like smug self-interested morality clubs... When I say "good luck" to a person it is said with a most heavy heart. Your assessment of the church...is true. With one exception: there IS doctrinal preaching in many churches but it is obviously not helping. Now, you've told me the symptoms, but can you pinpoint the exact cause? (I can) And, your feelings about the church's condition...is it anguish for something you love?
I don't attend any more. I got tired of the pettiness and some of the preaching I was hearing was clearly wrong in basic understanding of scripture. Bad preaching, rivalry of different factions, lack of interest in simply gathering to amicably worship, ... it just seemed so irrelevant and unfulfilling. I thought about driving farther to find a church but I didn't have any confidence of finding anything better within driving distance. I could tell some real horror stories about the last one I attended. It was a disgrace, nothing godly about it. Let's hear it. Offhand, my guess is you'll offer a prophetic note, the church falling away from sound doctrine as the Second Coming becomes imminent and Christians face persecution before the appearance of the False Prophet and then the Antichrist. Itchy ears, rejecting sound teaching, the takeover over churches and government posts by those who will be the accusers of the brethren during the Tribulation.
You are still giving me symptoms! When I call my brother the doctor* back home and ask about an old classmate who's sick he always says the exact same thing in a hushed voice "I can't talk about it" (never uses the dramatic "YOU KNOW I can't talk about it"). Even so, he knows the exact diagnosis. Why then will he not tell me! Because I'm the guy who just wants to know. The "let's hear it" guy with hardly any skin in the game, unlike the actual patient and the patient's loved ones. Maybe I feel that way right now, Tooconservative. I do understand your concerns about the church. *He got the brains, I got the girls, then, he then got the mansion, I got the...drafty frame house in a cow pasture. Talk about rotten luck!
Some might say you got the better deal. Depends on how many cows you got.
Depends on how many cows you got. I was just about to say...I still feel kinda sorry for him! Cattle. They are the measure of wealth in the Bible. That's why AOC and her ilk want to take them away from us (all the while themselves dining on good ole hambugrers)
Well, cattle and gold were all the rage a few thousand years ago. Or even a century ago. You'll notice that almost no rich people are trying to get into ranching and there are no billionaire cattle barons in the modern era. Modern tycoons are more likely to invest money in luxury bomb shelters on old missile bases than to invest that same money into owning land suitable for grazing cattle or to put that money into building dairies to profit off milk production. Modern dairies supply our milk, we have many sources of protein. Times have changed since the ancient era. I don't think taking cows away as a means of depriving people of wealth as part of a Satanic conspiracy is the actual motive of AOC and her neo-communist girl gang. They simply lack the imagination and religious background that would be needed to try to impose such a cow-free regime for religious or political reasons. Frankly, they're too stupid and uninformed to even think of something that traditionally religious. You seem to think AOC and her Marxist Girl Scout troop know a lot more about religion (or anything else) than what they do know. In truth, they don't know much about anything at all and mostly recite half-digested Lefty drivel from their former college professors. They're not that smart and they really weren't dedicated political ideologues who actually read their Marx and Gramsci and Alinsky and try to apply those principles to government. Cattle are not a measure of real wealth in a world of plentiful food. The ancient world, like almost the entire history of mankind, was a world of food insecurity. And in ancient times, cattle were a source of protein, a way to keep your household alive and in decent health by converting that useless grass on unfarmable lands into food, both milk and beef. And owning cattle, like sheep or goats, often made the difference in whether your children survived a famine. I'm not sure we should get every economic idea we have from the Old Testament. Would we want to return to a biblical ban on Jews or Christians engaged in usury (bank loans)? Leaving aside the historical record in which Christians in Europe outlawed usury for Christians so there could be no Christian bankers but also barred Jews in their ghettos from most other professions which meant that one of the few ways that Jews could make money and survive was through making loans as a lending house. And if one of the local merchants or barons was too deep in debt, he could rile up the local barflies against the Jews and they would invade the ghettos, burning and killing. But especially burning down the offices of Jews who had records of money owed to them by the merchants and nobility. If the Jew banker is dead, his bank burned, and his heirs have no record of debts owed to them by the local "Christian" merchants and nobility, poof, that merchant or baron is instantly a lot richer and doesn't have to give up anything. However, credit will be tighter in the future since you've ruined those who lend money for interest. OTOH, if you could effectively erase all your debts in one night of pogrom that you incited against your Jew banker, you didn't have much need for loans any more. And tighter credit meant you had fewer individuals who could aspire to using loans to acquire more wealth and compete with you for ownership of retail shops, import/export businesses, owning farmland and ranchland, etc. IOW, killing off your Jew banker and erasing your debts kept your potential creditors from having access to loans so they could compete with you for economic opportunities. I think the closest you'd come to cattle as a measure of wealth in the modern era would be bond holders who, until the 2009 crisis, were always paid off for their investment before all other creditors. The feds broached that standard by screwing the GM bond holders completely and just treating those bonds as being worth less than the fairly worthless GM stock which was and still is worth less than the stock of toy companies like Mattel. In fact, those bond holders might have been better off to own GM stock than to have invested in GM bonds. Perhaps you are not directly acquainted with the realities of owning and caring for cattle in the modern era. You wouldn't generally consider ranchers to be wealthy if you knew enough of them. They are generally asset-rich but cash-poor their entire lives. And the land needed to graze cattle has increasingly devolved into fewer and fewer hands as the schools and counties continue to pile up more laws and taxes on the ranchers. A lot of rural states tend to live off these people's taxes while the big businesses like Walmart pay very few taxes in those states while paying their employees so little that they qualify for welfare programs which will further burden the rural economies including the ranchers who hold the most land that is subject to property taxes. Cattle are a way to use land that would otherwise be worthless for agriculture. That was true in ancient times as well as the modern era. When economic activity advances, you see cattle being priced out of their former pastures due to the encroachment of small landowners who want an acreage they can keep a few horses on and not have to live 20' away from their neighbors in a suburban housing tract. Rural gentrification does have an effect, especially considering how much land in America is owned by the feds and its use for housing or ranching is restricted.
First of all, I am sincerely humbled by your very thoughtful replies to my sad attempts to comment here on this forum. I often have to dash something off in great haste, as now. Thank you, Tooconservative. There is so much in your reply here. I cannot possibly address every thought you have presented, even though I want to. Just for now please know that there is a huge smile on my face reading the quote I pulled from your comment. My CATTLE would totally agree with you! At this very moment they are telling me I had better get acquainted with the reality that their stomachs are empty and their udders are full! While that rich milk is flowing I will be considering all that you have said! And I will have a few thoughts of my own to make reply.
First of all, I am sincerely humbled by your very thoughtful replies to my sad attempts to comment here on this forum. I often have to dash something off in great haste, as now. Thank you, Tooconservative. There is so much in your reply here. I cannot possibly address every thought you have presented, even though I want to. Just for now please know that there is a huge smile on my face reading the quote I pulled from your comment. My CATTLE would totally agree with you! At this very moment they are telling me I had better get acquainted with the reality that their stomachs are empty and their udders are full! While that rich milk is flowing I will be considering all that you have said! And I will have a few thoughts of my own to make reply. Your post, watchman, was no doubt one of the greatest posts I have ever seen on this forum. I can think of nothing better in this world than a truly inspired and magnificently presented insult. A great put-down is a rare thing of beauty and something to be remembered and relished like a fine wine. Someone can in no way pretend to be offended when they are insulted with the right combination of artistry and wit. While history has been filled with crushing zingers and fantastic comebacks that have made us go “whew” – yours here to Tooconservative will live in the diary of history in my mind as the best way I have seen anyone to ever tell someone “to shut the fuck up and leave me alone for I have no time to listen to you.” I thought I was good at put-downs, but you have truly set a new high standard and I will now focus my attention and dedication towards learning to match your ability to respond to someone who thinks he knows all there is to know about everything.
I think you've gone full senile. I wasn't insulted at all. I don't think watchman intended to insult me. Or maybe he's just way too subtle at insulting me. He needs to be more obvious about insulting me or it just won't register, I'm afraid. I'm not that perceptive to subtle insults, I guess. What's clear is that you are desperately hoping for someone to insult me or to have some incident on the board where you can get Stone to kick me out. Your recent posts indicated that you and misterwhite want me gone along with Deckard. Then the new millennium would arrive and LF could be a forum where the only views expressed are those of misterwhite, Gatlin, GrandIsland and maybe yukon could even make a comeback (when he isn't clicking on his other browser tabs of gay porn). Let's see. hondo68 is gone (or at least limited). If you could get Stone to ban me and Deckard, you could make LF a full-blown warmongering copsucking outpost here at LF. Paid for by Stone too. Like the interwebs are lacking in those kinds of fora. You can haunt FreeRepublic for a full dose of that any time you like. And you are, like GI, posting at FR. You are, here at LF, a cross-forum troublemaker who counts your petty victories on who you can silence and who you can get management to ban. Because you don't want to debate anyone; you want to silence and expel them. We saw this sort of thing back at LP too. When Stone inherited the ex-freepers that posted at LP, he got the types of troublemakers like you that only post on a forum to disrupt it, not to build it up. How frustrating it must be for you that you haven't found a way to get Stone to do what you want with his forum. Maybe you'd like it if I apologize for having opinions you don't like or want anyone else to hear? And I have quit this forum (and returned) just as many times as you have. Stop trying to look down your nose at me, you old fruit.
Must have missed that one. Not surprised though. If you could get Stone to ban me and Deckard, you could make LF a full-blown warmongering copsucking outpost here at LF. Paid for by Stone too. Sounds like a sinister conspiracy to turn this place into an echo-chamber. And you are, like GI, posting at FR. Same screen name?
It's not that sinister because they aren't exactly subtle about their intentions. As you probably know, you are their #1 target to eliminate, hondo was #2 (he got banned or restricted due to some friction with Stone), and I am target #3. Others, like Fred Mertz or Willy Green, are just useful to bat around but don't seriously challenge the status quo they would like to impose here at LF.
Hondo just posts memes that aren't true. He rips people for positions that his candidates actually supports. I have him to two posts a day. I will put him on full right now. Just let him know to be honest and not stretch the truth so much.
Certainly there are a few limits here even on a real free speech forum. And longtime posters need to recognize this and not push it past your limits. You tolerate a lot of opinions you don't like but some issues do push your buttons a lot more than others. Personally, I don't care if other people have opinions that I disagree with or that offend me. It's when I think their opinions express a contempt for me or a disregard for basic polite conduct that I do get a little riled. I think you sometimes feel something along those same lines if a poster is stepping over your line. These forums, people need to remember that you don't offend the host. You can offend anyone else but not the guy who is footing the bill. And you definitely do not make the host feel you are deliberately disrespecting them as a person on their own forum.
On the whole, there is a really stubborn strain on Judaizing in Christianity whose origin I understand. What I don't understand is the tenacity with which people hold onto it, given that it would be terribly inconvenient and restrictive. When shown that Jesus clearly points a different way, and that keeping the Jewish law when you're not a Jew living in Israel with the Temple up is pointless anyway, I would expect that Christians would heave a sigh of relief, take a look at the evidence and say "O Thank God!, you're RIGHT" and stop doing the nonsense. Instead, they just seem to hunker down and dig in and WANT things to be impossible and hard. Meanwhile, the Church dies out all around us. That sort of mindset is precisely why (and it's precisely WHY the Apostles, in Acts, condemned "Judaizing" - it's not what Jesus said to do, and it's deadly to the Church).
The Church is dying, but I'm not so sure that belief in God is. Nor do I think that people have become hostile to Jesus. In fact, what I think is happening is that the aspects of the Christian Churches that are contrary to what Jesus said are rapidly dying out - and the institutions that tenaciously hold onto those things that did not come from Jesus' mouth - are deep-sixing like torpedoed ships. I think that overall this is a positive development, because the parts of organized Christianity that stink, really stink. The question, I think, is whether a reformed form of Christianity can take root, or the existing, terminally cancerous organizations will cling to the name of Jesus and take everything down with them. In Europe, I would say that the latter has happened, and that the only truly vibrant religion in Europe today is Islam. Nationalism, Imperialism, the two World Wars, Communism and general nationalist and ideological fanaticism - and Christianity's active collusion with, or pathetically weak resistance to - those ideas cost the religion its credibility, its dignity and its respect. Church attendance is down in the single digits, and not recovering. And those more conservative places like Catholic Ireland, that have held more tenaciously to the faith, have been rocked to the roots by sexual abuse scandals and the uncovering of murder and abuse at Catholic orphanages spanning back two centuries. That has shattered trust, and people are no longer willing to impose hardships on their own lives (vis a vis divorce, abortion and homosexuality) because some discredited religion of pedophiles and murderers tells them to. The Emperor has no clothes, and now that everybody sees it, all of the political power that held things a certain way has evaporated rapidly. In America, the issues are closely related, plus there is the very strong issue of economic aid to the poor, which is not a religious issue in Europe because of universal social democracy there. I have found that Christians are not willing to discuss these issues, though, preferring to mount the old hobbyhorses of doctrinal differences that don't make a tinker's dam of difference in abandoned Churches that are converted into mosques. This is why I say that traditional Christian divisions will, in fact, be the lethal poison that literally kills Christianity rather than letting it reform.
There are no replies to Comment # 106. End Trace Mode for Comment # 106.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#4. To: Gatlin, misterwhite (#1)
The officer tested the powder, and it tested positive for cocaine with two different kits …
#6. To: Tooconservative (#4)
to be so unaware of the properties of crystal cocaine and how it looks if exposed to moisture.
#8. To: misterwhite (#6)
It could have been wet/damp powdered cocaine.
#13. To: Tooconservative (#8)
He was trained. He has no excuse for being so ignorant.
#19. To: misterwhite (#13)
(Edited)
What's he supposed to do when the substance tests positive -- twice? Let the guy go because he's black?
#30. To: A K A Stone, misterwhite (#19)
AKA to whitey: Do you go down on cops?
#33. To: Tooconservative, A K A Stone (#30)
Not wanting to intrude here but I thought I'd pass along this ugly rumor.
#34. To: misterwhite, Tooconservative, A K A Stone (#33)
(Edited)
Do you go down on cops?
Tooconservative to A K A Stone: I heard he does suck a few nightsticks. Not wanting to intrude here but I thought I'd pass along this ugly rumor.
Misterwhite to Tooconservative, A K A Stone
I say that you are absolutely correct on the defamation lawsuit if you cared to file one.
#35. To: Gatlin, A K A Stone, Tooconservative (#34)
I say that you are absolutely correct on the defamation lawsuit if you cared to file one.
#39. To: Deckard (#35)
(Edited)
Yeah good luck with that Parsons.
#41. To: Gatlin (#39)
Why are you appealing to a nonexistent ‘luck’ when it is God who directs the events of the world?
#43. To: watchman (#41)
I sometimes find myself saying "good luck" to the unbeliever...because that's about all they have...time and chance.
#44. To: Tooconservative (#43)
Isn't that just some variety of "Good luck on your little path to hell"?
#45. To: watchman (#44)
And, your feelings about the church's condition...is it anguish for something you love?
Now, you've told me the symptoms, but can you pinpoint the exact cause? (I can)
#46. To: Tooconservative (#45)
Let's hear it. Offhand, my guess is you'll offer a prophetic note, the church falling away from sound doctrine as the Second Coming becomes imminent and Christians face persecution before the appearance of the False Prophet and then the Antichrist. Itchy ears, rejecting sound teaching, the takeover over churches and government posts by those who will be the accusers of the brethren during the Tribulation.
#47. To: watchman (#46)
*He got the brains, I got the girls, then, he then got the mansion, I got the...drafty frame house in a cow pasture. Talk about rotten luck!
#49. To: Deckard (#47)
Some might say you got the better deal.
#50. To: watchman (#49)
(Edited)
Cattle. They are the measure of wealth in the Bible. That's why AOC and her ilk want to take them away from us (all the while themselves dining on good ole hambugrers)
#51. To: Tooconservative (#50)
Perhaps you are not directly acquainted with the realities of owning and caring for cattle in the modern era.
#53. To: watchman, A K A Stone, GrandIsland, You two just gotta read watchman's reply to Tooconservative (#51)
(Edited)
Perhaps you are not directly acquainted with the realities of owning and caring for cattle in the modern era.
#60. To: Gatlin, A K A Stone, hondo68, misterwhite, GrandIsland, Deckard (#53)
While history has been filled with crushing zingers and fantastic comebacks that have made us go “whew” – yours here to Tooconservative will live in the diary of history in my mind as the best way I have seen anyone to ever tell someone “to shut the fuck up and leave me alone for I have no time to listen to you.” I thought I was good at put-downs, but you have truly set a new high standard and I will now focus my attention and dedication towards learning to match your ability to respond to someone who thinks he knows all there is to know about everything.
#61. To: Tooconservative (#60)
What's clear is that you are desperately hoping for someone to insult me or to have some incident on the board where you can get Stone to kick me out. Your recent posts indicated that you and misterwhite want me gone along with Deckard.
#64. To: Deckard (#61)
Sounds like a sinister conspiracy to turn this place into an echo-chamber.
#68. To: Tooconservative (#64)
#98. To: A K A Stone, hondo68 (#68)
I will put him on full right now. Just let him know to be honest and not stretch the truth so much.
#102. To: Tooconservative (#98)
#106. To: Tooconservative (#102)
Replies to Comment # 106.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]