Limbaugh Rallies Conservatives to Fight Democrats, Find 'Right Candidate'

American · Mar 2, 2009

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
ok man, I showed links, i quoted him, i gave you my experience from listening to his show at times.

I listen to him sometimes, you don't. I give you evidence you say I don't.

If there is no attempt at honest debate, I am not going to waste my time here.

Thanks.

Lerxst proves me 100% correct as predicted. Thank you sir.

GottaHurt · Mar 2, 2009

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
ok man, I showed links, i quoted him, i gave you my experience from listening to his show at times.

I listen to him sometimes, you don't. I give you evidence you say I don't.

If there is no attempt at honest debate, I am not going to waste my time here.

Thanks.

You've clearly been "defeated" by The Black Knight®

YouTube - Monty Python And The Holy Grail- The Black Knight

I've enjoyed this thread and watching the liberals hopelessly posting rhetoric and their theories on the Republican party. They still don't get it, and probably never will.

The democratic mind set is "win at all costs", regardless of the candidate.
When a democrat crosses the line, democrats rally and save "the seat" in order to preserve their numbers.

The Republican mindset is to elect a candidate who best represents our political views.

When a Republican crosses the line, he's ousted.

The liberals just can't grasp the idea that the Republican voter base is alive and well, and that we'd turn our backs on the crooks who don't represent our principles and political views.

The best part of this thread, is to see the terrorfied liberals foaming at the mouth over Limbaugh. Even their chosen messiah, Obama, and his goon Rahm are on TV whining about Limbaugh.

Imagine that, the most powerful man on earth, faced with a "catastrophic" economic crisis, two wars, global warming, and universal health care, is whining about a talk show host. :doh

For the liberals who are still clueless, Rush Limbaugh is a radio personality, he is not emerging as the leader of the Republican party. He's been around for 20+ years, his opinions might reflect some of those shared by fellow Republicans, but by no means is he leading anyone. He's merely sharing his viewpoint.

dirtpoorchris · Mar 2, 2009

MrVicchio said:
Going after Rush just ensured his continued Sucess. I'm glad Obama did, it was a sign of failed judgement on his part.

And all Obama's staffers running around telling people to say stuff on this 1 on 1 matter is what is going to hurt him a bit. Ramn should have just shut his mouth on the matter and let Obama deal with it 1 on 1 like a man.

WillRockwell · Mar 2, 2009

GottaHurt said:
I've enjoyed this thread and watching the liberals hopelessly posting rhetoric and their theories on the Republican party. They still don't get it, and probably never will.

The democratic mind set is "win at all costs", regardless of the candidate.
When a democrat crosses the line, democrats rally and save "the seat" in order to preserve their numbers.

The Republican mindset is to elect a candidate who best represents our political views.

When a Republican crosses the line, he's ousted.

The liberals just can't grasp the idea that the Republican voter base is alive and well, and that we'd turn our backs on the crooks who don't represent our principles and political views.

What a joke. Republicans have demonstrated repeatedly that they will win at any cost. When they cross the line, they get a presidential citation, and their candidates are invariably those who can best fool the majority of the electorate. Sarah Palin, best representing your political views? Don't make me laugh. Your president lied to you and the rest of us in order to start a war for personal reasons. Did you turn your back? No, you defended him and still defend him. And the policies you continue to insist will save America? They have created the worst economic recession in living history and destroyed America's international reputation. And you want us to follow you for more of the same? No thanks.

dirtpoorchris · Mar 2, 2009

GottaHurt said:
You've clearly been "defeated" by The Black Knight®

YouTube - Monty Python And The Holy Grail- The Black Knight

I've enjoyed this thread and watching the liberals hopelessly posting rhetoric and their theories on the Republican party. They still don't get it, and probably never will.

The democratic mind set is "win at all costs", regardless of the candidate.
When a democrat crosses the line, democrats rally and save "the seat" in order to preserve their numbers.

The Republican mindset is to elect a candidate who best represents our political views.

When a Republican crosses the line, he's ousted.

The liberals just can't grasp the idea that the Republican voter base is alive and well, and that we'd turn our backs on the crooks who don't represent our principles and political views.

The best part of this thread, is to see the terrorfied liberals foaming at the mouth over Limbaugh. Even their chosen messiah, Obama, and his goon Rahm are on TV whining about Limbaugh.

Imagine that, the most powerful man on earth, faced with a "catastrophic" economic crisis, two wars, global warming, and universal health care, is whining about a talk show host. :doh

For the liberals who are still clueless, Rush Limbaugh is a radio personality, he is not emerging as the leader of the Republican party. He's been around for 20+ years, his opinions might reflect some of those shared by fellow Republicans, but by no means is he leading anyone. He's merely sharing his viewpoint.

How is democrats calling Rush the leader of the republican party a Liberal folly?

Lerxst · Mar 2, 2009

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
ok man, I showed links, i quoted him, i gave you my experience from listening to his show at times.

I listen to him sometimes, you don't. I give you evidence you say I don't.

If there is no attempt at honest debate, I am not going to waste my time here.

Thanks.

I'll accept your surrender, as usual. This is what you do when it gets too tough. Take your ball, go home. I suppose facts are too much to ask for in this case.

TheNextEra · Mar 2, 2009

GottaHurt said:
The Republican mindset is to elect a candidate who best represents our political views.

So McCain best represented Republicans political views huh? You might want to check with some of your comrades on that one.

Lerxst · Mar 2, 2009

GottaHurt said:
You've clearly been "defeated" by The Black Knight®

YouTube - Monty Python And The Holy Grail- The Black Knight

Nice. More in depth commentary.

The Republican mindset is to elect a candidate who best represents our political views.

Right, like John McCain.

When a Republican crosses the line, he's ousted.

Okay, who would that be in this case? Who did the Republicans oust?

The liberals just can't grasp the idea that the Republican voter base is alive and well, and that we'd turn our backs on the crooks who don't represent our principles and political views.

So are you calling Bush a crook?

The best part of this thread, is to see the terrorfied liberals foaming at the mouth over Limbaugh. Even their chosen messiah, Obama, and his goon Rahm are on TV whining about Limbaugh.

Yes, terrified. :rofl

Imagine that, the most powerful man on earth, faced with a "catastrophic" economic crisis, two wars, global warming, and universal health care, is whining about a talk show host. :doh

:spin:

For the liberals who are still clueless, Rush Limbaugh is a radio personality, he is not emerging as the leader of the Republican party. He's been around for 20+ years, his opinions might reflect some of those shared by fellow Republicans, but by no means is he leading anyone. He's merely sharing his viewpoint.

I think he was described as "rallying" the Republican party. The whole point was that he is the wrong guy for the job given the fracture that's taken place, the one you deny but the polls clearly indicated.

Grateful Heart · Mar 2, 2009

Lerxst said:
I didn't say it was pushing records though did I? I didn't mean to infer he won by a "landslide." I merely said it was respectable. And it is. Better than about half the Presidents in history, and within a point or two of most others. That's not bad. Read into what you want.

That's fine. I've found that some seem to be claiming a huge 'mandate' for Obama, as if this election were in some way a defining moment in American politics. Based on the evidence so far, it's not. Obama defeated an extremely weak GOP opponent by a margin that is average, at best, in historical terms.

{snip} ...despite the claims that John McCain was so "not right" that Obama should have won by a 10-15% margin...the GOP still picked him overwhelmingly as their man. So, I ask...what does this say about the GOP and conservative influence?

I want to focus on this particular point because you've made it several times, and I believe it flies in the face of fact. To describe McCain's choice by GOP voters in the primaries as 'overwhelming' simply misses the boat. Here's a link to the primary results in the event you'd like to refresh your memory: Republican Primary Results National: 2008 Elections - AOL News McCain slowly gathered up victories until all the other candidates pulled out. His final tally of 47% of the primary vote, (something a bit less than overwhelming), was largely built up after all other candidates were out of the race. Unlike Obama and Hillary who were fighting neck-and-neck down to the wire. So no McCain's victory was not overwhelming, not even particularly impressive. McCain was something of a 'default candidate.' He was never able to energize the party during the general election, despite, or because of his curious pick for running mate. And his idiotic floundering during the first bail-out bill sealed his fate. Any Democrat would have won this race. Any Democrat.

Yet the GOP knew all of this about him and he was their knight in shining armor. Except when it became apparent you were going lose and lose handily.

Again, your characterization of John McCain as a 'knight in shining armor' comes from mthin air, as far as I can tell. I don't know any Republicans who were ardent McCain supporters. Certainly not in the way Democrats were enthused by either Obama or Hillary. Most of the arguments in his favor were of the 'vote for the lesser of two evils' type.

There certainly is a change taking place. But it's for the Republican party to work out. Until it decides what it's new identity is, moderate or conservative, the Democrats will hold sway.

We'd have had 'change' this election no matter which candidate won. If McCain had miraculously pulled out a victory, we'd be hearing from liberals that the conservative base of the GOP was dead. The one thing that is absolutely guaranteed after every election is that win or lose, each side will continue spinning their spin. There's one other thing that's guaranteed after each election... partisans on one side or the other drink a little too much of their own Kool-Aid in the celebrating. For years or eight years later... the tables are turned.

Nothing new here. Nothing new at all.

:2wave:

GottaHurt · Mar 2, 2009

TheNextEra said:
So McCain best represented Republicans political views huh? You might want to check with some of your comrades on that one.

Hmmm, McCain lost the election. I've stated time and time again on this forum, McCain wasn't my choice, didn't vote for him either.

I have no comrades. Plenty of Republicans on this forum who have posted about not supporting McCain.

You might want to actually read next time before rushing in and blabbering away.

TheNextEra · Mar 2, 2009

GottaHurt said:
Hmmm, McCain lost the election. I've stated time and time again on this forum, McCain wasn't my choice, didn't vote for him either.

You said though and I quote:

GottaHurt said:
The Republican mindset is to elect a candidate who best represents our political views.

So since the MAJORITY of Republicans picked McCain in the primaries, your ASSumption is FALSE. Not surprising.

Lerxst · Mar 2, 2009

Grateful Heart said:
That's fine. I've found that some seem to be claiming a huge 'mandate' for Obama, as if this election were in some way a defining moment in American politics. Based on the evidence so far, it's not. Obama defeated an extremely weak GOP opponent by a margin that is average, at best, in historical terms.

Well I certainly don't subscribe to the "mandate" position, just that he did well. We disagree a bit and that is fine.

I

want to focus on this particular point because you've made it several times, and I believe it flies in the face of fact. To describe McCain's choice by GOP voters in the primaries as 'overwhelming' simply misses the boat. Here's a link to the primary results in the event you'd like to refresh your memory: Republican Primary Results National: 2008 Elections - AOL News McCain slowly gathered up victories until all the other candidates pulled out. His final tally of 47% of the primary vote, (something a bit less than overwhelming), was largely built up after all other candidates were out of the race. Unlike Obama and Hillary who were fighting neck-and-neck down to the wire. So yes, McCain was something of a 'default candidate.' He was never able to energize the party during the general election, despite, or because of his curious pick for running mate. And his idiotic floundering during the first bail-out bill sealed his fate. Any Democrat would have won this race. Any Democrat.

Your theory here only supports my position. He beat the crap out of every other candidate by a a minimum 2+ to1 margin. You call that what you want, but overwhelming is an apt description relatively speaking. Nobody even got close to McCain as a viable alternative candidate. Again, we are just going to disagree on this.

Again, your characterization of John McCain as a 'knight in shining armor' comes from thin air, as far as I can tell. I don't know any Republicans who were ardent McCain supporters. Most of the arguments in his favor were of the 'vote for the lesser of two evils' type.

Well I don't know where you're from and any of the Republicans you know, but the primary numbers show that the vast majority of Republicans wanted the moderate McCain as their man as evidenced by his very handy defeat of his fellow Republicans...who were conservatives. The GOP picked their man and that pick left the conservatives frustrated and wanting.

We'd have had 'change' this election no matter which candidate won. If McCain had miraculously pulled out a victory, we'd be hearing from liberals that the conservative base of the GOP was dead. The one thing that is absolutely guaranteed after every election is that win or lose, each side will continue spinning their spin. There's one other thing that's guaranteed after each election... partisans on one side or the other drinks a little too much of their own Kool-Aid in the celebrating. For years or eight years later... the tables are turned.

I can agree with you on this.

Nothing new here. Nothing new at all.

:2wave:

Not really new, no. But interesting because of how the primary worked out. There are marked differences in the candidate the GOP put forward and what the conservative element wanted. That is very interesting because it indicates that conservative influence didn't carry anywhere close to it's traditional weight. Why is that?

theTANTALIZER · Mar 2, 2009

A little while back Obama responded directly to Rush saying something like "you can't listen Rush Limbaugh and get things done." At the time I figured it was stupid of Obama because responding to Rush would essentially be legitimizing him. There was a thread about it and I think a few people felt the same way. What did he have to gain from even acknowledging , Rush 's mouthpiece even exists? As time went on more people starting talking about the GOP leadership vaccum. Nobody had really stepped up to become the voice of the party. It hindsight I'm starting to think it was actually a calculated move by the Democrats. Rush Limbaugh as the voice of the Republican party is strategically desirable because every time he opens his mouth he makes conservatism look utterly retarded to everyone except the GOP rank and file. He's a polarizing figure and he'll push moderates away.

It looks like things are starting to heat up...

American said:
Link

Obama should have left Rush alone.

GottaHurt · Mar 2, 2009

Lerxst said:
Nice. More in depth commentary.

Indeed. The Good Reverends word is the gospel in the post of his that I quoted.

Like I've said several times over multiple posts, some liberals are clueless, and some will never get it.

Lerxst said:
Right, like John McCain.

Wrong, I didn't vote for him, like millions of other Americans.

Lerxst said:
Okay, who would that be in this case? Who did the Republicans oust?

All the Republicans who lost their seats in '06 and '08, based on their behavior over the last 8 years. They didn't get the votes by angry Republicans, they sold us out, we shoved them out, by not voting for them.

You'll never get it, your sig shows the democratic mentality.

Lerxst said:
So are you calling Bush a crook?

You betcha, he sold me out on immigration reform, the creation of DHS (expanded government) and not vetoing bills that had runaway spending attatched to them by both parties.

I said at the beginning, you'd never get it...lol..

Lerxst said:
Yes, terrified. :rofl

Yes, terror-fied. New term, obviously way above your head. Here I'll explain it to you...

Ready? O.K.

The new adminstration under Obama won't use the word terror/terrorist.

Yet they're "terrorfied" of a talk show host....lmao

Lerxst said:
:spin:

No spin. Your boy Obama and his goon are on TV whining about Rush Limbaugh, a talk show host.

Lerxst said:
I think...

Obviously you don't. Your post is just another cluster **** of bloviated hot air.

GottaHurt · Mar 2, 2009

TheNextEra said:
So since the MAJORITY of Republicans picked McCain in the primaries, your ASSumption is FALSE. Not surprising.

I assumed nothing. If you'd actually try to follow along on this forum, you would have seen the Republican party before the election, were not happy with ANY of the choices being presented.

McCain pretty much won the primary because he was the lesser of the evils, NOT because Republicans were rejoicing in his nomination.

Try to stay focused. The thread is about Limbaugh supposedly "rallying", not about McCain.

danarhea · Mar 2, 2009

American said:
Link

Obama should have left Rush alone.

Rush Limbaugh quotes the Constitution at CPAC:

"Life, liberty, freedom, and the pursuit of happiness...."

2 problems with that:

1) These words are from the Declaration of independence, not the Constitution.

2) The word "Freedom" is not part of that sentence from the Declaration of Independence. Our founding fathers used the the word "Liberty" alone, which means the same thing.

Nobody is picking on Rush Limbaugh. He is showing his own ignorance without any help from Obama or anyone else.

TheNextEra · Mar 2, 2009

GottaHurt said:
I assumed nothing. If you'd actually try to follow along on this forum, you would have seen the Republican party before the election, were not happy with ANY of the choices being presented.

It's funny though because REPUBLICANS PICKED THEM.

If you REPUBLICANS didn't want them, why did you pick them to even run for the primaries? lol.

Now go run away like you normally do pretending nothing happened :rofl

This is funny as hell.

If Republicans picked McCain as the lesser of the evils presented in the primaries, why did REPUBLICANS pick those choices in the first place?

According to you Republicans elect those closest to their political ideals, so McCain was the choice of those ideals ACCORDING TO YOUR LOGIC because those choices are the ones the Republicans PICKED to run in the primaries. :rofl

At this point Gotta, the honorable thing is just to admit Republicans don't elect those with their ideals since the whole Primary listing you guys were presented with were chosen by REPUBLICANS lol.

Lerxst · Mar 2, 2009

GottaHurt said:
Indeed. The Good Reverends word is the gospel in the post of his that I quoted.

Like I've said several times over multiple posts, some liberals are clueless, and some will never get it.

:rofl

Wrong, I didn't vote for him, like millions of other Americans.

No, I'm quite right. The REPUBLICANS picked John McCain, they rallied around him, and they showed up in traditional numbers at the polls to vote. This is documented statistically. The angry conservative base may not have went to the polls or voted third party, but their absence wasn't missed statistically speaking. Your assumptions about what millions of other people thought and did or didn't do is noted however.

All the Republicans who lost their seats in '06 and '08, based on their behavior over the last 8 years. They didn't get the votes by angry Republicans, they sold us out, we shoved them out, by not voting for them.

Right, so you're proposing that the angry Republicans ousted their own party and gave the House and the Senate away? Well, I'm not sure what's more absurd...the notion that's how it happened or the Republican strategy your touting. Whatever it is, please...stick with it.

You'll never get it, your sig shows the democratic mentality.

You're right, I'll never get what it is your preaching because it's not realistic. And my sig is a reference to a bet I made during the election. I was right.

You betcha, he sold me out on immigration reform, the creation of DHS (expanded government) and not vetoing bills that had runaway spending attatched to them by both parties.

Well I like what your saying here. So how did you feel about the rest of your party turning on you?

I said at the beginning, you'd never get it...lol..

Yeah you did say that.

Yes, terror-fied. New term, obviously way above your head. Here I'll explain it to you...

Ready? O.K.

Is that like "strategery?"

The new adminstration under Obama won't use the word terror/terrorist.

Really? They won't?

Yet they're "terrorfied" of a talk show host....lmao

Oh my god you're right it is so funny the way you say that! :rofl

No spin. Your boy Obama and his goon are on TV whining about Rush Limbaugh, a talk show host.

Whining, lol...okay.

Obviously you don't. Your post is just another cluster **** of bloviated hot air.

You are an awful angry person.

Lerxst · Mar 2, 2009

GottaHurt said:
I assumed nothing. If you'd actually try to follow along on this forum, you would have seen the Republican party before the election, were not happy with ANY of the choices being presented.

That's pretty convenient for you to assume. Because this forum constitutes the nexus of all things Republican. Now again I ask, if what you are saying is the case, how did that happen if the GOP is in such good shape? Is this more of the Republican "we'll run our own kind out of town" strategy for winning political office?

McCain pretty much won the primary because he was the lesser of the evils, NOT because Republicans were rejoicing in his nomination.

No, McCain pretty much won the primary because the majority of Republicans wanted him as their candidate. You've yet to offer up a valid, substantial alternative reason as to why he beat two allegedly conservative candidates in Romney and Huckabee. And I don't know if you watched the RNC this last year or not, I didn't see any stern and glum faces there. Were they just going to wait to employ their strategy of ousting Republicans who sell them out until after the election or what? Poor McCain...never saw it coming did he? I can just imagine his shock at learning the Republicans didn't really want him as their candidate when they elected him as their candidate.

Try to stay focused. The thread is about Limbaugh supposedly "rallying", not about McCain.

Yes, if I was trying to avoid dealing with the condition of the Republican party I would avoid the McCain Incident altogether.

Lerxst · Mar 2, 2009

danarhea said:
Rush Limbaugh quotes the Constitution at CPAC:

"Life, liberty, freedom, and the pursuit of happiness...."

2 problems with that:

1) These words are from the Declaration of independence, not the Constitution.

2) The word "Freedom" is not part of that sentence from the Declaration of Independence. Our founding fathers used the the word "Liberty" alone, which means the same thing.

Nobody is picking on Rush Limbaugh. He is showing his own ignorance without any help from Obama or anyone else.

It's stuff like this as well as his hyper partisan schtick that make him such a terrible symbol to rally the conservative base. There is no rule that I am aware of that says the conservatives have to be ugly like Rush.

Grateful Heart · Mar 2, 2009

Lerxst said:
That is very interesting because it indicates that conservative influence didn't carry anywhere close to it's traditional weight. Why is that?

It's very easy. The conservative GOP votes were split and fragmented throughout. Not because of a failure of ideology, but due to the inability to settle on a candidate. Romney and Huckabee effectively split the conservative vote. Which allowed McCain to win a number of major primaries by considerably less than a majority.

Consider the results from Florida, for instance:

McCain 36%
Romney 31%
Guiliani 15%
Huckabee 13%

If you recall, Guiliani had placed all his marbles on FL and dropped out soon after. But the conservative vote continued to be split. In the Super Tuesday GOP primaries just after Florida:

Romney won Maine soundly. McCain only pulled 21%.
Romney won Utah. McCain only pulled 5%.
Huckabee won Tennessee. McCain pulled 32%.
McCain pulled out a victory in Oklahoma with 37%. Together, Romney and Huckabee garnered 58% of the vote.
McCain won several states on 2/5, but they are interesting to analyze.

You can follow this trend state after state after state. McCain picking up enough delegates to become unbeatable as the conservative votes were split among Huckabee and Romney.

Once Romney pulled out of the race, Huckabee was the only conservative remaining to challenge McCain. He was a virtual unknown. Not much respected in the MSM. And yet he pulled 41% to McCain's 50% in VA. By that time, it was over.

So that's the answer to your question. McCain won by default. He was never the overwhelming choice among GOP voters. In fact he won less than half of all GOP primary votes. Hardly overwhelming. The facts and the numbers speak for themselves.

TheNextEra · Mar 2, 2009

Grateful Heart said:
Romney and Huckabee effectively split the conservative vote. Which allowed McCain to win a number of major primaries by considerably less than a majority.

It's interesting because Gottahurt, a conservative on this board, has said that McCain was the lesser of all the evils presented for Republicans.

What say you to that?

new coup for you · Mar 2, 2009

Grateful Heart said:
It's very easy. The GOP votes were split and fragmented throughout. Romney and Huckabee effectively split the conservative vote. Which allowed McCain to win a number of major primaries by considerably less than a majority.

Consider the results from Florida, for instance:

McCain 36%
Romney 31%
Guiliani 15%
Huckabee 13%

If you recall, Guiliani had placed all his marbles on FL and dropped out soon after. But the conservative vote continued to be split. In the Super Tuesday GOP primaries just after Florida:

Romney won Maine soundly. McCain only pulled 21%.
Romney won Utah. McCain only pulled 5%.
Huckabee won Tennessee. McCain pulled 32%.
McCain pulled out a victory in Oklahoma with 37%. Together, Romney and Huckabee garnered 58% of the vote.
McCain won several states on 2/5, but they are interesting to analyze.

You can follow this trend state after state after state. McCain picking up enough delegates to become unbeatable as the conservative votes were split among Huckabee and Romney.

Once Romney pulled out of the race, Huckabee was the only conservative remaining to challenge McCain. He was a virtual unknown. Not much respected in the MSM. And yet he pulled 41% to McCain's 50% in VA. By that time, it was over.

So that's the answer to your question. McCain won by default. He was never the overwhelming choice among GOP voters. In fact he won less than half of all GOP primary votes. Hardly overwhelming. The facts and the numbers speak for themselves.

do you seriously think Huckabee could ever possibly win the general?

Romney, maybe, but Huckabee has no chance. None.

As a side note, can someone please explain the logic of Gulliani's campaign? :rofl

Without a doubt, the greatest political failure since I've been involved in politics. He went from front-runner and in some circles presumed winner to...nothing. All through sheer bad campaign strategy.

Grateful Heart · Mar 2, 2009

new coup for you said:
do you seriously think Huckabee could ever possibly win the general?

Romney, maybe, but Huckabee has no chance. None.

I never thought Huckabee was viable, no. But I suspect he'd have run a tougher general election campaign than McCain. I have no doubt about that.

As a side note, can someone please explain the logic of Gulliani's campaign? :rofl

Without a doubt, the greatest political failure since I've been involved in politics. He went from front-runner and in some circles presumed winner to...nothing. All through sheer bad campaign strategy.

I wish I could explain it. I like Guiliani. But that Florida gamble was an utter disaster.

:shock:

new coup for you · Mar 2, 2009

It's a disaster I've never read a sufficient explanation of. I'd seriously be interested in the memoirs of the campaign strategist, I really want to know what their theory was.

Limbaugh Rallies Conservatives to Fight Democrats, Find 'Right Candidate'

Trump Grump Whisperer

Sexual Deviant

King of Videos

King of Videos

U mad bro?

U mad bro?

Well-known member

Sexual Deviant

U mad bro?

Member

Sexual Deviant

Sexual Deviant

Slayer of the DP Newsbot

U mad bro?

U mad bro?

U mad bro?

Well-known member

Upper West Side Jacobin

Well-known member

Upper West Side Jacobin