[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]

Radio Paradise Comments - jimofoakcreek889 - Jul 11, 2025 - 1:33pm
 
A motivational quote - Proclivities - Jul 11, 2025 - 1:18pm
 
Trump - Proclivities - Jul 11, 2025 - 1:08pm
 
The Marie Antoinette Moment... - Red_Dragon - Jul 11, 2025 - 12:56pm
 
July 2025 Photo Theme - Stone - Isabeau - Jul 11, 2025 - 12:43pm
 
Protest Songs - R_P - Jul 11, 2025 - 12:38pm
 
Wordle - daily game - Isabeau - Jul 11, 2025 - 12:08pm
 
Beyond... - bobrk - Jul 11, 2025 - 12:02pm
 
Democratic Party - R_P - Jul 11, 2025 - 11:56am
 
True Confessions - oldviolin - Jul 11, 2025 - 11:56am
 
Beyond mix - pilgrim - Jul 11, 2025 - 11:52am
 
USA! USA! USA! - R_P - Jul 11, 2025 - 11:40am
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - oldviolin - Jul 11, 2025 - 10:47am
 
What the hell OV? - oldviolin - Jul 11, 2025 - 10:34am
 
Live Music - oldviolin - Jul 11, 2025 - 10:13am
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - Coaxial - Jul 11, 2025 - 10:01am
 
Great Old Songs You Rarely Hear Anymore - GeneP59 - Jul 11, 2025 - 9:50am
 
NY Times Strands - GeneP59 - Jul 11, 2025 - 9:45am
 
NYTimes Connections - ptooey - Jul 11, 2025 - 9:43am
 
Today in History - Red_Dragon - Jul 11, 2025 - 8:04am
 
It seemed like a good idea at the time - ptooey - Jul 11, 2025 - 6:10am
 
Country Up The Bumpkin - KurtfromLaQuinta - Jul 10, 2025 - 9:13pm
 
TV shows you watch - R_P - Jul 10, 2025 - 5:31pm
 
Wasted Money - GeneP59 - Jul 10, 2025 - 5:22pm
 
Baseball, anyone? - kcar - Jul 10, 2025 - 5:06pm
 
Rock mix / repitition - walk2k - Jul 10, 2025 - 4:31pm
 
Name My Band - GeneP59 - Jul 10, 2025 - 3:24pm
 
How's the weather? - GeneP59 - Jul 10, 2025 - 3:21pm
 
M.A.G.A. - Red_Dragon - Jul 10, 2025 - 2:28pm
 
Climate Change - R_P - Jul 10, 2025 - 12:52pm
 
Israel - R_P - Jul 10, 2025 - 11:55am
 
Random Solutions - Random Advice - oldviolin - Jul 10, 2025 - 10:11am
 
Spambags on RP - KurtfromLaQuinta - Jul 10, 2025 - 9:02am
 
misheard lyrics - GeneP59 - Jul 10, 2025 - 6:30am
 
New Song Submissions system - Teja - Jul 10, 2025 - 3:36am
 
TEXAS - Red_Dragon - Jul 9, 2025 - 5:57pm
 
DQ (as in 'Daily Quote') - black321 - Jul 9, 2025 - 11:33am
 
Fascism In America - ColdMiser - Jul 9, 2025 - 10:23am
 
Republican Party - Red_Dragon - Jul 9, 2025 - 7:50am
 
Economix - oldviolin - Jul 9, 2025 - 7:45am
 
Outstanding Covers - oldviolin - Jul 8, 2025 - 9:29pm
 
Trump Lies™ - R_P - Jul 8, 2025 - 7:14pm
 
Musky Mythology - R_P - Jul 8, 2025 - 5:43pm
 
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos - Alchemist - Jul 8, 2025 - 11:45am
 
What is the meaning of this? - islander - Jul 8, 2025 - 10:11am
 
Love & Hate - oldviolin - Jul 8, 2025 - 8:15am
 
Artificial Intelligence - Red_Dragon - Jul 8, 2025 - 6:45am
 
Anti-War - R_P - Jul 7, 2025 - 6:45pm
 
Environment - R_P - Jul 7, 2025 - 5:38pm
 
(Big) Media Watch - R_P - Jul 7, 2025 - 12:04pm
 
The Grateful Dead - black321 - Jul 7, 2025 - 11:17am
 
Music Videos - black321 - Jul 7, 2025 - 9:00am
 
Mixtape Culture Club - KurtfromLaQuinta - Jul 7, 2025 - 8:59am
 
Immigration - black321 - Jul 7, 2025 - 8:02am
 
Russia - Red_Dragon - Jul 7, 2025 - 7:39am
 
Triskele and The Grateful Dead - geoff_morphini - Jul 6, 2025 - 10:33pm
 
Hey Baby, It's The 4th O' July - GeneP59 - Jul 6, 2025 - 9:42pm
 
Customize a shirt with my favorite album - 2644364236 - Jul 6, 2025 - 7:20pm
 
Those Lovable Policemen - R_P - Jul 6, 2025 - 10:56am
 
Beer - SeriousLee - Jul 6, 2025 - 6:54am
 
Iran - R_P - Jul 5, 2025 - 9:01pm
 
What are you doing RIGHT NOW? - Coaxial - Jul 5, 2025 - 6:48pm
 
New vs Old RP App (Android) - mhamann123 - Jul 5, 2025 - 5:41am
 
Britain - R_P - Jul 4, 2025 - 1:41pm
 
Ukraine - R_P - Jul 4, 2025 - 11:10am
 
Best Song Comments. - 2644364236 - Jul 3, 2025 - 11:32pm
 
The Obituary Page - ScottFromWyoming - Jul 3, 2025 - 11:27am
 
Documentaries - Proclivities - Jul 3, 2025 - 9:31am
 
Annoying stuff. not things that piss you off, just annoyi... - Steely_D - Jul 3, 2025 - 8:36am
 
Copyright and theft - black321 - Jul 3, 2025 - 6:48am
 
Fox Spews - islander - Jul 2, 2025 - 10:39am
 
New Music - ScottFromWyoming - Jul 2, 2025 - 7:30am
 
Carmen to Stones - KurtfromLaQuinta - Jul 1, 2025 - 7:44pm
 
President(s) Musk/Trump - VV - Jul 1, 2025 - 8:10am
 
June 2025 Photo Theme - Arches - Alchemist - Jun 30, 2025 - 9:10pm
 
Index » Radio Paradise/General » General Discussion » Trump Page: Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 1282, 1283, 1284 ... 1350, 1351, 1352  Next
Post to this Topic
ScottFromWyoming

ScottFromWyoming Avatar

Location: Powell
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 23, 2016 - 12:45am

 kurtster wrote:


 
Interesting that a Trump supporter would be arguing Ted Cruz' case for him.
kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 22, 2016 - 9:11pm

 Lazy8 wrote:
kurtster wrote:
How? Not seeing anything here that contradicts.

Again, the 1st has nothing to do with anyone seeking to enter the country who is not already here.  The 14th leaves it to Congress to determine how it applies by defining jurisdiction and its application.  The 14th does not absolutely guarantee citizenship to those born here.  That has been widely documented by the authors of the 14th regarding its purpose and intent.  Congress can determine that if it so chooses.  That includes anchor babies and those who participate in the birth tourism industry.

The first forbids entangling the government with religion or the free exercise thereof. That would include a religious test for citizenship or entry.

There are very few exceptions to birthright citizenship as defined in the 14th amendment, as settled by United States v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898. You'd basically have to be the child of a foreign diplomat.

There is no such thing as an anchor baby. The whole idea is fake; parents of citizens have no special priority in immigration. And I'm sure this isn't the last time I'll have to refute this; it's a durable lie, evergreen among the anti-immigrant right, but a lie nonetheless.

 
A differing opinion on United States v. Wong Kim Ark as it applies to our discussion ...

Myths can be difficult to dispose of, and birthright citizenship to aliens is no exception. Pro immigration advocates will refer to the Supreme Court ruling U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark as a desperate attempt to keep the fable alive. The problem with relying on Wong Kim Ark is that it draws zero support from the Fourteenth Amendment. In fact, the ruling had nothing to with the Fourteenth Amendment at all, but everything to do with English Common Law, something the Fourteenth's Citizenship Clause had no connection because it was a virtue of "national law."

There is other significant problems with the Wong Kim Ark ruling other than having no basis in Fourteenth Amendment text, intent and history that will never hold up under review — and that is how will any court with a straight face attempt to reconcile the civil rights bill of 1870. (1866 See below).  Remember that civil rights bill declared those children born to parents subject to a foreign power cannot be declared United States citizens.

You cannot simply revise he Fourteenth's Citizenship Clause to mean yes, it really was the intent of the Congress to grant citizenship to alien children born on US soil when the same Congress enacted law afterwards that did just the reverse. Try and explain why Congress would pass a Constitutional Amendment that grants citizenship to ANYONE born in the US and then turn around and pass a law that would deny automatic citizenship to aliens? Because you cannot, only leads us back to the to the exact construction of the clause for which it was intended and written to mean.

(The Wong Kim Ark ruling is so badly flawed and irrelevant probably lead to the US Supreme Court in 1982 to say they "had never confirmed birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens."  I cannot find support for this statement.)

By far the most relevant Supreme Court ruling on the subject to date, and indeed, fully supported by the Fourteenth Amendment itself came in Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884), where the court held that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" requires "direct and immediate allegiance" to the United States, not just physical presence.

 From the court ...

Page 112 U. S. 102

to be citizens are "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.


 

1866 Enforcement Act

Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27 (1866).

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.

......

I believe that the language regarding the meaning of jurisdiction is quite clear.  And the arguments and explanations presented very sound.


Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 22, 2016 - 8:27pm

kurtster wrote:
How? Not seeing anything here that contradicts.

Again, the 1st has nothing to do with anyone seeking to enter the country who is not already here.  The 14th leaves it to Congress to determine how it applies by defining jurisdiction and its application.  The 14th does not absolutely guarantee citizenship to those born here.  That has been widely documented by the authors of the 14th regarding its purpose and intent.  Congress can determine that if it so chooses.  That includes anchor babies and those who participate in the birth tourism industry.

The first forbids entangling the government with religion or the free exercise thereof. That would include a religious test for citizenship or entry.

There are very few exceptions to birthright citizenship as defined in the 14th amendment, as settled by United States v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898. You'd basically have to be the child of a foreign diplomat.

There is no such thing as an anchor baby. The whole idea is fake; parents of citizens have no special priority in immigration. And I'm sure this isn't the last time I'll have to refute this; it's a durable lie, evergreen among the anti-immigrant right, but a lie nonetheless.
kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 22, 2016 - 7:27pm

 Lazy8 wrote:
 kurtster wrote:
I do not believe that is correct.  Where did you find that ?

Congress sets the criteria IIRC.  There is no Constitutional provisions stating who can or cannot be denied consideration.  The 1st amendment only applies to those already here.  It does not extend past our borders.

The US constitution has force and effect only within our borders, but the rights protected by it apply to everyone—not just citizens, and not just legal aliens. There are no exceptions for citizenship in the constitution, and that is by design. The constitution is a document recognizing the rights of humans, not of citizens.

Congress has plenary power to set immigration criteria, but that power is not unlimited. The first and 14th amendments restrict what criteria they can apply.

Congress has passed laws restricting entry based on ethnicity (the Chinese Exclusion act of 1889) which the courts at the time refused to review. It has since been repealed (and—extraordinarily—apologized for by the congress) but it would doubtless fail to withstand a constitutional challenge today.

The president has the power* to suspend "the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens" for as long as s/he likes, for any reason, but all actions of the president and congress are subject to compliance with the constitution and judicial review.

*Note to Stephen Molynieux fans—this is statutory, not constitutional power.

 
Here's one statement regarding plenary power that disagrees with your assertion.

Again, the 1st has nothing to do with anyone seeking to enter the country who is not already here.  The 14th leaves it to Congress to determine how it applies by defining jurisdiction and its application.  The 14th does not absolutely guarantee citizenship to those born here.  That has been widely documented by the authors of the 14th regarding its purpose and intent.  Congress can determine that if it so chooses.  That includes anchor babies and those who participate in the birth tourism industry.

On the 14th ...

Senator Jacob Howard worked closely with Abraham Lincoln in drafting and passing the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which abolished slavery. He also served on the Senate Joint Committee on Reconstruction, which drafted the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by writing:

Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."
.
The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.

The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.




Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 22, 2016 - 6:11pm

 kurtster wrote:
I do not believe that is correct.  Where did you find that ?

Congress sets the criteria IIRC.  There is no Constitutional provisions stating who can or cannot be denied consideration.  The 1st amendment only applies to those already here.  It does not extend past our borders.

The US constitution has force and effect only within our borders, but the rights protected by it apply to everyone—not just citizens, and not just legal aliens. There are no exceptions for citizenship in the constitution, and that is by design. The constitution is a document recognizing the rights of humans, not of citizens.

Congress has plenary power to set immigration criteria, but that power is not unlimited. The first and 14th amendments restrict what criteria they can apply.

Congress has passed laws restricting entry based on ethnicity (the Chinese Exclusion act of 1889) which the courts at the time refused to review. It has since been repealed (and—extraordinarily—apologized for by the congress) but it would doubtless fail to withstand a constitutional challenge today.

The president has the power* to suspend "the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens" for as long as s/he likes, for any reason, but all actions of the president and congress are subject to compliance with the constitution and judicial review.

*Note to Stephen Molynieux fans—this is statutory, not constitutional power.
kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 22, 2016 - 5:25pm

 Lazy8 wrote:
 kurtster wrote:
Does anyone have a right to be admitted to this country ?  

Everyone has the right to be considered for entry, and that the criteria for entry have nothing to do with religion.

 
I do not believe that is correct.  Where did you find that ?

Congress sets the criteria IIRC.  There is no Constitutional provisions stating who can or cannot be denied consideration.  The 1st amendment only applies to those already here.  It does not extend past our borders.
Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 22, 2016 - 5:23pm

Jennifer had no idea who set up the account, but this really was
the match Ashley Madison had found for her.




R_P

R_P Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 22, 2016 - 5:03pm

 kurtster wrote:
Does anyone have a right to be admitted to this country ? 
 
This establishment is currently closed. Please bear with us while we're working hard to make ourselves greater than ever. We're enormously sorry for any inconvenience. The Management.
rotekz

rotekz Avatar



Posted: Apr 22, 2016 - 4:44pm




Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 22, 2016 - 4:42pm

 kurtster wrote:
Does anyone have a right to be admitted to this country ?  

Everyone has the right to be considered for entry, and that the criteria for entry have nothing to do with religion.
kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 22, 2016 - 3:52pm

 buddy wrote:

Does that include Muslims at the the front door?  Who's working the door?

Just wonderin'...... 

 
Does anyone have a right to be admitted to this country ?  
rotekz

rotekz Avatar



Posted: Apr 22, 2016 - 3:04pm

 miamizsun wrote:
is the fix in?

Go ahead, Donald, get 1,237; it won't matter: RNC delegate

Donald Trump may be the only Republican presidential candidate who can realistically hit the magic 1,237 number for the majority of delegates, but according to a senior Republican National Committee official that does not mean he will become the GOP presidential nominee.

Curly Haugland, a longstanding RNC official and an unbound delegate from North Dakota who will be on the convention rules committee in July, told CNBC that attaining 1,237 during the primaries does not secure the nomination.

"Even if Trump reaches the magic number of 1,237 the media and RNC are touting, that does not mean Trump is automatically the nominee," Haugland said. "The votes earned during the primary process are only estimates and are not legal convention votes. The only official votes to nominate a candidate are those that are cast from the convention floor."



 
Trump is the ONLY candidate who will hit 1,237 but then consider this:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/trumps-real-magic-number-is-less-than-1-237-222184

but of course we then must also flush this from our minds...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/04/20/internal-campaign-memo-projects-trump-will-win-1400-delegates-at-gop-convention/ 

and then there is this:

HANNITY: There Will Be No Contested Convention – Things Are Happening Behind the Scenes




kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 22, 2016 - 1:33pm

 buddy wrote:
 
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door
and improve jobs, wages and security for all Americans!

Yeah, kinda has a nice ring to it.

 

fixed it for ya ...

Yeah, if you come to our front door.

Crawl in the back window ?   No respect. Respect is a two way street.




R_P

R_P Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 22, 2016 - 1:15pm

 kurtster wrote:
blah, yada ...

 3. A nation that does not serve its own citizens is not a nation. Any immigration plan must improve jobs, wages and security for all Americans.
 
And that obviously targets legal immigration as well.

But kudos for being right about low information voters and short attention spans.
kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 22, 2016 - 1:09pm

 R_P wrote:

Except, as pointed out before, that the distinction is superficial (but Politically Convenient to some). He's mostly against immigration, period. Illegals, Muslims, and skilled/temporary workers among others.

 
blah, yada ...

 3. A nation that does not serve its own citizens is not a nation. Any immigration plan must improve jobs, wages and security for all Americans.
R_P

R_P Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 22, 2016 - 12:55pm

 kurtster wrote:
Meaning that those who make the distinction between legal and illegal immigration are always dismissed as nothing but bigots by those who do not make the same distinction.  There are plenty of reasons to make the distinction other than bigotry.
 
Except, as pointed out before, that the distinction is superficial (but Politically Convenient to some). He's mostly against immigration, period. Illegals, Muslims, and skilled/temporary workers among others.
aflanigan

aflanigan Avatar

Location: At Sea
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 22, 2016 - 12:49pm

 kurtster wrote:

Meaning that those who make the distinction between legal and illegal immigration are always dismissed as nothing but bigots by those who do not make the same distinction.  There are plenty of reasons to make the distinction other than bigotry.

ymwv. 

 
Pretty pathetic attempt at a red herring. I consider Trump and anyone else who assigns negative stereotypes to an entire class of people (rapists) purely based on their belonging to that class as a bigot. Has nothing to do with their stance on immigration law.
miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3283.1 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 22, 2016 - 12:45pm

is the fix in?

Go ahead, Donald, get 1,237; it won't matter: RNC delegate

Donald Trump may be the only Republican presidential candidate who can realistically hit the magic 1,237 number for the majority of delegates, but according to a senior Republican National Committee official that does not mean he will become the GOP presidential nominee.

Curly Haugland, a longstanding RNC official and an unbound delegate from North Dakota who will be on the convention rules committee in July, told CNBC that attaining 1,237 during the primaries does not secure the nomination.

"Even if Trump reaches the magic number of 1,237 the media and RNC are touting, that does not mean Trump is automatically the nominee," Haugland said. "The votes earned during the primary process are only estimates and are not legal convention votes. The only official votes to nominate a candidate are those that are cast from the convention floor."


kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 22, 2016 - 12:43pm

 aflanigan wrote:

Meaning what? We should join you in ignoring his previous bigotry in favor of more recent variations?

 
Meaning that those who make the distinction between legal and illegal immigration are always dismissed as nothing but bigots by those who do not make the same distinction.  There are plenty of reasons to make the distinction other than bigotry.

ymwv. 
kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 22, 2016 - 12:40pm

 Lazy8 wrote:
kurtster wrote:
Expanding, this election cycle is unlike no other in our lifetimes.  IIRC, you are a California native.  When was the last time California was in play for anything ?  Let alone NY ?  In our entire lifetime, both states with yuge populations never had a say so in picking a POTUS.  This changes a lot.  How are Californians going to participate / turnout in a primary that until now never mattered ?   The biggest takeaway and most revealing demo from the C primary will be the turnout.  And party registration changes before the vote.

The last time? 2008. The Democratic candidates both even came out my way, fighting over our 27 delegates. Obama spoke to SRO crowds; at Hillary's events you couldn't exactly hear crickets but it was easy to get a seat.

Lastly, to keep things straight, I don't recall Trump saying exactly who was coming through the southern border other than illegals, potential terrorists, criminals, human traffickers and drug runners.  I do not recall him saying they were Mexicans or any other nationality.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but he never mentioned any nationality unless he said that he loved them.  So the race card is injected to do what open border people do and that is to refuse to make the distinction between legal and illegal immigrants.  Trump has been 100% consistent on this point.


If nothing else, this bodes well for a third party reality next time around.  But with the inherent short attention span and low information of the electorate, this window of opportunity will be very short.

We should be so lucky, but I'll do what I can.

 
I guess I should have added that both sides in play until the end, not just one or the other.  Although the dem side may be over.  We have to wait to see what Bernie is going to do next.  Tuesday should be revealing.

On the vid, see my reply below. 
Page: Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 1282, 1283, 1284 ... 1350, 1351, 1352  Next