The Democratic Presidential Debates
Comments
-
Your sense of personal responsibility is impressivemrussel1 said:
I'm clearly not the only person who read it that way. One of the few females that frequent the site read it the same. So maybe you should read twice before you hit "post comment".Spiritual_Chaos said:
Just start reading things twice, instead of reading things completely wrong and throwing out "sexist" like I'm some kind of Bloomberg.mrussel1 said:
Honestly I don't think you're sexist at all, even if you're not perfect. I do struggle with your insufferable Swedish whitenessSpiritual_Chaos said:
When did I say that?mrussel1 said:
That's kind of sexist, to believe that women vote primarily on gender.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Based on the candidates (Amy and Warren) being women.hedonist said:
Above, bolded. I don't think I misread your comment, but apologies if I did.Spiritual_Chaos said:
When did I say that?hedonist said:
What? Because women wouldn’t be capable of choosing their candidate regardless of gender?Spiritual_Chaos said:
From what I've seen, many vote based on personality, the candidate and other factors. So the whole "the moderate block" is bigger isn't completely failsafe.Lerxst1992 said:The problem is four candidates are similar to Amy and two similar to Bernie. Even if far fewer vote “socialist” Bernie wants to change the rules so he wins based on that simple math.
E.g. Saw somewhere that Warrens lost voters went to Buttagieg more than Bernie. And many Biden voters having Bernie as their second choice etc.
I would also guess many Amy voters and many Liz voters would go to eachother, based on them being women.
Sounds like you are the one being sexist now tbh(?)0 -
cincybearcat said:
New Hampshire moron buys into Bernies Fake news about fake news.Spiritual_Chaos said:Quitcha bitching Bernie and Bros.
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"0 -
At work, I always tell engineers "Don't settle with shit, just because you have been fooled to believe you are the shit"mrussel1 said:
At work I always counsel.. don't let perfect be the enemy of good.what dreams said:
It just blows my mind that people don't understand how this works. They will throw away an opportunity to make some progress for a pipe dream that has no chance in hell happening. Dumb. Just dumb.mrussel1 said:
While I'm with you that I don't see us winning the Senate with him at the top (maybe no one), I don't see losing the House and him winning the POTUS. I don't think that's possible.what dreams said:Well, the good news about a Sanders presidency, regardless of winning the nomination in the primaries or at a brokered convention -- Democrats will NEVER win the Senate and COULD lose the House with him as our nominee. So, in effect, even if he squeaks out a victory against Trump, he will not get Medicare For All passed. Or anything else. And then maybe in four years . . . sigh . . .
And they often respond "What has that to do with our new AI solution we're developing?"
And I say, "So have you heard the new Pearl Jam single?"Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"0 -
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"0
-
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"0
-
Really doesn't sound like that woman is being a moroncincybearcat said:
New Hampshire moron buys into Bernies Fake news about fake news.Spiritual_Chaos said:Quitcha bitching Bernie and Bros.
Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"0 -
oftenreading said:
You're not making any sense here. In what way is "the opposite of what (I) say is true"? It's true that homicide rates across the USA have fallen sharply since 1990, to a low in 2014; this isn't specific to NYC. Your own chart shows that murder rates in NYC dropped from the 1990 right through to 2018, clearly continuing to drop despite changes in leadership and policing policies. I just don't see that it demonstrates what you seem to think it demonstrates.Lerxst1992 said:oftenreading said:Crime rates have been going down for decades - before, during, and after Bloomberg's terms. Crime rates have been going down in the USA and in many other countries the world over. There simply isn't any evidence that they declined more sharply during his tenure in office or as a result of his discriminatory policies. The rates of violent crime in NYC fell significantly, but they also had further to fall as they were higher than most other big cities. There are several competing theories but I'm guessing that the winning one isn't one that applied to only one city for a relatively narrow window of the time that the decline has been occurring.Not for the ultimate crime, murder. In fact the opposite of what you say is true. Do I need to repost that picture from above?
Its misleading to conflate NYs murder rate decline in the 90s with what happened across the country. There were around 2000 per year around 1990 and 600 at the end of the decade. Almost a 70% decline. The US decline during that period is just not comparable. SAF and broken window started with Rudy in the mid 90s
As far as crime coming back present day, let's see what happens with the NYPD's war first unfortunately. But the signs are there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States
0 -
.... lol.... eh... what... decks of cards... haha...
Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"0 -
Not be dunking on your wordsmithing - but this girls last words are a lot better than yours.mrussel1 said:
At work I always counsel.. don't let perfect be the enemy of good.what dreams said:
It just blows my mind that people don't understand how this works. They will throw away an opportunity to make some progress for a pipe dream that has no chance in hell happening. Dumb. Just dumb.mrussel1 said:
While I'm with you that I don't see us winning the Senate with him at the top (maybe no one), I don't see losing the House and him winning the POTUS. I don't think that's possible.what dreams said:Well, the good news about a Sanders presidency, regardless of winning the nomination in the primaries or at a brokered convention -- Democrats will NEVER win the Senate and COULD lose the House with him as our nominee. So, in effect, even if he squeaks out a victory against Trump, he will not get Medicare For All passed. Or anything else. And then maybe in four years . . . sigh . . .
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"0 -
For fucks sake, read the chart YOU posted.Lerxst1992 said:oftenreading said:
You're not making any sense here. In what way is "the opposite of what (I) say is true"? It's true that homicide rates across the USA have fallen sharply since 1990, to a low in 2014; this isn't specific to NYC. Your own chart shows that murder rates in NYC dropped from the 1990 right through to 2018, clearly continuing to drop despite changes in leadership and policing policies. I just don't see that it demonstrates what you seem to think it demonstrates.Lerxst1992 said:oftenreading said:Crime rates have been going down for decades - before, during, and after Bloomberg's terms. Crime rates have been going down in the USA and in many other countries the world over. There simply isn't any evidence that they declined more sharply during his tenure in office or as a result of his discriminatory policies. The rates of violent crime in NYC fell significantly, but they also had further to fall as they were higher than most other big cities. There are several competing theories but I'm guessing that the winning one isn't one that applied to only one city for a relatively narrow window of the time that the decline has been occurring.Not for the ultimate crime, murder. In fact the opposite of what you say is true. Do I need to repost that picture from above?
Its misleading to conflate NYs murder rate decline in the 90s with what happened across the country. There were around 2000 per year around 1990 and 600 at the end of the decade. Almost a 70% decline. The US decline during that period is just not comparable. SAF and broken window started with Rudy in the mid 90s
As far as crime coming back present day, let's see what happens with the NYPD's war first unfortunately. But the signs are there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States0 -
You’ve posted no evidence as to why it’s misleading to “conflate” the drop in NYC’s murder rate with the similar drop in murder rates around the country. The drop was bigger, likely because it started from a higher level, but it happened over the same time as everywhere else and ended up about the same. You have one interpretation of the data but I don’t see that you’ve supported it by anything other than your opinion.Lerxst1992 said:oftenreading said:
You're not making any sense here. In what way is "the opposite of what (I) say is true"? It's true that homicide rates across the USA have fallen sharply since 1990, to a low in 2014; this isn't specific to NYC. Your own chart shows that murder rates in NYC dropped from the 1990 right through to 2018, clearly continuing to drop despite changes in leadership and policing policies. I just don't see that it demonstrates what you seem to think it demonstrates.Lerxst1992 said:oftenreading said:Crime rates have been going down for decades - before, during, and after Bloomberg's terms. Crime rates have been going down in the USA and in many other countries the world over. There simply isn't any evidence that they declined more sharply during his tenure in office or as a result of his discriminatory policies. The rates of violent crime in NYC fell significantly, but they also had further to fall as they were higher than most other big cities. There are several competing theories but I'm guessing that the winning one isn't one that applied to only one city for a relatively narrow window of the time that the decline has been occurring.Not for the ultimate crime, murder. In fact the opposite of what you say is true. Do I need to repost that picture from above?
Its misleading to conflate NYs murder rate decline in the 90s with what happened across the country. There were around 2000 per year around 1990 and 600 at the end of the decade. Almost a 70% decline. The US decline during that period is just not comparable. SAF and broken window started with Rudy in the mid 90s
As far as crime coming back present day, let's see what happens with the NYPD's war first unfortunately. But the signs are there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_Statesmy small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf0 -
Stop being so nice. He doesn't understand the data, so his "interpretation" of it is absolutely meaningless.oftenreading said:
You’ve posted no evidence as to why it’s misleading to “conflate” the drop in NYC’s murder rate with the similar drop in murder rates around the country. The drop was bigger, likely because it started from a higher level, but it happened over the same time as everywhere else and ended up about the same. You have one interpretation of the data but I don’t see that you’ve supported it by anything other than your opinion.Lerxst1992 said:oftenreading said:
You're not making any sense here. In what way is "the opposite of what (I) say is true"? It's true that homicide rates across the USA have fallen sharply since 1990, to a low in 2014; this isn't specific to NYC. Your own chart shows that murder rates in NYC dropped from the 1990 right through to 2018, clearly continuing to drop despite changes in leadership and policing policies. I just don't see that it demonstrates what you seem to think it demonstrates.Lerxst1992 said:oftenreading said:Crime rates have been going down for decades - before, during, and after Bloomberg's terms. Crime rates have been going down in the USA and in many other countries the world over. There simply isn't any evidence that they declined more sharply during his tenure in office or as a result of his discriminatory policies. The rates of violent crime in NYC fell significantly, but they also had further to fall as they were higher than most other big cities. There are several competing theories but I'm guessing that the winning one isn't one that applied to only one city for a relatively narrow window of the time that the decline has been occurring.Not for the ultimate crime, murder. In fact the opposite of what you say is true. Do I need to repost that picture from above?
Its misleading to conflate NYs murder rate decline in the 90s with what happened across the country. There were around 2000 per year around 1990 and 600 at the end of the decade. Almost a 70% decline. The US decline during that period is just not comparable. SAF and broken window started with Rudy in the mid 90s
As far as crime coming back present day, let's see what happens with the NYPD's war first unfortunately. But the signs are there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States0 -
It's abortionoftenreading said:
You’ve posted no evidence as to why it’s misleading to “conflate” the drop in NYC’s murder rate with the similar drop in murder rates around the country. The drop was bigger, likely because it started from a higher level, but it happened over the same time as everywhere else and ended up about the same. You have one interpretation of the data but I don’t see that you’ve supported it by anything other than your opinion.Lerxst1992 said:oftenreading said:
You're not making any sense here. In what way is "the opposite of what (I) say is true"? It's true that homicide rates across the USA have fallen sharply since 1990, to a low in 2014; this isn't specific to NYC. Your own chart shows that murder rates in NYC dropped from the 1990 right through to 2018, clearly continuing to drop despite changes in leadership and policing policies. I just don't see that it demonstrates what you seem to think it demonstrates.Lerxst1992 said:oftenreading said:Crime rates have been going down for decades - before, during, and after Bloomberg's terms. Crime rates have been going down in the USA and in many other countries the world over. There simply isn't any evidence that they declined more sharply during his tenure in office or as a result of his discriminatory policies. The rates of violent crime in NYC fell significantly, but they also had further to fall as they were higher than most other big cities. There are several competing theories but I'm guessing that the winning one isn't one that applied to only one city for a relatively narrow window of the time that the decline has been occurring.Not for the ultimate crime, murder. In fact the opposite of what you say is true. Do I need to repost that picture from above?
Its misleading to conflate NYs murder rate decline in the 90s with what happened across the country. There were around 2000 per year around 1990 and 600 at the end of the decade. Almost a 70% decline. The US decline during that period is just not comparable. SAF and broken window started with Rudy in the mid 90s
As far as crime coming back present day, let's see what happens with the NYPD's war first unfortunately. But the signs are there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States0 -
It would be interesting to see when the mandatory minimums changed, three strikes you're out, and other harsher penalties. Curious if there's some correlation between those changes and the drops in the 90s.oftenreading said:
You’ve posted no evidence as to why it’s misleading to “conflate” the drop in NYC’s murder rate with the similar drop in murder rates around the country. The drop was bigger, likely because it started from a higher level, but it happened over the same time as everywhere else and ended up about the same. You have one interpretation of the data but I don’t see that you’ve supported it by anything other than your opinion.Lerxst1992 said:oftenreading said:
You're not making any sense here. In what way is "the opposite of what (I) say is true"? It's true that homicide rates across the USA have fallen sharply since 1990, to a low in 2014; this isn't specific to NYC. Your own chart shows that murder rates in NYC dropped from the 1990 right through to 2018, clearly continuing to drop despite changes in leadership and policing policies. I just don't see that it demonstrates what you seem to think it demonstrates.Lerxst1992 said:oftenreading said:Crime rates have been going down for decades - before, during, and after Bloomberg's terms. Crime rates have been going down in the USA and in many other countries the world over. There simply isn't any evidence that they declined more sharply during his tenure in office or as a result of his discriminatory policies. The rates of violent crime in NYC fell significantly, but they also had further to fall as they were higher than most other big cities. There are several competing theories but I'm guessing that the winning one isn't one that applied to only one city for a relatively narrow window of the time that the decline has been occurring.Not for the ultimate crime, murder. In fact the opposite of what you say is true. Do I need to repost that picture from above?
Its misleading to conflate NYs murder rate decline in the 90s with what happened across the country. There were around 2000 per year around 1990 and 600 at the end of the decade. Almost a 70% decline. The US decline during that period is just not comparable. SAF and broken window started with Rudy in the mid 90s
As far as crime coming back present day, let's see what happens with the NYPD's war first unfortunately. But the signs are there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States0 -
Get used to it, it’s the new norm around here.hedonist said:
Jesus, I feel like I'm in a bizarro world around here at times.ecdanc said:
Why are you assuming that only women would vote for someone because they’re a woman?hedonist said:
Actually, his further response validated my question.ecdanc said:
You’re willfully misreading SC’s posts even after he clarified. Or you are struggling with reading again. .mrussel1 said:
You're so woke that you get sexism more than Hedo... who's actually a woman. You probably understand racism better than MLK did too, that's how impressive you are.ecdanc said:
Just stopmrussel1 said:
That's kind of sexist, to believe that women vote primarily on gender.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Based on the candidates (Amy and Warren) being women.hedonist said:
Above, bolded. I don't think I misread your comment, but apologies if I did.Spiritual_Chaos said:
When did I say that?hedonist said:
What? Because women wouldn’t be capable of choosing their candidate regardless of gender?Spiritual_Chaos said:
From what I've seen, many vote based on personality, the candidate and other factors. So the whole "the moderate block" is bigger isn't completely failsafe.Lerxst1992 said:The problem is four candidates are similar to Amy and two similar to Bernie. Even if far fewer vote “socialist” Bernie wants to change the rules so he wins based on that simple math.
E.g. Saw somewhere that Warrens lost voters went to Buttagieg more than Bernie. And many Biden voters having Bernie as their second choice etc.
I would also guess many Amy voters and many Liz voters would go to eachother, based on them being women.
Why would I vote for anyone based solely (or even mostly) on what lies between their legs?
How you extrapolated that from what I said, I have no idea.hippiemom = goodness0 -
Only if we let it....cincybearcat said:
Get used to it, it’s the new norm around here.hedonist said:
Jesus, I feel like I'm in a bizarro world around here at times.ecdanc said:
Why are you assuming that only women would vote for someone because they’re a woman?hedonist said:
Actually, his further response validated my question.ecdanc said:
You’re willfully misreading SC’s posts even after he clarified. Or you are struggling with reading again. .mrussel1 said:
You're so woke that you get sexism more than Hedo... who's actually a woman. You probably understand racism better than MLK did too, that's how impressive you are.ecdanc said:
Just stopmrussel1 said:
That's kind of sexist, to believe that women vote primarily on gender.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Based on the candidates (Amy and Warren) being women.hedonist said:
Above, bolded. I don't think I misread your comment, but apologies if I did.Spiritual_Chaos said:
When did I say that?hedonist said:
What? Because women wouldn’t be capable of choosing their candidate regardless of gender?Spiritual_Chaos said:
From what I've seen, many vote based on personality, the candidate and other factors. So the whole "the moderate block" is bigger isn't completely failsafe.Lerxst1992 said:The problem is four candidates are similar to Amy and two similar to Bernie. Even if far fewer vote “socialist” Bernie wants to change the rules so he wins based on that simple math.
E.g. Saw somewhere that Warrens lost voters went to Buttagieg more than Bernie. And many Biden voters having Bernie as their second choice etc.
I would also guess many Amy voters and many Liz voters would go to eachother, based on them being women.
Why would I vote for anyone based solely (or even mostly) on what lies between their legs?
How you extrapolated that from what I said, I have no idea.0 -
Jesus Christ, people. She misread the post. It’s not a big deal, but do you really have to pretend it didn’t happen just because you dislike SC?mrussel1 said:
Only if we let it....cincybearcat said:
Get used to it, it’s the new norm around here.hedonist said:
Jesus, I feel like I'm in a bizarro world around here at times.ecdanc said:
Why are you assuming that only women would vote for someone because they’re a woman?hedonist said:
Actually, his further response validated my question.ecdanc said:
You’re willfully misreading SC’s posts even after he clarified. Or you are struggling with reading again. .mrussel1 said:
You're so woke that you get sexism more than Hedo... who's actually a woman. You probably understand racism better than MLK did too, that's how impressive you are.ecdanc said:
Just stopmrussel1 said:
That's kind of sexist, to believe that women vote primarily on gender.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Based on the candidates (Amy and Warren) being women.hedonist said:
Above, bolded. I don't think I misread your comment, but apologies if I did.Spiritual_Chaos said:
When did I say that?hedonist said:
What? Because women wouldn’t be capable of choosing their candidate regardless of gender?Spiritual_Chaos said:
From what I've seen, many vote based on personality, the candidate and other factors. So the whole "the moderate block" is bigger isn't completely failsafe.Lerxst1992 said:The problem is four candidates are similar to Amy and two similar to Bernie. Even if far fewer vote “socialist” Bernie wants to change the rules so he wins based on that simple math.
E.g. Saw somewhere that Warrens lost voters went to Buttagieg more than Bernie. And many Biden voters having Bernie as their second choice etc.
I would also guess many Amy voters and many Liz voters would go to eachother, based on them being women.
Why would I vote for anyone based solely (or even mostly) on what lies between their legs?
How you extrapolated that from what I said, I have no idea.
0 -
I like SC quite a bit. He's grown on me... other than the video spammingecdanc said:
Jesus Christ, people. She misread the post. It’s not a big deal, but do you really have to pretend it didn’t happen just because you dislike SC?mrussel1 said:
Only if we let it....cincybearcat said:
Get used to it, it’s the new norm around here.hedonist said:
Jesus, I feel like I'm in a bizarro world around here at times.ecdanc said:
Why are you assuming that only women would vote for someone because they’re a woman?hedonist said:
Actually, his further response validated my question.ecdanc said:
You’re willfully misreading SC’s posts even after he clarified. Or you are struggling with reading again. .mrussel1 said:
You're so woke that you get sexism more than Hedo... who's actually a woman. You probably understand racism better than MLK did too, that's how impressive you are.ecdanc said:
Just stopmrussel1 said:
That's kind of sexist, to believe that women vote primarily on gender.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Based on the candidates (Amy and Warren) being women.hedonist said:
Above, bolded. I don't think I misread your comment, but apologies if I did.Spiritual_Chaos said:
When did I say that?hedonist said:
What? Because women wouldn’t be capable of choosing their candidate regardless of gender?Spiritual_Chaos said:
From what I've seen, many vote based on personality, the candidate and other factors. So the whole "the moderate block" is bigger isn't completely failsafe.Lerxst1992 said:The problem is four candidates are similar to Amy and two similar to Bernie. Even if far fewer vote “socialist” Bernie wants to change the rules so he wins based on that simple math.
E.g. Saw somewhere that Warrens lost voters went to Buttagieg more than Bernie. And many Biden voters having Bernie as their second choice etc.
I would also guess many Amy voters and many Liz voters would go to eachother, based on them being women.
Why would I vote for anyone based solely (or even mostly) on what lies between their legs?
How you extrapolated that from what I said, I have no idea.0 -
This. Mostly cause I hate having to scroll past videos and gifs and memes and pictures to get to posts. But overall, while I certainly have my disagreements, I at least feel like he is a real person.mrussel1 said:
I like SC quite a bit. He's grown on me... other than the video spammingecdanc said:
Jesus Christ, people. She misread the post. It’s not a big deal, but do you really have to pretend it didn’t happen just because you dislike SC?mrussel1 said:
Only if we let it....cincybearcat said:
Get used to it, it’s the new norm around here.hedonist said:
Jesus, I feel like I'm in a bizarro world around here at times.ecdanc said:
Why are you assuming that only women would vote for someone because they’re a woman?hedonist said:
Actually, his further response validated my question.ecdanc said:
You’re willfully misreading SC’s posts even after he clarified. Or you are struggling with reading again. .mrussel1 said:
You're so woke that you get sexism more than Hedo... who's actually a woman. You probably understand racism better than MLK did too, that's how impressive you are.ecdanc said:
Just stopmrussel1 said:
That's kind of sexist, to believe that women vote primarily on gender.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Based on the candidates (Amy and Warren) being women.hedonist said:
Above, bolded. I don't think I misread your comment, but apologies if I did.Spiritual_Chaos said:
When did I say that?hedonist said:
What? Because women wouldn’t be capable of choosing their candidate regardless of gender?Spiritual_Chaos said:
From what I've seen, many vote based on personality, the candidate and other factors. So the whole "the moderate block" is bigger isn't completely failsafe.Lerxst1992 said:The problem is four candidates are similar to Amy and two similar to Bernie. Even if far fewer vote “socialist” Bernie wants to change the rules so he wins based on that simple math.
E.g. Saw somewhere that Warrens lost voters went to Buttagieg more than Bernie. And many Biden voters having Bernie as their second choice etc.
I would also guess many Amy voters and many Liz voters would go to eachother, based on them being women.
Why would I vote for anyone based solely (or even mostly) on what lies between their legs?
How you extrapolated that from what I said, I have no idea.hippiemom = goodness0 -
I don’t believe I misread. And no, I am not calling SC a sexist. The comment could be taken that way though.ecdanc said:
Jesus Christ, people. She misread the post. It’s not a big deal, but do you really have to pretend it didn’t happen just because you dislike SC?mrussel1 said:
Only if we let it....cincybearcat said:
Get used to it, it’s the new norm around here.hedonist said:
Jesus, I feel like I'm in a bizarro world around here at times.ecdanc said:
Why are you assuming that only women would vote for someone because they’re a woman?hedonist said:
Actually, his further response validated my question.ecdanc said:
You’re willfully misreading SC’s posts even after he clarified. Or you are struggling with reading again. .mrussel1 said:
You're so woke that you get sexism more than Hedo... who's actually a woman. You probably understand racism better than MLK did too, that's how impressive you are.ecdanc said:
Just stopmrussel1 said:
That's kind of sexist, to believe that women vote primarily on gender.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Based on the candidates (Amy and Warren) being women.hedonist said:
Above, bolded. I don't think I misread your comment, but apologies if I did.Spiritual_Chaos said:
When did I say that?hedonist said:
What? Because women wouldn’t be capable of choosing their candidate regardless of gender?Spiritual_Chaos said:
From what I've seen, many vote based on personality, the candidate and other factors. So the whole "the moderate block" is bigger isn't completely failsafe.Lerxst1992 said:The problem is four candidates are similar to Amy and two similar to Bernie. Even if far fewer vote “socialist” Bernie wants to change the rules so he wins based on that simple math.
E.g. Saw somewhere that Warrens lost voters went to Buttagieg more than Bernie. And many Biden voters having Bernie as their second choice etc.
I would also guess many Amy voters and many Liz voters would go to eachother, based on them being women.
Why would I vote for anyone based solely (or even mostly) on what lies between their legs?
How you extrapolated that from what I said, I have no idea.
This is hilarious.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 149K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 278 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help