Where's That American Pride? - Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest

Go Back   Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat
GL4x4 Live! GL4x4 Casino

Politics, Government, or Religion Chat Bring your flamesuit!

greatlakes4x4.com is the premier Great Lakes 4x4 Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Search
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old September 8th, 2008, 10:56 AM   #1
jsutton
Yota Baby
 
jsutton's Avatar
 
Join Date: 05-29-08
Location: Detroit Rock City
Posts: 62
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default Where's That American Pride?

Came out and my bumper sticker was all scratched out, and my bumper was slightly damaged.


USA One Nation under God.
jsutton is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old September 8th, 2008, 11:08 AM   #2
greygoose
I'm the dude
 
greygoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: 02-18-08
Location: New Baltimore / Presque Isle
Posts: 6,081
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Because some people don't believe the north winning was a good thing?
greygoose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 8th, 2008, 06:50 PM   #3
mikesova
My 4x4 is a Subaru.
 
mikesova's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Gladwin, MI
Posts: 7,806
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to mikesova
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jsutton View Post
Came out and my bumper sticker was all scratched out, and my bumper was slightly damaged.


USA One Nation under God.
Duffy's not gonna like that sticker!
mikesova is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 8th, 2008, 08:18 PM   #4
DuffMan
Your Message Here
 
DuffMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: The Ile of Grosse
Posts: 5,843
iTrader: (11)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Hey - it's an opinion. You're allowed.

It's unfortunate that I could be disciplined up losing my job of 20 years for displaying a similar (or rebutting) decal on my automobile at the workplace. But, that's "tolerance" and "diversity" for you.
__________________
This is the Pub. Leave common sense at the door.
DuffMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 9th, 2008, 06:09 AM   #5
General Lee
Slice of Starsage Anyone?
 
General Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-09-05
Location: Kalamazoo, MI
Posts: 5,070
iTrader: (7)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to General Lee
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DuffMan View Post
Hey - it's an opinion. You're allowed.

It's unfortunate that I could be disciplined up losing my job of 20 years for displaying a similar (or rebutting) decal on my automobile at the workplace. But, that's "tolerance" and "diversity" for you.


That's a depressing way to start my morning...



It's sad to even consider that there are enough bitchers and belly-achers alive in the world to allow something like that to happen.
General Lee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 9th, 2008, 11:40 AM   #6
ovrlnd
HURL SCOUTS
 
ovrlnd's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-23-07
Location: Westland, Michigan
Posts: 10,003
iTrader: (14)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to ovrlnd
Default

this is america. your opinion doesn't matter. america doesn't want to rock the boat for fear of lawsuits or some shit.

I am glad you voiced your view on your bumper. I have always said the north should enslave the white southerners and see how they like it.
ovrlnd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 9th, 2008, 11:57 AM   #7
Hombre
I carry a shank
 
Hombre's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-15-06
Location: Michigan
Posts: 4,548
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DuffMan View Post
Hey - it's an opinion. You're allowed.

It's unfortunate that I could be disciplined up losing my job of 20 years for displaying a similar (or rebutting) decal on my automobile at the workplace. But, that's "tolerance" and "diversity" for you.
I once had three bumper stickers on my Bronco. The first, "Ted Kennedy for President.......a blonde in every pond". The second, "Hanoi Jane Fonda. American-Traitor-Bitch!". The third, a Confederate battle flag. I worked as a police officer for a largely black city.

I was told to remove the stickers from my personal vehicle or face disciplinary action. I refused. I threatened to call the ACLU and the news media if I were disciplined in any way. They dropped it.

As a direct result of this matter, we were all forced to go to "cultural diversity training" for the first time. This was after the L.A. Rodney King incident/LA Riots and immediately after the OJ Simpson murder fiasco.

If you recall, all of the police officers who "beat" Rodney King were initially found "not guilty" by a jury. Then the riots happened. Then the feds stepped in and tried and convicted many of the cops for "civil rights violations".

Then, O.J. Simpson murdered two white people. Didn't just beat them, he murdered them. He was found "not guilty" by a largely black jury. No white people rioted and guess what? The feds didn't come in and try O.J. for any civil rights violations. Had they done so, there would have been more black riots.

I have been smack dab in the middle of this kind of bullshit for many years. That's why I dislike liberals so much. Especially dipshit Liberal white people.

To this day I always try to find bumper stickers that will most annoy, anger and infuriate the left wing homos.

And, JSUTTON you are a dipshit for sporting that sticker.

Last edited by Hombre; September 9th, 2008 at 12:00 PM.
Hombre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 9th, 2008, 03:13 PM   #8
jsutton
Yota Baby
 
jsutton's Avatar
 
Join Date: 05-29-08
Location: Detroit Rock City
Posts: 62
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hombre View Post
And, JSUTTON you are a dipshit for sporting that sticker.
Maybe if you put this sticker on your car you won't have all those problems. Stop hiding behind that confederate flag and let your true colors shine.
jsutton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 9th, 2008, 03:18 PM   #9
Hombre
I carry a shank
 
Hombre's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-15-06
Location: Michigan
Posts: 4,548
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jsutton View Post
Maybe if you put this sticker on your car you won't have all those problems. Stop hiding behind that confederate flag and let your true colors shine.
What kind of flaming homosexual remark is that?

Queer Alert! Queer Alert! Queer Alert!
Hombre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 9th, 2008, 03:58 PM   #10
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,508
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Never quite understood the whole celabrate the looser by displaying thier flag thing, but whatever floats your boat.
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 9th, 2008, 04:42 PM   #11
DuffMan
Your Message Here
 
DuffMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: The Ile of Grosse
Posts: 5,843
iTrader: (11)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ovrlnd View Post
I have always said the north should enslave the white southerners and see how they like it.
Why? Because "the north" was innocent on that whole slavery thing as well?

1) Despite the revisionist BS taught in public schools, the Civil War (aka "War of Northern Aggression") WAS NOT about slavery - it was about reuniting the union. Slavery as a war issue didn't even come up until about midway through the war, when the U.S.A. was having a shortage of volunteers and "freeing slaves' was introduced to get more men to sign up.

2) Many of the largest slave traders were Dutch, and their businesses were located in New York City - aka "the north". So while there weren't slaves in the north, there was the slave business.

3) Large fabric, garment, and shoe factories in New England tried slavery numerous times, but found that the economics didn't work - it was cheaper to hire and exploit new immigrants that own slaves. So the absence of slaves in that area was not due to some higher level of morals or standards, just that the economics of it didn't work. Likewise on northern farms, which grew less labor-intensive crops, slavery didn't pay off, economically.

4) Slavery was on it's last legs in the south - the economies of automation (i.e. cotton gin) were making inroads and slaves were economical only on very large (500+ acres) plantations with labor-intensive crops like cotton, rice, or tobacco. At the time of the Civil War, less than 3% of the population of the south owned slaves, and many had never seen one.

No one in my family owned slaves. There was only one in the county, owned by an elderly "gentleman farmer". After being freed, he stayed on working for the old man for the same "wages" (room, board, clothes, etc...). We did fight the yankee aggressors who burned our crops, barns, and homes. My great-great- great grandmother passed away while yankees (from Illinois) were camped on the farm - she was (and still is) buried in the barnyard, in (at the time) an unmarked grave, because those civilized yankee boys who came to free the slaves would dig up the recent deceased to search for jewelry or gold fillings.
__________________
This is the Pub. Leave common sense at the door.
DuffMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 9th, 2008, 09:03 PM   #12
jsutton
Yota Baby
 
jsutton's Avatar
 
Join Date: 05-29-08
Location: Detroit Rock City
Posts: 62
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DuffMan View Post
Why? Because "the north" was innocent on that whole slavery thing as well?

1) Despite the revisionist BS taught in public schools, the Civil War (aka "War of Northern Aggression") WAS NOT about slavery - it was about reuniting the union. Slavery as a war issue didn't even come up until about midway through the war, when the U.S.A. was having a shortage of volunteers and "freeing slaves' was introduced to get more men to sign up.

2) Many of the largest slave traders were Dutch, and their businesses were located in New York City - aka "the north". So while there weren't slaves in the north, there was the slave business.

3) Large fabric, garment, and shoe factories in New England tried slavery numerous times, but found that the economics didn't work - it was cheaper to hire and exploit new immigrants that own slaves. So the absence of slaves in that area was not due to some higher level of morals or standards, just that the economics of it didn't work. Likewise on northern farms, which grew less labor-intensive crops, slavery didn't pay off, economically.

4) Slavery was on it's last legs in the south - the economies of automation (i.e. cotton gin) were making inroads and slaves were economical only on very large (500+ acres) plantations with labor-intensive crops like cotton, rice, or tobacco. At the time of the Civil War, less than 3% of the population of the south owned slaves, and many had never seen one.

No one in my family owned slaves. There was only one in the county, owned by an elderly "gentleman farmer". After being freed, he stayed on working for the old man for the same "wages" (room, board, clothes, etc...). We did fight the yankee aggressors who burned our crops, barns, and homes. My great-great- great grandmother passed away while yankees (from Illinois) were camped on the farm - she was (and still is) buried in the barnyard, in (at the time) an unmarked grave, because those civilized yankee boys who came to free the slaves would dig up the recent deceased to search for jewelry or gold fillings.
Sounds like Southern Revisionist history to me. Fact is South broke away to continue their economy of enslavement.

The South
During the 19th century cotton replaced tobacco as the South's most important cash crop. The textile mills of New England and Europe provided a steady market for cotton. And with plenty of fertile land available in the Southwest, the cotton industry boomed. But the rise of King Cotton came at the expense of human lives. In 1850 more than half of the people in the South were enslaved.

Virginia

More than three million African Americans, or about 87 percent of the African American population, lived in bondage in 1850. The slave population of the state of Virginia alone exceeded the total number of free African Americans living in the United States. Nationwide, just 424,183 African Americans enjoyed freedom in 1850.

Georgia

Congress banned the importation of slaves in 1808. In the two centuries before the ban, a total of about 661,000 African people were brought to the United States against their will. After the ban, Southern slaveholders relied on high birth rates among slaves to continue the institution of slavery. The value of slaves and the free labor they provided was considerable. The slaves themselves represented almost 60 percent of the agricultural wealth in Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina.

Texas
Texas was admitted to the Union as a slave state in 1845. Its admission opened vast amounts of acreage suitable for cotton cultivation. As slavery spread westward, cotton production continued to increase. In the year 1810, America produced less than 200,000 bales of cotton. By 1850 yearly production had grown more than tenfold, to 2.5 million-plus bales. As the South's dependence on cotton increased, so did its dependence on slavery.

Mississippi

At the beginning of 1850, the United States consisted of 30 states: 15 slave states and 15 free states. In Mississippi, as in the rest of the Southern states, most farmers held no slaves at all. Yet the economic fortunes of most Southerners were somehow intertwined with the misery and brutality of slavery. Cotton brokers and shippers profited by bringing cotton to market. Merchants sold plantation owners the tools they needed to operate -- as well as the luxury goods afforded by cotton profits. The unpaid labor of African Americans contributed to a booming economy for whites living in the South.
jsutton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 10th, 2008, 01:02 AM   #13
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,508
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DuffMan View Post
Why? Because "the north" was innocent on that whole slavery thing as well?

1) Despite the revisionist BS taught in public schools, the Civil War (aka "War of Northern Aggression") WAS NOT about slavery - it was about reuniting the union. Slavery as a war issue didn't even come up until about midway through the war, when the U.S.A. was having a shortage of volunteers and "freeing slaves' was introduced to get more men to sign up.
"war of Northern Aggression"? It was the south that attacked first.
And while the war wasn't "about" slavery it was about differences in economics and other factors and slavery was definitely part of that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DuffMan View Post
2) Many of the largest slave traders were Dutch, and their businesses were located in New York City - aka "the north". So while there weren't slaves in the north, there was the slave business.
The international slave trade was ended in 1808. No new slaves were imported after that, so I don't think they were doing much business in 1861.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DuffMan View Post
3) Large fabric, garment, and shoe factories in New England tried slavery numerous times, but found that the economics didn't work - it was cheaper to hire and exploit new immigrants that own slaves. So the absence of slaves in that area was not due to some higher level of morals or standards, just that the economics of it didn't work. Likewise on northern farms, which grew less labor-intensive crops, slavery didn't pay off, economically.
True, but by 1861 that was something in the past, in some cases distant past. http://www.slavenorth.com/



Quote:
Originally Posted by DuffMan View Post
4) Slavery was on it's last legs in the south - the economies of automation (i.e. cotton gin) were making inroads and slaves were economical only on very large (500+ acres) plantations with labor-intensive crops like cotton, rice, or tobacco. At the time of the Civil War, less than 3% of the population of the south owned slaves, and many had never seen one.
The cotton gin increased demand for cotton, but a practical cotton picking machine wouldn't be invented for about another 80 years. Slaves were still needed for planting, tending, and picking. http://www.americanheritage.com/arti...004_1_36.shtml

Also, based on the census data for 1860: http://www.civil-war.net/pages/1860_census.html Your numbers seem a bit off, by a factor of 10. That would seem to show that a quarter, to almost half of families in the south owned slaves, and in some states over half the population were slaves.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DuffMan View Post
No one in my family owned slaves. There was only one in the county, owned by an elderly "gentleman farmer". After being freed, he stayed on working for the old man for the same "wages" (room, board, clothes, etc...). We did fight the yankee aggressors who burned our crops, barns, and homes. My great-great- great grandmother passed away while yankees (from Illinois) were camped on the farm - she was (and still is) buried in the barnyard, in (at the time) an unmarked grave, because those civilized yankee boys who came to free the slaves would dig up the recent deceased to search for jewelry or gold fillings.
No one in my family was in the country when slavery was legal, it would by 20 years before any member of my family set foot on American soil.
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 10th, 2008, 06:27 AM   #14
General Lee
Slice of Starsage Anyone?
 
General Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-09-05
Location: Kalamazoo, MI
Posts: 5,070
iTrader: (7)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to General Lee
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
"war of Northern Aggression"? It was the south that attacked first.
And while the war wasn't "about" slavery it was about differences in economics and other factors and slavery was definitely part of that.
Meh. Slavery wasn't made a political issue until after the war had began, and it was largely a measure to increase enlistment, reestablish purpose, and keep European countries out of it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn
The cotton gin increased demand for cotton
Supply?
General Lee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 10th, 2008, 07:21 AM   #15
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,508
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by General Lee View Post
Meh. Slavery wasn't made a political issue until after the war had began, and it was largely a measure to increase enlistment, reestablish purpose, and keep European countries out of it.
I keep hearing people say that but have yet to find anything to justify that claim. Everything I find to read about the causes of the civil war list slavery, and the economic differences it caused as major factors. Could someone please point me to a source of this "unrevised" history that you are quoting from.


Quote:
Originally Posted by General Lee View Post
Supply?
No, demand. The cotton gin allowed cotton to be processed quicker, which meant that there was greater demand for more to be grown. All aspects of growing were still mostly manual at that time.
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 10th, 2008, 07:36 AM   #16
General Lee
Slice of Starsage Anyone?
 
General Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-09-05
Location: Kalamazoo, MI
Posts: 5,070
iTrader: (7)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to General Lee
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
I keep hearing people say that but have yet to find anything to justify that claim. Everything I find to read about the causes of the civil war list slavery, and the economic differences it caused as major factors. Could someone please point me to a source of this "unrevised" history that you are quoting from.
I know this is Wikipedia, but it sums everything up quite nicely. I think it's kinda funny that the emancipation proclamation didn't come out right at the beginning of the war, if this was really what the war was all about. People didn't like Lincoln, and the war was underway. He passed this toothless document and it did a lot for foreign policy and morale...although it didn't really do much with regard to its stated purpose.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancip...litical_impact

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn
No, demand. The cotton gin allowed cotton to be processed quicker, which meant that there was greater demand for more to be grown. All aspects of growing were still mostly manual at that time.
Meh. The better process allowed for an increase in supply. The increase in supply led people to come up with new ways to use the cotton, and switch in cotton where there had previously been other materials in use. This led to the increased demand. I guess you could say that, indirectly, it led to an increase in demand, but it just seems goofy (all those supply/demand curves would tend to point the other way if not for the emerging industry...).
General Lee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 10th, 2008, 08:42 AM   #17
Hombre
I carry a shank
 
Hombre's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-15-06
Location: Michigan
Posts: 4,548
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

I would suggest that some of you put down your keyboards and visit some HISTORICAL places and do some ON THE GROUND research of the Civil War. Then, maybe you can accurately talk about the issue.

I was a Civil War re-enactor at Gettysburg for eleven years and have long studied the war. I re-enacted for the 1st Michigan Infantry - 1st Brigade, 1st Division, 5th Corps who fought atop Stoney Hill. And, like the proud lumberman they were, built breastworks of trees that they fell in the woods to repulse the Confederate charges up the hill.

By the way. The Confederate troops were some of the bravest Americans to have ever fought in a war. Do some research (in real life) on Gettysburg and especially Pickett's Charge. Prior to leaving the safety of the woods to march across a mile of open ground to attack Union lines, Confederate infantrymen posted last letters to their families on the trees in the hopes that their loved ones back home would get them.

My studies have shown that slavery was one of the issues for the war with the main issue being that the southern states resented a strong central government "interfering" in their affairs. Also, there was MUCH meddling from our European friends in the Civil War. Hell, one of the most popular and beloved muskets that BOTH sides used was imported from Great Britain in large numbers. The south borrowed money from France.

People have re-written history to make Slavery the primary issue of the Civil War and that is just not historically accurate. It was an issue, no doubt. But it was not the central issue by any means.
Hombre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 10th, 2008, 08:44 AM   #18
General Lee
Slice of Starsage Anyone?
 
General Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-09-05
Location: Kalamazoo, MI
Posts: 5,070
iTrader: (7)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to General Lee
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hombre View Post
My studies have shown that slavery was one of the issues for the war with the main issue being that the southern states resented a strong central government "interfering" in their affairs. Also, there was MUCH meddling from our European friends in the Civil War. Hell, one of the most popular and beloved muskets that BOTH sides used was imported from Great Britain in large numbers. The south borrowed money from France.

People have re-written history to make Slavery the primary issue of the Civil War and that is just not historically accurate. It was an issue, no doubt. But it was not the central issue by any means.
Hombre is my Homeboy.
General Lee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 10th, 2008, 08:48 AM   #19
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,508
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by General Lee View Post
I know this is Wikipedia, but it sums everything up quite nicely. I think it's kinda funny that the emancipation proclamation didn't come out right at the beginning of the war, if this was really what the war was all about. People didn't like Lincoln, and the war was underway. He passed this toothless document and it did a lot for foreign policy and morale...although it didn't really do much with regard to its stated purpose.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancip...litical_impact
Here’s some more Wikipedia reading… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins...ican_Civil_War

Just because the Emancipation Proclamation wasn’t enacted until part way through the war does not mean that slavery wasn’t an issue at the beginning of the war. Lincoln didn’t just wake up in the morning of September 22, 1862, and suddenly think “Hey, I have an idea, lets abolish slavery, that’ll be cool”. No, slavery had been an issue for many years and was one of the major issues that divided the north and the south. These divisions are what lead to the war.

Quote:
Originally Posted by General Lee View Post


Meh. The better process allowed for an increase in supply. The increase in supply led people to come up with new ways to use the cotton, and switch in cotton where there had previously been other materials in use. This led to the increased demand. I guess you could say that, indirectly, it led to an increase in demand, but it just seems goofy (all those supply/demand curves would tend to point the other way if not for the emerging industry...).
Yes, better processing allowed for an increased supply of finished goods, which lead to increased demand for raw materials, which at the time required much manual labor (i.e. slave labor) to produce.
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 10th, 2008, 08:53 AM   #20
General Lee
Slice of Starsage Anyone?
 
General Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-09-05
Location: Kalamazoo, MI
Posts: 5,070
iTrader: (7)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to General Lee
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
Here’s some more Wikipedia reading… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins...ican_Civil_War

Just because the Emancipation Proclamation wasn’t enacted until part way through the war does not mean that slavery wasn’t an issue at the beginning of the war. Lincoln didn’t just wake up in the morning of September 22, 1862, and suddenly think “Hey, I have an idea, lets abolish slavery, that’ll be cool”. No, slavery had been an issue for many years and was one of the major issues that divided the north and the south. These divisions are what lead to the war.
Bruce...hopefully you don't really think I'm that dumb. I know slavery was an issue, but it wasn't the main one, and that's my main point. Besides, that proclamation didn't do shit as far as freeing slaves, and Lincoln had to know that it wouldn't. Heck, he didn't even make it apply to the boarder states, whom he wanted on his side!!! It was a purely political move, partially meant to dissuade the Europeans from the continuance of supporting the south. It was a PR tool, and Lincoln could probably have given half a dump if any slaves were freed by it or not.
General Lee is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat
Tags
dixie horn, god bless dixie, jsutton is gay

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:39 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. Runs best on HiVelocity Hosting.
Page generated in 0.52519 seconds with 82 queries