By islander September 8, 2022 4:40 am Category: Politics (0.0 from 0 votes) Rules of the Post Write A New Article How To Post Here Rate this article (5=best, 0=poor)

"The first attributed use in modern times is to Founding Father John Dickinson in his pre-Revolutionary War song “The Liberty Song”, first published in the Boston Gazette in July 1768. In the song Dickinson wrote: “Then join hand in hand, brave Americans all! By uniting we stand, by dividing we fall!” Kentucky entered the Union on June 1, 1792. A little over six months later, on December 20, 1792, the first Kentucky General Assembly adopted the official seal of the Commonwealth, including the state motto, United We Stand, Divided We Fall."

If we don't stop this attack on our country by the MAGA Republicans we will no longer be one country - The United States of America - What will be left is the severely weakened, "divided states of America".

"Revered conservative judge J. Michael Luttig has been trying for months to sound the alarm that the independent state legislature doctrine is a blueprint for Republicans to steal the 2024 election. In April, before the court agreed to take on the Moore v. Harper case, he wrote: “Trump and the Republicans can only be stopped from stealing the 2024 election at this point if the Supreme Court rejects the independent state legislature doctrine…and Congress amends the Electoral Count Act to constrain Congress’ own power to reject state electoral votes and decide the presidency.”

"In the one term Trump’s three justices have been on the court, they have decimated the legal landscape under which we have lived for generations, slashing power from the federal government, where Congress represents the majority, and returning it to states, where a Republican minority can impose its will. Thanks to the skewing of our electoral system, those states are now trying to take control of our federal government permanently."*
* HCR

Cited and related links:

1. unitedwestand.com

Comments Start Below

by HatetheSwamp on September 8, 2022 5:22 am If we don't stop this attack on our country by the MAGA Republicans we will no longer be one country - The United States of America - What will be left is the severely weakened, "divided states of America". One word. Only one word, isle: BLM and Antifa. To quote that Herman's Hermits classic: THIS DOOR SWINGS BOTH WAYS. You, and Heather, are everything a KKKer is. View Video by islander on September 8, 2022 5:34 am That's TWO words Hate !! "Please" be more careful!---How are you and I going to convince the American people that we MAGA Republicans are the ones who should take over the country if we sound stupid? by HatetheSwamp on September 8, 2022 5:36 am Uh, it's three, there, isle! Keeheeheeheeheeheehee. by islander on September 8, 2022 5:52 am You never should have pointed that out to them. Now they are going to think ALL of us MAGA Republicans are stupid ! 😟 by HatetheSwamp on September 8, 2022 7:21 am Not all. As the Platters sang, "Only You." View Video by islander on September 8, 2022 7:41 am Finish the line, Hate ! "Only you and you alone can thrill me like you do" Golly, Hate, I didn't know you felt that way, but I think you better find someone else ! 🙄 by HatetheSwamp on September 8, 2022 7:52 am Curses. Foiled again. by Donna on September 8, 2022 11:19 am Thanks for posting that, islander. I think we're all a bit frightened by that, "we're" not meaning everyone who posts on this forum. No offense to you, Curt - I love some of the conversations we have here. It's just a shame that we have to deal with distractions. I have a circle of friends on Facebook who would be wonderful contributors to these discussions here. "Sean R. Shealy", who used to post on the oldest SS forum as "Paleoliberal" is a sort of gathering place for this circle of friends. If you're interested, he isn't the Sean R. Shealy who's a young guy with dark hair - he's the other one, middle aged guy with a beard. by Curt_Anderson on September 8, 2022 11:26 am DOnna, I always appreciated Sean's comments and observations--hair or no hair. He is more than welcome to post here and link to his website or wherever he posts his commentaries. Much like the way islander posts and links to his favorite writers. by Donna on September 8, 2022 11:32 am I appreciate that, Curt, but Sean isn't coming back here. He has a much wider audience on FB. Even in my semi-retirement, I have a finite number of hours a day. I don't want to be wasting any of those hours dealing with clowns. by Curt_Anderson on September 8, 2022 11:37 am Oh, OK. I thought you were asking when you said "would be wonderful contributors to these discussions here". by Donna on September 8, 2022 11:43 am I don't abuse it on FB, but the "block" function comes in handy sometimes. Just sayin'. by islander on September 9, 2022 6:00 am ” I love some of the conversations we have here. It's just a shame that we have to deal with distractions.” True, Donna ! The distractions are just attempts to sabotage good conversations, for instance, IMO at least, I think this could have been a good discussion/debate about state’s rights vs our Federal government and what it all means to our country, but what was the very first comment? It was a deflection aimed at changing the conversation to the BLM and Antifa. by HatetheSwamp on September 9, 2022 6:15 am Right. AntiSwampers hate good conversations. Allow pb to set you straight and splain how this exchange is a function of youz's sanctimony. Swampcultists and AntiSwampers think differently and express themselves differently. How dare people who HatetheSwamp be true to themselves? How dare they not submit to the categories of the Swamp! Yikes, you Blue MAGA Swampcult progressives! You are so in love with yourselves that you refuse us the ability to be ourselves. Well?, we are ourselves...even though you can't stand it. Bahahahahahahahahahaha. by islander on September 9, 2022 8:40 am "How dare people who HatetheSwamp be true to themselves? How dare they not submit to the categories of the Swamp!" Over there, Hate...WAAY over there. by HatetheSwamp on September 9, 2022 9:43 am Exactly, there, isle. But, shame. by oldedude on September 9, 2022 1:34 pm First: Donna, I had true empathy when you said you were posting on your cell phone. Now I understand exactly what you mean. Thanks for the insight. When I read the title, I knew it was a trap. I read the post and got a quick feeling for the comments. It leads with extremely divisive and angry speech, attempting to sway people to see a foe clanging at the exit from hell itself that will murder your family and rape the living little boys. Then it talks about a "power grab" by those wanting to follow the constitution of the United States, where this is the power grab as the founders feared it would happen. It's creation was exactly for this reason. To have a limited central government and for each state to create a government following the constitution, but with laws molded to the will of that state. There by not allowing a power grab from the powerful states. Interestingly, this was a rational worry of the northern states, which at the time were not as powerful as the southern states. There is a way to change this. Go through the process of making an amendment to our constitution. If not, you're the enemy of our Republic. All in all, the fear should be in one party centralizing control of states by use of the federal agencies. This creates the dream of every despot and fascist that has ever taken control of a country. So. I hope I didn't get off subject. by Donna on September 10, 2022 9:12 am Which title are you referring to? by islander on September 10, 2022 11:14 am The Republican MAGAs are, for obvious reasons, pushing Independent state legislature theory. They want to be able control the outcome of our Federal elections by overriding and disregarding the will of the people. We the people can’t let them succeed. Our Federal elections belong to all of us together, not to individual states. What is the Independent state legislature (ISL) The independent state legislature (ISL) theory is a right-wing constitutional theory about who has the power to set rules for federal elections. It’s based on an alternative interpretation of two clauses in the U.S. Constitution:  The thinking behind their efforts, However, “has come under criticism on originalist grounds for too narrowly interpreting the phrase "the Legislature thereof" in both the Elections Clause and the Presidential Electors Clause.[3] American legal scholar Vikram Amar argues that ISL construes the concept of the state legislature as implausibly isolated from other state institutions, including state constitutions: "[T]he meaning of state 'legislature' was well accepted and bore a clear public understanding at the Founding: A state 'legislature' was an entity created and constrained by its state constitution." Amar argues further that constraints placed upon state legislatures' authority over elections by public referenda and initiatives are consistent with the Founding-era understanding of the role of state legislatures: "state legislatures were not independent sovereign entities; they were then, and state legislatures remain today, delegatees of the sovereign power of the people."[3] Practically, it would mean that the general public (through ballot initiatives), governors (elected statewide and so not affected by district borders) and state courts would have no role in altering election laws or federal congressional boundaries, even if it violates the state constitution, with the legislature "kind of liberated from all the other checks and balances that we would ordinarily find within state government." democracydocket.com en.wikipedia.org by Donna on September 10, 2022 3:14 pm Their new interpretation goes against over 200 years of precedent. Normally I would laugh at this new theory's chance of surviving the Supreme Court, but all bets are off with the MAGA SCOTUS. I don't remember Hts or olde dude ever commenting on this issue when it's been brought up here other than Hts pointing out that Rush Limbaugh thought that overturning presidential election results at the state level was a great idea. DJT made a mockery of the Presidential Medal of Freedom when he awarded it to that unamerican POS. by oldedude on September 12, 2022 3:12 pm I think it's pretty funny you use two citations. The first is an article from "democracy docket," a group that could easily be compared on the right to the "Proud Boys" or some ultra MAGA fringe group. The second cite is from wiki, that was obviously written by another democracy docket lover, or perhaps Mark Elias himself. Hillary Clinton attorney Marc Elias has been a prominent supporter of removing election safeguards like showing ID and has openly mocked citizens concerned with election integrity on Twitter. So while you mock the GOP for their worry regarding election law review, you, yourselves want absolutely no restriction on voting, including unregistered mail in voting without control. I'm not surprised isle believes this at all. This is part and parcel to the complete eradication of the Constitution that is very open to in its distain of our Republic and very much in line to the LWO. by HatetheSwamp on September 12, 2022 4:16 pm ...Hts pointing out that Rush Limbaugh thought that overturning presidential election results at the state level was a great idea. Well, of course, the President is elected by the states. Rush was merely pointing out what the Electoral Count Act of 1887 allows. by HatetheSwamp on September 12, 2022 4:20 pm I think it's pretty funny you use two citations. The first is an article from "democracy docket," a group that could easily be compared on the right to the "Proud Boys" or some ultra MAGA fringe group. This is why I'm calling our Blue MAGA progressives "high disinformation voters." Ours are well informed but, by choice, by virulently biased and ideological sources. by islander on September 12, 2022 5:15 pm States don’t elect the president, "people do", here’s how it works (see the link)The republicans want state legislators (not the voters) to have full and absolute power to select the slate of electors regardless of what the voters want. If I were a Republican with no integrity I’d want that too since we probably would have little chance of being elected otherwise. This way if my party controlled the state legislators, my party, not the voters, would chose with which slate of electors would represent our state. The government would no longer derive its power from the governed (we the people) but from the Republican party instead. “What happens in the general election? Why should I vote? ”The general election is held every four years on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November. When you vote for a Presidential candidate you are actually voting for your candidate's preferred electors. Most States have a “winner-take-all” system that awards all electors to the Presidential candidate who wins the State's popular vote. However, Maine and Nebraska each have a variation of “proportional representation.”  * * See link archives.gov by oldedude on September 12, 2022 6:45 pm "The republicans want state legislators (not the voters) to have full and absolute power to select the slate of electors regardless of what the voters want." That's interesting. I as a Republican and a constitutional conservative have never heard of such stupidity. Most of the GOP states actually want (by law) their representatives to vote as the district votes, thus keeping with the "will of the people" as the Constitution says. I'm actually calling you on your BS. Find another source. A valid one. Since it's a GOP issue, and since all Republicans think the same, it should be easy. So extra points if you can find a GOP reference. I'll look at major/ reliable source for your accusations. You are still using the same thing. by HatetheSwamp on September 13, 2022 5:03 am I as a Republican and a constitutional conservative have never heard of such stupidity. Don't mind isle, OD, this is EXACTLY what bigots and haters do...judge a whole group of people by an oddity or evil of the extreme. Of course GOPs are devoted to the Constitution. It's isle and his lot who regard it as list of suggestions. by islander on September 13, 2022 6:06 am "Independent state legislature doctrine" “The Constitution of the United States delegates authority to regulate federal elections within a state to that state's "legislature". Advocates of the independent state legislature theory or independent state legislature doctrine (ISL) interpret this as limiting such authority to the state's elected lawmakers, while the state's executive branch, judiciary, or other quasi-legislative bodies (such as constitutional conventions or independent commissions) have no powers of electoral oversight. The ISL also asserts that any conflict between federal law and state law rooted in legislative enactments must be resolved in favor of the state, even over state constitutional provisions, and similarly over ballot initiatives which effectively modify a state constitution.[2] Proponents of ISL further claim that adjudicating such purported conflicts is the province of the federal judiciary of the United States.” * "Republicans are quietly advancing a theory that could radically change our electoral process. After their respective state Supreme Courts adopted new congressional maps, Republicans in North Carolina and Pennsylvania filed emergency applications in the U.S. Supreme Court asking it to block the maps from being used this year. They argued that only the Republican-controlled legislatures in both states — not the state Supreme Courts — could enact a congressional map, invoking a fringe constitutional theory known as the independent state legislature theory as justification. The theory argues that state legislatures have special authority to set federal election rules, free from interference from other parts of the state government. Despite running contrary to precedent and history, the Supreme Court appears dangerously close to adopting it — with potentially disastrous ramifications for democracy." ** * Wikipedia ** Democracy Docket by HatetheSwamp on September 13, 2022 6:17 am "Republicans are quietly advancing a theory that could radically change our electoral process. Bullfernerner. by Donna on September 13, 2022 6:43 am From the Arizona Mirror last month: The independent state legislature doctrine could reverse 200 years of progress and take power away from the people In a case to be heard in the coming months, the U.S. Supreme Court could decide that state legislatures have control over congressional elections, including the ability to draw voting districts for partisan political advantage, unconstrained by state law or state constitutions. At issue is a legal theory called the “independent state legislature doctrine,” which is posed through the court’s consideration of a dispute over gerrymandered North Carolina congressional districts. In early 2022, North Carolina state courts found the legislature violated the state constitution when it drew gerrymandered congressional districts favoring Republicans. The legislature has claimed that the U.S. Constitution gives it authority, unfettered by state courts’ interpretation of the state constitution or laws, to regulate congressional elections, and is asking the Supreme Court to agree. If the court agrees, it could free state legislatures to take power away from voters – “We the People” in constitutional parlance – and reverse a two-century trend toward expanding the power of the people in congressional elections. Some election and constitutional law analysts have already suggested that state legislatures may have similar power over presidential elections. The U.S. Constitution allows state legislatures to determine how a state chooses its presidential electors, arguably leaving the legislature free to choose presidential electors on their own without a popular election. azmirror.com by HatetheSwamp on September 13, 2022 7:20 am pb has two comments about this Blue MAGA progressive paranoia. 1. When you hear Mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy, or even just Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio talking about this, you can say that the GOP is doing it. Otherwise, this is nuthin but Blue MAGA paranoia and derangement. 2. Sadly, the Electoral Count Act of 1887 makes many things possible and is ripe for abuse. pb has been saying that legislation to fix the law that guides the counting of votes in a presidential election is necessary. Dems control the White House and Congress. If nothing is being done to fix this law that is open to abuse, the Dems must have something up their sleeves for 024. by Donna on September 13, 2022 7:43 am The law that would need to be fixed is the Constitution, right? It's Republicans, not Democrats, who are taking their case to the Supreme Court Hts. They're hoping that the MAGA SC will rule to overturn over 200 years of precedent and uphold an interpretation of the Constitution that's never been utilized. by HatetheSwamp on September 13, 2022 7:50 am Donna, Relax. Don't let your paranoia take hold until the Supreme Court takes the case. pb thinks it's unlikely that it will. For now, the law that dictates how the Constitution is applied is the Electoral Count Act of 1887. And, Dems can work on it. But, curiously, baha, they ain't. This is the sort of thing that makes pb HatetheSwamp. by Donna on September 13, 2022 8:10 am The Democrats have no reason to change in the Electoral Vote Act. I'd prefer to do away with electoral votes altogether and go by the popular vote, but if we're going to go by electoral votes, the EVA has been working fine. It's Republicans who want to overturn the EVA and instead go by a reading of the Constitution that's never been recognized. And no, after seeing how the MAGA SC reversed 49 years of precedent on abortion, I won't calm down. by HatetheSwamp on September 13, 2022 8:14 am To get your way, you need to amend the Constitution. That ain't happ'nin. pb is convinced that, if the J6 riot hadn't broken out, what Trump was planning might have worked. And, the losing party could try that again. by HatetheSwamp on September 13, 2022 8:20 am Axios, a more reliable source of reporting facts, says: "Thought bubble, via Axios' Andrew Solender: Graham's bill is designed to present Republicans as being more mainstream on abortion by pushing a partial ban over either a full ban or what they characterize as Democrats' "abortion on-demand" position." by Donna on September 13, 2022 8:26 am Actually to get my way, I have to hope that the MAGA court doesn't reverse over 200 years of precedent. by HatetheSwamp on September 13, 2022 8:31 am Court precedent? What Court decisions create the precedent... ...or, are you mentioning past practice, tradition? by Donna on September 13, 2022 8:43 am It's always been the way we've done elections, Hts. MAGA Republicans want to change that. They want MAGA Secretaries of State to be able to decree that all of their states electors go to the MAGA candidate even if their candidate loses the popular vote. by HatetheSwamp on September 13, 2022 8:50 am Just clarifying. You're not mentioning legal opinions. You're authority is, merely, tradition. You must understand that reversing past court decisions is something, even this Court takes seriously. Reversing tradition is of no import legally. by Donna on September 13, 2022 9:06 am "We conclude by explaining that in seven of the eight states it would be clearly contrary to state law for the legislature to intervene and certify a slate of electors by itself. In the one state in which that might be possible we argue that the legislature cannot be convened in special session." papers.ssrn.com by oldedude on September 13, 2022 9:13 am Wanting more background, I did some searches on Independent State Legislature Doctrine. What I found were hundreds of liberal sites that are spreading the rumor this is a nation-wide effort that will make our (sic) "Democracy" (which it isn't) nonexistent. The truth is that ONE (count 'em, one) state has instituted a version of this. The North Carolina courts rightfully said this was illegal. I think Donna is correct. It would take an amendment to the Constitution as it stands. My main issue is the Doctrine was put out about 100 years ago. During the depression and rise of ultra nationalist groups (KKK especially). It got reborn in NC (No surprise there). Although it was put forth by the GOP, I think it's as mainstream as putting conservatives in concentration camps to be used as slave labor. And to "accuse" the GOP other than what I've said, I am willing to listen to that. Facts please. No innuendo, conjecture, or "whatif's." And PLEASE! no Trump is the reason for this. Unless there is proof. Same restrictions apply as above. Ergo, I agree with Lead. I think it's a ploy and scam to get someone to vote dim after this horrible first two years. And if anyone wants to play "Unconstitutional act comparison" I'm willing to play that game, but it's going to be nasty. by HatetheSwamp on September 13, 2022 9:15 am If that's factual...which pb has reason to doubt...the Court won't overturn laws passed by "the people's representatives." This Court grooves on that. by HatetheSwamp on September 13, 2022 9:20 am Wanting more background, I did some searches on Independent State Legislature Doctrine. What I found were hundreds of liberal sites that are spreading the rumor this is a nation-wide effort that will make our (sic) "Democracy" (which it isn't) nonexistent. The truth is that ONE (count 'em, one) state has instituted a version of this. Bingo. They are HIGH DISINFORMATION VOTERS...and, as far as I can tell, dern proud of it. by Donna on September 13, 2022 9:54 am Thomas, Gorsuch and Alito are already in agreement with the independent state legislature theory. The case, Moore v Harper, will be heard by SCOTUS after the midterm elections. You can read about it at the link below. en.m.wikipedia.org by oldedude on September 13, 2022 6:38 pm Again, you got your "information" from wiki? and this is really early to start thinking what a judge will do for a docket that hasn't been read. by Donna on September 13, 2022 7:03 pm Wiki used 11 sources including the WSJ. by HatetheSwamp on September 14, 2022 5:12 am We're talking about several different things here but pb is aware of the Moore v. Harper case. Word is that this is where this Court will stake it's claim in reshaping America. The Blue MAGA America envisioned, here, especially by our friend Donna...a huuuuuuuuuge central government, run, ultimately, by bureaucrats, pb thinks, is under attack by this Court. Remember the EPA decision? This Court, pb thinks, is intent on reestablishing federalism...right out of the Constitution... ...the Tenth Amendment is being taken out of mothballs... ...to the heartfelt chagrin of all Blue MAGA progressives Swampcultists. LONG LIVE THE BILL OF RIGHTS!!!!! by HatetheSwamp on September 14, 2022 5:15 am ..."But pb, but pb! Rights aren't absolute!" Bahahahahahahahahahaha, ahhhhhhhhhhh ahhhhhhhhhhh! by islander on September 14, 2022 7:31 am Hate, Some people call themselves Constitutionalists or Federalists, which is like calling oneself a Bible believing Christian. The Constitutionalist and the Federalists think they can use the Constitution to justify their opinions in the same way Bible believing Christians use the Bible to justify theirs. They each are certain that they understand what the early authors of the Bible and the Constitution thought and meant when they created them, therefore “their own” interpretation is the correct one. The rest of us know how dangerous that is. by HatetheSwamp on September 14, 2022 7:34 am They each are certain... EACH. Yikes, buddy, with the delusion of omniscience! Oy vey! by oldedude on September 14, 2022 8:10 am "Some people call themselves Constitutionalists or Federalists, which is like calling oneself a Bible believing Christian." Actually, they are two different things. A constitutionalist is one that believes 1: the constitution as it reads, NOT like the LWO subscribers, what they "want" it to be in their "heart." They rationalize that if this is the way they "feel" about it, that must, by their definition, be true. Which it is not. Federalism relates to the style of government one believes in. Moderate liberals are generally federalists. They believe in a larger central government, much like Europe, where regions have much less autonomy. The founders that supported this idea were Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay Republicans, in this sense of the word, believe in a smaller central government and a layering of representatives to represent the people. "In general, republicanism refers to the ideology embraced by members of a republic, which is a form of representational government in which leaders are elected for a specific period by the preponderance of the citizenry, and laws are passed by these leaders for the benefit of the entire republic, rather than select members of a ruling class, or aristocracy. In an ideal republic, leaders are elected from among the working citizenry, serve the republic for a defined period, then return to their work, never to serve again. Unlike a direct or "pure" democracy, in which the majority vote rules, a republic guarantees a certain set of basic civil rights to every citizen, codified in a charter or constitution, which cannot be overridden by majority rule." factmyth.com foundingdefenders.org thoughtco.com by HatetheSwamp on September 14, 2022 8:17 am OD, You are a person whose patience Job could envy. isle was dumping bilious hate and you replied with intelligence and care. Bless you. by oldedude on September 14, 2022 10:03 am Donna- Wiki used 11 sources including the WSJ. So why not use the 11 sources to cite? When I look at WIKI, I'm immediately suspicious of anything you can't use in high school, college or any other paper in the academic or professional paper. by Donna on September 14, 2022 12:15 pm I always give the wiki link so that if anyone is interested, they can go ahead and explore the reference materials themselves. The impression I get, though, is that most people are unaware that Wikipedia is usually very well referenced. I don't think that you were aware of that. by islander on September 14, 2022 1:12 pm "I always give the wiki link so that if anyone is interested, they can go ahead and explore the reference materials themselves." Exactly, Donna! I don't use Wikipedia as a primary source but rather, like any encyclopedia, Wiki is a very good starting point that can lead to further research and like you say, one can check the sources it cites. It is usually fairly reliable but shouldn't, and usually isn't allowed as an accepted source in a formal university research paper, but of course what we do here is fairly informal. 😀 (and smileys are probably not accepted in formal research papers either) by oldedude on September 14, 2022 1:52 pm So you're just too lazy. Got it. I read the reference and try to get as close to the original source as possible. With every generation from the original source, there are inaccuracies. Just like the news. Also, Wiki is still not used for even middle school papers (in a reliable school district) to teach kids the same thing. by Donna on September 14, 2022 1:57 pm Those same institutions of higher learning do accept many of Wiki's sources, and the info presented on the Wiki page is often verbatim from their sources. I've found that the info on Wiki pages accurately represents their sources' info, and often Wiki presents multiple points of view. I can't imagine a better place to start investigating a topic. I get the impression that most people are under the mistaken notion that Wikipedia is an opinion site and takes sides - the other side, of course. Those same people (left as well as right) also believe that Snopes is biased against their POV. I've found that Snopes is thoroughly sourced and unbiased. by oldedude on September 14, 2022 2:02 pm So the point is (at least for me, and for the third time) to give as close to the original source as possible, because the further away you get from that source, the information may be misconstrued or purposefully changed to suit the secondary author. by Donna on September 14, 2022 2:57 pm Look at Wiki yourself. Tell us what you find. by oldedude on September 14, 2022 5:20 pm Both of you have been skirting the issue, purposefully. case in point. ONE set of facts. Do you think that TASS, MSNBC, FOXNews, Xinhua, Prager, and al Jazeera will have the same story? You are putting a spin on everything that comes out of that source. It's the spin of the person that wrote the article. But, I understand what you said and will be using my own sources regardless of the reliability. by Donna on September 15, 2022 5:44 am I had to scroll back to see what issue we were discussing. What did Wikipedia get wrong, od? Go To Top

Find old posts & articles

Show Most Recent Articles Articles by category: Politics+ Religion+ Law & Crime Military News Media History Health Sports+ Humor Entertainment Misc.

Report spam & abuse SelectSmart.com home page