Comments posted organically
SelectSmart.com Homepage
Display Order:

Clueless Sen. Tuberville 'running in circles' in response to IVF question
Politics by Curt_Anderson     February 23, 2024 12:53 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (4 comments) [45 views]


Disney Stock Jumps on “Epic” Quarter
Disney by Indy!     February 24, 2024 10:55 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (4 comments) [28 views]


Obsequious Sen. Graham (R-SC) booed by South Carolina Republicans
Politics by Curt_Anderson     February 24, 2024 7:03 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: (0 comments) [10 views]


You don't have to be crazy to attend CPAC ...okay, you pretty much do.
Politics by Curt_Anderson     February 24, 2024 10:45 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (10 comments) [94 views]


Trump’s new appeal to Black voters: I am a criminal too!
Crime by Curt_Anderson     February 24, 2024 9:08 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (6 comments) [37 views]


Matt Gaetz says his GOP colleagues pushing the now indicted "highly credible confidential" source were a little "over-sauced".
Politics by Curt_Anderson     February 22, 2024 10:53 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (9 comments) [125 views]


So we're in the market for a house...
Nonprofit by Ponderer     February 4, 2024 6:09 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (43 comments) [503 views]


Get A Load Of These Insane Christian Nationalists Who Believed Rights Come From God And Not The Government
History by HatetheSwamp     February 24, 2024 9:01 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (5 comments) [27 views]


The infamous FD-1023 form: Biden $10M bribe file released: Burisma chief said he was ‘coerced’ to pay Joe, ‘stupid’ Hunter in bombshell allegations
Crime by HatetheSwamp     July 20, 2023 3:47 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (35 comments) [575 views]


Tulsi Gabbard is a transformative political leader... speaking at EFFIN CPAC
Politics by HatetheSwamp     February 23, 2024 10:04 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (5 comments) [39 views]


Role Playing Games selectors, pages, etc.
New Tennessee Law Makes It Illegal for Minors To Attend KKK and Other White Supremacist Functions
By Ponderer
February 11, 2023 8:50 am
Category: Role Playing Games

(0.0 from 0 votes)
Rules of the Post

SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com


Rate this article
5 Stars
4 Stars
3 Stars
2 Stars
1 Star
0 Stars
(5=best, 0=poor)


Well it's about time!

For so many decades now, children have been brought to KKK rallies and hate-filled racist events, only to have their entire psyches warped and crippled by witnessing the performances at such adult style functions.

Don't we all agree here that children should simply not be allowed to be exposed to such anti-social, anti-American, and heinously immoral performances? I'm sure we all do.

The normalization of this disgusting lifestyle needs to stop. And stopping the grooming of children into this destructive social culture is a tremendous start.

I am so relieved that this law has been enacted. It is WAY overdue.

.



Cited and related links:

  1. give.me.a.break

Comments Start Below


The views and claims expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views and beliefs of SelectSmart.com. Not every statement made here can be assumed to be a fact.
Comments on "New Tennessee Law Makes It Illegal for Minors To Attend KKK and Other White Supremacist Functions":

  1. by Ponderer on February 11, 2023 8:53 am

    Huh.

    I noticed that the link didn't work and then realized that this article was from a website in Dimension #CCQ-577938301-HYSMxbj-JSU-677083245-3557.9021-d and not this one.

    Sorry. My bad.


  2. by Donna on February 11, 2023 10:27 am
    🔥


  3. by HatetheSwamp on February 11, 2023 10:37 am

    Thing is, po, the two don't equate. If you need help in understanding why, pb'll happily oblige.


  4. by oldedude on February 11, 2023 10:56 am
    I'm going to say it again. If the state wants to do that. let them. The only issue is that it's already been decided in SCOTUS, so they'll lose. I'm not going to get my undies (if I wore them) in a knot over something I can't control.


  5. by Curt_Anderson on February 11, 2023 11:02 am
    "I'm not going to get my undies (if I wore them)..." --OD

    TMI!


  6. by oldedude on February 11, 2023 12:53 pm
    That's why they don't get in a knot...


  7. by Ponderer on February 11, 2023 6:37 pm

    "Thing is, po, the two don't equate. If you need help in understanding why, pb'll happily oblige." -Hate

    They were never intended to equate. Please. We've been over and over this. You have no business ever trying to express any understanding of what equitable entails. We don't need to go over it again.

    What I intended was to highlight the tremendous similarities between the two scenarios. And the similarities are fairly glaring. In fact, the two situations have so many similarities as to make what is considered an "equitable comparison". They do not have to be absolutely equal to be so. If they were entirely equal, they'd be the same thing. The fact that they are so similar is enough to qualify as an equitable comparison.

    But as you are oblivious to the entire concept... again, as we have discussed... you wouldn't understand any of what I am saying.

    Happy to help.


  8. by Ponderer on February 11, 2023 6:46 pm

    You know what? What the heck. I'll humor you.

    Let's hear you point out what you think are some huge, relevant differences and I'll explain to you why you're wrong.


  9. by oldedude on February 11, 2023 7:26 pm
    po- You just countered your own argument.

    1st paragraph. "They were never intended to equate."

    2nd paragraph. "What I intended was to highlight the tremendous similarities between the two scenarios. And the similarities are fairly glaring. In fact, the two situations have so many similarities as to make what is considered an "equitable comparison". They do not have to be absolutely equal to be so. If they were entirely equal, they'd be the same thing. The fact that they are so similar is enough to qualify as an equitable comparison."


  10. by HatetheSwamp on February 12, 2023 3:48 am

    New Tennessee Law Makes It Illegal for Minors To Attend KKK and Other White Supremacist Functions

    *****

    Let's hear you point out what you think are some huge, relevant differences and I'll explain to you why you're wrong.


    po,

    I couldn't open your link and your opening post doesn't add any details so I'm going on the title of your post.

    The reason they don't equate is that the proposed Tennessee law "would establish a criminal offense for anyone who engages in “adult cabaret entertainment” on public property or in a location where the show can be seen by someone who is a minor." Your: "New Tennessee Law Makes It Illegal for Minors To Attend KKK and Other White Supremacist Functions," projects, on the right, woke, cancel culture fascist values. It outright bans behavior even within families.

    The proposed Tennessee law, restricts drag shows in places owned by the citizens of Tennessee as well as places where the public who might be legitimately offended by them might be forced to see them by proximity. There's a biiiiiiiiig difference.

    Under the proposed law, if parents want to hold a drag show party for their kindergartener and their classmates in their own home?, no problem. If they want to take the kids to bars and clubs to view drag shows, they may have at it. Under your law, well, Big Brother inserts himself into the home and tells parents how to raise their babies.

    Biiiiiiiiiig effin difference.

    I get it. During the pandemic, you never really did get that universal mandates were justified. You grooved on shutdowns. You never, it seemed to me, objected to impingement on individual liberty. Your Tennessee law is in the spirit of the outrageous mandates and shutdowns so dear to your heart a couple of years ago.

    As I say, biiiiiiiiiig effin diff.

    The two laws are not equivalent to each other.


  11. by oldedude on February 12, 2023 5:37 am
    po. I agree with your premise. Teaching the next generation to hate is bad. It's something I disagree with under our laws. Teaching something in the privacy of your home or at a private meeting is protected speech. Unfortunately, it's a non sequitur. Teaching to hate others because of the color of their skin in schools is illegal. That's considered public domain.


  12. by HatetheSwamp on February 12, 2023 6:11 am

    OD,

    The First Amendment is another problem for, call it, po's law.

    Two clauses spit in her face: Freedom of speech and Freedom of assembly.

    The notion that we are a free people...well, more honestly, the people who think and behave differently than po possess liberty, it seems, really bothers po. And, most progressive lovers of the Swamp.


  13. by Ponderer on February 12, 2023 7:18 am

    "Under your law, well, Big Brother inserts himself into the home and tells parents how to raise their babies." -Hate

    Thank you, Bill. You pointed out, right there, the very biggest, most important equity between the two laws. I had desperately hoped that you wouldn't miss my whole point. Whew!

    You're right. In what let's call my law (since I made it up myself anyways) if some white supremacist wants to hold a KKK ceremony in their home and let their kids attend and dress up as Nazis and pledge allegiance to Hitler, there's nothing that this law could do to stop it. Likewise with Trump 2.0's law for parents having a drag show for their kids at home as you suggest.

    But holding a Nazi rally in some public space like a park or national forest, or in a parade on a public street, or at a restaurant or publicly accessed banquet facility where minors could be present, would be illegal. Pretty much just like Trump 2.0's law for drag shows.

    (Heck, it's my law so don't worry. When it is fully written up in exquisite legalese, it will perfectly mirror Trump 2.0's law for drag shows. In fact, for all intents and debating purposes, you could take Trump 2.0's law and swap out the phrase "drag performances" anywhere it appears with "white supremacist events" to get my exact law.)

    But again, the big main point here you intuitively focused on is that wherever you take those kids to be brainwashed into white supremacist hate, or to be exposed to men dressed as women, lip-sincing to Cher, the heart of the matter is a parent's freedom to expose their children to whatever they believe is appropriate for them. Ain't?


    So essentially, what my contention in starting this exercise is, is that if it's perfectly okay and completely legal to expose a child to white supremacist hatred screamed from a goose-stepping chorus line of Nazi storm troopers anywhere in public or private that you want to while intentionally brainwashing them into becoming anti-social, racist sociopaths themselves, then there shouldn't be anything illegal about a parent being free to take their child to see men dressed as women lip-sincing to Cher taking place in any venue that minors are otherwise legally allowed to go. I mean, if equal protection under the law is supposed to mean anything.

    "My" law is against white supremacist rallies and events occurring anywhere in public where minors are generally allowed to be or could be exposed to said organized white supremacist indoctrination, just as it appears Trump 2.0's law similarly seeks to ban drag shows from. Fair is fair.


    Because of the long standing, institutionalized racism and undercurrent of theocratic control in this country, banning minors from seeing a drag show in public is bigoted, unfair, unconstitutional treatment that taking Little Adolf to a Klan rally in the park will never be subjected to.





  14. by Ponderer on February 12, 2023 7:21 am

    "The First Amendment is another problem for, call it, po's law.

    Two clauses spit in her face: Freedom of speech and Freedom of assembly."
    -olde dude

    Bless your heart, od! Thanks for pointing that out...!



    ...Because that is the exact same problem with Trump 2.0's law.



    🥂


  15. by oldedude on February 12, 2023 7:22 am
    I think back on some of the third world shtholes I've been in. They start the protest off with clubbing protesters. That's the warning. The next day they start arresting people because someone in the government doesn't like what they're protesting about. Those "arrested" may or may not be seen again. My bet is that most of them die from "questioning" and are buried in unmarked graves somewhere. It's the same process. You protest against absolute suppport of the "government" and that's what happens. Welcome to the swamp.


  16. by HatetheSwamp on February 12, 2023 7:29 am

    But holding a Nazi rally in some public space like a park or national forest, or in a parade on a public street, or at a restaurant or publicly accessed banquet facility where minors could be present, would be illegal.

    One simple word, po: The First Amendment

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."



  17. by Ponderer on February 12, 2023 7:37 am

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."


    Well see now what you did was to make it absolutely necessary for you to present your case for why that doesn't or shouldn't apply to taking your child to see a drag show at the rec center next Saturday in West Palm Beach.


  18. by Ponderer on February 12, 2023 7:57 am

    Sorry for misidentifying your quote to olde dude, Bill. Coffee hasn't hit yet.


  19. by oldedude on February 12, 2023 8:33 am
    You've been avoiding everything we've said. And your "understanding" of the Constitution from 1-10 is in the minus column. States have the ability to protect their citizens which (I know this is odd to you) includes children. You're talking about a state law. States can make it stiffer (e.g. gun laws) as long as it doesn't violate the constitution (e.g. gun laws). There are laws specifically about minors. The states choose to pass and enact these. The only people that have any say about it are the voters in that state. Period. If you're a voter in that state, by all means, say your piece. Otherwise, you have no legal right of harm. If not, it's none of your concern. Until drag queen shows are included in protected classes, you're out of luck.


  20. by HatetheSwamp on February 12, 2023 9:13 am

    po, pb thinks that you could not possibly have envisioned a more disastrous hypothetical. White Supremacy normally has religious overtones, so there's two clauses there, plus the extreme speech and the gatherings. You're running nose first into four of the five liberties protected by the Bill of Rights...probably all five.

    Drawing board, perhaps!!!!!? Bahahahahahahahahahaha.


  21. by Ponderer on February 12, 2023 10:13 am

    "States have the ability to protect their citizens which (I know this is odd to you) includes children." -olde dude

    What you two have avoided answering since this entire discussion arose is:


    What danger or harm are children being "protected" from by not being able to have their parents take them to see a man dressed as a woman lip-sincing to Cher on a stage?


    I mean especially when your only demonstrable argument against it is entirely religious and theocratic based! How is making a law that says a parent can't take their minor to a drag show doing anything other than denying that parent's freedom and constitutional rights? How is a parent taking their child to see a drag show affecting someone else's religious beliefs?

    Gimme some concrete harm that such exposure would cause a child already! Quit stalling!



    So just because some extreme religious folk don't like someone else taking their child to a drag show, they get to have a law enacted taking that parent's constitutional right away because of how it makes them feel? [Whoa... shades of the Same Sex Marriage debate...]

    But I don't get have a law enacted banning public events and demonstrations of white supremacy that I or my children might come upon in public because of how it makes me feel? Based on any feelings and religious beliefs that I might adhere to?

    The right's hypocrisy is not only boundless, but also invisible to them.



    "White Supremacy normally has religious overtones, so there's two clauses there, plus the extreme speech and the gatherings." -Hate

    So you actually believe that white supremacy might qualify as a "religion" and therefore gets to slide on religious grounds? Not just freedom of speech or assembly?

    Well, crazy as such an idea sounds, it doesn't matter a damn if white supremacy was legally declared a religion. It's irrelevant to the fact that the Trump 2.0 law is unconstitutional under the First Amendment governing free speech and assembly.

    And it is on that basis that it will be eventually overturned by the Supreme Court as such.


    (And I would dearly love to get your legal definition of the phrase "extreme speech" as you used it, supposedly applying to drag shows.)


  22. by Ponderer on February 12, 2023 10:17 am

    "You're running nose first into four of the five liberties protected by the Bill of Rights...probably all five." -Hate

    As is this Trump 2.0 law, Bill.

    You guys seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that I think "my" law is constitutional. I know it isn't!

    And neither is Trump 2.0's!




    That has been the point I have been making all along!!!



    Thanks for helping me make it.


  23. by oldedude on February 12, 2023 10:22 am
    That's what we've been saying. DeSantis' IS LEGAL. If it "isn't" then someone needs to file a lawsuit and put a temporary restraining order on it. Otherwise a state's law stays in effect. THAT'S WHAT WE"VE BEEN SAYING.


  24. by Ponderer on February 12, 2023 10:26 am

    AND THAT'S WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN, olde dude. It's a bullshit, unconstitutionally theocratic law and it is sure to get its ass kicked by the SCOTUS when its time comes.



  25. by oldedude on February 12, 2023 10:34 am
    So this is going on fairly soon. There should already be moves in the courts since they've known about this for awhile. Where are they?

    Please show us they're taking this to court. They have to go through state court first, so I want you to cite who is doing it, and what their "constitutional reasoning" is for the suit.

    Without the cite, you're FOS.


  26. by Ponderer on February 12, 2023 10:51 am

    Why on Earth should I be required to show you that any legal balls are rolling on this yet? I never said they were any. Nor does it matter a damn to any of my points.

    I am asserting my belief that there will be. It's what is called "My opinion". I am free to base it on anything I want to. And I happen to also be of the opinion that I will be proved correct.

    As I was about Same Sex Marriage.


  27. by oldedude on February 12, 2023 10:55 am
    Because he didn't sign this out of the blue. I look at the anti-gun bills and they are generally challenged the day after they're signed.

    And your "feelings" means nothing in a courtroom. You came out like your "feelings" were FACT. They're not. I was asking for your background to your facts.


  28. by Ponderer on February 12, 2023 12:02 pm

    I came out like my feelings were my opinion. And that my opinion is based on my feelings. And of course everything I know that relates to the subject. I was predicting what I believe is going to happen. I don't need no stinking facts to present to you to be allowed to hold an opinion, olde dude. Entire religions are constructed without any facts whatsoever, but I need to present some just to have an opinion?

    So if I was to make a prediction about who is going to win the Super Bowl in a few hours, based on all I have seen of the two teams over the season, you would demand I present facts proving that the team I say will win... will win...? Otherwise my opinion is meaningless...?


    (Curt, I sure miss the Question Mark Smiley)


  29. by HatetheSwamp on February 12, 2023 12:06 pm

    I don't need no stinking facts to present to you to be allowed to hold an opinion...

    Oy


  30. by Curt_Anderson on February 12, 2023 12:09 pm
    You mean this emoji?

    selectsmart.com


  31. by Ponderer on February 12, 2023 12:16 pm

    Yeah, Curt! Is he there and I just can't see him...?



    "Oy" -Hate

    Oy yerself there, Bill. You never present a single solitary fact to support the blitheringly idiotic and baseless opinion you hold that Biden didn't win the 2020 election legally and fairly, and you have the bald-faced, hypocritical audacity to oy ME???


  32. by HatetheSwamp on February 12, 2023 12:26 pm

    po.

    I don't believe that the Flatulent Fool "didn't win the 2020 election..." You know that. Like nearly half of likely voters, I think that there was significant fraud in the 020 election.


  33. by Curt_Anderson on February 12, 2023 12:28 pm
    Mr. ? wasn't there before, but I just included him. You'll need to copy the code.  <img src="/post/emoji/smilie11.gif">

    This little confused guy can be copied by simply copying him without any coding.
    🤔


  34. by Ponderer on February 12, 2023 12:41 pm

    "Like nearly half of likely voters, I think that there was significant fraud in the 020 election." -Hate

    Okay fine. Wrong as it is, we can work with that straw man. If you insist on the parsing of words so desperately.

    In any case, your having that opinion should in no way whatsoever hinder you from saying whether either of these are opinions that you hold:


    A. Joe Biden won the 2020 election fairly.

    B. Joe Biden did not win the 2020 election fairly.


    It is my opinion that "B" is your firmly held opinion. As I asserted that it was in post #31.

    If it is not, you need simply simply say so, Bill.


  35. by Ponderer on February 12, 2023 12:42 pm

    Thanks, Curt!


  36. by HatetheSwamp on February 12, 2023 1:09 pm

    In any case, your having that opinion should in no way whatsoever hinder you from saying whether either of these are opinions that you hold:


    A. Joe Biden won the 2020 election fairly.

    B. Joe Biden did not win the 2020 election fairly.


    And you think I'm displaying symptoms of dementia. I've repeated every time it's come up since election day 020 that I believe that, in my opinion, it will never be possible to know who would have won in 020 if it had been an honest election.

    I still believe that.

    I've also been saying all this time that the Former Trucker is my President.


  37. by Curt_Anderson on February 12, 2023 1:25 pm
    "...in my opinion, it will never be possible to know who would have won in 020 if it had been an honest election." -HtS

    So you believe that Biden's edge over Trump of about seven million popular votes and about 75 electoral votes are of questionable legitimacy? Sheesh! And you say Biden voters are deranged.


  38. by HatetheSwamp on February 12, 2023 1:31 pm

    I know that Clouseau won by a handful of thousand votes in several states.

    Still, unlike all of you progressive SwampLovers here who, as far as I can tell who are all 016 election deniers, I don't deny that the Flatulent Fool is the winner of the 020 election.


  39. by islander on February 12, 2023 1:42 pm

    ”I believe that, in my opinion, it will never be possible to know who would have won in 020 if it had been an honest election. “ ~ Hate

    So in your strange world, since they were all dishonest, you will never know who won any of our presidential elections since day one...Of course, you’ll never know whether or not that’s really the case either.

    No wonder your thinking is so darned tangled up !! 🤣




  40. by HatetheSwamp on February 12, 2023 1:46 pm

    Nixon won in 72. Reagan won in 84. Bush won in 88.

    Bahahahahahahahahahaha!


  41. by Ponderer on February 12, 2023 2:09 pm

    So then folks, just so we're all clear, Hate has made it plain and clear that he is of the opinion that Joe Biden did not win the 2020 election fairly.

    That's what all the evidence we have, based on all his flailing blibbering and blabbering, strains to get around. But it is quite evidently the case that that is his opinion, especially given the fact that he refuses to refute it. He is simply loathe to admit it directly.



  42. by HatetheSwamp on February 12, 2023 2:13 pm

    Bahahahahahahahahahaha, po, you're an effin hoot!

    BTW, who won the 016 election?


  43. by islander on February 12, 2023 2:31 pm

    "Nixon won in 72. Reagan won in 84. Bush won in 88."

    "I" know they won fair and square for the same reasons we (most of us) know who won the 2020 election.

    "You" however can never know if they won fair and square, the only way you can say they 'actually' won (revived the most votes) is if you believe that someone who secures an election win through fraud and dishonesty 'actually' won the election.

    I can see you officiating at a marathon and declaring that someone who got away with unobtrusively entering the race just a few hundred yards from the finish and crossed the line first is winner of the marathon even though he cheated, after all, in your mind, we can never really know who actually won this race (or any race) fair and square. !!

    Only a person with integrity and principles will be able to understand why the cheater didn't really win the race even though he was awarded the prize.


  44. by Ponderer on February 12, 2023 2:34 pm

    "BTW, who won the 016 election?" -Hate

    Um... That was Trump...

    Wasn't it...?

    Is this... some sort of trick question or something...?


  45. by islander on February 12, 2023 2:54 pm

    "Is this... some sort of trick question or something...? ~ Ponderer

    Pondy ~ When I lived on NC's Outer Banks the folks from 'Down East' used a lot of Old English words and phrases. One of the was 'flummoxed'.

    Hate, quite often appears to be flummoxed here on this board !! 😀


  46. by HatetheSwamp on February 12, 2023 3:14 pm

    The last time I asked isle, turns out he's a denier.


  47. by islander on February 12, 2023 3:26 pm

    "The last time I asked isle, turns out he's a denier." ~ Hate

    Huh ???

    You'rer demonstrating what I meant when I said you often appeared to be flummoxed!


  48. by Ponderer on February 12, 2023 4:04 pm

    "Hate, quite often appears to be flummoxed here on this board !!" -Hate

    It's pretty sad when you are flummoxed about who won the 2016 election when you voted for the guy yourself.


  49. by oldedude on February 12, 2023 7:47 pm
    That doesn't mean I'll follow them to the ends of the earth. I made one vote in millions. That's how this works. I'm stunned this is still going on. You clearly do not have a life.


  50. by Ponderer on February 12, 2023 10:47 pm

    "You clearly do not have a life." -olde dude


    Say Curt, would you have a way of getting a total post count for you, olde dude, and I over the last year?

    My guess is that he outposted both of us together by a factor of seven or eight.

    You know, a total word count would be even more interesting. I'll bet he beats us in that by a factor of at least twenty. Thirty maybe.



  51. by Curt_Anderson on February 12, 2023 11:24 pm
    Ponderer,
    I don't keep track of posts or word counts. You could count on your blog (edit) how many articles (initial posts) you've written, but that doesn't include your comments. You can likewise look at other people's blog pages.

    If you look at the 200 most recent posts (see link) and count the "Last comment by:" by each person, you'll see that OldeDude manages to get his share of last comments.

    Of course, from my point of view, frequent posting here is the sign of life well-lived.

    selectsmart.com


  52. by Ponderer on February 13, 2023 7:45 am

    😉
    👍


Go To Top

Comment on: "New Tennessee Law Makes It Illegal for Minors To Attend KKK and Other White Supremacist Functions"

* Anonymous comments are subject to approval before they appear. Cookies Consent Policy & Privacy Statement. All Rights Reserved. SelectSmart® is a registered trademark. | Contact SelectSmart.com | Advertise on SelectSmart.com | This site is for sale!

Find old posts & articles

Articles by category:

SelectSmart.com
Report spam & abuse
SelectSmart.com home page