Tran's sure are violent!

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,243]

1 minute ago, FrancieFootball said:

Being trans is no more of a mental disorder than you identifying yourself as a male. I knew I was a girl very early in childhood. Again, back to the education component. Here's a good start:

https://www.hrc.org/resources/transgender-children-and-youth-understanding-the-basics

oh so your a chick, you were born with a vagina, got it

otherwise you're a guy no matter what you think

I was born with 2 arms, I can't identify as a 1 armed person

if you want to remove a body part you are mentally ill

61-84% of trans kids grow out of it after puberty

and I am a male cause I was born a male and have a c0ck

 

[Hardcore troubadour 14,964]

21 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

nobody here is against the gays, trans is a mental disorder, being gay isnt

and trans have a higher suicide rate than jews in concentration camps

and still none of us cared til they involve kids, creating a vicious cycle

 

You gotta stop responding to that phony 

[jerryskids 6,578]

1 hour ago, BuckSwope said:

Have you read the book/study that looked at all the mass shooters? Mental illness isn't even a top 5 commonality they share, according to people who comb the data. 

Most of the time, even that correlates to self harm and suicide, which is also on the rise. 

To be fair, again we need to be clear and specific what we are talking about.  People who do these things are not mentally well, but that is not the same as saying they have a mental illness and it doesn't account for our poor system and maybe there not being a diagnosis yet because they aren't seen.  

For the record, I have no idea where trans folks are on the mass shooter scale.  I was merely pointing out that trans correlates with mental illnesses which, on the surface, would seem to correlate to violent behavior.  Also I have no comment on your "the book/study" because, well, I'd need to read it.

And then we have the following, which is another example of why we'll never be able to help people in need:

21 minutes ago, FrancieFootball said:

While being in the LGBTQ world in and of itself doesn't classify as a mental illness, those in this community do suffer a higher percentage of mental disorders in society.

However, this is largely due to a childhood spent silently listening to identity rejection, disgust, hate and sometimes violence. One grows up listening to the neighborhood parents bashing gays and childhood friends mimicking their parents and calling each other queer, particularly the boys.

This creates a storm of shame, confusion and fear inside the mind of a poor kid who knows he/she isn't the same as those around them. That leads to mental illness. It is emotional abuse by definition.

Children who witness spousal abuse in their homes and suffer abuse themselves have the same fate. 

When it comes to the LGTBQ community, addressing the causes rather than the symptoms provides the key to getting a grip on the cycle of mental illness. That means education, understanding, love and acceptance. Hate and rejection only serve to exacerbate the problem, which so many of you here continue to do to the point of obsession. It is you who needs help, not me.

 

We've learned recently that the problems in inner city black culture are not the responsibilities of black people; they have (almost) no culpability.  Similarly, here we learn that mental illness in the trans world would virtually be non-existant if not for mean haters in their environments.  We are supposed to believe that a person who is at odds with their most fundamental of physical characteristics is otherwise just peachy.  

I don't expect mentally ill people to "pick themselves up by their bootstraps" but... if we don't acknowledge that these people have issues to address which are independent of the behaviors of others, we are never going to help them.

Leftism once again chooses the easy path instead of facing difficult realities.   

[BuckSwope 654]

3 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

For the record, I have no idea where trans folks are on the mass shooter scale.  I was merely pointing out that trans correlates with mental illnesses which, on the surface, would seem to correlate to violent behavior.  Also I have no comment on your "the book/study" because, well, I'd need to read it.

And then we have the following, which is another example of why we'll never be able to help people in need:

We've learned recently that the problems in inner city black culture are not the responsibilities of black people; they have (almost) no culpability.  Similarly, here we learn that mental illness in the trans world would virtually be non-existant if not for mean haters in their environments.  We are supposed to believe that a person who is at odds with their most fundamental of physical characteristics is otherwise just peachy.  

I don't expect mentally ill people to "pick themselves up by their bootstraps" but... if we don't acknowledge that these people have issues to address which are independent of the behaviors of others, we are never going to help them.

Leftism once again chooses the easy path instead of facing difficult realities.   

Come on, we didn't learn anything from that quoted post.  0 clue why you'd post this stuff replying to me.  Stop taking the bait and focusing on kooks online. 

[EternalShinyAndChrome 3,858]

4 hours ago, squistion said:

Your leftist masters.  

Who talks like that in real life. 

Your response here literally proves my point.  Thanks for confirming! 

[jerryskids 6,578]

27 minutes ago, BuckSwope said:

Come on, we didn't learn anything from that quoted post.  0 clue why you'd post this stuff replying to me.  Stop taking the bait and focusing on kooks online. 

Sorry, I could have done that in two posts.  Sometimes I go through and select multiple posts to respond to, that second one had nothing to do with yours.   

[BuckSwope 654]

1 minute ago, jerryskids said:

Sorry, I could have done that in two posts.  Sometimes I go through and select multiple posts to respond to, that second one had nothing to do with yours.   

Despite desperate attempts by these boards to pair me with the likes of squis, Tim, and others- I don't think like or agree with them much.  

The study that is quoted the most is by the Violence Project, and the book is titled the same.  I also found Ghettoside interesting, and that talks more about the inner city side of things.  

[jerryskids 6,578]

32 minutes ago, BuckSwope said:

Despite desperate attempts by these boards to pair me with the likes of squis, Tim, and others- I don't think like or agree with them much.  

The study that is quoted the most is by the Violence Project, and the book is titled the same.  I also found Ghettoside interesting, and that talks more about the inner city side of things.  

I read the following from Politico regarding the Violence Project:

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/27/stopping-mass-shooters-q-a-00035762#:~:text=Their findings%2C also published in the 2021 book%2C,actually engage in finding and funding targeted solutions.

I see nothing there to imply that mental health/illness is NOT an issue.  On the contrary, it seems they very much make mental health a front and center issue.  

[BuckSwope 654]

Just now, jerryskids said:

I read the following from Politico regarding the Violence Project:

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/27/stopping-mass-shooters-q-a-00035762#:~:text=Their findings%2C also published in the 2021 book%2C,actually engage in finding and funding targeted solutions.

I see nothing there to imply that mental health/illness is NOT an issue.  On the contrary, it seems they very much make mental health a front and center issue.  

NM, thanks for proving my point, I guess.  

I addressed their subtle difference in the book previously.  Mental health issue <> mental illness.  

[BuckSwope 654]

Heres my point.  IMO for us to say that "mental illness" is the primary factor in school-type mass shootings I would expect to see in the stats:

1.  A high number of shooters with a known mental illness. 

2.  Mental issues in population of shooters that are common among that group.   E.g. a majority with anxiety, and at a higher rate than gen pop.  

 

But their point was, you didn't see that in the population.   Yes, many have mental issues, but when you make a list of them you have anything from anxiety to depression to PTSD to ADHD.  You know, things that all of us have and it wasn't shown that there was a higher concentration in these people.   When they say that mental health is an issue, one of the common traits they all had were a recent crisis - anything from getting fired, getting dumped, a death.  They also have a suicidal thoughts and plans, also quite common.  

The highest common traits among the shooters were things like: studying other shooters (especially school shooters) and/or telling others about a plan to do so, childhood abuse very common, a specific tie to the place they plan to shoot up, etc.    Well, besides the obvious: male, white, access to guns.  

 

The most frustrating thing is that the standard people on the right seem to have for libs don't apply to them.   Rightly so, they largely don't take the time to know anything about guns can't accurately talk about the types of guns used in which shootings, things like that.   100% correct.  HOWEVER, then we get the blame from them on "mental illness".  Cool, but none seem to be able to intelligently talk about it, rates in which it shows up, things like that.   More importantly to me, they never seem to answer "and then what?" - largely because they don't know what they are talking about.   

What if I give you that 100% it's mental illness.  How do we address them?   Are you denying guns to anybody with a mental illness?  Just locking them up?  How are you trying to identify them in the first place?   At least take the time to read about some of this stuff instead of yet again acting like the people you make fun of.  

[seafoam1 2,806]

1 minute ago, BuckSwope said:

Heres my point.  IMO for us to say that "mental illness" is the primary factor in school-type mass shootings I would expect to see in the stats:

1.  A high number of shooters with a known mental illness. 

2.  Mental issues in population of shooters that are common among that group.   E.g. a majority with anxiety, and at a higher rate than gen pop.  

 

But their point was, you didn't see that in the population.   Yes, many have mental issues, but when you make a list of them you have anything from anxiety to depression to PTSD to ADHD.  You know, things that all of us have and it wasn't shown that there was a higher concentration in these people.   When they say that mental health is an issue, one of the common traits they all had were a recent crisis - anything from getting fired, getting dumped, a death.  They also have a suicidal thoughts and plans, also quite common.  

The highest common traits among the shooters were things like: studying other shooters (especially school shooters) and/or telling others about a plan to do so, childhood abuse very common, a specific tie to the place they plan to shoot up, etc.    Well, besides the obvious: male, white, access to guns.  

 

The most frustrating thing is that the standard people on the right seem to have for libs don't apply to them.   Rightly so, they largely don't take the time to know anything about guns can't accurately talk about the types of guns used in which shootings, things like that.   100% correct.  HOWEVER, then we get the blame from them on "mental illness".  Cool, but none seem to be able to intelligently talk about it, rates in which it shows up, things like that.   More importantly to me, they never seem to answer "and then what?" - largely because they don't know what they are talking about.   

What if I give you that 100% it's mental illness.  How do we address them?   Are you denying guns to anybody with a mental illness?  Just locking them up?  How are you trying to identify them in the first place?   At least take the time to read about some of this stuff instead of yet again acting like the people you make fun of.  

You don't have to kill people to be mentally ill.

[squistion 1,964]

4 hours ago, League Champion said:

They are mentally ill and in many cases the mentally ill are violent creatures. 

As with many things, your assessment is incorrect. 

[squistion 1,964]

2 hours ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

nobody here is against the gays, trans is a mental disorder, being gay isnt

and trans have a higher suicide rate than jews in concentration camps

and still none of us cared til they involve kids, creating a vicious cycle

 

You could have fooled me from just looking from all of the anti-gay remarks (trying to get around the language filter to prevent gay slurs).

[Hardcore troubadour 14,964]

8 minutes ago, squistion said:

You could have fooled me from just looking from all of the anti-gay remarks (trying to get around the language filter to prevent gay slurs).

I assume you’re ok with co-Ed showers and bathrooms in school? 

[squistion 1,964]

19 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

I assume you’re ok with co-Ed showers and bathrooms in school? 

[Hardcore troubadour 14,964]

Just now, squistion said:

Well? You’re an ally. Are you ok with that? Boys that identify as girls using the girls facilities in school? 

[squistion 1,964]

Just now, Hardcore troubadour said:

Well? You’re an ally. Are you ok with that? Boys that identify as girls using the girls facilities in school? 

I don't know what point you are trying to make. Do you wish to give some specifics with a link?

[Baker Boy 1,691]

9 minutes ago, squistion said:

I don't know what point you are trying to make. Do you wish to give some specifics with a link?

1. It’s not happening 

[Hardcore troubadour 14,964]

11 minutes ago, squistion said:

I don't know what point you are trying to make. Do you wish to give some specifics with a link?

I asked you a question. You need a link to answer a question? It’s fairly straightforward.  Do you support boys that “identify” as girls using the girls facilities in school? 

[RogerDodger 797]

1 hour ago, squistion said:

I don't know what point you are trying to make. Do you wish to give some specifics with a link?

Link

In schools. Yes or No?

[Voltaire 5,203]

12 hours ago, squistion said:

If you were to look at mass shootings the last 5 years, trans have probably committed less than 1% of them. 

the pace is picking up. In the last year they've shot up Colorado Springs, Nashville, and now Philly. Back a few years, the Pulse nightclub shooter was either gay or bi.

[squistion 1,964]

26 minutes ago, Voltaire said:

the pace is picking up. In the last year they've shot up Colorado Springs, Nashville, and now Philly. Back a few years, the Pulse nightclub shooter was either gay or bi.

But definitely not trans. 

[GutterBoy 2,898]

The suspect is a 40-year-old IT professional who lives in the neighborhood. On his now-deleted Facebook page, reviewed by VICE News, he posted repeatedly about his second amendment rights, his pro-gun stance, his support for former president Donald Trump, and his disdain for President Joe Biden.

 

But members of the far right have jumped on a handful of pictures, posted on the account three months ago, that show the suspect with long braided hair and wearing women’s clothing. These images were enough for Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene to conclusively state: “Another trans shooter,” citing an article published in the far-right conspiracy blog the Post Millennial.

Beyond the pictures posted to the suspect’s Facebook account, there is no available evidence to suggest that they are transgender. 

https://www.vice.com/en/article/epvpqj/philadelphia-shooting-suspect-far-right-transgender-false-claims

[Hardcore troubadour 14,964]

6 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

The suspect is a 40-year-old IT professional who lives in the neighborhood. On his now-deleted Facebook page, reviewed by VICE News, he posted repeatedly about his second amendment rights, his pro-gun stance, his support for former president Donald Trump, and his disdain for President Joe Biden.

 

But members of the far right have jumped on a handful of pictures, posted on the account three months ago, that show the suspect with long braided hair and wearing women’s clothing. These images were enough for Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene to conclusively state: “Another trans shooter,” citing an article published in the far-right conspiracy blog the Post Millennial.

Beyond the pictures posted to the suspect’s Facebook account, there is no available evidence to suggest that they are transgender. 

https://www.vice.com/en/article/epvpqj/philadelphia-shooting-suspect-far-right-transgender-false-claims

Lol. No evidence except he dresses as a woman. I guess he’s “fluid”. 

[Pimpadeaux 2,404]

3 hours ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

I asked you a question. You need a link to answer a question? It’s fairly straightforward.  Do you support boys that “identify” as girls using the girls facilities in school? 

We get that you are adamant about boys showering with boys, including boys who are gay and attracted to other boys but not girls. 

[jerryskids 6,578]

3 minutes ago, BuckSwope said:

NM, thanks for proving my point, I guess.  

I addressed their subtle difference in the book previously.  Mental health issue <> mental illness.  

That seems like a distinction without a difference.  A physical health issue is a physical illness, or perhaps a physical injury.  Would you prefer "mental injury"?  That better fits the situation where external factors cause/contribute to the problem.

13 hours ago, BuckSwope said:

Heres my point.  IMO for us to say that "mental illness" is the primary factor in school-type mass shootings I would expect to see in the stats:

1.  A high number of shooters with a known mental illness. 

2.  Mental issues in population of shooters that are common among that group.   E.g. a majority with anxiety, and at a higher rate than gen pop.  

 

But their point was, you didn't see that in the population.   Yes, many have mental issues, but when you make a list of them you have anything from anxiety to depression to PTSD to ADHD.  You know, things that all of us have and it wasn't shown that there was a higher concentration in these people.   When they say that mental health is an issue, one of the common traits they all had were a recent crisis - anything from getting fired, getting dumped, a death.  They also have a suicidal thoughts and plans, also quite common.  

The highest common traits among the shooters were things like: studying other shooters (especially school shooters) and/or telling others about a plan to do so, childhood abuse very common, a specific tie to the place they plan to shoot up, etc.    Well, besides the obvious: male, white, access to guns.  

 

The most frustrating thing is that the standard people on the right seem to have for libs don't apply to them.   Rightly so, they largely don't take the time to know anything about guns can't accurately talk about the types of guns used in which shootings, things like that.   100% correct.  HOWEVER, then we get the blame from them on "mental illness".  Cool, but none seem to be able to intelligently talk about it, rates in which it shows up, things like that.   More importantly to me, they never seem to answer "and then what?" - largely because they don't know what they are talking about.   

What if I give you that 100% it's mental illness.  How do we address them?   Are you denying guns to anybody with a mental illness?  Just locking them up?  How are you trying to identify them in the first place?   At least take the time to read about some of this stuff instead of yet again acting like the people you make fun of.  

The Politico article I quoted talked extensively about the lack of mental health resources, particularly in schools.  You stating that many of these shooters are not diagnosed seems to correlate to this issue.  Increased diagnoses and addressing these issues would likely reduce the number of shootings.

I think we agree more than disagree.  Shooters have mental health issues.  Trans people have mental health issues.  We seem to disagree on the correlation between those issues.  I think mood and anxiety disorders would correlate, but whatever.

Regarding the solution:  there is no easy one.  I'm particularly concerned about denying guns to people with mental illness, because that will likely have the unintended consequence of dissuading people from addressing said illness.

That being said, a few observations:

1. We used to take mentally ill people and lock them up.  We (rightfully so) recognized that the situation was not good, but perhaps the pendulum has swung too far the other way?  Take homelessness.  Many, perhaps most, homeless people have mental issues.  But instead of addressing the issues, we coddle them, allowing them to live in public parks, and changing the descriptor to "people experiencing homelessness" because it sounds nicer.  Meanwhile, the illnesses go on, but we feel better as a society because of nicer words.  I could say more on homelessness, but I'll avoid the sidetrack.

2. We've created a generation of kids who can't deal with adversity, and it is worsening every day.  From participation trophies to no-fail grading policies to (I feel like a broken record on this site) a growing culture generally lacking in personal responsibility, kids grow up in plastic bubbles unable to deal with challenge.  When it inevitably hits...  This IMO is the single tangible issue we could theoretically get our arms around, but I don't see it happening.

[BuckSwope 654]

1 hour ago, jerryskids said:

That seems like a distinction without a difference.  A physical health issue is a physical illness, or perhaps a physical injury.  Would you prefer "mental injury"?  That better fits the situation where external factors cause/contribute to the problem.

The Politico article I quoted talked extensively about the lack of mental health resources, particularly in schools.  You stating that many of these shooters are not diagnosed seems to correlate to this issue.  Increased diagnoses and addressing these issues would likely reduce the number of shootings.

I think we agree more than disagree.  Shooters have mental health issues.  Trans people have mental health issues.  We seem to disagree on the correlation between those issues.  I think mood and anxiety disorders would correlate, but whatever.

Regarding the solution:  there is no easy one.  I'm particularly concerned about denying guns to people with mental illness, because that will likely have the unintended consequence of dissuading people from addressing said illness.

That being said, a few observations:

1. We used to take mentally ill people and lock them up.  We (rightfully so) recognized that the situation was not good, but perhaps the pendulum has swung too far the other way?  Take homelessness.  Many, perhaps most, homeless people have mental issues.  But instead of addressing the issues, we coddle them, allowing them to live in public parks, and changing the descriptor to "people experiencing homelessness" because it sounds nicer.  Meanwhile, the illnesses go on, but we feel better as a society because of nicer words.  I could say more on homelessness, but I'll avoid the sidetrack.

2. We've created a generation of kids who can't deal with adversity, and it is worsening every day.  From participation trophies to no-fail grading policies to (I feel like a broken record on this site) a growing culture generally lacking in personal responsibility, kids grow up in plastic bubbles unable to deal with challenge.  When it inevitably hits...  This IMO is the single tangible issue we could theoretically get our arms around, but I don't see it happening.

But this is the crux of my annoyance, Jerry.    What I am telling people to do is to look at the research and stats - their actual book, their actual research.  Yes, you would think that but turns out that is largely not what they found, or not in the way people typically use it.    99% of the time on these boards when I suggest a book, paper, or article the response typically is: "you mean THIS article" with a link to Fox, Politico, Vice, whatever about the article, not actually bothering to look into it themselves.  

See, this is what I talk about when I say something like "follow the science".   It's funny to poke fun at the loony lefties who used that while masking outside during covid.   But largely everybody does the same thing.  For me when I say something similar I mean to look for yourself at studies, stats, books, data, then think about it and form some conclusions.  

To me it makes sense that we could see a rise in trans people committing these crimes, but look at what they said the common traits are with the shooters:  childhood abuse, fixation on a place/building,  crisis events in their life, etc..    Hasn't it been shown that these types of things are more common in that population in general?  It doesn't mean trans people are more prone to violence because they are trans, they are more likely to commit these crimes because they that in their history at a higher %.    To me, that is the important disticntion and it's similar to the one I make with blacks and inner city shootings.   It's been shown that poor education, poverty, population density, lack of jobs, drugs = increased crime and violent crime.  It would make sense that a population that has a higher % living in those conditions would have an increased rate of violent crime.  

[Hardcore troubadour 14,964]

Sigh

[GutterBoy 2,898]

13 minutes ago, BuckSwope said:

But this is the crux of my annoyance, Jerry.    What I am telling people to do is to look at the research and stats - their actual book, their actual research.  Yes, you would think that but turns out that is largely not what they found, or not in the way people typically use it.    99% of the time on these boards when I suggest a book, paper, or article the response typically is: "you mean THIS article" with a link to Fox, Politico, Vice, whatever about the article, not actually bothering to look into it themselves.  

See, this is what I talk about when I say something like "follow the science".   It's funny to poke fun at the loony lefties who used that while masking outside during covid.   But largely everybody does the same thing.  For me when I say something similar I mean to look for yourself at studies, stats, books, data, then think about it and form some conclusions.  

To me it makes sense that we could see a rise in trans people committing these crimes, but look at what they said the common traits are with the shooters:  childhood abuse, fixation on a place/building,  crisis events in their life, etc..    Hasn't it been shown that these types of things are more common in that population in general?  It doesn't mean trans people are more prone to violence because they are trans, they are more likely to commit these crimes because they that in their history at a higher %.    To me, that is the important disticntion and it's similar to the one I make with blacks and inner city shootings.   It's been shown that poor education, poverty, population density, lack of jobs, drugs = increased crime and violent crime.  It would make sense that a population that has a higher % living in those conditions would have an increased rate of violent crime.  

It's the classic example of cherry picking data and creating narratives to fit your agenda, when it should be the other way around.

[jerryskids 6,578]

38 minutes ago, BuckSwope said:

But this is the crux of my annoyance, Jerry.    What I am telling people to do is to look at the research and stats - their actual book, their actual research.  Yes, you would think that but turns out that is largely not what they found, or not in the way people typically use it.    99% of the time on these boards when I suggest a book, paper, or article the response typically is: "you mean THIS article" with a link to Fox, Politico, Vice, whatever about the article, not actually bothering to look into it themselves.  

See, this is what I talk about when I say something like "follow the science".   It's funny to poke fun at the loony lefties who used that while masking outside during covid.   But largely everybody does the same thing.  For me when I say something similar I mean to look for yourself at studies, stats, books, data, then think about it and form some conclusions.  

To me it makes sense that we could see a rise in trans people committing these crimes, but look at what they said the common traits are with the shooters:  childhood abuse, fixation on a place/building,  crisis events in their life, etc..    Hasn't it been shown that these types of things are more common in that population in general?  It doesn't mean trans people are more prone to violence because they are trans, they are more likely to commit these crimes because they that in their history at a higher %.    To me, that is the important disticntion and it's similar to the one I make with blacks and inner city shootings.   It's been shown that poor education, poverty, population density, lack of jobs, drugs = increased crime and violent crime.  It would make sense that a population that has a higher % living in those conditions would have an increased rate of violent crime.  

Since you berated me, have you posted a link that I ignored?  If so I apologize and will read it before responding.  I believe I have a good history of reading and responding to links.  However, I'm not going to go buy a book for a random discussion on a lightly trafficked fantasy football site

25 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

It's the classic example of cherry picking data and creating narratives to fit your agenda, when it should be the other way around.

Hush child, adults are talking.

[BuckSwope 654]

at "berated" 

[Engorgeous George 2,161]

5 hours ago, GutterBoy said:

It's the classic example of cherry picking data and creating narratives to fit your agenda, when it should be the other way around.

Cherry picking narratives and data creating?

[BuckSwope 654]

5 hours ago, GutterBoy said:

It's the classic example of cherry picking data and creating narratives to fit your agenda, when it should be the other way around.

There's a bit of that, but mostly can't even seem to grasp simple stats or just don't want to acknowledge them.  

We can't one side blames guns but often don't know stats and basic facts about guns.  The other side blames mental illness but often don't know stats about mental illness.  

I'd be funny if people weren't dying. 

[Pimpadeaux 2,404]

8 hours ago, jerryskids said:

2. We've created a generation of kids who can't deal with adversity, and it is worsening every day.  From participation trophies to no-fail grading policies to (I feel like a broken record on this site) a growing culture generally lacking in personal responsibility, kids grow up in plastic bubbles unable to deal with challenge.  When it inevitably hits...  This IMO is the single tangible issue we could theoretically get our arms around, but I don't see it happening.

EEYORE ACTIVATED!

[seafoam1 2,806]

5 minutes ago, Pimpadeaux said:

EEYORE ACTIVATED!

Ukraine cheerleader activated. 

[Pimpadeaux 2,404]

22 minutes ago, seafoam1 said:

Ukraine cheerleader activated. 

You're a Putin peter puffer!

Puff that Putin peter, seafart!

[seafoam1 2,806]

1 minute ago, Pimpadeaux said:

You're a Putin peter puffer!

Puff that Putin peter, seafart!

What? I don't think the US should be sending billions to support a war in Europe and that's what you got? 

You are a focking idiot.

[jerryskids 6,578]

51 minutes ago, Pimpadeaux said:

EEYORE ACTIVATED!

Getting your drink on right around 5PM I see.   

Maybe instead of teaching kids to deal with adversity, we could get them a therapy cat.  Do you have any to spare?

[League Champion 1,896]

 

[League Champion 1,896]

On 7/6/2023 at 10:47 PM, GutterBoy said:

The suspect is