|
Who What Now posted:No, they aren't. There is no shortage of support for them online. Just look up at the top of the page/last page to see an article about how Obama should cave into their demands and release the two child abusing arsonists from prison. quote:Meanwhile your evidence that they are "...treated with a combination of fear and derision by pretty much everyone" is... what, exactly? That you feel this way obviously the
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 22:20 |
|
|
Perfectly Safe posted:And one would hope that arrests will be made in due course. Right at the moment, nobody is attempting arrest at any level of law enforcement. The FBI's position at the moment is that they are engaging in a demonstration. As a result, there's no reason to set up a roadblock. It's also logistically very difficult and very expensive to do so, as has been pointed out multiple times. The sole desire for this [e: immediate action] seems to be to see justice done swiftly. I can appreciate that. I just think that it's unwise and impatient. I will be right there with you if there are no repercussions for Bundy et al. lol no, this is not a demonstration. occupy wall street was a demonstration. this is violent insurrection. they are threatening the lives of others, claiming government property for themselves, etc. and yes, justice needs to be done swiftly, because taking 6 months-2 years to do anythig only emboldens these people. and you should be right with me right now since they already did something like this two years ago with no repercussions. quote:I don't know what you mean. They aren't "without media attention" at the moment. their goal is to try to incite their friends into further insurrection. it's working so far quote:So your feeling is that turning it into a siege would dissuade other people from coming to Bundy's aid? It seems to me that the lack of a big face off with the government is something that other similar-minded groups might find rather uninspiring. a blockade is not a siege. if other groups wanna come by and try to break the blockade then they can be arrested and treated like the violent mob they are
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
kartikeya posted:supporters coming out of the woodwork
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Blockading the compound is 1) physically difficult independent of cost, Oh Lordy, wouldn't want anyone to break a sweat or anything. quote:2) is likely to lead to the militants gaining more support (including support from sympathetic locals) As opposed to now, where they are gaining support for actually succeeding in their goals. quote:and 3) is almost certainly going to get people killed. I thought you were listing bad things?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
As a Millennial I posted:Sounds like he's got a case of the prodromal schizophrenia im permabanned poster fedstomper58. i first started playing militiaman when i was about 12. by 14 i got really obsessed with the concept of "constitutionality" and tried to channel it constantly, until my thought process got really bizarre and i would repeat things like "freeman on the land" and "i am a sovereign citizen" in my head for hours, and i would get really paranoid, start seeing things in the corners of my eyes etc, basically prodromal schizophrenia. im now on antipsychotics. i always wondered what the kind of "racist" style of militia humor was all about; i think it's the unconscious leaking in to the conscious, what jungian theory considered to be the cause of schizophrenic and schizotypal syptoms. i would advise all people who "get" militias to be careful because that likely means you have a predisposition to a mental illness. peace.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:00
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Blockading the compound is 1) physically difficult independent of cost, 2) is likely to lead to the militants gaining more support (including support from sympathetic locals) and 3) is almost certainly going to get people killed. first of all, the cost of this occupation is already estimated at 60-70k per day. would a blockade exceed that for the few days it happened as opposed to them holing up in there for months? second, as someone already mentioned they are already gaining more support because the militias are now quite certain that the fed will do nothing about their bad behavior. and third, there should be no deaths unless the militia breaks their promise to be non-violent, and if they would for a blockade, why wouldn't they get violent for any other perceived slight (like the sheriff not agreeing with them)?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:it's like 15 guys Uh, no, pretty sure there are a lot more than fifteen dudes voicing support. Maybe only fifteen new dudes are actually there in the area right now (I have no idea what stupid militant is with who right now), but they've got a lot more people in the media and on the net and on the street who are starting to say 'you know what? These dudes are right and this is totally just a protest and I support them. And the Sovereign Citizens movement is massive. Militias are only a small (and growing) part of their toxic nonsense. As for those fifteen dudes on site? That's fifteen more guns to be aimed at law enforcement, when law enforcement was reluctant to do anything when it was all of fifteen guys occupying the place in total.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:03
|
|
|
kartikeya posted:Uh, no, pretty sure there are a lot more than fifteen dudes voicing support. Maybe only fifteen new dudes are actually there in the area right now (I have no idea what stupid militant is with who right now), but they've got a lot more people in the media and on the net and on the street who are starting to say 'you know what? These dudes are right and this is totally just a protest and I support them. And the Sovereign Citizens movement is massive. Militias are only a small (and growing) part of their toxic nonsense. they have to keep growing or they die. the media attention is on the way out, they're not going to keep momentum, I don't even think they HAVE momentum
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:06
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Again, the federal government is going to be able to swoop in and arrest Bundy et al for years over that episode- preferably sometime after he stops being surrounded by men with ARs. The main difference now is they may be able to charge everyone involved under RICO. They even gave the guy his already seized cattle back, this is never going to happen.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:they have to keep growing or they die. the media attention is on the way out, they're not going to keep momentum, I don't even think they HAVE momentum So, okay, you've stopped reading stuff again.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:Dude couldn't find a charity that needed a grand? The CAH people and that guy actually do give a lot to charity. They usually put out a "what do we do with your money" thing, and aside from funny poo poo, most of it is charity donations.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
Reminder: the first time Cliven scared the federales off his case with a threat of violence was in the mid 90s. But don't worry, they'll get all these guys. Any day now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:11
|
|
|
kartikeya posted:So, okay, you've stopped reading stuff again. they've got people trickling in - and out. we've had multiple stories about people leaving now, as well. Yesterday there was basically no new information other than "no, we won't let you use public property for your dumb community meeting" we're a little over a week in, the initial donations from their supporters has come and there have been virtually no stories about additional arrivals since the original harassment stories. public support for a cause isn't a long-haul thing. It's something you spike initially and it drops off immediately. they need massive, public displays of real success and momentum if they don't want all support - donations and recruits, to go away
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:13
|
|
|
Intel&Sebastian posted:Reminder: the first time Cliven scared the federales off his case with a threat of violence was in the mid 90s. And remember, not confronting them is making them feel awfully silly and not at all emboldening them to pull more and more dangerous stunts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
Mormon Star Wars posted:They even gave the guy his already seized cattle back, this is never going to happen. They did not give them back- not that such a fact would be legally relevant. A large group of his henchmen, armed with guns, seized them. Condiv posted:first of all, the cost of this occupation is already estimated at 60-70k per day. would a blockade exceed that for the few days it happened as opposed to them holing up in there for months? second, as someone already mentioned they are already gaining more support because the militias are now quite certain that the fed will do nothing about their bad behavior. and third, there should be no deaths unless the militia breaks their promise to be non-violent, and if they would for a blockade, why wouldn't they get violent for any other perceived slight (like the sheriff not agreeing with them)? Do you have some sort of cyclic emotional disorder? You were accepting that you were wrong about this less than 2 days ago, citing the sources I posted here, that you're now ignoring again.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:15
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:it's like 15 guys Well, there's like 300 likes on their twitter. Out of 300 million people...my god, it's Red Dawn from within!
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:17
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:They did not give them back- not that such a fact would be legally relevant. A large group of his henchmen, armed with guns, seized them. So they really can just take whatever they want with impunity then. And this is a good thing, how?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:17
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:And remember, not confronting them is making them feel awfully silly and not at all emboldening them to pull more and more dangerous stunts. Wouldn't want to start another Waco without helping the Dude Ranch Davidians do a few dry runs and get their tactics and grievances dialed in for maximum damage.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:19
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:So they really can just take whatever they want with impunity then. And this is a good thing, how? Impunity would require that they never be charged or arrested. Again, this can happen sometime in the next, I dunno, 20 years?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:20
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:They did not give them back- not that such a fact would be legally relevant. A large group of his henchmen, armed with guns, seized them. uh, maybe you have me confused with someone else. i don't have a single post 2 days ago that could be construed as agreeing with what you just posted. i responded to a similar post of yours on the 9th, but i most certainly disagreed with you
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:they've got people trickling in - and out. we've had multiple stories about people leaving now, as well. Yesterday there was basically no new information other than "no, we won't let you use public property for your dumb community meeting" Like I said, you've stopped reading. Since you quoted JJ MacNab already, feel free to go back through her twitter feed for yesterday and actually read what she's writing. You might even read what other people are reporting, but baby steps. If you feel really bold, you could also try reading the link I just posted (she retweeted it yesterday even) about literal terrorism going on since before the occupation even began, but of course we just can't prove for sure these are the militants so they're probably just some random dudes from out of state completely unaffiliated with anything in the tiny town of Burns who just decided to drive cross-country to scare random pastors, police wives, BLM employees and children for kicks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
Intel&Sebastian posted:Wouldn't want to start another Waco without helping the Dude Ranch Davidians do a few dry runs and get their tactics and grievances dialed in for maximum damage. Correct, I am glad you agree with the FBI former deputy assistant director of terrorism operations, who previously was successful at negotiating a peaceful resolution to a standoff with a radical religious sect that was threatening to kill federal agents.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Impunity would require that they never be charged or arrested. Again, this can happen sometime in the next, I dunno, 20 years? Oh man, they are gonna be so hosed in 2036. I'm sure by that time they won't have ex alarmed and killed anybody. I'm so glad that time and care is being taken so that these assholes have plenty of time to rack up a respectable kill count instead of doing anything to prevent that. Edit: theflyingorc posted:Correct, I am glad you agree with the FBI former deputy assistant director of terrorism operations, who previously was successful at negotiating a peaceful resolution to a standoff with a radical religious sect that was threatening to kill federal agents. And I'm sure that ended with the terrorists being left alone and not arrested for 20 years.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:25
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Oh no, the government might spend money!! Truly there can be no greater outcome than this. It's much more reasonable to let them stay where they are indefinitely to the tune of around 70k per day for god knows how long. That's a much more fiscally responsible decision. Glad you were here to remind us Fiscal Conservatives here in The Problem Attic of this fact. Expending more resources to force a situation that you don't want is...bad. Again, you're so reliant on incredulity and sarcasm that I can't tell what your point is. Expensively doing the wrong thing isn't good. I don't know what else to tell you. Who What Now posted:No, they aren't. There is no shortage of support for them online. Just look up at the top of the page/last page to see an article about how Obama should cave into their demands and release the two child abusing arsonists from prison. The referenced blog post is kinder to the Hammonds than the militia, which is understandable. Few will disagree that mandatory minimums create problems. In any case: Vast majority of the townsfolk want them gone. Other militias instantly disagreed with their methods. Republicans in a race for the party nomination distanced themselves from cowboys saying bad things about government. Mainstream press has taken a broadly negative tack. Social media appears less enamoured with these guys than it has been with people shooting unarmed black teenagers. I mean, I'm sure if you go to the federalist or freep then you'll find support for these guys. But the point is that the support lies on the fringes. Condiv posted:lol no, this is not a demonstration. occupy wall street was a demonstration. this is violent insurrection. they are threatening the lives of others, claiming government property for themselves, etc. and yes, justice needs to be done swiftly, because taking 6 months-2 years to do anythig only emboldens these people. and you should be right with me right now since they already did something like this two years ago with no repercussions. The feds' position right now is nonetheless that this is a demonstration. Obviously that's not supposed to be an accurate description of what's going on. Condiv posted:their goal is to try to incite their friends into further insurrection. it's working so far In what way? Condiv posted:a blockade is not a siege. if other groups wanna come by and try to break the blockade then they can be arrested and treated like the violent mob they are Blockading creates a siege. If you're not letting supplies in and restricting movement, that's a siege.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Impunity would require that they never be charged or arrested. Again, this can happen sometime in the next, I dunno, 20 years? Michael Brown will be thrilled
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
Perfectly Safe posted:The feds' position right now is nonetheless that this is a demonstration. Obviously that's not supposed to be an accurate description of what's going on. yes, it's a very inaccurate description of what's going on quote:In what way? well they've doubled their numbers, how's that? quote:Blockading creates a siege. If you're not letting supplies in and restricting movement, that's a siege. true in the most pedantic sense possible, but holding a purely defensive position and turning away supplies does not lead to violence unless the militia decides to turn to violence.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
Intel&Sebastian posted:Reminder: the first time Cliven scared the federales off his case with a threat of violence was in the mid 90s. some time in the next 20 years I'm sure
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:Correct, I am glad you agree with the FBI former deputy assistant director of terrorism operations, who previously was successful at negotiating a peaceful resolution to a standoff with a radical religious sect that was threatening to kill federal agents. I'm sure the las vegas shooting victims, town of Burns and the next town to host shootypalooza are thrilled. And seeing as we're posting in a thread about his sons taking over a federal building at gunpoint I question how peaceful and resolved that peaceful resolution is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:33
|
|
|
Perfectly Safe posted:Expending more resources to force a situation that you don't want is...bad. Again, you're so reliant on incredulity and sarcasm that I can't tell what your point is. Expensively doing the wrong thing isn't good. I don't know what else to tell you. I agree, allowing them to continue this occupation indefinitely to the tune of $70k+ per day is expensive and wrong, this should have been stopped on day two. Right now the government is letting them do whatever they want, which is exactly what they want. Weird how your staunch fiscal conservatism and concern with not giving the terrorists what they're after only extends to the hypothetical and not to what's actually happening at this moment. They should have been blockaded and sieged. Let them be martyrs if they want.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:Correct, I am glad you agree with the FBI former deputy assistant director of terrorism operations, who previously was successful at negotiating a peaceful resolution to a standoff with a radical religious sect that was threatening to kill federal agents. quote:In April 1985, Coulson commanded an FBI hostage rescue team that isolated and contained a radical paramilitary organization -- the Covenant, the Sword and The Arm of the Lord -- holed up in a compound in Arkansas. About 300 federal agents surrounded the compound in the middle of the night and Coulson personally negotiated with the group's leader and ultimately secured their surrender without any violence. In that case, federal fugitives were arriving and the radical group was professing plans to kill federal officials. Coulson is not on scene and is not a member of the FBI any more. He's expressing an opinion that the current situation is different from this one that he helped end, and unfortunately reports from the area and statements from the militants themselves contradict his take on things. People can agree with him or disagree with him (I heartily disagree with him, obviously, but I'm also not a former FBI dude with direct experience), but there's what actually happened when he pulled that off. Oh, gosh, it's kind've like what most people in this thread have been advocating for from the beginning. Shockingly, 'isolating and containing' them did not end up with another Waco, and Coulson's opinion here is that the current militants in Oregon are not as dangerous as the guys he sieged then talked down and haven't quite reached the point at which that would be necessary. Again, you can agree or disagree, but the guy you're referencing used the exact tactics you keep claiming will inevitably lead to a bloodbath no possible exceptions allowed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:36
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:It's bizarre to me that they have broken a stack of laws and are still not arrested when they leave the compound. I think what is happening is that the county doesn't have the resources to take them down, so they are deferring to the Feds- who won't step in until after a certain time frame (14 days?).
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:38
|
|
|
Let's say a blockade is set up. Then Bundy and friends gather up their guns, march down to the blockade, and demand to be let through. Two options: 1) you let them through, you look weak, and it's not really an effective blockade, or 2) you enforce the blockade, don't let them through, and suddenly you have the armed standoff the whole group was waiting for. Even a 'nonviolent' blockade will become a violent one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:40
|
|
|
Cantorsdust posted:Let's say a blockade is set up. Then Bundy and friends gather up their guns, march down to the blockade, and demand to be let through. Two options: 1) you let them through, you look weak, and it's not really an effective blockade, or 2) you enforce the blockade, don't let them through, and suddenly you have the armed standoff the whole group was waiting for. Even a 'nonviolent' blockade will become a violent one. quote:In April 1985, Coulson commanded an FBI hostage rescue team that isolated and contained a radical paramilitary organization -- the Covenant, the Sword and The Arm of the Lord -- holed up in a compound in Arkansas. About 300 federal agents surrounded the compound in the middle of the night and Coulson personally negotiated with the group's leader and ultimately secured their surrender without any violence. In that case, federal fugitives were arriving and the radical group was professing plans to kill federal officials.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
Cantorsdust posted:Let's say a blockade is set up. Then Bundy and friends gather up their guns, march down to the blockade, and demand to be let through. Two options: 1) you let them through, you look weak, and it's not really an effective blockade, or 2) you enforce the blockade, don't let them through, and suddenly you have the armed standoff the whole group was waiting for. Even a 'nonviolent' blockade will become a violent one. Good.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:44
|
|
|
Cantorsdust posted:Let's say a blockade is set up. Then Bundy and friends gather up their guns, march down to the blockade, and demand to be let through. Two options: 1) you let them through, you look weak, and it's not really an effective blockade, or 2) you enforce the blockade, don't let them through, and suddenly you have the armed standoff the whole group was waiting for. Even a 'nonviolent' blockade will become a violent one. that's entirely on the militia then. if they want to be violent we can't shy away from that. that being said i do not support the fbi rushing in and straight out causing a violent confrontation
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
Vienna Circlejerk posted:The Bundy ranch standoff went the way it did because the BLM decided not to press the issue. It was the BLM's shitshow, top to bottom. And also because local law enforcement refused to get involved and instead publicly blamed the BLM for the standoff happening in the first place. SedanChair posted:The longer they wait, the more likely future killers will congregate there. McVeigh was at Waco loitering around and talking to press. Good. It's better for them to come out and publicly associate with this stuff now, rather than sitting at home watching it on TV and keeping their radical views secret until their violent attack is ready to be launched. General_Disturbed posted:In actual reality land, they continue to get more supporters showing up every day. A lot of the militias that were condemning them early on are showing up now, heavily armed. They've been going around to the FBI staging area and the sheriff's staging area with their assault rifles doing shows of force, and making any law enforcement they see take their stupid pamplets that have their list of grievances on them. As far as militias are concerned, everything's a victory. What's most important is that the militias are seeing that no violence came of this. That's why it's not a problem that militias are showing up and shacking up with them this late in the game. The ones to be concerned about are the ones who showed up on Days 1 and 2 ready to die for the cause, not the ones who waited a full week for fear of violent crackdown before they finally worked up the nerve to show up and pass out pamphlets. Sure, maybe it'll lead to another occupation in this style - but now that they've seen that they're not going to have SWAT teams lurking in every shadow, it's less likely that violence will be involved (purposely or accidentally) in those future acts of civil disobedience. And just in case there's any violent wackos getting inspired by this, everyone who shows up is going to end up on an FBI watchlist anyway! CommieGIR posted:gently caress, they really are going to stay, are they. It hasn't even been a month yet. Occupy Wall Street lasted two months before being kicked out, IIRC, and some Occupy movements in other areas lasted years. Have some patience, geez. Don't worry, it won't last as long as Occupy did since these are grown adults with businesses and families, not burnout hippies and bored college kids living off their student loans, but they're still right in the midst of their fifteen minutes of fame, so they're not going to leave while attention-seeking elected officials are making pilgrimages to worship at their altar. Thump! posted:Stealing and defacing government property is certainly a crime, isn't it? Yeah. It's probably a misdemeanor punishable by a three-digit fine or a couple months in prison. Hardly worth breaking out the tear gas for. Condiv posted:lol no, this is not a demonstration. occupy wall street was a demonstration. this is violent insurrection. they are threatening the lives of others, claiming government property for themselves, etc. and yes, justice needs to be done swiftly, because taking 6 months-2 years to do anythig only emboldens these people. and you should be right with me right now since they already did something like this two years ago with no repercussions. Wow, this is just the wrongest post. Literally every single sentence in it is incorrect. Not that it matters though since every time I post verified and verifiable factual information, often with links to the source, I'm met with nothing more than opinion-laden totally unsourced hyperbole about how this terrifyingly violent treasonous rebellion is going to inspire a revolution and conquer the country if not utterly crushed by law enforcement, which will be easy because they're so weak and dumb and helpless and their few supporters will abandon them at the first sign of violence!
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:49
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:It hasn't even been a month yet. Occupy Wall Street lasted two months before being kicked out, IIRC, and some Occupy movements in other areas lasted years. Have some patience, geez. Don't worry, it won't last as long as Occupy did since these are grown adults with businesses and families, not burnout hippies and bored college kids living off their student loans, but they're still right in the midst of their fifteen minutes of fame, so they're not going to leave while attention-seeking elected officials are making pilgrimages to worship at their altar.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Wow, this is just the wrongest post. Literally every single sentence in it is incorrect. Not that it matters though since every time I post verified and verifiable factual information, often with links to the source, I'm met with nothing more than opinion-laden totally unsourced hyperbole about how this terrifyingly violent treasonous rebellion is going to inspire a revolution and conquer the country if not utterly crushed by law enforcement, which will be easy because they're so weak and dumb and helpless and their few supporters will abandon them at the first sign of violence! i don't think they'll conquer the country, but further violence? yeah that's a very real concern. and no one's asking for them to be utterly crushed, just for them to be arrested and made to answer for their crimes. guess that's just too much to ask huh?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
Condiv posted:yes, it's a very inaccurate description of what's going on We don't need to labour the point here. The feds have take this position for reasons which I think you understand. Condiv posted:well they've doubled their numbers, how's that? Given their original numbers, almost completely insignificant. Condiv posted:true in the most pedantic sense possible, but holding a purely defensive position and turning away supplies does not lead to violence unless the militia decides to turn to violence. You're wearing me out here. That's a siege. If you blockade to prevent passage of supplies and people with the intent of forcing the people inside to surrender due to the various discomforts and dangers related to not being able to get supplies or move around, primarily thirst, starvation and lack of medical treatment. ...that's a siege. In any case, I get that you disagree that laying siege to an occupied wildlife reserve in winter is counterproductive. Who What Now posted:I agree, allowing them to continue this occupation indefinitely to the tune of $70k+ per day is expensive and wrong, this should have been stopped on day two. Right now the government is letting them do whatever they want, which is exactly what they want. Weird how your staunch fiscal conservatism and concern with not giving the terrorists what they're after only extends to the hypothetical and not to what's actually happening at this moment. Ok, we just have different goals in mind. There's no need for anyone to die here, I would prefer that nobody did, and blockading is estimated to cost upwards of a million dollars per day, so it would have to be a short siege if you specifically wanted to save money. It seems likely to me that other militia groups would turn up were blockades put in place.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 22:20 |
|
|
"They've Doubled their numbers" Looks like the revolution is on guys they went from 10 to 20 men strong. And three fifths a man "Of Color" WAR CRIME GIGOLO fucked around with this message at 18:04 on Jan 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:59
|
|
