Court favors disclosing anti-gay marr...

Court favors disclosing anti-gay marriage donors

There are 1781 comments on the KCRA-TV Sacramento story from May 20, 2014, titled Court favors disclosing anti-gay marriage donors. In it, KCRA-TV Sacramento reports that:

Same-sex marriage opponents can't keep the identities of their campaign donors secret, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday in upholding a lower court decision.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at KCRA-TV Sacramento.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#1468 Jul 6, 2014
Unless you can look at a neonate and say it's gay or straight, it's not a birth defect.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/06/26 ...
"With infant gender assignment, in a single moment your baby's life is instantly and brutally reduced from such infinite potentials down to one concrete set of expectations and stereotypes, and any behavioral deviation from that will be severely punished—both intentionally through bigotry, and unintentionally through ignorance. That doctor (and the power structure behind him) plays a pivotal role in imposing those limits on helpless infants, without their consent, and without your informed consent as a parent. This issue deserves serious consideration by every parent, because no matter what gender identity your child ultimately adopts, infant gender assignment has effects that will last through their whole life."
Because of a sexual birth defect that affects 4% of the population, we want to foolishly attempt to manipulate the remaining 96% who experience congruity between their sex, gender and genitals.
Why? Because a denial that LGBT is a sexual birth defect requires it.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#1469 Jul 6, 2014
I don't recall any gay people voting her in as our spokesperson. Since she's referring to a polygamous arrangement, it doesn't even refer to civil marriage.
KiMare wrote:
http://www.nationalreview.com/ corner/381148/state-dept-lgbt- speaker-we-dont-want-gay-marri age-we-want-no-marriage-ian-tu ttle
"I agree that we should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it is a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist.... Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we’re going to do with marriage when we get there, because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change, and again, I don’t think it should exist."

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#1471 Jul 7, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
Unless you can look at a neonate and say it's gay or straight, it's not a birth defect.
<quoted text>
You didn't read the article.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#1472 Jul 7, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
I don't recall any gay people voting her in as our spokesperson. Since she's referring to a polygamous arrangement, it doesn't even refer to civil marriage.
<quoted text>
She carries the dumbing down of marriage to it's logical and Constitutional end.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#1473 Jul 7, 2014
"Democracy has been defined as two wolves and a sheep discussing plans for lunch."

"Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#1474 Jul 7, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
So a man will be a mom?
Is that c-section, or penile delivery?
Are you looking forward to nursing?
How's that child going to feel saying, "Hi mom!" in front of other kids with their moms???
Smirk.
GOD CAUSES ADULTERY: "This is what the Lord says:'Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity upon you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight. You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel" (2 Sam. 12:11-12).

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#1475 Jul 7, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
So a mom is going to be a dad?
Even if you compared a dyke to a sissy man, it still won't be the same.
What a horrible perversion to impose on a child!
Christianity is the horrible perversion when it is imposed on a child:

Punishment of children is one thing; child abuse is another. And, unfortunately, many biblical verses can be easily used to justify the former by means of the latter:
Prov. 23:13-14 ("Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell"),
Prov. 22:15 RSV ("Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline drives it far from him"),
Prov. 20:30 RSV ("Blows that wound cleanse away evil; strokes make clean the innermost parts"),
Prov. 13:24 RSV ("He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him"),
Prov. 19:19 ("Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for his crying"),
Prov. 29:15 ("Thy rod and reproof give wisdom, but a child left to himself brings shame to his mother"),
Prov. 26:3 ("A whip for the horse, a bridle for the ass, and a rod for the fool's back <children are often foolish>"), and
Deut. 21:18-21 ("If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son, who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they chastise him, will not give heed to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city...and they shall say to the elders of his city,'This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard. Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones; so you shall purge the evil from the midst").

And, then, there are those verses which demean and degrade children by looking upon them as little more than beings to be punished for the misdeeds of others:
Ex. 20:5 ("I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me"),
Lev. 26:22 ("I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children...."),
Hosea 13:16 ("Samaria shall become desolate: for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword; their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up"), and
Isa. 13:16-18 ("Their infants will be dashed in pieces before their eyes; their houses will be plundered and their wives ravished.... Their bows will slaughter the young men; they will have no mercy on the first of the womb; their eyes will not pity children").

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#1476 Jul 7, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
Isn't it worse to inflict a sister-murdering sideshow attraction on a child?
<quoted text>
What is worse is inflicting the Bible on a child.

Punishment of children is one thing; child abuse is another. And, unfortunately, many biblical verses can be easily used to justify the former by means of the latter:
Prov. 23:13-14 ("Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell"),
Prov. 22:15 RSV ("Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline drives it far from him"),
Prov. 20:30 RSV ("Blows that wound cleanse away evil; strokes make clean the innermost parts"),
Prov. 13:24 RSV ("He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him"),
Prov. 19:19 ("Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for his crying"),
Prov. 29:15 ("Thy rod and reproof give wisdom, but a child left to himself brings shame to his mother"),
Prov. 26:3 ("A whip for the horse, a bridle for the ass, and a rod for the fool's back <children are often foolish>"), and
Deut. 21:18-21 ("If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son, who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they chastise him, will not give heed to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city...and they shall say to the elders of his city,'This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard. Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones; so you shall purge the evil from the midst").

And, then, there are those verses which demean and degrade children by looking upon them as little more than beings to be punished for the misdeeds of others:
Ex. 20:5 ("I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me"),
Lev. 26:22 ("I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children...."),
Hosea 13:16 ("Samaria shall become desolate: for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword; their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up"), and
Isa. 13:16-18 ("Their infants will be dashed in pieces before their eyes; their houses will be plundered and their wives ravished.... Their bows will slaughter the young men; they will have no mercy on the first of the womb; their eyes will not pity children").

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#1477 Jul 7, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Thus far, you've proven too stupid to offer a compelling governmental interest served by such a restriction that would render it constitutional.
That reply is gobbledygook lides.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#1478 Jul 7, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/ sexual birth defect requires it.
THE GOD WHO SAYS 'DO NOT KILL', KILLS REPEATEDLY:
"there came out a fire from the Lord, and consumed the 250 men that offered incense" (Num. 16:35).
"the Lord sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died" (Num. 21:6).
"See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound and I heal...." (Deut. 32:39).
"The Lord smote the men of Beth-shemesh, because they had looked into the ark of the Lord, even he smote of the people 50,070 men: and the people lamented, because the Lord had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter" (1 Sam. 6:19).
"The Lord kills, and makes alive: he brings down to the grave, and brings up" (1 Sam. 2:6).
"the hand of the Lord was heavy upon them of Ashdod, and he destroyed them, and smote them...." (1 Sam. 5:6).
"it came to pass about 10 days after, that the Lord smote Nabal, that he died" (1 Sam. 25:38).
"Who smote great nations and slew mighty kings...." (Psalms 135:10).
"For by fire and by his sword will the Lord plead with all flesh: and the slain of the Lord shall be many" (Isaiah 66:16).
"I will dash them one against another, even the father and the sons together, saith the Lord: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them" (Jer. 13:14).
"I have sent among you the pestilence after the manner of Egypt: your young men have I slain with the sword...." (Amos 4:10).
"For our God is a consuming fire" (Heb. 12:29).

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#1479 Jul 7, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, kiddo. You are still an idiot making an utterly irrelevant argument.
And you are an idiot if you think he believes you.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#1481 Jul 7, 2014
KiMare wrote:
I don’t think....."
(1) What color was the robe that was put on Jesus? Scarlet--Matt. 27:28 ("And they stripped him, and put on a scarlet robe") versus purple--Mark 15:17 ("And they clothed him with purple....") and John 19:2 ("...and they put on him a purple robe").
(2) When was the robe put on Jesus? During his trial--John 19:1-2, 15 ("Then Pilate took Jesus, and scourged him. And the soldiers...put on him a purple robe.... Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King?") versus after Pilate delivered him to be crucified--Matt. 27:26-28 ("Then released he Barrabas unto them; and when he had scourged Jesus he delivered him to be crucified. Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into a common hall,...stripped him and put on him a scarlet robe") and Mark 15:15-17 ("And so Pilate, willing to content the people...delivered Jesus, when he had scourged him, to be crucified. And the soldiers led him away into the hall...and they clothed him with purple").
(3) At what hour was Jesus crucified? The third hour--Mark 15:25 ("And it was the third hour, and they crucified him") versus before the sixth hour--Luke 23:43-44 ("And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise. And it was about the sixth hour....") versus after the sixth hour--John 19:14-16 ("...and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your king! But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him.... Then delivered he him unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led him away") to be crucified later.
(4) What was the inscription on the Cross? "This is Jesus the King of the Jews" (Matt. 27:37) versus "The King of the Jews" (Mark 15:26) versus "This is the King of the Jews" (Luke 23:38) versus "Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews" (John 19:19).
(5) For what did the soldiers at the Cross cast lots? His garments--Matt. 27:35 ("they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots") and Mark 15:24 ("And when they had crucified him, they parted his garments, casting lots upon them, what every man should take") and Luke 23:34 ("... And they parted his raiment, and cast lots") versus his coat alone--John 19:23-24 ("Then the soldiers when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also his coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout. They said therefore among themselves, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be....").

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#1482 Jul 7, 2014
(6) What was Jesus given to drink? Vinegar--Matt. 27:48 ("And straightaway one of them ran, and took a sponge, and filled it with vinegar, and...gave him to drink") and Luke 23:36 ("And the soldiers also mocked him, coming to him and offering him vinegar") and John 19:29-30 ("Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a sponge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth. When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished....") versus vinegar mingled with gall--Matt. 27:34 ("They gave him vinegar to drink mingled with gall") versus wine mingled with myrrh--Mark 15:23 ("And they gave him to drink wine mingled with myrrh; but he received it not").
(7) When Jesus got the sponge filled with vinegar, who said they would see if Elijah would come to his rescue? The person who actually gave him the sponge--Mark 15:36 ("And one ran and filled a sponge full of vinegar and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink, saying, Let alone; let us see whether Elias will come to take him down") versus those with the person who gave him the sponge--Matt. 27:48-49 ("And straightaway one of them ran, and took a sponge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink. The rest said, Let be, let us see whether Elias will come to save him").
(8) How many of the thieves on the Cross reviled Jesus? One--Luke 23:39-40 RSV ("One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him, saying,'Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!' But the other rebuked him, saying, Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation?") versus both--Matt. 27:44 RSV ("And the robbers who were crucified with him also reviled him in the same way") and Mark 15:32 ("And they that were crucified with him reviled him").
(9) Who were the named women watching the Crucifixion? Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's children--Matt. 27:55-56 versus Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the less and Joses and Salome--Mark 15:40 versus Jesus' mother, his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene--John 19:25.(10) From where did the women observe the Crucifixion? From afar--Matt. 27:55-56 ("And many were beholding afar off...among which was Mary Magdalene...") and Luke 23:49 ("...and the women that followed him from Galilee, stood afar off, beholding these things") and Mark 15:40 ("There were also women looking on afar off; among whom was Mary Magdalene,....") versus near the cross--John 19:25 ("now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene").

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#1483 Jul 7, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
Unless you can look at a neonate and say it's gay or straight, it's not a birth defect.
<quoted text>
That is illogical.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#1484 Jul 7, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
I don't recall any gay people voting her in as our spokesperson. Since she's referring to a polygamous arrangement, it doesn't even refer to civil marriage.
<quoted text>
You were not voted in either, but that doesn't stop you from pretending.

GOD DOESN'T KNOW ALL. Even though Prov. 15:3 ("The eyes of the Lord are in every place, keeping watch on the evil and the good") says god sees everything that goes on, the following verses deny his omniscience.
•"the Lord God called to Adam, and said to him, Where art thou?" (Gen. 3:9).
•"the Lord said to Cain,'Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast?" (Gen. 4:6).
•"the Lord said to Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper?" (Gen. 4:9).
•"Then the Lord said,...I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know" (Gen. 18:20-21).
•"Remember how the Lord your God led you all the way in the desert these forty years, to humble you and to test you in order to know what was in your heart, whether or not you would keep his commands" (Deut. 8:2).
•"you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The Lord your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul" (Deut. 13:3).
•"The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God" (Psalm 14:2).
•"This is what the Sovereign Lord says: Have you come to inquire of me? As surely as I live, I will not let you inquire of me, declares the Sovereign Lord" (Ezek. 20:3).
Yet, God does know all according to Prov. 15:3 which says, "The eyes of the Lord are in every place, keeping watch on the evil and the good."

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#1485 Jul 7, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You didn't read the article.
You didn't read the Bible.

One of the most discussed contradictions in free thought literature is the clash between the genealogies of Jesus found in Matt. 1 and Luke 3. One need only read the text to see that Luke traces the genealogy of Jesus from Jesus back to Adam and God while Matthew begins with Abraham and tracks it to Jesus. Luke lists 77 generations while Matthew has only 44. In order to see the problem in proper perspective one should create a chart listing the names in correct sequence in parallel columns. If horizontal lines are drawn to connect the same names, one can easily see that the lists are almost identical from Abraham to David. However, from David onward there is no similarity despite the fact that they both conclude with Joseph as the father of Jesus. The major reason for the contradictory names given after David is that the account in Luke traces the genealogy through David's son, Nathan, while that in Matthew traces it through another son, Solomon. This would easily account for the wide divergence in names following David but raises a couple of crucial questions:

(a) How could Joseph and Jesus be descended from two different sons of David. How could two sons of David father two completely different genealogies which merge together with the last two individuals and
(b) How could Jesus have contradictory genealogies?

Few apologists deny differences exist so that's not in dispute. The real issue revolves around the common explanation given by most biblicists for two widely different genealogies of the same man. Their strategy hinges on a rather simple ploy. Jesus' genealogy is allegedly traced through Joseph in Matthew and Mary in Luke. Unfortunately for them, the shortcomings in their rationalization are equally simple.

First, Mary's name is nowhere to be found in Luke's genealogy. Everybody's name is mentioned but hers. Imagine a genealogy in which every name is mentioned but that of the person whose lineage is being traced!
Second, there is no genealogical record of any woman in the entire Bible. Are we to believe Mary is an exception?
Third, Joseph's name is mentioned in Luke's genealogy so one can reasonably conclude that it's his lineage, not Mary's.
Fourth, and last, according to OT prophecy, the Messiah would be a physical descendant of David. Mary appears to have been from the house of Levi, not David, since her cousin, Elizabeth (Luke 1:36) was a daughter of Aaron (Luke 1:5), i.e., from the house of Levi. If Mary was from the house of Aaron, how could either genealogy be hers since they relate David's lineage? On the other hand, Luke 1:27 and 2:4 show Joseph was of Davidic descent. The attempt to attribute Luke's genealogy to Mary is one of the more transparent subterfuges employed by dishonest apologists. Desperation set in because they just couldn't think of any other rationalization.

Another reason for their devious ploy is that it solves a problem created by the Virgin Birth. According to prophecy the Messiah must be a physical descendant of David. If Jesus' only connection to David is through Joseph, then Jesus couldn't be physically connected to David because the birth was virginal; Joseph was not his biological father. So apologists must attribute one of the genealogies to Mary in order to extend a physical connection from Jesus to David. Hence, the rationalization. One can only wonder why they didn't apply the genealogy in Matthew to Mary instead of the one in Luke since one is no more applicable to her than the other.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#1486 Jul 7, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
She carries the dumbing down of marriage to it's logical and Constitutional end.
One of the more interesting biblical teachings, which fundamentalists detest with all the vigor of a Hitler expounding on the Jews, is the concept of universalism, i.e., the belief that everyone is going to be saved, regardless. There are no exceptions. Denying it has any biblical basis or support, apologists try to avoid discussing the topic and relevant verses as much as possible. But, unfortunately, for them, it can't be shoved under the rug. Although universalism is subject to criticism (but what biblical concept isn't), there are at least 18 verses which lend impressive, if not convincing, credence thereto. JOHN 12:32 ("And I, if I be lifted up from the earth will draw all men unto me"), 1 COR. 15:22 ("For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive"), MARK 3:28 ("Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the Sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme"), ROM. 5:18 ("Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life"), ROM. 11:32 RSV ("For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy upon all"), 1 JOHN 2:2 ("And he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world"), JOHN 1:29 ("Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world") and 1 TIM. 4:10 ("...we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe") are particularly potent and often quoted by proponents of universalism.

Other relevant verses in this regard are JOHN 1:9 ("That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world"), 1 TIM. 2:4 ("Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth"), HEB. 2:9 ("But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man"), 2 COR. 5:19 ("To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation"), EPH. 1:10 ("That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him"), ACTS 3:21 ("Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began"), COL. 1:19-20 ("For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; And having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven"), PHIL. 2:10 ("That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth"), TITUS 2:11 ("For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men"), and 2 PETER 3:9 ("The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance"). With verses such as these is it any wonder that universalism has always had adherents within the Christian community.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#1487 Jul 7, 2014
I can't access the original article, and the part you copied was about physical gender, not sexual orientation.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You didn't read the article.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#1488 Jul 7, 2014
"Dumbing down of marriage"? Heteros have been doing that quite successfully for centuries. However, the person was talking about polygamy, which is an illegal activity; it has nothing to do with legal marriage on any level.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
She carries the dumbing down of marriage to it's logical and Constitutional end.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#1489 Jul 7, 2014
No, you're just too stupid to understand it.
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
That reply is gobbledygook lides.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Autos Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Original Autel MaxiSYS Elite J2534 ECU Program ... 15 hr OBD2TOOL 2
Lonsdor K518ise key programmer Free update – Fiat 15 hr OBD2TOOL 2
XTOOL X-100 PAD Tablet Key Programmer (Nov '15) 15 hr OBD2TOOL 23
News Retiring NASCAR star Danica Patrick hopes to ha... Jan 19 Oink pharts 6
News Video: RC toy car cruises down Houston freeway ... Jan 18 LONG FARTS 3
What is the most reliable engine ever made? (Aug '08) Jan 16 Retired Master Tech 218
More toyota Junk (Jun '07) Jan 12 Canada Rocks 338
BMW ISTA-D Rheingold 4.05.23 free dwonload her... (May '17) Jan 7 OBD2TOOL 6
More from around the web