Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 117

Thread: Steven Crowder versus Vox/Carlos Maza

  1. #81
    I also laughed when reading this guys bio that he got in some altercation like five years ago protesting for right to work/at will hiring policies for corporations. That he now finds himself in this spot is amusing considering thatís what this essentially is. He posts his videos at their discretion and they have the right to tell him to get lost whenever they want. He fought for companies to not even need a reason to fire people.

     
    Comments
      
      MumblesBadly: I laughed when it said he was an “actor”. Shee-it! He was mostly a teenage voice actor in a kids show, then had a few gigs after that before jumping ship to rightwing political comedytary.

  2. #82
    Quote Originally Posted by BCR View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by blake View Post
    mumbles, if you don't think the programmers at these tech companies (located in silicon valley) are overwhelmingly liberal, you're a lost cause. and you've obviously never been in san jose

    Itís not as if they were seeking out people to censor. I guarantee they hated to even see this cross their desk. This isnít some liberals trying to silence conservative speech issue. This idiot went out of his way to pick a fight with this dude, and not just insult his ideas which no one gives a single fuck about if he sticks to that, but went to insulting his sexuality despite that being a clear violation of the siteís policy. And any businesses policy. Iíd get fired from chik-fil-a if I was insulting customerís sexuality regardless of the ownerís being right wing nutjobs. Itís simply unacceptable behavior in modern culture, and particularly idiotic when someone gives you a platform to enrich yourself and you know how the world works.

    They make money off him. If they were left wing idealists more than capitalists, they ban him a lot time ago. They didnít give a shit about his content until it threatens their advertising money. At any point if he costs them a single cent more than he makes them, they should shitcan him. Theyíre a company. They arenít some charity subsidizing idiots who canít read the terms of service and insist on insulting people to the degree they become toxic to advertisers.
    i wasn't trying to reference crowder here. i was only pointing out that the young, highly educated programmers living in san jose are much more likely to be liberal than conservative. these are the people deciding what you see as a result of your search terms.

    i actually have no objection to youtube going after crowder for his "lispy queer" comment. since that's arguably hate speech, i don't blame youtube for wanting it off their site.

  3. #83
    100% Organic MumblesBadly's Avatar
    Reputation
    -120
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    In the many threads of this forum
    Posts
    6,539
    Quote Originally Posted by sonatine View Post
    i think his whole point was that when you break down google's agenda to its absolute bare bones, like 2% of that pie graph is left leaning gestures and the rest is pure get that mother fuckin money with a surprisingly big slice of pure science R&D for good measure.
    Last edited by MumblesBadly; 06-08-2019 at 03:33 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tellafriend View Post
    There is only one scumbag here:


    ME

  4. #84
    Owner Dan Druff's Avatar
    Reputation
    4501
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    30,971
    Blog Entries
    2
    The hate speech argument is a bad one.

    Carlos Maza is a public figure who intentionally engages in highly controversial and provocative speech. He isn't some innocent gay private citizen who Crowder is attacking.

    Maza has advocated throwing milkshakes at conservatives in public, has "Tucker Carlson is a white supremacist" in his Twitter bio, has defended Antifa's tactics while acknowledging that they are "sometimes violent", and generally behaved in a manner which is intended to stoke anger and cause controversy.

    He has no right to a "hate speech" claim any more than Trump does.

    If you throw yourself into the controversial public speech arena -- and if that's how you make your living -- all bets should be off regarding insults, short of anything illegal.

    It's absolutely insane that this guy is playing victim, and people are buying it.

    This is a piss poor reason to demonetize Crowder's channel.

  5. #85
    Canadrunk limitles's Avatar
    Reputation
    1123
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Bubbles & The Baron
    Posts
    10,918
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    Steven Crowder is a conservative YouTube comedian
    I'm not jumping into this dumpster of a conversation except to point out that Steven Crowder is not
    a comedian in the true sense of the word.

    He is a political commentator who uses some comedic tools to make his points.

    A true comedian can and does make fun of everything which is a rare talent.

    The "comedy" that has blossomed under the Republican administration is because
    the story in itself is ridiculous and the leader of the band is the court jester.

    You don't have to be funny to tell a funny Trump story.

    The reason Crowder has a number of followers is because half your nation
    is starving for someone to agree with.
    I LOVE ME SOME DONUTS

    "When people see some things as good, other things become bad"
    Lao Tzu

    Asked if he had every prayed, Christopher Hitchens replied
    "once, for a hardon"


  6. #86
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    The hate speech argument is a bad one.

    Carlos Maza is a public figure who intentionally engages in highly controversial and provocative speech. He isn't some innocent gay private citizen who Crowder is attacking.

    Maza has advocated throwing milkshakes at conservatives in public, has "Tucker Carlson is a white supremacist" in his Twitter bio, has defended Antifa's tactics while acknowledging that they are "sometimes violent", and generally behaved in a manner which is intended to stoke anger and cause controversy.

    He has no right to a "hate speech" claim any more than Trump does.

    If you throw yourself into the controversial public speech arena -- and if that's how you make your living -- all bets should be off regarding insults, short of anything illegal.

    It's absolutely insane that this guy is playing victim, and people are buying it.

    This is a piss poor reason to demonetize Crowder's channel.
    this has zero to do with maza or if he "deserves" it. gay people, in general, would be rightfully offended by crowder's attack on maza. if maza was black would you say that calling him a broke n-word is ok cause he's controversial and makes his living in the public arena? you know damn well youtube would have cancelled his channel if that happened, and there would have been no uproar about it.

    you're viewing things from a mindset of 10 years ago. in 2019, calling maza a "lispy queer" is equivalent to crowder using the n-word against a black person. you might not see them as equivalent but they are.

    even fox news, of all places, would terminate tucker carlson in a nanosecond if he used that same language against maza.

     
    Comments
      
      duped_samaritan:

  7. #87
    Quote Originally Posted by blake View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    The hate speech argument is a bad one.

    Carlos Maza is a public figure who intentionally engages in highly controversial and provocative speech. He isn't some innocent gay private citizen who Crowder is attacking.

    Maza has advocated throwing milkshakes at conservatives in public, has "Tucker Carlson is a white supremacist" in his Twitter bio, has defended Antifa's tactics while acknowledging that they are "sometimes violent", and generally behaved in a manner which is intended to stoke anger and cause controversy.

    He has no right to a "hate speech" claim any more than Trump does.

    If you throw yourself into the controversial public speech arena -- and if that's how you make your living -- all bets should be off regarding insults, short of anything illegal.

    It's absolutely insane that this guy is playing victim, and people are buying it.

    This is a piss poor reason to demonetize Crowder's channel.
    this has zero to do with maza or if he "deserves" it. gay people, in general, would be rightfully offended by crowder's attack on maza. if maza was black would you say that calling him a broke n-word is ok cause he's controversial and makes his living in the public arena? you know damn well youtube would have cancelled his channel if that happened, and there would have been no uproar about it.

    you're viewing things from a mindset of 10 years ago. in 2019, calling maza a "lispy queer" is equivalent to crowder using the n-word against a black person. you might not see them as equivalent but they are.

    even fox news, of all places, would terminate tucker carlson in a nanosecond if he used that same language against maza.

    Yeah. Like Iím sure heís a lipsy queer. If this shit wasnít all just a big show, then heís an incredibly lucky lipsy queer. His critic went the one place he couldnít go. He could call him an idiot every day and no one cares. Dennis Miller gets fired tomorrow if he calls someone a fag, however much it might make Rupert Murdoch laugh, he likes money more than ideology, so heíd be gone. Public figure v private doesnít matter. He couldnít call Obama a nigger. YouTube is bigger and more profitable than Fox. This ultra left company is already more tolerant than Fox. Theyíre giving him a path to make money again.

  8. #88
    Owner Dan Druff's Avatar
    Reputation
    4501
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    30,971
    Blog Entries
    2
    YouTube is different than Fox or any other broadcast media.

    YouTube is an open content platform, where individuals unaffiliated with YouTube create the content.

    That's very different from being an employee of a broadcast company, where you represent the company.

    The whole point of YouTube is to be an open, mostly free speech platform, where people can upload videos. This includes outrageous, controversial, and offensive videos. I think it's important to have such a system be as censorship-free as possible.

    Once you start asserting very broad "hate speech" standards for deleting videos, you really open up an incredibly slippery slope where everyone can make some claim of being offended.

    YouTube does make somewhat of an attempt to take down harassment videos -- where people are creating videos to harass or demean other individuals. However, this definitely doesn't qualify for that, as Maza is an intentionally controversial pubic figure.

    I do understand certain advertisers not wanting their commercials appearing on videos like Crowder's, but that's an easy fix. They could easily give advertisers a way to opt out of appearing in such videos. They may already do this, I don't know. I would be totally fine if they created a more restricted category for monetization for channels like Crowder's, where only advertisers who are okay with outspoken conservative political content are displayed. In fact, some advertisers would love such an audience.

    YouTube really shouldn't be acting as the arbiter of what is acceptable speech. They should take care to make sure videos on their platform aren't directly hurting anyone, or breaking the law, and that should be it.

    By the way, Maza's initial main complaint was NOT that he felt Crowder's language was inappropriate. It was that Crowder was "harassing" him through his channel, which is laughable. Go back and look at the initial tweets.

  9. #89
    100% Organic MumblesBadly's Avatar
    Reputation
    -120
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    In the many threads of this forum
    Posts
    6,539
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    YouTube is different than Fox or any other broadcast media.

    YouTube is an open content platform, where individuals unaffiliated with YouTube create the content.

    That's very different from being an employee of a broadcast company, where you represent the company.

    The whole point of YouTube is to be an open, mostly free speech platform, where people can upload videos. This includes outrageous, controversial, and offensive videos. I think it's important to have such a system be as censorship-free as possible.

    Once you start asserting very broad "hate speech" standards for deleting videos, you really open up an incredibly slippery slope where everyone can make some claim of being offended.

    YouTube does make somewhat of an attempt to take down harassment videos -- where people are creating videos to harass or demean other individuals. However, this definitely doesn't qualify for that, as Maza is an intentionally controversial pubic figure.

    I do understand certain advertisers not wanting their commercials appearing on videos like Crowder's, but that's an easy fix. They could easily give advertisers a way to opt out of appearing in such videos. They may already do this, I don't know. I would be totally fine if they created a more restricted category for monetization for channels like Crowder's, where only advertisers who are okay with outspoken conservative political content are displayed. In fact, some advertisers would love such an audience.

    YouTube really shouldn't be acting as the arbiter of what is acceptable speech. They should take care to make sure videos on their platform aren't directly hurting anyone, or breaking the law, and that should be it.

    By the way, Maza's initial main complaint was NOT that he felt Crowder's language was inappropriate. It was that Crowder was "harassing" him through his channel, which is laughable. Go back and look at the initial tweets.


    The whole point of YouTube (for its corporate owners) is to make “motherfucking money”. They do it using a relatively open platform to attract a huge demographic of viewers of media content that they can sell ad time against.

    So, until the federal government forces YouTube to operate its video platforming facility as a public common slace/utility, which would most effectively be accomplished by Elizabeth Warren’s proposal to break up YouTube’s video platform operations from its marketing/advertising side of the business, put a cork in your bitching about YouTube’s “liberal bias”.

    Because if you really want it to be a publicly regulated free speech platform, let us know how much you plan to contribute to Elizabeth Warren’s president campaign. Because neither Trump nor the GOP is going to push for such action to be taken against YouTube. They just like using this issue as fodder in their “YouTube is biased against conservatives” screed.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tellafriend View Post
    There is only one scumbag here:


    ME

  10. #90
    Owner Dan Druff's Avatar
    Reputation
    4501
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    30,971
    Blog Entries
    2
    Mumbles, the breakup of Big Tech is supported and opposed by people on BOTH sides. I've already explained this.

    Yes, YouTube's primary purpose is to make money, but it has also been marketed as a place where you have freedom of expression (within reason), and that you'll get paid if you make your channel popular.

    Crowder raises a good point in that YouTube went to him many years ago and invited him to their "partner" program, encouraging him to invest in making good content. They told him it will pay off when his channel gets big and tons of views. He put a lot of money into producing content for his channel, and now employs 15-20 people. But now they're inventing reasons on the fly to demonetize him, even while admitting that he didn't technically break their terms. They are relying upon a nebulous claim that the overall tone of the channel is the reason for the demonetization, not any specific rule violation.

    But then they're also saying that they will remonetize the channel if he takes down all references to the "Socialism Is For F*gs" shirt, which makes even less sense. At the same time, they're claiming it's not just about the shirt.

    This is why everyone is so infuriated by this decision.

    Crowder is angry because the demonetizing him simply doesn't make sense, and it appears to just be a token gesture to make it look like they're disciplining him in SOME way.

    Maza is angry because his goal was to deplatform Crowder and other conservatives, and it failed. Maza even noted on his Twitter that it's possible Crowder will gain from this, as the incident will allow him to sell more premium subscriptions.

    I'll ask you the same question I asked sonatine (but didn't receive an answer):

    Would you be okay if YouTube stuck to their initial decision NOT to discipline Crowder or his channel in any way?

  11. #91
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    Mumbles, the breakup of Big Tech is supported and opposed by people on BOTH sides. I've already explained this.

    Yes, YouTube's primary purpose is to make money, but it has also been marketed as a place where you have freedom of expression (within reason), and that you'll get paid if you make your channel popular.

    Crowder raises a good point in that YouTube went to him many years ago and invited him to their "partner" program, encouraging him to invest in making good content. They told him it will pay off when his channel gets big and tons of views. He put a lot of money into producing content for his channel, and now employs 15-20 people. But now they're inventing reasons on the fly to demonetize him, even while admitting that he didn't technically break their terms. They are relying upon a nebulous claim that the overall tone of the channel is the reason for the demonetization, not any specific rule violation.

    But then they're also saying that they will remonetize the channel if he takes down all references to the "Socialism Is For F*gs" shirt, which makes even less sense. At the same time, they're claiming it's not just about the shirt.

    This is why everyone is so infuriated by this decision.

    Crowder is angry because the demonetizing him simply doesn't make sense, and it appears to just be a token gesture to make it look like they're disciplining him in SOME way.

    Maza is angry because his goal was to deplatform Crowder and other conservatives, and it failed. Maza even noted on his Twitter that it's possible Crowder will gain from this, as the incident will allow him to sell more premium subscriptions.

    I'll ask you the same question I asked sonatine (but didn't receive an answer):

    Would you be okay if YouTube stuck to their initial decision NOT to discipline Crowder or his channel in any way?

    Don’t know about him but I’d be fine with it. It’s their business. He didn’t do something egregious. Just idiotic when there’s not another platform that offers him the privilege to enrich himself to the degree YouTube does. That’s assuming he didn’t do it intentionally and in a calculated manner, which I still think he did. Even if he did it in a calculated manner, I don’t hate the hustle. It’s why he has so many subscribers. I think it’s highly likely he’s monetized fully three months from now. I won’t feel bad if that’s the case and I won’t feel bad if he’s broke and can’t make a living because he miscalculated. He took a gamble. He’ll likely win and profit from more subscribers.

  12. #92
    Owner Dan Druff's Avatar
    Reputation
    4501
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    30,971
    Blog Entries
    2
    I just watched a video today from Blaire White, who has a decent YouTube following. She's a conservative tranny who is also one of the fortunate ones to be able to "pass" as female, both by looks and voice.

    Anyway, Blaire has been on Crowder's show before. The two haven't always gotten along perfectly, but they're on the same political side, so they've been cordial. Blaire spoke out against what Maza ws doing, and was very much on Crowder's side about the matter, while noting that she felt that the "lispy queer" insults were juvenile and not funny.

    Interestingly, she noted that she had quit coming on Crowder's show because she felt he was more pro-LGBT than he was letting on. You read that right. She said that he "actually didn't seem to have a lot of the beliefs about LGBT people in real life that he claimed to have on the show", and that bothered her. Why? Because as a trans herself, it annoyed her that he seemed quietly supportive of the LGBT community, but played the opposite schtick on the show. She initially came on thinking, "Here's a fellow conservative who doesn't support the gay or trans community much, so it will be interesting coming on as a trans conservative person to be a contrast to that", and then she was disappointed that he actually was somewhat supportive but wouldn't say so publicly.

    I actually don't blame her.

    She did note that he was very nice to her whenever she appeared on the show (both during the broadcast and off-air), and did a lot to help promote her much smaller channel, and she appreciated him a lot for both of those things.

    Anyway, looks like BCR is at least correct that Crowder's gay jokes are more of a schtick meant to play well with his audience, rather than his actual beliefs.

  13. #93
    Maza came from the Soros funded Media Matters, whose goal is to "incubate a new generation of liberal pundits"

    Without / once they get Crowder, the goal posts move a bit to the left, and it is wash / rinse / repeat against the next opponent, until there are none left.

    Wish Trump was as bad as they say, so we could skip the pleasantries and get this Civil War on already.

  14. #94
    100% Organic MumblesBadly's Avatar
    Reputation
    -120
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    In the many threads of this forum
    Posts
    6,539
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    Mumbles, the breakup of Big Tech is supported and opposed by people on BOTH sides. I've already explained this.

    Yes, YouTube's primary purpose is to make money, but it has also been marketed as a place where you have freedom of expression (within reason), and that you'll get paid if you make your channel popular.

    Crowder raises a good point in that YouTube went to him many years ago and invited him to their "partner" program, encouraging him to invest in making good content. They told him it will pay off when his channel gets big and tons of views. He put a lot of money into producing content for his channel, and now employs 15-20 people. But now they're inventing reasons on the fly to demonetize him, even while admitting that he didn't technically break their terms. They are relying upon a nebulous claim that the overall tone of the channel is the reason for the demonetization, not any specific rule violation.

    But then they're also saying that they will remonetize the channel if he takes down all references to the "Socialism Is For F*gs" shirt, which makes even less sense. At the same time, they're claiming it's not just about the shirt.

    This is why everyone is so infuriated by this decision.

    Crowder is angry because the demonetizing him simply doesn't make sense, and it appears to just be a token gesture to make it look like they're disciplining him in SOME way.

    Maza is angry because his goal was to deplatform Crowder and other conservatives, and it failed. Maza even noted on his Twitter that it's possible Crowder will gain from this, as the incident will allow him to sell more premium subscriptions.

    I'll ask you the same question I asked sonatine (but didn't receive an answer):

    Would you be okay if YouTube stuck to their initial decision NOT to discipline Crowder or his channel in any way?
    Frankly, YouTube only accounts for a small portion of Google’s revenue, and Google is only a small portion of my diversified financial holdings, so I really don’t care what there decision is. I just like pointing out the hypocrisy of conservatives who bitch about “abuse by a monopoly” when they don’t like one of their media darlings get his shit pushed in by social media company when those very same conservatives are cool with ISPs that have monopoly power not having to honor net neutrality.

    #SelectiveOutrage

    Also, I’m for free speech, but don’t believe that translates into “freedom to make money from ads on a private company’s media platform using hate speech”.

     
    Comments
      
      dwai: how do you find the time to be sn expert on everything while delivering goods in a semi truck? stop googling everything trying to participate in EVERY FUCKING CONVERSATION
    Last edited by MumblesBadly; 06-09-2019 at 01:34 PM. Reason: Spelling-challenged re ‘hypocrisy’
    Quote Originally Posted by Tellafriend View Post
    There is only one scumbag here:


    ME

  15. #95
    Calling Blake a lispy queer is literally the energy the back half of 2k19 needed

  16. #96
    Owner Dan Druff's Avatar
    Reputation
    4501
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    30,971
    Blog Entries
    2
    Crowder already using the situation for further attention:


  17. #97
    YouTubeís ďUp NextĒ algorithm must be having a field day with you.

    The Making of a YouTube Radical.

  18. #98
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    The hate speech argument is a bad one.

    Carlos Maza is a public figure who intentionally engages in highly controversial and provocative speech. He isn't some innocent gay private citizen who Crowder is attacking.

    Maza has advocated throwing milkshakes at conservatives in public, has "Tucker Carlson is a white supremacist" in his Twitter bio, has defended Antifa's tactics while acknowledging that they are "sometimes violent", and generally behaved in a manner which is intended to stoke anger and cause controversy.

    He has no right to a "hate speech" claim any more than Trump does.

    If you throw yourself into the controversial public speech arena -- and if that's how you make your living -- all bets should be off regarding insults, short of anything illegal.

    It's absolutely insane that this guy is playing victim, and people are buying it.

    This is a piss poor reason to demonetize Crowder's channel.
    so if a Jewish gay guy was active in the controversial public speech arena and Crowder was like so check out what this lispy kike queer is saying about me - that would be fine. Because all bets are off regarding insults if that is how you make your living.

  19. #99
    Owner Dan Druff's Avatar
    Reputation
    4501
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    30,971
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by nunbeater View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    The hate speech argument is a bad one.

    Carlos Maza is a public figure who intentionally engages in highly controversial and provocative speech. He isn't some innocent gay private citizen who Crowder is attacking.

    Maza has advocated throwing milkshakes at conservatives in public, has "Tucker Carlson is a white supremacist" in his Twitter bio, has defended Antifa's tactics while acknowledging that they are "sometimes violent", and generally behaved in a manner which is intended to stoke anger and cause controversy.

    He has no right to a "hate speech" claim any more than Trump does.

    If you throw yourself into the controversial public speech arena -- and if that's how you make your living -- all bets should be off regarding insults, short of anything illegal.

    It's absolutely insane that this guy is playing victim, and people are buying it.

    This is a piss poor reason to demonetize Crowder's channel.
    so if a Jewish gay guy was active in the controversial public speech arena and Crowder was like so check out what this lispy kike queer is saying about me - that would be fine. Because all bets are off regarding insults if that is how you make your living.
    Not sure what point you're making.

    I wouldn't want to continue watching Crowder if he referred to a Jewish person as a "kike", but I wouldn't try to get him deplatformed for it.

  20. #100
    100% Organic MumblesBadly's Avatar
    Reputation
    -120
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    In the many threads of this forum
    Posts
    6,539
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by nunbeater View Post

    so if a Jewish gay guy was active in the controversial public speech arena and Crowder was like so check out what this lispy kike queer is saying about me - that would be fine. Because all bets are off regarding insults if that is how you make your living.
    Not sure what point you're making.

    I wouldn't want to continue watching Crowder if he referred to a Jewish person as a "kike", but I wouldn't try to get him deplatformed for it.
    Druff, Maza didn’t make a stink merely because Crowder was being a vocal bigot, but because his specific incessant targeted of Maza in that manner galvanized legions of his idiotic fans to harass *and* dox him. Me thinks you’d be furious and demanding that YouTube to take action against a YouTube with huge following repeatedly targeted you that way to the point where you were getting barraged by harassing text messages *and* doxed by legions of that YouTuber’s bigoted fans.

     
    Comments
      
      dwai: WHITE GUILT FAGGOT. YOU'RE THE ONE WITH "SELECTIVE OUTRAGE" SHUT IT THE FUCK DOWN, TURN THE REEFER TO MAX LOCK YOURSELF INSIDE TRAILER AND FREEZE TO DEATH PLEASE
    Quote Originally Posted by Tellafriend View Post
    There is only one scumbag here:


    ME

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. *** OFFICIAL *** Steven Crowder Confronts Thread
    By Dan Druff in forum Flying Stupidity
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-18-2018, 03:43 AM
  2. Large social media outlets targeting Steven Crowder
    By Dan Druff in forum Flying Stupidity
    Replies: 108
    Last Post: 03-20-2018, 07:01 PM
  3. ***Official*** 'Steven Crowder is a right-wing hack' thread
    By MumblesBadly in forum Flying Stupidity
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 02-14-2018, 07:29 AM
  4. Steven Crowder vs. Joe Rogan regarding pot
    By Dan Druff in forum Flying Stupidity
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 02-18-2017, 10:32 AM
  5. Carlos Condit vs. GSP UFC 154 Who do you like?
    By SixToedPete in forum Flying Stupidity
    Replies: 119
    Last Post: 12-13-2012, 02:48 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •