Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, October 15, 2019

The definition of loitering, as it relates to criminal offense, generally runs along the lines of this: to hang around a public place with no expressed - particularly, legal - purpose. It follows then, that one place you can't loiter in, by definition, is your home; a very not public place where the expectation is you do whatever (hopefully legal) shit you want.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

In yesterday's NOONER, BOAZ complained about why Pakistanis like to visit the US? (they don't anymore but why argue with a numbskull)

And this was my answer:

We like to go where it is entertaining.

What is more entertaining than watching your kind get buggered by the cops every month or so?
=========================

I was proven right in 24 hours. LOL

#1 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2019-10-15 08:59 AM | Reply

I have noticed also, while in the US, black people and people from 'mexican countries' walk without purpose. There seems to be less intent in the walk... you'll know it when you see it.

And that is exactly what this cop saw.

Seems like an honest mistake.

#2 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2019-10-15 09:04 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Twice they were arrested. By the same cop. And twice the judge set bail rather than ROR. Everybody was playing ball in this situation. The cop, the prosecutor, and the judge.

#3 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2019-10-15 09:16 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

That family should be in for a nice payday when they sue that racist police department.

#4 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2019-10-15 10:20 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

That family should be in for a nice payday when they sue that racist police department.

#4 | POSTED BY JOHNNY_HOTSAUCE

Yep. I hope the payout is huge.

#5 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-10-15 10:34 AM | Reply

Look, just don't be Black! it isn't hard if you try.

#6 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2019-10-15 11:15 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Look, just don't be Black! it isn't hard if you try.

#6 | POSTED BY HELIUMRAT

Exactly!

If she'd had any gumption she would have been white.

It's her fault she got shot.

#7 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-10-15 11:32 AM | Reply

I wonder what the cop's justification was? It's not mentioned in the story.

#8 | Posted by goatman at 2019-10-15 11:32 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Ah, The Root.

Talk about one sided reporting. Did they even ask for a police side of the story?

#9 | Posted by boaz at 2019-10-15 11:38 AM | Reply | Funny: 3 | Newsworthy 1

In yesterday's NOONER, BOAZ complained about why Pakistanis like to visit the US?

I didnt say visit, which is different from leaving Pakistan and never coming back.

Face it Tremain, the immigration line into Pakistan is VERY short.

But to not derail this thread, which Tremain is VERY good at.

#10 | Posted by boaz at 2019-10-15 11:41 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 4

leaving Pakistan and never coming back.

That NEVER happens.

ALL Pakistani keep holding on to their Pakistan passports and citizenship. And they keep going back and forth.

the immigration line into Pakistan is VERY short

Pakistan hosts the largest number of refugees in the world. LOL

Lie much, Kunta?

But to not derail this thread

Sorry, Kunta... you already derailed it.

Should have stuck to topic.

Still not too late...

#11 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2019-10-15 12:13 PM | Reply

Talk about one sided reporting. Did they even ask for a police side of the story?

Whatever. Point is, I said it yesterday that this is what happens to black people all over America.

And America did not disappoint! LOL

And YOU, shameless person, want to take the White Person's side (as always).

If I take the White Person's side... that is understandable. But when YOU do it... it's just pathetic and betrays a servile mentality.

#12 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2019-10-15 12:17 PM | Reply

wtf?

#13 | Posted by fresno500 at 2019-10-15 12:58 PM | Reply

For Boaz:

"Eyewitness News reached out to the police department several times Wednesday but did not hear back."

philadelphia.cbslocal.com

So, based on a "less one sided" article, what do you think about the Chester police arresting people on their own property?

#14 | Posted by bartimus at 2019-10-15 01:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Talk about one sided reporting. Did they even ask for a police side of the story?
#9 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Yeah, and the cop, prosecutor, and judge all said they were loitering.

#15 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-10-15 01:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

I loitered on my patio last night - grilling and drinking beer.

I'm just glad no cops drove by my house, apparently I could have been arrested.

#16 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-10-15 01:53 PM | Reply

"I'm just glad no cops drove by my house, apparently I could have been arrested.

#16 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2019-10-15 01:53 PM "

But they might mean something different than you think when they ask, "What are you smoking, boy?"

#17 | Posted by goatman at 2019-10-15 01:57 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

But they might mean something different than you think when they ask, "What are you smoking, boy?"

#17 | POSTED BY GOATMAN

To which I would reply, "If you are asking me, I'm smoking brisket. If you're asking my wife, she's smoking pole."

#18 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-10-15 02:22 PM | Reply | Funny: 4

It's not their fault that they're black. Cops gotta take that into consideration.

#19 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2019-10-15 02:22 PM | Reply

"In yesterday's NOONER, BOAZ complained about why Pakistanis like to visit the US?"

"I didnt say visit, which is different from leaving Pakistan and never coming back."
POSTED BY BOAZ "

Tremain? Is that who posted the first line?

He probably heard there was an opening at the 7-11. ----- work the 7-11s. Indians run the hotels. At least the Indians own the hotels. LOL

#20 | Posted by goatman at 2019-10-15 03:56 PM | Reply

#18.

Jeff!

But you made me laugh.

#21 | Posted by goatman at 2019-10-15 03:57 PM | Reply

LOL The Root? Their link of 'news sources' at the top of their page includes The Onion.

#22 | Posted by gracieamazed at 2019-10-15 05:05 PM | Reply

LOL The Root? Their link of 'news sources' at the top of their page includes The Onion.
#22 | POSTED BY GRACIEAMAZED

Reposted from #14 for the embarrassingly lazy:

WATCH: Chester Township Family Says They Were Arrested For Loitering While Standing Outside Of Their Home
philadelphia.cbslocal.com

#23 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-10-15 05:35 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Loitering is illegal. No one is above the law.

#24 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-10-15 10:28 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Loitering is illegal. No one is above the law.

#24 | POSTED BY VISITOR_ AT 2019-10-15 10:28 PM | REPLY

Wow. Nobody is above the law? really? You can write those words while your party leaders ignore subpoenas and thumb their collective noses at the law?

Loitering is the act of remaining in a particular public place for a protracted time, without any apparent purpose.

They were on their own PRIVATE property not loitering.

#25 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-10-15 11:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

The cop's reasoning is being well hidden

#26 | Posted by goatman at 2019-10-16 01:17 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

They were on their own PRIVATE property not loitering.

#25 | Posted by hatter5183

If they own the 264 unit county housing authority development along Shannon Street where they were arrested, then, yeah they were on their own PRIVATE property.

I wasn't there.

To speak to Goatman's query as to the missing reason for the arrest, another site explains:

"In the affidavit of probable cause, released by the lawyers, a police officer writes when he told the group they were loitering he was met with swear-words, resistance and a male kicking at the window of a police cruiser."

There is a video of part of the first arrest. I wonder if we'll get to see the part that the lawyers had edited "to shield an elderly family member overcome with emotion."

So it goes.

chicagocrusader.com

#27 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2019-10-16 01:22 AM | Reply

The police reports will be of interest, as to whether it was actually loitering for which they were arrested.

#28 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2019-10-16 01:27 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Well, kicking the window of a cop's car will do it.

#29 | Posted by goatman at 2019-10-16 01:28 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

WATCH: Chester Township Family Says They Were Arrested For Loitering While Standing Outside Of Their Home
philadelphia.cbslocal.com

#23 | Posted by rstybeach11

Interesting clip, Rusty. Thanks.

Although the family's lawyers refer to a Chester Township loitering statute being struck down in 2012, the reporter in the clip says it is unclear if Shannon Street is a no loitering area or not per current Chester Township law.

Some more thorough reporting should clear that rather significant matter right up.

The video clips as presented are chopped into several discontinuous bits. It doesn't show a male kicking at the window of a police cruiser -- it just starts with a guy being arrested and a woman crying. The video jumps to the part with a young man being pulled off a porch without showing what led up to it. Presumably there is a lot more video showing the in between and maybe the before and after.

Hard to find any mention anywhere about the second arrest the next day, other than a report that the same family members were holding a larger gathering in the same spot.

Anybody going to wait for the evidence?

You know -- dare I suggest -- to examine it?

#30 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2019-10-16 01:42 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Well, kicking the window of a cop's car will do it.

#29 | Posted by goatman

Well, that's not loitering, is it?

All the media stories say the were arrested for loitering.

Do you suppose that young man that got pulled off the porch was arrested for loitering?

How odd.

*felix culpa?*

#31 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2019-10-16 01:47 AM | Reply

First glance notes from Rusty's video link:

CBS3 TV reporter Howard Monroe says "Keith Briggs was arrested, tazed and put in the back of a cop car for loitering." Wouldn't the tazing come first? The arrest seems to be underway with Briggs' hands being placed behind his back. Video cuts to him in the back of the cop car. What happened with the tazing? Nothing like a video of an unjust tazing to bolster your lawsuit. But it's missing.

Also of note, a chyron (lower third graphic title) says Rachel Briggs was "arrested for loitering."

Opening clip shows an ongoing kerfuffle with three uniform cops and at least one other plainclothes officer, and two squad cars suggesting that the situation had been going on long enough for backup to arrive.

Apparently a Ms. Canyada Lewis was arrested first.

CBS3 posts a screenshot of the loitering law (Township Code Section 604) but does not show the previous page which designates the Township's no loitering areas. Maybe someone at CBS3 can look at the previous page?

How is standing in front of one's residence not a lawful purpose, even if the area is a designated no loitering area?

Civil lawsuit that the lawyers are threatening has not been filed.

Hearing for the criminal charges is scheduled for Thursday, October 17th.

I guess we'll learn more on the 17th.

*cheers*

#32 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2019-10-16 02:36 AM | Reply

The area within 1000 feet of the defendants' 264 unit county housing project is possibly a Drug Free Zone by state law.

If so, that consideration would impact Loitering and Wandering in the area.

We'll see, huh?

#33 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2019-10-16 04:58 AM | Reply

So, another CBS3 report (same reporter) details the arrest charges to include loitering, failure to disperse, disorderly conduct, and resisting arrest:

philadelphia.cbslocal.com

It sounds like the video may be from the second day's arrest.

Here's a link with a less edited version of Ms. Briggs' video:

kywnewsradio.radio.com

You can see that the proceedings became quite a scene. Something like 15 squad cars on hand.

Still a jump cut between Keith Briggs arrest and being in the back of the cruiser. Ms. Briggs is shouting about Keith being maced, not tazed, and the he can't breathe because he has asthma.

Still a jump cut between Briggs arrest and the guy being pulled off the porch.

Less sympathetic? Well, there certainly is more to the story than this thread and most media reports touch on.

I report, you decide.

#34 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2019-10-16 05:25 AM | Reply

For Boaz:

"Eyewitness News reached out to the police department several times Wednesday but did not hear back."

philadelphia.cbslocal.com

So, based on a "less one sided" article, what do you think about the Chester police arresting people on their own property?

#14 | Posted by bartimus at 2019-10-15 01:17 PM | Reply | Flag

See?! No one got the police side of the story. Totally biased and made up! FAKE NEWS!

- Bozo.

#35 | Posted by Nixon at 2019-10-16 07:55 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Theys good boys they din't do nuffin'.

#36 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-10-16 09:25 AM | Reply

#36 let me guess, you're not racist?

#37 | Posted by jpw at 2019-10-16 09:38 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

That question is racist.

#38 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-10-16 10:58 AM | Reply

That question is racist.

#38 | Posted by visitor

So's your response.

#39 | Posted by Zed at 2019-10-16 11:05 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

How so?

#40 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-10-16 12:16 PM | Reply

I wonder why the police zeroed in on this one family. I'm sure other people were outside too.

What made the police stop to begin with? And dont tell me it was "just because they were black". That's BS.

While sometimes it does happen, I tend to find that overt acts of blatant racism rarely happen anymore. That's why when I hear of over the top racist incidents, I tend to look at them with a critical eye.

#41 | Posted by boaz at 2019-10-16 12:17 PM | Reply

They probably just spelled "littering" incorrectly.
I find whenever I drive through an area inhabited by mainly African Americans there tends to be a lot of litter.
It's probably because republicans took away garbage cans or something.

Blacks and white liberals are prone to litter.
Facts.
Now discuss...

#42 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2019-10-16 12:23 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Blacks and white liberals are prone to litter.

What of the brown, yellow, red and rainbow ones?

It's 2019, your insults need to stop being so black and white.

#43 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-10-16 12:26 PM | Reply

There isn't enough data to suggest the brown, yellow, red, and rainbows are chronic litters and I only wanted a factual discussion so I left them out purposefully.

#44 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2019-10-16 12:29 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

Well. Looks like you've thought out all the pertinent information.

I tip my hat to you good sir.

As to why the blacks and whites litter more. Let's go with white privileged and black laziness.

#45 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-10-16 12:35 PM | Reply

Now you're getting to the meat of the story, Boaz, but you won't find the answer from the media covering the story or asking DR lefties.

The area within 1000 feet of public housing is a Drug Free Zone in Pennsylvania, apparently, like most every other state. Loitering and Wandering laws in Drug Free Zones are set by the state, not the municipalities, and are biased towards a presumption of malfeasance for those found standing or walking around.

In my opinion, these laws are the story that is not being covered. It is not a municipal issue unique to Chester Township. Loitering and Wandering laws in Drug Free Zones including schools and public housing is a nationwide practice; one can imagine how enforcement can be problematic.

It could be that the details of the arrests of the Briggs family members aren't that problematic. The media outlets covering this story are carrying the water of the family's attorneys, while ignoring or glossing over the obvious question of how did the incidents start.
At one point in the longer video, Ms. Briggs says at the onset of the first incident she told the boys to get in the house, seemingly aware of the loitering laws. Later she says the boys were playing in the yard.

Maybe the lawyers are completely inept, and forgot to lead with their best details, which would be about the initial interactions with the cops that led to 15 squad cars being dispatched.

Honestly, kicking a squad car seems like valid probable cause for an arrest. The charges in the arrests include loitering,failure to disperse, disorderly conduct, and resisting arrest.

Why haven't the media obtained and reported on the police reports?

This could turn out to be a milestone case against Drug Free Zones, but it doesn't seem like the details are there to support the lawyer's version of things.

#46 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2019-10-16 12:47 PM | Reply

#11 | Posted by J_Tremain

Derailing I know but I was curious...

Pakistan doesn't crack the top 50 host countries but it sure does crack the top 10 in refugees...

#47 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2019-10-16 12:51 PM | Reply

Derailing I know but I was curious...

Most of these 'pakistani' refugees are Afghans who move on to Europe if they can (paperwork from their own country is next to impossible to obtain). When asked where they come from, they say "Pakistan.. and we lost our papers"... and yet they can't even speak Urdu. LOL

When they are sent back to Pakistan, we refuse to take them back because they don't have any records... they are not from Pakistan at all.

So no.

Pakistan hosts the largest number of refugees in the world. Because most are from Afghanistan and are illegal (no papers) they don't show up on any data survey.

Same with Iran.

Derailment attempt partially successful. Well done.

#48 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2019-10-16 01:29 PM | Reply

but I was curious...

www.infomigrants.net

Still curious? LOL

#49 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2019-10-16 01:32 PM | Reply

Host to one of the world's largest refugee populations, the country is trying to figure out how to push migrants out. But that will mean sending many Afghans back to a country they've never lived in.

foreignpolicy.com

1.5 million registered refugees.... and 4 million UNREGISTERED. That makes Pakistan the largest host for refugees on earth.

More curiosity satisfied?

#50 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2019-10-16 01:37 PM | Reply

The law is written poorly if you can get arrested for sitting in your own yard. There are already laws against dealing drugs. If that is what you are trying to address then arrest them for it and prove your case. Who gets to designate the no loitering areas? When I was a kid we hung around outside with no purpose other than to get out of our mothers' way.

As a general rule I have a problem with things that are a crime in some places but not a crime in other identical places. If hanging out in front of your residence is loitering then start busting people sitting on their porch having a beer too.

#51 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-10-16 01:37 PM | Reply

Who gets to designate the no loitering areas?

#51 | Posted by hatter5183

The states.

Most states define an area of a certain distance around schools on public property and public housing as Drug Free Zones.

Of interest, the laws pertaining to enforcement of Drug Free Zone penalties generally require an official map be kept by the state.

The Briggs attorney in this case points out that the Chester Township Loitering and Wandering laws were found to be unconstitutional in 2012. That lines up with the readily found info online for the timeline of the rise of statewide Drug Free Zone Laws.

So, 3 things:

1) The rise of statewide Drug Free Zone laws is fairly recent, within the last 7 years in the case of Pennsylvania.

2) I havent't seen a state Drug Free Zone law that requires signage

3) In fact, the Drug Free Zone laws I have read state definitively that ignorance of being in a Drug Free Zone is not a defense.

One would think the public housing rental paperwork would cover this, no?

#52 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2019-10-16 01:51 PM | Reply

Loitering is illegal. No one is above the law.

#24 | Posted by visitor_

ONLY if in certain areas and only if those areas are properly designated with signage. This was their home.

If they own the 264 unit county housing authority development along Shannon Street where they were arrested, then, yeah they were on their own PRIVATE property.

#27 | Posted by DixvilleNotch

Renters have rights and with that statement you completely disregard that fact. What they are in this PARTICULAR case has yet to be established by any media but areas where loitering is not permitted typically require proper signage. Not apples to apples but for example, I know someone who beat their speeding ticket because the speed limit sign in the area it changed was hidden by untrimmed tree branches for years and years. Judge threw it out when provided the photo. I'm betting the fact they have a lawyer who is so willing to go public with this and make a stink about it to the media knows something that we don't.

#53 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2019-10-16 01:53 PM | Reply

As a general rule I have a problem with things that are a crime in some places but not a crime in other identical places.

#51 | Posted by hatter5183

Of course.

In the case of Drug Free Zones, the defining characteristic that makes them identical is that they are publicly owned, not that people live there or go to school there. The public is claiming an interest in keeping drugs out of these areas.

Of interest, drug transactions conducted indoors in public housing, without children present, seem to be exempt from Drug Free Zone penalty enhancements.

#54 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2019-10-16 01:58 PM | Reply

What they are in this PARTICULAR case has yet to be established by any media but areas where loitering is not permitted typically require proper signage.

#53 | Posted by GalaxiePete

It is of interest in this case, as the family's lawyer has brought up the signage issue under the old, unconstitutional municipal ordinance.

To repeat what I posted above, the state ordinances I have read disallow ignorance of being in a Drug Free Zone as a defense. Signs are not stated as a requirement. A state maintained map of Drug Free Zones is the stated requirement.

I'm interested to watch this play out. The family has a bona fide "Philadelphia attorney" on their case (Russell Westbrook's college teammate and roommate).

Hopefully the media will give us a fuller picture in their reporting of tomorrow's hearing.

#55 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2019-10-16 02:03 PM | Reply

But they might mean something different than you think when they ask, "What are you smoking, boy?"

#17 | POSTED BY GOATMAN
To which I would reply, "If you are asking me, I'm smoking brisket. If you're asking my wife, she's smoking pole."

#18 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2019-10-15 02:22 PM | FLAG: | FUNNY: 4

this is the funniest reply on the retort ever!

#56 | Posted by cjk85 at 2019-10-16 02:22 PM | Reply

Here's a link to a 2012 Federal judge's ruling allowing a case to go forward against public housing loitering laws. This is the judge that put an end to NYC's Stop & Frisk laws.

www.nytimes.com

A federal judge in Manhattan declared on Thursday that the rules against loitering in public housing complexes were unconstitutionally vague, and gave the police too much discretion about whom to arrest. Bold is mine.

The ruling by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin of Federal District Court in Manhattan allowed a lawsuit challenging police arrests for trespassing in housing projects to move closer to trial.

The key question of the lawsuit, Judge Scheindlin wrote, is whether the city and the public housing authority are "acting within constitutional limits in their presumably sincere efforts to provide a safe environment for the residents of public housing."
"Or, in their zeal to provide that protection, are they violating the rights of the very residents (and guests) whom they seek to protect?"

In her 83-page decision, Judge Scheindlin did not attempt to answer that question, but she did reach two conclusions that could raise the threshold before police can make trespassing arrests. She held that the police cannot arrest someone for trespassing "if the only facts known to the police are that the person says she does not live in the building and refuses to say more about her license or privilege to be there."

And she concluded that signs in public housing prohibiting loitering and lingering are unconstitutionally vague when they become the basis for police arrests of residents.

#57 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2019-10-16 02:26 PM | Reply

I haven't found the results of the case Judge Scheindlin advanced, but the questions she raised seem pertinent today.

Again, the details of the initial police interactions will be significant.

*cheers*

#58 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2019-10-16 02:29 PM | Reply

Funny how once you get back to the Who, What, Where, When and Why of basic journalism how the trolls go away.

#59 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2019-10-16 07:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Of interest, drug transactions conducted indoors in public housing, without children present, seem to be exempt from Drug Free Zone penalty enhancements.

#54 | POSTED BY DIXVILLENOTCH AT 2019-10-16 01:58 PM | REPLY |

Of equal interest is whether combatting drugs can be used as an excuse to arrest people who are not doing anything drug related.

If you want to combat drugs combat drugs. anti-loitering laws have historically been used to harass people because of selective enforcement and selective placement.

Some states should really just change the penalties for drug crimes and be done with it. In Alabama drug free zones are automatic in a 3 mile radius of any school, college, or public housing. As a result 73% of the state is a drug free zone and over 95% of the population lives in drug free zones. The reason they don't is that the penalty enhancements are not automatic. DAs can pick and choose who to give longer sentences for the same crime. Any bets on who gets the enhanced penalties if we drill down on the stats?

#60 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-10-17 06:28 AM | Reply

Thank god they were'nt break dancing in their front yard... just makes that much harder for officers to shoot them.

#61 | Posted by Pegasus at 2019-10-17 10:53 AM | Reply

Thank god they were'nt break dancing in their front yard... just makes that much harder for officers to shoot them.

#61 | POSTED BY PEGASUS AT 2019-10-17 10:53 AM |

If you empty your gun, reload and empty it again like these police did you are likely to get at least one hit.

Altogether, the officers fired 137 shots. Experts testified at the trial that Russell had 23 bullet wounds and Williams had 24, NBC affiliate WKYC reported.

www.nbcnews.com

#62 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-10-17 01:42 PM | Reply

'Notch, is there any jack-booted thug's dick you won't suck boots you won't lick?

#63 | Posted by madscientist at 2019-10-18 07:33 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort