or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Where Does the GOP Find These People?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Where Does the GOP Find These People?

post #1 of 518
Thread Starter 
TPM is reporting that the NRCC is backing two candidates in MS and LA that have had relations with White Supremacist Groups:

Quote:
The Mississippi case is fairly straightforward -- the GOP candidate is a mayor who had once agreed to accept a gift to his city from a white supremacist group, then backed off. The Louisiana example is a lot more complicated, involving attempts to cover up payments connected to the infamous Klansman/Neo-Nazi David Duke.

...

In Mississippi's Second District, Southaven Mayor Greg Davis agreed in 2001 to accept a plaque as a gift from the Council of Conservative Citizens, thanking the town for flying the state flag in the midst of a controversy over the flag's Confederate emblems, according to press reports at the time.

...

In Louisiana's Sixth District, the situation is a whole lot muckier. Former state Rep. Woody Jenkins' 1996 campaign for U.S. Senate paid $82,500 to a phone-banking firm that was tied to none other than Klansman/Neo-Nazi David Duke for the right to use Duke's voter list.

This is absolutely ridiculous. The GOP is officially funding candidates with clear ties to racist organizations. How far is the NRCC willing to stoop to find candidates? Why is this not national news?
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #2 of 518
Of course it's national news. The liberal media has immediately run with the liberal talking points, in a desperate effort to damage Republican candidates.

Oh, wait.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #3 of 518
We have very few true journalists in this country. Sell them what they want to hear.....
traveling the globe in an envelope
Reply
traveling the globe in an envelope
Reply
post #4 of 518
The GOP should withdraw funding from the race immediately and demand that they return what they've already given.
post #5 of 518
I don't know, maybe the same place Obama found this guy.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #6 of 518
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I don't know, maybe the same place Obama found this guy.

That guy is being supported by the DCCC?!? Oh, wait. He's not and it's a non sequitur.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #7 of 518
SDW, how do you feel about carrying water for racists?

Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

That guy is being supported by the DCCC?!? Oh, wait. He's not and it's a non sequitur.

You have to admire that move though. We can learn a lot from him.
post #8 of 518
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

That guy is being supported by the DCCC?!? Oh, wait. He's not and it's a non sequitur.

"That guy" has a "friendly relationship" with Obama (or rather Obama with him). "That guy" is an avowed terrorist...not a terrorist sympathizer mind you...an actual bona fide terrorist. And Bara---ehh...Change hasn't had to answer a single question about him.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #9 of 518
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

"That guy" has a "friendly relationship" with Obama (or rather Obama with him). "That guy" is an avowed terrorist...not a terrorist sympathizer mind you...an actual bona fide terrorist. And Bara---ehh...Change™ hasn't had to answer a single question about him.

Mmmm. Bait.

Anyway.

The larger question is this: how many other people with ties to racist organizations is the NRCC funding?
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #10 of 518
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

The larger question is this: how many other people with ties to racist organizations is the NRCC funding?

How many other people with ties to people like Rev Wright is the DNC funding?
(just playing with you, middy)
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #11 of 518
Actually I don't think it is a big deal that these candidates have some vague "ties" to white supremacist groups.

Look at it this way. The reason why Obama went to a church with Reverend Wright saying the stuff he did is because you probably can't find any black church where that stuff is not said, and he wanted to be in a black church.

Similarly, if you are an important person in LA or MS, you probably have done some business somewhere along the lines with someone who is a white supremacist, or someone who condones white supremacy. Just by the law of averages, it would be hard to avoid.

So just like I don't think Obama believes what Reverend Wright said, I don't think that a southern politician believes in white supremacy just because somewhere along the line they had to make a deal with or go along with someone of that ilk. It just isn't practical to avoid based on numbers.
post #12 of 518
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

How many other people with ties to people like Rev Wright is the DNC funding?
(just playing with you, middy)

By all means, start a thread. We can all start doing research. How many straight up white supremacist racists are coddled by the RNC vs. how many black clergymen who speak angrily from the pulpit about the racism in America are in cahoots with the Dems.

Sounds like a fun game to me.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #13 of 518
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindler View Post

Actually I don't think it is a big deal that these candidates have some vague "ties" to white supremacist groups.

Look at it this way. The reason why Obama went to a church with Reverend Wright saying the stuff he did is because you probably can't find any black church where that stuff is not said, and he wanted to be in a black church.

Similarly, if you are an important person in LA or MS, you probably have done some business somewhere along the lines with someone who is a white supremacist, or someone who condones white supremacy. Just by the law of averages, it would be hard to avoid.

So just like I don't think Obama believes what Reverend Wright said, I don't think that a southern politician believes in white supremacy just because somewhere along the line they had to make a deal with or go along with someone of that ilk. It just isn't practical to avoid based on numbers.

Are you saying that we should find equivalency between angry denunciations of racism, even if impolitic, and racism itself, of the most virulent kind?
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #14 of 518
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindler View Post

Actually I don't think it is a big deal that these candidates have some vague "ties" to white supremacist groups.

Look at it this way. The reason why Obama went to a church with Reverend Wright saying the stuff he did is because you probably can't find any black church where that stuff is not said, and he wanted to be in a black church.

Similarly, if you are an important person in LA or MS, you probably have done some business somewhere along the lines with someone who is a white supremacist, or someone who condones white supremacy. Just by the law of averages, it would be hard to avoid.

So just like I don't think Obama believes what Reverend Wright said, I don't think that a southern politician believes in white supremacy just because somewhere along the line they had to make a deal with or go along with someone of that ilk. It just isn't practical to avoid based on numbers.

That's not what this is. One of these jokers was all set to accept money from the CCC (the modern iteration of the white citizen's council) in appreciation for flying a state flag that had the stars and bars in it in spite of a dustup over it and then someone knocked him on the head and told him it was a bad idea.

The other guy was funneling money to skinhead groups and then tried to hide it.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #15 of 518
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

denunciations of racism

Spindler must be a Garlic Nose.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #16 of 518
Thread Starter 
Oh no...not again

It seems that Bruce Barclay, Republican Commissioner of Cumberland Counth, PA, got himself accused of rape by a 20-year-old man. But fear not! He's been vindicated....because when the police investigated

Quote:
They didn't find evidence of rape. But they did find videotapes of hundreds of sexual encounters with men that Barclay had filmed on high-tech surveillance cameras. The cameras were hidden inside AM/FM radios, motion detectors and intercom speaker systems, among other places. There was also one at his business office.

(link)

Seriously. Where does the GOP find these people?
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #17 of 518
That is fucking rich.
post #18 of 518
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

"That guy" has a "friendly relationship" with Obama (or rather Obama with him). "That guy" is an avowed terrorist...not a terrorist sympathizer mind you...an actual bona fide terrorist. And Bara---ehh...Change hasn't had to answer a single question about him.

The linkage is minimal...but it won't be good for Obama anyway.
post #19 of 518
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Oh no...not again

It seems that Bruce Barclay, Republican Commissioner of Cumberland Counth, PA, got himself accused of rape by a 20-year-old man. But fear not! He's been vindicated....because when the police investigated

(link)

Seriously. Where does the GOP find these people?

The guy totally looks like Drew Carey.
post #20 of 518
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Seriously. Where does the GOP find these people?

Maybe the same place these folks were found:

Gerry Studds.
Buz Lukens.
Brock Adams.
Jim West.
Wayne Hays.
Richard Curtis.
Gary Hart.
Thomas Evans.
Mel Reynolds.
Ken Calvert.
Barney Frank.
Gary Condit.
Ed Schrock.
Fred Richmond.

Seriously, let's get off the partisan faux-outrage for a moment, shall we? Both of these parties have within them people who are morally decrepit. Many of them do not care much about their duties to the American people, but use their power to live whatever life they think they can get away with.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #21 of 518
Thread Starter 
WTF is up with these clowns from Alaska?
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #22 of 518
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Seriously, let's get off the partisan faux-outrage for a moment, shall we?

Faux-outrage? FAUX-OUTRAGE?! Why is my outrage "faux" and others' not? HATH NOW A JEW EYES? HATH NOT A JEW HANDS?!
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #23 of 518
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Faux-outrage? FAUX-OUTRAGE?! Why is my outrage "faux" and others' not? HATH NOW A JEW EYES? HATH NOT A JEW HANDS?!

Because, midwinter, I know you have significant skills when it comes to making intellectually honest arguments. The last few days have been filled with "where do they get these people" and "how far are they willing to sink" and "how many racists are they funding" ... etc. You have not responded to my post regarding Kennedy's Obam-osama, nor do you seem to see political scandals as a problem with our system and the kinds of people we elect. And then how they "grow in the job" as it were.

As I said before, many politicians, from BOTH PARTIES, are pretty far detached from their own personal and professional ethics. It is one reason why so many people are moving beyond the concept of "party." They are sick of earmarks, sick of sex scandals, sick of duplicitous bullshit from both ends of the political spectrum. Newt's six year affair... and Gary Hart, who lost his little challenge. Democrat gun control fanatics who have their own concealed carry permits and armed bodyguards. Al Gore and his fleet of SUVs. Bush talking about helping American workers, then advocating the largest amnesty to date.

I know you have the intellectual capacity to see the systemic problem, not just when it serves a partisan purpose.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #24 of 518
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Because, midwinter, I know you have significant skills when it comes to making intellectually honest arguments. The last few days have been filled with "where do they get these people" and "how far are they willing to sink" and "how many racists are they funding" ... etc. You have not responded to my post regarding Kennedy's Obam-osama, nor do you seem to see political scandals as a problem with our system and the kinds of people we elect. And then how they "grow in the job" as it were.

As I said before, many politicians, from BOTH PARTIES, are pretty far detached from their own personal and professional ethics. It is one reason why so many people are moving beyond the concept of "party." They are sick of earmarks, sick of sex scandals, sick of duplicitous bullshit from both ends of the political spectrum. Newt's six year affair... and Gary Hart, who lost his little challenge. Democrat gun control fanatics who have their own concealed carry permits and armed bodyguards. Al Gore and his fleet of SUVs. Bush talking about helping American workers, then advocating the largest amnesty to date.

I know you have the intellectual capacity to see the systemic problem, not just when it serves a partisan purpose.

And yet, I can't help but notice, when we are beset with the usual "here's how horrible the liberals are" threads, you are not much inclined to immediately remind us of the analogous behaviors of figures on the right.

It seems to be a pretty standard stance among "independent" types that the outrages of the left are sort of unique and typical to the breed, whereas anything the right does is just evidence of a generalized notion of how the gummit sucks, now and always, no matter who holds the reins.

This is actually a problem with the small gummit world view-- it's not a small gummit, and when you put people in charge who claim to champion same, they use "gummit sucks" as an excuse to do a really shitty job. After all, why make the very thing that is the problem more efficient or better at delivering services? That just makes government look good.

So liberal crimes are always proactive and invasive; conservative crimes are more of the "lie down with dogs" variety. Which is, I think, a very dishonest way of parsing malfeasance.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #25 of 518
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

And yet, I can't help but notice, when we are beset with the usual "here's how horrible the liberals are" threads, you are not much inclined to immediately remind us of the analogous behaviors of figures on the right.

... and you say that with all seriousness after the earlier discussions and things I referenced regarding Ashcroft, Gannon, Craig, et al. You're quite simply... wrong.

Quote:
It seems to be a pretty standard stance among "independent" types that the outrages of the left are sort of unique and typical to the breed, whereas anything the right does is just evidence of a generalized notion of how the gummit sucks, now and always, no matter who holds the reins.

I have stated twice now about how it is typical of the breed... the breed being "politician." Do you disagree with that? And gummit sucks a lot of the time, and has arguably sucked more in many areas under Bush than it did with the previous split government arrangement.

Quote:
After all, why make the very thing that is the problem more efficient or better at delivering services? That just makes government look good.

Because their constituents respond to messages of, and demonstrations of, a willingness to reduce the size and power of government. Come to Tejas sometime during election season. More efficient running of the government, and reducing bloat and waste is a staple of campaigns.

Quote:
So liberal crimes are always proactive and invasive; conservative crimes are more of the "lie down with dogs" variety. Which is, I think, a very dishonest way of parsing malfeasance.

How exactly did you get that from what I said?
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #26 of 518
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

"That guy" has a "friendly relationship" with Obama (or rather Obama with him). "That guy" is an avowed terrorist...not a terrorist sympathizer mind you...an actual bona fide terrorist. And Bara---ehh...Change hasn't had to answer a single question about him.

Maybe because it's kind of a nonissue.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #27 of 518
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

And yet, I can't help but notice, when we are beset with the usual "here's how horrible the liberals are" threads, you are not much inclined to immediately remind us of the analogous behaviors of figures on the right.

It seems to be a pretty standard stance among "independent" types that the outrages of the left are sort of unique and typical to the breed, whereas anything the right does is just evidence of a generalized notion of how the gummit sucks, now and always, no matter who holds the reins.

This is actually a problem with the small gummit world view-- it's not a small gummit, and when you put people in charge who claim to champion same, they use "gummit sucks" as an excuse to do a really shitty job. After all, why make the very thing that is the problem more efficient or better at delivering services? That just makes government look good.

So liberal crimes are always proactive and invasive; conservative crimes are more of the "lie down with dogs" variety. Which is, I think, a very dishonest way of parsing malfeasance.


Good post concerning this issue.

And yes I've noticed that some who claim to not be attached to one side or the other ( " 2 D " ) tend to only see in one direction.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #28 of 518
Stand back, troll, we're trying to have a real exchange of perspectives here. Would not want you to be injured in your futile attempt.
Interesting that, for someone who brags about not reading my posts, you don't seem to have a problem finding your opinion on them.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #29 of 518
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Stand back, troll, we're trying to have a real exchange of perspectives here. Would not want you to be injured in your futile attempt.
Interesting that, for someone who brags about not reading my posts, you don't seem to have a problem finding your opinion on them.

Awwww! You missed me how sweet!

I was only making an observation about your tendancy toward duality.

It might help if you sounded a little more like a real libertarian. Also bluster isn't your strong suit but maybe that was the " Real exchange " you were talking about.

My " bragging " was just offering anyone a helpful tool in dealing with you in case they needed it. Besides you seem to have no qualms about commenting on my posts directed at you or otherwise.

Anyway making a meaningful connection between Obama and this guy seems lame at best.

Sorry I guess I hit a tender spot.

Oops!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #30 of 518
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Awwww! You missed me how sweet!

Both our lives have been better since you discovered your "ignore" list.

Quote:
I was only making an observation about your tendancy toward duality.

As someone who doesn't miss a chance to tell everyone that you don't read my posts, you are either a liar or have no basis to make that case.

Quote:
It might help if you sounded a little more like a real libertarian.

How very 2D of you, Constable. It's hard to find anyone who buys an entire ideology, lockstep, in 100% of cases. And thank God for that.

Quote:
Also bluster isn't your strong suit but maybe that was the " Real exchange " you were talking about.

No, it was an exchange with adda, who can hold his own on a level 5-10 times higher than yours. Your "exchange" is the usual... personal snarks that contribute no insights or edification whatsoever.

Quote:
My " bragging " was just offering anyone a helpful tool in dealing with you in case they needed it.

I'm sure capable people like midwinter, BRussel, adda, and Fellows look to you all the time for "help," O Great One.

Quote:
Besides you seem to have no qualms about commenting on my posts directed at you or otherwise.

But, you see, I'm not the one who is excited about the "ignore list discovery."

Quote:
Anyway making a meaningful connection between Obama and this guy seems lame at best. Sorry I guess I hit a tender spot. Oops!

Here's an "oops" for you... Not that it matters to you, but I never said anything about "Obama and this guy." I think you're looking for SDW. That was his post. It's OK, honest mistake.

Now, do you have anything to add to the discussion that does not relate to me?
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #31 of 518
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Both our lives have been better since you discovered your "ignore" list.


As someone who doesn't miss a chance to tell everyone that you don't read my posts, you are either a liar or have no basis to make that case.


How very 2D of you, Constable. It's hard to find anyone who buys an entire ideology, lockstep, in 100% of cases. And thank God for that.


No, it was an exchange with adda, who can hold his own on a level 5-10 times higher than yours. Your "exchange" is the usual... personal snarks that contribute no insights or edification whatsoever.


I'm sure capable people like midwinter, BRussel, adda, and Fellows look to you all the time for "help," O Great One.

But, you see, I'm not the one who is excited about the "ignore list discovery."


Here's an "oops" for you... Not that it matters to you, but I never said anything about "Obama and this guy." I think you're looking for SDW. That was his post. It's OK, honest mistake.

Now, do you have anything to add to the discussion that does not relate to me?

You are an absolute master at saying absolutely nothing.

You said nothing directly about Willam Ayers however in a reply to midwinter you indicate that you think both parties are unethical but continue to make observations about only one.

Sorry about fanning your bluster generator.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #32 of 518
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

You said nothing directly about Willam Ayers

Nothing indirectly, either. It's OK. A simple mistake.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

but continue to make observations about only one.

Um... did you look up any of these names?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Gerry Studds.
Buz Lukens.
Brock Adams.
Jim West.
Wayne Hays.
Richard Curtis.
Gary Hart.
Thomas Evans.
Mel Reynolds.
Ken Calvert.
Barney Frank.
Gary Condit.
Ed Schrock.
Fred Richmond.

I didn't think so.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #33 of 518
midwinter... I have reconsidered my FAUX OUTRAGE comment. I'd like to withdraw "FAUX" from that statement.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #34 of 518
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

midwinter... I have reconsidered my FAUX OUTRAGE comment. I'd like to withdraw "FAUX" from that statement.

Very good, sirrah.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #35 of 518
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

sirrah.

Wow. I have not seen that used in awhile. See if I correct myself again...
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #36 of 518
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Wow. I have not seen that used in awhile. See if I correct myself again...

I told you. I'm OUTRAGED! You can't expect someone who's OUTRAGED to be gracious.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #37 of 518
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

I told you. I'm OUTRAGED! You can't expect someone who's OUTRAGED to be gracious.

That is an excellent point.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #38 of 518
Where does the DNC Find these People?

We now have a Texan, in federal prison in Idaho, running as a Democrat for president.

We already know that Hillary wants the felon vote... how far is the DNC willing to sink to get an electoral advantage? Why are they accepting candidates from prisons? Does this represent a return to the criminality of the first Clinton administration? Will Howard Dean eat a live baby on television? How far will this be allowed to go?

"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #39 of 518
Thread Starter 
GOP staffer freaks out, attacks Dem candidate and reporter. I imagine it was probably because someone pointed out that you can't be both smug and oppressed.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #40 of 518
Thread Starter 
Meet Derek Walker, who's the GOP front-runner in a race to replace the outgoing John Peterson (R):

Quote:
Fifth Congressional District front-runner Derek Walker was charged Thursday with two felonies and four misdemeanors in connection with an incident last August at his former girl friends house in Clearfield.

...

The criminal complaint, filed in District Judge Richard Irelands Clearfield office, charges Walker with burglary and criminal trespass, both felonies, and the misdemeanors criminal attempt, invasion of privacy, disorderly conduct and stalking.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Where Does the GOP Find These People?