Mitch McConnell: Tea Party Is "Ruining" GOP
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,781
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
03 Dec 2013, 6:19 pm
Thelibrarian wrote:
What evidence is there that slaves would have been freed voluntarily in the south? Slavery was more than just an economic system, it was also a determiner of social status. The more slaves a person or family owned, the higher their status. And even those poor whites who didn't own slaves could at least tell themselves they weren't at the bottom of the social ladder with the slaves. And it's for that reason why slavery probably would have been very difficult, if not impossible, to uproot. While it's absolutely true that there had been slaves in the north for a time, the institution had hardly been so hardwired as it had been in the south. And it's absolutely incorrect to say that all poor whites in the south had fought for the Confederacy. Plenty of poor southerners had been drafted against their will into the Confederate army. There was indeed a significant number of white southerners who had either left to fight in the Union army, or like Newton Knight had organized Pro-Union resistance to carry out guerrilla warfare against the Confederate army and government. And it's no surprise that that virtually every one of these Pro-Union southerners were poor men who knew secession was a rich man's cause, and some like Newt Knight even was motivated by anti-slavery sentiments.
You are right that slaves were status, but only insofar as they were wealth. Back then, the rich owned slaves; today they drive a Mercedes. But that is hardly reason why slavery wouldn't have died of its own accord.
A much better argument that slavery would not have died is that the South had set up a true slave-based society--the first since ancient Roman times. But this position would expose the very deceitful liberal narrative on slavery for they lies they are. More particularly, Southern slavery was closer to European serfdom than slavery as it was practiced just about everywhere else.
Slavery was on its way out for a number of reasons: First, the supply of free or very cheap land was running out. The poor non-slave-owning whites managed to get by by squatting on land that they didn't actually own. They essentially survived by living off the land--land that wasn't theirs. The problem is that as land became scarce they would've been chased off of it, and would have had to have a way to support themselves. The only way would have been to end slavery in favor of free labor. With endless supplies of free land, the elites could afford to ignore poor whites. When this dried up, those poor whites would have had to have some way of supporting themselves.
Second as Genovese points out, slavery was already on the wane in Virginia and Maryland at the time of the war, though hardly dead. Slave populations were actually declining in favor of free labor, which is simply a more efficient way of doing things; this is why the north won the war. The reason was that the land had to be rehabilitated instead of used up and abandoned. This required a regimen of care that slavery was simply not capable of providing for a host of reasons.
Third, slavery was good at providing one thing: Unskilled muscle power. One of my favorite slave pictures is of a scrawny slave woman swinging a hoe on a handle that was as thick as a baseball bat. Why? Because tools had a way of self-destructing in the hands of slaves. As technology, and particularly the internal combustion engine, came of age, the need for muscle power was greatly reduced.
Fourth, world opinion. World opinion was turning hard against slavery, and while it may not have ended slavery in and of itself, it would have made it much harder. This factor, in conjunction with the others, guaranteed an end to slavery.
As far as anti-Confederacy Southerners, there were some of these, particularly German Texans, but they were a very small minority. The fact is that every Southern state held a referendum on secession, and in every single state these referenda passed overwhelmingly.
This does NOT mean that average soldiers fought to protect slavery; they had their own reasons for doing so. Thinking that poor Southerners fought to protect slavery is as naive as believing that average soldier fought in Iraq and Afghanistan to for the Jews or big oil. They too had their own reasons.
You are right that slaves were status, but only insofar as they were wealth. Back then, the rich owned slaves; today they drive a Mercedes. But that is hardly reason why slavery wouldn't have died of its own accord.
A much better argument that slavery would not have died is that the South had set up a true slave-based society--the first since ancient Roman times. But this position would expose the very deceitful liberal narrative on slavery for they lies they are. More particularly, Southern slavery was closer to European serfdom than slavery as it was practiced just about everywhere else.
Slavery was on its way out for a number of reasons: First, the supply of free or very cheap land was running out. The poor non-slave-owning whites managed to get by by squatting on land that they didn't actually own. They essentially survived by living off the land--land that wasn't theirs. The problem is that as land became scarce they would've been chased off of it, and would have had to have a way to support themselves. The only way would have been to end slavery in favor of free labor. With endless supplies of free land, the elites could afford to ignore poor whites. When this dried up, those poor whites would have had to have some way of supporting themselves.
Second as Genovese points out, slavery was already on the wane in Virginia and Maryland at the time of the war, though hardly dead. Slave populations were actually declining in favor of free labor, which is simply a more efficient way of doing things; this is why the north won the war. The reason was that the land had to be rehabilitated instead of used up and abandoned. This required a regimen of care that slavery was simply not capable of providing for a host of reasons.
Third, slavery was good at providing one thing: Unskilled muscle power. One of my favorite slave pictures is of a scrawny slave woman swinging a hoe on a handle that was as thick as a baseball bat. Why? Because tools had a way of self-destructing in the hands of slaves. As technology, and particularly the internal combustion engine, came of age, the need for muscle power was greatly reduced.
Fourth, world opinion. World opinion was turning hard against slavery, and while it may not have ended slavery in and of itself, it would have made it much harder. This factor, in conjunction with the others, guaranteed an end to slavery.
As far as anti-Confederacy Southerners, there were some of these, particularly German Texans, but they were a very small minority. The fact is that every Southern state held a referendum on secession, and in every single state these referenda passed overwhelmingly.
This does NOT mean that average soldiers fought to protect slavery; they had their own reasons for doing so. Thinking that poor Southerners fought to protect slavery is as naive as believing that average soldier fought in Iraq and Afghanistan to for the Jews or big oil. They too had their own reasons.
Actually, slavery was being strangled in an anaconda choke hold with leaving the status of each western state and territory as either slave or free up to popular vote. One of the Confederacy's long term goals had been to circumvent that with succession, in order to expand into Mexico, and Central and South America in order to keep slavery alive with new land for cotton fields. The Confederates had no intention of allowing slavery to die away.
And as far as southern slavery resembling serfdom - I'm sorry, but I just don't see it. European serfs of old were tied to the land and owed labor and produce to the landlord, but were hardly chattel to be bought and sold, and had no fear of having their families divided. As a matter of fact, share cropping, which replaced slavery and encompassed both freed slaves and poor whites, had much more in common with serfdom. And it ought to be remembered, serf rebellions were very common, as the serfs saw themselves little better off than slaves.
And while I don't doubt that many poor whites had supported the Confederacy, the fact remains that those opposed it were more than just Texas Germans. Newt Knight - a Mississippian with an Anglo-Saxon name - as well as his small guerrilla army made up of Confederate army deserters and and escaped slaves, were hardly Texas Germans.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
03 Dec 2013, 6:39 pm
GGPViper wrote:
The 1st, 4th and 9th Amendment, and according to Supreme Court case law in the following cases:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas
Roe v. Wade vastly limited the prospects of a police state and judicial tyranny. If you were genuinely concerned about the powers of government, then you would embrace Roe v. Wade unconditionally.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas
Roe v. Wade vastly limited the prospects of a police state and judicial tyranny. If you were genuinely concerned about the powers of government, then you would embrace Roe v. Wade unconditionally.
I read the above and my immediate reaction was ... I don't think you have ever studied law. You listed the 9th amendment (why I have no idea) but I did not see you list the 14th Amendment here, which was the primary argument for the 7-2 decision in Griswold_v._Connecticut, which then became the precedent for Roe vs. Wade. In other words, it seems you were just copying and pasting decisions that you liked.
And then you state that Roe vs. Wade is an expansion of freedom? Its main argument is to consider the unborn baby as a kind of personal property, which is a position akin to what happened under slavery, which allowed for certain races of peoples to be treated also as private property. I therefore don't understand how you can view this as an expansion of freedom. Rather, it appears to be a contraction of human rights, and a giant step backwards.
sonofghandi
Veteran
Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,540
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)
03 Dec 2013, 6:46 pm
JSBACHlover wrote:
sonofghandi wrote:
You just seem to be calling for the majority of our national budget to be used for border patrol. The infrastructure set-up alone would cost a large fortune, and the logistics would be a nightmare.
I don't understand the above. The United States, under the Department of Defense, built our vast highway system. It was an extraordinary undertaking, tens if not hundreds of thousands of miles of sophisticated roads. And it didn't break the national budget in the least.
So: What in the world can be so hard about building a security wall across the southern border? That kind of undertaking is peanuts compared to what Eisenhower began in the 1950s. Moreover, it would be a great boon for the local economies involved in its construction.
I think there are only two reasons why people say it's too "cost prohibitive" to protect the southern border. 1) They forgot what the U.S. was able to accomplish in the 20th century in regard to infrastructure; or 2) they want illegal immigration.
What exactly is a wall going to do? They aren't going to stop coming because you build a ridiculously expensive wall for them to climb over or tunnel under. as for the interstate system, we had less budgetary requirements and less debt then by far. Since our government can't agree on funding for existing programs and liabilities, where is that cash going to come from?
I am not in favor of illegal immigration. I just don't think that it should be our primary concern. Why not spend that money fixing our increasingly poor roads and our collapsing bridges, improve our port facilities, start lending to small businesses, demolishing abandoned buildings in some of our worst cities, develop a comprehensive job training and placement program, provide better financial assistance for college students, or actually fund OSHA enough to inspect workplaces for employee safety issues?
_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche
03 Dec 2013, 6:52 pm
sonofghandi wrote:
What exactly is a wall going to do? They aren't going to stop coming because you build a ridiculously expensive wall for them to climb over or tunnel under.
Actually, if you engineer walls properly with sensory devices, etc. it would work just fine. Good walls usually stop people.
sonofghandi
Veteran
Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,540
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)
03 Dec 2013, 6:54 pm
JSBACHlover wrote:
I want to share something with the posters on this thread.
When I, a Yankee, moved to Mississippi for a job in the 1990s, I befriended an old man named Joe (he was friends with Eudora Welty and a gentleman in every respect. Joe is in his mid-90s by now and is slipping into senility).
Anyway, back in the 1920s, he was raised by his wet nurse"Tiola" who was black. When this little boy hurt himself he wouldn't go running to his mother but to Tiola. Tiola was considered part of the family. Tiola used to tell Joe stories, and one day she told him a story from her childhood, a story about the day when the slaves were freed. Most of the slave-owners (at least in Mississippi) considered their slaves to be part of the family, and most of the slaves had a genuine love for their masters, who fed them, clothed them, and taught them how to read. The masters did this because they were above all Christians, who felt responsible for their slaves. (This was Tiola's experience.)
When I, a Yankee, moved to Mississippi for a job in the 1990s, I befriended an old man named Joe (he was friends with Eudora Welty and a gentleman in every respect. Joe is in his mid-90s by now and is slipping into senility).
Anyway, back in the 1920s, he was raised by his wet nurse"Tiola" who was black. When this little boy hurt himself he wouldn't go running to his mother but to Tiola. Tiola was considered part of the family. Tiola used to tell Joe stories, and one day she told him a story from her childhood, a story about the day when the slaves were freed. Most of the slave-owners (at least in Mississippi) considered their slaves to be part of the family, and most of the slaves had a genuine love for their masters, who fed them, clothed them, and taught them how to read. The masters did this because they were above all Christians, who felt responsible for their slaves. (This was Tiola's experience.)
I have some trouble with your story about a man who knew a former slave when he was a child being used as evidence of the overall treatment of slaves in Mississippi. And it was illegal to teach slaves how to read. And as for Christianity and slavery, there were plenty of passages taken from the Bible (Old and New Testaments) that were used as justification for treating slaves as livestock. Not to mention the fact that in many areas slaves were prohibited from religious gatherings of any type.
And yes, some slaves were treated well by their masters. But they were still slaves and property for their owners. Even if every single slave owner treated their slaves well, they still owned other human beings. Even without the horrors of slavery, that is wrong any way you slice it.
_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche
sonofghandi
Veteran
Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,540
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)
03 Dec 2013, 7:02 pm
JSBACHlover wrote:
sonofghandi wrote:
What exactly is a wall going to do? They aren't going to stop coming because you build a ridiculously expensive wall for them to climb over or tunnel under.
Actually, if you engineer walls properly with sensory devices, etc. it would work just fine. Good walls usually stop people.
Good walls usually stop people who are not highly motivated and/or desperate, you mean. Adding a bunch of sensors to a wall isn't going to do much, either, other than increase the costs to an even higher level.
_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche
03 Dec 2013, 7:35 pm
Slavery sucks and so did share cropping.
On one side of the family they did share cropping.
On Sundays the landowners gathered on the veranda and listened to the workers below sing hymns,on what was suppose to be their day off.How nice.
_________________
I am the dust that dances in the light. - Rumi
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,781
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
03 Dec 2013, 7:39 pm
Misslizard wrote:
Slavery sucks and so did share cropping.
On one side of the family they did share cropping.
On Sundays the landowners gathered on the veranda and listened to the workers below sing hymns,on what was suppose to be their day off.How nice.
On one side of the family they did share cropping.
On Sundays the landowners gathered on the veranda and listened to the workers below sing hymns,on what was suppose to be their day off.How nice.
I can imagine what they really wished they could be singing to the bossman.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
03 Dec 2013, 7:40 pm
ruveyn wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
Good deal. The country will be much better off without the GOP. The Republican Party should've gone out with slavery.
Have you ever studied American History. The Republican Party was formed as an anti-slavery party in 1859. It was the Democrats that were pro-slavery back then.
Question: What was Abraham Lincoln's political party? Think about it.
ruveyn
The North-South divide still exists, but the labels have changed.
03 Dec 2013, 7:41 pm
sonofghandi wrote:
JSBACHlover wrote:
sonofghandi wrote:
What exactly is a wall going to do? They aren't going to stop coming because you build a ridiculously expensive wall for them to climb over or tunnel under.
Actually, if you engineer walls properly with sensory devices, etc. it would work just fine. Good walls usually stop people.
Good walls usually stop people who are not highly motivated and/or desperate, you mean. Adding a bunch of sensors to a wall isn't going to do much, either, other than increase the costs to an even higher level.
I think that our exchange has reached an impasse. It can only be answered objectively by a civil engineer.
03 Dec 2013, 7:46 pm
sonofghandi wrote:
I have some trouble with your story about a man who knew a former slave when he was a child being used as evidence of the overall treatment of slaves in Mississippi. And it was illegal to teach slaves how to read.
I never used this as "evidence of the overall treatment of slaves in Mississippi." As I wrote at the end of my account, this was just one story. As for it being illegal to teach slaves to read, that is a matter of fact of history. However, at least at Tiola's place, this piece of legislation was ignored. As I say, it was one example, one story.
03 Dec 2013, 8:07 pm
JSBACHlover wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
The 1st, 4th and 9th Amendment, and according to Supreme Court case law in the following cases:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas
Roe v. Wade vastly limited the prospects of a police state and judicial tyranny. If you were genuinely concerned about the powers of government, then you would embrace Roe v. Wade unconditionally.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas
Roe v. Wade vastly limited the prospects of a police state and judicial tyranny. If you were genuinely concerned about the powers of government, then you would embrace Roe v. Wade unconditionally.
I read the above and my immediate reaction was ... I don't think you have ever studied law.
You listed the 9th amendment (why I have no idea) but I did not see you list the 14th Amendment here, which was the primary argument for the 7-2 decision in Griswold_v._Connecticut, which then became the precedent for Roe vs. Wade. In other words, it seems you were just copying and pasting decisions that you liked.
No, it wasn't. Please read Griswold v. Connecticut before pointing fingers at others.
The 14th Amendment reference was from the concurring opinion by Justice Goldberg (and thus not the official 7-2 opinion, which was judicial activism in overdrive). But I'm glad that you mentioned that case... Because here are two excerpts from the Goldberg concurrence:
Although I have not accepted the view that "due process," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, incorporates all of the first eight Amendments (see my concurring opinion in Pointer v. Texas, , and the dissenting opinion of MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN in Cohen v. Hurley), I do agree that the concept of liberty protects those personal rights that are fundamental, and is not confined to the specific terms of the Bill of Rights. My conclusion that the concept of liberty is not so restricted, and that it embraces the right of marital privacy, though that right is not mentioned explicitly in the Constitution, is supported both by numerous decisions of this Court, referred to in the Court's opinion, and by the language and history of the Ninth Amendment.
This Court, in a series of decisions, has held that the Fourteenth Amendment absorbs and applies to the States those specifics of the first eight amendments which express fundamental personal rights. [b]The language and history of the Ninth Amendment reveal that the Framers of the Constitution believed that there are additional fundamental rights, protected from governmental infringement, which exist alongside those fundamental rights specifically mentioned in the first eight constitutional amendments.
And the Roe v. Wade Opinion twice referred to the Goldberg concurrence when justifying their ruling.
If you have no idea why I referred to the 9th Amendment, then perhaps you should think twice before pointing at others for not understanding US law.
JSBACHlover wrote:
And then you state that Roe vs. Wade is an expansion of freedom? Its main argument is to consider the unborn baby as a kind of personal property, which is a position akin to what happened under slavery, which allowed for certain races of peoples to be treated also as private property. I therefore don't understand how you can view this as an expansion of freedom. Rather, it appears to be a contraction of human rights, and a giant step backwards.
The typical rhetorical device. You start by making the claim "unborn baby" - without actually reflecting on whether or not a few cells at the very earliest stages of pregnancy (zygotes) can meaningfully be considered unborn babies. You argument only holds if people accept that premise. I do not.
Instead, I see Roe vs. Wade as one of the most powerful safeguards against government power (and against subversions of the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the 1st Amendment, as anti-abortion attitudes in the US tend to correlate highly with specific religious attitudes). Considering the historical tendency for governments to be excessive busybodies when it comes to all aspects of the lives of women, Roe v. Wade should be a beacon of hope for anyone who champions limited government and individual freedom.
Jacoby
Veteran
Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash
sonofghandi
Veteran
Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,540
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)
03 Dec 2013, 11:31 pm
GGPViper wrote:
JSBACHlover wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
The 1st, 4th and 9th Amendment, and according to Supreme Court case law in the following cases:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas
Roe v. Wade vastly limited the prospects of a police state and judicial tyranny. If you were genuinely concerned about the powers of government, then you would embrace Roe v. Wade unconditionally.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas
Roe v. Wade vastly limited the prospects of a police state and judicial tyranny. If you were genuinely concerned about the powers of government, then you would embrace Roe v. Wade unconditionally.
I read the above and my immediate reaction was ... I don't think you have ever studied law.
You listed the 9th amendment (why I have no idea) but I did not see you list the 14th Amendment here, which was the primary argument for the 7-2 decision in Griswold_v._Connecticut, which then became the precedent for Roe vs. Wade. In other words, it seems you were just copying and pasting decisions that you liked.
No, it wasn't. Please read Griswold v. Connecticut before pointing fingers at others.
The 14th Amendment reference was from the concurring opinion by Justice Goldberg (and thus not the official 7-2 opinion, which was judicial activism in overdrive). But I'm glad that you mentioned that case... Because here are two excerpts from the Goldberg concurrence:
Although I have not accepted the view that "due process," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, incorporates all of the first eight Amendments (see my concurring opinion in Pointer v. Texas, , and the dissenting opinion of MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN in Cohen v. Hurley), I do agree that the concept of liberty protects those personal rights that are fundamental, and is not confined to the specific terms of the Bill of Rights. My conclusion that the concept of liberty is not so restricted, and that it embraces the right of marital privacy, though that right is not mentioned explicitly in the Constitution, is supported both by numerous decisions of this Court, referred to in the Court's opinion, and by the language and history of the Ninth Amendment.
This Court, in a series of decisions, has held that the Fourteenth Amendment absorbs and applies to the States those specifics of the first eight amendments which express fundamental personal rights. [b]The language and history of the Ninth Amendment reveal that the Framers of the Constitution believed that there are additional fundamental rights, protected from governmental infringement, which exist alongside those fundamental rights specifically mentioned in the first eight constitutional amendments.
And the Roe v. Wade Opinion twice referred to the Goldberg concurrence when justifying their ruling.
If you have no idea why I referred to the 9th Amendment, then perhaps you should think twice before pointing at others for not understanding US law.
JSBACHlover wrote:
And then you state that Roe vs. Wade is an expansion of freedom? Its main argument is to consider the unborn baby as a kind of personal property, which is a position akin to what happened under slavery, which allowed for certain races of peoples to be treated also as private property. I therefore don't understand how you can view this as an expansion of freedom. Rather, it appears to be a contraction of human rights, and a giant step backwards.
The typical rhetorical device. You start by making the claim "unborn baby" - without actually reflecting on whether or not a few cells at the very earliest stages of pregnancy (zygotes) can meaningfully be considered unborn babies. You argument only holds if people accept that premise. I do not.
Instead, I see Roe vs. Wade as one of the most powerful safeguards against government power (and against subversions of the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the 1st Amendment, as anti-abortion attitudes in the US tend to correlate highly with specific religious attitudes). Considering the historical tendency for governments to be excessive busybodies when it comes to all aspects of the lives of women, Roe v. Wade should be a beacon of hope for anyone who champions limited government and individual freedom.
1) Sorry for pointing fingers at you so harshly. It's been a while since I have studied this case. I was thinking that Griswold v Connecticut cited Amendments 1, 3, 4, 5, and 8; but my memory failed me. I double-checked. You were right it was not 8 but 9. Yet what caught my eye in your original posting was your omission of 14, that that was the primary Amendment considered by Justice Douglas in the Majority Opinion. So when you omitted it, I made the assumption that you were cherry-picking from Wikipedia. I apologize. Although, again, I don't know why you omitted it.
2) As for Roe v Wade, you state "The typical rhetorical device. You start by making the claim "unborn baby" - without actually reflecting on whether or not a few cells at the very earliest stages of pregnancy (zygotes) can meaningfully be considered unborn babies. You argument only holds if people accept that premise. I do not. " I understand that. Now, I do indeed consider those "few cells" a human person. However, in practice, the law allows for abortion on any fetus well into the 2nd trimester, and even well into the 8th month. Any denial of the existence of a human person in the womb by appealing to the rhetoric of a "few cells" is sidestepping the issue. If you honestly think that aborting a 7-month old fetus is a great triumph in human rights and an example of "limited government," well, then just say so.
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| McConnell to step down as Senate GOP leader |
28 Feb 2024, 1:18 pm |
|
Adhd is ruining my life
in Bipolar, Tourettes, Schizophrenia, and other Psychological Conditions |
28 Mar 2024, 5:02 pm |
| Ruining my Life/Wife... |
07 Apr 2024, 2:40 pm |
| Sensory issues ruining relationships |
24 Jan 2024, 2:47 am |
