Home

This is not a trick question
Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next  Last >>
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum -> In the News

Report offensive ad

View latest: 24h 48h 72h


JoyInTheMorning









  


Post  Thu, Sep 13 2018, 6:18 pm
The hats stand for cats. They stand for taking back a word that should not be seen as vulgar but that Trump used in a vulgar and obscene way.

Like Miri said, the hats look like cats. They have little cat ears on them. Vag!nas don't have cat ears on them. They do not look like vag!nas.
Back to top

Miri7









  


Post  Thu, Sep 13 2018, 6:25 pm
JoyInTheMorning wrote:
The hats stand for cats. They stand for taking back a word that should not be seen as vulgar but that Trump used in a vulgar and obscene way.

Like Miri said, the hats look like cats. They have little cat ears on them. Vag!nas don't have cat ears on them. They do not look like vag!nas.


Yes, and if the hat resembles ones genitalia, the one should get to the OBGYN immediately!!
Back to top

JoyInTheMorning









  


Post  Thu, Sep 13 2018, 6:42 pm
Miri7 wrote:
Yes, and if the hat resembles ones genitalia, the one should get to the OBGYN immediately!!


LOL !!
Back to top

Squishy









  


Post  Thu, Sep 13 2018, 7:19 pm
SixOfWands wrote:
Really? Its meant to be "demeaning"?

The President is on tape saying, "You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.... Grab ’em by the p****. You can do anything." So you agree that he intended it to be a statement demeaning to women, that he intended to be demeaning by his comments.

Because I don't recall your being nearly as upset by his use of the term, and bragging about grabbing women's crotches, as you are about pink hats.

The hats are nothing more than a taking back of the term. Yes, President Trump. You use an offensive term, and brag about assaulting women. Maybe when you see us, you think of us as nothing more than crotches. But we are strong. And we will oppose your z3xualizaiton of us.


Trump's was a private conversation. I don't condone his use of the word, but he didn't publicize his private conversations. I would be just as upset if his followers marched with vulgar hats on their heads.

I have the same feelings about gays. What you do privately is not my concern. Keep it private.

I have a problem with a lot of the women that Trump came on to. I know it is not popular to say that woman's behavior contributes to the reactions of men. But these woman put themselves in compromising positions to be near money and power.

I have the same problem with the me too movement when a woman claims she was raped by a guy in HIS hotel room.

Don't be a fool and go to HIS hotel room. Bad things could happen. And yes, of course, they have the right to say no. I don't extrapolate this to every rape victim, so don't try to go there.

DT was not randomly grabbing woman on the street. He was kissing woman who came close enough to be kissed.
Back to top

Squishy









  


Post  Thu, Sep 13 2018, 7:25 pm
JoyInTheMorning wrote:
The hats stand for cats. They stand for taking back a word that should not be seen as vulgar but that Trump used in a vulgar and obscene way.

Like Miri said, the hats look like cats. They have little cat ears on them. Vag!nas don't have cat ears on them. They do not look like vag!nas.


Pleeeze. You don't believe that either.

The word was used for female genitalia for over 300 years long preceding DT.
Back to top

Fox









  


Post  Thu, Sep 13 2018, 7:30 pm
Squishy's original question has nothing to do with President Trump, and if you're allowing your opinion about him to determine your attitude toward the left, you are allowing the tail to wag the dog. More accurately, you're asking the cat to tell the dog to roll over or fetch.

The migration of the left to post-modernism and de facto Marxism predates Trump's entry into politics by decades, and many if not most believe that "religion is the opiate of the masses."

And for that reason, the left, as it has evolved, is profoundly dangerous for observant Jews.

At the obvious level, it is dangerous because of the widespread tolerance for anti-Semitism. In Britain, the Labour Party is so cozy with anti-Semitic individuals and rhetoric that 40 percent of Jews indicate they would consider leaving if/when Jeremy Corbyn becomes Prime Minister.

In North America, the left has regularly allowed anti-Israel sentiment to cross the line into anti-Jewish sentiment. The list of incidents of outright discrimination or harassment at universities is mind-boggling. Just last week, the University of Toronto found in favor of a professor who had refused to meet with a Jewish student regarding admission to a doctoral program, accusing him of being an Israeli agent whose role on campus was to indoctrinate students. The only problem, they said, was the professor's "tone."

Why is left-wing anti-Semitism more troubling than right-wing anti-Semitism? Because the argument that "there are crazies on both sides" isn't quite accurate. Combining all the members of the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazi, and various white supremacist groups, there are about 3,000 individuals on the right who hate Jews in an organized fashion. Their events rarely draw more than a few dozen people.

Morever, the people represented by those groups have no real power and are unlikely to get any.

Compare that to the impact of the BDS campaign, Students for Justice in Palestine, and the linking of various progressive causes to anti-Zionism. Don't forget that in all the back-and-forth about cat hats, women who believe the State of Israel has a right to exist have repeatedly been denied entry or ejected from Women's Marches around the country.

But there is a more subtle problem with the left and observant Jews. It is not simply that the left is increasingly and more openly anti-Semitic. It is that the left is, in fact, disdainful toward all religious belief and expression. Their view is not "live and let live." It is "religious practice is a form of bigotry and must be wiped out."

If you doubt me, recall for a minute the words of Martin R. Castro, the Head of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights under President Obama:

Quote:
"the phrases 'religious liberty' and 'religious freedom' will stand for nothing except hypocrisy so long as they remain code words for discrimination, intolerance, racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, Christian supremacy or any form of intolerance."

In other words, if your religion doesn't match the prevailing notions of the day in some way, shape, or form, you are by definition a bigot.

Right now, the primary battle being fought against the left has nothing to do with Trump. It is against Google, Facebook, and Twitter, all of whom manipulate access to information in ways that favor their own points of view. When the algorithms don't work, they simply ban people who say the wrong things.

Two years ago, I was criticized for protesting Milo's Twitter ban. After all, he's a provocateur. He says outrageous things. He's made a career of being objectionable. Etc., etc., etc. But everyone knew that his ban was the shot fired across the bow. The bans and suspensions have continued unabated. Two weeks ago, Alex Jones was kicked off of everywhere. Well, gosh, hard to defend Alex Jones, right?

This week, Facebook handed down a 30-day suspension to Brandon Straka, the Manhattan hairdresser who started the #WalkAway movement. His crime? Giving a bad blunt cut? No, he mentioned Alex Jones' show in a post.

If any of you think that a site such as Imamother is safe, don't delude yourself. Remember the Imamother who outed herself and flounced off? What if she and her buddies had mounted a campaign to make sure no one would provide hosting services for Imamother? Or bombarded ISPs to block Imamother because of all the "hate speech" about going to Uman?

The people who are eager to shut down Milo, Alex Jones, and Brandon Straka don't see any difference between those people and us. The fact that we're religious Jews makes us just as suspect in their eyes.

The following is an adaptation of Martin Niemöller's famous poem by a college student, Micah Sample, who was disciplined by his college for criticizing a poster put out by the administration regarding Halloween costumes:

Quote:
First, they came for Milo, and you did not speak out—

Because you were not Milo.

Then they came for Dr. Jordan Peterson, and you did not speak out—

Because you were not Dr. Jordan Peterson.

Then they came for Google engineer James Damore, and you did not speak out—

Because you were not Google engineer James Damore.

Then they came for Wilfrid Laurier teacher’s assistant Lindsey Shepherd, and you did not speak out—

Because you were not Wilfrid Laurier teacher’s assistant Lindsey Shepherd.

Then they came for Professor Rachel Fulton Brown, and you did not speak out—

Because you were not Professor Rachel Fulton Brown.

Then they came for Alex Jones, and you did not speak out—

Because you were not Alex Jones.

Then they came for me; and you did not speak out—

Because you were not Micah Sample.

But you are Micah Sample. You are Alex Jones. You are Rachel Fulton Brown. You are Lindsey Shepherd. You are James Damore. You are Jordan Peterson. You are Milo.

You are the individual, created equal under the eyes of G-d, whose telos is to embody the Logos and to speak the truth.

When they come for one of us, they come for us all, because we all bear the responsibility of being images of G-d. It is only a matter of time before they come for you, too. Heed my warning. Like the prophets Micah and Isaiah, after whom I’m named, I warn you of impending disaster. Hear, O Israel.

Speak out now. Speak, before you are muzzled. Speak, before the dead silence envelopes us all, leaving nothing– no celestial music, no raucous laughter, no infant’s cry, no lover’s whisper.

Back to top

Squishy









  


Post  Thu, Sep 13 2018, 7:33 pm
SixOfWands wrote:


You can take the word back. I never wanted it anyway.

DT had a disgusting conversation about women. There is no question about that, but it was a private conversation.

I don't agree that he assaulted women. He made passes at women who let him know they were available. According to your post, he started kissing them first before he moved his hands downward to their crotch.
Back to top

FranticFrummie









  


Post  Thu, Sep 13 2018, 7:52 pm
Politics make strange bedfellows - or are these just birds of a feather?

Clintons w Farrakhan Puke

https://worldisraelnews.com/op.....9_09_09_09
Back to top

fmt4









  


Post  Thu, Sep 13 2018, 8:00 pm
Fox wrote:
Squishy's original question has nothing to do with President Trump, and if you're allowing your opinion about him to determine your attitude toward the left, you are allowing the tail to wag the dog. More accurately, you're asking the cat to tell the dog to roll over or fetch.

The migration of the left to post-modernism and de facto Marxism predates Trump's entry into politics by decades, and many if not most believe that "religion is the opiate of the masses."

And for that reason, the left, as it has evolved, is profoundly dangerous for observant Jews.

At the obvious level, it is dangerous because of the widespread tolerance for anti-Semitism. In Britain, the Labour Party is so cozy with anti-Semitic individuals and rhetoric that 40 percent of Jews indicate they would consider leaving if/when Jeremy Corbyn becomes Prime Minister.

In North America, the left has regularly allowed anti-Israel sentiment to cross the line into anti-Jewish sentiment. The list of incidents of outright discrimination or harassment at universities is mind-boggling. Just last week, the University of Toronto found in favor of a professor who had refused to meet with a Jewish student regarding admission to a doctoral program, accusing him of being an Israeli agent whose role on campus was to indoctrinate students. The only problem, they said, was the professor's "tone."

Why is left-wing anti-Semitism more troubling than right-wing anti-Semitism? Because the argument that "there are crazies on both sides" isn't quite accurate. Combining all the members of the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazi, and various white supremacist groups, there are about 3,000 individuals on the right who hate Jews in an organized fashion. Their events rarely draw more than a few dozen people.

Morever, the people represented by those groups have no real power and are unlikely to get any.

Compare that to the impact of the BDS campaign, Students for Justice in Palestine, and the linking of various progressive causes to anti-Zionism. Don't forget that in all the back-and-forth about cat hats, women who believe the State of Israel has a right to exist have repeatedly been denied entry or ejected from Women's Marches around the country.

But there is a more subtle problem with the left and observant Jews. It is not simply that the left is increasingly and more openly anti-Semitic. It is that the left is, in fact, disdainful toward all religious belief and expression. Their view is not "live and let live." It is "religious practice is a form of bigotry and must be wiped out."

If you doubt me, recall for a minute the words of Martin R. Castro, the Head of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights under President Obama:

Quote:
"the phrases 'religious liberty' and 'religious freedom' will stand for nothing except hypocrisy so long as they remain code words for discrimination, intolerance, racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, Christian supremacy or any form of intolerance."

In other words, if your religion doesn't match the prevailing notions of the day in some way, shape, or form, you are by definition a bigot.

Right now, the primary battle being fought against the left has nothing to do with Trump. It is against Google, Facebook, and Twitter, all of whom manipulate access to information in ways that favor their own points of view. When the algorithms don't work, they simply ban people who say the wrong things.

Two years ago, I was criticized for protesting Milo's Twitter ban. After all, he's a provocateur. He says outrageous things. He's made a career of being objectionable. Etc., etc., etc. But everyone knew that his ban was the shot fired across the bow. The bans and suspensions have continued unabated. Two weeks ago, Alex Jones was kicked off of everywhere. Well, gosh, hard to defend Alex Jones, right?

This week, Facebook handed down a 30-day suspension to Brandon Straka, the Manhattan hairdresser who started the #WalkAway movement. His crime? Giving a bad blunt cut? No, he mentioned Alex Jones' show in a post.

If any of you think that a site such as Imamother is safe, don't delude yourself. Remember the Imamother who outed herself and flounced off? What if she and her buddies had mounted a campaign to make sure no one would provide hosting services for Imamother? Or bombarded ISPs to block Imamother because of all the "hate speech" about going to Uman?

The people who are eager to shut down Milo, Alex Jones, and Brandon Straka don't see any difference between those people and us. The fact that we're religious Jews makes us just as suspect in their eyes.

The following is an adaptation of Martin Niemöller's famous poem by a college student, Micah Sample, who was disciplined by his college for criticizing a poster put out by the administration regarding Halloween costumes:

Quote:
First, they came for Milo, and you did not speak out—

Because you were not Milo.

Then they came for Dr. Jordan Peterson, and you did not speak out—

Because you were not Dr. Jordan Peterson.

Then they came for Google engineer James Damore, and you did not speak out—

Because you were not Google engineer James Damore.

Then they came for Wilfrid Laurier teacher’s assistant Lindsey Shepherd, and you did not speak out—

Because you were not Wilfrid Laurier teacher’s assistant Lindsey Shepherd.

Then they came for Professor Rachel Fulton Brown, and you did not speak out—

Because you were not Professor Rachel Fulton Brown.

Then they came for Alex Jones, and you did not speak out—

Because you were not Alex Jones.

Then they came for me; and you did not speak out—

Because you were not Micah Sample.

But you are Micah Sample. You are Alex Jones. You are Rachel Fulton Brown. You are Lindsey Shepherd. You are James Damore. You are Jordan Peterson. You are Milo.

You are the individual, created equal under the eyes of G-d, whose telos is to embody the Logos and to speak the truth.

When they come for one of us, they come for us all, because we all bear the responsibility of being images of G-d. It is only a matter of time before they come for you, too. Heed my warning. Like the prophets Micah and Isaiah, after whom I’m named, I warn you of impending disaster. Hear, O Israel.

Speak out now. Speak, before you are muzzled. Speak, before the dead silence envelopes us all, leaving nothing– no celestial music, no raucous laughter, no infant’s cry, no lover’s whisper.



Brandon Straka’s FB ban was a mistake and he was reinstated. https://www.google.com/amp/s/o.....k-ban/amp/
Also he didn’t just mention infowars, he said that he was going to be on the show.
Also, correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t the whole FB brouhaha with Zuckerberg and the senate involving RIGHT wing propoganada from Russian bots being promulgated?
Back to top

fmt4









  


Post  Thu, Sep 13 2018, 8:01 pm
Oh and sorry but that poem made me laugh. And they say that the left is melodramatic.
Back to top

itsmeima









  


Post  Thu, Sep 13 2018, 8:09 pm
Squishy wrote:
Trump's was a private conversation. I don't condone his use of the word, but he didn't publicize his private conversations. I would be just as upset if his followers marched with vulgar hats on their heads.

I have the same feelings about gays. What you do privately is not my concern. Keep it private.

I have a problem with a lot of the women that Trump came on to. I know it is not popular to say that woman's behavior contributes to the reactions of men. But these woman put themselves in compromising positions to be near money and power.

I have the same problem with the me too movement when a woman claims she was raped by a guy in HIS hotel room.

Don't be a fool and go to HIS hotel room.
Bad things could happen. And yes, of course, they have the right to say no. I don't extrapolate this to every rape victim, so don't try to go there.

DT was not randomly grabbing woman on the street. He was kissing woman who came close enough to be kissed.


Sad!
Back to top

Fox









  


Post  Thu, Sep 13 2018, 8:12 pm
fmt4 wrote:
Brandon Straka’s FB ban was a mistake and he was reinstated. https://www.google.com/amp/s/o.....k-ban/amp/
Also he didn’t just mention infowars, he said that he was going to be on the show.
Also, correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t the whole FB brouhaha with Zuckerberg and the senate involving RIGHT wing propoganada from Russian bots being promulgated?

Funny how those "mistakes" only go in one direction, isn't it? And you're okay with banning someone for associating with a banned individual? I mean, it works for Scientology, I guess . . .

What do Russian bots have to do with bans? All bots can do is raise the level of a trending topic and show a higher level of engagement than really exists.

fmt4 wrote:
Oh and sorry but that poem made me laugh. And they say that the left is melodramatic.

Well, of course it's melodramatic! He's a college student. Now, argue with my (or his) actual thesis.
Back to top

fmt4









  


Post  Thu, Sep 13 2018, 8:28 pm
https://www.google.com/amp/nym.....iased.html

I think this article brought up a lot of interesting points despite being from a “leftist” publication. One point that is especially salient is when he points out how ridiculous it is for right wingers to claim that Trump won the election because of social media outlets like FB and Twitter, but then also claim that those mediums are unfairly biased. Which one is it?
Back to top

SixOfWands









  


Post  Thu, Sep 13 2018, 8:56 pm
Fox wrote:
Well, of course it's melodramatic! He's a college student. Now, argue with my (or his) actual thesis.


Twitter is not the government. It doesn't have to allow anyone to say anything on its platform. Any more than Breitbart has to allow Rachel Maddow to post editorials on its site. Or than Yael has to allow my wonderful, halachically Jewish friend to post here about her personal lord and savior. So none of this has anything to do with free speech.

Alex Jones claimed that Sandy Hook was fake, a false flag attack. He published the addresses of Noah Pozner's family. They had to flee. They have been harassed, and have received death threats. This is not protected speech.

And no private entity has an obligation to publish his ugly lies.

Nor do they have an obligation to publish anything by your beloved Milo, or anyone else. Although there are plenty of outlets that can and do.

But why aren't you screaming about Trump's threats to change defamation law, which would undoubtedly squelch free speech?

Where is your indignation about a California State University, Fresno, adjunct professor who was removed from his position for sending tweets criticizing President Trump?

Your horror that at University of California, San Diego, death threats led to the cancellation of a commencement address by a Princeton professor who had already given one at Hampshire College that was harshly critical of President Trump?

In any event, conservatives are, as usual, overblowing isolated incidents. https://www.nbcnews.com/think/.....ncna858906
Back to top

Fox









  


Post  Thu, Sep 13 2018, 9:02 pm
fmt4 wrote:
https://www.google.com/amp/nymag.com/selectall/amp/2018/06/are-twitter-and-facebook-really-biased.html

I think this article brought up a lot of interesting points despite being from a “leftist” publication. One point that is especially salient is when he points out how ridiculous it is for right wingers to claim that Trump won the election because of social media outlets like FB and Twitter, but then also claim that those mediums are unfairly biased. Which one is it?

I hope Max Read didn't actually get paid for this dog's breakfast.

Let's start by noting that there is no actual reporting or use of original sources. He quotes a Washington Post article to tell us what conservatives allegedly think. He also quotes Guy Benson by simply reproducing a tweet. Apparently he didn't actually reach out to Guy Benson to verify his conclusions based on the tweet. And believe me, Guy Benson is pretty accessible.

But moving forward, Read says the Washington Post says that conservatives say that they have three primary complaints:

Quote:
Sifting through the Post article, you can identify only three specific complaints: one, that Dorsey “runs a platform that’s supposed to be neutral even though he’s tweeted about issues like immigration, gay rights and national politics”; two, that Twitter and other social networks “secretly limit the reach of their content”; and three, that Twitter Moments — Twitter’s editorial section, which collects tweets around specific news stories or trending topics — “often paints right-leaning people and issues in a negative light, or excludes them entirely.”

The first is simply ridiculous. No one cares what @jack tweets about. The second -- shadow-banning -- is well established and has been confirmed by Twitter employees. The third sounds like the manipulation of trending topics -- also confirmed by Twitter employees.

But these are minor quibbles compared to the thesis of the essay -- that Trump's use of social media is incompatible with anti-conservative or anti-Trump bias.

Read makes no case whatsoever for these two facts being mutually exclusive. Neither Twitter nor any other social media bans all conservative or all pro-Trump sentiment. As I noted above, their "mistakes" just always happen in one direction. Moreover, as the recently-released footage from Google shows, social media companies consider this a feature, not a bug. They are protecting "low-information voters" from getting the "wrong" information.

While Internet censorship from the left is a serious long-term concern, conservatives and libertarian-types benefit greatly from the ham-handed bans. When yet another "mistake" occurs, it demonstrates to the political base that censorship is real, and it pushes people in the middle to the right.

Of course, the great irony is that the Free Speech Movement of the 60s was the work of leftists, demonstrating how easily power corrupts.
Back to top

Cheiny









  


Post  Thu, Sep 13 2018, 9:08 pm
Squishy wrote:
1. I have consistently said that Trump's was a private conversation. It wasn't millions of people talking about and wearing them.

2. It is disingenuous and silly to call them cat hats. They aren't a substitute for a cat.

3. The women didn't take back the word. They spread the vulgar word. As I said, my kids didn't know that vulgarity. They made it more acceptable in the vernacular; however, it is only used in a disgusting manner.

Honestly, do the hats stand for cats or female genitalia?


Unfortunately I don’t think the other side wants to hear common sense if it doesn’t jive with their hatred of the president.
Back to top

Cheiny









  


Post  Thu, Sep 13 2018, 9:11 pm
SixOfWands wrote:
Private conversation or not. Do you agree that Trump made a demeaning remark about women, and bragged about assaulting them? SixOfWands"]


No doubt when Bill Clinton horribly disrespected the presidency in the Oval Office with his extramarital girlfriend, you were equally appalled?
Back to top

Fox









  


Post  Thu, Sep 13 2018, 9:13 pm
SixOfWands wrote:
Twitter is not the government. It doesn't have to allow anyone to say anything on its platform. Any more than Breitbart has to allow Rachel Maddow to post editorials on its site. Or than Yael has to allow my wonderful, halachically Jewish friend to post here about her personal lord and savior. So none of this has anything to do with free speech.

You are confused.

The First Amendment protects speech from governmental interference. We have a body of law arising out of this that determines what is and what is not protected speech, etc.

"Freedom of speech" is a value. Twitter (and other social media outlets) must decide if they wish to be publishers or public squares. Jack Dorsey has told Congress that he wishes Twitter to be a public square. If that is the case, Twitter cannot simultaneously act like a publisher, exerting editorial control over what is said.

There is certainly nothing wrong with Twitter, et. al., deciding that they are publishers. This is what Breitbart and MSNBC have done. Their editorial stance is not a secret to their readers or others. Imamother, too, makes its "editorial viewpoint" explicit through a statement on the home page and through rules.

If @jack wants to do the same, have at it. Make whatever rules he wants. But users will expect those rules to (a) be explicit; and (b) be enforced more-or-less fairly. Right now, he is unwilling to do so; Twitter wants to operate with zero transparency regarding the rules or their enforcement.
Back to top

Cheiny









  


Post  Thu, Sep 13 2018, 9:14 pm
Squishy wrote:
Trump's was a private conversation. I don't condone his use of the word, but he didn't publicize his private conversations. I would be just as upset if his followers marched with vulgar hats on their heads.

I have the same feelings about gays. What you do privately is not my concern. Keep it private.

I have a problem with a lot of the women that Trump came on to. I know it is not popular to say that woman's behavior contributes to the reactions of men. But these woman put themselves in compromising positions to be near money and power.

I have the same problem with the me too movement when a woman claims she was raped by a guy in HIS hotel room.

Don't be a fool and go to HIS hotel room. Bad things could happen. And yes, of course, they have the right to say no. I don't extrapolate this to every rape victim, so don't try to go there.

DT was not randomly grabbing woman on the street. He was kissing woman who came close enough to be kissed.


You’re exactly right, and what also is being ignored is that anything Donald Trump did or said with women was before he was president! These same people probably didn’t say a word about Clinton doing way worse to women while he held office in Arkansas (rape!), and worse while he was president! Will any of the indignant ones condemn him ? Double standard?
Back to top

Cheiny









  


Post  Thu, Sep 13 2018, 9:17 pm
[quote="FranticFrummie"]Politics make strange bedfellows - or are these just birds of a feather?

Clintons w Farrakhan Puke

https://worldisraelnews.com/op.....arrakhan/?

The Clintons are the lowest of the low, in so many ways, but as long as they belong to the Democrat party, the Trump haters love them....
Back to top
Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next  Last >> Recent Topics

Page 3 of 4 View latest: 24h 48h 72h


Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum -> In the News

Related Topics Replies Last Post
This Trick Will Keep Your Avocados Fresh 0 Sat, Oct 11 2014, 4:29 pm View last post
Whats your trick for cleaning white shells?
by monkey
5 Mon, Mar 31 2014, 1:05 am View last post
What´s the trick to a high cheesecake that doesnt collapse ?
by Dolly1
8 Tue, Dec 17 2013, 10:55 pm View last post
Do you put out candy for the trick-or-treaters? 56 Tue, Nov 06 2012, 10:28 pm View last post
dark brown chulent- whats the trick?
by boymom
32 Sun, Jul 15 2012, 8:00 pm View last post

Jump to:  







Report offensive ad