~ archived since 2018 ~
Popular
Other
ffj_
[–]factsangeryou 13 points14 points15 points 10 years ago (82 children) | Copy Link
Soothe your mammaries...it's just the Committee. It has to be passed, then passed by the other House, and then signed by POTUS. While it's progress, it probably won't make it through, but here's hoping.
[–]PurpleViolettron 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (79 children) | Copy Link
Well, the passing will bring debate. The debate will bring about one of three things. The public could call for abolition of Selective Service entirely, could support the idea of women registering too, or could push for continued inequality. I prefer the first option, honestly.
[–]factsangeryou 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (77 children) | Copy Link
I do too. The State should not have the Power to force it's Citizens into War.
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
The SCOTUS has ruled on the draft and on having to file your own taxes with respect to compelling labor in the context of the 13th amendment and they have hilariously ruled that basically it's an exception for those things because something.
[–]ARedthorn 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Even the Geneva Convention on forced labor (which created the standard, international legal definition of slavery) singles out the draft and prison labor as being ok. It acknowledges them as slavery. And then says "but these two kinds are ok." Because "everyone does it."
I wish I were kidding.
[–]factsangeryou -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I wish the person indicated in your username was real. He'd be the most eloquent comedian ever to have lived.
[–]Demonspawn -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (73 children) | Copy Link
The State should not have the Power to force it's Citizens into War.
Then citizens should not have the power to direct the State.
Potential conscription is the price of suffrage. If you get to tell the State what to do, you have to be willing to fight to keep the State existing.
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (41 children) | Copy Link
The state must provide public defenders to try for you for a crime in their courts.
The state is the one thought to cede to the people.
You can have a voluntary military and a national culture wherein people recognize the need to defend the nation without conscription.
[–]throwthetrash16 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link
You'll never be able to fight total war, which most wars threatening statehood are, without conscription. The vast majority of people simply don't want to lay down their lives for a future they very may well not see.
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link
You'll never be able to fight total war, which most wars threatening statehood are, without conscription.
Sounds like a great argument against conscription.
The vast majority of people simply don't want to lay down their lives for a future they very may well not see.
The same could be said of those who comprise the army who is attacking you.
[–]Demonspawn 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
You do realize that modern suffrage was started by the South during the Civil War, right?
No, because they're not facing the conquering of their society. Read the context of the line, not just the line.
[–]TracyMorganFreeman -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Meh, the property requirements are being dissolved over decades and culminated in the early 1860s. Not exactly the same thing.
They are facing people would likely fight back against that though.
[–]throwthetrash16 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
The first major power to introduce democracy was also the first to bring about modern conscription. Every man over 15 and under 40 had to join the military, and everyone else had to farm or nit clothes.
[–]TracyMorganFreeman-1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
They had slavery too.
Is slavery necessary for democracy too?
[–]throwthetrash161 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
This is a stupid straw man.
Democracy and conscription can be directly linked in this situation, as the government and people themselves espoused it as the only way for the state to safe guard itself. Slavery is no where in this equation.
[–]TracyMorganFreeman0 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
There are countries without conscription and democracy, so the former is clearly not a requirement.
[–]throwthetrash162 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
And those countries have not known war for a significant while. As soon as they are threatened with their state on the line, their will be conscription.
[–]throwthetrash16 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link
You'll actually have to qualify why, otherwise this is all useless posturing.
And that's not going to stop a conscription based army initiating an invasion, is it?
[–]TracyMorganFreeman -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link
It undermines the ability to conduct large scale war.
People will quickly have to defend themselves against a credible threat, won't they? If they refuse, they'd likely not be very effective as conscripts anyways.
[–]throwthetrash16 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link
Conscription undermines large wars? How do you think the two world wars were fought?
It doesn't matter whether or not your effective in combat. We have millions of other roles you can fill.
With conscription. FDR even had a peacetime draft in the late 30s.
Same logic applies to being unwilling to volunteer for other positions.
Exactly, so how does this undermine the conduct of a large war, as you said it did?
And? Cooking, manufacturing, etc don't require a large national will to do and die.
The point is that conscription was used to facilitate war. That doesn't disprove a lack of it disincentives it.
A lack of what?
A lack of [conscription] disincentivizes [war]
If one has conscription, and the other doesn't, don't you think that only furthers their chances of declaring war?
If your economic competitor has slaves, is that a moral justification for you to use them as well to be able to compete?
Again, my entire point is that conscription increases the likelihood of going to war. Your argument is supporting my point.
Depends. I don't hold any but my own moral compass in high regard, so I say no, but in a realm where it is morally acceptable, then still no. It has been shown, historically, that slaves are a terrible way to boost the economic potential of a business compared to paid workers.
Both nations have conscription- Could result in a slaughterhouse, war unlikely, but neither want to get rid of conscription, much like the nuclear option, because:
One nation has conscription- There are no competitors to that nations military, and is able to bully others. War likely.
No nations have conscription- Obviously the moral imperative from my view, quite possibly yours, and war is unlikely, though still possible.
HOWEVER- I support taking conscription, at least in the current time, limited to a defensive role (conscripts may not be sent to nations we declared war on, but may be sent to those declaring on us, or to foreign land to help defend it, ie Europe in the Cold War).
You assume a volunteer military means having no military here, which is demonstrably false.
I never assumed that.
Compare a conscription army to a volunteer one. Which is more likely to win a large war?
Wars are not determined solely by how many soldiers you have. Technology and tactics are huge factors as well. To take an extreme example consider a nuclear capable country(along with the means of delivering it anywhere) with little to no standing army.
Who do you think would a win war? The USA with conscription or Canada without? The nations who have large reserves and conscription are also the at the pinnacle of military technology and tactics, ie: Russia, China and the US. All of them are nuclear capable. They all have some form of conscription.
[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
North Korea has conscription, and 20% of its population is in the armed forces. The US does not have conscription anymore, and France and the UK are also nuclear capable.
Nonetheless pointing out some countries having conscription doesn't demonstrate its necessity.
North Korea has conscription, and 20% of its population is in the armed forces.
Which is one of the main reasons war hasn't occurred again in the region for more than half a century. The West knows that it will be a bloody war without the Nuclear Option, and Best Korea knows that it will be a pointless war due to the Nuclear Option.
Switzerland was spared invasion during the World Wars largely to to the fact that every able man was at some point in the armed services and knew how to fight.
The US does not have conscription anymore,
You're in a thread about the Selective Service. It may not be active now, but it can become active whenever the government deems it necessary, ie: invasion.
and France and the UK are also nuclear capable.
So are all their potential enemies. The entire doctrine of MAD ensures that if they go to war with another ICBM or MRBM capable nation, it will not be nuclear. This is one of the reasons, the other being Pakistan's conscript potential, that war between them and India did not occur in 2001.
Yes it does, much in the same way it does for nuclear warheads. If A has conscription and B doesn't, they have a marked advantage over B, just as the nuclear option shows. When people go to war, they balance all forms of advantage with each other, whether that be untapped manpower reserves or otherwise.
Which is one of the main reasons war hasn't occurred again in the region for more than half a century
Or China has no beef with them and South Korea's smaller military is technologically superior so it doesn't matter.
Not the same thing as conscription. That's a culture of protecting one's nation and prepping for conflict.
Which isn't the same thing as conscription.
It also deters non nuclear capable countries from invading.
If A has conscription and B doesn't, they have a marked advantage over B, just as the nuclear option shows. When people go to war, they balance all forms of advantage with each other, whether that be untapped manpower reserves or otherwise.
Conscription only works if the public allows it ultimately. By tacitly approving from not overthrowing tyrannical governments-or a military coup-and thus successful conscription is just a formality, as it's a reflection of the nation's people willing to go to war.
It's not a special magic bullet that creates an advantage out of thin air.
It does matter, actually. A numerically superior force can easily beat a technologically superior one, see the Korean War where the UN forces were pushed back from the Chinese border to into Worst Korea.
They have conscription. Every man has to go through it for a few years and keeps their service rifle.
It's forced military service, ie: conscription. Just because it isn't always active doesn't make it not conscription.
Exactly. That's what I said earlier about both nations ahving conscription.
Conscription only works if the public allows it ultimately. By tacitly approving from not overthrowing tyrannical governments-or a military coup-and thus successful conscription is just a formality, as it's a reflection of the nation's people willing to go to war. It's not a special magic bullet that creates an advantage out of thin air.
Having a superior force numerically is an advantage.
Geography is a factor too.
Actually that's exactly what is is.
Conscription is an act.
It's only an advantage if the members of those forces are equally capable. Technology, training, tactics all make that unlikely.
So is literally everything, yet here you are denying that numbers gives one an advantage.
Actually that's exactly what is is. Conscription is an act.
"Conscription, or drafting, is the compulsory enlistment of people in a national service, most often a military service."
The Selective Service fits that definition. It is conscription.
Just because you can counter-act an advantage does not make it moot.
I never denied it.
No it doesn't, because it's not a service to have your name on a list. You're not serving anything.
It's moot if you counter-act it. That's what counter-act means.
"South Korea's smaller military is technologically superior so it doesn't matter."
It fits the definition. It was used to conscript people throughout it's history. It's conscription.
It doesn't make it not an advantage, as you claimed it does.
As in it counters the advantage. This is very simple.
Having a database from which to conscript isn't conscription anymore than a national ID is.
[–]Demonspawn 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
If you (collectively) direct the country into deep enough shit, it's your responsibility to defend it via conscription if there are not enough volunteers.
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
Holding others responsible for your individual decisions is what feminists like to do.
I am not beholden to the agency of others. That's why it's their agency. Forcing me to go along to bear the consequences of their decisions is tantamount to slavery.
[–]Demonspawn 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Who is responsible for where your votes have directed the government? You (collectively) are.
That's not holding anyone else responsible.
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
I am not responsible for who they vote for, not inherently.
It is institutions like government that hold me responsible for who they vote for, hence why people vote differently than if they were held responsible for doing that thing they vote for themselves.
Collective institutions you are forced to be a part of inherently incentivizes reckless behavior.
[–]Demonspawn 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
You are if you have suffrage.
If you don't want to be responsible, give up suffrage.
[–]TracyMorganFreeman2 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
That's hardly true. People who didn't have the vote were conscripted too, and people with the vote like women were not conscripted-and have yet to be in the US and many other western nations.
[–]Demonspawn1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
That's hardly true. People who didn't have the vote were conscripted too
Actually, that's been rather rare. The vote and conscription have been closely tied through history.
and people with the vote like women were not conscripted
Which is why women's suffrage is a right without responsibility, and thus invalid.
Non land owners were indeed conscripted. Being subject to conscription was a prerequisite to being able to vote, not a sufficient condition.
At least for men.
[–]factsangeryou -3 points-2 points-1 points 10 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link
Laughable on it's face. SO objectively wrong I shouldn't even have to type anything.
Potential conscription is the price of suffrage.
Citation needed.
If you get to tell the State what to do, you have to be willing to fight to keep the State existing.
[–]throwthetrash16 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link
Objectively? You have to prove that, so citation needed.
If there is no one to protect the state, then you cannot expect that state to continue. In the event of invasion, conscription may very well be required to defend the state. Even in offensive actions, it can be necessary. One of the reasons the draft was used in Vietnam was because the US could not defend Europe against Soviet forces and fight in Vietnam without it.
[–]factsangeryou 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link
Defending the Vietnam war, huh? Yep, no reason to argue with you either. XD
[–]throwthetrash16 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (27 children) | Copy Link
Show me where I defended the Vietnam War please, or stop talking shit.
[–]factsangeryou 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link
Read what you wrote, and admit I'm right, or be plainly willfully stupid.
[–]throwthetrash16 -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link
Are you retarded?
In what way is explaining why the draft was used in Vietnam defending the war?
[–]factsangeryou-1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
My username just keeps checking out with you. Read what you wrote, it's obvious. We can't have a conversation unless you're honest.
[–]throwthetrash160 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
My username just keeps checking out with you.
It does? Because right now I'm laughing.
Read what you wrote, it's obvious. We can't have a conversation unless you're honest.
You're an idiot. Apparently discussing something equals condoning it to you.
Your language was very clear. Please be honest or we can't have a conversation.
Your language was very clear.
Then stop being disingenuous.
Please be honest or we can't have a conversation.
Then why are you here?
[–]factsangeryou0 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Stop lying about my statements via premise.
I'm hoping you'll start being honest, but it's looking pretty grim.
:)
You are delusional.
Another lie, and projection to boot.
Show me where I defended the Vietnam War then. If you don't, you're lying out your ass. If you do, then I'll admit to it. Back up your statements, or get some medicine.
What you wrote was quite objectively support for the Vietnam conflict. Every time you lie about it I'll call you out on it. Please keep lying below, proving you're exactly what I say you are. Have a bad day. :)
So discussion about why the draft was used in Vietnam is explicit support for it? Where did you learn to read?
Stop lying about what you wrote.
One of the reasons the draft was used in Vietnam was because the US could not defend Europe against Soviet forces and fight in Vietnam without it.
My exact quote. How is this justifying or condoning the Vietnam War? Please show me the mental gymnastics required to get there.
[–]Demonspawn2 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
FactsAngerYou "debates" by telling you what your argument was and then "beating" that.
Pretty much, this guy is a moron. I just fail to see how explaining why the draft was used in Vietnam equals condoning the war.
Your support comes from the body of the text, cleverly unstated. I see through you, dishonest scum. :)
So you claim to see hidden meaning in my comment, without actually ever pointing it out or substantiating it, and then claim that I am putting hidden meaning in it, meaning which I didn't know existed, I might add.
You're whole "argument" here rests on two implications:
a) I am not admitting to supporting the Vietnam War, in which case I'm dishonest and
b) I admit to the supporting the Vietnam War, in which case I am dishonest and a liar.
You have predicated only two options in this whole diatribe of yours that leaves me on the back foot no matter the outcome due to your soothsayer like powers in being able to deduce hidden meaning in text that never existed. You're a fucking moron.
/u/Demonspawn, get a load of this guy.
Your meaning was plain until I called you on it. Yes, I am perceptive enough to see what you meant and no amount of your squirming will get you out of it, liar.
And I already know you're a sockpuppet, but calling in yourself in your own post? That's just so cringey. Ugh, I feel sorry for you.
So my words had no hidden meaning until you planted the meaning into it yourself? That's some weird conspiratard shit right there dude. Honestly, you need fucking help.
[I don't even know him.] (https://imgflip.com/readImage?iid=40595741) If it's because of the age of this account, it's because I lost /u/throwthetrash15's password. You are mental.
Squirm and lie to yourself all you like, you still can't convince me you didn't mean what you very obviously meant.
Thou dost protest too much, Demonspawn. :) Have a bad day.
So you've come to a conclusion, without facts or evidence, and there are only two outcomes. I can:
a) Admit to supporting the Vietnam War, and be branded a liar and dishonest, or
b) Not admit to supporting the Vietnam War, and be branded a liar and dishonest because you are omnipotent and supposedly know my every though and hidden meaning in very simple text.
See the problem? You are using dishonest discussion tactics, whilst claiming I am being dishonest and lying. You, sir, are a gentleman and a scholar.
It is very easy to see this isn't a sockpuppet, seeing as this account has commented on numerous things besides this thread for several days before now, and /u/throwthetrash15 has not been active for as long as this account has been. Seriously, if you put as much effort into "finding hidden meaning" in my words as you did to simply verify that this was a sockpuppet, you'd find the facts to be completely opposite your preconceived notions.
Also, it's doth, not dost. A five year would know that.
Double also, it seems you're a sockpuppet, what with less than a month of being active.
No, seriously, just own up to supporting the war, then we can go from there, sockpuppet troll. ;)
No, seriously, just own up to supporting the war, then we can go from there
Why don't you finally own up to being a rapist pedophile, then we can go from there.
Because you're guilty of what I accuse you of as proven by your writings whereas you're just making spurious accusations to distract from what a bloodthirsty, warhawk monster you are. :)
spurious accusations
"You support the Vietnam War"
guilty
Wrong think is a crime now?
Stop lying, it's obvious you support it.
Yes, it's wrong to support the obviously indefensible, just like if you supported slavery, that would be wrong too. But, I don't expect a morally vacuous liar like you to get that. :)
[–]Arby01 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
The public could call for abolition of Selective Service entirely,
that's my bet.
[–]ffj_[S] 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I know... but at least it's finally being brought up.
[–]Sedrin98 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I posted this in a similar thread:
I'm not sure why everyone is so supportive about this. Don't get me wrong I'm all for equality but this is bad for everyone involved (unless it actually does abolish the draft). People seem to think that this is a good thing because it shows equality of the sexes. It is not.
My argument assumes the government is in position that makes them desperate enough to enact the draft. Vietnam is the best example of this. Some of the arguments seem to think that the government will be selective in who they draft. They won't. Vietnam was a meat-grinder. Most of the drafted men were canon fodder or as my friend's dad's friend (who was drafted in vietnam) put it they were bullet stoppers. Canon fodder does not need to meet stringent requirements. Some have said that they will put some (I've seen arguments for most and all) women in non-combat roles which means more men on the front.
Women will not be put in combat en masse for the simple reason it will look bad for the war effort. We (as a nation) did not start to question the iraq war until we started to see pictures of our sons and brothers coming home in body bags. Which the government tried to keep out of the media. Can you imagine the outrage if our daughters started coming home in body bags by the thousands?
The bottom line is that women will still be seen as delicate flowers and men will still be the overwhelming majority killed or wounded in battle. This will not accomplish either sides agenda.
[–]Yeah_Nopes 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
No way it will ever go though. Much as what happened to the ERA, and every other attempt to reduce female privilege, tradcons and feminists will cry "GYNOCENTRIC POWERS ACTIVATE" and combine strength to crush it.
[–]vtschoir 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
And a single challenge in the courts will cite the SCOTUS ruling that sexism in the draft was not a violation of due process solely because women were prohibited from combat roles. That's changed, and now the selective service has to as well otherwise it's unconstitutional.
[–]Yeah_Nopes 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Constitutionality has never mattered where female privilege is concerned. If if did the family court system, legal system, and education system would not be the anti-male shit shows they are.
[–]vtschoir -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I hear ya, but those are done so under different pretenses. In other words, there's actually a financial incentive from the various states' perspectives to encourage divorce and the lower wage-earning parent to be awarded custody. While guys here dispute the wage gap, the tendency is true that in husband-wife relationships, husbands do tend to earn more.
[–]Falkner09 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
It's interesting to note that the guy who introduced it did not want it to pass the committee. He planned it as a gotcha amendment, to embarrass those who support sending women to combat roles, which he opposes. It passed anyway, because the people he wanted to embarrass called his bluff. So this could end up being quite a show
[–]newharddrive 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Getting our women as suppressed as our men is no victory.
[–]Lethn 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
It's the equivalent of "If I'm going down, I'm taking all of you with me" not really very ideal for anyone, but oh well, this is what real equality looks like, feminists refused to realise how good they have it in the west.
[–]newharddrive 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I think it has to do with equality of humans before the law, but getting our daughters killed along with our sons for the 1% and their profits is not progress.
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
While true, a sad political reality is that it is the best way of getting rid of suppressive institutions. People care more about the suffering of women.
[–]newharddrive 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
People care more about women, but the 1% does not give a fuck about us.
[–]Ser_Rodrick_Cassel 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link
haha whoosh
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Absolutely disagree making it mandatory for women is a step closer to getting it abolished. Legally (constitutionally) now the will have to make it equal. It will be the law courts that put an end to the draft eventually.
[–]WaitingToBeBanned 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
I disagree. While Selective Service needs should be discontinued, pushing women into it is definitely a step in the right direction. For one thing, equality is good. And for another, that would probably end up killing it faster than The Vietnam War: II.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Absolutely cortrect
[–]WaitingToBeBanned 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Are you sure about taht?
[–]ffj_[S] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
America feeds off of war, they aren't abolishing it anytime soon.
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Governments feed off war really.
[–]Alkomb 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Yep.
[–]youreallmeatanyway 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Sigh...
Look, putting women in the draft selection is a shit decision because it can only result in one of two possible scenarios:
.1. Women get drafted and put in combat roles. - And lets see how that's worked out under the latest testing.
.2. Women get drafted and put into non-combat roles. - And more men are pushed into combat roles now that the safer support jobs are gone.
Gender politics aside, when you are selecting your tribe's protectors you want the ones that are stronger, more aggressive, less prone to injury, and cant get pregnant.
[–]Francissisi1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Let's hope American invades somewhere humid and all the female GI's hire goes frizzy
© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.created by /u/dream-hunter
[–]factsangeryou 13 points14 points15 points (82 children) | Copy Link
[–]PurpleViolettron 7 points8 points9 points (79 children) | Copy Link
[–]factsangeryou 3 points4 points5 points (77 children) | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]ARedthorn 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]factsangeryou -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Demonspawn -2 points-1 points0 points (73 children) | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 1 point2 points3 points (41 children) | Copy Link
[–]throwthetrash16 1 point2 points3 points (32 children) | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points (31 children) | Copy Link
[–]Demonspawn 1 point2 points3 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman -1 points0 points1 point (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]throwthetrash16 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman-1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]throwthetrash161 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]throwthetrash162 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]throwthetrash16 0 points1 point2 points (23 children) | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman -1 points0 points1 point (22 children) | Copy Link
[–]throwthetrash16 0 points1 point2 points (21 children) | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]throwthetrash161 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]throwthetrash161 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]throwthetrash161 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]throwthetrash161 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]throwthetrash161 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]throwthetrash161 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]throwthetrash161 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]throwthetrash161 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]throwthetrash161 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]throwthetrash161 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Demonspawn 1 point2 points3 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]Demonspawn 1 point2 points3 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 1 point2 points3 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]Demonspawn 1 point2 points3 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Demonspawn1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]factsangeryou -3 points-2 points-1 points (30 children) | Copy Link
[–]throwthetrash16 2 points3 points4 points (29 children) | Copy Link
[–]factsangeryou 0 points1 point2 points (28 children) | Copy Link
[–]throwthetrash16 0 points1 point2 points (27 children) | Copy Link
[–]factsangeryou 0 points1 point2 points (26 children) | Copy Link
[–]throwthetrash16 -1 points0 points1 point (25 children) | Copy Link
[–]factsangeryou-1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]throwthetrash160 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]factsangeryou-1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]throwthetrash161 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]factsangeryou0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]throwthetrash160 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]factsangeryou0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]throwthetrash161 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]factsangeryou-1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]throwthetrash160 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]factsangeryou-1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]throwthetrash160 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Demonspawn2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]throwthetrash161 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]factsangeryou-1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]throwthetrash161 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]factsangeryou0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]throwthetrash160 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]factsangeryou0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]throwthetrash161 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]factsangeryou0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]throwthetrash160 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]factsangeryou0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]throwthetrash160 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]factsangeryou0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Arby01 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ffj_[S] 6 points7 points8 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Sedrin98 8 points9 points10 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Yeah_Nopes 3 points4 points5 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]vtschoir 4 points5 points6 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Yeah_Nopes 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]vtschoir -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Falkner09 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]newharddrive 2 points3 points4 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]Lethn 4 points5 points6 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]newharddrive 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 3 points4 points5 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]newharddrive 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Ser_Rodrick_Cassel 0 points1 point2 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]WaitingToBeBanned 3 points4 points5 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]WaitingToBeBanned 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ffj_[S] 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Alkomb 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]youreallmeatanyway 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Francissisi1 point [recovered] | Copy Link