Starnes: Here Come the Hate Crime Charges for Pastors

Todd Starnes, Fox News’ designated paranoiac and professional liar, reacted to the Supreme Court’s marriage ruling with his usual hysteria. Now is finally the time, he says, when pastors will be frogmarched out of the churches on hate crime charges for preaching the word of God.

“Gay rights now trump religious liberty,” Starnes stated, utterly ignoring the actual language of the ruling. “If you think the cultural purging of the southern states has been breathtaking, wait until you see what the activists are about to unleash on the American Christians. Churches and faith-based organizations should prepare to be hit with lawsuits and government investigations. Pastors who refuse to perform gay marriage and preach from the Bible should prepare for hate crime charges. All dissent will be silenced.”

This displays either his ignorance or his dishonesty on several levels. First, he obviously hasn’t read, or is deliberately ignoring, the explicit text of Justice Kennedy’s ruling that says the First Amendment will continue to protect the right of people to object to The Gay (which should not have needed to be said, obviously, but with all the fear-mongering on the right, it was probably necessary). And the text of the federal hate crimes law, which cannot possibly apply to preaching anything unless the person doing the preaching actually commits a violent crime. So is he ignorant or is he lying? Oh, who cares.

Starnes went on to predict that Christians all over the nation will rise up in defiance of the ruling because if they are “given the choice of obeying God or the government, I believe Christians will obey God even if there is Hell to pay.”

A more accurate prediction: The most extreme bigots will continue to yell and scream for a while, mostly so they can continue to raise funds from it. Everyone else will quickly adjust to the new reality and, when none of the dire predictions of these buffoons come to pass, it will inevitably move to the “why was that such a big deal” phase. And in 10 or 15 years, Starnes and his fellow hysterical bigots will look just like George Wallace and be nothing but an object of derision.

POPULAR AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Jared James

    The beauty part is, like all the times he’s said this same nonsense before, he won’t even need to change his story when it never, ever happens. It’s perennially going to happen any minute now, as long as he keeps getting paid to say it. Which minute, specifically? Who cares; any of them.

  • theDukedog7 .

    Nobody actually gives a f*ck about gay marriage. 0.000001% of gays marry, and the supreme court decision lie is just a reason to party and gloat.

    The whole purpose for this campaign to enshrine the SSM lie is to gain a legal weapon against Christians and churches. It is already being used (against bakers, photographers, etc) and will be used with a vengeance against churches and against Christians who speak out and tell the truth about SSM.

    The goal here is elimination of Christianity from the public square. Ed is a fucking liar to deny it. We will fight you scum.

  • daved

    A more accurate prediction: The most extreme bigots will continue to yell and scream for a while, mostly so they can continue to raise funds from it. Everyone else will quickly adjust to the new reality and, when none of the dire predictions of these buffoons come to pass, it will inevitably move to the “why was that such a big deal” phase.

    That’s what I’ve also been saying. It’s certainly been the experience in Massachusetts. Gay marriage has been legal here since 2004, and it’s had no real effect, except maybe on caterers, bakers, florists, and divorce lawyers.

  • daved

    The goal here is elimination of Christianity from the public square.

    That hasn’t happened here either. Nor will it. Not that this will prevent paranoids like Egnor from braying it loudly. I love the part about how he’s going to “fight.” Fight what?

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    theDukedog7 is right. Just like all your other Progressive Leftist victories, you’ll use this to persecute small-minded bigots, spiteful boobs and other Values Voters. With criticism!

  • karmacat

    DukeDog, why are you even commenting here? Nobody agrees with you here. You don’t follow any of the links that are provided showing that you really don’t want to engage in a discussion.

  • RickR

    I love the part about how he’s going to “fight.” Fight what?

    Exactly. All these numbnuts bigots are gearing up for battle, but the equality side just shrugs.

    “The battle’s over, bigots. It ended on Friday. We won, you lost.”

    I do like the image of all these brave Soldiers of the Lord™ marching onto the empty battlefield while the opposition is home fixing stir fry and watching “True Detective”.

  • John Pieret

    I think Egnore is just going to the stupidest, most paranoid websites (he cited “American Thinker” before) and copying out the craziest things said and … um … depositing them here to just annoy people. In short he has gone into full troll mode.

  • http://festeringscabofrealityblogspot.com fifthdentist

    Does anyone know whether the Gaystapo is hiring and what kind of salary and benefits they offer? That would be the organization tasked with monitoring all the Christians, no?

    @ Rick R #7

    I fear something more like Eric Rudolph, who along with the Atlanta Olympics and an abortion clinic or two also bombed a lesbian bar, IIRC.

    I’ve been reading there have been six fires at black churches in a week, at least three of which already have been ruled as suspected arson. Some of these people — fortunately a small percentage — do not take these things gracefully or peacefully. Hell, the KKK is a terrorist organization still terrorizing because they didn’t like the outcome of a war a century and a half ago.

    @ dogggie #2

    “0.000001 percent of gays marry.”

    Yeah, the odds are against you, Sparky, but keep putting yourself out there and you’ll find someone.

  • Trebuchet

    @6:

    DukeDog, why are you even commenting here? Nobody agrees with you here. You don’t follow any of the links that are provided showing that you really don’t want to engage in a discussion.

    He’s just a troll. We really should stop feeding him, but he’s fun to mock.

  • Trebuchet

    Oh, and regarding “.000001 percent of gays marry”: The population of the USA is about 300,000,000. .000001 percent of that is …. 3. But only about 3% of the us population is gay, so apparently only .09 of a person has gotten gay married. I guess you don’t need to be able to do sixth grade arithmetic to get into med school. Idiot.

  • raven

    when pastors will be frogmarched out of the churches on hate crime charges for preaching the word of God.

    1. The word of god in the bible is a mixture of hate and love, the magic book being an incoherent anthology written over ca. 700 years.

    2. All xians are cafeteria xians. The xians divided up the bible about a century ago.

    The Mainline Protestants took the god of love parts.

    The fundie perversion of xianity took the god of hate parts.

    It’s all very Ying and Yang. The fundies own the Dark Side of our society and made satan and the demons unemployed.

    However, preaching hate is perfectly legal. The fundies have been doing it for over a century. And they will keep doing it as long as hate is a popular seller.

  • http://cycleninja.blogspot.com cycleninja

    @theDukedog7:

    “Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.”

    ― Ralph Waldo Emerson

  • Knight in Sour Armor

    Can’t asshole preachers peddling hate at the pulpit potentially be held responsible in some way if their specific rhetoric is linked to a hate crime?

  • colnago80

    Re Knight @ #14

    Not in the US. However, in many European countries, they can be prosecuted for “incitement”.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    Knight in Sour Armor, there’s a high bar for incitement.

  • dingojack

    Knight in Sour Amour – only if the threat was both specific and imminent. (IANAL)

    Dingo

    ———

    Do have a brother Knight in Sweet & Sour Armour? Yum! 😉

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    Knight: in the US, you’d have to have a pretty solid, obvious, and documented cause-and-effect link between a particular sermon or series of sermons, and a particular crime; otherwise such a case (criminal or civil) would probably be dismissed without a trial.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    colnago80 “Not in the US. However, in many European countries, they can be prosecuted for ‘incitement’.”

    I was convicted of les affaire d’incitation in France. The court sentenced me to six months of ennui.

  • sugarfrosted

    0.105 Gay people in the US are married according to dipshit’s made up stat. I’m the son of more married gay people than this.

  • gshelley

    That was quick by DukeDog, the post can’t have been up more than 10 minutes before he came in to lie about it

  • Die Anyway

    I want to be a general, or at least a full bird colonel, in the War on Christianity but I’ll be damned if I can find a recruitment office. Are we sure this war has started?

  • D. C. Sessions

    0.000001 percent of gays marry.

    How many showed up in Salt Lake? IIRC the clerks kept the windows open well into the night, the Boy Scouts were delivering pizza, etc. Total numbers ran into the thousands of couples.

    So if I divide a conservative number of 2000 couples (4000 people [1]) by 10e-8 [2], the result is 4E11 people — who knew that there were that many gays in Utah?

    Typical Republican: “Arithmetic — how the fuck does it work?”

    [1] Yeah, yeah, Egnor, we know you don’t think they’re “people.”

    [2] That’s Egnor’s “0.000001 percent”

  • Chris J

    @Trebuchet:

    Alternatively, according to this there have been about 71,165 same-sex marriages in the US since 2004. If 0.000001% of gay folks marry, then that means there are about 140 billion gay people in the US alone. No wonder conservatives are so freaked out!

    Note: actual estimates are about 770,000 gay couples in the US, so roughly 10% have married up to now. Now that same-sex marriage is fully legal in all states, that number is going to increase dramatically.

    Nobody actually gives a f*ck about gay marriage.

    Really? Wow. Someone should have told the people who put together the Defense Of Marriage Act, and SCOTUS at the time of Windsor, and every anti-ssm advocate for the last decade. They must have just been trolling.

  • Chris J

    The whole purpose for this campaign to enshrine the SSM lie is to gain a legal weapon against Christians and churches. It is already being used (against bakers, photographers, etc) and will be used with a vengeance against churches and against Christians who speak out and tell the truth about SSM.

    Tell me this, Egnorance; how will this work? The recent ruling has stated that laws forbidding same-sex-marriage are unconstitutional, and that states must recognize same-sex marriages that have occurred outside of that state.

    How does this apply to the case of people refusing wedding-related services to gay couples, when those people are not the state and are not involved with anti-ssm laws? Connect the dots for me, please.

  • MyPetSlug

    Let me translate for theDukedog,

    The whole purpose for this campaign to enshrine the interracial marriage lie is to gain a legal weapon against Christians and churches. It is already being used (against bakers, photographers, etc) and will be used with a vengeance against churches and against Christians who speak out and tell the truth about interracial marriage.

    The goal here is elimination of Christianity from the public square. Ed is a fucking liar to deny it. We will fight you scum.

    Your argument has no substance. It can be used against literally anything you don’t like and already has been in the past.

    Besides that, you use a true trope of a Christian wingnuts, the “public square”. As always you conflate the public of being out in the open with the public of the government. As in, owned by the public. Ed and his allies do indeed want to eliminate bigotry from the government, but, rest assured that we will protect your right to be a bigoted asshole out in the open all you like.

  • Knight in Sour Armor

    @vars:

    Yeah, I figured it was one of those once an eon sort of things, but it *could* be a prosecuted if the planets happened to be aligned.

    Dude’s got nothing to fear though… I’d be pleased as punch frog-marching him off to a re-education camp, but the 1st Amendment does protect him and his ilk.

  • grumpyoldfart

    Starnes went on to predict that Christians all over the nation will rise up in defiance of the ruling

    Tell him he’s dreaming. Christians might nod their heads when Starnes says such things, but not even one percent of them will actually get up off their arse and do something.

  • colnago80

    Ed is a fucking liar to deny it

    For personally insulting Brayton on his own blog, Schmucknor should be given the heave ho. No way anyone running a blog should put up with personal insults.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    MyPetSlug “Ed and his allies do indeed want to eliminate bigotry from the government, but, rest assured that we will protect your right to be a bigoted asshole out in the open all you like.”

    You Liberals are always trying to ram your so-called “Rights” down our throats, but you won’t let us ram ours down yours! How is that fair?

     

    Look, let’s both be tolerant. You can give up on civil rights for groups we don’t like, and we’ll halt our opposition to the thing we got you to give up earlier in this sentence. Sounds fair to me.

  • llewelly

    theDukedog7:

    … 0.000001% of gays marry …

    Half of lgbt Americans would like to wed, the remainder think it is good to have it legal.

    http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/06/26/half-of-unmarried-lgbt-americans-say-they-would-like-to-wed/

    I know, I know, I said this before, and you are still in denial.

  • dingojack

    “We will fight you scum”

    Just like enormous ground-swell of citizens who took to the street and mobbed Washington during the Second American Revolution* bringing down the corrupt Obama administration…

    Oh wait now.

    Dingo

    ———

    * both the Original, and the Best, and the even more successful, Revolution 2: Electric-Boogaloo

  • sigurd jorsalfar

    Starnes is spouting nothing but gibberish, of course. But what amuses me about this is how he implicitly acknowledges that what his church preaches is hate.

  • raven

    But what amuses me about this is how he implicitly acknowledges that what his church preaches is hate.

    The brighter among the fundies know that their religion is based on hate. Hate, lies, and hypocrisy are their three main sacraments.

    It’s an old tribal thing. The bible is full of it. Hate the Canaanites, Moabites, Ammonites, Midianites, Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Greeks, and Romans etc.. Finally, they hate themselves. Hating the Jews is a big part of Matthew and John, both likely written by…Jews.

  • Doug Little

    DukeDog, why are you even commenting here? Nobody agrees with you here. You don’t follow any of the links that are provided showing that you really don’t want to engage in a discussion.

    He’s trolling, but he seems particularly upset at the moment so I’m gonna sit back and soak in his tears of bigotry. Come on Egnor give us some more.

  • Doug Little

    “We will fight you scum”

    How many portable toilets are you going to need?

  • Doug Little

    For personally insulting Brayton on his own blog, Schmucknor should be given the heave ho. No way anyone running a blog should put up with personal insults.

    I don’t know I think he’s amusing, in a really, really childish kinda way. Kids they say the darnedest things.

  • garnetstar

    Dukedog, as davered @3 says, SSM has been legal in Massachussetts since 2004, and Scott Lively has been flapping his jaw there all that time, preaching away about Christian hell and God’s judgement and smiting and demon possession of us all by this evil.

    And, the only sort of “silencing” old Scott has gotten came when he went over to Africa and advocated killing the gays, so that an international court (or the UN?) did not dismiss a war crimes charge against him.

    To be sure, that’s quite the charge, but no one in MA has lifted a finger to shut him up. He’s been absolutely free and quite welcome to spew whatever comes into his bigoted mind.

    So, don’t fret, little fella! You’ll always be able to rage on about how your bigotry isn’t legally enforced anymore.

  • xuuths

    @theDukedog7, please print out your post, and show it to both your pastor/minister/religious leader and your mother. Ask them if they think it is a good, Christian post that would make God proud. I think their response — if honest — would be instructive to you.

  • Pierce R. Butler

    Todd Starnes, Fox News’ designated paranoiac and professional liar…

    Damn, they must’ve pinkslipped a lot more “talent” than just Palin.

    Can Starnes handle the load of an all-Todd, all-the-time broadcast schedule?

  • Pierce R. Butler

    garnetstar @ # 38: … the only sort of “silencing” old Scott has gotten came when he went over to Africa …

    Well, that and when the voters declined to elect him as King of Massachusetts. (They’ll pay for that!)

  • mojave66

    I find it interesting that the right-wing likes to make this a “Christian vs. Gays” thing. There are a ton of Christian LGBT people and allies. LGBT people have no problem with religious LGBTs– it’s the Christians who use the “No True Scotsman” argument against their own. Who has excluded and dehumanized who, DukeDog7? You will now be judged by your own words and deeds. Live with that.

  • thebookofdave

    I want to be a general, or at least a full bird colonel, in the War on Christianity

    Forget it. You’re inherently demotivating to troop morale. No one’s going to want to fight on General Die Anyway’s team. We might offer you a commission (or at least a sweet defense contract) if you change your ‘nym to Cakewalk, Welcomed as Liberator, or Mission Accomplished.

  • John Pieret

    Nobody actually gives a f*ck about gay marriage. 0.000001% of gays marry

    Pew Research has put the number at least 71,165, probably more since its data isn’t very up to date.

    So, doggie, if 0.000001% of gays is 71,165, that means there are … sit dawn and take off your socks so you can follow the numbers … there are 7,165,000,000,000 gays in America.

    Who’d have thought?

  • John Pieret

    P.S. That’s gay marriages, of course, and the total number of gays would be doubled.

  • howardhershey

    The claim is that marriage between homosexuals will somehow destroy “traditional Biblical marriage” between a man and a woman. But only a completely ignorant fool would think that the small percentage of homosexual marriage will have any effect in a population which is overwhelmingly heterosexual. So the question is: What specific aspect of “traditional Biblical marriage” would the existence of this small number of heterosexual marriage threaten? The answer might just involve looking at the one consistent feature of “traditional Biblical marriages”. The Bible certainly contains many examples of polygyny (by the wealthy anyway). The Lord didn’t seem to mind. But, hint, it contains no example where God approves of polyandry. It approves of selling your daughters into marriage, even to their rapists. It approves of men having sex with their servants (slaves). I think I see a common theme here that is the most important feature of “traditional Biblical marriage”. Namely that such marriage is one based on proscribed sex roles and a power arrangement with men being the superior partner in a marriage (regardless of how many wives he has or how he acquired them). *And* it is certainly true that same-sex marriage does, inherently, threaten that power-infused view of marriage relationship. Which is why the opponents sometimes complain that marriage should be based on more than “love” (by which I suspect they really mean “equal partnership” without Biblically stereotyped roles and patriarchic attitudes).

    An additional point: The miscegenation laws were also based on a belief in inequality. In real terms, although white men were forbidden from marrying black women, they could have sex with them with impunity, [In Mississippi between 1940 and 1965, only 10 white men were convicted of raping a black woman or young girl.]. A black man marrying or having consensual sex with a white woman, however, risked his very life. Hell, even having been thought to ‘make eye contact’ was enough to get lynched. To claim that miscegenation laws were not designed unfairly and did not constitute an infringement on equal rights under the law because neither race could marry the other is disingenuous. Miscegenation laws were designed to reinforce white supremacy. Again, “traditional and Biblically justified bans on interracial marriage” was about who had power. In this case, it was whites.

  • Trebuchet

    Don’t you love how Egnor hasn’t been back since I did his math for him? Coward!

  • marcus

    Dumbassdog

    We will fight you scum[!]

    Braveheart Right? RIGHT?

    This is the best game of movie trivia site evah!

  • whheydt

    Re: Die Anyway @ #22…

    I want to be at least a Lt. Commander (the rank my father held in the USMS). Wouldn’t want to go higher than Captain, unless it was two ranks higher. (Under the current scheme, the Naval rank above Captain is “Rear Admiral, Lower Half”.)

  • http://nigelthebold.com/ Avo, also nigelTheBold

    TheDukedog7 (or whatever):

    The whole purpose for this campaign to enshrine the SSM lie is to gain a legal weapon against Christians and churches. It is already being used (against bakers, photographers, etc) and will be used with a vengeance against churches and against Christians who speak out and tell the truth about SSM.

    Sure thing! That is, for the 17 states that actually have LGBTQ protection.

    Those 33 other states? Dude! Your bakers, your photographers, your ETCerers, they can totally discriminate against the SSM lie! I mean, like totally!

    Also, there’s not a single state in the Union that has language or practice barriers against churches (or Christians!) for denying LGBTQ folks equal access. Just like every church in the US can deny a wedding to, say, a black man marrying a white woman (which has happened in the very recent past, with no federal or even state repercussions), they aren’t in any kind of danger from your rabid, vapid Dream Police. (Which is a really great Cheap Trick song. In case you were wondering.)

    Dude. Feel free to exercise your 1st Amendment rights to be a douchebag bigot. (Come to think of it, Douchebag Bigot is the name of my Cheap Trick cover band.) Nobody’s gonna stop you.

    Just done mistake our derision and pointing and laughing and carrying on as fucking persecution.

  • http://nigelthebold.com/ Avo, also nigelTheBold

    Also, it’s really pretty fucking awesome of TheDukedog7 (or whatever) to stop by, take a toasty deuce on the thread, and not bother coming back to answer any of the folks calling him out. And yeah, I’m assuming TheDukedog7 (or whatever) is a man. I might be jumping to conclusions.

    Also, Toasty Deuce is totally the name of my Beach Boys cover band.

  • dingojack

    Let’s see Lil Dookie:

    American population (2012): 313,914,040

    Marriages in 2012: 2,131,000.*

    Assume 10% of the population is gay: 31,391,404 gay persons

    So only 0.6278 gay persons were married in the whole of 2012…

    Hmm I think I’ve spotted a problem…

    Maybe you meant 0.000001% of all marriages were ‘gay marriages’ (or as we non-bigots on this issue like to call them: marriages) – that’s a yearly total of 0.02131 marriages (of 0.04262 gay people) were held in the whole of 2012… no that can’t be right…

    Maybe you should clarify the issue for we ‘bears of little brains’.

    @@

    Dingo

    ———

    * SOURCE

  • sigurd jorsalfar

    … 0.000001 percent of gays marry.

    But when they do it totes destroys straight marriage and the entire country along with it!

  • Rick Pikul

    @theDukedog7 #2:

    From the figures _YOU CITED_, gays get married at about a rate of 1.85% per year.

    Straights get married at a rate of 1.25% per year.

    Not only are gays getting married, but they are more into getting married than straights This has been pointed out to you before.

    I have some remedial reading for you: Exodus 20, (pay close attention to 20:16).

  • Nick Gotts

    0.000001% of gays marry – Michael Egnor, gormless numpty, and all-purpose bigot.@2

    Let’s see. That’s 1 in 100,000,000 gays marry. Global population is currently around 7.2 billion, but let’s round it up to 10 billion to be generous. Let’s also assume that the entire global population consists of gays old enough to marry. So according to Michael Egnor, at the outside (given the generosity of the assumptions I’ve made), 100 gays are married.

    Well, you can see how it is that Egnor fails to grasp the simplest facts. But I think his potential patients should be warned: a man liable to make errors of several orders of magnitude should not be practicing any form of medicine, let alone brain surgery,

  • Die Anyway

    thebookofdave@23 — rats, done in by my nym of 15 years. I guess you’re right though, my own enamoration of irony may not inspire other people.

    wwheydt@49 — my dad was a Captain in the USMC. You know that I have to aim higher than that.

    Eat well, stay fit, Die Anyway.

  • jonathangray

    A sense of palpable depression came over conservative America after the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare subsidies and decided that gay marriage was a constitutional right. Many felt as if the America they knew and loved had been abducted by space aliens and replaced with something new and hostile. In contrast to this emotional devastation the left seemed buoyed by euphoria.

    “Look ma, I’m on top of the world!” Yet over the same period the liberal landscape fell apart even faster.The last decade has witnessed a vertiginous decline in Washington’s economic, political and military power. The economic engine of liberalism was dying under them, sustained only by the vapors of deficit spending and illusionism.

    Its political dominance was being challenged by totalitarian regimes in China and Russia. Even the triumphant tide of liberal values was being offset by the rise of neo-Nazi parties in Europe and the spread of Islamic ideas throughout the world. Justice Kennedy’s decision was answered in the real world by the Turkish police breaking up the Gay Pride parade in Istanbul. Elsewhere its adherents were experiencing rapid descents from multistory buildings without the benefit of an elevator at the hands of ISIS executioners.

    If the world that conservative Americans once cherished has diminished; it has not been as rapid as the shrinkage of the liberal universe. Both aspects of old world are dying never to come back. The post World War 2 era of Franklin Roosevelt has nearly run its course. The difference is that the conservatives are more aware of its passing and may become more active in building what replaces it. – Richard Fernandez

  • Al Dente

    jonathangray @57

    So a conservative is lamenting the death of the liberal vision and claiming that conservatives will resurrect it. Très drôle as the Québécois would say. The libertarian wing of the conservative movement is doing its utmost to throttle any liberal notions and establish a corporate feudal oligarchy. Since you’re a conservative Catholic monarchist, you must feel very proud.

  • jonathangray

    Al Dente:

    So a conservative is lamenting the death of the liberal vision and claiming that conservatives will resurrect it.

    No, he’s noting the death of the liberal vision and speculating that conservatives might play a key role in determining what replaces liberalism.

    The libertarian wing of the conservative movement is doing its utmost to throttle any liberal notions and establish a corporate feudal oligarchy.

    That comment is less applicable to libertarians than to the neoreactionaries (many of whom, it is true, were originally libertarians).

    Since you’re a conservative Catholic monarchist, you must feel very proud.

    While it’s impossible to not to feel a measure of satisfaction at the ruin of liberalism, I’m under no illusions that whatever replaces it will look with favour on the Church.

  • Al Dente

    Of course nobody is interested in looking with favor on your church. A group of reactionary, pedophile-loving, sexually frustrated old men are not people anyone wants to look up to. Unless you’re also a reactionary, pedophile-loving, sexually frustrated person.

  • jonathangray
  • jonathangray
  • jonathangray
  • StevoR

    @ ^ jonathangray : Ya wanna add some o’ ya comments / summary / reasons for / your view of why these matter to those links dude?

    In case, ya know folks don’t choose to click ’em?