Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Who are the Israelis?
- Thread starter P F Tinmore
- Start date
rylah
Gold Member
- Jun 10, 2015
- 21,134
- 4,480
- 290
Weekly Torah Portion - Hayyei Sarah (The Life of Sarah)
"And to the children of concubines Avraham gave presents and
sent them away..."- rules of ownership, distinction of purpose
"And Avraham gave all he has to Yitzhak", interesting what is 'all he has', especially when it contradicts the following verse, "and to the children of concubines that are to Avraham, Avaraham gave presents".
It's unclear, if he give all he has then he has nothing left, so how can he give presents? Although from the tenses in the writing one can say the presents were given before he gave all that he had to Yitzhak, and formally that would solve the question.
But in truth there's a distinction between 'all that he has' and 'the presents', which does not answer and isn't included in all he has. From that we understand that in Avraham's property there're 2 kinds of property this distinction needs explanation. 'That he has' in modern Hebrew we would call that ownership, belonging. You say you own an object it belongs to you -what do these words mean? What is meant by ownership?
The Communist view at all rejects the legitimacy of ownership, they say property is theft. Because after G-d or whatever, gave everything to humanity, who gave you permission to fence a territory and say its yours, you've essentially stolen from the entire world.
However the law is not as they say, because Torah indeed forbids theft. It's written "Adam for when offers among you...", why say Adam, what is the requirement to say that person offering a sacrifice is Adam? So that we know he has to be like the primordial Adam, that his offering wasn't considered from theft so neither you. The first law in all laws of sacrifices is this law, so that you're like primordial Adam, that means Torah recognizes ownership of property as a fundamental character in human identity.
But there's difference between the general law, the Roman and then the British law etc that developed from it, and Totah law regarding rules of ownership. There's assumption in general law that once you did what was required to make an object yours, it's yours eternally. For example you've bought a camera, and someone without your knowledge took it to Saturn and it crashed millions of miles away, no chance to reach it - general law says its still yours. Why, because I've acquired it and registered according to rules of property, meaning that property is an absolute term.
According to Torah law its not like this. Although there's an object I've purchased at will, but if You've given up on it, the possibility to ever use it, it's no longer yours. Meaning as long as you have attachment to potentially use it it's yours,if not then it isn't . For example you have a very expensive ring that fell into the ocean, and You say 'oy vey cost me so much and I will never find it". Then comes a diver and shows you he found it, you thank him for returning it, he says no way it's not yours it's mine, you've given up. According to Torah law the diver is right. Meaning the term of ownership, although recognized in Torah but has its own boundaries.
According to that there's a need to clarify can one truly say 'there's something mine".
For example Rambam in the final chapters of 'Guide For the Perplexed' says that the definition of ownership is an imaginary term. I say something is mine, did it change something about the object or yourself, nothing. But that you have the ability to use it, also if it was borrowed to you it was available to use it. Meaning that ownership is kind of imagination, therefore Rambam says that all who dedicate their lives to increase their property are fools, they only deal with imagination. Not that Rambam says that property is inconsequential, rather not worth to make it the goal.
So let's go back to the verse "and Avraham gave to Yitzhak all that he has", is there something that belongs to Avraham at all? In any absolute way is there anything
that belongs to him? The answer is - yes.
Meaning the only thing I can say is mine is what G-d is giving me. Because G-d is also the creator. If my friends give me something, it's not truly mine but for a time, but what G-d is giving me is truly mine. Therefore because it's mine I'm not to give it away. Opposite to the popular view. The populists say "because it's mine I can do with it whatever I want", but it's the opposite, because it's yours, you're not to do with it whatever you want.
That you can give something you have purchased, is because truly it's not yours, if bought you can sell. But if G-d gave, then it's already yours and not to give, therefore the Land of Israel is not to give away.
Likewise - the human is not the owner of his body. The fundamental assumption in abortion rules, they say "the woman is the owner of her body", the answer - incorrect, it's robbery. It's not her who's the owner of her body but G-d who gave it to her, and likewise humans are also not to injure themselves.
"And Avraham gave all he has to Yitzhak" - then what did he give him? According to the above its understood - he gave him the land of Israel."And to the children of concubines that are to Avraham, Avraham gave presents" - the rest is not his tuly. He didn't give 'his' presents, he gave presents, it's the property that passed through Avraham that he gave to the children of concubines.
"And sent them away from Yitzhak while he's alive to the eastern land of the east". If so here's a decision by Avraham to divide his heritage, his property into two parts, not sure if equal or not but not similar. There's a kind of property 'that he has' i.e. the land of Israel, whether the children of concubines receive a different kind of property and it's called 'presents'. The question is truly why?
The answer is, there're 2 kinds of missions for Avraham's heritage. Let's go to the 12th verse - "and these are the genealogies of Ishmael son of Avraham". If so there's a special respect that Ishmael has, that he's called 'son of Avraham'. According to what we've learned in previous Torah portions, Ishmael is called 'the adolescent', 'the son of of the handmaid', and suddenly he receives a highly respectful name, he's called 'son of Avraham'. And if you look in the Toladot portion (25:19) "and these are the genealogies of Yitzhak son of Avraham", separated by a small number of verses between the two - Ishmael is son of Avraham and Yitzhak is son of Avraham. How come?
This raises the question, if the text calls Ishmael 'son of Avraham' it means he's truly son of Avraham, that there's something in his purpose that expresses the teaching of Avraham. And then anyway there's the question - why did G-d give the land to Avraham? Because probably he needs this land to fulfill his mission, if so then it means the land belongs to both Ishmael and Yitzhak.
This is explained in the Sanhedrin tractate, a case when the children of Ishmael and children of Keturah came to be judged with Israel before Alexander Macedonian. What's the story? Alexander was a special human, he was the first to unite the world, the west and the east under one empire. It can be said he's representing a supreme rule, in Greek 'hegemony', a supreme rule of all the cultures and people. And then raised the idea for an authorized body of that could judge old disputes.
So the Talmud mentions that the Egyptians came demanding the silver and gold that Israel took out of Egypt. And the descendants of Cna'an came, Phoenicians who came from Africa claiming the land of Cna'an is theirs within borders. Then the Talmud tells of the case with the descendants of Ishmael and Keturah who came to be judged before Alexander, and they said...what did they say?
"Ours and yours", that it was said "these are the genealogies of Ismael son of Avraham and these are the genealogies of Yitzhak ben Avraham". The argument here is that if the text goes all the way to give Ishmael a respectful description then he's a legitimate continuation to Avrahahm, and if so he needs the same tools that were given to Yitzhak - the land of Israel, therefore they say "ours and yours" - "we need a bi-national state"...
The Talmud tells that Geviha ben Pesisa told the sages, who is Geviha ben Pesisa? Was a sage, a strong hero and hunchback. Why is it important to know he had a hunchback? Because then he had a deformity and couldn't sit in the Sanhedrin, if he can't sit in the Sanhedrin - he's not a formal representative of Judaism. If he's not an official representative, there's no danger in him going.
Geviha ben Pesisa said to the sages, give me authorization to go judge with them before Alexander. If I win, You'll say "the Torah of Mosheh Rabbenu won You over", and if they win You'll say "a simpleton among us have You defeated", someone with a hunchback that is not among the Sanhedrin, so there's no danger, they gave him the authority so he went. A sign that when you go to international arguments, first You have to go with authorization of the sages, second not to take risks, that anyway it's a win-win, he was authorized.
Asked them - from where do You bring the evidence? They said - from the Torah.
A very strange answer, they said - from the Torah.
Each time there're claims against the state of Israel in whatever international body, the evidence is always brought from inner documents of the state of Israel. Once in one of the UN assemblies the Arab states claimed that the Temple Mount doesn't belong to the state of Israel or doesn't belong to Jews, according to a number of Israeli documents recognizing the Waqf's authority year after year. So where do You bring the evidence from - "from the Torah", Your Torah.
Answered them - so will I bring You evidence from the Torah. What verse did he quote - "and to the children of concubines..." here it's our verse, "Avraham gave presents and sent them away from Yitzhak while he's alive, to the eastern land of the east". Said to them - "father who gave inheritance to his children during his life, and sent away this one from this one, does one owe anything to another? Nothing"
Till here is the discussion, by the way very interesting, that the discussion ends there. While in the dispute with the Egyptians and Canaanites there's a continuation to the story, with the children of Ishmael and Keturah there's no more discussion. For a simple reason - Ishmael can not recognize the legitimacy of Yitzhak. Cannot speak, therefore he leaves, while with the Egyptians and Canaanites Alexander tells them to respond, but here they don't want to answer, because it will be recognition of the very existence of Yitzhak, and they want, that if there comes a solution, it only comes from the international community, but not by recognition of, or Yitzhak's initiative. Interesting, I have a feeling of Deja Vu some place...
Ok but the question returns - why did then Avraham divide his property?
If I was Avraham, and I'm not as wise, I'd give to Yitzhak half of the land of Israel, and to the children of the concubines a half of the land of Israel. To Yitzhak half of the presents, and to the children of concubines half of the presents. However Avraham decided to divide it differently - the land of Israel and presents. There must be a reason to this.
The reason is simple, we've learned it in the 'Lech Lecha' portion, the distinction between the purpose of Yitzhak and the purpose of Ishmael. And we saw that the purpose of Yitzhak is the Covenant, while the purpose of Ishmael is multiplicity - meaning there's a distinction between quality and quantity.
Ishmael has the role to bring the maximum amount of humanity to faith in the G-d of Avraham. It's quantitative, it's written "and I'll make him fruitful and multiply him a lot,
twelve rulers will he give birth to, and I've raised him to a big nation"!!
"And my Covenant I'll establish with Yitzhak" - what is the distinction here between Yitzhak and Ishmael? A covenant is establishment of a state, meaning the collective holiness, "and blessed will be in you all the families of earth", meaning the program of Yitzhak is a political program for collective holiness. To establish a state the requirement is for a country, therefore for Yitzhak the land of Israel is essential, he cannot without the land of Israel. How can he otherwise establish the state that G-d tasked him with?
But for Ishmael, the purpose is cosmopolitan - therefore concentration in a territory, is moreover in contradiction to the purpose of Ishmael. And thus it's needed to give
him presents, that he goes away.
....
Here raises the question - what are these presents,
and where exactly did he send them?
"And to the children of concubines Avraham gave presents and
sent them away..."- rules of ownership, distinction of purpose
"And Avraham gave all he has to Yitzhak", interesting what is 'all he has', especially when it contradicts the following verse, "and to the children of concubines that are to Avraham, Avaraham gave presents".
It's unclear, if he give all he has then he has nothing left, so how can he give presents? Although from the tenses in the writing one can say the presents were given before he gave all that he had to Yitzhak, and formally that would solve the question.
But in truth there's a distinction between 'all that he has' and 'the presents', which does not answer and isn't included in all he has. From that we understand that in Avraham's property there're 2 kinds of property this distinction needs explanation. 'That he has' in modern Hebrew we would call that ownership, belonging. You say you own an object it belongs to you -what do these words mean? What is meant by ownership?
The Communist view at all rejects the legitimacy of ownership, they say property is theft. Because after G-d or whatever, gave everything to humanity, who gave you permission to fence a territory and say its yours, you've essentially stolen from the entire world.
However the law is not as they say, because Torah indeed forbids theft. It's written "Adam for when offers among you...", why say Adam, what is the requirement to say that person offering a sacrifice is Adam? So that we know he has to be like the primordial Adam, that his offering wasn't considered from theft so neither you. The first law in all laws of sacrifices is this law, so that you're like primordial Adam, that means Torah recognizes ownership of property as a fundamental character in human identity.
But there's difference between the general law, the Roman and then the British law etc that developed from it, and Totah law regarding rules of ownership. There's assumption in general law that once you did what was required to make an object yours, it's yours eternally. For example you've bought a camera, and someone without your knowledge took it to Saturn and it crashed millions of miles away, no chance to reach it - general law says its still yours. Why, because I've acquired it and registered according to rules of property, meaning that property is an absolute term.
According to Torah law its not like this. Although there's an object I've purchased at will, but if You've given up on it, the possibility to ever use it, it's no longer yours. Meaning as long as you have attachment to potentially use it it's yours,if not then it isn't . For example you have a very expensive ring that fell into the ocean, and You say 'oy vey cost me so much and I will never find it". Then comes a diver and shows you he found it, you thank him for returning it, he says no way it's not yours it's mine, you've given up. According to Torah law the diver is right. Meaning the term of ownership, although recognized in Torah but has its own boundaries.
According to that there's a need to clarify can one truly say 'there's something mine".
For example Rambam in the final chapters of 'Guide For the Perplexed' says that the definition of ownership is an imaginary term. I say something is mine, did it change something about the object or yourself, nothing. But that you have the ability to use it, also if it was borrowed to you it was available to use it. Meaning that ownership is kind of imagination, therefore Rambam says that all who dedicate their lives to increase their property are fools, they only deal with imagination. Not that Rambam says that property is inconsequential, rather not worth to make it the goal.
So let's go back to the verse "and Avraham gave to Yitzhak all that he has", is there something that belongs to Avraham at all? In any absolute way is there anything
that belongs to him? The answer is - yes.
Meaning the only thing I can say is mine is what G-d is giving me. Because G-d is also the creator. If my friends give me something, it's not truly mine but for a time, but what G-d is giving me is truly mine. Therefore because it's mine I'm not to give it away. Opposite to the popular view. The populists say "because it's mine I can do with it whatever I want", but it's the opposite, because it's yours, you're not to do with it whatever you want.
That you can give something you have purchased, is because truly it's not yours, if bought you can sell. But if G-d gave, then it's already yours and not to give, therefore the Land of Israel is not to give away.
Likewise - the human is not the owner of his body. The fundamental assumption in abortion rules, they say "the woman is the owner of her body", the answer - incorrect, it's robbery. It's not her who's the owner of her body but G-d who gave it to her, and likewise humans are also not to injure themselves.
"And Avraham gave all he has to Yitzhak" - then what did he give him? According to the above its understood - he gave him the land of Israel."And to the children of concubines that are to Avraham, Avraham gave presents" - the rest is not his tuly. He didn't give 'his' presents, he gave presents, it's the property that passed through Avraham that he gave to the children of concubines.
"And sent them away from Yitzhak while he's alive to the eastern land of the east". If so here's a decision by Avraham to divide his heritage, his property into two parts, not sure if equal or not but not similar. There's a kind of property 'that he has' i.e. the land of Israel, whether the children of concubines receive a different kind of property and it's called 'presents'. The question is truly why?
The answer is, there're 2 kinds of missions for Avraham's heritage. Let's go to the 12th verse - "and these are the genealogies of Ishmael son of Avraham". If so there's a special respect that Ishmael has, that he's called 'son of Avraham'. According to what we've learned in previous Torah portions, Ishmael is called 'the adolescent', 'the son of of the handmaid', and suddenly he receives a highly respectful name, he's called 'son of Avraham'. And if you look in the Toladot portion (25:19) "and these are the genealogies of Yitzhak son of Avraham", separated by a small number of verses between the two - Ishmael is son of Avraham and Yitzhak is son of Avraham. How come?
This raises the question, if the text calls Ishmael 'son of Avraham' it means he's truly son of Avraham, that there's something in his purpose that expresses the teaching of Avraham. And then anyway there's the question - why did G-d give the land to Avraham? Because probably he needs this land to fulfill his mission, if so then it means the land belongs to both Ishmael and Yitzhak.
This is explained in the Sanhedrin tractate, a case when the children of Ishmael and children of Keturah came to be judged with Israel before Alexander Macedonian. What's the story? Alexander was a special human, he was the first to unite the world, the west and the east under one empire. It can be said he's representing a supreme rule, in Greek 'hegemony', a supreme rule of all the cultures and people. And then raised the idea for an authorized body of that could judge old disputes.
So the Talmud mentions that the Egyptians came demanding the silver and gold that Israel took out of Egypt. And the descendants of Cna'an came, Phoenicians who came from Africa claiming the land of Cna'an is theirs within borders. Then the Talmud tells of the case with the descendants of Ishmael and Keturah who came to be judged before Alexander, and they said...what did they say?
"Ours and yours", that it was said "these are the genealogies of Ismael son of Avraham and these are the genealogies of Yitzhak ben Avraham". The argument here is that if the text goes all the way to give Ishmael a respectful description then he's a legitimate continuation to Avrahahm, and if so he needs the same tools that were given to Yitzhak - the land of Israel, therefore they say "ours and yours" - "we need a bi-national state"...
The Talmud tells that Geviha ben Pesisa told the sages, who is Geviha ben Pesisa? Was a sage, a strong hero and hunchback. Why is it important to know he had a hunchback? Because then he had a deformity and couldn't sit in the Sanhedrin, if he can't sit in the Sanhedrin - he's not a formal representative of Judaism. If he's not an official representative, there's no danger in him going.
Geviha ben Pesisa said to the sages, give me authorization to go judge with them before Alexander. If I win, You'll say "the Torah of Mosheh Rabbenu won You over", and if they win You'll say "a simpleton among us have You defeated", someone with a hunchback that is not among the Sanhedrin, so there's no danger, they gave him the authority so he went. A sign that when you go to international arguments, first You have to go with authorization of the sages, second not to take risks, that anyway it's a win-win, he was authorized.
Asked them - from where do You bring the evidence? They said - from the Torah.
A very strange answer, they said - from the Torah.
Each time there're claims against the state of Israel in whatever international body, the evidence is always brought from inner documents of the state of Israel. Once in one of the UN assemblies the Arab states claimed that the Temple Mount doesn't belong to the state of Israel or doesn't belong to Jews, according to a number of Israeli documents recognizing the Waqf's authority year after year. So where do You bring the evidence from - "from the Torah", Your Torah.
Answered them - so will I bring You evidence from the Torah. What verse did he quote - "and to the children of concubines..." here it's our verse, "Avraham gave presents and sent them away from Yitzhak while he's alive, to the eastern land of the east". Said to them - "father who gave inheritance to his children during his life, and sent away this one from this one, does one owe anything to another? Nothing"
Till here is the discussion, by the way very interesting, that the discussion ends there. While in the dispute with the Egyptians and Canaanites there's a continuation to the story, with the children of Ishmael and Keturah there's no more discussion. For a simple reason - Ishmael can not recognize the legitimacy of Yitzhak. Cannot speak, therefore he leaves, while with the Egyptians and Canaanites Alexander tells them to respond, but here they don't want to answer, because it will be recognition of the very existence of Yitzhak, and they want, that if there comes a solution, it only comes from the international community, but not by recognition of, or Yitzhak's initiative. Interesting, I have a feeling of Deja Vu some place...
Ok but the question returns - why did then Avraham divide his property?
If I was Avraham, and I'm not as wise, I'd give to Yitzhak half of the land of Israel, and to the children of the concubines a half of the land of Israel. To Yitzhak half of the presents, and to the children of concubines half of the presents. However Avraham decided to divide it differently - the land of Israel and presents. There must be a reason to this.
The reason is simple, we've learned it in the 'Lech Lecha' portion, the distinction between the purpose of Yitzhak and the purpose of Ishmael. And we saw that the purpose of Yitzhak is the Covenant, while the purpose of Ishmael is multiplicity - meaning there's a distinction between quality and quantity.
Ishmael has the role to bring the maximum amount of humanity to faith in the G-d of Avraham. It's quantitative, it's written "and I'll make him fruitful and multiply him a lot,
twelve rulers will he give birth to, and I've raised him to a big nation"!!
"And my Covenant I'll establish with Yitzhak" - what is the distinction here between Yitzhak and Ishmael? A covenant is establishment of a state, meaning the collective holiness, "and blessed will be in you all the families of earth", meaning the program of Yitzhak is a political program for collective holiness. To establish a state the requirement is for a country, therefore for Yitzhak the land of Israel is essential, he cannot without the land of Israel. How can he otherwise establish the state that G-d tasked him with?
But for Ishmael, the purpose is cosmopolitan - therefore concentration in a territory, is moreover in contradiction to the purpose of Ishmael. And thus it's needed to give
him presents, that he goes away.
....
Here raises the question - what are these presents,
and where exactly did he send them?
rylah
Gold Member
- Jun 10, 2015
- 21,134
- 4,480
- 290
Narkis - Im Savi (With My Grandfather)
As Avraham Avinu
Who counted stars at night,
Who called to his Creator from the furnace
Who bound his son - was my grandfather
The same complete faith
Inside the flame,
And the same dewy glance
And waves soft beard
Outside fell the snow
Outside they roared:
"There's no judgement and there's no judge"
And in his cracked room, the shattered
Angels sing about Jerusalem of the above
As Avraham Avinu
Who counted stars at night,
Who called to his Creator from the furnace
Who bound his son - was my grandfather
The same complete faith
Inside the flame,
And the same dewy glance
And waves soft beard
Outside fell the snow
Outside they roared:
"There's no judgement and there's no judge"
And in his cracked room, the shattered
Angels sing about Jerusalem of the above
rylah
Gold Member
- Jun 10, 2015
- 21,134
- 4,480
- 290
Tu Bishvat : First Noahide Seder India 2021
The Time for Noahide Action has Come - The Noahide World Center
It is very important for Noahides to develop a true sense of legitimacy and independence. In France,
noahideworldcenter.org
Last edited:
rylah
Gold Member
- Jun 10, 2015
- 21,134
- 4,480
- 290
Israel NGO assisted in over 100 Afghanistan evacuations
Judges, professional cyclists, journalists, television presenters, human rights activists, relatives of Afghan diplomats, artists, and others vulnerable to targeting by the Taliban were assisted in leaving Afghanistan.In September, IsraAID also helped evacuate 42 Afghan women and girls to the United Arab Emirates.
Read more -
i24NEWS
www.i24news.tv
rylah
Gold Member
- Jun 10, 2015
- 21,134
- 4,480
- 290
Israel, India to build 10-year defense cooperation plan
Israel has been supplying India with various weapons systems, missiles, and unmanned aerial vehicles over the last few years, making India one of Israel’s largest buyers of military hardware
www.jpost.com
Israel and India have agreed to form a task force that will build a 10-year cooperation plan to identify new areas in defense cooperation between the two countries.
Israel, India to build 10-year defense cooperation plan
Israel has been supplying India with various weapons systems, missiles, and unmanned aerial vehicles over the last few years, making India one of Israel’s largest buyers of military hardware
www.jpost.com
The plan, which will include defense procurement, production and research and development, was agreed upon last week during a visit last week by Ajay Kumar, the director-general of the Indian ministry of defense.
Kumar met with his Israeli counterpart, director-general of the defense ministry Maj.-Gen. (ret.) Amir Eshel at the Kirya military headquarters in Tel Aviv for the 15th meeting of the Joint Working Group on defense cooperation.
rylah
Gold Member
- Jun 10, 2015
- 21,134
- 4,480
- 290
Avraham Tal with Bnayah Barabi - Mi Lo Yavo (Who Won't Come)
Every delay is good
Brother ask for us it comes
Will see everything is ready for us
Even if a bit burns it passes
And as You sing the lights are lit
Leave all the none sense get us on
Tell me who won't come now to sing with us
Tell me who won't come, who won't come its our year
How it flows in my blood, us both against the world and the night yet started
Every delay is good
Brother ask for us it comes
Will see everything is ready for us
Even if a bit burns it passes
And as You sing the lights are lit
Leave all the none sense get us on
Tell me who won't come now to sing with us
Tell me who won't come, who won't come its our year
How it flows in my blood, us both against the world and the night yet started
rylah
Gold Member
- Jun 10, 2015
- 21,134
- 4,480
- 290
Noa Kirel to perform at 2021 Miss Universe pageant in Eilat
The Port of Eilat was announced as the location of the grand finale on Wednesday, as the event will be broadcast live to around 600 million viewers across more than 170 countries.
The 2021 Miss Universe pageant will take place in the southern city of Eilat. The 70th edition of the awards is the first to be hosted by Israel and is the first pageant to be held in the Middle East since 2000.
The Port of Eilat was announced as the location of the grand finale on Wednesday, as the event will be broadcast live to around 600 million viewers across more than 170 countries. Representatives from 90 countries and 5 continents are expected to participate in the pageant, which will be hosted by American television presenter Steve Harvey.
Noa Kirel to perform at 2021 Miss Universe pageant in Eilat
The Port of Eilat was announced as the location of the grand finale on Wednesday, as the event will be broadcast live to around 600 million viewers across more than 170 countries.
www.jpost.com
- Dec 6, 2009
- 77,516
- 4,161
- 1,815
- Thread starter
- #4,510
- Dec 6, 2009
- 77,516
- 4,161
- 1,815
- Thread starter
- #4,511
rylah
Gold Member
- Jun 10, 2015
- 21,134
- 4,480
- 290
- Dec 6, 2009
- 77,516
- 4,161
- 1,815
- Thread starter
- #4,517
- Dec 6, 2009
- 77,516
- 4,161
- 1,815
- Thread starter
- #4,518
- Dec 6, 2009
- 77,516
- 4,161
- 1,815
- Thread starter
- #4,519
- Dec 6, 2009
- 77,516
- 4,161
- 1,815
- Thread starter
- #4,520
Similar threads
- Replies
- 1
- Views
- 73
- Replies
- 39
- Views
- 725
- Replies
- 96
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 5
- Views
- 151
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 48
- Views
- 205
- Replies
- 33
- Views
- 129
- Replies
- 6
- Views
- 25
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8008
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 466
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-