janeliz
Drama Llama
I'm the Wiz and nobody beats me.
Posts: 5,645 
|
Post by janeliz on Jun 13, 2018 23:44:58 GMT
this term got me thinking- perhaps the Republican party could split into two groups to better differentiate their ideology... the Loyalist Party (e.g. Trump loyalists, who are more extreme right-leaning) and the 'regular' Republican Party, the more moderate party of old... ?? When / during what era did 'the system' decide that two main parties were going to be all there was, anyway? I know there used to be more. It seems like a fitting term somehow, doesn’t it. Mark Sanford is/was hardly a friend to Democrats and could only be considered a “RINO” by the most frothing of conservatives. But he had the temerity to be mildly critical of Trump a time or two, so there he goes. Back to the Appalachian Trail with you, Sanford. |
|
|
|
Post by betty on Jun 13, 2018 23:49:44 GMT
How many people really thought that Trump would win the Republican nomination, let alone the general election? Not one of my Republican family members or friends took him seriously. I saw it coming. My kids saw it coming. The coverage on election night was hilarious from our point of view! I belong to no party. Texas doesn't require you to declare. You may vote in either the Democrat or Republican primary. And yes, just like Reagan felt like the Democrat Party had left him, I feel like both parties have pulled away from me. We also saw it coming and find the election night media meltdown hilarious! Dh rewatches those compilation clips all the time.  To be fair I was on the ground at many Trump rallies all around my state and saw the enthusiasm, long lines and crowd sizes. I also talked to people from all over the place and felt the energy building. I picked apart every poll for months looking at the internals and trends and what the media was reporting vs. actual data. At 3.5 weeks out there was a subtle shift and I was totally convinced Trump had it in the bag. Dh did not believe me until Hillary canceled the fireworks. Then he started asking me what I was seeing!  |
|
|
|
Post by gmcwife1 on Jun 13, 2018 23:58:24 GMT
dewryce , I've grown a little tired of the idea that *I* am responsible for the election of trump because I chose to vote third party. The truth is, Democrats didn't show up for Hillary in the same numbers they did for Obama. I take no responsibility for Trump. I did not vote for him. I will not vote for him. My primary vote went to Kasich. I’ve felt like this too. I voted third party. Trump did not win my state and he never would have won my state. I researched my states voting history before I voted, we hadn’t gone anything other than democrat in thirty some years (something like that). I felt comfortable voting third party because I really don’t like the two party system and I didn’t care for either candidate. |
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Jun 14, 2018 0:03:52 GMT
this term got me thinking- perhaps the Republican party could split into two groups to better differentiate their ideology... the Loyalist Party (e.g. Trump loyalists, who are more extreme right-leaning) and the 'regular' Republican Party, the more moderate party of old... ?? When / during what era did 'the system' decide that two main parties were going to be all there was, anyway? I know there used to be more. Two parties began almost immediately between Hamilton federalist with strong central government at Jefferson democratic-republican - they’ve morphed over time and 3 have played a role for brief periods of overlap but 2 parties always seem to shake out. |
|
|
|
Post by mom on Jun 14, 2018 0:05:14 GMT
dewryce , I've grown a little tired of the idea that *I* am responsible for the election of trump because I chose to vote third party. The truth is, Democrats didn't show up for Hillary in the same numbers they did for Obama. I take no responsibility for Trump. I did not vote for him. I will not vote for him. My primary vote went to Kasich. I agree, completely. BOTH sides of the aisle had shitty candidates, IMHO (in different ways). If the two main parties want less to vote third party, then they need to bring better candidates to the table. |
|
|
|
Post by dewryce on Jun 14, 2018 0:06:06 GMT
dewryce , I've grown a little tired of the idea that *I* am responsible for the election of trump because I chose to vote third party. The truth is, Democrats didn't show up for Hillary in the same numbers they did for Obama. I take no responsibility for Trump. I did not vote for him. I will not vote for him. My primary vote went to Kasich. I wasn't trying to say that anyone, personally, was responsible at all and I'm sorry if it came across that way. Just that overall, a lot of votes that typically would have been Democrat went 3rd party and it influenced the election. I don't think I used the word responsibility and I definitely wasn't placing blame. Eta: I never saw anything definitive one way or another back then and I just did a quick google to see if I could find something and didn't. I was just trying to say that it's a numbers game and 3rd party voting definitely can influence the election. There is a reason the Russians chose it as a way to interfere, it works. It's not a personal indictment for those that choose to do it, just math. It was close in 2016, and with current issues in the Republican Party I believe it could have an even larger impact in 2020. Eta2: There was a word I couldn't think of to describe what I meant and I finally figured it out. If someone voted for a 3rd party instead of Hillary (as opposed to not voting at all) then they effectively positively affected Trump's chances whether that was their intention or not. The converse is also true. There were a lot of things that affected the election of course, and no one person or group is the only reason he was elected. But 3rd party voting did have an impact. |
|
|
|
Post by pierkiss on Jun 14, 2018 0:31:37 GMT
this term got me thinking- perhaps the Republican party could split into two groups to better differentiate their ideology... the Loyalist Party (e.g. Trump loyalists, who are more extreme right-leaning) and the 'regular' Republican Party, the more moderate party of old... ?? When / during what era did 'the system' decide that two main parties were going to be all there was, anyway? I know there used to be more. Wasn’t that when the Tea Party movement happened? Isn’t that when the extreme right started taking control? |
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Jun 14, 2018 2:00:22 GMT
this term got me thinking- perhaps the Republican party could split into two groups to better differentiate their ideology... the Loyalist Party (e.g. Trump loyalists, who are more extreme right-leaning) and the 'regular' Republican Party, the more moderate party of old... ?? When / during what era did 'the system' decide that two main parties were going to be all there was, anyway? I know there used to be more. Wasn’t that when the Tea Party movement happened? Isn’t that when the extreme right started taking control? Anyone who wants to discuss movement within the Republican party or splitting the party should look long and hard at the Tea Party movement and what happened there. The INITIAL movement was all around fiscal conservatism and taxes. I never went to any of the early rallies, but know people who did and all the talk was around taking back the fiscal conservative mantel and there was a lot of grass roots enthusiasm. Then the hard right social conservatives hijacked the movement. Suddenly tea party meant something completely different. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 26, 2024 13:24:21 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2018 2:40:35 GMT
dewryce , I've grown a little tired of the idea that *I* am responsible for the election of trump because I chose to vote third party. The truth is, Democrats didn't show up for Hillary in the same numbers they did for Obama. I take no responsibility for Trump. I did not vote for him. I will not vote for him. My primary vote went to Kasich. I’ve felt like this too. I voted third party. Trump did not win my state and he never would have won my state. I researched my states voting history before I voted, we hadn’t gone anything other than democrat in thirty some years (something like that). I felt comfortable voting third party because I really don’t like the two party system and I didn’t care for either candidate. I also voted 3rd party, and I will continue to do so until one of the other parties run someone I can vote for. I voted for Ben Carson in the primary, and he was "already out of it" by then! |
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jun 14, 2018 3:00:34 GMT
this term got me thinking- perhaps the Republican party could split into two groups to better differentiate their ideology... the Loyalist Party (e.g. Trump loyalists, who are more extreme right-leaning) and the 'regular' Republican Party, the more moderate party of old... ?? That's not gonna happen. At least not along those lines. I really don't think a lot of people realize how many people want to see Trump's agenda succeed in part if not in whole despite how they may feel about Trump. Loyalist is such a colonial term. It's hardly one that applies to a population that is generally disgusted by all politicians. When you say "Trump loyalists," all I hear is "people targeted for criticism." Two parties began almost immediately between Hamilton federalist with strong central government at Jefferson democratic-republican - they’ve morphed over time and 3 have played a role for brief periods of overlap but 2 parties always seem to shake out. We've got Yin & Yang, not Yin, Yang & Shmertz. I wasn't trying to say that anyone, personally, was responsible at all and I'm sorry if it came across that way. It has been personally said and directed so very many times since election night that I can't even begin to tell you how often I've heard it. That prevalence is directly responsible for people being so "touchy" on this thread. We have been personally and collectively pointed at and told we are responsible for the coming end of the world. That gets really old really quickly. |
|
|
|
Post by #notLauren on Jun 14, 2018 4:37:00 GMT
Amen. I can't count how many "leftist" Peas stated they considered anyone who voted for Trump to be morons, illiterate, ignorant, etc etc and then gleefully claim that they didn't care if that upset people.
Even the arrogance of Crimson cat coming onto this thread to "suggest" that the Republicans split into two factions is a continuation of that mindset. It's more of the same old shit (ie, there's something wrong with "you" people that needs fixing and isn't my idea a great one so that you'll be more acceptable) while pretending to be conciliatory. What's really happening is that it's not much fun for them anymore after dozens of conservative and Trump bashing threads where they all agree with each other. So they come here to look for new excitement in the hopes to bash others.
And while LTO may not want a "safe-space", I'm sure many of the conservatives who are happy to have a thread like this would like one. But while advocating such spaces for every other group in the country, apparently some of those who post so freely on the "I hate Trump threads" and who have been the most vocal in denigrating anyone on the right are bound and determined that isn't happening here. And yes, I mean people like Peano and Inked Up and Crimsoncat. They are still demanding that those on this thread explain themselves in everything they say and then end with comments like "you don't want any disagreement". All I can say is "you're right". We don't want your kind of disagreement. You're like bullies in the sandlot who believe that every inch of space on this board is yours to invade. instead of showing even an ounce of the so-called compassion you claim you have for every other group of people, you insist on posting on the one thread here (out of thousands) where it's been requested that you not.
|
|
|
|
Post by busy on Jun 14, 2018 5:20:34 GMT
We have three pot shops in our town. They get robbed often and the robberies have escalated to armed robbery. It’s scary, but data and studies are usually years behind real time, so right now it’s just opinion and observation that crime has increased. If marijuana would be legalized at the federal level, I think we’d largely see these kinds of crimes go away. Because banks can not provide services to marijuana businesses, even if its legal in the state they operate in, they are forced to operate on a cash basis, which makes them lucrative targets for thieves. |
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jun 14, 2018 5:24:17 GMT
We have three pot shops in our town. They get robbed often and the robberies have escalated to armed robbery. It’s scary, but data and studies are usually years behind real time, so right now it’s just opinion and observation that crime has increased. If marijuana would be legalized at the federal level, I think we’d largely see these kinds of crimes go away. Because banks can not provide services to marijuana businesses, even if its legal in the state they operate in, they are forced to operate on a cash basis, which makes them lucrative targets for thieves. That's an interesting idea. |
|
|
|
Post by busy on Jun 14, 2018 5:24:51 GMT
(CNN)President Donald Trump says he wants to meet with NFL players and athletes who kneel during the National Anthem so they can recommend people they think should be pardoned because they were treated unfairly by the justice system. "I'm going to ask them to recommend to me people who were unfairly treated," Trump said at the White House Friday. The President said during the wide-ranging gaggle that he would consider pardoning or commuting the sentences of those recommended. He also floated a pardon for posthumous boxing great Muhammad Ali. Certainly sounds like he's open to addressing some of their concerns. I wonder if any of them will take him up on his offer. But pardoning individuals who are advocated for by high profile individuals - whether it’s NFL players or Kim Kardashian - does nothing to address the systemic issues that are the real problem. Sure, pardons are great for those individuals, but only a sliver of the issue. |
|
|
|
Post by #notLauren on Jun 14, 2018 5:29:33 GMT
We have three pot shops in our town. They get robbed often and the robberies have escalated to armed robbery. It’s scary, but data and studies are usually years behind real time, so right now it’s just opinion and observation that crime has increased. If marijuana would be legalized at the federal level, I think we’d largely see these kinds of crimes go away. Because banks can not provide services to marijuana businesses, even if its legal in the state they operate in, they are forced to operate on a cash basis, which makes them lucrative targets for thieves. But would legalizing it at the federal level necessarily mean the states couldn't continue to make it illegal? How would that help |
|
|
|
Post by busy on Jun 14, 2018 5:39:53 GMT
If marijuana would be legalized at the federal level, I think we’d largely see these kinds of crimes go away. Because banks can not provide services to marijuana businesses, even if its legal in the state they operate in, they are forced to operate on a cash basis, which makes them lucrative targets for thieves. But would legalizing it at the federal level necessarily mean the states couldn't continue to make it illegal? How would that help If it were legal at the federal level, it would not be illegal for banks to provide services to marijuana businesses in states that have legalized it. Thus, they could operate like normal businesses and would not have to be cash-based. The cash is what makes them targets for crime. In states where marijuana is illegal, there are presumably not retail storefronts selling pot that want to be able to accept credit cards, deposit cash in banks, write checks, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jun 14, 2018 5:43:37 GMT
If marijuana would be legalized at the federal level, I think we’d largely see these kinds of crimes go away. Because banks can not provide services to marijuana businesses, even if its legal in the state they operate in, they are forced to operate on a cash basis, which makes them lucrative targets for thieves. But would legalizing it at the federal level necessarily mean the states couldn't continue to make it illegal? How would that help Each state has their own laws regarding the sale of alcohol. Why not pot? Although I don't think any state should make laws making medical use illegal. |
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jun 14, 2018 5:44:33 GMT
I have a friend who grew his own pot at his home out in the country.
He got busted for growing it, which was a shame since he didn't sell or deal it (fortunately for him!). He grew it for his own use only, and even though he smoked a lot, he was still an otherwise law-abiding productive citizen who worked hard and paid his taxes. I can't help but feel that it was nobody else's business and I hate that he was arrested.
I don't like the addictability of drugs, but I also don't think it's a good idea to outlaw all personal use. IDK. Maybe pot shops are a good idea. Perhaps certain potencies could be reserved for medical prescriptions and those blends of lower potency could be available to the general public.
IDK. I'm a bit conflicted about the whole thing.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 26, 2024 13:24:21 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2018 6:38:44 GMT
Amen. I can't count how many "leftist" Peas stated they considered anyone who voted for Trump to be morons, illiterate, ignorant, etc etc and then gleefully claim that they didn't care if that upset people. Even the arrogance of Crimson cat coming onto this thread to "suggest" that the Republicans split into two factions is a continuation of that mindset. It's more of the same old shit (ie, there's something wrong with "you" people that needs fixing and isn't my idea a great one so that you'll be more acceptable) while pretending to be conciliatory. What's really happening is that it's not much fun for them anymore after dozens of conservative and Trump bashing threads where they all agree with each other. So they come here to look for new excitement in the hopes to bash others. And while LTO may not want a "safe-space", I'm sure many of the conservatives who are happy to have a thread like this would like one. But while advocating such spaces for every other group in the country, apparently some of those who post so freely on the "I hate Trump threads" and who have been the most vocal in denigrating anyone on the right are bound and determined that isn't happening here. And yes, I mean people like Peano and Inked Up and Crimsoncat. They are still demanding that those on this thread explain themselves in everything they say and then end with comments like "you don't want any disagreement". All I can say is "you're right". We don't want your kind of disagreement. You're like bullies in the sandlot who believe that every inch of space on this board is yours to invade. instead of showing even an ounce of the so-called compassion you claim you have for every other group of people, you insist on posting on the one thread here (out of thousands) where it's been requested that you not. . 😁 By the way, you just gave yourself away as Lauren or as I liked to call you Laverne. |
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jun 14, 2018 7:16:02 GMT
I found these on YouTube and thought people might be interested to see the president speaking about Korea in his own words.
|
|
Rainbow
Pearl Clutcher
Where salt is in the air and sand is at my feet...
Posts: 4,103
|
Post by Rainbow on Jun 14, 2018 9:30:35 GMT
Hey, President Obama received a Nobel Peace Prize for his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples" after he had been in office for all of 12 days. What's a little peaceful sit-down with the maniacal dictator out to blow up the world compared to that? By the by, FWIW, Nobel secretary regretted giving Obama the peace prizeWhat do you think the rewrite on today's meetings are gonna look like a few years from now? I liked a lot about Obama and his administration, though I can admit that they made many missteps. All administrations make mistakes. I am still puzzled by the fact that he was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize. |
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Jun 14, 2018 12:56:23 GMT
But would legalizing it at the federal level necessarily mean the states couldn't continue to make it illegal? How would that help If it were legal at the federal level, it would not be illegal for banks to provide services to marijuana businesses in states that have legalized it. Thus, they could operate like normal businesses and would not have to be cash-based. The cash is what makes them targets for crime. In states where marijuana is illegal, there are presumably not retail storefronts selling pot that want to be able to accept credit cards, deposit cash in banks, write checks, etc. I think it would certainly help the situation. I believe they'll still be a target based on the product they're selling. But certainly agree that the cash based business makes it even more of a target. |
|
|
|
Post by busy on Jun 14, 2018 13:07:52 GMT
If it were legal at the federal level, it would not be illegal for banks to provide services to marijuana businesses in states that have legalized it. Thus, they could operate like normal businesses and would not have to be cash-based. The cash is what makes them targets for crime. In states where marijuana is illegal, there are presumably not retail storefronts selling pot that want to be able to accept credit cards, deposit cash in banks, write checks, etc. I think it would certainly help the situation. I believe they'll still be a target based on the product they're selling. But certainly agree that the cash based business makes it even more of a target. Yeah, I’m not naive enough to think it would solve everything, but it would help. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 26, 2024 13:24:21 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2018 14:07:28 GMT
Slight tangent - my friend's daughter owns some ATM machines that she has put into dispensaries in NV. Cha-Ching! I can't wait for pot to be legal in NYS so I can do the same.
|
|
|
|
Post by peano on Jun 14, 2018 14:15:02 GMT
OK, got it, I think. Thanks. I was just merely trying to clarify something though, not debate. I'm a little frazzled trying to get ready for a party so reading comprehension is not my strong suit right now. So sort of goes along with my previous post. No. You both are as wrong as wrong can be. peano Well, see, that's why I think they were so very short-sighted in their reasoning. It took hundreds of years of slowly moving changes for slavery to begin to be eradicated in America. (Slavery was present in every state at one time.) We fought a terrible Civil War to put a national end to the legality of slavery, and have since then been progressively changing and enforcing our laws to better cover all of our citizens equally. Obama's election was the culmination of a tremendous body of work over nearly 400 years on the part of America as a whole, and I have no hesitation in awarding it to the man Obama for his singular achievement of being elected on that foundation. I actually spelled it out. I'll elaborate more for those who missed it. From our beginnings as a country, we had slavery in every state. The Quakers were instrumental in changing that tide beginning in the 1700's, first within their own group. By the time of the Revolutionary War, the idea that all men (and women) are created equal and thus should be treated equally was taking hold and really beginning to spread. By the time of the Civil War, all of the northern states had abolished slavery. By the mid-1960's we had enacted national laws guaranteeing equal rights to women and people of color. By the mid 2010's we had enacted national laws guaranteeing equal rights to citizens regardless of sexual preferences or choices of whom to marry. That's a lot of change we as a nation should be proud of and recognized for, and nothing was more evident of our continuing work towards individual freedom than electing a man of color to represent us on a world stage as President of the United States of America. Obama won the election. He earned the title of President. I have no qualms in awarding him the Peace Prize individually as being the first to have broken through that most elite barrier. Likewise, I think that people who voted for Obama because of his race/birace had just as valid a reason for their vote as anyone else did for policy reasons.
To turn that into something deserving of a whole handful of negative emojis was downright silly and reflective of a preconceived bias that is very difficult to get past.To assert that a person was or should be awarded the Nobel Prize solely based upon his skin color boggles my mind, especially when the Nobel is an award offered for achievements, not one's DNA. Whether he was awarded it prematurely or without cause is the Nobel committee's issue to deal with. |
|
|
|
Post by peano on Jun 14, 2018 14:18:02 GMT
She's exercising her right of free speech. So what's the problem? Bravo for her. She apparently doesn't think Robert De Niro deserves the same consideration. Even though everything that comes out of Trump's mouth is lies and bullshit, I still support his right to say it. |
|
|
|
Post by mom on Jun 14, 2018 14:26:21 GMT
We have three pot shops in our town. They get robbed often and the robberies have escalated to armed robbery. It’s scary, but data and studies are usually years behind real time, so right now it’s just opinion and observation that crime has increased. If marijuana would be legalized at the federal level, I think we’d largely see these kinds of crimes go away. Because banks can not provide services to marijuana businesses, even if its legal in the state they operate in, they are forced to operate on a cash basis, which makes them lucrative targets for thieves. Interesting. I did not know banks could not service them. SaveSave |
|
|
|
Post by peano on Jun 14, 2018 14:28:24 GMT
Amen. I can't count how many "leftist" Peas stated they considered anyone who voted for Trump to be morons, illiterate, ignorant, etc etc and then gleefully claim that they didn't care if that upset people. Even the arrogance of Crimson cat coming onto this thread to "suggest" that the Republicans split into two factions is a continuation of that mindset. It's more of the same old shit (ie, there's something wrong with "you" people that needs fixing and isn't my idea a great one so that you'll be more acceptable) while pretending to be conciliatory. What's really happening is that it's not much fun for them anymore after dozens of conservative and Trump bashing threads where they all agree with each other. So they come here to look for new excitement in the hopes to bash others. And while LTO may not want a "safe-space", I'm sure many of the conservatives who are happy to have a thread like this would like one. But while advocating such spaces for every other group in the country, apparently some of those who post so freely on the "I hate Trump threads" and who have been the most vocal in denigrating anyone on the right are bound and determined that isn't happening here. And yes, I mean people like Peano and Inked Up and Crimsoncat. They are still demanding that those on this thread explain themselves in everything they say and then end with comments like "you don't want any disagreement". All I can say is "you're right". We don't want your kind of disagreement. You're like bullies in the sandlot who believe that every inch of space on this board is yours to invade. instead of showing even an ounce of the so-called compassion you claim you have for every other group of people, you insist on posting on the one thread here (out of thousands) where it's been requested that you not.Here's what I posted previously: I have reached the understanding that the people on this thread don't really want debate, but rather a safe, sort of back-slapping place for people to congregate, and not have to think about things too deeply. Once I realized this, it was easy for me to just read, see what other people are thinking and move on.
For me personally, it's the active back and forth and debate that help me learn and understand, and formulate my opinions.
Different strokes...
Let me spell it out. I support your desire to avoid conflict and debate, hence why I wrote "different strokes". Now I understand this group's motivation, I mostly avoid debate, because I don't enjoy beating my head against a wall. I do, however, have the right to read and post on any thread on this message board. |
|
|
|
Post by Skellinton on Jun 14, 2018 14:37:16 GMT
If it were legal at the federal level, it would not be illegal for banks to provide services to marijuana businesses in states that have legalized it. Thus, they could operate like normal businesses and would not have to be cash-based. The cash is what makes them targets for crime. In states where marijuana is illegal, there are presumably not retail storefronts selling pot that want to be able to accept credit cards, deposit cash in banks, write checks, etc. I think it would certainly help the situation. I believe they'll still be a target based on the product they're selling. But certainly agree that the cash based business makes it even more of a target. They wouldn’t be anymore of a target for what they are selling then any other store. People are not robbing the stores for the pot, they just want the cash, I am not a pot smoker, never have been, and originally I thought legalizing pot was a bad idea for many reasons I believe most people think it is a bad idea, but it has been legal in our state for quite awhile and I haven’t seen any of the things I was semi worried about happen. I absolutely agree it should be legalized at the federal level so they don’t have to operate with cash and then states and cities even could make their own decisions, I think there are cities in Oregon where it is illegal still, but I don’t know that for sure. |
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Jun 14, 2018 15:42:15 GMT
I think it would certainly help the situation. I believe they'll still be a target based on the product they're selling. But certainly agree that the cash based business makes it even more of a target. They wouldn’t be anymore of a target for what they are selling then any other store. People are not robbing the stores for the pot, they just want the cash, I am not a pot smoker, never have been, and originally I thought legalizing pot was a bad idea for many reasons I believe most people think it is a bad idea, but it has been legal in our state for quite awhile and I haven’t seen any of the things I was semi worried about happen. I absolutely agree it should be legalized at the federal level so they don’t have to operate with cash and then states and cities even could make their own decisions, I think there are cities in Oregon where it is illegal still, but I don’t know that for sure. Actually in many cases they are robbing the store for the pot - one article - but you can find dozens: www.denverpost.com/2016/12/21/teens-arrested-dispensary-burglaries-boulder-county/ |
|
