TPRJones' Last 100 Shared Items

All content property of original publishers, please click title links for further information on each source.

Acquisitions Incorporated PAX Prime 2014
Originally Published October 23rd, 2014, 03:40 AM
Acquisitions Incorporated PAX Prime 2014

Watch in awe and amusement as Jerry Holkins, Mike Krahulik, Scott Kurtz, and Morgan Webb of Acquisitions Inc. wade once more into almost certain doom, courte...
From: Dungeons & Dragons Views: 158899 2529 ratings
Time: 02:27:31 More in Gaming

BAH Fest East 2014
Originally Published October 19th, 2014, 08:15 PM
BAH Fest East 2014

Festival of Bad Ad Hoc Hypotheses Web: Twitter: @BAHFest.
From: BAHFest Views: 6108 111 ratings
Time: 02:12:28 More in Comedy

I am Ted Mosby
Originally Published October 16th, 2014, 02:21 AM

I’m usurping today’s blog post from Michael! Bwahaha! Somehow, I don’t think he’ll mind, and I for once have something to talk about!

Something like a year ago, the final episode of How I Met Your Mother aired and the internets became an uproar over the final episode. My Facebook wall was awash for nearly a week of people proclaiming it an awful ending. One that practically ruined the rest of what is an amazing and funny show. Somehow I managed to avoid spoilers. I know not how. But I did. And recently season 9 of How I Met Your Mother came to Netflix, which is about the only way I watch TV anymore. I powered through the final season while coloring up some comic pages. TV shows like that make for good background material.

Season 9 was an amazing farewell and wrap up to a show that delighted me for nearly a decade. But it was with trepidation that I let the finale play out, remembering how much everyone said it sucked.

I now know to never listen to them when it comes to story telling. Cuz they’ve got zero taste.

I know it’s been a year, and I think I’ve safely reached the statute of limitations on spoilers, but still. In case this is a concern for you: SPOILERS, SWEETIE.

Sure, the finale left me sad and conflicted, and there were parts that I didn’t like. But as I reflect on my feelings, I didn’t like these parts not because they made for a shitty story, but because they made me sad. Going into season 9, I felt confident that Robin and Barney would get hitched, Ted would meet Tracy and the long winding tale of their meeting would end and that would be it. I could see why people would be upset by not seeing more of Ted and Tracy’s courtship and life together, but after all that’s not what the story was about. So I was confused by how they finally met in the first 10 minutes of the final hour long finale. I wondered, what more story could there be? Where are you going from here guys? And then I found out.

Yes, after the extremely convoluted redemption arc of the man-child Barney, I was sad to see Robin and Barney’s marriage fall apart and Barney drift back to his old ways. I really did have hopes for them. They were a great, fun couple, and it is a tragedy that they didn’t make it work after all. Barney in general went from being a wonderful character with his own intense arc of growth all his own to being… well… kind of a sad let down. Yet, while it was sad, it was within his character. The fact that so much of Barney’s character growth was effectively thrown out almost immediately after it happened hurt, though

Yes, I was sad to see the gang fall apart as the years wore on, especially the disappearance of Robin. It was sad to see people grow up and move down different paths. But that is friendship. Sometimes friends last forever. Sometimes they grow apart. Hell, my friends from college, whom feature very heavily in a decently popular webcomic I drew, barely manage to meet up once a month for lunch. And we all live within a 1 hour radius. To lose friends, to watch a tight knit group drift apart, hurts.

Yes, I was sad to learn that all this time that this yarn has been spinning, Tracy has been dead for six years. I was concerned that Tracy could never live up to the role she’d been dealt, but it turns out she was a really awesome person. Someone who truly would be great with Ted. I had always been a big fan of Robin and Ted, yeah I was on Marshall’s side of that particular bet, but I have to say, Tracy and Ted really were a pretty unbeatable pair. And her loss hurt, even though I’d only really just met her.

Is it the ending I wanted? No. I suppose it’s not. I wanted the ending where Lilly and Marshall, and Robin and Barney, and Tracy and Ted grew old together as three happy couples. A perfect sextet of friends, with a small horde of children between them, having goofy adventures together until they died. That’s the perfect ending. That’s the fairy tale ending. That’s the dream.

But I don’t think it’s the honest ending.

It’s too neat, too tidy. Friendship isn’t neat and tidy. Life isn’t neat and tidy. It’s messy and full of ups and downs, grief and disappointments as often as joy and surprises. Friendship is like that too. Social bonds are weird tangled webs, and they take tending to remain strong. But I’ll be damned if they aren’t tough sonsofbitches to kill. I’ve made a lot of friends over the years, really good friends. I don’t see many of them anymore. Our lives are different, we’re different, we move apart, gain new friends and circles and have our own adventures. We’re the heroes of our own stories, and aren’t always included in each other’s. And while we’re not necessarily the inseparable companions we once were, no matter how long it’s been, when ever we get back together… we’re still friends. And that’s the ending that’s honest.

Also, Ted’s kids are totally right about calling their old man out on his bullshit. How I Met Your Mother isn’t really about how Ted met Tracy; never was when you look back at it. It’s always been about how good friends Ted, Marshall, Lilly, Barney, and Robin were, and how very very much Robin meant to Ted. That blue french horn really brings the story back full circle and makes it complete.

But even if all that didn’t make up for the sad hurtful parts of the ending, the ending to How I Met Your Mother got one thing very right: After all his talk and bluster and drama about finding “the one,” Ted Mosby finally learned the truth: there’s always “another one.” And that felt honest.

Nose Grows Some
Originally Published October 6th, 2014, 08:41 PM

Ads by Project Wonderful! Your ad could be here, right now.



24-Hour Comic 2014
Originally Published October 6th, 2014, 08:40 AM

Welcome to 24-Hour Comic Day 2014, wherein Katie realizes she spends way too much time thinking about kittens.

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Civil Forfeiture (HBO)
Originally Published October 6th, 2014, 01:30 AM
Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Civil Forfeiture (HBO)

Did you know police can just take your stuff if they suspect it's involved in a crime? They can! It's a shady process called “civil asset forfeiture,” and it...
From: LastWeekTonight Views: 3446581 37494 ratings
Time: 16:30 More in Film & Animation

ROBOT HEART, TCS: She Wolf/Mario Bros/Booty MASHUP (covered by Kawehi) for KYLE from Kawehi
Originally Published October 5th, 2014, 07:33 PM
ROBOT HEART, TCS: She Wolf/Mario Bros/Booty MASHUP (covered by Kawehi) for KYLE from Kawehi

7 Days left to be a part of EVOLUTION: Happy Sunday Funday...again! And so the cover series continues this...
From: I Am Kawehi Views: 43360 1494 ratings
Time: 04:32 More in Music

September 29, 2014
Originally Published September 28th, 2014, 11:00 PM

There are now exactly 22 general admission tickets for BAHFest East If you want to come, please buy soon!t7otlMjrm5U

Texas Court Makes Upskirts Mandatory, Outlaws Kittens, Hates Your Mother
Originally Published September 21st, 2014, 06:28 PM

Surely you've heard about this. A Texas court — full of old men, reeking of misogyny — has ruled that taking upskirt photos of unwilling women is free speech protected by the First Amendment!

How ridiculous! How despicable!

I mean, at least — that's what I think happened, based on how the story has been reported and talked about.

Consider, say — the Mary Sue, a really very good blog that deals with how pop culture treats women. Here's how they headlined and wrote about it:

Kansas City, Missouri May Soon Outlaw Catcalling; Texas Lifts Proposed Ban on Upskirt Photos

. . .

Just this week, Texas’ highest criminal court threw out a state law banning “improper photography” like upskirts and other invasive images taken without consent —in a decision ostensibly meant to protect “free speech” that will just protect perpetrators instead.

You think a blog is a bad example? OK, take The Guardian:

Texas court upholds right to take 'upskirt' pictures

A court has upheld the constitutional right of Texans to photograph strangers as an essential component of freedom of speech – even if those images should happen to be surreptitious “upskirt” pictures of women taken for the purposes of sexual gratification.

It's not all progressives. Look at Breitbart:

Texas Court: Ban on 'Upskirt' Photos Violates First Amendment Rights

HOUSTON, Texas — Texas' highest criminal court threw out a law on Wednesday banning "improper photography in public." Banning such photography, which includes "upskirting" or "downblousing" for the purpose of sexual gratification, would be considered a violation of free speech.

Or, on the other side, Salon:

Texas court throws out “upskirt” photo law, because banning creepshots is “paternalistic”

Texas’ highest criminal court struck down part of a law banning “upskirt” photos on Wednesday, arguing that photos taken without permission in public are entitled to First Amendment protections. Outlawing “improper photography or visual recording,” the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals panel ruled, would be a violation of federal free-speech rights and a “paternalistic” effort to regulate the photographers’ thoughts.

If you read those articles — if you read most of the coverage of this decision — you would conclude that (1) Texas had a law banning upskirt photos, and (2) a Texas court struck down the law because upskirt photos are protected by the First Amendment and can't be banned.

Or, you could, you know, read the actual court decision to see what the court said. Mike Masnick at Techdirt did so, and found that the decision didn't much resemble its coverage.

First, take the statute that was at issue. It's Texas Penal Code section 21.15(b)(1).

(b) A person commits an offense if the person:

(1) photographs or by videotape or other electronic means records, broadcasts, or transmits a visual image of another at a location that is not a bathroom or private dressing room:

(A) without the other person's consent; and

(B) with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.

That odd "not a bathroom" clause, by the way, is there because there's a separate part of the statute that deals with filming in bathrooms and dressing rooms — which the Texas court did not strike down.

So. Let's consider this a minute. Taking a picture of someone in public with the intent to gratify anyone sexually is a felony under this statute.

Is this picture a felony?


That depends on whether a jury thinks that the photographer took it for anyone's sexual gratification. Could you get arrested for taking the picture? That would depend on whether a cop thinks that you are taking the picture for sexual gratification. The picture is iconic; it depends upon apparent juxtaposition of a heavily-policed riot and a passionate embrace. I'm sure the cops will have a nuanced view of it when you're standing there taking pictures. No doubt someone finds the picture sexually stimulating. If you take the picture, with the intent to put it on the internet, and you know what the internet is like, are you committing a felony? Does it depend on whether you intended that people would be stimulated by it, or merely knew that they would?

How about this picture?


Various people find Jake and/or Maggie Gyllenhaal to be sexually stimulating. Many of these people probably read the papers and magazines that print pictures of them at the beach. The photographers know this, which is why they take the pictures, so they can sell them to the papers and magazines. Has the photographer committed a felony? Does it depend on how "hot" the picture is? Does whether it is a felony depend on whether Jake is wearing a rash guard?

Perhaps you think that's a ridiculous question, that I'm making up stupid slippery slopes. The Texas court doesn't think so.

This statute could easily be applied to an entertainment reporter who takes a photograph of an attractive celebrity on a public street.

How do we know it won't? We don't. We're supposed to rely on the discretion of cops and prosecutors. We're supposed to believe that when a statute allows the government to arrest and prosecute you for a wide range of conduct based on its subjective evaluation of your mental state, that they won't abuse it to go after people they don't like. But experience teaches that cops will, in fact, harass photographers given a chance.

But wait, you say. The Texas court didn't just say that! They said that upskirts are protected by the First Amendment!

No. They didn't. In fact, they explicitly said they weren't saying that.

Here's what the court did. Faced with a challenge to the statute, it first addressed whether photography in general is protected by the First Amendment. The answer — which I hope you will be happy to hear — is yes.

The second question is a bit trickier. Is photography an inherently expressive act that triggers the First Amendment, or does it depend on whether any given photograph has a "particularized message?" The Texas court weighed the precedents — parades are inherently expressive, flag-burning may or may not be expressive depending on the circumstances — and decided that photography is inherently expressive. The court quoted Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Group of Boston, which pointed out that demanding an individualized show of "particularized message" tends to chill and suppress speech:

As some of these examples show, a narrow, succinctly articulable message is not a condition of constitutional protection, which if confined to expressions conveying a "particularized message," cf. Spence v. Washington, 418 U.S. 405, 411 (1974) (per curiam), would never reach the unquestionably shielded painting of Jackson Pollock, music of Arnold Schönberg, or Jabberwocky verse of Lewis Carroll.

The third question is also tricky. Even if photography is generally protected, is this statute limited at only specifically unprotected types of photography? That's what the state argued — that because the statute only applied to photography intended to cause sexual gratification, it only applied to unprotected photography. Not so, said the court. Not everything designed for sexual gratification is unprotected. In fact, a large amount of sexual expression is protected. Here, the law bans both protected expression — say, taking a photograph of an attractive celebrity on the street — and unprotected expression, like child pornography or obscenity. The fact that something is designed to cause sexual arousal doesn't take it outside the protections of the First Amendment:

Banning otherwise protected expression on the basis that it produces sexual arousal or gratification is the regulation of protected thought, and such a regulation is outside the government’s power . . . .

But what about the "without consent" clause? Can the government ban non-consensual photographs? The state thought so — they argued that the lack of consent makes the ban constitutional, even though it would still apply to the hypothetical celebrity on the street. But, as the Texas court points out, the state is vague on the details. The state conceded in this case that we all effectively consent to being photographed when we go out in public to some extent, but argues there are some circumstances — which it can't define — in which that consent is no longer implied. But the First Amendment doesn't permit such ambiguity. Here the Texas court found that the state's definition of consent was so vague that it wasn't clear whether or not the defendant's conduct (taking pictures of women and children in bathing suits at a water park) would be illegal or not.

So, does that resolve the issue? No, it does not. That merely means that the statute bans some protected conduct. The next question is whether the state has a sufficiently compelling reason to ban that conduct. Here's where the coverage was the most woefully misleading. The court explicitly suggests that a law banning upskirts may survive First Amendment analysis:

We agree with the State that substantial privacy interests are invaded in an intolerable manner when a person is photographed without consent in a private place, such as the home, or with respect to an area of the person that is not exposed to the general public, such as up a skirt.

But this statute doesn't do that. This statute bans non-consensual photography (with a definition of consent that is not clear even to the state prosecuting under the statute) if someone has sexual intent. As the court points out, the state is perfectly capable of drafting a narrower statute, and does so in the next subsection by banning nonconsensual photography in bathrooms and private dressing rooms.

So — shouldn't the court just uphold convictions when they are for clearly unprotected conduct (say, a photo of a child that qualifies as child pornography, or a picture that qualifies as obscenity, or an unquestionable invasion of privacy like an upskirt), and strike down the ones that are for protected conduct? That's not how First Amendment analysis works. Under the overbreadth doctrine, if a statute poses a "realistic" risk of banning a "substantial" amount of protected speech, the whole thing fails. Here, the court found that the statute's reach was "breathtaking." Therefore, even though there might be some constitutional applications, the statute is unconstitutional.

But wait. What about that extremely douchey part where the Texas court said that banning non-consensual pervy photography was "paternalistic" to the women it sought to protect? What assholes!

Well, actually, that's not what they said at all.

Protecting someone who appears in public from being the object of sexual thoughts seems to be the sort of “paternalistic interest in regulating the defendant’s mind” that the First Amendment was designed to guard against. [emphasis added by irritable blogger]

The court was talking about being paternalistic to defendants by regulating sexual thoughts, not paternalistic to victims of creepshots.

So, to sum up, allow me to mainsplain:


Sometimes the rule of law — due process, application of established rules, procedures, and rights — result in nasty people getting away with bad things. That makes us angry. But it's not about how we feel.

The Texas court didn't say upskirts are protected by the First Amendment. Texas could probably ban upskirts, if it did a halfway-competent job of drafting a sufficiently narrow statute.

But who's going to get outraged about that?

If you're wondering why I give a shit, consider this: our freedoms are recognized or denied based on court rulings. Our understanding of those court rulings often derives from media coverage of them. When we do a lousy job of covering law, or when we put up with journalists doing so, we're doing a lousy job as citizens.

Texas Court Makes Upskirts Mandatory, Outlaws Kittens, Hates Your Mother © 2007-2014 by the authors of Popehat. This feed is for personal, non-commercial use only. Using this feed on any other site is a copyright violation. No scraping.


Originally Published September 19th, 2014, 01:44 PM

CLICK TO TWEET → This week we read: Until the End of Time by Gopher-Chan. TW: Trivialization of the Holocaust. If you're not into that......
From: What The Fanfiction Views: 7694 732 ratings
Time: 10:57 More in Entertainment

Digital: A Love Story realism mode
Originally Published September 15th, 2014, 09:01 AM


From tumblr user aaronki3:

This is mildly goofy, but I decided to implement “Realism Rules” when I started playing Digital: A Love Story. I only allow myself to dial in to each BBS twice a day to read/reply to messages (once during breakfast, once before bed), plus I can’t dial in if anyone in the house is talking on the phone. I think the result is that I’m a lot more invested in the story and I find myself anxiously worrying about the happenings on the boards during the day. Will I have any new messages from my friends today? Is tonight the night that I finally find *Paris? Will I ever hear from *Emilia again?

I never thought I would roleplay the limitations of dial-up for fun, but I was really influenced by this comic that I came across the day I started playing. Both it and Digital are hitting me pretty hard and I imagine everyone who grew up on the internet prior to the Social Media blitz has a similar story.

Plus, I think those modem sounds just did weird things to the nostalgia center of my brain.

I Ordered Cards Against Humanity's 5th Expansion or at least I thought. (
Originally Published September 11th, 2014, 08:40 PM

Submitted by mcmeekin91 to funny.



Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Student Debt (HBO)
Originally Published September 8th, 2014, 01:30 AM
Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Student Debt (HBO)

John Oliver discusses student debt, which is awful, as well as for-profit colleges, who are awfully good at inflicting debt upon us. Connect with Last Week T...
From: LastWeekTonight Views: 3074222 28191 ratings
Time: 16:17 More in Entertainment

startup life
Originally Published September 8th, 2014, 12:01 AM

startup life

September 06, 2014
Originally Published September 5th, 2014, 11:00 PM

The slow descent into madness continues...x3iOgviAIgM

This lizard was about to get stepped on indoors so I tried to...
Originally Published September 5th, 2014, 01:31 PM

This lizard was about to get stepped on indoors so I tried to save it and move it outside. He decided to make things awkward.

This left me thinking about a couple of things.  What is the signal that then triggers the tail to wiggle?  Is there a “normally closed” nerve circuit in the tail that instantly triggers the muscles the moment the signal is gone?  Why are the muscles DOWNSTREAM from the break the only ones that are triggered.  It must be a directional thing, right?  What governs the rythmic pulsing of the signals?  It seems to be harmonic.  This seems like it would have implications for robot control algorithm design.  

Here’s a wiki article on Autotomy, which is what this is called.

Sex, Cars, and Food: Healthcare Triage News #3
Originally Published September 5th, 2014, 08:41 AM
Sex, Cars, and Food: Healthcare Triage News #3

This week's news are on topics everyone loves: sex, food, and cars. But the details may not be what you expect. The last segment is so important, we may addr...
From: Healthcare Triage Views: 30576 1226 ratings
Time: 04:58 More in Education

Why Do We Have More Boys Than Girls?
Originally Published September 4th, 2014, 11:07 AM
Why Do We Have More Boys Than Girls?

Subscribe to MinuteEarth! - And support us on Subbable! - ______...
From: MinuteEarth Views: 1195019 18528 ratings
Time: 02:50 More in Science & Technology

Extremist Logic
Originally Published September 3rd, 2014, 07:10 AM


Let's Play - Fibbage
Originally Published September 2nd, 2014, 07:41 PM
Let's Play - Fibbage

Geoff, Ray, Gavin, Ryan, Michael, and Lindsay practice lying as they play Fibbage. RT Store: Rooster Teeth: http://roosterteet...
From: LetsPlay Views: 1081015 30481 ratings
Time: 30:56 More in Gaming

Why are Stars Star-Shaped?
Originally Published August 26th, 2014, 02:14 PM
Why are Stars Star-Shaped?

Thanks to our Subbable subscriber - head over to to find cheaper textbooks for college or university. And go to http:/...
From: minutephysics Views: 766141 26176 ratings
Time: 03:29 More in Science & Technology

Robin Williams - "Seize the Day" - by Melodysheep
Originally Published August 20th, 2014, 12:01 PM
Robin Williams - "Seize the Day" - by Melodysheep

A musical tribute to the great Robin Williams. mp3: Subscribe for more remixes and mash-up...
From: melodysheep Views: 1385537 24223 ratings
Time: 02:40 More in Music

dog philosophy
Originally Published August 19th, 2014, 12:02 AM

dog philosophy

ANTHEM - By Kawehi (Off of my newest EP, Robot Heart)
Originally Published August 18th, 2014, 10:10 AM
ANTHEM - By Kawehi (Off of my newest EP, Robot Heart)

Be a part of my next EP: HAPPY MONDAY MOFOS!!!! As promised, here is a new music video for ANTHEM, th...
From: I Am Kawehi Views: 249272 6142 ratings
Time: 06:57 More in Music

Humans Need Not Apply
Originally Published August 13th, 2014, 07:00 AM
Humans Need Not Apply

Discuss this video: ## Robots, Etc...
From: CGP Grey Views: 2903595 83807 ratings
Time: 15:01 More in Education

Amy Dallen's Comic Book Store Song!
Originally Published July 23rd, 2014, 12:00 PM
Amy Dallen's Comic Book Store Song!

Amy Dallen, well, breaks out into song... today's adventure is a musical tribute to your friendly neighborhood comic book store, co-written with very special...
From: Geek & Sundry Views: 34312 1719 ratings
Time: 02:37 More in Music

Your Favourite Gaming Moment
Originally Published July 18th, 2014, 10:51 AM

It's been a weird week. Heck, it's been a weird few years. So let's stop for a second and take a breath.

Comments for this video can, as always, be found on

Cast: ShutUpShow

Tags: board games and dads

Wiener vs. Brain - First Time
Originally Published July 10th, 2014, 02:59 PM
Wiener vs. Brain - First Time

Tommy's Wiener and Brain argue over falling in love with Lily. Get some kinda cool merchandise here: Follow us on soc...
From: Almost Cool Views: 90340 6314 ratings
Time: 07:26 More in Entertainment

That's Not Real Christianity
Originally Published July 8th, 2014, 02:30 PM
"Hello:I lived in Topeka and went to KU. I’m writing because I read the story about you... I watched your story...and...I don’t want you to give up on making the movie because of what I’m going to tell you.

Last year my mother and my sister and me went to a concert and Westboro was there with their signs. We were celebrating my sister’s birthday that night since she was 14. Even though we grew up in Topeka we had never seen the people and the signs up close until that night and we had to walk close by them to get in the building for the show. Two of the boys in the Westboro people and a woman picked on my sister and said mean things to her because she was kind of a tomboy. We went on to the concert but my sister was crying about what the boys and the woman said to her. Two days later my sister hung herself on the rod in her closet. She left a note that said she was gay and dying in the closet was easier then living in it. Those signs and the hateful things that Westboro did killed my sister. Three months later my mom overdosed on pills and was in a coma for two weeks until she died. She thought my sister dying was her fault because she made us go to church and they taught that gay was bad...

From a friend"

Saying anything beyond this seems to dilute the impact.  I've deleted some content in the interest of protecting the author. 

At the same time this letter came to my attention I was reading a blog by a friend. The blog wasn't what stirred me though. I mean, the blog was great...her blogs are always great...but it was the comments on the blog that got me thinking. Specifically, it was one of those comments where someone insists that Westboro isn't real Christianity, most Christians aren't that way. Then the commenter goes on to explain that "real" Christians don't hate, they just think that some behaviours are evil and those who engage in them will  suffer exquisite torture for eternity.  

See the difference?

Well I sure as hell don't!

For the young girl in this letter, I can guarantee-damn-tee you that the difference was lost on her. I have no doubt that this girl spent years listening to the teachings of "real" Christians as they played word games that let them feel good about hating, while sending her the loud and clear message that she was evil and would suffer for it.

It's times like these when I grow weary of the bullshit. It's times like these when I am disgusted that someone wants to parse words and try to carve out a middle ground where they can justify their kinder, gentler hate while people are dying! I don't give a damn about any particular version of fantasy/religion when I imagine the real world reality of a parent finding their child hanging in a closet, or when I try to put myself in the shoes of this writer as she struggles to come to terms with the real world loss of a sister and mother.  

Ideas have consequences. Don't you dare get on your self righteous  horse and try to tell me that your version of hate isn't just another version of hate.  If you follow "I don't have a problem with gay people" with a " but", you are responsible for the death of this girl. Period!

There is no middle ground here folks. Either you accept that every human on this planet has the same rights you do, or you are complicit in the deaths of those you would trod underfoot.

‡: Are US Military Bases and Embassies American Soil?
Originally Published July 8th, 2014, 11:25 AM
‡: Are US Military Bases and Embassies American Soil?

Footnote to: Military bases map by: Music by:
From: CGP Grey Views: 1114103 16561 ratings
Time: 00:59 More in Education

    Short List of Last 10 Items