Why Civilians Must Acknowledge the Individual Cost of War: War Letter Collector Andrew Carroll


This video was released on September 29, 2014. Here's the original write-up:

"We as civilians—who elect certain leaders and rally behind a war—have an obligation to understand what we're asking [the troops to give up] and I hope that these letters do that," says Andrew Carroll, a Washington, D.C., based historian. Carroll has devoted the past 16 years to collecting and preserving war correspondences throughout American history.

These letters provide an intimate look into the experiences of the men and women who have fought America's wars. "It's not the president or general who's far-removed from the battlefield, it's the individual who's right there in the trenches or in the foxholes, that's what brings war to life," says Carroll.He hopes that these letters will humanize the men and women in uniform so that "[Americans] no longer see them as just soldiers, airman, marines, or sailors, but as somebody's spouse or child or parent or best friend." 

His collection, which now contains over 100,000 letters ranging from the Revolutionary War to the War on Terror, was recently donated to Chapman University where it will be digitized and made available to the public. Chapman has incorporated the letters into their educational studies and aims to be the nation's largest and most preeminent archive of personal wartime correspondences. Carroll says being a privately funded project has helped make the experience more personal for him and for the people sending in the letters.

"They aren't sending in letters to some government bureaucracy. They're sending it to people who respond to them personally and who read every letter. It's very meaningful to us," says the historian.

The vast collection includes a letter from a young GI in Munich who, using Hitler's golden embossed stationary, wrote to his parents about the horrors of Dachau he had witnessed the day before. Another one is from a Revolutionary War soldier to his friend, explaining the reasons why General Washington's army must fight for freedom. And another one was written from a young marine in Iraq to his mom right before he was killed, thanking her for raising him to be the man he was. The collection contains thousands of these personal stories which serve as a somber reminder of the horrors that war can bring to individuals and their families. 

"I think the more we have a sense that these are actual individuals that we're sending off to fight, I think it's better for the entire country, I think it's better for the military, it's better for all of us," says Carroll. 

About 3 minutes.

Produced by Amanda Winkler. Camera by Winkler, Joshua Swain, and Ford Fischer. 

Scroll down for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube Channelfor notifications when new material goes live.

NEXT: The Sane Case for Auditing the Fed

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I read this back in the nineties, couldn’t put it down.

  2. If you have a weapon that uses propellant-less munitions, like a railgun/mass driver, would US law regarding receivers apply? There’s no trigger mechanism, and there’s no particular housing from which the projectile must be fired from since the projectile can be propelled from any point in the barrel. I think that if crossbows, slingshots, or catapults don’t fall under firearms law, then railguns shouldn’t either, since they operate under the same concept using electromagnetic tension instead of material tension to launch a projectile.

    I know that there is also a prohibition for private citizens against remote fire or automated triggering. But that is the only way an EM powered weapon would work…

    So I’m asking if anyone knows of laws or court cases regarding this.

    1. Sounds like it would be a good idea to consult an attorney.

  3. Hmmm…it seems that homeschooling wasn’t what caused the late Adam Lanza to be messed up. So of course, a Connecticut panel investigating the Sandy Hook shootings want to limit parental power to homeschool their emotionally troubled children.

    “As Andrew Solomon detailed earlier this year in The New Yorker, Lanza suffered from sensory issues and received speech and occupational therapy beginning in kindergarten. At every juncture of his early life, he was analyzed and agitated over by psychologists, counselors, behaviorists, and other state-credentialed educators….

    “In the end, according to Solomon, it was Lanza’s psychologist who recommended homeschooling. His parents accepted the idea as a last resort for a child whom local medical and education professionals couldn’t seem to help.”

    “…the Newtown school system did not have to scan the horizon for Lanza. He was well-known to them and his parents all but begged for help. It didn’t come, in part because it couldn’t. There are limits to what the state can do. There are limits to what even the most well-intentioned public servants can achieve. Lanza’s act was monstrous. Only in the liberal imagination could a multidisciplinary risk-assessment team have prevented it.”


  4. For np: I am not sure about the federal law but under my state’s penal code A firearm is defined as a device that uses an explosion of some sort of propellant to fire a projectile

    Unlike in the rarefied climate here, where emotion and bigotry prevail, when it comes to the wall facts, precedent and definitions prevail

    To paraphrase PJ ORourke it’s the difference between legislation and our mothers

    The latter is free to use the emotion faulty logic and inconsistency but when it comes to the latter it’s all about specificity

    I would strongly suspect that any where Federal law refers to firearms they have a similar definition although I could check with my friend in a BATFE to make sure about that

    As a general truism from the laws I have looked ar when they refer to a firearm it must me that definition and it must actually be operable

    There are some exceptions like some armed robbery statutes a person need to possess what the victim reasonably perceives is a firearm and whether it actually is a fire arm is not relevant to that statute

    Possession of an actual firearm may trigger some additional penalties but a pointed finger inside a jacket and claims it’s a firearm to the teller can get the suspect convicted of armed robbery

    Numerous prohibitions on firearms

    1. Unlike in the rarefied climate here, where emotion and bigotry prevail, when it comes to the wall facts, precedent and definitions prevail

      I find your dissertation on np’s query to be accurate, but please try to keep your pretentiousness to yourself.

      1. I appreciate the polite civil respectful response on your part.

        I will cease to use it in this thread since obviously you are expressing honour and I can respect that

      2. The pretentiousness is just trolling.

        Besides, it’s not the real Dunphy anyway. It’s just a faggoty little Puerto Rican with a fake badge.

        1. Tulpa is Puerto Rican?

          1. Maybe.

  5. Two real-world examples

    I get called to a residence based on a neighbours complaint that he has heard a large boom several times and looked towards his neighbour’s yard to see the person firing some sort of apparatus that projected a projectile into a target and caused substantial damage

    This area had a prohibition against the discharge of a firearm except for the defence of persons or pets and livestock

    Some areas actually allow discharge of a firearm if certain conditions are met but this was not one of them

    Investigation revealed the quite intelligent and resourceful guy had built an extremely powerful gas powered gun using some sort of compressed gas to propel a suitable projectile that he had built out of a quite large barrel at exceptional Speed. It was essentially a potato gun on steroids. He demonstrated for me and it obviously seriously injure or kill a person as far as I could tell and was quite accurate as well

    There was no criminal statute prohibiting what he was doing and of course no firearm statutes applied

    He had a proper backstop etc etc such that it was clear there was no reckless endangerment either or other similar statute that would apply

    So I wished him a good day and reported same to the complainant who of course got pissed off and called the precinct who confirmed what I had told him. I had told him the only way to stop the guy would be to try to get a judged to issue some kind of order that would make the person stop

    1. And this one time, at band camp…

        1. Your post does not surprise me and I was expecting something of the sort since you have frequently demonstrated your love of rule of emotion, rule of man, and revolutionary justice a la Che, as preferable to rule of law and equal justice under the law

          Personally I do not agree with laws that eliminate Second Amendment rights for those convicted of non-violent felonies

          But in the case of a non-violent felon like Mark Fuhrman he still going to comply with rule of law

          In a system like ours we are all subject to being punished for violating laws we don’t agree with and I have some discretion with misdemeanors but not a felony like this

          Noted also that he was a violent felon so that made me feel more warm and fuzzy about it

          1. Cool story, bro.

          2. Wait, so a guy says he didn’t use the n-word within ten years and actually it was 9 years or whatever, and gets convicted of perjury, he loses his 2nd Amendment rights? Because a guy who says 10 instead of 9 is an obvious danger to the community and should be forcibly disarmed.

            1. Yes, he was questioned in 1995 and was tripped up by some stuff he said in 1985.

              “On October 2 [1996], Fuhrman accepted the deal and pleaded no contest to the charges. He was sentenced to three years’ probation and fined $200. As a result, Fuhrman is a convicted felon.”

              And banned from owning flare guns! Yay, rule of law!


              1. And: “He is the only person to have been convicted of criminal charges related to the Simpson case.”

                And because of his role in this FUBAR case, Furhman is to be forcibly disarmed for the rest of his life?

                If you’re going to betray the Thin Blue Line, couldn’t you do it in a less egregious case?

                1. Fuhman made the po-po look bad. To the Dunphys of the world, that’s the most egregious thing you can do.

          3. As I said earlier – as long as you keep enforcing immoral laws, *you* are the problem.

  6. As a counterexample a convicted felon cannot possess a flare gun because even though most people would not think of it as a firearm it uses an explosive charge to shoot a projectile and is thus a firearm under the law

    I made an arrest in such circumstances and the suspect even admitted that he was a convicted felon, and that he decided it would be okay to have a flare gun under the seat of his car for self defense

    Detective Sgt had a conniption fit and rejected the report but when I consulted with the PA’s office they confirmed The validity of my arrest and even had a conviction in the past to bolster it

    BOOYA rule of law

    1. “I made an arrest in such circumstances and the suspect even admitted that he was a convicted felon, and that he decided it would be okay to have a flare gun under the seat of his car for self defense”

      Well, thank goodness you acted against this crazy man trying to have the means for self protection available to him!

      1. You obviously didn’t see the fine print caveat in the 2A that says “except….”

        1. You obviously are an enemy of rule of law and equal justice under the law I perfectly understand that

          I am sure you would be equally horrified if a former cop with a felony conviction was arrested in a similar situation (rolls eyes)

          I am sure this is where you would respond with some absurd claim about how it would never happen to a cop because of double standards derp derp derp!


          1. I am sure you would be equally horrified if a former cop with a felony conviction was arrested in a similar situation (rolls eyes)

            As a principled person, yes I would. Though I doubt it would actually happen. Professional courtesy and all that.

    2. Nice, you arrested a fucking guy but weren’t even sure what the law said. Shoot first, ask questions later. Typical pig.

      1. Easy fix: end immunity.

        1. Another idiotic response

          I most definitely was quite sure what the Law said it was the detective Sgt who was in error

          The law clearly defines a fireman and unlike the emotional bigots here I know the law and that’s why I enforce it effectively

          When I apply the law in the field I get feedback on my understanding of it when suppression motions fail

          Cops and the Attorneys have the advantage of real world experience because our legal interpretations actually mean Something and yours are just some dumb idiot spouting nonsense into the wind with no consequence. Smooches!

          1. You must be hungry, calm down and have something to eat:


        2. Again a moronic response since immunity had no application here

          I made a legal arrest that was not only supported by caselaw but by case precedent in other words damn fine police work

          Working class hero!!


          1. Legal? Yes.

            Moral? No.

  7. Here’s a pro tip

    1) if you are convicted felon whether it’s a convicted felon for manslaughter murder robbery or any other felony
    2) and driving a motor vehicle with a suspended license
    3) and you have an outstanding warrant for your arrest for failure to appear for some misdemeanor

    It would behoove you

    Not to blow through a stop sign right in front of a cop
    While in possession of an illegal firearm under VUFA

    you fucking assjacket

    Of course I don’t expect brilliant decisions to be made by a loser gangbanger several time convicted felon

    Derp derp derp


    1. “convicted felon…and driving a motor vehicle with a suspended license…outstanding warrant”

      Then it’s good the guy had a flare gun, or else you’d have had no cause to arrest him!

    2. or any other felony…While in possession of an illegal firearm under VUFA

      “Legality”=/=”Morality”. You’ll notice that we have victimless crime in this country. Any “law” that disarms a person who has not harmed another person is NOT “moral”.

      1. I read the police logs in the paper every day. The vast majority are warrants, violating conditions of release, and drugs. Occasionally there is a crime with an actual victim, but they are rare.

      2. The guy had harmed a person since he was convicted of a violent felony

        I do not think that people’s firearm rights should be taken away fun most cases they are

        Something as simple as a mere shove in a DV can cause a person to lose their firearm rights as well as a protection order that doesn’t even require due process

        However we live under the rule of law and in such a society we are all responsible for violating laws if we get caught that we don’t agree with

        If Rand Paul was president he be in charge of the DEA and all sorts of people in prison that he could free with clemency for nonviolent drug offenses

        Would he do so

        I have some pretty decent discretion regarding misdemeanors and can you issue people warnings even for many crimes

        Not the case with felonies like VUFA

        just like you were pragmatic in the other thread about federal intervention to require police officers to wear body cambers against a libertarian ideals

        And I agree

        I am pragmatic and accept that being a peace officer means I will sometimes have to enforce laws I do not agree with

        Nobody here is silly enough to think that morality and legality are the same thing or that rule of law means only immoral acts will get punished moral acts won’t

        What’s key is that we fight for justice and positive change

        I do. I hope you do too


        1. The guy had harmed a person since he was convicted of a violent felony

          I was speaking from a standpoint of principle, not criticizing any specific case.

          1. And for the record I heartily agree with your stance here

            We live in an imperfect society and our legal system

            Note that I am not na?ve enough to use the term justice system…

            Is flawed both in aspects of its process as well as its results

            As I demonstrated in another thread at least in my State police officers are behind expansion of firearm rights and this is expressly documented in the pro 591 literature

            I am also a member of open carry Washington and have done a lot to do advocate for the right of open carry against police harassment

            Let’s both work for and advocate for positive change.

            I have the opportunity to do so within the system and not that I think I am as Studly as Serpico but he is my hero and he proves that it can be done


            1. “I vas just following orders!”

              1. Mag yes, the inevitable Godwin response

                In sarcasmic’s imaginary Utopia every police officer no matter the severity of the crime would decide before acting as to whether he was in agreement with the law and it fit his personal belief system

                If a person called in a complaint of a crime and a police officer thought well it’s a crime but I disagree with it you might as well just not respond and let the victim sit there

                There is no nation on earth that has ever operated under the sarcasmic principal nor will there ever be one

                Here in the real world I have taken stance against orders as I have documented several times here

                Like when I refused to charge a person with domestic violence threats even though I was ordered to by a sgt

                In the real world we can pick and choose our battles but we cannot promote anarchy by deciding on an ad hoc basis whether we will enforce any given law

                That’s how adults think


                1. End immunity. Problem solved.

                2. Oooooh, you’re so dreamy…how much do you bench?

                  1. I don’t bench.


        2. I think you’re begging the question where the Second Amendment is concerned. A statute needs to conform to the 2A and the rest of the Constitution before it can be dignified by the name of “law.”

          You could of course refer to “statutes which the courts assure us are constitutional until they change their minds,” and maybe you have a responsibility to enforce such statutes, but don’t misuse the term “law.”

          1. I agree and I distinguish between defacto and de jute

            We most likely both agree that in most cases where firearm rights are taken away it is unjust

            In this case where a guy got his firearm rights taken away for violent felony convictions

            Where he continued to gangbang

            Where he was well-informed he was legally prohibited from carrying a firearm

            Where while carrying an illegal firearm he chose to commit a traffic offense right in front of me and was driving with a revoked license

            I have little tears to cry that he was arrested and convicted for unlawful carry a firearm

            If you disagree with me I can respect that it’s groovy


            1. I don’t know about your flare-gun case, but you said “But in the case of a non-violent felon like Mark Fuhrman he still going to comply with rule of law”

              As if it was the rule of law, as opposed to the rule of (wo)men, which denied this nonviolent offender his 2nd Amendment rights.

              But you thought you were scoring a rhetorical point by mentioning Furhman, because of course all of us would cheer at the violation of a cop’s (or ex-cop’s) rights.

              1. We’re so bigoted that we cheer and toss all of our principles out the window when a cop gets treated like a peasant. You didn’t know that?

    3. You are so awesome. I wish I could be as cool as you.

      My hero!

    4. Is your dick really, really big?

      1. You’re getting trolled. It’s not Dunphy.

        1. Sure it is. Only a cop could be so narcissistic.

          1. Nah. The real Dunfy remembered details from when people listed off their real world experiences of what led them to lose their faith in the police, and tossed them back on a regular basis.

            This “artist” is just a faggoty little Puerto Rican with a fake badge.

            1. Wow another bigoted homophobic remark

              Why am I not surprised that a person bigoted against police would also be bigoted against people for expressing sexual freedom?

              To clarify for your bigotry and your butt hurt over being lawfully prosecuted for a DUI…

              Your insult only demeans you as a small minded vile person and no accusation of any sort of sexual orientation is viewed by me as an insult

              I hope you’re able to transcend your bigotry and smallmindedness and become a better person

              I have seen many people make this sort of positive change and I wish you the best of luck


      2. He wears Deluth.

      3. It’s as big as Morgan Fairchild’s.

    5. Dunphy, why the fuck have you come back here? No one gives a shit about your stupid claims and you add nothing to the discussion. Go back to your home at policeone. Eat a bag of glass, drink a gallon of bleach, just leave. It was so nice not having to skip your imbecilic postings.

  8. thanks to body cameras we see that in an astonishing majority of cases when police officers shoot somebody it’s justified

    Felony stops work in a astonishing majority of cases and are a Safe way to protect cops bystanders and anybody else in the area

    I’ve been on hundreds of felony stops and none have resulted in a shooting and it almost everyone a suspected violent criminal was detained without incident

    Sadly in this case some ass jacket responded to a cops multiple demands to put his hands in the air with

    the brilliant reply. ‘No fool’

    And gets shot

    I am so utterly shocked (rolls eyes)

    Very heartening that this officer had videotape


    I am confident there is not a single person here who knows what it’s like to have three of their friends shot. I had that experience when three of my friends and coworkers in my street crime unit were shot by a guy who refused to take his hands out of his pockets

    the guy in this incident because of his idiotic suicidal behavior got himself killed making a tragic loss, a tragedy for his family and friends


    Personal responsibility!!! How does that work?


    1. Obey or die.

      1. Rule of law

        How does that work?

        I realize you oppose rule of law and equal justice under a lot

        I get it!!!


        1. cool story, bro

          1. Sorry for your butthurt over not being able to take responsibility for your actions

            I realize that inability conflicts with your theoretical beliefs as a libertarian and that this conflict causes you stress

            – WARM FUZZY!!! –

            Rule of law is awesome and certainly I love ours civil law system since it is so effective at allowing us redress against police misconduct

            Continue doing your small minded bigot thing and I will continue doing my working-class hero thing


            1. Remember kids, because Dunphy’s a pathetic coward who doesn’t take his job seriously he should be allowed to bark orders at you and if you refuse he’ll try murder you. Then he’ll screech about ‘personal responsibility’ while taking no responsibility for the thuggish actions of the cops he praises. And that’s his definition of ‘hero’.

              What an outstanding example of everything wrong with the law enforcement community.

            2. Your lips are moving but all I hear is


              1. And I had not idea dunphy was so *cute.*

                1. Hey, the dunphy abides

                  We peace officers will continue to make a difference and to be loved and respected by the general public for it

                  I can live with my three partners being shot and two of my friends being killed but I won’t live with the kind of unequal justice and lack of civil rights that is promoted by you and your ilk

                  If you venture outside the warm confines of your mom’s basement if you put down the hot pocket and your World of Warcraft and dare to walk the safe streets of your fine city be assured that we are here to help you if you need us

                  We are selfless and willingly help even those who detest us


                  1. I can live with my three partners being shot and two of my friends being killed

                    So there is some justice in this world.

                    1. sarc,

                      I’m not going that far.

                      I’m objecting to porcine-boy trying to bark at people on Internet fora as if we were helpless suspects he could bully and boss around.

                    2. I’m not going that far.

                      I am. I’ve known several people who either became cops or wanted to be cops. They were all, with no exception, pieces of shit who lusted after the opportunity to force their will onto people, knowing that immunity protected them when they intentionally pushed their authority too far. Without immunity, the job might be more less appealing to pieces of shit. That’s not to say that good people don’t seek out the job. They just don’t fit in, are forced out, or corrupted.

                    3. I part company with you as far as random cops getting shot, which I’m against. I can dislike dunphy’s attitude while still wishing him to be safe and alive.

                  2. “We are selfless and willingly help even those who detest us”

                    Wow, you’re like Jesus, only more boastful!

                  3. We are selfless and willingly help even those who detest us

                    And not ashamed to shout it from the rooftops.

                    You do realize you are confirming the stereotype, right arrogant, vain, self righteous shit weasel?

                    Braggart blowhard.

                  4. “we are here to help you if you need us”

                    Well, it would have been nice if the cops had found the burglars who broke into our house and stole a bunch of stuff, but instead they walked the house around and took photos and *left their camera behind when they left.* And when I returned the camera, the cop thanked me as if he was surprised I’d give it back.

                    Yeah, that inspired confidence in those working-class heroes.

                    1. “left their camera behind”

                      The cops, not the burglars.

                    2. Related: My burglary investigation included the cop attempting to take pictures. When he couldn’t, he figured he needed new batteries. After giving him new batteries, the camera still didn’t work. Ended up using his partner’s camera.

                      Hmmm… maybe cops do just have bad luck with cameras.

                    3. Related 2: While gathering evidence, cop attempted to put broken glass in a baggy by dragging it with his pen. He couldn’t get it in the baggy, so he picked it up with his fingers.

                      Inspiring confidence, indeed.

                    4. When my wife’s vehicle was broken into (3x) they didn’t even dust for prints. Told her to get over it, she wasn’t getting her shit back.

                      To many drug offenders and speeders to bother investigating a crime with an actual victim, I guess.

                    5. I didn’t know that reality had such an anti-cop bias!

                  5. If you’re so selfless go out and take a bullet for the polity. Oh wait, your entire position is that you should be allowed to murder people because of you’re a scared little man.

              2. Eddie, I’m so proud of you.

              3. I will make you squeal like a little piggy

    2. Hi Tulpa!

  9. By the way no legitimate libertarian scholar or activist makes the claim that a police officer enforcing a drug law is tantamount to a Nazi violating the human rights of a concentration camp victim

    This is the silly canard that sarcasmic and his ilk promote

    PJ riffs on this truism quite frequently in his books both lamenting the drug war but recognizing that criminalizing the cocaine is not the same as criminalizing being Jewish in Germany

    I also find it ironic that rand Paul is given a pass for his far more statist position on the war on drugs then I possess

    And I am sure that if he became president he would give clemency and pardons to every single nonviolent drug defendant in the federal system as a reasonoids purity test would require

    Here in the real world real libertarians recognize that having police officers who demonstrate and hold a deep respect for civil rights and Libertarian values is a benefit to society but it does not mean that they can look the other way when a person commits a VUFA


    1. As far as I’m concerned, your liberty-minded preachments are cancelled out by your adopting the same hectoring and insulting tone as if we were criminal suspects you’d just pulled over.

      1. And assuming you’re the original dunphy, what happened to the “verbal judo” you use to defuse tense confrontations?

    2. Rand Paul isn’t as arrogant as you are. That goes a long way.

      1. And he’s a politician, for crying out loud, so that’s saying a lot.

    3. I also find it ironic that rand Paul is given a pass for his far more statist position on the war on drugs then I possess

      He is pro decriminalization (or, at least, making it a State issue, as opposed to a federal issue). Are you?

  10. “oooo, railgun thread! …..wait, no, just troll garbage.”

    1. Yep. Pretty much.

  11. Who the fuck are all these people who have “warm feelings” toward Atheists?

    I can’t believe they edged out Muslims. Hell, an Atheist probably can’t even make a decent Shawarma.

  12. Is the Mystery of the Leaping Fish the ultimate libertarian film? It features a character named “Coke Ennyday” and “a clock face has “EATS, DRINKS, SLEEPS, and DOPE” instead of numbers”.

  13. Sw33t!! Presence of video helps to exonerate officer based on review by dept as well as independent 3rd http://tinyurl.com/pfddfds

    2nd Article says officer cleared by both dept and Feds after aggressive arrest.

    Article, to its credit includes links to actual reports and source documents, a rarity

    So people can view the bulk of the evidence and make their own conclusion

    [Open in new window]

    In this second case the video will be key in the prosecution of the offender

    It’s great to see how effective video is in helping justice be served

    Helping to punish the guilty and clear the innocent

    Because an injustice to one is an injustice to all


    1. It’s rather telling that you’ve spent several posts on here completely ignoring the actual topic of the article.

    2. If you are in fact Dunphy, why are you posting under this handle?
      If you forgot your password, just click the link and get the reset emailed to you. You can do that, right?

    3. Yeah, shit weasel. If you are who you claim, prove it by posting under your old handle.

      Otherwise, you’re Tulpa.

  14. As much as I love MMA, a true ‘sweet science’ ( with nods to boxing) The recent inclusion of women in the UFC has made it a much better and more watchable sport

    An all-male anything is usually suboptimal and mixed martial arts is no exception

    Rousey displays at this point unbeatable talent, past credibility as a Olympic medallist in judo, a feisty personality, and true beauty and sexiness

    Samantha Wright, former gymnast turned OL’er, a very common transition since gymnasts have all the qualities needed for success in weightlifting- athletic ability and work ethic flexibility speed power timing


    Gorgeous pixie warrior!

  15. And for those who would prefer some ‘man flesh’ not sound like an Orc,but….

    I present Dimitri Klokov

    doing some strict behind the neck snatch grip presses



    1. So, are you an imposter, or are you going to post as Dunphy?

      1. Regardless of whether the ‘poster known as X’ is X, isn’t it sad that it (and/or Tulpa) have found no web site welcoming to their brand of bullshit and instead keep returning here in a pathetic desire for attention?
        I mean, don’t they have a dog that likes them?

        1. Smooches!

          Heck, getting paid to speak truth to power!

          When any of you idiots can point out anything in my legal analysis tgat is wrong, get back to me

          Loving speaking the truth and smacking the bitches!


          1. Yeah, let’s see Dunphy, Tulpa. Fucking lying piece of shit.

            1. Tulsa does not know McPherson from MacDonalds

              Feel free to point out where any process/descriptive UOF analysis I have made is incorrect

              Tulips has never demonstrated knowledge in that area

              Nobody has except Balko and me

              Present any of my analysis to an attorney and let him find constitutional or case law errors

              With all thy getting, get some understanding


              1. If you aren’t a lying cunt, post under your old handle.


                1. :That’s being nice FDA.

              2. As a reminder, your email address is jtsstmith@gmail.com

                Post under Dunphy or shut the fuck up.

                1. Oh, so you can’t?

  16. Unfortunately the opposite of war is not peace, but losing a war. You can try to hide from it by putting your head in the sand, but war will find you eventually.

    It’s better to be prepared for it, and to fight on other guy’s turf

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.