Discussion Board
Welcome Guest! You can login or register. Login or Register.
2 Pages12>

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Barfarn  
#1 Posted : Sunday, October 7, 2018 10:06:48 AM(UTC)
Did you know, of the 23 northern states that made up the North in 1860, as of 1830 only ONE [Vermont] never had a slave counted on their Census? And according to the Census, when the Civil war broke out, more than 450K slaves resided in the North across 9 states. And since all but 4 states had laws on the books outlawing slavery, you can bet these numbers were undercounted.

Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation only outlawed slavery in Confederate States. He signed a law that outlawed slavery ONLY in areas where the Proclamation had no legal effect. Maybe Abe didn't free the slaves...Just shows history is written by the winners.

Much of what we were taught up thru High School about our history is cherry-picked and/or outright dishonest. Take time to listen to some of George Carlin’s very entertaining routines on school; read anything you can by Zinn or his disciples; and for god sake challenge everything you think you know.
Smokey  
#2 Posted : Sunday, October 7, 2018 10:15:40 AM(UTC)
The winners/ruling party write the "approved" history. Always have.
Cheesey  
#3 Posted : Sunday, October 7, 2018 10:52:20 AM(UTC)
Yup....like teaching children that everything evolved from a rock, “millions of years ago”, even though there is nothing proving that.
Oh, they SAY there is, but none of their proof stands up against scrutiny.

Lincoln died because he was against slavery. John Wilkes Booth understood that.
Nonstopdrivel  
#4 Posted : Sunday, October 7, 2018 1:50:48 PM(UTC)
Cheesey said: Go to Quoted Post
Yup....like teaching children that everything evolved from a rock, “millions of years ago”, even though there is nothing proving that.

I guess it's a good thing that no one is teaching that then.
wpr  
#5 Posted : Sunday, October 7, 2018 1:57:44 PM(UTC)
The slaves that were in the North were there because their Southern masters brought them into the North not Northerners having slaves. (I am sure there were a few people who owned slaves but for the vast majority it was slaves who were brought into the North.) There were about a dozen Federal laws that required the North to accept the legality of slavery inside their borders. The Southern Revision - Lost Cause began to rewrite the narrative in the 1880s and proclaim the war was for States Rights. They meant Southern Rights. They blocked every attempt at Northern States passing any kind of state laws that hindered slavery.

One example is the the fugitive slave law.
It's Wiki but it is fairly accurate.

Quote:
The Fugitive Slave Law or Fugitive Slave Act was passed by the United States Congress on September 18, 1850[1], as part of the Compromise of 1850 between Southern slave-holding interests and Northern Free-Soilers.

The Act was one of the most controversial elements of the 1850 compromise and heightened Northern fears of a "slave power conspiracy". It required that all escaped slaves, upon capture, be returned to their masters and that officials and citizens of free states had to cooperate. Abolitionists nicknamed it the "Bloodhound Law" for the dogs that were used to track down runaway slaves.[2]


If you understood anything about law you would know Lincoln didn't have the authority to abolish slavery on his own. He knew that he was out on a limb doing what he did under the guise of it being for military necessity. Because he claimed it was needed for military reasons the proclamation could only apply to the areas of the nation that were still in rebellion.

Lincoln was a smart lawyer and knew the courts would throw out his proclamation as being unconstitutional that's why he pushed so hard for Congress to pass the 13th Amendment.

But you are pretty sharp Barny, I assume you know this and are merely looking for an argument.

I will decline thank you very much.
Cheesey  
#6 Posted : Sunday, October 7, 2018 6:41:29 PM(UTC)
Nonstopdrivel said: Go to Quoted Post
I guess it's a good thing that no one is teaching that then.

That IS what they are teaching. It rained on the rocks, it made a “soup”, and life just magically appeared out of it. Then the life just decided to grow arms and legs and lungs, and walked out of the water. Then some of the “things” grew wings and flew away.

That is the reality of what they are teaching.
It’s all science fiction.
If you actually look at what they are teaching, you would realize it’s all a fairy tale that has to be believed on blind faith.
Of course they put a lot of fancy words, and a lot of time, and ANYTHING can happen. (Oh....everything but intelligent design of course).
Zero2Cool  
#7 Posted : Monday, October 8, 2018 4:53:17 AM(UTC)
Cheesey said: Go to Quoted Post
That IS what they are teaching. It rained on the rocks, it made a “soup”, and life just magically appeared out of it. Then the life just decided to grow arms and legs and lungs, and walked out of the water. Then some of the “things” grew wings and flew away.

That is the reality of what they are teaching.
It’s all science fiction.
If you actually look at what they are teaching, you would realize it’s all a fairy tale that has to be believed on blind faith.
Of course they put a lot of fancy words, and a lot of time, and ANYTHING can happen. (Oh....everything but intelligent design of course).


I have a daughter who has graduated high school, two more that are currently in high school and one in kindergarten. This is absolutely NOT being taught.

Religious folks don't want their religion mocked, but yet they are free to mock the theory of evolution? I urge you to actually research evolution, the big bang theory and such matters with an open mind. It will not change your mind, but you'll see how ridiculous your mockery is.

Evolution is no more or less non-fiction than the Bible. We are all free to believe what we want. Let's not mock what we don't understand or know.
Cheesey  
#8 Posted : Monday, October 8, 2018 5:50:37 AM(UTC)
I have studied the “Big Bang” and evolution. I was taught both of those in public schools.
And to narrow down evolution, that is what they teach.
Life started from nothing. Then over “millions of years” evolved into all the different plants, animals, birds, fish and so on. Please tell me where I am wrong about this. They use fancy talk, but I just narrow it down to what it’s really teaching.
If you have an open mind, then you could see that it is what they are actually teaching kids. But because it comes from a “scientist “ it makes it sound valid.
Man, with all his knowledge still can’t produce life from non living materials.
Yet that is what the Big Bang theory and evolution teach.
And they are not taught as a theory, they are taught as FACT in school.
If you don’t agree with it, you are ridiculed and treated like you are stupid. I know from experience.
They don’t teach that there are ANY other possibilities. It’s evolution or you are an idiot.
gbguy20  
#9 Posted : Monday, October 8, 2018 7:06:18 AM(UTC)
I personally like the alien theory. Life on our planet only started when aliens showed up and we are all actually aliens. Cave men drew pictures of alien space shops in the sky. That's enough proof for me. Also, the pyramids...obviously. When is school going to bring this into the curriculum?
Zero2Cool  
#10 Posted : Monday, October 8, 2018 7:28:08 AM(UTC)
gbguy20 said: Go to Quoted Post
I personally like the alien theory. Life on our planet only started when aliens showed up and we are all actually aliens. Cave men drew pictures of alien space shops in the sky. That's enough proof for me. Also, the pyramids...obviously. When is school going to bring this into the curriculum?


I've been watching lot of videos on the Anunnaki. It seems somewhat plausible at some spots, but also straight out of a movie in most other spots.
Cheesey  
#11 Posted : Monday, October 8, 2018 9:33:07 AM(UTC)
Maybe we are just some aliens video game! And when it shuts it off, we are asleep!LOL
LOL
gbguy20  
#12 Posted : Monday, October 8, 2018 8:17:45 PM(UTC)
Maybe the earth is just a snow globe being shaken by someone and we all really just live on a shelf somewhere.
Cheesey  
#13 Posted : Monday, October 8, 2018 9:10:26 PM(UTC)
gbguy20 said: Go to Quoted Post
Maybe the earth is just a snow globe being shaken by someone and we all really just live on a shelf somewhere.


That would explain the nasty fall I took last month.
wpr  
#14 Posted : Tuesday, October 9, 2018 7:02:06 AM(UTC)
UserPostedImage

UserPostedImage

UserPostedImage

UserPostedImage
Barfarn  
#15 Posted : Thursday, October 25, 2018 9:27:25 PM(UTC)
wpr said: Go to Quoted Post
The slaves that were in the North were there because their Southern masters brought them into the North not Northerners having slaves...

One example is the the fugitive slave law...

If you understood anything about law you would know Lincoln didn't have the authority to abolish slavery on his own...

Because he claimed it was needed for military reasons the [Emancipation] proclamation could only apply to the areas of the nation that were still in rebellion...

Lincoln...pushed so hard for Congress to pass the 13th Amendment.

But you are pretty sharp Barny, I assume you know this and are merely looking for an argument...


Your tone and anti-historical rambling suggests that you’re the one looking for a fight.

Grasshopper, you’re frustrated that you cannot snatch the pebble from the hand; realize such a temperament will prevent you from ever being able to do so. Don’t be a senseless victim of hagiography. Lincoln was a tyrannical POS with ZERO respect for minorities, the Law, liberty, or justice. Booth’s bullet saved America much misery.

First, arrogantly using only your opinion to negate the 1860 census #s by ludicrously stating the 450-500K northern slaves counted on the census were actually southern slaves is REJECTED! Your teachers were dopes protecting the myth at all cost? The first Wisconsin slave lived in Green Bay in 1725!

Second, POTUS, as commander in chief, has certain powers, but those only extend “within his lines;” NOT outside of them as you suggest. Again, your teachers were ignorant. Think about it: the US was at war with Japan; could FDR have issued an Order declaring martial law in Tokyo? Of course not!

Third, your opinionated assertion, supported again only by your opinion, that Lincoln was concerned about acting lawfully is also REJECTED. Lincoln had ZERO respect for the Law, to wit:

In 1861, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus using executive orders. In Ex parte Merryman Circuit court Judge Roger Taney [Who was also SCOTUS’ Chief Justice, temporarily appointed to the circuit] ruled that only Congress had such power. Lincoln didn’t quake with fear, he issued a damn arrest warrant for Taney [That was never served] and he just IGNORED Taney’s Order.

C.L Vallandigham, an Ohio Congressman, spoke out against the war. He was arrested, denied a civil trial and on May 19, 1863 was DEPORTED by Lincoln. There was NOTHING he said that was anywhere near worthy of arrest [See, Ex Parte Vallandigham, 68 U.S. 243 (1863)].

Lincoln shut down over 300 newspapers and jailed many of the editors and publishers; denying them civil trials. Lincoln was a fascist.

Federal Law in 1862 required Lincoln to approve any death sentence issued by any military court. In the summer of ’62 Little Crow led a band of Sioux that killed some Minnesota settlers. On September 23, Little Crow was sacked by a large Union force; they scattered taking hostages [one was the cousin of Laura Ingalls of Little House on the Prairie fame]. With the actual perpetrators in the wind, a 5-man military tribunal began trying 392 Native Americans 5 days after the Sacking [on September 28]. The trials only took 5 weeks, the NAs were denied counsel and independent interpreters and illegally tried for common law crimes by a military court. Most of the trials lasted 10 minutes; up to 40 were tried in one day and 303 were sentenced to death. Lincoln upheld 39 of the death sentences, commuted the rest to life. Lincoln was concerned of Europe’s potential reaction to trials that were a complete racist joke. Only the uninformed would state Lincoln possessed a conscientious legal temperament.

Fourth, on the Fugitive Slave Law. In 1855 Lincoln was speaking out against several issues; but on August 24 Lincoln wrote to a friend, “I confess I hate to see the poor creatures hunted down, and caught, and carried back to their stripes, and unrewarded toils; but I bite my lip and keep quiet.”

Fifth, your teachers deceive arguing that Lincoln’s fight for the version of Amendment 13 that passed was moral; he did it to step on the South’s neck! If Lincoln did have a change of heart from his countless racist writings and acts he would have fought for the version of the 13th that granted slaves citizenship!! He fought against that version. Lincoln’s plan was for the “freed” Blacks be socially and economically enslaved without any rights of White men. He legislated misery on Blacks so they’d be more willing to be relocated to Liberia or Central America. The push for citizenship for slaves began pretty quickly after Booth’s bullet tumbled through Lincoln’s brain.

Ever read the EP? It excluded Tennessee, chunks of Louisiana around New Orleans, and a piece of Virginia around Norfolk. These were Confederate areas that were CAPTURED! They were within US lines and were populated by another half million slaves. That means at the time of the EP’s signing a million slaves were under the authority of Lincoln that could be freed by Presidential Order and he literally went out of his way to make sure his EP did NOT free them.

In 1858, while running for US senator from Illinois [He lost], Lincoln said, “While I was at the hotel today, an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was really in favor of producing a perfect equality between the negroes and white people. [Great Laughter.] While I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the question was asked me I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in regard to it. I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause] that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. [Fourth Douglas Debate at Charleston, IL, September 18, 1858]

Also stumping in ’58 he stated he wanted to “free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia-to their own native land,” [First Douglas Debate at Ottawa, Illinois, August 21, 1858]. He opened this speech with: “I hate [indifference to slavery] because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself.”

On August 14, 1862, Lincoln met with a group of free Black Pastors. Lincoln tried to convince them that all Blacks should be colonized back to Africa or Central America. Lincoln said among other things: “You and we are different races…Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffer from your presence. In a word we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated [Emphasis Added].” This shows his talk on the campaign was not just talk.

In an August 22, 1862 to Horace Greeley Lincoln wrote: “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that [Emphasis added].”

In his 1st inaugural address in March 1861, he said, “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.” No lawful right? He didn’t have the lawful right to deport a Congressmen for expressing his opinion about the war; to try civilians on common law charges in military courts; to sanction the unfair trials of 303 NAs and killing 39 of them; to shut down the media in a Hitleresque way; end slavery in areas outside of his lines; etc, etc, etc. The guy was a complete PHONY!!!

In 1852, Lincoln sang the praises of Henry Clay in the eulogy he delivered at Clay’s funeral. He said Clay was “freedom's champion -- the champion of a civilized world.” Oh, but Clay owned slaves his ENTIRE life!

Lincoln was the Susan Collins of the House. In his election in 1846 he made a series of spot resolutions denouncing the Mexican War. Once he demanded James Polk identify the exact spot where American blood was spilt on American soil; but every time voted for funding of the War [Zinn’s People’s History p. 149]. Lincoln was a freakin’ grandstander; his words were often duplicitous. Abolition was never a top priority for Lincoln; but he kept it near enough to the top when it became politically expedient.

Lincoln called himself a Constitutionalist [Beware of those bastards] arguing that Amendment #10’s Sates right’s cause precluded him from creating legislation to ban slavery. Lincoln admitted that legislation could be passed in DC, which was not a state. But he never pushed for it because it wasn’t politically expedient. Richard Hofstadter [American Political Tradition] said that Lincoln “breathes the fire of an uncompromising insistence on moderation.” Lincoln’s a phony!

When one stows the propaganda drummed into our youthful heads and analyzes Lincoln’s acts and words with scholarship and realizes much of his worst behavior was not preserved because of his fascist tendencies; only 1 conclusion can be reached: Lincoln was a stone-cold racist, who occasionally played the drama role of the abolitionist to keep his coalition together. It’s ironic that Booth shot Lincoln thinking he was helping Blacks, when Lincoln had no intention. If the South won, Lincoln’s full assness would have been revealed and preserved for our consumption. Unfortunately, much of Lincoln’s history was archived and retold by those loyal to him.
wpr  
#16 Posted : Friday, October 26, 2018 5:37:42 AM(UTC)
As I said, not going to reply. Actually I didn't even finish reading your ramblings. I am well aware of the spin you are portraying. I have heard it before. You're wrong.
Cheesey  
#17 Posted : Friday, October 26, 2018 2:02:20 PM(UTC)
As I have said before, some people think that if they write long rambling posts, that makes them right.
Who writes the most words WINS!!!LOL
They were not there with Lincoln, and they pick and choose the “history “ writing that will back up their preconceived ideas.
If it doesn’t agree with what they want, they ignore it and keep looking for writings that will agree with them.
Fitness  
#18 Posted : Friday, October 26, 2018 2:31:37 PM(UTC)
to your point Cheesey....Pr 10:19 In the multitude of words sin is not lacking....
wpr  
#19 Posted : Saturday, October 27, 2018 5:08:55 AM(UTC)
UserPostedImage
Barfarn  
#20 Posted : Saturday, October 27, 2018 7:50:21 AM(UTC)
Cheesey said: Go to Quoted Post
They were not there with Lincoln, and they pick and choose the “history “ writing that will back up their preconceived ideas.


I was a college FR, who had a preconceived notion about Lincoln, and I set out to knock an upperclassman down a few notches, who spoke smack about Abe. Having access for the first time to Lincoln's collective works; I thought my mission would be easy. After reading EVERYTHING, there was no doubt about it; Lincoln was a dick. I was kinda angry at my HS history teacher, who spent quite a bit of time on Lincoln in my Sr and Jr AP classes. I confronted him, to my amazement, he said he knew, but had to follow the school board's curriculum.

This experience shaped most of my intellectual endeavors moving forward. There is no excuse for being ignorant about such things today. Though one must be careful to cull the true scholars from the disingenuous jackwads or those servile to the jackwads.

wpr said: Go to Quoted Post
UserPostedImage


Your teachers were cherry-picking dumbasses! LOL

The next thing Lincoln said in that 1859 letter was, “All honor to Jefferson--to the man who…” FYI, Jefferson enslaved over 400 “men” at Monticello and more than 200 on other properties over time. He hired brutal overseers like Bill Page and Bill McGehee to oversee Lego and Tufton, respectively. There’s the stories of Gabe Lilly of Monticello, who once whipped James Hemings multiple times in one day when he was so injured he couldn’t lift his head. Hemings was a preferred slave, he was Martha Jefferson’s half-brother and one of 7 that Jefferson freed over his lifetime. Jefferson was a typical BRUTAL slaveholder, one real evil POS. When he said “Men,” he usually meant “white-men.”

WPR, I know you feel dominated LOL; but I’m hoping you can articulate beyond the bumper sticker bullshit; a type of thinking adored by the craven extreme right Nationalist. If you must ignore all the bad a supposed good person did; what is the purpose of keeping the idea? Please explain how the following fits into your image of Lincoln:

Outside of the crowds and ravages of the press, in the quiet of his office [August 14, 1862] to a small group of Black pastors: “You and we are different races…Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffer from your presence. In a word we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated.”

You should read the entire thing [Vol. 5-Lincoln’s collected works beginning Page 371]; heck read all the collected works. And Remember: the only reason this was preserved is because his loyal biographers didn’t see this as heinous as it was. Had Lincoln said something like that today, his loyal biographers would have destroyed every last vestige of this talkin’.
Rss Feed
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages12>
Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Notification

Icon
Error

Fan Shout
Zero2Cool (5h) : Not true. Just use bilasport.net
nerdmann (5h) : gonna do that dhazer, thanks for the heads up
dhazer (5h) : buy a firestick or android tv box and install Kodi and you can watch all pay per views, sports and movies you want
gbguy20 (5h) : Packers vs bears not on tv in the twin cities market....first game all year. Damnit.
nerdmann (6h) : Look for a TE in the draft. Keeo Jimmy/Mercedes/Tonyan or some permutation thereof until the new kid develops.
gbguy20 (7h) : jealous.
dhazer (7h) : Man I love using Kodi i just realized I get the football games on it for free
Mucky Tundra (8h) : Or are you talking about Jermaine Gresham? He's 30 years old atm
Mucky Tundra (8h) : Tyler Eifert would be his name and he suffered a REALLY bad injury this year
gbguy20 (11h) : yeah why not bring in another guy who can't stay on the field?
Zero2Cool (11h) : The guy from the Bengals? The TE who's alway hurt??
KRK (13h) : Yup..he's gone...they should sign the guy from Bengals at half the cost
gbguy20 (15h) : correct
TheKanataThrilla (15h) : Hasn't really opened the middle of the field either. He is basically another WR and if one uses those stats he has had a terrible season for the price paid.
Cheesey (15h) : The busted thumb didn’t help. I’d have him back only at a reduced rate. But I’m sure he wouldn’t go for that.
Cheesey (15h) : Graham hasn’t been “great” this year, only fair.
Zero2Cool (18h) : Graham is far better than 85. When both thumbs are not broken. Who ever said Rouse was better than Collins?? Never heard it.
gbguy20 (15-Dec) : no one said tonyan is better than graham but it sure seems the general consensus is beginning to lean toward cutting graham rather than paying him another 10 million
beast (15-Dec) : I like Tonyan, but this nonsense (that's growing though out Packers fans) that Tonyan is better than Graham is just like the nonsense about Aaron Rouse being better than Nick Collins in 2007...
beast (15-Dec) : Tonyan got down field once when the OL COMPLETELY OWNED the DL on one play and Rodgers and ALL DAY to hold the ball!
Zero2Cool (15-Dec) : is Tonyan faster? I'd be good cutting Graham and using Tonyan more. I've seen him stretch the field. Graham with busted thumb = terrible
gbguy20 (15-Dec) : can't say there would be much difference, aside from tonyan being way faster
nerdmann (15-Dec) : You gonna go with Tonyan?
gbguy20 (15-Dec) : the dude needs to go after this year
nerdmann (15-Dec) : Bring him back until you develop a guy. That takes a year or two.
nerdmann (15-Dec) : I look at Graham as Chmura, without the blocking.
nerdmann (15-Dec) : Dude was on pace for the all time production record for TEs, broke his damn thumb.
nerdmann (15-Dec) : 46 receptions isn't bad.
packerfanoutwest (15-Dec) : many free agents don't want to play in GB,,,and you know why. Graham played for the money
Nonstopdrivel (14-Dec) : Graham has 46 receptions on 77 targets.
Zero2Cool (14-Dec) : Graham should sit until his broken thumb is better.
gbguy20 (14-Dec) : careful rabidgopher, half the forum will attack you if you say that here.
rabidgopher04 (14-Dec) : Jimmy Graham rarely catches the ball when it comes his way.
Zero2Cool (14-Dec) : Graham: 'My numbers suck' in Green Bay
Zero2Cool (14-Dec) : @NicholasJOlson Stefon Diggs currently has 88 catches without a single drop.
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2018 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 9 @ 7:20 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Sep 16 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Sep 23 @ 12:00 PM
Redskins
Sunday, Sep 30 @ 12:00 PM
BILLS
Sunday, Oct 7 @ 12:00 PM
Lions
Monday, Oct 15 @ 7:15 PM
49ERS
Sunday, Oct 28 @ 3:25 PM
Rams
Sunday, Nov 4 @ 7:20 PM
Patriots
Sunday, Nov 11 @ 3:25 PM
DOLPHINS
Thursday, Nov 15 @ 7:20 PM
Seahawks
Sunday, Nov 25 @ 7:20 PM
Vikings
Sunday, Dec 2 @ 12:00 PM
CARDINALS
Sunday, Dec 9 @ 12:00 PM
FALCONS
Sunday, Dec 16 @ 12:00 PM
Bears
Sunday, Dec 23 @ 12:00 PM
Jets
Sunday, Dec 30 @ 12:00 PM
LIONS
Think About It
Think About It
Recent Topics
1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

2h / Around The NFL / wpr

10h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

10h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

11h / Green Bay Packers Talk / civic

12h / Green Bay Packers Talk / go.pack.go.

13h / Random Babble / KRK

14-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / buckeyepackfan

13-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / KRK

13-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / earthquake

12-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / nyrpack

12-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / KRK

12-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / yooperfan

12-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

12-Dec / Packers Draft Threads / Nonstopdrivel

Headlines