Drunk driver hits and kills little girl in Dorchester, police say


The girl, 7, was walking with her mother on the sidewalk in front of 43 Olney St. around 2:15 p.m. when a white SUV careened out of the street and struck them, police say.

Both were rushed to Boston Medical Center, where the girl was pronounced dead. The mother's injuries were not life threatening, police say.

Olivia Mora, 36, of Dorchester (pictured), was charged with OUI and motor-vehicle homicide, police say, adding additional charges may result.

Innocent, etc.




Free tagging: 



By on

My thoughts and prayers are with the family... This is so sad!!! I hope the driver gets life in prison. A young girls life snatched away due to poor decisions and a woman who had no regards for her life or anyone's elses

Heroin chic?

She looks like she might have had more on board than just alcohol. I love pictures where drunk/whatever people are trying to look sober and alert because it so doesn't work.

How horrible

And why is someone driving drunk at 2 in the afternoon? Maybe if we had the Scandinavian attitude towards drunk drivers, we'd have far less drunk driving.

If we had the Scandanavian attitude toward bikes and trains

We may have less drunk driving.

If we had the general Euro attitude toward bars in business districts we might have less driving while drunk, too.

[snark] But I'm sure she just didn't see that family there on the sidewalk, and how could she know that she hit something? She was driving a big vehicle ... and wasn't it irresponsible for the mother to be walking with children on the sidewalk in the first place. [/snark]

A 7 yr old

By on

Died, give your "bike lane" bs a rest. A f'n 7 year old, walking home from school. From f'n school!

So ...

By on

You think that making people drive everywhere has nothing to do with drunk driving? Really?

So sad that your small mind can only hold one idea at once,


By on

Commuting from NH to Boston via bicycle is very efficient. Mouth Breather!

Please provide a news article

By on

Describing a drunk person killing somebody in the act of boarding a commuter train or bus.

Now, note that in many enlightened communities - like the Scandanavian countries mentioned above - getting from NH to Boston by train would be THE MOST COMMON ROUTE.

Again, it isn't just Scandanavian laws on drunk driving that prevent drunk driving - it is the fact that you don't HAVE TO DRIVE that prevents drunk driving.

Try again

By on

Stand at the corner of Congress and the greenway, and try again.

Okay, so a pedestrian died from drunk cycling at some point

That's entirely believable, given the 300+ Million people in the United States, that ONE person might die in such a way in a year (UK is a different story).

Now, let's look at the denominator: You realize that the motorized drunk death toll is about 10,000 times that, right? That drinking is a factor in about a third of all traffic deaths? http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_fact...

Boston would be a model city for the US and the World if only one person a year died as a result of a drunk motorist.

As other

By on

People have posted, this is not the place to have a forum on cycling so lay off. You already made one insensitive comment and that's more than enough.


Yes, because it is never okay to talk about anything whenever some people think it isn't okay. Because it is easier to shut down all conversation "because its insensitive" than to actually deal with problems in our society.

So, when, according to rules of Kathode's World, is it ever time to talk about what societal and structural changes are needed to stop the killing of people by motor vehicles?

Or is it always "insensitive" to expect those who fear change to contemplate changing the world so that our kids don't get killed?

I think people like you are insensitive. You think you have some right to shut down valid conversation because you have some personal rules that you think everybody should follow, based on your personal comfort level and cultural notions of appropriateness. Well, guess what: not everybody has heard of your rules or accepts your rules.

It's not always

By on

About being right. Sometimes it's good to just shut up.

People like you

By on

Are responsible for pedophile priests not having their careers ruined.

Because being right isn't as important as shutting up because somebody told you to and thinks they have that authority.

Not just the internet

By on

One mother I talked to mentioned to me that people, possibly elected officials even, tried to "shush" her when she spoke out about her loss.

This online reaction isn't the same, but, it is reminiscent.


By on

Drunk driving is treated extremely casually by the authorities in MA.

She'll have to kill at least five more children before she does time.

Show some respect Swrrly! A

By on

Show some respect Swrrly! A little girl is dead! Suburbanites who drive giant minivans should NOT be preaching right now!

How wrong can you be?

1. I live in one of the most densely populated areas of the United States
2. I live closer to Boston City Hall than Adam does - by approximately 3 miles.
3. I spend the majority of my waking hours in the City of Boston
4. I don't drive a minivan. My motor vehicle gets 50mpg. My primary vehicle burns about 1,000 calories per hour.

Also, we disrespect the departed if we don't talk about how we can prevent other people from dying in the future. Somebody mentioned Scandanavian laws, but those strict laws work only because of a concommitant investment in non-automobile options of travel. 0.02 and 0.04 BAH limits are not workable in our society because many people lack viable alternatives to cars.

Unless and until we can discuss these events in terms of potentially preventing future ones, we will continue to have these horrid tragedies, we will continue to have children killed horribly, and we will continue to pretend that they are entirely about the actions of a single person rather than the failure of society to muster the moral and physical courage to stop the murder.

Lay off

By on

No one wants to hear it.


By on

"Somebody" mentioned Scandinavian laws? That was you. I guess you got so confused that you forgot which of your handles mentioned it.

Wow, night and day from profile pic.

By on

Looks like she's taken a turn for the worse since doing this profile. Reports say the SUV had a "Media Soul" logo and this refers to her as a Babson grad, former instructor at Babson and founder of Media Soul. God bless the 7 year-old and her family. Thanksgiving will never be the same. Tragic.

No she won't

By on

She'll be out in no time, with a wrist slap, and back on the bottle and throttle. This is MA. Killing people with your car isn't a crime here, and driving drunk doesn't seem to be either.

What makes you think she's

What makes you think she's going to jail? Isn't this like one year suspended in Massachusetts, or is that only for connected white guys?

Stop murdering children

By on

This is a terrible, tragic collision, and following closely on the heels of another. A bloody week.

I hope that they are able to prosecute this criminal to the fullest extent, and that the family is able to find peace, somehow.

But the responsibility does not end there. BTD is responsible for maintaining the conditions which led to this death. The automobile-addicted assholes of yesteryear, who designed this death trap, are responsible.

This is no accident. Olney Street is wide. Enough asphalt for 2 travel lanes and 2 parking lanes, and then some. It's practically begging drivers to speed recklessly on it, maybe coming on a wild turn off Geneva.

We need our residential streets to be safe, instead of industrial kill-zones where nobody is safe unless surrounded by two tons of steel.

We need our streets to be safe so that children can walk (or bike) to school and activities without the fear of one reckless driver destroying a family forever.

We need to realize that this is a choice that we can make.

We can choose a path of widening streets and speeding traffic, as we did in the bad old days, a world where parents fear to let their children even walk on the sidewalk.

Or we can choose another way, where car convenience is not put above children's lives, where street design focuses first and foremost on the safety of the people living and walking along it.

It all begins with a simple choice: Stop murdering children:

Since the 1970s, the Netherlands and the United States have taken different paths when it comes to engineering streets. While the Dutch tackled traffic deaths and injuries by designing local streets where walking and biking are safe, convenient ways to get around, the prevalent approach in America was to apply highway design principles to local streets — wider and straighter was thought to be safer. The superiority of the Dutch approach turned out to be dramatic: In 1975, the traffic death rate in the Netherlands was 20 percent higher than in America, but by 2008 it was 60 percent lower. About 22,000 fewer people would die on U.S. streets each year if the nation had achieved safety outcomes comparable to the Dutch

The difference? The Dutch people decided that it was completely unacceptable for children to be killed. And so they changed their ways. When will we?

Did you miss the part

By on

about her being DRUNK? It's not the street's fault, or the car's fault. It's the DRUNK'S fault.

This is the typical excuse

By on

"Oh, that driver was drunk/reckless. But it's an isolated case."

It's not an accident. It's not an isolated case. It's dangerous by design.

What's remarkable about the Dutch story is that they stopped accepting such excuses. They said: Stop murdering children.

When Americans stop making excuses for their bad streets, then we will see some progress.

You're not even making sense.

By on

No one is saying this is an isolated incident. It was, however, drunk driving and has nothing--zero--to do with with poor street design. Dorchester as we know it was designed and built as a streetcar suburb, not a raceway, more than 100 years ago.

You're missing the point

By on

And making excuses, again.

It has a lot to do with poor street design. Yes, the woman was OUI, and she should be held culpable for that crime. But her rampage was enabled by the dangerous design of the streets, which makes speeding easy, even for a drunk.

More background: Dorchester was designed as a streetcar suburb, yes. In the 19th century there was a fad for wide streets, mostly unpaved. Street layout commissions did not anticipate the invention of fast motor vehicles. Then when cars were mass-produced, and started killing people and children in large numbers, many parents in many cities started calling for slower speeds to be imposed by any means necessary. For a variety of reasons, mostly due to the industry not wanting to lose speed as a feature, these efforts were quashed around the country. One of the excuses they used, by the way, was: "blame reckless drivers, not the rest." As a result, we have 19th century wide streets that are fully paved and with hardly any mitigation for the much-faster vehicles which use them today.

If the original street designers did not anticipate the dangers posed by fast-moving motor vehicles of today, well that is unsurprising. But it does not absolve the responsibility that today's street designers have to make streets safe, even if they have inherited poor conditions. And they have had nearly a century to think about it in the context of motor vehicles.

I want people to think about the consequences of our choices as a city. Enough with brushing the death of children under the rug, chalking it up to just "another drunk driver" or similar excuse. It's more than that. I want this to stop happening. I hope that other people want this to stop happening. And instead of just wishing, making real change, and confronting our addiction to dangerous streets.

You sir

Are nuts.

First off clearly speeding was not "easy" for the drunk. She did hit a few things along the way

Secondly, the street is a 50' ROW laid out in 1876 and revised in 1883. It has what looks to be 7-8 foot sidewalks which leaves a 34-36 foot curb to curb travel and parking way. Assuming its 36 feet, that leaves two 7 foot parking lanes and two 11 foot travel lanes. How would you change this?

Remove the parking lanes? They present a pedestrian SAFETY feature as they shield pedestrians from traveling cars AND they discourage speeding.

Clearly in this case, this is an event that NO design featur could improve. The driver was reckless (as evidenced that she hit a car, hydrant, child, adult, fence and ultimately came to rest at someones front door. She was likely speeding to evade a previous accident. I dont think she cared if it was an easy road to speed down.

So do us a favor, get off of your illogical rant in this topic. While yes, many of the downtown roads have been unnecssesarily designed in an auto-centric fashion, that has NOTHING to do with this story.


By on

We should just demolish Dorchester and start over? Again--I can't even believe this conversation is happening and I can't imagine the kind of redesign you're imagining that would've prevented this. Why you're so bent on ignoring the main cause of this accident is beyond me and your hyperbole and callousness isn't doing any favors for anyone who believes in livable streets.


its pretty much just disrespectful at this point to further some tangential agenda by hijacking this overal sad story.

Think about it and come back later

By on

I can see that this will still take some time for you to accept and understand.

Let me just point out one final time: the Dutch went from having more dangerous roads than us, to having much safer roads than us. The reason? They decided not to accept the death of children on the streets. They decided to do everything in their power to change the story. And they succeeded. Read about the movement "Stop de Kindermoord" (Stop the child murder) in the 1970s. Read about how a group of parents changed their entire country because they refused to stand back and let more children be killed. You can start with the link I posted earlier. Here's a more thorough article with pictures from that era.

The only callous act is to not speak up, and to pretend that this kind of event is acceptable. It is not.

The main purpose of livable streets-type movements is to prevent these kinds of tragedies from happening in the first place.

P.S. Bob Leponge hit the points pretty well too.

You, sir, are sick

By on

I don't know why you keep attacking me, and I don't understand why you defend the dangerous design of the streets.

It is, of course, a free country, and you are free to express your opinions against safer streets.

In my opinion, I find it despicable that you would do so when yet another child has just been killed because Americans value fast driving more than the lives of children.

Good day, and please drive safe, "anon-a-mouse."

I'll retract that

By on

I was going from memory and the tone of his comment felt to me like he was making excuses for the driver.

However, I cannot substantiate that when I reread everything. So I retract and apologize for that particular sentence. The rest remains.

and the rest continues to be nonsense

so what exactly are you proposing? Wider sidewalks? A ban on cars? You just are babbling. This case has nothing to do with a desire to go fast. I dont drive, I take the t and ride my bike and of course walk. The point being that this street was not dangerously designed. A drunken lunatic was trying to flee the scene of a previous accident and NOTHING you speak of could have prevented this tragedy. The cause was intoxication not some evil plot of BTD to make the streets dangerous.

Again, you have an agenda. You are using this unrelated case to push your agenda. That is not opinion, its what you are doing and I find it disgusting.

I CORRECTLY am placing blame on the intoxication of this woman. Did you know she tried, insanely, to back her car up after this and bystanders had to yank her out of her car? If you want to talk about what can be done, we can as a society be less tolerant of drunk driving. Would it have prevented this case, probably not, but nothing you speak of would have either.

Are there cases where your criticism of BTD is valid? Yes. Congress Street at PO Square to the Greenway is a perfect example of a road being better designed for vehicular speed and capacity while bikes and peds are an afterhtought (those bike lanes are dangerously designed incorrectly). And this is my point. If you want to go on a rant about this, there is validity to it. But pick your spots if you dont want to sound like a nut. This case, this location, this situation have nothing to do with street design or speed and have everything to do with intoxication. Ms. Mora asked "what happened?" when she got out of the car. Should the neighbor have answered "BTD conspired to make the sidewalks narrow and the streets wide so you could drive like a drunk asshole."?


I disagree with your assessment

By on

Of course I hold the driver responsible for her behavior. But I also believe that safer streets through design do make a major difference in preventing these tragedies in the first place. The core principle of a livable street is that it is a place where you do not fear to walk.

My agenda is safety of people using streets. If you believe that this is not relevant to a case where a child is killed while walking along the street, then I don't know what to say to you.

I am not proposing any particular design plan at this time, certainly not before full analysis. I am proposing that people become aware of this problem, and that we stop treating these kinds of deaths as unavoidable consequences of our transportation system. They are not acceptable, they are avoidable, and there needs to be a change in attitude about it.

Being less tolerant of drunken driving is certainly one part of the answer. We have made progress but seem to still need more. When I was growing up my parents told me about their high school friends who had been killed by drunken drivers. They said that intoxication used to be a scot-free excuse. Well that is no longer the case, thankfully, although I am not sure how well the system works whenever we hear about someone caught for the 5th or 6th time.

But OUI did not, to my knowledge, play a role in the Cummins Highway death of a few days ago. Driver recklessness is not the whole story. The design of streets plays a major factor in determining outcomes. That was the root of the "Stop de Kindermoord" movement in Holland. And it worked. They went from worse than us, to much better than us. I believe that it is very important that we take those lessons to heart in order to prevent future tragedies, and not just sweep another life under the rug, with "business as usual" thinking.

Oh Matthew ...

Don't you know, we have to all stop talking about what can be done to prevent horrible motor-vehicle wrecks! We aren't allowed to even discuss it.

That's because Poor Sensitive Kathode is offended.

Thanks but

By on

If I want to object to Matthew's arguments, I can do that myself.

two things

Comparing this street to Cummins Highway is absurd.

You have yet to establish how you would apply the principles of livable streets in this case and how they would have had even the most miniscule potential of avoiding this tragedy.

Maybe because you're acting like a condescending jerk.

By on

You act as if the rest of us will just have to wait patiently for enlightenment to dawn on us. No one here is arguing "against safer streets" or valuing "fast driving more than the lives of children." To suggest so is despicable and disingenuous. You've also failed to make ANY case as to how the design of this specific street contributed to this specific accident--you're just using it to rant about your particular cause which, ironically, is one that we share. Again, IMO, you're not doing the livable streets cause any favors here.

Strange that you say that we

By on

Strange that you say that we share the same goals. We might, but you seem to interpret it differently than me. I don't know where you stand exactly, but for me, preventing the death of children is one of the primary objectives -- if not THE primary objective. Therefore, this kind of tragedy is exactly the time to bring up the need to make our streets safer. Certainly, on a general public forum like UHub. I also brought up some historical examples (1970s Holland, 1920s USA) where grief and outrage motivated significant social movements to stop the killing.

The lesson I drew from the failure of the safer streets movements of 1920s USA is that the auto companies and clubs were successfully able to deflect criticism of their products and methods by passing it off as purely a matter of driver education and law enforcement. They said "it's only reckless drivers that are the problem." By absolving street design of any and all responsibility for this crash, and by attacking my argument for safer streets, you are effectively playing into those same hands.

I am a little surprised that someone who claims to be a walking advocate would not understand the importance of raising awareness. That is why I asked you to wait and consider.

Regarding tone, I'm trying (and maybe failing) to be as level as possible at this point. It has been difficult. I might come off as cold. I cannot help that. It would be nice of you and the others to extend the same consideration.

Increase safety and people take more risks

The problem with spending trillions of dollars making all urban, town, and village center streets up to Dutch standards is that pedestrians go and take more risks like not looking up from their cell phones for traffic when crossing the road or driveways crossing the sidewalk. They also lose the nursery school concept of sharing by crossing streets and making others wait when it is not their turn. Studies show that jay walking increases as traffic speed decreases, for example. If you absolve pedestrians of all responsibility for looking where they are going, should we also mandate padding on everything on sidewalks (trees, benches, fire hydrants, sign posts etc)? Its bad enough that pedestrians don't look up to see trains coming or don't think Don't Walk or RR crossing gates are for them and their safety.

That's not what happened in

By on

That's not what happened in the Netherlands. Spend some time there as a driver, cyclist, and pedestrian. The planning and careful placing of visual cues has have the affect of keeping people more alert, not less.

German Autobahns safer than US Interstates

Oh, must be because there is no speed limit in many sections, thus drivers need to pay more attention. Here, driving so slow causes highway hypnosis, and too much temptation to take on various additional activities while driving since so little concentration is needed at palatial speeds.

If secondary roads are made slower, it might foster more texting and other distractions. What we could do instead for maximum safety where most important, is reduce speed limits to, say, 20 MPH near schools. Oh, we already do that - school zones.

Different design basis

Autobahns aren't just different in their lack of speed limit. They are designed to fundamentally different criteria (US Interstates in the West were built to a 72mph design speed; in the East it was much lower). There are other differences, regarding driver training and high taxes on fuels supporting more careful maintenance and an intensive emergency response system. I suggest you educate yourself.


for example they penalize you for not having emergency supplies. Which makes total sense, but here in 'merica we dont like being babysat. 99% of emericans do not know how to safely pull their car over in the event of a breakdown etc. Even folks with German cars usually dont know what to do with that orange triangle in their trunk (nor do they care because no one ever taught them roadside safety).

72mph design speed?

Really? That low? Where did you get 72 from? Is it a number like 42? In some cases Interstates look designed for higher speeds than the Autobahn. 72mph might have been the original goal in 1950 with 1950 cars, 1950 drum brakes, and 1950 tires that predate radial tires and modern rubber compounds. 72 mph might be the limit you are thinking of for older roads like route 128 which were then renamed into Interstates. Vehicles can and do go 72mph through some Interstate interchanges, even. Perhaps 72mph is the design speed for tractor-trailer trucks at night, and not modern cars in the dry and daylight?

From the FHWA's web page

By on

on the history of the Interstate system:

Interstate Design Standards

The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 called for uniform geometric and construction standards for the Interstate System. The standards were developed by the State highway agencies, acting through the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and adopted by the FHWA. The standards are included in the AASHTO publication A Policy on Design Standards -- Interstate System available from the AASHTO web site. Examples of design standards for the Interstate System include full control of access, design speeds of 50 to 70 miles per hour (depending on type of terrain), a minimum of two travel lanes in each direction, 12-foot lane widths, 10-foot right paved shoulder, and 4-foot left paved shoulder. Initially, the design had to be adequate to meet the traffic volumes expected in 1975. Later, the requirement was changed to a more general 20-year design period to allow for evolution of the System

And yes Virginia, these standards have not really changed (other than anticipated traffic volumes) since the 1950s.

Then 80,000 lb. trucks included

That is the design limit also with standardized maximum width and height. Some states like Maine have higher weight design of 100,000 lbs on state roads used by logging trucks. I frequently encountered them when I was going to/from Sugarloaf Mountain. So, yeah, 70 mph is a good design maximum for 80,000 lb trucks.

Too expensive and last century thinking

Much cheaper and advanced than redesigning and reconstructing every street would to put speed governors on every vehicle with GPS indexed database of speed limits by location. Then we mandate chem lab interlocks to operate a vehicle with constant breath, serum, and urine monitoring with mass spectrograph analysis for any sort of mind altering substances. Or make everyone buy self driving cars. This can be extended into regulating all thermostats so people don't produce excess CO2 by heating above 65 degrees or cooling below 82 degrees. Then making all bikes be like HubWay bikes so they can't go too fast. Then make trains go slower and stop on a dime via radar controlled brakes so nobody gets hit by them and dies.

I think you're talking past each other

#1: No street design, good or bad, changes the culpability of the drunk driver. Morally, an accident is 100% the drunk driver's fault.

#2: Looking into street design is not "blaming the road", or "shifting the blame away from where it belongs: on the shoulders of the drunk driver." It's, instead, taking a comprehensive approach to solving a problem.

#3: If it turns out that road design A experiences accidents (including those caused by drunk drivers) at 5x the rate of road design B, then it might make sense to look into changing the design of road A to be more like B. That line of inquiry and action might just save some lives. It has nothing to do with "whose fault was it."

I'm reminded of something I once heard a transportation safety expert say: "Yes, sure, all these accidents [in this report] are a result of stupid pilot errors, but it turns out that we see these stupid pilot errors under the first set of conditions about twice as often as under the second set of conditions. Which do you think will prevent more accidents: reminding pilots not to be stupid, or changing the conditions?"


By on

I'm a longtime advocate for pedestrians, cyclists and livable streets but there's a time and place for these discussions. Until I hear evidence that this street is some kind of death trap--we all know that there are streets like that--I'm going to hold off on making that leap. Maybe before then we can discuss substance abuse treatment and drunk driving prevention but for now I think I'll stay off the soapbox.

Ah Yes

By on

The usual "this isn't the time blah blah blah moo".

WHEN IS IT THE FUCKING TIME??? According to idiots like you NEVER because its always 'but somebody DIED".


So eloquent.

By on

A few points. 1. Caps are not your friend. 2. Name-calling...not helpful either. 3. Gratuitous use of the f-word? Again...doesn't help make your weak point any stronger.

"Emphasis on car use" did not kill this poor child and hospitalize her mother. One drunk driver did. This didn't happen at an unsafe pedestrian crossing or at a badly designed intersection. A rant about substance abuse or mental illness or drunk driving might make sense--but there is no street on earth that's so safe that this accident could have been prevented.

Wrong speech

The drunk driver drove down the street, sideswiped a parked car (that helps protect people on the sidewalk), up over the curb, knocked over a fire hydrant, hit the mom and daughter, hit a fence, and came to a stop in somebody's yard. The drunk driver needs to be in an Amsterdam cafe, after serving jail time for vehicular homicide.

As a bike person and fan of Dutch urban planning

By on

Could I ask you to please shut the hell up? This is no time for a rant and your premise is ridiculous--trust me, if I find myself agreeing with Markk then there are some serious flaws in your argument, not to mention the inflammatory crap about the BTD. Olney St, I'm almost certain, was designed around the turn of the century and is a residential street, not a highway, not fundamentally unsafe in any way. This was not a "traffic death"--it was a tragic crime caused by extreme negligence and God only knows what combination of substances. What this family is going through I can't even imagine--this is every parent's nightmare.

It looks like Olney Street...

.... is a way to avoid the intersection at Geneva and Bowdoin, so it probably gets a lot of through traffic (and not just residential traffic). In any sensible country, the murderer-driver would NEVER would be allowed to drive again.

Time for Miles Corwin to write a new book

Olivia Mora is a central character in Miles Corwin's new book. He says of her background: "By the time she was 16, she had lived in a dozen foster homes. She had been removed from her home at age 12 because of abuse, and she was at one time virtually homeless and living out of her car. Yet, she was still taking a full load of honors and AP classes her senior year."


And she's single:


Just jealous

Just sour grapes because you didn't think of it first or have a sense of humor. The connection is that people need not look like the ethnicity they declare. Someone didn't think the alleged drunk driver looked black. I don't know of any standard minimum content to declare oneself ethnically anything. After learning of Mora's ethnic declaration, I can see the "high yeller" characteristics.

Ah here we go

The old "It isn't bigoted tripe its just a joke you have no sense of humor" bullshit response.

How old are you? Ten?

You know,

I've written probably hundreds of internet comments on various websites and interacted with all kinds of people, but you truly are the only person I've ever seen whose posts always leave me saying "What? What?!!".

Where in my post did you see the word "rape"?

Spare me the liberal platitudes about where this human excrement is going. I wonder how much time you've spent around woman prisoners and how much you know about the amount of consensual relationships that develop on the tier?

Well, then...

I'll be giving thanks for two more things tomorrow. Your brilliant answers to my two questions and your appointment as the arbiter of all things tangential on UHub.

Once again you stupid mother

By on

Once again you stupid mother fuckers have turned this into a fucked up conversation about nothing, a child is died!!!!!!