The Forum Site - Join the conversation
Forums:
Politics

Political Compass

Reply to Topic
AuthorMessage
Pages: << · 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 · >>
bob_the_fisherman On January 30, 2023
Anatidaephobic





, Angola
#46New Post! Jun 26, 2019 @ 06:54:16
@nooneinparticular Said

I don't understand. Are you attempting to argue that Tommy Robinson, a person most notable for their interactions with UKIP is not a Right leaning person? Or do you simply object to the completely arbitrary and pointless moniker of Far Right specifically, of which has no bearing on whether or not his policies and stances are at all Right leaning?


Having watched a hell of a lot of Tommy, I would argue he is as right wing as me - which is to say, not a lot.

@nooneinparticular Said
To propose that the distinction between Left and Right is meaningless simply because the monikers of Far Left and Right are nebulous is ridiculous on the face of it.


no. It's more than that. Again, the so-called left has no interest in protecting the British working class - especially little girls, whereas the so called right does. The 'left' want cheap goods and ease of travel. The right want their daughters to grow up safe and a little less acid attacks, knife crime and shariah in working class neighbourhoods.

The terms have outlived their usefulness.
nooneinparticular On March 16, 2023




, Hawaii
#47New Post! Jun 26, 2019 @ 08:25:59
@bob_the_fisherman Said

Try turning on sarcasm/humor and reread. Most of the time the failure to red my stuff as being typically "Aussie" banter (not always, but usually), will lead to misunderstanding. I know I shouldn't, but it is the way I talk... It really is a cultural thing. Do ot take me literally... But having said that my Nazi fren...
Meh. I get called a Nazi, far right, fascist etc., for believing people should be free to speak, and any opposition to Nazi ideas like those expressed above about race based social justice are apt to have you called a Nazi.

I agree that the claim is absurd, but that's the way the cookie rolls.



It falls under the "everyone who disagrees with my Nazim is a Nazi" thing that our progressive frens seem to enjoy so much. The are earnest in their stupid, I'll grant them that.



I'm not sure where authoritarian fits in the right wing way of doing things, tbh. Naturally, any group with power can tend toward being excessively controlling, but when it comes to economics at least, the right is notable for a lack of totalitarianism, whereas the left's demand for violent revolution kind of incorporates brutality into its general theme.



Well, it is the kind of thing pushed by progressives today. They want to strictly control, not have government own and run, the means of production. Are you now claiming that the 'progressive' left is on the right?



Does China's tariffs make them far right? What about their nationalism?
Again, I think right and left have outlived their use, but protecting your own workforce is surely not only a right wing thing is it?



No.




I agree that the right is not about an economic free for all. I have often said as much here. They claim they want no government interference but that is not true. They want it, just in ways that assist private capital.

However, that is still a long way from being authoritarian.



Honestly, it depends who is doing the paying of said welfare (and I oppose it for the most part unless it has benefits for workers attached like the Amazon deal AOC was so opposed to.



Of course. But what are facts? That is the question. When it comes to politics, facts do not pertain to ideology so much as to events. People then interpret the event.

The reality is that no one acts in a perfectly, "ideal-typical" left or right way (if such a thing even exists). No government does, either.


You cannot claim that "when it comes to economics at least, the right is notable for a lack of totalitarianism, whereas the left's demand for violent revolution kind of incorporates brutality into its general theme", and then turn around and say that "They (the Right) claim they want no government interference but that is not true. They want it, just in ways that assist private capital."

Either the Right notably lacks Authoritarian leanings or it doesn't. It cannot be both as long as you insist on this Authoritarian, Left/Libertarian, Right duology.
nooneinparticular On March 16, 2023




, Hawaii
#48New Post! Jun 26, 2019 @ 08:47:03
@bob_the_fisherman Said

Having watched a hell of a lot of Tommy, I would argue he is as right wing as me - which is to say, not a lot.

no. It's more than that. Again, the so-called left has no interest in protecting the British working class - especially little girls, whereas the so called right does. The 'left' want cheap goods and ease of travel. The right want their daughters to grow up safe and a little less acid attacks, knife crime and shariah in working class neighbourhoods.

The terms have outlived their usefulness.


I'm genuinely confused here. Do you honestly believe that cheap goods and porous borders are hallmarks of a Left leaning authoritarian philosophy? And that stringent border controls and more stringent laws are the hallmarks of a right leaning libertarian one? Because that certainly seems to be what you're implying here.
bob_the_fisherman On January 30, 2023
Anatidaephobic





, Angola
#49New Post! Jun 26, 2019 @ 10:00:58
@nooneinparticular Said

You cannot claim that "when it comes to economics at least, the right is notable for a lack of totalitarianism, whereas the left's demand for violent revolution kind of incorporates brutality into its general theme", and then turn around and say that "They (the Right) claim they want no government interference but that is not true. They want it, just in ways that assist private capital."

Either the Right notably lacks Authoritarian leanings or it doesn't. It cannot be both as long as you insist on this Authoritarian, Left/Libertarian, Right duology.


Try not conflating all government action with authoritarianism and this dilemma you seem desperate to find fades away like the myth of right wing Nazism and fascism.

@nooneinparticular Said

I'm genuinely confused here. Do you honestly believe that cheap goods and porous borders are hallmarks of a Left leaning authoritarian philosophy? And that stringent border controls and more stringent laws are the hallmarks of a right leaning libertarian one? Because that certainly seems to be what you're implying here.


No. What I am saying is self styled "leftists" these days, as we have seen here ad nausea (sic), are happy to let thousand of underage working class girls get brutalised, violated by packs of sick filth, tortured, abused and in some cases killed, if the payoff is that they (the "left," not the abused little girls), get cheap goods and/or easier overseas holidays.

I am not making any case about the right and left, really, other than saying they are now relatively meaningless terms. The economy is no longer the currency of politics (in large part because our political overlords across the west have all embraced the same anti-western globalist ideology).

Freedom is now the issue.

And just to reiterate; I do not believe this has to be the case, or that it always will be in future. But right now economic considerations (including notions of a class struggle) that are paramount in the political divide between left and right are irrelevant - the so called right are the ones seeking to protect workers, while the so called left side with global corporate giants to silence dissent and thwart democracy.
bob_the_fisherman On January 30, 2023
Anatidaephobic





, Angola
#50New Post! Jun 26, 2019 @ 10:12:54
@chaski Said

As is too common, gakINGKONG has made an excuse for what he believes, rather than accepting and admitting what he believes.

This is the very point of the "test"... what do you really think.

If the results are in line with your proclaimed political position: Great.

If the results are NOT in line with your proclaimed political position YOU should re-evaluate your stance.

This is a very simple and straightforward idea.

What do you really think?

Some people need to wake the f__k up and realize that they do not actually believe in the things that they promote.

It is really very simple... be honest... especially with yourself.



@chaski Said

And, of course, by saying that I am being immature, insulting, childish, "punching" people, being rude, acting like a jackass, etc.

There is no chance in the world (let alone the universe) that I am fairly suggesting that people be honest with themselves and others... whatever their opinions are.




I have not looked at GAks result or what he has said about it, but I would like to make a point on the 'test.' It is not a very good one. It hardly gives an accurate statement of where someone sits politically.

For example; the test asked us whether we believe all sex outside of marriage is immoral. Now, if someone answers 'yes' to that question, this in no way suggests anything about their politics.

A person could say yes and want to ban all homosexuality etc., or ban abortion or want to impose all kinds of moral laws. Or, they could just believe it is immoral and wrong and say, "However, people have the right to engage in conduct I consider immoral and wrong."

The test failed to take account of this. And as is always the case with these things, wording and response options are often an issue - about half the questions, if not more, I had to pick one of two least inaccurate options presented. This skews the results.

I could just as easily resit that test and end up further on the libertarian left, or, somewhere on the right, just by manipulating which of the least inaccurate options I chose, without lying or giving answers that are any less honest than the ones I gave.

I suspect any of us who hold complex ideas about life would be in the exact same boat.
nooneinparticular On March 16, 2023




, Hawaii
#51New Post! Jun 26, 2019 @ 10:48:04
@bob_the_fisherman Said

Try not conflating all government action with authoritarianism and this dilemma you seem desperate to find fades away like the myth of right wing Nazism and fascism.


Ah, so only some types of government action constitute Authoritarianism? Putting aside the fact that such an exception flies in the face of some forms of Libertarianism, and would cause Ayn Rand to roll over in her grave, what actions of government oversight are allowed under a Libertarian philosophy? Is corporate welfare? Is the Military-Industrial complex?

You like to do this a lot. You say there are exceptions that prove your point correct, but you never wish to articulate them and leave me guessing as to what they are. Then you accuse me of straw-manning when I apparently guess incorrectly.

Quote:

No. What I am saying is self styled "leftists" these days, as we have seen here ad nausea (sic), are happy to let thousand of underage working class girls get brutalised, violated by packs of sick filth, tortured, abused and in some cases killed, if the payoff is that they (the "left," not the abused little girls), get cheap goods and/or easier overseas holidays.

I am not making any case about the right and left, really, other than saying they are now relatively meaningless terms. The economy is no longer the currency of politics (in large part because our political overlords across the west have all embraced the same anti-western globalist ideology).

Freedom is now the issue.

And just to reiterate; I do not believe this has to be the case, or that it always will be in future. But right now economic considerations (including notions of a class struggle) that are paramount in the political divide between left and right are irrelevant - the so called right are the ones seeking to protect workers, while the so called left side with global corporate giants to silence dissent and thwart democracy.


It's rather funny that you say that the economic Right and Left don't matter and then you ascribe the traditional economic position of the Left (worker's rights) to the Right. Clearly it does still matter if the Right has taken up their banner, and the Left has taken up the Right's banner of cheaper goods and higher profits. You keep swearing up and down that their economic policies don't matter, and then wave those same economic policies around as the new things that matter.

That aside, you keep saying freedom is the new political litmus, but you don't go for Freedom of expression, or freedom to decide where to work, or even political freedom. No, you reach for the old economic banners of workers rights ( An Authoritarian principle) and high profits at the expense of all else ( A Libertarian Philosophy).

So we have an Authoritarian principle held up as a poster child for freedom and a Libertarian principle held up as poster child for control. Something seems off here...
bob_the_fisherman On January 30, 2023
Anatidaephobic





, Angola
#52New Post! Jun 26, 2019 @ 11:36:54
@nooneinparticular Said

Ah, so only some types of government action constitute Authoritarianism? Putting aside the fact that such an exception flies in the face of some forms of Libertarianism, and would cause Ayn Rand to roll over in her grave, what actions of government oversight are allowed under a Libertarian philosophy? Is corporate welfare? Is the Military-Industrial complex?


Leaving pointless tangents into minutiae (that I suspect would appeal to you and bore the crap out of me), aside, I would have thought we could all see a variation in the level of oppression government action can entail. For example, an act of government that bans dissenting voices under the guise of hate speech, is more authoritarian than an act of government that legislates free speech as a right that the state must uphold.

I'm not familiar with Ayn Rand (even though I've owned one of her books for about 20 years). Are you claiming she is an anarchist?

Didn't I say in an earlier post to you that I oppose the MIC pretty much exclusively, as well as corporate welfare for the most part (unless, in the case of corporate welfare it acts in the interests of the people, eg., the Amazon deal that AOC loathed through her ignorant incompetence)?

I would prefer that corporate welfare was done away with. However, as a pragmatic supporter of capitalism I realise globalism and corporate control of government is not going anywhere any time soon (unless the so called right have a revolution and remove the so called left and the major corporate global elites). Under these miserable circumstances, corporate welfare is one tactic that can be used to stop the west from being further destroyed.

I would prefer a political class that acted on behalf of its constituents though.

@nooneinparticular Said
You like to do this a lot. You say there are exceptions that prove your point correct, but you never wish to articulate them and leave me guessing as to what they are. Then you accuse me of straw-manning when I apparently guess incorrectly.


Not by intent. I just find the need to argue every point into miniscule pieces a bit tedious. Sure, I have done it with people here over religion and their weird animal libbing ideas, but as a rule I don't care enough to get that in depth. It's why I often bugger off from here. I miss the good old days where people talked instead of argue every single thing.

Now, it's true I like a debate, but damn, it would be nice to just discuss stuff from time to time.

@nooneinparticular Said
It's rather funny that you say that the economic Right and Left don't matter and then you ascribe the traditional economic position of the Left (worker's rights) to the Right.


This is the kind of thing I mean that I get weary of. Instead of mindlessly just say, "no it isn't," think about what I said. This is not intended to be rude, but you seem to disagree with every point on everything no matter what it is. It gets tedious. Try discussing a point from time to time... and consider what I'm saying as a whole rather than take one sentence, decontextualise it, place it next to another decontextualised sentence and imply something I'm not saying.

I'm not claiming that workers no longer exist, or that there is no class distinctions. I am arguing that the old paradigm of right and left are currently irrelevant because the so called right side with workers over the so-called left who side with global corporations.

Why?
Because economics is no longer a major consideration.

Why?
Because both so called sides have embraced the same globalist political "pragmatism" that Reagan, Thatcher (right wing) and Hawke and Keating (left wing) all embraced at the same time. Meanwhile, the people are disenfranchised on the so called right and left and have no real power to do anything, because the so called right and left in politics are no longer working for the good of their own people.

And now, with the advent of social media that allowed the lies of our globalist friends in politics and media to be exposed, we have a new battleground - the realm of information and ideas. The globalists (called the left, but also has a large contingent of the so-called right (possibly RINOS in the US now depending on who you ask), is siding with global tech to shut down voices they dislike.

That is the battleground that matters.

For the most part on economics (wing nuts aside) most people just want to be able to work, earn money and get rewarded for their effort, and other people to be able to do the same, no matter who they are or where they live.

@nooneinparticular Said
That aside, you keep saying freedom is the new political litmus, but you don't go for Freedom of expression, or freedom to decide where to work, or even political freedom. No, you reach for the old economic banners of workers rights ( An Authoritarian principle) and high profits at the expense of all else ( A Libertarian Philosophy).


What? I have no idea what this even means.

Freedom is freedom. That means freedom to speak, but also freedom to choose your own career path.

And yes, people should be free to accumulate wealth, but they should not be free to exploit people in that accumulation (and these hazy terms need a definition I can't be assed giving).

I am not talking of worker's rights in the sense you imply. The UK working class has been screwed badly (and literally), by their political class, to the point where millions of cases of sexual abuse were considered fine in the name of "diversity" that hurts workers anyway by undercutting their wages at a time s***ty trade deals are sending low income jobs overseas.

This is far more than economics, but it is not economics free. And the old paradigm of left and right no longer provide a good predictor of where a person's allegiances lie.
nooneinparticular On March 16, 2023




, Hawaii
#53New Post! Jun 26, 2019 @ 13:38:25
@bob_the_fisherman Said

Leaving pointless tangents into minutiae (that I suspect would appeal to you and bore the crap out of me), aside, I would have thought we could all see a variation in the level of oppression government action can entail. For example, an act of government that bans dissenting voices under the guise of hate speech, is more authoritarian than an act of government that legislates free speech as a right that the state must uphold.

I'm not familiar with Ayn Rand (even though I've owned one of her books for about 20 years). Are you claiming she is an anarchist?

Didn't I say in an earlier post to you that I oppose the MIC pretty much exclusively, as well as corporate welfare for the most part (unless, in the case of corporate welfare it acts in the interests of the people, eg., the Amazon deal that AOC loathed through her ignorant incompetence)?

I would prefer that corporate welfare was done away with. However, as a pragmatic supporter of capitalism I realise globalism and corporate control of government is not going anywhere any time soon (unless the so called right have a revolution and remove the so called left and the major corporate global elites). Under these miserable circumstances, corporate welfare is one tactic that can be used to stop the west from being further destroyed.

I would prefer a political class that acted on behalf of its constituents though.



Not by intent. I just find the need to argue every point into miniscule pieces a bit tedious. Sure, I have done it with people here over religion and their weird animal libbing ideas, but as a rule I don't care enough to get that in depth. It's why I often bugger off from here. I miss the good old days where people talked instead of argue every single thing.

Now, it's true I like a debate, but damn, it would be nice to just discuss stuff from time to time.



This is the kind of thing I mean that I get weary of. Instead of mindlessly just say, "no it isn't," think about what I said. This is not intended to be rude, but you seem to disagree with every point on everything no matter what it is. It gets tedious. Try discussing a point from time to time... and consider what I'm saying as a whole rather than take one sentence, decontextualise it, place it next to another decontextualised sentence and imply something I'm not saying.

I'm not claiming that workers no longer exist, or that there is no class distinctions. I am arguing that the old paradigm of right and left are currently irrelevant because the so called right side with workers over the so-called left who side with global corporations.

Why?
Because economics is no longer a major consideration.

Why?
Because both so called sides have embraced the same globalist political "pragmatism" that Reagan, Thatcher (right wing) and Hawke and Keating (left wing) all embraced at the same time. Meanwhile, the people are disenfranchised on the so called right and left and have no real power to do anything, because the so called right and left in politics are no longer working for the good of their own people.

And now, with the advent of social media that allowed the lies of our globalist friends in politics and media to be exposed, we have a new battleground - the realm of information and ideas. The globalists (called the left, but also has a large contingent of the so-called right (possibly RINOS in the US now depending on who you ask), is siding with global tech to shut down voices they dislike.

That is the battleground that matters.

For the most part on economics (wing nuts aside) most people just want to be able to work, earn money and get rewarded for their effort, and other people to be able to do the same, no matter who they are or where they live.



What? I have no idea what this even means.

Freedom is freedom. That means freedom to speak, but also freedom to choose your own career path.

And yes, people should be free to accumulate wealth, but they should not be free to exploit people in that accumulation (and these hazy terms need a definition I can't be assed giving).

I am not talking of worker's rights in the sense you imply. The UK working class has been screwed badly (and literally), by their political class, to the point where millions of cases of sexual abuse were considered fine in the name of "diversity" that hurts workers anyway by undercutting their wages at a time s***ty trade deals are sending low income jobs overseas.

This is far more than economics, but it is not economics free. And the old paradigm of left and right no longer provide a good predictor of where a person's allegiances lie.


You're the one using 'hazy terms that you can't be assed giving definitions to'. This is exactly what I mean. You use vague terms to make a point that you yourself can't define and then get mad at me for not being able to guess at what your self admitted hazy terms even mean. It's not my fault your definitions are ill defined.

If you wish to have a debate, like you claim, then you need to straighten out your definitions and what they do and do not mean. The alternative is me guessing over and over again while you get increasingly agitated. A situation neither of us wants I'm sure?
bob_the_fisherman On January 30, 2023
Anatidaephobic





, Angola
#54New Post! Jun 26, 2019 @ 23:00:46
@nooneinparticular Said

You're the one using 'hazy terms that you can't be assed giving definitions to'. This is exactly what I mean.


Ok. But this breaking things down can go on indefinitely, and is almost always irrelevant.

You could maybe try something like, agree that not all government action is equally oppressive, or, say you disagree, then say why either way. Then we could discuss that.

Instead, you seem to want to just contradict every statement I make, and a lot of the time you do it by taking what, to my mind, is a very disingenuous approach. That gets boring. It's not a debate it's an inquisition by someone who never says anything and appears not to be overly genuine. If you want to debate for the hell of it - fine. I can do that. But try a little humour sometimes. Add some personality. Something...

You and I must have conversed to the tune of tens of thousands of words at least by now, yet I know nothing of you. No age, no gender, no political ideas, no beliefs. You never seem to say anything other than, "you're wrong."


@nooneinparticular Said
You use vague terms to make a point that you yourself can't define and then get mad at me for not being able to guess at what your self admitted hazy terms even mean. It's not my fault your definitions are ill defined.


No. I can define these terms but the definition is by and large irrelevant.

For example, I do not need to clearly define what is and is not oppressive legislation from governments to make the point that protecting free speech is less authoritarian than banning it. If you disagree with that say why. Then we can discuss that.

@nooneinparticular Said
If you wish to have a debate, like you claim, then you need to straighten out your definitions and what they do and do not mean. The alternative is me guessing over and over again while you get increasingly agitated. A situation neither of us wants I'm sure?


Or, maybe you need to work with broader definitions that are based on general principles that can be more acutely defined on the rare occasions it becomes necessary to a point?

We do not need to work out Pi-Pi2(0*0)+1(2)= to figure out one plus one also equals 2.
nooneinparticular On March 16, 2023




, Hawaii
#55New Post! Jun 27, 2019 @ 04:51:44
@bob_the_fisherman Said

Ok. But this breaking things down can go on indefinitely, and is almost always irrelevant.

You could maybe try something like, agree that not all government action is equally oppressive, or, say you disagree, then say why either way. Then we could discuss that.


I agree that not all government action is equally oppressive. Now what?

Quote:

Instead, you seem to want to just contradict every statement I make, and a lot of the time you do it by taking what, to my mind, is a very disingenuous approach. That gets boring. It's not a debate it's an inquisition by someone who never says anything and appears not to be overly genuine. If you want to debate for the hell of it - fine. I can do that. But try a little humour sometimes. Add some personality. Something...


I have a very dry and macbre sense of humor. Using it tends to come off as insulting and demeaning, so I usually don't. Case in point, I actually have used that sense of humor on more than one occasion, but you've only ever interpreted it as taking pot shots at you, so I stopped.

Quote:

You and I must have conversed to the tune of tens of thousands of words at least by now, yet I know nothing of you. No age, no gender, no political ideas, no beliefs. You never seem to say anything other than, "you're wrong."


Then you've clearly not been paying attention. Over all the correspondences I can remember having with you, I've actually revealed quite a lot about myself. Maybe not age or gender, but I've not held back on my beliefs, political or otherwise.

I despise hypocrisy. I've actually straight up told you this on more than 1 occasion. I've also told you before that I despise hypocrisy because it allows you to lie to yourself and justify all manner of idiotic or self-defeating beliefs.

I've also expressed to you my opinion about religion and morality. That it is a crutch humans use to not feel alone and helpless. That the moral edicts handed down through their teachings are unprovable and thus are all as equally valid as each other. I believe we talked for some length about moral relativism.

I've also expressed to you, in words and action, that I am fairly Libertarian. I oppose isolationist policies like closing borders and authoritarian policies like moral guardianship.

Quote:

No. I can define these terms but the definition is by and large irrelevant.

For example, I do not need to clearly define what is and is not oppressive legislation from governments to make the point that protecting free speech is less authoritarian than banning it. If you disagree with that say why. Then we can discuss that.

Or, maybe you need to work with broader definitions that are based on general principles that can be more acutely defined on the rare occasions it becomes necessary to a point?

We do not need to work out Pi-Pi2(0*0)+1(2)= to figure out one plus one also equals 2.


The problem is that I don't really know what that entails. You speak as though you are a left leaning libertarian, yet the beliefs you fall back on when challenged are largely authoritarian.
bob_the_fisherman On January 30, 2023
Anatidaephobic





, Angola
#56New Post! Jun 28, 2019 @ 07:37:23
@nooneinparticular Said

I agree that not all government action is equally oppressive. Now what?


Now we probably go back to the original point I was making a few thousand words ago before this pointless tangent that you have now admitted was a pointless tangent.

When I have time, I will find it what it was and get back to you
mrmhead On about 21 hours ago




NE, Ohio
#57New Post! Jun 28, 2019 @ 12:03:46
Oh s***!

I just realized I had a magnet in my pocket and I've been wandering in circles for years!
nooneinparticular On March 16, 2023




, Hawaii
#58New Post! Jul 06, 2019 @ 00:57:47
@bob_the_fisherman Said

Now we probably go back to the original point I was making a few thousand words ago before this pointless tangent that you have now admitted was a pointless tangent.

When I have time, I will find it what it was and get back to you


When did I admit that? The statement you quoted does not in any way contradict anything I have stated.
chaski On about 9 hours ago
Stalker





Tree at Floydgirrl's Window,
#59New Post! Jul 06, 2019 @ 01:53:03
@nooneinparticular Said

When did I admit that? The statement you quoted does not in any way contradict anything I have stated.


There was a scene in the movie Pulp Fiction... one character asks another, "in a conversation do you listen, or do you wait to speak?"

The second character answered, "I wait to speak, but I'm trying to learn how to listen."

(Or something like that.)

It seems to me that this sort of thing happens a lot... even here on a forum site where a person has more than enough time to read... and maybe re-read a post before responding.

And then the misunderstandings kick in... the topic drift begins...

Note: I admit to being guilty of this.
bob_the_fisherman On January 30, 2023
Anatidaephobic





, Angola
#60New Post! Jul 06, 2019 @ 03:45:09
@nooneinparticular Said

When did I admit that? The statement you quoted does not in any way contradict anything I have stated.


It was the implication I chose to elicit from your response without drawing this out further.

You seemed to suggest initially that all government action is authoritarian (possibly when speaking of Ayn Rand, from memory). But you have also conceded now that this is false. I figured we would just leave it and move on. Although I have really lost the tone of the debate now and don't really have time to read back through it all...
Reply to Topic<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>
Pages: << · 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 · >>

1 browsing (0 members - 1 guest)

Quick Reply
Politics Forum - Some Rudeness Allowed

      
Subscribe to topic prefs

Similar Topics
    Forum Topic Last Post Replies Views
New posts   Breaking Up
Tue Oct 14, 2008 @ 16:53
42 2677
New posts   Racism
Sat Feb 28, 2015 @ 15:55
0 275
New posts   Politics
Fri Sep 21, 2007 @ 00:30
22 1062
New posts   US Elections
Wed Oct 15, 2008 @ 20:49
19 1109
New posts   Random
Sat Aug 12, 2006 @ 04:03
18 862