Jump to content

C 440 Sanctuary Bill Dies


Recommended Posts

You seem to be under the impression that someone joins the Armed Forces without the prior knowledge they might be called upon to bear arms or *gasp* use them.

No Waldo, people join with full knowledge of the duties and responsibilities they will be obliged to bear. But people change...some "get religion". The forces defines it as..

And quite frankly, that is the end of story.

no Dancer, as is your way, you simply choose to ignore what's really been stated... which was... that after enlistment/deployment/engagement, the Canadian military offers an outlet for those personnel that might so choose to raise a cause for voluntary release based upon (an after the fact... i.e. after enlistment/deployment/engagement) conscientious objection - one that fits within the criteria offered by the DND-CF. You know... that DND-CF criteria that I quoted, verbatim.

oh... when you stated "get religion" you weren't being literal? :lol: Gee... I didn't recognize that (/snarc). What was it you wanted to say again, Dancer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 117
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

What was it you wanted to say again, Dancer?

I guess I was saying you don't really have a point, given that I did not argue that we didn't have a provision for those whose beliefs drastically alter after enlistment.

In fact, not only does Canada have a mechanism for CO status, so does the US. It is just a very hard argument to make after you have willingly, voluntarily and enthusiastically joined the military.

So the argument stands .."why did you join is you are against war, participated in a war etc etc..."

Proving they had an epiphany...after serving honourably is quite hard...given the criteria that both we and the US use..that the objector must categorically be opposed to war (not just a specific war) and that their beliefs must be consistent and sincere. In short it is hard to convince a panel you oppose war on ethical grounds but have no trouble being unethical personally (desertion, fleeing the country, breaking your oath etc etc)

Like I said, end of story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and both the Canadian Forces and U.S. Military have provisions for applying for and granting conscientious objector status to active deployed soldiers. Off the top I'm more familiar with the wording associated to the Canadian Forces policy... a policy that speaks respectably of a soldiers decision, particularly one taken in the face of or as a result of active engagement. Are you purposely denigrating the Canadian Forces policy... why don't you support the troops?

The policy acknowledges that people sometimes get religion. It does not and is not used for people who get cowardice. There are other avenues for that. Even so, once given CO status it does not mean that a person is discharged or even kept away from combat zones.
"get religion"? Surely you're aware one doesn't need religion, or even to be spiritual. Most certainly, it's not something the Canadian Forces even recognizes... so... why would you? Feel free to offer the Dancer classification of cowardice to any of the following criteria - allowed objections and/or exceptions... it will be interesting to see whether the Canadian Forces are properly factoring the Dancer classification.

You seem to be under the impression that someone joins the Armed Forces without the prior knowledge they might be called upon to bear arms or *gasp* use them.

No Waldo, people join with full knowledge of the duties and responsibilities they will be obliged to bear. But people change...some "get religion".

And quite frankly, that is the end of story.

no Dancer, as is your way, you simply choose to ignore what's really been stated... which was... that after enlistment/deployment/engagement, the Canadian military offers an outlet for those personnel that might so choose to raise a cause for voluntary release based upon (an after the fact... i.e. after enlistment/deployment/engagement) conscientious objection - one that fits within the criteria offered by the DND-CF. You know... that DND-CF criteria that I quoted, verbatim.

oh... when you stated "get religion" you weren't being literal? :lol: Gee... I didn't recognize that (/snarc). What was it you wanted to say again, Dancer?

I guess I was saying you don't really have a point, given that I did not argue that we didn't have a provision for those whose beliefs drastically alter after enlistment.

In fact, not only does Canada have a mechanism for CO status, so does the US. It is just a very hard argument to make after you have willingly, voluntarily and enthusiastically joined the military.

So the argument stands .."why did you join is you are against war, participated in a war etc etc..."

Proving they had an epiphany...after serving honourably is quite hard...given the criteria that both we and the US use..that the objector must categorically be opposed to war (not just a specific war) and that their beliefs must be consistent and sincere. In short it is hard to convince a panel you oppose war on ethical grounds but have no trouble being unethical personally (desertion, fleeing the country, breaking your oath etc etc)

Like I said, end of story.

the point Dancer was to mock your "get religion" epiphany statement... the one you coupled to a cowardice labeling. Let me pointedly highlight you never touched that cowardice reach again... I am, however, still quite interested in having you offer that Dancer classification of cowardice to any of the DND-CF criteria I linked to/quoted from - the allowed objections and/or exceptions... as I said, it will be interesting to see whether the Canadian Forces are properly factoring the Dancer classification of cowardice.

so... you now suggest your real point was that you were simply agreeing with my initial statement, as quoted in this reply. Why didn't you just say so... oh... that's right - you like to dance! I certainly wouldn't accept your pronouncement on the outcome of the military granting a voluntary release based upon conscientious objection. Obviously, both the Canadian and U.S. military acknowledge the need/requirement... unless you provide stats on the application/granting cycle within that provided need/requirement, all you're doing is... continuing your dance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the point Dancer was to mock your "get religion" epiphany statement... the one you coupled to a cowardice labeling. Let me pointedly highlight you never touched that cowardice reach again

I would say it goes without saying that the primary reason for desertion now and in the past is cowardice and not *getting religion*...feel free to mock, seeing that is about all you have to bring to the table because nothing else supports the argument that the deserters are deserving of special status.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the point Dancer was to mock your "get religion" epiphany statement... the one you coupled to a cowardice labeling. Let me pointedly highlight you never touched that cowardice reach again... I am, however, still quite interested in having you offer that Dancer classification of cowardice to any of the DND-CF criteria I linked to/quoted from - the allowed objections and/or exceptions... as I said, it will be interesting to see whether the Canadian Forces are properly factoring the Dancer classification of cowardice.

so... you now suggest your real point was that you were simply agreeing with my initial statement, as quoted in this reply. Why didn't you just say so... oh... that's right - you like to dance! I certainly wouldn't accept your pronouncement on the outcome of the military granting a voluntary release based upon conscientious objection. Obviously, both the Canadian and U.S. military acknowledge the need/requirement... unless you provide stats on the application/granting cycle within that provided need/requirement, all you're doing is... continuing your dance.

I would say it goes without saying that the primary reason for desertion now and in the past is cowardice and not *getting religion*...feel free to mock, seeing that is about all you have to bring to the table because nothing else supports the argument that the deserters are deserving of special status.

desertion? Dancer... you brought up the cowardice labeling in the following quoted exchange where I speak to the application and granting of conscientious objector status with respect to active soldiers... if you're going to make such leaps you really need to flag them. Oh wait, that's right - specificity doesn't fit within your dance card... it's the kind of thing that messes with your favoured routine of clouding a discussion while later dropping down from your perch to dispense an 'end of story' ruling... as you just did. You're a waste of MLW time wasted... carry on.

and both the Canadian Forces and U.S. Military have provisions for applying for and granting conscientious objector status to active deployed soldiers. Off the top I'm more familiar with the wording associated to the Canadian Forces policy... a policy that speaks respectably of a soldiers decision, particularly one taken in the face of or as a result of active engagement. Are you purposely denigrating the Canadian Forces policy... why don't you support the troops?
The policy acknowledges that people sometimes get religion.
It does not and is not used for people who get cowardice
. There are other avenues for that. Even so, once given CO status it does not mean that a person is discharged or even kept away from combat zones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

desertion? Dancer... you brought up the cowardice labeling in the following quoted exchange where I speak to the application and granting of conscientious objector status with respect to active soldiers... if you're going to make such leaps you really need to flag them. Oh wait, that's right - specificity doesn't fit within your dance card... it's the kind of thing that messes with your favoured routine of clouding a discussion while later dropping down from your perch to dispense an 'end of story' ruling... as you just did. You're a waste of MLW time wasted... carry on.

Is this a long winded attempt to cover the fact you don't know what you are talking about?

Since none of the deserters in Canada have been granted CO status, and aren't likly to given their willingness to join the US forces, your continued push on that angle is irrelevant. The simple a plain fact is they are desterers and the normal reason for deserting (as opposed for going awol) is cowardice.

So lets recap...

Waldo mentions breach of contract...agreed, deserters are in breach of contract

Waldo mentions the US unwilling to entertain legalities...false. It was entertained in 2004 much to the amusement of all.

Waldo mentions the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and 1967 Protocol. Article 33....laughter ensues when shown they do not qualify....cowardice is not a protected attribute.

Yes do carry on...I expect nothing but the best formating from you..nothing but

Try bringing something else to the table, your pretty formatting ain't cutting it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why are you even bothering to attempt to save face Dancer? Why even try... that pretty formatting you so decry shows the exact quote sequences... where you speak to cowardice in a direct reply to statements speaking to the application and granting of conscientious objector status with respect to active soldiers. At that stage of the discussion flow, particularly since the DND-CF criteria on conscientious objection were linked to, quoted from and being discussed... where, in fact, you made direct reference to them... deserters weren't in the immediate topic mix. It's unfortunate you can't be bothered to be clear and precise... but, again, that's your forte... that's your strength... that's what allows you to pompously assume your perch - where you, on occasion, come down from above, mix with the common MLW folks and dispense your 'end of story' summation rulings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why are you even bothering to attempt to save face Dancer? Why even try... that pretty formatting you so decry shows the exact quote sequences... where you speak to cowardice in a direct reply to statements speaking to the application and granting of conscientious objector status with respect to active soldiers. At that stage of the discussion flow, particularly since the DND-CF criteria on conscientious objection were linked to, quoted from and being discussed... where, in fact, you made direct reference to them... deserters weren't in the immediate topic mix. It's unfortunate you can't be bothered to be clear and precise... but, again, that's your forte... that's your strength... that's what allows you to pompously assume your perch - where you, on occasion, come down from above, mix with the common MLW folks and dispense your 'end of story' summation rulings.

I am torn between wondering if you are thick or dishonest, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt and call it dishonest. I will repost my original comment about the CO mechanism and deserters, which you apparently claim was not part of the topic.

The policy acknowledges that people sometimes get religion. It does not and is not used for people who get cowardice. There are other avenues for that. Even so, once given CO status it does not mean that a person is discharged or even kept away from combat zones.

To explain further, there is a policy for those who *get religion* have a profound ethical change of heart. There is also a policy for the garden variety coward, those who have a profound change of guts...

The two mechanisms are for two different circumstances.

http://www.admfincs-smafinsm.forces.gc.ca/qro-orf/vol-02/doc/chapter-chapitre-103.pdf

The penalties for cowardice are still in force and so are the regulations covering desertion.

“88. (1) Every person who deserts or attempts to

desert is guilty of an offence and on conviction, if the

person committed the offence on active service or

under orders for active service, is liable to

imprisonment for life or to less punishment and, in

any other case, is liable to imprisonment for a term

not exceeding five years or to less punishment.

http://www.admfincs-smafinsm.forces.gc.ca/qro-orf/vol-02/hv-vh/cha-103/doc/18072008-11092008.pdf

Now the question should be raised, since we too would pursue a deserter, evn if they fled to the US, we would extradite and prosecute, why would we allow the similarly accused not to have their day in court?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The simple a plain fact is they are desterers and the normal reason for deserting (as opposed for going awol) is cowardice.

That might be true of someone afraid of dying in the heat of battle but not when their conscience tells them the service being asked of them is wrong.

I fail to see how in good conscience anyone can avoid giving someone who does the latter the benefit of doubt and simply accept their stated position for what it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I fail to see how in good conscience anyone can avoid giving someone who does the latter the benefit of doubt and simply accept their stated position for what it is.

Because some people lie. I have no doubt that some who have seen combat come back and have a profound change of heart and have the opinion that war, all war, all conflict is immoral and that their value system as a whole has undergone a drastic change. They would be questioned and their values held up to scutiny. I also have no doubt that in most cases of the riff raff we have allowed to wash up on our shore that this is not the case, that their opinion there are right wars and wrong wars....those with that opinion are not conscientious objectors, they are deserters and should be judged that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

did your earlier quote snippets have a question/answer series related to an overall generalized objection to war? No... they did not.

Do you? If not, what are you basing your assertions on? I've provided infomation that says a number of these deserters specifically and only mention their objections to the Iraq War. Segnosaur then provides the additional information I was going to dig up: US army deserters saying they have no qualms with the Afghan War or war in general, just the Iraq War. Hillariously, your only response to that is to proclaim that the words "he does not oppose all wars, but only conflict in Iraq" in their proper context actually mean "he opposes all wars, not just conflict in Iraq."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the problem is (in the US) the rhetoric around the military. I think it's romanticised to a degree where a lot of people truly don't understand what they're signing up for. They're told they're signing up to defend America and Freedom but when they get to Iraq and find out the truth...well...a lot of them seem to have a change of heart.

LOL! Clearly you have not served in any military capacity, and certainly not in the "US". There are a hundred reasons to have a "change of heart", with many service personnel never stepping foot in "Iraq".

Keep on guessing.....it's not all about "Iraq".

Edited by bush_cheney2004
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But why should we not give sanctuary to people who object to just the Iraq War. It is a matter of record that the rationale given was false, by Bush's own admission.

http://intelligence.senate.gov/press/record.cfm?id=298775

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/02/george-bush-iraq-interview

Doesn't seem quite fair to require people to risk their lives in this context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But why should we not give sanctuary to people who object to just the Iraq War. It is a matter of record that the rationale given was false, by Bush's own admission.

Irrelevant....read the damn enlistment contract!

Doesn't seem quite fair to require people to risk their lives in this context.

They volumteered....and took the money / benefits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But why should we not give sanctuary to people who object to just the Iraq War. It is a matter of record that the rationale given was false, by Bush's own admission.

http://intelligence.senate.gov/press/record.cfm?id=298775

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/02/george-bush-iraq-interview

Doesn't seem quite fair to require people to risk their lives in this context.

Because it is neither ours or the soldiers position to judge whether the US made the right choice or not.

When the civilian signed the enlistment contract he did not sign to fight in wars that he agreed with...but to fight at his governments direction, they do not get to chose ....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also have no doubt that in most cases of the riff raff we have allowed to wash up on our shore that this is not the case, that their opinion there are right wars and wrong wars....those with that opinion are not conscientious objectors, they are deserters and should be judged that way.

Yes, and that is precisely the point that waldo is now twirling in circles to avoid. Going back to the Canadian Forces regulations for conscientious objector status: "An objection based primarily on one or more of the following does not permit voluntary release on the basis of a conscientious objection: participation or use of arms in a particular conflict or operation." For some of these would be refugees, their own words are on record expressing that, as you put it, "there are right wars and wrong wars." For others, the same message comes through in their silence on other wars and war in general. If such individuals wouldn't be released from the Canadian Forces if they were Canadians, why should they be accepted into Canada as refugees because the United States army has the same policy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, yes, I read the enlistment contract and it is quite clear. This is a messy situation, where it does seem that people can be pressured and/or misled into joining a military to fight potentially unjust wars, but you're right that they are adults who are making voluntary choices to sign a contract. Hm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, yes, I read the enlistment contract and it is quite clear. This is a messy situation, where it does seem that people can be pressured and/or misled into joining a military to fight potentially unjust wars, but you're right that they are adults who are making voluntary choices to sign a contract. Hm.

How can you be pressured? Join the military or ....or what? Join the military or you will have to get a job where you will be forced to work in a nice office... where everyone heads down to the bar on fridays....where you can quit anytime you want and work somewhere else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can you be pressured? Join the military or ....or what? Join the military or you will have to get a job where you will be forced to work in a nice office... where everyone heads down to the bar on fridays....where you can quit anytime you want and work somewhere else?

I don't know that that necessarily seems like the alternative for people in some of the particular communities that recruiters target...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Irrelevant....read the damn enlistment contract!

I believe new recruits have to state at the outset whether they are a conscientious objector, and for what reason. I also think that conscientious objectors are not necessarily rejected as applicants if the US military needs members with specific skills that can be employed in non-combat jobs. I gleaned this information from reading the following document.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/7750008/The-Conscientious-Objector

They volumteered....and took the money / benefits.

It looks like some volunteered specifically with that purpose in mind. Kinda two faced, I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps, but if you allow for some process to double check the facts, the wisdom and the measure of the people who are encouraging war, it would be a lot harder to start it on false pretences. Please note we are talking here about a military invasion of another people's country halfway around the planet not an immanent invasion by another. There is and always will be all the time any country or people need to think twice if not more before invading someone else.

So you're saying it's OK with you if military volunteers can get the full benefit of paid education and career training and then welch on the obligation to served, citing a policy disagreement as the excuse? Maybe universal higher education is a good thing, bt it should be done openly, not in the guise of military recruitment.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

why are you even bothering to attempt to save face Dancer? Why even try... that pretty formatting you so decry shows the exact quote sequences... where you speak to cowardice in a direct reply to statements speaking to the application and granting of conscientious objector status with respect to active soldiers. At that stage of the discussion flow, particularly since the DND-CF criteria on conscientious objection were linked to, quoted from and being discussed... where, in fact, you made direct reference to them... deserters weren't in the immediate topic mix. It's unfortunate you can't be bothered to be clear and precise... but, again, that's your forte... that's your strength... that's what allows you to pompously assume your perch - where you, on occasion, come down from above, mix with the common MLW folks and dispense your 'end of story' summation rulings.

I am torn between wondering if you are thick or dishonest, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt and call it dishonest. I will repost my original comment about the CO mechanism and deserters, which you apparently claim was not part of the topic.

I'll just flat out state you're an idiot... more pointedly, an idiot attempting to save face over a discussion flow you tripped over. I've already repeated the exact quote sequence, several times now... have another, as follows. Again, the direct immediate discussion was on conscientious objection - as applicable to active service personnel - not deserters. That's exactly what the DND-CF criteria apply towards - active service personnel - not deserters. That's exactly how I presented the DND-CF criteria... in the context of active service personnel - not deserters. You chose to attach a cowardice label... in the context of active service personnel. I challenged you to offer your classification of cowardice to the DND-CF criteria - the criteria that only applies to active service personnel - not deserters.

and both the Canadian Forces and U.S. Military have provisions for applying for and granting conscientious objector status to
active deployed soldiers
. Off the top I'm more familiar with the wording associated to the Canadian Forces policy... a policy that speaks respectably of a soldiers decision, particularly one taken in the face of or as a result of active engagement. Are you purposely denigrating the Canadian Forces policy... why don't you support the troops?
The policy acknowledges that people sometimes get religion. It does not and is not used for people who get cowardice. There are other avenues for that. Even so, once given CO status it does not mean that a person is discharged or even kept away from combat zones.
"get religion"? Surely you're aware one doesn't need religion, or even to be spiritual. Most certainly, it's not something the Canadian Forces even recognizes... so... why would you? Feel free to offer the Dancer classification of cowardice to any of the following criteria - allowed objections and/or exceptions... it will be interesting to see whether the Canadian Forces are properly factoring the Dancer classification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and if the topic of discussion is about Iraq, and the questions relate directly to Iraq, the response will be... about Iraq. You didn't provide any contextual quote associations that would allow for an overall assessment on objections to war. You're also now repeating the same incorrect capricorn statements that one can't raise a conscientious objector status after enlistment/deployment/engagement... the DND-CF links I provided state otherwise.
did your earlier quote snippets have a question/answer series related to an overall generalized objection to war? No... they did not. Before you go off on another quote pursuit, let me repeat the earlier statement that, apparently, both you and segnosaur missed... remembering that it was I that first offered the clear distinction between generalized overall opposition versus select opposition (where it was I that quoted, verbatim, the delineated DND-CF criteria):

I expect if there is a chance of that subset existing, by at least the Canadian DND-CF policy, they would not be classified as CO's.

Do you? If not, what are you basing your assertions on? I've provided infomation that says a number of these deserters specifically and only mention their objections to the Iraq War. Segnosaur then provides the additional information I was going to dig up: US army deserters saying they have no qualms with the Afghan War or war in general, just the Iraq War. Hillariously, your only response to that is to proclaim that the words "he does not oppose all wars, but only conflict in Iraq" in their proper context actually mean "he opposes all wars, not just conflict in Iraq."

I'm not clear exactly what assertion you're referring to... if it's about conscientious objection, again, none of the quotes you offered had any direct association to/with conscientious objection. One could not determine from your quote snippets whether or not the individuals involved had sought, or were actively seeking, CO status. I'll again direct your attention to the statement you continue to ignore; I pointedly repeated it previously as shown in the instream quote sequence above... this will be the third opportunity for you to read the following:

I expect if there is a chance of that subset existing, by at least the Canadian DND-CF policy, they would not be classified as CO's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, and that is precisely the point that waldo is now twirling in circles to avoid. Going back to the Canadian Forces regulations for conscientious objector status: "An objection based primarily on one or more of the following does not permit voluntary release on the basis of a conscientious objection: participation or use of arms in a particular conflict or operation." For some of these would be refugees, their own words are on record expressing that, as you put it, "there are right wars and wrong wars." For others, the same message comes through in their silence on other wars and war in general. If such individuals wouldn't be released from the Canadian Forces if they were Canadians, why should they be accepted into Canada as refugees because the United States army has the same policy?

twirling in circles? I am heartened to read you referring to the DND-CF policy criteria on conscientious objection (CO)... the criteria I was the first to link to and quote from (verbatim). Where I categorically highlighted the delineation point within that criteria recognizing allowances from exceptions - where I definitively pointed out the distinction between generalized overall objection versus select opposition.

your twirling has you bouncing between speculation and conjecture. Apparently, at least according to your supplied quote snippets, you're ready to pass judgment on all U.S. war resistors - that none of them have an overall objection to war. You don't really know that... your quote snippets don't speak to that... but, what the hey, you've chosen to twirl away in your speculation and conjecture. But you've also upped the ante, proclaiming your speculation and conjecture is worthy of denying refugee status. Well done!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They volunteered....and took the money / benefits.

It looks like some volunteered specifically with that purpose in mind. Kinda two faced, I think.

you were called on this previously - twice before... you're now repeating your purposeful distortion/lie for the third time. I'll simply repeat the same response to you - now for the third time: "CF members who are granted a voluntary release for other than compassionate reasons prior to the expiration of a period of obligatory service are subject to repayment of costs associated with the subsidized education or training or to repayment of the Pilot Terminable Allowance, the Medical Officer Direct Entry Recruitment Allowance or the Dental Officer Direct Entry Recruitment Allowance."

purposeful capricorn distortion/lie #1 occurrence:

The fact that these objectors join anyway is a dead giveaway that they joined for the perks and not for a genuine desire to serve their country.

Here... educate yourself: make sure you pay particular attention to the Obligatory Service section => CF members who are granted a voluntary release for other than compassionate reasons prior to the expiration of a period of obligatory service are subject to repayment of costs associated with the subsidized education or training or to repayment of the Pilot Terminable Allowance, the Medical Officer Direct Entry Recruitment Allowance or the Dental Officer Direct Entry Recruitment Allowance.

- DAOD 5049-2, Conscientious Objection

- DAOD 5049-1, Obligatory Service

purposeful capricorn distortion/lie #2 occurrence:

Once again, I don't care what information the links provide. You are the one who invoked the policy position of DND on the matter of conscientious objectors after I tried to explain to you why I think these objectors are really malingering opportunists.

why do you bother to keep repeating the same thing... you're wrong and you're specifically wrong based on how the DND-CF respect and make allowance for military personnel seeking conscientious objector status. You are most emphatically wrong when you presumed to speak to opportunism (as you've now just done, once again)... as the links provided to you detail, there is no avenue for your specious claims of opportunism. Again, for your edification: "CF members who are granted a voluntary release for other than compassionate reasons prior to the expiration of a period of obligatory service are subject to repayment of costs associated with the subsidized education or training or to repayment of the Pilot Terminable Allowance, the Medical Officer Direct Entry Recruitment Allowance or the Dental Officer Direct Entry Recruitment Allowance."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...