Jump to content

Rape By Migrants Isn't As Bad.


betsy

Recommended Posts

Only if they decide to interpret their holy doctrine in such a way that they hurt people. Same with Christianity and Judaism.

So you think Christianity and Judaism are also dangerous?

Do you think only Muslims interpret their religion in a way to hurt people?

I ask because you went out of your way to say: "Islam is dangerous" but not other religions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you think Christianity and Judaism are also dangerous?

Do you think only Muslims interpret their religion in a way to hurt people?

I ask because you went out of your way to say: "Islam is dangerous" but not other religions.

Based on current events. If you think Christianity and/or Judaism is more dangerous than Islam right now you're free to say so.

I only mentioned the other two because you asked me about them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on current events. If you think Christianity and/or Judaism is more dangerous than Islam right now you're free to say so.

I only mentioned the other two because you asked me about them.

I don't think any religion is "more" dangerous than the other. That wasn't what I said, anyway. You said "Islam is dangerous" which separated Muslims from other people. I asked you if you also thought Christianity and Judaism are also dangerous. After how many posts now have you failed to respond to a simple question, instead of dancing around it?

Do you think Christianity and Judaism are dangerous, just like you think Islam is?

Personally, I don't think any of the religions are dangerous. People can and will find any excuse to hurt people if that's what they want to do. Whether it's a religion or other reasons.

Contrary to what you believe, Islam doesn't have a monopoly on violence and killings. You believe that it does because you elect to turn a blind eye to what the West has done through military and political means. You have turned a blind eye and have given a pass to West's part in creating an atmosphere for extremism to expand. A perfect example of this is how ISIS came to where it is in Iraq. Your failure to bring this into the conversation and equation is yet another problem with your weak stance.

What the U.S. and allies have done in Iraq and Afghanistan is a perfect example of this. What the Israelis have done to the Palestinians is another. One country is a so-called Christian majority and the other is Jewish.

I say again, if Islam/Muslims are to be held accountable for a small gang of Muslim criminals whom no one elected as their representative, then why should Western liberal democracies and the Western people not be held accountable for mass murderers like Tony Blair and George W Bush who were in fact fairly and freely elected by the free will of UK and US citizens to be their representatives?

Edited by marcus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think any religion is "more" dangerous than other. That wasn't what I said, anyway. You said "Islam is dangerous" which separated Muslims from other people. I asked you if you also thought Christianity and Judaism are also dangerous. After how many posts now have you failed to respond to a simple question, instead of dancing around it?

Do you think Christianity and Judaism are dangerous, just like you think Islam is?

Personally, I don't think any of the religions are dangerous. People can and will find any excuse to hurt people if that's what they want to do. Whether it's a religion or other reasons, like "self defense" or "collateral damage".

Contrary to what you believe, Islam doesn't have a monopoly on violence and killings. You believe that it does because you elect to turn a blind eye to what the West has done through military and political means. You have turned a blind eye and have given a pass to West's part in creating an atmosphere for extremism to expand. A perfect example of this is how ISIS came to where it is in Iraq. Your failure to bring this into the conversation and equation is yet another problem with your weak stance.

What the U.S. and allies have done in Iraq and Afghanistan is a perfect example of this. What the Israelis have done to the Palestinians is another. One country is a so-called Christian majority and the other is Jewish.

I say again, if Islam/Muslims are to be held accountable for a small gang of Muslim criminals whom no one elected as their representative, then why should Western liberal democracies and the Western people not be held accountable for mass murderers like Tony Blair and George W Bush who were in fact fairly and freely elected by the free will of UK and US citizens to be their representatives?

The answer to your first question is none, I believe. I did answer it. I said:

Only if they decide to interpret their holy doctrine in such a way that they hurt people. Same with Christianity and Judaism.

That was in answer to your previous question on the point. I think it was your first. I don't remember dancing, but who knows? I certainly don't see it as being a failure to answer the question. The first sentence was with regard to Muslims, of course.

The problem is that you want to believe in some kind of religious equivalence that is utterly preposterous at the moment. Anyone should be able to see that. It should also be obvious, that with the condition I imposed on my view, Islam is far more dangerous than the other religions you asked about. Feel free to disagree with my view, or my condition.

Also, if you would indulge me, explain from where you deduced what I believe? How does the West take the blame for the murder of cartoonists, or bloggers, or Glaswegian shopkeepers?

As to ISIS, your position then is, the people of Nice elected a government that did whatever it did, so they deserved what they got?

I don't argue that the west is blameless in the Middle East. I do argue that innocent people should not be the targets when trying for redress.

I also argue that there is more to the egregious nature of those who intepret Islam dangerously than just ISIS. It's a copout to say that those who are critical of Islam are comparing the nutjobs of ISIS to everyday Muslims and leave it at that. It's the nutjobs who think there should be actual physical punishment for breaking the rules of the religion that are just as open to criticism, ridicule and contempt.

Edited by bcsapper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It must be true that there's an influx of rape going on in some hot spots in Europe.

Otherwise, why would this feminist Swedish MP make such a statement that actually tries to give excuses to rapes committed by MUSLIM migrants?

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/214479

So, a bunch of foreign men molest and rape 40 women at a Swedish music festival. And where is a report by the media on this incident? They are quiet as a mouse. But let a bunch of white men molest and rape 40 non-white women and of course the western lame duck corporate media would then go ballistic, and report the incident for weeks there after. Hey everyone, we have a white racist story to report here. Report it now for the rest of the world to know. It is so typical of the western corporate media not to report on events like this that are being committed by foreigners all over Europe. I guess that reporting this incident is of no importance to them. The mentality of the western media is that non-whites can do no harm to anyone. They are all suppose to be deemed to be nice and caring and loving and kind. Ya sure. Chuckle-chuckle.

Source: World News July 7, 2016 and The Right Edition, a Conservative website.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agenda 21 is aimed world-wide.

But yes, Canada is a leader among sheeples - the taking of Canada went so easy - for once, we can be proud

of that leadership! :lol:

Religion was the first target. Without any moral compass, the person becomes so maleable.

What more when they use self-gratification as a carrot to suck people in.

I would like to suggest to members here to go check out Agenda 21 on the internet. I said I would like too suggest that but somehow I doubt that would happen by many. They would probably say, hey, I did not see that on the news today. We truly are a land of we the sheeples. Most just cannot seem to get past the mainstream media and it's lies and cover ups. Yes, indeed the taking of Canada was easy-peasy stuff for the elite zionist globalists. What father Trudeau started but did not get to see his plans for Canada completed, his child will, and his child will complete those plans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know several Muslims who have 'embraced the Western culture' and are not considered apostates. Just like Christians in Western countries who go to church, pray, celebrate their religious traditions, and live according to their religious beliefs so do Muslims go to Mosque, pray, celebrate their religious traditions and live according to their religious beliefs.

They are in Canada! When I say embrace the western culture, it means doing what westerners do!

They're considered apostates by ISIS, and other fundamentalists!

Why do think there are honor killings done here too? Recently, the trial of Muslim parents, killing their children, because they behave like western teens! Here's another one:

Father says killed daughter in Canadian hijab case

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-crime-hijab-idUSN1151774720071211

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not only the Muslim males, folks.

French women furious after 'Muslim girl-gang' attacks 'immoral' sunbather for wearing a bikini in a public park

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Theresa May could be just like any other pansies in European politics.

Theresa May’s Sharia courts review branded a whitewash

“They claim that by appointing an Islamic scholar as chair and placing two imams in advisory roles, the panel’s ability to make an impartial assessment of how religious arbitration is used to the detriment of women’s rights will be seriously compromised.” Of that there can be no doubt. That a politician so severely compromised and indefatigably intent upon appeasing Islamic supremacist interests as Theresa May would be the most likely next Prime Minister of Great Britain demonstrates how far Britain has fallen, and how desperately needed is a sweeping-out of its political elites.

Sharia councils have no enforcement powers and operate on a voluntary basis with consent of both parties. Sharia law does not supersede UK law. Either party, if dissatisfied should be able to seek redress in the UK courts. However some women who attend sharia councils are not aware of their rights or are cowed by community or religious pressures.

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/07/theresa-mays-sharia-courts-review-branded-a-whitewash

With all the intelligence they've got, surely they know that Muslim women are most likely to be intimidated by males.

Why Sharia Law is even accepted in UK at all.......just shows how far gone UK is.

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what happens when you make citizens of people that's a contradiction to the host nation's values. They'll use your own court system to challenge you! No wonder Switzerland doesn't give out citizenship without ensuring the migrant had indeed assimilated......you're stuck with them for life!

Hussein Hamdani says that blocking Sharia law in Ontario would lead to a court challenge under the Canadian Charter of Rights that the government would lose

Quebec’s move to ban Islamic law in that province — and criticizing its application anywhere in Canada — has delighted women’s groups fighting to block the controversial legal system in Ontario.

“Something amazing has happened,” said Homa Arjomand, the Toronto-based co-ordinator of the Campaign Against Sharia Court in Canada. “I think this will be a push for the Ontario government to agree that religion should stay out of provincial law.”

Islamic law, or Sharia, is a 1,400-year-old system of jurisprudence based on the Koran, the sayings and conduct of the prophet Mohammed and the rulings of Islamic scholars.

Ontario Attorney General Michael Bryant, along with Sandra Pupatello, minister responsible for women’s issues, are reviewing a recommendation that Ontario allow family law matters to formally be resolved using traditional religious arbitrators.

“Ontario is not being courageous enough in making a decision based on what is the right thing to do,” said Alia Hogben, executive director of the Canadian Council of Muslim Women, another group fighting Sharia’s formal introduction in Ontario.

http://pointdebasculecanada.ca/hussein-hamdani-says-that-blocking-sharia-law-in-ontario-would-lead-to-a-court-challenge-under-the-canadian-charter-of-rights-that-the-government-would-lose/

That was in 2005. It's interesting to see that Quebec criticized the application of Sharia Law anywhere in Canada - indicates that there could've been some places that quietly allows it.

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hundreds of GTA Muslim men in polygamous marriages -- some with a harem of wives -- are receiving welfare and social benefits for each of their spouses, thanks to the city and province, Muslim leaders say.

Mumtaz Ali, president of the Canadian Society of Muslims, said wives in polygamous marriages are recognized as spouses under the Ontario Family Law Act, providing they were legally married under Muslim laws abroad.

"Polygamy is a regular part of life for many Muslims," Ali said yesterday. "Ontario recognizes religious marriages for Muslims and others."

He estimates "several hundred" GTA husbands in polygamous marriages are receiving benefits. Under Islamic law, a Muslim man is permitted to have up to four spouses.

However, city and provincial officials said legally a welfare applicant can claim only one spouse. Other adults living in the same household can apply for welfare independently.

http://cnews.canoe.com/CNEWS/Canada/2008/02/08/4834833-sun.html

Is polygamy sort of legal now? The law looks the other way? They're just working around the system to be able to make claims?

We can't have a double standard when it comes to laws!

If polygamy is allowed for one group - it should be allowed for anyone who wants to be polygamous.

The study below was done in 2008.

Strong support for Shariah in Canada

OTTAWA - A newly released survey suggests a large number of Muslims living in Canada will not disown Al-Qaida.

The study, conducted by the MacDonald Laurier Institute, found 65% of Muslims questioned said they would “repudiate absolutely” the terrorist organization, while 35% would not do so.

The survey, which was released Tuesday, found 62% wanted some form of Shariah law in Canada, 15% of them saying it should be mandatory for all Muslims.

The report also states support for extremism is just as high among Muslims born in Canada, or other Western countries, as it is among those hailing from oppressive dictatorships.

The study was funded by the University of Maryland for the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism. The institute could not find funding for the study in Canada.

http://www.torontosun.com/2011/11/01/strong-support-for-shariah-in-canada

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The people of Iraq did not choose to embrace sectarian hatred. That is such typical nonsense.

They supported intransigent, intolerent leaders of their own religious groups.

U.S.' actions in Iraq created a power vacuum where several different sects and outside parties began to fight over control and power. ISIS ended up coming on top, thanks to this power vacuum created and financial support from U.S. and Israel's good friend, Saudi.

There was a power vacuum in the UK last month. Did you see any violence?

As to Syria, the unrest has a lot to do with the West. It would help for you to learn a little about the region before making comments about it.

To you, everything is the West's fault. I wonder why you don't simply call for all third world people be put under UN trusteeship since not one of them is capable of making a decision themselves. No, every decision is because of the West. You sure don't have much respect for people who aren't white.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, when you said "Islam is dangerous", you misspoke, eh? Because over a billion Muslims choose to interpret Islam in a non-dangerous way. Over a billion Muslims who follow the religion of Islam neither practice nor condone terrorism.

But hundreds of millions of them condone religious extremism, and barbaric cultural practices. They are violently intolerant to other religions or to cultural practices which go against their own religious beliefs. It is this group which is the core of support for terrorism, if not for their actions, then for the goals of terrorists.

Edited by Argus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is it important to specify a 'group' when pointing out abhorrent behavior? Wouldn't headlines screaming "Extremists Hurl Bombs at Police" get the point across that extremists are extreme? Currently, every time a Muslim does something violent, his religion is highlighted. Why don't news headlines do the same for white guys --- "White man defrauds seniors of life savings"; "Three white men arrested robbing bank"; "White man holds girl captive for 18 years; fathers 2 children"; "White man shoots wife/daughter"; "13 White men arrested in pedophilia ring" "White man shoots 70 people; 12 die". If every crime that involved a white guy generated headlines pointing out that he was "white", who would look more violent - white guys or Muslims?

And if you think that people don't assume *all* Muslims as violent as the headlines inform them, you aren't paying attention. At least two people on this forum have made the statement that if a Muslim isn't being violent, he's not a true Muslim. Not to mention a particular presidential candidate got support for suggesting he'd refuse entry to Muslims, and register the ones who are already in his country. What is that if not belief by a significant number of people that all or most Muslims are inherently violent?

You do realize Islam is a religion/political system....right?

Edited by DogOnPorch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They supported intransigent, intolerent leaders of their own religious groups.

The Yazidi leaders and several other groups who have been plowed by ISIS throughout Iraq and Syria fought back against ISIS but we have seen the results.

There was a power vacuum in the UK last month. Did you see any violence?

Seriously? You want to use that as a comparison? Did a country go into the UK and completely decimate the infrastructure with bunker busters and the political system?

This one was definitely one of your true gems.

To you, everything is the West's fault. I wonder why you don't simply call for all third world people be put under UN trusteeship since not one of them is capable of making a decision themselves. No, every decision is because of the West. You sure don't have much respect for people who aren't white.

What desperate gibberish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But hundreds of millions of them condone religious extremism, and barbaric cultural practices. They are violently intolerant to other religions or to cultural practices which go against their own religious beliefs. It is this group which is the core of support for terrorism, if not for their actions, then for the goals of terrorists.

Lots of nice Nazis, too. Oskar Schindler for example...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Yazidi leaders and several other groups who have been plowed by ISIS throughout Iraq and Syria fought back against ISIS but we have seen the results.

We're not talking of ISIS but of the disintegration of law and order which allowed for ISIS to take so much territory. And remember that ISIS soldiers were always hugely outnumbered by government soldiers, who had far better equipment, too. It's just that the government soldiers broke and ran, in part because instead of being led by strong leaders they were led by croneys of the government who knew little about leadership or soldiering.

Seriously? You want to use that as a comparison? Did a country go into the UK and completely decimate the infrastructure with bunker busters and the political system?

But the US rebuilt Iraq and its institutions. The reason Iraq failed to withstand ISIS was internal incompetence and corruption. They spent years more trying to help Iraqis rebuild than they ever did with, say, Japan. The difference is Iraqis insisted on slaughtering each other, and their leaders were more interested in stealing everything not nailed down than helping the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're not talking of ISIS but of the disintegration of law and order which allowed for ISIS to take so much territory. And remember that ISIS soldiers were always hugely outnumbered by government soldiers, who had far better equipment, too. It's just that the government soldiers broke and ran, in part because instead of being led by strong leaders they were led by croneys of the government who knew little about leadership or soldiering.

We are talking about ISIS who were made of former Iraqi military men under Saddam and people from around the region, coming in to so-called 'liberate' the region from the infidels.

You can't just go into a country, decimate everything, make a mess and then expect for the country to miraculously come out of the ashes and become a working system. That's pure fantasy. The Iraqi army was made from inexperienced boys, with no prior experience and who were just looking for something to pay for their family's meals. They had no chance against ISIS.

You fail to understand that the gift wrapped package handed to the Iraqi people by the U.S. was a big box of manure.

But the US rebuilt Iraq and its institutions. The reason Iraq failed to withstand ISIS was internal incompetence and corruption. They spent years more trying to help Iraqis rebuild than they ever did with, say, Japan. The difference is Iraqis insisted on slaughtering each other, and their leaders were more interested in stealing everything not nailed down than helping the country.

Wow buddy.

Another example of your 'feelings' creeping into the discussion, presented by you as fact.

It looks like you have no clue what has unfolded in Iraq.

I'm not going to sit here and point out to every mistake you make, instead, have a read if you care to learn:

The Failed Reconstruction of Iraq

Bowen's report indirectly assigns blame for mismanaging the endeavor to the Bush White House, which had the authority to force U.S. government agencies to coordinate their work but failed to exercise it. Instead, he points out, no single office was assigned to lead the effort, making stovepiping -- a myriad of narrowly focused efforts -- "the apt descriptor," the report said.

But the largest responsibility for the screw-up lies generally at the Pentagon and particularly in the Army, according to the report. The Defense Department "held decisive sway over $45 billion (87 percent) of the roughly $52 billion allocated to the major rebuilding funds that supported Iraq's reconstruction."

Why did the US fail in Iraq? Roots of American Overstretch

“imagine how [much] harder it would be…to recruit talented military officers if plum generalships were handed out to amateurs who had never worn a uniform.”

Edited by marcus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are talking about ISIS who were made of former Iraqi military men under Saddam and people from around the region, coming in to so-called 'liberate' the region from the infidels.

You can't just go into a country, decimate everything, make a mess and then expect for the country to miraculously come out of the ashes and become a working system. That's pure fantasy.

Really? Happened in Japan. Happened in West Germany. But then the Japanese and West Germans didn't spend most of their time trying to kill each other, and their politicians were more interested in rebuilding the country than getting rich. I'm not going to say for a second the U.S. didn't screw things up in a myriad of ways. But ultimately, the decision to pick up AK-47s and kill each other was made by Iraqis, and there is where the responsibility mainly lies. The US provided years of effort and expense and the Iraqis largely failed to take advantage of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? Happened in Japan. Happened in West Germany. But then the Japanese and West Germans didn't spend most of their time trying to kill each other, and their politicians were more interested in rebuilding the country than getting rich. I'm not going to say for a second the U.S. didn't screw things up in a myriad of ways. But ultimately, the decision to pick up AK-47s and kill each other was made by Iraqis, and there is where the responsibility mainly lies. The US provided years of effort and expense and the Iraqis largely failed to take advantage of that.

Fantasy again.

You cannot compare Japan and Germany to Iraq for many reasons. Some being:

- You didn't have outside forces and insurgencies coming into play

- The old system, including the heads of governments, police and military were not removed by the U.S., where in Iraq, they were

- Those are countries which were made up one group of people. Iraq has several tribes, with many different beliefs. Many wanted some power back, after many years of Saddam not allowing them to.

- The transition system was actually done quite well by the former U.S. governments in Japan and Germany. They were competent, unlike in Iraq

Before you press reply and respond with another fantasy, read. I am not going to continuously respond to someone who does not take the time to learn about what he is trying to debate.

Edited by marcus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I understanding this right? Is our Prime Minister sort of making excuses for terrorists?

We, and our allies are to blame?

What should be even more disturbing is that he gets it but still intends to stay involved.

That is like a rebuke to our allies - that's how I'm understanding that. I wonder what our allies are saying behind his back!

You should see what advocates of pot legalization are saying directly to this weenies two faced hypocrisy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ii support BC Sapper's comments totally. At the present time, it is far less likely someone in the name of Christianity or Judaism is going

to engage in terrorism.

Any religion is dangerous if in the hands of an extremist and on that point Bc Sapper has not said otherwise.

Trying to pigeon hole him as saying something he did not won't work. Its possible to say Islam as a religion is dangerous without hating all Muslims.

Extremist Judaism is dangerous. Extremist Christianity is dangerous. Any rigid ideology can ferment violence and intolerance.

Extremist Jews on the West Bank exasperate tensions with Palestinians making it easy for Palestinian terrorists to justify hating all Jews.

Extremist Christians have shot innocent people in the name of Jesus against abortion.

No one is saying otherwise, This attempt to pigeon hole BC Sapper is not working.

Ismaili Muslims, Amidyah Muslims, progressive Muslims agree with us. They are ju

30 Muslims died in the latest idiocy in Nice.

No one denies that and the irony in it.

Some of us categorically reject the Obama position as parroted by Trudeau that we erase the word before terrorism as Muslim if the terrorist was one.

The fact is Muslim ideology is fueling terrorism, To deny that is pointless.

If a specific religious ideology is fueling terrorism hiding the name of that religion is dumb as hell particularly when the screams of Allah Akbar are spewed out into the air.

If the religion is being hijacked by Muslim extremists, we have the right to say so and let non extremist Muslims know we are on their side. Staying silent only empowers extremist Muslims and makes non extremist Muslims feel powerless.

Those of us who denounce Muslim extremism welcome progressive Muslim beliefs if they exist. Show where BC Sapper or I or Argus or the others on this board who call out Muslim extremism put down progressive Muslims. We don't.

Its not BC Sapper or I or Argus who stereotype Muslims, its the Muslim terrorist apologists on this board who try use the Muslim religion as a shield, a crutch to deny arguments against terrorism. Look at their posts and how they stereotype Muslims as idiots whose only choice is terror when encountering non Muslims or fellow Muslims and blaming their choice to use terrorism on Jews, Europeans. Americans but interestingly never Japanese, Russia, Chinese, just Euros, Yanks and Jews.

I blame people from Tonga. Why? Because I love saying the word Tonga. It sounds like a dance, a sexual apparatus or someone sneezing and it makes as much sense.

Tonga. Tongites are to blame.Its all their fault. Either that or Fiji Islanders or the Moldive Islanders or Syechelles inhabitants or New York Islanders or hey people from Prince Edward Island or the Hawaiian Islands or Malta or Elba or hey Jamaicans or maybe

Tahittians.

Edited by Rue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact is Muslim ideology is fueling terrorism, To deny that is pointless.

How did Muslim become an ideology?

In any case Muslim terrorism is the result of a list of causes at the top of which is western interference in Muslim affairs. To deny otherwise is just plain stupid, amongst other things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, I'd rather take all moral conservatives and members of every fundamental religion put them on their own Island, let them fight it out. Cause you know, they'd be at each other's throat about the "right* way, and/or who God says is right .... there's a great cartoon I saw about this the other day. Google "This land is mine" by Nina Paley.

I'd rather all religious conservatives - except Muslims - remove and exile themselves to an island. We'll just go by the sidelines and watch what happens next to all you folks - feminists, lgbt, abortionists,....and progressive liberals.

So much for all your talk.....you'll all become religious! Or, you're all dead.

Here, another refugee that recently did some slashing attacks!

Germany: Another Refugee-Terrorist Attack

The refugee-terrorist Muhammad Riyad had been living in Würzburg since March, Die Welt newspaper reported, and after staying in refugee accommodation for several months, he had moved to live with a “foster family” in the nearby town of Ochsenfurt just two weeks ago.

http://newobserveronline.com/germany-another-refugee-terrorist-attack/

Edited by betsy
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
      10,742
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    CrazyCanuck89
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • paradox34 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • DACHSHUND went up a rank
      Rookie
    • CrazyCanuck89 earned a badge
      First Post
    • aru earned a badge
      First Post
    • CrazyCanuck89 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
  • Recently Browsing

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