Jump to content

Discrimmination


Recommended Posts

I were the judge in both these situations I would through away the key for the white collar fraud, but I would not sentence the woman to jail time. You would probably call that discrimmination, but I call it judgement. I am not condoning the woman's behaviour, however there are mitigating circumstances in her situation, and she needs help. The white collar crook needs punishment.

Let's see if we have any common ground. You say you would not condone the women's behaviour. Would you condemm it? You would not give her jail time. Would you punish her at all? I understand your point on circumstances, but you at least concede that both behaviours are wrong?

require the wealthy or fortunate to share some of their good luck (it is not hard work that is the difference) with the less fortunate.

I assume you are talking about wealth redistribution. How have you established that wealth is established exclusively by good luck. If someone ends up wealthier because he works 2 jobs for 80 hours a week, why is that good luck. I don't really see how you can establish that the root cause of wealth is good luck. Sometimes it is due to hard work, sometimes due to willingness to take risk, sometimes by choices we make in life, and yes sometimes by good luck. Are you arguing that wealth redistribution is justified because wealth is always due to good luck?

government intervention to redistribute the wealth is like a teacher stopping the school yard bully who is beating up on little kids.

This is not a valid analogy. In your analogy there is a clear set of actions by the perpetrator on the victim. You have not established that anyone who aquires wealth has done so by taking it away from an aggrieved party, as such deserves to be punished by having some of that wealth confiscated.

A more suitable analogy is if a teacher asked all the kids how much lunch money they brought to school, then redistributed the funds so everyone had the same amount. Woiuld you condone such an action?

Just as important is that government is to protect the powerful from the weak. Without that, the weak, the great majority of people, will be forced to use "Force" to obtain their fair share of the benefits of organised society.

It has happened often enough in the past.

Maybe we have some common ground here. It is pragmatic for the more wealthy to share it with the poor, because doing so lessens the likehood that the poor will try to take it by force. By giving the poor some benefits, it also gives them something to lose in case of social uphevial. For the wealthy, the cost of sharing benefits is likely to be less than the cost of increased protection and security to preserve their wealth. This is not a case of right or wrong, this is a cae of pragmatism. So what I'm saying here is that the wealthy have incentive to act in their own self-interest and share benefits. What I advocate is they be allowed to act in their own self-interest voluntarily without government forcibly intervening as is the case today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 106
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Ask the business men who conduct business on the golf course why not the office, or the strip club as they did previously

Ask our new lawyer friend why women are allowed in the derobing closet

You want a deal, want to network, want a story, well, welcome to contemporary ways of making things happen

Sorry, I don't see how this response at all addresses the question asked.

I'll buy though that some men might be uncomfortable with a female present and the clubs should provide this

If you understand that some men might be uncomfortable, and you are suggesting that clubs provide for this, why not be consistant and advocate that male reporters be allowed into female athlete locker rooms and have the clubs provide for that case as well?

No how you would understand that women would scum at priviledges and look forward to fight for access to rights.

If the locker rooms are where the real stories are told, then as far as I am concern reporting from the men’s locker should have no gender.

Instead what we see is yourself arguing that to preserve a male domain. I will draw some conclusion from the link you posted, that when a women enters into the tryrannical domain of cruel men she is an alien.

I can also tell you what men do to each other:

- older males oppress and intimidate younger mates

- older males groom favorable males for succession

- this means that other males are punished and discriminated against

Also means that men are cruel to each other, it also means that this is a consturction of a corporate culture for men, means that men seek to keep out outsiders i.e. women. Also means that men are cruel to some men but cruel to all women.

Let me paint the picture – put a woman into this male cruel corporate culture and see how they struggle. You see women have no alternative but joining the masculine elite on their terms - hence enter the boys locker.

I don’t know where this line came from but I quote that women have no idea how much men hate them. As I gathered a woman trying to influence even a small change is met with serious resistance.

In my opinion women who have emerge leaders in any male domain, politics, business, a traditional profession and even entering the boys locker room, do so because she is stronger than the men in their sphere. She is a professional despite the males display and crude behaviour

Men have dominated and created their own unfree and cruel world of work and wealth. I don't think the males want to enter a female locker other than to count pubic hair.

Women on the other hand, have to set their aspiration to the male status quo in order to be successful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest eureka

Wealth has not always been attained by "good luck," depending on how luck is defined. It, however, is always attained by luck, force, circumstance or accident of birth - accident including genetic inheritance. Risk taking is luck when successful: working two jobs involves luck when so many do not have the "good luck" to have even one decent paying job.

The way of the world has been always to redistribute wealth upwards and the purpose of democratic society, in its economic aspect, is to mitigate against those factors. Otherwise there is no reason for the less fortunate in society to participate in society. It is the weakness with the Libertarian/Anarchist idea that man will always strive for the advantage; for pure self interest that does not recognise communal values.

And no, I do not agree that Mike Harris was implenting the socia; contract and consensus of modern society. Mike Harris was pushing his "luck" in abridging the social contract to redistribute wealth upwards. Mike Harris was using the power of wealth - as America is doing - to enfeeble the "underclass" and, unwittingly, to bring society a step closer to that undesirable class warfare that liberal democracy exists to avoid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll agree with big blue on this one.

Discrimination happens. It'll probably always happen.

That doesn't mean that we wave our hands and give up.

We should do our best to reduce discrimination through policy, law, and being proactive, good citizens.

That means taking on the bad apples in the Toronto Police Force (if anything, they should be punished four times harder because those bad apples taint the entire force and undermine the fabric of society.)

That means speaking out when that guy/gal makes an anti-semetic remark and putting them in their place.

That means enforcing hate speech laws.

That means holding high the Charter and defending human rights for everybody.

------------

I'll just address some of the racist points made by the 'what about white rights' faction of this board:

There is no need to defend 'majority rights' because it is the majority that is doing the majority of the discrimination, infringing on everybody else's rights.

Besides, you shouldn't be attacking those rights....you'll be in the minority someday and everybody will need them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting how this topic seemed to become a very male vs female thing...and I seem to have been drawn into it by RB:

"Ask our new lawyer friend why women are allowed in the derobing closet"

I'm not quite sure I get what is being said here...and in any event, I assure you that I change into my gown in the privacy of my own office, or in the mens locker room at the courthouse (and yes of course there is also a women's locker room).

Further, I can appreciate that systemic inequalities have historically existed between men and women, but today in a country like Canada, I have a very tough time taking comments like the following seriously:

"...men are cruel to some men but cruel to all women."

or

"...put a woman into this male cruel corporate culture and see how they struggle."

or

"I don’t know where this line came from but I quote that women have no idea how much men hate them. As I gathered a woman trying to influence even a small change is met with serious resistance."

With reference to the legal profession, arguably one of the worst historical "old boys clubs" the Chief Justice of Canada's Supreme Court is a woman (as are 3 others of the total 9) and as an Albertan, the Chief Justice of our province is also a woman (as are 7 others of the total 14 on the Court of Appeal...yes that's 8 women to 6 men...in ALBERTA).

To the best of my recollection, our graduating class was approximately 54% women, which is not out of line with many other Canadian law schools, and female Partners are far from an oddity anymore.

Canada has had a female Prime Minister (albeit not much of one) currently has a female Head of State in Governor General Clarkson, and has a number of very influential and powerful women in other government and business positions.

I hate to break it to you, but long gone are the days that you can credibly spew rhetoric in this country about the cruel struggle that women face when trying desperately to succeed in a male world...it's just simply not true anymore...thankfully I might add.

FTA Lawyer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting how this topic seemed to become a very male vs female thing...and I seem to have been drawn into it by RB:

"Ask our new lawyer friend why women are allowed in the derobing closet"

I'm not quite sure I get what is being said here...and in any event, I assure you that I change into my gown in the privacy of my own office, or in the mens locker room at the courthouse (and yes of course there is also a women's locker room).

Further, I can appreciate that systemic inequalities have historically existed between men and women, but today in a country like Canada, I have a very tough time taking comments like the following seriously:

"...men are cruel to some men but cruel to all women."

or

"...put a woman into this male cruel corporate culture and see how they struggle."

or

"I don’t know where this line came from but I quote that women have no idea how much men hate them. As I gathered a woman trying to influence even a small change is met with serious resistance."

With reference to the legal profession, arguably one of the worst historical "old boys clubs" the Chief Justice of Canada's Supreme Court is a woman (as are 3 others of the total 9) and as an Albertan, the Chief Justice of our province is also a woman (as are 7 others of the total 14 on the Court of Appeal...yes that's 8 women to 6 men...in ALBERTA).

To the best of my recollection, our graduating class was approximately 54% women, which is not out of line with many other Canadian law schools, and female Partners are far from an oddity anymore.

Canada has had a female Prime Minister (albeit not much of one) currently has a female Head of State in Governor General Clarkson, and has a number of very influential and powerful women in other government and business positions.

I hate to break it to you, but long gone are the days that you can credibly spew rhetoric in this country about the cruel struggle that women face when trying desperately to succeed in a male world...it's just simply not true anymore...thankfully I might add.

FTA Lawyer

Females running corporations in Canada, the few I can find without digging too deep:

Annette Verschuren - Home Depot Canada

Barbara Thomas - Pillsbury of Canada

Diane McGarry - Xerox Canada

Micheline Bouchard - Motorola Canada

Bobbie Gaunt - Ford Canada

Carly Fiorina - Hewlett Packard Canada

Janice Tomlinson - Chubb Insurance Canada

Sheelagh Whittaker - Electronic Data Systems Canada

Carol Stephenson - Lucent Technologies Canada

Several of these have moved on to run divisions in the United States because these are american companies with head offices in Canada as well. You'll notice these aren't small companies either some of them are Fortune 500 companies.

So much for male dominance, I suppose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

takeanumber, you seem to contridict yourself:

That means holding high the Charter and defending human rights for everybody.
There is no need to defend 'majority rights' because it is the majority that is doing the majority of the discrimination, infringing on everybody else's rights.

Does that mean you are for "defending human rights for everybody" only so long as the are not part of the majority?

Do I read by your statement that you would not protect someone from discrimmination simply because they are a man or caucasian, wheras in similar circumstances you would protect that individual if they were of a different race or gender?

the racist points made by the 'what about white rights' faction of this board

Here is the definition of "racist" from the American Heritage® Dictionary:

racist

adj 1: based on racial intolerance; "racist remarks" 2: discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion [syn: antiblack, anti-Semitic, anti-Semite(a)] n : a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others [syn: racialist]

I have seen no statement which suggest one race is superior to others. If you have point it out. The only statements which I have seen which advocate ideas "discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion" are those which promote favourable treatment for women or other "vunerable" group. So either defend your use of the adjective or withdraw it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RB,

I can't even begin to seriously respond to your post. It is rife with sexist generalizations such as:

I don't think the males want to enter a female locker other than to count pubic hair.

If you have real evidence of how we are putting barriers to women, I would welcome hearing it and we can have a ratiional discussion on how it can be overcome, but please stop with the ridiculous generalizations. It only serves to weaken your argument by pointing out your bias.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wealth has not always been attained by "good luck," depending on how luck is defined. It, however, is always attained by luck, force, circumstance or accident of birth - accident including genetic inheritance. Risk taking is luck when successful: working two jobs involves luck when so many do not have the "good luck" to have even one decent paying job.

eureka, is there ever a case where an individual achieves his wealth by the sweat of his own brow? Is there ever a case where an individual achieves his wealth by investing in his own education to increase his skills, and thus become more valuable in society? By your definition of luck, if a man works hard, he is lucky because he has the opportunity to work hard. This viewpoint seems to discount that anyone has any influence in their wealth by their choices or actions.

When people participate in a lottery, they take a risk by exchanging money for a ticket. If they win, their risk-taking has paid off. By your viewpoint, the lottery participant does not deserve the winnings because the proceeds were obtained by luck, and thus rightly belong to eveyone. So are you advocating that we confiscate the proceeds of lottery winners and redistribute them? If you do, you can clearly see how it would be a disincentive for anyone to even participate in the lottery to begin with.

The way of the world has been always to redistribute wealth upwards and the purpose of democratic society, in its economic aspect, is to mitigate against those factors. Otherwise there is no reason for the less fortunate in society to participate in society. It is the weakness with the Libertarian/Anarchist idea that man will always strive for the advantage; for pure self interest that does not recognise communal values.

Please provide some evidence that this is a purpose of a democratic society. The reason eveyone participates in society, is primarily to better their own self-interest. This is true both for the wealthy as for the poorer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest eureka

Just as many people live in poverty while woping the sweat from their own brows. Hard work is no guarantee of wealth: more often it accompanies poverty and always has.

Please don't say I advocate something unless I have advocated it.

Lottery winnings are not a good example for you. In some countries they are taxed and the winnings therefore redistributed. I do not think that is right, but the redistribution of the earnings from the wealth happens and is fair.

Please provide some evidence that this is a purpose of a democratic society. The reason eveyone participates in society, is primarily to better their own self-interest. This is true both for the wealthy as for the poorer

How is this an argument? The self interest of the poor - the majority - is to curb the excesses of the rich. The self interest of the rich is to maintain their status without having it forcibly taken from them. Thus, the purpose of a democratic society to mitigate the dangers for all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just as many people live in poverty while woping the sweat from their own brows. Hard work is no guarantee of wealth: more often it accompanies poverty and always has.

Of course hard work is not a guarantee of wealth, nor is it the exclusive domain of the wealthy. I have never said that. What I have said is that it is without basis to attribute the accumulation of wealth to simply good luck, and as such warrants redistribution. There are many choices and actions any of us can take in life which will enhance our opportunity to accumulate wealth. Job experience, education, risk-taking are a few examples. You may define luck to include all of these areas, but I do not, and I would guess the population at large does not.

Please don't say I advocate something unless I have advocated it.

When have I done that?

Lottery winnings are not a good example for you. In some countries they are taxed and the winnings therefore redistributed. I do not think that is right, but the redistribution of the earnings from the wealth happens and is fair.

To be honest, I am surprised that lottery winnings are not taxed in Canada. It is an obvious an easy tax grab for the govenrment. When you say that "I do not think that is right", are you saying you are against taxing lottery winnings?

How is this an argument? The self interest of the poor - the majority - is to curb the excesses of the rich. The self interest of the rich is to maintain their status without having it forcibly taken from them. Thus, the purpose of a democratic society to mitigate the dangers for all.

I have not yet made an argument for this. You have made a statement about the purpose of democratic society for which I see no backup or evidence. First, are you saying that the majority of Canada is poor? I would dispute that contention. Most of Canada is middle-class and is relatively affulent. The self interest of the poor is to better their own position. There are many cases where the self-interest of the poor are served by excesses of the rich. (Eg By the wealthy take luxiorious vacations, they have fostered a tourist industry which creates jobs in the service industry. Those jobs serve the self interest of the poor)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To the best of my recollection, our graduating class was approximately 54% women, which is not out of line with many other Canadian law schools, and female Partners are far from an oddity anymore.

Canada has had a female Prime Minister (albeit not much of one) currently has a female Head of State in Governor General Clarkson, and has a number of very influential and powerful women in other government and business positions.

I hate to break it to you, but long gone are the days that you can credibly spew rhetoric in this country about the cruel struggle that women face when trying desperately to succeed in a male world...it's just simply not true anymore...thankfully I might add.

FTA Lawyer

I would like to quote Governor-General Clarkson 2003 when she received her honorary degree from Osgoode Law School.

She said that the male-dominated rules of the legal world have "wrought havoc on women" obliging many to work equally hard for a fraction of what the male made. " It is not surprising to me that many women find it distinctly uncomfortable after a certain number of year to continue to live within a world which basically grants them certain privileges from the height of a masculine world".

Women in professions face the "revolving door syndrome" and plus there is the notion of "mommy track" for the female lawyers

I took noted that the law schools are accepting more females but would also like to say that the culture practice in law firms refuse to change.

Look, 30% of males make partners while only 13% of women are pipelined to senior management are awarded the same, I mean try making 2,000 billable hours otherwise tough luck and what a shame in some areas of law women make 60% of males salaries.

Anyway, since we are talking about discrimination I wanted to mention that the CHRC recieves over 300 sex discrimination complaints each year and 95% of these are filed by females. So while you might want to say women are not struggling I would also point out that a struggle for true equality in not realised and is very far from being over.

What I meant is that we might not want to tolerate discrimination, it does not mean we are free from discrimination.

Let me ask a question:

Do you think there are gender bias against men?

oops, you can't quote my stuff I have not reconcile my biases as I am looking through my feminine lens

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RB, your post is a bit over the top for me. We have come a long way towards equality for women, and there is certainly ground yet to cover, but it is not as bad as you paint, at least in my experience.

I think one of the biggest barriers for women's equality is the moralizing about how they shouldn't work once they have children. When we make it difficult for women to access good child care, and imply that they are not good mothers if they return to work after having children, we are setting them up for dependancy - on their partner, or on the system. Women now spend years in university or college specializing in a career, and often put off having children for several more years while they pursue the wealth that many on this forum have advocated comes from just such hard work. There still is a subtle (or not so subtle) backlash against these women, when men who follow the same path are seen in a much more positive light.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RB, your post is a bit over the top for me. We have come a long way towards equality for women, and there is certainly ground yet to cover, but it is not as bad as you paint, at least in my experience.

I think one of the biggest barriers for women's equality is the moralizing about how they shouldn't work once they have children. When we make it difficult for women to access good child care, and imply that they are not good mothers if they return to work after having children, we are setting them up for dependancy - on their partner, or on the system. Women now spend years in university or college specializing in a career, and often put off having children for several more years while they pursue the wealth that many on this forum have advocated comes from just such hard work. There still is a subtle (or not so subtle) backlash against these women, when men who follow the same path are seen in a much more positive light.

Are you kidding me. Guarantee that women are entering into universities and getting a better education. A huge percentage of females are still concentrated in clerical, and health professions and care giving positions. Plus when they do enter in the professions such as being a doctor, lawyer, engineer, business-women their experiences are totally different from a man. Women still face the glass ceiling and a higher one now. I mean only 11% of women CEO's and executives and you believe we are doing well.

The way I see it is all we do is make slight adjustments and continue to perpetuate females in their traditional roles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you kidding me.  Guarantee that women are entering into universities and getting a better education.  A huge percentage of females are still concentrated in clerical, and health professions and care giving positions.  Plus when they do enter in the professions such as being a doctor, lawyer, engineer, business-women their experiences are totally different from a man.  Women still face the glass ceiling and a higher one now.  I mean only 11% of women CEO's and executives and you believe we are doing well.  

The way I see it is all we do is make slight adjustments and continue to perpetuate females in their traditional roles.

At some point in time you have to stop pointing the finger at discrimination and recognize that woman and men have different needs and that careers that are still dominated by men are that way because woman are not interested in them. No matter how much I tried I could not get my daughter to show the slightest interest in 'engineering' toys like lego and mechano - my nephew, on the other hand, loves them. I simply don't buy the social conditioning from a young age argument - kids are born with certain likes and dislikes and a parent can little to change them.

Note that my anecodotal observations are backed up by numerous scientific studies that show men and women have different interests that would affect career choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually studies I have seen explained that it is almost entirely social conditioning. Girls do better than boys in the sciences up until the age when it is no longer the "in" thing. Boys and gilrs are conditioned very differently from birth.
Girls are better in _everything_ up until puberty because they mature faster - sounds like one of the those studies that looked for facts to back up their hypothesis instead of trying to proove it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest eureka

Women and men also make different conscious choices in life. Choices that are driven by biological needs as much as anything. Women professionals are no longer disadvantaged but they do choose, overwhelmingly, to fulfill the nurturing role in life.

If women doctors or lawyers, for example, make 60% of what males do, then it is because theydo only about 60% of the quantity of work - that, by the way, is not speulation or assumption but researched fact. If women execurives do not, in general, go as far as men, it is also because of lifestyle choices and, often, biology.

RB, you sound like something out of a 1960's Feminist manual. Women have gone a long way beyond that. They have also recognised some of the absurdities and fallacies in those early misanthropists.

Gloria Steinem, for example, once said, regretting her exaggerated militancy, that women would have to study North African women to learn what women are. She seemed to think that Feminism should start all over again with a more rational and understanding base.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Women in professions face the "revolving door syndrome" and plus there is the notion of "mommy track" for the female lawyers

I took noted that the law schools are accepting more females but would also like to say that the culture practice in law firms refuse to change.

Look, 30% of males make partners while only 13% of women are pipelined to senior management are awarded the same, I mean try making 2,000 billable hours otherwise tough luck and what a shame in some areas of law women make 60% of males salaries.

RB,

I don't know where you get your stats from...they may be right, but as usual, percentages are often misleading.

If, in fact, 17% more males than females are becoming partners it is because women are choosing to take another path in their careers for any number of what I imagine are generally good reasons.

At the firm I used to work for in Calgary, women who were senior to me made more than me, women who were junior to me made less than me, and...lo and behold...women who were called to the bar in the same year as me made the exact same as me for base salary.

Lawyers who exceeded their target of 1800 billable hours (male or female) got a bonus equal to 1/3 of the extra revenue they brought in. Lawyers who were not prepared to work so hard (me included) did not get a bonus and were not likely anywhere on the radar screen when it came to partnership. The last two men to be offered partnership put in approximately 2400 and 2200 billable hours respectively, so if you think they were getting favourable treatment your just plain wrong.

The senior partners of the firm started practicing in the early 70's, so they were firmly entrenched in the "old boys club" but have clearly left that mentality behind. Lawyers are hired and promoted based on merit these days, and very little matters as far as gender goes. How else can you account for my stats (which come directly from the Courts themselves) that the Supreme Court has 4 women and 5 men and the Alberta Court of Appeal 8 women and 6 men...I noticed you conveniently ignored these facts in your further rant.

Would you have me believe that these female justices make 60% of what their male counterparts do?

I really am sorry, but if you want to be a crusader on the front lines of women's rights try a place like China who could actually use your tenacity.

FTA Lawyer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RB, did you read my post, beyond where I disagreed with you? I didn't say discrimination against women has been eradicated, I just don't think it is as bad as you portray. Maybe because I am looking at where we have come from, and you are looking at where we still need to go.

For those interested in different perspectives on biology vs. socialization, and the current swing of the pendulum... I'm reading a book right now called "Why Gender Matters: What Parents and Teachers Need to Know About the Emerging Science of Sex Differences," by Leonard Sax. I'm not sold on all of his arguments, but he makes a compelling case for specific biological characteristics and traits that are linked to being male or female. This is not to say one gender is better than the other, or more capable, or deserving of favoured treatment; it is a recognition that there are some biological differences inherent in gender, which we all intuitively know. However, it also recognizes that how society acts on those inherent differences, and the value placed on them, influences attitudes towards, and the experience of, being male or female.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Women and men also make different conscious choices in life. Choices that are driven by biological needs as much as anything. Women professionals are no longer disadvantaged but they do choose, overwhelmingly, to fulfill the nurturing role in life.

If women doctors or lawyers, for example, make 60% of what males do, then it is because theydo only about 60% of the quantity of work - that, by the way, is not speulation or assumption but researched fact. If women execurives do not, in general, go as far as men, it is also because of lifestyle choices and, often, biology.

RB, you sound like something out of a 1960's Feminist manual. Women have gone a long way beyond that. They have also recognised some of the absurdities and fallacies in those early misanthropists.

Gloria Steinem, for example, once said, regretting her exaggerated militancy, that women would have to study North African women to learn what women are. She seemed to think that Feminism should start all over again with a more rational and understanding base.

eureka, I can hardly believe my eyes. we have something which we both agree on.

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
      10,714
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    wopsas
    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...