Jump to content

Racist Joy Reid claims Thanksgiving is a myth. Our birth was violent.


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Seeing as the thread is about Joy Reid's racism, and my post was about Joy Reid's racism, I was quite on topic to point out some examples of Joy Reid's racism and lies. 

Joy Reid's slavery screed was a central theme of the OP and the thread. Pointing out her blatant lies and misinformation was central to proving that she's a lying, racist skid.

The photos there are an accurate portrayal of the political party that you chose to bring into this thread, so f they're OT it's just because you went OT and I had to show the general worthlessness of your post.

No one ever said slavery was cool, that's just a straw man argument of yours, and that's a perfect example what makes you a gish gallop. 

FYI the nation wasn't "built on the bleeding backs of black slaves", they merely played a part in the building of the nation. It's yet another lie that you and Joy like to spread that white people just sat around while black people "built the nation". 

Are other nations really saying/doing something about their checkered pasts? Did Pakistan even apologize for their recent genocides where they killed over 5M people? Did Turkey admit to the Armenian genocides? FYI the name of Cenk Uygur's show, "The Young Turks" is named after the group that committed the Armenian genocides, and this is what leftists say about him:

Would it be "prgressive" to name his show "The Hitler Youths"?

Has Morocco apologized? Have Muslims apologized on behalf of mohammed? Have the Mongols apologized? The Egyptians? The Persians? The Greeks? Romans? 

When was this huge apology parade and how did I miss it?

I never rationalized any evils, I just pointed out that Joy Reid is a lying racist and you're her stooge

 

 

He says, after rationalizing evil two posts in a row. Jeebus. How morally bankrupt must someone be to "whatabout" farking slavery? 

Quote

I don't even know what tan suit you're referring to, and I've never seen AOC dance, and I can't imagine how those things are good examples of the Dems' depravity, malfeasance, hypocrisy, racism, and hate-mongering. 

What, those aren't in your library of stupid memes? I assure you, they are as terrifying as Biden kissing his grandaughter or some state-level candidate dancing on a beach. That is to say, not at all. This is the level of substance you are bringing to the conversation. Ugh. Do better. 

Edited by Hodad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Hodad said:

He says, after rationalizing evil two posts in a row. Jeebus. How morally bankrupt must someone be to "whatabout" farking slavery? 

How much of a lying a-hole do you have to be to accuse someone of "whatabouting" slavery when all that they were doing was giving you a much-needed history lesson?

Joy Reid is a racist and she lies about every aspect of slavery. You're her stooge. Do you get it?

The thread is about how much of a lying racist she is. 

FYI:

No one is alive who remembers slavery.

No one is alive whose parents remember slavery.

No one is alive whose grandparents were American slaves. 

Black people owned slaves in the US.

Black people in Africa sold other black people into slavery.

Most black people in the US don't have ancestors who were slaves in America. 

A lot of black people in the US have ancestors who owned slaves, most notably Kamala Harris, whose own father said that they are descended from a plantation owner named Mary Brown (IIRC) in Jamaica. 

Bottom line is that Jot Reid is a racist, lying loser and you think she's the real shiznit.

Ugh. Do better. 

Quote

What, those aren't in your library of stupid memes? I assure you, they are as terrifying as Biden kissing his grandaughter or some

Stupid memes lol. Pictures of the Presi-pedophile making out with kids aren't "stupid memes". 

Quote

state-level candidate dancing on a beach.

Is this a picture of a state-level candidate dancing on a beach, or are you a liar?

FYI she's no candidate, she's an incumbent senator in RI, she's the secretary of the Senate Committee on Commerce and a member of the Senate Committee on Housing and Municipal Government, and this ain't "dancing" unless you're a proud Hodad or a CrakHoBarbie lol:

509496064_VoteMcCrackin.thumb.png.5aff856b052d25b7484115254d157ce0.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Hodad said:

I'm sorry that you're not familiar with the name for annoying debate tactic that you so often deploy--and apparently don't want to look up.  A Gish gallop is when, instead of focusing on debate topics, a person just starts throwing piles of unrelated crap into the conversation. A type of deflection.

Like how you reply to a discussion about slavery and somehow end up re-posting a pile of stupid memes (that weren't clever the first time) related to general political grievances and yet completely unrelated to the topic at hand.

Now, you can get back to telling us how building a nation on the bleeding backs of black slaves is totally cool, because other nations have done the same in the past, or something. 

And when you get tired of rationalizing and excusing the evils of our past you can get your gallop on with some photos of Obama's tan suit or AOC dancing or something else substantive and scintillating. That will be fun for everyone.

Slavery was always wrong and they knew it. It was about money, it always is and slavery would still exist if it wasn't illegal.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Aristides said:

Slavery was always wrong and they knew it. It was about money, it always is and slavery would still exist if it wasn't illegal.

And it sure seems like some of the folks in this thread would be front row at the auction. After all, if other people commit evil acts it excuses what you do! 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Hodad said:

Yes, trending toward a makeup that reflects the general population. Not with quotas, but with an active interest. It's difficult to define "the best person for the job." It's not like a 40 yard dash where you know is fastest. Interviews have always been a soft, nebulous process, and because of it they are particularly prone to bias. People get a "better vibe" from people with whom they have more in common. Same interests, same school, some common point in their backgrounds. In that way it's a lot like making small talk at a cocktail party with relative strangers. This is called affinity bias. It's sort of an inescapable part of human nature--and there are a dozen or so other biases like that to be aware of. And if people aren't aware of their biases and actively course correcting, then they won't be hiring the "best candidate" but rather the most comfortable conversation. "This person is like me, so they will be a good fit."

Of course, the problem is that a bunch of people "like me" won't be the best team. There's ample research that shows that diverse--and deliberately diverse--teams and organizations outperform those without a diversity agenda. 

Part of the reason is obvious, in that a diversity of perspectives and backgrounds results in a diversity of ideas. And that bears real fruit rather quickly. Imagine designing something as simple as scissors. What's the perfect design? It's just math/science/research, right? But add a left-handed person on the team and you probably get a better answer that will perform better in the marketplace simply because they bring a different experience.

The other is, perhaps, subtler. When leadership is more homogenous those biases creep in again. White men, for example, are more likely to have more in common with other white men, and that trickles down to them being more likely to promote white men. And the bias plays the other way as well, if employees (even, and perhaps especially, superstar employees) who are outside of the leadership demographic won't relate as well to the leadership team. If they don't see themselves represented then they see themselves as excluded. And it ends up creating a sort of brain drain, particularly among high performers nearing a social ceiling. They are looking for greener pastures in more diverse organizations where they feel like they have a fair shot.

Organic means based on not a purely individual evaluation, but the evaluation of how a given candidate can benefit the whole team. To turn to a sports metaphor, the best athlete is not always the best fit for a team. You don't want 5 point guards on the court, regardless of how talented they are individually. You want to look at the strengths and weaknesses of your current team and identify a candidate that will best compliment and enhance the talent you already have. Diversity can be a factor in building the strongest team.

The thinking goes, "If you can't see it, you can't hire it." There's nothing wrong with asking recruiters to provide a diverse candidate pool. They are as susceptible to bias as any other human, and bias costs $. By asking for a diverse pool you not only put positive pressure on the recruiter to look beyond first impressions, but also give yourself a chance to consider a broader range of talend and to hire "the best" candidate based on a more holistic perspective. 

You're making a whole bunch of racist and sexist assumptions.  Saying a person will be a better fit for an organization simply because of their skin colour or gender is a racist and sexist statement.  You're discriminating against people and making hiring decisions based on their race and gender.  But of course you can't challenge this in a court of law in Canada because discriminating against white people and men is protected in our Charter of Rights, while all other groups are protected from discriminatory hiring practices.

Your biases are as real as the people you claim "hire based on commonalities".  People shouldn't typically be discussing personal interests and whatnot during a job interview.  If you have people hiring employees they have things in common with (ie: are hiring based on common race and sex, or in other words are being sexist and racist) rather than the best person for the job they should be sent for bias training or fired, because discriminating against people based on their sex or gender is wrong. If you have employees or recruiters who have racist or sexist biases you should be training them on how to remove these.  Instead you're doing the exact opposite, you're training people to be consciously sexist and racist.  Everyone who walks into an interview at your organization will be judged on their skin colour and gender, it is quite disgusting.

The cover of "diverse organizations perform better" is racist and sexist nonsense created by people who want to socially engineer our society through means like employment discrimination.  Organizations often don't factor "diversity" in other ways, like age, socioeconomic background, where in the country they grew up, marital status etc.  They typically only factor race and sex, or possibly sexual orientation in some cases, because the agenda isn't diversity it's "social justice"

Edited by Moonlight Graham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

You're making a whole bunch of racist and sexist assumptions.  Saying a person will be a better fit for an organization simply because of their skin colour or gender is a racist and sexist statement.  You're discriminating against people and making hiring decisions based on their race and gender.  But of course you can't challenge this in a court of law in Canada because discriminating against white people and men is protected in our Charter of Rights, while all other groups are protected from discriminatory hiring practices.

Your biases are as real as the people you claim "hire based on commonalities".  People shouldn't typically be discussing personal interests and whatnot during a job interview.  If you have people hiring employees they have things in common with (ie: are hiring based on common race and sex, or in other words are being sexist and racist) rather than the best person for the job they should be sent for bias training or fired, because discriminating against people based on their sex or gender is wrong. If you have employees or recruiters who have racist or sexist biases you should be training them on how to remove these.  Instead you're doing the exact opposite, you're training people to be consciously sexist and racist.  Everyone who walks into an interview at your organization will be judged on their skin colour and gender, it is quite disgusting.

The cover of "diverse organizations perform better" is racist and sexist nonsense created by people who want to socially engineer our society through means like employment discrimination.  Organizations often don't factor "diversity" in other ways, like age, socioeconomic background, where in the country they grew up, marital status etc.  They typically only factor race and sex, or possibly sexual orientation in some cases, because the agenda isn't diversity it's "social justice"

I think that both you and Hodad are correct, and it really boils down to this: To what extent does active or even unintentional discrimination exist in hiring and promotion practices? And what policies are needed to prevent or overcome that?

 

Surely we agree that there are white men who are bigoted and will always prefer to hire other white men in their organizations.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Hodad said:

And it sure seems like some of the folks in this thread would be front row at the auction. After all, if other people commit evil acts it excuses what you do! 

I don't dispute that it was considered normal in many places but because of money, not morality. The rationale was no different from the Nazis, black people weren't really considered human so whatever you did to them was OK. The difference was slavers wanted their labour, not their lives which were only valued as a commodity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Rebound said:

 

 

Surely we agree that there are white men who are bigoted and will always prefer to hire other white men in their organizations.  

I don't think that white people are the only ones who do that. It's only natural to be biased toward people like yourself. 

Edited by Aristides
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

You're making a whole bunch of racist and sexist assumptions.  Saying a person will be a better fit for an organization simply because of their skin colour or gender is a racist and sexist statement.  You're discriminating against people and making hiring decisions based on their race and gender.  But of course you can't challenge this in a court of law in Canada because discriminating against white people and men is protected in our Charter of Rights, while all other groups are protected from discriminatory hiring practices.

Your biases are as real as the people you claim "hire based on commonalities".  People shouldn't typically be discussing personal interests and whatnot during a job interview.  If you have people hiring employees they have things in common with (ie: are hiring based on common race and sex, or in other words are being sexist and racist) rather than the best person for the job they should be sent for bias training or fired, because discriminating against people based on their sex or gender is wrong. If you have employees or recruiters who have racist or sexist biases you should be training them on how to remove these.  Instead you're doing the exact opposite, you're training people to be consciously sexist and racist.  Everyone who walks into an interview at your organization will be judged on their skin colour and gender, it is quite disgusting.

The cover of "diverse organizations perform better" is racist and sexist nonsense created by people who want to socially engineer our society through means like employment discrimination.  Organizations often don't factor "diversity" in other ways, like age, socioeconomic background, where in the country they grew up, marital status etc.  They typically only factor race and sex, or possibly sexual orientation in some cases, because the agenda isn't diversity it's "social justice"

You're just sort of repeating your opinion here rather than taking in the information. It's not a "cover." Diverse organizations do perform better. And the reasons are pretty obvious why if you slow down and think about it.

We, every individual, filter the world through our own experiences.For general purposes, I'm a first-class communicator. But the further an audience is from my experience the less successful I can be in reaching and serving them. In trying to understand and persuade a female audience I won't be quite as effective--I know less about the female experience. And if it's young women, it gets worse. And if it's young urban women, it gets worse still . And if it's young, Black, urban women I have even less chance of getting it right. 

But nobody does anything solo these days. What about my comms team? Well, if they are all like me then they are of no real help. But if I have a diverse team they can vet my work and craft broad messages that don't exclude anyone unnecessarily or to shape specific messages to target audiences outside of my wheelhouse.

If I'm designing a car on my own, it's going to disproportionately reflect my experience in the world, my use cases. And maybe that's not as well aligned to the larger market as it should be. Do I usually drive alone? Do I have kids? How important are folding seats and cupholders? I'm probably not going to get it right on my own, but if I have a diverse team, my odds go up. 

Or how about if I'm a 20-something male running a software startup. I grew up on l33tspeak and touchscreens. Is my microcopy and user progression clear to the 50-something woman I want to buy my software? No, probably not. But, again, if I have a diverse team--a team that represents everyone--then we're more likely to be able to serve everyone. 

I'll give you a real-world, practical example. One of my teams is a small group of writers. I had two older women on the team who were elite talent with veteran experience. I had an open role and a good friend of mine wanted the job--also an older woman with serious skills. Her resume was hands-down better than any of the other applicants that I interviewed. On paper, she was the "strongest candidate"--and a friend. But she wasn't the "best" candidate, and I didn't hire her. Not because of gender or age or race, but simply because I already had two people with similar experiences and perspectives, and adding a third similar voice to the team wasn't going to fill any gaps. Homogeneity doesn't make a stronger team. Instead, I hired a young woman, early career, who had talent and a different experience and perspective. Her resume wasn't nearly as good, but she expanded the experience base of my team in a practical way. And every time she points out that the way something is phrased sounds anachronistic or that a phrase has a different meaning within her peer group I pat myself on the back a little, because even though I didn't hire my friend with the better resume, I know that the work that team produces is more effective for a wider audience.

Do you see the difference? It's not about quotas or including or excluding any specific demo. It's about building diverse, representative teams for better success in a diverse, representative marketplace.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

How much of a lying a-hole do you have to be to accuse someone of "whatabouting" slavery when all that they were doing was giving you a much-needed history lesson?

Wait, tell us again how the brutality American slavery wasn't so bad, because Turkey hasn't apologized for the Armenian genocide.? You are whatbouting your arse off. Gross.

Quote

Joy Reid is a racist and she lies about every aspect of slavery. You're her stooge. Do you get it?

I don't know Joy Reid. Maybe she's a racist. But that evidence is not on display. What she's said here about the origin of the country isn't racist. 

 

Quote

 

FYI:

No one is alive who remembers slavery.

No one is alive whose parents remember slavery.

No one is alive whose grandparents were American slaves. 

Black people owned slaves in the US.

Black people in Africa sold other black people into slavery.

Most black people in the US don't have ancestors who were slaves in America. 

A lot of black people in the US have ancestors who owned slaves, most notably Kamala Harris, whose own father said that they are descended from a plantation owner named Mary Brown (IIRC) in Jamaica. 

Bottom line is that Jot Reid is a racist, lying loser and you think she's the real shiznit.

Ugh. Do better. 

 

There are living grandchildren of slaves alive today. But aside from that, WTF is your point? Do you even have a point? Are you just looking for more ways to deflect from the brutal roots of the American experiment? It's small, petty and disgusting.

We cannot hope to fix the problems we have today without understanding what caused so many of them.

 

Quote

 

Stupid memes lol. Pictures of the Presi-pedophile making out with kids aren't "stupid memes". 

Is this a picture of a state-level candidate dancing on a beach, or are you a liar?

FYI she's no candidate, she's an incumbent senator in RI, she's the secretary of the Senate Committee on Commerce and a member of the Senate Committee on Housing and Municipal Government, and this ain't "dancing" unless you're a proud Hodad or a CrakHoBarbie lol:

509496064_VoteMcCrackin.thumb.png.5aff856b052d25b7484115254d157ce0.png

 

Yes, very stupid memes. You take a freeze frame of an innocent and very publick peck from a grandfather to a granddaughter and make it into something lascivious? You're disgusting.

Edited by Hodad
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/25/2022 at 9:55 PM, Moonlight Graham said:

Define "representative"?  The racial and gender makeup of a company and its hierarchy are the same proportion to the general population?  That doesn't work.  People like Asians and Jewish people will be discriminated against, because they achieve education and career success at higher rates per capita than others.

The only fair way to hire is to hire the best person for the job regardless of race or gender, unless the job qualifications specifically would benefit from someone of a certain background.

Joe Biden did exactly that with his VP pick and Supreme Court pick.  Trudeau did exactly that with his cabinet picks and both GG picks.

Define "organic".  From what I see it just seems like people pulling decisions on diversity hires out of their butts with no clear or consistent criteria for justifying selection whatsoever.  It's pretty random and based on "feelings".  But this is "ok" because people don't feel bad about discriminating against white people, men, or asians apparently.  They still sleep at night and even pat themselves on the back.  Meanwhile Keith the white guy doesn't have a job because he wasn't the right skin colour or had the wrong sex parts, or Fukodomo doesn't have a job because he wasn't the right skin colour.

You're not hiring the best candidate based on merit if that's what you're doing.  This is discrimination based on racism and sexism if you're making hiring pool decisions based on race and gender.  These things shouldn't matter in hiring decisions, unless the qualifications of the job would specifically benefit from someone of a certain background (ie: school with majority black children that has little to no black teachers).

The problem with the “best person foe the job” argument is that it falsely suggests that you can objectively tell who “the best candidate Is” like they all have a number on them. But that’s false. First of all resumes and job interviews aren’t exactly accurate ways to identify “the most qualified candidate”. Its just all we have. But bad hires happen all the time. 
 

Second, when you get bunch of candidates for a job, sure  there are seemingly some obvious duds and sometimes you get some obvious standouts…. but the rest are either all more or less the same OR they are all seemingly adequate but each has different strengths and weaknesses, unique pros and cons and it’s ultimately subjective and 2 different managers in the exact same situation with the exact same candidates might make different choices based on their personal preferences. Its that subjectivity that historically favours white and male candidates- everything from having a more pronounceable name to misconceptions about hair styles or cultural clothing. For example in many places Black job seekers who do not emulate caucasian hairstyles are still presumed to be untrustworthy and unprofessional. That’s not a written policy anywhere it’s just a bias many people have and don’t realize it. And so inclusive hiring isn’t about filling a quota but ensuring you consciously avoid all the unconscious biases that ALL people have. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Rebound said:

I think that both you and Hodad are correct, and it really boils down to this: To what extent does active or even unintentional discrimination exist in hiring and promotion practices? And what policies are needed to prevent or overcome that?

Surely we agree that there are white men who are bigoted and will always prefer to hire other white men in their organizations.  

Sure, these white male bigots are racist and sexist and should lose their jobs.  I am interested in getting rid of racism and sexism, not promoting another flavour of it.  Two wrongs don't make a right.  Someone's sex or gender (what they look like) should not be a criteria for hiring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Hodad said:

Wait, tell us again how the brutality American slavery wasn't so bad, because Turkey hasn't apologized for the Armenian genocide.? You are whatbouting your arse off. Gross.

What is it with leftists and their constant use of 'big' words to slither around the truth?

This is not an example of whataboutism kid. I get that you understand the word, but this thread is about how much of a racist loser Joy Reid is.

We all get that slavery is bad, but Joy Reid is pretending that American slavery was uniquely bad, and it wasn't.

I get that she hates America, I just don't know why she lives there if it's so morally repugnant by her malignant standards. 

And FYI I wasn't the one who brought up the fact that "other people apologized and America hasn't ?", that was you. I thought that it was a ridiculous distinction too but I didn't want to miss a chance to talk about how ridiculous your point was

Quote

I don't know Joy Reid. Maybe she's a racist. But that evidence is not on display. What she's said here about the origin of the country isn't racist. 

Yes, she is a racist, and yes, her racism was absolutely on display there, as always. It's already been explained to you.

Quote

There are living grandchildren of slaves alive today. But aside from that, WTF is your point?

No, there are grandchildren of people who were born while slavery was still a thing, but no one who talked to their grandparent about how hard slavery was for them. 

In order for someone to remember being a slave they had to be born in the late 1850s. Then they might have been a slave as a young child? Sure, let's go with "I remember being a 5 yr old slave, born in 1860".

If they had a kid at 40, which was excessively rare in the day, that kid was born in 1900. That person had another kid at 40, in 1940, again unlikely, now that person is 82. I'm not buyin' it. 

The point is that slavery is not just gone from living memory, it's 4 generations gone at the very least. 

Joy Reid's racist screed is full of lies and disinformation just like everything else on CNN and MSNBC.

Do you even have a point? Are you just looking for more ways to deflect from the brutal roots of the American experiment? It's small, petty and disgusting.

We cannot hope to fix the problems we have today without understanding what caused so many of them.

Quote

Yes, very stupid memes. You take a freeze frame of an innocent and very publick peck from a grandfather to a granddaughter and make it into something lascivious? You're disgusting.

 They're not stupid at all, they just make you upset. You need to grow up Hodad. If you do that, maybe you'll stop lying and defending overt racism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

The problem with the “best person foe the job” argument is that it falsely suggests that you can objectively tell who “the best candidate Is” like they all have a number on them. But that’s false. First of all resumes and job interviews aren’t exactly accurate ways to identify “the most qualified candidate”. Its just all we have. But bad hires happen all the time. 
 

Second, when you get bunch of candidates for a job, sure  there are seemingly some obvious duds and sometimes you get some obvious standouts…. but the rest are either all more or less the same OR they are all seemingly adequate but each has different strengths and weaknesses, unique pros and cons and it’s ultimately subjective and 2 different managers in the exact same situation with the exact same candidates might make different choices based on their personal preferences. Its that subjectivity that historically favours white and male candidates- everything from having a more pronounceable name to misconceptions about hair styles or cultural clothing. For example in many places Black job seekers who do not emulate caucasian hairstyles are still presumed to be untrustworthy and unprofessional. That’s not a written policy anywhere it’s just a bias many people have and don’t realize it. And so inclusive hiring isn’t about filling a quota but ensuring you consciously avoid all the unconscious biases that ALL people have. 

You're saying with 2 similar candidates the tiebreaker will often unconsciously be biases like same race, gender or other categories.  But with "diversity" hires the tiebreaker is also determined by race, gender and maybe other categories determined by policy.  Either way someone is being unfairly discriminated against based on categories like what identity group they belong to like race or gender.  Little is being solved here, just different problems created.

What someone looks like or how they spell their name etc should not be considered during hiring. This is the whole point.  Train people to be less biased instead of training them to be more biased.  People are being told to hire based on race and sex, and to feel good about that, it's insane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Sure, these white male bigots are racist and sexist and should lose their jobs.  I am interested in getting rid of racism and sexism, not promoting another flavour of it.  Two wrongs don't make a right.  Someone's sex or gender (what they look like) should not be a criteria for hiring.

Ignoring the problem won’t make it go away.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/25/2022 at 3:10 PM, ironstone said:

Mark Dice also had a great take on Joy Reid and her latest foolish opinion.

I think it's safe to say that virtually every identifiable ethnic group/society or region had their share of violence at some point in history. Indigenous people in this continent were no different. 

Thing is, there are no indigenous people on this continent. The many tribes that make up American Indians all came from elsewhere. Being here first doesn't make them indigenous.

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
      10,713
    • 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...