Jump to content

Have the Feds lost their minds completely


Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, Boges said:

Seems you're quibbling with the idea that the FN communities in question aren't particularly concerned with the same things us White people are in getting our Dino Juice to market.

Actually there are huge problems with some hereditary chiefs and FNs that claim thousands of square kilometers as their territory in northwest B.C.  The Coastal Gaslink Pipeline project is an example.  Environmental radicals from other places including the U.S. join with the hereditary chiefs to try to stop the project.  All elected band councils along the pipeline route approved of the project.  It's more complicated when you add the environmental radicals, environmental organizations, FNs from other parts of Canada all opposing the project when it doesn't personally even effect them and is not in their areas.  Then throw in the so-called indigenous knowledge and a federal government that doesn't know what it's doing and claiming confidentiality, you have a real mess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, blackbird said:

Actually there are huge problems with some hereditary chiefs and FNs that claim thousands of square kilometers as their territory in northwest B.C.  The Coastal Gaslink Pipeline project is an example.  Environmental radicals from other places including the U.S. join with the hereditary chiefs to try to stop the project.  All elected band councils along the pipeline route approved of the project.  It's more complicated when you add the environmental radicals, environmental organizations, FNs from other parts of Canada all opposing the project when it doesn't personally even effect them and is not in their areas.  Then throw in the so-called indigenous knowledge and a federal government that doesn't know what it's doing and claiming confidentiality, you have a real mess.

Environmental policy is a mess. And our relationship to the FN people is an even bigger mess. 

Can this stuff be used for corruption, I'm almost certain it does. But again, this is no different from plenty of instances where "spiritual rights" are asserted. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Boges said:

Environmental policy is a mess. And our relationship to the FN people is an even bigger mess. 

Can this stuff be used for corruption, I'm almost certain it does. But again, this is no different from plenty of instances where "spiritual rights" are asserted. 

Depends what you mean by "spiritual rights".  That is a very vague term.

Western civilization is built on Judeo-Christian heritage and beliefs.  Many of our laws came from Biblical principles.  I don't know much about indigenous spiritual beliefs.  I read a little from time to time.  But I believe some of the beliefs of some aboriginals in the distant past is Mother Earth worship.  A small number of FN still worship the false god of Mother Earth.  But it is a big thing with tree huggers and environmental radicals.  If that is part of indigenous knowledge, forget it.  I would oppose accepting that is some kind of argument against resource projects.  If the federal government is trying to cater to that belief, that would be quite tragic and harmful.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Depends what you mean by "spiritual rights".  That is a very vague term.

Western civilization is built on Judeo-Christian heritage and beliefs.  Many of our laws came from Biblical principles.  I don't know much about indigenous spiritual beliefs.  I read a little from time to time.  But I believe some of the beliefs of some aboriginals in the distant past is Mother Earth worship.  A small number of FN still worship the false god of Mother Earth.  But it is a big thing with tree huggers and environmental radicals.  If that is part of indigenous knowledge, forget it.  I would oppose accepting that is some kind of argument against resource projects.

See, you're disparaging their beliefs all while trumpeting up yours. 

Who's to say who's right when talking about Religious beliefs? 

The Bible says a lot of things that we laugh at today. Many principals we do adopt, like a few of the 10 commandments, but not all. Imagine if Dishonesty, Envy or Idol worship was treated the same as Murder by our laws? 

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

35 minutes ago, Boges said:

See, you're disparaging their beliefs all while trumpeting up yours. 

I had a feeling you might say something like that because you said you were either an atheist or an agnostic and were not sure if you believed in God.

That is the problem right there.   You don't know what to believe so you are quite open to accepting heathen beliefs as some kind of legitimate basis for running a country or making decisions about resource projects.  

I'm afraid it would be unlikely I could convince you in a few sentences on a forum that God is real and there are reasons why we should stand up for our historic Judeo-Christian beliefs.  It is your responsibility to straighten that out in your own mind. 

This is the same problem with many liberals and NDP.  Society took Bibles out of schools and said they want to be multicultural.  Now they are living with the consequences.  Confusion and misguided decisions.

 

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, blackbird said:

I had a feeling you might say something like that because you said you were either an atheist or an agnostic and were not sure if you believed in God.

That is the problem right there.   You don't know what to believe so you are quite open to accepting heathen beliefs as some kind of legitimate basis for running a country or making decisions about resource projects.  

I'm afraid it would be unlikely I could convince you in a few sentences on a forum that God is real and there are reasons why we should stand up for our historic Judeo-Christian beliefs.  It is your responsibility to straighten that out in your own mind. 

This is the same problem with many liberals and NDP.  Society took Bibles out of schools and said they want to be multicultural.  Now they are living with the consequences.  Confusion and misguided decisions.

 

The fact that you're so sure of your beliefs vs other people is the problem. 

I believe in a God, but that people think that their narrow view of the God is the only one that's right is where we get into so much trouble as a society.

I support the message of Jesus, but are we really to believe that if there's mortality beyond this world, that God will only allow those who specifically accept Jesus in Heaven, otherwise eternal punishment? Because that's what the Bible teaches us. 

These FN beliefs actually seem more friendly TBH. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Boges said:

I support the message of Jesus, but are we really to believe that if there's mortality beyond this world, that God will only allow those who specifically accept Jesus in Heaven, otherwise eternal punishment? Because that's what the Bible teaches us. 

That is the problem right there.  In fact, you don't support what Jesus said.  You just said so right there.   He said clearly in the gospel of John, he is the ONLY way to heaven.  "6  Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. "  John 14:6 KJV 

That is a central teaching.  There is only one God and only one truth which is stated in that verse.

You either reject that and follow heathen religions or accept what the Bible says, what Jesus said.  

From what I heard, the Pope doesn't accept what the Bible said.  I heard he said something to the effect that there are other ways to get to heaven.  

Perhaps you could read the gospel of John.  Aboriginals worshiping Mother Earth are not worshiping or following the true God.  Why do you think many missionaries travelled and lived among heathen nations in Africa and other nations down through the centuries?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, blackbird said:

That is the problem right there.  In fact, you don't support what Jesus said.  You just said so right there.   He said clearly in the gospel of John, he is the ONLY way to heaven.  "6  Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. "  John 14:6 KJV 

That is a central teaching.  There is only one God and only one truth which is stated in that verse.

You either reject that and follow heathen religions or accept what the Bible says, what Jesus said.  

From what I heard, the Pope doesn't accept what the Bible said.  I heard he said something to the effect that there are other ways to get to heaven.  

Perhaps you could read the gospel of John.  Aboriginals worshiping Mother Earth are not worshiping or following the true God.  Why do you think many missionaries travelled and lived among heathen nations in Africa and other nations down through the centuries?

So the vast majority of the people who have ever lived, or ever will live are heathens. Not something I'm willing to accept from a loving God. So call me an unbeliever if you'd like. 

The point is, these are all subjective beliefs. You have no way of proving your beliefs are the right one. So laughing at FN religions while clinging to your own is hypocritical at best. 

Edited by Boges
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, blackbird said:

That is the problem right there.  In fact, you don't support what Jesus said.  You just said so right there.   He said clearly in the gospel of John, he is the ONLY way to heaven.  "6  Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. "  John 14:6 KJV 

That is a central teaching.  There is only one God and only one truth which is stated in that verse.

You either reject that and follow heathen religions or accept what the Bible says, what Jesus said.  

From what I heard, the Pope doesn't accept what the Bible said.  I heard he said something to the effect that there are other ways to get to heaven.  

Perhaps you could read the gospel of John.  Aboriginals worshiping Mother Earth are not worshiping or following the true God.  Why do you think many missionaries travelled and lived among heathen nations in Africa and other nations down through the centuries?

Dude - do you not realize this is the same problem you've always had? Once again you're demanding everyone accept your beliefs as fact. They are not.

You can say that YOU believe this to be true. That's fair.  But when you claim it's the ONLY truth there's a problem. You have NO EVIDENCE in the slighest to demonstrate that it's true (and the crap you offered is stuff philosophy 101 kids learn to debunk).  The only evidence you have is what is in your heart and none of us can feel or see that. 

You have got to stop invalidating everyone else's belief - you are TURNING PEOPLE AWAY FROM GOD - not turning them TO god.  So if god exists i would imagine he's a little pissed with you right now.

Just STOP.  You can claim your beliefs without stating they're fact or dismissing others.  If God wanted absolute proof he could send us all an email personally, or light our bushes on fire if he likes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, I am Groot said:

Having been a public servant here for some years I can state with some confidence that efficiency is rarely of much concern to the upper ranks.

Where this pursuit of getting it right is really on display is hiring. Recently was promoted to a supervisory role. Words can't describe the mess that is recruiting someone, interviewing them, etc. The underlying idea is that we want to find the perfect candidate and so the proverbial hoops are our way of refining our search. Well, what a waste of time. I just started the process of hiring someone in October 2023... If all goes well, I will interview them in first week of October 2023.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

Dude 

How can you call me delusional then explain my point exactly

I did not explain your point exactly at all. Your point was wrong.

Lets look at your first comment:


 

Quote

 

Let me try and explain this to someone with your specific beliefs.

The knowledge of the indigenous is much like your Bible, a bunch of oral traditions passed on from generation to generation.

The difference is the indigenous knowledge pre dates what your bible claims to be the beginning of time and has not suffered from as much political interference in the last few thousand years 

 

There's so much wrong there.  First off - the bible is a written history. It may very well be a work of fiction, but it's written. so it's not a 'bunch of stories handed down' by oral tradition at all.  Secondly - if you're going to include oral traditions that were later documented in writing, then its' history predates the first nations arrival in north america by a LONG long time.

and thirdly - what we hear today is probably MORE subject to politics than the other - tho i'll at least give you that is theoretically debatable.

It goes on from there. It's all pretty much the same. Delusional.

48 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

My point was to differentiate between spiritual claims and actual history of the First Nations.

Well that may have been one point that came up but that doesn't change the fact that you're wrong on both the spiritual side and the history side.  And that's not what's happening here. THey're not referring to stories passed down from history.

48 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

Maybe you confused me being wrong because you're illiterate

No, i didn't confuse you. You were confused before I got here. And sorry but your ramblings were not rational. One would have to be illiterate not to notice.

Things like 'if your grandfather says he worked then you can be pretty sure he worked".

No you can't. Hell - there's a lot of women today who're saying their granfather told them they were part native and THEY though they could be pretty sure - turns out their wrong :)

All this gov't policy means is that if the first nations have a memory of something then treat that as evidence and roughly the same as you would science. So - if one guy remembers that there used to be bears in the area - well that's evidence even if it's not strong, just like if you found one bear bone in the area.  If 100 guys say their fathers used to hunt bear and they remember them bringing home the bears to process and that's how they made their xmas money so theyd' always be excited to see the bears... well thats PRETTY STRONG evidence, so even if you haven't found a lot of bones you should consider that.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course those that can't distinguish knowledge from belief would be outraged the most.

So keep on pretending those people that live there where mines, drilling and pipelines are planned simply 'believe' they know about those lands. Convince yourself that Big Buisiness knows better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Boges said:

The point is, these are all subjective beliefs. You have no way of proving your beliefs are the right one. So laughing at FN religions while clinging to your own is hypocritical at best. 

The Bible proves it.  You haven't studied it; yet you dismiss it all.  That's not reasonable.  I don't "laugh" at FN religions.  I simply state if a religion is contrary to the King James Bible (the English translation of the Holy Scriptures), I cannot accept it.  I am not singling out FN religions particularly.  There are many false religions in the world.

God inspired men to write the Bible.  Nobody can convince you on a forum.  I have enough experience to know that much.  It is up to you to work that out.  

In summary,

In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth.  Genesis 1:1 

He made man out of the dust of the earth.  Man had fellowship with God.   Genesis ch. 2 and 3

Man was given a choice of good or evil.  To obey God's commandments or to disobey.    Genesis 2: 16, 17

Man chose evil.   Genesis 3:11;  3:23, 24

God left heaven to take on human form.  Philippians 2:5-11

Jesus himself would become the sacrifice, the atonement for man's sins. Hebrews 9:27, 28

   It may be that few will be saved.  The Bible says many are called; few are chosen.

You say you can't accept that a loving God would allow that.  Well, God created the universe and mankind.  It is his prerogative.  It was mankind that rebelled against God and broke his commandment.  God has offered his Son as an atonement.  Those who believe will be saved;  those who reject Him will not be.  It is God's universe.  Who are we to question God?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I did not explain your point exactly at all. Your point was wrong.

Lets look at your first comment:


 

There's so much wrong there.  First off - the bible is a written history. It may very well be a work of fiction, but it's written. so it's not a 'bunch of stories handed down' by oral tradition at all.  Secondly - if you're going to include oral traditions that were later documented in writing, then its' history predates the first nations arrival in north america by a LONG long time.

and thirdly - what we hear today is probably MORE subject to politics than the other - tho i'll at least give you that is theoretically debatable.

It goes on from there. It's all pretty much the same. Delusional.

Well that may have been one point that came up but that doesn't change the fact that you're wrong on both the spiritual side and the history side.  And that's not what's happening here. THey're not referring to stories passed down from history.

No, i didn't confuse you. You were confused before I got here. And sorry but your ramblings were not rational. One would have to be illiterate not to notice.

Things like 'if your grandfather says he worked then you can be pretty sure he worked".

No you can't. Hell - there's a lot of women today who're saying their granfather told them they were part native and THEY though they could be pretty sure - turns out their wrong :)

All this gov't policy means is that if the first nations have a memory of something then treat that as evidence and roughly the same as you would science. So - if one guy remembers that there used to be bears in the area - well that's evidence even if it's not strong, just like if you found one bear bone in the area.  If 100 guys say their fathers used to hunt bear and they remember them bringing home the bears to process and that's how they made their xmas money so theyd' always be excited to see the bears... well thats PRETTY STRONG evidence, so even if you haven't found a lot of bones you should consider that.

 

I can only respond to your first point now as I have real life things to get to

First you do realize many indigenous languages were never written right?

The bible is written history?

Well it is now but that's based on oral traditions

For the old testament this is pretty easy to prove unless you think Adam or Eve wrote Genesis.

The new testament is almost easier to prove Jesus and his crew spoke Aramaic ,the first gospels were written at best 30 years after the crucifixion in Greek(which is a different language) based solely on oral traditions they called creeds.

Science has proven many of these stories to be pure fiction, well on the other hand many of the indigenous oral traditions have been authenticated by both anthropological and archeological studies.

I lived and worked in the north west territories and was afforded the opportunity to sit on band councils. I took the time to try and understand their reality and did my best to study some of their culture 

Edited by SkyHigh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, blackbird said:

The Bible proves it.  You haven't studied it; yet you dismiss it all.  That's not reasonable.  I don't "laugh" at FN religions.  I simply state if a religion is contrary to the King James Bible (the English translation of the Holy Scriptures), I cannot accept it.  I am not singling out FN religions particularly.  There are many false religions in the world.

God inspired men to write the Bible.  Nobody can convince you on a forum.  I have enough experience to know that much.  It is up to you to work that out.  

In summary,

In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth.  Genesis 1:1 

He made man out of the dust of the earth.  Man had fellowship with God.   Genesis ch. 2 and 3

Man was given a choice of good or evil.  To obey God's commandments or to disobey.    Genesis 2: 16, 17

Man chose evil.   Genesis 3:11;  3:23, 24

God left heaven to take on human form.  Philippians 2:5-11

Jesus himself would become the sacrifice, the atonement for man's sins. Hebrews 9:27, 28

   It may be that few will be saved.  The Bible says many are called; few are chosen.

You say you can't accept that a loving God would allow that.  Well, God created the universe and mankind.  It is his prerogative.  It was mankind that rebelled against God and broke his commandment.  God has offered his Son as an atonement.  Those who believe will be saved;  those who reject Him will not be.  It is God's universe.  Who are we to question God?

Great. The Bible is not irrefutable evidence of anything. It states the world was made in 6 days and that all the animals on Earth fit on a boat and survived a Global Flood. 

Just because Judeo-Christian beliefs also birthed many of the elements of Liberal Democracy and Western Civilization does not mean the Christian tenants should be enshrined in our laws. In fact the opposite, it's the separation of Church and State that has allowed these states to prosper. It's the theocracies that are corrupt and violent. 

THOUGH it does make sense that FN beliefs should be considered when a large infrastructure project is proposed on their land. Just like Governments aren't supposed to dictate how people conduct themselves on Church land, unless they contravene other laws. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Boges said:

Great. The Bible is not irrefutable evidence of anything. It states the world was made in 6 days and that all the animals on Earth fit on a boat and survived a Global Flood. 

Those were supernatural events that God controlled.  They were out of the ordinary but they nevertheless occurred as recorded.

Because of the evil of mankind before the flood, God destroyed all of mankind with the exception of Noah and his family.  See Genesis.

God did give mankind his revelation by means of his written word, the Bible.

There are many articles that explain why the Bible is true and accurate.  I leave it to you to study them.  If you have not studied them, I am not sure how you can know.

There are also many audio and video messages on the internet which go into all aspects of the Bible.

The Divine Appointment | SermonAudio

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Those were supernatural events that God controlled.  They were out of the ordinary but they nevertheless occurred as recorded.

Because of the evil of mankind before the flood, God destroyed all of mankind with the exception of Noah and his family.  See Genesis.

God did give mankind his revelation by means of his written word, the Bible.

There are many articles that explain why the Bible is true and accurate.  I leave it to you to study them.  If you have not studied them, I am not sure how you can know.

There are also many audio and video messages on the internet which go into all aspects of the Bible.

The Divine Appointment | SermonAudio

So when we entertain the Supernatural, Science can get thrown out the window? 

So you can believe the world was formed in 6 days, because Bible, even though all Science points to the contrary. 

But you cite Science as evidence that FN claims of the importance of this land is rubbish? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Boges said:

So you can believe the world was formed in 6 days, because Bible, even though all Science points to the contrary. 

Yes, I believe it because it was a supernatural event.

There are thousands of articles and videos that go into creation versus evolution and related subject.

Go to creation.com

Evolution has been refuted by many people with degrees and scientists.  

There have been no transitional fossils found although if evolution were a fact one would think there would be thousands of fossils showing the evolution from one species to another.  But they don't exist.  It always was only theory.  A theory is not science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, impartialobserver said:

Where this pursuit of getting it right is really on display is hiring. Recently was promoted to a supervisory role. Words can't describe the mess that is recruiting someone, interviewing them, etc. The underlying idea is that we want to find the perfect candidate and so the proverbial hoops are our way of refining our search. Well, what a waste of time. I just started the process of hiring someone in October 2023... If all goes well, I will interview them in first week of October 2023.

I'm assuming you muffed one of the dates or this doesn't make a ton of sense.

Yes, you have to get it right because once hired it's extremely difficult to fire them. But also it's just that HR processes (at least for our government) are so complex and time-consuming in the interest of ensuring 'fairness' to all applicants that the whole dreary process takes over your life. The fights with HR because we want to say something and they won't let us, or they want to include something and we think that would be...  unwise, to say the least, are just so damned frustrating nobody wants anything to do with a hiring process. Other than interviewing those who eventually get into the pool to find your candidate, that is. 

While we could we hired temp help, often sending people to particular temp agencies we had an arrangement with, then hiring them as temps to get an idea of how they'd work out and get along with everyone. Then, if we liked them, we would guide them in the application process and try to tailor our requirements to them as much as possible.

"Must have experience in eating Ritz Crackers upside down underwater."

Well, how many people outside our unit do that?

Never hired a loser through this process. Every one was a winner. Can't say the same for grabbing people from open HR processes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

Would you prefer that projects are in court for years while indigenous people fight it, or that they get on side with a project early?  If incorporating indigenous knowledge helps to avoid litigation and gets the project done sooner, why not?

The legislation needs to be removed and rewritten so that indigenous groups have far fewer excuses to use for legal action. And if necessary, put under the notwithstanding clause to keep the interfering busybodies in the courts from sticking their noses into it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

I'm assuming you muffed one of the dates or this doesn't make a ton of sense.

Yes, you have to get it right because once hired it's extremely difficult to fire them. But also it's just that HR processes (at least for our government) are so complex and time-consuming in the interest of ensuring 'fairness' to all applicants that the whole dreary process takes over your life. The fights with HR because we want to say something and they won't let us, or they want to include something and we think that would be...  unwise, to say the least, are just so damned frustrating nobody wants anything to do with a hiring process. Other than interviewing those who eventually get into the pool to find your candidate, that is. 

While we could we hired temp help, often sending people to particular temp agencies we had an arrangement with, then hiring them as temps to get an idea of how they'd work out and get along with everyone. Then, if we liked them, we would guide them in the application process and try to tailor our requirements to them as much as possible.

"Must have experience in eating Ritz Crackers upside down underwater."

Well, how many people outside our unit do that?

Never hired a loser through this process. Every one was a winner. Can't say the same for grabbing people from open HR processes.

No muffing. We have 3 steps before we ever post it to the public. None of these can be finalized until July 1. After this, we have to have it posted for 3 weeks, select candidates, get them approved by HR, and then schedule interviews. And to due to accounting oddities... just because we hire someone on August 1... we have to have them start on a certain pay period. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, impartialobserver said:

No muffing. We have 3 steps before we ever post it to the public. None of these can be finalized until July 1. After this, we have to have it posted for 3 weeks, select candidates, get them approved by HR, and then schedule interviews. And to due to accounting oddities... just because we hire someone on August 1... we have to have them start on a certain pay period. 

Well, partly muffed. And I didn't think much when I read it. You wrote 'I just started a process of hiring someone in October 2023"

Using the past tense caused me to think you'd done this last year.

However, if you're coming here to complain about that you've come to the wrong place. If I started a process now there is no way in hell I'd be hiring anyone in October. That is WAY too efficient for our government. If I'd just started a process now I'd hope to be hiring someone around this time next year. If it was a simple process.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, blackbird said:

Can hardly believe.  Just came across an article which points out that government and departments like pipeline authorities or impact assessment authority are required to give "indigenous knowledge" and science equal weight in their decision-making.

The Federal government website even says that much.

"Both Indigenous Knowledge, including oral knowledge, and western scientific knowledge systems are equally valued. When it is considered with other knowledge systems, including western science, the integrity of Indigenous Knowledge will be maintained."

Indigenous Knowledge Policy Framework for Project Reviews and Regulatory Decisions - Canada.ca

Yet apparently nobody is able to define what indigenous knowledge is.

Jamie Sarkonak: Liberals defer to secret spiritual beliefs to approve energy projects (msn.com)

This issue could certainly provide Pierre Poilievre and Conservatives with a mountain of ammunition to use against this government.  I just hope they are aware of it.  The one hazard is they will be accused of racism.  That is the go-to accusation that is always used against opponents be it China interference or anything else.

I've never actually met an Indian who professed to believe in this paganism

I served alongside Indians in the infantry

they did embrace the warrior spirit of their ancestors

but they were none the less to a man ; Christians, mostly Papists

two thirds of Indians report being Christians according to the census

so I doubt this paganism is emanating from the Indians themselves

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
      10,698
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    IPEM Group of Institutions
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Ethan Wylde earned a badge
      First Post
    • Yakuda went up a rank
      Experienced
    • QuebecOverCanada went up a rank
      Grand Master
    • Jeary went up a rank
      Rookie
    • Gator earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Recently Browsing

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