Jump to content

Womens tears are making politics - and society - more feminine.


Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:

And Trump, being a cartoonishly stupid buffoon, failed to handle covid.

Look, I get that Trump is a sociopathic fascist, but that doesn't mean he isn't stupid. It's possible to be both.

Stupid? Energy independence...the end of the ISIS Caliphate...a secure southern border...a monumental economy pre-Rona.

Now you have an open southern border...drug deaths...blatant crime...energy dependence...a proxy war with an equal nuclear power...inflation and a Hunter.

Tell me...who's stupid?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Stupid? Energy independence...the end of the ISIS Caliphate...a secure southern border...a monumental economy pre-Rona.

See, this is what I mean. No, we weren't energy independent under Trump. Did you fact-check this or do you just not care about reality?

The rest of your points are wrong or misleading, but do you care?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:

 

But they're not introducing sexual issues outside of depicting gay couples the same way media already depicts straight couples.

I don't remember any books as a kid that explained people could have a mommy and a daddy. Or the like.

Why introduce sexuality at all to children? And as you know some of the 'banned books' (which aren't banned at all) are far worse. And the fact that it's being read during  drag story hour highlights the fact that you're not just reading a book, you're pursuing an agenda. SO it's not just the book as you tried to pretend, it's that it's used to introduce children to complex issues beyond just two people getting married.  Very dishonest. 

I can see why parents would be inherently distrustful of it and your motives. You downplay it as just being a book - but the truth is that it's part of a much larger agenda and 'drag story hour'. 

Meanwhile, your kind demanded the cancelling of "to think i saw it on mullberry st", Claiming any such images were just WAAAAAAY to formative for young children.

So clearly you think even simple images are powerful for children and that we can't trust children to sort out the meaning of them accurately. 

Personally i'd be tempted to say leave both books alone and let parents talk to kids about them but you force the end of publication of one as a necessity and then question why the other should be excluded from schools only, but parents can buy it anywhere and show it to their kids.

26 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:

One of the things that triggered the Right was showing a lesbian couple in a Disney movie where one woman gave another woman a peck on the cheek.

Well your use of 'triggered the right' shows you know it's a genuine issue and you feel the need to try to dismiss it.  In fact, it was a concern for a number of parents. I heard about it . Strangely, despite being on the right, i wasn't triggered and nobody i know was.  Parents had an issue with it.  Guess what ...  (some of them vote democrat!!! GASP!)

26 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:

Meanwhile, they have no issue with the prince making out with the princess at the end of like every Disney film. You see why it's hard for me to take this seriously, yes?

I  see your hypocrisy if that helps. You defend and deflect the same or worse actions on the left, yet condemn it here.

I get why parents might not want to deal with complex sexual issues with kids. Whether you like it or not for many issues of gay or lesbian sex or marriage is a complex issue.

Further - it's very clear that those promoting it are doing so based on an agenda. Nobody puts in the heterosexual kiss to promote heterosexuality - but the gay kiss is often put in  for no better reason than to 'promote' the idea of homosexuality.

That makes people concerned.  And if you can't see that you're being grossly dishonest. So there's quesitons about motive. Why are they trying to 'teach' kids like that? What's next? Where does that stop?

First it's a book - then the book is read by a trans or similar person, then ... what?

All they know is that if they say 'you know - i have concerns about exposing children to this..." You'll attack immediately calling them right wing nazi's and how DAAAAARRE They and their concerns are completely invalid and they should shut up.

Which ain't going to win anyone over to your side that's for sure. You come across as dishonest as hell. Can you understand why nobody trusts your motives?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I don't remember any books as a kid that explained people could have a mommy and a daddy. Or the like.

Yes, because they didn't need to. Media, both for kids and for adults, depicts straight couples 24/7. The same way we needed an effort to depict women in roles other than subservience, there needs to be an effort to depict gay couples the same way they depict straight couples.

To put things into perspective, Modern Family was the first show in American history to depict a gay couple as main characters. So much for the media being left-wing.

10 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

And the fact that it's being read during  drag story hour highlights the fact that you're not just reading a book, you're pursuing an agenda. SO it's not just the book as you tried to pretend, it's that it's used to introduce children to complex issues beyond just two people getting married.  Very dishonest. 

The "complex issues" are that children don't need to follow gender roles, boys can wear dresses if they want, and people can marry people of the same gender.

Yes, there's an agenda here, but it's a positive one. It's not the nazi theory that marxists are promoting degeneracy to destroy the country.

10 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Meanwhile, your kind demanded the cancelling of "to think i saw it on mullberry st", Claiming any such images were just WAAAAAAY to formative for young children.

Nope. Nobody was calling for the Dr. Seuss books to be cancelled. The publishing company decided to stop publishing those five books completely unprompted. Blame capitalism. 

10 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Well your use of 'triggered the right' shows you know it's a genuine issue and you feel the need to try to dismiss it.  In fact, it was a concern for a number of parents. I heard about it . Strangely, despite being on the right, i wasn't triggered and nobody i know was.  Parents had an issue with it.  Guess what ...  (some of them vote democrat!!! GASP!)

It's a genuine issue for homophobic people. I think if anything, this shows that we need more gay representation in children's media. Gay couples are far from having been normalized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Americana Antifa said:

Yes, because they didn't need to.

Ahhh - here we go. So the letter people "NEED" to. So there IS an agenda and it is about sexuality.  Well - thanks for admitting it.

1 hour ago, Americana Antifa said:

 

Media, both for kids and for adults, depicts straight couples 24/7.

Not children's media.  when was the last time a disney princess had a mother and father at the same time?

If you mean at home there's plenty of gays in media. There's shows where most of the characters are gay. If you want to expose your children to that as a parent and you feel they and you can handle it there's tonnes of opportunity.

 

1 hour ago, Americana Antifa said:

To put things into perspective, Modern Family was the first show in American history to depict a gay couple as main characters. So much for the media being left-wing.

there were plenty of main gay characters before. The vast majority of characters in EVERY show are not couples. Friends had no married couples (ross is too weird to call a 'married' anything and his wife was gay), seinfeild, etc etc.

You get a few from back in the day like archie - which absolutely DID deal with homosexuallity - and brady bunch and cosby  but for the most part it wasn't much of a popular theme.

But there were plenty of gay characters.

1 hour ago, Americana Antifa said:

The "complex issues" are that children don't need to follow gender roles, boys can wear dresses if they want, and people can marry people of the same gender.

Gender and sex really can't be separated in kids minds.  So - the quesiton is is it appropriate for kids to be dealing with this. Many people feel no - let them be kids and grow up and then address it.

And there's evidence to suggest that's the correct answer. So let parents choose - keep it out of school and let parents decide at home if that's something they want to work on their kids with earlier or later.

1 hour ago, Americana Antifa said:

Yes, there's an agenda here,

There's an agenda here. something the LBGTQRSPMOUSE community has been denying like crazy. Which is why there is now a lack of trust.  And it may or may not be a positive one - how can parents be sure when that community has been so dishonest about it's intents before?

1 hour ago, Americana Antifa said:

Nope. Nobody was calling for the Dr. Seuss books to be cancelled.

They absolutely were - and they got cancelled. Thats 100 percent the left at work.  See- when the right keeps a book out of schools, it's "Banning" the book and it's terrible. When the left actually forces the literal ban of a book which will now not be printed any longer and is being removed from libraries unless they get creative about hiding it ... ohhh that's nothing, yeah, no that's fine there's nothing to see there.

Liar.  Better be careful, your hypocrisy is showing :)  

1 hour ago, Americana Antifa said:

It's a genuine issue for homophobic people. I think if anything, this shows that we need more gay representation in children's media. Gay couples are far from having been normalized.

So once again - the message from the left is "If you disagree with me you're a terrible evil person who should die".  Also from the left "Why don't you trust me?"

Put out as many gay childrens' books as you like - i'm sure others will put out books suggesting gays aren't such a great thing, You can have it out.

And lets get real - it's already normalizing quite nicely. And that will continue apace.

But - if you want to actually speed things up then attacking anyone who disagrees with you and acting in a disgustingly dishonest and disreputable way  only breeds disrespect.

the 'message' listening to you is "you can't trust gays and if you question then they will attack you. It's them vs you".   Well... aside from the fact i don't believe that's a healthy or even accurate message - it will achieve the opposite of what you claim to want.

THen again  yours side is ALL about culture wars and hate. Maybe that's your goal in the end anyway and you don't actually WANT it to be normal. That certainly would explain your actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Ahhh - here we go. So the letter people "NEED" to. So there IS an agenda and it is about sexuality.  Well - thanks for admitting it.

Um... yes? I never denied that. I know fascists are anti-education, but this is kinda what schools are for.

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Not children's media.  when was the last time a disney princess had a mother and father at the same time?

Seriously? I just saw Descendants yesterday. Belle and the Beast in his human form are a married couple with a son. OMG! Disney is depicting heterosexuality by acknowledging that humans are attracted to each other and even get *gasps* married!

I have a better idea. Try naming some Disney movies that do NOT have a straight couple. Name literally as many Disney movies as you can that do not feature heterosexuality.

This isn't about protecting kids from learning about sexual orientation, this is about keeping people who don't conform to gender norms as stigmatized as possible.

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

If you mean at home there's plenty of gays in media. There's shows where most of the characters are gay. If you want to expose your children to that as a parent and you feel they and you can handle it there's tonnes of opportunity.

there were plenty of main gay characters before. The vast majority of characters in EVERY show are not couples. Friends had no married couples (ross is too weird to call a 'married' anything and his wife was gay), seinfeild, etc etc.

You get a few from back in the day like archie - which absolutely DID deal with homosexuallity - and brady bunch and cosby  but for the most part it wasn't much of a popular theme.

But there were plenty of gay characters.

There were gay characters, but there were no gay couples that were main characters. That didn't happen until Modern Family which came out in the late two-thousands. This shows how underrepresented gay and bi people have been in media, despite the claims of media being left-wing or even liberal.

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Gender and sex really can't be separated in kids minds.  So - the quesiton is is it appropriate for kids to be dealing with this. Many people feel no - let them be kids and grow up and then address it.

And those people can suck a turd. School is about educating and preparing kids for the real world. There are plenty of parents who don't want kids learning that other religions and holidays exist. Well, too bad. In public schools, kids should learn that different people have different religions and celebrate different holidays. They should also learn about evolution, climate change, and the fact that the earth is round.

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

They absolutely were - and they got cancelled. Thats 100 percent the left at work.  See- when the right keeps a book out of schools, it's "Banning" the book and it's terrible. When the left actually forces the literal ban of a book which will now not be printed any longer and is being removed from libraries unless they get creative about hiding it ... ohhh that's nothing, yeah, no that's fine there's nothing to see there.

Show me some evidence that the Seuss corporation stopped publishing these books because people were demanding they do so.

And no, this wasn't a literal ban. The books weren't banned, you can still buy them and probably find them in some libraries. All that happened is that a private company stopped publishing them. This is nothing compared to the actual bans that Republicans do. But you're fascist, so you're not against those bans.

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

So once again - the message from the left is "If you disagree with me you're a terrible evil person who should die". 

Nah, liberals are silly, but they're not bad people. There are also plenty of leftists I disagree with, but they're not terrible dudes.

Fascists are scum, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Americana Antifa said:

See, this is what I mean. No, we weren't energy independent under Trump. Did you fact-check this or do you just not care about reality?

The rest of your points are wrong or misleading, but do you care?

You're right. I don't care for you're warped version of reality. It's hate-based and poisonous. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Americana Antifa said:

First of all, the books they read are suitable for children. They're only about sexuality in that they explain that some kids have a mother and a father, while other kids may have two fathers or two mothers.

Secondly, the point of have drag queens there is to show kids that they don't need to follow gender roles. Boys can wear dresses if they want, the same way girls can get jobs in fields that were traditionally for men. It's like have women come to talk about their work in NASA.

Right. So it's to promote transgenderism and homosexuality. Have I got that right?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Rome didn't have standing armies by and large, they formed legions when they needed them for war.

Except that's totally incorrect, as the Marian reforms (which professionalized the military and made it a standing, state-funded service where soldiers volunteered for 20+ year terms of service) was one of the most important and pivotal developments in Roman (if not European) history.  

This is Dunning-Kruger at it's best, with you confidently blustering about shit you know absolutely nothing about and embarrassing yourself over and over.  

19 hours ago, CdnFox said:

And ENGLAND is barely a blip on the map ?!?  HOooo kaaaaay big guy :)

I mean, you do the math here:

RomeEmpire.thumb.png.aa1b8507137c9e96cdc7839a84f1f0c1.png

Having to station 10% of your armed forces in a remote, underpopulated backwater comprising probably less than 3-4% of your overall territory (and much less of your overall population) is certainly not an indication of the celts being "pacified" as you suggested, nor does the construction of Hadrian's wall on the northern british frontier.  

19 hours ago, CdnFox said:

LIke i said originally - the germanic tribes (and others) would raid now and then, but didn't play a role in the downfall directly, Sorry. They didn't sack rome, they didnt' defeat the roman armies and drive them away. They'd win the occasional fight every 150 ish years :) LOL

No, what you said originally:

Romandumdum.thumb.png.73fe9d58e3a70ef34e2dee5945845862.png

Goofily suggesting that the Germans weren't a problem (or the problem?) until the end of the Empire, when they were always a major problem for the Romans.  It was the Germanic people that halted Roman expansion in Europe, depriving the Empire of the slaves and spoils that had fueled its economy for centuries, while also draining its coffers defending the large and dangerous Rhine/Danube frontier with the bulk of its expensive (and professional standing ?) army.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Americana Antifa said:

Um... yes? I never denied that. I know fascists are anti-education, but this is kinda what schools are for.

You did elsewhere - and schools are for education, not PROGRAMMING or sexual grooming. The 'normal' agenda for a school is quite clear - this is a seperate agenda that the Letter people deny and then have to admit to. As i said - nobody trusts you, you lie far too often both personally and as a community.

4 hours ago, Americana Antifa said:

Seriously?

Seriously. Go back and count.  Cinderella - no parents except an evil step mom. Snow white - no dad. Ariel  - no mom. Nemo - no mom,  Belle in the original - no mom. Rapunzel - no dad.  Bambi -  Mom and dad divorced and dad is deadbeat until mom gets killed.  :)

So lets not lie. As i said disney doesn't really even do heterosexual couples. Do they.

4 hours ago, Americana Antifa said:

I have a better idea. Try naming some Disney movies that do NOT have a straight couple. Name literally as many Disney movies as you can that do not feature heterosexuality.

All of them because they don't have ANY couples.

4 hours ago, Americana Antifa said:

This isn't about protecting kids from learning about sexual orientation, this is about keeping people who don't conform to gender norms as stigmatized as possible.

This is about protecting kids from learning about sex too early.  That's the agenda - teach them about sexualization young.

4 hours ago, Americana Antifa said:

There were gay characters, but there were no gay couples that were main characters.

As noted - not a lot of shows where hetero couples were the main characters. The ones that are are all family sit coms that follow a specific model because it's popular and it's harder to explain how a gay couple has three children.

Having a married couple hinders the writers, so you don't see it unless the show is anchored around the idea of the family and then hetero makes the most sense to explain the kids and requires the least amount of explaining. It's that simple.  You also don't get shows with a married lead where one is crippled for the same reason. It's not "anti -disability", it's just harder to write.

4 hours ago, Americana Antifa said:

That didn't happen until Modern Family which came out in the late two-thousands. This shows how underrepresented gay and bi people have been in media, despite the claims of media being left-wing or even liberal.

Nope - gays and bi's are well represented. There's thousands of gay characters. Sorry.  And considering that gay marriage wasn't even legal anywhere in the US till 2004 - that kind of makes sense doesn't it.

"GEE - WHY WEREN'T THERE ANY SHOWS ABOUT IT BEFORE IT EXISTED?!?!?!!?"  Duhhhhhhhh

4 hours ago, Americana Antifa said:

And those people can suck a turd. School is about educating and preparing kids for the real world. There are plenty of parents who don't want kids learning that other religions and holidays exist.

And schools have been moving away from secularism and don't recognize ANY holidays that aren't offical ones. So - perfect example :)

4 hours ago, Americana Antifa said:

Well, too bad. In public schools, kids should learn that different people have different religions and celebrate different holidays. They should also learn about evolution, climate change, and the fact that the earth is round.

They do in time. When it's the best time to teach them. In Canada we have classes called "Scoial studies" which go over that stuff plenty.  But that doesn't mean children need to be discussing which god is 'real' and which isn't  in kindergarten.

4 hours ago, Americana Antifa said:

Show me some evidence that the Seuss corporation stopped publishing these books because people were demanding they do so.

"The decision to cease publication and sales of the books was made last year after months of discussion with teachers, academics and a "panel of experts," the company told AP."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/dr-seuss-books-publication-racist-images-1.5933033

Oh - and it turns out they were ALL on the left.  They lobbied the Dr Seuss foundation - and successfully got the books banned.

Swing and a miss kiddo.

So let me guess - you're going to claim that this was actually a group of Far RIght teachers, Nazi achademics and the panel was actually trump and desantes?

4 hours ago, Americana Antifa said:

And no, this wasn't a literal ban. The books weren't banned, you can still buy them and probably find them in some libraries.

Banned from libraries unless they're very careful to hide them. I posted an artice about how creative they were having to be to hide them a while back. And you can't buy the books for sale any more unless you can find one used - and eventually all those will be gone.

It's hilarious that you CONSTANTLY CLAIM that the republicans BANNNNNEEEEEDD BOOOOOOOKS - for taking them out of school libraries only but claim that ceasing the sale entirely and removing them from ALL libraries is not a book ban.

4 hours ago, Americana Antifa said:

 

Fascists are scum, though.

Yes you are - and hypocrites too ;)

The left wing only promotes lies and hatred - then wonders why no one wants them grooming their kids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

Do you understand what a trope is?

Leave your po-mo linguistic dance at the door.  Reality — biological reality — supersedes cultural ideology, no matter how much you amp up the wishful thinking with drugs, surgery, philosophy of feminism courses, and various biotech.  Some differences are fundamental between the biological sexes.  Yes there are outliers, but that’s what they are, such as trans people. That’s fine. Live and let live, but don’t pretend that gender is purely a social construct, that all women can be Amazonian engineers or that all men can give birth and be happy as house husbands.  

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

Except that's totally incorrect, as the Marian reforms (which professionalized the military and made it a standing, state-funded service where soldiers volunteered for 20+ year terms of service) was one of the most important and pivotal developments in Roman (if not European) history.  

Those statements are not connected. The marian reforms changed how soldiers were orgainzed when the legions WERE formed - it has nothing to do with whether or not they kept a large standing army.  For about 200 years ish after that The army was still conscripts as needed, with a very small number of legions kept active.  They wouldn't even move to standing forces till much later and even then they still did a lot of it by conscription as needed.

Swing and a miss kiddo.

 

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

This is Dunning-Kruger at it's best, with you confidently blustering about shit you know absolutely nothing about and embarrassing yourself over and over.  

talking to your mirror again'?

Quote

Having to station 10% of your armed forces in a remote, underpopulated backwater comprising probably less than 3-4% of your overall territory (and much less of your overall population) is certainly not an indication of the celts being "pacified" as you suggested, nor does the construction of Hadrian's wall on the northern british frontier.  

You have to station more even just to keep the peace when you can't get reinforcements there any time soon. They could easily raise more troops on the mainland if they needed them, they could move troops about, not much need for large forces everywhere.

And the wall worked .  That's the point. Did the celts ever threaten rome? Were the romans thrown off the island? Nope - they were a beaten people for the most part and at best there was a small amount of raiding.

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

Romandumdum.thumb.png.73fe9d58e3a70ef34e2dee5945845862.png

Goofily suggesting that the Germans weren't a problem (or the problem?) until the end of the Empire, when they were always a major problem for the Romans.

They weren't a major problem for the romans. As you proved - for the most part they had minor skirmishes and weren't much of an issue. Every few hundred years the'd have a limited success but otherwise just weren't an issue.  The romans handled them easily.  They weren't the reason the empire fell.

It's more like gangs today in America. Sure - they're an issue and they cause problems but there's no chance the US is going to collapse because of gang violence or activity.

Here's a clue - if something is going on for 700 years and still doesn't cause the civilization to fall - it's not why the civilization fell :)

Rome fell because of worse and worse leadership due to the tendancy of picking strong leaders over smart ones and an increasing beurocracy that sucked up all the revenues and became increasingly inefficient.

Sorry - you're just wrong here. Border fights were a thing that happened from the beginning to the end of the empire and all through the byzantine. They absolutely did not bring the country down. They weren't much of a problem, any more than crime is for modern culture today.

Sorry kiddo ';) next time try reading BEFORE you talk. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Americana Antifa said:

See, this is what I mean. No, we weren't energy independent under Trump. Did you fact-check this or do you just not care about reality?

The rest of your points are wrong or misleading, but do you care?

You’re such a victim of MSM talking points.  The cost of living was lower and America was more energy independent under Trump.  Those are facts.  Trump also launched Operation Warp Speed leading to the fastest and widest availability of free vaccines of almost any country.  Canada was a laggard purchaser of the failed Chinese Sinovax.  We then had to overspend to play catch-up.  That’s the fact, Jack.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

Sorry but there is some inevitability involved. With technology and the internet making life more comfortable and predictable.. women's role in society is going to increase. This is like going out in a rainstorm and crying because you got wet. 

And men are already on the losing end as women are dominating university enrolments and home ownership. Affirmative Action is now destroying young men much as liberal identity politicians have destroyed the “deplorable” workers, leading inevitably to the rise of Trump.  The libs are no longer progressive.  They’re the establishment elites protecting their privilege and hiding behind flowery feel good progressive language.  

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

And men are already on the losing end as women are dominating university enrolments and home ownership. Affirmative Action is now destroying young men much as liberal identity politicians have destroyed the “deplorable” workers, leading inevitably to the rise of Trump.  The libs are no longer progressive.  They’re the establishment elites protecting their privilege and hiding behind flowery feel good progressive language.  

interesting how you totally discount the importance of technology and the internet. Those apparently have nothing to do with why life has changed... it all has to do with Affirmative action and political rhetoric.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, I am Groot said:

Right. So it's to promote transgenderism and homosexuality. Have I got that right?

Exactly. It’s a top-down agenda led by big biotech and transhumanists like the Pritzker Family.  The trans movement is not grassroots but very much about destabilizing the family and putting people on pharmaceuticals.  It’s an attack on the individual and men and women.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

interesting how you totally discount the importance of technology and the internet. Those apparently have nothing to do with why life has changed... it all has to do with Affirmative action and political rhetoric.  

Sure add those factors.  What will you do with all the lost men?   Prison?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

I do not know. Feel free to post some doomsday theories. Sure that someone will read them and take them seriously... just not me

Then don’t be surprised by incels, rise of leaders you hate, and social disharmony.  Everything is connected.  As a Marxist you should know this.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Exactly. It’s a top-down agenda led by big biotech and transhumanists like the Pritzker Family.  The trans movement is not grassroots but very much about destabilizing the family and putting people on pharmaceuticals.  It’s an attack on the individual and men and women.  

Sounds like part of a "multi-pronged" approach

to reduce the surplus population

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
      10,695
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Linda Teskey
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • 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
    • Jeary earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Recently Browsing

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