Jump to content

Unvaccinated woman denied organ transplant proves natural immunity in bid for life-saving procedure


Recommended Posts

19 hours ago, Moonbox said:

It's not politics.  Medical professionals have a duty to ensure that precious organ donations are not wasted.  It's similar calculus to why younger people have a measure of priority over the elderly, and why alcoholics and drug addicts are regularly denied.

An overweight almost 60-year-old with double lung failure who refuses to be vaccinated for a highly contagious and potentially deadly respiratory virus is a bad risk considering she'll be immuno-compromised after the transplant.   Like...FFS.  

Giving her two lungs means that there are two people out there who only need one lung that aren't going to get it, and maybe die. 

The balance of ethics when it comes to organ transplants is about equity vs utility.  If you have two patients and one of them has a 25% chance of surviving 5 years, and the other has an 50% chance of surviving 10 years, the latter is prioritized.  

 

It is politics, she has qualified for the transplant before Covid, some medical professional thought she was a good candidate, checked all the boxes...your on the list, then some medical professional finds out she is not vaccinated and poof now you don't meet the standard...you might die, something i willing to bet they told her before she got on the list...nothing is guaranteed. except if your vaccinated then she would have received her treatment noi questions asked...

Is that what they are telling all over weight women whom refused to be vaccinated for what ever reason, that need life saving surgery... sorry no shot no surgery, i know you qualified for the transplant before , tough shit, no shot your going to die...your not worth the effort...

Must be new medicine, sorry you need two lungs, sorry we can't help you we could save two people in need, your to old, to fat, not vaccinated, but it does happen on a regular basis , i mean why put her on the list and give her hope if it was not possible to give her two lungs..

I get it doctors make these type of decisions all the time, is this decision being made becasue there is proof that covid will kill her in recovery...

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/26/2023 at 3:36 PM, herbie said:

So she was so f***ing butt stubborn she wouldn't get the vaccine to save her own f***ing life.
And we're supposed to have sympathy for her.

Willing to have herself cut open and someone elses guts stuffed inside her, but scared of a little needle jab....  in spite of having in twice. Like I guess we all know people who are so f***ing stupid they've had Covid two or three times and think that proves vaccines are bad.... DUHHHHHH ya just cant fix stupid.

I guess the health care system is only for smart people, i wonder if thats in the medical oath they take, sorry we don't fix stupid...your life is not worth saving...what do we do with people that still think the world is flat...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Whether or not to proceed is always, always, always at the clinical discretion of the physicians

Sure, but it shoudln't be political.

 

8 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Repeating that over and over again doesn't make it so.

What makes it so is the facts.  Denying it over and over again doesn't make it false.

There is no medical basis for her exclusion.

8 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Yes, she sought out and paid for an opinion that repeated her argument. 

It proved her argument. So there is no medical reason why she should be denied.

8 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Except that's just painfully, obliviously wrong.  

Based on her age - the chart you posted says there's no difference. Did you MEAN to prove me right?

8 hours ago, Moonbox said:

If I'm ever terminal and need an organ transplant to survive, I'll listen to the doctors. 

And if the doctors decide you don't deserve help because of your political views, you'll be fine with that right?

Here's a little extra tidbit.  They told her that if her name came up and she hadn't been vaccinated they wouldn't proceed.  Danielle smith heard about the policy and said that she will seek a second medical opinion on whether or not this policy is necessary or useful.  TEN DAYS after that announcement she gets a letter saying if she doesn't get the shot immediately she'll be dropped from the program, which means she dies. They did not want to give her time for Smith to look into this.

Sorry - 100 percent political.  And that's a bad reason to kill someone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

the doctors who did the analysis she provided do.

Any other questions?

As usual, you cherry-pick which doctors you listen to, and which you ignore.  That's about all there is to this story.  

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Based on her age - the chart you posted says there's no difference. Did you MEAN to prove me right?

You're not very good at reading charts, if that's what you're taking out of it.  You can (hopefully) acknowledge that it does indeed show substantially worse outcomes for older people.  This woman is exceptionally unhealthy, so although she's 57 in age and not represented on the chart, she's likely similar health situation to a 70+ year old, or worse.  

Regardless, that chart was posted to show you that COVID outcomes are still much better for vaccinated patients, which was what you were contesting.  

1 hour ago, Army Guy said:

I guess the health care system is only for smart people, i wonder if thats in the medical oath they take, sorry we don't fix stupid...your life is not worth saving...what do we do with people that still think the world is flat...

This isn't simple healthcare.  This is organ donation and transplants.  There are never enough donated organs, and always too many candidates.  One person's transplant is another person's death sentence.  That's the moral math the doctors have to do every day, and that's why they make decisions like this.  Drunks don't get liver transplants, addicts don't get kidney transplants and lung transplants don't go to smokers (or obstinate fools who won't get vaccinated for respiratory diseases that are killing transplant patients across the country).  

You were in the military.  You therefore probably understand the idea behind triage.  This is similar.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

As usual, you cherry-pick which doctors you listen to, and which you ignore.  That's about all there is to this story.  

Well no.  All else being equal doctors should be the same - not infallable but of equal credibility. 

However - in this case one group of doctors is ignoring medical evidence and appears to be pursuing an agenda, to the point where when it looked like they might be overruled by other doctors they threatened the woman unless she immediately caved to their wishes.

So I have reason to question the motives of one set.  YOU on the other hand simply pick the ones you like because you think the woman deserves to be punished for her stupidity.

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

You're not very good at reading charts, if that's what you're taking out of it.  You can (hopefully) acknowledge that it does indeed show substantially worse outcomes for older people. 

Yes, but not her age bracket.  Sooo - yes Arguably a threat to other people. Not her.

This woman is exceptionally unhealthy, so although she's 57 in age and not represented on the chart, she's likely similar health situation to a 70+ year old, or worse.  

Ahhhh so you ARE a medical doctor now. :)  There is absolutely no reason to believe that is true in the slightest. Further - she's already had it 2 times with no serious effects. AND as a result, as the medical information shows she's as immune as she would be if vaxxed.

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

Regardless, that chart was posted to show you that COVID outcomes are still much better for vaccinated patients, which was what you were contesting.  

No it doesn't. Not in that age bracket. That was a 100 percent swing and a  miss on your part and i think we both know it. Ther's no salvaging that

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

You were in the military.  You therefore probably understand the idea behind triage.  This is similar.  

What? When was I in the military? I don't think i've ever suggested that?

I do understand triage fine having done some time in a health care environment but again - there is NO MEDICAL BASIS FOR THIS DECISION.  She's got immunity such as there is from this variant, she was already cleared, and they are playing games.

This is punative.  It's just that simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

However - in this case one group of doctors is ignoring medical evidence and appears to be pursuing an agenda,

No, they're the doctors, and they chose which medical information/statistics to follow (being the medical experts themselves), rather than the sought-after and paid-for medical evidence of a woman who was only ever going to accept what already aligned with her ignorant worldview.  

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

to the point where when it looked like they might be overruled by other doctors they threatened the woman unless she immediately caved to their wishes.

This makes no sense.  There was nothing to overrule unless they'd already made their decision, and if they already made that decision then there was nothing to threaten her with.  

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Ahhhh so you ARE a medical doctor now. :)  There is absolutely no reason to believe that is true in the slightest.

Except for the statistics... the actual numbers that confirm and support it. 

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

No it doesn't. Not in that age bracket. That was a 100 percent swing and a  miss on your part and i think we both know it. Ther's no salvaging that

I don't need to show anything for any specific age bracket.  I showed you that COVID outcomes are better for vaccinated people.  That was what you were contested.  

If we had a subset showing 57-year old female transplant candidates with multiple organ failures, I'd have posted that, but nobody has much useful data on that anywhere, so the doctors have to infer based on what they do know and based on their experience.  

You're like a broken record. Swing and miss swing and miss me right you wrong because I say so swing and miss. 

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

What? When was I in the military? I don't think i've ever suggested that?

I was quoting someone else.  ?

 

Edited by Moonbox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

No, they're the doctors

and they've chosen to make this political instead of medical. Which is wrong.

11 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

This makes no sense.  There was nothing to overrule unless they'd already made their decision, and if they already made that decision then there was nothing to threaten her with.  

The premier absolutely can. If the premier says 'that requirement is gone", it's gone. So as soon as she said she'd look into it they made the demand.

11 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Except for the statistics... the actual numbers that confirm and support it. 

They don't. You screwed up and assumed she was older. The stats show there's no difference at her age AND WORSE for your case they show the chances of dying either way are almost zero. There's no debate here - that's what the charts say.

So your charts proved that there is no medical basis for this. Next time do your homework before throwing up the first thing google gives you without thinking it through.

11 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

I don't need to show anything for any specific age bracket. 

Of course you do. If her age bracket is not at risk then it's not at risk.  You effed up and now you're trying to spin it but we both know that's beyond stupid. Clearly there is NO risk of being unvaxxed based on the latest data you kindly provided.

11 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

If we had a subset showing 57-year old female transplant candidates with multiple organ failures, I'd have posted that,

But instead you posted one showing 57 year olds aren't at risk.  Thanks. That's all we needed to know.

Anything else would be pure conjecture and smoke and mirrors on your part. People her age are safe.

11 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

You're like a broken record. Swing and miss swing and miss me right you wrong because I say so swing and miss.

Holy crap guys - i think i broke him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, CdnFox said:

and they've chosen to make this political instead of medical. Which is wrong.

No, you've chosen to frame it that way.  The physicians on the team made their medical decision, and because it's about COVID, of course Rebel and True North News, stalwarts of journalism that they are, are banging the conspiracy drums.  

8 hours ago, CdnFox said:

The premier absolutely can. If the premier says 'that requirement is gone", it's gone. So as soon as she said she'd look into it they made the demand.

Not the premier's decision.  

8 hours ago, CdnFox said:

They don't. You screwed up and assumed she was older.

Oh my god.  No I didn't.  You can go back through this thread and quote me numerous times calling her a 57-year old woman.  SwInG anD a MiSs, as you say.  Here you are again though doing your strawman routine - something that people on this forum point out to you regularly.  

If that's all you have to offer, and more broken record repetition of "it's political it's political no medical evidence it's political", I'm bored, and won't be responding further.  

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

No, you've chosen to frame it that way.

THe only reason you try to make that claim instead of addressing the specifics of their decision is because you don't like the idea that it's political. But your dislike doesn't change the facts.

The person has presented proof she's as immune as anyone vaxxed. She's had two experts back that up, She's otherwise absolutely qualified to receive the transplant. And when the gov't said 'maybe we should look at this' they threatened to take her off the list permanently, basically killing her

There is no medical basis for this, according to several medical experts and the doctors and policy makers responsible have not offered ANY defense against that in the slightest. They have simply replied 'We get to pick and we can do what we like". 

4 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Not the premier's decision.  

Of course it is.

4 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Oh my god.  No I didn't.  . 

Of course you did.  It's painfully obvious  You posted quickly and didn't double check the facts.

Now your chart shows you were WRONG and you're trying desperately to twist it into some half assed argument that by showing that you're wrong it actually shows you were right.

I get it. we all sometimes go a little fast and post something without thinking about it, But it is BEYOND PATHETIC that you're trying to claim that because there is NO DIFFERENCE for her age range that proves she's vunerable because COMPLETELY DIFFERENT age ranges have other results.

Beyond. Pathetic.

Own your mistakes in life and move on. It robs you of ANY credibility when you behave like this.

There is no medical reason to deny her, they're not even putting that forward as a n argument.  This is about people who've decided she should suffer and die because they think she's "Stupid", etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

I get it. we all sometimes go a little fast and post something without thinking about it, But it is BEYOND PATHETIC that you're trying to claim that because there is NO DIFFERENCE for her age range that proves she's vunerable because COMPLETELY DIFFERENT age ranges have other results.

So your argument is that because she's 57, the chart proving that outcomes for unvaccinated COVID patients over 60 are much worse is somehow invalid?  ?

The 57 year old woman with multiple-organ failures that would be on immuno-suppressed post-transplant, is somehow less vulnerable than your average 60+ year old?  That's what you're trying to tell us?  

Yikes.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

o your argument is that because she's 57, the chart proving that outcomes for unvaccinated COVID patients over 60 are much worse is somehow invalid?

That would be ANYBODY'S argument.

Is covid even going to be an issue half a decade from now? The AVERAGE age in the  next range is 7 years older than her.  The boosters only last months, so are any of the other people signing that they'll GUARANTEE to take the boosters for the next 7 years? Will covid treatments improve between now and then?

It is IDIOCY to claim that SOME HOW the results of an age group that averages 7 years older than she is somehow means HER age group, which has ZERO cases, is relevant.

And here you are yet again tripling down on the retarded.  You screwed up and proved MY case instead of proving your own, and i get that makes you angry but it's hardly my fault.

21 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

he 57 year old woman with multiple-organ failures that would be on immuno-suppressed post-transplant,

Good thing she's already got the antibodies then isn't it. As proven by her medical tests. As attested to by immunologists (TWO of them) specifically in her case.

So once again - there's NO MEDICAL REASON FOR DENYING HER.  This is petty and political. As your chart helps prove.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, CdnFox said:

It is IDIOCY to claim that SOME HOW the results of an age group that averages 7 years older than she is somehow means HER age group, which has ZERO cases, is relevant.

Another strawman. You just can't help yourself.  ?

Nobody said that 60+ is her age group.  She's 57, so that's self-evidently not the case.  

Next, her age group doesn't have zero deaths.  Her age group has low covid deaths per 100,000 person-days (learn to read charts).  

Regardless, the chart disproved your claim that COVID outcomes aren't better for vaccinated people anymore.  They clearly are, and the fact that it's only visibly obvious at 60+ is only because that's a more vulnerable demographic with higher rates of co-morbidity. 

That this woman is only 57 is irrelevant to the above point.  Additionally, the absurd logic you're implying here is that this woman is somehow not vulnerable because she's 57, and not 60+.  A multiple-organ failure patient at 57, apparently, is more healthy and less vulnerable to COVID than your average 60+ year old, according to big brain CdnFox.  

Thanks for the chuckles.  ?

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Another strawman. You just can't help yourself.  ?

LOL - so now you're having english issues?  That's not what a 'strawman' is :)

Typical lib - use your 'fallacy of the day' calendar and accuse the person of whatever today's is. FFS, learn what words mean before you use them.

The chart shows that the relevant age range has NO difference AT ALL.

41 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Nobody said that 60+ is her age group.  She's 57, so that's self-evidently not the case.  

You obviously missed that when you went looking for that graph to prove a point you'd already decided before looking at the evidence :)

You screwed up. Now you're trying to recon it to make it look like you just had a really bad point instead of a complete eff up.

41 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Next, her age group doesn't have zero deaths.  Her age group has low covid deaths per 100,000 person-days (learn to read charts).  

There's no difference. Sorry. 

41 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Regardless, the chart disproved your claim that COVID outcomes aren't better for vaccinated people anymore.  They clearly are, and the fact that it's only visibly obvious at 60+ is only because that's a more vulnerable demographic with higher rates of co-morbidity. 

It proves i was absolutely correct for her age range. Which is what we're talking about. Nice try tho :)

41 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

That this woman is only 57 is irrelevant to the above point. 

It is THE ONLY THING relevant to the above point,

You TOTALLY screwed up and now you're desperately trying to defend the indefensible.

You are quickly progressing from 'i made a mistake' to "i'm an unmitigated retard who's such a desperate loser i can't even admit i made a mistake in an online discussion".  Pathetic.


Say it slowly with me .... The.. Chart... Shows... There's.... No... Risk... At.... Her.... Age.

There's no medical reason to refuse her. You just hate people who didn't want to get vaxxed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

There's no medical reason to refuse her. You just hate people who didn't want to get vaxxed.

You've said her surgeons are using hatred along with bitter spite and ideology as the reasons for their decision.

You should be able to prove these allegations. Say you were her lawyer arguing her case in court, how would you go about doing that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, eyeball said:

You've said her surgeons are using hatred along with bitter spite and ideology as the reasons for their decision.

You should be able to prove these allegations. Say you were her lawyer arguing her case in court, how would you go about doing that?

I'd go back and delete what i'd posted before and put something else in and pretend i'd never said it.  Oh - wait - that's what i'd do if i were YOU in court :) LOL!!!

It's not hard. You would demonstrate that there was no medical reason and then you would show that the remaining reasons had to do with their opinions on the unvaxxed which their behavior reflects. IT's not a criminal case, you don't need proof beyond a reasonable doubt. You would need "clear and convincing", and if a bunch of medical experts are saying that they're wrong and they can't come up with a solid reason to refute that, then they'll have to explain what OTHER motive they had and that's going to be a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/28/2023 at 10:43 PM, Moonbox said:

 

This isn't simple healthcare.  This is organ donation and transplants.  There are never enough donated organs, and always too many candidates.  One person's transplant is another person's death sentence.  That's the moral math the doctors have to do every day, and that's why they make decisions like this.

  Drunks don't get liver transplants, addicts don't get kidney transplants and lung transplants don't go to smokers (or obstinate fools who won't get vaccinated for respiratory diseases that are killing transplant patients across the country).  

You were in the military.  You therefore probably understand the idea behind triage.  This is similar.  

It may not be simple , but it is up to our health care providers to look after this section of it. And i get it there is a list that has more names on it than organs, getting new organs depend on alot of things that further limit your chances...but if there is no one that meets those restrictions such as blood type etc, then why not... that being said SHE was already on that list, a doctor or perhaps several doctors approved her for transplant, along comes the pandemic, and shit your now no longer qualify, no shots no service...

and drunks, addicts, smokers have received new organs, how the list works not sure, what restrictions have been put in place again not sure how the whole thing works or how they qualified but they are out there. 

I understand triage, but this is just refusing to provide services due to not having a shot...this could have easily been a 21 year old kid... or do them make exceptions for young people...and we really don't know why she is refusing to get her shot, we are just assuming, like the doctors are about her health after surgery. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Army Guy said:

that being said SHE was already on that list, a doctor or perhaps several doctors approved her for transplant, along comes the pandemic, and shit your now no longer qualify, no shots no service...

The list is not set in stone.  It changes and people get bumped and re-prioritized all the time.  She originally jumped the queue and they put her at the top of the list because she was deteriorating so fast.  Then she decided to be a donkey.  

What's somehow getting lost here is that she's refusing to get vaccinated for respiratory illness that at one point was killing 40% of transplant patients who contracted it, prior to getting a double-lung transplant.  

Let's repeat that again...the requirement is for a vaccination to protect against a respiratory illness, prior to a double lung transplant.  

13 hours ago, Army Guy said:

and drunks, addicts, smokers have received new organs, how the list works not sure, what restrictions have been put in place again not sure how the whole thing works or how they qualified but they are out there. 

That they have received organs isn't the question.  They're low-priority candidates, especially for the organ they're damaging with their habits.  The idea here is not to waste good organs on bad cases.  That's all.   

13 hours ago, Army Guy said:

I understand triage, but this is just refusing to provide services due to not having a shot...this could have easily been a 21 year old kid...

and maybe if it was a 21-year old kid, it might be different.  Who knows? In this case, she's 57.  

The Premier of Alberta went and looked for a second opinion, because the apes were screeching about this.  Her second opinion confirmed the original decision, as did the courts.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, CdnFox said:

You TOTALLY screwed up and now you're desperately trying to defend the indefensible.

I screwed up by thinking that a 57 year old was 60+?  That's your argument!?! ?

20 hours ago, CdnFox said:

You are quickly progressing from 'i made a mistake' to "i'm an unmitigated retard who's such a desperate loser i can't even admit i made a mistake in an online discussion".  Pathetic.

When the crux of your argument is that I can't tell the different between 57, and 60+, who's actually the desperate loser?  I'm not the one pounding out 30+ battle-mode posts a day, arguing absurd strawmen like the one above, and projecting emotions and ego onto anyone who debates you. 

Strawmen and projection - these are superpowers.  Fight on brave internet warrior.  Mom is watching.  moronhero.thumb.png.3499c4a659e031487c5815158295518e.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

The list is not set in stone.  It changes and people get bumped and re-prioritized all the time.

Not really.  And if the re prioritization is political rather than medical then that's a problem.

I don't know why that's so hard for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

I screwed up by thinking that a 57 year old was 60+?  That's your argument!?! ?

that's the fact - YOUR argument is that somehow  the age groups she's ACTUALLY in is LESS relevant than one she's NOT in! :):)  :)

Dude that is special-stupid.

Everyone can see you screwed up but sure - dig your hole as deep as you like :)

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

When the crux of your argument is that I can't tell the different between 57, and 60+, who's actually the desperate loser?

It's still you.  I think you made a mistake and didn't check her age properly and assumed she was older :)  Then realized you screwed up when i pointed it out

And your defense is "an age group much older than her on average is MUCH more relevant than the age group she's ACTUALLY A PART OF!  Seriously - how stupid do you think people are?

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

 

  I'm not the one pounding out 30+ battle-mode posts a day, arguing absurd strawmen like the one above, and projecting emotions and ego onto anyone who debates you. 

Aww muffin - are you reduced to ad hominems again? That's the best you've got?

And reduced to cheezy pictures on top of it :)  LOLOL - wow, you're REALLY feeling embarrassed about your performance aren't you :)

And you should. That was some pretty poor thinking .

Here, you like pictures so i made this just for you - i'm sure it'll come in handy often :)

7k56iw.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

that's the fact - YOUR argument is that somehow  the age groups she's ACTUALLY in is LESS relevant than one she's NOT in! :):)  :)

Dude that is special-stupid.

Everyone can see you screwed up but sure - dig your hole as deep as you like :)

No, everyone except you it seems is quite capable of seeing that the condition she's in is the only relevant factor. I'm quite certain if she was only 5 years old and her parents were refusing to have her vaccinated the same factor would prevail.

Although I would hope that authorities would take that decision out of the parents hands. Wouldn't you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, eyeball said:

No, everyone except you it seems is quite capable of seeing that the condition she's in is the only relevant factor. I'm quite certain if she was only 5 years old and her parents were refusing to have her vaccinated the same factor would prevail.

Oh look - another left wing pro vaxxer agrees with targeting people due to their decisions and not for medical reason :)

And moonbox isn't everybody. Sorry

23 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Although I would hope that authorities would take that decision out of the parents hands. Wouldn't you?

Parents? She's 57.  Did you respond to the right thread?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,714
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    wopsas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Venandi went up a rank
      Explorer
    • 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
  • Recently Browsing

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