Jump to content

Dirty Doug’s Den of Deplorable Developer Deals


Recommended Posts

Doug Ford’s Corruption 

Well the cat is out of the bag as an Ontario auditor general’s investigation confirms what the public knew all along: Ontario Premier Doug Ford invented the need for, then rigged, the unnecessary development of environmentally protected land in order to approve lucrative development deals for party donors who then profited to the tune of more than $8Bn dollars  

To recap all the news that’s come to light in recent years, specifically:

:When Ford was first running for office he vowed not to develop any Greenbelt land.however a recording of him promising a room full of developers he would in fact develop said land soon surfaced  Doug denied, obfuscated, made excuses etc  and swore it was all a big misunderstanding, he would never do the things that he was caught on tape saying he was going to do  

- Developers and their lobbyists made significant donations to his political campaign and even attended his daughter’s wedding

-Fords government has abused Ministerial Zoning Order powers, using them far more than any previous government in provincial history, and for private developments. MZOs are extreme measures usually meant for urgent critical public infrastructure they nullify most provincial and municipal requirements for things like public consultation, environmental assessments, etc. and specifically prevent citizens and municipalities from opposing, delaying, investigating or otherwise interfering with the development  

- After Doug was elected, there was a sudden rush of politically connected developers buying up environmentally sensitive greenbelt land that was protected from development … and by what must be sheer luck, most of that land suddenly had its environmental restrictions removed and approved for development. Isn’t that just the darnedest coincidence?  Especially since Doug swore he was never going to do the thing he just did and was caught on tape saying he was going to do  

 

But now the auditor general has confirmed that:

- Doug lied about the need to develop environmentally protected land in the first place as ample non-protected land exists 

- Although the Ford administration established a supposedly independent panel of non-political government staff to select from the 630 requests for land to be developed, the process was rigged to approve proposals from a specific list of Ford donors provided by Fords minister, All 15 chosen were Ford donors  All involved staff (94 in total) were forced to sign strict confidentiality agreements to keep them quiet 

-The Ministers office was closely coordinating with the donors on the process the entire time,  

- Overall, of the 3,000 hectares extracted from Greenbelt protection, 92 per cent was removed as a direct result of developer access to Ford government officials. 

 

Blatant corruption 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Doug Ford’s Corruption 

Well the cat is out of the bag as an Ontario auditor general’s investigation confirms what the public knew all along: Ontario Premier Doug Ford invented the need for, then rigged, the unnecessary development of environmentally protected land in order to approve lucrative development deals for party donors who then profited to the tune of more than $8Bn dollars  

To recap all the news that’s come to light in recent years, specifically:

:When Ford was first running for office he vowed not to develop any Greenbelt land.however a recording of him promising a room full of developers he would in fact develop said land soon surfaced  Doug denied, obfuscated, made excuses etc  and swore it was all a big misunderstanding, he would never do the things that he was caught on tape saying he was going to do  

- Developers and their lobbyists made significant donations to his political campaign and even attended his daughter’s wedding

-Fords government has abused Ministerial Zoning Order powers, using them far more than any previous government in provincial history, and for private developments. MZOs are extreme measures usually meant for urgent critical public infrastructure they nullify most provincial and municipal requirements for things like public consultation, environmental assessments, etc. and specifically prevent citizens and municipalities from opposing, delaying, investigating or otherwise interfering with the development  

- After Doug was elected, there was a sudden rush of politically connected developers buying up environmentally sensitive greenbelt land that was protected from development … and by what must be sheer luck, most of that land suddenly had its environmental restrictions removed and approved for development. Isn’t that just the darnedest coincidence?  Especially since Doug swore he was never going to do the thing he just did and was caught on tape saying he was going to do  

 

But now the auditor general has confirmed that:

- Doug lied about the need to develop environmentally protected land in the first place as ample non-protected land exists 

- Although the Ford administration established a supposedly independent panel of non-political government staff to select from the 630 requests for land to be developed, the process was rigged to approve proposals from a specific list of Ford donors provided by Fords minister, All 15 chosen were Ford donors  All involved staff (94 in total) were forced to sign strict confidentiality agreements to keep them quiet 

-The Ministers office was closely coordinating with the donors on the process the entire time,  

- Overall, of the 3,000 hectares extracted from Greenbelt protection, 92 per cent was removed as a direct result of developer access to Ford government officials. 

 

Blatant corruption 

Not to deny the housing ministers chief of staff dubious/ dishonest dealings but, the greenbelt is over 2,000,000 acres. A few acres around Markam and Niagra for much needed housing will not destroy the greenbelt.

Just a different perspective.
Oh and, not a Ford supporter but definitely not NDP and not fond of John Fraser.

Edited by ExFlyer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

the greenbelt is over 2,000,000 acres. A few acres around Markam and Niagra for much needed housing will not destroy the greenbelt.

My problem with that line of argument is threefold:

1) There are REAL consequences to developing this protected land, its not just a few inconsequential and random empty fields we are talking about here, these are creeks, waterways, wetlands and heritage crop land that are vital to local ecosystems

2) The argument is the standard polluter’s motto: the litterbug says “a few pieces of garbage will not do any harm” and the rainforest clear-cutter says “there are millions of trees, taking a few thousand won’t do any harm”  It’s a logic trap known as “the bald man’s paradox”:  as the lesson goes, imagine a man with a full head of hair who begins plucking hairs out one at a time each time saying “there are plenty of hairs left before I go bald”.  The paradox is that there will never be an obvious point where he crosses the line:  there is no point where a single hair when plucked makes him transition from “not bald” to bald and when replaced returns him to “not bald”. Rather it the gradual transition from “not bald” to “bald” is so gradual and incremental that the man and others will only perceive it over time and after the fact. Eventually as he plucks his hair some people will begin to consider him bald given the amount of hair lost while others might disagree until later.   But eventually everyone will consider him bald even though he will still have hundreds of hairs left on his head at that time, perhaps even some thick patches of it  

3) IMO the logic of “it’s only a small piece of the greenbelt” is inverse to the larger reality. Instead of saying they are only snatching a small piece of protected land for development, we must first recognize that this protected land is only small sliver of the total landmass and even that small sliver is too much for people like Ford   If the “small piece” rile is so valid then why are they coming foe the greenbelt which is itself a small piece?  Per the AG’s confirmation there was no need to snatch greenbelt land for housing targets anyway and no indication that the greenbelt land would be developed within their target housing timeframe anyway

Edited by BeaverFever
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

My problem with that line of argument is threefold:

1) There are REAL consequences to developing this protected land, its not just a few inconsequential and random empty fields we are talking about here, these are creeks, waterways, wetlands and heritage crop land that are vital to local ecosystems

2) The argument is the standard polluter’s motto: the litterbug says “a few pieces of garbage will not do any harm” and the rainforest clear-cutter says “there are millions of trees, taking a few thousand won’t do any harm”  It’s a logic trap known as “the bald man’s paradox”:  as the lesson goes, imagine a man with a full head of hair who begins plucking hairs out one at a time each time saying “there are plenty of hairs left before I go bald”.  The paradox is that there will never be an obvious point where he crosses the line:  there is no point where a single hair when plucked makes him transition from “not bald” to bald and when replaced returns him to “not bald”. Rather it the gradual transition from “not bald” to “bald” is so gradual and incremental that the man and others will only perceive it over time and after the fact. Eventually as he plucks his hair some people will begin to consider him bald given the amount of hair lost while others might disagree until later.   But eventually everyone will consider him bald even though he will still have hundreds of hairs left on his head at that time, perhaps even some thick patches of it  

3) IMO the logic of “it’s only a small piece of the greenbelt” is inverse to the larger reality. Instead of saying they are only snatching a small piece of protected land for development, we must first recognize that this protected land is only small sliver of the total landmass and even that small sliver is too much for people like Ford   If the “small piece” rile is so valid then why are they coming foe the greenbelt which is itself a small piece?  Per the AG’s confirmation there was no need to snatch greenbelt land for housing targets anyway and no indication that the greenbelt land would be developed within their target housing timeframe anyway

"My problem with that line of argument is" that all things in perspective.

1.Housing is the number one issue in Canada and Ontario right now. Do you have a solution for the housing crisis? Houses need to be built somewhere. Taking 3000 acres out of 2,000,000 for the immediate needs is valid. The "real consequences" are that houses are needed and empty land is not.

2. That is the stupidest thing i have read in a long time. If you have alternatives, demonstrate them but, it seems there is none for the housing crises. There is a lot of "Cry wolf" going on. Land sitting fallow may look pretty when photographed form space but it does nothing for growing cities or communities. The unfortunate fact of things is, you need land to build housing for people. The AG never said you do not need to use that land, it said they don't like the way it was done. The government said it will do 14 of 15 the recommendations.

3. And what may be the "inverse to the larger reality"? Whining about land and whining about lack of housing ....which need is greater and more immediate? There is always a price to pay for progress and making things happen for the people. What did environmentalists bring to the party except complaining and whining. No environmentalist has ever brought forth any solution or, even more importantly, physical or fiscal assistance tor issues and crisis.

When there is a need, unpopular decisions will always have to be made and the decision for the people is far better than the whining of naysayers with no solutions.

Having said that, the persons in government hat somehow skewed this development process to only 2 developers should be investigated and potentially fired. For the government to agree with and do something with 14 out of 15 recommendations is commendable but that last one is key, and ministers staff need to be investigated and held accountable for the handling of the land transfer.

In the end, what is more important, places for people to live or plants??

 

Edited by ExFlyer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

What did environmentalists bring to the party except complaining and whining. No environmentalist has ever brought forth any solution or, even more importantly, physical or fiscal assistance tor issues and crisis.

Environmentalists, scientists actually, gave us the solution nearly 50 years ago. SLOW DOWN!

Now we're heading for a cliff, the scientists have been locked in the trunk and everyone else is fighting over the wheel. Oh and the brakes are hooped.

In the meantime this would be a good teachable opportunity to demonstrate how corruption gets things done and that tilting the economic playing field towards the billionaires may be the best way forward. The 1% represent the future of humanity and we need to launch them over the cliff to the other side of the chasm like Evel Knievel. The rest of us are just a disposable means to that end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Environmentalists, scientists actually, gave us the solution nearly 50 years ago. SLOW DOWN!

Now we're heading for a cliff, the scientists have been locked in the trunk and everyone else is fighting over the wheel. Oh and the brakes are hooped.

In the meantime this would be a good teachable opportunity to demonstrate how corruption gets things done and that tilting the economic playing field towards the billionaires may be the best way forward. The 1% represent the future of humanity and we need to launch them over the cliff to the other side of the chasm like Evel Knievel. The rest of us are just a disposable means to that end.

Solution to what??? Stop making babies? LOL
Well, as i said, I agree that the housing ministers office is and in particular his chief of staff (an unelected employee of the minister) should be investigated... and with all the pressure, still may be.

Lets stop with the 1% stuff. That only shows your envy of what they make or do. They are the ones that create employment so you can buy a house or food or cars or clothing. They are the ones who took the risks while you worked for them and sat in the homes they built.

The rest of us are beholding to them that they keep us employed and not just shut down, live off their assets and put you out on the street.  That is one way to look at it...just like your take is another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Solution to what??? Stop making babies? LOL

That was pretty much it in a nutshell.

Quote

Lets stop with the 1% stuff. That only shows your envy of what they make or do.

No, think of them as humanity's offspring - that we invest all of our labour and resources in to ensure survival of the species.  Corruption is probably the most efficient way of doing so.

Edited by eyeball
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

That was pretty much it in a nutshell.

No, think of them as humanity's offspring - that we invest all of our labour and resources in to ensure survival of the species.  Corruption is probably the most efficient way of doing so.

Now you are talking about politicians, not the top 1% earners. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I'm just talking about people.

So "think of them as humanity's offspring - that we invest all of our labour and resources in to ensure survival of the species.  Corruption is probably the most efficient way of doing so." is everybody? All people?

You have lost me now. Green belt intrusion. 14 0f 15 recommendations accepted. Minister of housing chief of staff? Don't know where you are anymore :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Corruption is probably the most efficient way of doing so." is everybody? All people?

Well, everybody will have to learn to accept the necessity for corruption which is why I said this is a teachable moment. This story has it all, a public need in the face of an intractable problem, the wheels need grease to make it happen.

What isn't there to get?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/11/2023 at 11:08 AM, ExFlyer said:

Not to deny the housing ministers chief of staff dubious/ dishonest dealings but, the greenbelt is over 2,000,000 acres. A few acres around Markam and Niagra for much needed housing will not destroy the greenbelt.

Bit of trivia. Do most people know offhand how big a million acres is? I’d say most non-farmers don’t. Ok it’s clearly a lot but I had to look this up. It’s 1562.5 square miles or a square 39.5 x 39.5 miles. 

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

17 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

We do need lots more housing around Toronto, so some marks for that. However, a Canadian govt should have been able to handle this far better. 

Provincial.

Well, the land is there and what is it there for? To be used in the future, when needed. So,a tiny part in 2 separate areas is now needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Provincial.

Well, the land is there and what is it there for? To be used in the future, when needed. So,a tiny part in 2 separate areas is now needed.

Any govt or administration at any level in this country, from federal to municipal, should have been able to avoid such blindingly obvious pitfalls. I agree we need lots more houses. 

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

12 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Bit of trivia. Do most people know offhand how big a million acres is? I’d say most non-farmers don’t. Ok it’s clearly a lot but I had to look this up. It’s 1562.5 square miles or a square 39.5 x 39.5 miles. 

So, 3000 acres is 4.6875 sq miles in 2 separate and far from each other.

The whole green belt for housing issue is old and ongoing. Some is taken, some is added.

https://www.newmarkettoday.ca/local-news/ontario-opening-up-parts-of-york-region-greenbelt-for-housing-6059028

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another big thing is increasing the density of our existing developments. There’s way too much sprawl in Toronto and surrounding areas. 
 

It is difficult to explain to foreigners how a basically empty subcontinent is unable to do a better job at this. 

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

As for the economics of greater density, there would be less need for new and expensive power/water/sewer systems and homeowners would have an opportunity to compete with developers.  Seniors could boost their retirement income and young families could pay down their mortgages sooner by becoming landlords.

Edited by eyeball
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

"My problem with that line of argument is" that all things in perspective.

1.Housing is the number one issue in Canada and Ontario right now. Do you have a solution for the housing crisis? Houses need to be built somewhere. Taking 3000 acres out of 2,000,000 for the immediate needs is valid. The "real consequences" are that houses are needed and empty land is not.

2. That is the stupidest thing i have read in a long time. If you have alternatives, demonstrate them but, it seems there is none for the housing crises. There is a lot of "Cry wolf" going on. Land sitting fallow may look pretty when photographed form space but it does nothing for growing cities or communities. The unfortunate fact of things is, you need land to build housing for people. The AG never said you do not need to use that land, it said they don't like the way it was done. The government said it will do 14 of 15 the recommendations.

3. And what may be the "inverse to the larger reality"? Whining about land and whining about lack of housing ....which need is greater and more immediate? There is always a price to pay for progress and making things happen for the people. What did environmentalists bring to the party except complaining and whining. No environmentalist has ever brought forth any solution or, even more importantly, physical or fiscal assistance tor issues and crisis.

When there is a need, unpopular decisions will always have to be made and the decision for the people is far better than the whining of naysayers with no solutions.

Having said that, the persons in government hat somehow skewed this development process to only 2 developers should be investigated and potentially fired. For the government to agree with and do something with 14 out of 15 recommendations is commendable but that last one is key, and ministers staff need to be investigated and held accountable for the handling of the land transfer.

In the end, what is more important, places for people to live or plants??

 

So clearly you missed the part of rhe AG report - which I also mentioned in my post - that stated greenbelt land was NOT needed to meet the government’s housing requirements as ample non-greenbelt land is available for development.
 

The second thing you missed is that AG stated that there was NO evidence to suggest that any of the doctored greenbelt land deals will be developed within the timeline of Ford’s housing strategy

 

The third thing you missed was that 15th recommendation:the one rhat Doug WONT overturn, which is the outcome.  Imagine if Joe Biden came to a microphone and admitted that 2020 election had been rigged in his favour without his knowledge and he would implement every recommendation from investigators except the one to overturn the election result it’s absolutely comical. 


Lastly your suggestion that these ecologically important areas are nothing more than “land sitting fallow” that “does nothing for communities” is false, as is your suggestion that it is just “plants”.   Furthermore your statement that “No environmentalist has ever brought forth any solution or, even more importantly, physical or fiscal assistance tor issues and crisis.” is also false. Your comments suggest that you’ve never spent a minute of your life reading or listening to what any “environmentalist” has to say on the subject so you are likely unaware. Also not wanting to see your local creeks and wetlands paved over doesn’t make one an “environmentalist”. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

So clearly you missed the part of rhe AG report - which I also mentioned in my post - that stated greenbelt land was NOT needed to meet the government’s housing requirements as ample non-greenbelt land is available for development.

Is this non-greenbelt land explicitly described in the report and is it in large pieces suitable for similar development right now? 

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

9 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Is this non-greenbelt land explicitly described in the report and is it in large pieces suitable for similar development right now? 

Yes in the  “at a glance” summary the AG says

Greenbelt Changes Not Necessary to Achieve Government Housing Targets
• The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Housing Ministry) had already allocated the entirety of the 1.5-million-unit housing target to municipalities in October 2022—one month before the government’s proposal to remove land from the Greenbelt.


• The government and the Housing Ministry did not have evidence that removing land from the Greenbelt was needed to meet the government’s housing goals.


• Ontario’s Housing Affordability Task Force determined that a shortage of land was not the cause of the province’s housing challenges and that the Greenbelt and other environmentally sensitive areas must be protected.


• Chief Planners in the regions of Durham, Hamilton and York—which are home to all 15 sites removed from the Greenbelt—told us that Greenbelt land was not needed to meet the housing targets assigned to them by the Housing Ministry and that there is sufficient land outside the Greenbelt in their regions that is already or easily serviced.


• The Regional Planning Commissioners of Ontario, a group of senior municipal planning leaders from across Ontario, stated it does not support the removal of lands from the Greenbelt as a necessary step to address Ontario’s housing needs.
 

You can read that here:

https://www.auditor.on.ca/en/content/news/specials_newsreleases/ataglance_Greenbelt_EN.pdf
 

Or you can read the full report here, with relevant details in Ss.  4.2,4.3 and 4.5:

 

https://www.auditor.on.ca/en/content/specialreports/specialreports/Greenbelt_en.pdf

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

So clearly you missed the part of rhe AG report - which I also mentioned in my post - that stated greenbelt land was NOT needed to meet the government’s housing requirements as ample non-greenbelt land is available for development.
 

The second thing you missed is that AG stated that there was NO evidence to suggest that any of the doctored greenbelt land deals will be developed within the timeline of Ford’s housing strategy

 

The third thing you missed was that 15th recommendation:the one rhat Doug WONT overturn, which is the outcome.  Imagine if Joe Biden came to a microphone and admitted that 2020 election had been rigged in his favour without his knowledge and he would implement every recommendation from investigators except the one to overturn the election result it’s absolutely comical. 


Lastly your suggestion that these ecologically important areas are nothing more than “land sitting fallow” that “does nothing for communities” is false, as is your suggestion that it is just “plants”.   Furthermore your statement that “No environmentalist has ever brought forth any solution or, even more importantly, physical or fiscal assistance tor issues and crisis.” is also false. Your comments suggest that you’ve never spent a minute of your life reading or listening to what any “environmentalist” has to say on the subject so you are likely unaware. Also not wanting to see your local creeks and wetlands paved over doesn’t make one an “environmentalist”. 

Bottom line is the green belts are for future use, for whatever reason.

The Auditor said a lot but proved nothing. It is easy to be a critic...whine and complain but never propose solutions.

Also every piece of dirt can m]be claimed to be "ecologically important". It depends who is claiming and who needs that land and for what reason.
Environmentalists, to me, are blowhards that cannot find real work. I am a realist that has a desire to deal with things today. Not philosophically but realistically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/11/2023 at 1:14 AM, BeaverFever said:

Doug Ford’s Corruption 

Well the cat is out of the bag as an Ontario auditor general’s investigation confirms what the public knew all along: Ontario Premier Doug Ford invented the need for, then rigged, the unnecessary development of environmentally protected land in order to approve lucrative development deals for party donors who then profited to the tune of more than $8Bn dollars  

To recap all the news that’s come to light in recent years, specifically:

:When Ford was first running for office he vowed not to develop any Greenbelt land.however a recording of him promising a room full of developers he would in fact develop said land soon surfaced  Doug denied, obfuscated, made excuses etc  and swore it was all a big misunderstanding, he would never do the things that he was caught on tape saying he was going to do  

- Developers and their lobbyists made significant donations to his political campaign and even attended his daughter’s wedding

-Fords government has abused Ministerial Zoning Order powers, using them far more than any previous government in provincial history, and for private developments. MZOs are extreme measures usually meant for urgent critical public infrastructure they nullify most provincial and municipal requirements for things like public consultation, environmental assessments, etc. and specifically prevent citizens and municipalities from opposing, delaying, investigating or otherwise interfering with the development  

- After Doug was elected, there was a sudden rush of politically connected developers buying up environmentally sensitive greenbelt land that was protected from development … and by what must be sheer luck, most of that land suddenly had its environmental restrictions removed and approved for development. Isn’t that just the darnedest coincidence?  Especially since Doug swore he was never going to do the thing he just did and was caught on tape saying he was going to do  

 

But now the auditor general has confirmed that:

- Doug lied about the need to develop environmentally protected land in the first place as ample non-protected land exists 

- Although the Ford administration established a supposedly independent panel of non-political government staff to select from the 630 requests for land to be developed, the process was rigged to approve proposals from a specific list of Ford donors provided by Fords minister, All 15 chosen were Ford donors  All involved staff (94 in total) were forced to sign strict confidentiality agreements to keep them quiet 

-The Ministers office was closely coordinating with the donors on the process the entire time,  

- Overall, of the 3,000 hectares extracted from Greenbelt protection, 92 per cent was removed as a direct result of developer access to Ford government officials. 

 

Blatant corruption 

I concede to being a NIMBY

I don't want my greenbelt paved over with suburban wasteland subdivisions

but the cost of living is so high in relation to wages

that there is an entire generation being forced to live with their parents into their thirties now

and that generation is demanding that the governments do something about it

and when government interferes with the free market,

that is what allows the market to be captured by entrenched interests

so I don't see an alternative no matter which party I vote for

and since the voters seem to view government intervening in the housing market as a necessity

I don't think Doug Ford will be punished by the electorate for caving into their demands

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

green belts are for future use, for whatever reason.

Not true at all

 

58 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

The Auditor said a lot but proved nothing.

Not true. Read the report. 
 

59 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Also every piece of dirt can m]be claimed to be "ecologically important". It depends who is claiming and who needs that land and for what reason.
Environmentalists, to me, are blowhards that cannot find real work.

This is not true either 

 

 

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
      10,717
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Watson Winnefred
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

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