Jump to content

Dirty Doug’s Den of Deplorable Developer Deals


Recommended Posts

On 9/21/2023 at 1:22 PM, Queenmandy85 said:

Premier Ford announced today he is reversing the Greenbelt development. It is refreshing to see a politician admit he made a mistake and has the courage to correct it.

He got caught giving his friends a sweetheart deal on land that isn’t his and shouldn’t be developed at all…. 

Is saying sorry when you get caught for corruption really worthy of praise?  

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

On 9/22/2023 at 12:42 PM, ExFlyer said:

I hope so. 

That is the issue with this greenbelt BS. Farmers etc that own the greenbelt land get nothing for it because it is greenbelt. Finally a developer gives them a bunch of cash and they are happy but the others are screwed.

In my mind, greenbelt (everywhere, not just in the "golden triangle) is a waste of time, land and effort!!

The risks of Speculation!  If you wanna roll the dice with big bucks on the line you better be ok with losing if your bet doesn’t pay off. I don’t shed a tear for these speculators/gamblers or their lobbyists like “Mr X”. 
 

Farmers are not automatically entitled to have government rezone their farmland for residential use on demand either.  If you don’t want to own farmland don’t be a farmer!   The same people who complain about importing products from overseas that can be made here and protecting Canadian jobs want to see every farm turned into Walmart and import all our food from Mexico and China.

Dougs greenbelt developer scam had nothing to do with building houses and everything to do with making developers and property flippers rich. He has been exposed and there is more to come. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

The risks of Speculation!  If you wanna roll the dice with big bucks on the line you better be ok with losing if your bet doesn’t pay off. I don’t shed a tear for these speculators/gamblers or their lobbyists like “Mr X”. 
 

Farmers are not automatically entitled to have government rezone their farmland for residential use on demand either.  If you don’t want to own farmland don’t be a farmer!   The same people who complain about importing products from overseas that can be made here and protecting Canadian jobs want to see every farm turned into Walmart and import all our food from Mexico and China.

Dougs greenbelt developer scam had nothing to do with building houses and everything to do with making developers and property flippers rich. He has been exposed and there is more to come. 

How is it speculation when the farmer gets old and cannot farm anymore. His lifes work and  savings is in the farmland. Shed a tear for the farmer that has worked his entire life and would now like to retire.

Re-zoning occurs all the time, not just for raw land but from single family to multi, form home zone to industrial, from industrial to commercial. You really need to understand the needs of the city or community to blatantly criticize zoning bylaws.

As for "Dougs greenbelt developer scam", what scam? An assistant circumvented grey area rules and it did not sit well and was stopped. "He" was not exposed but this ministers assistant and the minister were "exposed".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

How is it speculation when the farmer gets old and cannot farm anymore. His lifes work and  savings is in the farmland. Shed a tear for the farmer that has worked his entire life and would now like to retire.

Contrary to your suggestion it is not normal for farms to be converted into warehouses or Walmarts or residential properties every time a farmer reaches retirement age. The normal ways a farmer retires for the labour of farming include:

 

1) selling the farm to another farmer 

2) Renting the agricultural facilities (crop fields or livestock facilities) to another farmer. Many farmers out there today either don’t own the land they farm or don’t farm the land they own or they have a combination of owned and rented lands that they farm. It is a common practice as old as agriculture itself to let someone else farm on your land in exchange for either for a fixed rent or for a portion of their farming proceeds. And many farmland owners are not farmers at all they are simply landlords, that would include these developers and speculators who buy up active farmland and rent to it farmers while they wait for the right time to sell or develop it  

3) simply hiring workers to do all the labour and the farm eventually gets passed down to the next generation. Many if not most farms are proper businesses with paid staff doing most of the labour, and often even the bookkeeping and payroll is done by staff or outsourced to a firm as well. It’s rarely Old MacDonald milking his own cows until his back gives out.

 

 

3 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Re-zoning occurs all the time, not just for raw land but from single family to multi, form home zone to industrial, from industrial to commercial. You really need to understand the needs of the city or community to blatantly criticize zoning bylaws.

Zoning exists for a reason. Requests to rezone are meant to be approved or denied based on their specific merits and their benefit to the community and the environment. It is not an automatic entitlement to be granted upon demand.  Speculators have no more right to rezone a farm they just bought to residential or commercial use than they do to rezone a suburban family house to heavy industrial use. 
 

3 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

As for "Dougs greenbelt developer scam", what scam? An assistant circumvented grey area rules and it did not sit well and was stopped. "He" was not exposed but this ministers assistant and the minister were "exposed".

It was not one assistant. 2 cabinet ministers and 2 chiefs of staff have been implicated and resigned over improprieties including the second Cabinet Minister who was caught lying about a secret Las Vegas rub-n-tug rendezvous with one of the developers shortly before getting his requested prize. And the investigation continues.  
 

The “scam” is that rezoning environmentally sensitive land is especially profitable;

1) Even if you’re a legitimate residential developer, why pay market price for readily available residential land when you can instead buy heavily discounted development-restricted greenbelt land and then make secret backroom deals to get the restrictions removed afterwards?

2) In some cases the “developers” are not developing the land but instead trying to flip it for a profit: Buy it at a steep discount due to the development restrictions in place, then remove the restrictions and re-sell for a massive premium  

3) Even outside of the Greenbelt, in numerous cases, Doug Fords government has used the extraordinary powers of Ministerial Zoning Orders to bypass all provincial and municipal laws and regulations and force through commercial developments like warehouses and offices in environmentally sensitive areas. Prior to Ford, MZOs had only been used a handful of times and mostly for essential public infrastructure that can’t easily be built elsewhere such as water treatment plants. However Fords government has used it dozens and dozens of times to force through routine non-essential private sector projects that could easily be built almost anywhere else like warehouses and office space. 
 

Just recently the Toronto Star discovered a piece of undeveloped land that had been rezoned under a Ford MZO listed for resale, at a profit FOURTEEN TIMES THE ORIGINAL SELLING PRICE.
 

Not only should it require am act of legislation to change greenbelt boundaries, the law ought to stipulate that for any land taken out of the greenbelt and for any other environmentally sensitive land rezoned by the province under a MZO or other similar process, if it subsequently resold within a 15 year period, the profits from any price increase will be taxed at 100% (in other words the seller can’t sell it for more than he paid for it) and furthermore the new purchaser inherits the original development purpose and restrictions that were put in place in place when the land was originally rezoned. 
 

 

Edited by BeaverFever
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Contrary to your suggestion it is not normal for farms to be converted into warehouses or Walmarts or residential properties every time a farmer reaches retirement age. The normal ways a farmer retires for the labour of farming include:

 

1) selling the farm to another farmer 

2) Renting the agricultural facilities (crop fields or livestock facilities) to another farmer. Many farmers out there today either don’t own the land they farm or don’t farm the land they own or they have a combination of owned and rented lands that they farm. It is a common practice as old as agriculture itself to let someone else farm on your land in exchange for either for a fixed rent or for a portion of their farming proceeds. And many farmland owners are not farmers at all they are simply landlords, that would include these developers and speculators who buy up active farmland and rent to it farmers while they wait for the right time to sell or develop it  

3) simply hiring workers to do all the labour and the farm eventually gets passed down to the next generation. Many if not most farms are proper businesses with paid staff doing most of the labour, and often even the bookkeeping and payroll is done by staff or outsourced to a firm as well. It’s rarely Old MacDonald milking his own cows until his back gives out.

 

 

Zoning exists for a reason. Requests to rezone are meant to be approved or denied based on their specific merits and their benefit to the community and the environment. It is not an automatic entitlement to be granted upon demand.  Speculators have no more right to rezone a farm they just bought to residential or commercial use than they do to rezone a suburban family house to heavy industrial use. 
 

It was not one assistant. 2 cabinet ministers and 2 chiefs of staff have been implicated and resigned over improprieties including the second Cabinet Minister who was caught lying about a secret Las Vegas rub-n-tug rendezvous with one of the developers shortly before getting his requested prize. And the investigation continues.  
 

The “scam” is that rezoning environmentally sensitive land is especially profitable;

1) Even if you’re a legitimate residential developer, why pay market price for readily available residential land when you can instead buy heavily discounted development-restricted greenbelt land and then make secret backroom deals to get the restrictions removed afterwards?

2) In some cases the “developers” are not developing the land but instead trying to flip it for a profit: Buy it at a steep discount due to the development restrictions in place, then remove the restrictions and re-sell for a massive premium  

3) Even outside of the Greenbelt, in numerous cases, Doug Fords government has used the extraordinary powers of Ministerial Zoning Orders to bypass all provincial and municipal laws and regulations and force through commercial developments like warehouses and offices in environmentally sensitive areas. Prior to Ford, MZOs had only been used a handful of times and mostly for essential public infrastructure that can’t easily be built elsewhere such as water treatment plants. However Fords government has used it dozens and dozens of times to force through routine non-essential private sector projects that could easily be built almost anywhere else like warehouses and office space. 
 

Just recently the Toronto Star discovered a piece of undeveloped land that had been rezoned under a Ford MZO listed for resale, at a profit FOURTEEN TIMES THE ORIGINAL SELLING PRICE.
 

Not only should it require am act of legislation to change greenbelt boundaries, the law ought to stipulate that for any land taken out of the greenbelt and for any other environmentally sensitive land rezoned by the province under a MZO or other similar process, if it subsequently resold within a 15 year period, the profits from any price increase will be taxed at 100% (in other words the seller can’t sell it for more than he paid for it) and furthermore the new purchaser inherits the original development purpose and restrictions that were put in place in place when the land was originally rezoned. 
 

 

Look, babble as you want, the point is that a farmer that has had his farm encased into the greenbelt has all his livelihood and money sunk into an almost expropriation  situation.

He worked for it and his land value is his pension  and now it is not. Who buys farms nowadays? Oh wait, no one except big conglomerates and they know they can get it for a steal if it is stuck in a greenbelt.

The farmers and landowners stuck in greenbelts are screwed.

I have made my point and stand by it and you city dwelling geeks that like to look at trees once a year or so have no stake in it at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Look, babble as you want, the point is that a farmer that has had his farm encased into the greenbelt has all his livelihood and money sunk into an almost expropriation  situation.

He worked for it and his land value is his pension  and now it is not. Who buys farms nowadays? Oh wait, no one except big conglomerates and they know they can get it for a steal if it is stuck in a greenbelt.

The farmers and landowners stuck in greenbelts are screwed.

I have made my point and stand by it and you city dwelling geeks that like to look at trees once a year or so have no stake in it at all.

Just because you don’t like the facts doesn’t make it babble.
 

There is no expropriation situation. The farmer bought or probably inherited the farm and there was never any expectation that they would be able to rezone the leand as something else. There was never any value lost, only imaginary speculative value that never really existed. Even before the greenbelt the land was zoned as agricultural and there was never any promise to suggest it would ever be otherwise.  To me your argument is like saying the government must legalize meth labs because some farmers built meth labs expecting it would be legal by now and their retirement plans depend on it.  My response to your argument is the same I would have to the meth labs

Look at trees once a year?  Lol you’re the one who want to cut down all the trees.  Farm land still sells and even if it is a farming corporation getting it for steal that’s still preferable than a developer corporation getting it for a steal and building on it unnecessarily. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Just because you don’t like the facts doesn’t make it babble.
 

There is no expropriation situation. The farmer bought or probably inherited the farm and there was never any expectation that they would be able to rezone the leand as something else. There was never any value lost, only imaginary speculative value that never really existed. Even before the greenbelt the land was zoned as agricultural and there was never any promise to suggest it would ever be otherwise.  To me your argument is like saying the government must legalize meth labs because some farmers built meth labs expecting it would be legal by now and their retirement plans depend on it.  My response to your argument is the same I would have to the meth labs

Look at trees once a year?  Lol you’re the one who want to cut down all the trees.  Farm land still sells and even if it is a farming corporation getting it for steal that’s still preferable than a developer corporation getting it for a steal and building on it unnecessarily. 

Facts? What facts?

I do not want to cut down trees. Where and when did I say that? I did say, if you want trees to hug, go to any of the municipal, provincial pr federal parks, not some expropriated land from a farmer or other.

If the land is tagged greenbelt, the owner cannot do anything with it and if he is too old to farm and no one wants to buy it (at reduced value) to farm then it sits unused and just as if expropriated.

Meth labs.....Oh and in some places, the government is giving away illicit drugs..... and I am pretty sure they are not buying it form the cartel LOL

You would singing a different tune if they said you have to give up some of your property with no compensation and it was only going to stay empty

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Facts? What facts?

I do not want to cut down trees. Where and when did I say that? I did say, if you want trees to hug, go to any of the municipal, provincial pr federal parks, not some expropriated land from a farmer or other.

If the land is tagged greenbelt, the owner cannot do anything with it and if he is too old to farm and no one wants to buy it (at reduced value) to farm then it sits unused and just as if expropriated.

Meth labs.....Oh and in some places, the government is giving away illicit drugs..... and I am pretty sure they are not buying it form the cartel LOL

You would singing a different tune if they said you have to give up some of your property with no compensation and it was only going to stay empty

I’ve repeated the facts that farms don’t need to be developed and rezoned every time a farmer reaches retirement age  

Nothing is expropriated and nothing is at reduced value and AFAIK there are no farms sitting unused. Nobody is being forced to “give up property with no compensation” either. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

I’ve repeated the facts that farms don’t need to be developed and rezoned every time a farmer reaches retirement age  

Nothing is expropriated and nothing is at reduced value and AFAIK there are no farms sitting unused. Nobody is being forced to “give up property with no compensation” either. 

That is not a fact, that is your opinion, your very own rectal pluck. LOL

Making your property into greenbelt property and unsellable or for only specific use is expropriation, now, that is a fact.

And yes, they  give up their right to sell to whomever they want without compensation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

That is not a fact, that is your opinion, your very own rectal pluck. LOL

Nope I gave you the facts about how farms work, since you weren’t aware. 
 

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

Making your property into greenbelt property and unsellable or for only specific use is expropriation, now, that is a fact.

They didn’t make anyone’s property unsellable and the land was already zoned for “specific use”.  Pretty much every piece of land in this country is zoned for a specific use.  That’s what zoning is. Long before that farmer ever inherited or bought their land it was already zoned exclusively for agriculture. All the greenbelt legislation does is add certainty that it won’t be rezoned for a different  specific use. 
 

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

And yes, they  give up their right to sell to whomever they want without compensation.

No they didn’t They can still sell to whoever they want, there’s no restriction on who they can sell to. No compensation required. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Nope I gave you the facts about how farms work, since you weren’t aware. 
 

They didn’t make anyone’s property unsellable and the land was already zoned for “specific use”.  Pretty much every piece of land in this country is zoned for a specific use.  That’s what zoning is. Long before that farmer ever inherited or bought their land it was already zoned exclusively for agriculture. All the greenbelt legislation does is add certainty that it won’t be rezoned for a different  specific use. 
 

No they didn’t They can still sell to whoever they want, there’s no restriction on who they can sell to. No compensation required. 

I am very aware of how farms and property ownership work.  You farm it or you sell your land...end of story.

Zoned as greenbelt by legislation, not by municipal zoning bylaws.

Yes, they can sell but... Who would buy worthless land

I have played enough with you.  Bye.

Edited by ExFlyer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/26/2023 at 5:28 PM, ExFlyer said:

I am very aware of how farms and property ownership work.  You farm it or you sell your land...end of story.

Zoned as greenbelt by legislation, not by municipal zoning bylaws.

Yes, they can sell but... Who would buy worthless land

I have played enough with you.  Bye.

There are many options between farming or selling, various arrangements for renting and what used to be called “crop sharing” exist.

Whether zoned by provincial or municipal legislation there’s never been any entitlement or expectation that rezoning will be provided on demand, that would defeat the purpose of zoning  Anyone who stakes their financial future on activities that are currently against the law, with the hope that they would be able to change the law on demand ought to accept the risks they are taking. Governments are not obligated yo change  laws on demand just to make good on people’s reckless private bets.   

It’s not worthless land at all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

So in case anyone missed it:  As previously reported, a few weeks ago, the RCMP had initially opened an “inquiry” into the greenbelt deal at the request of the OPP, which is an informal probe for any potential signs of wrongdoing that might warrant a full investigation. Well today they announced they are officially opening a criminal investigation into the deal. 
 

 

RCMP launches criminal investigation into Doug Ford’s Greenbelt land swap

doug ford
Premier Doug Ford speaks in the Ontario Legislature on Sept. 25, 2023. × Already a Subscriber? Sign in You are logged in  Switch accounts Andrew Francis Wallace / Toronto Star file photo

The RCMP has launched a criminal investigation into Premier Doug Ford’s $8.28-billion Greenbelt land swap scandal.

In another stunning setback for Ford’s embattled Progressive Conservatives, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police branch that probes corruption and political crimes is formally on the case.

“Following a referral from the Ontario Provincial Police, the RCMP ‘O’ Division’s Sensitive and International Investigations (SII) unit has now launched an investigation into allegations associated to the decision from the province of Ontario to open parts of the Greenbelt for development,” the RCMP said in a statement Tuesday.…

 

https://www.thestar.com/politics/provincial/rcmp-launches-criminal-investigation-into-doug-ford-s-greenbelt-land-swap/article_f778e402-1c56-54c8-b6b3-1e212fe4d662.amp.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

So in case anyone missed it:  As previously reported, a few weeks ago, the RCMP had initially opened an “inquiry” into the greenbelt deal at the request of the OPP, which is an informal probe for any potential signs of wrongdoing that might warrant a full investigation. Well today they announced they are officially opening a criminal investigation into the deal. 
 

 

RCMP launches criminal investigation into Doug Ford’s Greenbelt land swap

doug ford

Premier Doug Ford speaks in the Ontario Legislature on Sept. 25, 2023. × Already a Subscriber? Sign in You are logged in  Switch accounts Andrew Francis Wallace / Toronto Star file photo

The RCMP has launched a criminal investigation into Premier Doug Ford’s $8.28-billion Greenbelt land swap scandal.

In another stunning setback for Ford’s embattled Progressive Conservatives, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police branch that probes corruption and political crimes is formally on the case.

“Following a referral from the Ontario Provincial Police, the RCMP ‘O’ Division’s Sensitive and International Investigations (SII) unit has now launched an investigation into allegations associated to the decision from the province of Ontario to open parts of the Greenbelt for development,” the RCMP said in a statement Tuesday.…

 

https://www.thestar.com/politics/provincial/rcmp-launches-criminal-investigation-into-doug-ford-s-greenbelt-land-swap/article_f778e402-1c56-54c8-b6b3-1e212fe4d662.amp.html

Yup and they will find there was nothing illegal. Backdoor, yes. Unscrupulous, yes. But, nothing illegal.

The previous liberals had far more and more expensive issues and scandals but they too, did nothing illegal.

The auditor general and the ethics guy both found fault but, nothing legal so, the RCMP will follow suit.

Thing is, politicians, all politicians of all political stripes know how to play the game. Even more are their assistants, they know the game even better.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

Thing is, politicians, all politicians of all political stripes know how to play the game. Even more are their assistants, they know the game even better.

 

Yes it is after all a game of thrones

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Yup and they will find there was nothing illegal. Backdoor, yes. Unscrupulous, yes. But, nothing illegal.

The previous liberals had far more and more expensive issues and scandals but they too, did nothing illegal.

The auditor general and the ethics guy both found fault but, nothing legal so, the RCMP will follow suit.

Thing is, politicians, all politicians of all political stripes know how to play the game. Even more are their assistants, they know the game even better.

 

The AG and IG aren’t responsible for determining criminality, which is why it was referred to law enforcement in the first place. RCMP apparently found enough during their “inquiry” to open a full fledged criminal investigation. I don’t know how you can be so certain that they won’t find criminal wrongdoing. 

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

I thought it was game of homes.  Either way, winter is coming.

Lol nice. Kudos

 

Edited by BeaverFever
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

The AG and IG aren’t responsible for determining criminality, which is why it was referred to law enforcement in the first place. RCMP apparently found enough during their “inquiry” to open a full fledged criminal investigation. I don’t know how you can be so certain that they won’t find criminal wrongdoing. 

Lol nice. Kudos

 

They do make accusations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This makes me laugh. How many major scandals did the previous gov have and nobody paid for it.  There was 4 investigations going but hever heard what happened. Overall Fords Gov been fairly clean.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, PIK said:

This makes me laugh. How many major scandals did the previous gov have and nobody paid for it.  There was 4 investigations going but hever heard what happened. Overall Fords Gov been fairly clean.

Yes it does but, no government anywhere is ever clean.

Politics is a dirty business and politicians are too beholding to too many.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/12/2023 at 3:43 PM, PIK said:

This makes me laugh. How many major scandals did the previous gov have and nobody paid for it.  There was 4 investigations going but hever heard what happened. Overall Fords Gov been fairly clean.

1) Whataboutery.
 

2) Not true that nobody paid for any of Liberal scandals. In the gas plant scandal McGuinty resigned from office and there were 2 criminal convictions against staffers for the coverup, one of whom actually got jail time.  The only other alleged CRIMINAL case was against liberal staffer Pat Sorbara and a Party fundraiser who were charged with trying to “bribe” a liberal candidate to step aside in favour of another candidate but a court threw out the charges since Wynne as party leader had already replaced the first candidate with the second therefore there was no bribery.   What other 2 are you referring to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

1) Whataboutery.
 

2) Not true that nobody paid for any of Liberal scandals. In the gas plant scandal McGuinty resigned from office and there were 2 criminal convictions against staffers for the coverup, one of whom actually got jail time.  The only other alleged CRIMINAL case was against liberal staffer Pat Sorbara and a Party fundraiser who were charged with trying to “bribe” a liberal candidate to step aside in favour of another candidate but a court threw out the charges since Wynne as party leader had already replaced the first candidate with the second therefore there was no bribery.   What other 2 are you referring to?

1 - no, that's not whataboutery at all.  Whataboutery is where you excuse bad behavior by pointing out entirely UNRELATED bad behavior. "You stole my money" "So? you cheated on that test".   It is NOT when you're comparing apples to apples.   It's PRECEDENT when you say "you were fine with corruption when it was the liberals but now when it's someone else you are trying to say it's bad."

Don't use words if you're not willing to learn what they mean,

2 - entirely true that nobody paid for the liberals scandals.

The libearls went from scandal to scandal again and again and the liberal voters kept electing them. Mcguinty retired with a big fat pension after years in power and with huge insider connections that he would use to make tonnes of money for years.

And that should have been the end of it - especially after data was illegally destroyed.  But no.

Wynne was little better.

Sorry kiddo - but when left wingers like you constantly allow corruption to go unchecked for years and years - you lose the right to complain about it when it's someone you DON"T like later.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/14/2023 at 7:44 AM, BeaverFever said:

1) Whataboutery.
 

2) Not true that nobody paid for any of Liberal scandals. In the gas plant scandal McGuinty resigned from office and there were 2 criminal convictions against staffers for the coverup, one of whom actually got jail time.  The only other alleged CRIMINAL case was against liberal staffer Pat Sorbara and a Party fundraiser who were charged with trying to “bribe” a liberal candidate to step aside in favour of another candidate but a court threw out the charges since Wynne as party leader had already replaced the first candidate with the second therefore there was no bribery.   What other 2 are you referring to?

Mcguinty resigned because of the teachers. The ornge heli scandal?

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
      10,744
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    John Wilson
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Fluffypants went up a rank
      Rising Star
    • exPS earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • gatomontes99 went up a rank
      Proficient
    • phoenyx75 earned a badge
      Collaborator
    • phoenyx75 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
  • Recently Browsing

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