Home | Community | Message Board

Avalon Magic Plants
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   North Spore Cultivation Supplies   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1
Invisiblegettinjiggywithit
jiggy
Female User Gallery

Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
Jumping party ships, hidden values/agendas and ethics.
    #6502198 - 01/27/07 12:44 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

This was posted in another thread about Hillary Clinton.

Quote:

She actually served as president of the Wellesley College Chapter of the College Republicans. (Yes, Republicans!)




When we first start to form our own personal political values, explore the options, and if they set strongly enough that you take your passion and position, to the point of being the President of a Party Chapter, how is it that one jumps ship for another like Hillary did?

I can understand doing it when you first maybe adopted your parents views "just because", they were all you heard growing up, and then later took up your own interest and came to understand "the system", and the party options and their values better along the way. This is someone who was past all of that and was the President of a Party Chapter.

Were any of you, a die hard for one party, knowing your choices and how the system works, and then, made a radical shift of personal political values? How did that come to happen?

How many in office, do you all think ran for a certain party because their chances for electibility were greater, knowing, they would work to impliment a different parties values, closer to their personal ones, once they got in?

Thoughts and opinions on the ethics there?

If their voters don't keep tabs and they get away with it, does it come down to "shame on the voters"?

Is it "shame on the Party Representive" for taking advantage of the masses who are not caring enough, or too trusting, to pay attention to the follow through after they vote?

Is it "shame on the party" for nominating someone who will get their party into an office, even though they know or suspect, that person probably won't represent the parties values to the full extent?

Is it a little of all three or,  "Shame on no one! That's Politics baby!" :evil:


:peace: :heart:


--------------------
Ahuwale ka nane huna.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
Re: Jumping party ships, hidden values/agendas and ethics. [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #6502786 - 01/27/07 05:41 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Wow, excellent question. Does electoral expedience drive party choice or do core beliefs? I suspect that it is rather mixed but will throw down a particularly nasty gauntlet to the left. To wit, I think that there are far more on the left who opt for expedience than on the right, just on the notion that it is easier to sell populist claptrap than self reliance. The whole notion of voting yourself endless handouts from the public till. Anyway, I thought you might be interested in this on Hilary, who I think is a rank opportunist of the worst stripe. I believe she is completely lying with her faux moderate incarnation and really is a true socialist.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,6-2566485.html

Quote:

But they all miss this essential counterpoint. As you consider her career this past 15 years or so in the public spotlight, it is impossible not to be struck, and even impressed, by the sheer ruthless, unapologetic, unshameable way in which she has pursued this ambition, and confirmed that there is literally nothing she will not do, say, think or feel to achieve it. Here, finally, is someone who has taken the black arts of the politician’s trade, the dissembling, the trimming, the pandering, all the way to their logical conclusion.

Fifteen years ago there was once a principled, if somewhat rebarbative and unelectable politician called Hillary Rodham Clinton. A woman who aggressively preached abortion on demand and the right of children to sue their own parents, a committed believer in the power of government who tried to create a healthcare system of such bureaucratic complexity it would have made the Soviets blush; a militant feminist who scorned mothers who take time out from work to rear their children as “women who stay home and bake cookies”.

Today we have a different Hillary Rodham Clinton, all soft focus and expensively coiffed, exuding moderation and tolerance.

To grasp the scale of the transfiguration, it is necessary only to consider the very moment it began. The turning point in her political fortunes was the day her husband soiled his office and a certain blue dress. In that Monica Lewinsky moment, all the public outrage and contempt for the sheer tawdriness of it all was brilliantly rerouted and channelled to the direct benefit of Mrs Clinton, who immediately began a campaign for the Senate.

And so you had this irony, a woman who had carved out for herself a role as an icon of the feminist movement, launching her own political career, riding a wave of public sympathy over the fact that she had been treated horridly by her husband.

After that unsurpassed exercise in cynicism, nothing could be too expedient. Her first Senate campaign was one long exercise in political reconstructive surgery. It went from the cosmetic — the sudden discovery of her Jewish ancestry, useful in New York, especially when you’ve established a reputation as a friend of Palestinians— to the radical: her sudden message of tolerance for people who opposed abortion, gay marriage, gun control and everything else she had stood for.

Once in the Senate she published an absurd autobiography in which every single paragraph had been scrubbed clean of honest reflection to fit the campaign template. As a lawmaker she is remembered mostly, when confronted with a President who enjoyed 75 per cent approval ratings, for her infamous decision to support the Iraq war in October 2002. This one-time anti-war protester recast herself as a latter-day Boadicea, even castigating President Bush for not taking a tough enough line with the Iranians over their nuclear programme.

Now, you might say, hold on. Aren’t all politicians veined with an opportunistic streak? Why is she any different? The difference is that Mrs Clinton has raised that opportunism to an animating philosophy, a P. T. Barnum approach to the political marketplace.

All politicians, sadly, lie. We can often forgive the lies as the necessary price paid to win popularity for a noble cause. But the Clinton candidacy is a Grand Deceit, an entirely artificial construct built around a person who, stripped bare of the cynicism, manipulation and calculation, is nothing more than an enormous, overpowering and rather terrifying ego.





--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblegettinjiggywithit
jiggy
Female User Gallery

Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
Re: Jumping party ships, hidden values/agendas and ethics. [Re: zappaisgod]
    #6502850 - 01/27/07 06:21 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

She's a prime example. This is something I want to start paying better attention to myself, and was wondering to what extent, others following politics better then me saw it and how prevalent they thought it was.

I was also curious if there is a case of anyone here who truly had a radical 180 flip in their political values, later in their own life of interest in politics and if it was possible or, just nothing more then posturing against ones own core values for gains of a more material or popular sort.


How many other elected officials out there are selling out their own parties values once elected, how many other parties are selling out their own supporters by putting any electable jacknA in, and how many voters are selling themselves out by not following through to paying attention to the people they elected doing what they said they would.

Even Bush has come under a lot of criticim from other Republicans for not being traditionally concervative with the Federal Budget.

I agree, the left does seem more likely to opt for expedience. I wonder if thats a sign that at the core, human beings are typically, more conservative ( once they have aquired enough of something to conserve)  then liberal in their own lives. Being known as frugal, harsh and conservative can gain you about as much popularity with "the little people" as Leona Helmsley has. :lol:

Thanks for your reply zappa!

:peace: :heart:


--------------------
Ahuwale ka nane huna.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinetrippindad82
Trusted Cultivator of Trich
Male

Registered: 01/07/07
Posts: 1,087
Loc: down, down the hole
Last seen: 11 years, 1 month
Re: Jumping party ships, hidden values/agendas and ethics. [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #6503497 - 01/27/07 10:35 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

How many other elected officials out there are selling out their own parties values once elected, how many other parties are selling out their own supporters by putting any electable jacknA in, and how many voters are selling themselves out by not following through to paying attention to the people they elected doing what they said they would.




I think where this all begins is with the fact that the only reason why a lot of these people got elected in the first place was corporate sponsorship. Money buys a ton, and the more money one can spend on an election, the more likely they are to win. It's not that people are selling their soul to the devil for power/money, they are selling their character and name to a corporate crime ring for the power/money. Because this corporate ring really elects our officials, we as a country no longer have a say in the politics. The reason why these officials aren't keeping their word is because they are politicians (world's best salespersons). They have been bought off. The more money someone pays you, the more likely you are to return the favor, such as in starting a corporately sponsored war with a country. I think the first election in a long time where this didn't happen was the most recent midterm where you had a lot more of the grass roots candidates winning the majority. I believe that we might be lucky enough to see a shift in the way people are voting, or the lack thereof.

On another note. The average person doesn't give a shit. They've been instructed by the public school system and churches to not give a shit about how the constitution is trampled on. Most of these people see a label and pick. Very much like how they shop for clothes. Is it something that I think is cool? Then I'm going for it, even if I don't know a damn thing about it. It's sad. Then you have 80,000,000 evangelical christians whom have been instructed by the heads of the church (and bush) exactly what to think and exactly which party to vote for.

It lies in the fact that people have been fooled into believing that the more possessions and money and "status" that one has, the happier and better you are. Right? People have been tricked into supporting an overpriced system that sells them lies and into giving up the REAL things in life that offer true happiness and freedom.


:bigblunt:


--------------------
Trying to explain a journey to someone who has never experienced it is like trying to explain what a zebra looks like to  blind person who has never seen a horse.

^^^The above matter may be a complete fantasy that I concocted out of possible boredom.^^^


--------------------------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRedstorm
Prince of Bugs
Male

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 5 months, 7 days
Re: Jumping party ships, hidden values/agendas and ethics. [Re: trippindad82]
    #6503553 - 01/27/07 10:50 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Almost every academic research submitted has shown that money is not what wins an election. It does play an important part, but money is only important when it comes to getting one's name out to the public. When someone just starts pouring money into a campaign, however, diminishing returns are seen as more money is put forth. While it is necessary to have money to run a campaign, money clearly can not buy an election.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinetrippindad82
Trusted Cultivator of Trich
Male

Registered: 01/07/07
Posts: 1,087
Loc: down, down the hole
Last seen: 11 years, 1 month
Re: Jumping party ships, hidden values/agendas and ethics. [Re: Redstorm]
    #6503704 - 01/27/07 11:35 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Redstorm said:
Almost every academic research submitted has shown that money is not what wins an election. It does play an important part, but money is only important when it comes to getting one's name out to the public. When someone just starts pouring money into a campaign, however, diminishing returns are seen as more money is put forth. While it is necessary to have money to run a campaign, money clearly can not buy an election.




Ah, but see money buys the very computer equipment that is used in elections. If money can buy the equipment, and the operators of said equipment can be bought off, then what does that buy Americans? An unofficially computer elected official that money bought?

Typically, the media has used exit polls to see how the election is going to turn out. They have always been accurate, except for three elections. The election of Kennedy (1960), the election of Bush (2000), and the election of Bush (2004). How can exit polls be wrong? If more people supposedly voted for a different candidate, then how can the numbers come out as they did? How can ~2,000 people vote and yet 16,000 votes were counted for a specific candidate? (I don't remember the exact numbers, but this happened somewhere in Ohio.) How can you say that money doesn't win an election when certain categories of voters were not even able to vote for whatever reason? (absentee ballots not being counted, "broken" polling stations in the poorest neighborhoods, tampered counts, voter harassment, you name it, it was done somewhere.)


--------------------
Trying to explain a journey to someone who has never experienced it is like trying to explain what a zebra looks like to  blind person who has never seen a horse.

^^^The above matter may be a complete fantasy that I concocted out of possible boredom.^^^


--------------------------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRedstorm
Prince of Bugs
Male

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 5 months, 7 days
Re: Jumping party ships, hidden values/agendas and ethics. [Re: trippindad82]
    #6503757 - 01/27/07 11:53 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Ah, but see money buys the very computer equipment that is used in elections. If money can buy the equipment, and the operators of said equipment can be bought off, then what does that buy Americans? An unofficially computer elected official that money bought?




That's quite a large "if". You have no evidence that operators were bought off, so this is purely unsubstantiated. Also, if this was the case, it would be happening on both sides of the political aisle. Democrats and Republicans both raise absurd amounts of money.

Quote:

The election of Kennedy (1960), the election of Bush (2000), and the election of Bush (2004). How can exit polls be wrong?




Poor sampling. It is nearly impossible that you can select various voting districts and extrapolate that polling data to represent the entire electorate without some sort of failure at times.

Quote:

How can you say that money doesn't win an election when certain categories of voters were not even able to vote for whatever reason?




I would chalk it up to incompetency.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
Re: Jumping party ships, hidden values/agendas and ethics. [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #6504267 - 01/28/07 06:22 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

gettinjiggywithit said:
She's a prime example. This is something I want to start paying better attention to myself, and was wondering to what extent, others following politics better then me saw it and how prevalent they thought it was.

I was also curious if there is a case of anyone here who truly had a radical 180 flip in their political values, later in their own life of interest in politics and if it was possible or, just nothing more then posturing against ones own core values for gains of a more material or popular sort.


How many other elected officials out there are selling out their own parties values once elected, how many other parties are selling out their own supporters by putting any electable jacknA in, and how many voters are selling themselves out by not following through to paying attention to the people they elected doing what they said they would.




Parties don't have values and are not the monoliths you think they are.  There are many Republicans, for instance, who support abortion rights.  There are some Democrats who support the war effort.  Being a party boss is like herding cats, as it should be.  That being said, there are an enormous amount of examples of politicians not following through on campaign promises.  Sometimes it is because they get into office and find out that their promises are unfeasible or ill-advised.  Sometimes it is because they never meant what they said anyway.  One is honest, the other is not.
Quote:



Even Bush has come under a lot of criticim from other Republicans for not being traditionally concervative with the Federal Budget.

I agree, the left does seem more likely to opt for expedience. I wonder if thats a sign that at the core, human beings are typically, more conservative ( once they have aquired enough of something to conserve)  then liberal in their own lives. Being known as frugal, harsh and conservative can gain you about as much popularity with "the little people" as Leona Helmsley has. :lol:




I resent your implication that conservatives are "harsh".  I'm a mean old prick but most conservatives are not.  Liberals, on the other hand, are stoopit and destructive whether caring or not so their "harshness" is not relevant.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblegettinjiggywithit
jiggy
Female User Gallery

Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
Re: Jumping party ships, hidden values/agendas and ethics. [Re: zappaisgod]
    #6504777 - 01/28/07 12:36 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Parties don't have values and are not the monoliths you think they are.


.

Right they are not. It's not that I think they are right now. Not even close as right now, I think they are a joke. I think they should be though, or why bother with them.

Quote:

I resent your implication that conservatives are "harsh".  I'm a mean old prick but most conservatives are not.  Liberals, on the other hand, are stoopit and destructive whether caring or not so their "harshness" is not relevant


.

I made note of a common perception. I doubt you live feeling resentment towards everyone who sees things differently from you. If you do, that really is your problem and resentment is a useless and destructive emotion to hold by the way. No one can "make" you feel that but your own self if you choose to.

If the Republican party in fact, does not function as a monolith and people who call themselves Republicans can vary so widely in their politicle values,  why do you identify yourself as being one then? What is it suppose to mean?

This is largely in part about what this post is getting at understanding better.

Why do people bother calling themselves "this or that" when the Parties are a made up of a dilution of each other?

Why do parties bother acting and presenting themselves like Monoliths, when they nominate canidites to run for them, that hold contrasting values to it?

It's all a giant farse that people invest a lot of themselves, their trust, hope and beliefs into, so much so, some can even experience feeling resentment out of an alliance to something that virtually, doesn't even exist. You already said it doesn't when you said, they are not true monoliths.

I myself am a dilution of ideals, principles and values, all of which no one party accurately or fully represents.

I'm trying to understand why people bother doing this. You can rip on liberals, leftists, even the green party I've been voting for and I feel nothing but amused. Maybe you assume that I am all for raising taxes and want to feed what I think is a disfunctional wellfare system designed for total abuse to earn the allegiance and votes of the (unwilling to get their shit together in life ever). Hows that for a harsh leftists view? :wink:

I don't even know why the green party is considered a leftists party either. They say they want to re-establish grass roots democracy by which the majority rules. That sounds like an unbiased position in the middle that is to let the majority decide how this nation is to function as a common wealth, regardless of any other values tagged to the party name.

When it comes down to it, why do I bother voting green? The more support they get in debates, on ballots and in the press, the more it gets people talking and thinking in alternative directions to help bust up the density of the two party system, that really is a wash of utter phoney baloney and corruption to me.

And, I am partial to greenwise living, because it makes responcible and healthy sense. Not to say I am holding my breath for the green majority to take control of Congress. I am just taking personal initiatives to making more greenwise choices in my own life and encourging others to do the same when I can.

Thanks for your replies zappa and for keeping it on topic.



Trippen,

I hear ya, and understand where you are coming from. Despite all of the circumstantial evidence for the machines being rigged, including sworn testimony from IBM employess who say they were asked to do it and refused, it's all circumstantial evidence until someone comes forward saying they accepted those offers, did it, and can prove they did it.

Regarding what you said about big money behind campaign funds helping people to get canidates elected, absolutely, advertisement and building name recognition pays. That's why business does it and has something called a marketing budget. The dems and republicans, both equally raise about $500,000 million so one doesn't have an advantage over the other there. (Despite it not mattering if elections can now be rigged because of electronic voting machines that don't leave a paper trail)

It does pretty much mean that any third party without that sort of campaign "marketing" funding has little chance at grabbing the attention of the masses. So much money and effort is spent keeping third parties out the the debates and if you don't get into those, you really don't get any free media press and coverage like they do either.

That's all a little off topic of what I wanted to specifically discuss here though. That stuff should go in a separate post.

:peace: :heart:


--------------------
Ahuwale ka nane huna.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
Re: Jumping party ships, hidden values/agendas and ethics. [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #6505606 - 01/28/07 05:25 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

gettinjiggywithit said:

Quote:

I resent your implication that conservatives are "harsh".  I'm a mean old prick but most conservatives are not.  Liberals, on the other hand, are stoopit and destructive whether caring or not so their "harshness" is not relevant


.

I made note of a common perception. I doubt you live feeling resentment towards everyone who sees things differently from you. If you do, that really is your problem and resentment is a useless and destructive emotion to hold by the way. No one can "make" you feel that but your own self if you choose to.




I endeavor to point out that it is erroneous to assume that conservatives are "harsh" and as a conservative who acknowledges that he is harsh do not like to see my more mild brethren tarred with this particular ignorant paint brush.  I embrace my personal harshness but it is not a function of my conservatism.  Is a parent who insists that his child learn how to be an adult and respect others "harsh"? Are Paris Hilton's parents some kind of ideal of "niceness"?
Quote:



If the Republican party in fact, does not function as a monolith and people who call themselves Republicans can vary so widely in their politicle values,  why do you identify yourself as being one then? What is it suppose to mean?




I identify as a conservative which is obviously not the same as the Republican Party.  I put myself to the right of the Republican Party, as should all Libertarians.  That being said, I utterly despise Democrats.  That doesn't make me a Republican either, just intelligent.
Quote:



This is largely in part about what this post is getting at understanding better.

Why do people bother calling themselves "this or that" when the Parties are a made up of a dilution of each other?

Why do parties bother acting and presenting themselves like Monoliths, when they nominate canidites to run for them, that hold contrasting values to it?




But the "Parties" don't do any of those things.  This is what I think you are missing.  The Parties aren't teams in the sense that the Cowboys or Yankees are, with one unified goal.  They are a loose conglomeration of individuals elected by other individuals who do not necessarily have any party loyalty at all.  A Democrat from S Dakota is not the same as a Democrat from San Francisco, which is as it should be.  A Republican from NYC is not the same as a Republican from Georgia, as it should be
Quote:



It's all a giant farse that people invest a lot of themselves, their trust, hope and beliefs into, so much so, some can even experience feeling resentment out of an alliance to something that virtually, doesn't even exist. You already said it doesn't when you said, they are not true monoliths.

I myself am a dilution of ideals, principles and values, all of which no one party accurately or fully represents.

I'm trying to understand why people bother doing this. You can rip on liberals, leftists, even the green party I've been voting for and I feel nothing but amused. Maybe you assume that I am all for raising taxes and want to feed what I think is a disfunctional wellfare system designed for total abuse to earn the allegiance and votes of the (unwilling to get their shit together in life ever). Hows that for a harsh leftists view? :wink:




I didn't know that you were running for office.  If you feel betrayed by the people you voted for who weren't what you thought they would be
based on what they said I would say you are right.  If you felt betrayed because of party affiliation in spite of what they said then I would say you were a fool.  Anyway, if you do vote green you have no beef at all, since they never win.
Quote:




I don't even know why the green party is considered a leftists party either. They say they want to re-establish grass roots democracy by which the majority rules. That sounds like an unbiased position in the middle that is to let the majority decide how this nation is to function as a common wealth, regardless of any other values tagged to the party name.




There never was grass roots democracy in this country.  Nor is the nation a commonwealth, as far as I have ever heard.  Why is it considered leftist?  Fellow travelers and a general anti-business stance.  Don't be silly
Quote:



When it comes down to it, why do I bother voting green? The more support they get in debates, on ballots and in the press, the more it gets people talking and thinking in alternative directions to help bust up the density of the two party system, that really is a wash of utter phoney baloney and corruption to me.

And, I am partial to greenwise living, because it makes responcible and healthy sense. Not to say I am holding my breath for the green majority to take control of Congress. I am just taking personal initiatives to making more greenwise choices in my own life and encourging others to do the same when I can.

Thanks for your replies zappa and for keeping it on topic.




You and I have far more in common about green-ness than you might think.  I abhor waste and irresponsibility.  Endless examples of environmentalist hypocrisy are available, like wealthy Hollywood retards (Arianna!) with 20,000 sq ft houses telling some poor schmuck in Nebraska that the pick-up he drives is too piggy and the next one will have to cost more, all the while jetting across the nation from point to point scolding the ignorant proles.  Al Gore is the same, as is every other green dipshit who just spent a lovely week being jetted around to the Sundance festival.  Talk about hypocrits, there right up there with Foley and Jim Bakker and those assholes.  I am not the least bit interested, however in some irresponsible wallpaper that does nothing and cripples the economy (see Kyoto).  Nor am I interested in the utter cunt John Kerry who recently in Davos excoriated Bush over the Kyoto stupidity without bothering to mention that it was Clinton who killed it and him who joined in a 95-0 Senate vote that resolved that Kyoto would never be ratified.  And you can look it up.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblegettinjiggywithit
jiggy
Female User Gallery

Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
Re: Jumping party ships, hidden values/agendas and ethics. [Re: zappaisgod]
    #6506278 - 01/28/07 08:49 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

I endeavor to point out that it is erroneous to assume that conservatives are "harsh" and as a conservative who acknowledges that he is harsh do not like to see my more mild brethren tarred with this particular ignorant paint brush.




Then speak away to anyone who assumes that. I was reffering to a common assumption out there if it wasn't obvious. What made you assume it was mine? Things I think, do or say may seem harsh to others and I don't care if I know I am acting in the interest of being responcible and for a greater good. Why let it bother you if other people think that about other conservatives?


Quote:

As I  I embrace my personal harshness but it is not a function of my conservatism.  Is a parent who insists that his child learn how to be an adult and respect others "harsh"? Are Paris Hilton's parents some kind of ideal of "niceness"?




It depends on who you're asking. Another responcible parent may say no and their kid may say yes. It's all relative. How do you want to tie that back into where and why I first brought up the common assumption related to electability by  'the little people" who are still learning how to become responcible and respectful citizens and in the mean time, favor the slack and over spoiling parent they assume is the democrat canidate.

Then there are others who are responcible and respectful democrats and yet, feel some people just don't have a chance or a clue on their own and need help and so vote that way to get them the help they think they need.

I only beleive in the nature of charitible help and assistance  that effectively and quickly helps others to better help themselves manage basic survival needs. To really put the screws on, I think that sort of help from the tax payers should come with provisions for giving back to the community that helped them get up on their feet in some way.

Right now, the wellfare system is such a free give away to supporting absolute laziness, irresponcibility, ignorance and leech like behavior. Like I said, for all I know, its a democratic strategy to get the lazy leechers and those who feel sorry for them votes at the tax payers expense. How are people smart enough to get elected dumb enough to just give away money to anyone who wants to use the wellfare system as a career choice?

Quote:

I identify as a conservative which is obviously not the same as the Republican Party.  I put myself to the right of the Republican Party, as should all Libertarians.  That being said, I utterly despise Democrats.  That doesn't make me a Republican either, just intelligent.




Um okay.


Quote:

But the "Parties" don't do any of those things.  This is what I think you are missing.  The Parties aren't teams in the sense that the Cowboys or Yankees are, with one unified goal.  They are a loose conglomeration of individuals elected by other individuals who do not necessarily have any party loyalty at all.  A Democrat from S Dakota is not the same as a Democrat from San Francisco, which is as it should be.  A Republican from NYC is not the same as a Republican from Georgia, as it should be




Like I said, if the word can mean many things, what is it suppose to mean to anyone when its used in front of a presidential canidates name? That may fly on the state level, but for the Presidency, there is no Universal meaning for the Party labels. That makes it easy for millions of people not paying close attention to things, to cast votes for people who don't reflect their values at all, because they assumed, a Republican  Mayor in a poor small town of Kentucky, is the same as a Republican Presidential canidate orginating from a wealthy county from the state of California.

What I wanted to illustrate and dicuss in this thread is how washed and diluted it all is at primarily the Presidential level.

Quote:

I didn't know that you were running for office.




I didn't know I was either. Could be because I'm not ye smart ass. :boxing: (Thats one of the last places you would find me) Not my style or interest. 


 
Quote:

If you feel betrayed by the people you voted for who weren't what you thought they would be
based on what they said I would say you are right.  If you felt betrayed because of party affiliation in spite of what they said then I would say you were a fool.  Anyway, if you do vote green you have no beef at all, since they never win.




Exactly the case. :lol: I have never had the chance to find out what it would feel like. Some greens have gotten into smaller offices, but none in areas where I vote in.

Quote:

There never was grass roots democracy in this country.  Nor is the nation a commonwealth, as far as I have ever heard.  Why is it considered leftist?  Fellow travelers and a general anti-business stance.  Don't be silly




Be careful, remember what you said about not all people associated with a party sharing the same values. Now you are Universalizing them into one person.

Prove they are anti-business. They are all for business making profits. They are against business making a profit at the expense of consumer safety, employee rights, consumer rights or the shared environment. There is quite a difference there zappa, don't be silly.;)

If.... the right wing in general beleieved in taking advantage of and screwing whoever and whatever you can for a profit, then the greens in general would be left wing. Otherwise, I still see them as being in the middle just wanting for more ethicical and responcible business practices to be adhered too.

I would say that we were hovering close to a grass roots democracy up until the time, the Federal Reserve was turned over to the private sector and moved further away from it when Bush started breaking the Constition and rising above the law with things like the Patriot Act and the PSS to name a few.

Of course we qualify as being a common wealth under two of its definitions

7. any group of persons united by some common interest.

8. the whole body of people of a nation or state; the body politic. 


Quote:

You and I have far more in common about green-ness than you might think.  I abhor waste and irresponsibility.  Endless examples of environmentalist hypocrisy are available, like wealthy Hollywood retards (Arianna!) with 20,000 sq ft houses telling some poor schmuck in Nebraska that the pick-up he drives is too piggy and the next one will have to cost more, all the while jetting across the nation from point to point scolding the ignorant proles.  Al Gore is the same, as is every other green dipshit who just spent a lovely week being jetted around to the Sundance festival.  Talk about hypocrits, there right up there with Foley and Jim Bakker and those assholes.  I am not the least bit interested, however in some irresponsible wallpaper that does nothing and cripples the economy (see Kyoto).  Nor am I interested in the utter cunt John Kerry who recently in Davos excoriated Bush over the Kyoto stupidity without bothering to mention that it was Clinton who killed it and him who joined in a 95-0 Senate vote that resolved that Ky




This new quote feature keeps chopping stuff off from the end. YTHAN?!

Anyway, we actually have all of that view in common as well, except for, you'd have to convince me how the Kyoto agreement would cripple an economy. I dont know much more about it other then it being an agreement between nations to cut green house gas emmisions and I knew Clinton was the one that ixnayed our participation.


Kerry :lol:

:peace: :heart:


--------------------
Ahuwale ka nane huna.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
Re: Jumping party ships, hidden values/agendas and ethics. [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #6507928 - 01/29/07 09:50 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

gettinjiggywithit said:

I only beleive in the nature of charitible help and assistance  that effectively and quickly helps others to better help themselves manage basic survival needs. To really put the screws on, I think that sort of help from the tax payers should come with provisions for giving back to the community that helped them get up on their feet in some way.




Brilliant.  I bet you didn't know you were a conservative
Quote:



Right now, the wellfare system is such a free give away to supporting absolute laziness, irresponcibility, ignorance and leech like behavior. Like I said, for all I know, its a democratic strategy to get the lazy leechers and those who feel sorry for them votes at the tax payers expense. How are people smart enough to get elected dumb enough to just give away money to anyone who wants to use the wellfare system as a career choice?




Which is exactly the choice here.  Your harshness is sounding more and more conservative every minute.
Quote:



Quote:

I identify as a conservative which is obviously not the same as the Republican Party.  I put myself to the right of the Republican Party, as should all Libertarians.  That being said, I utterly despise Democrats.  That doesn't make me a Republican either, just intelligent.




Um okay.


Quote:

But the "Parties" don't do any of those things.  This is what I think you are missing.  The Parties aren't teams in the sense that the Cowboys or Yankees are, with one unified goal.  They are a loose conglomeration of individuals elected by other individuals who do not necessarily have any party loyalty at all.  A Democrat from S Dakota is not the same as a Democrat from San Francisco, which is as it should be.  A Republican from NYC is not the same as a Republican from Georgia, as it should be




Like I said, if the word can mean many things, what is it suppose to mean to anyone when its used in front of a presidential canidates name? That may fly on the state level, but for the Presidency, there is no Universal meaning for the Party labels. That makes it easy for millions of people not paying close attention to things, to cast votes for people who don't reflect their values at all, because they assumed, a Republican  Mayor in a poor small town of Kentucky, is the same as a Republican Presidential canidate orginating from a wealthy county from the state of California.

What I wanted to illustrate and dicuss in this thread is how washed and diluted it all is at primarily the Presidential level.




And my point is that party affiliation alone should not lead anyone to ascribe an etched in stone ideology to a candidate.  That's why the primary fights are often even uglier than the general election.  If the dopey voter assumed that all Democrats or Republicans are the same it is HIS fault for trying to impose his definition on a world that doesn't conform, not the world's.
Quote:



Quote:

I didn't know that you were running for office.




I didn't know I was either. Could be because I'm not ye smart ass. :boxing: (Thats one of the last places you would find me) Not my style or interest. 


 
Quote:

If you feel betrayed by the people you voted for who weren't what you thought they would be
based on what they said I would say you are right.  If you felt betrayed because of party affiliation in spite of what they said then I would say you were a fool.  Anyway, if you do vote green you have no beef at all, since they never win.




Exactly the case. :lol: I have never had the chance to find out what it would feel like. Some greens have gotten into smaller offices, but none in areas where I vote in.

Quote:

There never was grass roots democracy in this country.  Nor is the nation a commonwealth, as far as I have ever heard.  Why is it considered leftist?  Fellow travelers and a general anti-business stance.  Don't be silly




Be careful, remember what you said about not all people associated with a party sharing the same values. Now you are Universalizing them into one person.




You asked why "they were considered".  I answered.  And "leftist" is a mighty big tent.
Quote:



Prove they are anti-business. They are all for business making profits. They are against business making a profit at the expense of consumer safety, employee rights, consumer rights or the shared environment. There is quite a difference there zappa, don't be silly.;)




All of the things you mentioned are continuums.  As a simple example let us take employee rights.  They can range from almost none where you can be fired for having an ugly nose to tenured teachers who can't be fired for abusing students.  Where should they be set?  I bet greens are a bit lefter than me (and probably you).  Further, consumers have a right to sue for damages.  Sometimes way too effectively.  Specious lawsuits are brought all the time.  Sometimes companies just settle, sometimes they wrongfully lose (breast implant class action, total trash science).  The owners of that company are also people and they just got robbed.  Anyway, not so simple really.
Quote:



If.... the right wing in general beleieved in taking advantage of and screwing whoever and whatever you can for a profit, then the greens in general would be left wing. Otherwise, I still see them as being in the middle just wanting for more ethicical and responcible business practices to be adhered too.

I would say that we were hovering close to a grass roots democracy up until the time, the Federal Reserve was turned over to the private sector and moved further away from it when Bush started breaking the Constition and rising above the law with things like the Patriot Act and the PSS to name a few.




The Patriot Act was legislation enacted by Congress.  Bush has not broken the Constitution and the nonsense about the federal reserve is just that.  This country was founded as a safe enclave of business for rich white men.  Then it became for all white men.  Then for women too.  Then for blacks and any other race.  The progression is not away from but towards a grass roots democracy (kind of).
Quote:



Of course we qualify as being a common wealth under two of its definitions

7. any group of persons united by some common interest.

8. the whole body of people of a nation or state; the body politic.




I was referring to the legal definition.  For instance, KY and CT are both commonwealths.  NY is not
Quote:

 


Quote:

You and I have far more in common about green-ness than you might think.  I abhor waste and irresponsibility.  Endless examples of environmentalist hypocrisy are available, like wealthy Hollywood retards (Arianna!) with 20,000 sq ft houses telling some poor schmuck in Nebraska that the pick-up he drives is too piggy and the next one will have to cost more, all the while jetting across the nation from point to point scolding the ignorant proles.  Al Gore is the same, as is every other green dipshit who just spent a lovely week being jetted around to the Sundance festival.  Talk about hypocrits, there right up there with Foley and Jim Bakker and those assholes.  I am not the least bit interested, however in some irresponsible wallpaper that does nothing and cripples the economy (see Kyoto).  Nor am I interested in the utter cunt John Kerry who recently in Davos excoriated Bush over the Kyoto stupidity without bothering to mention that it was Clinton who killed it and him who joined in a 95-0 Senate vote that resolved that Ky




This new quote feature keeps chopping stuff off from the end. YTHAN?!

Anyway, we actually have all of that view in common as well, except for, you'd have to convince me how the Kyoto agreement would cripple an economy. I dont know much more about it other then it being an agreement between nations to cut green house gas emmisions and I knew Clinton was the one that ixnayed our participation.


Kerry :lol:

:peace: :heart:




By putting us at a disadvantageous position against our competitors, for instance India and China, neither of which was required to adhere to any restrictions.  The whole thing seemed to be a fuck America document that would have had very little actual effect.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblegettinjiggywithit
jiggy
Female User Gallery

Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
Re: Jumping party ships, hidden values/agendas and ethics. [Re: zappaisgod]
    #6510575 - 01/29/07 11:10 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Brilliant.  I bet you didn't know you were a conservative.
Which is exactly the choice here.  Your harshness is sounding more and more conservative every minute.




I told you in another post that I lean towards the right.


Quote:

And my point is that party affiliation alone should not lead anyone to ascribe an etched in stone ideology to a candidate.  That's why the primary fights are often even uglier than the general election.  If the dopey voter assumed that all Democrats or Republicans are the same it is HIS fault for trying to impose his definition on a world that doesn't conform, not the world's.


.

:cool: There's an answer from someone to the original question I asked.


Quote:

You asked why "they were considered".  I answered.  And "leftist" is a mighty big tent.





Thanks for the clarification.


Quote:

All of the things you mentioned are continuums.




Yes, and they claim to be a moving dynamic. THAT's the virtue of the party to me. They will better allow for change and room for growth when new needs, concerns and information arises that could better serve the well being of the people and the planet that supports our lives. 

If you don't have a continuum model, you end up with a fundementalist one and beleiving in things like the earth was created by some neurotic dude in the sky with a beard 6,000 years ago and try to force everyone to stay in the density of past and outdated awareness and intelligence, because your model is not allowed to continue on with progress as evolution takes us into it. Without a continuum dynamic, we are being held back from making natural and sensible progress by trying to keep old and out dated systems in play.



Quote:

As a simple example let us take employee rights.  They can range from almost none where you can be fired for having an ugly nose to tenured teachers who can't be fired for abusing students.  Where should they be set?  I bet greens are a bit lefter than me (and probably you).





Yes!
Ultimately I am not for Unions.



Quote:

Further, consumers have a right to sue for damages.  Sometimes way too effectively.  Specious lawsuits are brought all the time.  Sometimes companies just settle, sometimes they wrongfully lose (breast implant class action, total trash science).  The owners of that company are also people and they just got robbed.  Anyway, not so simple really.


.

I hear you and regardless, judges and juries are still around for a reason. If they hear a case and find no fault then , no fault still wins. Not so simple really is right. OJ is walking free.

Quote:

The Patriot Act was legislation enacted by Congress




Bush called for it and a Republican congress voted it in.

 
Quote:

Bush has not broken the Constitution




Show me the proof where Bush got congress's aproval to make the PSS agreement with Canada and Mexico. Explain to me why if an appeal is made to it, it has to go through a "tri national tribunal" and does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Federal or Supreme Courts. 

This "agreement" has been made and placed above U.S. Constitional laws in my understanding.

Quote:

and the nonsense about the federal reserve is just that.




Indeed, China and Europe and the Rockefellers and their ilk holding the purse strings of America is nonsense!!!!

Quote:

This country was founded as a safe enclave of business for rich white men.  Then it became for all white men.  Then for women too.  Then for blacks and any other race.  The progression is not away from but towards a grass roots democracy (kind of).




Until a broader base of parties are allowed into campaign debates, on the ballots and campaign reform is instilled that gives each party equal campaign budgets and air time, we don't have a true democracy in my eyes. We have a dictatorship ruled by Big Money. At the end of the day, the progress that has been made is that this country is still a safe enclave favoring the security of rich anyone.

Quote:

I was referring to the legal definition.  For instance, KY and CT are both commonwealths.  NY is not




Ah, I used the word under the defintions I gave.


Quote:

By putting us at a disadvantageous position against our competitors, for instance India and China, neither of which was required to adhere to any restrictions.  The whole thing seemed to be a fuck America document that would have had very little actual effect.




Okay, I see where you are coming from.

I saw the offer to join as an opportunity to take a progressive leadership role on this issue of global environmental pollution. Honestly the U.S. is falling far behind other less modernized nations on this one.

As far as economics, sure, some current companies providing fossil fuel energy will take an obvious hit.

HOWEVER, NO ONE is stopping them form taking their current financial resource and transfering it over to alternative energy services. And whoever is positioned well to fill the void, will gain the others losses (They had a chance to get better positioned and still do with all of the financial resources they have accumulated from selling fossil fuels).

I don't see economic disaster. I see the flow of cash, shifting around, for the better and worse of some individuals, not for the over all economy. I think relative stability in our economy can be maintained if the shift is slow enoough that it allows for people to make the shift as they can afford to. Tax incentives can help.  Sooner then not, we are going to run out of fossil fuels. Why not take proactive measures, get a slow but steady jump start on it before it has to hit CRISIS levels for the nation.

If that is allowed to happen, the Americans of the time are sure to see economic DISASTER at the grandest scale yet. That would be after you and are dead zappa.

You know how the rest of the world views us by our actions taken or not does matter. Our falling behind other countries in the move to switch to alternative fuels is going to weaken our status as a global leader. That may lead to some economic problems in the near future if any other Country in KYOTA decided to start boycotting our products because of it. This nation is quickly becoming a joke for other nations to spit on and we are loosing a lot of respect. We have a chance for some redemption with joining the Kyoto agreement.

Besides, the agreement calls for a nominal 5-8 % emmissions reduction, over a period of time, not radical immediate change.

:peace: :heart:


--------------------
Ahuwale ka nane huna.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 1 month, 18 days
Re: Jumping party ships, hidden values/agendas and ethics. [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #6511082 - 01/30/07 03:57 AM (17 years, 1 month ago)

> We have a chance for some redemption with joining the Kyoto agreement.

Actually, not signing the Kyoto agreement has been one of the few things that Bush has gotten correct. The agreement is severely flawed. It is less of a pollution control agreement and more of a welfare for poor and developing counties agreement.

The problem is that developing countries with the largest populations in the world (China and India among others) are exempt from the controls. As the cost in production rises in developed counties due to pollution controls, production will be moved to countries that are exempt from the controls. The pollution is reduced locally, not globally. To add insult to injury, jobs are lost and prices rise to cover more complex logistics and the costs associated with moving production facilities.

I think it would be great if the US were part of a global anti-pollution agreement. However, Kyoto is not this agreement. Kyoto is a flawed concept. Boiled down, Kyoto is welfare, not pollution control.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblegettinjiggywithit
jiggy
Female User Gallery

Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
Re: Jumping party ships, hidden values/agendas and ethics. [Re: Seuss]
    #6511583 - 01/30/07 09:05 AM (17 years, 1 month ago)

Oh really? It's my understanding that, he never bothered to intitiate his own study on economic impact.  Not one idustrialized nation who is a member has had any "economic distaer as result.

I put a link below.

I want to clarify something I said. The Treaty only calls for the 5-8% reduction of carbon emmisions from industrial plants. Nothing in it about switching off fossil fuels and over to alternative energy.

Industrialized Nations who have joined the treaty agreed to help developing countries cut emmisions. This means, getting involved with helper builders of industry in the developing nations understand and use the latest technology for reducing carbon emmisions.

Welfare? We spend how many billions in aide to other countries regarding feeding them, giving them medical care, trade incentives, taking out their dictators, protecting them from their enemies, etc etc etc, and we can't spend a few bucks in comparision to help developing nations, the lessor of the offenders, reduce carbon emmisions in new plants being built, positively effecting the atmosphere we ALL draw breathable air from, and grow produce with to eat?

Like I said earlier, I have no problem with charitible acts when they help others to become responcible citizens of the world. This is one of those. That is unlike, feeding people who choose to live in deserts and keep having more children. That is unlike spending billions to fight off insurgents for a countries new government, who don't even have enough support from their own citisens to defend it themselves. You two are actually going to preach to me about Kyota being global wellfare? You'll have to do much better then that.


The below is taken from-

http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/akyotoqa.asp

Quote:

Q. Are developing countries exempt from the Kyoto Protocol?

A. No. The Kyoto Protocol was negotiated and signed in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the 1992 treaty signed by George W. Bush's father and ratified by the Senate. The climate convention requires all countries, including developing countries, to establish programs to address greenhouse gas emissions and to report on progress. The 1992 treaty also requires developed countries such as the United States to take the lead in limiting greenhouse gas emissions. In particular, the 1992 treaty commits the United States and other developed countries to establish programs designed to return greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels. Current U.S. emissions are about 15 percent greater than they were in 1990.

Developed countries such as the United States, with only 25 percent of the world's population, are responsible for more than 75 percent of the accumulated greenhouse gas pollution in the atmosphere to date. Nonetheless, many developing countries - including China, India, Mexico, Brazil and Argentina - have made progress in reducing the greenhouse gas emission rates from their economies through improved transport, forestry and other policies.[1] While U.S. carbon dioxide emissions continue to rise, emissions in China have dropped more than 17 percent since 1997.[2]

The Kyoto agreement is consistent with the 1992 treaty principle that developed countries should provide leadership in addressing global warming. Singling out China and India, as the president has done, demonstrates the inequity in his claim of unfairness. Nearly half the population of India lives on less than $1 per day; the death rate of Indian children under 5 years is 13 times higher than in the United States; the average person in Indian uses less electricity in a year than the average American uses every two weeks. Given that developed countries have put 75 percent of accumulated greenhouse pollution in the atmosphere and the disparity in living conditions between the United States and such countries as China and India, it is morally bankrupt to argue that the United States should refuse to take additional action until the world's poor countries take the same action.




Q. Would the Kyoto Protocol seriously harm the U.S. economy?

A. No. The Bush administration has done absolutely no analysis to substantiate its claim that the Kyoto Protocol or domestic policies to reduce carbon dioxide pollution from power plants would seriously harm the U.S. economy. While industry trade associations have published many misleading claims of economic harm, two comprehensive government analyses have shown that it is possible to reduce greenhouse pollution to levels called for in the Kyoto agreement without harming the U.S. economy.

In 1998, the White House Council of Economic Advisors concluded that the costs of implementing the Kyoto Protocol would be "modest" -- no more than a few tenths of 1 percent of gross domestic product in 2010, equivalent to adding no more than a month or two to a ten-year forecast for achieving a vastly increased level of wealth in this country. A subsequent and more detailed study by five Department of Energy national laboratories found that policies to promote increases in energy efficiency would allow the United States to make most of the emission reductions required to comply with the Kyoto Protocol through domestic measures that have the potential to improve economic performance over the long run.[3] The only study that President Bush cited in announcing his reversal on CO2 reductions, a report by the Energy Information Administration, failed to consider the inexpensive greenhouse pollution reductions that can be achieved through energy efficiency. The study also ignored the Kyoto Protocol's flexible market mechanisms, which the United States has spent the last three years negotiating with other signatories.

While the Bush administration may assert that previous government cost studies are inaccurate, there is no basis for such a view. The current administration has not conducted its own analysis of the costs of the Kyoto agreement.




Q. Does the Bush administration have an alternative to the Kyoto Protocol?

A. No. The Bush administration has only said that it is conducting a cabinet-level review of the global warming issue and that "the president does believe that working with our friends and allies and through international processes, we can develop technologies, market-based incentives, and other innovative approaches that can combat global climate change." The administration has not offered any explanation for announcing its conclusions before conducting the review.

In fact, the Kyoto Protocol offers just the solutions that President Bush says he favors. It is an innovative international agreement that includes market-based incentives and promotes cooperation in developing technologies to combat global climate change. (For example: Article 10 of the protocol requires all parties to cooperate in developing and diffusing technologies for addressing climate change, and Article 17 provides that parties with specific emission limits under the protocol may participate in emissions trading.)





:peace: :heart:


--------------------
Ahuwale ka nane huna.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   North Spore Cultivation Supplies   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Government Growth, the Party of Lincoln, and George W. Bush Ancalagon 1,077 2 01/17/14 01:34 AM
by theindianrepublic
* Advice for the Democratic party Phred 2,315 15 11/08/04 06:00 AM
by Mushmonkey
* which political party do you most agree with?
( 1 2 all )
Anonymous 3,064 29 08/05/04 06:15 PM
by Strumpling
* 3rd party?
( 1 2 all )
TODAY 1,388 23 12/02/04 10:02 PM
by TODAY
* Why Democrats are tagged as the party without values
( 1 2 all )
Great_Satan 2,165 23 12/18/04 10:41 PM
by Annapurna1
* Indian officials find Scud components aboard N. Korean ship wingnutx 933 9 08/18/03 02:45 PM
by Azmodeus
* NARC PARTY - This is your convention on drugs. Evolving 1,065 9 08/03/04 04:04 PM
by Evolving
* Join the American Communist Party
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
Kommunist 10,042 103 04/14/04 11:02 AM
by Evolving

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
1,329 topic views. 0 members, 11 guests and 8 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.034 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 14 queries.