Home | Community | Message Board |
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
| |||||||
gettinjiggywithit jiggy Registered: 07/20/04 Posts: 7,469 Loc: Heart of Laughte |
| ||||||
This was posted in another thread about Hillary Clinton.
Quote: 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!" -------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
| |||||||
zappaisgod horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 9 months |
| ||||||
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/art Quote:
| |||||||
gettinjiggywithit jiggy Registered: 07/20/04 Posts: 7,469 Loc: Heart of Laughte |
| ||||||
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. Thanks for your reply zappa! -------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
| |||||||
trippindad82 Trusted Cultivator of Trich Registered: 01/07/07 Posts: 1,087 Loc: down, down the h Last seen: 11 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
Quote: 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. -------------------- 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.^^^ --------------------------------
| |||||||
Redstorm Prince of Bugs Registered: 10/08/02 Posts: 44,175 Last seen: 5 months, 7 days |
| ||||||
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.
| |||||||
trippindad82 Trusted Cultivator of Trich Registered: 01/07/07 Posts: 1,087 Loc: down, down the h Last seen: 11 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
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? 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.^^^ --------------------------------
| |||||||
Redstorm Prince of Bugs Registered: 10/08/02 Posts: 44,175 Last seen: 5 months, 7 days |
| ||||||
Quote: 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: 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: I would chalk it up to incompetency.
| |||||||
zappaisgod horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 9 months |
| ||||||
Quote: 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: 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.
| |||||||
gettinjiggywithit jiggy Registered: 07/20/04 Posts: 7,469 Loc: Heart of Laughte |
| ||||||
Quote:. 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 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? 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. -------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
| |||||||
zappaisgod horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 9 months |
| ||||||
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. 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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.
| |||||||
gettinjiggywithit jiggy Registered: 07/20/04 Posts: 7,469 Loc: Heart of Laughte |
| ||||||
Quote: 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: 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: Um okay. Quote: 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 I was either. Could be because I'm not ye smart ass. (Thats one of the last places you would find me) Not my style or interest. Quote: Exactly the case. 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: 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: 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 -------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
| |||||||
zappaisgod horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 9 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Brilliant. I bet you didn't know you were a conservative Quote: Which is exactly the choice here. Your harshness is sounding more and more conservative every minute. Quote: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. Quote:Quote: You asked why "they were considered". I answered. And "leftist" is a mighty big tent. Quote: 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: 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: I was referring to the legal definition. For instance, KY and CT are both commonwealths. NY is not 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.
| |||||||
gettinjiggywithit jiggy Registered: 07/20/04 Posts: 7,469 Loc: Heart of Laughte |
| ||||||
Quote: I told you in another post that I lean towards the right. Quote:. There's an answer from someone to the original question I asked. Quote: Thanks for the clarification. Quote: 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: Yes! Ultimately I am not for Unions. Quote:. 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: Bush called for it and a Republican congress voted it in. Quote: 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: Indeed, China and Europe and the Rockefellers and their ilk holding the purse strings of America is nonsense!!!! Quote: 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: Ah, I used the word under the defintions I gave. Quote: 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. -------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
| |||||||
Seuss Error: divide byzero Registered: 04/27/01 Posts: 23,480 Loc: Caribbean Last seen: 1 month, 18 days |
| ||||||
> 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.
| |||||||
gettinjiggywithit jiggy Registered: 07/20/04 Posts: 7,469 Loc: Heart of Laughte |
| ||||||
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/globalWarmin Quote: -------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
| |||||||
|
|
Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last 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 ] | ||