Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 30
  1. #1
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,250
    Post Thanks / Like

    For those who defend your beloved GOP

    http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2...utm_medium=rss

    Watch the John Oliver video from the Daily Show. He interviews Republicans gathered for a conference at a very swank hotel in Hawaii. You'll love the woman earnestly telling Mr. Oliver that Dems are out of touch while his constant references to Hawaii go over her head.

    So, GOP fans... how the bleep do you defend them? I have railed against the liberal myopics here at ODN. Perhaps, though, its time to direct my ire at the equally myopic group of social conservatives who have turned the Republicans into the Christian wing of the Democratic party.

    It is clear Repubclians
    1. Have no more a clue how to maintain a federalist country as the Democrats.
    2. Are as bought and paid for as the Democrats.
    3. Are butt-fu**ing this country just as hard as the Democrats.
    4. Do not deserve to be voted into office any more than the Democrats need to be voted out.

    Case in point. George W. Bush signed the first bank bailout. Obama signed the second one. What's the freakin' difference? Did Bush and the Republicans stop the banks from collapsing by regulating them? Nope. They let the banks make dumb loans and wrap them up into derivatives. The Democrats may have created the mechanisms, but who cares. So, each party in power just continues the corruption from the previous party and then adds some new twist to it.

    The video above would be funny... but it is just disturbing when you start thinking about it.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  2. #2
    survivalist
    Guest

    Re: For those who defend your beloved GOP

    I am fond of saying that there is nothing worst than a republican except perhaps a democrat. I would only vote today for Ron Paul. Socialism sucks and that is what liberal democrats will give us with some fascism thrown in but Bush literally has Nazi ties (or his grandfather does anyway) Both sides are bought and paid for by the corporate elite (NWO) We are in the endgame now please see that movie at youtube called endgame

  3. #3
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,663
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: For those who defend your beloved GOP

    Well, you won't catch me defending Bush on the bank bail out. I though that single act made him a bad President "Abandon the free market to save it". It all reeks of "I'm doing this terrible thing to help you, but I don't want to do it". A mantra that will be spoken on the day politicians take our last rights.

    Yet in what party will we find constitutionalists?
    If one crops up in my state from the Dem party.. .I'll vote for him.

    My biggest problem how can I trust any politician to do what they say? I'd rather vote for some random guy off the street, they can't possibly do any worse.

    As for Hawaii, they pass their costs onto the consumer, and apparently people going to Hawaii, don't mind paying for the excessive costs. I would say it is one of the few places that mandated coverage could work, simply because how that specific economy is built.
    To serve man.

  4. #4
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,847
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: For those who defend your beloved GOP

    I don't love the GOP. I think Bush made some good calls; TARP was not one of them. I have a strong libertarian streak, and I favor Hayek's economic theory to Keynes's.

    I think politicians in general are untrustworthy, unprincipled, and corrupt. I think that most politicians think that they're better than most Americans.

    But I'd like to know what you think is the most probable way that a libertarian-leaning politician can actually be elected, if not through the GOP? With which party can the Tea Party be the most successful, if not the Republicans? Certainly not the Democrats, and I think the prospects of a third party are dismal.

    It is enough, I think, to pull the Republicans closer to the Libertarians. I think that approach has the best chance of making the best impact on our political landscape.
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  5. #5
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,333
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: For those who defend your beloved GOP

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Perhaps, though, its time to direct my ire at the equally myopic group of social conservatives who have turned the Republicans into the Christian wing of the Democratic party.
    Are you saying that social conservatism precludes fiscal conservatism? And that within the Republican party they are mutually exclusive? If so, please support.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    The video above would be funny... but it is just disturbing when you start thinking about it.
    Tell me, why is it disturbing that Republican delegates/representatives are spending their own money for travel and lodging to attend a meeting in Hawaii? As a some time delegate/representative (at state level), I can say that expenses for attending events are paid by the attendees, in most cases. And even if the party pays for it, that is not an expenditure of taxpayer dollars. So, what is the problem?
    Last edited by evensaul; February 20th, 2010 at 07:20 PM.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  6. #6
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,847
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: For those who defend your beloved GOP

    Are you saying that social conservatism precludes fiscal conservatism? And that within the Republican party they are mutually exclusive? If so, please support.
    Being socially conservative isn't the problem; the problem is that many social conservatives vote to enact legislation that enforces their social ideology. This is not a politically conservative position, regardless of one's financial conservatism.
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  7. #7
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,333
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: For those who defend your beloved GOP

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    ... the problem is that many social conservatives vote to enact legislation that enforces their social ideology.
    Hmmm. I read the op as stating the problem is social conservatives who are fiscally liberal. Perhaps Isbeld will clarify.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  8. #8
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    447
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: For those who defend your beloved GOP

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    Being socially conservative isn't the problem; the problem is that many social conservatives vote to enact legislation that enforces their social ideology. This is not a politically conservative position, regardless of one's financial conservatism.
    I may have missed something too. Is there anyone who votes AGAINST their ideology? That doesn't make much sense to me.

  9. #9
    ODN Administrator

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Rural Southern Indiana
    Posts
    5,285
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: For those who defend your beloved GOP

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    Being socially conservative isn't the problem; the problem is that many social conservatives vote to enact legislation that enforces their social ideology. This is not a politically conservative position, regardless of one's financial conservatism.
    AH! Finally someone who understands! I'm very interested in the response to this post as well. Perhaps it was worded in a way that was confusing? I can't say.

    Quote Originally Posted by LagerHead View Post
    I may have missed something too. Is there anyone who votes AGAINST their ideology? That doesn't make much sense to me.
    Politicians are paid to do a job, that job is to represent their constituents. Voting your conscience if it is in conflict with the interests of your consitutents means you're not doing your job. So it may be unpopular, but it's should be the name of the game for politicians... it seems as though politicians have lost sight of what their job really is.
    "And that, my lord, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped." ~ Monty Python


  10. #10
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,617
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: For those who defend your beloved GOP

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2...utm_medium=rss

    Watch the John Oliver video from the Daily Show. He interviews Republicans gathered for a conference at a very swank hotel in Hawaii. You'll love the woman earnestly telling Mr. Oliver that Dems are out of touch while his constant references to Hawaii go over her head.

    So, GOP fans... how the bleep do you defend them? I have railed against the liberal myopics here at ODN. Perhaps, though, its time to direct my ire at the equally myopic group of social conservatives who have turned the Republicans into the Christian wing of the Democratic party.

    It is clear Repubclians
    1. Have no more a clue how to maintain a federalist country as the Democrats.
    2. Are as bought and paid for as the Democrats.
    3. Are butt-fu**ing this country just as hard as the Democrats.
    4. Do not deserve to be voted into office any more than the Democrats need to be voted out.

    Case in point. George W. Bush signed the first bank bailout. Obama signed the second one. What's the freakin' difference? Did Bush and the Republicans stop the banks from collapsing by regulating them? Nope. They let the banks make dumb loans and wrap them up into derivatives. The Democrats may have created the mechanisms, but who cares. So, each party in power just continues the corruption from the previous party and then adds some new twist to it.

    The video above would be funny... but it is just disturbing when you start thinking about it.
    Economically, there is almost no difference between Republicans and Democrats. If there's one thing that Leftists (and I mean real Leftists, which flat out precludes Democrats) and Libertarians can agree on, it's that there is basically no difference, economically speaking, between a Democrat and a Republican politician. Both are in the pockets of large corporations and intellectually bankrupt organizations, which guides the vote of politicians. And each politician is following the most Nietzschean philosophy possible --look out for me, because I'm a member of the ruling class, and f*** everyone else.


    Also, of course, this isn't really completely the politician's fault. They did not create this scenario singlehandedly; although, they certainly helped instigate and maintain the completely insane political system that benefits them. They're simply benefiting from the situation that the American public allowed to happen because of it's own unbelievable incompetence.


    (I think that's probably the saddest thing about the tea-bag'ers. They're nothing more than a mockery of their own principles; they are so far into the pockets of the Rightist pundits, who don't absolutely don't give a damn about the average T-bag'ers interests --and yet they incapable of even realizing this!)


    Quote Originally Posted by survivalist View Post
    I am fond of saying that there is nothing worst than a republican except perhaps a democrat. I would only vote today for Ron Paul. Socialism sucks and that is what liberal democrats will give us with some fascism thrown in but Bush literally has Nazi ties (or his grandfather does anyway) Both sides are bought and paid for by the corporate elite (NWO) We are in the endgame now please see that movie at youtube called endgame
    I would invert the order. "There's nothing worse than a Democrat/Libertarian/Green except Republicans/Constitutionalists/Reform, who are nothing more than fascists with respect to human rights."

    This isn't to say that I like any of them, it's to say that economics aside, I'm a very hardcore Leftist on social issues. I support homosexual marriage, abortion rights, decriminalization of drugs, and a plethora of other staunchly Liberal/Libertarian positions. So I'd rather see them in office representing half of my views rather than a group that represents 0% of my views. Of course, given that Obama isn't nearly as socially liberal as I would like, it still makes little difference.

    So while I'm happy to see Obama in office over McCain (and more importantly Sarah Palin), I'm not very happy at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by LagerHead View Post
    I may have missed something too. Is there anyone who votes AGAINST their ideology? That doesn't make much sense to me.
    Clive is suggesting, as any responsible human being should, that religious beliefs should not be involved in political decisions. I may be a hardcore atheist, but I'm never going to suggest that we should make religion illegal --that's absurd and the antithesis of human liberty. Just as any, for example, Hindu president state that we should not make Hinduism a State religion, neither should Christianity be reflected in our laws.
    "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." --Voltaire

  11. #11
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,333
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: For those who defend your beloved GOP

    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    Perhaps it was worded in a way that was confusing?
    No, I think I was just being a bit thick.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post

    It is clear Repubclians
    1. Have no more a clue how to maintain a federalist country as the Democrats.
    What are the egregious anti-federalist positions held by social conservatives?

    I don't consider Bush to be a conservative. Social or otherwise.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  12. #12
    Senior Mod

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,289
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: For those who defend your beloved GOP

    I have no love for the GOP *or* the Democrats. They're all, in my opinion, treasonous bastards who have sold out their country for political expediency. I think we ought to toss every single one of them out on their ear and elect new people who won't have enough momentum to do that kind of crap again.

    As has been expressed above, the GOP is not truly conservative anymore. They've been usurped by the Neocons, which is why the Tea Party movement has become so popular in just one year. People are fed up with politics in Washington. A recent Rasmussen survey reveals that only 21% of Americans believe that the current government "has the consent of the governed." Another survey reveals that just under half of the people in America believe that randomly selected people from a phone book would do a better job than the current Congress. Congress currently has a 20% approval rating, and Obama's approval rating is less than 50%. This is *not* the sign of a Republic whose interests are being pursued by the government it employed to do that job.

    I don't believe that the GOP has the public interest at heart any more than the Dems do. Both parties have been infested by the Progressives, though the GOP does a better job of hiding it and the Dems' infestation is more extensive. Our last 4 Presidents, at least, have been hardcore progressives, and they're pretty much totally responsible for the gradual degradation of rights that we've seen in the last 20 years and the steady expansion of government under both parties, even in the face of things like the usurped Contract With America in the 1990's that promised just the opposite and turned right around to betray the very people whose political fury it usurped. As far as I'm concerned, those guys broke their oaths to uphold and defend the Constitution and are guilty of treason by way of betraying their constituencies.

    Politics in America at present is pretty much a farce.

  13. #13
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    741
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: For those who defend your beloved GOP

    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    I have no love for the GOP *or* the Democrats. They're all, in my opinion, treasonous bastards who have sold out their country for political expediency. I think we ought to toss every single one of them out on their ear and elect new people who won't have enough momentum to do that kind of crap again.
    Do you think, perhaps it has anything to do with the increased lobbying in Washington over the last two decades or so which has meant some US congressmen are at the behest of (corporate) special interests? Or that, rather than being more practical and deciding what's better for the country or what's better for their constituencies, some in Congress have simply stuck to their ideologies in an attempt to remain popular within their own political party?

    The politics in Washington have now become a game of who can uncover more dirt about the opposing party, and who's louder than their political opponent. But just remember that while people continually oppose the public servants on Capitol Hill, it's you Americans that are continually voting them in.

  14. #14
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,333
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: For those who defend your beloved GOP

    Quote Originally Posted by GoldPhoenix View Post
    Clive is suggesting, as any responsible human being should, that religious beliefs should not be involved in political decisions.
    The above was simply Argument from Intimidation. And a religious person could just as easily counter (also fallaciously) that it would be irresponsible not to be guided politically by religious beliefs.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  15. #15
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,847
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: For those who defend your beloved GOP

    Quote Originally Posted by LagerHead View Post
    I may have missed something too. Is there anyone who votes AGAINST their ideology? That doesn't make much sense to me.
    It goes something like this:

    Senator X proposes a bill that endorses Senator X's social preferences.

    I think that people should refuse to vote to enact the bill not because I disagree with Senator X's social preferences (perhaps I agree with them, perhaps not), but because I think the government should not be in the business of legislating social preferences.
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  16. #16
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,617
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: For those who defend your beloved GOP

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    The above was simply Argument from Intimidation. And a religious person could just as easily counter (also fallaciously) that it would be irresponsible not to be guided politically by religious beliefs.
    No, argumenum ad baculum doesn't apply here. An argument from intimidation only applies if I threaten you with some kind of force --this is manifestly something that I have not done. If you choose to interpret it as intimidation, then you're misreading me. Therefore you're committing the fallacy of a false charge of fallacy.

    What I said to Lager was a statement of opinion. I believe that anyone who desires to place their religious beliefs into the political sphere is manifestly irresponsible. I mean in the sense that it is irresponsible not to learn the mistakes that history has taught us. With some irony, I'm actually partly referring to the political persecution of your own religious group, or more specifically the early Protestants, from Catholics after the emergence of Protestantism. Of course, Protestants did not decide to lie down and take it, and they conducted the Thirty Years War, which killed off over a third of the Germanic population. And this only one of a huge number of cases where people, by placing their religious convictions into the political sphere, have caused war and the destruction of human liberties.



    I always find it amusing that many Evangelicals complain about how Muslims treated Christians and Jews during the Middle-Ages (i.e. the Islamic dimhi laws), and yet in a supposedly secular Republic, the Evangelical Right would like nothing more than to have their religious opinions counted to the exclusion of everyone else and force every other religious group to comply with the Biblical codes that they wish to impress upon everyone else. It's hypocritical to a staggering degree.
    "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." --Voltaire

  17. #17
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,208
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: For those who defend your beloved GOP

    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    As has been expressed above, the GOP is not truly conservative anymore. They've been usurped by the Neocons, which is why the Tea Party movement has become so popular in just one year.
    From what I've seen so far from the Tea party "leadership" they are directly promoting the GOP and trying hard to avoid acting as competition for them. I saw a study saying that more than 80% vote republican.

    I'd like to see them go their own way, form a real party and challenge the status quo but I doubt thats going to happen.

    What I really want to see is the middle ground get occupied by a party that can syphon off the middle of both parties. Sadly most game theory says its not likely to happen.

  18. #18
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,847
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: For those who defend your beloved GOP

    Quote Originally Posted by GP
    ...the Evangelical Right would like nothing more than to have their religious opinions counted to the exclusion of everyone else and force every other religious group to comply with the Biblical codes that they wish to impress upon everyone else. It's hypocritical to a staggering degree.
    How can you claim to know the opinion of the Evangelical Right, or even of a majority of that group?
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  19. #19
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,333
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: For those who defend your beloved GOP

    Quote Originally Posted by GoldPhoenix View Post
    No, argumenum ad baculum doesn't apply here.
    That's Appeal to Force. That isn't the same as Argument from Intimidation.

    Your claim that people are "irresponsible" if they let their politics be influenced by religious views is an attack on the character of the person, rather than on the actions in question. That's no different than saying "If don't agree with me, you're crazy!" Such an argument doesn't address the merits of any position on the issue, but instead tries to silence opposition through verbal intimidation.

    Argument from Intimidation: Similar to both Appeal to Authority and, in particular, ad hominem, the argument from intimidation was a phrase coined by philosopher Ayn Rand back in the 1960s. The distinct differences between ad hominem and the Argument from Intimidation were defined by Rand as follows:

    "...in the first case (ad hominem), candidate X's immorality, real or invented, is offered as proof of the falsehood of his argument. In the second case, the falsehood of his argument is asserted arbitrarily and offered as proof of his immorality... In today's epistemological jungle, that second method is used more frequently than any other argument. [The] tone is usually one of scornful or belligerent incredulity... all 'smears' are arguments from intimidation; they consist of derogatory assertions without any evidence or proof, aimed at the moral cowardice or unthinking credulity of the hearers..."

    The classic example of the argument from intimidation is the fable of The Emperor's New Clothes.

    Other examples:

    * Only heartless, greedy people can support capitalism."
    * "Only an ignorant man can look at the wonders around him and deny the existence of God."
    * "Satanists...claim Ayn Rand's philosophy as an eloquent expression of their credo."
    * "Those who support America's action against the terrorists in Afghanistan are no better than terrorists themselves." http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/showthread.php?t=40
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  20. #20
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,617
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: For those who defend your beloved GOP

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    How can you claim to know the opinion of the Evangelical Right, or even of a majority of that group?
    By the policies that they, as a group, have expressed he desire to see enacted.


    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    That's Appeal to Force. That isn't the same as Argument from Intimidation.
    Fair enough; however, this is not a standard logical fallacy. At least, not under this name. I suspect it is related to an appeal to ridicule.

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul
    Your claim that people are "irresponsible" if they let their politics be influenced by religious views is an attack on the character of the person, rather than on the actions in question. That's no different than saying "If don't agree with me, you're crazy!" Such an argument doesn't address the merits of any position on the issue, but instead tries to silence opposition through verbal intimidation.

    Argument from Intimidation: Similar to both Appeal to Authority and, in particular, ad hominem, the argument from intimidation was a phrase coined by philosopher Ayn Rand back in the 1960s. The distinct differences between ad hominem and the Argument from Intimidation were defined by Rand as follows:

    "...in the first case (ad hominem), candidate X's immorality, real or invented, is offered as proof of the falsehood of his argument. In the second case, the falsehood of his argument is asserted arbitrarily and offered as proof of his immorality... In today's epistemological jungle, that second method is used more frequently than any other argument. [The] tone is usually one of scornful or belligerent incredulity... all 'smears' are arguments from intimidation; they consist of derogatory assertions without any evidence or proof, aimed at the moral cowardice or unthinking credulity of the hearers..."
    Okay.

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul

    The classic example of the argument from intimidation is the fable of The Emperor's New Clothes.

    Other examples:

    * Only heartless, greedy people can support capitalism."
    * "Only an ignorant man can look at the wonders around him and deny the existence of God."
    * "Satanists...claim Ayn Rand's philosophy as an eloquent expression of their credo."
    * "Those who support America's action against the terrorists in Afghanistan are no better than terrorists themselves." http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/showthread.php?t=40
    You're confused about what I said. You're mistaking my statement of opinion for an argument. I said that any responsible person would not enact their political views. I did not then go on to say "And therefore people shouldn't enact their religious views into politics" and present this as an argument or a justifier for an argument. That would have been a logical fallacy; however, I did no such thing.

    For example, you are perfectly capable of saying, "Only heartless, greedy people can support capitalism." on two conditions:

    1.) You can't use this, alone, as your reason for why people shouldn't be capitalists.
    2.) You would need to justify this statement.

    But there's nothing inherently illogical about stating, "It is irresponsible to do X." --so long as your reason for why people shouldn't do X doesn't rely on your assertion that it's irresponsible.
    "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." --Voltaire

 

 
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. License guns like we do cars?
    By mican333 in forum General Debate
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: November 26th, 2009, 07:39 PM
  2. Goodbye, My Beloved Friend....Remembering My Dog
    By Scarlett44 in forum Shootin' the Breeze / Off-Topic
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: December 9th, 2008, 04:34 PM
  3. Supreme Court rules banning guns is unconstitutional
    By GoldPhoenix in forum Current Events
    Replies: 198
    Last Post: November 7th, 2008, 08:57 AM
  4. Are guns really THAT bad?
    By LeeshaForeverr in forum General Debate
    Replies: 127
    Last Post: September 6th, 2008, 11:38 AM
  5. Defend the Monster
    By Apokalupsis in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 107
    Last Post: January 2nd, 2006, 06:12 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •