|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
 Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 12:17 pm Post subject: ... |
 |
|
| Quote: |
| Even if you speak English with a foreign accent, there is no excuse for bashing gays. |
I think it's OK to do pretty much anything while speaking with a foreign accent. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Pligganease
Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Location: The deep south...
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 5:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Joo, fortunately I can not see the pictures - it takes time for them to download. But perhaps you ought to put a warning and some space so that others can choose whether or not to look. Myself, I don't want to see it. |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| I don't want to see the photos, and scrolled down fast to read this post. I'm not sure Joo should have done that without warning people. I once saw footage of women being stoned to death in Saudi Arabia, and that left me sickened for days and days. |
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChimpumCallao
Joined: 17 May 2005
Location: your mom
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 6:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Explain Gay bashing. Do you mean literal or figurative?
I am 100% against physically harming or discriminating against anyone just because of how they choose to live their life. I don't care. As seen in the animal world, gayness is pretty normal. I really don't see the big deal.
But I also defend the right of people to say what the want. Gays are not exempt from getting their feelings hurt or encountering opinions that do not agree with their lifestyle. Plus, a phrase such as "light on his loafers" is too precious to be discarded.
Now, gay bashing around the world- in the literal sense- occurs much much much more in Mulsim countries solely because many of their governments do not allow such behavious and punish it by death. There doesn't seem to be much opposition to this, either- not on the Muslim side nor on the side of gay activists (at least not to the level that gay activists criticise the West).
Im not sure, are there any non-Mulsim countries that punish gayness by death?
I guess (in public at least) they do not enforce the old Arabic saying:
"Women are for babies; Men are for fun."
I find all gay bashing pretty reprehensible, but I am especially outraged at the fact that many gay leftists defend the very countries and religions that would turn around and behead them for their 'unnatural acts'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 6:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That reminds me of this:
http://www.exile.ru/2007-May-04/fuck_this_place_.html
| Quote: |
| Another fucked up Muslim tradition is the male on male sex party every Thursday night. Our Western media staples don't highlight this custom very often, but every Thursday night is a Manlove bonanza. In the Muslim tradition, men are to be used for pleasure, and women are for procreation. It is forbidden for a woman to have a sexual encounter with another woman. A machismo culture of bisexual males who pee sitting down, like a woman, that doesn't allow any girl-on-girl? I still can't wrap my fucking head around that. |
Read the rest of the article for a solid idea of how the "nation builders" regard the "nation" they (we) are building. Best case against the war in afganiland yet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dmbfan
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 8:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Homophobia is not cool. Not in any country. Bashing gays, even if they are muslim gays and you are a muslim basher, is just not cool. Even if you speak English with a foreign accent, there is no excuse for bashing gays. It should not be tolerated, anywhere. Not by white homophobes, and not by swarthy looking homophobes dressed in white robes or with brown eyes or dark curly hair.
This is my position. What's your opinion, dear posters? |
| Quote: |
It was used by clinical psychologist George Weinberg, who claims to have first thought of it while speaking at a homophile group in 1965, and was popularized by his book Society and the Healthy Homosexual in 1971. When asked about the meaning of the word in a 2002 interview, he said:
"Homophobia is just that: a phobia. A morbid and irrational dread which prompts irrational behavior flight or the desire to destroy the stimulus for the phobia and anything reminiscent of it."[8] |
First, it is not my business to tell people who they should love, or sleep with. If a woman likes to munch on carpet, fine. If a man likes tube steak, fine.
BUT....what I don't like the labling of someone as a "homophobic", just becuase he/she does not agree with that way of life, and thinks it is wrong. There is a difference between the two. Personally,I don't buy into homosexuals, and I don't agree with their lifestyle. But, it is not my place to tell them to change, nor is it my place to degrade them for their choice. As long as they are not forcing THEIR beliefs on others, then I am pretty cool with that. But, once folks start saying that "Oh, YOU are wrong for thinking the way you do.....", that is when I get upset. People don't HAVE to agree with it....but people should at least try to tolerate it.
dmbfan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
daskalos
Joined: 19 May 2006
Location: The Road to Ithaca
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 5:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dmbfan wrote: |
| Quote: |
Homophobia is not cool. Not in any country. Bashing gays, even if they are muslim gays and you are a muslim basher, is just not cool. Even if you speak English with a foreign accent, there is no excuse for bashing gays. It should not be tolerated, anywhere. Not by white homophobes, and not by swarthy looking homophobes dressed in white robes or with brown eyes or dark curly hair.
This is my position. What's your opinion, dear posters? |
| Quote: |
It was used by clinical psychologist George Weinberg, who claims to have first thought of it while speaking at a homophile group in 1965, and was popularized by his book Society and the Healthy Homosexual in 1971. When asked about the meaning of the word in a 2002 interview, he said:
"Homophobia is just that: a phobia. A morbid and irrational dread which prompts irrational behavior flight or the desire to destroy the stimulus for the phobia and anything reminiscent of it."[8] |
First, it is not my business to tell people who they should love, or sleep with. If a woman likes to munch on carpet, fine. If a man likes tube steak, fine.
BUT....what I don't like the labling of someone as a "homophobic", just becuase he/she does not agree with that way of life, and thinks it is wrong. There is a difference between the two. Personally,I don't buy into homosexuals, and I don't agree with their lifestyle. But, it is not my place to tell them to change, nor is it my place to degrade them for their choice. As long as they are not forcing THEIR beliefs on others, then I am pretty cool with that. But, once folks start saying that "Oh, YOU are wrong for thinking the way you do.....", that is when I get upset. People don't HAVE to agree with it....but people should at least try to tolerate it.
dmbfan |
Your position, such as it is, seems a little odd and a bit off to me. It doesn't quite join up neatly at the corners, as it were.
You have no problem with anyone who wants to engage is homosexual relations. Those people should be allowed to do all of that carpet munching and tube steak eating in peace. But you don't agree with it.
What does that mean? Does it mean you (if you are male) don't want to eat tube steak? Hmm. Well, then I guess you're straight, huh?
What does the verb "agree" mean to you? Is what you are saying is that you don't approve of gay sex, even though those who engage in it should be able to?
You seem to be wishing to use the verb "agree" like I would use it regarding onions. Onions don't agree with me -- I don't eat them. I don't think they should be wiped off the menu, nor do I think those who eat them shouldn't be allowed to. I just want no part of eating onions. This does not make me onionphobic.
If, however, I did allow that onion eaters shouldn't be prosecuted or persecuted, but in my soul of souls believe that they were really are sort of bad people for eating onions, that would make me onionphobic, or onionphagophobic. (Fear or loathing of onion eaters.) I might not like the label, either, but I'd see the logic of it, and I'd live with it or address it.
So, is the verb you're really after "agree" or "approve"?
Discuss. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
just alittlecrazy
Joined: 30 Nov 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 6:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
if you're not for something you must be against it. why do we have to always have to have such unhelpful dichotomies. a dislike of homosexuality isn't necessarily homophobia.
homosexuality is not for me. but i wouldn't discriminate against those who are gay/lesbian.
however if male made a pass at me i would tell him to go away. but do it a second time and i'd smack him one. i'm sure there are several women (straight or otherwise) that would like to do that to some males too, does that make them heterophobic? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
daskalos
Joined: 19 May 2006
Location: The Road to Ithaca
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 6:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ChimpumCallao wrote: |
Explain Gay bashing. Do you mean literal or figurative?
I am 100% against physically harming or discriminating against anyone just because of how they choose to live their life. I don't care. As seen in the animal world, gayness is pretty normal. I really don't see the big deal.
But I also defend the right of people to say what the want. Gays are not exempt from getting their feelings hurt or encountering opinions that do not agree with their lifestyle. Plus, a phrase such as "light on his loafers" is too precious to be discarded.
Now, gay bashing around the world- in the literal sense- occurs much much much more in Mulsim countries solely because many of their governments do not allow such behavious and punish it by death. There doesn't seem to be much opposition to this, either- not on the Muslim side nor on the side of gay activists (at least not to the level that gay activists criticise the West).
Im not sure, are there any non-Mulsim countries that punish gayness by death?
I guess (in public at least) they do not enforce the old Arabic saying:
"Women are for babies; Men are for fun."
I find all gay bashing pretty reprehensible, but I am especially outraged at the fact that many gay leftists defend the very countries and religions that would turn around and behead them for their 'unnatural acts'. |
I have to say, I pretty much agree with everything you say. If the need of your pathetic, malformed ego is to call me a fa@@ot, go ahead. You need then to stand by for me to respond, but, within certain limits, free speech is free speech.
That is, I might be one of three or four liberal homosexuals in the world who believes that hate-crimes legislation is a very bad idea.
Why do I think it's a bad idea? Because it's the first step toward criminalizing thought and belief. The proper forum for nasty thinking and abhorrent belief to be squelched is public opinion. When it becomes so publicly shameful to call someone a ni@@er or a fa@@ot, people will stop using those words.
Hate Crimes Law came about as a result of the fact that crimes against minorities in the US were being punished less severely than crimes against white, straight people. A judge in Texas in the 1980s virtually acquitted two young men of murder charges because, after all, the male victim had solicited them for sex. This amounted to gross injustice, and well-meaning people sought a way to redress such injustice.
They just went about it the wrong way. What they should have insisted on was a redefinition of mitigating circumstances.
Chaining a black man to your truck bumper and dragging him until he is dead is no worse a crime if you didn't do it because you hate black people. The perpatrators should still be given the most severe punishment possible, but the corrupted system in America was, not too long ago, that those criminals would walk the streets in ten years but the convicted black rapist would face the death penalty. The system was badly skewed, and the very wrong idea to fix it was Hate Crimes.
Calling someone a fa@@ot or a ni@@er is a very bad thing, but the law is not the place to deal with it. That's the role of public humiliation.
By the way, the phrase is, "light in the loafers," not on or his. Also by the way, the image of the fat and happy, beaner-breedin', tortilla-poundin' Mexican mama is also one too precious to lose. Let's keep them all alive, while we're at it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChimpumCallao
Joined: 17 May 2005
Location: your mom
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 6:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| daskalos wrote: |
| ChimpumCallao wrote: |
Explain Gay bashing. Do you mean literal or figurative?
I am 100% against physically harming or discriminating against anyone just because of how they choose to live their life. I don't care. As seen in the animal world, gayness is pretty normal. I really don't see the big deal.
But I also defend the right of people to say what the want. Gays are not exempt from getting their feelings hurt or encountering opinions that do not agree with their lifestyle. Plus, a phrase such as "light on his loafers" is too precious to be discarded.
Now, gay bashing around the world- in the literal sense- occurs much much much more in Mulsim countries solely because many of their governments do not allow such behavious and punish it by death. There doesn't seem to be much opposition to this, either- not on the Muslim side nor on the side of gay activists (at least not to the level that gay activists criticise the West).
Im not sure, are there any non-Mulsim countries that punish gayness by death?
I guess (in public at least) they do not enforce the old Arabic saying:
"Women are for babies; Men are for fun."
I find all gay bashing pretty reprehensible, but I am especially outraged at the fact that many gay leftists defend the very countries and religions that would turn around and behead them for their 'unnatural acts'. |
I have to say, I pretty much agree with everything you say. If the need of your pathetic, malformed ego is to call me a fa@@ot, go ahead. You need then to stand by for me to respond, but, within certain limits, free speech is free speech.
That is, I might be one of three or four liberal homosexuals in the world who believes that hate-crimes legislation is a very bad idea.
Why do I think it's a bad idea? Because it's the first step toward criminalizing thought and belief. The proper forum for nasty thinking and abhorrent belief to be squelched is public opinion. When it becomes so publicly shameful to call someone a ni@@er or a fa@@ot, people will stop using those words.
Hate Crimes Law came about as a result of the fact that crimes against minorities in the US were being punished less severely than crimes against white, straight people. A judge in Texas in the 1980s virtually acquitted two young men of murder charges because, after all, the male victim had solicited them for sex. This amounted to gross injustice, and well-meaning people sought a way to redress such injustice.
They just went about it the wrong way. What they should have insisted on was a redefinition of mitigating circumstances.
Chaining a black man to your truck bumper and dragging him until he is dead is no worse a crime if you didn't do it because you hate black people. The perpatrators should still be given the most severe punishment possible, but the corrupted system in America was, not too long ago, that those criminals would walk the streets in ten years but the convicted black rapist would face the death penalty. The system was badly skewed, and the very wrong idea to fix it was Hate Crimes.
Calling someone a fa@@ot or a ni@@er is a very bad thing, but the law is not the place to deal with it. That's the role of public humiliation.
By the way, the phrase is, "light in the loafers," not on or his. Also by the way, the image of the fat and happy, beaner-breedin', tortilla-poundin' Mexican mama is also one too precious to lose. Let's keep them all alive, while we're at it. |
Ha! I love it! You forgot, it's actually 12 fat Mexican mamas, all pregnant, crammed into the back of a low rider with a picture of the Virgin Mary in all her GLOOORIA. SANTO DIOS! Beaners. heh heh.
Sorry about the misquote, second language and all. I'll ask my baby daddies to check my posts next time. ;)
BTW- Im also against affirmative action and anti-racist initiatives for your same reasoning. Making people include minorities isn't going to change anything, except making it apparent that we cannot get anywhere without a little extra help from the government. NO THANK U. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
daskalos
Joined: 19 May 2006
Location: The Road to Ithaca
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 7:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ChimpumCallao wrote: |
Ha! I love it! You forgot, it's actually 12 fat Mexican mamas, all pregnant, crammed into the back of a low rider with a picture of the Virgin Mary in all her GLOOORIA. SANTO DIOS! Beaners. heh heh.
Sorry about the misquote, second language and all. I'll ask my baby daddies to check my posts next time. 
BTW- Im also against affirmative action and anti-racist initiatives for your same reasoning. Making people include minorities isn't going to change anything, except making it apparent that we cannot get anywhere without a little extra help from the government. NO THANK U. |
Ah! See, I suspected we'd differ somewhere. I'm certainly for the eventual phasing out of Affirmative Action and anti-rascist initiatives, but only when such measures are no longer needed to redress historical wrongs. The divide between you and me is about action, not speech.
No, I did not enslave, say, black people off the boat from Africa. But if black descendents must live with the repurcussions of those slave boats, and they do, so do "white" people today have to live with making it right. Affirmative action, as a temporary measure, a means to an end, redresses that injustice.
Anti-racist initiatives. What do you mean? Making it a crime to call someone a beaner? No, that's a bad idea. Making it crime to deny service to a beaner? That should be a crime. People are alive today who remember a day when it was perfectly legal to say, "We don't serve your kind here." (Ni@@er, Beaner.)
Affirmative action and anti-racist legislation are essentially the only ways to redress wrongs that must be redressed as soon as is practicable. Hate crimes legislation goes a step or two too far in this direction, a direction that leads too directly to thought crime. That is, you don't have to love ni@@ers, fa@@gots, beaners, wops, chinks, gooks or women, you just have to pretend like you don't hate them.
Action. Not speech, not thought. Action.
(For the record, since I assume you'll ask, I'm also vehemently against monetary reparations for black descendents of slaves. For one, most of the slaves put on the boats were sold by their own people to the slave traders. For two, how far back do we take this idea? America didn't invent the idea of slavery, even if they did take the idea to theretofore unheard of depths. For three, you know they'd just spend the money on drugs and bling.)
Making people include minorities has changed a lot of things. Maybe not enough things, yet, but we're getting there. The day of Affirmative Action may be on the wane.
You seem to me to be an example of a fascinating creature of this age -- one whom the reactionary elements of the GOP has convinced to believe in a philosophy that is anti-thetical to her own best interests. It's the most sublime sleight of hand perpetrated against any people in all of history. It is not, sadly, the first time in history this has happened. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 8:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| daskalos wrote: |
You seem to me to be an example of a fascinating creature of this age -- one whom the reactionary elements of the GOP has convinced to believe in a philosophy that is anti-thetical to her own best interests. |
So, like a Hispanic Uncle Tom? Is that what you mean? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
daskalos
Joined: 19 May 2006
Location: The Road to Ithaca
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 9:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BJWD wrote: |
| daskalos wrote: |
You seem to me to be an example of a fascinating creature of this age -- one whom the reactionary elements of the GOP has convinced to believe in a philosophy that is anti-thetical to her own best interests. |
So, like a Hispanic Uncle Tom? Is that what you mean? |
Now that you mention it, well, yes. Even if one not completely subsumed by the idiocy of the age.
And so, yes, I get that this was bait. What's the "trap"?
Oh, my sweet swaddled baby Christ, I can't wait for it to spring. Will I even be to sleep tonight, waiting for the punchline, sure as I am that it will be a finely nuanced though clearly stated, utterly compelling viewpoint that will leave my argument in tattered shreds? Where's my heart medicine -- I can't stand the tension.
And isn't ChimpumCallao better suited to this task, overall, since it's her post I'm quoted as responding to and since, after all, she is better suited to this sort of polemic than you are?
G'night. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dmbfan
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 4:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| You seem to be wishing to use the verb "agree" like I would use it regarding onions. Onions don't agree with me -- I don't eat them. I don't think they should be wiped off the menu, nor do I think those who eat them shouldn't be allowed to. I just want no part of eating onions. This does not make me onionphobic. |
bingo. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChimpumCallao
Joined: 17 May 2005
Location: your mom
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 7:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| daskalos wrote: |
| BJWD wrote: |
| daskalos wrote: |
You seem to me to be an example of a fascinating creature of this age -- one whom the reactionary elements of the GOP has convinced to believe in a philosophy that is anti-thetical to her own best interests. |
So, like a Hispanic Uncle Tom? Is that what you mean? |
Now that you mention it, well, yes. Even if one not completely subsumed by the idiocy of the age.
And so, yes, I get that this was bait. What's the "trap"?
Oh, my sweet swaddled baby Christ, I can't wait for it to spring. Will I even be to sleep tonight, waiting for the punchline, sure as I am that it will be a finely nuanced though clearly stated, utterly compelling viewpoint that will leave my argument in tattered shreds? Where's my heart medicine -- I can't stand the tension.
And isn't ChimpumCallao better suited to this task, overall, since it's her post I'm quoted as responding to and since, after all, she is better suited to this sort of polemic than you are?
G'night. |
OK, so there are many ways to approach this, so please forgive what I think will turn out to be an epicly long post.
I have never been called a...what is the right word? Tia Tomasa? before but I can see where my desdain for affirmitive action policies come from, by the way, none of which stems from a feeling of subservience to 'the white man.'
Quotas- My first and foremost opinion is that the best qualified person should receive the position. 100%. Affirmative action is a detrement because it does not reward people of color based on merit- it rewards them solely on the fact that they were born darker than the rest of the population. It is also racist in the fact that it insinuates that minorities are only capable of competing with other members of the same minority, not the public at large. I object to the fact of being allowed in to a university or a granted job because i am the best HISPANIC person for the job- I want to be THE most qualified. Or else, why do I deserve it? Im not a seat filler.
This leads to assumptions. If there is a policy that states- regardless of merit- we will have x # of blacks, hispanics, etc in our uni, job, etc then it leads ot the assumption that minorites cannot and did not get into their current positions in universities/jobs because they were the best- it creates the (sometimes correct assumption) that they indeed were NOT the most qualified, and that they are merely there because they have vaginas or dark skin.
Besides that- it is UNFAIR on the side of the employer/university and the more qualified candidate.
1) An employer should be able to hire the most qualified candidate- it is ridiculous that the would give up a model employee because they cannot hire any more white people.
2) If the most qualified person is white, they are being unfairly discriminated against. If the most qualified person is not white, there is still the stigma of them not getting that position (not because of their skin color, but because of the AFFIRMATIVE ACTION policy)
Also- it sends out the wrong message to people of color. It tells us that we do not have to try as hard or be as bright...we can have a little extra boost. I cannot think of anything more condecending. I don't NEED that little extra help- and I certainly don't need anyone thinking I got to where I was due to anything but hard work, luck, and burning the midnight oil.
Last thing, it creates laziness. If I KNOW I'm going to get into my uni of choice, why try harder? It creates an adverse effect by creating the assumption that regardless of merit, I am entitled to go to a certain school or get a certain job- which then, exasterbates the problem of the assumptions that we cannot get there on merit alone.
Look, the Italians and Irish were the Mexicans of the 1800s. They were severely discriminated against- and through their own meritocracy, hard work, and assimilation into the greatert society they pretty much eradicated the stigma attached to them. They did not need affirmative action to make them successful. Look at the Chinese and other Asians in America. They do are successful because of their culture, emphasis on education, and hard work- not because of affirmative action programmes (that are acutally starting to discriminate AGAINST them). The fact that it was HARDER for these ethnic groups to get jobs and uni positions did not deter them from getting them. One could even argue that it worked for them by making them have to work even harder to prove themselves.
Government initiatives will NOT help blacks and hispanics. Many other policies will- the end of the drug war, the end of welfare, a little bit of ownership, a greatert emphasis on education in the culture, but a government law that says that they do not have to try as hard as their white counterparts is RACIST and enabling. It perpatrates the assumption that browns and blacks are dumb and need an extra hand. I'd like to think we don't. And when I see MR. CEO Beaner, I'd like to KNOW he was the BEST. Not the best BEANER.
Also- to digress- how did anyone but blacks get their little greasy mitts on the affirmitive action policies anyway? I don't recall the rest of us being brought here against our will on boats for slave labour. If we CHOOSE to come to a country, it is quite ballsy to ask it to treat us more preferentially than its citizens.
Also- to address the "well business owners/unis are racist so they would always hire whites."
First of all- bullsh*t. The times have indeed changed, and I can say that MOST people are not going to hire an inferior person because they don't want to catch a case of the blacks.
Second of all- businesses and unis look out for their best interest. If there is a candidate who is going to make the company an assload of money, or a uni kid who is going to make the universisty look reaaally good, then their self interest will trump their assumed racism. Plus, racism is quite frowned upon in the US (for real!) and the embarrasment that a uni/company would face if they were outed for having racist policies would deter even the biggest biggot from implementing them.
Lastly, if a company/uni IS really racist- do i really want to force the government to FORCE them to let me work/study there? Why would I want to work for a bunch of racists anyway? F-them. I prefer to take my business elsewhere. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChimpumCallao
Joined: 17 May 2005
Location: your mom
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 7:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh and BTW- i f-ing HATE the GOP. Facist statist bastards. I believe in personal freedom and private property.
Also, the person who was, the ultimate most biggoted unkind racist towards me was, and probably always will be, some leftist a-hole from Canada. Oh my god! Just horrible! And this guy from Ireland who called me a dirty facist Spaniard lover because I didn't agree with Che; he was upset the Shining Path didn't blow "me and my fascist family" up. That was awesome. I notice Lefties really bring on the hate if you disagree with their policies and have no qualms about using slurs to insult those that dont understand "all they are doing for equality."
Anyway, just want to throw it out there: Lefties suck, the Right sucks, Neocons suck, Religious Fundamentlist suck, Socialists suck....anyone who wants to use the state and therefore violence and theft to enforce their own version of utopia sucks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
