Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - What Is Pat Buchanan Up To Now?

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

What Is Pat Buchanan Up To Now?
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Titus

Joined: 19 May 2012

Posted: Thu May 16, 2013 2:17 pm Post subject:

Kuros wrote:

Race is a social construct

TNC wrote:

If you tell me that you plan to study "race and intelligence" then it is only fair that I ask you, "What do you mean by race?" . . . My instinct is to point out that your entire experiment proceeds from a basic flaw -- no coherent, fixed definition of race actually exists.

TNC wrote:

Our notion of what constitutes "white" and what constitutes "black" is a product of social context. It is utterly impossible to look at the delineation of a "Southern race" and not see the Civil War, the creation of an "Irish race" and not think of Cromwell's ethnic cleansing, the creation of a "Jewish race" and not see anti-Semitism. There is no fixed sense of "whiteness" or "blackness," not even today. It is quite common for whites to point out that Barack Obama isn't really "black" but "half-white." One wonders if they would say this if Barack Obama were a notorious drug-lord.

When the liberal says "race is a social construct," he is not being a soft-headed dolt; he is speaking an historical truth. We do not go around testing the "Irish race" for intelligence or the "Southern race" for "hot-headedness." These reasons are social. It is no more legitimate to ask "Is the black race dumber than then white race?" than it is to ask "Is the Jewish race thriftier than the Arab race?"

The strongest argument for "race" is that people who trace their ancestry back to Europe, and people who trace most of their ancestry back to sub-Saharan Africa, and people who trace most of their ancestry back to Asia, and people who trace their ancestry back to the early Americas, lived isolated from each other for long periods and have evolved different physical traits (curly hair, lighter skin, etc.)

But this theoretical definition (already fuzzy) wilts under human agency, in a real world where Kevin Garnett, Harold Ford, and Halle Berry all check "black" on the census. (Same deal for "Hispanic.") The reasons for that take us right back to fact of race as a social construct. And an American-centered social construct. Are the Ainu of Japan a race? Should we delineate darker South Asians from lighter South Asians on the basis of race? Did the Japanese who invaded China consider the Chinese the same "race?"

My only addenda: its more than paleo-conservatives and Pat Buchanan who accept race even as a social construct.

Kuros, are you trolling me?

You've got 1) TNC 2) the Atlantic and 3) liberal creationism/obfuscation in one post.

To balance TNC:

1) http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2013/05/why-race-as-a-biological-construct-matters/
2) http://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2013/05/10/why-human-biodiversity-is-true-and-why-jason-richwine-is-right/
3a) http://isteve.blogspot.com/2013/05/coates-race-is-social-construct.html 3b) http://takimag.com/article/frequently_asked_questions_about_the_jason_richwine_brouhaha_steve_sailer/print#axzz2TUqSShS0

catman

Joined: 18 Jul 2004

Posted: Fri May 17, 2013 5:27 am Post subject:

There is no coherent biological definition of race it has always been socially constructed, and it has been constructed very differently in the past than today.

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Fri May 17, 2013 3:25 pm Post subject:

TNC responds to Razib Khan, found also as Titus's first numbered link. Those who wish for some background in the debate should look to Rod Dreher's dialectic summary.

TNC wrote:

I should be clear about something -- the invocation of Walter White or Mordecai Wyatt Johnson or Barack Obama isn't to say that most (or even many) black people share their particular ancestry. The point is that what you check on your census form in America is a product of social context. Social context is why someone who looks like me can be black (and proud, even!) in America and "colored" somewhere else. Social context is why our concept of race doesn't translate to, say, Brazil.

. . .

Calling race a "social construct" does not mean that the biological ancestry -- and specifically West African ancestry -- of African Americans is mythical. It also doesn't mean that my ancestry has no actual implications. (See the map of sickle-cell density above.) And in the future, it may mean even more. Ancestry -- where my great-great-great-great grandparents are from -- is a fact. What you call people with that particular ancestry is not. It changes depending on where you are in the world, when you are there, and who has power.

So, TNC is not promoting liberal creationism. He acknowledges the biological underpinnings of race but insists that many social implications arise that take us far beyond the mere biology. He is pushing back against biological reductionism.

TNC wrote:

Andrew is more inclined to believe that there is some group-wide genetic explanation for the IQ difference. I am more inclined to believe that the difference lies in how those groups have been treated. One thing that I am not convinced by is controlling for income and education.

African-Americans are not merely another maltreated minority on the scale of non-WASPs. They are a community whose advancement was specifically and actively retarded by American policy and private action. The antebellum South passed laws against teaching black people to read. In the postbellum South, black communities were the targets of a long-running campaign of terror.

. . .

To summarize (and I can talk more about this) the lowest levels of dissimilarity in black communities are higher than the highest levels of dissimilarity among "white" immigrants.

This is not merely a problem for your local diversity and sensitivity workshop. It is a problem of wealth and power. When you create a situation in which a community has a disproportionate number of poor people, and then you hyper-segregate that community, you multiply the problems of poverty for the entire community--poor or not. That is to say that black individuals are not simply poorer and less wealthier than white individuals. Because of segregation, black individuals and white individuals of the same income and same wealth, do not live in communities of equal wealth.

This problem has been a constant throughout American history.

TNC wrote:

What bearing does segregation have on IQ differential? I don't know. My skepticism of genetics is rooted in the fact that arguments for genetic inferiority among people of African ancestry are old, and generally have not fared well. My skepticism is also rooted in the belief that power generally seeks to justify itself. The prospect of actual equality among the races is frightening. If black and white people truly are equal on a bone-deep level, then the game might really be rigged, and we might actually have to do something about it. I think there's much more evidence of that rigging, then there is evidence of cognitive deficiency.

The societal and economic injustices and disparities are obvious. The solutions are what become problematic. I totally agree with TNC, the game is rigged. But I doubt we would agree on solutions. For example, I am with the emerging black mainstream consensus, affirmative action appears less justified each day.

The political problems of racial affirmative action

Glenn Loury wrote:

The political problems stem from the fact that affirmative action policies create backlash. Simply put, white male Americans have rights too. How can one justify denying admission to an elite professional school to a working-class white youth of immigrant parents, who has struggled against all odds to be able to score high on the admissions test, while admitting instead a member of an appropriately designated minority group, who has enjoyed all the advantages of an upper middle-class upbringing - but has not performed as well according to standard admissions criteria?

Such actions build resentment, which ticks away as a time bomb inside the base of political support for these policies. Resentment is heightened when defenders of the policies claim that to even raise such a question is to engage in a racist act. Advocates of preferential treatment have become so arrogant that they believe they owe no explanation to the young white men who raise such questions. I think that the effort to defend their position by shrill moralizing, instead of directly engaging the legitimate concerns of those who raise questions about them, has been a monumental strategic error on the part of the advocates of affirmative action, the consequences of which they are having to live with.

sirius black

Joined: 04 Jun 2010

Posted: Sat May 18, 2013 4:32 pm Post subject:

catman wrote:

There is no coherent biological definition of race it has always been socially constructed, and it has been constructed very differently in the past than today.

^20 points to Gryffindor. The concept of race was created in Europe several hundred years ago. People talked of nations then and it didn't matter what the color of the person was in that nation. Your language and culture defined you, not your race.

There were Romans, accepted as such who were different ethnically and hue and even religion (Paul of the bible was a Roman citizen and Jewish).

California was a solid red state until they enacted a draconian, seemingly anti-hispanic law in the early '90s and it hasn't been red since. Its been solidly blue.

Making laws such as voter registration when no problem existed prior and its proven to decrease voting amongst groups that vote for Dems doesn't help Republicans cause.

America is changing ethnically. It follows the immigration patterns. America primiarly only allowed europeans in the first couple hundred years. And even then it changed the social make up of America. The big debate was the influx of non protestant Europeans in the 1800s. Catholicism was the huge fear (which extended all the way to the JFK election). White nativists feared a papist state ruled indirectly by the Pope. Eastern (Russian, Balkans, Poles) and southern Europeans (Italians, Spanish, Portuguese) and even the Irish and European Jews were not seen as 'white' by WASP Americans in the 1800s.

The immigration over the last half century has been latino and asian primarily with some caribbean and african thrown in. European immigration increased a little with the fall of the USSR but it doesn't compare to the immigration from south of the border and the far east.

The fact is America is changing and the Repubicans are trying to hold on to an America that doesn't exist or will not exist. Just like how some Americans tried to hold on to a changing non Protestant America in the late 1800s with the Know-Nothing Party that was all about limiting or eliminating immigration from southern and eastern europe as well as Ireland.

The concept of white has changed. Pat Buchanon would not be considered white in 1850. Not in the definition that we accept as White today. Irish catholics were called 'the Irish race' back then.

Latinos who look caucasion and speak perfect english and who have been here for a few generations are now referred to as white on some documents. There are blonde blue eyed Ecuadoreans and Argentinians and Cubans (the ones who left when Castro came to power were almost all physically white in appearance) who are now viewed as 'white'.

As for latinos. Accept that demographic change. That horse has left the barn. You can totally seal the southern border tomorrow permanently and California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas will still have demographics that will show an increase in latinos because of birthrate. The immigration issue is really a non starter. Its over. Not saying don't seal the border, I'm just saying it will only slow down what is alread inevitable in some states.

We have this hang up on race. We need to start looking at solving real problems. America and the world are inescapably linked these days. Its a smaller world and a smaller America. What affects any segment of America affects all of America directly or indirectly in some way, manner or fashion.

Stop focusing on things that do not matter such as gay marriage. How does two women or men marrying affect anyone's ability live a better life? It doesn't. Time and energ spent on issues that doesn't change anything.

There are no more white issues or black issues. Kitchen table issues affects everyone the same. Cost of living, the quality of education, good jobs. These are universal issues.

Pat Buchanon (as well as Al Sharpton on the other end of the scale) and the politicians of BOTH parties should spend their time solving these common issues instead of worrying about 'white turnout' or 'black turnout' at the polls.

Titus

Joined: 19 May 2012

Posted: Sun May 19, 2013 7:21 am Post subject:

TNC is not smart enough to have written that. He ghosted it. Anyway, I'm happy to see that Darwinism has won and now we're talking about the *extent* of heritability.

Quote:

There is no coherent biological definition of race

Quote:

The concept of race was created in Europe several hundred years ago

OK you guys are not following along. When leftists speak of race they use it as a hammer to hit whites. Nothing more, nothing less. When scientists use race they mean it to stand-in for the term "genetic clusters".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_clustering

http://foseti.wordpress.com/2013/05/17/they-believe-in-what/

Quote:

The Power of the Social Construct

Let�s take two populations: Ashkenazi Jews and Australian Aboriginals. The former consistently show an IQ of somewhere around or north of 105, whereas the latter seem to have an IQ of somewhere south of 70.

Note that that difference is more than two standard deviations!

How has the �social construct� worked to keep the aborigines down while elevating the Ashkenazis?

Several things are immediately clear.

Out right prejudice and racism against a particular groups (i.e. the Ashkenazis) doesn�t necessarily negatively contribute to this �social construct,� as the Ashkenazis have been disproportionately successful in many environments in which they were legally considered second-class citizens.

The �social construct� force must be able to operate across the planet at a subconscious or telepathic level, as the aborigines were underachieving long before they made contact with the outside world. (In fairness, they did invent the didgeridoo, and where would as a species be without that)?

The �social construct� force seems to favor and disfavor the same groups across millennia and without regard for geographical location.

Finally, the �social construct� seems to operate on a racial level, even though races don�t exist.

Again, this force is an incredible discovery and yet I also cannot find a name for it or a description of its physical workings anywhere. Is there a reason why some groups are the chosen people in the eyes of this force? How was it able to operate worldwide prior to contact among peoples? How it is possible to establish social constructs among people that are unaware of each others� existence? How can it work on a basis that doesn�t exist (i.e. race)?

Religious Fanaticsm

An examination of these �theories� in any depth quickly reveals them for what they are � religious beliefs, fanatical religious beliefs. After all, they must be taken on faith � there is no other basis on which to take them.

This interpretation is consistent with the consequences of questioning these beliefs.

Oddly, it would appear that this religious belief is more strongly held by The Heritage Foundation, National Review, Cato and Scientific American than Harvard. Or perhaps this is just a case of the Pope being more free to question religion than any of his critics.

Most importantly, seeing this belief for what it is should clarify what is happening. This debate is a re-hash of debates that mankind has grappled with for thousands of years. It happens every time a new technological discovery overturns a key tenet of society�s core religion or philosophy. In this case, genetic and evolutionary discoveries are overturning the blank slate theory (this has tons of implications outside of race and IQ, but it�s here that the religious belief being contradicted is strongest).

Finally, we know how this debate ends. The forces of religion and status quo hold on for longer than anyone looking back can possibly understand, the same forces punish the early discoverers more severely than anyone looking back can possibly understand, and then the same forces lose and history makes fun of them for being so ignorant.

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Sun May 19, 2013 7:57 am Post subject:

TNC has a ghostwriter! I'm not sure what such an accusation adds to the discussion (I'm sure someone else will come along an explore what it reveals). I don't care where the mean lies for African-American intelligence, but very intelligent African-Americans will appear.

Quote:

The �social construct� force must be able to operate across the planet at a subconscious or telepathic level, as the aborigines were underachieving long before they made contact with the outside world. (In fairness, they did invent the didgeridoo, and where would as a species be without that)?

The �social construct� force seems to favor and disfavor the same groups across millennia and without regard for geographical location.

Gun, Germs, and Steel; Gun, Germs, and Steel; Gun, Germs, and Steel.

I don't know how you can meaningfully compare the development of isolated island and American tribes with the development of constantly trading, sharing, and warring civlizations in Eurasia.

Titus wrote:

When leftists speak of race they use it as a hammer to hit whites. Nothing more, nothing less. When scientists use race they mean it to stand-in for the term "genetic clusters".

I didn't know that the terms "Leftists" and "Scientists" were mutually exclusive. Certainly, its hard for a right-winger to also be a scientist, so I can understand the confusion.

sirius black

Joined: 04 Jun 2010

Posted: Sun May 19, 2013 8:30 am Post subject:

Kuros wrote:

Gun, Germs, and Steel; Gun, Germs, and Steel; Gun, Germs, and Steel.

Excellent book and documentary. 20 points to Ravenclaw. At various times in human history. Different peoples have eclipsed everyone else technologically and in advancement.

The mayans at one point were more advanced that Europeans. The Chinese at other points in history were more advanced that Europeans. Carthage, the Mali Empire and other African nations were more advanced than Europe at the same time.

The Arabs were fare more advanced than the Europeans they conquered in Spain, Portugal, Sicily and the Balkans. It was the northern Africans that introduced the concept of zero, algebra, built the first universities in Europe.

During the Roman empire present day Europeans lived in caves and were barbarians. The British isles as well by the time the Romans invaded them.

If this supposed superiority titus keeps telling us was inate Europeans would have been more advanced from the start.

As far as intelligence. It was the white guy sitting next to me in my uni classes I worried about, it was the 'inferior' Indian, Nigerian or Chinese student on the other side of me. lol.

I am no big fan of the left as I am the right but the left cause isn't race motivated. The gay marriage issue is largely viewed as a white issue and moreso a white male issue than a lesbian issue. White males have been the 'face' of the issue in the media. People have more problem usually with two men than they do with two women. Even though obviously there are gays of other races who would benefit. The womens movement was seen largely as a white female oriented movement even though obviously it affected women of all races.

The abortion issue has a white female face in the media as well.

The face of Occupy Wall Street and the Occupy movement is a white middle class face in the media.

The left good or bad in how they go about it is about the equalization of all peoples. So is the right if you believe what they tell you as well.

The fact is the the America that titus wants to see is gone or will be gone. Its too late. The trends, the stats, everything is going firmly and unequivocally against what his 'Mad Men' era views are. He's like those old stories you hear of after WW2 of Japanese soldiers on small inhabited pacific islands who don't know the war is over and are still fighting after 1945.

Titus

Joined: 19 May 2012

Posted: Sun May 19, 2013 8:37 am Post subject:

Quote:

but very intelligent African-Americans will appear.

Yes. A Gaussian distribution.

Quote:

I didn't know that the terms "Leftists" and "Scientists" were mutually exclusive.

They are. The left, which we mean here the activists who created and maintain the blank slate theory, are as opposed to evolution as are Christian creationists.

Quote:

The �social construct� force seems to favor and disfavor the same groups across millennia and without regard for geographical location.

Quote:

I don't know how you can meaningfully compare the development of isolated island and American tribes with the development of constantly trading, sharing, and warring civlizations in Eurasia.

Read it again Kuros. Geography doesn't much matter once groups are mobile. Isolation + local conditions + evolution = genetic clusters of different heritable traits. If you load a group onto ships and move them to the otherside of the globe they will remain the same group until/unless evolution is allowed to make changes. A very small amount of time is needed for very powerful changes to happen.

Quote:

I'm not sure what such an accusation adds to the discussion

That mainline black ethnic activists are neither sovereign nor representing their own interests.

xxx

Which Diamond shall we believe:

In the New York Review of Books, making reference to the total blank slate, no races, no groups, all exactly the same argument:

https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/wash/www/102/diamond.htm

Quote:

The biggest controversy in worldwide genetic comparisons is, of course, the race controversy. This is a subject of special interest to Cavalli-Sforza, who has had a leading part in demolishing scientists' attempts to classify human populations into races in the same way that they classify birds and other species into races. Any competent American birdwatcher can assign individuals of the common bird species known as the yellow-rumped warbler into its eastern and western races (termed the "myrtle warbler" and "Audubon warbler," respectively). The eastern race has a white throat, the western race a yellow throat. That's easy and uncontroversial, but it's even easier for a layperson to distinguish Swedes infallibly from Japanese and Nigerians, just by glancing at faces. Common sense tells us that that's how we divide humans into races, such as whites, blacks, Mongoloids, and so on.

From a scientific perspective, however, the concept of race still fails, for reasons to which Genes, Peoples, and Languages devotes its first chapter. Even if you try to subdivide human populations by visible differences like skin color, it's completely arbitrary how far you should go on subdividing: different anthropologists recognize between three and sixty races, depending on their personal preference. If you go so far as to assign Nigerians and Kalahari Bushmen to different races within Africa�as do virtually all anthropologists who recognize races�why lump Tamils and Swedes as "Caucasians," or Japanese and Quechuas as "Mongoloids"?

Our racial stereotypes turn out to be based on just a few external traits: skin and hair and eye color, hair form, and facial shape. Variation in those traits bears little relation to variation in well-studied genetic traits. Genetically remote populations, such as New Guinea highlanders and black Africans, may be outwardly similar. Conversely, outwardly dissimilar populations may prove to be genetically similar, as illustrated by the slight genetic differences separating blond-haired, blue-eyed, fair-skinned Swedes from black-haired, brown-eyed, darker-skinned Sicilians. As Cavalli-Sforza puts it, "It is because they are external that these racial differences strike us so forcibly, and we automatically assume that differences of similar magnitude exist below the surface, in the rest of our genetic makeup. This is simply not so: the remainder of our genetic makeup hardly differs at all."

In Natural History, he goes on:

Quote:

�There are also practical reasons for interest in Jewish genes. The state of Israel has been going to much expense to support immigration and job retraining of Jews who were persecuted minorities in other countries. That immediately poses the problem of defining who is a Jew.�

Which is the real Diamond? The man of scientific fuzzy blank slate universalism or genetic particularism? Perhaps it depends on the audience? Or is it only Jews that can be classified?

Diamond is an articulate ethno-propagandist. He wants us to not note them, though he at the same time wants special consideration for them (ie an ethno-state). It's very obnoxious. Guns Germs and Steel is propaganda in the sense that it doesn't reflect the Diamond's true beliefs and is intended to influence and disarm people he considers ethnic rivals. Nobody should ever take Diamond serious. Ever.

catman

Joined: 18 Jul 2004

Posted: Sun May 19, 2013 2:27 pm Post subject:

So since the scientific community overwhelmingly reject eugenics does that mean they are "leftists"?

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Sun May 19, 2013 3:49 pm Post subject:

catman wrote:

So since the scientific community overwhelmingly reject eugenics does that mean they are "leftists"? Confused

Rejecting the morality of eugenics is not the same as rejecting the efficacy of eugenics. To reject the hypothetical efficacy of a properly carried out eugenics program is to reject the entire Theory of Evolution. Are you suggesting the scientific community is anti-evolution?

That said, I suspect any geneticist (not a "scientist," a geneticist: someone who actually studies the material in question), if allowed to speak freely and anonymously (so that his career wouldn't be immediately destroyed by a social media campaign against him) would express a very different opinion on eugenics than the one you'd hear in a typical interview.

Leon

Joined: 31 May 2010

Posted: Sun May 19, 2013 5:53 pm Post subject:

Fox wrote:

catman wrote:

So since the scientific community overwhelmingly reject eugenics does that mean they are "leftists"? Confused

They might tell you that there is a big difference between natural selection occurring gradually over long periods of time than human selection occurring over a shorter time frame. When you look at human breeding of animals, I think that you can see some differences between the two approaches. One easy example that we will all be familiar with is dog breeding. Pure breeding is a form of selective breeding, so in that way it is similar to eugenics. If you look at pure breeds versus mixed breeds, it's the pure breeds that are less healthy and the mixed ones that on average live longer.

You might be right, neither one of us, I assume, is a geneticist, but I don't think it's as easy and as straight forward as you assume it is. I think we can probably use genetic engineering as a proxy for efficacy of eugenics, although I think that biases and prejudices in human nature would probably result in a poor selection process. The main problem I came across in about 5 minutes of goggling genetic engineering is this one.

" Future generations of selectively bred organisms will all share very similar genes. This could make some diseases more dangerous as all the organisms would be affected. Also there's increased risk of genetic disease caused by recessive genes.
Some genes would be lost, making it more difficult to produce new varieties in the future. In scientific language this would be described as �inbreeding can lead to a reduction in the size of the gene pool�."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/add_gateway_pre_2011/living/genesrev2.shtml

Namely if we all start to share the same genetic backgrounds, we will all be susceptible to the same bad genes, thus increasing the likelihood of mass disease events, or recessive genes multiplying.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Sun May 19, 2013 6:10 pm Post subject:

Leon wrote:

They might tell you that there is a big difference between natural selection occurring gradually over long periods of time than human selection occurring over a shorter time frame.

They would say that, yes, because it's true.

Leon wrote:

You might be right, neither one of us, I assume, is a geneticist, but I don't think it's as easy and as straight forward as you assume it is.

Who said it was straightforward or easy? I think it would actually be incredibly challenging to design a program successfully (read: without undesirable side effects), and even more challenging to execute it in the real world.

Leon wrote:

I think we can probably use genetic engineering as a proxy for efficacy of eugenics, although I think that biases and prejudices in human nature would probably result in a poor selection process.

Agreed.

Leon

Joined: 31 May 2010

Posted: Sun May 19, 2013 6:23 pm Post subject:

Fox wrote:

Leon wrote:

They might tell you that there is a big difference between natural selection occurring gradually over long periods of time than human selection occurring over a shorter time frame.

They would say that, yes, because it's true.

Depends on the scientist. Cataman might have spoke too quickly, there are scientists and foundations that support eugenics, or who seek to establish the basic foundation of eugenics. The pioneer fund being a major one, and also the institute that probably funded most of Titus' favorite studies.

Fox wrote:

Leon wrote:

You might be right, neither one of us, I assume, is a geneticist, but I don't think it's as easy and as straight forward as you assume it is.

Scientists operate in the real world, or at least ideally should, so they would have to factor in human interference as a variable, so while they might be able to argue that technically eugenics might work, I don't think most would argue for the efficacy of eugenics, even with the morality aspect put aside.

Fox wrote:

Leon wrote:

I think we can probably use genetic engineering as a proxy for efficacy of eugenics, although I think that biases and prejudices in human nature would probably result in a poor selection process.

Agreed.

Well, it's nice when we agree every now and then.

catman

Joined: 18 Jul 2004

Posted: Sun May 19, 2013 11:08 pm Post subject:

Yes, the Pioneer Fund does support eugenics. If you take at look at its history and backers you can understand why.

sirius black

Joined: 04 Jun 2010

Posted: Mon May 27, 2013 3:04 pm Post subject:

Serms Bob Dole has recentky said the Republican party has serious problems.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next
Page 2 of 3

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

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe