Hope You're Happy Now...

Callers to action, creators of Superpacs, and championers of causes great and small unite! Air all your political thoughts here. Whitened teeth, dyed hair, and spray-on tans not required but preferred.

Hope You're Happy Now...

Postby Keep The Reason » Mon Jan 12, 2015 5:13 pm

Let's use this thread as a place to pop in those really terrific self-destructive moments we're going to see for the next two years as the Republicans America elected work to completely fuck the constituents they convinced to elect them.

Up first-- Ted Cruz, anti-science/anti-NASA religious wingnut-- placed in charge of Science and NASA! Yaaaay! :smt026 :smt041

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/1 ... 56270.html

Following the ratification of Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) as chair of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committtee last week, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) was named chair of the Subcommittee on Space, Science and Competitiveness, where he will oversee NASA and science programs.

Appointed Jan. 8, Cruz is expected to be confirmed to the new role by the end of the month as one of many changes to the new Republican-controlled Congress. But the Republican senator's words and actions during his time in office have painted him to be a far cry from an advocate for the sciences, leaving many concerned about the future of space and science funding.

And as an added bonus -- Climate-change denier Marco Rubio-- :smt026 :smt041

Fellow climate change denier Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) will also chair the Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and the Coast Guard upon his confirmation.
To cut some folks off at the pass, I don't advocate for violence, oppression, genocide, war, hatred or intolerance. Instead, I advocate for education, organization, activism, and the democratic process. ~~ KtR
User avatar
Keep The Reason
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 10371
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 4:50 pm
Affiliation: Reasonist

Re: Hope You're Happy Now...

Postby gordsd » Thu Jan 15, 2015 5:51 am

Keep The Reason wrote:. . . as the Republicans America elected work to completely fuck the constituents they convinced to elect them. . .

I could not agree more. You've got us off to a good start mentioning Cruz, Thune and Rubio. It's amazing but not surprising of how fooled a lot of the working-class are by Republican rhetoric. We can thank Rush L. and Glen B. and Fox news for a lot of it. I do argue at work from time to time when some of my buddies start to push the rhetoric, but they are so convinced by the rhetoric I feel like my words are often spoken in vain.

I don't think the Democrats are much better--the lesser of two evils. The lobbyists are so effective with their money and gifts and so-called reports that many elected officials are as misinformed as their constituents.
. . .it is wrong for a man to say that he is certain of the objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty--Thomas Henry Huxley.
gordsd
resident
resident
 
Posts: 197
Joined: Fri Feb 28, 2014 11:45 am
Location: Nevada desert
Affiliation: Extreme Liberal Christian

Re: Hope You're Happy Now...

Postby Chapabel » Mon Jan 19, 2015 8:06 am

Well the Democrat led government of Obama, Reid and Pelosi have brought America to its lowest point in history. Their liberal, anti-God positions have caused America to become the laughing stock of world leaders. Thank God congress is now controlled by Republicans and hopefully by His grace we will have a Republican president in 2016!
To be right with God has often meant to be in trouble with men. -- A.W. Tozer
User avatar
Chapabel
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1567
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2015 7:11 am
Location: Tennessee
Affiliation: Baptist

Re: Hope You're Happy Now...

Postby darkumbra » Mon Jan 19, 2015 8:36 am

Chapabel wrote:Well the Democrat led government of Obama, Reid and Pelosi have brought America to its lowest point in history. Their liberal, anti-God positions have caused America to become the laughing stock of world leaders. Thank God congress is now controlled by Republicans and hopefully by His grace we will have a Republican president in 2016!


Yup. Yup yup nothing but bad things from Obama

Lowest unemployment rate in a while
Highest stock market in a while
Shutting down wars wherever he can
Got rid of Osama bin Laden
Re-established relations with Cuba
Improved access to medical services for all
Need I go on listing his failures? I think not.

It's a wonder he hasn't been assassinated already. Terrible person. Oh.. And I forgot to mention. He's also black.

In case you are of low IQ? The above is called 'sarcasm'
The "god experience"? I have no idea what you are talking about. This sounds like COMPLETE BULLSHIT that you are just making up. How do you define "god experience" in objective scientific terms?-Mitch - a Christian beyond compare.
User avatar
darkumbra
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 3271
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2007 10:05 am

Re: Hope You're Happy Now...

Postby Chapabel » Mon Jan 19, 2015 9:03 am

Well, let's see what the experts have to say, shall we? Concerning the economy, economists suggest Obama does deserve some credit for actions he took early in his first term, but they also claim that his policies actually hindered the economic recovery. In other words it would not have been as long of a recession had he not interfered with his numerous regulations and tax increases: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... ory-or-not

As far as "shutting down wars" we are seeing the rise of ISIS and other jihadists just as the military experts warned. Had Obama listened to military officials rather than tucking tail and running like a scalded dog, the world would not be affected by the terrorists: http://observer.com/2014/08/barack-obam ... gn-policy/

Relations with Cuba are a step backwards in dealing with communism and is a slap in the face to Cuban-Americans: http://conservative.org/road-to-cpac/ob ... tatorship/

Obama did not get rid of Bin Laden. The US SEALS did. No reference needed.

Improved Medical services for all? Actually the country is just now finding out how damaging Obamacare really is: http://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/ ... employees/
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/39 ... vid-french


His being black has nothing to do with his horrible policies. Given an opportunity I would hands down vote for Condoleezza Rice or Alan West for president. Both are black BTW.
To be right with God has often meant to be in trouble with men. -- A.W. Tozer
User avatar
Chapabel
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1567
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2015 7:11 am
Location: Tennessee
Affiliation: Baptist

Re: Hope You're Happy Now...

Postby Razor » Mon Jan 19, 2015 9:04 am

DU, you forget that gay people can now get married. This causes widespread pain in Christians by some ethereal mechanism.

And the healthcare bill will result in a communist revolt and dead babies littering the streets. Don't you watch Fox news?!?
Razor
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1265
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 9:42 am

Re: Hope You're Happy Now...

Postby Chapabel » Mon Jan 19, 2015 9:08 am

Razor, you post reveals your inability to support your position with anything but sarcasm. That does not enforce your view, it makes you look silly.
To be right with God has often meant to be in trouble with men. -- A.W. Tozer
User avatar
Chapabel
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1567
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2015 7:11 am
Location: Tennessee
Affiliation: Baptist

Re: Hope You're Happy Now...

Postby Razor » Mon Jan 19, 2015 9:18 am

Really? Shall we look at the objective facts?

Economy:
The USA is leading a world recovery and is doing exceptionally well. If you would like to look at contrasting economic performance I refer you to western Europe, where the closest is the UK and it isn't that close.

Your statement about tax increase threatening the recovery is garbage. They are very modest and the case of tax cuts resulting in incremental increases in growth through consumption is, in this case, incorrect.

Wealthy people, the target of these rises, have a very high marginal savings rate. Give them an extra dollar and they will save more than they will spend. Redistribute that wealth via benefits and child support to low income families and they will spend more than they save. The taxes and redistribution proposed would have a net increase in consumption. USA is a consumption economy financed by Asian saving, therefore the policy Obama proposed would, if congress can put down their bibles and move enough of their piles of cash out the way the read and pass it, result in additional economic growth.

Given that the top 1% of wealthy people now control half of the world's wealth, I think a small increase in tax, that will be largely avoided or evaded, will not be too arduous.

I would go on, but we'll see how you get on with that first.
Razor
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1265
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 9:42 am

Re: Hope You're Happy Now...

Postby Chapabel » Mon Jan 19, 2015 9:27 am

You could go on that is certain, but you have presented no facts to validate your claims nor to rebut my position. All you have offered is you personal opinion. I'm sure you know what opinions are like, correct? Your redistribution of wealth idea is nothing more than socialism. A little history reveals socialism does not succeed:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/elainepofel ... d-version/
http://patriotupdate.com/articles/14-re ... n-america/
To be right with God has often meant to be in trouble with men. -- A.W. Tozer
User avatar
Chapabel
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1567
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2015 7:11 am
Location: Tennessee
Affiliation: Baptist

Re: Hope You're Happy Now...

Postby Razor » Mon Jan 19, 2015 9:33 am

I presented a logical argument. If you dont agree, analyse it and show why it is wrong.
Razor
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1265
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 9:42 am

Re: Hope You're Happy Now...

Postby Chapabel » Mon Jan 19, 2015 10:38 am

No, you presented opinion. Now, you are entitled to your opinion, but you have not supported your opinion with facts. I have supplied facts, evidence to support my belief. Therefore, the discussion is over until you can validate your position with evidence.
To be right with God has often meant to be in trouble with men. -- A.W. Tozer
User avatar
Chapabel
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1567
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2015 7:11 am
Location: Tennessee
Affiliation: Baptist

Re: Hope You're Happy Now...

Postby Razor » Mon Jan 19, 2015 11:25 am

OK, really granular version:

The tax rises proposed will affect the wealthy far more than the poor. FACT

The marginal saving rate for wealthy people is more than 50% (every extra dollar the have, they will spend less that 50cents). The marginal saving rate for the general population is variable, but almost always less than 20% (They will spend at least 80cents of every extra dollar they earn). FACT (statistically shown, at least)

Therefore, if you take 1 dollar from a rich person (tax rise) they will spend 50 cents less.
If you give said dollar to the poor person, they will spend an additional 80 cents.
The extra amount spent is then 30 cents for every dollar of re-allocated income.
(note, this is the conservative case, difference can be more)
LOGICALLY NECESSARY STEP

The US economy is primarily a demostic consumption economy, about 70% (http://useconomy.about.com/od/grossdome ... onents.htm). FACT

Thus, a tax rise on the wealthy that is expected to redistribute $320bn over 10 years, crudely $32bn a year. (99% of this will come from the top 1% of the population, as well as large financial institutions, as I mentioned in my last post). FACT

So:
Consumption is 70% of GDP.
Redistribution will lead to at least 30% extra in incremental consumption.
$32bn a year redistributed
Additional GDP growth of 30% times 70% times $32bn, equal to 21% of $32bn, equal to $6.72bn per year

Over the ten year period previously stated, and ignoring compounding:
$67bn in additional GDP

Not much, but better than a kick in the teeth.
Razor
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1265
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 9:42 am

Re: Hope You're Happy Now...

Postby Keep The Reason » Mon Jan 19, 2015 12:23 pm

Fine job Razor.

The interesting fact is, economic jet fuel is not trickle down economies where the wealthiest keep all their wealth and "trickle down" jobs - - what they really do is find ways to horde their wealth by outsourcing bank accounts to shelters and jobs to 3rd world countries. But we know for certain that if the poor have more money they spend more for goods, which is exactly what you want to drive a consumer economy. This is precisely what built the post WW2 economy of the US and the greatest middle class ever seen.

Today's conservatives are utterly clueless on this. What they really want is to create a "I got mine so fuck you" mentality because they believe the American Dream is being targeted so the most successful are forced to help the least successful.

What's really ironic about these right wingers is they are usually Christians, often anti-evolution... EXCEPT in matters of economics where they are blindly "survival of the fittest" junkies.
To cut some folks off at the pass, I don't advocate for violence, oppression, genocide, war, hatred or intolerance. Instead, I advocate for education, organization, activism, and the democratic process. ~~ KtR
User avatar
Keep The Reason
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 10371
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 4:50 pm
Affiliation: Reasonist

Re: Hope You're Happy Now...

Postby Chapabel » Mon Jan 19, 2015 1:13 pm

Razor, the concept of debating is apparently foreign to you. Simply typing the word "FACT' in capital letters does not make it a fact. The only evidence you presented was in regards to GDP. I did not question what the largest percentage of GDP was spent on. I provided evidence that socialism never works. Now it is your turn to rebut my position with expert evidence. So please provide evidence that shows how socialism will benefit America.

Also provide evidence that counters my claim that the Dems have hurt the country. Show me how America is better now than when Obama became president
To be right with God has often meant to be in trouble with men. -- A.W. Tozer
User avatar
Chapabel
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1567
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2015 7:11 am
Location: Tennessee
Affiliation: Baptist

Re: Hope You're Happy Now...

Postby Keep The Reason » Mon Jan 19, 2015 2:14 pm

Chapabel wrote:Razor, the concept of debating is apparently foreign to you. Simply typing the word "FACT' in capital letters does not make it a fact. The only evidence you presented was in regards to GDP. I did not question what the largest percentage of GDP was spent on. I provided evidence that socialism never works. Now it is your turn to rebut my position with expert evidence. So please provide evidence that shows how socialism will benefit America.

Also provide evidence that counters my claim that the Dems have hurt the country. Show me how America is better now than when Obama became president


Well, that's incredibly easy to do. Free-market policies devoid of any regulatory checks and balances specifically feed human greed and throw economies into wild anarchy. This whole behavior towards government involvement in business is confused with socialism, which is a ridiculous argument since we already have key element of socialism in the USA today.

But let's go back a bit to see how Republican policies have served the USA.

In 1929, Herbert Hoover, a Republican, presided over the Depression with the same fears extant today.

Hoover on the Depression and Fears of Socialism

As the Depression became worse, however, calls grew for increased federal intervention and spending. But Hoover refused to involve the federal government in forcing fixed prices, controlling businesses, or manipulating the value of the currency, all of which he felt were steps towards socialism. He was inclined to give indirect aid to banks or local public works projects, but he refused to use federal money for direct aid to citizens, believing the dole would weaken public morale. Instead, he focused on volunteerism to raise money. Hoover’s opponents painted him as uncaring toward the common citizen, even though he was in fact a philanthropist and a progressive before becoming president. During his reelection campaign, Hoover tried to convince Americans that the measures they were calling for might seem to help in the short term, but would be ruinous in the long run. He asserted that he cared for common Americans too much to destroy the country’s foundations with deficits and socialist institutions. He was soundly defeated by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932.

Roosevelt promised Americans a “New Deal” when he took office, and during his first “Hundred Days” as president, he signed a number of groundbreaking new laws. Roosevelt’s aides later admitted that most New Deal agencies were closely modeled on those that Hoover had attempted, but Roosevelt’s plans differed in financing and scope. New Deal bills supported direct federal aid, tightened government control over many industries, and eschewed volunteerism in favor of deficit spending, all in the hopes of jump starting both consumer confidence and the economy.


The USA did swing slightly to the left, but frankly, there's never been a truly radical left in this country. The bond between government and business is far too intertwined for the USA to ever go radically left; usually "leftism" in this country leans towards Unions and social issues, like civil rights, sexual self-destiny, etc.

So -- since the President at the time of the Depression was Hoover, and it happened only 8 months into his presidency, we have to look to his predecessor as being partially responsible as well. What horrible Democrat was president before Hoover? Ah, Calvin Coolidge. a Republican. Well, maybe Coolidge inherited bad policies from the Democratic president before him. So, who was that Democratic president before Coolidge?

Ah, the scandal laden Republican president Warren G. Harding. Eventually we'll find a Democrat here. And we do. Progressive Woodrow Wilson preceded Harding, and he got us in WW1.

While there were some things he embraced that we'd shudder at today (particular regarding sedition and race -- though today's Republicans would likely be completely comfortable with Wilson's view on both), he:

took personal control of negotiations when an armistice was requested by Germany, and in 1918 he issued his principles for peace, the Fourteen Points. In 1919 he went to Paris to promote the formation of a League of Nations and concluded the Treaty of Versailles. Wilson then suffered a severe stroke, and was unable to secure Senate ratification of the Treaty. By 1920 his disability had diminished his power and influence, and the Democratic party ignored his tentative plan to run for re-election.

A devoted Presbyterian, Wilson infused a profound sense of moralism into his internationalism, now referred to as "Wilsonian"—a contentious position in American foreign policy which obligates the United States to promote global democracy.[11][12][13] For his sponsorship of the League of Nations, Wilson was awarded the 1919 Nobel Peace Prize.[14] Wilson has consistently been ranked by scholars and the public as one of the top ten presidents.

Link


That foundation of Republican fiduciary incompetence going back 100 years being clarified, are we better off having been under 6 years of Obama?

Yes we're waaaay better off

Contrast that with four years ago, the last year of President George W. Bush’s second term of office, when the consequences of the conservative economic policies of his administration were in full flower. The financial crisis sparked by rising home mortgage foreclosures in 2006 gained speed in 2007 and morphed into a serious recession in 2008. It is no exaggeration to say that by the fall of 2008, that recession threatened to turn into another full-fledged Great Depression as:

Mortgage foreclosures mounted swiftly
Job losses accelerated rapidly
Economic growth reversed course
Corporate profits fell precipitously
Household wealth declined sharply

In short, our economy and financial markets went into a tailspin in the second half of 2008 due to the consequences of conservative economic policies implemented aggressively by the Bush administration.

Fast forward to the summer of 2012. The U.S. economy has added jobs since February 2010, the economy has been growing since June 2009, corporate profits have risen sharply, foreclosures are finally falling, and household wealth is continuing to expand. Instead of a second Great Depression, the actions of the Obama administration resulted in our economy exiting what became known as the Great Recession of 2007–2009 within six months.


On this graphic, please note the citations below each graph presented as support for the review of economic status (click on THIS LINK to get a larger view of it)

00_fouryears_fig1.jpg
00_fouryears_fig1.jpg (44.69 KiB) Viewed 1464 times


As to your claims of ISIS, this was precisely the problem with invading Iraq and removing Saddam Hussein who was a choke-point for religious fanaticism in the area. In other words, NO president and NO party in the USA would have been able to stop this surge of Islamic calpihatism. This was a definite issue in G HW Bush's presidency (almost nothing is a simple black and white | no consequence proposal, especially in national policies); but the very reason to NOT take out Saddam externally was because he held these various forces at bay. GHWBush DID hope for an INTERNAL uprising in Iraq to remove Saddam, but that changes the dynamics drastically. A secular, internal rebellion would indicate that a religiously-fanatic faction wouldn't have had a foothold in Iraq, but an outside force like the USA going in to remove him would have done exactly what happened with Bush 2's stupidity-- it opened a power vacuum wherein there was no longer anyone able to stop the massive influx of jihadists.

Compelling quote from the above link:

2003: Invasion of Iraq undid a lifetime of work
George W. Bush reprimanded the conservative writers of "The Bushes" in April 2004: "Unfortunately, your book is filled with factual errors. For example, you wrote, 'George H.W. Bush was opposed to his son's plan to attack Iraq.' The truth is, from the very first day, President Bush, No. 41 unequivocally supported the President on the war in Iraq. He had absolutely no reservations of any kind."

As with many of Bush's responses to criticism, this one turned out to be false. In the book that George Herbert Walker Bush and Brent Scowcroft wrote, "A World Transformed," they detailed the "incalculable human and political costs" of occupying Iraq. Further, in April 2003, after his son had taken the country to war against Iraq, the former President agonized with his friend Scowcroft. Partners in the Scowcroft Group recalled both men bemoaning the son's actions, saying that George W. Bush "was undoing a lifetime of work."


Scowcroft also famously broke ranks with Bush Jr. in 2005, saying that W's agenda was untenable:

The Washington Note

Brent Scowcroft “Breaks Ranks” with George W. Bush in Major <em>New Yorker</em> Article

Jeffrey Goldberg has written a critique in The New Yorker of the Bush White House that equals Ron Suskind’s devastating critique of Bush before the last election titled “Without a Doubt.”

In “Breaking Ranks: What Turned Brent Scowcroft Against the Bush Administration?”, Jeffrey Goldberg coaxes Brent Scowcroft to delineate his differences with the foreign policy proclivities of George W. Bush, Condoleeza Rice, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Cheney, and others.

And in the piece, George H.W. Bush is interviewed about Scowcroft — and while Bush 41′s comments are more elliptical, he stands clearly by Scowcroft’s side in clear criticism of the decisions his son made.

This critique by Scowcroft hardens the foundation of critique that others have recently put in place — particularly from Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, former State Department Chief of Staff under Colin Powell who spoke at the New America Foundation last Wednesday. Wilkerson’s remarks have swept like wildfire through the media and are the subject of a Richard Holbrooke article today in the New York Times and also a core column of discussion on this morning’s “Meet the Press.”

Jeffrey Goldberg’s article is a devastating, serious critique of George W. Bush’s foreign policy and national security team.

I have read the entire article — which I recommend that TWN readers access as quickly as possible. I don’t believe that The New Yorker provides links to articles, but buy this magazine. . .it’s way, way, way worth it.
I am going to provide some longish excerpts to give insight into some of the most intriguing and useful commentary.

From “Breaking Ranks: What Turned Brent Scowcroft Against the Bush Administration?”, Jeffrey Goldberg, The New Yorker, 31 October 2005

Scowcroft on Iraq and Neocon Idealism

A principal reason that the Bush Administration gave no thought to unseating Saddam was that Brent Scowcroft gave no thought to it. An American occupation of Iraq would be politically and militarily untenable, Scowcroft told Bush. And though the President had employed the rhetoric of moral necessity to make the case for war, Scowcroft said, he would not let his feelings about good and evil dictate the advice he gave the President.

It would have been no problem for America’s military to reach Baghdad, he said. The problems would have arisen when the Army entered the Iraqi capital. “At the minimum, we’d be an occupier in a hostile land,” he said. “Our forces would be sniped at by guerrillas, and, once we were there, how would we get out? What would be the rationale for leaving? I don’t like the term ‘exit strategy’ — but what do you do with Iraq once you own it?”


Scowcroft stopped for a moment. We were sitting in the offices of the Scowcroft Group, a consulting firm he heads, in downtown Washington. He appeared to be weighing the consequences of speaking his mind. His speech is generally calibrated not to give offense, especially to the senior Bush and the Bush family. He is eighty and, by most accounts, has been content to cede visibility to the larger personalities with whom he has worked.

James Baker told me that he and Scowcroft got along well in part because Scowcroft let Baker speak for the Administration. I learned from people who know Scowcroft that he finds it painful to be seen as critical of his best friend’s son, but in the course of several interviews prudence several times gave way to impatience. “This is exactly where we are now,” he said of Iraq, with no apparent satisfaction. “We own it. And we can’t let go. We’re getting sniped at. Now, will we win? I think there’s a fairchance we’ll win. But look at the cost.”

The first Gulf War was a success, Scowcroft said, because the President knew better than to set unachievable goals. “I’m not a pacifist,” he said. “I believe in the use of force. But there has to be a good reason for using force. And you have to know when to stop using force.” Scowcroft does not believe that the promotion of American-style democracy abroad is a sufficiently good reason to use force.

“I thought we ought to make it our duty to help make the world friendlier for the growth of liberal regimes,” he said. “You encourage democracy over time, with assistance, and aid, the traditional way. Not how the neocons do it.”

The neoconservatives — the Republicans who argued most fervently for the second Gulf war — believe in the export of democracy, by violence if that is required, Scowcroft said. “How do the neocons bring democracy to Iraq? You invade, you threaten and pressure, you evangelize.” And now, Scowcroft said, America is suffering from the consequences of that brand of revolutionary utopianism. “This was said to be part of the war on terror, but Iraq feeds terrorism,” he said.


Next: Bush 41 and Iraq/Kuwait and Saddam

Republican policies in 2003 onward are specifically and directly responsible for ISIS and it's growth. No one would have been able to stop it, not any Republican or Democratic administration (shy of going full nuke or massive invasion, which is what conservative wingnuts-- usually chicken hawks like GW Bush and Cheney who served no combat or any military time whatsoever -- leap up and down and hope to have happen.)
To cut some folks off at the pass, I don't advocate for violence, oppression, genocide, war, hatred or intolerance. Instead, I advocate for education, organization, activism, and the democratic process. ~~ KtR
User avatar
Keep The Reason
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 10371
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 4:50 pm
Affiliation: Reasonist

Next

Return to Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron