Dr. Gonzo Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 12 minutes ago, OrangeKhrush said: Trump performed at the same rate as Obama and Clinton, the talks of authoritarian is just blue gaslighting, no Democrat or journalist was victim of deep state policing, no bogus prosecutions with evidence refused at trial, no trumped up charges based on unarmed people supposedly overthrowing the most powerful nation on the planet blah blah fish paste. He didn't though. Under Trump only one meaningful piece of legislation could be passed - despite him having the senate and house for a portion of his presidency. And it was his lower taxes for the wealthy, while raising taxes on the working and middle class - particularly those in states that voted against him (the economic powerhouses of the US, I might ad) with the SALT (state and local tax) deduction cap lowered significantly. Even though those states have MORE REPUBLICAN VOTERS than many of the red states that went for him. So aside from being nearly totally unable to work with a friendly legislature for a part of his presidency, other than on something all conservatives agree on: rich people should pay less in taxes than the working and middle class, who should shoulder most of the burden. He didn't really do much. And those kinds of policies, by the way, fly in the face of the notion that he did anything positive for the "every day working man" or their interests as you claimed earlier in this thread. It was just another handout to the elite. Everything else he did in government was through Executive Order, something he (and his party) bashed Obama for continually while running for election and appointing judges that lied during their confirmation hearings to further a far right agenda. And he didn't even pick those judges, he got them off a list given to him by the Federalist Society - so it was a far right lobbying group doing his presidenting for him when it came to judicial appointments. Another handout to the elite. And many of his executive orders were totally meaningless, others were wiped away after legal challenges because he and his advisors struggled with basic legal concepts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeKhrush Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 3 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said: The alternative to libertarianism is not limited to solely socialistic dystopia like Venezuela. Democratic socialism ie capitalism with benefits can only work when people have the chance to uplift themselves which won't exist In a technocracy predicated on corruption, you fix the corruption. You achieve this by preventing government/corporate overlap, when the government does what it should do and regulate free market where the little guy can move up. Current America is the product of politicians or establishment politicians profiting of corporates who control the market on the behest of the politicians that should regulate them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spike Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 People are literally stuck in cycles of poverty, they don’t have the capital to ‘uplift themselves’ due to circumstances greatly out their control and breadth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeKhrush Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 8 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said: He didn't though. Under Trump only one meaningful piece of legislation could be passed - despite him having the senate and house for a portion of his presidency. And it was his lower taxes for the wealthy, while raising taxes on the working and middle class - particularly those in states that voted against him (the economic powerhouses of the US, I might ad) with the SALT (state and local tax) deduction cap lowered significantly. Even though those states have MORE REPUBLICAN VOTERS than many of the red states that went for him. So aside from being nearly totally unable to work with a friendly legislature for a part of his presidency, other than on something all conservatives agree on: rich people should pay less in taxes than the working and middle class, who should shoulder most of the burden. He didn't really do much. And those kinds of policies, by the way, fly in the face of the notion that he did anything positive for the "every day working man" or their interests as you claimed earlier in this thread. It was just another handout to the elite. Everything else he did in government was through Executive Order, something he (and his party) bashed Obama for continually while running for election and appointing judges that lied during their confirmation hearings to further a far right agenda. And he didn't even pick those judges, he got them off a list given to him by the Federalist Society - so it was a far right lobbying group doing his presidenting for him when it came to judicial appointments. Another handout to the elite. And many of his executive orders were totally meaningless, others were wiped away after legal challenges because he and his advisors struggled with basic legal concepts. So a politician that does not see political affiliation, populism or prevailing current day but rather the economy as important should be President, it seems like the problem may be sensitive feelings blue or red. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rucksackfranzose Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 (edited) 16 minutes ago, OrangeKhrush said: Democratic socialism ie capitalism with benefits can only work when people have the chance to uplift themselves which won't exist In a technocracy predicated on corruption, you fix the corruption. You achieve this by preventing government/corporate overlap, when the government does what it should do and regulate free market where the little guy can move up. Current America is the product of politicians or establishment politicians profiting of corporates who control the market on the behest of the politicians that should regulate them. Now you're contradicting yourself. Only yesterday you were postulating a libertarian economy, ie one without regulation . Now your moaning politicians wouldn't regulate the corporate market enough. Now the question is, what do you want? Can't have it both ways. Edited January 25 by Rucksackfranzose Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Gonzo Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 4 minutes ago, OrangeKhrush said: Democratic socialism ie capitalism with benefits can only work when people have the chance to uplift themselves which won't exist In a technocracy predicated on corruption, you fix the corruption. You achieve this by preventing government/corporate overlap, when the government does what it should do and regulate free market where the little guy can move up. Current America is the product of politicians or establishment politicians profiting of corporates who control the market on the behest of the politicians that should regulate them. Libertarian policies are all the less likely to solve that corruption. Libertarian policies push for as little regulation of the free market as possible, with the goal of increasing business through profitability. History has shown time and time again, following libertarian policies leads to wealth hoarded by those at the top while the little guy ends up more exploited than ever and has. But it looks like you're abandoning your claim to being a libertarian and are now calling yourself a democratic socialist/capitalist. Democratic socialism and capitalism are not the same thing, though. It depends on who you ask with regards to democratic socialism and how capitalistic a society should be, but a core concept of democratic socialism is the belief that capitalism, at least with minimal regulation, is incompatible with the notion of freedom, liberty, and equality. The "socialist" part of democratic socialism is believing there should be a somewhat socially owned economy - which is direct state involvement in the economy. The democratic part is believing that the way government should be structured should be a democracy. I just don't think you've really got an idea of what you're advocating for anymore. But a lot of what you've pushed is pretty far from the ideals of democratic socialism. And a lot of what you've said since advocating for libertarian policies... simply just aren't libertarian policies. It's all very confusing and I don't know what to make of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeKhrush Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 7 minutes ago, Spike said: People are literally stuck in cycles of poverty, they don’t have the capital to ‘uplift themselves’ due to circumstances greatly out their control and breadth. the inquest needs to be individual to individual to find out why rather than blanket blaming a system, most problems are results of failed government and corruption/cronyism rather than the economic system. 9 out of 10 instances the culprit is a failing government, you fix the problem by eliminating the corruption and having better accountability standards. If you remove government enabling of corporate corruption you fix most of the problem, voting for a man that is part of the reason this is enabled and benefits from it is not fixing the problem Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeKhrush Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 11 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said: Libertarian policies are all the less likely to solve that corruption. Libertarian policies push for as little regulation of the free market as possible, with the goal of increasing business through profitability. History has shown time and time again, following libertarian policies leads to wealth hoarded by those at the top while the little guy ends up more exploited than ever and has. But it looks like you're abandoning your claim to being a libertarian and are now calling yourself a democratic socialist/capitalist. Democratic socialism and capitalism are not the same thing, though. It depends on who you ask with regards to democratic socialism and how capitalistic a society should be, but a core concept of democratic socialism is the belief that capitalism, at least with minimal regulation, is incompatible with the notion of freedom, liberty, and equality. The "socialist" part of democratic socialism is believing there should be a somewhat socially owned economy - which is direct state involvement in the economy. The democratic part is believing that the way government should be structured should be a democracy. I just don't think you've really got an idea of what you're advocating for anymore. But a lot of what you've pushed is pretty far from the ideals of democratic socialism. And a lot of what you've said since advocating for libertarian policies... simply just aren't libertarian policies. It's all very confusing and I don't know what to make of it. the current system is no regulation, big corporate decide how the "unfree market" is run, prevent anyone playing the game and the politicians certify it after nice big wads of money are shoved in their pockets. Does socialism fix this, no as power rests in the beaurocratic class. In socialist systems the state owns everything and when the state owns everything the citizen is irrelevant, you are so dependent on the state they can get you to twerk for a pittance even if that means no term limits, permanent government and anyone who objects gets cut off, the record of socialism is hitting 1000 when it comes to failed states and aristocratic class ruling the roost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Gonzo Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 5 minutes ago, OrangeKhrush said: the inquest needs to be individual to individual to find out why rather than blanket blaming a system, most problems are results of failed government and corruption/cronyism rather than the economic system. 9 out of 10 instances the culprit is a failing government, you fix the problem by eliminating the corruption and having better accountability standards. If you remove government enabling of corporate corruption you fix most of the problem, voting for a man that is part of the reason this is enabled and benefits from it is not fixing the problem A failing government is the system though, so you're on the same page as @Spike it sounds like? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeKhrush Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 20 minutes ago, Rucksackfranzose said: Now you're contradicting yourself. Only yesterday you were postulating a libertarian economy, ie one without regulation . Now your moaning politicians wouldn't regulate the corporate market enough. Now the question is, what do you want? Can't have it both ways. Libertarian economy is the state ensuring that the players in the market compete fairly to grow the economy, this means preventing the government and corporate entities overlapping with conflicts of interest. Preventing government officials from being directors or shareholders for starters would ensure democratic accountability. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeKhrush Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 2 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said: A failing government is the system though, so you're on the same page as @Spike it sounds like? failed government is not failed economy, america has a failed/ing government but the economy is far from failure Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Gonzo Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 1 minute ago, OrangeKhrush said: the current system is no regulation, big corporate decide how the "unfree market" is run, prevent anyone playing the game and the politicians certify it after nice big wads of money are shoved in their pockets. Does socialism fix this, no as power rests in the beaurocratic class. In socialist systems the state owns everything and when the state owns everything the citizen is irrelevant, you are so dependent on the state they can get you to twerk for a pittance even if that means no term limits, permanent government and anyone who objects gets cut off, the record of socialism is hitting 1000 when it comes to failed states and aristocratic class ruling the roost. In the US the current system certainly isn't no regulation though? There's federal agencies that have oversight on big business because of the things big business has done. You don't get labour safety regulations without companies first operating without those regulations and injuring, maiming, and killing a few employees. You don't get banking regulations without banks creating crises. The current system of the US is a capitalist representative democracy that has too few restrictions on lobbying. Previous restrictions were wiped out by a conservative Supreme Court ruling in the case Citizens United, which was written by US conservative hero Antonin Scalia. And just because America is capitalistic, that doesn't mean it doesn't have some semblance of socialism. There are social programs. Democratic socialism is pretty far from a capitalist democracy. Which isn't to say that capitalism can't exist in democratic socialist societies - the closest countries the west has to democratic socialist countries have a blend of both capitalism and socialism in a way that goes far beyond the social programs provided by the United States. The difference between say Sweden and the US is how much socialism and capitalism is blended into their economic systems. You see, the extreme scenarios are not the only choices people have in their governance. And extreme political solutions are often bad solutions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Gonzo Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 5 minutes ago, OrangeKhrush said: failed government is not failed economy, america has a failed/ing government but the economy is far from failure America's got an ineffective government because of the shitty way it was all structured and designed for gridlock. It's not a failed or failing government. There's issues with the elite being able to get away with crimes, but that seems to be a problem everywhere in the world. It's funny you site that the economy is far from a failure, yet you've criticised California for being an abject failure of a state... yet California is the economic powerhouse of the US & I know from experience it is a great place to live. But whether you view the economy as far from failure really depends on perspective. While wages in the US are relatively great compared to doing the same work in other countries, since the 80s there's been an increasing gap in how wealth has been distributed in the US. Wage growth has stagnated for the many, while for the elite few there's been record profits and income. When the many are left behind for a handful of ultra-wealthy elite, it's easy for many to think "this is a broken system." When people look back to the US golden era post WW2, where Americans felt economic opportunity was limitless, there was a massive tax on the American ultra-wealthy and corporations. Did they stop making money? No they made shitloads of money. And Americans, on average, seemed more than content with their economic system. In the 70s, many economists started talking about the "death of the American dream" - but the disparity between the rich and the regular in the US has just gone insane since the 80s. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rucksackfranzose Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 3 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said: America's got an ineffective government because of the shitty way it was all structured and designed for gridlock. It's not a failed or failing government. There's issues with the elite being able to get away with crimes, but that seems to be a problem everywhere in the world. It's funny you site that the economy is far from a failure, yet you've criticised California for being an abject failure of a state... yet California is the economic powerhouse of the US & I know from experience it is a great place to live. But whether you view the economy as far from failure really depends on perspective. While wages in the US are relatively great compared to doing the same work in other countries, since the 80s there's been an increasing gap in how wealth has been distributed in the US. Wage growth has stagnated for the many, while for the elite few there's been record profits and income. When the many are left behind for a handful of ultra-wealthy elite, it's easy for many to think "this is a broken system." When people look back to the US golden era post WW2, where Americans felt economic opportunity was limitless, there was a massive tax on the American ultra-wealthy and corporations. Did they stop making money? No they made shitloads of money. And Americans, on average, seemed more than content with their economic system. In the 70s, many economists started talking about the "death of the American dream" - but the disparity between the rich and the regular in the US has just gone insane since the 80s. It's the same in Germany and watched from away in France also. To a certain degree I'd attribute it to the economical break down of socialist nations. With the obvious loss of their organised opponents, the leading social classes were less obliged to satisfy the less wealthy classes to prevent them from turning to the real existing alternative . Of course only an opinion, and by far not the only reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeKhrush Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 7 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said: In the US the current system certainly isn't no regulation though? There's federal agencies that have oversight on big business because of the things big business has done. You don't get labour safety regulations without companies first operating without those regulations and injuring, maiming, and killing a few employees. You don't get banking regulations without banks creating crises. The current system of the US is a capitalist representative democracy that has too few restrictions on lobbying. Previous restrictions were wiped out by a conservative Supreme Court ruling in the case Citizens United, which was written by US conservative hero Antonin Scalia. And just because America is capitalistic, that doesn't mean it doesn't have some semblance of socialism. There are social programs. Democratic socialism is pretty far from a capitalist democracy. Which isn't to say that capitalism can't exist in democratic socialist societies - the closest countries the west has to democratic socialist countries have a blend of both capitalism and socialism in a way that goes far beyond the social programs provided by the United States. The difference between say Sweden and the US is how much socialism and capitalism is blended into their economic systems. You see, the extreme scenarios are not the only choices people have in their governance. And extreme political solutions are often bad solutions. The social welfare systems of a economy can only exist when the economy is capable of sustaining the population, that said social programs like assistance for elderly or veterans is fine, i have no issues with that, it is common in any capitalist system. What I don't like is unemployment benefits, or better put long lasting unemployment benefits, it encourages people to do nothing about their situation. In south africa we have unemployment benefits "UIF" but it is only for 4-6 months and is normally 45-60% of the persons last monthly salary. South Africa has a well regulated labour market, we have the Labour Relations Act (LRA) regulates fair labour practices, organisational rights and a dispute resolution mechanism. The Basic Conditions of Employment with Sectoral Determinations create minimum standards for fair employment requirements, the Employment Equity Act is predicated on fair labour practice based on socio economic requirements, it is probably the most irrelevant and harmful piece that has resulted in South Africa's brain drain. fair labour practices should be statuary set which creates the groundwork to avoid exploitative practices, eg in South Africa firing on the spot does not exist, for a dismissal to be fair it needs to be substantively and procedurally fair, substance relates to the nature of the offense and whether dismissal is an appropriate sanction over less onerous outcomes like progressive discipline. Procedure relates to process, every dismissal must follow a hearing, fair notice, affording the accused party time and access to records to prepare their case. In the event of dismissal we have Bargaining Councils that regulate a specific industry sector, or the CCMA which applies to whomever is not in a council oversite. In south Africa increases and bonuses are practically mandatory and South Africa is pretty well unionised for better or worse. Our labour sector is about the only real bastion that functions even though a functional system has shown up that the majority of our workforce is poor, much of that is free handouts, lack of accountability, brain drain caused by equity driven outcomes and our best leaving the country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeKhrush Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 14 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said: America's got an ineffective government because of the shitty way it was all structured and designed for gridlock. It's not a failed or failing government. There's issues with the elite being able to get away with crimes, but that seems to be a problem everywhere in the world. It's funny you site that the economy is far from a failure, yet you've criticised California for being an abject failure of a state... yet California is the economic powerhouse of the US & I know from experience it is a great place to live. But whether you view the economy as far from failure really depends on perspective. While wages in the US are relatively great compared to doing the same work in other countries, since the 80s there's been an increasing gap in how wealth has been distributed in the US. Wage growth has stagnated for the many, while for the elite few there's been record profits and income. When the many are left behind for a handful of ultra-wealthy elite, it's easy for many to think "this is a broken system." When people look back to the US golden era post WW2, where Americans felt economic opportunity was limitless, there was a massive tax on the American ultra-wealthy and corporations. Did they stop making money? No they made shitloads of money. And Americans, on average, seemed more than content with their economic system. In the 70s, many economists started talking about the "death of the American dream" - but the disparity between the rich and the regular in the US has just gone insane since the 80s. California is a powerhouse when considering GDP only, but GDP is not wealth, millions of low skilled jobs producing low revenue is not success. Insane taxation, zoning regulations, clear socio economic disparity and corruption is not great. But yes I agree the American political frame work needs a do over to comply with prevailing times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Gonzo Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 26 minutes ago, OrangeKhrush said: California is a powerhouse when considering GDP only, but GDP is not wealth, millions of low skilled jobs producing low revenue is not success. Insane taxation, zoning regulations, clear socio economic disparity and corruption is not great. But yes I agree the American political frame work needs a do over to comply with prevailing times. California is also the home of some of the US's biggest and wealthiest corporation with a solid tech industry, biotech industry, chemical engineering industry, financial industry, agricultural industry, name a sector - California's got it and is doing it better than most of the US. It's the state with some of the highest paid highest skilled workers in the country and attracts international workers as a result of that. As discussed previously, that "insane taxation" is a lower effective tax rate than in the only red state that can come close to competing with it, Texas. As far as American economic success goes, California is the most economically successful in pretty much every metric. That's simply not debatable. The socioeconomic disparity and corruption are not unique to California. They might be more apparently because there's a lot more people in California. That's a national problem. 40 minutes ago, OrangeKhrush said: The social welfare systems of a economy can only exist when the economy is capable of sustaining the population, that said social programs like assistance for elderly or veterans is fine, i have no issues with that, it is common in any capitalist system. What I don't like is unemployment benefits, or better put long lasting unemployment benefits, it encourages people to do nothing about their situation. In south africa we have unemployment benefits "UIF" but it is only for 4-6 months and is normally 45-60% of the persons last monthly salary. South Africa has a well regulated labour market, we have the Labour Relations Act (LRA) regulates fair labour practices, organisational rights and a dispute resolution mechanism. The Basic Conditions of Employment with Sectoral Determinations create minimum standards for fair employment requirements, the Employment Equity Act is predicated on fair labour practice based on socio economic requirements, it is probably the most irrelevant and harmful piece that has resulted in South Africa's brain drain. fair labour practices should be statuary set which creates the groundwork to avoid exploitative practices, eg in South Africa firing on the spot does not exist, for a dismissal to be fair it needs to be substantively and procedurally fair, substance relates to the nature of the offense and whether dismissal is an appropriate sanction over less onerous outcomes like progressive discipline. Procedure relates to process, every dismissal must follow a hearing, fair notice, affording the accused party time and access to records to prepare their case. In the event of dismissal we have Bargaining Councils that regulate a specific industry sector, or the CCMA which applies to whomever is not in a council oversite. In south Africa increases and bonuses are practically mandatory and South Africa is pretty well unionised for better or worse. Our labour sector is about the only real bastion that functions even though a functional system has shown up that the majority of our workforce is poor, much of that is free handouts, lack of accountability, brain drain caused by equity driven outcomes and our best leaving the country. Okay let's dissect this, using American politics as the reference point since this is the American politics thread. 1.) In the US, unemployment benefits aren't provided federally. They are provided by each state. I don't know how it works in other states, but in California you only qualify for unemployment if: a.) you have been sacked - resignations do not qualify for unemployment. If you've never had a job, you don't qualify for unemployment; b.) when you demonstrate proof of actively searching for jobs - seeking unemployment while not actively looking for work leads to people being popped for unemployment fraud. This means paying back the money they received from the state, as well as at least a few months in prison, c.) you can only collect unemployment for 26 weeks. So by US standards, or at least Californian standards, you only get unemployment under certain conditions including actively looking for work... and for much less time than you'd get benefits than you'd get in South Africa. So in practice, what happens in California (which is part of the US) is actually nothing that "encourages people to do nothing about their situation" - and in fact mandates that they do in fact do something about their situation in order to receive these benefits. If you've been sacked and receive a severance, you likely will be rejected on your application to receive benefits - or will later have been found to have lied in your application and get popped for unemployment fraud. 2.) Sounds like South Africa has more employment regulation than the US. California is an "at will employment" state - this means employees can be fired for basically any reason. There are certain limitations to this, that have been carved out through employment law cases - but that's the general rule of "at will employment" or "right to work" states. Keep in mind, as well, this is California. The so-called "communist republic of California," that the right wing portrays as a communist hellscape. Yet in terms of employee rights, this state falls short of left-wing protections for workers by some way and is in fact more right wing and capitalistic than many countries including South Africa. So it seems to me, your actual view on US fair labour practices would be that the US should actually moving less to the right and more to the left in that regard. And if I have you right, then I think that means you are rejecting some core beliefs of purely libertarian/capitalist doctrine. 3.) Only in rare circumstances in the US are increases and bonuses guaranteed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 Lads the ignore button exists to make your day stress free Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator Tommy Posted January 26 Moderator Share Posted January 26 1 hour ago, Danny said: Lads the ignore button exists to make your day stress free Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Gonzo Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 12 minutes ago, Tommy said: He doesn't stress me out. I just want to understand why he's got so many beliefs that are either contradictory, why he pushes false narratives (which are easily disproven) that are tied to fucked up ideologies that when he's asked to defend... he says things that are pretty far removed from the ideology he was pushing. Someone can only say so many things to me that don't make sense before I have the thirst to know what the hell is making them say so much insane shit that doesn't even make sense. Using terms regarding ideology and then not even seeming to have a grasp of the basics of the ideology is... bizarre. Saying things like the US has a strong economy, while it's economic backbone is somehow not a strong economy... that's just a statement that can't be made sense of. And I know it's because of repeating certain narratives that he's heard before elsewhere from people pushing bullshit. But we live in a world where you can go online and read about the things you're talking about and verify pretty easily that the people pushing these weird narratives are lying. And the die hard believers of these weird narratives and ideologies fall in too far into hole and start unwittingly supporting things that they probably wouldn't have supported before they've fallen into the holes. I basically want to know where these strong convictions that can be easily refuted by simply reading the definition of things like "libertarianism" "capitalism" and "social democracy", etc. Because when the things being said just don't make sense and someone seems to be pushing a narrative/ideology that can lead to a dangerous slippery slope, it's likely you've got a person confused by people on the internet trying to confuse people into supporting horrible things. People shouldn't have strong convictions of things that are actually against what they actually believe politically just because some joker on reddit, youtube, twitter, etc are trying to feed people to have strong convictions about politics and policies they don't really understand. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spike Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 3 hours ago, Tommy said: 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator Tommy Posted January 26 Moderator Share Posted January 26 2 minutes ago, Spike said: You talkin' to me? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Gonzo Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 Fox News has a lot to answer for: https://www.vice.com/en/article/7kxjwg/justin-mohn-youtube-video-severed-head Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subscriber CaaC (John)+ Posted February 1 Subscriber Share Posted February 1 On 26/01/2024 at 22:09, Spike said: On 26/01/2024 at 22:12, Tommy said: You talkin' to me? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cicero Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 $98 billion aid for Ukraine and Israel yet the majority of Americans can't afford homes, health care, or have salaries that can keep up with this inflation. God Bless America. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.