REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Liberals can't defend America

POSTED BY: HERO
UPDATED: Saturday, July 15, 2006 06:08
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 9116
PAGE 3 of 3

Friday, July 7, 2006 2:05 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Exodus:
Or I got them from online dictionaries and the definitions are quite contrary to what you thought.

Libertarian still not Liberal, Left wing still does not mean Liberal, Communism still not Liberal.

You can look that up in an actual dictionary if you like; you'll see I'm right.
Quote:

Right = Conservative views.
Left = Liberal views.

Disagree? Go take it up with your local University.

No you need to take it to your local University because you're the one getting it wrong.

Let me put it simply for you:
All Liberal views are left wing, but not all left wing views are Liberal.

That's how Fascism can be an extreme right wing ideology without being a Conservative Ideology, understand?
Quote:

I have read enough of your statements to know that you are a liberal. Also, if you read my earlier posts, you would know why I deemed myself a Conservative/Moderate. Since you probably won't go to revisit my post I will just state it again. Ideologically I am a conservative. I am religious, I am quite introverted, I enjoy intellectual studies, and I like watching appropriate movies. I called myself a moderate as well because I am a Socialist for the most part. I believe in the classes, but less separation between them and less of a broad class-system if you know what I mean (tell me in your next post if you do not understand I will further clarify).
I got what you were saying the first time around thanks and I've seen enough of your statements to know that you are a Conservative, despite your protestations to the contrary. Also wanting to bring the classes together isn't Socialist, if you wanted to remove the class system then you could say you had some Socialist ideals, bringing the classes closer together is more like Liberalism than Socialism.

Oh but then you've decided the Liberal means everything except conservative, so A Liberal is a Fascist, a Communist, a Socialist, a Libertarian, an absolutist, an Anarchist, a Monarchist...

But hold on, I'm not a Fascist (don't like the boots myself), nor a Communist, a Socialist (bits and pieces, not all) Libertarian is fair (as limited government as necessary), no way am I an absolutist or an anarchist and I certainly don't want to go back to a monarch.

I guess that means I can't be a Liberal then.
Quote:

A 91% and a 90% final grades can speak for themselves.
It means you can regurgitate reams of information on command, not necessarily that you understand it or that you are in this circumstance accurately representing it.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 7, 2006 2:18 PM

EXODUS


Quote:

Libertarian still not Liberal, Left wing still does not mean Liberal, Communism still not Liberal.

Ok, you're repetitive responses are starting to get under my skin a bit. I want you to prove that Liberterianism and Communism are both not Liberal ideologies considering liberalism is broadness as you saw in the definition I posted.

Quote:

All Liberal views are left wing, but not all left wing views are Liberal.

That's how Fascism can be an extreme right wing ideology without being a Conservative Ideology, understand?


Allow me to put this in a practical situation for you.

A fellow walks down the street proclaiming Anarhcism to his friend. A guy walking past him hears this and then mutters to himself "What a liberal!" Understand now? I think you have a misconception of the actual words conservative and liberal (without their political meaning).

Quote:

I got what you were saying the first time around thanks and I've seen enough of your statements to know that you are a Conservative, despite your protestations to the contrary. Also wanting to bring the classes together isn't Socialist, if you wanted to remove the class system then you could say you had some Socialist ideals, bringing the classes closer together is more like Liberalism than Socialism.

You clearly did not read properly or you do not understand the definition of Socialism, allow me to clarify.

Socialism: A system based on public ownership of the means of production and distribution of wealth.

Distribution of wealth (ie. bringing the classes closer together by giving more to the poor).

Quote:

It means you can regurgitate reams of information on command, not necessarily that you understand it or that you are in this circumstance accurately representing it.

That is the same excuse I heard from most kids who are failing the course but refuse to say that they are just incompetent and still believe they are "intellectual". If I can regurgitate this information at will, it clearly means I know the information. This means that I have processed it and therefore understand it. Good marks do equal intelligence on the contrary to what most slacking students say.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 7, 2006 2:52 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Exodus:
Ok, you're repetitive responses are starting to get under my skin a bit. I want you to prove that Liberterianism and Communism are both not Liberal ideologies considering liberalism is broadness as you saw in the definition I posted.

My answers are repetitive because yours are repetitive. You are making the claim that Liberalism means everything except Conservatism, so how about you prove it, how about you prove that a liberal is a fascist, that Liberalism means fascism since that is part of the claim you are making. It's fairly easy to prove that a communist isn't a Liberal, here's a clue if a communist was a Liberal they would be called a Liberal, not a communist.

A five year old could tell the difference between a Monarchist and a Liberal, why do you have so much trouble with it?

Communism is a political ideology that seeks to establish a future classless, stateless social organization based upon common ownership of the means of production.

Liberalism is a political ideology that seeks freedom of thought for individuals, a market economy that supports private enterprise and free exchange of ideas.

Notice the lack of classless, stateless social organisation, or any mention of common ownership of production in the definition of Liberal.
Your turn, how is a Liberal a Communist, or a fascist, or a monarchist, since you’re the one making the claim the burden proof is on you anyway.
Quote:

A fellow walks down the street proclaiming Anarhcism to his friend. A guy walking past him hears this and then mutters to himself "What a liberal!" Understand now? I think you have a misconception of the actual words conservative and liberal (without their political meaning).
You've made up a situation where someone who doesn't understand the terms just like you don't understand them supports your supposition and you think that proves something, now that's all manner of amusing.

Here's a practical situation for you:

Man walks into a bar and says to the barman "I'm a neo-Marxist Anarchist and I don't believe in property, give me a pint" The bar man replies "Bloody Conservatives." Understand now?

You don't know what a Conservative and a Liberal is, you’re the one who is deluded into think Conservative means Conservative and Liberal means everything else.
Quote:

You clearly did not read properly or you do not understand the definition of Socialism, allow me to clarify.

Socialism: A system based on public ownership of the means of production and distribution of wealth.

Distribution of wealth (ie. bringing the classes closer together by giving more to the poor).

The ultimate goal of the Socialist is a classless society, as laid down by Karl Marx.
Quote:


That is the same excuse I heard from most kids who are failing the course but refuse to say that they are just incompetent and still believe they are "intellectual". If I can regurgitate this information at will, it clearly means I know the information. This means that I have processed it and therefore understand it. Good marks do equal intelligence on the contrary to what most slacking students say.

Oh so now I'm a failed student. I'm glad you know so much about my academic record...

Except you don't, I passed my degree with ease thanks, I've also met a great many people who did very well at Uni and are utterly hopeless when put into a situation where they have to apply that knowledge. Sure they can recite the text from the text book word for word, but they don't understand it well enough to apply it in a non textbook/academic situation.

My computer has vast amounts of information that it can recall at will, so that must mean it understands all those different subjects huh.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 7, 2006 3:47 PM

SOUPCATCHER


Quote:

Originally posted by Exodus:
I agree as well that the terms have lost their meanings (as I have stated in an earlier post) but they are essential for finding out what kind of person someone is. It is also essential in politics since politics is pretty much about the never-ending struggle between right and left. In the end, liberalism is still broad as it pretty much occupies anyone who is not conservative, regardless of their ideology stance. This is why I believe that the political scale is in need of a major revamp in order to get more accurate results from it (and as we can see in this thread, the political scale is not that accurate anymore).


I'm not understanding how you can operationalize the theory you are presenting. The percentage of Americans who self-identify as liberal is around 20 percent. The percentage of Americans who self-identify as conservative is around 40 percent. If I am reading you correctly, the percentage of people who self-identify as liberals should be 60% (since you stated that liberal is just not conservative). So there's a breakdown between how liberal/conservative is defined in theory and how people perceive themselves.

According to the theory that you have presented, an anarchist and a libertarian are liberal. If you asked an anarchist and a libertarian if they were liberals I would be very surprised if they agreed. What is nice and neat on paper breaks down when transferred into practice.

What do those 20% of Americans mean when they self-identify as liberal? Probably a smaller subset of beliefs than what you are labelling as liberal.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 7, 2006 3:51 PM

EXODUS


Quote:

My answers are repetitive because yours are repetitive. You are making the claim that Liberalism means everything except Conservatism, so how about you prove it, how about you prove that a liberal is a fascist, that Liberalism means fascism since that is part of the claim you are making. It's fairly easy to prove that a communist isn't a Liberal, here's a clue if a communist was a Liberal they would be called a Liberal, not a communist.

No, I stated in virtually all of my posts in this thread that there are three classifications, which are Conservatism, Moderatism, and Liberalism. A Fascist is politically a moderate and ideologically a extreme conservative. See, Socialism and Fascism are virtually the same thing politically but ideologically are totally different. Since Socialists are classified as Moderates, I would be inclined to say that so are Fascists (politically of course). You also have a misinterpretation of what liberalism is. I have not been saying that liberalism is a political systems of any sort, I am saying that it is a category to classify people with their ideology/political alignment. A Communist is a liberal according to the political scale taught in all Political Science classes. If you do not believe me, Google it or take it up with your local University because I know for a fact that I am right on this one.

Quote:

A five year old could tell the difference between a Monarchist and a Liberal, why do you have so much trouble with it?

And when did Monarchy come into the discussion? This is the first time I am hearing of it.


Quote:

Liberalism is a political ideology that seeks freedom of thought for individuals, a market economy that supports private enterprise and free exchange of ideas.

Liberalism is not a political system! Liberalism is a word used for classifying people who are generally of the left.

Quote:

Man walks into a bar and says to the barman "I'm a neo-Marxist Anarchist and I don't believe in property, give me a pint" The bar man replies "Bloody Conservatives." Understand now?

That example is practically the same thing as mine so how is it so different? And dude, there is no way in Hell that an Anarchist is a Conservative. No offense or anything but that is just about the stupidest thing I have read on the Internet in a long time and I know many people will say the same thing.

Quote:

You don't know what a Conservative and a Liberal is, you’re the one who is deluded into think Conservative means Conservative and Liberal means everything else.

Yes, and according to you an Anarchist is a conservative... very believable.

Quote:

The ultimate goal of the Socialist is a classless society, as laid down by Karl Marx.

A) You just contradicted yourself, you stated above that Communism is a classless society.
B) That is no the ultimate goal of a Socialist government. The ultimate goal is the distribution of wealth to create a society of not many classes. If you watch Fritz Lang's Metropolis you will see how it depicts a Socialist society with only two classes... the Thinkers, and the Workers.

Quote:

Oh so now I'm a failed student. I'm glad you know so much about my academic record...

And where did I state that? I merely stated that your excuse sounds very similar to what a failed student would say to me.

Quote:

My computer has vast amounts of information that it can recall at will, so that must mean it understands all those different subjects huh.

So you are comparing me to a computer now?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 7, 2006 3:52 PM

EXODUS


Quote:

My answers are repetitive because yours are repetitive. You are making the claim that Liberalism means everything except Conservatism, so how about you prove it, how about you prove that a liberal is a fascist, that Liberalism means fascism since that is part of the claim you are making. It's fairly easy to prove that a communist isn't a Liberal, here's a clue if a communist was a Liberal they would be called a Liberal, not a communist.

No, I stated in virtually all of my posts in this thread that there are three classifications, which are Conservatism, Moderatism, and Liberalism. A Fascist is politically a moderate and ideologically a extreme conservative. See, Socialism and Fascism are virtually the same thing politically but ideologically are totally different. Since Socialists are classified as Moderates, I would be inclined to say that so are Fascists (politically of course). You also have a misinterpretation of what liberalism is. I have not been saying that liberalism is a political systems of any sort, I am saying that it is a category to classify people with their ideology/political alignment. A Communist is a liberal according to the political scale taught in all Political Science classes. If you do not believe me, Google it or take it up with your local University because I know for a fact that I am right on this one.

Quote:

A five year old could tell the difference between a Monarchist and a Liberal, why do you have so much trouble with it?

And when did Monarchy come into the discussion? This is the first time I am hearing of it.


Quote:

Liberalism is a political ideology that seeks freedom of thought for individuals, a market economy that supports private enterprise and free exchange of ideas.

Liberalism is not a political system! Liberalism is a word used for classifying people who are generally of the left.

Quote:

Man walks into a bar and says to the barman "I'm a neo-Marxist Anarchist and I don't believe in property, give me a pint" The bar man replies "Bloody Conservatives." Understand now?

That example is practically the same thing as mine so how is it so different? And dude, there is no way in Hell that an Anarchist is a Conservative. No offense or anything but that is just about the stupidest thing I have read on the Internet in a long time and I know many people will say the same thing.

Quote:

You don't know what a Conservative and a Liberal is, you’re the one who is deluded into think Conservative means Conservative and Liberal means everything else.

Yes, and according to you an Anarchist is a conservative... very believable.

Quote:

The ultimate goal of the Socialist is a classless society, as laid down by Karl Marx.

A) You just contradicted yourself, you stated above that Communism is a classless society.
B) That is no the ultimate goal of a Socialist government. The ultimate goal is the distribution of wealth to create a society of not many classes. If you watch Fritz Lang's Metropolis you will see how it depicts a Socialist society with only two classes... the Thinkers, and the Workers.

Quote:

Oh so now I'm a failed student. I'm glad you know so much about my academic record...

And where did I state that? I merely stated that your excuse sounds very similar to what a failed student would say to me.

Quote:

My computer has vast amounts of information that it can recall at will, so that must mean it understands all those different subjects huh.

So you are comparing me to a computer now?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 7, 2006 8:10 PM

FREMDFIRMA


That is correct, I am an anarchist.

And I dunno that I would 'self-identify' as liberal either, since i'd actually have to care enough to bother, which I do not.

As far as rights go - do what the hell you please, but your rights *end* when they involve stepping on mine.

It's every bit as simple as that, make of it what you will.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 7, 2006 11:03 PM

CITIZEN


You've been to all Universities, wow that's some feat. If you and your political science professor use a different classification to the rest of the universe, or, indeed if you misunderstood what (s)he tried to teach you, then that's not my problem.
Quote:

And when did Monarchy come into the discussion? This is the first time I am hearing of it.
When you said Liberals are "all other political ideologies besides conservatism". Monarchists want a Monarchy, that's their ideology, since they are not conservatives by your reckoning that means they must be Liberals.
Quote:

Liberalism is not a political system! Liberalism is a word used for classifying people who are generally of the left.
Liberalism is the term for Liberals like Conservatism is the term for Conservatives, the clues in the name, funny how you missed it.
Quote:

That example is practically the same thing as mine so how is it so different? And dude, there is no way in Hell that an Anarchist is a Conservative. No offense or anything but that is just about the stupidest thing I have read on the Internet in a long time and I know many people will say the same thing.
Yes that was the point.

You see what was trying to be represented here was that just because you make up a real world example does not mean all of a sudden that is actually a real world example, or indeed representative of anything more than your own opinion, I purposefully chose an extreme example like Conservatism is "Neo-Marxist Anarchism" in order to make this as obvious as possible. The only thing that people can say is really that you missed the point.
Quote:

Yes, and according to you an Anarchist is a conservative... very believable.
Now you're getting it, you are being ironic right, you don't think I really think that, oh you do, oh dear.

Well the idea of a Conservative being an Anarchist is at about the same region of believability as Liberals are Fascists.
Quote:

A) You just contradicted yourself, you stated above that Communism is a classless society.
Erm, no I didn't. If I had said "Communism is not a classless society" that would have been a contradiction, I didn't, so it isn't. Pure Socialism isn't Communism, but they both aim toward creating a Marxist society.

A socialist attitude maybe publicised health care, but it is still not "making the classes a little bit closer together". Though that maybe a natural consequence of schemes like Public healthcare, which are socialist, that doesn't mean that the consequence is a socialist ideal.
Quote:

That is no the ultimate goal of a Socialist government. The ultimate goal is the distribution of wealth to create a society of not many classes. If you watch Fritz Lang's Metropolis you will see how it depicts a Socialist society with only two classes... the Thinkers, and the Workers.
Now you're contradicting yourself, if you redistribute the wealth the idea is everyone has the same amount, meaning you have just one class, or more appropriately no classes.
Quote:

And where did I state that? I merely stated that your excuse sounds very similar to what a failed student would say to me.
Hmm missed the concept of implication did we?
Quote:

So you are comparing me to a computer now?
Well this is quite interesting. You've read and remembered my post and missed about half of the ideas contained within. You've missed the point, much how you seem to have missed the point with your political science course.

I'm not comparing you to a computer, I'm pointing out that one does not have to understand ones subject matter in order to store and recall it.

Now are you going to actually attempt to prove how a Liberal is a Fascist, a Monarchist, a Communist, an Anarchist and so on or are you just going to dodge the question again and say the same thing you have for the last what, five posts?



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 8, 2006 6:34 AM

EXODUS


Quote:

You've been to all Universities, wow that's some feat. If you and your political science professor use a different classification to the rest of the universe, or, indeed if you misunderstood what (s)he tried to teach you, then that's not my problem.

And where did I state that? I am not even in University yet but I know people who have Master's Degrees in Political Science and I showed them this thread and they're saying you are wrong mainly because you are not reading my points properly.

Quote:

When you said Liberals are "all other political ideologies besides conservatism".

Since you have quoted it, please show me where I said this. If not, I am just going to assume you have been caught red-handed putting words in my mouth.

Quote:

Liberalism is the term for Liberals like Conservatism is the term for Conservatives, the clues in the name, funny how you missed it.

Did you read anything about the three-classification system? There are only three things you can be, a conservative, a moderate, and a liberal. A conservative is on the right side of the political scale, a moderate is in the middle of the scale, and a liberal is on the left side of the scale. Is that clear?

Quote:

Well the idea of a Conservative being an Anarchist is at about the same region of believability as Liberals are Fascists.

And if you read my post above, politically they are moderate since they are socialists and ideologically, they are extreme conservatives.

Quote:

Erm, no I didn't. If I had said "Communism is not a classless society" that would have been a contradiction, I didn't, so it isn't. Pure Socialism isn't Communism, but they both aim toward creating a Marxist society.

No, otherwise they would both be called Communism. Socialism aims to make a society with less classes, not classless.

Quote:

Now you're contradicting yourself, if you redistribute the wealth the idea is everyone has the same amount, meaning you have just one class, or more appropriately no classes.

Like I said, if it were like that, Socialism would be Communism. Distribution of the wealth means societal welfare (ie. a Socialist government installed in Canada would assure there would be public service programs and welfare for the needy making the classes closer together).

Quote:

Erm, no I didn't. If I had said "Communism is not a classless society" that would have been a contradiction, I didn't, so it isn't. Pure Socialism isn't Communism, but they both aim toward creating a Marxist society.

Read that over again and then tell me it makes sense.

Quote:

Now you're contradicting yourself, if you redistribute the wealth the idea is everyone has the same amount, meaning you have just one class, or more appropriately no classes.

No, it means ditribution of the wealth to the extent of social welfare (ie. creating no poor). Think of it this way, Hitler was a Socialist and when he ruled Germany, his country had classes, but they were limited. If his ideals were so much like Communists then why did he hate the Communists so much?

Quote:

Hmm missed the concept of implication did we?

Just stating a fact. You can decide for yourself whether anything offensive was said.

Quote:

Well this is quite interesting. You've read and remembered my post and missed about half of the ideas contained within. You've missed the point, much how you seem to have missed the point with your political science course.

Well the fact that I have people educated in post-seocndary level in Political Science saying I'm right does make me inclined to thing I am right.

Quote:

Now are you going to actually attempt to prove how a Liberal is a Fascist, a Monarchist, a Communist, an Anarchist and so on or are you just going to dodge the question again and say the same thing you have for the last what, five posts?

I already answered all of those, your best bet is to now reference to a political scale since clearly you are not understanding anything through text.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 15, 2006 6:08 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by exodus:
And where did I state that?

When you said that you had the carte blanche true opinion basically. I guess since you've never been to university your opinion holds no more weight than anyone else’s, despite your insinuations to the contrary.
Quote:

Since you have quoted it, please show me where I said this. If not, I am just going to assume you have been caught red-handed putting words in my mouth.
No problem, right here:
Quote:

In the end, liberalism is still broad as it pretty much occupies anyone who is not conservative
Just too clear things up a little further, here’s a short list of some political ideologies:
* Anarchism
* Christian Democracy
* Communism
* Communitarianism
* Conservatism
* Fascism
* Feminism
* Green politics
* Islamism
* Liberalism
* Libertarianism
* Nationalism
* Nazism
* Progressivism
* Social democracy
* Socialism
* Zionism
If you notice Liberalism is listed only once, so you were lying (accusing me of same) and you were wrong (the whole liberalism is all political outlooks.
Quote:

Did you read anything about the three-classification system? There are only three things you can be, a conservative, a moderate, and a liberal. A conservative is on the right side of the political scale, a moderate is in the middle of the scale, and a liberal is on the left side of the scale. Is that clear?
Could you perchance read my post before replying? That way you'll be replying to what I wrote rather than going off on a tangent, thanks awfully.
Quote:

And if you read my post above, politically they are moderate since they are socialists and ideologically, they are extreme conservatives.
Yes gotta love those moderates, like Mussolini.
Quote:

No, otherwise they would both be called Communism. Socialism aims to make a society with less classes, not classless.
For Karl Marx socialism implied the abolition of markets, capital, and labour as a commodity. Don't worry maybe they'll cover this stuff in that Uni course you haven't taken yet.
Quote:

Like I said, if it were like that, Socialism would be Communism. Distribution of the wealth means societal welfare (ie. a Socialist government installed in Canada would assure there would be public service programs and welfare for the needy making the classes closer together).
No, distribution of wealth is distribution of wealth, social welfare is social welfare, do you need me to draw you a diagram?
Quote:

Read that over again and then tell me it makes sense.
Just learn to read son, since that sentence makes perfect sense the fault must lie with you.
Quote:

Just stating a fact. You can decide for yourself whether anything offensive was said.
As was I when I said that just because you can get a high result in an exam, doesn't mean you have a grasp of the subject matter. Exams seldom test comprehension, it's a fact like it or not.
Quote:

Well the fact that I have people educated in post-seocndary level in Political Science saying I'm right does make me inclined to thing I am right.
And the fact that God has just sent the angle Gabriel to me to confirm that I am right makes me inclined to think I am right, woohoo.
Quote:

I already answered all of those, your best bet is to now reference to a political scale since clearly you are not understanding anything through text.
No you haven't that's the point. I get that you think if you say it, it makes it proven truth, but not to anyone else, so I best call bullshit here too.

Your best bet is to actually learn the difference between you saying something and proving something, I think you should go for a course other than political science at Uni too, since university tends to test your grasp of the subject matter, not whether you can copy the entire textbook out on to your arms.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Punishing Russia With Sanctions
Mon, April 15, 2024 21:45 - 503 posts
Dow Nearing 30K. Time For You To Jump Off?
Mon, April 15, 2024 21:24 - 106 posts
Elections; 2024
Mon, April 15, 2024 21:19 - 2245 posts
I'm surprised there's not an inflation thread yet
Mon, April 15, 2024 18:39 - 738 posts
Is Elon Musk Nuts?
Mon, April 15, 2024 17:54 - 366 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Mon, April 15, 2024 17:23 - 3519 posts
The Thread of Court Cases Trump Is Winning
Mon, April 15, 2024 15:32 - 18 posts
Have you guys been paying attention to the squatter situation in NYC? It's just escelated.
Mon, April 15, 2024 15:24 - 5 posts
As Palestinians pushes for statehood, Israel finds itself more isolated
Mon, April 15, 2024 13:44 - 284 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Mon, April 15, 2024 11:45 - 6234 posts
I agree with everything you said, but don't tell anyone I said that
Mon, April 15, 2024 11:37 - 12 posts
"Feminism" really means more Femtacular than you at EVERYTHING.
Sun, April 14, 2024 18:05 - 64 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL