Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
CDZ What is the value of having a debate only with like minded individuals?
- Thread starter 320 Years of History
- Start date
Arianrhod
Gold Member
- Jul 24, 2015
- 11,060
- 1,076
- 255
Like minded people enjoy one another's company. That's not a difficult concept to grasp.
And people who are secure in their opinions are willing to entertain others.
oldsoul
Gold Member
I think S.J. summed it up quite well.This seems to me to be the problem, I refer you to the 2nd Republican "debate". Seems to me that the left wants to get rid of any dissenting opinions... Just a personal observation.The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum....
??? I'm sorry. I don't follow you....
The CNBC debate should have answered that question for you. Liberal moderators are not interested in giving the public a chance to see where the candidates stand on the issues, their only interest is PREVENTING the public from having a chance to see where they stand on the issues.
oldsoul
Gold Member
While I cannot speak for the OPs, I will pose a possibility. Maybe, just maybe, they wanted to have a discussion of the topics based on how the canidates stack-up on conservative values, a subject on which liberals would not have anything of value to add.As this is in the CDZ, I presumed the OP was responsible for stating actual cases. Recent televised debates have been with presidential candidates, where the debates were by party. Looks like a baseless thread.
I did state cases. You discerned the post-CNBC commentary suggesting that Rush Limbaugh and his ilk should moderate future Republican debates is one such example. Do you want me to give links for the USMB threads to the same effect?
320 Years of History
Gold Member
- Thread starter
- #25
In all debates, let truth be thy aim, not victory, or an unjust interest.
― William Penn
There seems to be a theme these days among conservatives. They want to have televised debates where the only participants -- moderators and debators - are conservatives. On USMB, I see several threads whereby conservatives want to have discussions only with other conservatives.
I have a question. Why?
There's no point to having a discussion where no materially opposing points of view are presented. There's a reason why in school we must use dialectic structure for argumentative essays. If all one hears is validation of one's own point of view, how is one to discover whether it's actually a meritorious one? If in a deb ate, the only people asking questions are people who already see the merit of one's ideas, how is one to address the inquiries and concerns of folks who don't, folks who see flaws in the proposed ideas and want to know how one would overcome them?
I can think of only a few circumstances whereby I only want to hear from folks who agree with me:
In any other circumstance, I'm more than happy to hear solid arguments that oppose my view. I'm not convinced of my infallibility, so why not? Perhaps that's it. Maybe conservatives are so certain they are a right that they just don't need to challenge their own views?
- There is incontrovertible proof that my point of view is correct. Or in other words, there exists a valid deductive argument showing there is only one correct conclusion, and it happens to also be my conclusion.
- The parties involved are subject to me and only me. Of the seven billion people on the planet, three of them -- myself and my two youngest kids -- fall into this group.
In this situation, it doesn't matter if my kids agree with me or not. I always agree with myself. <grins & chuckles>
The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum....
― Noam Chomsky, The Common Good
One your first question, you are in error. There was a first debate that went fine and it was on one of the liberal MSM channels. It was only the CNBC one that was bad. They complained and rightly so.
On your second question, the problem is that liberals here have several very irritating habits or intentional strategies for deception. All of them are intended to prevent them from actually answering questions or to beat their opponent down through various tedious diversion techniques until we say "fuck it" and give up.
Liberals cannot debate policy or ideas, they only talk about emotions. And the #1 tool in their arsenal is the lie. They lie, then lie about the lie, and keep on repeating the lie until basically you can't tolerate them anymore.
No Progressive will ever ever EVER change their mind. In fact they will, after having a point ripped to shreds in one thread, repeat that very same already disproven point in another thread.
So yeah, many of us will only argue with a liberal if we are bored, or want to take on an almost certainly fruitless challenge.
I don't care to even hear from them. Many have me on ignore and I'm perfectly fine with that.
Red:
??? Since when is a question ever in error?
Blue:
So your answer is that it is out of ennui, or a the absence of a desire for entertainment, that (you) conservatives want to discuss matters amongst only themselves?
Green:
Well, I have to say that for the brief time I spent posting in the general forums, I didn't see any strong arguments, at least not what I consider strong. I created two structured debate threads that present and/or request dialectic arguments and so far have found zero substantive replies that even attempt to present a point of view with similar rigor. (Debate Now - Does it make sense to accept God's existence based solely on the arguments presented for it? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum)
Maybe the topic doesn't appeal? I don't know. But even among the popular topics I haven't seen anything that constitutes a rigorous argument one way or the other. (Perhaps I just haven't seen them, but they are on here somewhere...)
Other:
I cannot deny that individuals on both sides of the aisle argue from pathos, and there's no dearth of folks who do. Nonetheless, there are some folks who will and do take the time to present a solid case for their position. However, how can one hope to gain support for one's stance if one won't take the time to present it comprehensively to the opposition?
I too don't really to see the point of a one or two sentence conclusion for which I/many have or know of zero facts to support it. Just saying "X" is so is hardly convincing.
Last edited:
320 Years of History
Gold Member
- Thread starter
- #26
As this is in the CDZ, I presumed the OP was responsible for stating actual cases. Recent televised debates have been with presidential candidates, where the debates were by party. Looks like a baseless thread.
I did state cases. You discerned the post-CNBC commentary suggesting that Rush Limbaugh and his ilk should moderate future Republican debates is one such example. Do you want me to give links for the USMB threads to the same effect?
The left's candidates will go on a debate with the MSM moderators because they will be treated with kid gloves. There is only one news network that has conservative moderators, and I doubt seriously that Hillary will face a FOX News Moderator. YOU are criticizing the GOP for not wanting to have antagonistic moderators? You are criticizing the GOP for wanting friendly moderators? That's genuinely hypocritical.
If we have a GOP debate about economic policy, the people watching want to hear about economic policy and not bullshit personal attacks or loaded questions about gay rights, or religious beliefs. If we do have a GOP debate about say, social issues and Rush or Beck or Levin are the moderators, I guarantee you that it will be about social issues. Moderators aren't supposed to sling mud. They are only supposed to ask pertinent questions and moderate the allotted time, that's it.
Red:
There's no hypocrisy to it for two reasons:
- Democratic party national candidates for public office, or their advocates, haven't yet made the plea that the moderators of their debates should be of any given political disposition.
- It's not possible for an inquirer to ask someone to explain the justification for a request that person articulated and the inquirer be the one exhibiting hypocrisy by asking.
There is no such thing as a "loaded" question. There are only questions that are harder or easier to answer, harder or easier to relate to one or more aspects of one's platform/position(s). People who can take hard to answer questions and turn them on their edge and effectively correlate the question with something of substance deserve commendation. Those who cannot should sit down, shut up, and let others who can have the floor.
daws101
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #27
there was nothing to see.I've watched all the debates democrat and republican.As this is in the CDZ, I presumed the OP was responsible for stating actual cases. Recent televised debates have been with presidential candidates, where the debates were by party. Looks like a baseless thread.
I did state cases. You discerned the post-CNBC commentary suggesting that Rush Limbaugh and his ilk should moderate future Republican debates is one such example. Do you want me to give links for the USMB threads to the same effect?
The left's candidates will go on a debate with the MSM moderators because they will be treated with kid gloves. There is only one news network that has conservative moderators, and I doubt seriously that Hillary will face a FOX News Moderator. YOU are criticizing the GOP for not wanting to have antagonistic moderators? You are criticizing the GOP for wanting friendly moderators? That's genuinely hypocritical.
If we have a GOP debate about economic policy, the people watching want to hear about economic policy and not bull shit personal attacks or loaded questions about gay rights, or religious beliefs. If we do have a GOP debate about say, social issues and Rush or Beck or Levin are the moderators, I guarantee you that it will be about social issues. Moderators aren't supposed to sling mud. They are only supposed to ask pertinent questions and moderate the allotted time, that's it.
Imo none the mods has shown any bias toward any of the candidates however, what I have seen is certain republican candidates throw tantrums .
Gee, knock me over with a feather. I've read your posts here and I already knew you wouldn't see anything.
Ben Carson Defends His Street Cred
320 Years of History
Gold Member
- Thread starter
- #28
The CNBC debate should have answered that question for you. Liberal moderators are not interested in giving the public a chance to see where the candidates stand on the issues, their only interest is PREVENTING the public from having a chance to see where they stand on the issues.There seems to be a theme these days among conservatives. They want to have televised debates where the only participants -- moderators and debators - are conservatives.
??? Excuse me? The burden of articulating where the candidate stands on an issue rests with the candidate, not with a moderator. (https://www.neisd.net/fa/documents/StudentCongressEventGuide.pdf) High school debators understand that much. Is it really asking too much of grown men and women to understand it as well and come accordingly prepared to their debate?
In two posts -- Do you expect candidates, elected or appointed officials to directly answer questions posed to them? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum and Do you expect candidates, elected or appointed officials to directly answer questions posed to them? | Page 2 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum -- I provided simple examples of ways in which the questions posed to three of the CNBC debate's GOP candidates could have been deftly answered and used to express a position on a given issue. Indeed, the question Mr. Rubio got could have been parlayed into a discussion on damn near any issue about which he chose to extemporize. He need only have offered "consider XYZ" rather the "consider immigration" example I posed in the post linked above.
Last edited:
320 Years of History
Gold Member
- Thread starter
- #29
While I cannot speak for the OPs, I will pose a possibility. Maybe, just maybe, they wanted to have a discussion of the topics based on how the candidates stack-up on conservative values, a subject on which liberals would not have anything of value to add.As this is in the CDZ, I presumed the OP was responsible for stating actual cases. Recent televised debates have been with presidential candidates, where the debates were by party. Looks like a baseless thread.
I did state cases. You discerned the post-CNBC commentary suggesting that Rush Limbaugh and his ilk should moderate future Republican debates is one such example. Do you want me to give links for the USMB threads to the same effect?
TY for your answer. Perhaps that's so. Yours is at least a plausible and justifiable reason/supposition for why the two threads to which I earlier referred on USMB exist as they do. The reason you posit at least assigns ownership and responsibility for "why" to the folks who want to have a discussion of the nature you've described. That's far more mature than blaming someone else for one's desire to isolate the discussion by having only conservatives involved because of "this or that" attribute of non-conservatives.
320 Years of History
Gold Member
- Thread starter
- #30
there was nothing to see.I've watched all the debates democrat and republican.As this is in the CDZ, I presumed the OP was responsible for stating actual cases. Recent televised debates have been with presidential candidates, where the debates were by party. Looks like a baseless thread.
I did state cases. You discerned the post-CNBC commentary suggesting that Rush Limbaugh and his ilk should moderate future Republican debates is one such example. Do you want me to give links for the USMB threads to the same effect?
The left's candidates will go on a debate with the MSM moderators because they will be treated with kid gloves. There is only one news network that has conservative moderators, and I doubt seriously that Hillary will face a FOX News Moderator. YOU are criticizing the GOP for not wanting to have antagonistic moderators? You are criticizing the GOP for wanting friendly moderators? That's genuinely hypocritical.
If we have a GOP debate about economic policy, the people watching want to hear about economic policy and not bull shit personal attacks or loaded questions about gay rights, or religious beliefs. If we do have a GOP debate about say, social issues and Rush or Beck or Levin are the moderators, I guarantee you that it will be about social issues. Moderators aren't supposed to sling mud. They are only supposed to ask pertinent questions and moderate the allotted time, that's it.
Imo none the mods has shown any bias toward any of the candidates however, what I have seen is certain republican candidates throw tantrums .
Gee, knock me over with a feather. I've read your posts here and I already knew you wouldn't see anything.
Ben Carson Defends His Street Cred
...and though the clip is meant to be humorous, one thing cannot be overlooked. For all else, at least once in his life, Dr. Carson willfully and violently, with a deadly weapon, attempted to kill/maim another human being.
Tell me this. Have you ever willfully sought to stab another person in the abdomen? Have you ever willfully sought to harm another person with a deadly weapon?
I sure haven't, not even as a child or teenager. I doubt I ever will. There are lots of folks who "had it rough" as kids, and a lot of them don't attempt or actually do exact bodily harm to another person.
And don't dare try to say he was practicing for a career in surgical medicine....But you can tell me what the difference is between a person that stabs (or tries to) someone and gets incarcerated for it and never does so again, and Dr. Carson...what, that is, other than that Dr. Carson's doing so didn't become widely known until the statute of limitations passed?
320 Years of History
Gold Member
- Thread starter
- #31
well this is a complete lie and nothing more than a troll thread.In all debates, let truth be thy aim, not victory, or an unjust interest.
― William Penn
There seems to be a theme these days among conservatives. They want to have televised debates where the only participants -- moderators and debators - are conservatives. On USMB, I see several threads whereby conservatives want to have discussions only with other conservatives.
I have a question. Why?
There's no point to having a discussion where no materially opposing points of view are presented. There's a reason why in school we must use dialectic structure for argumentative essays. If all one hears is validation of one's own point of view, how is one to discover whether it's actually a meritorious one? If in a deb ate, the only people asking questions are people who already see the merit of one's ideas, how is one to address the inquiries and concerns of folks who don't, folks who see flaws in the proposed ideas and want to know how one would overcome them?
I can think of only a few circumstances whereby I only want to hear from folks who agree with me:
In any other circumstance, I'm more than happy to hear solid arguments that oppose my view. I'm not convinced of my infallibility, so why not? Perhaps that's it. Maybe conservatives are so certain they are a right that they just don't need to challenge their own views?
- There is incontrovertible proof that my point of view is correct. Or in other words, there exists a valid deductive argument showing there is only one correct conclusion, and it happens to also be my conclusion.
- The parties involved are subject to me and only me. Of the seven billion people on the planet, three of them -- myself and my two youngest kids -- fall into this group.
The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum....
― Noam Chomsky, The Common Good
why do cowards hide in the cdz?
There is no lie at all. I don't at all appreciate your intimating that I'm a liar by baselessly asserting that something I wrote is a lie. Please do not do so again.
If you think that there is no thematic call from among conservatives to have debates and discussions that include only other conservatives, then please explain how the fact of both publicly known conservatives and USMB members both have made explicit calls for debates and discussions participated in by only other conservatives does not constitute a theme.
320 Years of History
Gold Member
- Thread starter
- #32
Ridiculous false premise. OP thinks that if he puts it in the CDZ it will lend it credence. It doesn't.
Please refrain from attempting to glean and articulate what I think and why I posted a thread in CDZ. If you want to know why I did, ask me.
320 Years of History
Gold Member
- Thread starter
- #33
Ok, I just checked on the date the op joined. when they are on here longer they will understand that question a little better.
...or you or others might merely answer it coherently, positively, and without blaming others, and I would know a lot sooner?
320 Years of History
Gold Member
- Thread starter
- #34
In all debates, let truth be thy aim, not victory, or an unjust interest.
― William Penn
There seems to be a theme these days among conservatives. They want to have televised debates where the only participants -- moderators and debators - are conservatives. On USMB, I see several threads whereby conservatives want to have discussions only with other conservatives.
I have a question. Why?
There's no point to having a discussion where no materially opposing points of view are presented. There's a reason why in school we must use dialectic structure for argumentative essays. If all one hears is validation of one's own point of view, how is one to discover whether it's actually a meritorious one? If in a deb ate, the only people asking questions are people who already see the merit of one's ideas, how is one to address the inquiries and concerns of folks who don't, folks who see flaws in the proposed ideas and want to know how one would overcome them?
I can think of only a few circumstances whereby I only want to hear from folks who agree with me:
In any other circumstance, I'm more than happy to hear solid arguments that oppose my view. I'm not convinced of my infallibility, so why not? Perhaps that's it. Maybe conservatives are so certain they are a right that they just don't need to challenge their own views?
- There is incontrovertible proof that my point of view is correct. Or in other words, there exists a valid deductive argument showing there is only one correct conclusion, and it happens to also be my conclusion.
- The parties involved are subject to me and only me. Of the seven billion people on the planet, three of them -- myself and my two youngest kids -- fall into this group.
The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum....
― Noam Chomsky, The Common Good
I don't see how that video answers the thread's question. Please explain.
- Moderator
- #35
Guys - this is the CDZ. Try to keep the discussion civil please.
As this is in the CDZ, I presumed the OP was responsible for stating actual cases. Recent televised debates have been with presidential candidates, where the debates were by party. Looks like a baseless thread.
I did state cases. You discerned the post-CNBC commentary suggesting that Rush Limbaugh and his ilk should moderate future Republican debates is one such example. Do you want me to give links for the USMB threads to the same effect?
Good citations, poor analysis. The principal reason for these threads is to minimize deliberate sabotage of the discussion by the usual left wing suspects (who rarely get beyond the Politics forum). If you look into these threads you will notice spirited debate and divergent opinions, in contrast to the love fests masquerading as liberal debates.
- Oct 12, 2009
- 58,613
- 10,629
- 2,030
Guys - this is the CDZ. Try to keep the discussion civil please.
Seriously? The OP was a bait thread from the start. IMO sending it to the FZ would have been a better move.
In all debates, let truth be thy aim, not victory, or an unjust interest.
― William Penn
There seems to be a theme these days among conservatives. They want to have televised debates where the only participants -- moderators and debators - are conservatives. On USMB, I see several threads whereby conservatives want to have discussions only with other conservatives.
I have a question. Why?
There's no point to having a discussion where no materially opposing points of view are presented. There's a reason why in school we must use dialectic structure for argumentative essays. If all one hears is validation of one's own point of view, how is one to discover whether it's actually a meritorious one? If in a deb ate, the only people asking questions are people who already see the merit of one's ideas, how is one to address the inquiries and concerns of folks who don't, folks who see flaws in the proposed ideas and want to know how one would overcome them?
I can think of only a few circumstances whereby I only want to hear from folks who agree with me:
In any other circumstance, I'm more than happy to hear solid arguments that oppose my view. I'm not convinced of my infallibility, so why not? Perhaps that's it. Maybe conservatives are so certain they are a right that they just don't need to challenge their own views?
- There is incontrovertible proof that my point of view is correct. Or in other words, there exists a valid deductive argument showing there is only one correct conclusion, and it happens to also be my conclusion.
- The parties involved are subject to me and only me. Of the seven billion people on the planet, three of them -- myself and my two youngest kids -- fall into this group.
The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum....
― Noam Chomsky, The Common Good
One your first question, you are in error. There was a first debate that went fine and it was on one of the liberal MSM channels. It was only the CNBC one that was bad. They complained and rightly so.
On your second question, the problem is that liberals here have several very irritating habits or intentional strategies for deception. All of them are intended to prevent them from actually answering questions or to beat their opponent down through various tedious diversion techniques until we say "fuck it" and give up.
Liberals cannot debate policy or ideas, they only talk about emotions. And the #1 tool in their arsenal is the lie. They lie, then lie about the lie, and keep on repeating the lie until basically you can't tolerate them anymore.
No Progressive will ever ever EVER change their mind. In fact they will, after having a point ripped to shreds in one thread, repeat that very same already disproven point in another thread.
So yeah, many of us will only argue with a liberal if we are bored, or want to take on an almost certainly fruitless challenge.
I don't care to even hear from them. Many have me on ignore and I'm perfectly fine with that.
Red:
??? Since when is a question ever in error?
Blue:
So your answer is that it is out of ennui, or a the absence of a desire for entertainment, that (you) conservatives want to discuss matters amongst only themselves?
Green:
Well, I have to say that for the brief time I spent posting in the general forums, I didn't see any strong arguments, at least not what I consider strong. I created two structured debate threads that present and/or request dialectic arguments and so far have found zero substantive replies that even attempt to present a point of view with similar rigor. (Debate Now - Does it make sense to accept God's existence based solely on the arguments presented for it? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum)
Maybe the topic doesn't appeal? I don't know. But even among the popular topics I haven't seen anything that constitutes a rigorous argument one way or the other. (Perhaps I just haven't seen them, but they are on here somewhere...)
Other:
I cannot deny that individuals on both sides of the aisle argue from pathos, and there's no dearth of folks who do. Nonetheless, there are some folks who will and do take the time to present a solid case for their position. However, how can one hope to gain support for one's stance if one won't take the time to present it comprehensively to the opposition?
I too don't really to see the point of a one or two sentence conclusion for which I/many have or know of zero facts to support it. Just saying "X" is so is hardly convincing.
Shame you used so many words to say so little. The only thing that comes across with any substance is that you have problems with reading comprehension. For instance, when I say your question was in error, it's simply because it is based on an error. If you knew the facts you wouldn't have asked it.
Sorry, I don't know how to keep that any simpler. The rest of your post is equally clueless.
As this is in the CDZ, I presumed the OP was responsible for stating actual cases. Recent televised debates have been with presidential candidates, where the debates were by party. Looks like a baseless thread.
I did state cases. You discerned the post-CNBC commentary suggesting that Rush Limbaugh and his ilk should moderate future Republican debates is one such example. Do you want me to give links for the USMB threads to the same effect?
The left's candidates will go on a debate with the MSM moderators because they will be treated with kid gloves. There is only one news network that has conservative moderators, and I doubt seriously that Hillary will face a FOX News Moderator. YOU are criticizing the GOP for not wanting to have antagonistic moderators? You are criticizing the GOP for wanting friendly moderators? That's genuinely hypocritical.
If we have a GOP debate about economic policy, the people watching want to hear about economic policy and not bullshit personal attacks or loaded questions about gay rights, or religious beliefs. If we do have a GOP debate about say, social issues and Rush or Beck or Levin are the moderators, I guarantee you that it will be about social issues. Moderators aren't supposed to sling mud. They are only supposed to ask pertinent questions and moderate the allotted time, that's it.
Red:
There's no hypocrisy to it for two reasons:
Blue:
- Democratic party national candidates for public office, or their advocates, haven't yet made the plea that the moderators of their debates should be of any given political disposition.
- It's not possible for an inquirer to ask someone to explain the justification for a request that person articulated and the inquirer be the one exhibiting hypocrisy by asking.
There is no such thing as a "loaded" question. There are only questions that are harder or easier to answer, harder or easier to relate to one or more aspects of one's platform/position(s). People who can take hard to answer questions and turn them on their edge and effectively correlate the question with something of substance deserve commendation. Those who cannot should sit down, shut up, and let others who can have the floor.
Again, you need help with reading. The left doesn't have to ask, the MSM is already on their side. If they don't face FOX News or some right wing moderator, then the bias toward them is intrinsic. For you to criticize them for wanting at least an unbiased moderator is in fact quite hupocritical.
No such thing as a "loaded" question? You can't be serious.
there was nothing to see.I've watched all the debates democrat and republican.As this is in the CDZ, I presumed the OP was responsible for stating actual cases. Recent televised debates have been with presidential candidates, where the debates were by party. Looks like a baseless thread.
I did state cases. You discerned the post-CNBC commentary suggesting that Rush Limbaugh and his ilk should moderate future Republican debates is one such example. Do you want me to give links for the USMB threads to the same effect?
The left's candidates will go on a debate with the MSM moderators because they will be treated with kid gloves. There is only one news network that has conservative moderators, and I doubt seriously that Hillary will face a FOX News Moderator. YOU are criticizing the GOP for not wanting to have antagonistic moderators? You are criticizing the GOP for wanting friendly moderators? That's genuinely hypocritical.
If we have a GOP debate about economic policy, the people watching want to hear about economic policy and not bull shit personal attacks or loaded questions about gay rights, or religious beliefs. If we do have a GOP debate about say, social issues and Rush or Beck or Levin are the moderators, I guarantee you that it will be about social issues. Moderators aren't supposed to sling mud. They are only supposed to ask pertinent questions and moderate the allotted time, that's it.
Imo none the mods has shown any bias toward any of the candidates however, what I have seen is certain republican candidates throw tantrums .
Gee, knock me over with a feather. I've read your posts here and I already knew you wouldn't see anything.
Ben Carson Defends His Street Cred
Again, a lefty only seeing what he or she or it wants to see, is nothing new.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 28
- Views
- 367
- Replies
- 2
- Views
- 148
- Replies
- 77
- Views
- 825
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 76
- Views
- 239
- Replies
- 182
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 164
- Views
- 844
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8099
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 471
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-