Doc1
Gold Member
If I understand you correctly, you are making the point that ONLY your interpretations of words matter, not the real, accepted translations?
Another Proud Liberal...
- Thread starter PoliticalChic
- Start date
If I understand you correctly, you are making the point that ONLY your interpretations of words matter, not the real, accepted translations?
Meathead
Diamond Member
today "dementia" is also a synonym.
- Thread starter
- #43
Doc1
Gold Member
Assuming you are indeed a "smart, tough, opinionated and articulate" woman, you don't intimidate or threaten me at all and neither does she. She however is none of those things, she is a run of the mill leftwing fascist bully. She would not want to assault me as she did the gentleman in the video.
NightFox
Wildling
The "progressives" changed their moniker to "liberal" after the common citizenry figured out what progressives really stood for, now that they've dirtied up the "liberal" moniker they're changing back to "progressives" again; regardless of what mask they choose to wear they're still the same authoritarian, ends justify the means, government worshipers they always were.
Again, total ******* bullshit. You conveniently cut out the part of the post that sends your bullshit term "classical liberalism" down the toilet. Let's see again what you edited out as inconvenient. Roll tape.
>> "Classical Liberalism" does not exist as such. Liberalism is Liberalism, period. You don't get to pull a word inside out and turn it into its own opposite by appending the adjective "Classical" just because you can't be bothered to appreciate what the term actually means We actually do have a word for that process. It's called "Doublethink". <<
Not bad. Roll another one, just like the other one....
>> Liberalism first became a distinct political movement during the Age of Enlightenment, when it became popular among philosophers and economists in the Western world. Liberalism rejected the prevailing social and political norms of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings. The 17th-century philosopher John Locke is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition. Locke argued that each man has a natural right to life, liberty and property,[12] while adding that governments must not violate these rights based on the social contract. Liberals opposed traditional conservatism and sought to replace absolutism in government with representative democracy and the rule of law. << (Wiki)
Liberalism then, wrested the power from the theretofore-extant channels of the Clergy and Aristocracy (first and second Estates) and sent it to the Third Estate, which we call We the People. That's history, Spandexia, and you can't change it.
What you're trying to do here is nakedly transparent and has been so since the post-WW2 Red Scare era when your demogogue god Joe McCarthy tried the same thing --- conflate "Liberalism" with "leftism" and then proceed to dehumanize and denigrate both. And you do that because State-worshiping authoritarians like you just can't stand the idea of a government that declines to butt into people's personal lives declaring who they can hang with, what they can say and what religion they can follow. Scary stuff. Too bad. That's the Constitution and it ain't going nowhere, like it or lump it.
You're playing with the language as a strategy to break that down. Ain't gonna happen on my watch, snookums. You may as well abandon these façile oxymoronic flailing attempts to be clever such as "liberal fasist". That's the equivalent of "pacifist warmonger". It's not fooling anybody but the OP.
Last edited:
Marion Morrison
Diamond Member
- Feb 10, 2017
- 59,298
- 16,870
- 2,190
- Banned
- #47
I just call them Communists. It's what they are. Social Marxist Communists.
BlindBoo
Diamond Member
- Sep 28, 2010
- 58,696
- 17,633
- 2,250
You posted "Violence is inexcusable blah blah blah..."
Your use of "blah blah blah" can only mean that I don't really believe what I said and that I actually approve of mob violence. At least that's the way I took it. Why did you mean it some other way?
NightFox
Wildling
LOL, way to destroy your own argument, John Locke had nothing in common with those members of the American Left that have managed to hijack the "liberal" moniker, thus the need for the classical designation to distinguish the founders mode of liberalism from the modern authoritarians hiding behind the "liberal" mask to hide the fact that their answer to every problem is the use of government force to deprive the citizenry of liberty and property pursuant to getting their own way.
The founders had a fitting moniker for those who thought and behaved the way modern "liberals" do, they called them "royalists".
Doc1
Gold Member
Again, total ******* bullshit. You conveniently cut out the part of the post that sends your bullshit term "classical liberalism" down the toilet. Let's see again what you edited out as inconvenient. Roll tape.
>> "Classical Liberalism" does not exist as such. Liberalism is Liberalism, period. You don't get to pull a word inside out and turn it into its own opposite by appending the adjective "Classical" just because you can't be bothered to appreciate what the term actually means We actually do have a word for that process. It's called "Doublethink". <<
Not bad. Roll another one, just like the other one....
>> Liberalism first became a distinct political movement during the Age of Enlightenment, when it became popular among philosophers and economists in the Western world. Liberalism rejected the prevailing social and political norms of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings. The 17th-century philosopher John Locke is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition. Locke argued that each man has a natural right to life, liberty and property,[12] while adding that governments must not violate these rights based on the social contract. Liberals opposed traditional conservatism and sought to replace absolutism in government with representative democracy and the rule of law. << (Wiki)
Liberalism then, wrested the power from the theretofore-extant channels of the Clergy and Aristocracy (first and second Estates) and sent it to the Third Estate, which we call We the People. That's history, Spandexia, and you can't change it.
What you're trying to do here is nakedly transparent and has been so since the post-WW2 Red Scare era when your demogogue god Joe McCarthy tried the same thing --- conflate "Liberalism" with "leftism" and then proceed to dehumanize and denigrate both. And you do that because State-worshiping authoritarians like you just can't stand the idea of a government that declines to butt into people's personal lives declaring who they can hang with, what they can say and what religion they can follow. Scary stuff. Too bad. That's the Constitution and it ain't going nowhere, like it or lump it.
You're playing with the language as a strategy to break that down. Ain't gonna happen on my watch, snookums. You may as well abandon these façile oxymoronic flailing attempts to be clever such as "liberal fasist". That's the equivalent of "pacifist warmonger". It's not fooling anybody but the OP.
Pure projection. Outside of your own basement and keyboard you do not get to push your definitions on anyone else. It is quite obvious that you have an extreme and highly unwarranted view of yourself. It is a very common tactic of you Lefty's to try and control the language so that you can control the narrative. It won't play here sunshine
That tactic will only work in the shallow end of the pool.
- Thread starter
- #51
Again, total ******* bullshit. You conveniently cut out the part of the post that sends your bullshit term "classical liberalism" down the toilet. Let's see again what you edited out as inconvenient. Roll tape.
>> "Classical Liberalism" does not exist as such. Liberalism is Liberalism, period. You don't get to pull a word inside out and turn it into its own opposite by appending the adjective "Classical" just because you can't be bothered to appreciate what the term actually means We actually do have a word for that process. It's called "Doublethink". <<
Not bad. Roll another one, just like the other one....
>> Liberalism first became a distinct political movement during the Age of Enlightenment, when it became popular among philosophers and economists in the Western world. Liberalism rejected the prevailing social and political norms of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings. The 17th-century philosopher John Locke is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition. Locke argued that each man has a natural right to life, liberty and property,[12] while adding that governments must not violate these rights based on the social contract. Liberals opposed traditional conservatism and sought to replace absolutism in government with representative democracy and the rule of law. << (Wiki)
Liberalism then, wrested the power from the theretofore-extant channels of the Clergy and Aristocracy (first and second Estates) and sent it to the Third Estate, which we call We the People. That's history, Spandexia, and you can't change it.
What you're trying to do here is nakedly transparent and has been so since the post-WW2 Red Scare era when your demogogue god Joe McCarthy tried the same thing --- conflate "Liberalism" with "leftism" and then proceed to dehumanize and denigrate both. And you do that because State-worshiping authoritarians like you just can't stand the idea of a government that declines to butt into people's personal lives declaring who they can hang with, what they can say and what religion they can follow. Scary stuff. Too bad. That's the Constitution and it ain't going nowhere, like it or lump it.
You're playing with the language as a strategy to break that down. Ain't gonna happen on my watch, snookums. You may as well abandon these façile oxymoronic flailing attempts to be clever such as "liberal fasist". That's the equivalent of "pacifist warmonger". It's not fooling anybody but the OP.
Gutter language is a well-known trait of one who recognizes that they've lost the argument. Defaulting to vulgarity proves that your thoughts are no more articulated on this subject than on any other.: a second-rater with a third grader's vocabulary.
Everything I post is accurate, correct and true.
You, of course, cannot claim the same.
- Thread starter
- #52
I just call them Communists. It's what they are. Social Marxist Communists.
True.
There is not a whit of difference between the goals of Liberals, Socialists, Communists, Nazis, Progressives or Fascists.
- Thread starter
- #53
Soooo....you were lying when you claimed I said you "advocated mob violence as a means to quell free speech, or resolve any political dispute."
Excellent.
Don't do it again.
Again, total ******* bullshit. You conveniently cut out the part of the post that sends your bullshit term "classical liberalism" down the toilet. Let's see again what you edited out as inconvenient. Roll tape.
>> "Classical Liberalism" does not exist as such. Liberalism is Liberalism, period. You don't get to pull a word inside out and turn it into its own opposite by appending the adjective "Classical" just because you can't be bothered to appreciate what the term actually means We actually do have a word for that process. It's called "Doublethink". <<
Not bad. Roll another one, just like the other one....
>> Liberalism first became a distinct political movement during the Age of Enlightenment, when it became popular among philosophers and economists in the Western world. Liberalism rejected the prevailing social and political norms of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings. The 17th-century philosopher John Locke is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition. Locke argued that each man has a natural right to life, liberty and property,[12] while adding that governments must not violate these rights based on the social contract. Liberals opposed traditional conservatism and sought to replace absolutism in government with representative democracy and the rule of law. << (Wiki)
Liberalism then, wrested the power from the theretofore-extant channels of the Clergy and Aristocracy (first and second Estates) and sent it to the Third Estate, which we call We the People. That's history, Spandexia, and you can't change it.
What you're trying to do here is nakedly transparent and has been so since the post-WW2 Red Scare era when your demogogue god Joe McCarthy tried the same thing --- conflate "Liberalism" with "leftism" and then proceed to dehumanize and denigrate both. And you do that because State-worshiping authoritarians like you just can't stand the idea of a government that declines to butt into people's personal lives declaring who they can hang with, what they can say and what religion they can follow. Scary stuff. Too bad. That's the Constitution and it ain't going nowhere, like it or lump it.
You're playing with the language as a strategy to break that down. Ain't gonna happen on my watch, snookums. You may as well abandon these façile oxymoronic flailing attempts to be clever such as "liberal fasist". That's the equivalent of "pacifist warmonger". It's not fooling anybody but the OP.
Pure projection. Outside of your own basement and keyboard you do not get to push your definitions on anyone else. It is quite obvious that you have an extreme and highly unwarranted view of yourself. It is a very common tactic of you Lefty's to try and control the language so that you can control the narrative. It won't play here sunshine
Revealing "projection" indeed since absolutely NOTHING I posted was about "myself". Is our widdle butt hurt because we happened upon some new info we weren't ready for?
Guess what Gummo --- it's a discussion board. That's what happens.Here, try this on for size, asshat.
>> One of the major problems in American political consciousness today comes from a misrepresentation of the political spectrum. This is partly the result of a deliberate effort to put all of America's enemies (fascists and communists) into the same basket after World War II, and a deliberate effort by the American "Right" to classify everything that they oppose as "Leftist". After World War II the Republican Party was struggling for survival and was in the process of reinventing itself. Part of the political strategy of some Republicans was to portray the Democratic Party of Truman and Franklin D. Roosevelt as "Red," thereby associating "Liberalism" with "Socialism". It was a common tactic during the 1950s to accuse Democrats of being "Communists" or "Communist sympathizers", a tactic that worked well during the McCarthy era and has had a lasting impact on how Americans view politics.
... One of the first things that has to be done in order to properly understand the full spectrum of political ideas is to correct the popular misconception of the term "liberal" in America.
Liberal, in the classical sense of the word, simply means a "hands off", or laissez-faire, policy. The United States is classically seen as an example of "liberal democracy," as George Washington stated in 1790:
Of course, these high ideals didn't exactly reflect the social reality in America at that time, where slavery was still widespread and bigotry of all kinds was still part of the social consciousness, but nevertheless the American government created by the founders represented a great advance for liberalism.
America was founded on the idea that government was to play a minimal role in the affairs of society and the economy - that the job of the government was not to provide direction for society or the economy, but simply to maintain a "free environment" were the public could conduct themselves as they so chose, as long as they didn't "infringe" on the "rights" of others ("others" at that time meaning white male property owners).
... the misuse of the term Liberal is itself part of the problem with how Americans view the political spectrum, so this needs to addressed and corrected.
What is the popular concept of "Liberal" in America today?
The current popular concept of "Liberal" is often "Leftist" and is associated with "big government," economic regulation, progressive taxation, and progressive social policy, such as support for gay rights, unlimited free speech and Affirmative Action.
With the exception of gay rights and free speech, none of these other issues are actually "Liberal" policies in the classical sense. Furthermore, liberalism, in either the classical sense or the current common usage, is not "Leftist" in a full political spectrum.
Liberalism views government like a referee, whose job is to maintain a level and equal playing field for individuals, ideas, businesses and institutions. Government is not to take sides or support any given view or organization. Conservatives, socialists, and others, i.e. the "Left" and the "Right", seek to use government to promote certain agendas, viewpoints, institutions, and interests.
This is critical to understand if one is to understand the political landscape of the 20th century. << (emphases added)
... One of the first things that has to be done in order to properly understand the full spectrum of political ideas is to correct the popular misconception of the term "liberal" in America.
Liberal, in the classical sense of the word, simply means a "hands off", or laissez-faire, policy. The United States is classically seen as an example of "liberal democracy," as George Washington stated in 1790:
The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights.
Of course, these high ideals didn't exactly reflect the social reality in America at that time, where slavery was still widespread and bigotry of all kinds was still part of the social consciousness, but nevertheless the American government created by the founders represented a great advance for liberalism.
America was founded on the idea that government was to play a minimal role in the affairs of society and the economy - that the job of the government was not to provide direction for society or the economy, but simply to maintain a "free environment" were the public could conduct themselves as they so chose, as long as they didn't "infringe" on the "rights" of others ("others" at that time meaning white male property owners).
... the misuse of the term Liberal is itself part of the problem with how Americans view the political spectrum, so this needs to addressed and corrected.
What is the popular concept of "Liberal" in America today?
The current popular concept of "Liberal" is often "Leftist" and is associated with "big government," economic regulation, progressive taxation, and progressive social policy, such as support for gay rights, unlimited free speech and Affirmative Action.
With the exception of gay rights and free speech, none of these other issues are actually "Liberal" policies in the classical sense. Furthermore, liberalism, in either the classical sense or the current common usage, is not "Leftist" in a full political spectrum.
Liberalism views government like a referee, whose job is to maintain a level and equal playing field for individuals, ideas, businesses and institutions. Government is not to take sides or support any given view or organization. Conservatives, socialists, and others, i.e. the "Left" and the "Right", seek to use government to promote certain agendas, viewpoints, institutions, and interests.
This is critical to understand if one is to understand the political landscape of the 20th century. << (emphases added)
--- more, far more, at the link, which somehow astoundingly manages to get through 30 pages without ever mentioning "me".
Again ---- this is a 70 year old McCarthyist bullshit tactic, the goal of which is conflation of terms leading to demonization of "Liberalism", our founding fuel, leading to the Authoritarian/fascist ein-Partei State that useful idiots like the OP really want. A State where they get to direct everything and anybody who doesn't like it can STFU. Again --- ain't gonna happen as long as We the People remain standing.
BlindBoo
Diamond Member
- Sep 28, 2010
- 58,696
- 17,633
- 2,250
No not at all. Your ambiguous "blah blah blah" says it all, oh queen of precision. Then you followed that with:
You have supported the Left in nearly every one of your posts.....and violence is the language and default of the Left...
Furthermore I never claimed that you said that. Claiming that I did is an out right lie.
But that's your MO isn't it?
Doc1
Gold Member
Again, total ******* bullshit. You conveniently cut out the part of the post that sends your bullshit term "classical liberalism" down the toilet. Let's see again what you edited out as inconvenient. Roll tape.
>> "Classical Liberalism" does not exist as such. Liberalism is Liberalism, period. You don't get to pull a word inside out and turn it into its own opposite by appending the adjective "Classical" just because you can't be bothered to appreciate what the term actually means We actually do have a word for that process. It's called "Doublethink". <<
Not bad. Roll another one, just like the other one....
>> Liberalism first became a distinct political movement during the Age of Enlightenment, when it became popular among philosophers and economists in the Western world. Liberalism rejected the prevailing social and political norms of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings. The 17th-century philosopher John Locke is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition. Locke argued that each man has a natural right to life, liberty and property,[12] while adding that governments must not violate these rights based on the social contract. Liberals opposed traditional conservatism and sought to replace absolutism in government with representative democracy and the rule of law. << (Wiki)
Liberalism then, wrested the power from the theretofore-extant channels of the Clergy and Aristocracy (first and second Estates) and sent it to the Third Estate, which we call We the People. That's history, Spandexia, and you can't change it.
What you're trying to do here is nakedly transparent and has been so since the post-WW2 Red Scare era when your demogogue god Joe McCarthy tried the same thing --- conflate "Liberalism" with "leftism" and then proceed to dehumanize and denigrate both. And you do that because State-worshiping authoritarians like you just can't stand the idea of a government that declines to butt into people's personal lives declaring who they can hang with, what they can say and what religion they can follow. Scary stuff. Too bad. That's the Constitution and it ain't going nowhere, like it or lump it.
You're playing with the language as a strategy to break that down. Ain't gonna happen on my watch, snookums. You may as well abandon these façile oxymoronic flailing attempts to be clever such as "liberal fasist". That's the equivalent of "pacifist warmonger". It's not fooling anybody but the OP.
Pure projection. Outside of your own basement and keyboard you do not get to push your definitions on anyone else. It is quite obvious that you have an extreme and highly unwarranted view of yourself. It is a very common tactic of you Lefty's to try and control the language so that you can control the narrative. It won't play here sunshine
Revealing "projection" indeed since absolutely NOTHING I posted was about "myself". Is our widdle butt hurt because we happened upon some new info we weren't ready for?
Here, try this on for size, asshat.
>> One of the major problems in American political consciousness today comes from a misrepresentation of the political spectrum. This is partly the result of a deliberate effort to put all of America's enemies (fascists and communists) into the same basket after World War II, and a deliberate effort by the American "Right" to classify everything that they oppose as "Leftist". After World War II the Republican Party was struggling for survival and was in the process of reinventing itself. Part of the political strategy of some Republicans was to portray the Democratic Party of Truman and Franklin D. Roosevelt as "Red," thereby associating "Liberalism" with "Socialism". It was a common tactic during the 1950s to accuse Democrats of being "Communists" or "Communist sympathizers", a tactic that worked well during the McCarthy era and has had a lasting impact on how Americans view politics.--- more, far more, at the link, which somehow astoundingly manages to get through 30 pages without ever mentioning "me".
... One of the first things that has to be done in order to properly understand the full spectrum of political ideas is to correct the popular misconception of the term "liberal" in America.
Liberal, in the classical sense of the word, simply means a "hands off", or laissez-faire, policy. The United States is classically seen as an example of "liberal democracy," as George Washington stated in 1790:
The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights.Of course, these high ideals didn't exactly reflect the social reality in America at that time, where slavery was still widespread and bigotry of all kinds was still part of the social consciousness, but nevertheless the American government created by the founders represented a great advance for liberalism.
America was founded on the idea that government was to play a minimal role in the affairs of society and the economy - that the job of the government was not to provide direction for society or the economy, but simply to maintain a "free environment" were the public could conduct themselves as they so chose, as long as they didn't "infringe" on the "rights" of others ("others" at that time meaning white male property owners).
... the misuse of the term Liberal is itself part of the problem with how Americans view the political spectrum, so this needs to addressed and corrected.
What is the popular concept of "Liberal" in America today?
The current popular concept of "Liberal" is often "Leftist" and is associated with "big government," economic regulation, progressive taxation, and progressive social policy, such as support for gay rights, unlimited free speech and Affirmative Action.
With the exception of gay rights and free speech, none of these other issues are actually "Liberal" policies in the classical sense. Furthermore, liberalism, in either the classical sense or the current common usage, is not "Leftist" in a full political spectrum.
Liberalism views government like a referee, whose job is to maintain a level and equal playing field for individuals, ideas, businesses and institutions. Government is not to take sides or support any given view or organization. Conservatives, socialists, and others, i.e. the "Left" and the "Right", seek to use government to promote certain agendas, viewpoints, institutions, and interests.
This is critical to understand if one is to understand the political landscape of the 20th century. << (emphases added)
Again ---- this is a 70 year old McCarthyist bullshit tactic, the goal of which is conflation of terms leading to demonization of "Liberalism", our founding fuel, leading to the Authoritarian/fascist ein-Partei State that useful idiots like the OP really want. A State where they get to direct everything and anybody who doesn't like it can STFU. Again --- ain't gonna happen as long as We the People remain standing.
You prove my point sista girl. You've chosen the source you want to believe because it fits your "paradigm". To put it more plainly, you arrived at your conclusion and simply selected a source that "proves" you are right. Classic tactic of the weak. I always find it ironic that you little folk always take on the very characteristics of the things you accuse everyone else of, another tactic of the Left. We've established this, you can cut and paste, you can call names, and you can feign superiority. Once again sista, the shallow end is down the hall.
Mac1958
Diamond Member
This lady is a good example of the Regressive Left: Judge, jury and executioner.
She'll decide what is fascism, she'll decide when it is being perpetrated, and she'll decide on the punishment.
The concepts of freedom of speech and freedom of expression are up to her personal interpretation only.
This is why freedom of expression is so critical: It exposes people like this for what they are, loud and clear.
.
She'll decide what is fascism, she'll decide when it is being perpetrated, and she'll decide on the punishment.
The concepts of freedom of speech and freedom of expression are up to her personal interpretation only.
This is why freedom of expression is so critical: It exposes people like this for what they are, loud and clear.
.
- Thread starter
- #58
"This lady is a good example of the Regressive Left: Judge, jury and executioner."
I hope you're not suggesting that she represents a mere minority of Liberals.....
She operates without fear because she represents the majority of Democrats/Liberals...if not the means, at least the ends.
I hope you haven't forgotten this:
- Thread starter
- #59
You need be slapped around again???
No problem....in fact, my pleasure.
I don't want your spin, your attempt to 'interpret' what I said.....just provide what I said, and it will prove you to be a lying low-life, or, typical Liberal.
You were lying when you claimed I said you "advocated mob violence as a means to quell free speech, or resolve any political dispute."
I always say what I mean, and mean what I say.
You don't, because truth is less important to you.
You are simply one more boilerplate Liberal, following Georges Sorel...
Georges Eugène Sorel (2 November 1847 in Cherbourg – 29 August 1922 in Boulogne-sur-Seine) was a French philosopher and theorist of revolutionary syndicalism. His notion of the power of myth in people's lives inspired Marxists and Fascists, it is, together with his defense of violence, the contribution for which he is most often remembered. Georges Sorel - Wikipedia
For Sorel, and for you, your statements need not be true to be of value.
In this case, you've attempted to shield yourself from the contumely you deserve by advancing a lie.
Sun Devil 92
Diamond Member
- Apr 2, 2015
- 32,078
- 11,114
- 1,410
- Banned
- #60
Why didn't that guy in the clip shove that pole down her throat ?
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Canada and Denmark are now enemies of the United States- Started by Anarchy666
- Replies: 10
-
Pete Hegseth's Pastor "I pray that God kills him (James Talarico)"- Started by citygator
- Replies: 11
-
California Sheriff Seizes Half Million Ballots in Voter Fraud Investigation- Started by excalibur
- Replies: 2
-
Husband and wife experience Delores park in San Francisco... wow- Started by Robert W
- Replies: 0
Latest Discussions
-
Trump ultimatum: Open Hormuz in 48-hours or your powerplants will be destroyed. (Poll)- Latest: Admiral Rockwell Tory
-
-
