Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

The Coward of Caledonia?


Recommended Posts

Yes, NA pre European contact was a utopia. Now I understand.

I never said it was utopia (all though many Jesuits were chastised by the Church for calling it "Paradise" in their reports). But neither was pre-contact Europe a utopia either. It was full of disease, unsanitary, indebted lower classes, and dirt farmers trying to subsist off of cabbages and rye. Technology did not give them a good life and most had more work to do than pre-contact Iroquois, in comparison. Communities of 5,000 to 25,000 people had an ordered and prosperous life where everyone shared in the workload and in the bounty. Life there was not too hard in comparison.

As I said earlier, pre-contact Europeans were not more advance the pre-contact Iroquois people. What you don;t understand are the facts, not some bubblegum history cards they taught you at school.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 402
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Smallc, I don't think you have interpreted Sentence 1 incorrectly. There is nothing unreasonable about the Aboriginal land claims from a historical perspective. The passage of time and the escalation of property and economic value has simply worked to expand the dimensions of the crimes committed against them.
You mean the lack of entitlement to a windfall is a "crime"? Are you saying that the FN's created the wealth in former Fort York (now known as Toronto)?
Link to post
Share on other sites
You mean the lack of entitlement to a windfall is a "crime"? Are you saying that the FN's created the wealth in former Fort York (now known as Toronto)?

You mean Taiaiagon, formerly Fort York and now Toronto?

All of Toronto was a Seneca Village long before any settlers showed up. Under the Royal Proclamation 1763 the British were required to obtain a surrender before they could occupy the land (being Indian Lands). This was never done.

Low and behold the Mississauga have a claim in for Toronto. They have already received the notification that they still hold title of Toronto Islands and it will just be a matter of time before they settle for the rest of Toronto.

It doesn't matter what happened to the land after the illegal occupation but it does matter that it was stolen without the Iroquois' consent.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Low and behold the Mississauga have a claim in for Toronto. They have already received the notification that they still hold title of Toronto Islands and it will just be a matter of time before they settle for the rest of Toronto.

It doesn't matter what happened to the land after the illegal occupation but it does matter that it was stolen without the Iroquois' consent.

Do you think it is financially or politically possible for Taiaiagon to be returned?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you think it is financially or politically possible for Taiaiagon to be returned?

No of course not. But there is a possibility of returning an equivalent acreage and cash for loss of use. The option that is being sought at Six Nations and the Haldimand is to return jurisdiction over the land, return all vacant and public properties to Six Nations for their exclusive use and provide cash in leiu of those lands that cannot be returned.

IN the case of Tyendinga and Deseronto, the Mohawks there seek immediate return of all of the Culbertson tract to their jurisdiction (which includes about 980 acres part of which is half of Deseronto, and have the government buy-out those residents that want to leave and hand over their properties to the Mohawks. They are also seeking cash for loss of use. This BTW was the solution at Shannonville just 10 years ago. There are still some non-natives living there, and when they are ready to sell their properties the government will buy them out. Since more than half of the residents of Deseronto are native, it is a difference kettle of fish.

Link to post
Share on other sites
There are definitions for such things, as can be seen above.

European society has been organized in this way for a long time. The fact is, first nations people were behind Europeans when said Europeans arrived. Its not based on any type of bias, its based on fact. There is almost no category under which first nation society could be seen as more advances or less crude than the societies of the old world, particularly of Europe.

Seems to me, that some people have a problem being presented with historical and current facts when it does not support their position, but yet they are very happy to return it. I'm not even sure what kind of point your trying to make with much of what you say. Trying to portray people as bigots and religious zealots doesn't make the truth go away.

Now, back to the original topic.

My point is what you claim is a fact is not, it is your subjective personal view based on your own cultural bias. The method in which you define superiority is subjective not factual. What is "less crude"? Read that back. "Crude" is a classic example of a social construct based on one's cultural bias from the way they were brought up.

What is crude in one culture would not be considered crude in another. So who decides which society's interpretation is superior? You?

You are not sure what my point is? Here let me be even more simple-what you consider superior is based on what? Fact or subjective bias? That is what I ask you to challenge.

My point? The same one an anthroplogist would make when examining different societies-try remain neutral to moral values and judgements. Compare for similiarities and differences but resist the urge to assume one is better then the other.

All I am going to say is, the most important factors you should be looking at to define an ideal society, i.e., lack of violence and war, an ability to share and be peaceful and tolerant, seem to be basic "things" you ignore in favour of what? Gunpowder? Technology? Do you not think that much of our technology that you think makes us superior may in fact do the exact opposite? Do you think living in toxic filth makes you advanced?

Do you think being able to make weapons that can kill millions makes you more advanced?

Really?

Is it any wonder Christians spent so many centuries engaging in genocide in the name of Jesus and moral superiority? You think your value system to determine superiority is any different then what fundamentalist terrorists do-assuming what you believe is fact and truth when it in fact is nothing more then your subjective beliefs?

Edited by Rue
Link to post
Share on other sites
My point is what you claim is a fact is not, it is your subjective personal view based on your own cultural bias. The method in which you define superiority is subjective not factual. What is "less crude"? Read that back. "Crude" is a classic example of a social construct based on one's cultural bias from the way they were brought up.

What is crude in one culture would not be considered crude in another. So who decides which society's interpretation is superior? You?

You are not sure what my point is? Here let me be even more simple-what you consider superior is based on what? Fact or subjective bias? That is what I ask you to challenge.

My point? The same one an anthroplogist would make when examining different societies-try remain neutral to moral values and judgements. Compare for similiarities and differences but resist the urge to assume one is better then the other.

I gave you the definition of a civilization. Most native cultures - did not - talking on an objective view, meet that criteria. Its not up to you to unilaterally change the definition to make your point.

All I am going to say is, the most important factors you should be looking at to define an ideal society, i.e., lack of violence and war, an ability to share and be peaceful and tolerant, seem to be basic "things" you ignore in favour of what? Gunpowder? Technology? Do you not think that much of our technology that you think makes us superior may in fact do the exact opposite? Do you think living in toxic filth makes you advanced?

why should I look for the things that - you - think are important? I have to add to that the fact that many native people were very violent before contact and many of them did not share well. Again, it wasn't a paradise, and the facts are there to find, all you have to do is look.

Do you think being able to make weapons that can kill millions makes you more advanced?

Really?

Is it any wonder Christians spent so many centuries engaging in genocide in the name of Jesus and moral superiority? You think your value system to determine superiority is any different then what fundamentalist terrorists do-assuming what you believe is fact and truth when it in fact is nothing more then your subjective beliefs?

What about the ability to make medicine, to be able to grow more on less, to have a much longer length of life and standard of living? Gun powder was not just important in terms of war, and your very narrow view doesn't seem to allow you to see that.

You seem to be fixated on religion and you seem to think that I'm some kind of bible thumper. I am not, I am a Liberal by most accounts. I do believe in God, but I have no place for religion because it is just another thing that divides people. People can disagree with your point and at the same time not be an ultra right wind conservative.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I gave you the definition of a civilization. Most native cultures - did not - talking on an objective view, meet that criteria. Its not up to you to unilaterally change the definition to make your point.

why should I look for the things that - you - think are important? I have to add to that the fact that many native people were very violent before contact and many of them did not share well. Again, it wasn't a paradise, and the facts are there to find, all you have to do is look.

What about the ability to make medicine, to be able to grow more on less, to have a much longer length of life and standard of living? Gun powder was not just important in terms of war, and your very narrow view doesn't seem to allow you to see that.

You seem to be fixated on religion and you seem to think that I'm some kind of bible thumper. I am not, I am a Liberal by most accounts. I do believe in God, but I have no place for religion because it is just another thing that divides people. People can disagree with your point and at the same time not be an ultra right wind conservative.

Ha ha ha ha ha. That's the most ignorant piece of tripe in this thread so far. You even beat out AngieThermous for the Blockhead Award!

You just have to look....how about you start looking at reality and get off of that 6th grade history text you have been referencing?

Medicines come from plants or minerals. Native peoples were doing that long before Europeans realized that if they cut themselves they would bleed. Many if not most of the modern medicines come from either Native or Chinese knowledge base. Hell, the guys that first floated over here on their boats from Great Britain didn't even know how to cure scurvy and if the natives here hadn't given them the cure, they would have all perished before their first winter. Aspirin was offer to the settlers as was a plethora of other herbal reme3dies still in use today. What a frigging joke.

"Gun powder was not just important in terms of war...." Ha ha ha ha ha ha another bonehead assertion. Wot it was important in terms of blowing up mountains (and poor China men as well), or do you think that the early settlers marveled in 4th of July fireworks? What an ultra maroon....

YOUR narrow view makes you a religious conservative zealot by default. Only a self-exiled, dogmatic putz would hold such pedantic views.

Oh! Look who just entered the discussion again......

. | .

. | .

. | .

\ . /

.V.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sorry, but it is fair. There was just as much in the way of resources available here as in Europe.. So much, that the native groups in Central and South America began to make use of them. North American natives did not have something that fits the definition of a civilization and were nearly 1000 years behind Europeans (and by some accounts more).

My Western Civilization professor put it best. European society did not invent many of the things that they used to spread out in the world, but there was no one else who was able to put the things together in such a way. The printing press, paper, gunpowder, and sailing ships were an example of such things.

Sorry, the horse was the main difference. It was the difference in war, it was the difference in agriculture, it was the difference in transportation, it was the difference in mining, it was an important food animal. Humans owe virtually all important developments from the time horses were first domesticated to the versatility of horses. That's why there are so many breeds and why horses are so revered even today.

Early large scale mining depended on horses to move ore and finished product. Other animals were used as well, but no other animal was so versatile and able to work in so many environments.

Certainly lots of developments of all sorts don't appear to have any relationship to horses. But when you drill down through the relationships between one thing leading to another, you eventually find horses were essential early elements at the start of it all.

Horses did not reappear back in North America until the Spanish conquests in central America and the southern US. They spread from there. North American natives didn't have very long to explore their relationship with horses but in the short time they had them, they became, on average better horsemen than Europeans. Their horses were superior in terms of hardiness and stamina too and if you take the time to research the movie Hidalgo, you'll find an explanation of why.

Being ahead in industrial development has not turned out to be a good thing for the planet or the species that live on it in any way. We are the only species to have enjoyed a brief respite from the survival of the fittest regime and that is only temporary lasting at most 6 generations. That respite has ended and the average human life expectancy will diminish for today's children for the first time in recorded history due entirely to our (Europeans) having mismanaged the global environment.

Most people alive today are not materially better off that they would be if things had progressed more slowly with attention and respect given to environmental factors. Western developed nations and China's elite do not make up most people. And if you count the genetic damage being done to our descendants through our inhaling of VOCs and other poisons, you can't count many of those either.

To compare the printing press with the Aboriginal method of committing events to memory is a matter of viewpoint. Aboriginal verbal histories have been shown to be accurate as far back as the written word allows. But since the Aboriginal verbal history goes back further still, which is better?

Story telling as a living art versus reading a book is two sides of the same thing. Which is better? Both are immensely enjoyable. Story telling destroys nothing environmentally. Reading books and newspapers is denuding the planet, changing weather patterns, habitats and causing human starvation and species extinctions world wide.

Loss of trees for industrial and commercial use has reduced Haitians in the space of one generation to the point where they are eating "cakes" made of oils and clay to eat. How long do you suppose you can live eating mud?

Haiti was a lush tropical island - paradise in our life times. Now it is hell on earth. When was the last time you ate mud pies for breakfast, lunch and supper. One thing you can say for it - it's filling.

So Smallc you can't afford to look at progress from only one perspective.

The word progress to me does not mean anything good. To me it's a word to inspire horror.

Most native cultures were indeed civilized. You cannot apply our narrow view of civilization and arbitrarily decide that our civilization is the be all and end all. It is certainly not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry, the horse was the main difference. It was the difference in war, it was the difference in agriculture, it was the difference in transportation, it was the difference in mining, it was an important food animal. Humans owe virtually all important developments from the time horses were first domesticated to the versatility of horses. That's why there are so many breeds and why horses are so revered even today.

The horse I suppose would have made a difference, but there were many other things that played a factor. Many of the things such as gun powder, paper, and the printing press were not invented by Europeans, but they were the ones that were able to put them to the best use and expand outward. This isn't arguing that Europeans were the most advanced on Earth, but that they were more advanced than the people they encountered in NA.

Being ahead in industrial development has not turned out to be a good thing for the planet or the species that live on it in any way. We are the only species to have enjoyed a brief respite from the survival of the fittest regime and that is only temporary lasting at most 6 generations. That respite has ended and the average human life expectancy will diminish for today's children for the first time in recorded history due entirely to our (Europeans) having mismanaged the global environment.

Proof? Life expectancy has been increasing and there is no reason to think it will stop with the increase in medical knowledge and ability.

Most native cultures were indeed civilized. You cannot apply our narrow view of civilization and arbitrarily decide that our civilization is the be all and end all. It is certainly not.

Some of the Central American natives may have been civilized. This definition of civilization is one used pretty much throughout the world. It is the test that many people in the know use for the determination of civilization. I see no reason not to use it here.

Edited by Smallc
Link to post
Share on other sites

Aspirin is a Sumerian 'invention'...at least the basic form...extracted from willow bark. Germans, of course, synthesised it...Bayer et al. Point is, though, Western culture knew about the properties of willow long before going to the New World. Calling people names won't change that.

Good posts Smallc.

--------------------------------------------------

Good God, you don't mean to say that he got his knocker shot off?

---Sir Harry Flashman

Link to post
Share on other sites
Aspirin is a Sumerian 'invention'...at least the basic form...extracted from willow bark. Germans, of course, synthesised it...Bayer et al. Point is, though, Western culture knew about the properties of willow long before going to the New World. Calling people names won't change that.

Good posts Smallc.

--------------------------------------------------

Good God, you don't mean to say that he got his knocker shot off?

---Sir Harry Flashman

Thanks. Some seem to think that I am coming at this from some kind of perspective of my culture being superior. That isn't the case at all. I do have a slight bias as I hope to see the preservation in this country and I don't like when its threatened, but I am trying to be as balanced as possible in the points I bring. Maybe I am being one sided? Who knows? The reality is though, that the facts don't lie.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks. Some seem to think that I am coming at this from some kind of perspective of my culture being superior. That isn't the case at all. I do have a slight bias as I hope to see the preservation in this country and I don't like when its threatened, but I am trying to be as balanced as possible in the points I bring. Maybe I am being one sided? Who knows? The reality is though, that the facts don't lie.

lol..to listen to some of these fellows, Indians invented flight and cured polio. Not to mention the computer...eh?

:lol::lol:

-----------------------------------------

Education is the transmission of civilization.

---Will Durant

Link to post
Share on other sites

To add. If one wants a good dose of what Western Civilization has done to the planet...both good and bad...one should check out James Burke. His two great offerings "Connections" and "The Day The Universe Changed" are well worth the look.

Here's an example...{click here}

--------------------------------------------------------

Chug-a-lug Chug-a-lug

Make u wanna holla hidy hoe,

Burns your tummy don't you know

Chug-a-lug chug-a-lug

---Roger Miller

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry, the horse was the main difference. It was the difference in war, it was the difference in agriculture, it was the difference in transportation, it was the difference in mining, it was an important food animal. Humans owe virtually all important developments from the time horses were first domesticated to the versatility of horses. That's why there are so many breeds and why horses are so revered even today.

While I agree that the horse was an animal of the utmost importance to Western civilization I disagree that it was the most important. The same applies to the printing press etc. You are forgetting about that most essential development without which most other developments would not have occured.

The Alphabet. Civilisations that developed the written word and written record keeping have always, without exception exceeded the accomplishments of those that did not. It may seem like a simple thing but practically all advances are owed in one way or another to the Alphabet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Many things set Western Civilization apart from the pack. Here's a few biggies.

-Refrigeration/Liquid Fueled Rockets/Saturn V

-The Railway/Steam Engine/Factories

-The Automobile/Internal Combustion Engine

-The Aircraft/Airship/Helicopter

-Fore-Aft Rigged Sails/Astrolabe/The Portable Sextant

-Electricity/Telegraph/Telephone/Radio/Television

-Dynamite/TNT/Nuclear Power

-The Jacquard Loom/Punch Cards/The Computer

-The Telescope/Microscope/Cures For Sicknesses

-The Printing Press/Typewriter/Daily Newspapers

...etc etc etc.

-----------------------------------

We don't grow unless we take risks. Any successful company is riddled with failures.

---James E. Burke

Edited by DogOnPorch
Link to post
Share on other sites
While I agree that the horse was an animal of the utmost importance to Western civilization I disagree that it was the most important. The same applies to the printing press etc. You are forgetting about that most essential development without which most other developments would not have occured.

The Alphabet. Civilisations that developed the written word and written record keeping have always, without exception exceeded the accomplishments of those that did not. It may seem like a simple thing but practically all advances are owed in one way or another to the Alphabet.

I think the plow has to be ranked in the top two. Without the plow, there is no need to learn to keep an accounting, or even to track the solstice or equinox. Without the plow, there is little need to domesticate beasts of burden...without the plow, there was no way that cities could use the surplus of food grown to spend energy on non-foof related enerprises.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The plough/plow is actually another Sumerian invention which came with the domestication of cattle/oxes.

--------------------------------------------

There are three easy ways of losing money - racing is the quickest, women the most pleasant, and farming the most certain.

---Lord Amherst

Link to post
Share on other sites
The plough/plow is actually another Sumerian invention which came with the domestication of cattle/oxes.

--------------------------------------------

There are three easy ways of losing money - racing is the quickest, women the most pleasant, and farming the most certain.

---Lord Amherst

I would guess the plough/plow came first...can't put the Ox before the Plough/plow

Link to post
Share on other sites
I would guess the plough/plow came first...can't put the Ox before the Plough/plow

We really don't know re: Cattle/Plow. First came the hoe...which came from a simple stick. That we can assume.

--------------------------------------

A precedent embalms a principle.

---Benjamin Disraeli

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrongo.

The horse came before the alphabet. Without the horse there would have been no alphabet. Same for all subsequent developments. What you have to look at is building blocks. The horse was foundational to Western civilization. The alphabet was not. The printing press relied on there being an alphabet. Everything that DogonPorch and everyone else mentioned relied on the horse having been domesticated first.

No civilization progressed beyond an agrarian civilization without the horse.

In the Andes, they had something similar - the llama. But the llama was no war horse. After horses were domesticated in the Old World including in Asia, most wars were fought with horses being the most important aspect after the people themselves. Horses spelt the difference.

But horses by themselves were not the whole story. In Europe, horses and metallurgy came together marrying production of products and transportation in a way that could not happen anywhere else on earth.

Most of the Western advances mentioned required metal technology. The exception was the alphabet. But the alphabet was not a core development in terms of communication. It was not required to domesticate the horse or to find the wide variety of uses found for it. Metal refining didn't require an alphabet either. It required accessibility, proximity to other ores and transportation from the mine to a smelter and from the smelter to the end user. Spoken language was enough to accomplish all of those things.

In other regions, there are sources of metal ores, but not in the variety, the markets and not with the magnificent ability of the horse to move the goods quickly.

Camels, elephants, dogs, oxen and llamas all proved vastly inferior to the horse for all sorts of reasons although there were applications where one or the other was better in a given environment. But none of them could work in all of the environments like horses could and be kept fed and healthy. Horses were even taken to Antarctica. That didn't work out because the explorers underestimated the length of time and food necessary. In the end the horses were eaten, so even in death they still paid their way. Camels were tried here in Canada but they didn't work out. They smelt so bad mules and horses wouldn't tolerate them. People weren't tolerant of them either.

The bottom line is that horses preceded development and were the key factor in helping man get past a purely primitive agricultural level - the level North and South Americans were at when Europeans arrived.

The Inuit had copper, but no way to get it to a market and no way to transport it in quantity. It didn't even have to be dug up. It was just sitting there in the area of the Coppermine River. The Inuit could work it but without the horse and without the ability to remain in permanent villages, their metallurgical development was stunted. The Inuit generally only carried with them what could be eaten - including their clothes.

Agriculture enabled villages to be semi permanent. Horses used for agricultural purposes allowed much bigger yields of crops which in turn supported larger population centres and reduced the impact and frequency of famines.

The advances you have all espoused don't go far enough back in time. They're too recent and are essentially modern fringe benefits regardless of how important you think they are now. Your perspective is too rooted in a present that's divorced from its origins by technology. What you see around you today was for the most part not thought of yet during my parent's time.

All of DogonPorch's contribution were developed in very recent memory. The horse by contrast was domesticated approximately five thousand five hundred years ago and they were an important food animal before that and still are in various parts of the world - particularly in Europe. That tells you that in the scheme of things, those modern developments are insignificant in the broad sense of history.

Nothing you people have talked about even begins to approach that.

So Europeans had horses for approximately five thousand two hundred years before North American Aboriginals. That is one hell of a physical advantage.

But it still didn't help with the spiritual and philosophical aspect of Europeans and their ability to manage their civilizations without wrecking the planet. And that's where metal and later oil enter the picture and as great as all the benefits seem, they are benefits that have been mismanaged and used to harm the ability of life on earth to continue. In that context, the two different approaches to civilization take on a rabbit and tortoise aspect.

Europeans have quickly fashioned amazing advances but unfortunately those amazing advances are poisoning everything and will bring about our extinction along with a lot of other species who are preceding us. As such, life as we know it will be lucky to last another century. Life as I knew it in the fifties is already long gone. The losses are huge but those that are too young to remember don't have much of a clue what's been lost and so don't miss the missing. Unfortunately, what is missing is vital to continued life on this planet - clean air, water, soil.

Aboriginals without the horse or metals have not damaged the planet in the least and under their stewardship, the planet would have remained chemically clean and life would prosper for eons to come.

Who is more advanced? Crash and burn Europeans with a death wish or Aboriginals who could live in harmony with the planet?

An easy test of what's important is to start taking away from modern life all of the non-essentials. That is, those things not necessary for humans to continue to exist.

Modern technology would be an early casualty. You don't need electricity to live so anything dependent on electricity would become an elaborate paper weight. Paper in its present form would be gone too.

What would not be gone would be horses. They would reassert their position as the most important asset to human survival in a heart beat.

Link to post
Share on other sites
When you say alphabet, do you mean writing?

The horse was domesticated around 3500BC. Writing started about 2000 years before that.

People were eating horses long before any alphabet or writing. But since the word alphabet was used, I confined myself to the alphabet.

But since you challenged me:

"Soil from a Copper Age site in northern Kazakhstan has yielded new evidence for domesticated horses up to 5,600 years ago."

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/200...a-neo102306.php

Enjoy reading the article. It corroborates most of what I've been saying without that being the thrust of the article.

Link to post
Share on other sites

First, let me say, good post, gullyfourmyle.

No civilization progressed beyond an agrarian civilization without the horse.

I agree the horse is one of the great strides forward in any culture. However, you have a bit of a logical fallacy in that only Western Culture has advanced past the agrarian level. Any other industrial civilization today is riding the coat-tails of the Western Industrial Revolution rather than evolving independently.

The advances you have all espoused don't go far enough back in time. They're too recent and are essentially modern fringe benefits regardless of how important you think they are now.

I have to disagree with you, there. Things like refrigeration changed our civilization profoundly. Perhaps you've seen James Burke's various shows/books outlining how one thing leads to another. If not, I'd give it a watch/read.

Who is more advanced? Crash and burn Europeans with a death wish or Aboriginals who could live in harmony with the planet?

Rather subjective...don't you think? How long was the average Stone-Age life span? Not very long. As well, Native Indians pretty much had to live in "peace and harmony" (lol...good one) as they didn't have other options...that is, until Western Civilization 'arrived'.

-----------------------------------------------

Just around the corner,

there's a rainbow in the sky,

So let's have another cup of coffee,

and let's have another piece of pie.

---Irving Berlin

-------------------------------------------

Link to post
Share on other sites
Rather subjective...don't you think? How long was the average Stone-Age life span? Not very long. As well, Native Indians pretty much had to live in "peace and harmony"=

There is new evidence that they did not do such things. The Thule for example, are thought to have eliminated a neighboring culture, the Dorset. There are other similar examples. There is also evidence in the NWT of Buffalo jumps with crude fences extending for hundreds of kilometers (learned that in early Canada history last year) possible allowing the killing of thousands of animals. Native peoples did not necessarily live in peace and harmony with nature anymore than any other culture.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...