Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Women Who Cover Their Faces Shouldn't Be accepted To Enter Canada!


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 862
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This is not true.  A large portion of it deals with kafirs and how to treat them.  How to get non-Muslims to submit to Islamic preferences.  Thus, demands for prayer rooms and time for prayers at work

What a childish response.  This issue is not about you and your "tits". It is about values that clash with essential and fundamental democratic values the people who built this country and fought hard

I now have time to respond to this.  Hahahahahahahahahah. That was hilarious. Wow. O.k. let me break it you, Sit. Mainstream Jews and Christians do not dress as in the above. Mainstream Musl

Posted Images

14 minutes ago, overthere said:

But Diversity and Tolerance are not Canadian values?

Diversity and Tolerance are Canadian values.  But just because something is of a different culture doesn't mean that it has to be respected or that it holds any merit. 

It's not wrong to hold abhorrent and be repulsed by cultural norms that harm and oppress others.
 
Part of the problem with Islam is that it's not reciprocal as far as cultural tolerance.  I don't think "My religion says so" is a good reason to accomodate and perpetuate archaic, stone-age beliefs.  And then when you get ones who advocate that Muslim preferences take precedence over Western preferences in Western countries - well, culture clashes are inevitable.
 
Society has a difficult task in balancing the interests of people to be free to choose their own world views, with the need to be free from harmful actions and practices of others.
 
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are some thoughts and feelings from Westerners about burkas/niqabs/hijabs.  I know that the pro-Islam people will argue that their feelings are not valid and these people are just racists and Islamophobes.  But I think they make some really valid points.

Quote

 

The first time I saw a woman wearing a niqab was in a grocery store in the summer. It was black. She was covered from head to toe, even wearing black gloves. She was walking several paces behind a man wearing light shorts, sandals, and a tee-shirt. I felt as though I had been punched in the stomach. The first image that came to mind was that of a dog walking behind its master. The second was that her presence seemed to be a negative. I was reminded of of the “portable back holes” that characters in Bugs Bunny could whip out. She seemed to me to be a nothing, a moving empty space. It was this that made me feel gut-punched. Here was a woman in Ottawa in the late 20th Century who was engaging in a practice that I associated with the dark ages. When I tried to imagine what it would take to get me to do that, I felt sick. We made eye contact briefly. I smiled at her. She looked abashed and fearful. (Although given that I could not see the rest of her face, I may be projecting here). Her overall bearing did not look confident or comfortable. She looked away immediately. I felt as though I had hurt her. I felt the same way I felt when I saw a woman being battered, that she was embarrassed that I had witnessed this moment of humiliation (again, I might be projecting- but this was my strong impression).

Then I thought, Western liberal democracy. She has the right to wear whatever she wants.

The first time I saw a woman in a (black) burka, such that even her eyes were covered, I was appalled. Again, she was walking behind a man who was dressed comfortably and appropriately for the weather. My thoughts were along these lines: How can this woman participate fully in society? She can’t communicate with even the slightest gesture or expression. Maybe she doesn't want to communicate. Maybe she doesn't want to be here. Should I smile? Should I try to make eye contact? Does she resent my freedom? Does she think I am a whore? How can her children engage in social referencing with her? Will her husband be angry if I speak to her? Will he beat or berate her later if I try to engage her in conversation? Will he confront me if I speak with her?

I grew up in a world in which over the last century women have made change happen by talking with one another, and with men, by fully engaging with the world. By embracing both their rights AND their responsibilities as citizens in a Western liberal democracy. It’s far from perfect & we have a long way to go, but none of that happens if women are isolated and in my view burkas and niqabs isolate women.

Ok, so let’s assume that I am wrong on all counts. Let’s assume that when I see a woman in a burqa silently walking several paces behind her husband, in extreme heat, she is in fact, quite comfortable, happy with her life situation and has made these choices fully & freely, with a glad heart. She is not doing this because she feels that she must adhere to arbitrary, rigid, religious conventions that are the price of acceptance in her community. That underneath all that silent, moving, drapery is a joyful and exuberant person living her life in perfect contentment.

I still feel a very uncomfortable cognitive dissonance. On the one hand I believe with every fibre of my being that the freedom to make choices about how one lives one’s life (to the extent that you are not infringing on the rights of others) is a fundamental human right. So, if you want to wear a parka & balaclava in July & a bikini in January, or a burka year-round, that is your right. But in a democracy along with your rights you also have a responsibility to engage fully and openly in society and in your community as part of the body politic. Democracy is not just about rights, it’s also about responsibility. But I rarely see this. I don’t see burqa-clad women engaging fully and freely in society. And frankly, this makes me feel both suspicious and resentful. It seems to me that such people want to enjoy the rights of living in a democracy without fulfilling the responsibilities & duties of living in a democracy. And this is where my cognitive dissonance comes in. Humans are social creatures. We rely on facial expressions, gestures, and body language to assess people and situations. It is a fundamental aspect of human nature. If I cannot at least see your face I cannot know whether or not you present a threat to me. I cannot know anything about you. You have chosen to put a barrier between us. My assumption must be that if you have not been forced to do this, you are doing it because you don’t want to communicate with me. You don’t want to engage in this society, you don’t want to be part of this society. So, how can I trust you? And yet, balaclavas and bikinis.

On a more serious note, it becomes hard to remember that there is a real living person inside there under all the covers. It's much easier to just imagine that it's only a blank blob walking down the street. A blob with no thoughts or opinions, no past and no future. The logical me realizes that this is not true, but the emotional me is deeply confused by this choice to cover everything up.

 

 

Quote

I'm a 55-year-old married man, so you're welcome to ignore my answer. 
Especially because of how you asked your question. 
Nevertheless I recently returned from eight months in total teaching at two universities in Saudi Arabia.
So I saw many women wearing the Niqab every day, and also in a profoundly Arabic cultural context.
Also, based on an adult life working in six countries on three continents including teaching intercultural communication,  my own default position is to respect all cultural expression in a very deep way.
For example in this context l now feel very comfortable to declare the Shahada (not yet in Arabic however).
So l struggled hard to understand and respect the Niqab as an Arabic cultural expression. I struggled hard to put myself in the wearer's shoes. And by the way I have no problem with the Hijab.
But each time I saw a woman with the Niqab it completely broke my heart.
I'm not being dramatic.
Even now just the thought of it is very painful to me.
I can tell you so many stories,  from my time in Saudi Arabia,  of seeing tiny babies without access to full communication with all of their mother's face.
I can talk about how this impacts full development. 
I can speak of the additional heat in a desert climate under black clothing.
I can detail the studies about the lack of Vitamin D (easily obtained from the sun) of women in KSA.
But for me as a man this is what hurts the most: it's the implicit assumption that I as a man cannot control my sexual behaviour, no matter what degree of clothing of the woman opposite me.
This is the PRE-Islamic historical background to the Niqab. 
But this responsibility about my behaviour is mine alone. 
I am not a victim of my surroundings, including when I walk on a Western beach surrounded by women in bikinis. Or in Germany where it can be even less clothing at a sauna, but with no sexual misbehaviour whatsoever. 
I have been true to this personal sexual responsibility my whole life.
You can ask my wife.  
For sure I will teach my son the same responsibility. In my Saudi university classes I taught my young men to become clear about this before they travel to Europe or America.
So for me the Niqab makes such a painful statement of cynical DISconnection  from our shared beyond-gender loving responsible humanity under one Allah.
For me I can only understand it as a personal and collective expression of past sexual trauma over generations. 

 

Quote

 

When I see women in a niqab, I think they look unapproachable and conforming.

In the American culture, we use so much body language to communicate.  A smile, a wiggle of fingers, a tapped foot.  All these things communicate some feeling and convey personality.  All these things are denied to a woman in a niqab.  On a deep level I feel that the garment steals humanity and individuality.  It steals that woman's chance to connect with strangers through a smile, through a shared love of pink, through a passion for star wars t-shirts... 

In terms of oppressing women, it is hardly the worst thing that women have been subjected to in history (corsets, foot binding, etc).  But it hits the hardest, because it feels like a step backward.  As if while the rest of the world has been moving forward to gender equality, women in the Middle East are moving backward into oppression.

Are the women in the niqab happy?  I have no idea because I cannot see if they smile.  People on the internet can say all they want about how happy they are inside their cloth tents, but I can not see you smile.  And for that, I grieve.

Smiling:

I don't expect everyone I meet on the street to smile at me.  I am not running around forcing people to smile.  Everyone on Earth finds it irritating to be told to smile by strangers.

My point is, smiling is one of the easiest ways to spontaneously share human connection.  By covering the majority of a woman's face, she is no longer able to connect in that way.  I find that to be sad.

At least women in the niqab can still make eye contact, women in the burqa cannot even do that.

While I was working in Disney World I used to stand at the turnstiles for hours. 
Once I saw this family - father, four strapping boys between 4 and 10 - and a mother, covered head to toe in a black niqab.

The boys were running around clearly excited, screaming and doing what children in Disney World do, the father happily walking behind them.

The mother?
Well, anyone could tell she was struggling in there. It was really hot and humid, she tried to keep up but her legs got entangled in the fabric, and then suddenly she yelled something and sat on a bench.
She quickly lifted her skirt and fumbled underneath it - and I saw she had a baby in there.

She was carrying a baby, nursing it underneath that heavy black fabric under the hot sun, while running after her husband and sons (no idea if she had any female children).

A coworker (female) walked up to them and asked her if she'd like some water - that woman was not feeling well. She was swaying and her head kept dropping to her chest.

The husband quickly took over and yelled at my coworker and pulled his wife by the arm. She protested, but he simply dragged her away. The kids ran off, their father after them, and the mother had to go with them.
It was really worrying and sad to watch.

I'm sorry, I don't think anyone would choose to be treated that way. We all felt really bad for her and that baby.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Here are some thoughts and feelings from Westerners about burkas/niqabs/hijabs.  I know that the pro-Islam people will argue that their feelings are not valid and these people are just racists and Islamophobes.  But I think they make some really valid points.

I have said more than a few times the niqab also makes me uncomfortable, so I am not about to dismiss the feelings of theae people.  I agree with the sense of dissonance, with finding it hard to recognize them as people.

I would call what those people felt more like compassion, empathy and concern.  

But please note that along with those feelings they didn't also call the women barbaric, ignorant, terrorists in all but behavior.  They didn't make assumptions about how the women felt about gays or apostates, or express the opinion that they would kill either if given a chance.

That is why I consider some here Islamophobic and/or xenophobic, but would not assume the same about the people who expressed their feelings about the niqab and burka.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, dialamah said:

They didn't make assumptions about how the women felt about gays or apostates, or express the opinion that they would kill either if given a chance.

I didn't include those kinds of comments.

However, I do think it's fairly safe to assume that people who are this fundamentalist in adhering to a religion, also agree with what the religion teaches in other areas.

Not all, obviously.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/7/2017 at 5:39 AM, dialamah said:

One woman wearing a niqab does something criminal, therefore all women wearing niqabs are ISIS terrorists.   Dumb and bigotted.

FYI. One person shoots and kills someone, and all gun owners get demonized for owning a gun. They are now all considered accomplices to the crime of murder. Now that is being smart and truthful in pointing that out. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

Were they made?

 

Not like on this forum.

Mind you, we all are like-minded people over there and know each other well, so there is no "assumptions" on the other side either that anyone else believes "ALL" Muslims think a certain way.  We don't have to put it in every post we make.

Edited by Goddess
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, overthere said:

But Diversity and Tolerance are not Canadian values?

Bigotry and intolerance is alive and well and is tolerated in the liberal party and the fake liberal media. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Not like on this forum.

Mind you, we all are like-minded people over there and know each other well, so there is no "assumptions" on the other side either that anyone else believes "ALL" Muslims think a certain way.  We don't have to put it in every post we make.

Why is it that when we see muslims praying to allah, we never see any women or children praying with them? Why are women and children forced into the back of the room or down in basements to pray to allah? Why do these muslims immigrate to Canada, and treat their women like chit? Where are the feminists who are always suppose to be there fighting for women's rights? Obviously, they do not wish to become Canadian but would prefer to have Canadians become muslims and promote Islam and sharia law. It would appear as though muslims do not want to join the Canadian collective.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, overthere said:

But Diversity and Tolerance are not Canadian values?

Yes, which is why those who respect neither should not be invited to stay here.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2017-06-15 at 7:40 PM, hot enough said:

If you were honest enough to look at the US terrorism/torture/war crimes past and recent past, you would know that is false.

Nicaragua: I don't mean to abuse you with verbal violence, but you have to understand what your government and its agents are doing. They go into villages, they haul out families. With the children forced to watch they castrate the father, they peel the skin off his face, they put a grenade in his mouth and pull the pin. With the children forced to watch they gang-rape the mother, and slash her breasts off. And sometimes for variety, they make the parents watch while they do these things to the children.

... 

And you can go and read from these things, classic CIA operations that we know about, some of them very bloody indeed. Guatemala 1954, Brazil, Guyana, Chile, the Congo, Iran, Panama, Peru, Bolivia, Equador, Uruguay - the CIA organized the overthrow of constitutional democracies. Read the book Covert Action: 35 years of Deception by the journalist Godswood. [6]

Remember the Henry Kissinger quote before the Congress when he was being grilled to explain what they had done to overthrow the democratic government in Chile, in which the President, Salvador Allende had been killed. And he said, `The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves'.

We had covert actions against China, very much like what we're doing against Nicaragua today, that led us directly into the Korean war, where we fought China in Korea. We had a long covert action in Vietnam, very much like the one that we're running in Nicaragua today, that tracked us directly into the Vietnam war. Read the book, The Hidden History of the Korean War by I. F. Stone. [14] Read Deadly Deceits by Ralph McGehee [9] for the Vietnam story. In Thailand, the Congo, Laos, Vietnam, Taiwan, and Honduras, the CIA put together large standing armies. In Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, the Congo, Iran, Nicaragua, and Sri Lanka, the CIA armed and encouraged ethnic minorities to rise up and fight. The first thing we began doing in Nicaragua, 1981 was to fund an element of the Mesquite indians, to give them money and training and arms, so they could rise up and fight against the government in Managua. In El Salvador, Vietnam, Korea, Iran, Uganda and the Congo, the CIA helped form and train the death
squads.

In El Salvador specifically, under the `Alliance for Progress' in the early 1960's, the CIA helped put together the treasury police. These are the people that haul people out at night today, and run trucks over their heads. These are the people that the Catholic church tells us, have killed something over 50,000 civilians in the last 5 years. And we have testimony before our Congress that as late as 1982, leaders of the treasury police were still on the CIA payroll.

Then you have the `Public Safety Program.' I have to take just a minute on this one because it's a very important principle involved that we must understand, if we're to understand ourselves and the world that we live in. In this one, the CIA was working with policeforces throughout Latin America for about 26 years, teaching them how to wrap up subversive networks by capturing someone and interrogating them, torturing them, and then getting names and arresting the others and going from there. Now, this was such a brutal and such a bloody operation, that Amnesty International began to complain and publish reports. Then there were United Nations hearings. Then eventually our Congress was forced to yield to international pressure and investigate it, and they found the horror that was being done, and by law they forced it to stop. You can read these reports -- the Amnesty International findings, and our own Congressional hearings.

These things kill people. 800,000 in Indonesia alone according to CIA's estimate, 12,000 in Nicaragua, 10,000 in the Angolan operation that I was sitting on in Washington, managing the task force. They add up. We'll never know how many people have been killed in them. Obviously a lot. Obviously at least a million. 800,000 in Indonesia alone. Undoubtedly the minimum figure has to be 3 million. Then you add in a million people killed in Korea, 2 million people killed in the Vietnam war, and you're obviously getting into gross millions of people...

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Stockwell/StockwellCIA87_2.html

What does this have to do with the topic?  Just your usual copy and paste anti U.S., anti west tirade.  You must have been indoctrinated with this somewhere.  Your modus operandi has long been known.  You always repeat the same old thing but never accept anything anyone says.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/26/2017 at 2:45 PM, Goddess said:

Diversity and Tolerance are Canadian values.  But just because something is of a different culture doesn't mean that it has to be respected or that it holds any merit. 

It's not wrong to hold abhorrent and be repulsed by cultural norms that harm and oppress others.
 
Part of the problem with Islam is that it's not reciprocal as far as cultural tolerance.  I don't think "My religion says so" is a good reason to accomodate and perpetuate archaic, stone-age beliefs.  And then when you get ones who advocate that Muslim preferences take precedence over Western preferences in Western countries - well, culture clashes are inevitable.
 
Society has a difficult task in balancing the interests of people to be free to choose their own world views, with the need to be free from harmful actions and practices of others.
 

But you cannot have it both ways.  That is part of what tolerance means, respect that which is foreign to you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, overthere said:

But you cannot have it both ways.  That is part of what tolerance means, respect that which is foreign to you.

There you go!  Now you're thinking like a radical.  Note #4.

 

Quote

"Rules for Radicals"  Saul Alinsky



Alinsky’s 12 Rules:
1. “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.“ Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood.
2. “Never go outside the expertise of your people.“ It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone.
3. “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.“ Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty.
4. “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.“ If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.
5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.“ There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.
6. “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.“ They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones.
7. “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.“ Don’t become old news.
8. “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.“ Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new.
9. “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.“ Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist.
10. “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.“ Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog.
11. “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.“ Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem.
12. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.“ Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

 

 
 
Link to post
Share on other sites

So a born canadian does not like what is happening to the country and complain and they are bigots and racists. What a load of bunk. That is the leftist way of shutting down a conversation. I am beginning to believe in the leftist mind ,that instead of bringing other countries standard of living up, they want to bring ours down.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, PIK said:

So a born canadian does not like what is happening to the country and complain and they are bigots and racists. What a load of bunk. That is the leftist way of shutting down a conversation. I am beginning to believe in the leftist mind ,that instead of bringing other countries standard of living up, they want to bring ours down.

Maybe overthere s a male and in no danger of ever being forced into a burka, so tolerating it would be super easy for him.  Why can't the rest of us?  Oh, yeah, cus we're intolerant bigots. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, overthere said:

But you cannot have it both ways.  That is part of what tolerance means, respect that which is foreign to you.

What, everything? Should we respect virgin sacrifice? How about slavery? Chicken sex? Do we have to respect chicken sex, and those who practice it?

Edited by Argus
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, overthere said:

Are you speaking of immigrants, Canadian born bigots, or both?

There is no way to get rid of Canadian born child molesters, criminals, or whatnot, so clearly the idea of getting rid of Canadian born bigots, as dear as that might be to the hearts of those who get furious at the thoughts of deporting foreign born terrorists, is simply not subject to discussion.

And what you consistently ignore is the difference between those born and raised here and those raised in the mainly backward cultures of most of our immigrants. Namely.

 

Canadian homophobic. Frowns on gay marriage, frowns at gays holding hands in street. Mutters epithets under his breath.

Middle east homophobic. Thinks gays should be killed, or at least imprisoned. Wants them to be beaten to death.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, PIK said:

So a born canadian does not like what is happening to the country and complain and they are bigots and racists. What a load of bunk. That is the leftist way of shutting down a conversation. I am beginning to believe in the leftist mind ,that instead of bringing other countries standard of living up, they want to bring ours down.

And with the aid of our dear leader trudeau, down is where this country is headed. 

It is so true that when a liberal cannot win an argument they start with the name calling and start labeling their opponents bigots and racists. Such losers. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Really good article on Tolerance and what it means.

https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1af7007d6376

 

Quote

Tolerance is not a moral absolute; it is a peace treaty. Tolerance is a social norm because it allows different people to live side-by-side without being at each other’s throats. It means that we accept that people may be different from us, in their customs, in their behavior, in their dress, in their sex lives, and that if this doesn’t directly affect our lives, it is none of our business. But the model of a peace treaty differs from the model of a moral precept in one simple way: the protection of a peace treaty only extends to those willing to abide by its terms. It is an agreement to live in peace, not an agreement to be peaceful no matter the conduct of others. A peace treaty is not a suicide pact.

 

Quote

Freedom of religion means that people have the right to have their own beliefs, but you have that same right; you are under no duty to tolerate an attempt to impose someone else’s religious laws on you....This is a variation on the old saw that “your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.” We often forget (or ignore) that no right is absolute, because one person’s rights can conflict with another’s. This is why freedom of speech doesn’t protect extortion, and the right to bear arms doesn’t license armed robbery. Nor is this limited to rights involving the state; people can interfere with each other’s rights with no government involved, as when people use harassment to suppress other people’s speech. While both sides of that example say they are “exercising their free speech,” one of them is using their speech to prevent the other’s: these are not equivalent. The balance of rights has the structure of a peace treaty.

 

Quote

 

Unlike absolute moral precepts, treaties have remedies for breach. If one side has breached another’s rights, the injured party is no longer bound to respect the treaty rights of their assailant — and their response is not an identical violation of the rules, even if it looks superficially similar to the original breach. “Mommy, Timmy hit me back!” holds no more ethical weight among adults than it does among children.

 

After a breach, the moral rules which apply are not the rules of peace, but the rules of broken peace, and the rules of war. We might ask, is the response proportional? Is it necessary? Does it serve the larger purpose of restoring the peace? But we do not take an invaded country to task for defending its borders.

 

 

 

Quote

 

Take the example of a group silencing another using harassment. Many responses may be appropriate. Returning harassment in turn, for example, is likely to be proportional, although it is rarely effective — harassment usually occurs in a situation where the sides do not have equal power to harm each other in that way. On the other hand, acting to restrict the harassers’ ability to continue in the future — even at the expense of limiting their right to speak — may be both proportional and effective. But lining the aggressors up against a wall and shooting them would not only be disproportionate, it would be unlikely to restore the peace.

The model of a peace treaty highlights another challenge which tolerance always faces: peace is not always possible, because sometimes people’s interests are fundamentally incompatible. Setting aside the obvious example of “I think you and your family should be dead!” (even though that example may be far more common than we wish), there are many cases where such fundamental incompatibility can arise despite good faith on all sides.

What this teaches us is that tolerance, viewed as a moral absolute, amounts to renouncing the right to self-protection; but viewed as a peace treaty, it can be the basis of a stable society. Its protections extend only to those who would uphold it in turn. To withdraw those protections from those who would destroy it does not violate its moral principles; it is fundamental to them, because without this enforcement, the treaty would collapse. It is appropriate, even ethical, to answer force with proportional force, when that force is required to restore a just peace. We seek peace because on the whole it is far better than war; but as history has taught us, not every peace is better than the war it prevents

 

.

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...