Where do you stand?

[LG]

From: http://www.politicalcompass.org/questionnaire


About The Political Compass™

In the introduction, we explained the inadequacies of the traditional left-right line.

If we recognise that this is essentially an economic line it's fine, as far as it goes. We can show, for example, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and Pol Pot, with their commitment to a totally controlled economy, on the hard left. Socialists like Mahatma Gandhi and Robert Mugabe would occupy a less extreme leftist position. Margaret Thatcher would be well over to the right, but further right still would be someone like that ultimate free marketeer, General Pinochet.

That deals with economics, but the social dimension is also important in politics. That's the one that the mere left-right scale doesn't adequately address. So we've added one, ranging in positions from extreme authoritarian to extreme libertarian.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/bothaxes.gif

http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/axeswithnames.gif
http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/internationalchart.gif

-------
Below you can see where the quiz has placed me.

You can also try another. It gives kind of similar results in my case, but a little bit more central on the vertical axis:
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

[White_Male_Canada]

How about none of the above.

The Nolan chart may result in more detail than the antiquated left/communist,right/fascist linear chart but I prefer the American Federalist Journal political spectrum chart.

Fascism and marxism are two sides to the same coin and easily provable. The Federalist journal chart moves from the Left or Totalitarian,to the Right, Anarchy or no government.

I`m the dot 8)

[LG]

Whew...ask a conservative to answer a simple quiz and he gives you a lecture.
:roll:

I for one think the political spectrum theory you cite is a pile of crap and that fascism and marxism are wholly different. The American Federalist Journal disagrees, but then again it would, if the contributors it features and the majority of the news sources it links to are any indication of where its sentiments lie.

It is possible to be on the left but against totalitarianism and on the right and for it. That is why you need two axes (or more) and not a linear chart (either of the antiquated kind or of the kind you provide). And that is why the chart you give is (dare I say it again?) a gargantuan pile of noxious doggy doo, a jumbo-sized turd, an elephantine piece of fecal excrement, if you prefer.

I think you're just trying to be contrary to annoy me this time.

[chefmike]

:D

We're in the same neighborhood...

Mine:

Economic Left/Right: -6.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.03

[guyone]

Me...

[White_Male_Canada]

I for one think the political spectrum theory you cite is a pile of crap and that fascism and marxism are wholly different. The American Federalist Journal disagrees, but then again it would, if the contributors it features and the majority of the news sources it links to are any indication of where its sentiments lie.

Seriously,are you that naive.

The chart I favor emphasizes the degree of political control,which would place Totalitarianism at one end Anarchy at the other.But most charts today feature a square or circle graph that take into consideration such things as role of the Church,Foreign policy,Foreign trade,Participation,etc. Like the Nolan chart, The Pournelle chart, Meltzer/Christie,etc.

Here in their own words those "right-wingers" telling you who they are:

Adolf Hitler, "We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak..."

Joseph Goebbels , " Because we are socialists we have felt the deepest blessings of the nation, and because we are nationalists we want to promote socialist justice in a new Germany...

We are socialists because we see in socialism, that is the union of all citizens...

The sin of Marxism was to degrade socialism into a question of wages and the stomach, putting it in conflict with the state and its national existence. An understanding of both these facts leads us to a new sense of socialism, which sees its nature as nationalistic, state-building, liberating and constructive...

We are socialists because we see the social question as a matter of necessity and justice...socialism must be fought for...

It is a fighting slogan both inwardly and outwardly. It is aimed domestically at the bourgeois parties and Marxism at the same time, because both are sworn enemies of the coming workers' state. It is directed abroad at all powers that threaten our national existence and thereby the possibility of the coming socialist national state...

Socialism is possible only in a state that is united domestically and free internationally. The bourgeoisie(capitalism) and Marxism are responsible for failing to reach both goals, domestic unity and international freedom. No matter how national and social these two forces present themselves, they are the sworn enemies of a socialist national state."

HERMANN GOERING ," We are living through a National Socialist revolution. We emphasize the term “socialist” because many speak only of a “national” revolution. Dubious, but also wrong. It was not only nationalism that led to the breakthrough. We are proud that German socialism also triumphed.

Marxist socialism was degraded to a concern only with pay or the stomach. The bourgeoisie degraded nationalism into barren hyper-patriotism. Our movement seized the concept of socialism from the cowardly Marxists, and tore the concept of nationalism from the cowardly bourgeois parties, throwing both into the melting pot of our worldview, and producing a clear synthesis: German national Socialism. That provided the foundation for the rebuilding of our people. Thus this revolution was National Socialist."


A History of Fascism 1914-1945
"Much was made by Marxist commentators, during the 1930's and for nearly half a century afterward, about the alleged capitalist domination of the German economy under National Socialism, when the truth of the matter was more nearly the opposite."

The Lost Literature of Socialism
"In the European century that began in the 1840s, from Engels' article of 1849 down to the death of Hitler, everyone who advocated genocide called himself a socialist and no conservative, liberal, anarchist or independent did anything of the kind." (The term "genocide" in Watson's usage is not confined to the extermination only of races or of ethnic groups, but embraces also the liquidation of such other complete human categories as "enemies of the people" and "the Kulaks as a class."



Tom Wolfe
" 'Fascism' was, in fact, a Marxist coinage. Marxists borrowed the name of Mussolini's Italian party, the Fascisti, and applied it to Hitler's Nazis, adroitly papering over the fact that the Nazis, like Marxism's standard-bearers, the Soviet Communists, were revolutionary socialists. In fact, "Nazi" was (most annoyingly) shorthand for the National Socialist German Workers' Party. European Marxists successfully put over the idea that Nazism was the brutal, decadent last gasp of 'capitalism.' "

The Ominous Parallels
" Nazis did not advocate public ownership of the means of production. They did demand that the government oversee and run the nation's economy(socialism). The issue of legal ownership, they explained, is secondary; what counts is the issue of CONTROL. Private citizens, therefore, may continue to hold titles to property -- so long as the state reserves to itself the unqualified right to regulate the use of their property."

[LG]

WMC, we've been through most of that, including the Hitler quote and I flattened your arguments to the ground back then. I am not in the mood to go into them again just because you have enough time on your hands to cut and paste a few quotes you've been collecting.

Why don't you read about what Hitler, Mussolini and his ilk did to communists after they came into power?

I haven't got the time or the inclination for this. I'm going to bed.

[White_Male_Canada]

WMC, we've been through most of that, including the Hitler quote and I flattened your arguments to the ground back then. I am not in the mood to go into them again just because you have enough time on your hands to cut and paste a few quotes you've been collecting.

Why don't you read about what Hitler, Mussolini and his ilk did to communists after they came into power?

I haven't got the time or the inclination for this. I'm going to bed.

Of course, you`re correct.

Hitler, Mussolini, Goering and Goebbels `s own words are wrong. The fact they killed their opposition including international socialists/communists does not prove they were not socialists themselves.

You`ve become delusional.

[LG]

:roll:

Here we go again...

WMC, just take the bleeding quiz, please. That's all I asked people to do. I'm not interested in your theories right now.

Just take the quiz. It's not a difficult thing to do, I'm sure, even for you...

[Caleigh]

If only there was an ignore button so that posts by certain members wouldn't show up at all on your screen. I'm all for intelligent, informed debate but when you have Democrats placed as being further right than Republicans (halfway between Republican and Fascist) you are so whack it's just not worth listening to you. Republicans are the ones preventing embryonic stem cell research, they are the ones calling for repeal of Roe vs Wade. Just because these things aren't of a purely economic nature doesn't mean that they aren't authoritarian. The (very) slightlly more authoritarian social rights bills of the Democrats are offset by the fact that they are just that, social rights bills created to prevent rampant exploitation of power situations. The laissez faire capitalism of a totally free market would soon devolve into a virtual slave state since corporations could get away with paying their workers next to nothing. Check out the film "Matewan" some time for an example of the glorious future under unfettered and unregulated capitalism.

[guyone]

Republicans are the ones preventing embryonic stem cell research

Sure. You don't find dissecting and experimenting on humans grotesque? I guess this whole debate on wether the Nazi's were on right or left is settled here because Nazi's didn't have any problems with that either. Not to mention what will stop pharmaceutical companies from making baby farms.


Check out the film "Matewan" some time for an example of the glorious future under unfettered and unregulated capitalism.

Matewan took place in the 1920's. What does that have to do with the future? Also the missing element of the film was that the workers of Matewan were not forced to stay there. They needed their jobs. What does that have to do with today's society?

The basic difference between the right and the left is that the right is more practical and creates a more conducive environment for social evolution.

[chefmike]

Republicans are the ones preventing embryonic stem cell research

Sure. You don't find dissecting and experimenting on humans grotesque? I guess this whole debate on wether the Nazi's were on right or left is settled here because Nazi's didn't have any problems with that either. Not to mention what will stop pharmaceutical companies from making baby farms.


Check out the film "Matewan" some time for an example of the glorious future under unfettered and unregulated capitalism.

Matewan took place in the 1920's. What does that have to do with the future? Also the missing element of the film was that the workers of Matewan were not forced to stay there. They needed their jobs. What does that have to do with today's society?

The basic difference between the right and the left is that the right is more practical and creates a more conducive environment for social evolution.

[specialk]

If only there was an ignore button so that posts by certain members wouldn't show up at all on your screen. I'm all for intelligent, informed debate but when you have Democrats placed as being further right than Republicans (halfway between Republican and Fascist) you are so whack it's just not worth listening to you. Republicans are the ones preventing embryonic stem cell research, they are the ones calling for repeal of Roe vs Wade. Just because these things aren't of a purely economic nature doesn't mean that they aren't authoritarian. The (very) slightlly more authoritarian social rights bills of the Democrats are offset by the fact that they are just that, social rights bills created to prevent rampant exploitation of power situations. The laissez faire capitalism of a totally free market would soon devolve into a virtual slave state since corporations could get away with paying their workers next to nothing. Check out the film "Matewan" some time for an example of the glorious future under unfettered and unregulated capitalism.

and just like that......... :wink:

[White_Male_Canada]

If only there was an ignore button so that posts by certain members wouldn't show up at all on your screen. I'm all for intelligent, informed debate but when you have Democrats placed as being further right than Republicans (halfway between Republican and Fascist) you are so whack it's just not worth listening to you. Republicans are the ones preventing embryonic stem cell research, they are the ones calling for repeal of Roe vs Wade. Just because these things aren't of a purely economic nature doesn't mean that they aren't authoritarian. The (very) slightlly more authoritarian social rights bills of the Democrats are offset by the fact that they are just that, social rights bills created to prevent rampant exploitation of power situations. The laissez faire capitalism of a totally free market would soon devolve into a virtual slave state since corporations could get away with paying their workers next to nothing. Check out the film "Matewan" some time for an example of the glorious future under unfettered and unregulated capitalism.

You`re wrong on so many levels I really don`t know where to begin so I`ll stick to the basics.

If you`re implying the Federal government blocks private stem cell research you`re wrong. The Federal government has no business subsidizing any corporate research.

Abortion is also outside the purview of Washington. You will find NO general “right to privacy” in the Constitutuion anymore than you would find the word abortion. The Founders assumed NO general right to privacy because crime can be committed in private.

Judicial Activist arguments for such nonsense commenced with Poe V. Ullman. The genesis of the USSC opinions came from an ACLU leftist lawyer, M L Wulf. In 1965 it was adopted by justice Douglas and became “law” in Griswold V Connecticut. This fool then went on to explain his decision thus,” specific guarantees in the bill of rights have penumbras,formed by emanations from those guarantees thathelp give them life and substance.” Get It ? Hugo Black destroyed Douglas in his dissent.

In Roe, Justice Blackmun relied on everything but the very Constitution he swore to uphold. From the ancient Greeks, Persians, Romans, common English law,the ABA,etc. In this dolts decision he stated that “ The Constitution does not explicity mention any right of privacy…” But Blackmun FELT that it should be there ! The very essence of ‘ the law is whatever I say it is’ Judical Activism.

He then went on to write new laws out of thin air, that a woman`s right to abortion could only be abridged by a compelling State interest !

Near the end Blackmun, WITHOUT A HINT OF IRONY, stated he was against the death penalty, ” From this day forward, I no longer shall tinker with the machinery of death.”

How`s that for tragic comedy.

And only ignoramuses could ignore facts.

[chefmike]

If only there was an ignore button so that posts by certain members wouldn't show up at all on your screen. I'm all for intelligent, informed debate but when you have Democrats placed as being further right than Republicans (halfway between Republican and Fascist) you are so whack it's just not worth listening to you. Republicans are the ones preventing embryonic stem cell research, they are the ones calling for repeal of Roe vs Wade. Just because these things aren't of a purely economic nature doesn't mean that they aren't authoritarian. The (very) slightlly more authoritarian social rights bills of the Democrats are offset by the fact that they are just that, social rights bills created to prevent rampant exploitation of power situations. The laissez faire capitalism of a totally free market would soon devolve into a virtual slave state since corporations could get away with paying their workers next to nothing. Check out the film "Matewan" some time for an example of the glorious future under unfettered and unregulated capitalism.

You`re wrong on so many levels I really don`t know where to begin so I`ll stick to the basics.

If you`re implying the Federal government blocks private stem cell research you`re wrong. The Federal government has no business subsidizing any corporate research.

Abortion is also outside the purview of Washington. You will find NO general “right to privacy” in the Constitutuion anymore than you would find the word abortion. The Founders assumed NO general right to privacy because crime can be committed in private.

Judicial Activist arguments for such nonsense commenced with Poe V. Ullman. The genesis of the USSC opinions came from an ACLU leftist lawyer, M L Wulf. In 1965 it was adopted by justice Douglas and became “law” in Griswold V Connecticut. This fool then went on to explain his decision thus,” specific guarantees in the bill of rights have penumbras,formed by emanations from those guarantees thathelp give them life and substance.” Get It ? Hugo Black destroyed Douglas in his dissent.

In Roe, Justice Blackmun relied on everything but the very Constitution he swore to uphold. From the ancient Greeks, Persians, Romans, common English law,the ABA,etc. In this dolts decision he stated that “ The Constitution does not explicity mention any right of privacy…” But Blackmun FELT that it should be there ! The very essence of ‘ the law is whatever I say it is’ Judical Activism.

He then went on to write new laws out of thin air, that a woman`s right to abortion could only be abridged by a compelling State interest !

Near the end Blackmun, WITHOUT A HINT OF IRONY, stated he was against the death penalty, ” From this day forward, I no longer shall tinker with the machinery of death.”

How`s that for tragic comedy.

And only ignoramuses could ignore facts.

[ezed]

WHERE DO i STAND? HOW DARE YOU ASK ME WHERE I STAND. IF I TELL YOU, SOMEONE WILL RUN TO MY SPOT! AND THEN I'LL HAVE TO FIND ANOTHER PLACE TO STAND OR KILL THE PERSON WHO TOOK MY SPOT AND END UP LIKE THAT CRAZY ASTRONAUT.

[corbomite]

WHERE DO i STAND? HOW DARE YOU ASK ME WHERE I STAND. IF I TELL YOU, SOMEONE WILL RUN TO MY SPOT! AND THEN I'LL HAVE TO FIND ANOTHER PLACE TO STAND OR KILL THE PERSON WHO TOOK MY SPOT AND END UP LIKE THAT CRAZY ASTRONAUT.

Astronaut diapers are cool. I want a box.

There are no shades. It's right or wrong and nothing else.

[LG]

Just wanted to resurrect this thread in the hope that the new rookies here and also all those who missed the first time round will give their input.

Please note that I just want you to take the quiz. I don't want anyone theorising or offering alternatives- we tried that and it didn't work out. I don't want to talk politics here, just get everyone to post their position on the compass in picture formate, coordinates or both. I don't want anyone telling me why the compass should be replaced by a coloured bar, a bell curve, a five-pointed star, a smiley face or anything else. Just do the fucking quiz.

The above also applies, and is especially valid for the forum's most prolific neoconservative reactionary. WMC, like I said...just take the fucking quiz.

Thankyou and good day.

[insert_namehere]

Curious set of questions, in my opinion.

Anyway, according to the results, I'm sitting here.

[LG]

Looks like a nice place to be sitting in, insert_namehere. I'm sitting a couple of rows down.

[qeuqheeg222]

yeah LG,I'm sitting right there with you right in the middle of the bottom left cube.did you notice the mole behind ghandi's ear?the quiz was interestin in it was very specific in terms of certain issues like gay marriage-kids,marijuana but never went into specifics of economics like patent rights,or gun control topics.thanks for reposting.

[Caleigh]

it looks like we have enough people to play euchre in this
just lower left of center area. nice to meet you guys. :)

[DracoLord]

I am here...

[LG]

Seems most of us are jostling for space in the same spot. Nice place to be, don't you think?

[Caleigh]

I think that we need to have a party down here in the lower
left quadrant. I mean, isn't a nice balance between social
safety net and free market something to celebrate?

*cranks up the tunes and starts to dance*

"Brothers, sisters, we don't need no fascist groove thang.."

[Caleigh]

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f390/something_human/IMG_0807b.jpg

[guyone]

What's with the giant picture of pills?

[Caleigh]

oh, i accidentally double posted and then i just wanted something else besides my regular post to be there instead. i use that photo as the background on my myspace page, it was just handy.

i mean, what giant pills?!

Ok, I clicked that link with the best intentions of completing your little analyses. But Jesus H Christ!

First question is bullshit right off the bat!!!

If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.


Stupid commie motherfuckers. HUMANS are the corporations. Corporations aren't some martian entity that comes off the flying saucer and steals capital. They are made up of hard working people like you and me.

Here's where I am, through the eyes of your commie quiz-

[chefmike]

Here's where you are, TFarce -

[Caleigh]

just because a corporation is composed of human beings working in tandem, that does not mean that what is in the interest of the individuals is in the interest of the larger "organism" the corporation. the people who work for the corporation as a general rule don't get a % of the profits and so have little investment in anything but keeping their jobs. just as the corporation as a larger entity would generally love to cut labour costs whenever possible, the labourers on the other hand would usually love to get paid $500/hr but this usually wouldn't be good for the corporation as a whole.

are these concepts too hard for you to grasp?

just because a corporation is composed of human beings working in tandem, that does not mean that what is in the interest of the individuals is in the interest of the larger "organism" the corporation. the people who work for the corporation as a general rule don't get a % of the profits and so have little investment in anything but keeping their jobs. just as the corporation as a larger entity would generally love to cut labour costs whenever possible, the labourers on the other hand would usually love to get paid $500/hr but this usually wouldn't be good for the corporation as a whole.

are these concepts too hard for you to grasp?

You condescending arrogance only indicates a cowardly, pompous nature. The facts are that in life, some will succeed more than others. You will always have poor people and rich people. Winners and losers.

THAT'S LIFE

It's only the pussy-minded who are afraid to compete than run, limp-wristedly, to big brother to legislate them a living.

Deal with it and move on. By the way, you misspelled labor. This website is not based in Europe.

[chefmike]

just because a corporation is composed of human beings working in tandem, that does not mean that what is in the interest of the individuals is in the interest of the larger "organism" the corporation. the people who work for the corporation as a general rule don't get a % of the profits and so have little investment in anything but keeping their jobs. just as the corporation as a larger entity would generally love to cut labour costs whenever possible, the labourers on the other hand would usually love to get paid $500/hr but this usually wouldn't be good for the corporation as a whole.

are these concepts too hard for you to grasp?

You condescending arrogance only indicates a cowardly, pompous nature. The facts are that in life, some will succeed more than others. You will always have poor people and rich people. Winners and losers.

THAT'S LIFE

It's only the pussy-minded who are afraid to compete than run, limp-wristedly, to big brother to legislate them a living.

Deal with it and move on. By the way, you misspelled labor. This website is not based in Europe.

Pipe down, chorus boy!

[LG]

Ok, I clicked that link with the best intentions of completing your little analyses. But Jesus H Christ!

First question is bullshit right off the bat!!!

If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.


Stupid commie motherfuckers. HUMANS are the corporations. Corporations aren't some martian entity that comes off the flying saucer and steals capital. They are made up of hard working people like you and me.

Not neccessarily. The people who manufacture your sneakers and clothes in Bangladesh, Pakistan and the Northern Mariana Islands are not like you and me. They are poor and badly treated.

Corporations do not care about the people they employ or the customers they sell to as much as they care about the shareholders that invest in them (and frequently, these are other corporations). Multinationals like Exxon and Shell only care about society and the environment when these affect their bottom line. The examples are endless.

Corporations are made up of hard-working people, but frequently very few less hard-working individuals make off with a lion's share of the profits. Corporations do not neccessarily serve the common good- look at the Niger Delta and the oil companies during Abacha's regime in particular, look at the case of the Norther Mariana's (and Jack Abramoff's involvement). The sweatshops there are hell to work in and yet they are allowed to label their clothes as "Made in USA".

So all in all, I think that question is fair.

[Caleigh]

what i'm realizing is that some people on this board aren't at all interested in discussion at all, they are just looking for a place to rant.

when i was younger i was a radical anarchist, and then as i grew older and had to support myself i realized that companies are organized to provide food, clothing, shelter to their employees in exchange for work which benefits everyone. the reality is though that some provide greater benefits to their employees than others. some try and share the collective profits of the company with their employees and others try to esconce them within the top eschelons. that's all, it's a question of corporate philosophy and esthetic.

oh, TFan, just because the board is based in the U.S. doesn't mean that everyone has to spell night NITE and quick KWIK. labour is as acceptable as labor to everyone except the dogmatic.

woof woof

[muhmuh]

some try and share the collective profits of the company with their employees and others try to esconce them within the top eschelons.

grats on finding out the difference between companys led and owned by a single person with personal interest in the companies well being and those which are led by a bunch of guys that get paid regardless of how they lead the company... too bad most dont get it

[guyone]

The corporations can only hold you in their grasp if you let them. If you make yourself a commodity and incorporate then you get to take hold of your own destiny. The key word though is becoming a commodity which takes a little originality and hard work.

[LG]

The corporations can only hold you in their grasp if you let them.

Good point...

I'll accept that's true in the West, where we are consumers and customers and where we can shape the way corporations are run and demand better practices, but what about in places like Bangladesh and Saipan, where human life is not valued as highly by companies out to make a buck? These are the companies that make the clothes we wear, the sports goods we play with, the consumer goods we use. And what about the treatment of illegal immigrants from Mexico in the southern US (strawberry pickers paid peanuts and treated like shit in California) and elsewhere or the treatment of Asian and Eastern European immigrants in Europe. Women from the Soviet Union are treated as commodities by small-time businessmen out to make a few dollars by selling them onto the highest bidding stripjoint owner. It's not just the big companies that mistreat people.

We can stay pretty independent, not buy into the commerce of it all (although every time we drive our cars, put on our Nikes have a cup of coffee we are buying into a commercial operation that might have impacts halfway round the world). But how can we help the less fortunate? They are not in control of their own destiny.

[guyone]

Education. And they are really in a better place than us because they really have nothing to loose.

[qeuqheeg222]

consumption is a bitch.A bitch well fed and not too picky like the corps/monopolies like 'em....

[LG]

Education. And they are really in a better place than us because they really have nothing to loose.

Who? The poor kids in the seatshops? The Easter European women bought and sold by the Russian mafia? They're in a better place than us? In what way?

[guyone]

They are in a better place than us to fight. Americans by and large are very comfy with thier lifestyle. They also have enormous personal responsibilities to debtors. So they must work and not make too much noise. Slaves working in sweatshops get paid pennies so there really isn't any incentive towards being civil. If they band together and revolt that's the only way anything will change. Why are there so many martyrs? They have nothing to loose and everything to gain. Freedom comes at a very high price.

[Caleigh]

"Slave working in sweatshops get paid pennies so there really isn't any incentive towards being civil"

how dumb are you?

a) in the relative local economy those few pennies have the
same worth as the $50/hr or whatever people here get paid
so losing a days or weeks pay to protest can be crippling
b) usually there is just as fierce competition for the jobs as
there is anywhere and less stringent labour laws so that if
you cause any trouble you are out
c) the compnanies can afford to bribe/influence local law
enforcement and politicians to make sure that their corporate
interests are protected OVER those of the workers.

check labour history and place most of the developing world
as still living in the 1800's have you ever read any Charles
Dickens?

[guyone]

Fine then what are they complaining about? Since everything is so peachy what's all the hubbub?



(at least I'm smart enough not to live in brooklyn)

[chefmike]

Fine then what are they complaining about? Since everything is so peachy what's all the hubbub?



(at least I'm smart enough not to live in brooklyn)

So basically you're saying that you don't love the baby jesus....aren't you, gomerone?

[Quinn]

Fine then what are they complaining about? Since everything is so peachy what's all the hubbub?



(at least I'm smart enough not to live in brooklyn)

You couldn't afford to live in Brooklyn.

-Quinn

[guyone]

Brooklyn's the 'burbs man! B&T!

[LG]

Bumping this up for the new members and anyone who missed it...

[Cuchulain]

The second site you posted was new to me LG, so I gave it a try

[svenson]

im indepenent

[Clind]

....

[loki]

Me.

[loki]

Sorry about the double post.

[casca82]

I used to belive in democracy, it has failed, it has been eaten away by a cancer called liberalism. Marxism is in the ash heap of history. I hate Socialism, it is nothing more the watered down communism. Anarchist should be shot. Islamic theocracies are the most worst .I have taken a long hard look at what I belive in. I am a
Fascist.