RE: Left wing media.

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Left wing media.

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Left wing media.

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Left wing media. - 9/23/2006 3:51:26 AM

SirKenin

Posts: 2994
Joined: 10/31/2004
From: Barrie, ON Canada
Status: offline

You obviously do not know your history. Russia officially became communist in 1917 when the Bolsheviks seized control of the country and officially named themselves the Communist Party. It was Karl Marx that envisioned a communist State, and the Bolsheviks put his ideologies into action. Joseph Stalin was also a devout communist.

_____________________________

Hi. I don't care. Thanks.

Wicca: Pretending to be an ancient religion since 1956

Catholic Church: Serving up guilt since 107 AD.

(in reply to philosophy)

Post #: 101

RE: Left wing media. - 9/23/2006 3:59:22 AM

philosophy

Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

*selected quote from above link*

"Karl Marx held that society could not be transformed from the capitalist mode of production to the communist mode of production all at once, but required a transitional period which Marx described as the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat. The communist society Marx envisioned emerging from capitalism has never been implemented, and it remains theoretical"

enjoy

(in reply to SirKenin)

Post #: 102

RE: Left wing media. - 9/23/2006 4:28:29 AM

SirKenin

Posts: 2994
Joined: 10/31/2004
From: Barrie, ON Canada
Status: offline

If you are going to quote the article.. Quote the other relevant parts.

Such as this:

In Russia, the 1917 October Revolution was the first time any party with an avowedly Marxist orientation, in this case the Bolshevik Party, seized state power. The assumption of state power by the Bolsheviks generated a great deal of practical and theoretical debate within the Marxist movement. Marx believed that socialism and communism would be built upon foundations laid by the most advanced capitalist development. Russia, however, was one of the poorest countries in Europe with an enormous, largely illiterate peasantry and a minority of industrial workers. It should be noted, however, that Marx had explicitly stated that Russia might be able to skip the stage of bourgeois capitalism. [4] Other socialists also believed that a Russian revolution could be the precursor of workers' revolutions in the West.
The moderate socialist Mensheviks opposed Lenin's communist Bolsheviks' plan for socialist revolution before capitalism was more fully developed. The Bolsheviks successful rise to power was based upon the slogans "peace, bread, and land" and "All power to the Soviets," slogans which tapped the massive public desire for an end to Russian involvement in the First World War, the peasants' demand for land reform, and popular support for the Soviets.
The usage of the terms "communism" and "socialism" shifted after 1917, when the Bolsheviks changed their name to the Communist Party and installed a single-party regime devoted to the implementation of socialist policies under Leninism. The Second International had dissolved in 1916 over national divisions, as the separate national parties that composed it did not maintain a unified front against the war, instead generally supporting their respective nation's role. Lenin thus created the Third International (Comintern) in 1919 and sent the Twenty-one Conditions, which included democratic centralism, to all European socialist parties willing to adhere. In France, for example, the majority of the SFIO socialist party split in 1921 to form the SFIC (French Section of the Communist International). Henceforth, the term "Communism" was applied to the objective of the parties founded under the umbrella of the Comintern. Their program called for the uniting of workers of the world for revolution, which would be followed by the establishment of a dictatorship of the proletariat as well as the development of a socialist economy. Ultimately, their program held, there would develop a harmonious classless society, with the withering away of the state.
During the Russian Civil War (1918-1922), the Bolsheviks nationalized all productive property and imposed a policy of "war communism," which put factories and railroads under strict government control, collected and rationed food, and introduced some bourgeois management of industry. After three years of war and the 1921 Kronstadt rebellion, Lenin declared the New Economic Policy (NEP) in 1921, which was to do a "limited place for a limited time to capitalism." The NEP lasted until 1930, when Joseph Stalin's personal fight for leadership spelled the end of it. Following the Russian Civil War, the Bolsheviks formed in 1922 the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), or Soviet Union, from the former Russian Empire.
Following Lenin's democratic centralism, the Communist parties were organized on a hierarchical basis, with active cells of members as the broad base; they were made up only of elite cadres [citation needed] approved by higher members of the party as being reliable and completely subject to party discipline.
The Soviet Union and other countries ruled by Communist Parties are often described as 'Communist states' with 'state socialist' economic bases. This usage indicates that they proclaim that they have realized part of the socialist program by abolishing private control of the means of production and establishing state control over the economy; however, they do not declare themselves truly communist, as they have not established communal ownership of property.

Well whaddya know. Communism and Socialism in the same breath.

Thanks for the link. Next time read the whole damn thing before you post.

EDIT:

Something else I found in Wikipedia. You have to love it...

The government of the Soviet Union administered the country's economy and society. It implemented decisions made by the leading political institution in the country, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU).

Keyword.. Communist. If you follow that link you can read about the end of....you guessed it...."Communist rule". Hmmm.

< Message edited by SirKenin -- 9/23/2006 4:36:31 AM >

_____________________________

Hi. I don't care. Thanks.

Wicca: Pretending to be an ancient religion since 1956

Catholic Church: Serving up guilt since 107 AD.

(in reply to philosophy)

Post #: 103

RE: Left wing media. - 9/23/2006 4:46:56 AM

philosophy

Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline

good grief SK..........the last paragraph that starts "The Soviet Union and other countries ruled by Communist Parties...." clearly sets out what i have been arguing. You are making a semantic error. Communist party does not equal communist system. Communism as a system has not existed. i still think you need to actually read Das Kapital.
Finally let me quote a great thinker at you, for your edification...."Thanks for the link. Next time read the whole damn thing before you post.

"

(in reply to SirKenin)

Post #: 104

RE: Left wing media. - 9/23/2006 4:59:06 AM

SirKenin

Posts: 2994
Joined: 10/31/2004
From: Barrie, ON Canada
Status: offline

Agh. Follow the links. What does Communist rule mean to you? What did you expect of them? Post a sign at every border entrance saying "you are entering a communist State. All your possessions are belong to us"? Did you expect them to go into the United Nations with "gimme gimme" t-shirts and declare they are communist? I mean, what exactly did you expect? That because Marx envisioned a completely classless, stateless society with common ownership that did not QUITE make it to full fruition that they can not possibly be communist?

You are the one making the semantic error. Here, read more of your precious link. I think you need it:

Communism is an ideology that seeks to establish a future classless, stateless social organization, based upon common ownership of the means of production and the absence of private property. It can be classified as a branch of the broader socialist movement. Communism also refers to a variety of political movements which claim the establishment of such a social organization as their ultimate goal.

Pay extremely close attention to the underlined part. The keywords there are SEEKS TO ESTABLISH A FUTURE. So does that mean that your understanding is correct? No. You are the one making the error. You think because they never sealed the full deal that they were not communist. Well, according to YOUR link...not Mine...you are incorrect.

Like I said. Read the whole damn thing next time.

EDIT:

Oh, and look. Something else to point out. Once again communism and socialism mentioned in the same sentence. In fact, defining communism as a branch of socialism.

I hate to say this, but you sank your own battleship.

Anyways, as I said earlier, it is no small wonder the left is trying to disassociate themselves with communism, but they are socialist themselves. Some of you are more extreme than others. As was humorously mentioned, the crazy always think that they are the ones that are sane. I find it humorous when some people call the left communists, commies, or whatever. I wonder if they realize how close to the truth they really are?

< Message edited by SirKenin -- 9/23/2006 5:05:26 AM >

_____________________________

Hi. I don't care. Thanks.

Wicca: Pretending to be an ancient religion since 1956

Catholic Church: Serving up guilt since 107 AD.

(in reply to philosophy)

Post #: 105

RE: Left wing media. - 9/23/2006 5:10:57 AM

seeksfemslave

Posts: 4011
Joined: 6/16/2006
Status: offline

Northern Gent seems to think we went to War with Germany over economic interests.
A point of fact is that Germany offered peace overtures where the UK empire would be left untouched so long as Europe was left to the Reich. Also if it was for economic interest only then it was a total failure because the UK exited the War flat broke. and found it necessary to withdraw from our world wide commitments. Af
Hitler is on record as expressing admiration for the British Empire.

After the War in my opinion we should have maintained some form of economic partnership with Canada Australia and possibly India, but instead we joined the Common market. I voted against anyway so dont blame me.

The Soviet Union was a Left Wing government based on the communist principles of the state owning the means of production distrubution of wealth, and it murdered many thousands of farmers during the collectivisation of land in the early thirties to prove it.

(in reply to philosophy)

Post #: 106

RE: Left wing media. - 9/23/2006 5:28:36 AM

philosophy

Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline

...i didn't want to paste something that has already been pasted but SK, as you appear to be selectively blind to things here it is.......
"The Soviet Union and other countries ruled by Communist Parties are often described as 'Communist states' with 'state socialist' economic bases. This usage indicates that they proclaim that they have realized part of the socialist program by abolishing private control of the means of production and establishing state control over the economy; however, they do not declare themselves truly communist, as they have not established communal ownership of property."

...i have italicised the relevant points. Please try and understand SK. When you imply that communism and socialism are the same thing, you are wrong. If all you intend to imply is that socialism and communism are both 'left' wing ideologies, then maybe there is some small grain of truth in it. However, of what use is such a broad statement?......Fascism and capitalism are both 'right' of centre ideologies.....does that mean they are the same thing too? i've mentioned Das Kapital a couple of times, you do know what i'm talking about don't you?

(in reply to seeksfemslave)

Post #: 107

RE: Left wing media. - 9/23/2006 5:37:52 AM

bills944

Posts: 122
Joined: 9/26/2004
Status: offline

EuroNews : Osama bin Laden dead?
http://euronews.net/create_html.php?page=detail_info&article=381319&lng=1

(in reply to philosophy)

Post #: 108

RE: Left wing media. - 9/23/2006 5:44:45 AM

meatcleaver

Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

After the War in my opinion we should have maintained some form of economic partnership with Canada Australia and possibly India, but instead we joined the Common market. I voted against anyway so dont blame me.

I voted no believing an economic relationship with the Commonwealth would be better because the produce from each country was in direct competition with each other than within the EU. The cultural ties and common use of English would have helped as well.

However, in the new reality and there is no going back, the EU it is. We have to get away from the fantasy that we can be trans-Atlanticists without sacrificing influence within the EU.

To keep on topic, the EU is more leftwing than the USA and while the EU needs to free up someof its industry, it does believe in universal healthcare, a welfare safety net and is generally more anti-war (this is understandable since it was formed to prevent war).

(in reply to seeksfemslave)

Post #: 109

RE: Left wing media. - 9/23/2006 8:21:17 AM

NorthernGent

Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline

No they weren't. Britain declared war on Germany because of its invasion of Poland.

MC, we've had this conversation before and you're wrong.

Britain's economic power depended on trade with the colonies and this in turn depended on control of certain seas including the English Channel. Britain could not have a German controlled Europe (camped on the French coast) and this is exactly the same reason why Britain went to war in the First World War (in the Belguim scenario). No offence intended but you''ve been caught short before when we have talked about the two world wars so I'm surprised you're still offering such ill-conceived opinions.

If Britain was protecting its economic interests it would not have declared war and allowed Germany to be a continental power. Britain had little economic interest in Europe, its economic interest was in world trade.

See above. Your opinion is popular history in the same way a member of the Royal family was Jack The Ripper - people who have no real knowledge of these events hold such opinions.

There was no way Germany could have invaded and occupied Britain and this was known by the British at the time. Britain had the most sophisticated air defence in the world and a navy capable of defending its waters.

Wrong. Yes, the Germans had a huge geograhpical and terrortorial disadvantage but it was not a common held view at the time that Germany could not have invaded Britain. This has been concluded since then and is not a widely held schoraly view. It is simply one school of thought.

Britain was producing two planes to Germany's one and the British had better planes and planes that could communicate with each other unlike the Germans.

Wrong again. At the beginning of the war this was not the case although as the Battle of Britain progressed, yes, Britain was producing such a ratio of planes. The whole German battle plan was based on lightening strikes and quick successes so it is irrelevant as a quick victory may have been expected. Don't forget, that contrary to the rules of the Traety of Versailles, Germany had been militarising before Hitler came to power - they had 13 years of militarisation so I'm sure they fancied their chances against a nation that had demilitarised between the two world wars.

Declaring war on Germany meant Britain was willing to gamble because it saw Germany as an international piriah.

See above. It was purely a defence of trade. Also, many historians believe Hitler had designs on Africa and others believe that although he didn't have designs on Africa he was an opportunist who, if he had conquered Europe, he would have turned his attentions to Africa so it's not inconceivable that the British Government of the day saw Germany as a threat to the colonies.

The Soviet Union fought because it was attacked and had little option.

Really?, so the Soviet Union was attacked when between them and Germany they carved up Poland? Were they attacked when they invaded Finland? Don't take the German/Soviet war out of its context. Both nations bought time when they signed the molotov-ribentrop pact and knew they were on a collision course that really was an extension of 19th century politics.

Get over your tunnel vision of everything is for economic interest. WWII definitely wasn't.

How anyone can tell someone else to get over something when they clearly have no idea about international politics around the time of world war two is quite something. You have some front MC, I'll give you that.

Regards

_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to philosophy)

Post #: 110

RE: Left wing media. - 9/23/2006 8:23:44 AM

NorthernGent

Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline

Seeks, take some advice, if you're interested in history and particularly the second world war, its causes and consequences, then go to University and spend a few years studying it.

Regards

_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to NorthernGent)

Post #: 111

RE: Left wing media. - 9/23/2006 8:38:48 AM

meatcleaver

Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

No they weren't. Britain declared war on Germany because of its invasion of Poland.

MC, we've had this conversation before and you're wrong.

Britain's economic power depended on trade with the colonies and this in turn depended on control of certain seas including the English Channel. Britain could not have a German controlled Europe (camped on the French coast) and this is exactly the same reason why Britain went to war in the First World War (in the Belguim scenario). No offence intended but you''ve been caught short before when we have talked about the two world wars so I'm surprised you're still offering such ill-conceived opinions.

Actually you're history is fucked up. When Britain declared war on Germany, France had not been occupied and had the BIGGEST AND MOST MODERN ARMY IN EUROPE. Sadly its generals were CRAP. There was no reason for Britain to believe France would collapse. There was NO REASON to believe Germany would ever control the channel because France's and Britains Navy was over twice the size of the German navy.

See above. Your opinion is popular history in the same way a member of the Royal family was Jack The Ripper - people who have no real knowledge of these events hold such opinions.

SEE ABOVE. You talk bollocks.

Wrong. Yes, the Germans had a huge geograhpical and terrortorial disadvantage but it was not a common held view at the time that Germany could not have invaded Britain. This has been concluded since then and is not a widely held schoraly view. It is simply one school of thought.

WRONG AGAIN. Read your history.It was only with sweeping victories of Germany did it enter the head of the government that Britain might be vulnerable!!!

Wrong again. At the beginning of the war this was not the case although as the Battle of Britain progressed, yes, Britain was producing such a ratio of planes. The whole German battle plan was based on lightening strikes and quick successes so it is irrelevant as a quick victory may have been expected. Don't forget, that contrary to the rules of the Traety of Versailles, Germany had been militarising before Hitler came to power - they had 13 years of militarisation so I'm sure they fancied their chances against a nation that had demilitarised between the two world wars.

Britain did not design and develop fighters and bombers in a week nor did it have a huge navy in a week. It upped production quite easily. Read Churchill's biography, it was largely due to him Britain could defend itself. However, Britain's army was it poor shape.

Declaring war on Germany meant Britain was willing to gamble because it saw Germany as an international piriah.

See above. It was purely a defence of trade. Also, many historians believe Hitler had designs on Africa and others believe that although he didn't have designs on Africa he was an opportunist who, if he had conquered Europe, he would have turned his attentions to Africa so it's not inconceivable that the British Government of the day saw Germany as a threat to the colonies.

See above.

The Soviet Union fought because it was attacked and had little option.

Really?, so the Soviet Union was attacked when between them and Germany they carved up Poland? Were they attacked when they invaded Finland? Don't take the German/Soviet war out of its context. Both nations bought time when they signed the molotov-ribentrop pact and knew they were on a collision course that really was an extension of 19th century politics.

The Soviet Union and Germany did divide Poland and there was an uneasy peace between them but Russia was ill prepared for war but had no option when Germany attacked them. Poland was divided up because of the tensions between Germany and Russia, not specifically for economic gain.

How anyone can tell someone else to get over something when they clearly have no idea about international politics around the time of world war two is quite something. You have some front MC, I'll give you that.

Obviously you haven't either.

(in reply to NorthernGent)

Post #: 112

RE: Left wing media. - 9/23/2006 8:51:34 AM

LadyEllen

Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Seeks, take some advice, if you're interested in history and particularly the second world war, its causes and consequences, then go to University and spend a few years studying it.

Regards

I didnt see anything that seeks wrote in his previous post that was contrary to fact.

Whether those facts are more or less relevant is something we can discuss, but they certainly were facts.

Hitler did seem to be working from the premise that if he knocked France out of the equation quickly, and then offered a negotiated peace with Britain, he would then be able to obtain Lebensraum in Russia without British interference. This eastern expansion was the main aim of his plan, after all, and the war in the west was purely to prevent France and Britain from intervening and giving him a war on two fronts which neither he nor his generals wanted.

Whilst Hitler had a psychotic hatred from Russia as both Slavic and Communist, he had respect for France and admiration for Britain, not only as fellow "superior Aryans" but as a nation that had colonised the world and ran an empire of millions with but a few thousand officials - proof in his eyes of the superiority of the "Aryan race", and a model to copy rather than destroy. That the British failed to conform to his views as he thought they might as fellow "Aryans", (because of course, we did not share his views or support his aspirations), meant that Hitler had to attack Russia without his peace in the west, Germany ended up fighting on two fronts and predicatably in that scenario, lost the war as of 1941 when Barbarossa was launched.

My goodness, me defending seeks! Whoever would'a thunk it!?

E

(in reply to NorthernGent)

Post #: 113

RE: Left wing media. - 9/23/2006 9:15:58 AM

NorthernGent

Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline

Meatcleaver,

No offence intended here but it is a pointless discussion with you on this particular subject.

Lady Ellen,

Do me a favour, let Seeks fight his own corner.

You're completely right on the main aim of Hitler's war policy being living space in the East. However, it was a broad aim rather than an action plan with a series of objectives to achieve this aim. The man was an opportunist and completely unpredictable. Even now, with the hindsight of scholarly research historians dispute his aims so in 1940 it was open to debate what he was trying to achieve. There was nothing in 1940 to suggest Germany could not have invaded and conquered Britain.

In terms of the war in the West being to avoid a war on two fronts, it was a part of it but not the full answer. Old scores were being settled from World War One e.g. over-turning land settlements from the Treaty of Versailles and occupying lands in the West for power symbolism.

A point of order on Hitler's racial hierarchy. The British were not seen as equals. We were seen in the second tier of Northern Europeans corrupted by Jewish influence (the French were in the third tier with Latin Europeans). Also, we were not a model to follow in his eyes. At heart, Hitler was a conservative who yearned for a return to a fuedal system with innocent values - he had wierd notions of pureness that should not be corrupted by progess and he saw Britain and the US as leading the way in progress, advancement and consequently degenerate values.

In terms of the Soviet Union, it was not the ideological war that people assume because neither actually practiced what they preached which meant neither were bothered about the ideologies that they claimed to adhere to. The war between the two countries was a consequence of 19th century imperialism where international politics was fuelled by economic and status conflicts. So, the Germans were attempting to create a German Empire (in the East, possibly in the West and open to debate whether in Africa, Turkey the Middle East etc depending on which historians you read) and the Russians were continuing their 19th century policies of designs all over the Slavic world.

Regards

_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to LadyEllen)

Post #: 114

RE: Left wing media. - 9/23/2006 9:21:58 AM

meatcleaver

Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline

The argument is that Britain starting a war with Germany was for economic reasons. If NG looked at the situation as it stood in Sept. 1939 such a reason doesn't add up. On paper, a France that was stronger than Germany, Britain couldn't have foreseen that France's general were crap and lose France within a week. The thought of Britain being invaded by Germany was not realistic at that time. It was never realistic, the Germans themselves realised mounting an invasion of Britain would be a suicide mission. The German army wanted to create a narrow beach head, the German navy said it couldn't protect a narrow beach head because of the strength of the British navy and its airforce fighting over its own ground. The German army said it couldn't defend a broad front like the German navy wanted. There was never a realistic plan to invade Britain though there were plans and one started. Britain was always a strategic problem for Germany. Britain did not declare war for economic reasons, it declared war because it saw the only way to stop German aggression was to defeat it.

(in reply to LadyEllen)

Post #: 115

RE: Left wing media. - 9/23/2006 9:24:33 AM

meatcleaver

Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Meatcleaver,

No offence intended here but it is a pointless discussion with you on this particular subject.

Sometimes you ought to put aside Das Kapital, like the bible it is flawed.

It's pointless because you are plain wrong. I don't mind you taking your ball home.

< Message edited by meatcleaver -- 9/23/2006 9:29:21 AM >

(in reply to NorthernGent)

Post #: 116

RE: Left wing media. - 9/23/2006 9:27:43 AM

NorthernGent

Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline

MC,

Look, honestly, I'm not trying to be clever with you but this is an area where you fall short.

For example, I haven't read beyond this line because this is a subject (unlike others) where you're not quite there "On paper, a France that was stronger than Germany".

Economically, militarily and cohesively Germany was far stronger than France. The absolutely last thing the French wanted in 1939 was a war with anyone whereas the leaders of Germany were chomping at the bit.

Regards

_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to meatcleaver)

Post #: 117

RE: Left wing media. - 9/23/2006 9:30:56 AM

meatcleaver

Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline

How come France had the biggest and most modern army in Europe?

Sometimes you ought to put aside Das Kapital, like the bible it is flawed.

(in reply to NorthernGent)

Post #: 118

RE: Left wing media. - 9/23/2006 9:36:08 AM

meatcleaver

Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

For example, I haven't read beyond this line because this is a subject (unlike others) where you're not quite there "On paper, a France that was stronger than Germany".

The statistics are everywhere for you to find, its not difficult.

(in reply to NorthernGent)

Post #: 119

RE: Left wing media. - 9/23/2006 9:40:41 AM

NorthernGent

Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline

MC, France did have the biggest army in Europe, as it did at the beginning of WW1, but it was not in the same league as a German army that had been trained for 13 years for this very purpose. The German forces had complete control over every theatre of war in France from the outset - air and land - 6 weeks is all it took.

And, for a man who doesn't like ideologies and labels you're not doing very yourself any favours with your Das Kapital rhetoric. I must have told you 5 times I'm not, and have no designs of being, a Socialist or Communist but for whatever reason you don't want to listen.

You're understanding of this period of history falls short so no point in you and I continuing this discussion.

Regards

_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to meatcleaver)

Post #: 120

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Left wing media.

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.076