toldailytopic: Liberal vs. Conservative. Where and why do you stand?

Status
Not open for further replies.

aSeattleConserv

BANNED
Banned
Objectivism is not libertarianism. You're confusing your -isms again.

Yet many libertarians worship Rand and her Objectivist movement.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oD-R_OeP6tU
(Yes, Rand Paul is wrung out of the same dirty libertarian sock as his daddy was).

I've met Walter Block. Nice guy. Has a lot more sense about government than you do.

From the wiki link: "Murray Rothbard, in his life, was known as Mr. Libertarian. We can make a solid case that the title now belongs to Walter Block, a student of Rothbard's whose own vita is as thick as a big-city phonebook, and as diverse as Wikipedia. Whether he is writing on economic theory, ethics, political secession, drugs, roads, education, monetary policy, social theory, unions, political language, or anything else, his prose burns with a passion for this single idea: if human problems are to be solved, the solution is to be found by permitting greater liberty."

Do you see anything wrong with that paragraph? I'll give you a hint: " if human problems are to be solved, the solution is to be found by permitting greater liberty."

Silly me, and here I thought human problems were "solved" through Christ.

By the way, there are atheists on this very forum. Does that mean the whole forum is atheistic?

Aside from Knight and a couple of others, I'm beginning to wonder if there were actually any Christians on this very forum.

Lew Rockwell and Tom Woods are believers and are also associated with the institute, just to name two off the top of my head. Rockwell freakin' founded the thing.

Hence the "Christian libertarian" connection. Gary North is one as well. They're fatal flaw is not recognizing God first and foremost.

By the way, you took my "heroin, hookers and porno" quote out of context. Not nice.
 

Skavau

New member
SeattleTory said:
Ah yes, the big "c" word, "consent". As long as there is "consent" in any sexual act, it's OK. There's no such thing as a perversion as long as "consent" is applied. Afterall, it is MY BODY, and I can do with it what I want, right? (back to the sovereignty thing).
Your name title I believe did suggest a support of liberty, and yet you don't know the first thing about it. The very consequence of small government that does not control and dictate to its citizens what they can and cannot do is that it cannot demand their way of life fall under specific guidelines. Consent, in these instances means a great deal!

So I have to ask, do you support small government or a totalitarian regime?
 

Skavau

New member
As for arresting someone for doing something simply because it is a sin, that is not a job the government should ever have. We don't want these to be illegal [homosexual sex, bestiality, pornography] simply because they are sins, but because they are criminal acts.
So much for privacy. So much for liberty. You directly endorse totalitarianism. Pray tell, how or why should the acts referenced (barring bestiality, which precludes consent) be illegal? What business is it of the governments what a homosexual couple get up to, or a solitary individual views on the internet?

They are acts against what is right and decent in civilized society. They are deviant acts. They are not only sins, just as murder is not only a sin.
The violation of deviance just means something that is not a cultural and social norm. Listening to European Power Metal is in itself a 'deviance' here given that I suspect a tiny minority (less so than homosexuals) listen to it. Does that mean by your reckoning it should be banned?

The norms of a society either 'evolve' over time by pragmatism or are enforced and demanded by an overzealous fascist regime. You seem to be interested in the latter.

You wouldn't ask this question if we were discussing the merits of legal action in regard to murder. You would not assume we wanted murder to be illegal simply because it is a sin. So why do you assume that is why we want these sexually deviant acts to be illegal?
Because, well, I think people might put credit in you to suppose that things like murder and rape that directly harm and infringe upon the rights of others are wrong because of humanist concerns. Is it no coincidence though, or can you see no pattern in that apparently almost every sin (or almost everything you feel to be a sin) - you also want to be banned legally?

P.S.
Adultery is another one you forgot to include. That should be illegal as well.
What about fornication?
 

Newman

New member
Yet many libertarians worship Rand and her Objectivist movement.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oD-R_OeP6tU
(Yes, Rand Paul is wrung out of the same dirty libertarian sock as his daddy was).

If Rand Paul turns out to be half the representative Ron is, he'll still be 5 times better than anything we have now.

From the wiki link: "Murray Rothbard, in his life, was known as Mr. Libertarian. We can make a solid case that the title now belongs to Walter Block, a student of Rothbard's whose own vita is as thick as a big-city phonebook, and as diverse as Wikipedia. Whether he is writing on economic theory, ethics, political secession, drugs, roads, education, monetary policy, social theory, unions, political language, or anything else, his prose burns with a passion for this single idea: if human problems are to be solved, the solution is to be found by permitting greater liberty."

Do you see anything wrong with that paragraph? I'll give you a hint: " if human problems are to be solved, the solution is to be found by permitting greater liberty."

You have, just as you have accused me of doing, taken this out of context. "Human problems" are referred to as economic problems, that is, any human attempt at reconciling the simple fact that we want more than we can get - "scarcity". But once again you have totally ignored everything I've said and gone on with a new straw man.

Silly me, and here I thought human problems were "solved" through Christ.

Depends on the problem. As a student, I couldn't get away with writing "Christ" when a math teacher asked me to solve 7+3x+8x^2=29. In fact, that would be quite blasphemous.

Aside from Knight and a couple of others, I'm beginning to wonder if there were actually any Christians on this very forum.

Good to know. Are you ever going to get around to responding to what I said earlier?

Hence the "Christian libertarian" connection. Gary North is one as well. They're fatal flaw is not recognizing God first and foremost.

"They're"="they are", not "their". Go back to school.

When did you become the supreme judge of a man's heart?

By the way, you took my "heroin, hookers and porno" quote out of context. Not nice.

I know.
 

Memento Mori

New member
Depends on the problem. As a student, I couldn't get away with writing "Christ" when a math teacher asked me to solve 7+3x+8x^2=29. In fact, that would be quite blasphemous.

I hope you realize how much stress I've endured not trying to solve that equation. It's mostly involved averting my eyes and reminding myself of my current major.
 

Delmar

Patron Saint of SMACK
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
what you call yourself is meaningless
what you do is not

I vote republican to get conservative judges on the court
and
hope that someday our courts will find laws against abortion to be constitutional
Actually they need to find taking life without due process unconstitutional.
 

Frank Ernest

New member
Hall of Fame
My wife's numbers:

Economic Left/Right: -8.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.74

:shocked: :chuckle: Told you she laughed when some of you called me a lefty.
Ok. You're lefty, she's far-lefty. :chuckle:

Took the test:
Economic Left/Right: 6.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 2.77

The test, such as it is, looks like a reframing of the Libertarian thingy that's been around for years. Scored about the same last time I did it, which was maybe 15 years ago. Libertarians were on the rise back then. Probably had their best days during the 1996 general elections.

According to the Libertarian candidate for my Congressional district back then, one was either a Libertarian or a Republican Fascist. :jolly:
 

aSeattleConserv

BANNED
Banned
If Rand Paul turns out to be half the representative Ron is, he'll still be 5 times better than anything we have now.

As shown in his Youtube video, Rand Paul (like his daddy) is a big fan of Ayn Rand (as is "devout atheist" Walter Block). While I'm sure you are as well, let me say a few words about the woman that currently resides in Hell.

Ayn Rand was a known adulterer and intentionally chose a child-free marriage. Rand was pro-choice (for those of us that aren't PC, it means murdering a unborn human being in the womb, primarily done out of convenience) and an atheist. A born Russian Jew, she abhorred altruism, one of the basic tenets of Judeo-Christian faith. She didn't believe in the morality of charity and don't even mention the handicapped and the poor. She thought selfishness was good virtue.

"Rights," in Ayn Rand's words, "do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born."
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5351

More on Paul and his "idol" Ayn Rand.

http://genuinegopmom.blogspot.com/2010/03/atlas-shrugged-ayn-rand-and-ron-paul.html

If Rand Paul wants to get anywhere, he'd be wise to stay clear of his daddy's embarrassing libertarians views (such as this one on homosexuality).
http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=916

You have, just as you have accused me of doing, taken this out of context. "Human problems" are referred to as economic problems, that is, any human attempt at reconciling the simple fact that we want more than we can get - "scarcity". But once again you have totally ignored everything I've said and gone on with a new straw man.

Negatory good buddy; note that "devout atheist" also included "drugs" in that statement. While I know that libertarians such as yourself see recreational drug use (and it's widespread abuse) as souly an "economic problem", those of us that actually CARE about our fellow human beings see it differently.

By the way, as I recall you said that you don't use drugs? If it's good enough to be in your party platform and OK in the minds of your (Godless) leaders, hence DESTROYING millions upon millions of lives; it DAMN well better be good enough for you.

I hate the smell of hypocrisy, especially on a Sunday morning.

More on our Founding Fathers and God from the ever so brilliant Gary DeMar at American Vision.

"School officials in Connecticut might want to take note of the fact that Constitution includes the phrase, "Done...in the Year of our Lord," a reference to Jesus Christ. They might want to dismiss this historical fact by claiming that it was the documentary style of the day. How can this be if, as strict separationists claim, "our fathers endeavored to retire the gods from politics"? Did they forget to retire Jesus from the Constitution? This would have been a perfect time to retire any implication that God and government intersected at any point. “Our Lord” is a certain reference to the Lord Jesus Christ. The use of “in the Year of Our Lord” continued to be used, even through Jefferson’s administration.
In 1807, Jefferson signed a federal passport that allowed the ship Hershel to proceed on its Journey to London that was dated September 24, 1807 “in the year of our Lord Christ.” Notice the addition of “Christ.” Jefferson could have crossed it out. He didn’t. All 50 state constitutions make reference to God in different ways: Almighty God (the most frequent), Creator, Supreme Ruler of the Universe, Supreme Being, Sovereign Ruler of Nations, Legislator of the Universe, Creator and Preserver of the Universe in their preambles. Did all 50 states forget to retire God from politics?
Then there are the official documents that called for national days of prayer. On March 16, 1776, “by order of Congress” a “day of Humiliation, Fasting and Prayer” where people of the nation were called on to “acknowledge the over ruling providence of God” and bewail their “manifold sins and transgressions, and, by a sincere repentance and amendment of life, appease his righteous displeasure, and, through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ, obtain his pardon and forgiveness.
Congress set aside December 18, 1777 as a day of thanksgiving so the American people “may express the grateful feelings of their hearts and consecrate themselves to the service of their divine benefactor” and on which they might “join the penitent confession of their manifold sins . . . that it may please God, through the merits of Jesus Christ, mercifully to forgive and blot them out of remembrance.” Congress also recommended that Americans petition God “to prosper the means of religion for the promotion and enlargement of that kingdom which consists in righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost.”
 

Paulos

New member
[Ayn] Rand was pro-choice (for those of us that aren't PC, it means murdering a unborn human being in the womb, primarily done out of convenience) and an atheist.

This is from Rand Paul's website:

I am 100% pro life. I believe abortion is taking the life of an innocent human being.
I believe life begins at conception and it is the duty of our government to protect this life.
I will always vote for any and all legislation that would end abortion or lead us in the direction of ending abortion.
I believe in a Human Life Amendment and a Life at Conception Act as federal solutions to the abortion issue. I also believe that while we are working toward this goal, there are many other things we can accomplish in the near term.

Source: http://www.randpaul2010.com/issues/a-g/abortion-2/

Ron Paul on abortion:

Paul calls himself "strongly pro-life" and "an unshakable foe of abortion."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Pro-life_legislation

Also, neither Rand Paul nor Ron Paul are atheists:

"I freely confess that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek His guidance in all that I do." -- Ron Paul
 
Last edited:

Ktoyou

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Rather than assuming a silly little test would capture my conservatism, I have chosen to rate myself on a 10-point scale where 10 would be the most conservative. I will rate myself on several factors, post a brief description and provide a link for more information.

Paleoconservatism =8
Paleoconservatism (sometimes shortened to paleo or paleocon when the context is clear) is a term for an anti-communist and anti-imperialist political philosophy in the United States stressing tradition, civil society and anti-federalism, along with religious, regional, national and Western identity.[1] Chilton Williamson, Jr. describes paleoconservatism as "the expression of rootedness: a sense of place and of history, a sense of self derived from forebears, kin, and culture—an identity that is both collective and personal."[2] Paleoconservatism is not expressed as an ideology and its adherents do not necessarily subscribe to any one party line.[3]

Paleoconservatives in the 21st century often highlight their points of disagreement with neoconservatives, especially on issues like immigration, affirmative action, U.S. funding of its allies abroad, foreign wars, and social welfare.[1] They also criticize social democracy, which some refer to as the "therapeutic managerial state,"[4] the "welfare-warfare state"[5] or "polite totalitarianism."[6] They see themselves as the legitimate heirs to the American conservative tradition.[7]

Paul Gottfried is credited with coining the term in the 1980s.[8] He says the term originally referred to various Americans, such as conservative and traditionalist Catholics and agrarian Southerners, who turned to anticommunism during the Cold War.[9]

Paleoconservative thought has developed within the pages of the Rockford Institute's Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture.[10] Pat Buchanan was heavily influenced by its articles[9] and helped create another paleocon publication, The American Conservative.[11] Its concerns overlap those of the Old Right that opposed the New Deal in the 1930s and 1940s,[12] as well as American social conservatism of the late 20th century expressed, for example, in the book Single Issues by Joseph Sobran.

traditional conservative score =7
Traditionalist conservatism, also known as "traditional conservatism," "traditionalism," and "Burkean conservatism" (and in non-American English-speaking nations, Toryism) describes a political philosophy emphasizing the need for the principles of natural law and transcendent moral order, tradition, hierarchy and organic unity, agrarianism, classicism and high culture, and the intersecting spheres of loyalty.[1] Some traditionalists have embraced the labels "reactionary" and "counterrevolutionary", defying the stigma that has attached to these terms since the Enlightenment. Having a hierarchical view of society many non-American traditionalist conservatives defend the monarchical political structure as the most natural and beneficial social arrangement.

Traditionalism—not being an exact political model—has existed since the inception of civilization; its contemporary expression, however, developed in the Eighteenth Century (particularly in response to the English Civil War and the French Revolution). Not until the mid-twentieth century did traditionalist conservatism in the United States begin to organize itself in earnest as an intellectual and political force. This more modern expression of traditionalist conservatism began among a group of U.S. university professors (labeled the "New Conservatives" by the popular press) who rejected the notions of individualism, liberalism, modernity, and social progress, promoted cultural and educational renewal[2], and revived interest in what T. S. Eliot referred to as "the permanent things" (those perennial truths which endure from age to age and those basic institutions that ground society, such as the church, the family, the state, local community, etc.).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditionalist_conservatism

cultural conservative =7
In the United States, the term cultural conservative has increasingly been used as a replacement for the terms Christian right or religious right. In the US, the term cultural conservative may imply a conservative position in the culture wars. An example of a cultural conservative in the broader sense is Allan Bloom, arguing in The Closing of the American Mind against cultural relativism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_conservatism

social conservative =6
Social conservatism is a political or moral ideology that believes government and/or society have a role in encouraging or enforcing what they consider traditional values or behaviors based on the belief that these are what keep people civilized and decent. A second meaning of the term social conservatism developed in the Nordic countries and continental Europe. There it refers to liberal conservatives supporting modern European welfare states. Social conservatism is distinct from cultural conservatism which focuses on cultural aspects of the issues, such as protecting one's culture, although there are some overlaps.

The accepted meaning of traditional morality often differs from group to group within social conservatism. Thus, there are really no policies or positions that could be considered universal among social conservatives. There are, however, a number of principles to which at least a majority of social conservatives adhere. Social conservatives in many countries generally: favor the pro-life position in the abortion controversy and oppose public funding of embryonic stem cell research; oppose both Eugenics (inheritable genetic modification) and human enhancement (Transhumanism) while supporting Bioconservatism [1]; support a traditional definition of marriage as being one man and one woman; view the nuclear family model as society's foundational unit; oppose expansion of civil marriage and child adoption rights to couples in same-sex relationships; promote public morality and traditional family values; oppose secularism and privatization of religious belief; support the prohibition of drugs, prostitution, premarital sex, non-marital sex and euthanasia; and support the censorship of pornography and what they consider to be obscenity or indecency.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_conservatism

economic conservative =8
Fiscal conservatism is the economic philosophy of prudence in government spending and debt.[38] Edmund Burke, in his 'Reflections on the Revolution in France', argued that a government does not have the right to run up large debts and then throw the burden on the taxpayer:

...t is to the property of the citizen, and not to the demands of the creditor of the state, that the first and original faith of civil society is pledged. The claim of the citizen is prior in time, paramount in title, superior in equity. The fortunes of individuals, whether possessed by acquisition or by descent or in virtue of a participation in the goods of some community, were no part of the creditor's security, expressed or implied...[T]he public, whether represented by a monarch or by a senate, can pledge nothing but the public estate; and it can have no public estate except in what it derives from a just and proportioned imposition upon the citizens at large.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism
 

Newman

New member
While I'm sure you are as well,

There you go again. I've actually never read any of her novels and I don't really know or care about her personal life. But you go right ahead.

Ayn Rand was a known adulterer and intentionally chose a child-free marriage. Rand was pro-choice (for those of us that aren't PC, it means murdering a unborn human being in the womb, primarily done out of convenience) and an atheist. A born Russian Jew, she abhorred altruism, one of the basic tenets of Judeo-Christian faith. She didn't believe in the morality of charity and don't even mention the handicapped and the poor. She thought selfishness was good virtue.

I don't even know what to say anymore. Yeah, that sucks for her. What do you want from me? I've already told you that I agree that abortion is murder. Altruism=good. Objectivism is not libertarianism. Ron Paul has even spoke out against objectivism, for the very reasons you just said. Maybe you should look into Ron Paul's views more carefully. You might like what you see. I'm not really sure where you are coming up with all of these conspiratorial connections...

"Rights," in Ayn Rand's words, "do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born."
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5351

And, of course, I disagree with that. What's next?


Don't care. I didn't even click on the link.

If Rand Paul wants to get anywhere, he'd be wise to stay clear of his daddy's embarrassing libertarians views (such as this one on homosexuality).
http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=916

Actually, Rand Paul would probably garner more votes by approximating his dad's views on things. More and more people are realizing that the state that governs best governs the least. I mean, just look at how many people lean libertarian in this very thread, granted the quiz may have been skewed.

Oh, and I didn't click on the link. I'm sick of this.

While I know that libertarians such as yourself see recreational drug use (and it's widespread abuse) as souly an "economic problem", those of us that actually CARE about our fellow human beings see it differently.

Wrong, wrong, wrong again. You misspelled "solely" by the way.

So, you think that having an aggressive state that makes arbitrary laws about what chemicals you can have in your body and what ones you can't is "caring"? This system has already been tried and the results are obviously in the trash. Time to try something new, that doesn't use something as inefficient as government to solve our problems. Which gets me to another point. You were going on and on about how "solving human problems with liberty" or whatever was bad because we aren't solving them with Christ, but you are arguing for the exact opposite! You want to solve the same human problems with an ever-present, oppressive, and tyrannical government based on your own views! I would much rather churches, benevolent organizations, and charities tackle our myriad social problems than some government bureaucrat whose only motivation is to get more votes. Especially from people like you.

By the way, as I recall you said that you don't use drugs? If it's good enough to be in your party platform and OK in the minds of your (Godless) leaders, hence DESTROYING millions upon millions of lives; it DAMN well better be good enough for you.

Nope. Once again, you are going off on some wild tangent that leads nowhere.

I have never, ever been associated with any party platform. I have never been a member of any political party. When I vote, I vote for the issues and policies that a certain candidate would put in place, or take away (more likely).

I have never, ever used illegal drugs, nor would I recommend anybody use illegal drugs. I just don't think they should be illegal. It's not in the federal government's list of things they are allowed to regulate. Why can't you wrap your head around this simple concept?

I hate the smell of hypocrisy, especially on a Sunday morning.

Then you better not go to church. I always smell a bunch of hypocrisy when I go to church.



I'm done with you. I'll let you have any last word, but you are a miserable person to debate, simply because you absolutely ignore anything I say and just copy and paste stuff from other sites that you think represent my views, even if I totally asserted the opposite in the most recent post.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
I don't agree with Ron Paul on most things. But he is relentlessly honest in what he says, and firmly rooted in principle. Which means he'll never be president; I'm astonished that he gets re-elected, given that his honesty manages to offend almost everyone at some point or another.

I believe I would vote for him, if he was representing my district, just because a voice like that has to be heard above the slathering of political marshmallow.

It's one of the reasons I like Biden.
 

WizardofOz

New member
This is from Rand Paul's website:

I am 100% pro life. I believe abortion is taking the life of an innocent human being.
I believe life begins at conception and it is the duty of our government to protect this life.
I will always vote for any and all legislation that would end abortion or lead us in the direction of ending abortion.
I believe in a Human Life Amendment and a Life at Conception Act as federal solutions to the abortion issue. I also believe that while we are working toward this goal, there are many other things we can accomplish in the near term.

Source: http://www.randpaul2010.com/issues/a-g/abortion-2/

Ron Paul on abortion:

Paul calls himself "strongly pro-life" and "an unshakable foe of abortion."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Pro-life_legislation

Also, neither Rand Paul nor Ron Paul are atheists:

"I freely confess that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek His guidance in all that I do." -- Ron Paul

:mock: aSeattleConserv
 

aSeattleConserv

BANNED
Banned
I have never, ever used illegal drugs, nor would I recommend anybody use illegal drugs. I just don't think they should be illegal.

By making recreational drugs legal, you are in essense saying that they are alright to use.

If you read an earlier post of mine entitled "Civil Government: The Neglected Ministry" you would have noted the following:

"We are popularly told today that the government should not seek to enforce morality — especially (Surprise!) Christian morality — because "you can't legislate morality." Clearly, this contention is at best a half-truth, and as such is a dangerous distortion. It is a distortion which fits quite well with the Humanist canard that "you can't mix religion and politics." All law commands human action; it seeks either to restrain or to urge particular actions. It necessarily says either "Thou shalt" or "Thou shalt not," and it backs these commands to action or restraint with coercion, with sanctions enforced by the power of the sword. The sword and the word are united in law. And because the word commands action by men, the word of law is necessarily a morel teaching, a teaching which seeks to guide the ruled along a particular way of action, of life. This way of life which the law-word commands is what the ruler or lawgiver considers good, and for this reason it is again inevitably a moral teaching, of one sort or another

You want to have the civil magistrate legalize something that DESTROYS millions upon millions of lives? You in essence want the government to be the "pusher man" that now hides out in allies plying his sleazy trade.

That is one of many reasons that I'm disgusted with people like you and your godless leaders.

How's that for "the last word"?
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
[/I]
By making recreational drugs legal, you are in essense saying that they are alright to use.

If you read an earlier post of mine entitled "Civil Government: The Neglected Ministry" you would have noted the following:

"We are popularly told today that the government should not seek to enforce morality — especially (Surprise!) Christian morality — because "you can't legislate morality." Clearly, this contention is at best a half-truth, and as such is a dangerous distortion. It is a distortion which fits quite well with the Humanist canard that "you can't mix religion and politics." All law commands human action; it seeks either to restrain or to urge particular actions. It necessarily says either "Thou shalt" or "Thou shalt not," and it backs these commands to action or restraint with coercion, with sanctions enforced by the power of the sword. The sword and the word are united in law. And because the word commands action by men, the word of law is necessarily a morel teaching, a teaching which seeks to guide the ruled along a particular way of action, of life. This way of life which the law-word commands is what the ruler or lawgiver considers good, and for this reason it is again inevitably a moral teaching, of one sort or another

You want to have the civil magistrate legalize something that DESTROYS millions upon millions of lives? You in essence want the government to be the "pusher man" that now hides out in allies plying his sleazy trade.

That is one of many reasons that I'm disgusted with people like you and your godless leaders.

How's that for "the last word"?

How was it? Pretty pathetic actually ASC. Yet again you've misrepresented someone else's position and refuse to acknowledge or apologise for it. Quite a pattern with you isn't it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top