Jump to content
270soft Forum
Conservative Elector 2

POLL: How conservative are you?

How conservative are you?  

23 members have voted

  1. 1. Which statements do you support?

    • I oppose abortion except in the case the mother's life is threatened (repealing Roe v. Wade)
    • I support the death penalty
    • I oppose same-sex marriage (repealing Obergfell v. Hodges)
    • I support deporting illegal immigration
    • I recognize Juan Guaidó as president of Venezuela
    • I support an intervention in a foreign country if US interests are threatened
    • I oppose affirmative action
    • I support the 2nd amendment
    • I support repealing Obamacare
    • I support reducing taxes
    • I support deregulating banks
    • I support withdrawing from the Iran-Deal and the Paris Climate Agreement
    • I support Israel and it's government
    • I support increasing the military budget
    • I support keeping the electoral college
    • I oppose the decriminalization of marijuana
    • I support making flag desecration a criminal offense
      0
    • I oppose to worry about climate change as a top priority
    • I support right-to-work laws
    • I agree with none of these statements
  2. 2. How conservative do you view yourself?

    • 1 - I am a staunch liberal and proud of it.
    • 2 - I am clearly on the left but I cannot accept some far-left policies.
    • 3 - I am pretty much a centrist.
    • 4 - I am clearly on the right but I cannot accept some far-right policies.
      0
    • 5 - I am a staunch conservative and proud of it.


Recommended Posts

I have no idea what is happening in Venezuela...I have a six year old daughter who gets all of the attention that I used to dedicate to foreign affairs...so I skipped that one.

I support the death penalty and military interventions.  I support Israel on the basis that they are our primary ally in the Middle East.  I support the electoral college and (though it wasn’t asked) think making DC a state is ridiculous.

But the Republican Party is tragically wrong when it comes to gay marriage, immigration policies (especially kids in cages and the Muslim ban), and women’s rights.

Country before party.

But species before country.

I supported W Bush twice, then Obama twice, and would have happily voted for Jeb! over Hillary — but Trump is the worst thing that has happened to our country in my lifetime.  Yes, worse than 9/11.

In 2020, my top three are Buttigieg, Warren, and Literally Anyone But Trump (in that order).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Actinguy said:

I have no idea what is happening in Venezuela...I have a six year old daughter who gets all of the attention that I used to dedicate to foreign affairs...so I skipped that one.

I support the death penalty and military interventions.  I support Israel on the basis that they are our primary ally in the Middle East.  I support the electoral college and (though it wasn’t asked) think making DC a state is ridiculous.

But the Republican Party is tragically wrong when it comes to gay marriage, immigration policies (especially kids in cages and the Muslim ban), and women’s rights.

Country before party.

But species before country.

I supported W Bush twice, then Obama twice, and would have happily voted for Jeb! over Hillary — but Trump is the worst thing that has happened to our country in my lifetime.  Yes, worse than 9/11.

In 2020, my top three are Buttigieg, Warren, and Literally Anyone But Trump (in that order).

I would have voted for several Republicans over Clinton if all appointments were representative of the president. As Clinton would appoint a liberal cabinet, judges, and adopt liberal policies, it seemed like a no brained to pick the unlikable Clinton over even Kasich. If the president didn’t make such selections and I knew all judges would be swing and cabinet moderate, and it was really just a vote for a president and not what the president will do, then I’d consider Kasich over Clinton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I would have voted for several Republicans over Clinton if all appointments were representative of the president. As Clinton would appoint a liberal cabinet, judges, and adopt liberal policies, it seemed like a no brained to pick the unlikable Clinton over even Kasich. If the president didn’t make such selections and I knew all judges would be swing and cabinet moderate, and it was really just a vote for a president and not what the president will do, then I’d consider Kasich over Clinton

I was still an independent moderate at the time.  Even as I voted for Clinton in the General, I also voted for Senator Portman and several other Republicans because I wanted Hillary to be kept in check.

But then Trump won, and all of our checks and balances evaporated overnight.

I can’t imagine ever voting for a Republican ever again.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

I have no idea what is happening in Venezuela...I have a six year old daughter who gets all of the attention that I used to dedicate to foreign affairs...so I skipped that one.

I support the death penalty and military interventions.  I support Israel on the basis that they are our primary ally in the Middle East.  I support the electoral college and (though it wasn’t asked) think making DC a state is ridiculous.

But the Republican Party is tragically wrong when it comes to gay marriage, immigration policies (especially kids in cages and the Muslim ban), and women’s rights.

Country before party.

But species before country.

I supported W Bush twice, then Obama twice, and would have happily voted for Jeb! over Hillary — but Trump is the worst thing that has happened to our country in my lifetime.  Yes, worse than 9/11.

In 2020, my top three are Buttigieg, Warren, and Literally Anyone But Trump (in that order).

Military interventionism, whether by the U.S. or most other nations with the capability to do so, are one of biggest sources of evil and horrid crimes committed by such nations. And, given the fact that a lot of these wars - including the Iraq War - are based on flimsy and false casus belli that the government lies through it's teeth about, then starts up with the Goebbels-school of propaganda that utterly dehumanizes ALL of the people of the nation war is declared on to attempt to blunt criticizism or condemnation of government and military atrocities and war crimes, and curb any possible sympathy for them. And violations of due process often accompany them as "national security" measures - like the great act of treason by the U.S. Government against their people that is the "Patriot Act." And in all my knowledge of electoral history of numerous nations, I have noticed one glaring thing amongst it all - no nation NOT under imminent military attack on it's territory has EVER held a binding referendum or consultation of it's citizens, or waited until after a national election, before declaring a new war - so as to allow their voters the choice in the matter. I am unaware of this EVER happening, anywhere in the world - certainly not in the United States. So no, I cannot support military intervention, and I see them as crimes committed by the governments declaring them, domestically and internationally. Only evil comes of them. And, the fact that Bush and those who had been in his Administration are not being tried for high crimes of numerous sorts, but enjoying cushy retirements,, is a violation of the very concept of justice itself.

The Electoral College is the biggest chains and shackles on the American politics and American voters and their true choice in leadership (and quality leadership), and is the biggest institution LOCKING the system into one of the five WORST political cultures in the First World, along with Japan, Singapore, Portugal, and Hungary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, darkmoon72 said:

Some of these in #1 are tough, and my opinion is a bit more nuanced than the statements themselves.  Since I can't just vote in #2 (I'm a liberal and proud of it), I left everything blank.

For example:

"I recognize Juan Guaidó as president of Venezuela" - hard for me to say what the best outcome for Venezuela is right now, although I have serious concerns about both Maduro and Guaidó, and have entertained the possibility that neither of them are really great for the country.  It seems Venezuela may just be another proxy war.

"I support an intervention in a foreign country if US interests are threatened" - really depends on what you mean by this.  If "threatened" means "we're being invaded right now", I would absolutely agree.  If "threatened" means "we made up fictitious reasons to invade another country that didn't attack us, like George W. Bush's Iraq War", my answer is no.  And there's a whole lot of grey area between those two extremes.

"I support reducing taxes" - far too broad a statement.  I definitely think the US tax system is backwards - income is taxed more than capital gains, and I think the two should largely be reversed, and higher incomes taxed more progressively than they are now.  On the other hand, I do prefer more regressive taxes being reduced, like sales taxes, because they disproportionately hurt poorer people.

"I support Israel and it's government" - I definitely support Israel's right to exist, which not everyone does.  I also generally support democratic peace theory, and Israel is hands-down the most stable democracy in the Middle East.  But I can't stand Netanyahu, or indeed many Likud leaders, and would be quite happy to see Benny Gantz become PM instead, and Netanyahu in prison for his corruption scandals.

"I oppose the decriminalization of marijuana" - well, sure, but only because I believe marijuana should be legal, taxed and regulated, much like alcohol and cigarettes.  "Decriminalization" doesn't go far enough - there's still a black market.

"I support making flag desecration a criminal offense" - depending on how the "desecration" occurs, in some cases it already is a criminal offense.  Arson, theft, and vandalism, for example, are already criminal offenses, and I am perfectly fine with that.  But I don't think we need an additional law specific to the flag itself, and what constitutes "desecration" is often in the eye of the beholder - some people think hanging a flag upside down is desecration, for example.

I pretty much agree almost entirely with this (except taxation - but only because I'm utterly unfamiliar with U.S. tax law, save I'm told it's VERY different than Canadian tax law), and these are VERY good points here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Patine said:

Military interventionism, whether by the U.S. or most other nations with the capability to do so, are one of biggest sources of evil and horrid crimes committed by such nations. And, given the fact that a lot of these wars - including the Iraq War - are based on flimsy and false casus belli that the government lies through it's teeth about, then starts up with the Goebbels-school of propaganda that utterly dehumanizes ALL of the people of the nation war is declared on to attempt to blunt criticizism or condemnation of government and military atrocities and war crimes, and curb any possible sympathy for them. And violations of due process often accompany them as "national security" measures - like the great act of treason by the U.S. Government against their people that is the "Patriot Act." And in all my knowledge of electoral history of numerous nations, I have noticed one glaring thing amongst it all - no nation NOT under imminent military attack on it's territory has EVER held a binding referendum or consultation of it's citizens, or waited until after a national election, before declaring a new war - so as to allow their voters the choice in the matter. I am unaware of this EVER happening, anywhere in the world - certainly not in the United States. So no, I cannot support military intervention, and I see them as crimes committed by the governments declaring them, domestically and internationally. Only evil comes of them. And, the fact that Bush and those who had been in his Administration are not being tried for high crimes of numerous sorts, but enjoying cushy retirements,, is a violation of the very concept of justice itself.

 

Neat 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Actinguy said:

Neat 

Your response reeks of sociopathic apathy and contempt for human life and the concept of justice and the rule of law themselves...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Patine said:

Your response reeks of sociopathic apathy and contempt for human life and the concept of justice and the rule of law themselves...

Oh no

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Actinguy said:

Oh no

So basically, you have utterly abdicated any credible, serious, intelligent discourse on this site and are joining the @ThePotatoWalrus? I tried this time to phrase the response in a more grammatically coherent, and less rant-ish structure. And, instead of pointing out how any flaws in my post, or anything that may be incorrect in any eloquent and intelligent way, you coldly and simply dismiss the whole thing with one word. Given the nature of the subject matter, what other conclusions can be logically come to in an rational view of things than "sociopathic apathy and contempt for human life and the concept of justice and the rule of law themselves?" Or have you lost all rational and interactive faculties? Just dismissing every thing I say, regardless of what it is, with brain dead, one or two monosyllable responses, does not actually make you look good or more mature? I am NOT a schoolyard idiot throwing endless, but empty, juvenile insults at you - a situation where such a tactic is actually valid. Dismissing everything I say will end up making you look very bad indeed. I hope you understand this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Patine said:

So basically, you have utterly abdicated any credible, serious, intelligent discourse on this site and are joining the @ThePotatoWalrus? I tried this time to phrase the response in a more grammatically coherent, and less rant-ish structure. And, instead of pointing out how any flaws in my post, or anything that may be incorrect in any eloquent and intelligent way, you coldly and simply dismiss the whole thing with one word. Given the nature of the subject matter, what other conclusions can be logically come to in an rational view of things than "sociopathic apathy and contempt for human life and the concept of justice and the rule of law themselves?" Or have you lost all rational and interactive faculties? Just dismissing every thing I say, regardless of what it is, with brain dead, one or two monosyllable responses, does not actually make you look good or more mature? I am NOT a schoolyard idiot throwing endless, but empty, juvenile insults at you - a situation where such a tactic is actually valid. Dismissing everything I say will end up making you look very bad indeed. I hope you understand this.

I have great discourse with those on this site capable of great discourse, which is a long list.  I haven’t found anyone here yet that agrees with me 100%, and yet we have meaningful, insightful conversations.

But I can’t have great discourse with you.  We don’t connect in that way.  I accept that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Patine said:

So basically, you have utterly abdicated any credible, serious, intelligent discourse on this site and are joining the @ThePotatoWalrus? I tried this time to phrase the response in a more grammatically coherent, and less rant-ish structure. And, instead of pointing out how any flaws in my post, or anything that may be incorrect in any eloquent and intelligent way, you coldly and simply dismiss the whole thing with one word. Given the nature of the subject matter, what other conclusions can be logically come to in an rational view of things than "sociopathic apathy and contempt for human life and the concept of justice and the rule of law themselves?" Or have you lost all rational and interactive faculties? Just dismissing every thing I say, regardless of what it is, with brain dead, one or two monosyllable responses, does not actually make you look good or more mature? I am NOT a schoolyard idiot throwing endless, but empty, juvenile insults at you - a situation where such a tactic is actually valid. Dismissing everything I say will end up making you look very bad indeed. I hope you understand this.

Look, man, here’s the deal:

When I first came to notice you on this site in a memorable way, my first impression was that you were an intelligent teenager — extraordinarily well read for your age, but lacking anything approaching life experience.  So I thought “hey, I can talk to this kid, open his eyes to a wider point of view beyond what you’ll find in a book, and we’ll both get something out of this journey together.”

Then I learned I was wrong about your age, and your willingness to learn anything you can’t find in a book (other than the dictionary, interestingly enough) and...I just stopped seeing how either of us were going to get anything out of this.

You have chosen your world view based on your values, and I have chosen mine based on mine, and the way that we talk to each other here has not been effective in persuading either one of us.

Sometimes, I just don’t have the energy to go through the motions when I already know the end result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

I have great discourse with those on this site capable of great discourse, which is a long list.  I haven’t found anyone here yet that agrees with me 100%, and yet we have meaningful, insightful conversations.

But I can’t have great discourse with you.  We don’t connect in that way.  I accept that.

So, because we've failed to connect on most cases so far, I'm dismissed forever as a doomed cause? And all my posts are to be dismissed as having no validity and no points worthy of responding to because they're by me? Or maybe it's not a lack of connecting, but my more - err, radical - points of view make you uncomfortable, because they bring up possible points you'd rather not get thinking about - and thus best to dismiss me entirely. I admit, I am not a conformist or an in-the-box thinker in socio-political matters, and I will gladly point out "elephants in the room" and suggest drastic solutions (but not ones that involve bloodshed). But I have conviction in what I believe, and I see very real problems with way things are run. And, actually, I'm not completely unique in this - though I'm definitely in a minority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Patine said:

So, because we've failed to connect on most cases so far, I'm dismissed forever as a doomed cause? And all my posts are to be dismissed as having no validity and no points worthy of responding to because they're by me? Or maybe it's not a lack of connecting, but my more - err, radical - points of view make you uncomfortable, because they bring up possible points you'd rather not get thinking about - and thus best to dismiss me entirely. I admit, I am not a conformist or an in-the-box thinker in socio-political matters, and I will gladly point out "elephants in the room" and suggest drastic solutions (but not ones that involve bloodshed). But I have conviction in what I believe, and I see very real problems with way things are. And, actually, I'm not completely unique in this - though I'm definitely in a minority.

You are demanding a level of respect that you have not earned.

I make no such demand from you.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Look, man, here’s the deal:

When I first came to notice you on this site in a memorable way, my first impression was that you were an intelligent teenager — extraordinarily well read for your age, but lacking anything approaching life experience.  So I thought “hey, I can talk to this kid, open his eyes to a wider point of view beyond what you’ll find in a book, and we’ll both get something out of this journey together.”

Then I learned I was wrong about your age, and your willingness to learn anything you can’t find in a book (other than the dictionary, interestingly enough) and...I just stopped seeing how either of us were going to get anything out of this.

You have chosen your world view based on your values, and I have chosen mine based on mine, and the way that we talk to each other here has not been effective in persuading either one of us.

Sometimes, I just don’t have the energy to go through the motions when I already know the end result.

And I suppose being a social worker in a city of over one million for over two decades - something that IMMENSELY shaped my world view and socio-political beliefs, is also only "booklearnin'" as experience goes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

You are demanding a level of respect that you have not earned.

I make no such demand from you.  

I'm not demanding respect - just a lack of utter disrespect by default.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Patine said:

And I suppose being a social worker in a city of over one million for over two decades - something that IMMENSELY shaped my world view and socio-political beliefs, is also only "booklearnin'" as experience goes.

It’s the first time you’ve mentioned it, that I’ve seen.  How would I know about it, until now?

Likewise, you seem to view me as just a Veteran who loves wars.  Did you know I volunteer with a suicide prevention call center?  Of course not.  How would you — I’ve never mentioned it before.

But you are so dismissive and contemptuous in your responses to me and most others on this site, that it just drains me.  I see “Patine has quoted you in a topic”, and I think “Here we go again...”

Even when I TRY to agree with you, as we both hate Trump, it still kicks off another rant of how we’re not really on the same side at all.

You don’t want to just be right...you want to be the ONLY person who is right.

I don’t know what to do with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Actinguy said:

It’s the first time you’ve mentioned it, that I’ve seen.  How would I know about it, until now?

Likewise, you seem to view me as just a Veteran who loves wars.  Did you know I volunteer with a suicide prevention call center?  Of course not.  How would you — I’ve never mentioned it before.

But you are so dismissive and contemptuous in your responses to me and most others on this site, that it just drains me.  I see “Patine has quoted you in a topic”, and I think “Here we go again...”

Even when I TRY to agree with you, as we both hate Trump, it still kicks off another rant of how we’re not really on the same side at all.

You don’t want to just be right...you want to be the ONLY person who is right.

I don’t know what to do with that.

I just you'd seen it in one of MANY other posts I've made here. Most other regular posters are already aware. My mistake for assuming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

It’s the first time you’ve mentioned it, that I’ve seen.  How would I know about it, until now?

Likewise, you seem to view me as just a Veteran who loves wars.  Did you know I volunteer with a suicide prevention call center?  Of course not.  How would you — I’ve never mentioned it before.

But you are so dismissive and contemptuous in your responses to me and most others on this site, that it just drains me.  I see “Patine has quoted you in a topic”, and I think “Here we go again...”

Even when I TRY to agree with you, as we both hate Trump, it still kicks off another rant of how we’re not really on the same side at all.

You don’t want to just be right...you want to be the ONLY person who is right.

I don’t know what to do with that.

And I don't want to be the only one whose "in the right," - it's a lonely and besieged opinion. And, I have been convinced by a number of posters' here having points of view with more validity - and backed down on the entrenched point I had previously taken. But, in my experience, you have often (not always - but often) taken a hard paternalistic tenor to expressing your view to many who disagree, but that doesn't tend to come across well from a man 4 or 5 years younger than me whose often (but not always) pushing establishment saws. So, thus, I become all the more entrenched. I hope this explanation helps a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Patine said:

And I don't want to be the only one whose "in the right," - it's a lonely and besieged opinion. And, I have been convinced by a number of posters' here having points of view with more validity - and backed down on the entrenched point I had previously taken. But, in my experience, you have often (not always - but often) taken a hard paternalistic tenor to expressing your view to many who disagree, but that doesn't tend to come across well from a man 4 or 5 years younger than me whose often (but not always) pushing establishment saws. So, thus, I become all the more entrenched. I hope this explanation helps a bit.

Sure, that’s fine.

But at the end of the day, you’re not persuaded by me and I’m not persuaded by you...so I don’t understand your demand that we have a serious debate — especially when we both apparently find each other to be extraordinarily disrespectful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Sure, that’s fine.

But at the end of the day, you’re not persuaded by me and I’m not persuaded by you...so I don’t understand your demand that we have a serious debate — especially when we both apparently find each other to be extraordinarily disrespectful.

I'm not actually looking for mutual persuasion. But, if you think about it, the majority of rhetoric debates - be they collegiate, academic, religious ecumenical, or certainly political - don't actually lead to persuasion. They bring out ideas into the open and mull them and defend and promote them - but few people who are actually debating REALLY get persuaded in most debates in the world. In that light, I'm willing to be less sharp if you will be less dismissive. I'm not expecting any persuasion. And this would be more for the sake of the whole forum community - of which we are only two members.

Truce?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Patine said:

So basically, you have utterly abdicated any credible, serious, intelligent discourse on this site and are joining the @ThePotatoWalrus? I tried this time to phrase the response in a more grammatically coherent, and less rant-ish structure. And, instead of pointing out how any flaws in my post, or anything that may be incorrect in any eloquent and intelligent way, you coldly and simply dismiss the whole thing with one word. Given the nature of the subject matter, what other conclusions can be logically come to in an rational view of things than "sociopathic apathy and contempt for human life and the concept of justice and the rule of law themselves?" Or have you lost all rational and interactive faculties? Just dismissing every thing I say, regardless of what it is, with brain dead, one or two monosyllable responses, does not actually make you look good or more mature? I am NOT a schoolyard idiot throwing endless, but empty, juvenile insults at you - a situation where such a tactic is actually valid. Dismissing everything I say will end up making you look very bad indeed. I hope you understand this.

stahp using me in comparisons :(

lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Patine said:

I'm not actually looking for mutual persuasion. But, if you think about it, the majority of rhetoric debates - be they collegiate, academic, religious ecumenical, or certainly political - don't actually lead to persuasion. They bring out ideas into the open and mull them and defend and promote them - but few people who are actually debating REALLY get persuaded in most debates in the world. In that light, I'm willing to be less sharp if you will be less dismissive. I'm not expecting any persuasion. And this would be more for the sake of the whole forum community - of which we are only two members.

Truce?

I mean...we've had basically this exact same discussion and proposals of a truce 3 or 4 times already.  It didn't actually change anything.

You have every right to express your viewpoints, and I'm not looking to dissuade you of that.  I don't even set you to "ignore."

But you don't have a right to be taken seriously, or to be rigorously debated for an internet audience.  I don't owe you that, and you have not earned that from me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Patine said:

And I don't want to be the only one whose "in the right," - it's a lonely and besieged opinion. And, I have been convinced by a number of posters' here having points of view with more validity - and backed down on the entrenched point I had previously taken. But, in my experience, you have often (not always - but often) taken a hard paternalistic tenor to expressing your view to many who disagree, but that doesn't tend to come across well from a man 4 or 5 years younger than me whose often (but not always) pushing establishment saws. So, thus, I become all the more entrenched. I hope this explanation helps a bit.

As for my hard paternalistic tenor -- well, yes.  As I've mentioned on here before, I am a dad -- so it's an easy voice for me to slip into.  Especially when I thought you were that intelligent teen that I could help guide, I may have even taken that tone on purpose.

But the first conversation that I recall us having, specifically about the War in Iraq...I mean, I experienced it first hand.  I'm not going to be lectured on something that I actually saw by someone who was not there.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Patine said:

I pretty much agree almost entirely with this (except taxation - but only because I'm utterly unfamiliar with U.S. tax law, save I'm told it's VERY different than Canadian tax law), and these are VERY good points here.

I am similarly in the dark about Canadian tax laws.  Perhaps we could compare notes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Actinguy said:

As for my hard paternalistic tenor -- well, yes.  As I've mentioned on here before, I am a dad -- so it's an easy voice for me to slip into.  Especially when I thought you were that intelligent teen that I could help guide, I may have even taken that tone on purpose.

But the first conversation that I recall us having, specifically about the War in Iraq...I mean, I experienced it first hand.  I'm not going to be lectured on something that I actually saw by someone who was not there.  

Although, notably, even early on, you never did tell me, or even try, why the Iraq War was so "justified" in your view. You basically took the "you had to have been there, now don't question it approach," which is, in a broad sense, actually quite weak and arrogant, assuming only one form of viewpoint on a an issue looked at from many angles is even possibly valid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...