Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » World Watch » Are you a commie? (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Are you a commie?
theyux
Member
Member # 2794

 - posted      Profile for theyux   Email theyux       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Basically I wante dto know which poltical party you think you fall under. what leanings do you have left, right, middle, upper quartile. And religion

If you dont know dont care, then dont post.

I am a Democrat leftwinger (My friends call me moderate but I notice I am constinstently left on ideals). and a athiest. (techincally im agnostic cause if god ever said "boo". I think i could find religion real fast, but ultimately I dont believe that day will ever come).

Posts: 211 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I am basically in the same boat. Except I'd require a lot more proof than "boo". And even if he could somehow prove it, I'm not sure I'd care.

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom Curtis
Member
Member # 2730

 - posted      Profile for Tom Curtis   Email Tom Curtis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
For what it is worth, I am a democratic market socialist, which means the political group closest to my leanings would be The Greens (in Australia).

Slightly more informatively, I test at -6.00 on the left/right spectrum, and -4.65 on the authoritarian/libertarian spectrum at politicalcompass, putting me in the same grouping as Nelson Mandella, Mahatma Ghandi and the Dalai Lama. (Yeah, I know, I keep unsavoury company [Wink]
http://www.politicalcompass.org/

Posts: 1208 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sbkilb
Member
Member # 2726

 - posted      Profile for sbkilb   Email sbkilb   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom,

Thanks for the link.

Economic Left/Right: 3.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.31

Not quite sure what this means. Either I am well balanced or I have no strong opinions. Funny I remember taking this test in high school and scored about the same. Guess I am thoroughly calcified. [Smile]

Brian

Posts: 190 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fel
Member
Member # 2503

 - posted      Profile for Fel     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hmmm...couldn't get the political compass page to load, but generally I fall strongly libertarian on economic issues and slightly libertarian on social issues.

For my belief I am a Deist.

Posts: 41 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Athelstan
Member
Member # 2566

 - posted      Profile for Athelstan   Email Athelstan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I took the test and apparently I’m Gandhi. Not bad for a retired Shop Steward.

I’ve also just voted for Britain’s entry to Eurovision so my judgement might be a little suspect.

Posts: 715 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fel
Member
Member # 2503

 - posted      Profile for Fel     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Economic Left/Right 6.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian -1.38

There is nobody in my square. [Frown]

Posts: 41 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Economic Left/Right: -9.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.92

As always, way the heck down in the bottom left.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
theyux
Member
Member # 2794

 - posted      Profile for theyux   Email theyux       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
according to that im

Economic Left/Right: 0.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.21


Not sure what it means but whatever.

And as far sneeding more than a boo. think about it. It wouldnt be a normal mortal boo. Or undead ghost boo. But an omipotent BOo. that is an intimidating boo!

Posts: 211 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Economic Left/Right: -6.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.92

Exactly in middle between Left and Libertarian. I'd say that's pretty accurate. And just about the same as the last time we took this thing. Between Nelson Mandella and the Dali Lama. Not so sure how accurate that is.

KE

[ March 04, 2006, 11:36 PM: Message edited by: KnightEnder ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You think about it. Aliens with sufficiently advanced technology could do the same thing.

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
theyux
Member
Member # 2794

 - posted      Profile for theyux   Email theyux       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well if its an omipotent sounding boo, I think I would fall for it. What can I say im a feeble minded Deomcrat.
Posts: 211 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TheDeamon
Member
Member # 551

 - posted      Profile for TheDeamon   Email TheDeamon   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Our race has many superior qualities, compared with other races."

Which race are they refering to?

Talk about your loaded question with little context.

I strongly agree that that the human race is vastly superior to a bunch of Slugs crawling around in a damp cave...

But I'd have to the strongly disagree about my "race" of "white" humans being superior to that of the "race" of "black" humans running around.

[edit}And how does:

"A genuine free market requires restrictions on the ability of predator multinationals to create monopolies."

Measure my personal political views?

If there are restrictions on the market preventing predators multinationals from creating a monopoly, then you aren't talking about a "genuine free market."

And huh?

"What goes on in a private bedroom between consenting adults is no business of the state."

As long as the state is in the business of recognizing marriages, I can think of at least one instance where what goes on in that private bedroom between consenting adults is business of the states: People carrying out an adulterous relationship, which would be(and should be) grounds for dissolving that marriage. Now as to wether or not the state should be seeking out that information, that is another item entirely.

According to them:

Economic Left/Right: 0.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.49

[ March 24, 2006, 11:48 AM: Message edited by: TheDeamon ]

Posts: 505 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
StephenJK
Member
Member # 2829

 - posted      Profile for StephenJK         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here's what I got:
Economic Left/Right: 0.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.77

I'd say that's very accurate.

As far as religion I subscribe to the Taoist philosophy. In fact I'm reading The Way of Life according to Lao Tzu right now.

Posts: 8 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pelegius
Member
Member # 2399

 - posted      Profile for Pelegius     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I have never liked my score. While I admit to being a libertarian, my economics are closer to Chirac than Mandela.
Posts: 1644 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tezcatlipoca
Member
Member # 1312

 - posted      Profile for Tezcatlipoca     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I am a Minarchist. I pretty much get angry about anything the government does, unless it involves the very few functions I consider essential and something the government can do most effeciently (that right there cuts out almost everything the government does in my mind [Roll Eyes] ). The rest is theft. Can't sum it up more than that.

And I am also Catholic since you want to know my religion.

Posts: 1272 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
6
3
Catholic

Apparently I am moving down and to the right since I last took it a couple years ago. Less hitler, more Thatcher.

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
theyux
Member
Member # 2794

 - posted      Profile for theyux   Email theyux       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"A genuine free market requires restrictions on the ability of predator multinationals to create monopolies."

they say that in reference to America. The fact is Free market doesnt work. Blakc TUsday anyone. (Its why the federal government now has the ability to force you to hold on to stock.)

Posts: 211 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TheDeamon
Member
Member # 551

 - posted      Profile for TheDeamon   Email TheDeamon   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by theyux:
"A genuine free market requires restrictions on the ability of predator multinationals to create monopolies."

they say that in reference to America. The fact is Free market doesnt work. Blakc TUsday anyone. (Its why the federal government now has the ability to force you to hold on to stock.)

I still disagree with the wording. The better phrasing, in my view would have been:

"A free market needs restrictions on the ability of predator multinationals to create monopolies."

1) Strongly Disagree 2) Disagree 3) Agree 4) Strongly Agree

As it was those 4 answers don't work with the origional question. As a "genuine free market" is no longer a "genuine free market" once restrictions are placed upon it. If it has restrictions, it is a free market except for when certain conditions are met.

At least for me "genuine" means something that is untainted and pure; or perhaps better expressed as "authentic." Something an economy with restrictions on it, no matter how light, cannot attach to claims of being a "free market."

For reference: Merriam Webster online defines Genuine as
quote:
1 a : actually having the reputed or apparent qualities or character <genuine vintage wines> b : actually produced by or proceeding from the alleged source or author <the signature is genuine> c : sincerely and honestly felt or experienced <a deep and genuine love> d : ACTUAL, TRUE <a genuine improvement>
2 : free from hypocrisy or pretense : SINCERE"


Posts: 505 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Automath
Member
Member # 2720

 - posted      Profile for Automath     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Did you add that emphasis?
Posts: 231 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't remember my exact score, but it's always -4 point something on the econ, and - 6 point something on the libertarian. With The Dalai and Nelson and such...

Duotheist.

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Since I'm almost in the same spot, Ricky, what is a Duotheist?

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SlingStone
New Member
Member # 2821

 - posted      Profile for SlingStone   Email SlingStone       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Duotheisim is the (nebulous?) belief in the sacred god and goddess as represented/reflected in some form in all major religions. Practically, however, it's more of a modernization of the fundamentals of Celtic witchcraft with emphasis on the duality of life, male and female characteristics.

The compass site mark me as between Mandela and Ghandi, but I think the questions are worded as the bias one's scores to the left.

In religion, I'm between Pluralism, Agnosticism, and Presbyterianism (as I was raised/confirmed).

Posts: 2 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thanks.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Cytania
Member
Member # 2598

 - posted      Profile for Cytania     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Leftwing liberal with libertarian frosting.

Atheist (but raised anglican/baptist).

Posts: 743 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom Curtis
Member
Member # 2730

 - posted      Profile for Tom Curtis   Email Tom Curtis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A genuinely free market, ie, one with absolutely no government interventions in the market, would:

Have no corporations.

The ability of things to be owned except by individuals constitutes an interference in the market by itself. It is only by means of legislative means that corporations can exist, so introducing them to the market automatically involves some form of government interference in that market.

Have not limited liability.

I think that would be bleeding obvious. Legislation preventing some creditors from recovering the full extent of what they are owed constitutes an interference in the market. Likewise, secured creditors also involve government interference.

Would have an on average inflation target for the reserve bank of 0.

That is, the government would not continuosly inflate the money supply to gaurantee that the economy is always slightly inflationary. The effect of doing so means that workers must continously renegotiate their salary just to maintain their real wage. In otherwords, continous positive inflation represents a tax on workers for the benefit of employers and constitutes a government interference.

Without the first two interferences, there could be no multinational corporations. Therefore a genuinely free market would contain no multi-national corporations.

The debate as to whether the government should interfere in the market is over. It is accepted by all sides that it should. It is just that one side of the debate pretends that government interventions to aid the wealthy aren't interventions so that they can run and ideological campaign without concern for the facts.

Posts: 1208 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You think about it. Aliens with sufficiently advanced technology could do the same thing.
KE

Hmmm. Seems like I read a sci-fi short story to that effect somewhere. [Wink]
Adam

Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As I expected, no real change here:

Economic Left/Right: 3.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.77

I'm a Christian.

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Automath
Member
Member # 2720

 - posted      Profile for Automath     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Without the first two interferences, there could be no multinational corporations. Therefore a genuinely free market would contain no multi-national corporations.
Who's to say it should?
Posts: 231 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TheDeamon
Member
Member # 551

 - posted      Profile for TheDeamon   Email TheDeamon   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tom Curtis:
A genuinely free market, ie, one with absolutely no government interventions in the market, would:

Have no corporations.

I highly doubt this. As far as their being legaly recognized, that is another matter, but corporations would still exist on a functional level.

The mechanisims they(corporations) are able to use are simply far more efficient than what most people could hope to pull off on their own. The "purchasing power" of 30 people who have pooled their resources together is going to be greater than the "purchasing power" of any one of those 30 people acting as individuals... With or without government intervention.

Posts: 505 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
IrishTD
Member
Member # 2216

 - posted      Profile for IrishTD   Email IrishTD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Economic Left/Right: 2.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.82

Raised Catholic.

Posts: 825 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
dwaylay
New Member
Member # 2841

 - posted      Profile for dwaylay   Email dwaylay       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
-6.75Left -4.72Libertarian
I think it just means that I wish the world would be better for all individuals.

Posts: 4 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom Curtis
Member
Member # 2730

 - posted      Profile for Tom Curtis   Email Tom Curtis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The mechanisims they(corporations) are able to use are simply far more efficient than what most people could hope to pull off on their own. The "purchasing power" of 30 people who have pooled their resources together is going to be greater than the "purchasing power" of any one of those 30 people acting as individuals... With or without government intervention.
I have no doubt that there would be partnerships, some possibly involving as many as thirty people. But a partnership is not a corporation. Without government intervention, anyone who owns part of a business would own part of everything owned by that business, unlike the situation with corporations. They would consequently be able to assert partial control over anything owned by the business, and by liable for any losses of the business.
Posts: 1208 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TheDeamon
Member
Member # 551

 - posted      Profile for TheDeamon   Email TheDeamon   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tom Curtis:
Without government intervention, anyone who owns part of a business would own part of everything owned by that business, unlike the situation with corporations. They would consequently be able to assert partial control over anything owned by the business, and by liable for any losses of the business.

Except liability is also something that functions on a governmental level, not a free market one.

Buyer beware.

Yet another governmental intervention on an otherwise free market economy.

I think most people, including advocates of a "free market system" would be horrified as to what a "genuine free market" entails.

That being said, I don't think a genuine free market exists today, and I don't think many would seriously wants to live under one either if they knew what it entailed.

But that doesn't change the fact that the political axis test asks if a genuine free market requires regulation. If the market is regulated, no matter how lightly, it is no longer a "genuine free market."

[ March 29, 2006, 09:31 AM: Message edited by: TheDeamon ]

Posts: 505 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ikemook
Member
Member # 1519

 - posted      Profile for Ikemook   Email Ikemook   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm somewhere between libertarian and moderate liberal, usually about halfway between. Where exactly depends on the subject matter at hand ^_~

However, I am continually growing more and more libertarian the more I am exposed to extreme left liberalism, which seems to be the major theme in this particular incarnation of the political philosophy. I'm particularly put off by the excessive emphasis of many extremes on deconstructionist, post-modern theory to the exclusion of a more rationalist, modernist understanding. Not that I have anything against post modernism in general (I use it quite frequently as an archaeologist and anthropologist), but damn, some people take it waaaaay too far. The minute you fail to acknowledge the primacy of evidence and reality is the minute you've lost me.

I'm an atheist Humanist, with a touch of nonrational spirituality (I would call it excessive nonrational emotionality, but since most people go with spirituality, I use the term for ease ^_~). And if God came down and said "Hi, I'm God," I'm not entirely sure I would believe him. Most likely, I wouldn't care.

Sincerely and Respectfully,

David Carlson

Posts: 415 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom Curtis
Member
Member # 2730

 - posted      Profile for Tom Curtis   Email Tom Curtis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Except liability is also something that functions on a governmental level, not a free market one.
Liability no more functions at a government level than does property. That is, the minimum government intervention to have property laws, and to enforce them is also sufficient to have liability laws, and to enforce them. So at that stage, if you wish to say that liability is not part of a free market, you are also compelled to say that property is not part of a free market, which is self defeating.

But regardless of whether you accept this point, multinationals cannot exist in a genuinely unregulated market because they are corporations, and corporations cannot exist without government regulation.

quote:
But that doesn't change the fact that the political axis test asks if a genuine free market requires regulation. If the market is regulated, no matter how lightly, it is no longer a "genuine free market."
That is a matter of definition. Economists have proved, starting with Adam Smith, that a "free market" inexorably satisfies demand better than any other mechanism for distributing goods. But, in doing so, they have turned "free market" into a technical term of economics. In economics, "free market" means any market that satisfies the conditions assumed in the proof that "free markets" best satisfy demand. But as such, that is not necessarilly the same as an unregulated market.

In economics, a "free market" satisfies the following conditions:

There is no coercion;

There are no transaction costs;

There are no externalities (positive or negative);

Every participant in the market has perfect knowledge;

There is perfect competition; and

All transactions take place instantaneously.

Transparently, all these presupositions are false in real life. More importantly, some of them can only be approximated to with the help of government regulation, so that an approximately "free market" in the economists sense can only be achieved through government regulation. In fact, some government regulations make the actual market a less good approximation of a "free market". Amongst these are those which all corporations, which reduce competition.

Posts: 1208 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
UnAmericanYOU
New Member
Member # 2845

 - posted      Profile for UnAmericanYOU   Email UnAmericanYOU       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fel:
Economic Left/Right 6.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian -1.38

There is nobody in my square. [Frown]

Is now. Go, free market!
Posts: 2 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TheDeamon
Member
Member # 551

 - posted      Profile for TheDeamon   Email TheDeamon   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tom Curtis:
quote:
Except liability is also something that functions on a governmental level, not a free market one.
Liability no more functions at a government level than does property. That is, the minimum government intervention to have property laws, and to enforce them is also sufficient to have liability laws, and to enforce them. So at that stage, if you wish to say that liability is not part of a free market, you are also compelled to say that property is not part of a free market, which is self defeating.
I guess it depends on where you draw the line on liability. I declared liability to be a government intervention because more often than not it is finding a use where someone burns themselves with scalding hot coffee and the vendor is held liable for not warning the customer about the hazards of spilling it on themselves(or others).

Now if you are talking about liability in the form of keeping peopel accountable for instances such as theft, indebtedness, etc. I think we can agree that starts moving towards things that compliment the market, rather than intervene within it.

quote:
But regardless of whether you accept this point, multinationals cannot exist in a genuinely unregulated market because they are corporations, and corporations cannot exist without government regulation.
I still disagree, Multinationals would still exist in a free market system because they are shown to be one of the most efficient means of doing business. Wether or not they they are recognized as Corporate entities by governments is moot, because the function/role that a Multinational Corporation performs is still be done, just under a different label.

quote:
In economics, a "free market" satisfies the following conditions:

There is no coercion;

There are no transaction costs;

There are no externalities (positive or negative);

Every participant in the market has perfect knowledge;

There is perfect competition; and

All transactions take place instantaneously.

I'm not arguing the definition of free market, I would agree that an economy that meets most of those criteria is considered to be(and is) a free market economy.

The thing I am arguing is the definition of a "genuine free market" which in my view has to meet all, not most, of the criteria.

Unless you can find me a Genuine Pigskin (Leather) Football which contains artificial leather.

quote:
Transparently, all these presupositions are false in real life. More importantly, some of them can only be approximated to with the help of government regulation, so that an approximately "free market" in the economists sense can only be achieved through government regulation. In fact, some government regulations make the actual market a less good approximation of a "free market". Amongst these are those which all corporations, which reduce competition.
Do note, I said previously the question would be fine if they dropped the "genuine" off of the question. But because of that one word being present, they have turned that question into one with a right or wrong answer, political views notwithstanding.

I belive I also said previously in this thread that a genuine free market doesn't exist(and probably can't, have to love human nature), which is something you just supported in your own way.

Posts: 505 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Colin JM0397
Member
Member # 916

 - posted      Profile for Colin JM0397   Email Colin JM0397   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Interesting. Many moons away from Ornery must have softened me. Still out there in the empty quadrant, but more towards the middle on the right/left thing these days.
right/left: .88
Autho/Lib: -3.54

At first it's striking to find myself out there with no one to look up to... However, upon reflection, the far lower-right (double negative) numbers would basically make you an anarchist, and what the hell has an anarchist ever controlled?

"Excuse me, dear anarchist leader, here's my tax money."
"Keep it. You earned it."
"Um, there's some pot holes in my road, when are you going to fix them?"
"Fix them yourself."
"There's a stalker living in my basement, when are the police going to come by and deal with him?"
"Buy a gun, take care of it yourself."

Not a leader who'd last long at all, but that's another discussion...

Happy to be a civilian again; perhaps I'll be around some more in the future.

Posts: 4738 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tezcatlipoca
Member
Member # 1312

 - posted      Profile for Tezcatlipoca     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Not a leader who'd last long at all, but that's another discussion...
Perhaps one where you can explain how you put the words "Anarchist" and "Leader" together. [Wink]
Posts: 1272 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1