Social Question

DWW25921's avatar

Why are politicians so desperate to get elected that they would lie?

Asked by DWW25921 (5820 points ) December 18th, 2013

I’ve decided to pick on Senator Warren. Here’s an example of one of her ultra liberal rants.

I heard lots of propaganda in that speech and submit the idea that people that polarized are part of the problem with this country. Although the subjects would obviously differ, why is that sort of speech any different than a propaganda spewing Republican blowhard? Do you think you could honestly rely on her to make an impartial decision, on anything? She’s about as diplomatic as a rabid piranha.

“On November 6, 2012, Warren defeated incumbent Scott Brown with a total of 53.7% of the votes.” ~Wikipedia. To further illustrate whether or not someone this polarized can effectively represent her constituents she won by a small margin. Do you think she’s going to go out of her way to see that the needs of the others (almost half) of her state are met?

Boston is a very liberal city. The outlying area and Western mass tends to be conservative. She rallied votes in the Midwestern part by claiming to be a church going Methodist. Of course that was a load of crap but she got the moderate folks off the fence in her favor. Tell the people what they want to hear and they will vote!

How has she promoted Christianity since moving to Washington? How is this type of strategy any different than what the other side does? Now back to that speech, would she have made that, while campaigning in central Massachusetts?

“my old Methodist preacher roots”

Cooking the numbers…

Of course Republicans and Democrats are different. But their tactics are the same. Their sponsors are the same (see below link) and their corruption and greed are the same. I was born in Massachusetts so this one hit home a little.

What can we the people do about this? Is anyone in office today actually working for the people?

The numbers are HUGE!
As long as it’s all about the money they will never work for us.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

38 Answers

Judi's avatar

How do you know she doesn’t go to church? Maybe she is a Christian like me who sees he job to champion the weak and give voice to the voiceless. Methodists tend to be a bit more liberal in general than southern Baptists or Pentecostals.
I have to admit I didn’t watch your links as hubby is sleeping next to me and I don’t want to wake him up.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Because of the potential lucrative corporate bribe as a board of director assignment received after term.

zenvelo's avatar

@DWW25921 She is not supposed to promote Christianity in the least, in fact that’s a violation of the oath of office since that is unconstitutional. So get off that failing.

And your complaint about the first video shows you have a closed mind and aren’t paying attention to her telling the truth about what was happening in the Republican government shut down. Or are you one of those who wants the government shut down except where it gores your own ox?

Elizabeth Warren is one of the most honest politicians out there, she speaks truth to power. That’s why the mainstream Democrats are leery of her.

JLeslie's avatar

I basically agree with the youtube video. Warren is a little more liberal than I am on some things, but she was right, the shut down did end, we do want government to police some things for our safety, she mentioned that sometimes the government doesn’t get it right, or oversteps, and then so we should correct and tweak (I am paraphrasing) not be all against government altogether. It is also true that talking in abtracts does nothing, we need to address specifics.

As far as religion, she is Methodist. I don’t get why you question her religion, and I find it frustrating that you want her to promote Chrisianity in Washington. Unless I mistinterpreted what you wrote about that. When I lived in the south I was completely mystified by how politicians constantly talk about Christianity. It is the strangest thing to me in the United States of America, and other parts of the country have no idea what really goes on regarding that in local politics. It was shocking to me to see ads and commercials when politicians ran for office talking about their religion as a reason to vote for them and supposedly assure us they are good people.

As far as the stats, I don’t know the details surrounding that, but politicians often use stats that I think are bullshit. They don’t bother to question what the stat really means, numbers are manipulated. They don’t necessarily do the manipulating, but they or their people pick and choose a stat that they think will help prove their case. It bothers me when politicians do this, and if Warren did in this case, it bothers me she did it, or went along with it, without really questioning it.

Scott Brown is a fairly liberal Republican. He is pro-coice if I remember correctly, and liberal or moderate on other issues. He, like many Republicans in the north, is not hard line right wing, and probably many democrats and independents voted for him, which would explain the narrow margin Warren won by.

To answer your general question, politicians in general want to win, might feel pushed by their party, and fir some it is their career. They sometimes bend truths, get manipulated by peer pressure, and some of them really believe the bullshit they say. Most of them probably have fairly big egos and like the attention. I do think many manyof them go into politics because they believe they can make a difference, a positive difference.

rojo's avatar

Money, power, fame?

DWW25921's avatar

@zenvelo “She is not supposed to promote Christianity in the least, in fact that’s a violation of the oath of office since that is unconstitutional.” You know they pledge their oaths on a Bible right? The constitution of what country? Certainly not ours. Why do you think that’s illegal? If it’s illegal to promote a religion than why is our government promoting Islam? That’s not even the point… She only brings it up when convenient.

@Judi I don’t know if she goes to church or not. I personally don’t care. The fact that she promotes it, or not, when convenient is the point.

@JLeslie I can honesty agree with most of what you said. As for promoting Christianity, I don’t care if she does or not. I want her, and other politicians, to be consistent. Saying one thing and than something else when the winds change. It drives me nuts!

BhacSsylan's avatar

“If it’s illegal to promote a religion than why is our government promoting Islam?”... what? That’s off the deep end, even for you.

See also, the first amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”, and the Treaty of Tripoli, the first treaty passed in the US, submitted by John Adams and ratified unanimously by the senate, which starts “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion…”.

Also, one has the choice of what to swear on, the bible is not (and can never be under the constitution) required. One may choose another book, and many swear on the constitution.

Anyway, since you say she’s acting inconsistently with her faith, please point out what exactly in her actions is anti-methodist. It would help is discussion instead of just making vague points about it being ‘a load of crap’.

bolwerk's avatar

“There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party … and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat. Republicans are a bit stupider, more rigid, more doctrinaire in their laissez-faire capitalism than the Democrats, who are cuter, prettier, a bit more corrupt — until recently … and more willing than the Republicans to make small adjustments when the poor, the black, the anti-imperialists get out of hand. But, essentially, there is no difference between the two parties.” – Gore Vidal

He misspelled Republikan, but I won’t hold it against him.

zenvelo's avatar

@DWW25921 You don’t have to take the oath on a Bible. It has been taken on a Torah, a Koran, and no book at all.

And where did you get the government is promoting Islam? You made that up. or else you are parroting FOX news, the fount of misinformation.

Discussing one’s own personal beliefs (whcih Senator Warren did, is not promoting a religion. Promoting religion would be requiring you @DWW25921 to be bombarded with constant religious postures, kind of like what the Republicans keep doing.

Coloma's avatar

People lie because it works! It gets them whatever they want in the moment.
It doesn’t matter if it is a politician trying to get elected or a cheating spouse.
Lying is a character issue and profession has nothing to do with it.
The more gain the character disordered person sees, the more and bigger the lies.

bolwerk's avatar

Actually, speaking in terms of realpolitik, it would be prudent if the USA did promote Islam. Religious authoritarianism seems to drop markedly when no one group feels it has a majority position. Judaism has little hope of filling the void, given how ethnocentric it is, but Islam is both theologically similar to Christianity and has an “evangelical” bent. Christian supremacists in the USA already share most of the more antisocial traits found in extreme Islamic factions.

tom_g's avatar

@DWW25921: “If it’s illegal to promote a religion than why is our government promoting Islam?”

Ok, please explain – with citation. Thanks.

KNOWITALL's avatar

Personally I think most of them, including Obama, will whore themselves out for votes regardless of whether what they’re promising is doable or not, true or not, etc…

Unfortunately, it’s hard to tell which liar is better for the country.

So no, I don’t think most candidates really work for the people anymore, it’s all about themselves with maybe a little bit for the people thrown in for re-election.

JLeslie's avatar

@DWW25921 So, are you saying you think she played a religion “card” but doesn’t really do anything in politics remotely related to Christianity?

BhacSsylan's avatar

For some context on the Methodist bit, here’s what she had to say in an interview last year:

“Methodists believe in action. And that’s a part of goodness — a part of worship of God is to act.

“I grew up in a Methodist church and I was a Sunday school teacher when we lived back in Texas. When I was making the decision whether to get into this Senate race, one of the important touch points for me was to read my bible. And it’s Matthew 25:40, you know the passage? For me, that passage is the heart of what I believe. Because what it says is “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of these the least of these my bretheren. ...” (I still use the King James version, it’s beautiful).

“It says three things: it says there is God in…the hungry, the poor, the stranger, there is God in each of us. Because. Remember, it says “you did it unto me.” And that’s saying God was in, God is in, the poor, the thirsty, the stranger.

“But then part two is he never asks the question of going to heaven and hell, what your intent was, the question was: Did you act? And those who gave meat to the hungry, those who gave water to the thirsty, those who welcomed the stranger in, were the ones that God welcomed to heaven. ... It stresses the importance of community, because it says, in fact, it’s about action and it’s about action together. ”

Doesn’t seem terribly inconsistent to me.

DWW25921's avatar

@BhacSsylan I see you’ve missed the point. I was trying to display the fact that a person who is running for office has a different addenda than someone who has the office. She was one thing during the campaign and another in Washington. I used her as an example but she is not the only one, it seems this behavior is the accepted norm. I never said she was anti- Methodist, or anything else for that matter. I simply pointed out how priorities chance once someone wins the election.

@bolwerk That was an interesting quote! Thanks for the input!

@zenvelo I don’t watch faux news. I’m a staunch Independent. I read a lot of articles. This one comes to mind. It’s not really on topic but yes, the USA is actively promoting Islam in everything from school books to new immigration policies. I do have a reference as one of the examples of this. It’s blatantly obvious to me I really don’t understand your confusion on this issue.

@Coloma I love the simplicity of your answer. “People lie because it works!” You know that is so true and very sad! Dishonesty is the norm, it’s expected!

@bolwerk Do Christian extremists regularly blow up buildings using their own Children wired with bombs? You’re right… The similarities abound… wow…

@tom_g Your comment is out of context. I was pointing out that it is not illegal. I would suggest searching the internet for more news sources or at least stop relying so heavily on the popular propaganda we see today. Anyway, I have a source for my “US promoting Islam” comment. Seriously though, isn’t is obvious? Incidentally, praising Islam for women’s rights is akin to praising Hitler for Jewish tolerance.

@KNOWITALL I think you’re right. They don’t work for us. They work for themselves.

@JLeslie I’m saying if it fits for the moment wear it. If it doesn’t say something else. She changes depending upon the crowd she’s in front of. I’m saying, not unlike most politicians, she’s inconsistent.

@BhacSsylan Do you think she would make those statements in front of her more rigid liberal peers?

BhacSsylan's avatar

” I never said she was anti- Methodist, or anything else for that matter. I simply pointed out how priorities chance once someone wins the election.”

But you’ve not actually shown that’s the case, that’s the problem. You pointed to her saying she was Methodist, and then said “that was a load of crap” and then “How has she promoted Christianity since moving to Washington?” So, first, explain why you think it was crap, and second, where has she ever said that she was going to “promote Christianity in Washington”? Until you show either of those, you haven’t actually shown an inconsistency. She has stated why her Methodist roots are important to her agenda, and she’s stayed true to that agenda as far as I have seen so far.

As to “Do you think she would make those statements in front of her more rigid liberal peers?” Uh, yes. She says similar statements pretty much all the time, actually. Economic populism is pretty much the entirety of her agenda at the moment.

Also, I see your links are up to their usual caliber. World Net Daily, really? The same organization that claimed in response to 9/11 that ”God (has) raised up Shiite Islam as a sword against America” (talk about promoting islam), and has frequently pursued the conspiracy theory that Obama is not a natural-born American citizen and is thus not eligible to serve as president. From that article, we get great quotes like this:

“Your tax dollars at work.”
“The National Park Service earlier this year prepared for sequestration budget cuts by closing visitor centers and furloughing park police – but still managed to produce videos promotion the virtues of Islam’s respect for women’s rights,””
“The most egregious aspect of the video is that it was funded with taxpayer dollars”

From the National Park’s website about that exhibit, the very first line, in fact: “No federal taxpayer or National Park Service funds were spent on the production of these videos. They were created through a donation from the Friends of Women’s Rights National Historical Park, a non-profit organization.”

You really should know better by now.

tom_g's avatar

@DWW25921 – I repeat, please explain – with citation*. Thanks. (re: @DWW25921: “If it’s illegal to promote a religion than why is our government promoting Islam?”)

* I will not click on a link.

Coloma's avatar

@DWW25921 I agree, I often think I should just give up on believing most people are honest, but, call me a Pollyanna, I need to believe that.
I cherish integrity and often my honesty has left me at a disadvantage but…I like the woman in the mirror and that counts for a LOT!

Judi's avatar

I think it was Adams who took his oath on a Book of Laws, not the Bible.

JLeslie's avatar

@DWW25921 I don’t see the inconsistency regarding her being Methodist. I am not saying she is never inconsistent, we all are inconsistent sometimes, I’m sure she has been more than once, but I still say she is Methodist, and she can reference her religion if something about it stands out to her as being pertinent, or maybe she feels how she thinks on some topics come from her religion and mentions it, but I don’t see her as someone who brings religion in her governing per se and I think she is consistent with that. She separates the two, and that is exactly what I want in my government. She can be a Christian woman and still understand she lives in a religiously diverse country. I know some politicans don’t, but she does.

DWW25921's avatar

@BhacSsylan I honestly don’t know what to tell you more than what I already have. I suppose we’re at an impasse than. I believe there are lies and corruption in government and you do not. I have no problem with that.

@tom_g In any event, I can’t be to hard on you. I was just on MSNBC and CNN and the spewing of propaganda made me sick and I had to leave the sites. So, I totally understand the mentality. Anyway, here’s an article about a very well documented situation in Florida. Surly you’ve heard about it.

@JLeslie I appreciate your optimism and hope that’s the case. However I do have mistrust for government officials…

BhacSsylan's avatar

@DWW25921 Oh, there are lies an corruption in government (see also: my home state of New Jersey and the current hubbub over the George Washington bridge), but I’m simply saying you either picked a very poor example in this case, or are doing a bad job of defending it. Either back up your examples, or chose a better one! If you pick something and can’t actually defend the choice, why should we believe what you say?

Basically, you said there’s lies, and then picked a specific example. If you can not back up the example with facts, how are we to know your thesis is true? Either back it up, or put up a better example you can back up.

Also, from the original report that your link was based on, it doesn’t exactly sound very unbalanced.

”“Why relegate Christianity to a footnote in an entire history book, and you give an entire chapter on the teachings of Islam?” Barnaby said.

Eyewitness News skimmed through each chapter and found nearly a dozen sections referring to Christianity.”

“The textbook covers information related to Muslim Civilization in one chapter and information about Christianity and Judaism in seven chapters.”

I mean, it may just be me, but teaching about religions that currently hold a large amount of political power across the globe just seems like a decent idea. I see no evidence they are proselytizing.

tom_g's avatar

@DWW25921: ”@tom_g In any event, I can’t be to hard on you. I was just on MSNBC and CNN and the spewing of propaganda made me sick and I had to leave the sites. So, I totally understand the mentality. Anyway, here’s an article about a very well documented situation in Florida. Surly you’ve heard about it.” (link)

I asked to explain, with citation, the following statement…

@DWW25921: “If it’s illegal to promote a religion than why is our government promoting Islam? (my emphasis)

…and in your first response, you did not explain your statement, and provided a link. Then, in the response above, you say something about MSNBC, CNN, and “the mentality”, but again failed to provide an explanation. More importantly, you citation was an opinion piece that was hardly even written in English.

Let me make this real easy for you. I’ll pretend I’m you.

@tom_g, when I say that the government is promoting Islam, I am specifically referring to ______ ______ ____ __ ______ _[<- where this is actual words that explain exactly how the government is promoting Islam]. Here is a link to what I am talking about._

Note: If the government is “promoting Islam”, you should be able to provide quite a few links of this “promotion” – most likely from a federal government website or from an item in the current budget.

This is real easy. Just stay focused.

JLeslie's avatar

@Judi More than one President didn’t swear on a bible. I’d have to research it to find all of them.

DWW25921's avatar

@BhacSsylan My awful job researching aside here, it does seem you agree with the basic premise of the question. I do apologize for that I asked an in depth question during a very busy time. Anyway, why do you think they do this? If a child lies they are punished. If a representative lies they are given a pass… It bugs me to no end.

@tom_g Two days after the brutal rape and murder of the American ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, Hillary Clinton hosts a Ramadan dinner at the state department for the Libyan ambassador to America. That’s just sick. Look it up yourself. Now, back to the topic at hand… Why do you suppose we the people have allowed our “representatives” to get so self absorbed that they forget they are servants of the public?

@JLeslie That’s interesting! I didn’t know that. I thought it was a tradition or something.

tom_g's avatar

@DWW25921 – So, your final answer is that the government isn’t promoting Islam?

Why did you say they were?

JLeslie's avatar

@DWW25921 I just looked at wikipedia which has some interesting information on the oath. Looks like Roosevelt didn’t use a bible either and some Presidents “affirm” while others “swear.” I wasn’t very good in history or government, so it all is a hazy mess of jumble for me.

BhacSsylan's avatar

Basically, you quite consistently ask these questions with very faulty pretenses, and utterly fail to correct yourself when called out and instead cast about with random statements and unverified aspersions. So I’m going to keep calling you out when I notice, ‘cause it’s what I do, in hopes some day you may attempt to actually stick to some defensible statements. We’ll see. If anything, this question was more inflammatory than others, because you picked a super easy topic to discuss and then immediately muddied the water by picking a terrible example. If you could actually back it up that would be one thing, but as usual, you cannot.

BhacSsylan's avatar

Also, hosting a Ramadan dinner is promoting Islam? What about all those Seder dinners, then? Are they also promoting Judaism in an unacceptable manner?

Also, as usual, check your sources. There are no credible people saying Stevens was raped. The only one that did falsely claimed that it came from ‘Agence France Presse’. AFP has since denied this: “That report falsely quoted our news agency and has no truth whatsover to it. AFP promptly sent a strongly worded complaint to that website and they removed the report and published a denial, saying that AFP did not report such a thing.”

DWW25921's avatar

@BhacSsylan How are my pretenses faulty? Are you of the impression that politicians are honest? My main point, that there is corruption, is so obvious that no one has contested it. My question is solid and I’ve been pleased with my answers. I think I’ve done just fine. Incidentally, I’m glad the poor fellow wasn’t raped. That makes the whole thing a lot better. He was only beaten to death and the brethren of his murderers were treated to a lavish dinner at our expense. I suppose that’s fine with you than.

I mean, you can’t see that catering to the same sort that slaughtered our people immediately after you did nothing to save them is a huge conflict of interests? Even you have to admit the timing on that one was terribly poor taste. Clinton should have waited for the blood on her hands to at least dry first. Why are we having state dinners for people that want to kill us?

Incidentally, I honestly don’t understand for the life of my why you can try to argue that the US government is not supporting Islam. I mean, it stands to reason as our president is a Muslim himself, that his leanings would be pro-Islam. To think anything else just doesn’t make any logical sense! Do you think the 23 Million Google hits showed up from some wild conspiracy group? I mean, the sheer numbers ought to send out a BIG RED FLAG. In spite of all that’s out there you’re going to cling tenaciously to the dribble that is the main stream media. As they lull you softly to sleep with their progressive ramblings and demonizing of all those who oppose them consider this… Truth isn’t what you are told my friend, it’s what you discover. Now, stop being a sheep and just think for yourself. Go off the main stream and discover a tributary. You’re so full of ultra liberal propaganda it’s blinding you from the obvious. I don’t know what else to do for you.

Oh, but of course I’m crazy and I don’t know what I’m talking about. That is such an easy way out. Why not prove me wrong? I mean, I’ve catered to you throughout this entire question. Give me some evidence that isn’t riddled with bias. Oh wait, you can’t.

BhacSsylan's avatar

The Libyan ambassador was not “brethren” to the militants attempting to overthrow their government. Hell, the citizens attacked those very militant groups in retaliation for Steven’s murder.

“In a show of mass frustration at the armed groups, protesters seized control of several militia headquarters on Friday night and handed them over to Libya’s national army in what appeared to be a coordinated sweep. They also stormed the headquarters of Ansar al-Shariah, a hard-line Islamist militia that has been linked to the attack on the United States Mission in Benghazi that killed the ambassador and three other Americans.”

These are the people you claim have blood on their hands? The ones taking to the streets in solidarity for our fallen ambassador? When have you ever done anything at all against the senseless killing of civilians via drones, much less risen up to toss out people who attacked those calling you murderers brethren of terrorists? You’re not half the human being they are.

And you talk about ‘waking up’, yet your sources are Pamella Gellar, a notorious Islamaphobe who believes that South Africans were engaging in a “genocide” against whites under Mandela, argued that Muslim victims during the Bosnian war were not murdered but committed suicide to embarrass their enemies, and claimed that Obama’s mother had nude pornographic photos taken, Larry Flint, a man who said he would draw “millions to occupy Washington D.C.” during the shutdown to impeach Obama, yet fewer than 100 demonstrators were in attendance, with a litany of failed court cases against everything from Obama’s placement on the ballot (again attempting to argue he’s not a natural-born citizen) to Facebook (thrown out, found to be without merit), and David Horowitz, who has accused local student Muslim groups of supporting “a second Holocaust of the Jews” and has stated that to be free of his harassment Muslim students must “convert to Judaism or Christianity” and is listed by the Southern Poverty Law Center, an index of hate groups and bigots.

You should probably take a second look at the glorious golden truth you got there. Looks a lot like pyrite to me.

DWW25921's avatar

@BhacSsylan I know there was chaos on the ground. The only ones with blood on their hands are the President and Hillary. Blame stops at the top. They knew what was happening and opted to do nothing. Making matters worse, the ambassador made several pleas to heighten security before the attack as he saw tensions rising. I brought that up to point out our own governmental failings, not to poke at the Libyans.

Yes, sometimes you have to sift through muck to find gems. It’s a lot more interesting than being fed news. Look, your “truth” is very much biased towards liberalism and the other side has the same issues. Somewhere in the middle is reality.

A number of years ago they called Bush a liar for taking us to war in Iraq with bad intel. Recently, Obama was called a tyrant for considering war with Iran than a wimp for giving the Iranians a nuke deal. Did it ever occur to you that the American dollar is based on trading commodities and the main one is oil? Did you ever stop and think that (ironically) what preceded these crisis’s were the fact that these nations wanted to trade that commodity on a different currency? If that happens of course the dollar would be devalued and there would be panic. War is less of a crisis than a 10,000 loaf of bread.

The news reports things that soften blows. Did Bush lie about going to war? Did Obama lie about the reasons behind the trade deal? Well duh! Are you going to see the reasons on the news? Of course not! Now, look up our recent wars and cross reference that information with which countries wanted to trade commodities (oil) on different currencies. You’re a smart guy. You can figure this out. I gave you an easy one.

Kropotkin's avatar

Leaving aside the awful example of invoking Elizabeth Warren, who I do have some reservations about, but for reasons other than any alleged mendacity….

I think there’s a few reasons politicians may be perceived to lie, or aren’t even particularly honest with themselves, and with the rest of us.

The first can be summed up with this quote by Upton Sinclair: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!”

Politicians know who their paymasters are, and many of them have no qualms about saying whatever their lobbyists like to hear. They often go on to work as well-paid consultants for the industries and corporate sectors they faithfully represented.

Media interviews demand short and snappy answers. Politicians can’t go into much details about rationales for particular ideas and policy decisions. The limited amount of time they get to answer questions, sometimes mere seconds and rarely over a minute, demands responses tailored for their rhetorical effect and emotional appeal.

Politicians are exposed to the public and the things they say get recorded. This conditions them to give ambiguous and non-committal answers, which will often be interpreted as lying by omission by their detractors, or being weasel-worded.

Politicians are assessed by us, albeit very superficially for the most part, and we will perceive them to be lying on the basis that we don’t like what they’re saying (e.g. conflicting with our ideology or values, appears evasive, triggers negative emotions, etc) A bit like how @DWW25921 doesn’t like what Elizabeth Warren was saying.

bolwerk's avatar

@DWW25921: blowing up buildings is something you do when you aren’t in charge. The most extreme Amerikan Christian supremacists usually settle for one-offs with assault rifles, and the less extreme ones let the state do the murdering. But bombing isn’t exactly unheard of by such people either.

BhacSsylan's avatar

@DWW25921 Sorry, but I’ve had enough of your condescending sheeple talk for a while. If you want to make a claim, you show your oh-so-obvious evidence. You’re so very good at it. Otherwise, there’s a teapot that would like to make your acquaintance

DWW25921's avatar

@Kropotkin Thanks for your input. That’s a very realistic view of things.

@bolwerk What’s an “Amerikan Christian supremacist” I’ve never heard that term.

@BhacSsylan How could you blow me off like that? I put a lot of effort in to that reply! Or, maybe I had some good points you don’t want to entertain…

Answer this question




to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther