Actually - I agree with your post
While I don't like the idealogical agenda the Bush administration has (which seems to be representative of the conservatives as a whole), I don't think that the current Democratic party is although that much better. I definitely agree with them more, but from the perspective of freedoms and our country's core values, I don't think either party is really doing anything.
And your second post I agree with also - that's why it helps to have a diverse opinion, so those who prefer black and white might see some of the sticky shades of gray, but yet help the liberal-minded folk to not miss the forest for the trees. Its just very disappointing when, instead of working towards compromise, so many people (here, Washington DC, everywhere) care more about their own self-righteousness than seeing the other point of view.
0roo0roo
No Lifer
- Sep 21, 2002
- 64,795
- 84
- 91
just read clarkes book. its amazing how much happened during clinton that went under the radar. he protected america while repubs persecuted him. on the other hand, bush willfully ignored warnings until it was too late. love.... i prefer responsibility and respect to love. love is fickle.
8 months versus 8 years. Yes, it's obvious that Bush made more time to handle AQ than Clinton, especially considering that the majority of the terrorists were in place in the country in 1999. Clinton sure did protect America -- look at how much he did after the USS Cole was bombed.
0roo0roo
No Lifer
- Sep 21, 2002
- 64,795
- 84
- 91
Originally posted by: AndrewR
8 months versus 8 years. Yes, it's obvious that Bush made more time to handle AQ than Clinton, especially considering that the majority of the terrorists were in place in the country in 1999. Clinton sure did protect America -- look at how much he did after the USS Cole was bombed.
aren't you the apologist. thats right, 8 years of implimenting policies, so there was precedent. there was not an empty hole when bush took office, he wasn't not starting on the ground floor. yet did he continue? did he add to the policies? no, he instead willfully ignored the pleas of clark, the mounting evidence, the spike of warnings of a level never before seen during the summer. he didn't follow his predecessor and keep anti terrorism at a high level of priority. it wasn't even on his radar, so instead of hitting the ground running, he instead walked away. he ran on the platform that clinton bungles defense, yet he didn't urgently try to fix this supposedly broken defense. so i guess he's either a liar or negligent. esp considering he willfully ignored the urgent warnings of a anti terrorism expert who served under 4 administrations. the simple facts are that under clinton anti terrorist funding went up over 300%, a whole list of attacks such as the attacks on the pope, plans to blow up 12 jetliners simultaneously, attacks on the UN headquarters, fbi building, israeli embassy in washington, la/boston airports, lincoln/ holland tunnels, george washington bridge, us embassy' in tirana/albania were foiled, including the millenium plots, and during this time all repubs could do was focus on bj's. the point isn't whether doing what clarke suggested would have garranteed that 9/11 wouldn't happen. the point is the bush admin didn't even try.
and don't even bring up the cole. the cole happened at the very end of clintons reign when he simply ran out of time. the fact was that after the cole, we did not know who was responsible. and we didn't know who was responsible until bush was in office. what should have clinton done? shoot at countries randomly based on nothing? do you remember twa 800? the 747 that blew up during clinton? we thought oh, a stinger missle! but no, turned out to be the center fuel tank and some bad electronics. how about oklahoma bombing? that musta been islamic terror we thought, but no, turned out to be some stupid hick. get a grip. its pretty telling your bush buddies didn't do a thing about cole after they got into office and it was finally discovered who was behind the cole. they followed the record of previous republican regiems, and did absolutely nothing.
fact is this, under clinton less then 40 americans died from international terrorism. each bush 1 and reagan had hundreds of americans die from terrorism, and unanswered terrorism at that. and well bush2.... thousands.
what did ashcroft do on sept 10 2001? ah yes, cut anti terrorism funding 50million.
should i
Franken has hit on a kernel of truth that I also happen to believe is true. Mainstream conservatives have much closer ties to orthodox views, unlike liberals and libertarians. Neocons are a different matter. They are really revolutionaries in the Stalin/Trotsky model but with a capitalist twist, so I'd say neocons are the ones who would kill their mothers. Isn't that Karl Rove to a TEE? Liberals are more likely to laugh at their mothers. Conservatives will sit quietly and do what their mothers say.
-Robert
Conservatives will sit quietly and do what their mothers say.-Robert
Oh I read his post. Raising a child is mostly a matter of black and white, right and wrong. They don't understand shades of grey. And being the bigot that Moonbeam has proven himself to be, he automatically equates beating, forcing and authoritarianism with raising a child to understand the difference between right and wrong (or, raising a child conservatively).
As for your defense of Perknose, how quaint. You must be another tolerant liberal who doesn't mind gay-baiting and bigotry when the moment suits you as well?
Things are not Black and White.
Some People just see things That Way because Their Brains Havent Upgraded to the new Color Models or Even up to HDTV.
Alchemize:
I've raised three kids and I would say from my experience that raising kids is an art and not a science, so very little is black and white once you get past feeding, clothing and sheltering them. Each one of my kids was a completely different challenge and I wouldn't have had it any other way. One is a Libertarian, one is a Conservative, and one is a Liberal. We have encouraged all the kids to think for themselves and only failed with the Conservative. He wants to know what I think then he does the opposite.
-Robert
I've raised three kids and I would say from my experience that raising kids is an art and not a science, so very little is black and white once you get past feeding, clothing and sheltering them. Each one of my kids was a completely different challenge and I wouldn't have had it any other way. One is a Libertarian, one is a Conservative, and one is a Liberal. We have encouraged all the kids to think for themselves and only failed with the Conservative.
He wants to know what I think then he does the opposite. -Robert
this is a load of crap, as is moonie's post...
Franken is a moron, seems like he just cannot get away from comedy though as this is a real laugh...
Originally posted by: chess9
Alchemize:
I've raised three kids and I would say from my experience that raising kids is an art and not a science, so very little is black and white once you get past feeding, clothing and sheltering them. Each one of my kids was a completely different challenge and I wouldn't have had it any other way. One is a Libertarian, one is a Conservative, and one is a Liberal. We have encouraged all the kids to think for themselves and only failed with the Conservative.
-Robert
My condolences on only having one success out of three. But hey, that's pretty good in baseball, isn't it?
Unless me and chess9 were really good buddies and understood each other very well, I wouldn't disparage two out of three of his kids. In fact if I had a kid that would do that, I'd count that as a loss, and a really big one at that. You can maybe understand what I mean if I tell you that the folks who raised you must have been a couple of zeros.Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: chess9
Alchemize:
I've raised three kids and I would say from my experience that raising kids is an art and not a science, so very little is black and white once you get past feeding, clothing and sheltering them. Each one of my kids was a completely different challenge and I wouldn't have had it any other way. One is a Libertarian, one is a Conservative, and one is a Liberal. We have encouraged all the kids to think for themselves and only failed with the Conservative.
-Robert
My condolences on only having one success out of three. But hey, that's pretty good in baseball, isn't it?
October 7, 2002
PseudoAmericanism
- P.M. Carpenter's Fifth Columnist
In their seemingly hysterical rush to militarily confront an enemy who poses no imminent threat to U.S. national security, ultraconservatives once again are demonstrating that the real war in which they see themselves engaged is a domestic -- not foreign -- one. The old bugaboo of liberalism, born in the 1930s and nurtured publicly until the mid-1970s, may only draw a shallow breath every now and then, but the Right wants it dead, dead ... definitely dead. Nothing less will do. This proposition, and only this, explains the otherwise inexplicable: the sudden urgency of a fighting war in the absence of a fight. Despite appearances, the Right's rush to confrontation isn't hysterical at all; it's methodical, premeditated, simply another chapter in its playbook of ever-escalating warfare against domestic opponents.
Although it has won virtually every major political battle during the last 30 years, total victory still eludes ultraconservatism. Right-wing ideology dominates the White House, Congress, Supreme Court, news media, corporate world, and the Boy Scouts. Yet as long as even one college professor professes a progressive thought in the classroom or print, as long as Ted Kennedy survives as the corporeal target he is, as long as there remains even a straggling band of anti-Right journalist-commentators, the seeds of a disagreeably persuasive opposition loom as an incubating threat.
Conservative extremists, modern conservatives, right wingers, The Right, hardcore Republicans -- call them what you will -- cannot and will not tolerate so much as an inkling of dissent because theirs is a fundamentally paranoid and authoritarian ideology. These appellations rest far from any fresh interpretation; they were once commonplace coins of the terminological realm. Critical theorist Theordor Adorno et al first popularized the latter -- authoritarianism -- in the 1950, nearly 1000-page tome, The Authoritarian Personality. Not many years later came historian Richard Hofstadter's essays, "The Pseudo-Conservative Revolt" and "The Paranoid Style."
None of these works receives much attention by historians these days. Adorno's volume was, it's true, methodologically flawed; its conclusions tended to support premises; and, in time, Hofstadter's insights went the way of most "status-anxiety" theories: straight south. In addition, upon discovering and then doggedly promoting personal "agency," historians became suspicious of mass-movement theories in general and, perhaps most of all, there's always been a professional instinct to discount anything not published in the last 6 hours. Nevertheless, the twosome's key and overall contentions remain demonstrably valid. Those of a marked rightward bent fawn over authority and authority figures, love to exhibit their manly "toughness," view conformity of thought as a sure sign of social stability, and hawk patriotism not just as a civic virtue, but something they purport to have invented themselves.
All of which leads back to the initial proposition. The right-wing crowd no more believes Iraq is an immediate threat to the United States than does Noam Chomsky, and its utter lack of damning evidence to the contrary is proof positive. The cooked-up conflict is, however, a marvelous opportunity to bash the hell out of anyone who surfaces to question the administration's designs and further solidify its ideological domestic chokehold. The calculated strategy is akin to Mao's glorious Cultural Revolution: Come, all ye dissenters, announced Mao, and we shall reason together. When they came he then chopped them off at the knees -- and neck. They had shown their true colors, "antiChinesism."
Ultraconservative think tanks and foundations that regularly feed raw political meat via fax machines each day to the likes of propagandists such as Rush Limbaugh are in ideological overdrive and loving every blessed minute of it. Is Saddam Hussein their main target? Hardly. It is, rather, the Al Gores, public intellectuals, academics, and probing journalists -- those who might have accepted Mao's invitation to help purify through independent thought the cultural heights of communist perfection. Vocal opponents of today's concocted war are the enemy: culprits of domestic discord; disloyal, unAmerican types who for reasons never quite delineated would, as the Right advertises, prefer to invite Saddam to tea parties at Harvard than disarm the schmuck. They, like Mao's opponents, must be ridiculed, despised, and ultimately silenced. The Right holds no truck with the stubbornly unindoctrinated.
What Hofstadter labeled a "pseudoconservative" (because of the True Believer's radicalism -- a wild departure from reasoned, traditional, and authentic conservatism) has by now evolved into your garden-variety conservative. The internal party revolution -- the process of ideological cleansing -- is complete. The Far Right controls the party's ideas, ideology, and agenda. Yet Hofstadter's principal contribution to the literature on then-fringe pseudoconservatism augurs more pertinent and ominous than ever. It was that of a paradox. The pseudoconservative of muscular Americanism, he argued, is in fact the living antithesis of true American ideals. He is "a man who, in the name of upholding traditional American values and institutions and defending them against more or less fictitious dangers, consciously or unconsciously aims at their destruction." To reiterate, these are folks of spooky paranoia and disturbing authoritarian tendencies.
Indeed, on how many occasions have we witnessed these political pathologies of antiAmerican ideals under Bush II alone? The Oval Office has perfected the creation of fictitious dangers only to detract from real problems which it has no answers to, and no interest in (exploding deficits, an ICU economy, a certifiably insane destructive tax policy, increasing poverty, swelling ranks of the uninsured ... need I go on?). It reacts with maniacal anger and unprecedented authoritarianism at those who dare question its insularly derived policies on both foreign and fiscal matters. It defies the coequal branch of Congress. It "disses" federal courts as obtrusive, irrelevant snoopers. The vice president arrogantly disdains outsiders who believe they have a right to know who's dictating national energy policies. Attorney General John Ashcroft almost daily whittles away at yet another American constitutional guarantee.
These are not the exploits of what made America great and vibrant. Our greatness was, and still is -- though hanging by a slim thread -- the tolerance, if not grudging encouragement of, dissent from on-high governmental dictates and hubris.
In endless streams of rapid-response diatribes by self-appointed right-wing censors against any who publicly question Bush II's divine right to do what it damn well pleases at home or abroad, a favored tactic is to paint the opposition as spineless, closet Marxists who lack the Right's admirable Rambo-American "toughness." To boot, it is claimed the opposition is full of America-haters. Yet it's those still residing in the increasingly impotent and dwindling camp of the Left who ardently believe in "tough love" when it comes to dubious American ventures. Those on the Left don't pat the power elite on the head and tell them everything's OK. We demand reasonable answers in the face of impetuous behavior. We demand honest accountability. That's not blaming America. That's the genuine American Way.
* * *
P.M. CARPENTER ARCHIVES
Fifth Columnist is published weekly by History News Network and BuzzFlash.com.
P.M. Carpenter is a writer and professional historian.
PseudoAmericanism
- P.M. Carpenter's Fifth Columnist
In their seemingly hysterical rush to militarily confront an enemy who poses no imminent threat to U.S. national security, ultraconservatives once again are demonstrating that the real war in which they see themselves engaged is a domestic -- not foreign -- one. The old bugaboo of liberalism, born in the 1930s and nurtured publicly until the mid-1970s, may only draw a shallow breath every now and then, but the Right wants it dead, dead ... definitely dead. Nothing less will do. This proposition, and only this, explains the otherwise inexplicable: the sudden urgency of a fighting war in the absence of a fight. Despite appearances, the Right's rush to confrontation isn't hysterical at all; it's methodical, premeditated, simply another chapter in its playbook of ever-escalating warfare against domestic opponents.
Although it has won virtually every major political battle during the last 30 years, total victory still eludes ultraconservatism. Right-wing ideology dominates the White House, Congress, Supreme Court, news media, corporate world, and the Boy Scouts. Yet as long as even one college professor professes a progressive thought in the classroom or print, as long as Ted Kennedy survives as the corporeal target he is, as long as there remains even a straggling band of anti-Right journalist-commentators, the seeds of a disagreeably persuasive opposition loom as an incubating threat.
Conservative extremists, modern conservatives, right wingers, The Right, hardcore Republicans -- call them what you will -- cannot and will not tolerate so much as an inkling of dissent because theirs is a fundamentally paranoid and authoritarian ideology. These appellations rest far from any fresh interpretation; they were once commonplace coins of the terminological realm. Critical theorist Theordor Adorno et al first popularized the latter -- authoritarianism -- in the 1950, nearly 1000-page tome, The Authoritarian Personality. Not many years later came historian Richard Hofstadter's essays, "The Pseudo-Conservative Revolt" and "The Paranoid Style."
None of these works receives much attention by historians these days. Adorno's volume was, it's true, methodologically flawed; its conclusions tended to support premises; and, in time, Hofstadter's insights went the way of most "status-anxiety" theories: straight south. In addition, upon discovering and then doggedly promoting personal "agency," historians became suspicious of mass-movement theories in general and, perhaps most of all, there's always been a professional instinct to discount anything not published in the last 6 hours. Nevertheless, the twosome's key and overall contentions remain demonstrably valid. Those of a marked rightward bent fawn over authority and authority figures, love to exhibit their manly "toughness," view conformity of thought as a sure sign of social stability, and hawk patriotism not just as a civic virtue, but something they purport to have invented themselves.
All of which leads back to the initial proposition. The right-wing crowd no more believes Iraq is an immediate threat to the United States than does Noam Chomsky, and its utter lack of damning evidence to the contrary is proof positive. The cooked-up conflict is, however, a marvelous opportunity to bash the hell out of anyone who surfaces to question the administration's designs and further solidify its ideological domestic chokehold. The calculated strategy is akin to Mao's glorious Cultural Revolution: Come, all ye dissenters, announced Mao, and we shall reason together. When they came he then chopped them off at the knees -- and neck. They had shown their true colors, "antiChinesism."
Ultraconservative think tanks and foundations that regularly feed raw political meat via fax machines each day to the likes of propagandists such as Rush Limbaugh are in ideological overdrive and loving every blessed minute of it. Is Saddam Hussein their main target? Hardly. It is, rather, the Al Gores, public intellectuals, academics, and probing journalists -- those who might have accepted Mao's invitation to help purify through independent thought the cultural heights of communist perfection. Vocal opponents of today's concocted war are the enemy: culprits of domestic discord; disloyal, unAmerican types who for reasons never quite delineated would, as the Right advertises, prefer to invite Saddam to tea parties at Harvard than disarm the schmuck. They, like Mao's opponents, must be ridiculed, despised, and ultimately silenced. The Right holds no truck with the stubbornly unindoctrinated.
What Hofstadter labeled a "pseudoconservative" (because of the True Believer's radicalism -- a wild departure from reasoned, traditional, and authentic conservatism) has by now evolved into your garden-variety conservative. The internal party revolution -- the process of ideological cleansing -- is complete. The Far Right controls the party's ideas, ideology, and agenda. Yet Hofstadter's principal contribution to the literature on then-fringe pseudoconservatism augurs more pertinent and ominous than ever. It was that of a paradox. The pseudoconservative of muscular Americanism, he argued, is in fact the living antithesis of true American ideals. He is "a man who, in the name of upholding traditional American values and institutions and defending them against more or less fictitious dangers, consciously or unconsciously aims at their destruction." To reiterate, these are folks of spooky paranoia and disturbing authoritarian tendencies.
Indeed, on how many occasions have we witnessed these political pathologies of antiAmerican ideals under Bush II alone? The Oval Office has perfected the creation of fictitious dangers only to detract from real problems which it has no answers to, and no interest in (exploding deficits, an ICU economy, a certifiably insane destructive tax policy, increasing poverty, swelling ranks of the uninsured ... need I go on?). It reacts with maniacal anger and unprecedented authoritarianism at those who dare question its insularly derived policies on both foreign and fiscal matters. It defies the coequal branch of Congress. It "disses" federal courts as obtrusive, irrelevant snoopers. The vice president arrogantly disdains outsiders who believe they have a right to know who's dictating national energy policies. Attorney General John Ashcroft almost daily whittles away at yet another American constitutional guarantee.
These are not the exploits of what made America great and vibrant. Our greatness was, and still is -- though hanging by a slim thread -- the tolerance, if not grudging encouragement of, dissent from on-high governmental dictates and hubris.
In endless streams of rapid-response diatribes by self-appointed right-wing censors against any who publicly question Bush II's divine right to do what it damn well pleases at home or abroad, a favored tactic is to paint the opposition as spineless, closet Marxists who lack the Right's admirable Rambo-American "toughness." To boot, it is claimed the opposition is full of America-haters. Yet it's those still residing in the increasingly impotent and dwindling camp of the Left who ardently believe in "tough love" when it comes to dubious American ventures. Those on the Left don't pat the power elite on the head and tell them everything's OK. We demand reasonable answers in the face of impetuous behavior. We demand honest accountability. That's not blaming America. That's the genuine American Way.
* * *
P.M. CARPENTER ARCHIVES
Fifth Columnist is published weekly by History News Network and BuzzFlash.com.
P.M. Carpenter is a writer and professional historian.
glenn1
Lifer
- Sep 6, 2000
- 25,383
- 1,013
- 126
That's a very self-congratulatory way to imply that you think about things more than the average person, which you in turn extol as a virtue. But it's a load of crap. Pick almost any issue (either historical or current) and tell me how you come up with a shade of grey answer to the problem. Let's say slavery, is your shade of grey solution the 3/5th's compromise? Or how about human rights? Are those something which is a shade of grey or black and white issue, some people are entitled to human rights and others aren't? Or do you follow the classic thought-free apologist tripe of multiculturalism that we can't characterize other cultures' human rights practices as wrong? How about execution, would your shades of grey solution be to only partly kill prisoners, perhaps maim them but not kill? How about abortion? Affirmative action?
So after you've looked at all the various shades of grey contained in an issue like whether execution should be legal or not, and you finally decide one way or the other, how is your decision any more virtuous than the same decision reached by a person who saw things as black and white and didn't need to agonize over their answer for days, weeks, or years?
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
glenn1
Lifer
- Sep 6, 2000
- 25,383
- 1,013
- 126
If that's what it takes, so be it. I'd rather be close-minded and right, than open minded and wrong. For the love of pete, i can't understand why some will arrive at a pre-determined conclusion and object to someone else who arrived at the opposite conclusion as having "not seen all the shades of grey involved in the issue." Jeez, look at the whole Iraq broughaha, it's a binary decision for Christsakes, either (A) invade Iraq, or (B) don't invade Iraq. Don't fault someone for having "not looked at all sides of the issue" when they made their choice when you can't even provide an option C, much less D, E, F, G, or H.
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Eureka! That explains why Republicans are so drawn to Bush. He babbles at your level.Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
i agree!(in form but not substance) keeping the terminology on a 2nd grader's comprehension level makes sure most liberals understand what he is trying to say.
the mark of a good speaker is how well he reaches his audience after all...
i agree!
here is how rush would have said the same thing from his perspective with an obscure reference to 80's TV
"Conservatives such as myself love America. We just love America in a different way than a child. You love America like a 4-year-old loves his mommy. conservatives love America like mature adults. To a 4-year-old, everything Mommy does is wonderful and anyone who criticizes Mommy is bad and is automatically branded a bigot and facist by the liberals just because we disagree with them. mature love means actually understanding what you love AND what you do not, taking the good with the bad(and there you have the facts of life) and helping our beloved nation grow. Love takes attention and work and is the most fulfiling thing a human being can aspire to. That's why we Conservatives want America to do the right thing. We know America is the hope of the world, and we love it and want it to do well. We also want it to do good even if at times doing the right thing may be unpopular with some socialistic has-been nations in europe because mature adults understand popularity is not the most important thing in the world...unlike children who derive their all important self-esteem from the opinions of others."
So, to clarify, a conservative is preaching to a liberal about how slavery was black and white? Which side is which to you? The forebearers of your party (yes, I know the parties essentially swapped names around FDR's time, I mean the idealogical forebearers) were the ones unleashing police dogs on unarmed, civil protestors and shooting "uppity Negroes." Having your ideals defined in stone doesn't make them right. I bet in 50 years contemporary conservatives look back on these times and talk about how gay rights were a black and white issue, and mean that it's clearly right to allow gay marriages and such. Do you honestly believe conservatives in the history of U.S. didn't use the exact same arguements used against homosexuals today to target blacks? "We can't have them in the military, it would disrupt morale. The army is not a social experiment." "We're moving down a slippery slope if we let interracial marriages become law."
Overanalyzing problems, in my (albeit limited) experience, often leads to losing the will to act - it's not a good thing. Just don't think that your defined, moral values (nor those of modern liberals) are going to be up to snuff when your grandchildren look back on this era.
glenn1
Lifer
- Sep 6, 2000
- 25,383
- 1,013
- 126
I'm a Libertarian, so my party was doing nothing of the sort. And the labels "liberal" and "conservative" don't really fit me very well. If anything, i'm probably closer to what you would call "liberal" beliefs on many issues, that's why they catch most of the flak from me. Although they more often than not come up with the "correct" answer that i would agree with, their worldview and mental process for how they arrive at that answer can drive me nuts sometimes.
Conservatives OTOH have the opposite problem, i tend to disagree with their conclusions quite often, but at least it's normally crystal clear how they arrived at their solution. At least that way I have the benefit of being able to figure out what went into their decision making process and how they arrived at it, so I can determine HOW they made their decision. Their method for making a decision is essentially predictable and repeatable.
So let's take your example of gay marriage and run it through the Liberal, Conservative, and Libertarian thought processes.
Liberal: Well, gays are people too, so that means it's a civil rights issue. Or is it? What's the meaning of the word "marriage?" Is it an institution for folks who love each other to be able to have companion benefits? How about marriages between different-sex couples who can't have children, doesn't that kinda blow the "marriage is for procreation" argument out of the water? And is same-sex marriage like miscegnation? I don't know, I'm sooooooooooo confused............................................................................
Conservatives: Gay people suck, you're all going to hell, and no, you can't get married.
Liberatarian: Marriage is a religious, not civil, institution. Governments should no more perform marriages than they should baptisms or bar mitzvahs. Change state-performed marriages to civil unions instead, so that equal protection is not a factor. Then if a couple wants to get "married," let their church do it.
I agree with the many others who have said raising a child is NOT mostly a matter of black and white - unless you include being respectful and open-minded about ALL people, regardless of race, sex, nationality, economic status, sexual preferences, and looks. However, I have not raised children myself, so I'm not qualified to speak on the matter. I do applaud chess9 for allowing his children to be free to make their own decisions about politics! :beer:
And, I apologize to Perknose - I totally misread his OP. And while I don't like the way he responded to Hero, his wasn't the first personal attack in this thread (just the harshest).
I'm not sure what exactly you meant alchemize, but I do consider myself a "tolerant liberal" and I try to avoid any kind of bigotry in my life. I'm not perfect, but I try the best I can.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter