Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 76

Thread: Record Number of LGBT Candidates Elected to Office

  1. #1

    Exclamation Record Number of LGBT Candidates Elected to Office

    I see this as a future problem for increasing more "hate crimes" legislation upon the nation, in favor of those in the LGBT community. They will enforce their morality upon us all, if they have the numbers in seats of government, whether it's on the local, state, or federal level.
    The Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund today announced that more openly LGBT candidates won election to public office in the U.S. in 2010 than in any year in America’s history.

    At least 106 of the group’s record-breaking 164 endorsed candidates were winners as of Wednesday morning, including Providence, R.I., Mayor David Cicilline (pictured), who will become the fourth openly gay Member of Congress when the House convenes in January.
    Read more here.
    "Diverse weights are an abomination unto the LORD, and a false balance is not good." - Proverbs 20:23

    "Lowering interest rates punishes people for saving, thus encouraging consumers and businesses to spend every penny they make...The Federal Reserve’s inflationary policies harm the average American by eroding the dollar’s purchasing power." - Dr. Ron Paul



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Meh. As a small el libertarian, I'm not concerned about what other people choose to do if it's not harming anyone. Your concern belies a desire to impose your morality on them. Government shouldn't be in the morality business for anyone IMO.
    I compiled a "brief" history of events since October 2008 that are defining the global currency war and the role that gold is playing:

    Tin Foil Hats, Economic Reality and the Total Perspective Vortex

    Also, have you contacted your Congressional Rep and asked them co-sponsor Ron Paul's Rep. Paul Broun Jr.'s HR 1098 77: Free Competition in Currencies Act?

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Theocrat View Post
    I see this as a future problem for increasing more "hate crimes" legislation upon the nation, in favor of those in the LGBT community. They will enforce their morality upon us all, if they have the numbers in seats of government, whether it's on the local, state, or federal level.

    The Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund today announced that more openly LGBT candidates won election to public office in the U.S. in 2010 than in any year in America’s history.

    At least 106 of the group’s record-breaking 164 endorsed candidates were winners as of Wednesday morning, including Providence, R.I., Mayor David Cicilline (pictured), who will become the fourth openly gay Member of Congress when the House convenes in January.
    Read more here.
    You knew I'd post.

    There's a problem with even the most fundamental logic of your post. The title talks about a record number of LGBT candidates, and your post talks about enforcing "their morality," but it seems that a record number of candidates ENDORSED BY the LGBT spokesidiots were elected.

    I hardly think that someone becoming the fourth openly gay member of Congress is going to have an influence on the "hate crimes" fad. I do believe more of those laws will come about, but not because there is another gay person in Congress. It will come about because there is, and has been for many years now, a need by certain people to make other folks akin to endangered species. Whether it's the AARP (beating old people up will be a hate crime soon enough), ACLU, NAACP, or another group like NOW, La Raza, or similar... there are groups that make a living at being divisive and winning special treatment for their "constituents."

    You also have leapt to the conclusion that, just because someone is gay, they would automatically vote for extra protection under the law. That is a tired and ridiculous argument, false on its face, and proven so by the numerous other "groups" of which we have members in Congress that do not enjoy special protection. If your logic held true, old white guys would be the ones protected via "hate crime" legislation
    Genuine, willful, aggressive ignorance is the one sure way to tick me off. I wish I could say you were trolling. I know better, and it's just sad.

  5. #4

    Some Things Are Certain

    Quote Originally Posted by MelissaWV View Post
    You knew I'd post.

    There's a problem with even the most fundamental logic of your post. The title talks about a record number of LGBT candidates, and your post talks about enforcing "their morality," but it seems that a record number of candidates ENDORSED BY the LGBT spokesidiots were elected.

    I hardly think that someone becoming the fourth openly gay member of Congress is going to have an influence on the "hate crimes" fad. I do believe more of those laws will come about, but not because there is another gay person in Congress. It will come about because there is, and has been for many years now, a need by certain people to make other folks akin to endangered species. Whether it's the AARP (beating old people up will be a hate crime soon enough), ACLU, NAACP, or another group like NOW, La Raza, or similar... there are groups that make a living at being divisive and winning special treatment for their "constituents."

    You also have leapt to the conclusion that, just because someone is gay, they would automatically vote for extra protection under the law. That is a tired and ridiculous argument, false on its face, and proven so by the numerous other "groups" of which we have members in Congress that do not enjoy special protection. If your logic held true, old white guys would be the ones protected via "hate crime" legislation
    I wonder if you read my post because I distinctly said that "hate crimes" legislation would increase if there are enough LGBTs in government to support it. I also said it would be a future concern, so, yes, it will take some time.

    I also think you've forgotten how much the LGBT community has used the government to punish people for not respecting "their rights." There are many LGBT advocates who seek to put down what they perceive as discrimination against their lifestyle. You have to be naive to think that LGBT politicians will not be supportive of LGBTs in society who cry out against those people, like Christians, who speak out against their lifestyle with no impunity. That sort of thing is happening right now at universities and cities across the nation.
    "Diverse weights are an abomination unto the LORD, and a false balance is not good." - Proverbs 20:23

    "Lowering interest rates punishes people for saving, thus encouraging consumers and businesses to spend every penny they make...The Federal Reserve’s inflationary policies harm the average American by eroding the dollar’s purchasing power." - Dr. Ron Paul

  6. #5
    Anything that drives Theo insane has to be at least a little bit good. lolz
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  7. #6
    I am thrilled that America is becoming more accepting of homosexuality. Sounds like a good thing.

    Slutter McGee

  8. #7
    Next thing you know they will be passing laws requiring everybody to be LGBT! Pick you letter now while you still can!

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Slutter McGee View Post
    I am thrilled that America is becoming more accepting of homosexuality. Sounds like a good thing.

    Slutter McGee
    Eh. I don't think that is a good thing personally.

    I think the real problem though is the State's involvement in marriage to begin with.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    I think it is just a record number of OPENLY gay winners. Probably the same number have been in place for years just in the closet.

    Personally, I'd rather have openly gay elected officials than closetted ones. At least then we know where they are coming from. And it eliminates a ripe opportunity for blackmail.

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Theocrat View Post
    I see this as a future problem for increasing more "hate crimes" legislation upon the nation, in favor of those in the LGBT community. They will enforce their morality upon us all, if they have the numbers in seats of government, whether it's on the local, state, or federal level.


    Read more here.
    If we use the same line of reasoning we should be concerned about Christians being elected. They could pass laws that could effect freedom of religion.

    As long as a person does a good job it doesn't matter what sexual orientation, religion, or race he is.

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by AquaBuddha2010 View Post
    Eh. I don't think that is a good thing personally.

    I think the real problem though is the State's involvement in marriage to begin with.
    +a zillion!! Nice post.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  14. #12
    I'd rather their sexuality be known to others first-hand than to have instances where they are exposed through some kind of homosexual affair and be known as hypocrites who voted strongly against laws that had everything to do with the 'hated' aspects of their own being.

    They spend their time fighting against others when they're only battling their shadows.
    [Jeremy] zach is a typical racist from WV
    [CaseyJones] zach is hiding the fact that he is reptilian
    In 2012, 3rd party chatrooms will take over RPF Main Chat:
    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpos...69&postcount=1

  15. #13
    Maybe if more people in our movement were less critical of people who happen to be LGBT, more of those people would join our movement. In the process they would learn how such legislation may not produce the results they are looking for.
    Insanity should be defined as trusting the government to solve a problem they caused in the first place. Please do not go insane!

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by TonySutton View Post
    Maybe if more people in our movement were less critical of people who happen to be LGBT, more of those people would join our movement. In the process they would learn how such legislation may not produce the results they are looking for.
    I don't think this is true. The gay community is known for its militant prosolytizing. They love government intervention sadly...

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by AquaBuddha2010 View Post
    I don't think this is true. The gay community is known for its militant prosolytizing. They love government intervention sadly...
    The "gay community" you speak of is not the entire gay community. You hear those who are vocal and mistakenly place those words in the mouths of all gay people. I know quite a few gay people and I can tell you they come in all colors. When you try to paint them all with one brush you do a disservice to the liberty movement.
    Insanity should be defined as trusting the government to solve a problem they caused in the first place. Please do not go insane!

  18. #16
    so as long as you can enforce YOUR morality.. its cool right?



    The ultimate minority is the individual. Protect the individual from Democracy and you will protect all groups of individuals
    Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual. - Thomas Jefferson
    I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.

    - Bene Gesserit Litany Against Fear



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by TonySutton View Post
    Maybe if more people in our movement were less critical of people who happen to be LGBT, more of those people would join our movement. In the process they would learn how such legislation may not produce the results they are looking for.
    Because getting 3% of the population to hop on board is so much more important than getting the 20-25% of American voters who are Evangelical on our side! And we wonder why Ron Paul languishes at 5%?
    http://www.ronpaul2012.com/
    Quote Originally Posted by GK Chesterton
    It is often supposed that when people stop believing in God, they believe in nothing. Alas, it is worse than that. When they stop believing in God, they believe in anything.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rt. Hon. Edmund Burke
    Nothing is so fatal to religion as indifference.

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Kotin View Post
    so as long as you can enforce YOUR morality.. its cool right?



    Whose morality would you suggest?

    Oh, yeah, the NAP. Isn't that your morality?

    This whole "you can't enforce your morality on me" is so contradictory that it belies a lack philosophical reflection on anything. Some morality must be enforced. The question is whose ought it be.
    http://www.ronpaul2012.com/
    Quote Originally Posted by GK Chesterton
    It is often supposed that when people stop believing in God, they believe in nothing. Alas, it is worse than that. When they stop believing in God, they believe in anything.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rt. Hon. Edmund Burke
    Nothing is so fatal to religion as indifference.

  22. #19
    time to start sharpening the knives and loading the guns
    We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false. -- William Casey, CIA Director

    Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.-- Mark Twain

    When people like us-- the scum of society-- don't risk our lives when a rare chance comes our way, we become losers at that moment. So courage is the only thing we can rely on.-- Anchan
    Rick Simpson Hemp Oil

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by nate895 View Post
    Because getting 3% of the population to hop on board is so much more important than getting the 20-25% of American voters who are Evangelical on our side! And we wonder why Ron Paul languishes at 5%?
    I think there is room for everyone in the Liberty movement.
    Insanity should be defined as trusting the government to solve a problem they caused in the first place. Please do not go insane!

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by TonySutton View Post
    I think there is room for everyone in the Liberty movement.
    There is a lot of room for a "big tent", yes. But that tent cannot be fundamentally opposed to itself. The problem with the two major parties not being able to solidly maintain power is that both of them are attempting to mix oil and water when it comes to their supporters. You cannot have activist homosexuals and Evangelical Christians in the same tent and getting along.
    http://www.ronpaul2012.com/
    Quote Originally Posted by GK Chesterton
    It is often supposed that when people stop believing in God, they believe in nothing. Alas, it is worse than that. When they stop believing in God, they believe in anything.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rt. Hon. Edmund Burke
    Nothing is so fatal to religion as indifference.

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Next thing you know they will be passing laws requiring everybody to be LGBT! Pick you letter now while you still can!
    L.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc
    "When you are divided, and angry, and controlled, you target those 'different' from you, not those responsible [controllers]" -Q

    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by specsaregood View Post
    I think it is just a record number of OPENLY gay winners. Probably the same number have been in place for years just in the closet.

    Personally, I'd rather have openly gay elected officials than closetted ones. At least then we know where they are coming from. And it eliminates a ripe opportunity for blackmail.
    I agree.. i doubt much has actually changed except the whole acceptance thing.. and what is wrong with 'accepting' gay people's life style? You don't have to embrace it yourself, but nothing wrong with letting them live how they want and being respectful.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc
    "When you are divided, and angry, and controlled, you target those 'different' from you, not those responsible [controllers]" -Q

    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by nate895 View Post
    There is a lot of room for a "big tent", yes. But that tent cannot be fundamentally opposed to itself. The problem with the two major parties not being able to solidly maintain power is that both of them are attempting to mix oil and water when it comes to their supporters. You cannot have activist homosexuals and Evangelical Christians in the same tent and getting along.
    I don't see a problem if everyone is talking about Liberty. We need to focus on our common goals. This is how Dr Paul is able to work with people like Barney Frank and Dennis Kucinich.
    Insanity should be defined as trusting the government to solve a problem they caused in the first place. Please do not go insane!



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25

    Really?

    Quote Originally Posted by nate895 View Post
    Some morality must be enforced. The question is whose ought it be.
    I don't think this is true for the most part. With respect to murder, robbery, theft, etc., yes. But no morality needs to be enforced when it pertains to what people do with their own bodies and/or those of consenting adults. It is nobody's business. And that right there eliminates the conflict between gays and evangelicals UNLESS one side or the other isn't happy unless everyone lives like they do.

    And, of course, that is the big concern I have with evangelical Christians taking control of the government. I do not consent to anyone, including Christians, making rules for what I do in my own sphere of sovereignty. And, frankly, I have much more concern about evangelicals trying to tell me what to do than gays.

    As for hate crimes, I oppose that kind of legislation on principle. But I really think that is one of the least offensive things that is likely to come out of the legislature. As a practical matter, does it really infringe on liberty? I don't intend on assaulting or murdering anyone regardless of their race or sexual orientation and I am not very concerned about how badly people are punished who DO such things. I have a hard time thinking of a smaller fish to fry.
    The proper concern of society is the preservation of individual freedom; the proper concern of the individual is the harmony of society.

    "Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow." - Byron

    "Who overcomes by force, hath overcome but half his foe." - Milton

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Acala View Post
    I don't think this is true for the most part. With respect to murder, robbery, theft, etc., yes. But no morality needs to be enforced when it pertains to what people do with their own bodies and/or those of consenting adults. It is nobody's business. And that right there eliminates the conflict between gays and evangelicals UNLESS one side or the other isn't happy unless everyone lives like they do.

    And, of course, that is the big concern I have with evangelical Christians taking control of the government. I do not consent to anyone, including Christians, making rules for what I do in my own sphere of sovereignty. And, frankly, I have much more concern about evangelicals trying to tell me what to do than gays.

    As for hate crimes, I oppose that kind of legislation on principle. But I really think that is one of the least offensive things that is likely to come out of the legislature. As a practical matter, does it really infringe on liberty? I don't intend on assaulting or murdering anyone regardless of their race or sexual orientation and I am not very concerned about how badly people are punished who DO such things. I have a hard time thinking of a smaller fish to fry.


    The ultimate minority is the individual. Protect the individual from Democracy and you will protect all groups of individuals
    Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual. - Thomas Jefferson
    I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.

    - Bene Gesserit Litany Against Fear

  31. #27

    Exzactly

    Quote Originally Posted by TonySutton View Post
    I don't see a problem if everyone is talking about Liberty. We need to focus on our common goals. This is how Dr Paul is able to work with people like Barney Frank and Dennis Kucinich.

    Freedom brings people together.
    The proper concern of society is the preservation of individual freedom; the proper concern of the individual is the harmony of society.

    "Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow." - Byron

    "Who overcomes by force, hath overcome but half his foe." - Milton

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by nate895 View Post
    There is a lot of room for a "big tent", yes. But that tent cannot be fundamentally opposed to itself. The problem with the two major parties not being able to solidly maintain power is that both of them are attempting to mix oil and water when it comes to their supporters. You cannot have activist homosexuals and Evangelical Christians in the same tent and getting along.
    What about gay ministers, like Scott Rennie ? This seems to imply that the two can get along, except for the unreasonable radicals on both sides.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by nate895 View Post
    Because getting 3% of the population to hop on board is so much more important than getting the 20-25% of American voters who are Evangelical on our side! And we wonder why Ron Paul languishes at 5%?
    Or, instead of saying "Liberty for everyone! (Except the gays)," perhaps the second part could be conveniently left out. The idea that being LGBT is somehow anathema to promoting liberty is more a reflection upon the preconceived notions of the person making the claim than on reality. If the "20-25%" you're speaking of really think of freedom as being something they need to achieve by keeping LGBT people out of elected office, then Dr. Paul deserves to languish at 5%, because that would not be in keeping with his philosophy.

    The tone of the original post is very clear, even without the wisdom of context that a lot of forum-dwellers have the benefit of.

    The implication is that Nancy Pelosi would be better to have in office than TonySutton or me If that's really how you feel... there's no helping it.

    If you really examine what freedom is about, you'll notice it does not confine itself to a certain creed or race or gender or orientation or any other "group." The militant supporters of oppressing one group or another, or elevating one group or another, would do well to think about that, too.

    * * *

    Theo, yeah, I read your post. Did you read mine? I know you're saying it's a "future problem." I'm saying it's a current problem, which oddly enough you agree with me about later in your post. Since it is a current problem, and there are so few LGBTs in any real position of power, one must surmise that the source of these ridiculous laws and "special rights" initiatives are not elected officials after all. The source, instead, is a subset of humanity that sways whichever way makes them seem "compassionate" by elevating these folks over here, then pushing those down, then pandering to these over here.

    If it were to be considered a product of the demographics of the elected officials, then we really should worry more about misogynist (most of them are male), ageist (most are older), and heteroist (most are heterosexual) legislation. If your logic were sound, we would see a push for hetero-rights, harming the elderly being a hate crime, and men lobbying for special considerations in the workplace (or, more realistically, we'd see a reform of the family court system which is so unabashedly biased towards females overall). We don't see those things dominating Congress, though, do we. This is why one must question the logic of saying that more LGBTs in elected office will only lead to more laws along the lines of "hate crime" legislation.
    Genuine, willful, aggressive ignorance is the one sure way to tick me off. I wish I could say you were trolling. I know better, and it's just sad.

  34. #30

    Wake Up and Smell the Powder

    Quote Originally Posted by MelissaWV View Post
    Or, instead of saying "Liberty for everyone! (Except the gays)," perhaps the second part could be conveniently left out. The idea that being LGBT is somehow anathema to promoting liberty is more a reflection upon the preconceived notions of the person making the claim than on reality. If the "20-25%" you're speaking of really think of freedom as being something they need to achieve by keeping LGBT people out of elected office, then Dr. Paul deserves to languish at 5%, because that would not be in keeping with his philosophy.

    The tone of the original post is very clear, even without the wisdom of context that a lot of forum-dwellers have the benefit of.

    The implication is that Nancy Pelosi would be better to have in office than TonySutton or me If that's really how you feel... there's no helping it.

    If you really examine what freedom is about, you'll notice it does not confine itself to a certain creed or race or gender or orientation or any other "group." The militant supporters of oppressing one group or another, or elevating one group or another, would do well to think about that, too.

    * * *

    Theo, yeah, I read your post. Did you read mine? I know you're saying it's a "future problem." I'm saying it's a current problem, which oddly enough you agree with me about later in your post. Since it is a current problem, and there are so few LGBTs in any real position of power, one must surmise that the source of these ridiculous laws and "special rights" initiatives are not elected officials after all. The source, instead, is a subset of humanity that sways whichever way makes them seem "compassionate" by elevating these folks over here, then pushing those down, then pandering to these over here.

    If it were to be considered a product of the demographics of the elected officials, then we really should worry more about misogynist (most of them are male), ageist (most are older), and heteroist (most are heterosexual) legislation. If your logic were sound, we would see a push for hetero-rights, harming the elderly being a hate crime, and men lobbying for special considerations in the workplace (or, more realistically, we'd see a reform of the family court system which is so unabashedly biased towards females overall). We don't see those things dominating Congress, though, do we. This is why one must question the logic of saying that more LGBTs in elected office will only lead to more laws along the lines of "hate crime" legislation.
    No, the first thing we need to get rid of is the notion of "gay rights." That is the principle by which legislation such as "hate crimes" gets taken seriously and imposed on all people in society. Gays don't have rights because they are gay, and they don't deserve special attention and protection in society from the government just because they have a problem with Christians exposing and condemning their lifestyle.

    Whether you want to believe it or not, LGBTs do want to force people to accept their lifestyles. This is a constant battle in the social constructs of society, to them. They see themselves as "minorities," entitled to civil rights just as Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and others do. If you think they won't use their power in the seats of government to enforce legislation to protect the "rights" of LGBTs in our nation, you simply need to read a bit on what's going around the country with Christians being brought to civil suits for such things as not allowing LGBTs to join their clubs, not allowing LGBTs to work in Christian outlets, etc.
    "Diverse weights are an abomination unto the LORD, and a false balance is not good." - Proverbs 20:23

    "Lowering interest rates punishes people for saving, thus encouraging consumers and businesses to spend every penny they make...The Federal Reserve’s inflationary policies harm the average American by eroding the dollar’s purchasing power." - Dr. Ron Paul

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 14
    Last Post: 11-12-2016, 08:48 AM
  2. Number of elected leaders
    By beaven in forum Political Philosophy & Government Policy
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 11-17-2011, 10:37 AM
  3. Record Number of LGBT Candidates Elected to Office
    By Theocrat in forum Individual Rights Violations: Case Studies
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 11-04-2010, 01:38 PM
  4. Replies: 16
    Last Post: 10-30-2010, 10:50 AM
  5. My Elected Office Is Bigger Than Your Elected Office!
    By pennycat in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-02-2009, 09:56 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •