Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

MagicBag Grow Bags
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Myyco.com Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
Re: Federal Government should be spending even more [Re: zappaisgod]
    #11209910 -

zappaisgod said:
And do I think ACORN needs to train their employees not to do illegal shit?  No, they need to stop training their employees to do illegal shit.  I am sure there will be a small handful here who understand what I just wrote.


And for those small handfull that understand - please explain what illegal activity is advocated by ACORN.  I can't wait to see if there are any takers.

zappaisgod said:
It is not equally the banks fault if they are operating under the threat of incessant taxpayer funded lawsuits to lend to bums.


If they make risky loans to people they aren't required to give these loans to, then of course it's is their fault.  The "bums" weren't the only ones to get risky loans.  Not by a long shot.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Federal Government should be spending even more [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #11209938 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
zappaisgod said:
And do I think ACORN needs to train their employees not to do illegal shit?  No, they need to stop training their employees to do illegal shit.  I am sure there will be a small handful here who understand what I just wrote.


And for those small handfull that understand - please explain what illegal activity is advocated by ACORN.  I can't wait to see if there are any takers.


Facilitating child prostitution for one. 
Quote:

zappaisgod said:
It is not equally the banks fault if they are operating under the threat of incessant taxpayer funded lawsuits to lend to bums.


If they make risky loans to people they aren't required to give these loans to, then of course it's is their fault.  The "bums" weren't the only ones to get risky loans.  Not by a long shot.


Yes, they were.  A "bum" is anyone who doesn't repay a debt.  There is no way you will ever understand the concept of market pressure, is there?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Federal Government should be spending even more [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #11209962 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Are you saying banks were forced to give subprime loans to wealthy people???



the wealthy are capable of and smart enough to, buy down an interest rate
so their sub prime loans came at a cost that the lower income buyers didnt
have to meet


--------------------
California Has Legalized Child Prostitution

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Federal Government should be spending even more [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #11210096 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Mr.Al said:
Expecting fractional reserve banks to exercise lending restraint when there are laws in place telling them they have to make loans to people who can't afford it doesn't make sense.


You keep saying this as if you don't realize that banks were giving  subprime loans to people they weren't required to make these loans to.

Mr.Al said:
I do realize that fractional reserve banking would not be anywhere near as problematic if it were not propped up by a central bank that sets up the moral hazard of endlessly postponing market correction until collapse occurs!

What makes you think regulations are beneficial?


Here's a nice article summarizing the housing crisis:

The Conservative Origins of the Sub-Prime Mortgage Crisis

I'm sure you're not interested in reading it due to the title, but the last section is called "And It All Started with Deregulation"



The lending industry is neither moral or immoral in it's decision making.  It will act according to the environment it is operating in.  Artificially low interest rates, legislation telling them they have to give loans to people that can't afford it, and the safety net of the federal reserve will cause the behavior that was seen that created the housing bubble.




I think it's funny how you ignore all the damning evidence I presented you on the keynesian school.

I'm telling you that the economic system is not sustainable because it rests on a foundation of easy money to create the illusion of prosperity.  Easy money has everything to do with malinvestment and nothing to do with real prosperity.

At least make a token attempt to address what I said about central banking and central economic planning.  Otherwise I would have to surmise that economics is a religion to you and not a science as it should be.


BTW, I skimmed through that article.  Both major political parties use the artificially low interest rates from the fed to create economic bubbles for political benefit. Again, this shows that that it is government involvement to blame.  Most people haven't studied business cycle theory so they don't understand that the prosperity is not real.  Do you want to talk business cycle theory?  I always enjoy that and you said you are educated in it. 


You don't really trust capitalism, do you?

Edited by Mr.Al (10/08/09 07:11 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Federal Government should be spending even more [Re: zappaisgod]
    #11212518 -

zappaisgod said:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
zappaisgod said:
And do I think ACORN needs to train their employees not to do illegal shit?  No, they need to stop training their employees to do illegal shit.  I am sure there will be a small handful here who understand what I just wrote.


And for those small handfull that understand - please explain what illegal activity is advocated by ACORN.  I can't wait to see if there are any takers.


Facilitating child prostitution for one.


Way to fall on your own sword and take one for your side.  I'd have let that one go.  If you think ACORN trained people their employees to facilitate child prostitution, I got a copy of Obama's Kenyan birth certificate for ya.

zappaisgod said:
A "bum" is anyone who doesn't repay a debt.  There is no way you will ever understand the concept of market pressure, is there?


I like it.  By your newly made up definition for a bum, you are correct that banks only gave risky loans to bums.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Federal Government should be spending even more [Re: Mr.Al]
    #11212550 -

Mr.Al said:
The lending industry is neither moral or immoral in it's decision making.  It will act according to the environment it is operating in.  Artificially low interest rates, legislation telling them they have to give loans to people that can't afford it, and the safety net of the federal reserve will cause the behavior that was seen that created the housing bubble.


Agreed.  And a market free of rules and regulations will create a situation where great wealth flows to a fraction of the population, a trend we've seen since regulations have been reduced.

Mr.Al said:
Do you want to talk business cycle theory?  I always enjoy that and you said you are educated in it.


Start a new thread if you like, or pull up an old thread you want to continue.

Mr.Al said:
You don't really trust capitalism, do you?


Yes, I do.  I don't trust free markets.  If you don't set rules, unethical businesses and people will thrive.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Federal Government should be spending even more [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #11214049 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
zappaisgod said:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
zappaisgod said:
And do I think ACORN needs to train their employees not to do illegal shit?  No, they need to stop training their employees to do illegal shit.  I am sure there will be a small handful here who understand what I just wrote.


And for those small handfull that understand - please explain what illegal activity is advocated by ACORN.  I can't wait to see if there are any takers.


Facilitating child prostitution for one.


Way to fall on your own sword and take one for your side.  I'd have let that one go.  If you think ACORN trained people their employees to facilitate child prostitution, I got a copy of Obama's Kenyan birth certificate for ya.


You continue to ignore the fact that their advice was pervasive.  There was nothing isolated about it.  Nothing isolated in that advice and nothing isolated in their voting disgrace.  When the same thing happens several times all over the country it is clearly endemic in the ACORN culture of corruption.  Did I mention that they also covered up a massive embezzlement scheme that siphoned millions of dollars in taxpayer deductible donations?  And may well have lied about the extent of the theft?  Keep defending them.  It works for me.
Quote:

zappaisgod said:
A "bum" is anyone who doesn't repay a debt.  There is no way you will ever understand the concept of market pressure, is there?


I like it.  By your newly made up definition for a bum, you are correct that banks only gave risky loans to bums.


Surprisingly enough, most of those risky loans are being repaid.  The people who got risky loans but are paying them back are not bums.  The people who aren't paying them back, or any other loan for that matter, are bums.  So no, the banks didn't only give risky loans to bums.  Not even close.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Federal Government should be spending even more [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #11214625 -

Keynesian economics proposes central banks and central economic planning.  Are these things that you support?

You are dodging on business cycle theory.  You said you studied it.  Hayek showed how the present system of a central bank propping up the fractional reserve banking system creates massive inflation of the money supply (which confers no real social benefit) and cyclically destructive economic boom & bust cycles.  Is it out of intellectual cowardice or sloth that you refuse to address this?  The keynesian viewpoint of increasing government spending and funny money creation is utterly destroyed by the argument presented by Austrian Business Cycle theory. 


You don't trust a non-existent free market yet clamor for more government control of the economy that they have so royally fucked up.  Statist much?

How about monopolies? Through legal tender laws, government has a monopoly on money.  How can this possibly benefit us?  Government abuses that power by creating new money at the expense of the people who work for it.  Government does not want to give up that which allows it to act as a parasite upon the economy and grow out of control.


--------------------
Ludwig von Mises Institute,Campaign for Liberty.,The Oath Keeper's

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Federal Government should be spending even more [Re: zappaisgod]
    #11215318 -

People can decide for themselves if they think it was ACORN policy to facilitate child prostitution.

zappaisgod said:
The people who aren't paying them back, or any other loan for that matter, are bums.  So no, the banks didn't only give risky loans to bums.  Not even close.


For the fuckteenth time, I said risky loans weren't limited to poor minorities.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Federal Government should be spending even more [Re: Mr.Al]
    #11215405 -

Mr.Al said:
You are dodging on business cycle theory.  You said you studied it.  Hayek showed how the present system of a central bank propping up the fractional reserve banking system creates massive inflation of the money supply (which confers no real social benefit) and cyclically destructive economic boom & bust cycles.  Is it out of intellectual cowardice or sloth that you refuse to address this?


In another thread, I said you can start a post or resurrect an existing one on this topic.  Maybe you've already done that - I'm cathing up on today's posts right now.

Mr.Al said:
You don't trust a non-existent free market yet clamor for more government control of the economy that they have so royally fucked up.  Statist much?


There is a great deal of evidence showing the primary cause of the financial crisis was deregulation (yes, even Clinton is to blame for this).  We need to restore the regulations that could have prevented the crisis.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Federal Government should be spending even more [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #11218507 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Mr.Al said:
You are dodging on business cycle theory.  You said you studied it.  Hayek showed how the present system of a central bank propping up the fractional reserve banking system creates massive inflation of the money supply (which confers no real social benefit) and cyclically destructive economic boom & bust cycles.  Is it out of intellectual cowardice or sloth that you refuse to address this?


In another thread, I said you can start a post or resurrect an existing one on this topic.  Maybe you've already done that - I'm cathing up on today's posts right now.

Mr.Al said:
You don't trust a non-existent free market yet clamor for more government control of the economy that they have so royally fucked up.  Statist much?


There is a great deal of evidence showing the primary cause of the financial crisis was deregulation (yes, even Clinton is to blame for this).  We need to restore the regulations that could have prevented the crisis.



You don't seem to be able to grasp the idea that government fucks up the economy.  If you give them more control over the economy it will get worse.  It was through extensive utilization of the C.R.A. that foolhardy loans were written up, often through government run Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  You keep attempting to blame a non-existent free market for the failures of central economic planning and the central bank!  Politicians like to create short term economic booms to fool people into thinking that they are "managing the economy" intelligently.  That's why many still think Clinton was a good President when he is one of the people responsible for creating the housing bubble!


This thread asks the question of whether government should be spending more.  The argument for more spending is the idiotic keynesian idea of the "paradox of thrift".  Keynesians suppose that government should create new money and spend it into the economy in order to "stimulate" the economy when people are too broke to buy anything.  This is exactly the same behavior that is outlined in A.B.C. theory as precipitating economic boom & bust cycles.

You stated before that you studied Austrian Business Cycle theory but still prefer the Keynesian viewpoint.

I am interested to know how you could have studied A.B.C. theory, yet still ascribe to keynesian economics without making your head explode from the massive cognitive dissonance that must entail.


--------------------
Ludwig von Mises Institute,Campaign for Liberty.,The Oath Keeper's

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Federal Government should be spending even more [Re: Mr.Al]
    #11220791 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
zappaisgod said:
The people who aren't paying them back, or any other loan for that matter, are bums.  So no, the banks didn't only give risky loans to bums.  Not even close.


For the fuckteenth time, I said risky loans weren't limited to poor minorities.


Wow, you are a stunningly dishonest debater.  Really one of the slimier ones I've come across.  Here is the actual quote.

Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
zappaisgod said:
A "bum" is anyone who doesn't repay a debt.  There is no way you will ever understand the concept of market pressure, is there?


I like it.  By your newly made up definition for a bum, you are correct that banks only gave risky loans to bums.


zappaisgod said:
Surprisingly enough, most of those risky loans are being repaid.  The people who got risky loans but are paying them back are not bums.  The people who aren't paying them back, or any other loan for that matter, are bums.  So no, the banks didn't only give risky loans to bums.  Not even close.



Where did I say anything about poor or minority?  You can be a fucking billionaire but if you don't repay your loans you are a bum.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Federal Government should be spending even more [Re: zappaisgod]
    #11222339 -

zappaisgod said:
Where did I say anything about poor or minority?  You can be a fucking billionaire but if you don't repay your loans you are a bum.


First of all, that's exactly my point - you made up your own definition of a "bum".  Billionaires aren't regarded as "bums" by most people.

Secondly, you ask where you said anything about "poor or minority".  Right here:
Quote:
Sorry to burst your little prejudiced bubble.  Yeah, they (ACORN) do a lot of work with low income housing.  They sue banks to make loans to bums who don't pay them back.


ACORN only works with low and moderate income people, not medium and high income.  That's the 4th time you've accused me of being dishonest, and that's the 4th time I've proven you wrong.  Let's quit the bullshit ad-hominem attacks and stick to the topic.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Federal Government should be spending even more [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #11225236 -

Actually, there are many uses of the term bum

Ski bum. Beach bum. Throw the bum out (baseball). People who don't pay their bills, whether rich or poor.

All terms in common usage. Zappa is, again, correct.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Federal Government should be spending even more [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #11226511 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
zappaisgod said:
Where did I say anything about poor or minority?  You can be a fucking billionaire but if you don't repay your loans you are a bum.


First of all, that's exactly my point - you made up your own definition of a "bum".  Billionaires aren't regarded as "bums" by most people.

Secondly, you ask where you said anything about "poor or minority".  Right here:
Quote:
Sorry to burst your little prejudiced bubble.  Yeah, they (ACORN) do a lot of work with low income housing.  They sue banks to make loans to bums who don't pay them back.


ACORN only works with low and moderate income people, not medium and high income.  That's the 4th time you've accused me of being dishonest, and that's the 4th time I've proven you wrong.  Let's quit the bullshit ad-hominem attacks and stick to the topic.


Here is your dishonest bullshit yet again, the entire paragraph you linked:
Quote:
I don't watch TV news.  Sorry to burst your little prejudiced bubble.  Yeah, they do a lot of work with low income housing.  They sue banks to make loans to bums who don't pay them back.  ACORN also violates statutes restricting political activities by charities.  Two people with almost no money got 5 ACORN offices to assist them in what they said were illegal activities.  That is not a few rotten apples.  That is pervasive.


That was in a larger discussion about ACORN as a corrupt organization.  The "do(ing) a lot of work with low income housing" was presented as a positive concession.  Then I listed several other things that they do egregiously wrong.  Extortion, vote fraud, criminal facilitation.
You chop quotes and take them out of context.  You are as dishonest as I have come across and I don't give two shits that you don't know what ad hominem means.

I sure don't see the word "minority" in there, do you?  Nor did I say they only help poor people.  What they do is sue banks to give loans to people who would otherwise not get loans from a willing lender.  Extortion, in other words. 


You live in a dream castle.  You have never proven me wrong about anything.

ACORN does sue banks to make loans to people who would never qualify for loans on their own.  The reason for that is that they are much more likely to default.  They do not all default.  The ones that do not default are not bums.  The ones that do default are bums.  Perhaps you might want to draw yourself a little Venn diagram so you can understand it.  Draw some circles inside circles.  Some of the people ACORN's extortion helped get loans are paying their loans.  Some are not.  The "are nots" (bums) are a circle within the total circle of people ACORN helped.  Now look at another pair of circles that includes all people who got loans with the smaller circle inside that of people not paying them back.  The inner circle for ACORN loans is a much bigger proportion than the one for the general population.  But the label "bum" still only applies to the small circles.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Federal Government should be spending even more [Re: zappaisgod]
    #11230447 -

zappaisgod said:
Here is your dishonest bullshit yet again, the entire paragraph you linked:
Quote:
I don't watch TV news.  Sorry to burst your little prejudiced bubble.  Yeah, they do a lot of work with low income housing.  They sue banks to make loans to bums who don't pay them back.  ACORN also violates statutes restricting political activities by charities.  Two people with almost no money got 5 ACORN offices to assist them in what they said were illegal activities.  That is not a few rotten apples.  That is pervasive.


That was in a larger discussion about ACORN as a corrupt organization.  The "do(ing) a lot of work with low income housing" was presented as a positive concession.  Then I listed several other things that they do egregiously wrong.  Extortion, vote fraud, criminal facilitation.
You chop quotes and take them out of context.


Your question was "Where did I say anything about poor or minority?"  I answered.  The rest of your paragraph didn't discuss income so I omitted it.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Federal Government should be spending even more [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #11231707 -

I am disappointed.  I have not yet met a keynesian who is intellectually honest.  You could at least make a token attempt of a refutation of Austrian theory.

Even a link to your favorite government shill (keynesian "economist") with his argument would be acceptable.

I feel... like a sad panda bear.:confused:

I even gave you a couple days to think and research...


--------------------
Ludwig von Mises Institute,Campaign for Liberty.,The Oath Keeper's

Edited by Mr.Al (10/12/09 07:25 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Federal Government should be spending even more [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #11232984 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
zappaisgod said:
Here is your dishonest bullshit yet again, the entire paragraph you linked:
Quote:
I don't watch TV news.  Sorry to burst your little prejudiced bubble.  Yeah, they do a lot of work with low income housing.  They sue banks to make loans to bums who don't pay them back.  ACORN also violates statutes restricting political activities by charities.  Two people with almost no money got 5 ACORN offices to assist them in what they said were illegal activities.  That is not a few rotten apples.  That is pervasive.


That was in a larger discussion about ACORN as a corrupt organization.  The "do(ing) a lot of work with low income housing" was presented as a positive concession.  Then I listed several other things that they do egregiously wrong.  Extortion, vote fraud, criminal facilitation.
You chop quotes and take them out of context.


Your question was "Where did I say anything about poor or minority?"  I answered.  The rest of your paragraph didn't discuss income so I omitted it.


So you concede I didn't say one thing about minority and by your own admission not everyone ACORN helps is poor.  Thanks for chopping your own pete off.  At any rate, for those who don't want to go back this is what started your campaign of lies
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
People can decide for themselves if they think it was ACORN policy to facilitate child prostitution.

zappaisgod said:
The people who aren't paying them back, or any other loan for that matter, are bums.  So no, the banks didn't only give risky loans to bums.  Not even close.


For the fuckteenth time, I said risky loans weren't limited to poor minorities.


I never said they were.  Why would you assume that I meant poor minority when I said "bum" even after several explanations?  Keep chopping, Woodrow.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Federal Government should be spending even more [Re: Mr.Al]
    #11237664 -

Mr.Al said:
I am disappointed.  I have not yet met a keynesian who is intellectually honest.  You could at least make a token attempt of a refutation of Austrian theory.

Even a link to your favorite government shill (keynesian "economist") with his argument would be acceptable.

I feel... like a sad panda bear.:confused:

I even gave you a couple days to think and research...


Sorry, I was busy this 3 day weekend.

I went back and reread this entire post - please tell me what points of yours I didn't refute.  The only one I noticed is the one you just made - "You could at least make a token attempt of a refutation of Austrian theory."  That's kind of a large request.  How about I start one point at a time - you seem to bring up the Austrian Business Cycle a lot.  Here's a chart that appears to show that the Central Bank has actually shrank the natural business cycles, rather than the other way around:

http://www.oswego.edu/~edunne/200ch8_1.html


The write-up in the link above says the same.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Federal Government should be spending even more [Re: zappaisgod]
    #11237692 -

zappaisgod said:
At any rate, for those who don't want to go back this is what started your campaign of lies
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
People can decide for themselves if they think it was ACORN policy to facilitate child prostitution.

zappaisgod said:
The people who aren't paying them back, or any other loan for that matter, are bums.  So no, the banks didn't only give risky loans to bums.  Not even close.


For the fuckteenth time, I said risky loans weren't limited to poor minorities.


I never said they were.  Why would you assume that I meant poor minority when I said "bum" even after several explanations?  Keep chopping, Woodrow.


For those willing to go back even farther, here's what zappa said:

zappaisgod said:
You also might want to read up on lawsuits filed by ACORN to compel lending in shitty neighborhoods.  All in the name of Affirmative Action.  Bush was naive.  He should have known that bums are always bums regardless of whether you do them a favor of lending them money.  They don't pay it back.


Here (before your new definition) you referred to bums as people receiving help from ACORN - the poor.  You also said this was in the name of "Affirmative Action" - minorities.  So again, it's you that's being dishonest.

Oh, and I cut only the relevant part out of the post above.  Please read the entire post I linked to to ensure I'm not taking anything "out of context".


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |

Shop: Myyco.com Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* The Government
( 1 2 all )		 DailyPot 4,274 33 01/18/14 11:44 AM
by Echro
* TV Marti: shining example of government wastefullness Anonymous 360 1 06/18/03 08:44 AM
by luvdemshrooms
* paper money as currency?Inflation? stock HOW?? fake economy?
( 1 2 all )		 kaiowas 3,145 22 08/26/03 08:37 AM
by Anonymous
* Do you "like" the US government?
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 trendalM 3,319 63 07/22/04 06:36 PM
by Evolving
* Federal Reserve Questions... RonoS 1,715 16 09/19/02 07:32 AM
by Anonymous
* Must Read: History Of The Federal Reserve FrankieJustTrypt 2,025 17 02/15/04 06:48 AM
by Phred
* Government Hits $6.4 Trillion Debt Limit
( 1 2 all )		 Ellis Dee 2,759 23 02/26/03 09:22 AM
by pattern
* The Alliance and Coalition Sue Government silversoul7 704 3 02/18/04 02:31 PM
by Strumpling

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
16,862 topic views. 1 members, 1,388 guests and 13 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.035 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 18 queries.