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: North Spore Bulk Substrate   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Concentrates   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2  [ show all ]
Re: Bush sneaks through more tax cuts for the rich during wa [Re: z@z.com]
    #1410556 -

While it's true there are many that abuse welfare, I don't think it's fair to punish everyone. Perhaps more stringent rules need to be applied in order to receive welfare.


--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Bush sneaks through more tax cuts for the rich during wa [Re: Rono]
    #1410575 -

I'm not saying welfare must be done away with, but I don't think the federal government should do it. It can be better monitored if it is run by the states and not one huge federal agency.
When I see someone at the grocery store with food stamps go load their groceries into their new navigator I get more than a little pissed.


--------------------
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C.S. Lewis

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Bush sneaks through more tax cuts for the rich during wa [Re: z@z.com]
    #1410579 -

I would tend to agree with you...it should be run by each individual state.


--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Bush sneaks through more tax cuts for the rich during wa [Re: angryshroom]
    #1410586 -

Quote:
I know many people who work hard for their money.


So what. So do I. Myself included.


Quote:
You are under the impression that people who are poor dont work hard?


So, reading isn't a strong point with you? I didn't say anything about the people who work.


Quote:
See, obviously you'd change your mind if you were going to be on welfare.


Bullshit. I've been so broke at times I could have qualified for welfare. But rather than suck off someones elses money, I worked my way back at great cost to myself.


Quote:
Yeah, thats Monday through Sunday... Dont have a day off. I work my ass off. I have just not been as privileged, and blind as you.


Priviledged my ass. I've worked my ass off for everthing I have. I scrimped, saved, and invested for years before I got to where I am. And if that's all you make working Monday through Sunday, I suggest an immediate career change.


Quote:
I have morals, I care about other people, just not myself, like so many selfish bastards.


Since I don't know you or what kind of person you are I won't make as stupid a statement as that one. Suffice to say I have no fear my morals could ever come under question. I do far more for people than I imagine most ever will.


Quote:
I got that amount taken out of my paycheck, thats what I had left over. I live in CA, we have higher taxes.


So now somehow Bush is responsible for the high taxes in California? Thank years of liberal policies and people like Davis. Or was this sentence as foolish as your words make you out to be? "Oh and for my paycheck... I got 110 bucks taken out of it, and I only made $186.32... Thankyou fucking Bush.."


Posts like your last couple here are why the country is finally swinging back to the right. People smart enough to see what's happening to this country are sick and tired of those who think they deserve a handout and then complain it's not enough.

As a landlord I see people all the time that are on welfare. They generally have better TV's, stereo's and food than my tenants who get off their asses and work for a living. Why work when they can just sit around on their lazy asses knowing bleeding hearts will look out for them?

Don't like how much you make? Get a better job.


--------------------
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: Bush sneaks through more tax cuts for the rich during wa [Re: angryshroom]
    #1410594 -

Quote:
I would like it to support single mothers, single fathers, and parents who have children to feed, but, do not make enough money for their children.


So instead of beer and cigarettes, let them buy condoms.


--------------------
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: Bush sneaks through more tax cuts for the rich during war [Re: angryshroom]
    #1410596 -

Quote:
They just have better jobs cause they are fuckign white


Racist.


--------------------
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: Bush sneaks through more tax cuts for the rich during wa [Re: Rono]
    #1410624 -

Quote:
Keep it civil kids...I would prefer to actually be able to read these posts without having to edit out the petty name calling.


Perhaps a better policy would be to only edit posts where people complain about being called names. I have no problem being called names. 

What I don't like though is a moderator changing my posts as if I had said something I didn't.  :smirk:


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

Edited by luvdemshrooms (03/26/03 05:45 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Bush sneaks through more tax cuts for the rich during wa [Re: Rono]
    #1410636 -

Quote:
I would tend to agree with you...it should be run by each individual state.


The US consitution agrees with you as well. See the 10th ammendment.


--------------------
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: Bush sneaks through more tax cuts for the rich during wa [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #1410637 -

I disagree...the policy is in place for a reason. Everyone has the choice to follow the rules that are set or to not post in this forum.

Quote:
What I don't like though is a moderator changing my posts as if I had said something I didn't.

If the derogatory comments weren't made then I would have no reason to delete them would I?

Now..Back to the topic please...


--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"

Edited by Rono (03/26/03 05:50 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Bush sneaks through more tax cuts for the rich during wa [Re: Rono]
    #1410645 -

Quote:
  If the derogatory comments weren't made then I would have no reason to delete them would I?


I wasn't refering to this thread.
I think you know what one I mean. :grin:


--------------------
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: Bush sneaks through more tax cuts for the rich during wa [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #1410664 -

Quote:
I wasn't refering to this thread.
I think you know what one I mean. 


Lies!...It must have been someone else...I have no idea what you are referring to...  :wink:


--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Bush sneaks through more tax cuts for the rich during war [Re: angryshroom]
    #1410670 -

Quote:
They just have better jobs cause they are fuckign white, and had the money to go to college.



Race has something to do with anything??? Ummmm, excuse me... I'm 'fucking white' and I went to college but had no money and I got none from my family. I took student loans and worked my ass off. It was very hard but I made it.

If someone wants to go to college they can. It may entail a little hard work but is that so bad? A little hard work will only help establish a stronger work ethic for the future.

Using race as any justification for anything is wrong. If you are white, get rid of the guilt complex. If you are not white get over whatever complex you have.

A short story about race:
I was passed over for a promotion while I was in college. The reason I was told by the manager at U.S. Sprint, was because the person who got the promotion is black and they needed a black supervisor. I was half way through college and my degree matched with the requirements; I was more qualified. She, the black girl, was in beauty school.

BTW, the girl I'm talking about was my girlfriend. She refused the promotion and we both quit.

I digress....


--------------------
<~>Our truest life is when we are in dreams awake <~>

Edited by grib (03/26/03 06:32 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Bush sneaks through more tax cuts for the rich during war [Re: grib]
    #1411554 -

nowadays colleges have to take a certain amt of white and black despite even if they have poor grades the colleges have to meet their quota


--------------------
The best way to live
is to be like water
For water benefits all things
and goes against none of them
It provides for all people
and even cleanses those places
a man is loath to go
In this way it is just like Tao        ~Daodejing

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Bush sneaks through more tax cuts for the rich during wa [Re: angryshroom]
    #1411590 -

How the fuck do you pay more from a tax cut??? I've got more out my paycheck.

Clinton was a lousy fucking president, he had a surplus, WHO GIVES A FUCK. HE ALSO FUCKED OUR SECURITY which led to China getting the plans for a nuclear warhead. Damn that surplus sure is nice tho and he can lie to your face while smiling, AND YOUR DUMB SHIT ASS WOULD BELIEVE IT!!! DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE FUCK WENT ON DURING CLINTON???? DO YOU UNDERSTAND AT ALL???? WE PROLLY WOULD'VE HAD BIN LADEN IF IT WERE'NT FOR CLINTON!!! The Serbs. What Clinton did in that make any sense??? But he did have a surplus, let me give a shit bout a surplus over security. GOD THE SHIT THAT MAN FUCKING DID AND LET FLY!!! ARGH...

FUCK YOU,
Cracka_X


--------------------
The best way to live
is to be like water
For water benefits all things
and goes against none of them
It provides for all people
and even cleanses those places
a man is loath to go
In this way it is just like Tao        ~Daodejing

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Bush sneaks through more tax cuts for the rich during wa [Re: EchoVortex]
    #1411672 -

From:

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0203/tracinski021303.asp

Bad economics in one lesson

http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com

On Tuesday, the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), a left-leaning Washington think tank, published a full-page ad in The New York Times condemning the proposed Bush tax cuts. This pro-tax statement is signed by more than 400 economists, including 10 Nobel laureates -- for what that's worth.

Apparently, it's not worth very much, because the economists' statement is a classic lesson in bad economics.

The EPI economists oppose cutting taxes because that would mean "a permanent change in the tax structure and not the creation of jobs and growth in the near-term." What, then, is the right approach? "To be effective, a stimulus plan should rely on immediate but temporary spending and tax measures to expand demand, and it should also rely on immediate but temporary incentives for investment." Their mantra is "immediate but temporary." The basic message: think short-term.

In his classic 1946 book "Economics in One Lesson" -- an amazingly clear and eye-opening introduction to free-market economics -- Henry Hazlitt described the "one lesson" required for good economics. "The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effect of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups." The basic message: think long-term.

Most of today's economists have never learned Hazlitt's one lesson. Instead, they are followers of his more famous contemporary, John Maynard Keynes, whose philosophy was expressed in his famous quip that, "In the long run, we'll all be dead." Based on such shallow wisdom, today's economists feel free to ignore anything but the shortest of short-term consequences.

This focus on the short term, for example, leads the EPI economists to tell us that our first priority should be to "expand demand," i.e., boost immediate consumer spending. But immediate spending only uses up the inventory of goods that have already been produced. The decision to produce new goods -- the decision to spend current revenues to build factories and hire workers -- is a matter, not of consumption, but of investment. These investment decisions are what drive the economy in the long term -- and they are made based on returns projected one year, or three years, or 30 years into the future. They are made with the long term in mind.

The stubbornly myopic outlook of today's economists is expressed in the absurd call for "immediate but temporary incentives for investment." Investment, by its nature, is that which is not "immediate but temporary."

To increase the long-term reward for investors, what we need is precisely a "permanent change in the tax structure." This is particularly true of the proposal to eliminate taxes on stock dividends, a move that would increase the value of long-term stock holdings, an immediate and permanent incentive for investment. Yet the EPI economists single out this measure for special criticism, dismissing it as "not credible as a short-term stimulus."

After all, in the long run, we'll all be dead.

The EPI economists cling to one fig leaf of concern for future consequences: they say they are concerned about the "long-term budget outlook," i.e., deficit spending.

This is a legitimate failure of the Bush budget; it cuts taxes while only seeking to limit the growth of spending. Yet these economists are not really concerned about deficits; their real goal is to protect the welfare state. The problem, they say, is that deficits "reduce the capacity of the government to finance Social Security and Medicare benefits as well as investments in schools, health, infrastructure, and basic research." Note that they see no value in encouraging long-term private investment -- but heaven forbid that we should threaten government "investment" in middle-class entitlements and pork-barrel spending.

This is the deeper lesson of good economics. If the economist should look at remote consequences and the long term, economics itself must look at its ultimate consequences: the moral ends for which we live.

In the minds of leftist economists, the economy does not exist so that productive individuals can enjoy the fruits of their labors. It exists for only one purpose: to divert money from the successful to the unsuccessful. If these economists seek to "stimulate" the economy, it is only so that productive people can, temporarily, become more vigorous draft-horses to drag along a cart loaded with an ever-heavier crowd of unproductive hitchhikers.

What are the consequences of a social system that sacrifices our best producers for the sake of parasites? That is the long-term in which we will, in fact, all be dead.

pinky


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Bush sneaks through more tax cuts for the rich during wa [Re: Phred]
    #1411840 -

So basically Robert Tracinski from the Jewish World Review is right and 400 economists, including 10 Nobel laureates, are all wrong.

There isn't a single line of concrete analysis in that entire piece. Has Tracinski looked at any numbers? Does he have any training in econometrics, in forecasting? What is the extent of his training in economics other than "Economics in One Lesson"? On the basis of that one book he presumes to know better than hundreds of dedicated professionals who have spent their lives considering the numerous complexities and nuances of economics.

What the economists are addressing is the so-called stimulus plan. Stimulus plans, by definition are meant for the short term. That's the only way to determine if they are effective or not. A stimulus plan for ten years down the road is meaningless because so much will have transpired by then that it will be impossible to determine whether what happened was due to the stimulus plan or not.

Furthermore, the Bush administration claims that their plan will improve the economy in the SHORT term. Tracinski provides no evidence or argument that it will do so. He simply says that short-term goals are bad economics. The 400 economists are merely addressing the short-term outcome of the package, because that is what the package itself is meant to address

Tracinski writes:
The EPI economists cling to one fig leaf of concern for future consequences: they say they are concerned about the "long-term budget outlook," i.e., deficit spending.

This is a legitimate failure of the Bush budget; it cuts taxes while only seeking to limit the growth of spending. Yet these economists are not really concerned about deficits; their real goal is to protect the welfare state. The problem, they say, is that deficits "reduce the capacity of the government to finance Social Security and Medicare benefits as well as investments in schools, health, infrastructure, and basic research." Note that they see no value in encouraging long-term private investment -- but heaven forbid that we should threaten government "investment" in middle-class entitlements and pork-barrel spending.

What extrasensory perception does he possess to know that 400+ independent economists are all "not really concerned" about deficits? They may ALSO be concerned with services spending, but Tracinski is pulling the "not really concerned" part out his fat ass. As far as Social Security goes, those are benefits that the recipients have already paid for. Not disbursing them is nothing short of theft. As for investments in "schools, health, infrastructure, and basic research," well, those things are hundreds of times more beneficial to the overall well-being and economy of the nation than some $80 billion war in Iraq. Industrial economies need educated, healthy (able to work) workers who have access to roads, communications services, etc. (infrastructure) and who develop technologies on the back of basic research that is not immediately profitable but which creates a knowledge base from which to create profitable technologies.

In the minds of leftist economists, the economy does not exist so that productive individuals can enjoy the fruits of their labors. It exists for only one purpose: to divert money from the successful to the unsuccessful. If these economists seek to "stimulate" the economy, it is only so that productive people can, temporarily, become more vigorous draft-horses to drag along a cart loaded with an ever-heavier crowd of unproductive hitchhikers.

Once again he imputes motives he has no access to. His hyperbolic rhetoric reaches the heights of stupidity when he says, "In the minds of leftist economists . . .It [the economy] exists for one purpose" and one purpose only--so that they (every single economist I know is quite well off) and other well-off people can be exploited by those parasitic, freeloading welfare recipients! 400+ economists all believe that this is the one, only, and single purpose of the economy! That's ALL they care about. He ends the piece with a nice slippery-slope fallacy, a common feature of paranoia both of the far right and the far left.

This is such a feeble-minded piece of work, filled with so many failures of reasoning and propagandistic flourishes that I'm truly surprised to see you posting it, pinky. I mean, I know you agree with practically everything the guy says, but I would have expected you to find something that actually expresses these ideas with some intellectual rigor and some factual backing.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Bush sneaks through more tax cuts for the rich during wa [Re: EchoVortex]
    #1411881 -

Your claim that 400 economists know better than 20 or 30 is based not on logic or analysis or econometrics, but on your standard mantra that the will of the majority trumps all. In your mind, if 400 sign a paper opposing a plan, while only a few dozen write articles supporting it, then clearly the 400 are correct.

No argument I (or anyone else) could present will alter your entrenched belief that no matter what the subject, the truth of a proposition is dependent on the number of its adherents. If you believe that the laws of economics are subject to the wishes of the majority, far be it from me to try to dissuade you.

Perhaps some readers of this thread will side with the gaggle of economists, perhaps others will side with Tracinski and economists of the Cato institute. Most likely, no one other than you and I give two shits either way.

pinky


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Bush sneaks through more tax cuts for the rich during wa [Re: Phred]
    #1412087 -

Your claim that 400 economists know better than 20 or 30 is based not on logic or analysis or econometrics, but on your standard mantra that the will of the majority trumps all.

Where exactly did I make that claim? Where does Tracinski cite other economists to back his position? I was addressing the problems of Tracinski's piece. Do I fervently believe that those 450 (that was the actual number, now that I've seen the actual site) are absolutely right? No, not fervently. I merely suspect they are. Only time will tell. The point of my original post was simply to alert people that the Bush administration is trying to use the distractions of war to submit ADDITIONAL tax cuts to their original plan, additional cuts that haven't been properly debated. I was not the one citing the 450 economists, Tracinski was. Ideally, those economists would present clear analysis in support of their position, as would those who support the Bush administration.

In your mind, if 400 sign a paper opposing a plan, while only a few dozen write articles supporting it, then clearly the 400 are correct.

Not at all. The opinion of ONE trained physicist on matters of physics is worth more than the opinions of one million, ten million, or ten billion people who are ignorant of the study of physics. Economics is a "soft" science, not a "hard" science like physics, so it doesn't quite work the same way, and ideology does come into play, but it is reasonable to factor in expertise when deciding how much weight to ascribe to a particular opinion.

No argument I (or anyone else) could present will alter your entrenched belief that no matter what the subject, the truth of a proposition is dependent on the number of its adherents. If you believe that the laws of economics are subject to the wishes of the majority, far be it from me to try to dissuade you.

Oh pinky, it's a sad day when you have to resort to misrepresenting my position in order to try to score points. I have never stated, and never believed, that "the truth of a proposition is dependent on the number of adherents." Perhaps you infer that from the fact that I support democratic mechanisms of government, but that inference would be incorrect. It doesn't follow that because I support democratic mechanisms of government I believe the majority is ALWAYS RIGHT--quite on the contrary, the majority is often wrong. But I have yet to see you or anybody else present a system of government that has PROVEN itself to work better. I'm not interested in your fantasies about how a perfect Capitalist society would be. Democracy is not perfect, and democracies make mistakes. So what? So do everything and everybody else.

As for this particular case, the majority in question is not a majority of untutored illiterates, but a majority of people who have each devoted their entire professional lives to the understanding of economics. Neither you nor I can say the same, and neither can Tracinski. If the Cato Institute supports the Bush plan, fine. Tracinski would have done well to present their analysis and arguments. As it was, he was simply paraphrashing Ayn Rand, and I'm sorry, but Ayn Rand was not trained in economics and had too many ideological axes to grind for anything she said to be taken with anything other than a huge lump of salt. This hyperbolic separation of human beings into "producers" and "parasites" is not scientific at all--it is loaded with so much emotionalism that it crosses over into hysteria. Anybody who calls another human being a "parasite" is clearly mentally unstable. All human beings fall on a spectrum of productivity and consumption. Some produce a lot but also steal a lot. Some produce a lot but take very little. Some produce little and steal a great deal. Some produce little and live within the means they produce. But anyway, this all has little bearing on the issue I was addressing with my post: why is the Bush administration trying to hide what it is doing from public scrutiny?

In any event, I would be much more inclined to believe the Bush administration's position if they had a proven track record of economic growth and prosperity. They don't. Neither did Bush I's administration. And I'm tired of hearing excuses, more than halfway into the term, that it's all basically Clinton's fault. And what good do these massive deficits do for the economy? Tracinski sidesteps that issue completely, saying that those economists have a point, but no, wait, they don't have a point, because they're raising it for the wrong reasons. Either they have a point or they don't--and you know as well as I do, pinky, that fiscal irresponsibility is not the way to go.

Perhaps some readers of this thread will side with the gaggle of economists, perhaps others will side with Tracinski and economists of the Cato institute. Most likely, no one other than you and I give two shits either way.

Those of us who live in the US give a lot more than two shits, because we're the ones who have to live the consequences. Who knows, maybe the Bush administration and Cato Institute are right, but every single piece of evidence I have before me says they're not.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Bush sneaks through more tax cuts for the rich during wa [Re: Rono]
    #1412779 -

Welfare doens't cost much money in the grand scheme of things...it can be afforded easily by countries like the USA.

More tax cuts for the rich, eh? When there's a huge deficit even? Oh the shameless greedy fucks.


--------------------
  -I'd rather have a frontal lobotomy than a bottle in front of me

CANADIAN CENTER FOR POLICY ALTERNATIVES

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Bush sneaks through more tax cuts for the rich during wa [Re: carbonhoots]
    #1412813 -

It doesn't matter whether or not a country can afford it.

It's a bad idea and encourages people to be sponges.

And in the case of the US, is unconstitutional for the feds to be involved in.


--------------------
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
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2  [ show all ]

Shop: North Spore Bulk Substrate   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Concentrates   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale

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

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* W.House: Tax Cuts to Create 800,000 Jobs
( 1 2 3 all )		 Ellis Dee 5,819 40 03/03/02 09:53 PM
by sparafucile
* Income Tax checks!!
( 1 2 3 all )		 Innvertigo 6,372 52 08/21/01 12:04 AM
by capncracker
* The Bush 9/11 Scandal for Dummies
( 1 2 3 all )		 RonoS 5,285 49 06/12/02 07:15 PM
by Jammer
* Post deleted by Moe Howard
( 1 2 all )		 Macey Howard 2,545 29 09/27/02 09:53 PM
by mntlfngrs
* George Bush does something right!
( 1 2 all )		 carbonhoots 3,363 20 03/12/02 01:31 PM
by tomldp
* Bush's Speech
( 1 2 3 all )		 Senor_Doobie 4,423 40 09/22/02 06:59 PM
by Jammer
* Was Bush aware of the attacks prior to 9/11?
( 1 2 3 all )		 RonoS 4,736 42 06/04/02 10:41 AM
by Rono
* All Hail Emperor Bush!
( 1 2 all )		 delian 4,885 36 06/27/01 06:31 AM
by Innvertigo

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
5,031 topic views. 2 members, 0 guests and 14 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 16 queries.