| 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 » |
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
| Shop: |
| |||||||
|
Strange R Registered: 04/24/03 Posts: 38,331 Loc: subtropics |
| ||||||
|
IF they do pay those taxes, they get it back through some tax break loophole of some kind so they really don't pay, if they pay anything. Such as giving to a certain charity etc...set up by other very well of people to help themselves. Not to mention offshore accounts, having a company in another country so they don't have to pay workers as much and on and on...
| |||||||
|
Miss Ann Thrope Registered: 03/26/12 Posts: 17,138 Loc: Lashed to the py |
| ||||||
Quote: Government is a function of society tho -- it is the ordering principle while it is my personal preference for ultimate Chaos, society is an endeavour in Order, and Government is simply an ordering body Quote: Between the option of government mandated housing to keep people warm and charitable giving to keep people warm the only real advantage of charitable giving is that it makes the giver feel warm and fuzzy and as though they are going above and beyond other citizens but do respect charitable giving more generally just personally prefer to volunteer my time, as is more difficult for the bureaucratic arms of charitable organizations to exploit for example, personally prefer to make physical (clothing; food) donations to a Christian humanitarian organization known as the Siloam Mission the Salvation Army is a Christian humanitarian organization professing the same goals but of the two, feel more confident that monetary donations from other individuals find their way to the appropriate communities via Siloam as sad as it is to have to say, be sure to research before you give you may throw 1000 dollars into an organization planning for it to go to food and blankets for the homeless to later (not) find out that instead 900 dollars of it went to the President of the organization having a fancy house and 100 went to the needy Quote: The tenants had been living there before he bought the property the legal rent controls in Montréal dictated that my father could not kick them out and find someone to pay higher rent unless he actually put in enough work to the apartment to make an increase in rent reflect paying to cover the work that was done instead, he took a loophole, kicked them out with no recourse and was off to the races Quote: This is that whole society issue again should people have protections as part of society or should the people with the most money dictate the terms of living for the poor Quote: He didn't help his family free of charge he proceeded to charge me a higher rent than he could have legally charged the previous tenants do not get me wrong, do not think all landlord situations are terrible because of my father (and moreso the influence of my stepmother who works him like a dog on apartment repairs so that she doesn't need to hire contractors) an example of a positive situation would be some Korean friends of mine in Montréal the grandparents moved over with the parents, and they generationally began living renting half of a duplex they eventually took ownership of the full building and rent out the other half but now that the most recent generation (my friend and her sister) is also living in the home eventually one of them will go on to inherit the adjacent livingspace as a sort of wedding gift
| |||||||
|
Old Man Registered: 02/20/19 Posts: 294 Last seen: 4 days, 21 hours |
| ||||||
Quote: No, you don't. Every example on the planet proves that a universal healthcare system is far superior to the profit-driven system that the U.S. has.
| |||||||
|
Turd Ferguson Registered: 01/11/15 Posts: 7,474 Loc: Ontario Canada Last seen: 6 hours, 7 minutes |
| ||||||
Quote: now you're just favouring your own speculation over acctual sources. thats tax revenue. they did pay those taxes. do you really think you pay more taxes than someone with a billion dollars? thats ridiculous. In Canada the 1% pays 67.1% of the annual tax revanue. in the USA the 1% pay 90% and we have billionaires too. if you want more social programs you are going to have to pay more taxes. you wont be able to rely almost exclusively on super rich people.
| |||||||
|
Strange R Registered: 04/24/03 Posts: 38,331 Loc: subtropics |
| ||||||
Quote: Yes, I know I do, it's a fact. You're deluded if you think the very wealthy/rich/corps pay a fair tax in relation to what I pay/get taken out of my check. Resources are skewed and twisted and do not show the whole truth.
| |||||||
|
Turd Ferguson Registered: 01/11/15 Posts: 7,474 Loc: Ontario Canada Last seen: 6 hours, 7 minutes |
| ||||||
Quote: I don't beleive government should replace personal communities. I see society moving in that direction but dont think its good. I think people should have freedom of association, the right to property, freedom of consience, freedom of religion. Redistributive social programs violate atleast two of those by nessecity and its not uncommon for it to violate the other two aswell. The only difference is not the warm fuzzy feeling. although I think you did frame that in a slightly reductive way because the connection between the giver and receiver is an important part of charity. If you're getting a cheque from the government its not the same as someone from your local community voluntarily helping you out. that creates community bonds and a sense of responsibility to put the money to good use. and often times seeing someone from your local community voluntarily help you gives you the emotional support you may need in tough times. and people should be in the habbit of giving to the less fortunate and acctualy participating in the giving because it is allows them to see the value of sacrifice first hand. so its more than just a self agrandizing circle jerk. its an important part of our society that seems to be less and less important over time. especially in the city. Up north in rural communities, they have all kinds of community events and dinners and a fall fair. Everyone knows everyone who volunteers and participates it is really important for the community to see evryone come together and willingly do something for the group. which brings me to my next point. thats not the only good thing about it. The best thing about it is that its voluntary and is compatable with human rights. particularly the right to property and the right to freedom of assocoation. "The tenants had been living there before he bought the property the legal rent controls in Montréal dictated that my father could not kick them out and find someone to pay higher rent unless he actually put in enough work to the apartment to make an increase in rent reflect paying to cover the work that was done instead, he took a loophole, kicked them out with no recourse and was off to the races " the truth is they didnt own the property. you father did. he spent his money on it. if they can now either find a new place to rent or buy property. You're father didnt buy a proeprty just to basically glush money down the toilet. he bought it in order to own it. and thats amazing for him. I'm happy for him that he was able to invest his money in property. I really hope I can do the same some day. "This is that whole society issue again should people have protections as part of society or should the people with the most money dictate the terms of living for the poor" Again, if they negotiated in their contract that they would be allowed ro live there for a certian amount of time and that was violated then they should be entitled to compensation from your father. if there was no such agreement i cant see what he did wrong? now if that person could afford to rent at your fathers place then I'm sure they found another place. You dont need laws to enforce alot of things. alot of things are the industry standard regardless. like regardless of what the law says I'm sure people would be including a notice period in their agreements. and if they violate those agreements then they have committed fraud and can be held accountable by the law. but you didnt acctually need to create a new law. its sinply up to people to come to agreements and then the government can get involved when people are violating those agreements because that is fraud. I know a landlord who has had real issues renting to scumbags who end up causing property damage. when you are allowing a scumbag to damage people's property and preventing the landlord from protecting his property by evicting the person then you're making it harder for landlords and deincentivising people when it comes to making housing available. and tou're looking at it in terms of rich vs poor as if they should have different sets of rights. everyone should have the same rights. regardless of your economic standing. The property owner should certainly dictate the terms of living for the tenant. of course. and if the tenant doesnt like it they can find another person who I'm sure would be happy to appeal to them as a customer and have their business. or alternatively, they can negotiate the terms and enter into a voluntary agreement with someone rather than pointing the government gun at them. as for your last point, Oh i misunderstood. but that proves my point more. If the govenrment didnt limit what he could legally charge, he wouldnt have had to kick the person out. blame the government.
| |||||||
|
Turd Ferguson Registered: 01/11/15 Posts: 7,474 Loc: Ontario Canada Last seen: 6 hours, 7 minutes |
| ||||||
Quote: Show me evidence that its a fact. ive shown you evidence that the opposite is a fact. you are just saying stuff with no evidence. you are completely incorrect if you think billionaires pay less taxes than the general population. thats ridiculous. show me one source that says that. you're full on embracing dishonesty. Nothing but competely baseless statements with you. Quote: Look back in my post history or even this thread man. Ive addressed scandinavia, ive addressed that gocernment has not been responsible for most of the innovations in history medicine included. and that continues to be the case to this day As my link earlier in this thread has been shown. You want to hear proof that private healthcare is more effective? The supreme court of Canada said it was a violation of the human right to life for Quebec to ban private health insurance because the ban had resulted in people, who could have saved themselves, dying. Even Canada agrees that nobody with the means to save their own lives should be prevented from saving their own life. The reality is wait times are awful here. Not just for prodecures and screenings but even emergency rooms can have quite long waits unfortunately. USA has the highest 5 year cancer survival rates of any country last I checked. and Also last i checked the USA has the highest life expectancy in the world if you remove homicide and car accidents. which dont tell you much about healthcare. they may be indicitice of other problems but not healthcare. This information may not be the most recent but many studies simply include all causes of death so its hard to find a study applicable to healthcare. if you know of a more recent study that follows these criteria feel free to post it. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www
| |||||||
|
Strange R Registered: 04/24/03 Posts: 38,331 Loc: subtropics |
| ||||||
|
and Also last i checked the USA has the highest life expectancy in the world
In 2016, the U.S. ranked 43rd in the world, Spain - 85.8 years. Japan - 85.7 years. Singapore - 85.4 years. Switzerland - 85.2 years. Portugal - 84.5 years. Italy - 84.5 years. Israel - 84.4 years. France - 84.3 years
| |||||||
|
Turd Ferguson Registered: 01/11/15 Posts: 7,474 Loc: Ontario Canada Last seen: 6 hours, 7 minutes |
| ||||||
Quote: way to completely take me out on comtext and be totally dishonest. you really dont care about honesty you just want to make people who disagree with you look bad and lie to make yourself look right? You have a complete disregard for truth.
| |||||||
|
Miss Ann Thrope Registered: 03/26/12 Posts: 17,138 Loc: Lashed to the py |
| ||||||
Quote: Which ones do you feel it violates and how do you feel it violates them? Quote: You really reinforced my point with underlined, you initially proposed donating money to charity as an alternative to government supports it was my proposal that volunteer activity is worth "more" than volunteer monetary donations if the Manitoba or Winnipeg government was running Siloam, me putting in volunteer time would still have the same value and impact on the community meanwhile, the warm fuzzy feeling that comes from knowing a cheque you wrote may reach someone in need is the only thing that provides any real difference and even then, it is not a logistical consideration of efficiency donating money to charity is about dem feels Quote: Yeah, it sucks that someone could violate someone else's right to property my father didn't inhabit it, he just wanted to milk more money from whoever did this is not even me saying my father was a categorically bad person/landlord he had other tenants that did not regularly meet their rent payments, or who damaged their apartments and he typically let delinquents stay, he ejected tenants who were by all standards good tenants, but did not get along with his wife oh, wait, that's because the legal protections for delinquent tenants are higher keep note of that last bit Quote: it is interesting you feel they should be entitled to compensation for being ejected in the midst of their lease because my entire point is how loopholes allowed him to do so without them having means to seek compensation Quote: and my earlier post in this thread specifically said there should be legal protections for getting rid of people who cause property damage or who do not pay their rent instead of legal protections to throw responsible tenants out to make way for family business transactions Quote: do not get me wrong, would have moved into another apartment that was half-trashed so that dad did not end up having to deal with it being fully trashed but guess the question is -- do you feel the loopholes and laws working in the way they do is a good thing or is it the law acting against the wellbeing of general citizens in favour of those with more wealth Quote: My position is that everyone should have the same rights but the current systems facillitate people with more wealth having more rights and they pay for the government organizations like the police to focus their guns on the poor while they commit corruption to get richer Quote: Personally blame the government for not having stronger tenant protections in this scenario it's absolutely ridiculous to think that you could be living in an apartment under one owner one year then another person buying that building and deciding to double your rent without doing anything to better the building and earn that money is even in the realm of possibility -- am thankful for the rent controls that do exist in Montréal in contrast, have no real objections to the Canadian health system even if my monthly HRT ends up costing me 5 dollars even with coverage it is better than having it cost more or be unavailable to me because pharmaceutical businesses see an opportunity to make more money off the trans fad train
| |||||||
|
Turd Ferguson Registered: 01/11/15 Posts: 7,474 Loc: Ontario Canada Last seen: 6 hours, 7 minutes |
| ||||||
|
@Tantrika, it's really hard to reply on my phone so I'm sorry but im not going to bread your post down and reply to each point I'm just going to reply to all points at once in the below.
1. redistributive programs violate.the right to property by taking away people's money for public use without just compensation, the right to freedom of association by forcing everyone to participate in a system they may not want to be a part of and acctually make tangible contrabutions to that group. It can also lead to a violation of freedom of conscience like how tax dollars go toward abortion in Canada. I do not want to contribute to that. I do not consent. 2. Like I said I get what you're saying but I think its a very reductive way of putting it. also, Like I mentioned the best feature is the consent based nature which does not violate human rights. 3. You dont have a right to property that you dont own. 4. If he violated a written agreement then he is in the wrong and the tenant should be entitled to compensation. I agree. 5. I think it should be up to two parties to come to a mutal agreement and the government should stay out of it. If they sign a legal document outlining the terms of a monetary transaction and violate the terms of the document then that is grounds for the government to step in. 6. I dont think the law should favour anyone. I think it should protect people's rights. If Jim buys a property and rents it to Mike, mike doesnt own it. If Jim wants to sell the property to Sally then thats his right because its his property. and Sally can now do what she wants with the property and mike doesnt get any say since he didnt own it. However If Jim amd Mike had a written agreement that had yet to expire, Sally should take that on as part of the purchase just as she would take on any backtaxes that were owed on the property or anything like that. So if thats ehat happened with your father then I dont see where exactly we disagree. I think the tenant should be entitled to compensation. But if there was no such agreement then I think the law should allow Sally to do what she sees fit with the property that she owns. 7. You're goona have to give me an example a right that rich people have that poorbpeople dont. 8. It's just as ridiculous as a person selling anything else he owns. which is not say not ridiculous at all. People should own the fruits of their own labour. again is a previous agreement is being violated then there is an issue.
| |||||||
|
Miss Ann Thrope Registered: 03/26/12 Posts: 17,138 Loc: Lashed to the py |
| ||||||
Quote: no worries, recognize my privilege to do all my Shroomery cruising on a computer rather than a phone ![]() Quote: There is just compensation, you are part of the systems you pay into can at least agree with the freedom of association part tho; it is disturbingly unviable to live in a shack off the land as a hermit freedom of conscience and the funding of abortion is a tricky issue tho would personally probably agree to individual citizens not being taxed for support of abortions despite the general benefits to healthcare if religious organizations were not tax dodging and putting more burden on the shoulders of citizens to begin with to my comprehension, the Trudeau government took steps towards potentially removing tax exempt status from Churches and Mosques but not sure if that actually went anywhere, or got put on the quiet for the recent election season Quote: Could you better elucidate your feelings on it violating human rights? Is this similiar to your abortion position, but with the opinion that the government should not take actions to help preserve the right to life? Quote: Do you believe you have a temporary right and responsibility to property that you lease in a contractually legal manner? Quote: what are your feelings on the loophole that facillitated it? Quote: So you think the government should not be involved, but should be involved could you better clarify this? are you saying that the only law that should exist between the two parties is that which is ascribed to the written document, and the government should enforce that law by force? Quote: ah, well this seems to at least answer that you don't entirely believe in temporary property rights through lease but seem to at least recognize the provisional value of it again, my father utilized loopholes to dodge the law so this also seems to clarify that you believe the loopholes to be a good thing so thank you for those insights ![]() Quote: take your pick really any right you listed that you feel the government may impede the rich have the capacity to circumvent while the poor do not it's a stacked system against the poor -- and this is particularly frustrating to me my own position is that government should be limited as much as possible, and the systems that do exist should benefit all, but with heavier focus towards the most in need, and least capable government "ought" to defend the weak from the strong; instead, the strong exploit it to abuse the weak Quote: It is interesting that you referred to "the fruits of their own labour" in response to a point that mentioned a lack of labour If you buy a building and make an apartment better quality, you should expect better money for it, and a tenant unwilling to pay for the increase in quality should be ejected if you buy a building and don't do fuck all to labour for them, you shouldn't be demanding disproportionately more fruits this is where the rent controls in Montréal are typically such a good thing someone who has their lease expire after a new landlord buys a building is entitled to continue their lease at the same rent, with a slight standard increase associated with cost of living
| |||||||
|
Turd Ferguson Registered: 01/11/15 Posts: 7,474 Loc: Ontario Canada Last seen: 6 hours, 7 minutes |
| ||||||
|
If the program is re distributive then by definition there is not just compensation.
religious organizations are not tax dodging. No charitable organization has to pay taxes. thats the law. there is no law for them to evade. All the citizens who participate in religious organizations pay taxes. the organization doesnt. they arent shifting the burden to anybody. I didnt say the government shouldn't protect the tight to life i have been saying all along that it should. It should protect the right. meaning prevent people from taking it away. not be responsible for providing for the person. Ive explained many times in this thread and elsewhere. taking someone's money against their will violates the right to property. its not like the abortion issue. the abortion issue is a violation of freedom of conscience. taking the money in the first place violates the right to property. no you dont have a right to property you are renting. it dosnt belong to you. however if one violates the terms of a written agreement you that had been reached which involves a monetary transaction then they have violated the other party's right to property by committing fraud and they can be held accountable. for the last time I'm against the loophole that facilitated it if you have provided an accurate description of the circumstances. It depends on the terms of the lease. does the lease stipulate that you will have autonomy over what happens to the dwelling? if so then they should be entitled to make choices regarding the property. but the owner of the property must grant them the ability to make those choices. its all up to two parties to negotiate a deal and make a mutually beneficial exchange. its whatever the agreement says. No I certainly dont believe the loopholes are a good thing if you have accurately characterized them. The new owner should take on the legal agreements associated with the property. about point 7 you arent giving me any examples I cant possibly think of a right that a rich person has that a poor person doesnt so "take your pick" doesnt help me understand or address your point. What did you spend in order to invest in the building to rent out? the fruits of your labour. what if you inherited it or received it as a gift? It was the fruits of the previous owner's labour and they are responsible for transferring ownership. you think its as easy as walking up to a property and handing someone a cheque? I'm not saying its super difficult but it doesnt seem like you've looked into purchasing very much property because it can be a huge headache for lots of reasons. but i digress. you purchased the building with YOUR money, ergo its YOUR building.
| |||||||
|
Miss Ann Thrope Registered: 03/26/12 Posts: 17,138 Loc: Lashed to the py |
| ||||||
Quote: If you receive the same compensation as everyone else, it is just Quote: The difference being that other charitable organizations have to show proof of their charitability Quote: https://www.atheology.ca/tax-exe you don't want to pay for abortions what about people who don't want to pay for religious organizations to protest and provide misinformation about abortion? Quote: And by providing for the person, the government prevents other people from taking away that individuals right to life Quote: and where is money being taken against their will? if you work for an organization that pays taxes out of your income, you typically sign on to some sort of contracted payment plan agreeing to it Quote: a lease is when a property owner transfers property to another individual for a specified length of time so are you saying that leases are not valid, and that someone who owns land or a building deceives others by convincing them they may have temporary ownership? Quote: and as previously stated, despite you not believing in the validity of a lease, you seem to at least comprehend the functional dynamics of it Quote: but your position seems to be that "Sally" has the right to eject the tenants so long as it is not in violation of the contract law and that is precisely what a loophole is -- a way to violate a contract law without being held accountable for that violation Quote: you claimed that abortion funding violated your right to conscience a richer individual than you has more ability to exploit the system and pay less than their share a richer person has more freedom of conscience than you do, by virture of their money Quote: you spend a portion of the fruits of your labour, and you get a proportional amount back in accordance to the values of the apartments and the sale of the building it's not like by buying a building you are getting nothing out of it, unless you were really stupid with your upfront money management and bought at higher than 10x the building revenue Quote: am quite familiar with the purchasing and selling routines both fully legal and with a notary (which was my original line of academic pursuit as the Education faculty can be used to jump to Law) and under the table sales and transfer of buildings -- in which instance it almost was literally as easy as handing someone a cheque and the terms were negotiated on the street when two adjacent building owners bumped into each other also in terms of landlord work when my father would travel to Saskatchewan to work in industrial construction it was my task to collect rents, deal with small fixit projects, maintain the quality of the property my dad constantly talked of how he intended to leave it to me, but have no realistic belief that he will outlive his wife and once it transfers to her, she'll make sure nothing reaches me
| |||||||
|
Humble Student Registered: 11/30/11 Posts: 26,088 Loc: Deep in the syst |
| ||||||
|
I don't think I've ever seen a debate spiral so out of control here. I was tryna explain this shit to my boys in the gym tonight and... I just couldn't.
Who/what is anybody here trying to justify/disprove anymore? -------------------- Let it be seen that you are nothing. And in knowing that you are nothing... there is nothing to lose, there is nothing to gain. What can happen to you? Something can happen to the body, but it will either heal or it won't. What's the big deal? Let life knock you to bits. Let life take you apart. Let life destroy you. It will only destroy what you are not. --Jac O'keeffe
| |||||||
|
Miss Ann Thrope Registered: 03/26/12 Posts: 17,138 Loc: Lashed to the py |
| ||||||
Quote: Hopefully nothing, it's The Pub
| |||||||
|
Strange R Registered: 04/24/03 Posts: 38,331 Loc: subtropics |
| ||||||
Quote: Just conversing. I'm not trying to be offensive. I just searched and that was the 1st thing I found that opposed what you said.
| |||||||
|
Turd Ferguson Registered: 01/11/15 Posts: 7,474 Loc: Ontario Canada Last seen: 6 hours, 7 minutes |
| ||||||
|
1. Legal measures that protect life liberty and property are just and there is a case to be made for goods that are not exludable and non competitive to be funded.
2. Religious buildings are made for everyone at the expense of the person who paid for it. It is in and of its self a donation and I see nothing wrong with religious organizations not paying property tax. I think there is a case to be made that maybe they should pay property taxes but the tax should not consider anything built on the property and should tax it as a vacant lot. I geuss I could see that. I do not think donations should be taxed. the church is providing a service to people and runs on voluntary donations. they arent charging a price. they are offering a service to their community and only getting donations back. Now, I'm pretty sure catholic schools are given subsides by the government in my province. I am not for that but then again I'm not in favour of publicly funded education in any form. 3. Not being able to take someone's money is not the same as having money taken from you. 4. No, by providing for them they are violating the rights of others by taking their money at gunpoint. 5. Its illegal to not do it. Are you really trying to claim that taxes are voluntary? The businesses arent signing onto that voluntarily. If I create a business i need to register that business and pay taxes there is no choice involved. If I do not pay taxes a police officer will try to take me into custody and if I resist I can legally be killed. 6. No. I believe leases are valid. I was explaining my original point based on my misinterpretation of your point in order to distinguish that from my point about new owners honouring previous agreements associated with the property they purchase. I thought the person was renting month to month. 7. I do think leases are valid 8. No my position is not that sally can violate a lease. I'm completely and udderly against the loophole as you have described it. 9. As I posted earlier but wont dig up because I'm on my phone the rich pay a disproportionate amount of taxes. In the USA the 1% pays more than the bottom 90% combined. If you can point to specific examples of tax evaders then they broke the law. but you cant say in general they dont pay their fair share. but thats besides the point. even if it were true that rich people somehow dont pay their fair share all tax payers fund things that they may not agree with. It's not a matter of having more or less. A right is either protected or its not. so I dont buy that right people have freedom of conscience but poor people dont. 10. whats determining those prices? the market. It has to cost enough that people view it as a worthwhile investment and affordable enough for the consumer to want to buy it. and if there is a demand for cheaper housing and it is possible for the land lord there is an opening in the market that someone can take advantage of in order to gain a competitive edge. thats partly what drives down cost. competition. Its a competitive market out there. you cant get away with charging whatever you want or else someone else can take your customers. 11. I'm sorry to hear about your awful setp mom. Edited by BANANA.MAN (12/07/19 01:03 AM)
| |||||||
|
Turd Ferguson Registered: 01/11/15 Posts: 7,474 Loc: Ontario Canada Last seen: 6 hours, 7 minutes |
| ||||||
Quote: It doesnt oppose what i said. You totally took me out of context. if you said "I think its bad when people say 'I hate black people'" and I said HE SAID "I hate black people" that would be the same thing that you just did to me. Edited by BANANA.MAN (12/07/19 12:42 AM)
| |||||||
|
Miss Ann Thrope Registered: 03/26/12 Posts: 17,138 Loc: Lashed to the py |
| ||||||
Quote: Honestly, don't worry about me worry about my father he married her, he "chooses" to stay with her even when she uses their combined money to visit her mother across the country multiple times per year but when my Nana (his mother) ended up in the hospital and we nearly lost her his wife would not even pay for his plane ticket to visit her on what may be her death bed despite the ticket costs being identical to her pleasure trips, because both their mothers live in the same city he is in an abusive relationship, and all my attempts to wake him up to it were for naught do not care about being left anything in the will; would rather have knowledge that my father is actually living a good life and happy with his money rather than living under some false perception that he is building it up for me while he is oblivious to her distaste for me and potentially the entire rest of his blood family am planning to hop on to Pokémon now that server has reset tho have a good evening bro
| |||||||
| |||||||
| Shop: |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
![]() |
Lady at ObamaCare townhall meeting lies about being a doctor | 457 | 1 | 08/18/09 01:12 AM by DeathCompany | ||
![]() |
i consented to a search of my car last night :( ( |
5,541 | 36 | 05/27/14 09:45 PM by EdibleStereos | ||
![]() |
If drugs were legal how much would they cost? | 1,830 | 15 | 01/24/05 01:54 PM by Ravus | ||
![]() |
Looking to get a new car - what are the hidden costs when buying? | 1,004 | 12 | 10/04/05 04:52 PM by Prisoner#1 | ||
![]() |
British Troops Under the Influence of LSD in Combat ( |
2,081 | 22 | 03/17/05 06:16 PM by aoxomoxoaMan | ||
![]() |
If gas is gonna cost $3 a gallon ( |
6,022 | 55 | 07/24/05 09:31 PM by D4NK | ||
![]() |
The Age of Consent........ ( |
4,410 | 43 | 09/06/05 11:33 PM by Skunk420 | ||
![]() |
Oh well, guess the world's gonna end in 9 years. ( |
2,243 | 58 | 09/18/05 03:32 PM by trendal |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Entire Staff 7,157 topic views. 2 members, 35 guests and 35 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||



