Home | Community | Message Board

NorthSpore.com BOOMR Bag!
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


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: Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2  [ show all ]
OfflineEchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
Re: Libertarian pioneer endorses Bush [Re: ]
    #3303057 - 10/31/04 11:05 PM (19 years, 6 months ago)

this isn't "selling out". it's recognizing the nature of the current situation and merely responding in a way which best advances the cause of liberty.

To say that a vote for George W. Bush "advances the cause of liberty" has to be the stupidest statement ever made on this forum. Please give me one example of how the Bush Administration has "advanced the cause of liberty" in any way, shape, or form.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDivided_Sky
Ten ThousandThings

Registered: 11/02/03
Posts: 3,171
Loc: The Shining Void
Last seen: 15 years, 11 months
Re: Libertarian pioneer endorses Bush [Re: EchoVortex]
    #3303067 - 10/31/04 11:11 PM (19 years, 6 months ago)

Afghanistan.


--------------------
1. "After an hour I wasn't feeling anything so I decided to take another..."
2. "We were feeling pretty good so we decided to smoke a few bowls..."
3. "I had to be real quiet because my parents were asleep upstairs..."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
Re: Libertarian pioneer endorses Bush [Re: Divided_Sky]
    #3303089 - 10/31/04 11:22 PM (19 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Divided_Sky said:
Afghanistan.




The best you can come up with is the example of a foreign country?

:rotfl:

Okay, let the Afghans vote for him in that case.  Americans have enjoyed no new liberties since Bush took office and in fact have had many taken away.

In any event, that is a war that anybody in office would have pursued after 9/11.  Especially a Democrat, even if only to avoid the charge of being "soft" and subsequently getting ass-whipped at the polls.

If people want to vote for Bush because they're religious zealots who want to deface the Constitution with bigotry, or because they like exercising American military might all over the world and killing thousands of innocent civilians in the process, or because they want large corporations to have the run of the land, or because they're misanthropes who want pollution to ruin the health of countless people and leave countless others to go without adequate health care, they would have good reason to.  I can despise such people, but I can't argue with them.  They're voting for the man who best reflects their aspirations.

But anybody who says he is voting for Bush for the sake of "liberty" is deluded so far beyond reason that he is essentially a lost cause.  In a word: braindead.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Libertarian pioneer endorses Bush [Re: Divided_Sky]
    #3303147 - 10/31/04 11:52 PM (19 years, 6 months ago)

Afghanistan.

Yep, now firmly in the hands of Northern Alliance warlords who were so renowned for raping, torturing and murdering that the Taliban was seen as a welcome relief from them.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: Libertarian pioneer endorses Bush [Re: ]
    #3303222 - 11/01/04 12:26 AM (19 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

mushmaster said:
Thus creating some much-needed gridlock

and turning america into a UN-owned welfare state with a stifled economy run by the biggest socialist in the senate.



Let's see here... UN: check. welfare state: check. socialism: check. Sounds like what we have today. If you're looking to prevent that, you might want to get a time machine and go back about 75 years or more. Now, the difference between Kerry's socialism and Bush's is that a Republican Congress will not put up with it when it's coming from a Democrat.

Quote:

Unless every green voted Green.

and if they don't?

besides, there are far fewer greens who vote democrat than libertarians who vote republican.



I'd like to see your source on that. I know a lot of Democrats who would vote Green if they weren't worried about throwing their vote away. Probably even more so than the libertarian Republicans(who seem to be a dying breed).

Quote:

Again, this assumes that the Democrats would not also change their tactics. What makes you so sure the Democrats wouldn't adopt more libertarian positions as well?

that fact that they would be winning by landslides.



Not if more and more Americans were exposed to libertarian ideas and they became popular. Besides, there are some libertarian Democrats(I used to be one before my full-fledged conversion to the Libertarian Party). They may not be as common as libertarian Republicans, but neither is really a big influence in politics nowadays.

Quote:

This sounds like you're saying that voting for Bush would result in an increase in liberty.

it would be a far smaller decrease than a kerry presidency.



Unless of course Bush manages to push through Patriot Act II. For that, all he needs is another attack.


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


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: Libertarian pioneer endorses Bush [Re: EchoVortex]
    #3305325 - 11/01/04 02:56 PM (19 years, 6 months ago)

To say that a vote for George W. Bush "advances the cause of liberty" has to be the stupidest statement ever made on this forum. Please give me one example of how the Bush Administration has "advanced the cause of liberty" in any way, shape, or form.

kerry would be worse.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAncalagon
AgnosticLibertarian

Registered: 07/30/02
Posts: 1,364
Last seen: 15 years, 3 months
Re: Libertarian pioneer endorses Bush [Re: ]
    #3305359 - 11/01/04 03:01 PM (19 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

mushmaster said:
To say that a vote for George W. Bush "advances the cause of liberty" has to be the stupidest statement ever made on this forum. Please give me one example of how the Bush Administration has "advanced the cause of liberty" in any way, shape, or form.

kerry would be worse.



Then please say what you mean, that Bush would be less horrid for liberty than Kerry. To say Bush advances the cause of liberty is tantamount to saying Joe Camel advances the cause of not smoking.

And again, even if Kerry is(I agree he probably is) marginally worse than Bush, the President does not have absolute power. I think a MUCH stronger case can be made as far as preserving(not advancing) liberty goes for Kerry with gridlock over Bush with majority support in the legislature. Perhaps I'm wrong though.


--------------------
?When Alexander the Great visted the philosopher Diogenes and asked whether he could do anything for him, Diogenes is said to have replied: 'Yes, stand a little less between me and the sun.' It is what every citizen is entitled to ask of his government.?
-Henry Hazlitt in 'Economics in One Lesson'

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: Libertarian pioneer endorses Bush [Re: ]
    #3305383 - 11/01/04 03:05 PM (19 years, 6 months ago)

Do you need a ride to the polls?


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: Libertarian pioneer endorses Bush [Re: silversoul7]
    #3305404 - 11/01/04 03:10 PM (19 years, 6 months ago)

Let's see here... UN: check. welfare state: check. socialism: check. Sounds like what we have today.

:smirk:

just wait and see how bad it gets if kerry gets elected.

in a winner-take-all system, there will be 2 dominant parties. that is simply how it goes. the libertarian party will not be a major contender until it becomes one of the two major parties, meaning it will either have to replace the republican or demoratic party, or be one of two parties to replace them both. until at least something close to half the country accepts uncompromised libertarian ideals, the libertarian party will not be able to do this.

i'm afraid that a much more likely scenario is the gradual transformation of one of the two existing major parties accompanied by a shift in public opinion towards libertarian ideals. the libertarian party is "the party of principle". it's platform is based on a philosophical base. there is no compromise for the sake of votes. while i admire this, it certainly isn't very likely to win many elected positions.

public opinion must come first, then elected positions can be had. in the current political climate, voting libertarian in most elections is pretty much worthless.

i understand the argument that recieving votes will gain the libertarian party some exposure and that this may prompt some people to investigate the ideals of self-government and come to accept and promote them, but i feel that this is a long shot. you've got a much better chance of doing that through demonstrations, political pressure groups, and publications.

tomorrow, i'll be doing my part to keep john kerry out of office.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: Libertarian pioneer endorses Bush [Re: ]
    #3305432 - 11/01/04 03:16 PM (19 years, 6 months ago)

"A Case for Bush

by Daniel Griswold

Griswold is director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute in Washington and a former editorial page editor of the Colorado Springs Gazette, a Freedom Communications newspaper. The views expressed are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of his colleagues at the Cato Institute.

Our two-party system is like cold pizza for people who love individual liberty, free markets and limited government. The two major parties seldom nominate candidates who pursue those principles in a consistent way, and this year's presidential election is no exception. Neither the Republican, George W. Bush, nor the Democrat, John F. Kerry, would ever be mistaken for a libertarian.

Bush and the GOP Congress have presided over an explosion of federal spending during his term. Bush championed the 2002 farm subsidy bill, the Medicare drug benefit and huge increases in education spending. He signed the anti-free-speech campaign finance "reform" bill and imposed temporary tariffs on steel imports. And most libertarians (although not all) believe the war in Iraq is a dangerous distraction from the war on terrorism.

Meanwhile, Kerry and his party have proposed huge increases of their own in federal spending. Their chief criticism of Bush on health care, education and just about everything else but defense is that he has not been spending enough. And they want to underwrite their own spending spree with higher taxes on, you guessed it, "the rich." Kerry and much of his Democratic base want to slow the advancement of free trade and accelerate regulation of the economy. They criticize Bush for his conduct of the war in Iraq but do not challenge it on principle.

What are libertarians to do on Election Day? One option would be to wash their hands of the whole grimy system and not vote. That is a perfectly defensible option, a vote of sorts against a system that discriminates against alternative parties. But the risk of not voting is that the least libertarian of the two major-party candidates could win a narrow election.

Another option is voting for the Libertarian Party candidate, but in our stacked system, that option is akin to not voting at all. Even under the best of circumstances, the LP has failed to win more than about 1 percent of the vote. Given those unappetizing alternatives, voting for George W. Bush on Nov. 2 may be the best choice for advocates of a free society. In fact, on several issues important to libertarians, Bush has even staked out positions clearly superior to those of his Democratic opponent...."

http://www.cato.org/research/articles/griswold-040829.html

more at link.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleGijith
Daisy Chain Eater

Registered: 12/04/03
Posts: 2,400
Loc: New York
Re: Libertarian pioneer endorses Bush [Re: ]
    #3305533 - 11/01/04 03:39 PM (19 years, 6 months ago)


mush,
You're taking Bush over Badnarik.
Let's look at why:

Which candidate would you most like to see elected?
- Badnarik.
Which candidate best represents your political views?
-Badnarik.
Which candidate is running for the party you belong to?
-Badnarik.
Which candidate will actually benefit more from your vote?
-Badnarik.
Which candidate are you going to vote for?
-Bush.

:shrug:


--------------------
what's with neocons and the word 'ilk'?

Edited by Gijith (11/01/04 10:51 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineWorf
Lt. Commander

Registered: 07/04/04
Posts: 15,663
Loc: Final Frontier
Last seen: 11 years, 3 months
Re: Libertarian pioneer endorses Bush [Re: silversoul7]
    #3305654 - 11/01/04 04:09 PM (19 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

silversoul7 said:
He sold out.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAncalagon
AgnosticLibertarian

Registered: 07/30/02
Posts: 1,364
Last seen: 15 years, 3 months
Re: Libertarian pioneer endorses Bush [Re: ]
    #3305786 - 11/01/04 04:53 PM (19 years, 6 months ago)

Excerpts from: The Conservative Case for Voting Democratic

"Democrats obviously are no pikers when it comes to spending. But the biggest impetus for higher spending is partisan uniformity, not partisan identity. Give either party complete control of government, and the Treasury vaults are quickly emptied. Neither Congress nor the President wants to tell the other no. Both are desperate to prove they can "govern"?which means creating new programs and spending more money. But share power between parties, and out of principle or malice they check each other. Even if a President Kerry proposed more spending than would a President Bush, a GOP Congress would appropriate less. That's one reason the Founders believed in the separation of powers.

Consider the record. William Niskanen, former acting chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, has put together a fascinating analysis of government spending since 1953. Real federal outlays grew fastest, 4.8% annually, in the Kennedy-Johnson years, with Congress under Democratic control. The second-fastest rise, 4.4%, occurred with George W. Bush during Republican rule. The third-biggest spending explosion, 3.7%, was during the Carter administration, a time of Democratic control. In contrast, the greatest fiscal stringency, 0.4%, occurred during the Eisenhower years. The second-best period of fiscal restraint, 0.9%, was in the Clinton era. Next came the Nixon-Ford years, at 2.5%, and Ronald Reagan's presidency, at 3.3%. All were years of shared partisan control.

Bush officials argue that it is unfair to count military spending, but Dwight Eisenhower, Lyndon Johnson, and Ronald Reagan also faced international challenges that impeded their domestic plans. Moreover, if you do strip out military spending and consider only the domestic record, GOP chief executives emerge in an even worse light. In terms of real domestic discretionary outlays, which are most easily controlled, the biggest spender in the past 40 years is George W. Bush, with expenditure racing ahead 8.2% annually, according to Stephen Moore of the Club for Growth. No. 2 on the list is Gerald Ford, at 8%. No. 3 is Richard Nixon. At least the latter two, in contrast to Bush, faced hostile Congresses.

Given the generally woeful record of Republican Presidents, the best combination may be a Democratic chief executive and Republican legislature. It may also be the only combination that's feasible, since in 2004 at least, it will be difficult to overturn Republican congressional control: Redistricting has encouraged electoral stasis in the House, while far more Democrats face reelection in the Senate. Thus, the only way we can realistically keep Congress and the President in separate political hands is to vote for John Kerry in November."

"The deficit can be cut in half if Congress "is willing to make tough choices," says President Bush. But GOP legislators are likely to make tough choices only if he is replaced by a Democrat. History teaches us that divided government equals fiscal probity, so vote Democratic for President if you want responsible budgeting in Washington."


--------------------
?When Alexander the Great visted the philosopher Diogenes and asked whether he could do anything for him, Diogenes is said to have replied: 'Yes, stand a little less between me and the sun.' It is what every citizen is entitled to ask of his government.?
-Henry Hazlitt in 'Economics in One Lesson'

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEvolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
Re: Libertarian pioneer endorses Bush [Re: ]
    #3306377 - 11/01/04 07:27 PM (19 years, 6 months ago)

My wife's uncle sent me a copy of John Hosper's open letter to libertarians and asked me what I thought about his letter. Here was my response...

Quote:

I disagree with him. History has shown that when power is split with one party
holding the executive branch and another holding the legislative branch that our
liberties are in less danger than under the current circumstances. THAT is the
only virtue of a Kerry presidency and a prospect that makes him seem like a
possibly better choice than Bush. Bush's response to 9/11 is 'ham handed,' it
served to destroy international good will and sympathy and create more
enemies the world over while ignoring (nay, nurturing) the root of the problem
- an interventionist foreign policy.




Bush's 'tax cuts' are in fact a tax deferment as he has not held spending steady
but increased it and greatly increased the federal debt. These 'cuts' are financed
by currency created to purchase debt instruments, in other words by inflating the
money supply - which is a tax on every dollar in circulation. Bush's 'projects in the
wind' are EMPTY campaign rhetoric like what we heard from him when he was
running against Gore. Hospers is deluded.




To me, Hospers writes like a warfare state collectivist and Republican apologist
- which I find a lot coming from objectivist oriented 'libertarians.' Our republic
is dead whether Bush is re-elected or Kerry comes into office. I fail to see the
virtue of giving my sanction to either one of those bastards to victimize me. Screw
the statist quo? I played Hopsers game for way too long and what do I (and the
rest of America) have to show for it? A continual and accelerating erosion of
liberties, debasement of our currency, porous borders while are troops 'project'
American power overseas, increasing hate and violence towards Americans
and increasing debt that threatens the economic foundations of us all.




--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: Libertarian pioneer endorses Bush [Re: ]
    #3306638 - 11/01/04 08:25 PM (19 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

mushmaster said:
Let's see here... UN: check. welfare state: check. socialism: check. Sounds like what we have today.

:smirk:

just wait and see how bad it gets if kerry gets elected.



Ya, I'm sure Congress will sign right on with his socialist health care system, just like they did when Clinton was pushing for it.  Oh, wait, that didn't happen.  Apparently the Republican-controlled Congress he faced fought him every step of the way, especially when it came to spending, so we ended up with a balanced budget and one of the more fiscally conservative administrations of the century.  Of course, that same Congress was more than happy to pass spending bills with Bush in office.  As long as it was coming from a Republican, it was totally fine with them.  Hey, at least he's not Clinton. :smirk:

Quote:

in a winner-take-all system, there will be 2 dominant parties. that is simply how it goes. the libertarian party will not be a major contender until it becomes one of the two major parties, meaning it will either have to replace the republican or demoratic party, or be one of two parties to replace them both. until at least something close to half the country accepts uncompromised libertarian ideals, the libertarian party will not be able to do this.



One of the main reasons that libertarian ideals are not widely accepted is that half the country doesn't even know what they are.  By supporting the Libertarian Party, you can help the party grow and get its message out to more people.  I am confident that libertarian ideas will resonate with a large portion of the population once they are exposed to them.  After all, they're very similar to the ideals this country was founded on.  I've talked to a few people about libertarianism who were unfamiliar with it, and have managed to at least get them interested, even if not fully converted.  Interestingly enough, I've had more success with liberals than with conservatives.

Quote:

i'm afraid that a much more likely scenario is the gradual transformation of one of the two existing major parties accompanied by a shift in public opinion towards libertarian ideals. the libertarian party is "the party of principle". it's platform is based on a philosophical base. there is no compromise for the sake of votes. while i admire this, it certainly isn't very likely to win many elected positions.



But it's likely to help sway public opinion.  A Libertarian candidate doesn't have to win to have his campaign be a success.  The goal is to raise awareness.

Quote:

public opinion must come first, then elected positions can be had. in the current political climate, voting libertarian in most elections is pretty much worthless.



Public awareness must come before public opinion, and to raise public awareness, the Libertarian Party needs to grow.  Voting Libertarian can help accomplish this.

Quote:

i understand the argument that recieving votes will gain the libertarian party some exposure and that this may prompt some people to investigate the ideals of self-government and come to accept and promote them, but i feel that this is a long shot. you've got a much better chance of doing that through demonstrations, political pressure groups, and publications.



Who the hell pays attention to public demonstrations other than the already converted?  I noticed the mainstream media didn't pick up on Badnarik and Cobb's demonstration at the second Kerry-Bush debate.  Also, how is the Libertarian Party not a political pressure group?  We have a message to give to the American Public, and the Democrats and Republicans don't want that message to get out, but with enough support, we can fight the power and send that message to the American people.  As for publications, again, they mainly appeal to the already converted.  A Republican businessman or Democratic union member isn't likely to pick up a copy of Libertarian News or publications from the Cato Institute.

Quote:

tomorrow, i'll be doing my part to keep john kerry out of office.



:nonono:

Tomorrow, I'll be voting for the only candidate that deserves my vote, Michael Badnarik.  If Bush wins and continues to fuck up the country at the rate he's been doing it, you'll have yourself to blame for it(of course, you can delude yourself with the cop-out "At least he's not Kerry" until the cows come home).  I'll have a clear conscience knowing that I voted for the right guy.


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


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: Libertarian pioneer endorses Bush [Re: ]
    #3309030 - 11/02/04 12:15 PM (19 years, 6 months ago)

well, i ended up voting for badnarik.

some republicans, W in particular, seem to take the vote of fiscal conservatives for granted. they have this idea that they can spend as they like because hey, at least they aren't socialist democrats and they are opposed to abortion, gun control, and gay marriage. as long as the next best alternative to the republican party to libertarian-minded voters is the democratic party, the republican party will get worse and worse. we will have two parties, neither of whom is particularly fiscally conservative.

i could stand siding with social conservatives in opposition to a democrat if the republican candidate was a fiscal conservative. george w. isn't much of one.

i decided that voting libertarian can send a meaningful and productive message to republicans. they can move in a direction of fiscal restraint without losing votes to democrats. i'm not going to stick with them, no matter how bad they get, just because they're better than worst.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: Libertarian pioneer endorses Bush [Re: ]
    #3309047 - 11/02/04 12:17 PM (19 years, 6 months ago)

You made the right decision.  I'm proud of you.  :thumbup:


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


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleGijith
Daisy Chain Eater

Registered: 12/04/03
Posts: 2,400
Loc: New York
Re: Libertarian pioneer endorses Bush [Re: ]
    #3309060 - 11/02/04 12:19 PM (19 years, 6 months ago)

:handth: :thumbup: :geordinod: :cheers: :geordinod: :thumbup: :handth:


Hope it feels good.


--------------------
what's with neocons and the word 'ilk'?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAncalagon
AgnosticLibertarian

Registered: 07/30/02
Posts: 1,364
Last seen: 15 years, 3 months
Re: Libertarian pioneer endorses Bush [Re: silversoul7]
    #3309165 - 11/02/04 12:42 PM (19 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

silversoul7 said:
You made the right decision.  I'm proud of you.  :thumbup:




--------------------
?When Alexander the Great visted the philosopher Diogenes and asked whether he could do anything for him, Diogenes is said to have replied: 'Yes, stand a little less between me and the sun.' It is what every citizen is entitled to ask of his government.?
-Henry Hazlitt in 'Economics in One Lesson'

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhluck
Carpal Tunnel
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/10/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 6 months, 25 days
Re: Libertarian pioneer endorses Bush [Re: ]
    #3309867 - 11/02/04 03:11 PM (19 years, 6 months ago)

"The Democratic Party today is a haven for anti-Semites, racists, radical environmentalists, plundering trial lawyers, government employee unions, and numerous other self-serving elites who despise the Constitution and loathe private property."

Sounds like a douchebag to me.


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2  [ show all ]

Shop: Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Oh Brave leader....take us to war whiterasta 1,092 9 11/13/03 07:42 AM
by whiterasta
* AWOL Bush Sends Others to Die EchoVortex 1,147 5 02/05/04 11:45 PM
by EchoVortex
* Fahrenheit 911
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )
Urb 14,628 122 06/05/05 06:19 PM
by Rose
* for all you bush humping republicans
( 1 2 3 all )
KingOftheThing 3,377 46 09/05/04 10:15 PM
by Zahid
* Is George W. Bush insane? ekomstop 1,799 12 09/24/04 10:17 AM
by Learyfan
* Government Growth, the Party of Lincoln, and George W. Bush Ancalagon 1,077 2 01/17/14 01:34 AM
by theindianrepublic
* Bush, Kerry, and the CFR, It's All In The Family ekomstop 491 0 10/03/04 06:57 PM
by ekomstop
* 34 Libertarian arguments debunked silversoul7 2,604 7 05/09/03 05:06 AM
by Phred

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
5,092 topic views. 0 members, 4 guests and 3 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.023 seconds spending 0.005 seconds on 12 queries.