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

Sporeworks
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: Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |  [ show all ]
Re: Social Engineering by Democrats Destroys the World's Financial Markets [Re: DeepDish]
    #9066868 -

You are still not getting it and I doubt you will, so I'll leave you to your opinion. Hopefully other readers of the thread will grasp the significance of fundamentally changing the lending paradigm through coercion.

Once you loosen the requirements for some borrowers, you cannot logically refuse to loosen the requirements for ALL borrowers, especially borrowers LESS risky than the ones you loosened the requirements for in the first place.

Again, Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac were not buying up just CRA mortgages, they were buying up ANY mortgage. But they never would have done so had the CRA not been enacted and beefed up and aggressively promoted.

Did other institutions jump on the bandwagon, failing to see the CRA/FM/FM/induced boom was just another government-initiated Ponzi scheme?  Yep. But again, no CRA, no bandwagon to jump on.

Social Engineering is at the root of the meltdown. If you choose to deny this, it's no skin off my nose.





Phred


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Social Engineering by Democrats Destroys the World's Financial Markets [Re: DeepDish]
    #9066988 -

Good post. :thumbup:

The root cause of the crisis was loose monetary policy by the Fed. All that money sloshing around created a speculative boom and booms are always followed by busts. The CRA changes were not helpful but a crisis of this magnitude always has multiple causes and involves both political parties in spite of what partisans are pushing.


--------------------
“The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.”  -- Rudiger Dornbusch

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Social Engineering by Democrats Destroys the World's Financial Markets [Re: zorbman]
    #9067106 -

> All that money sloshing around

Where did all that money sloshing around come from?  If you are honest, and answer correctly, you will point back towards something you don't want to admit.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Social Engineering by Democrats Destroys the World's Financial Markets [Re: Seuss]
    #9067336 -

The printing press went into overdrive in the mid 90's and has only accelerated since then.

This time period covers the terms of two presidents- one democrat and one republican.


--------------------
“The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.”  -- Rudiger Dornbusch

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Social Engineering by Democrats Destroys the World's Financial Markets [Re: zorbman]
    #9067378 -

> The printing press went into overdrive in the mid 90's and has only accelerated since then.

Then inflation would have risen out of control.  Try again.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Social Engineering by Democrats Destroys the World's Financial Markets [Re: DeepDish]
    #9067390 -

I have a few minutes more now, so I'll address some of your points so the less informed readers of this thread aren't misled:

Quote:
The Fed lowered interest rates to prevent a recession after the dotcom collapse.  Greespan stated this numerous times.  In fact if you look at a graph of Fed interest rates vs the number of risky loans lent you will see a striking correlation.


Interest rates rise and fall all the time. And yes, people do things when interest rates are low that they don't do when interest rates are high, including borrow money. But interest rates are not the cause of this mess.

Quote:
A bank can refuse a risky loan to rich white person, with no danger of being strong armed by the government.  In fact if these loans are really as "financially insane" as you claim it would be in the banks best interest to limit the loans only to those minorities that MUST receive them by law.


You miss the point. The loans to "white people" are LESS risky, especially when FM and FM are happily buying up as many as the banks bring to them.

Quote:
Again you still haven't shown that loans given by banks under CRA rule have a higher rate of default then those loans.


Irrelevant. It doesn't matter what the ratio of defaults was.

Quote:
Fannie and Freddie actually had pretty strict standards on the loans they would take.


No they didn't. Or we wouldn't be where we are today.

Quote:
Again there were plenty of private firms that existed without any government backing that were more then happy to buy up the risky paper.


Again, I admit once the bandwagon was rolling along nicely, others finally hopped on. But no subprime mortgages, no bandwagon. And subprime mortgages were created in response to the CRA. I'm not saying things were not exacerbated by a general piling-on at some point down the road. I am stating - correctly - that the root cause was social engineering by Dems.

Quote:
You are trying to say that a law enacted in 1995 led to a boom almost a decade later.


No, I am saying that when the Clinton administration started getting serious about enforcing the revised CRA, from 1998-2000, and when activist groups started bringing lawsuits against banks (see my earlier thread on this), and when FM and FM were directed to buy up just about any mortgage, the boom accelerated. Would it have been as big a boom had interest rates been 10% rather than 4%? No. But that's not the point.

Quote:
No bank, not a single one was required to give the risky loans they did.


Incorrect. See my previous thread here.








Phred


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Social Engineering by Democrats Destroys the World's Financial Markets [Re: Seuss]
    #9067424 -

Seuss said:
> The printing press went into overdrive in the mid 90's and has only accelerated since then.

Then inflation would have risen out of control.  Try again.


Normally inflation would run wild. However, the US dollar is not a normal currency. It is the world's reserve currency which means that most of those excess dollars are being "soaked up" by foreign governments.

In effect we are exporting our inflation.

That is a two-edged sword though. Should the dollar weaken further (and there are no signs it do anything but weaken) then those dollars will eventually get dumped and flood back into the US causing a large rise in inflation. We will then be importing our inflation. The chickens will come home to roost.


--------------------
“The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.”  -- Rudiger Dornbusch

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Social Engineering by Democrats Destroys the World's Financial Markets [Re: Phred]
    #9067436 -

> Again, I admit once the bandwagon was rolling along nicely, others finally hopped on.

I'd even go so far as to claim that both Democrats and Republicans jumped on the bandwagon once it got rolling.  Higher property values equaled huge property tax windfalls for the government. Remember all the old folks that could no longer afford to pay taxes on the house that had been in their family since before they were born (because housing values were increasing faster than inflation)?  But, getting back to the point of the post, the spark that started the entire thing was the lefties forcing banks to make unsafe loans.  From that spark, the rest snowballed.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Social Engineering by Democrats Destroys the World's Financial Markets [Re: zorbman]
    #9067445 -

Quote:
Normally inflation would run wild. However, the US dollar is not a normal currency. It is the world's reserve currency which means that most of those excess dollars are being "soaked up" by foreign governments.


So, you think the US mint started printing lots and lots of money, and, um, shipped it overseas to keep inflation down?  Interesting.  I'll give you another hint, since you are stuck on this idea of a printing press... "fractional reserve".


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Social Engineering by Democrats Destroys the World's Financial Markets [Re: Seuss]
    #9067472 -

Seuss said:
Quote:
Normally inflation would run wild. However, the US dollar is not a normal currency. It is the world's reserve currency which means that most of those excess dollars are being "soaked up" by foreign governments.


So, you think the US mint started printing lots and lots of money, and, um, shipped it overseas to keep inflation down?  Interesting.  I'll give you another hint, since you are stuck on this idea of a printing press... "fractional reserve".


Of course "printing press" is a figure of speech. :smirk:

The Federal Reserve creates most of our money through debt creation.

The US is a safe, stable democracy and as such our currency is in demand by foreign governments. We don't "ship it" anywhere.


--------------------
“The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.”  -- Rudiger Dornbusch

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Social Engineering by Democrats Destroys the World's Financial Markets [Re: zorbman]
    #9067494 -

> The Federal Reserve creates most of our money through debt creation.

Great!  Now, where did the debt come from?


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Social Engineering by Democrats Destroys the World's Financial Markets [Re: Seuss]
    #9067505 -

Seuss said:
> The Federal Reserve creates most of our money through debt creation.

Great!  Now, where did the debt come from?


Uranus?


--------------------
“The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.”  -- Rudiger Dornbusch

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Social Engineering by Democrats Destroys the World's Financial Markets [Re: Phred]
    #9067840 -

Quote:
Interest rates rise and fall all the time. And yes, people do things when interest rates are low that they don't do when interest rates are high, including borrow money. But interest rates are not the cause of this mess.


Of course they are.  Starting in 2001 the interest rates were lowered drastically, for an extended period of time.  This caused people around the world to borrow lots of US currency and greatly extend their credit.  This is why you see a housing bubble busting in Europe, Asia, actually in most of the world.  But the rest of the world doesn't have the CRA or FM & FM.  Why is Australia currently having a housing crisis.  The US wasn't forcing their banks to lend to minorities, nor were Freddie and Fannie buying up mortgages in Australia. 

Why did Japan have a similar problem in the 80's.  They had no CRA or Freddie and Fannie to buy up their realestate mortgages.  They did have low interest rates and rampant speculation.  Wait I see common theme emerging here.

Quote:
You miss the point. The loans to "white people" are LESS risky, especially when FM and FM are happily buying up as many as the banks bring to them.


No the banks made all sorts of loans to investors that were far more risky then those mandated by the CRA.  Just because you say they are less risky doesn't make it so.  You had people completely lieing about their income, or tacking on the expected income from the home equity they were going to purchase with the mortgage.  These loans were some of the riskiest and only made sense if you figured the house's value was going to increase by some absurd percentage point every year.

Quote:
Irrelevant. It doesn't matter what the ratio of defaults was.


You seem to be completely missing the point.  Banks were not forced to give risky loans to everyone.  Most of their risky loans were given out by their own free will and by independant companies not under the scope of the CRA. In fact the banks thought these loans were a good idea.  Angelo Mozlilo (CEO of country wide)in 2003 at the American Bankers National Real Estate Conference gave a speech detailing all the great benefits of no downpayment mortgages.  You think Barney Frank was behind him twisting his arm, or is the more plausible explantation that the banks actually believed these investments were solid.

The scope of the CRA is not nearly as vast as you would like people to believe, and the loans that it required are not nearly as risky as you imply. Here are a couple important points about the CRA.

1.The act did not force banks to make loans with no downpayment
2.The act did not force banks to make interest only loans
3.The act did not force banks to not check credit score, verify assests or check income. 
4.The act did not force GSEs to buy loans with the characteristics described above


You can't cite a couple of court cases involving the CRA and then claim that this is what caused the meltdown of the entire world housing market. 

Quote:
No they didn't. Or we wouldn't be where we are today.


Yes they actually did, look at the statistic below.


Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent, according to data from Inside Mortgage Finance, a specialty publication.

Most of the high risk subprime paper was not being bought by the liberal controlled Freddie and Fannie.  It was various, privately owned wall street firms that repackaged the super high risk loans into investment products, and convinced the various rating agencies to give them a AAA.


Quote:
Again, I admit once the bandwagon was rolling along nicely, others finally hopped on. But no subprime mortgages, no bandwagon. And subprime mortgages were created in response to the CRA. I'm not saying things were not exacerbated by a general piling-on at some point down the road. I am stating - correctly - that the root cause was social engineering by Dems.



Just because you state something and say its correct, doesn't make it so.  Again most of the investment products created by the mortgage machine go so far beyond the scope of the CRA you it is simply ludicrous to say the firms did developed them in response.  I mean what logical progression here?

1.  Some banks are forced by the CRA to make "financially insane" loans to minorities (Keep in mind the limits to the CRA I posted above).

2.  Banks decide since they have been forced to make some "financially insane" loans, they should just start making them to every single person who walks through the door and requests one.

3.  Banks are then in such pain from the arm twisting of the CRA and democrats they decide to come out with a new line of mortgages that are classified as "financial suicide".  The bank CEOs make speeches about how great these new loans are, and how happy they are with their new lending requirments.

4.  Independant mortgage brokers that aren't even subject the CRA begin to set up shop all over the country, all offering the same "financial suicide" products. These companies ease the lending requirments even further allowing people to lie about their income and completely falsify their application.

I leave it up to the readers to decide if the CRA adequately explains the chain of events listed above.


Quote:
No, I am saying that when the Clinton administration started getting serious about enforcing the revised CRA, from 1998-2000, and when activist groups started bringing lawsuits against banks (see my earlier thread on this), and when FM and FM were directed to buy up just about any mortgage, the boom accelerated.



FM and FM were not directed to buy up every mortgage.  As I said above, many of the riskier mortgages were bought up by private firms.  On a seperate note; directed by whom?  Do you have a link to a memo or a speech?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Social Engineering by Democrats Destroys the World's Financial Markets [Re: DeepDish]
    #9068016 -

Quote:
1.The act did not force banks to make loans with no downpayment
2.The act did not force banks to make interest only loans
3.The act did not force banks to not check credit score, verify assests or check income.
4.The act did not force GSEs to buy loans with the characteristics described above


The CRA required banks to meet quotas lending to poor people, or face severe penalties and lawsuits from the likes of Obama.  The only way the banks could meet the required quotas was to make "bad" loans.  These loans would not have been made had the CRA not forced the quotas upon the banks.  Yes, you are correct, the banks could have ignored their quotas that were set by the CRA, payed huge penalties, and been sued out of business by lawyers like Obama.  In the end, the banks had two choices, make bad loans and take the governments carrot, or don't make bad loans and take the governments stick.  Not really much of a choice, unless you are trying to spin it.

> Just because you state something and say its correct, doesn't make it so.

Might want to take a long look in the mirror.

> 1.  Some banks are forced by the CRA to make "financially insane" loans to minorities (Keep in mind the limits to the CRA I posted above).

All banks that lend to the public.

> 2. Banks decide since they have been forced to make some "financially insane" loans they should just start making them to every single person

They didn't really have a choice.  Once the ball got rolling, they either go with the flow, or borrowers start going to the bank next door.  I'm not trying to take blame away from the banks here, but looking at why the banks started to do this, you have to go back.  Had the government not started mucking around in the banks business, using the carrot and stick on the banks to influence their lending practices, then none of this would have ever happened.  You are trying to blame the rolling ball for the problem rather than blaming the person that started the ball rolling in the first place.  I'm not excusing the banks, but their hands were pretty tied.  Go with the flow and take the carrot, or go against the flow and take the stick.  Not much of a choice.

> I leave it up to the readers to decide if the CRA adequately explains the chain of events listed above.

Again, the CRA is the starting point of the chain of events... that which initiated all the rest.  Lots of other 'bad things' happened, but if you trace it back to a single starting point, it was the CRA.  (Not really the CRA, but the changes that Clinton made that went into effect in 96 if we want to be specific.)  There were many other contributing factors that occurred later and both Republicans and Democrats are at fault, but had the changes to the CRA never been made, then none of the other stuff would have happened and we wouldn't be having this debate.

> FM and FM were not directed to buy up every mortgage.

Of course not... but congress made it possible for them to make massive amounts of money by doing so.  Again, had there not been a bunch of mortgages for FM and FM to buy up, then none of this would have happened.  Where did the massive numbers of mortgages come from?  The snowball had to start somewhere, and it wasn't Uranus.

Again, looking for the initial seed, not all the corruption, greed, and other BS that followed (of which there are a lot of people guilty in both parties).  What was it that made the mess possible to begin with?  It was banks being bullied into making risky loans to low income families.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Social Engineering by Democrats Destroys the World's Financial Markets [Re: Seuss]
    #9068072 -

Seuss said:
> The Federal Reserve creates most of our money through debt creation.

Great!  Now, where did the debt come from?


The U.S. Treasury prints the bills and sells them to the Federal Reserve Banks for 3 cents on the dollar. The Federal Reserve banks then loan the money to our government, plus interest. The nation/taxpayers owe on that debt creation.

This is also why our national debt can never be paid off. We only print bills that cover the principle loan, no extra bills are printed to cover the interest owed on the principle.


--------------------
Ahuwale ka nane huna.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Social Engineering by Democrats Destroys the World's Financial Markets [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #9068102 -

BTW, Woodrow Wilson, the President that turned us over to the Federal Reserve banking system was a Democrat.


--------------------
Ahuwale ka nane huna.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Social Engineering by Democrats Destroys the World's Financial Markets [Re: Yossarian22]
    #9068164 -

Yossarian22 said:
But keep on scapegoating the poor and minorities.



GTFO with that


Phred and the other CRA opponents have never, to my knowledge, stated that blacks as a group are responsible for this- nor any other race.


By raising stupid claims of racism you denigrate real demonstrable injustice in society and reinforce the views of some that their whinning about race is justified because of these "everything is racist" folks.


The issue is people that didn't pay what they owed, and banks that lended to them (and the people that lended to them, in turn).  This has nothing to do with race and everything to do with public policy.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Social Engineering by Democrats Destroys the World's Financial Markets [Re: Seuss]
    #9068275 -

The CRA required banks to meet quotas lending to poor people, or face severe penalties and lawsuits from the likes of Obama.  The only way the banks could meet the required quotas was to make "bad" loans.  These loans would not have been made had the CRA not forced the quotas upon the banks.  Yes, you are correct, the banks could have ignored their quotas that were set by the CRA, payed huge penalties, and been sued out of business by lawyers like Obama.  In the end, the banks had two choices, make bad loans and take the governments carrot, or don't make bad loans and take the governments stick.  Not really much of a choice, unless you are trying to spin it.

How many banks exactly were sued out of business?  The banks went out of business not because they made bad loans under the CRA but because they made AWEFUL loans to every schmuck that walk in the door.  Please explain to me exactly what constitutes this "carrot" the government was offering.



Quote:
All banks that lend to the public.


But this is just incorrect.  Not all banks that lent to the public fell under CRA guidelines.  The CRA was meant to insure that banks which take deposits from a given district also lend to residents of the district.  Again 50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject comprehensive federal supervision; another 30% were made by banks or thrifts which are not subject to routine supervision or examinations.

Quote:
They didn't really have a choice.  Once the ball got rolling, they either go with the flow, or borrowers start going to the bank next door.  I'm not trying to take blame away from the banks here, but looking at why the banks started to do this, you have to go back.  Had the government not started mucking around in the banks business, using the carrot and stick on the banks to influence their lending practices, then none of this would have ever happened.  You are trying to blame the rolling ball for the problem rather than blaming the person that started the ball rolling in the first place.  I'm not excusing the banks, but their hands were pretty tied.  Go with the flow and take the carrot, or go against the flow and take the stick.  Not much of a choice.



But this isn't an example of the carrot on the stick.  The government was NEVER rewarding banks for making bad loans.  There was no carrot on the governmental side only a stick.  Your acting like there was some governmental rewards program in place for those banks that made riskier and riskier loans to everyone that came through the door.

Of course the banks had a choice.  They could have turned down the applications.  When the guy came in with no assests, no credit, and no downpayment asking for a 500,000 dollar loan the bank could have said NO.  Even if he was a minority in the poorest of areas, the bank could have said NO and still not been in violation of the CRA.



In 1995 William A. Niskanen, a member of the CATO institute testified before congress advocating the repeal of the CRA.  His reasoning:

"The above comparisons should be sufficient to illustrate why the Community Reinvestment Act should be repealed. Current regulations are only moderately costly but are otherwise innocuous. The proposed new regulations would be very costly to the economy, to the banking system, and to the communities they serve. Congress should be most critical of proposals to use regulatory powers to reallocate credit, either across neighborhoods or among groups. The primary long term effect of such measures would be to further contract the banking system, increasing the number of neighborhoods dependent on check cashing outlets and pawnshops."

http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-ni3-8.html

He predicted, as any sane economist would, that forcing banks to engage in costly, unprofitable ventures would cause them constrict the services they offered in order to remain profitable.  This what happens in industries where the government breaks out its stick.  The banks however were chasing a carrot, but that carrot wasn't being dangled by the government.

Quote:
Again, the CRA is the starting point of the chain of events... that which initiated all the rest.  Lots of other 'bad things' happened, but if you trace it back to a single starting point, it was the CRA.  (Not really the CRA, but the changes that Clinton made that went into effect in 96 if we want to be specific.)  There were many other contributing factors that occurred later and both Republicans and Democrats are at fault, but had the changes to the CRA never been made, then none of the other stuff would have happened and we wouldn't be having this debate.


Really??  So why are so many countries around the world having collapses in their real estate markets?  I'll ask this again.  Why did the exact same thing happen to Japan in the 80's.  Why is commercial realestate, which usually lags about a year and a half behind residential, slowly falling into the recessionary chasm.  All three of these can be explained by low interest rates fueling rampant speculation.  The CRA doesn't even factor in as it is US based and only applies to residential real estate.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Social Engineering by Democrats Destroys the World's Financial Markets [Re: Luddite]
    #9068690 -

So with all of this said, as my favorite teacher used to say "Anybody can blame somebody else for a problem, and it doesn't really matter if they're right or wrong, but it's few and far in between the person who can come up with a solution and put it into action".

What do you all suggest we do to fix this mess that we all MUST agree that we are in??

Peace.


--------------------
A society whose whole idea is to eliminate suffering and bring it's members the greatest amount of comfort and pleasure is doomed to be destroyed -Thomas Merton

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Social Engineering by Democrats Destroys the World's Financial Markets [Re: whattheheck]
    #9068965 -

Quote:
What do you all suggest we do to fix this mess that we all MUST agree that we are in??


1. I think that all the banks that have gone bankrupt should not be bailed out.  Their assests should be autioned off to the highest bidder.

2.  Housing values need to fall to market dictated levels.  Right now the government is artifically supporting the bubble by lending the banks money and allowing them to keep the value of their toxic mortgages high.

3.  The fed needs to stop adjusting interest rates in its vain attempt to stimulate the economy.  There is mountains of historical evidence that this leads to the boom bust cycles seen in American business.

4.  Americans need to start saving more and begin to pay down the debt we owe other countries.  Right now our biggest export is our dollar, which we sell to people in order to purchase the goods they produce.  This house of cards will only last for so long.  In some ways the housing market is only one symptom of our far overextended credit.

That is what I believe will help alleviate our current crisis, although I think we still have a long way to go before our economy is back to a stable level.  Unfortunatly what I think will happen is Obama will get elected along with a fully democratic house and senate.  This will lead to a shitstorm of new bailouts, social programs, tax increases, and rampant spending.  From what I have seen neither Obama or Mccain have any clear vision on how to cut spending effectivly.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |  [ show all ]

Shop: Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy

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

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Battle Lines Form on Social Security RandalFlagg 733 2 12/22/04 11:09 AM
by ZippoZ
* Key Lawmakers Cast Doubt on Social Security 'Crisis' RandalFlagg 646 1 01/23/05 10:44 PM
by SWEDEN
* Ol' Bushy's war on social security
( 1 2 3 all )		 carbonhoots 4,845 51 12/06/04 03:26 PM
by RandalFlagg
* socialism and capitalism
( 1 2 all )		 fearfect 3,285 24 04/18/05 09:55 PM
by Psychoactive1984
* The NEW map of Iraq HagbardCeline 1,735 18 08/30/04 01:40 PM
by GazzBut
* How Would You Fix Social Security, Senator Kerry?
( 1 2 all )		 Ancalagon 4,760 31 08/16/04 08:55 PM
by Ancalagon
* Colombia?s War: Drugs, Oil and Markets
( 1 2 all )		 LSDempire 3,398 24 05/19/05 01:12 AM
by Rose
* Greenspan Pushes for Social Security Fixes RandalFlagg 599 3 03/16/05 12:21 AM
by Psychoactive1984

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
8,362 topic views. 3 members, 51 guests and 36 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 0.034 seconds spending 0.01 seconds on 16 queries.