Lotharr Posted November 27, 2002 Author Report Share Posted November 27, 2002 A little slow on the draw darling? heh heh... I'll take two Jag...as long as they are made in America...oh...nevermind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raven Posted November 27, 2002 Report Share Posted November 27, 2002 Not in the least, I'm just not as familiar with the world of paranoids as you are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lotharr Posted November 27, 2002 Author Report Share Posted November 27, 2002 Jag and I go way back...us paranoids are like that.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest $iLk Posted November 27, 2002 Report Share Posted November 27, 2002 quote:you are better than this and any more responses while I appreciate reading them , is like wasting Shakespeare on apes. You will never get them to question one belief , ponder that there may be two sides to a story , or introduce some information that does anything more than confirm their original opinion. Hypocrisy? No, of course not quote: Last week I joined a group of men who mentor at risk youth. Bravo! I support any effort that doesn't rob Peter to support Paul. When people give to their community willingly, it is more American than people giving to their community at gunpoint. quote:I read your posts and am heartened that SOME people in here have a legitimate concern for others less fortunate than themselves. "Less Fortunate" implies that fortune, i.e. 'luck' has to do with where people meet their station in life. Luck is simply opportunity met by preparation, and while many people have opportunities to be successful, many of them aren't prepared. So the 'less fortunate' made some bad decisions in life, and if you'd like to give your own money to them go right ahead. It is morally wrong for you to steal to finance someone else's lifestyle. quote:You are wasting precious time trying valiantly to appeal to the soul-less. Sounds like the nonsense from DemocraticUnderground.com (See post 'Do Republicans have souls?') quote:People who suck up to the ruling class eh? Sorry darling, but I haven't a clue what who you're talking about. That doesn't seam to describe Jaguar, Dredd, or $ilk, and it sure as bloody hell doesn't describe me. Yeah, I'm kind of sucking up to myself. It's my tax dollars that are being spent. And all these 'tax the rich' programs in the end are placed as a burden on the consumer. More taxes for an employer = less money to hire new employees = less jobs available for unemployed. Tax cuts = relief for *EVERYONE*. quote:I have a thick head. Next semester I'll be taking a more direct role in raising awareness and continuing in the footsteps of those remarkable people who led the way and who continue the fight against the vast tyranny and injustice that continue to twist and mock the ideals of our country....so I probably won't have that much time either. Make the liberal dream sound 'heroic'! That's the spirit! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest $iLk Posted November 27, 2002 Report Share Posted November 27, 2002 This bit from Neal Boortz (http://boortz.com/nealznuze) Talks about Al Gore and his opinion on differing opinions. Fitting. quote:AL ÔÇ£DUHÔÇØ GORE GETS IN ON THE ACT Liberals just canÔÇÖt stand it when people listen to conservative media voices. Leftists know that they are unprepared and incapable of taking on libertarian or conservative opinion head-to-head in a fact-based logical manner, so their only defense --- their only protection is to attack those who present conservative opinions. In fact, the sense of liberal desperation is so bad that theyÔÇÖre even attacking news outlets that present a balanced, not liberal view! Yup, Al Gore is at it again. The New York Observer did a little phone interview with the losing Democratic candidate from 2000 and found him ranting and railing against the media. Gore says that there are ÔÇ£some institutional voices that are, truthfully speaking, part and parcel of the Republican Party.ÔÇØ He then goes on to name The Fox News Network, The Washington Times and, of course, Rush Limbaugh. It should be said that Al Gore might actually be somewhat blameless ÔÇô or maybe just mindless -- in his attacks. He might honestly believe this dog squeeze heÔÇÖs spreading around! Liberals are convinced that their position is the ONLY correct position on almost any issue. Liberal opinions are simply mainstream opinions. They know it all, and they know it best. They know what is best for you and your family, and how you should be living your life. They know how much income is too much income, and they know better than the free marketplace just how that income should be distributed. They know all that is good and righteous, and they know that all good and righteousness is with them. They are so cocksure of themselves that they actually honestly believe that anyone who expresses a contrarian viewpoint is not only wrong, but also dangerous. HereÔÇÖs a little assignment for you over the holidays. Try to compile a list of print and broadcast commentators, reporters and anchors that formerly worked for Democrat politicians. When you have that list prepared, make another one. This time draw up a list of broadcast commentators, reporters and anchors who formerly worked for Republicans. Liberals think that it is absolutely normal for people to move from the Democratic political arena into the media. When someone moves from the Republican arena into the news business howls of protest arise from newsrooms and studios across the country. After youÔÇÖve worked on this list IÔÇÖll give you a little help next week. By the way .. a recent poll shows GoreÔÇÖs approval rate with the American public to be around 19 percent. ThatÔÇÖs too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest $iLk Posted November 30, 2002 Report Share Posted November 30, 2002 Why is there always a 2 or 3 day delay after one of my posts? Does it take that long to come up with a coherent argument to the contrary? Is that because common sense doesn't agree with liberal ideas? Anyway I'm sure that it was hoped this thread would die slowly as it fell to page 2 of daily posts, but this is simply a quick bump and a reminder that we are waiting for a response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lotharr Posted November 30, 2002 Author Report Share Posted November 30, 2002 quote: Why is there always a 2 or 3 day delay after one of my posts? Does it take that long to come up with a coherent argument to the contrary? No. I could give you the list of reasons why but what's the point? If it makes you feel good to believe that....cool. Your article didn't answer any of my points and questions before the exchange with DL. Look 'em over and let me know. It's just more rhetoric with no investigative merit. Al Gore is a lying snake of a politician who clearly represents the corrupt nature of the business politicians who have sold their soul to the highest bidder. He does make a small point (in the common partisan way) of focusing on the trivial and entirely missing the root cause. Media is losing it's credibility to people but for other reasons. Critical investigation is way down and declining. The function of the media as a democratic institution is rightfully in question for a variety of reasons. However, for Gore to focus on just a narrow part of the systemic failure is laughable and typical of political losers who operate in the sound bite thought vacuum of corporate media. quote: Make the liberal dream sound 'heroic'! That's the spirit! I donÔÇÖt fault conservatives for their basic beliefs in self governance and free enterprise. I fault the institutions that pander to these beliefs while destroying them. I feel that liberals are even worse. They are lying to the people for their righteous ends while working hand in hand with their political opponents to further destroy our democratic process. To hell with any liar motivated by personal gain over civic responsibility. [ 11-30-2002, 12:33 PM: Message edited by: Lotharr ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raven Posted November 30, 2002 Report Share Posted November 30, 2002 Well darling, I have to agree with you about the media, at least insofar as it's not doing a very good job at investigative reporting. However, unlike you, I don't attribute this to corporate manipulation, but rather to sensationalism. It gets ratings (don't ask me why, maybe its more entertaining or some such) and that means it gets money (I'm not exactly sure how that system works, but sufficed to say increasing ratings is important for making more money). It's as bad for businesses as anything else, as the media focusing on crime, accidents, and other failings without really paying any mind to success. It's bad for politicians for the same reason, and hell, it's bad for just about everyone else else. Now, our populace may be composed primarily of mentally sedentary and bovine individuals, but that's not exclusively the case, and most people have been hearing about how sensational the news (particularly television) has been getting for a very long time now. It really does soak in, and this is why the media is loosing credibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lotharr Posted November 30, 2002 Author Report Share Posted November 30, 2002 What is the deal with darling and bovine anyway? I would agree that sensationalism is a very real part of the problem....but it doesn't stop there. If information dissemination is propelled by profit motive then it is clear to see why ownership is centralizing....and that is ultimately causing the problem. Centralizing the media is on many levels. From local media to the TV, the same players own everything. This vertical integration from content to technology lends itself to other convergences of power. The people who own this industry do not want to share the market of ideas because they fear the potential ramifications of democracy and thought....your kind of people. When you own the entire market and all the tangible and intangible mechanisms that make it function you don't have to worry about ratings. Once upon a time you had journalists that understood the true role of a free press in a democratic society (even if they were naive). They represented the cutting edge of truth and understood their imporatnice in the role of maintaining a healthy republic...and took pride. They are mostly gone now and being replaced with mid level execs who control content. Journalists that believe it is proper to editorialize content and focus on the trivial. Journalists that understand not to ask the mid level for real journalismthey know the average pay in America and want no part of it.... All this aside, media suffers from an industrial PR infestation.... for all the journalists they employ...take that number and add 20,000 for PR specialists that engineer content and promote industries who could care less about truth and the ramifications of their actions. It is more then if it bleeds it leads.it is complex, unethical, and destructive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest $iLk Posted December 2, 2002 Report Share Posted December 2, 2002 quote:No. I could give you the list of reasons why but what's the point? If it makes you feel good to believe that....cool. No I was just wondering. Wasn't thinking either - saving the rainforest and the animals must take precedence... quote:Your article didn't answer any of my points and questions before the exchange with DL. Look 'em over and let me know. It's just more rhetoric with no investigative merit. Al Gore is a lying snake of a politician who clearly represents the corrupt nature of the business politicians who have sold their soul to the highest bidder. The article was not intended for you but for the Race. He seems to have a problem with differing opinions. quote:I donÔÇÖt fault conservatives for their basic beliefs in self governance and free enterprise. I fault the institutions that pander to these beliefs while destroying them. I feel that liberals are even worse. They are lying to the people for their righteous ends while working hand in hand with their political opponents to further destroy our democratic process. To hell with any liar motivated by personal gain over civic responsibility. I don't disagree here. But it isn't conservatives in particular who are destroying America. It is any polititian who places self above the constitution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Lindsey Posted December 2, 2002 Report Share Posted December 2, 2002 I actually thought that everyone was taking a breather after the last round of insults. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lotharr Posted December 2, 2002 Author Report Share Posted December 2, 2002 NEVER! quote: I don't disagree here. But it isn't conservatives in particular who are destroying America. It is any polititian who places self above the constitution. Im not a vegetarian but I accept that global warming as a real phenomenacorporate science is a serious threat to rational decision making. You never did answer my responses above. So what's the deal anyway? The constitution can't be interpreted differently to fit the times? Let me ask you this: Where is the logic in the Supreme Court applying Bill of Right protections to a corporation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest $iLk Posted December 2, 2002 Report Share Posted December 2, 2002 quote:So what's the deal anyway? The constitution can't be interpreted differently to fit the times? Do enough interpreting and pretty soon 'freedom of speech' becomes a reference to 'only if you are a liberal nutjob'. The bill of rights can *NOT* be interpreted, it is set out in black and white as to what the limits of the federal government and state governments are. If you interpret it you interpret the limits of government, and government always grows and consumes, it never exists for the benefit of the people unless it is restrained. It was written to encompass most areas of our lives, but it wasn't written to redefine the meaning of what "is" is. quote: Where is the logic in the Supreme Court applying Bill of Right protections to a corporation? The logic is, that a corporation - like any group is made up of individuals. It is the right of people to peaceably assemble, and should they wish - throw all their money into a big pot to use to get the candidate they want elected. Now if these corporate leaders see that they can hedge their bets in order to get a politically favorable candidate, they are perfectly within their rights. If you made billions of dollars, you can spend it how you want, it's called FREEDOM. Just because you can't afford the ante' at the $10,000 minimum table at the casino, doesn't mean that other people can't. And just because other people can, doesn't give you the right to shut down everything but the $100 and less tables. quote:You never did answer my responses above. I thought I answered everything except for your response to Dragon Lady? I'll reread it again later and make sure. quote:Im not a vegetarian but I accept that global warming as a real phenomenacorporate science is a serious threat to rational decision making. Wacko liberal nutjob science is the same. Weren't we supposed to be dead already from the icecaps/warming/ozone etc. a long time ago? From what I've understood, the ozone hole is actually improving, and is shrinking. For all we know it could be a natural phenomena. Global warming, sometimes it's hot sometimes it's cold. I haven't seen any solid evidence that it isn't a natural occurence. I'm aware of the greenhouse effect, and I'm also aware of the leap-in-logic you have to take to accept the commonly given explanations for global warming. They are too premature in diagnosing what's wrong, and therefore too premature to diagnose the cure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lotharr Posted December 3, 2002 Author Report Share Posted December 3, 2002 quote: The logic is, that a corporation - like any group is made up of individuals. It is the right of people to peaceably assemble, and should they wish - throw all their money into a big pot to use to get the candidate they want elected. Now if these corporate leaders see that they can hedge their bets in order to get a politically favorable candidate, they are perfectly within their rights. If you made billions of dollars, you can spend it how you want, it's called FREEDOM. You need to check your history. The founding fathers understood the threats to sovereignty of any organization outside of a small government and principles of self governance. They also understood the threats posed by aggregation of wealth. You want to talk about hypocrisy. Corporate charters were established for set periods of time and then reviewed. Often they were not renewed when they exceeded their charter or committed other abuses. The founders werent perfect but they knew the difference between a person and an artificial entity created to serve the state. I bet they would laugh at the idea of a corporation exceeding what in their mind was the only and obvious place for it in society.secondary and accountable. Corporations gained their current status when the Supreme Court interpreted the constitution differently in the late eighteen hundreds. So either you accept interpretation or you don't. I do not discount the many abilities of the corporations to benefit society but clearly they wield vast amounts of power that undermine the democratic process and destroy community after the mission changed from serving people and country to that of only a wealthy elite. [ 12-02-2002, 11:07 PM: Message edited by: Lotharr ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest $iLk Posted December 4, 2002 Report Share Posted December 4, 2002 And government is supposed to have something to do with the economy and FREE enterprise how? Anyway, here's another piece of propaganda I thought was funny and thought provoking. quote:ANOTHER TRIP INTO THE DARK MIND OF LIBERALISM Hopefully you can handle this without any permanent negative emotional damage, but its time once again for The Talkmaster, the renowned author of The Terrible Truth About Liberals, to take you on a dangerous excursion into the slimy network of miniscule sewer tunnels that pass for brains inside of the heads of liberals. The brain we will study today is that of Robert Reno who writes for Newsday. Reno has a column being published today trumpeting the call for socialized medicine in the United States. Now, this isnt about socialized medicine. Not this time. Its about Mr. Renos vision as to how people acquire wealth in the United States. Buried in one of Renos paragraphs you will find the following sentence: These are not the same alarms sounded when the rich help themselves to a larger share of the nations income or when the poor get it in the neck again, as they always do. Dont concern yourself with whatever alarms Reno may be writing about. Just concentrate on the latter part of the sentence. He talks of the rich helping themselves to a big hunk of the nations income, and about the sad, pathetic poor getting it in the neck. OK  lets commence with the picking apart of Renos thoughts. First of all, whats this nations income thing? Its just typical leftist thought. Liberals believe that all wealth belongs to all the people; or, to put it more accurately, to the government. The government, in its immense and compassionate wisdom, decides just what portion of that wealth will be distributed to which segments of our population. Leftists do not like to look at income as having been earned by an individual. If they acknowledge that an individual has actually earned something then they are put into a position where they have to acknowledge that the individual might actually have some sort of a property right to what they have earned. This whole property rights thing is very troublesome to leftists because their philosophy of governance demands that they confiscate wealth for the purpose of redistribution. Liberalism  a philosophy based on plunder. So, to a liberal, wealth is not earned, its distributed; distributed by government --- a government run by liberals. Then Mr. Reno talks about the (evil, nasty, filthy, contemptible, ugly, mean) rich helping themselves to that big hunk of the nations income. Helping themselves? Reno makes it sound like these nasty rich people just came down the nations income buffet line with an extra large plate and took much more food than they were entitled to, thus leaving less food for the pitiful poor people following behind. Reno would not want to recognize that the evil rich actually got their wealth through hard work and brilliant decision-making. Getting out there and working those 80 hour weeks, forgoing instant gratification, and working to make proper and intelligent decisions means nothing to a liberal. Its all about taking what the government deems to be your share, and nothing more. Ill give Robert Reno some credit. Many of the poor do keep getting it in the neck, time after time. Trouble is, Reno doesnt understand just why. The poor keep getting it in the neck because they insist on continuing the same behavior that caused them to get it in the neck the last time they got it in the neck. Most dogs learn faster than the poor. You arent going to become one of the nations evil rich by having a succession of babies you cant afford, buying lottery tickets and beer with money you could be putting into a savings account, and putting $6000 rims on $5000 cars. Remember: The rich keep getting richer because they keep doing the things that make them rich. Ditto for the poor. Thank goodness for them though. Someone has to cook the French fries. Edit for highlighting the important parts. [ 12-03-2002, 07:44 PM: Message edited by: $iLk ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lotharr Posted December 4, 2002 Author Report Share Posted December 4, 2002 What the hell does that have to do with history and the question? Sort out your right wing propaganda and get back to me when you're done defending the new aristocracy. [ 12-03-2002, 11:12 PM: Message edited by: Lotharr ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 4, 2002 Report Share Posted December 4, 2002 quote: Sort out your right wing propaganda and get back to me when you're done defending the new aristocracy. ROFLMAO!! Tin foil beanie anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 6, 2002 Report Share Posted December 6, 2002 And just to rub a little salt into it. quote: Dividend Days: The Bush administration has made the correct economic diagnosis. National Review Online | December 6, 2002 | Larry Kudlow In law, the punishment must fit the crime. In medicine, the cure must not be worse than the disease. In the economy, a fix can only be made if the problem is identified and understood. For nearly two years, Washington's economic cure-all has been to throw temporary tax rebates and spending subsidies at consumers. But consumers were not the cause of the much-lamented recession. Rather, it was caused by a stock-market collapse and a profits crunch that destroyed wealth and eviscerated credit. Finally, the Bush administration has made this correct economic diagnosis ÔÇö and it now can start working on the cure. To remedy sinking equity values and impoverished investor returns, the Bushies are about to propose a reduction in the double tax burden on corporate dividends. Today, these valuable company payouts are taxed once at the corporate level as profits, and then a second time at the personal rate when they are received by investors. Under current tax law, for every dollar of profits earned by a company, Uncle Sam keeps 60 cents and the private sector gets only 40 cents. Yet if the White House reduces the dividend tax rate for individuals to 20% from today's 39%, leaving the corporate tax rate on dividends untouched, the private sector will keep 52 cents for each corporate dollar of profit. Rather than the bulk of the money going to Uncle Sam, the risk-taking investor class will be rewarded with the larger share. The Bush economic team has been largely divided since its formation almost two years back. Last September, the team's supply-siders ÔÇö Larry Lindsey and Glenn Hubbard ÔÇö lost out to deficit-mongers Paul O'Neill and Mitch Daniels in the debate over the double taxation of dividends. But as the saying goes, what a difference a year makes. Today, Lindsey and Hubbard ÔÇö Bush's pro-growth economic advisors ÔÇö are poised to win out with the strong support of Vice President Dick Cheney. Their victory represents the beginning of the battle to completely end the double taxation of dividends. And that battle will appropriately start with the investor class. Essentially, a 20% dividend tax rate for individuals equates to a 30% reduction in the tax cost of capital as well as a 30% rise in return on investment. This will translate to a like increase in the overall stock market. Think of it like this: With earnings remaining at the same volume, the dividend tax cut and the related increase in after-tax capital returns provides a 30% boost for equity asset values. The rate of new capital formation will improve, too, as the tax bite diminishes. The government will get less and the private sector will keep more. With more available capital (after-tax), and with the higher amount of capital yielding a better rate of return (after-tax), the economy will grow at a healthier rate. The dividend tax-cut plan will also force better corporate governance. At lower tax rates, shareholders will clamor for higher dividends. This will force CEOs to send surplus cash back to the investor/owners, rather than use it on empire-building schemes or ego-driven acquisitions. The public will begin to judge the worth of companies by the dividends they pay rather than the flawed scorekeeping of hired-gun accountants. Meanwhile, the increased demand for dividends means that companies will no longer be able to over-leverage themselves by borrowing huge gobs of debt. When rainy day downturns come, as they always do, firms will be better inoculated because dividend-receiving investors made them keep more green cash on hand. Higher dividends will transform business behavior. Cash-heavy tech outfits, like Microsoft, Cisco, and Dell, will start paying dividends ÔÇö pronto. Stock-market values in sectors like utilities, REITs, financials, and pharmaceuticals will benefit because they already pay dividends. And as greater dividend payouts enhance the value of the entire stock market, government tax coffers will overflow with revenue from new capital gains and dividend tax payments. In other words, as investment tax rates descend, investment-related tax revenues will rise ÔÇö a perfect application of the Laffer Curve. More, when increased investment capital is used more efficiently, the whole economic pie expands. That means new jobs and new revenues at the same time. All in all, a new Bush proposal to lower the dividend tax burden is a win-win. To maximize the economic-growth leverage of this big-bang plan, Congress should announce as early as possible that the measure will be made retro-active to January 1. Oh, and by the way, dividend tax relief will realign the investor class into the waiting arms of the GOP. ÔÇö Mr. Kudlow is CEO of Kudlow & Co. Watch the corporate profits skyrocket, the job market explode, and investors pile on. The money will start moving again. President Bush will have hit an economic homerun!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lotharr Posted December 6, 2002 Author Report Share Posted December 6, 2002 Ok Jag...give us the time table? How long will it take? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 6, 2002 Report Share Posted December 6, 2002 Anywhere between 2-5 years before it gets moving, then it will accelerate, the next president in 2008 will inherit the Bush 43 economy, just as Clinton inherited the Reagan economy and Bush 43 inherited the Clinton economy. Any government tax break that will actually effect the economy, takes anywhere between 2-10 years to take hold, all depending how deep the tax cuts are. The bigger the tax cuts, the faster the effect. Tax cuts will spur the economy, tax hikes will slow it. Tax hikes put the brakes on the economy faster then a tax break will accelerate it. This tax break is minimal, but is in fact aimed like a sniper rifle at the right target. [ 12-06-2002, 05:55 PM: Message edited by: Jaguar ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Lindsey Posted December 7, 2002 Report Share Posted December 7, 2002 quote:For nearly two years, Washington's economic cure-all has been to throw temporary tax rebates and spending subsidies at consumers. But consumers were not the cause of the much-lamented recession. Rather, it was caused by a stock-market collapse and a profits crunch that destroyed wealth and eviscerated credit. Heh, I said much the same weeks ago in Race Bannon's thread. Bush oust's O'Neill and Lindsey from jobs quote:The dividend tax-cut plan will also force better corporate governance.Awfully optimistic about that. quote: At lower tax rates, shareholders will clamor for higher dividends. They should have been doing this already instead of wads of cash going to CEO's. But if that's what they want to do. quote:Meanwhile, the increased demand for dividends means that companies will no longer be able to over-leverage themselves by borrowing huge gobs of debt. He's awfully sure about that too. I'm all for lower taxes anywhere but this guy just paints much too rosy a picture. We'll see if it actually trickles down or if we have more Enrons in the making. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raven Posted December 7, 2002 Report Share Posted December 7, 2002 Well I think this is a lovely idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lotharr Posted December 7, 2002 Author Report Share Posted December 7, 2002 Heh...you know what a median income level is? It's the thing that has stagnated since Regan. You know what Ave income is? That the thing that has grown with the wealth of the super rich. Yes, you have demonstrated rather effectively that both camps don't give a damn about regular Americans....but we all know who put them in office and we further realize why people have stopped voting. You can play your little no fault game all you want but it is clear who American political leadership is working for. I think it will be very interesting to see what happens as they keep covering each other and continue their transparent game of pass the buck. You can't fool all the people all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 7, 2002 Report Share Posted December 7, 2002 quote: Yes, you have demonstrated rather effectively that both camps don't give a damn about regular Americans....but we all know who put them in office and we further realize why people have stopped voting. Yo Lotharr, get this, over 75% of the American population has money in the stock market, be it stocks, bonds, 401K etc and most if not all get dividends of some sort. Sorry dude, the people be US!! We are ALL investors and we will ALL prosper from such a tax cut. Get over yourself already.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lotharr Posted December 7, 2002 Author Report Share Posted December 7, 2002 Look what it got them... How about we get people jobs and good wages? I know I don't know everything...unlike some. I'll get over myself if you drop the part time patriot front while being a free market fanatic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now