The Glade 4.0

"Turn the lights down, the party just got wilder."
It is currently Sun Nov 24, 2024 12:00 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 173 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Will you sign the petition?
Yes. 38%  38%  [ 13 ]
No. 29%  29%  [ 10 ]
Don't care. 3%  3%  [ 1 ]
FarSky is Gay. 29%  29%  [ 10 ]
Total votes : 34
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 11:58 am 
Offline
adorabalicious
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:54 am
Posts: 5094
Aizle wrote:
Ienan wrote:
RangerDave wrote:
You know how you guys used to roll your eyes at Monty whenever he'd go on about how Bush was turning our country into a fascist dictatorship, how freedom and democracy and the rule of law meant nothing anymore in these United States of Rush Limbaugh (TM), and how it was plausible to worry that Bush might declare martial law and cancel the elections if he had the chance?

The sky really isn't going to fall here. I get that this is a big policy change and you don't like it, but that's all it is.

But the sky really is going to fall. The funny thing is Stathol is right. It's not only Obama who's going to cause it. It's every President at least since FDR who's made this possible by expanding the government and leaving debt for the next generation. Eventually, we won't be able to export debt, which is imminent, and we'll collapse. No one's going to bail us out like Iceland and Greece was because we're far too large and hated by the rest of the world anyway. Healthcare might not be the last straw, but we're getting close.


The projections I've seen have the deficit falling because of this healthcare bill, not rising.



Aizle this bill is going to increase costs. Exactly how does one lower their debt by increasing their costs? This is the fundamental reality that cannot be changed that you seem willing to dismiss.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 12:03 pm 
Offline
adorabalicious
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:54 am
Posts: 5094
Aizle wrote:
If indeed the results are as Khross and Ienan predict, then all you conservatives should be happy. The bill will cause a collapse that will wake folks up from their apathy and allow for the conservatives to gain control of the government and save us from our liberal stupidity.

I'm not holding my breath tho.


The collapse of medicare and Social Security haven't awoken people, they've just made them clamor for more fences and shepherds.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 12:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 10:27 am
Posts: 2169
Editorial from WSJ regarding the tactics used to pass this legislation. I don't know the author, but I agree with the sentiment.

Kimberley A. Strassel wrote:
Last week Republican Rep. Mike Pence posted on his Facebook site that famous Schoolhouse Rock video titled "How a Bill Becomes a Law." It's clearly time for a remake.

Never before has the average American been treated to such a live-action view of the sordid politics necessary to push a deeply flawed bill to completion. It was dirty deals, open threats, broken promises and disregard for democracy that pulled ObamaCare to this point, and yesterday the same machinations pushed it across the finish line.

You could see it all coming a week ago, when New York Rep. Louise Slaughter let leak a breathtaking strategy whereby the House would not actually vote on the unpopular Senate bill. The House would instead vote on a "reconciliation" fix to that bill, and in the process "deem" the underlying legislation—with its Cornhusker kickbacks and Louisiana purchases—passed.

The Slaughter Solution was both blunt admission and warning. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi did not have 216 votes to pass the Senate bill, there never was going to be majority "support" for it, but they'd pass it anyway. The final days were a simple death watch, to see how the votes would be bought, bribed or bullied, and how many congressional rules gamed, to get the win.

President Obama flew to Pennsylvania (home to five wavering House Democrats), Missouri (three wavering), Ohio (eight), and Virginia (four) to hold rallies with small, supportive crowds. In four days, Mr. Obama held 64 meetings or calls with congressmen. The goal was to let undecideds know that the president had them in his crosshairs, that he still had pull with the base, and he'd use it against them. By Saturday the tactic had yielded yes votes from at least half the previously undecided members of those states.

As for those who needed more persuasion: California Rep. Jim Costa bragged publicly that during his meeting in the Oval Office, he'd demanded the administration increase water to his Central Valley district. On Tuesday, Interior pushed up its announcement, giving the Central Valley farmers 25% of water supplies, rather than the expected 5% allocation. Mr. Costa, who denies there was a quid pro quo, on Saturday said he'd flip to a yes.

Florida Rep. Suzanne Kosmas (whose district is home to the Kennedy Space Center) admitted that in her own Thursday meeting with the president, she'd brought up the need for more NASA funding. On Friday she flipped to a yes. So watch the NASA budget.

Democrats inserted a new provision providing $100 million in extra Medicaid money for Tennessee. Retiring Tennessee Rep. Bart Gordon flipped to a yes vote on Thursday.

Outside heavies were enlisted to warn potential no votes that unions and other Democrats would run them out of Congress. Al Lawson, a Tallahassee liberal challenging Blue Dog Florida Rep. Allen Boyd in a primary, made Mr. Boyd's previous no vote the centerpiece of his criticism. The SEIU threatened to yank financial support for New York's Michael McMahon. The liberal Working Families Party said it would deny him a ballot line. Obama deputy campaign manager Steve Hildebrand vowed to challenge South Dakota Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin if she voted no. New York's Scott Murphy was targeted as a part of a $1.3 million union-financed ad campaign to pressure him to flip. Moveon.Org spent another $36,000 on ads in his district and promised a primary. Messrs. Boyd and Murphy caved on Friday.

All the while Mrs. Pelosi was desperately working to provide cover with a Congressional Budget Office score that would claim the bill "saved" money. To do it, Democrats threw in a further $66 billion in Medicare cuts and another $50 billion in taxes. Huzzah! In the day following the CBO score, about a half-dozen Democrats who had spent the past months complaining the bill already had too many taxes and Medicare cuts now said they were voting to reduce the deficit.

Even with all this, by Friday Mrs. Pelosi was dealing with a new problem: The rule changes and deals winning her votes were losing her votes, too. The public backlash against "deem and pass" gave several wary Democrats—such as Massachusetts's Stephen Lynch and California's Dennis Cardoza—a new excuse to vote no.

Mrs. Pelosi jettisoned deem and pass. Once-solid Democrat yes votes wanted their own concessions. Oregon's Pete DeFazio threatened to lead a revolt unless changes were made to Medicare payments to benefit his state. On Saturday Mrs. Pelosi cut a deal to give 17 states additional Medicare money.

By the weekend, all the pressure and threats and bribes had left the speaker three to five votes short. Her remaining roadblock was those pro-life members who'd boxed themselves in on abortion, saying they would vote against the Senate bill unless it barred public funding of abortion. Mrs. Pelosi's first instinct was to go around this bloc, getting the votes elsewhere. She couldn't.

Into Saturday night, Michigan's Bart Stupak and Mrs. Pelosi wrangled over options. The stalemate? Any change that gave Mr. Stupak what he wanted in law would lose votes from pro-choice members. The solution? Remove it from Congress altogether, having the president instead sign a meaningless executive order affirming that no public money should go to pay for abortions.

The order won't change the Senate legal language—as pro-choice Democrats publicly crowed within minutes of the Stupak deal. Executive orders can be changed or eliminated on a whim. Pro-life groups condemned the order as the vote-getting ruse it was. Nevertheless, Mr. Stupak and several of his colleagues voted yes, paving the way to Mrs. Pelosi's final vote tally of 219.

Even in these waning minutes, Senate Democrats were playing their own games. Republicans announced they had found language in the House reconciliation bill that could doom this entire "fix" in the Senate. Since many House Democrats only agreed to vote for the Senate bill on promises that the sidecar reconciliation would pass, this was potentially a last-minute killer.

Senate Democrats handled it by deliberately refusing to meet with Republicans and the Senate parliamentarian to get a ruling, lest it be unfavorable and lose House votes. The dodge was a clear dereliction of duty, but Democrats figure the Senate parliamentarian won't dare derail this process after ObamaCare passes. They are probably right.

So there you have it, folks: "How a Bill Becomes a Law," at least in Obama-Pelosi land. Perhaps the most remarkable Democratic accomplishment this week was to make the process of passing ObamaCare as politically toxic as the bill itself.

President Obama was elected by millions of Americans attracted to his promise to change Washington politics. These were voters furious with earmarks, insider deals and a lack of transparency. They were the many Americans who, even before this week, held Congress in historic low esteem. They'll remember this spectacle come November.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 12:39 pm 
Offline
Lean, Mean, Googling Machine
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:35 am
Posts: 2903
Location: Maze of twisty little passages, all alike
Aizle wrote:
If indeed the results are as Khross and Ienan predict, then all you conservatives should be happy. The bill will cause a collapse that will wake folks up from their apathy and allow for the conservatives to gain control of the government and save us from our liberal stupidity.

To begin with, "conservatives" as I suspect you envision them are no one that I want running this country. And, what's more, the problem is both larger than and different from the supposed conservative-liberal divide.

Secondly, this act will wake precisely no one and nobody. It's only going to increase apathy, which is a symptom, not a cause of the problem. It isn't even properly apathy anymore -- just resignation. And why shouldn't they feel this way? Not less than a week ago, we had the senate majority leader seriously and openly contemplating a legislative coup. If there were ever any question that our political system is hopelessly corrupted and in open contempt of both its citizenry and its charter, well...

At the point that our legislative body is willing to simply bypass the congressional vote entirely simply because it finds it convenient to do so, then it matters not at all who the people vote for. Our federal government has abandoned even the pretense of due process of law -- and that's not even beginning to touch on rule-by-executive-order, which has become the norm in both this administration and the last. So what would it even matter if people did "wake up" and vote for "conservative" legislators? Not a whit.

But you know, even if we were to set aside all of that, I can't be the least bit happy about collapse and degeneration on such a scale no matter how much silver lining you try to put on it.

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:32 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 7:54 am
Posts: 2369
Ladas wrote:
Editorial from WSJ regarding the tactics used to pass this legislation. I don't know the author, but I agree with the sentiment.



That's pretty crazy, and sounds quite plausible. I'm not going to be naive and say this sort of thing doesnt happen all the time, but I'm not so sure about the extent of this and for a very unpopular, wholly partisan, very large bill with the gravity that this one does it's insane that this is how it gets passed.

_________________
“Strong people are harder to kill than weak people, and more useful in general”. - Mark Rippetoe


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 8:22 pm
Posts: 5716
Elmarnieh wrote:
Aizle this bill is going to increase costs. Exactly how does one lower their debt by increasing their costs? This is the fundamental reality that cannot be changed that you seem willing to dismiss.


It can easily be changed. They plan on increasing revenue to cover the additional costs. If you increase revenue by more than the proposed increase in costs, debt begins to decline.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:48 pm 
Offline
adorabalicious
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:54 am
Posts: 5094
Yes by increasing taxation, the debt needs to be curbed by reducing spending.

They are going to increase taxation on production and investment, we know we get less of what is taxed so this isn't going to do a damn thing but further depress us.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:51 pm 
Offline
Not a F'n Boy Scout
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 12:10 pm
Posts: 5202
Only if taxation happened in a vacuum, and had no additional effects on the economy. The reality is the increased taxation will lead to fewer employers offering "Cadillac" coverage, simply because they cannot afford it, in addition it will lead to additional layoffs for the same reason, creating a new pool of people with no coverage at all. All the legislation struggles to cover this gap by increasing revenue again, the cycle will repeat itself.

_________________
Quote:
19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Ezekiel 23:19-20 


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 2:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 8:22 pm
Posts: 5716
That's why I said increase revenue, not taxes. If they increase revenue above spending increases, debt will decrease.

The merits of their plans to accomplish this is another matter.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 2:06 pm 
Offline
Not a F'n Boy Scout
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 12:10 pm
Posts: 5202
The only source of revenue for the government is taxes.

_________________
Quote:
19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Ezekiel 23:19-20 


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 2:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 8:22 pm
Posts: 5716
Rynar wrote:
The only source of revenue for the government is taxes.


So?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 2:07 pm 
Offline
Not a F'n Boy Scout
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 12:10 pm
Posts: 5202
How can they then increase revenue without collecting additional taxes?

_________________
Quote:
19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Ezekiel 23:19-20 


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 2:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 11:59 am
Posts: 3879
Location: 63368
Rynar wrote:
The only source of revenue for the government is taxes.

There are customs duties. Not a huge source, but taxes aren't the only source of revenue, just the same.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 2:14 pm 
Offline
Not a F'n Boy Scout
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 12:10 pm
Posts: 5202
Duties are taxes.

_________________
Quote:
19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Ezekiel 23:19-20 


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 2:22 pm 
Offline
Perfect Equilibrium
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:27 pm
Posts: 3127
Location: Coffin Corner
Taskiss wrote:
Rynar wrote:
The only source of revenue for the government is taxes.

There are customs duties. Not a huge source, but taxes aren't the only source of revenue, just the same.


Duties are taxes on firms that do large amount of exports for business.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 3:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 8:22 pm
Posts: 5716
Rynar wrote:
How can they then increase revenue without collecting additional taxes?


Didn't say they could.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 3:05 pm 
Offline
Not a F'n Boy Scout
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 12:10 pm
Posts: 5202
Arathain Kelvar wrote:
Rynar wrote:
How can they then increase revenue without collecting additional taxes?


Didn't say they could.



Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but the way I'm reading your replys in this thread leads me to believe you disagree with this:

Quote:
Only if taxation happened in a vacuum, and had no additional effects on the economy. The reality is the increased taxation will lead to fewer employers offering "Cadillac" coverage, simply because they cannot afford it, in addition it will lead to additional layoffs for the same reason, creating a new pool of people with no coverage at all. All the legislation struggles to cover this gap by increasing revenue again, the cycle will repeat itself.

_________________
Quote:
19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Ezekiel 23:19-20 


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 3:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 10:27 am
Posts: 2169
Dash wrote:
That's pretty crazy, and sounds quite plausible. I'm not going to be naive and say this sort of thing doesnt happen all the time, but I'm not so sure about the extent of this and for a very unpopular, wholly partisan, very large bill with the gravity that this one does it's insane that this is how it gets passed.

Really disappointing when you consider 18 USC 201. Of course, there were no "promises" made in exchange for votes....


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 3:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 10:27 am
Posts: 2169
RangerDave wrote:
You know how you guys used to roll your eyes at Monty whenever he'd go on about how Bush was turning our country into a fascist dictatorship, how freedom and democracy and the rule of law meant nothing anymore in these United States of Rush Limbaugh (TM), and how it was plausible to worry that Bush might declare martial law and cancel the elections if he had the chance?

Nah, that kind of crazy tinfoil hattery would entail concerns about this pending legislation, coupled with the changes to direct federal oversight of educational funds and the soon to be most important "issue" for the WH to move, immigration reform.

Fortunately, there is nothing to worry about, because the WH has clearly set the economy and jobs as its primary focus...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 3:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 8:22 pm
Posts: 5716
Rynar wrote:
Arathain Kelvar wrote:
Rynar wrote:
How can they then increase revenue without collecting additional taxes?


Didn't say they could.



Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but the way I'm reading your replys in this thread leads me to believe you disagree with this:

Quote:
Only if taxation happened in a vacuum, and had no additional effects on the economy. The reality is the increased taxation will lead to fewer employers offering "Cadillac" coverage, simply because they cannot afford it, in addition it will lead to additional layoffs for the same reason, creating a new pool of people with no coverage at all. All the legislation struggles to cover this gap by increasing revenue again, the cycle will repeat itself.


No, I made no ruling on this, primarily because I don't have enough data. I suspect health coverage in general is fairly inelastic, especially coupled with a mandate. Regardless, with anything, increasing taxes does not automatically reduce revenue. There's a threshold or optimum, same as there is in the price vs demand curve for goods and services. I don't know where we are as it relates to health care on this. We may be above, below, or right at it. Beats me. I suspect we're close if not already above the threshold.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 3:30 pm 
Offline
Not a F'n Boy Scout
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 12:10 pm
Posts: 5202
How much do you think illegal immigration is spiking right now, and over the next few months, as we now have universal care, and are likely to have "immigration reform" on our doorsteps very soon?

_________________
Quote:
19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Ezekiel 23:19-20 


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 3:32 pm 
Offline
Not a F'n Boy Scout
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 12:10 pm
Posts: 5202
Arathain Kelvar wrote:
Rynar wrote:
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but the way I'm reading your replys in this thread leads me to believe you disagree with this:

Quote:
Only if taxation happened in a vacuum, and had no additional effects on the economy. The reality is the increased taxation will lead to fewer employers offering "Cadillac" coverage, simply because they cannot afford it, in addition it will lead to additional layoffs for the same reason, creating a new pool of people with no coverage at all. All the legislation struggles to cover this gap by increasing revenue again, the cycle will repeat itself.


No, I made no ruling on this, primarily because I don't have enough data. I suspect health coverage in general is fairly inelastic, especially coupled with a mandate. Regardless, with anything, increasing taxes does not automatically reduce revenue. There's a threshold or optimum, same as there is in the price vs demand curve for goods and services. I don't know where we are as it relates to health care on this. We may be above, below, or right at it. Beats me. I suspect we're close if not already above the threshold.



In a given year it does not, what it effects negatively is the ability to generate revenue in the following year, and so on. It isn't a very forward thinking way to do things.

_________________
Quote:
19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Ezekiel 23:19-20 


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 5:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 11:30 pm
Posts: 1776
The language used in that petition is funny -- "tyranny," "electing true conservatives." The person who wrote that sounds like a true right-wing nutjob. :lol:

While I absolutely think that ObamaCare was rushed into creation and execution, people are making it sound like the end of all creation, which it is not.

I predict that enough people will ***** and doctors will close their practices to where the amount of public pressure will finally get to the president, who will enact sweeping reforms that basically set things back to where they were.

Obama "saves freedom in America" (or at least, that's how the media paints it); people get their old health care back; Right-Wingers move on to the next thing to attack Obama about.

Voted "No" BTW, because the kind of ideology present in that petition is far more dangerous than ObamaCare itself.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 5:40 pm 
Offline
Asian Blonde

Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 7:14 pm
Posts: 2075
Not sure if this was reported in your news or not. Last week Obama was suppose to visit Australasia with his family (which includes a stop over in Australia). The prime minister gave a quick explination as to why he canceled the trip, and it was to help push this bill across the line. So now reading that, it seems highly plausible...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 6:16 pm 
Offline
Simple Bot Herder
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 1:00 pm
Posts: 333
Done signing most things, although I will do my best to help see the lot of the bums out of office (both parties). The loss of Liberty under the last two Presidents shows this is nothing but good cop bad cop. This racket club needs to cease to exist.

Really, its quite transparent.

_________________
"Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one." Charles Mackay


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 173 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 79 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group