I am watching F-911 tomorrow

Page 2 of 2 First 12
  1. CDB
    CDB is offline
    Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,545
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by Nullifidian
    CDB, relatively speaking, we don't export much of anything anymore. Any goods that is. We export services; that's all.
    And...

    I've yet to see one economist of any stripe explain why too much or too little exporting, or too much or too little importing is good or bad, depending on what stripe of economist of course. There is no optimal level of either.

  2. Registered User
    Brooklyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    182
    Answers
    0

    Life can suck sometimes, it's no reason to screw the economy.
    Yet you don't think outsourcing our jobs and corporations is screwing our economy? What is Michael Moore always complaining (you would say whining) about? Flint, Michigan, and how GM taking its factory south crippled the town. Now, maybe GM saves some money on labor by building in Mexico. But maybe that hurts the U.S. more than it helps us by GM making a bigger profit. Maybe NAFTA wasn't such a good idea. Bringing our wages down to comensate for the lack of foreign solvency is not a solution. It's "global thinking." The kind of global thinking employed in a communist economic system.

    Yes. You ignore the costs of not keeping the jobs in America, not the least of which is a skyrocketing cost of living in the face of a consistently debased currency.
    What? First it's good for companies to outsource because it saves them money, which helps somebody in the economy (though I'm not sure who) and now you're telling me that they should complain of LOSING money by sending our jobs to Pakistan? Our currency is "debased" (Well, it goes back to coming off the gold standard, really) because we don't invest heavily enough in our own country, instead we send our jobs elsewhere, borrow and print more money and generally dig ourselves into a hole.


    The only way people can monopolize and inflate prices is with government help, either by imposing tariffs or other such regulations to make competitor's goods cost more, or by outright banning competition.
    Wow, Microsoft and Wal Mart don't seem to be doing too bad of a job without the government's help. "Name any other big multimerged company here." Government collusion merely indicates corruption, not the actual role of the government. I sure wonder how much the economy would suffer if antitrust regulations were more strictly enforced. Wow, we might have to pay a bit more, which would only illustrate how far wage scales have fallen for the general populace and how great a discrepancy there is. Minimum wage isn't livable wage. Start there.

    But then again, our only other option isn't prostitution or crime. Those people take those jobs because they are better than their other alternatives. And as they increase their productivity they will be able to demand better and better conditions, and they will get them. No economy develops over night, especially if the government is working dilligently to help it develop.
    Well, considering the extent of our non-millitary foreign aid is about 0.01% of the economy here, maybe we should be aiding those countries in other ways to help them build their economies. You know, other than by taking American jobs in what you are characterizing as a "charitable measure." We should feel good that they're taking our jobs. What a country!

    People here in America used to work in **** too until they could demand better conditions.
    And if we keep exporting labor, what will we be working in exactly here? Or will we just not be working? If the American public built this country and this economy to where they could demand better conditions, should they then abandon their ambition? Did we conquer the world or something?

    I'm not interested in saving American jobs
    That, sir, is obvious.

    nor anyone else's jobs. I'm interested in the economy being allowed to move itself toward more and more efficient means of production so everyone can be better off.
    What you mean is you are knee-deep in global capitalism. The problem is that we don't run the globe. We barely run this country. More efficient means of production in your definition is "cheap labor, and plenty of it." How is an American better off because someone else is doing his job cheaper? Oh yeah, you don't care about American jobs. Where exactly will most Americans have left to work when everything is outsourced? McDonalds?

    Our deficit is the fault of the government's over spending, which is necessary for the regulations you seem to love so much to be enforced.
    No, government inefficiency is what leads to overspending. The ineffiency can be decreased. It's like in New Jersey, where the NJ Turnpike has never made a profit. Does it make any sense, considering that the Turnpike was established to make money to pay for the road, and it takes in huge sums of money? No. That's why you establish independent boards to oversee large scale projects. That way you're more likely to see your money's worth, rather than it ending up in executive pockets. Trusting corporations to oversee themselves as opposed to government intervention, I might add, is laughable. Remember Enron?

    Our dollar is devalued because we've been in a terminal state of inflation for a long, long time. Once more, the fault of the government.
    OK, so let's look at your suggestion to solve it- send our jobs elsewhere and punish the evil American middle class for making too much money. CEOs and upper management deserve that hard-earned cash for figuring out that they could make a bigger profit elsewhere. After all, it's "a more efficient means of production"! What better way to stimulate the American economy than by having fewer jobs here!

    Hate to break it to you pal, but a healthy import export market has always been a stapple of the American market
    Uh.. hate to break it to you, pal, but about the only thing we've been exporting lately are Big Macs and our jobs.
  3. Banned
    CrAzyOttER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Age
    31
    Posts
    195
    Answers
    0

    hate bush, love america. he is a retart that didnt even really win the fisrt time and had the contry so cracked out with "its a red day, no its ok now its only yellow" to even vote with a clear mind the second time. oh and his side kicks are are real winners too! alot of brave men and women are over seas being orderd to **** with scape goat nations that may not like us but sure as hell didnt start with us and over seeing it all you got bush jr. looking down like some 8 year old kid playing with his army men in the sand box. PULL OUR TROOPS OUT NOW! cause there are few reasons in this world to give up your life and getting killed so the bush`s have more of a say in the oil bizz is NOT one of them.
    •   
       

  4. Board Supporter
    TheUsual's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Age
    31
    Posts
    559
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by goldylight
    yeah and hold an affirmative action bake sale after. whites pay 1 dollar for a cookie, asians and mexicans pay 50 cents and black only have to pay 25 cents........that always pisses of the libs at the universities.
    OMG that is hilarious. I'm still laughing about that one. Thanks for that
  5. Registered User
    AGELESS's Avatar
    Stats
    5'7"  212 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Age
    70
    Posts
    312
    Answers
    0

    Thumbs up


    [QUOTE=VanillaGorilla]Is that why Moore said on national television that the U.S Government knows where Bin Laden is?


    Facts are facts. Moore doesn't report facts he reports propaganda. He distorts, omits, and flat out lies. For example the scene were he says Bush did nothing at the school for 7 minutes. It turns out it was 5 minutes and Bush was writing notes and passing notes to the people around him. Moore had to of watched that footage but deliberately left it out to make Bush look bad. Moore is also being sued by a newspaper because he doctored the front page of the paper to say that Gore won the election when it never appeared on the front page.



    Moore is not trying to help anyone. He is a propagandist. There is a huge monumental difference between lying , distorting, and omitting and reporting who, what where and when. You can not compare or even mention in the same sentence Moore and any news channel. The guy has done a great job is presenting himself as Mr.. average crusader for the working man but he is not. He didn't grow up in Flint, he lives in a million dollar condo in Manhattan, he sends he kids to private school and he is a socialist. Nothing in that movie is designed to help the American people. The movie is design to make Moore a boat load of money (I don't have a problem with that but it makes him a hypocrite when he whines about capitalism and evil corporations) and make Bush look Bad.
    Vanilla Gorilla - I wish I could express myself the way you do. You're right on Bro. Now I got a problem - Im gonna be up for the next couple of days reading the other 700 something posts you've done. I love the way you write. If I didnt know any better I'd think you were my man, Dick Chaney.
  6. Registered User
    Brooklyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    182
    Answers
    0

    Thumbs down


    Quote Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla
    Is that why Moore said on national television that the U.S Government knows where Bin Laden is?
    Uh.... hello?

    CNN.com - CIA chief has 'excellent idea' where bin Laden is - Jun 20, 2005

    Cheney knows where bin Laden is hiding, but not exact 'address' - Yahoo! News


    Quote Originally Posted by AGELESS
    If I didnt know any better I'd think you were my man, Dick Chaney.
    Cheney is almost as bad as Rumsfeld. This administration is more about pandering to corporate interests than anything I've ever seen. Score another contract for Halliburton.
  7. Registered User
    PastorofMuppets's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    257
    Answers
    0

    Uh, Brooklyn.....there is a "slight" difference in that those guys are ...hmmm, what is the word I am searching for here ....starts with the letter "q"...oh yeah....

    QUALIFIED to say those things. Being some dumb**** fatass movie director does NOT make one qualified to make analysis of our intelligence and security agency, sorry.

    And Moore said it in the context of some global conspiracy to keep him hidden.
  8. Registered User
    VanillaGorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    921
    Answers
    0

    Uh.... hello?

    CNN.com - CIA chief has 'excellent idea' where bin Laden is - Jun 20, 2005
    Moore said that right after 9-11 not a week ago.
  9. Registered User
    Brooklyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    182
    Answers
    0

    Moore said that right after 9-11 not a week ago.
    And we had a good idea of where he was then. In fact, we've often had a very good idea of where he was and let him slip through our fingers. This goes back to the Clinton administration.
  10. Registered User
    VanillaGorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    921
    Answers
    0

    And we had a good idea of where he was then. In fact, we've often had a very good idea of where he was and let him slip through our fingers. This goes back to the Clinton administration.
    Nope............... Moore said he believed we knew exactly were he were doing nothing about it shortly after 9-11. In Moore speak this means that Bush and Bin Laden are connected and we are purposfully not finding him because he believes we went to war for oil and Hillburton. It's funny how the fact Clinton blew a few chances to get him didn't make it into his movie.
  11. CDB
    CDB is offline
    Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,545
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by Brooklyn
    Uh.... hello?

    CNN.com - CIA chief has 'excellent idea' where bin Laden is - Jun 20, 2005

    Cheney knows where bin Laden is hiding, but not exact 'address' - Yahoo! News



    Cheney is almost as bad as Rumsfeld. This administration is more about pandering to corporate interests than anything I've ever seen. Score another contract for Halliburton.
    Um, is that the same CIA that made that little WMD mistake. True, they made it along with a lot of other people, but still...

    I love Rumsfeld. He's completely politically incorrect, makes no effort to reassure people or make them feel good at all. He says the most amazingly hilarious things too. There's a book out called Pieces of Intelligence: The Existential Poetry of Donald Rumsfeld. It's hilarious. I'd recommend it for anyone who likes a good laugh.
  12. Registered User
    BigSwede's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Age
    48
    Posts
    129
    Answers
    0

    I am a Libertarian, but also a big fan of the jolly fat man. Unfortunately, I tought F-911 fell flat.
  13. Registered User
    BigSwede's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Age
    48
    Posts
    129
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB
    And...

    I've yet to see one economist of any stripe explain why too much or too little exporting, or too much or too little importing is good or bad, depending on what stripe of economist of course. There is no optimal level of either.
    The wholesale trade balance is somewhat of a Red Herring, That being stated, there are some ramifications of running a continuing-deficit of this magnitude. China receives USD in payment for it's goods and buys US paper&hard assets in the form of Treasury debt and RE. This occurs with every trading partner we have, an artifact of being a Nation that does nothing but consume due to its [relative] vast wealth.
  14. CDB
    CDB is offline
    Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,545
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by BigSwede
    The wholesale trade balance is somewhat of a Red Herring, That being stated, there are some ramifications of running a continuing-deficit of this magnitude. China receives USD in payment for it's goods and buys US paper&hard assets in the form of Treasury debt and RE. This occurs with every trading partner we have, an artifact of being a Nation that does nothing but consume due to its [relative] vast wealth.
    True. However it's not a bad thing. With few exceptions, when you look at economies around the world those running with trade deficits tend to be doing a lot better than those with surpluses. It's too complicated an issue to encapsulate it so easily in the idea of more imports than exports, or more exports than imports. What's being imported and exported alone make it hard to determine if at any given moment having a deficit is harmful or not. You're basically right, it's a red herring.

    It is however of great importance to America First types, who think opening a factory overseas costs Americans jobs in the long run, or that in the long run the best thing to do is enact restrictive trade policies to raise the cost of imports relative to American goods and services.
  15. Registered User
    BigSwede's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Age
    48
    Posts
    129
    Answers
    0

    Well, the deficit is also artifact of our success as a Nation, obviously, and certainly our socioeconomic success is the overriding input. However, running a deficit as large as ours puts more and more US assets under foreign control. Balance of Power, economically-speaking, has ebbed and flowed based upon such trade.

    I am not suggesting policies restricting trade[Buchanan], but the deficit could lead to a significant loss of buying power for the American consumer. This would be very destructive to our domestic economy and could signal the death-rattle for the US job market, further shifting the BoP towards holders of US assets.
  16. Registered User
    VanillaGorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    921
    Answers
    0

    Moore: “What happened to the search for Osama bin Laden??
    Costas : “Obviously they're pursuing Osama bin Laden as we speak.?
    Moore challenged the premise: “Really, you believe that??
    Costas: “Yes.?
    Moore: “You do believe that??
    Costas: “Sure. And if they could find him, and perhaps they eventually will, they'd be gratified by that.?
    Moore: “You don't think they know where he is??
    Costas: “You think they know where Osama bin Laden is and it's hands off??
    Moore: “Absolutely, absolutely.?
    Costas: “Why??
    Moore: “Because he's funded by their friends in Saudi Arabia! He's back living with his sponsors, his benefactors. Do you think that Osama bin Laden planned 9-11 from a cave in Afghanistan? I can't get a cell signal from here to Queens, alright, I mean, come on. Let's get real about this. The guy has been on dialysis for two years. He's got failing kidneys. He wasn't in a cave in Afghanistan playing-?
    Costas : “You think he's in Saudi Arabia, not Afghanistan, not Pakistan.?
    Moore: “Well, could be Pakistan, but he's under watch of those who have said put a stop to this because-?
    Costas : “Including, at least by extension, the United States, he's under the protective watch of the United States??
    Moore: “I think the United States, I think our government knows where he is and I don't think we're going to be capturing him or killing him any time soon.?
  17. Registered User
    jrkarp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    950
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by CrAzyOttER
    hate bush, love america. he is a retart
    Boy you look like a ****ing genius calling someone else a retard and spelling it wrong.

    /karp
  18. Registered User
    jrkarp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    950
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by Brooklyn
    And we had a good idea of where he was then. In fact, we've often had a very good idea of where he was and let him slip through our fingers. This goes back to the Clinton administration.
    To what end? If we brought OBL in or killed him (and could prove it), Bush would look like such a hero people (who, in general, are sheep) would forget most of the mistakes he's made.

    /karp
  19. Registered User
    gobig1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Age
    50
    Posts
    235
    Answers
    0

    Bottom line.........There are NO GOOD POLITICIANS, that includes Presidents and ex-Presidents. It doesn't matter who is in office, they will be critized.

    Here is one of the definitions of Politician from Merriam Webster online;

    Politician - a person primarily interested in political office for selfish or other narrow usually short-sighted reasons.

    Politicians DO NOT have your, my, our best or ANY of our personal interests in mind. This country is not free anymore, it is ran by politicians with THEIR own agenda in mind.

    GOBIG
  20. Registered User
    Brooklyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    182
    Answers
    0

    Lightbulb


    To what end? If we brought OBL in or killed him (and could prove it), Bush would look like such a hero people (who, in general, are sheep) would forget most of the mistakes he's made.
    Osama Bin Laden/Usama Bin Ladin is a symbol. If we kill him he can become a martyr. If we capture him it makes it look to the masses like the war on terror is pretty much over, which is far from the truth. Anytime Bush wants to get support for his agenda he trumps the threat of Bin Laden out. He is the face of terror like Saddam Hussein was the face of the old Iraq. The best thing for Bush, as far as the long-term is concerned, is not to catch Bin Laden. Why do you think we keep capturing his "Number 2 guy"?
  21. Registered User
    jrkarp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    950
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by gobig1
    Bottom line.........There are NO GOOD POLITICIANS, that includes Presidents and ex-Presidents. It doesn't matter who is in office, they will be critized.
    There are good and bad in every profession.

    Here is one of the definitions of Politician from Merriam Webster online;

    Politician - a person primarily interested in political office for selfish or other narrow usually short-sighted reasons.
    One of the other definitions on there is "a person experienced in the art or science of government." Actually, that is the first definiton.

    Politicians DO NOT have your, my, our best or ANY of our personal interests in mind. This country is not free anymore, it is ran by politicians with THEIR own agenda in mind.

    GOBIG
    You're partially right; a lot of them don't. However, you can't make broad, sweeping generalizations like that.

    As for this country not being free, you are sadly mistaken.

    /karp
  22. Registered User
    jrkarp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    950
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by Brooklyn
    Osama Bin Laden/Usama Bin Ladin is a symbol. If we kill him he can become a martyr. If we capture him it makes it look to the masses like the war on terror is pretty much over, which is far from the truth. Anytime Bush wants to get support for his agenda he trumps the threat of Bin Laden out. He is the face of terror like Saddam Hussein was the face of the old Iraq. The best thing for Bush, as far as the long-term is concerned, is not to catch Bin Laden. Why do you think we keep capturing his "Number 2 guy"?
    I've considered that and that argument has some merit... However, we all know that once Bil Laden is taken out of the picture, someone else will take his place, and more than likely we will see terrorist activities increase in respose to the capture. So really, Bush could say "Hey, we got him," which makes him look good, and he can also say "We've still got a lot more work to do," which keeps the war on terror going.

    /karp
  23. Registered User
    PastorofMuppets's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    257
    Answers
    0

    Brooklyn, you really think that any president would play games like that?

    I mean seriously, it's not like Bush needs to get reelected or anything.

    Oh, and please name an instance of Bush "trumping" the threat of bin laden.

    I have heard plenty of the "war on terror" but I don't remember OBL really being mentioned beyond Op EF.

    But I do agree with you, capturing bin laden would not mean that it would be the end of the "war on terror", he is simply a figurehead.

    But hey, that doesn't stop liberals from screaming "WHAT ABOUT BIN LADEN????!!!?!?!"

    now does it?
  24. Registered User
    gobig1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Age
    50
    Posts
    235
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by jrkarp
    There are good and bad in every profession.


    One of the other definitions on there is "a person experienced in the art or science of government." Actually, that is the first definiton.


    You're partially right; a lot of them don't. However, you can't make broad, sweeping generalizations like that.

    As for this country not being free, you are sadly mistaken.

    /karp
    That is your OPINION.....after 21+ years in the military I would defend our "freedoms" with my life, that doesn't mean our country is free.......increasing encroachment into my personal desires that have no harm to any other individual is not a free society (my opinion) although we do enjoy many more benefits than most societies, we are FAR from free to do as we please or choose in respect to not harming others.

    Just because you "agree" with a politicians point of view on a certain subject DOES NOT mean they have YOUR best interest in mind, they don't even know who the hell you are, so YES the broad sweeping generalization definitely applies to politicians.
  25. Registered User
    jrkarp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    950
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by gobig1
    Just because you "agree" with a politicians point of view on a certain subject DOES NOT mean they have YOUR best interest in mind, they don't even know who the hell you are, so YES the broad sweeping generalization definitely applies to politicians.
    So basically what you are saying is that if a politician doesn't know you personally, he's out for selfish motives? I think it's pretty ridiculous to assert that just because a politician doesn't know everybody who he represents personally, that means that he doesn't care about the best interests of the community (as a whole) that he was elected to represent.

    Obviously he can't know what is in your PERSONAL best interests, but that doesn't mean that he doesn't care about his constituents at all.

    /karp
  26. Registered User
    gobig1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Age
    50
    Posts
    235
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by jrkarp
    So basically what you are saying is that if a politician doesn't know you personally, he's out for selfish motives? I think it's pretty ridiculous to assert that just because a politician doesn't know everybody who he represents personally, that means that he doesn't care about the best interests of the community (as a whole) that he was elected to represent.

    Obviously he can't know what is in your PERSONAL best interests, but that doesn't mean that he doesn't care about his constituents at all.

    /karp
    If you would have read my post slower, we both basically said the same thing, except that I'm not saying he is being selfish with only his interests/motives in mind, JUST NOT YOURS in mind. Obviously, he is voted into office on broad, general issues, i.e., reduce crime, increase jobs, etc., those may/may not affect you directly, that in no way means he is looking out for YOU. I think my whole point of this is that a politician will make uninformed decisions based on media propaganda, specifically steroids (which is why we are all here) and go with the "general" public point of view and make them illegal. Back in 1990 when steroids became scheduled class III and illegal, all the doctors on the voting panel said it was the wrong thing to do. I just don't like someone I don't know making decisions for me, maybe you do......I don't. Enough on this......enjoy your day.

    GOBIG
  27. Registered User
    jrkarp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    950
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by gobig1
    If you would have read my post slower, we both basically said the same thing, except that I'm not saying he is being selfish with only his interests/motives in mind, JUST NOT YOURS in mind. Obviously, he is voted into office on broad, general issues, i.e., reduce crime, increase jobs, etc., those may/may not affect you directly, that in no way means he is looking out for YOU.
    Um, you said:

    Quote Originally Posted by gobig1
    Politicians DO NOT have your, my, our best or ANY of our personal interests in mind. This country is not free anymore, it is ran by politicians with THEIR own agenda in mind.
    So, actually that is exactly what you said.

    EDIT: Wait, I think I get what you are saying: elected politicians do not represent us personally. So what? That doesn't mean that they are selfish or bad people or not good at their jobs, which is what meant when you originally said:

    Quote Originally Posted by gobig1
    Bottom line.........There are NO GOOD POLITICIANS, that includes Presidents and ex-Presidents. It doesn't matter who is in office, they will be critized.

    Politician - a person primarily interested in political office for selfish or other narrow usually short-sighted reasons.
    Quote Originally Posted by gobig1
    I think my whole point of this is that a politician will make uninformed decisions based on media propaganda, specifically steroids (which is why we are all here) and go with the "general" public point of view and make them illegal. Back in 1990 when steroids became scheduled class III and illegal, all the doctors on the voting panel said it was the wrong thing to do. I just don't like someone I don't know making decisions for me, maybe you do......I don't. Enough on this......enjoy your day.

    GOBIG
    I don't like people making decisions for me either, but that's life.

    /karp
  28. Registered User
    INFOHAZARD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Age
    53
    Posts
    215
    Answers
    0

    Where did that come from? Not from Moore!

    Quote Originally Posted by Funny Monkey
    This months issue of Scientific America had some interesting FACTS about what happened on 9/11 and they started out trying to find something that would point the finger at the government but in the end they said that no one could give factual evidence to back up any of there claims. I thought that was interesting.

    I hope no one here actually believes bull**** like the buildings didn't come down because two 747's flew into them it was because Bush and Cheney were detonating bombs in the basement as they sipped on brandy and smoked cigars in the white house.
  29. Board Supporter
    Funny Monkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    360
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by INFOHAZARD
    Where did that come from? Not from Moore!
    I don't think so that was just one of the conspiracy theorists they spoke with and that was his views on the situation. There were several others in the article that one just semed to jump out in my mind.

    I was wondering where you were at? Welcome back.
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-13-2011, 01:00 AM
  2. So who is gonna watch I am Legend ?
    By ReaperX in forum General Chat
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 12-23-2007, 04:31 AM
  3. Stupid AM.com Heisman Watch 2006-2007
    By CEDeoudes59 in forum Sports Talk
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: 11-10-2006, 07:16 PM
  4. I am trying out a NO2 hombrew for kicks!
    By windwords7 in forum Supplements
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 04-13-2003, 10:50 AM
  5. I AM SICK.. of feeling over loaded with info
    By WanaKnowMore in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 10-28-2002, 07:34 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Log in

Log in