Obama General Discussion - Page 24 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-25-2010, 04:57 PM   #346
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,217
Local Time: 11:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by melon View Post
Point taken, in the sense that there should be a broader discussion about the future of education and the cost of it. I'm concerned about anything that avoids "market forces" through loans, which just inflate the cost even more in the long run until even the loans are unaffordable.
Sure, good point.

The proposed changes, however, do not avoid market forces anymore than they do now. Basically, right now, we set a low rate for private lenders to charge, and if the market rate comes in above that, we make them whole. If it comes in below that rate, they pay us the difference.

In the proposed system ,we set a maximum rate(maybe 6.8% where it is now, maybe less or a little more, who knows) and if the government can borrow money at a lower rate, then we make money. This is an incentive to keep deficits and debt down, as we would have a major program losing money or pissing off alot of borrowers if we did not.

So if public debt goes up now(which would presumably lead to an increase in interest rates), we pay out more money for student loans, and in Obama's proposal, if debt goes up, we pay more money for student loans. Not much difference, the same concern you brought up about avoiding market forces at the borrower level is still present. Call it moral hazard, a problem in much of the economy.

So as you said very well, we are left with a choice between hitting the students and their families with the exact market rate, or starting some kind of national dialogue as to the costs of education, how we prioritize its funding, what is driving the costs, etc. The examination you suggest and that Indy agrees with is certainly needed!

Just google the headline of the article that Indy500 links and read the whole thing. The level of government involvement really does not change, if anything, the inefficiencies in the program are reduced.
__________________

__________________
U2387 is offline  
Old 01-25-2010, 05:07 PM   #347
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,217
Local Time: 11:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent Vega View Post
People today think like the stock market. What matters are the quarterly reports. Everything that is long-term: no chance. Results need to show immediately.
Yes, and the stock market is a perfect analogy.

Those that think short term in the stock market(the day traders, idiots like Kramer, etc) are the ones that have a house in Arizona and a condo in Sarasota from selling stock one day, then lose both the next by making a stupid move.

Those that think long term in the stock market are generally well rewarded. They ride out the highs and lows, and over time, unless a prolonged depression hits, the returns are pretty damn good. These are the people that can afford the house, the condo and the gym membership complete with personal trainer and NOT LOSE THEM.

Same thing in politics. People will think short term, throw out the Dems, and then will be in all kinds of shock and disbelief that the jobs and economy picture is far from perfect!

People get exactly what they deserve.
__________________

__________________
U2387 is offline  
Old 01-25-2010, 05:21 PM   #348
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 11:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
I think a much better case could be made that Bush Derangement Syndrome had its genesis in the Florida decision. Hatred for the man from Day 1.


i think this is a good point.

the BDS people -- your term -- got started with the 5-4 SCOTUS decision.

the birthers got started with total racist nonsense.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-25-2010, 05:47 PM   #349
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 10:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2387 View Post
Here is INDY again with the exact same BS I already told him was wrong.


Obama is NOT TAKING OVER THE ENTIRE STUDENT LOAN INDUSTRY. He is simply getting rid of the Federal Family Education Loan Program, which sets interests rates and provides subsidies to make private lenders whole. All this is saying is that, to the extent the federal government is involved in student loans, it will be done through the already existing direct lending program. We will no longer be subsidizing the middle man, which costs a significant amount of money. IF AS I SAID BEFORE, A STUDENT LOAN COMPANY, A PRIVATE BANK, WHAT HAVE YOU CAN EXIST WITHOUT THE GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES THEY ARE GETTING NOW, THEN GREAT.
Your "middle man" argument sounds suspiciously like the one made for the public option in health care reform. In other words, the problem is private lenders and insurance companies and their evil thirst for profit. Demonizing profit? Now who does that?

Quote:
WSJ
sept 12

The furor over President Obama's trillion-dollar restructuring of American health care has left his other trillion-dollar plan starved for attention. That's how much the federal balance sheet will expand over the next decade if Mr. Obama can convince Congress to approve his pending takeover of the student-loan market.

The Obama plan calls for the U.S. Department of Education to move from its current 20% share of the student-loan origination market to 80% on July 1, 2010, when private lenders will be barred from making government-guaranteed loans. The remaining 20% of the market that is now completely private will likely shrink further as lenders try to comply with regulations Congress created last year. Starting next summer, taxpayers will have to put up roughly $100 billion per year to lend to students.

For decades, loans carrying a federal guarantee have been the most common way of borrowing for college. After raising money in the private capital markets, lenders made the loans, paying a fee to the government for each one. The government covered most of the cost of defaults while allowing the private lenders to make a regulated return.

The system broke down after Congress in 2007 legislated a return so low that no private lenders could make money holding these assets. To keep the money flowing to student borrowers, the government began buying the loans from private originators last year. But this larger federal role was intended to be temporary, with an expiration date next summer. The news from Washington now is that rather than scaling back federal involvement, the pols want the U.S. Department of Education to be the exclusive banker to America's college students.

It's not a popular idea on campus. Loans directly from the feds have been available for decades, but the government's poor customer service has resulted in most borrowers choosing private lenders. This week three dozen college administrators, representing schools from Notre Dame to Nevada-Reno, signed a letter urging a longer transition period to this "public option." The fear is that the bureaucrats will not be able to pull off a takeover in just eight months. "Any delay in getting funds to schools on behalf of students will result in our needing to find resources at a time when credit is difficult to obtain," warns the letter.

Obama Plans Government Takeover of Student Loans - WSJ.com
Quote:
OBAMA IS NOT GOING TO TAKE THEM OVER OR SHUT THEM DOWN. IF THEY CANT EXIST W/O GOVERNMENT CONTROL AND SUBSIDY AND THEY GO UNDER, THEN GREAT THAT IS CAPITALISM, NOT CENTRAL PLANNING NOT SOCIALISM.
A government that not only regulates but participates is not quite the "invisible hand" of Adam Smith's market economy. Maybe you don't call the government forcing private companies out of an industry socialism but it sure ain't capitalism.

Quote:
How brainwashed do you have to be to believe that an American President, in a country that has been capitalist and successfully capitalist for 234 years, has any interest in controlling our major industries?
Student loans, Fannie & Freddie, NINE banks, TWO car companies, pay czars plus unpresidented attemps to fundamentally change the way we purchase health and energy through Health Care Reform and Cap & Trade. And that's just his first year !!!!!
Quote:
We talked about the car companies before, too. Bush took them over, and Obama set the strict conditions that led to their bankruptcy and emergence as companies that are paying us back.
Bush set up the bailouts. Obama took them over rather than let the market determine their outcome.
Quote:
Again, where is your or anyone else's evidence that Obama is some kind of stealth socialist who wants to take over the entire private economy?
Who said anything about stealth? He told us he was going to "fundamentally change the country," and he has.
Quote:
He has never said anything to that effect, never suggested doing anything to that effect and the people he has hired as economic advisers are all centrists and avowed capitalists. Larry Summers, Tim Geithner, Peter Orszag, Melody Barnes, Christina Romer, Austan Goolsbee, Ron Kirk. Look them up.
They are all Keynesians however. I give the president some credit for some of these choices but the president is under pressure from the Left to dispose of several of them for not spending enough.
Quote:
Before the right wing spin machine got their hands on Obama, he was seen across the board as a moderate Democrat. Republicans praised him, Democrats praised him, business praised him, cops praised him, the list goes on.
Oh really?
Quote:
NPR (yes that NPR)

Obama Ranked Most Liberal Senator in 2007

It may or may not be a trophy that he wants to pick up right now.

The National Journal is out with its 27th Annual vote ratings and it ranked Sen. Barack Obama as the most liberal Senator in the entire Senate. (His first year he was 16th, and last year he was 10th.) But he wasn't alone in his shift to the left. Sen. Hillary Clinton was 16th herself in 2007 after being 32nd in 2006.
How brainwashed to you have to be to believe Obama "was seen across the board as a moderate Democrat"?
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 01-25-2010, 06:00 PM   #350
Refugee
 
Bluer White's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Maine
Posts: 1,882
Local Time: 11:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
absolutely everything that Obama is dealing with right now -- Iran, Iraq, deficits, the housing crisis, Wall Street -- is Bush's fault. it is. there's no two ways around that.
While I agree with you on the Bush deficits and Iraq..and not so much on the others...the Blame Bush mantra resonates less and less everyday.

The public doesn't like Mirandizing terrorists, it doesn't like Obamacare, and it turns out doesn't like the $800 billion 'stimulus' much either.

CNN Poll: 3 of 4 Americans say much of stimulus money wasted - CNN.com
__________________
Bluer White is offline  
Old 01-25-2010, 06:28 PM   #351
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,641
Local Time: 10:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluer White View Post
The public doesn't like Mirandizing terrorists, it doesn't like Obamacare, and it turns out doesn't like the $800 billion 'stimulus' much either.
The public doesn't believe it's own justice system? And most don't know about healthcare, some prime examples in here... And I wonder how much they would be bitching if he just let the market "heal itself" and we were in the same place or even worse?
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 01-25-2010, 06:59 PM   #352
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 04:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
if/when Iraq's elections start to go haywire, Obama will be blamed.
If Obama had his way in January 2007, Iraq would not be having any elections or have anywhere near the stability and ongoing development that exist there now. Obama was for abandoning Iraq by March 31, 2008.

But, since becoming President, Obama has backed all of Bush's policies in Iraq as well as claiming the SURGE, he opposed, in Iraq was a "GOOD THING"!

The fact is, Bush handed off Iraq to Obama that had dramatically changed in terms of the security situation on the ground, the economic situation, as well as the political situation. No one was talking about splitting up Iraq into different counties on January 20, 2009, a policy I might add you supported. Thats definitely a credit to the Bush administration in sticking with the right policies despite massive opposition from the Democrats in congress including Obama.

But Obama is the President now, and a time is soon coming where the good and the bad will both belong with him.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 01-25-2010, 07:00 PM   #353
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,217
Local Time: 11:30 PM
See below
__________________
U2387 is offline  
Old 01-25-2010, 07:03 PM   #354
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,217
Local Time: 11:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Your "middle man" argument sounds suspiciously like the one made for the public option in health care reform. In other words, the problem is private lenders and insurance companies and their evil thirst for profit. Demonizing profit? Now who does that?
A government that not only regulates but participates is not quite the "invisible hand" of Adam Smith's market economy. Maybe you don't call the government forcing private companies out of an industry socialism but it sure ain't capitalism.
Nothing to do with the public option. I never even supported the public option. Show me where in the health care system we currently set the rates and provide subsidies to make private companies whole. Nowhere. I was not demonizing profit at all. The issue here isn't student loan companies being "evil" and making profit, the issue is the government wasting money on subsidizing them.

Wow, you really do lack an understanding of any of this.

Adam Smith was not against government regulation, you understand that, right? Read The Wealth of Nations. He believed in government regulation to break up concentrated economic power, etc. He also supported progressive taxation, what Republicans claim to be Socialism. But I digress. Yes, the Wall Street Journal and many others say that private companies will likely not provide student loans anymore. All that means is it is no longer profitable for them to do it without the government subsidies they currently get. Not subsidizing an industry=leaving it to the market. If the companies can not make it in the industry, because it is not profitable enough, then that is good old fashioned capitalism. How is undoing socialism for these companies not capitalism? Nothing the government has done will force them out of business by any kind of decree or forcible takeover. That is what socialism is. All this is doing is removing government subsidies. The level of government participation and regulation is unchanged. Plus, participation is not something Adam Smith would frown on necessarily, so know what you are talking about when you invoke him. You are really twisting things here.

Quote:
Student loans, Fannie & Freddie, NINE banks, TWO car companies, pay czars plus unpresidented attemps to fundamentally change the way we purchase health and energy through Health Care Reform and Cap & Trade. And that's just his first year !!!!!
Student loans, we just addressed. Fannie and Freddie were always Quasi government agencies, and were taken over by Bush in September 2008. The banks were taken over a week later by Bush, the auto companies 3 months later. The pay czars were put in place not to take over and run the banking system permanently because of some kind of ideological preference of Obama, but because said banks were BAILED OUT BY TAXPAYERS WHO DAMN WELL SHOULD HAVE A SAY IN PAY FOR THE TIME THEY ARE OWNED. The only policy change Obama has proposed going forward is not making executive pay above a certain amount tax deductible. Notice, they can still pay whatever they want. Now, if you had read the news the last month, you would see that the banks are paying us back, many have returned to profitability, the government is selling the shares for a profit, and they are back, much to the anger of the tea baggers, to paying huge compensation packages and bonuses! So let me get this straight. You and your right wing friends say that Obama is a socialist and a Wall Street tool at the same time? Also, learn how to spell unprecedented, and then think about the word! This was an unprecedented economic catastrophe that called for extraordinary measures in order to avoid a depression. This was not something Obama proposed during the campaign or just would have done as a matter of course.

Fundamentally change the way we purchase energy and health care? Not exactly. 98% of people will keep their coverage under the Health Reform plan. Cap and Trade is a program that we already have used successfully for things like acid rain, and it was supported by numerous Republicans, including McCain as recently as the 2008 Campaign! I have already been through this with you, Cap and Trade is a MARKET BASED SYSTEM that was originally pushed by moderate Democrats and Moderate Republicans as an alternative to a carbon tax or doing nothing. Its not a radical socialist approach.

Quote:
Bush set up the bailouts. Obama took them over rather than let the market determine their outcome.
This makes no sense. How could you take over a bail out that has already happened? The conditions on compensation, etc were in the original 2008 bailout legislation, if this is what you are referring to. Either way, the market is determining their outcome, as they are posting profits again and buying back their shares.

Quote:
Who said anything about stealth? He told us he was going to "fundamentally change the country," and he has.
What President does not promise fundamental change? How do you make the leap from this very broad platitude to socialism? Obama was very clear the entire campaign about what he thought were the many advantages of a capitalist system. Again, you thinking otherwise does not make it true. Whenever he talked about fundamental change, it was about the ways of Washington, the view that its blacks vs whites or Democrats vs Republicans, etc. A new politics, new way of thinking, etc.LISTEN CAREFULLY FOR THE FINAL WORD ON THIS: OBAMA NEVER PROPOSED TO FUNDAMENTALLY OVERHAUL OUR ECONOMIC SYSTEM, AND HE HAS NOT DONE SO AND DOES NOT WANT TO. The burden of proof is on the people like you making these claims, and you have to do alot better than an unexplained quote of "fundamental change."


Quote:
They are all Keynesians however. I give the president some credit for some of these choices but the president is under pressure from the Left to dispose of several of them for not spending enough.
This is awesome! They are all Keynesians!! What else would they be? Monetarists, who have never predicted anything right? Do you realize Reagan and Bush were Keynesians too- the government borrows a bunch of money and spends a bunch of money and there is prosperity! Reagan used Keynesian tools, and so did Bush in doing a stimulus in 2008. The very foundation of the federal reserve, with such crazy socialists as Alan Greenspan is Keynesian! The government puts money into the economy when the private sector is lacking. We have had nothing but Keynesians for a very long time now. These people that Obama has hired are under pressure from the left, point well taken, but they are not going anywhere.

Quote:
Oh really?
Yes, really! He worked with Tom Coburn to create the "google for government" with McCain on the early phases of cap and trade, got high marks from many conservative Republicans in the Illinois legislature, was endorsed by the numerous Chicago business groups and education reformers(not bleeding heart liberals at all) and was praised by Police Groups for sticking up for them when Al Sharpton types accused them of brutality. Obama got a bill passed to videotape interrogations for Chicago Cops to point to in court. He fought defense attorneys to do this.

Quote:
How brainwashed to you have to be to believe Obama "was seen across the board as a moderate Democrat"?
[/QUOTE]

You are obviously not thinking straight here. The National Journal has been exposed as a joke numerous times. These votes are taken well out of context and you know they have a partisan Republican agenda when you can predict with certainty who will be the "most liberal Senator." You know how you can predict that? You look at who the Democratic nominee is for a particular year, and that's who they will pick! Kerry in 2004, Obama in 2008(oh, but Hillary came close!) those studies are just a joke! What does "liberal" even mean? Who decides what votes are relevant?

John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are right in the middle or in the case of Kerry and Obama, slightly to the left.

The far left people in the Senate, because you obviously have no idea, are the following: Bernie Sanders, Russ Feingold, Barbara Boxer and Sherrod Brown.

So we have actual people who have worked with Obama, who are either moderate or conservative in their political leanings attesting to his willingness to listen and non ideological approach. Then we have a crackpot national journal study that does not even define what "liberal" is or what votes count, a study that has been shown by many sources to not have much legitimacy, and one that always picks the most prominent Democrat as the most liberal! Then we have people like you who just repeat this and only offer said flawed study as your proof, yet we are supposed to think that we are the brainwashed ones!

The Monkey Cage: Is Obama the Most Liberal Senator?

What makes a "liberal"? National Journal says: support for 9-11 Commission recommendations, health care for more kids, and stem-cell research funding | Media Matters for America

These links tell you why the study you cite is flawed.
__________________
U2387 is offline  
Old 01-25-2010, 07:34 PM   #355
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,217
Local Time: 11:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluer White View Post

The public doesn't like Mirandizing terrorists
Did the public like doing that when Bush was in office? Because he did the same thing Obama is doing w/Detroit bomber with the shoe bomber! Not a peep from the "public."

Do you have a poll on this?

The federal justice system is the only system with a proven track record of getting convictions on terrorists and putting them away for good. Contrast that with the preferred approach of Scott Brown- bring them to Gitmo then release most of them a few years later, without regard to dangerousness.

Anyone spouting this non sense about mirandizing terrorists is telling you they are only interested in sounding good and not in fighting terrorism.
__________________
U2387 is offline  
Old 01-25-2010, 08:15 PM   #356
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 10:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2387 View Post
BAILED OUT BY TAXPAYERS WHO DAMN WELL SHOULD HAVE A SAY IN PAY FOR THE TIME THEY ARE OWNED.
Just my point. Who would have seen an America 2 years ago where taxpayers control the pay of nationalized banks and companies.
Quote:
98% of people will keep their coverage under the Health Reform plan.
And that takes a 2,500 page bill? No one believes that and you can read the healthcare thread to see the reasons why.
Quote:
Cap and Trade is a program that we already have used successfully for things like acid rain, and it was supported by numerous Republicans, including McCain as recently as the 2008 Campaign! I have already been through this with you, Cap and Trade is a MARKET BASED SYSTEM that was originally pushed by moderate Democrats and Moderate Republicans as an alternative to a carbon tax or doing nothing. Its not a radical socialist approach.
Capping the release of a pollutant that makes up a fraction of the emission like SO2 does not compare to capping carbon which IS MOST of the emission. That would be like comparing a faucet filter that removes iron in the water to one that removes hydrogen. And don't get me started on John McCain.

Quote:
This is awesome! They are all Keynesians!! What else would they be? Monetarists, who have never predicted anything right? Do you realize Reagan and Bush were Keynesians too-
Do I really have to lecture a self-proclaimed expert in economics on this. Ronald Reagan was a believer in supply side economics. Keynesian economics is demand side. Reagan was in the camp of Milton Friedman of limited governmental intervention. This was all in response to the failed stagflation of the 70's. And the results of his policies speak for themselves.
Quote:

You are obviously not thinking straight here. The National Journal has been exposed as a joke numerous times. These votes are taken well out of context and you know they have a partisan Republican agenda when you can predict with certainty who will be the "most liberal Senator." John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are right in the middle or in the case of Kerry and Obama, slightly to the left.

So we have actual people who have worked with Obama, who are either moderate or conservative in their political leanings attesting to his willingness to listen and non ideological approach. Then we have a crackpot national journal study that does not even define what "liberal" is or what votes count, a study that has been shown by many sources to not have much legitimacy, and one that always picks the most prominent Democrat as the most liberal! Then we have people like you who just repeat this and only offer said flawed study as your proof, yet we are supposed to think that we are the brainwashed ones!
Here are his ratings by other groups:

Obama had a 95 percent liberal rating from Americans for Democratic Reform, THE liberal advocacy group that ranks all members of Congress.
The American Conservative Union gave Senator Obama a lifetime score of 10 out of 100.

Really?, you're gonna link me to a media matters study to point out my flawed and biased thinking?
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 01-25-2010, 09:26 PM   #357
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 11:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluer White View Post
While I agree with you on the Bush deficits and Iraq..and not so much on the others...the Blame Bush mantra resonates less and less everyday.

The public doesn't like Mirandizing terrorists, it doesn't like Obamacare, and it turns out doesn't like the $800 billion 'stimulus' much either.

CNN Poll: 3 of 4 Americans say much of stimulus money wasted - CNN.com

i agree it does resonate less each day, and i'd fault the public for that. not that Obama doesn't have to deal with a microsecond historical memory, but that is the truth. plus, the public is straight up wrong on the stimulus. by outsourcing it too much to Congress, it was able to be slanted as a pork fest, which can be argued by both sides, but the economic facts are that the stimulus was what prevented a second Great Depression. there's near economist unanimity on that subject.

let's not forget, a sizable percentage of the American public thought that Saddam Hussein was behind 9-11. when you have as effective an echo chamber as Drudge/Fox/Breibart, and your punditocracy equips people not with understanding but tactics to dismiss off-message information, it can be very hard to crack through a couple of skulls.

not that the Democrats wouldn't do the same, but they simply don't have the infrastructure that the Right does.

and, yes, i will absolutely say that doubt and ambiguity are absolutely part of what it means to be a contemporary liberal. we thrive off that stuff in the way that authority galvanizes the right. unfortunately, it's not the most effective way to present a political message.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-25-2010, 09:45 PM   #358
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,271
Local Time: 11:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post

And that takes a 2,500 page bill? No one believes that
You obviously don't read a lot of legislation on a daily basis.
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 01-25-2010, 09:48 PM   #359
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 11:30 PM
^ INDY just gave us a great example of using a tactic to dismiss an issue, rather than understanding the issue.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-25-2010, 11:26 PM   #360
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,641
Local Time: 10:30 PM
Isn't that his MO?
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Democratic National Convention Thread MrsSpringsteen Free Your Mind 504 09-02-2008 03:37 PM
US 2008 Presidential Campaign/Debate Discussion Thread - Part III phillyfan26 Free Your Mind Archive 1001 01-30-2008 02:07 PM
MERGED--> NH predictions + Hillary's win + NH recount? 2861U2 Free Your Mind Archive 586 01-12-2008 01:50 PM
Official Campaign 2008 Hot Stove Thread Varitek Free Your Mind Archive 1003 09-23-2007 03:31 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com