Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

Great question!


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> Great question! Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Great question! - 11/7/2007 1:30:28 PM   
MasterDoc1


Posts: 173
Joined: 6/21/2005
Status: offline 		by sub rob: "Ok, lets say we're on Fantasy Island, and Ron Paul gets elected President. How much of his agenda do you honestly think he'll get passed with the current congress? He has zero partisan support, let alone any bi partisan support. "

Worthy of a detailed answer.
So, Ron Paul has just been innaugerated as President.
Well the first thing he would do would be to start to bring our troops home.In the absence of a declaration of war, he would consider it his constitutional obligation to do so.
it would seem that in the Foreign and Military policy area he would accomplish around 95% of what he wants. The commander in chief says bring home our troops in Korea.They come home! No declaration of war, no massive keeping of troops overseas he says.
now the budget is ahead trillions.. what happens to that money? Now HERE I concede, he would run into infinitely more trouble.More on that later.  But lets start with this.






Then he has saved on trillionas a year out of our budget.




< Message edited by MasterDoc1 -- 11/7/2007 1:36:46 PM >
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: Great question! - 11/7/2007 1:31:58 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		I would want a girl that loves to give head, and endless cases of good wine, and an unlimited supply of toilet paper.

Gilligan Dom

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to MasterDoc1)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: Great question! - 11/7/2007 2:35:17 PM   
MasterDoc1


Posts: 173
Joined: 6/21/2005
Status: offline 		boy I thought that was off-topic until I realized that was your suggestion for using the trillions! lmao


(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: Great question! - 11/7/2007 2:45:53 PM   
NeedToUseYou


Posts: 2297
Joined: 12/24/2005
From: None of your business
Status: offline 		Well, it's pretty simple, he plays politics at that point. Like for example, completely restoring the Medicare fund to full funding via the military savings, given the stipulation young people can now opt out. That is what he wants by the way, he doesn't want to just kick everyone out on the streets that rely on these programs, he wants a progressive reduction. Now, he would have a chance getting that done(opt-in option, but secured benefits for those already in). I don't think he would be able to destroy the IRS, but  I bet he could really get the pressure on to simplify the code, and at least move in the right direction.

He, if people actually listen to what he says, doesn't believe, or even plans to dissolve all the institutions he objects to, simply because they are to entrenched, he plans on progressively laying the framework, to ween people off of these programs. I don't think he gets that message across well enough either. It's not like we got here over the course of one presidents term, but we got here over a series of presidents and  all adding a little more. You have to start chipping away at some point though, and I'd prefer it be sooner, while we still can afford to rearrange things slowly, rather than later, when we might not have the luxury.


I believe he can chip away, I don't believe he can rearrange everything, in even eight years, and wouldn't want him to even try, and he states he wouldn't even try to do it all in that period, it would be destructive, but you could move towards the goal as opposed to ignoring all the problems as ever other candidate seems willing to do.

(in reply to MasterDoc1)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: Great question! - 11/7/2007 2:48:40 PM   
MasterDoc1


Posts: 173
Joined: 6/21/2005
Status: offline 		Need: you are getting way ahead of me. I would like to move more slowly. Subrob? you there?

(in reply to NeedToUseYou)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: Great question! - 11/7/2007 3:05:02 PM   
Alumbrado


Posts: 5560
Status: offline 		Well, Nixon pulled out of Vietnam, so that act alone is do-able by any President who wants to.

And LBJ had been a Congressman for years... I suspect that Ron Paul may have learned a trick or two in his tenure there as well.


(in reply to MasterDoc1)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: Great question! - 11/7/2007 4:09:27 PM   
subrob1967


Posts: 4591
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline 		OK, he pulls our troops home, gives the bases built by your tax dollars back to the host country, and suddenly, some crack pot like...hmmm Amadimajad(sp) decides to invade an embasy, and hold hostages for 444 days.

With our credibility in the toilet, and lack of friends around the world, just where are we going to stage a rescue from?

I have no problem bringing the troops home, but if we're gonna give up the big stick, we better give up the soft talk too. No more foreign aid, no more handouts. Lets become isolationists.

(in reply to Alumbrado)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: Great question! - 11/7/2007 6:15:27 PM   
CuriousLord


Posts: 3911
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline 		I always wondered how a rich, powerful nation could be isolationist, particularly with increasingly globalization where the Atlantic and Pacific aren't these huge barriers.  Too many global connections, you know?  We trade all around the freaking world for just about anything (how much of what anyone uses is made in the US these days, anyhow?), corpations are going international, the net's integrating societies, travel's becoming increasily cheaper (I don't care about gas prices or airline tickets- they're just instances of temporarily countering the overall trend), languages are unifying (who here seriously believes that, in 300 years, there will be more than two or three languages, tops?).

Isolation, at this point, just isn't possible.  Even if it were, who would have it?  Political isolation would imply economic and social isolation, neither of which are going to happen.

(in reply to subrob1967)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: Great question! - 11/7/2007 8:07:30 PM   
KurtKaboom


Posts: 203
Joined: 2/11/2007
Status: offline 		      There would be a tragic accident.

_____________________________

You love hating yourself for loving me

(in reply to MasterDoc1)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: Great question! - 11/7/2007 8:52:03 PM   
Termyn8or


Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline 		Economic isolation is likely, because foreign aid is likely to change drastically, and much to the dismay of people who do not yet know, the national debt is owed to foreigners.

He would most likely unpeg the yuan from the dollar, which will cause China to dump dollars. China knows we can no longer make our own products. The days will return when a twenty inch TV costs $400. The little computer board GM pays $30 for will triple in price (in dollars) at least. While that $60 doesn't seem like a big thing when new cars cost $15,000 for a mid level decently equipped model, the impact will be there.

The price to pay is there, and the sooner we pay it the better. We are in for some tough times.

We have been betrayed. One of the new biggest industries here is scrap, specifically selling it overseas. They love our steel, especially our old steel. Try as they might they cannot duplicate it. But it doesn't matter, we have very little use for the steel anymore.

There are "job shop" companies and "production" companies. The job shops are even gone. As they moved production out of this country long ago they betrayed us, bringing down prices, and with it, quality. Longevity. Companies no longer look to expand into new markets, they try to keep the markets captive. Between cheap methods of construction, the resultant unreliability and the built in planned obsolecence, they are getting it done.

They put us into a transition from a manufacturing economy to a service based economy, and they now do everything in their power to take that away. I can walk to the local hospital, but if I call on the phone to straighten out an error on the bill or something, that call might be directed to India. Glad I don't do that.

It's like they want there to be no jobs at all here. Just because some Chinese slaves can build TVs faster, they get the job, even though the product they make is disposable. And that is not the fault of the slaves, they are simply doing what they are told.

We are the hand that feeds these rich MFs and I am tired of getting bitten. They think they are in control, they have bought armies and who knows what else, but the wealth lies with us, or it used to. Wait till the Chinese people figure this out. Let them reach near full employment and then watch the organization of unions there. It is human nature. At least one of them knows this, and when word gets around, big money is in trouble. It happened in Japan.

I have watched what happened to the major industries for over twenty years. We went from an economy with alot of fluff, big big salaries for execs, eighteen bucks an hour to sweep the floor in the 80s, stockholder's paradise, all the good things. But it was abused.

You see, part of the reason for our downfall is our own fault. People need to learn to work again.

When I go to work I do not have a cellphone. I do not take personal calls on the business phone. At least it is rare. I take home a dollar every three minutes I am there, and I respect that. I am not sneaking out to burn one in the parking lot. I am not hiding somewhere. I am at work. I do not do that. When most people have that ethic, hell maybe I'll start a business.

I almost started a business a couple of years ago. My mechanic was to fix my car that day and a "friend" offered him three times what a certain job was worth so he did that instead of fix my car.

Talking to another friend who was going to be involved I said "There will not be a 'Choice Home Improvement' because I do not have what it takes to be a boss". He said "Don't put yourself down that way". I replied "Put myself down ? I didn't do that, I don't have what it takes, that means people who will do what the fuck I say".

The start of my company has been delayed for three years now, because the best of the best of the people I know out of work do not have a strong enough work ethic to work for me. Perhaps that is why I have a job and they do not.

It's like Judge Judy, don't get people cellphones. If they can't get one there is a reason. Do not cosign for people, if their credit is fucked there is a reason. Do you want your credit fucked ? Cosign and it is LIKELY to happen, not just possible. In every fucking case, if you owe and can't pay, they will work with you. Somehow, and that is because they want your money, as well as your future business. They make their money loaning money, they WANT to loan you money. The only thing is, they want you to pay it back. If you don't pay it back, the system does not work.

People are into this, don't work, borrow instead attitude. And if you do have to work, hide, skeddaddle or whatever, get out of working. Well I have been on the other side of the desk and that is not acceptable. I almost had a partner in a way, taking over a masonry business, but when I said "There are no side jobs, all work is for the company" He didn't want to do it anymore.

So this is the fucking work ethic you have to put up with in this country. And do you blame them ? Every day they see people get payed alot more to play than they could ever make working. I mean playing a part, a song or a game. We have become a nation of gamesters. We have already lost our ability to produce anything of value. I am starting to think that if we didn't have any immigrants we wouldn't have any food.

If Ron Paul is elected he will have his hands full. At least twenty people will walk in the office and explain, in great detail, why they cannot use domestic labor for anything. And they will be right.

That is a tough nut to crack.

Don't get me wrong, alot of people do still have a good work ethic, but you can't get them. They have a job, probably a good one. The jobless are that way for a reason. Those without credit are that way for a reason. The homeless are that way for a reason.

The homeless. When it is ten below outside and you have absolutely nobody in the world to turn to to put you up, there is a reason. It is most likely that you fucked over everyone you know, including your family. It is rare someone who really has nobody, I mean not by their own deeds.

This is the nation we have become. Eighty grand a year and his olady is in jail for stealing three DVDs. Owner of a company making good fucking money, just had to counterfeit $300,000 and then run his mouth about it to someone who also did well, but was under secret indicmwent for smuggling. I know these people.

Every one of them has or had valuable skills and could make a handsome living, but they wanted the easy way out. That should be the motto of our country now "Easy way out".

I fully and completely support Ron Paul even though we are diametrically opposed on the abortion issue. But the truth is, I don't think the people are ready for him. His ideology is that of freedom, but what people do not understand is that with that kind of freedom, there is a great deal of personal responsibility.

In my humble yet honest opinion, people are not ready for Ron Paul. I am, almost. I could handle it as long as that on which I depend for my income can handle it. I am not sure if it can. And if I lose my income, well, wanna share a bush in front of as church in Lakewood ? I am serious. If I didn't have to work it would be because I had gotten myself to that point by hard work. There is no old money involved. But I haven't.

If you started  factory today in the US, you would have to watch the employees like hawks. They will steal your time as well as your tools. They will stand around water cooler as a $750,000 machine self destructs for lack of someone watching to push the off button. They will hide in the bathroom and shoot up. They will siphon the gas out of your company vehicles. They will sue you for millions for a hangnail.

That is why I am not in business.

Now how the hell can we recover in an environment like that ?

Sad but true.

T

(in reply to CuriousLord)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: Great question! - 11/7/2007 9:41:24 PM   
NeedToUseYou


Posts: 2297
Joined: 12/24/2005
From: None of your business
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

I always wondered how a rich, powerful nation could be isolationist, particularly with increasingly globalization where the Atlantic and Pacific aren't these huge barriers.  Too many global connections, you know?  We trade all around the freaking world for just about anything (how much of what anyone uses is made in the US these days, anyhow?), corpations are going international, the net's integrating societies, travel's becoming increasily cheaper (I don't care about gas prices or airline tickets- they're just instances of temporarily countering the overall trend), languages are unifying (who here seriously believes that, in 300 years, there will be more than two or three languages, tops?).

Isolation, at this point, just isn't possible.  Even if it were, who would have it?  Political isolation would imply economic and social isolation, neither of which are going to happen.


edited to add reread your post, and I'm not sure you are implying what I thought you were implying initially, which was that Ron Paul, was an isolationist, or rather that his presidency would lead to such. Ignore the rant below if I misinterpretted. It is unclear now what your position is in that regard. The below applies to people that say his viewpoints are isolationist.

I think your all off in your viewpoints, summed up in the last line. With that logic, every modern day industrialized nation would have to have a proportionally vast military prescence around the world in order to trade, and talk. Obviously, that is not the case, we are unique in the present day world in regards to military might and use thereof, not the norm, and the norm economicly is other countries trade with each other and cooperate. Does Germany trade with us because of our military base there, No. Does the UK trade with us because of the military, No. Who trades with us because of our military threat. No body, well, other than those buying weapons from us to destroy their neighbors, LOL.

I do not understand the logic that pulling back a military(a establishment purely meant and designed to destroy shit), is equivalent to isolationism. It's not even the same thing. And if we actually got attacked, (we do have 9/11 as an example),  everyone seems to want to help, it is only when we attack(Iraq, without real reasons), that we need this huge military apparatus that allows us to strike anywhere without anyone elses cooperation.

Again, Ron Paul, never said he wants to be an isolationist, that is fox,cnn, msnbc, etc... spin on not wanting to attack every country that disagrees with us. It's quite insane, how quickly lies absorb into the psyche as truth once repeated often enough. So, that handles the military aspect.

If you are also refering to Him not wanting to give foreign aid. Well, that is not trade, nor does every nation that trades, and talks and cooperates receive foreign aid from the other. It's not a right to receive foreign dollars, and many argue it is a curse, to the receiving country.

Anyhow, Neither reduced Military, nor reduced foreign aid, translates to isolationist. Isolationist, would be oh, I don't know, going to war based on lies, as the rest of the world disagrees that it is even necessary. I'd say that is a sure way to isolate yourself in the long run. Or a quick way to create enemies would be  to  selectively give money and arms to certain countries, and claim at the same time to be nuetral, and become suprised, when the enemies of those nations that received that money, and weapons don't like us. LOL. Yeah, we are really basking in the benefits here, of this foreign policy many are endorsing(stay the course type logic). This policy isn't unique to Bush Jr. either, Clinton did the same, though not as blatant as Iraq, and bushes father before him. Reagan was justified in some regards because of the Soviet threat. Unless one is arguing that "terrorism" is on the same level as the "Soviet" potential threat of the past, then we do not need this anymore. That is why we needed all those bases, and whatnot, because a real nation, with a real army, and real nukes, and real power, and real production capacity, and real resources, was a potential war enemy. Now, we have an enemy, with no nation, no real army, no nukes, no real power, no production capacity, loosely supported by a few nations, with almost nothing themselves. And we are trying to fight that enemy using the same methods. Quite frankly it is a complete waste of money, time, and life, not to mention goodwill. IMO.





< Message edited by NeedToUseYou -- 11/7/2007 9:51:36 PM >

(in reply to CuriousLord)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: Great question! - 11/8/2007 7:54:43 AM   
MasterDoc1


Posts: 173
Joined: 6/21/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

OK, he pulls our troops home, gives the bases built by your tax dollars back to the host country, and suddenly, some crack pot like...hmmm Amadimajad(sp) decides to invade an embasy, and hold hostages for 444 days.

With our credibility in the toilet, and lack of friends around the world, just where are we going to stage a rescue from?

I have no problem bringing the troops home, but if we're gonna give up the big stick, we better give up the soft talk too. No more foreign aid, no more handouts. Lets become isolationists.

First lets define some terms. I'll use wikipedia; how simple is that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolationism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-interventionism

If you look at these you will VERY quickly see that Ron Paul is NOT an isolationist. So please withdraw that and start calling him a "non-interventionalist" instead.
One other question: what makes you think he wants to continue foreign aid?
After you've responded to this we will move on.

(in reply to subrob1967)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: Great question! - 11/8/2007 8:04:07 AM   
subrob1967


Posts: 4591
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline 		You avoided my question about where we're going to stage a rescue when one of our embassies is invaded.

quote:

At the same time, we must not isolate ourselves. The generosity of the American people has been felt around the globe. Many have thanked God for it, in many languages. Let us have a strong America, conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.


http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/war-and-foreign-policy/ 

This screams of foreign aid IMO.

Lets just say we have a difference of opinion, you're gonna believe what you believe, no matter what sources I present, and vice versa.

Hatred for America isn't gonna change over night, even if we do pull the troops home. 

(in reply to MasterDoc1)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: Great question! - 11/8/2007 8:25:46 AM   
MasterDoc1


Posts: 173
Joined: 6/21/2005
Status: offline 		surob: I didn't mean to ignore it; I was just getting some terminology straight. Can you agree that  (see above definitions from wikipedia) Ron Paul is definitely NOT advocating a policy of isolationism but rather non-interventionalism? Then we can move on and I can try to answer your other questions as best as I can. I will look at your link re foreign aid after you respond. Thanks.

(in reply to subrob1967)
Profile   Post #: 14
RE: Great question! - 11/8/2007 8:26:18 AM   
Alumbrado


Posts: 5560
Status: offline
quote:

Hatred for America isn't gonna change over night, even if we do pull the troops home. 



So until someone presents a fool proof plan for overnight world peace, you are going to support the status quo?

< Message edited by Alumbrado -- 11/8/2007 8:27:01 AM >

(in reply to subrob1967)
Profile   Post #: 15
RE: Great question! - 11/8/2007 8:32:09 AM   
pahunkboy


Posts: 33061
Joined: 2/26/2006
From: Central Pennsylvania
Status: offline 		Hi T,  built in obscoelense has been with us for ages. [60s]  In the early part of the century- even today in small towns -people know your business. this makes it less likely to scam.  tho it happens- it is not as rampant as big cities where if you fckk someone over- you wont see em again so it hardly matters.

even the experts dont know what a new world looks like. we dont know for sure.

being stranded at a hotel- say for the blizzard of the century=was an excersise.  the 1st day + 1/2 people were cordial, ambitious, helpful. by the 3rd day the energy turned sorta negative.

(in reply to MasterDoc1)
Profile   Post #: 16
RE: Great question! - 11/8/2007 9:18:07 AM   
subrob1967


Posts: 4591
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline 		I know the difference between the two, and never claimed Paul wanted to be an isolationist. I said if we're to bring the troops home, we may as well become isolationists, because we need to both talk softly & carry a big stick, and can't carry the big stick, if the stick is stationed in America.

(in reply to MasterDoc1)
Profile   Post #: 17
RE: Great question! - 11/8/2007 10:42:26 AM   
luckydog1


Posts: 2736
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline 		Wikipedia is a very poor source for a definition of a term like "Non intreventionism" (one source for its definition and that source is a political one).  I do sometimes use wiki sources for what it is usefull for, a list of sourced quotes, or a broad outline.

Now specifically wiki defines it as, "that political rulers should avoid alliances with other nations and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial self-defense.  And it states that Washington and Jefferson are non intreventionists, which is nonsense. 

Washington invaded Ohio(except they called it the North West), in a brutal Indian War (Washington had America take hostages of the Defated Chiefs famillies), and signed a treaty with Britian.  Jefferson sent the US marines to Tripoli to do a regiem change, because of threats to our trade and industry by the Pirates there.  He signed a treaty with them.  Jefferson was also a huge supporter of the War of 1812, where we attacked britian via Canada attempting to Annex it.  You can't say any of that was direct territorial defense.

This type of simple thinking seems to be very common among RP (and most libertarians) supporters.  Washington and Jefferson were not who you are pretending they were.  The threats we face today are far worse than those faced by the Barbary Pirates, or people intentionally trying to provoke the Indians, just outside the original 13 colonies, and Washington and Jefferson were brutal.  Taking families hostge, annexxing nations, regiem change in N Africa, violently asserting the primacy of US law(whiskey Rebbellion, ect)....

(in reply to subrob1967)
Profile   Post #: 18
RE: Great question! - 11/8/2007 1:01:16 PM   
MasterDoc1


Posts: 173
Joined: 6/21/2005
Status: offline 		You were right subrob.you never did misuse the term. but im glad i posted those anyway, for others.
so i looked a tthe link you sent. i dont see anything about ron paul supporting foreign aid. unless you think its clear the other way and hes lying, take my word for it; he doesn't.
So yes we come out of all our bases. then you are asking what ron paul woould do if some government seized our embassy.
Good so far?
lucky:i'm trying to keep a straight liine argument here so i will not respond to you now


(in reply to luckydog1)
Profile   Post #: 19
RE: Great question! - 11/8/2007 1:25:56 PM   
popeye1250


Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

I always wondered how a rich, powerful nation could be isolationist, particularly with increasingly globalization where the Atlantic and Pacific aren't these huge barriers.  Too many global connections, you know?  We trade all around the freaking world for just about anything (how much of what anyone uses is made in the US these days, anyhow?), corpations are going international, the net's integrating societies, travel's becoming increasily cheaper (I don't care about gas prices or airline tickets- they're just instances of temporarily countering the overall trend), languages are unifying (who here seriously believes that, in 300 years, there will be more than two or three languages, tops?).

Isolation, at this point, just isn't possible.  Even if it were, who would have it?  Political isolation would imply economic and social isolation, neither of which are going to happen.


CL, it's big corporations that are the ones who want "free trade" which is a misnomer anyway. Not "The People."
I personally want to keep trade with foreign countries to a bare minimum. but I'm not one of those who has to run to a Walmart store every week to "consume" cheap plastic junk from China.
It simply isn't neccessary that we trade with every country in the world.
And, we really shouldn't have Troops in 130 foreign countries anyway.
I mean 56 years in S. Korea now?
Something very wrong with that!
When I was growing up the called that type of stuff "Imperialism."
And it's just not part of the job description for our government to be giving *our* money away to foreign countries in "foreign aid" programs!
Few people are aware that every single country in the Carribean is sucking foreign aid from the U.S.!
As a Taxpayer I just don't want to pay for that stuff.
The people who make all the money from "foreign aid" are in Washington mostly, lobbyists, corporations, companies, lawyers, Mercedes Benz dealers.
And, it's the *same people and companies* with their hands in the cookie jar year after year! You'd need a fuckin crowbar to get them out of it! They're *addicted* to all that money!
I don't believe in that "moral responsibility" crapola that says we have ahem, an "obligation" to help foreign countries.
Sure, help our allies but the "starving children promos" that those lobbyists help fund do nothing for me because I know who's helping make them!
I think some countries like Haiti for example should be left to their own devices and left to go extinct.
Our government in Washington is supposed to be running *our government*, not a charity for foreign countries!
If you don't think that "isolationism" is a good thing just look at this current nightmare of "interventionism!"
This *surely* can't last, we *will* go bankrupt at some point if we continue down this path.
We simply do not need embasseys in every country in the world.
Back in '96 when the embassey in Kenya was bombed I said to myself, "what the fuck possable reason do we need an embassey in Kenya for?" I didn't even know we had one there!
I called my congressman's office up in N.H. and asked them and the staffers couldn't tell me why we had an embassey in Kenya either! I asked her if it was of "strategic importance" and she said, "not that I know of."
As for the I.R.S. shitcan them and have a national sales tax!
That way "Everyone" pays taxes based on how much they buy! Very fair to everyone!
One thing that is for certain, our government is spending WAY too much of our money!
And *our govt* gets us involved in treaties with other countries which could cause *us* to have to go to war to defend them!
Then, we the Taxpayers have to pay to upgrade their defenses!
This is fucking insanity!!!
But, the big corporations like it!
I call it what it is, Imperialism!

CL, you're a young guy.
What if China attacked Taiwan and we had a draft? Would you want to have to lose your life to fight for Taiwan's freedom just because we have a "treaty" with them?
"He died for Freedom."
That's what those asshole politicians in Washington would say about you.
Not me! "GO CHINA!!!"

< Message edited by popeye1250 -- 11/8/2007 1:35:14 PM >

_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to CuriousLord)
Profile   Post #: 20
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> Great question! Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.156