gadget Posted October 28, 2009 Report Posted October 28, 2009 Keep smelling the crude...because you can't even refine it. Guess where that happens? Don't believe me as we speak we are building lines to asia we also have 2 major ports we completed to ship resources from Canada.plans. - as we speak most bitumen is pipeline to illinois chicago for refining wich is current.... But China and the rest of Asia have the infastructure to refine as much, if not more than the U.S and have the ability to consume more they are industrialized. thats why we are working on pipelines. and pipelines only take a few years to build. Thats what you dont get. China wants our bitumen and did you know they are offering us more money on the Barrel than you are. Only reason we sold so cheap to the U,S we had a deal that now they are trying to negligee on, Obama started this with his fight against NAFTA for political gain and you will suffer for it. mark my word. So If you dont want our oil so be it........ Albertans are not dumb and if you know anything about Canada.... Alberta put an Albertan from Calgary in as Prime minister we dictate this country we have more elite her than I bet all U.S we are little soon to be BIG Texas Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 28, 2009 Report Posted October 28, 2009 Don't believe me as we speak we are building lines to asia we also have 2 major ports we completed to ship resources from Canada.plans.- as we speak most bitumen is pipeline to illinois chicago for refining wich is current.... Talk is cheap.....keep piping to sweet home Chicago. But China and the rest of Asia have the infastructure to refine as much, if not more than the U.S and have the ability to consume more they are industrialized. thats why we are working on pipelines. and pipelines only take a few years to build. Thats what you dont get. Keep building.....what's a few more years...on top of a few more years....on top of.... China wants our bitumen and did you know they are offering us more money on the Barrel than you are. Only reason we sold so cheap to the U,S we had a deal that now they are trying to negligee on, Obama started this with his fight against NAFTA for political gain and you will suffer for it. mark my word. You better go back and read NAFTA again....it is not written in Chinese. So If you dont want our oil so be it........ Albertans are not dumb and if you know anything about Canada.... Alberta put an Albertan from Calgary in as Prime minister we dictate this country we have more elite her than I bet all U.S No doubt.....Alberta is so smart it wants out of Canada. we are little soon to be BIG Texas Yet another American reference....got anything original? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
gadget Posted October 28, 2009 Report Posted October 28, 2009 Soon after christmas the comercial market will collapse leaving a devestating effect on all Americans if your to dumb NOT to plan for it I DONT CARE. Mark my word it will happen Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 28, 2009 Report Posted October 28, 2009 Soon after christmas the comercial market will collapse leaving a devestating effect on all Americans if your to dumb NOT to plan for it I DONT CARE.Mark my word it will happen OK sport.....your prediction is now cast in stone. Let's see how you do on Dec 26, 2009. My portfolio has done quite well since March (up 37%) ....hit me with your best shot. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
gadget Posted October 28, 2009 Report Posted October 28, 2009 OK sport.....your prediction is now cast in stone. Let's see how you do on Dec 26, 2009.My portfolio has done quite well since March (up 37%) ....hit me with your best shot. December 26 dont work it's still boxing day friend. Feb. the balances sheets will come in. Everything works quarterly so give tops April. but I predict March you will start to see the bankruptcy. sorry about your 37% gain even peter shiff got 67% Quote
gadget Posted October 28, 2009 Report Posted October 28, 2009 December 26 dont work it's still boxing day friend. Feb. the balances sheets will come in. Everything works quarterly so give tops April. but I predict March you will start to see the bankruptcy.sorry about your 37% gain even peter shiff got 67% It's you and I wrecking financial terorism. Think about it even at 37% the market by rights only makes 8-9%. You should know some things are to good to be true, but like us we get fed up to the point you dont care about anyone else or your country, its a human need of greed. But the masses are going to rebel they will need to declare marshal law, and the first people the masses are going to attack are the elite so you best defend yourself. Im glad im in Canada now, nobody owns a gun but in the states i would never want to be an elite they will come for you and your money, they know we are robbing them. Truth hurts eh Quote
waldo Posted October 28, 2009 Report Posted October 28, 2009 How is it that the world's most product consuming country (the U.S.) has been able to maintain a relatively static energy consumption rate?Off the cuff, I'd say this might be due to shipping most of their manufacturing sector to China.bingo! (amongst others)... apparently, the KS/capricorn types would have developed countries shift consumption and accompanying greenhouse gas/pollution to "developing countries" without any accompanying obligations. That seems a tad one-sided, n'est-ce pas?Would the obligation not be on the country which is now earning the money and gaining the jobs?No, of course not. We should also pay for them. And you loonies wonder why sane people laugh you out of the room every time you open your mouths. As ever, Argus is ahead of the curve! You should have tuned into the lead-up to Copenhagen... there's really not enough time before the meeting to see your worst fears materialize But take heart... since the ground work has already been laid... in the lead-up. There's already been an agreement, in principal, to support low-carbon growth in the developing world... and to help the hardest hit countries adapt to climate change. Of course, what's unresolved is the financial structure to support the, in principal, agreement... deciding the amounts of money, the kinds of programs and the qualifying countries is unlikely to be settled at the Copenhagen meetings. For the most part, we should expect a "political declaration" to come from the meetings - something that sets the direction for continued negotiations and guides negotiators in the follow-up. Speculation also has the "Copenhagen agreement" bringing forward promises to create a system to monitor, report and verify emissions reductions... as well as commitments by countries to produce and publish economic growth plans based on lower carbon emissions... and an agreement to share clean new energy technology with developing countries. Baby steps..... Argus... sure to strengthen your resolve Quote
Riverwind Posted October 28, 2009 Report Posted October 28, 2009 (edited) For the most part, we should expect a "political declaration" to come from the meetings - something that sets the direction for continued negotiations and guides negotiators in the follow-up.Yep. Just like the Doha round of trade talks has successfully addressed agricultural subsides and trade barriers...as well as commitments by countries to produce and publish economic growth plans based on lower carbon emissions.Plans which nobody will actually meet.... and an agreement to share clean new energy technology with developing countries.The economic illiteracy of climate alarmists is truly mind boggling. On one hand they insist that mechanisms like cap and trade will allow the "market" to reduce emissions but on the other hand they think that governments should confiscate any intellectual property developed by the "market" and give it away to competing companies in China and India. Edited October 28, 2009 by Riverwind Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 28, 2009 Report Posted October 28, 2009 It's you and I wrecking financial terorism. Think about it even at 37% the market by rights only makes 8-9%. You should know some things are to good to be true, but like us we get fed up to the point you dont care about anyone else or your country, its a human need of greed. Greed is good....that's why Copenhagen will just be a big pot party. But the masses are going to rebel they will need to declare marshal law, and the first people the masses are going to attack are the elite so you best defend yourself. Not so scared as you....be afraid...be very afraid. Im glad im in Canada now, nobody owns a gun but in the states i would never want to be an elite they will come for you and your money, they know we are robbing them. Truth hurts eh I'm glad you are in Canada too! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Argus Posted October 28, 2009 Report Posted October 28, 2009 Anyone ever seen that movie called Dumb and Dumber? I"m reminded of it, for some reason. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
waldo Posted October 29, 2009 Report Posted October 29, 2009 The economic illiteracy of climate alarmists is truly mind boggling. On one hand they insist that mechanisms like cap and trade will allow the "market" to reduce emissions but on the other hand they think that governments should confiscate any intellectual property developed by the "market" and give it away to competing companies in China and India. "Confiscate"? Oh my! That's a bold statement that I'm sure you're prepared to back up with substantive information detailing/inferring said "confiscation" intent... waiting. Do you actually understand how technology transfer works today... regardless whether it relates to 'climate change', or not? You speaking of market forces is perfect, as it is generally accepted that, today, present 'climate related' technology is not encumbered by concerns of intellectual property (IP)... simply due to the fact that there are sufficient competitors to realize reasonable licensing fees for said technology. Similarly, as new technologies come forward, market competition will continue to allow reasonable cost licensing opportunities by developing nations... alternatively, as the economics of new technology development often require direct government support/regulation, or the transfer from universities and research institutions to parties capable of commercialization, developed countries/universities/research institutions may be asked to voluntarily forego "aspects" of licensing related to technologies of global environmental importance... but clearly, the denial/skeptic talking point is to label this, as you stated, as a "confiscation" of IP. Quote
Riverwind Posted October 29, 2009 Report Posted October 29, 2009 (edited) Similarly, as new technologies come forward, market competition will continue to allow reasonable cost licensing opportunities by developing nations.If that was the case there would be no need for "technology transfer programs". You also forget that many companies do not want to license their IP - they just want to sell product. Forcing them to license it to competitors under terms that the governments decides are 'reasonable' will kill any incentive to innovate.the transfer from universities and research institutions to parties capable of commercialization, developed countries/universities/research institutions may be asked to voluntarily forego "aspects" of licensing related to technologies of global environmental importance.Universities have been encouraged to commerialize technology for years as a way to raise funds so being forced to give technology away takes funding sources away from them. It is also rediculous to suggest that the benefits from taxpayer funded research should be simply given away to companies that compete with Canadian firms.as a "confiscation" of IP.You have not made the case that it is anything else. In any case you can call it anything you want but that does not change the fact that such programs eliminate the incentive to innovate that the so called 'market based' co2 control mechanism are supposed to encourage. Edited October 29, 2009 by Riverwind Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.
waldo Posted October 29, 2009 Report Posted October 29, 2009 If that was the case there would be no need for "technology transfer programs". You also forget that many companies do not want to license their IP - they just want to sell product. Forcing them to license it to competitors under terms that the governments decides are 'reasonable' will kill any incentive to innovate. Read my post again... I spoke to existing licensing opportunities through market competition forces... then added, "alternatively" - guess your predisposition missed that. In any case, speaking to the alternative, you can continue your negativity, or accept that negotiation will bring forward subsidization strategies to counter your unfounded fear mongering statements towards "confiscation" and "forced licensing"... incentive based strategies that can include such things as funding mechanisms, collaborative research, public-private partnerships, and multilateral/bilateral trade agreements. Universities have been encouraged to commerialize technology for years as a way to raise funds so being forced to give technology away takes funding sources away from them. It is also rediculous to suggest that the benefits from taxpayer funded research should be simply given away to companies that compete with Canadian firms. Is it ridiculous? Really? Hey now, didn't I just mention something about trade agreements... for example - I guess you're unaware of the long standing World Trade Organization, TRIPP (Trade Related Agreement on Intellectual Property Rights) agreements that handle, for example, public health aspects (e.g. pharmaceuticals, nutrition) or agriculture aspects (e.g. plant variety protection, extending patentability to micro-organisms, genetic resources, traditional knowledge and food security). It's absolutely ridiculous that these agreements were ever struck... indeed... my gawd, what about innovation!!! You have not made the case that it is anything else. In any case you can call it anything you want but that does not change the fact that such programs eliminate the incentive to innovate that the so called 'market based' co2 control mechanism are supposed to encourage. Oh, in a short few sentences... I certainly have shown your denial/skeptic "confiscation" and "forced licensing" talking points are nothing more than... unfounded fear mongering. Quote
Riverwind Posted October 29, 2009 Report Posted October 29, 2009 (edited) incentive based strategies that can include such things as funding mechanisms, collaborative research, public-private partnerships, and multilateral/bilateral trade agreements.Meaningless BS. At the end of the day the question comes down to who decides what price is paid for the IP. If governments set the price or allow outright theft then there will be little incentive to produce new technologies.If you look at the position of developing countries right now they are insisting that developed countries give up all IP rights to technologies. This means that any deal will have to involve either lax enforcement of IP rights (i.e. government sanctioned theft) or mandatory licensing (i.e. confiscation). I guess you're unaware of the long standing World Trade Organization, TRIPP (Trade Related Agreement on Intellectual Property Rights)TRIP does the exact opposite of what you suggest since it requires that developing countries honour all intellectual property rights. The exceptions that were made for AIDS drugs actually proves my point: governments are willing to confiscate the IP rights of companies if they develop certain technologies. There is no reason to believe that the holders of anti-CO2 technology IP would be treated with any more consideration.unfounded fear mongering.The example of AIDS drugs proves that confiscation or theft is the mostly likely outcome of any deal on technology transfer. The bottom line is if governments wish to encourage private sectors players to produce technologies then they must forget about any technology transfer deal. Edited October 29, 2009 by Riverwind Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.
Argus Posted October 29, 2009 Report Posted October 29, 2009 Baby steps..... Argus... sure to strengthen your resolve :HAW! HAW! HAW! My resolve to date is to point out the idiocy of disrupting the economy of the entire planet on the basis of a few scientific theories with threadbare evidence to support them. And to point out how the loonie left has zealously adopted climate change as a means to punish the west for being white and capitalist and transfer as much of its wealth to their darling brown people as they can possibly get away with. Canada has largely ignored this stupidity for the past fifteen years, and the "evidence" such as it is, is now unravelling. If we can ignore it for another five or six I think the proponents of this farce will have little left to cling to. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Pliny Posted October 29, 2009 Report Posted October 29, 2009 Oh, in a short few sentences... I certainly have shown your denial/skeptic "confiscation" and "forced licensing" talking points are nothing more than... unfounded fear mongering. Au contraire! You have proven it to be standard practice already. Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
waldo Posted October 29, 2009 Report Posted October 29, 2009 Read my post again... I spoke to existing licensing opportunities through market competition forces... then added, "alternatively" - guess your predisposition missed that. In any case, speaking to the alternative, you can continue your negativity, or accept that negotiation will bring forward subsidization strategies to counter your unfounded fear mongering statements towards "confiscation" and "forced licensing"... incentive based strategies that can include such things as funding mechanisms, collaborative research, public-private partnerships, and multilateral/bilateral trade agreements.Meaningless BS. At the end of the day the question comes down to who decides what price is paid for the IP. If governments set the price or allow outright theft then there will be little incentive to produce new technologies.If you look at the position of developing countries right now they are insisting that developed countries give up all IP rights to technologies. This means that any deal will have to involve either lax enforcement of IP rights (i.e. government sanctioned theft) or mandatory licensing (i.e. confiscation). Nonsense – perhaps you should actually read the (draft) Copenhagen declaration instead of focusing on your “confiscation” sceptic’s talking point. You know, actually look at the various optional measures presented to address IPR… actually recognize that, as a draft, assorted options of varying complexity/magnitude exist within that draft… and, of course, realize it’s actually a draft proposal subject to negotiations. If you actually bothered to read the draft declaration you wouldn’t ignore its emphasis, for example, on Cooperative Actions, on the development of Technology Action Plans, on Incentive Mechanisms for Technology Transfer – Cooperative Technology Deployment, on Voluntary Agreements – Partnerships, on Funding avenues/options, etc. Is it ridiculous? Really? Hey now, didn't I just mention something about trade agreements... for example - I guess you're unaware of the long standing World Trade Organization, TRIPP (Trade Related Agreement on Intellectual Property Rights) agreements that handle, for example, public health aspects (e.g. pharmaceuticals, nutrition) or agriculture aspects (e.g. plant variety protection, extending patentability to micro-organisms, genetic resources, traditional knowledge and food security). It's absolutely ridiculous that these agreements were ever struck... indeed... my gawd, what about innovation!!!TRIP does the exact opposite of what you suggest since it requires that developing countries honour all intellectual property rights. The exceptions that were made for AIDS drugs actually proves my point: governments are willing to confiscate the IP rights of companies if they develop certain technologies. There is no reason to believe that the holders of anti-CO2 technology IP would be treated with any more consideration. Again – more nonsense. The fact you highlight AIDS drugs… as an exception… indicates you know nothing of TRIPS as applied to the broader pharmaceuticals collective. In any case, it’s certainly telling to see you, in light of the African AIDS epidemic… or persisting tuberculosis, malaria, typhoid, etc., epidemics… to see you come down in favour of the global pharmaceutical companies (re: your “confiscate” sentiment), versus allowing developing countries access to more affordable drugs. Please continue… we really need to elaborate on this “socially conscious” side of the sceptic’s “consficate” talking point. Oh, in a short few sentences... I certainly have shown your denial/skeptic "confiscation" and "forced licensing" talking points are nothing more than... unfounded fear mongering.The example of AIDS drugs proves that confiscation or theft is the mostly likely outcome of any deal on technology transfer. The bottom line is if governments wish to encourage private sectors players to produce technologies then they must forget about any technology transfer deal. Yes, certainly… please press this AIDS drug analogy… we really need to see the complete social conscious of climate change deniers. The bottom line is: - a European Parliament resolution included provisional reference to the need for corresponding adjustments to international agreements concerning IP within Climate Change considerations - the recent G8 Summit resulted in the “Declaration of the Leaders of the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate”… where world leaders agreed to establish a framework to be released sometime in November, in the continued lead-up to the Copenhagen meetings. A framework that follows the broad agreed statement to develop a: “Global Partnership to drive transformational low-carbon, climate-friendly technologies” and to report in November on “actions plans and roadmaps and to make recommendations for further progress.” They will also “consider ideas for appropriate approaches and arrangements to promote technology development, deployment, and transfer.” - regardless of Obama’s initiatives, the U.S. House of Representatives has already issued a pre-emptive strike to assail your skeptic’s talking point concern over IP “confiscation”… H.R. 2410, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act – “Statement of Policy Regarding Climate Change”. I would expect that resolution will provide a handy working reference for the aforementioned G8 Summit framework to be released in November. Quote
waldo Posted October 29, 2009 Report Posted October 29, 2009 As ever, Argus is ahead of the curve! You should have tuned into the lead-up to Copenhagen... there's really not enough time before the meeting to see your worst fears materialize But take heart... since the ground work has already been laid... in the lead-up. There's already been an agreement, in principal, to support low-carbon growth in the developing world... and to help the hardest hit countries adapt to climate change. Of course, what's unresolved is the financial structure to support the, in principal, agreement... deciding the amounts of money, the kinds of programs and the qualifying countries is unlikely to be settled at the Copenhagen meetings. For the most part, we should expect a "political declaration" to come from the meetings - something that sets the direction for continued negotiations and guides negotiators in the follow-up. Speculation also has the "Copenhagen agreement" bringing forward promises to create a system to monitor, report and verify emissions reductions... as well as commitments by countries to produce and publish economic growth plans based on lower carbon emissions... and an agreement to share clean new energy technology with developing countries. Baby steps..... Argus... sure to strengthen your resolve My resolve to date is to point out the idiocy of disrupting the economy of the entire planet on the basis of a few scientific theories with threadbare evidence to support them. And to point out how the loonie left has zealously adopted climate change as a means to punish the west for being white and capitalist and transfer as much of its wealth to their darling brown people as they can possibly get away with.Canada has largely ignored this stupidity for the past fifteen years, and the "evidence" such as it is, is now unravelling. If we can ignore it for another five or six I think the proponents of this farce will have little left to cling to. Other than your continued gutter-sniping... I don't see you adding anything to any climate change related discussions. Please, step up... support your "Threadbare evidence" and "loonie left" assertions? But remember... you could actually get engaged in one of them there "meaty threads", Argus... you know, the one's where you slowly devolve into a ranting, spewing lunatic. Oh wait, I think you're already there... "white capitalist transfer of wealth to darling brown people" is classic Argus spiraling out of control. Well done! In terms of your assertion that Canada has largely "ignored this stupidity", in my preceding post I just pointed out a G8 Summit response... your boy Harper signed on... why is your boy Harper engaged in your stated "stupidity". C'mon, why?... waiting Quote
waldo Posted October 29, 2009 Report Posted October 29, 2009 Oh, in a short few sentences... I certainly have shown your denial/skeptic "confiscation" and "forced licensing" talking points are nothing more than... unfounded fear mongering.Au contraire! You have proven it to be standard practice already. don't hesitate... don't keep it all bottled in... I can see you're really itching to get something off your chest. Surely, you have something more to add..... Quote
madmax Posted October 29, 2009 Report Posted October 29, 2009 Other than your continued gutter-sniping... I don't see you adding anything to any climate change related discussions. How is Argus opinion worse then the actions of the LPC? In terms of your assertion that Canada has largely "ignored this stupidity", in my preceding post I just pointed out a G8 Summit response... your boy Harper signed on... why is your boy Harper engaged in your stated "stupidity". C'mon, why?... waiting And it would appear that you have a personal habit of reducing the discussion with such terms as "Your Boy" when having a discusion on the forum. Argus cannot be rehabilitated and we are all pretty used to when the conversation is off the rails and personal. No need for you to respond in a similar manner or treat others with such disrespect. Quote
waldo Posted October 29, 2009 Report Posted October 29, 2009 Argus cannot be rehabilitated and we are all pretty used to when the conversation is off the rails and personal. don't let me dissuade you from further derailing this thread in presuming to, without bias/partisanship, somehow bring your views on the "LPC's action" (whatever that means)... relative to...uhhh... Argus' opinion. isn't "Jack"... "your boy"? Isn't Ignatieff mine? Really, c'mon... in the face of continued gutter-snipes, "loonie left" labelling, etc., let's bring back a degree of decorum. Dagnabit, clearly, "your boy"... steps over the line! Quote
DFCaper Posted October 29, 2009 Report Posted October 29, 2009 Yes, certainly… please press this AIDS drug analogy… we really need to see the complete social conscious of climate change deniers. Pressing the AIDS drug analogy doesn't have anything to do with social conscious. Just because one believes that incentive to develop a cure/treat by a company is money, as with any company. If you take away the incentive (money) then you take away the R&D. If governments are going to just give away the technologies, why do your own development. Now is environmental technology research going to be reduced as a result of forced licensing?? If you want an industry to grow, make it profitable. Forced licensing doesn't help. I guess we can continue to make green technology profitable with huge government handouts. If governments want companies to share technology with poor countries, they should have to buy it... like anyone else. Quote "Although the world is full of suffering, it is full also of the overcoming of it" - Hellen Keller "Success is not measured by the heights one attains, but by the obstacles one overcomes in its attainment" - Booker T. Washington
Argus Posted October 29, 2009 Report Posted October 29, 2009 Other than your continued gutter-sniping... I don't see you adding anything to any climate change related discussions. I doubt I could do as well as Riverwind is already doing in enunciating the glaring deficiencies in the scientific basis behind current climate change arguments. Please, step up... support your "Threadbare evidence" and "loonie left" assertions? But you're already doing it for me. But remember... you could actually get engaged in one of them there "meaty threads", Argus... you know, the one's where you slowly devolve into a ranting, spewing lunatic. Oh wait, I think you're already there... "white capitalist transfer of wealth to darling brown people" is classic Argus spiraling out of control. Well done! HAW! HAW! HAW!: I'm not sure you really understand what a meaty thread means. You appear to believe the posting cites of other people's opiions and parotting them without putting a single thought of your own into them marks you as some sort of intellectual. I'm afraid what I've seen so far has not been impressive. You hoot and haw and guffaw and snort and act like a blowhard in every post. Riverrwind then calmly, thoughtfully, and politely demolishes you right after that. I've always been sort of leery of what I've heard of climate science, but the discussion between you and he has definitely pushed me over onto the "denial" side. As to wealth transfer, there really doesn't appear to be much doubt that this is one of the, if not the major purpose behind the proposals being put forth for Copenhagen. Why you jeer at that is rather beyond me. In terms of your assertion that Canada has largely "ignored this stupidity", in my preceding post I just pointed out a G8 Summit response... your boy Harper signed on... why is your boy Harper engaged in your stated "stupidity". C'mon, why?... waiting I think Harper is doing what he feels he has to do to keep the Libs and NDP from using climate change as a club to beat him with - not all he can do, not enough to completely rob them of that as an issue, but enough that it isn't resonating as much as it would otherwise if he were to simply ignore it. He'll have to impliment some kind of plan, but I expect him to keep delaying as long as possible in hopes the "science" unravels before we get too deeply involved. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
maple_leafs182 Posted October 30, 2009 Report Posted October 30, 2009 I know it may be hard to believe but there is a conspiracy. watch both these movies, they are the 2 most important movies ever made. we are doing everything wrong, its time for our society to evolve. The Freedom Movie: A Political Awakening http://www.stoptherobbery.com/wordpress/?page_id=285 The Freedom Movie: A Spiritual Awakening http://www.stoptherobbery.com/wordpress/?page_id=466 Most of us don't even know how to live. Quote │ _______ [███STOP███]▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ :::::::--------------Conservatives beleive ▄▅█FUNDING THIS█▅▄▃▂- - - - - --- -- -- -- -------- Liberals lie I██████████████████] ...◥⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙'(='.'=)' ⊙
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 30, 2009 Report Posted October 30, 2009 ...Most of us don't even know how to live. But you know how to cross post...a violation of forum rules. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.