Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

The National Payroll Reporting Consortium has already stated that a 2 month extension of a payroll tax cut is completely unworkable. Heckuva job Obamy! :lol:

This guy never misses a chance to remind everyone of his economic illiteracy. Meanwhile, he works to kill good paying construction jobs regarding Keystone. It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.

Edited by Shady
  • Replies 179
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

Nope I am not even taking your argument into consideration because house Republicans show that the leadership of the Republican Party is beyond nuts. Right now Obama is all America has because the Republicans have gone off the deep end.

Well the Speaker just caved and gave Obama everything he wanted so.......... Guy must have been an idiot because he just admitted he was wrong.

So you have no opinion on Obama as you are too busy pointing out the flaws of the GOP and such. Okay, that was 10 minutes I'll never get back! Anyway, there are plenty of loons on both sides and the power struggle that will be the 2012 election will be epic.

Posted
The National Payroll Reporting Consortium has already stated that a 2 month extension of a payroll tax cut is completely unworkable. Heckuva job Obamy! :lol:

This guy never misses a chance to remind everyone of his economic illiteracy. Meanwhile, he works to kill good paying construction jobs regarding Keystone. It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.

Obama Derangement Syndrome!

completely unworkable? Uhhh... no! Just the Mom&Pop businesses that don't rely on contracted payroll processing may... may encounter problems in deploying the changes properly. Apparently, the same thing happened last year... the last time a payroll cut extension was needed/passed. In a worst case scenario, if a small business didn't implement the required changes properly they might receive an adjustment notice later in the year.

oh wait... what's this latest quote coming forward... "... the agreement will include language to protect small businesses from tax reporting requirements in the Senate measure".

Shady, all that wasted hyperbole - how long does it take you to recharge?

Posted (edited)
*bump* ... is there a study out there... anyone, anyone, Bueller!
Here's a link, Waldo, with links to other studies:
The evidence for how green jobs literally “feed off” real jobs – diverting resources from real into phony jobs – has been well-documented. Not least is its disastrous effect on the Spanish economy, an economy currently approaching the same dire straits already tossing Greece, Portugal and Ireland around like corks. The fact is that simple economics reveals a clear nexus between regimes of green subsidies that create a green jobs mirage and the mass disappearance of, or delay in creating, real jobs.
Some Web Site

----

I have little desire to argue the merit of the studies linked. IMV, two more important factors trouble your question.

First, we are at present in a recession, below potential, and in a "liquidity trap". Inflation is negligible and real interest rates essentially zero. I note all this because in such a situation, any government borrowing and spending (ie. subsidies to projects) will likely mean net job creation. (At present, US unemployment is over 8%.)

Second, the main argument for environmental subsidies is not job creation but their long term benefit. If we wanted, we could save money and pollute the environment today but leave a lesser world for our children. Or, we can assume these costs now for the benefit of future generations.

IOW, there is no shame in admitting that environmental protection (either through regulation, subsidies, taxes, cap-and-trade, etc) is costly to people alive today. This is the cost of our "gift" to future generations.

Cleanliness is a costly "good". Indeed, cleanliness is a "luxury good". We pay to be clean, and rich people tend to spend a larger share of their income on cleanliness than poor people.

Edited by August1991
  • 2 weeks later...
Posted (edited)
When Congress gave the White House a tight 60-day deadline for approving or rejecting the controversial Keystone project, it seemed like a Christmas gift to TransCanada, the company building the pipeline that would carry oil from Canada all the way to the Gulf of Mexico.
NPR

And this comes from NPR. NPR!

----

Keystone? I reckon that this has Teapot Dome/Kicking Horse potential.

Edited by August1991
Posted
And this comes from NPR. NPR!

yes... did you actually read the article you've provided a link to? Cause if you did read your linked-to NPR article, you'd have read of the State Department notification given to the GOP after they stupidly bundled a 'forced decision on KXL' into the recent publicized/hyped payroll tax bill... if you did read your linked-to NPR article, you'd have read reference to State Department legal concerns about issuing a permit without the required environmental impact assessments... if you did read your linked-to NPR article, you'd have read where TransCanada itself hasn't even narrowed down an alternate route and doesn't expect to have one identified until fall of this year! Fall of this year, and yet the GOP expects Obama to make a decision (in now less than 60 days), on... on what? On an undefined route, one without an environmental impact analysis/assessment? GOP House <> Tea-Party Madhatters!

from another concurrently running thread:

The GOP thought they had Obama 'cornered' by tacking on the KXL pipeline decision to the completely unrelated payroll tax bill... a must decide in 60 days ultimatum.

of course, at this stage, the new route alternatives are being explored, subject to the required/accompanying U.S. State Department controlled/sanctioned environmental impact analysis & study. The State Department has quite matter of factly, stated that it requires a full year to undertake the required impact assessments... and it will not approve/sanction the pipeline without the required environmental impact assessment.

the GOP has handed Obama an easy out, deferring to the required State Department process - meaning an outright NO decision. Or... Obama can simply make a decision, one based on conditional approval once the State Department process completes - next year. In any case, supposed strategic review has the Dems believing they have already taken whatever 'hit' that associates with KXL.

Posted
*bump* ... is there a study out there... anyone, anyone, Bueller!
Here's a link, Waldo, with links to other studies: Some Web Site

I have little desire to argue the merit of the studies linked.

well, bully… now the referenced (2) studies certainly don’t support TimG’s, as yet, unsupported, un-cited, unsubstantiated claim that, as TimG states, “This is why studies that look at "green jobs" conclude that 2 jobs are destroyed for every "green job" created.” Oh ya… once more with vinegar! TimG… (another) citation request!

ok, ok, August… why put up the reference to two studies if you have no desire to, ‘argue their merit’? Let’s have a look, hey?

Study 1: U.S. Chamber of Commerce - Progress Denied: The Potential Economic Impact of Permitting Challenges Facing Proposed Energy Projects

- aside from the well documented fact that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is a recognized front for BigOil… that it has been waging a decades long attack on renewable energy, the study referenced details a grouping of projects that, in themselves, are actually dominated by fossil-fuel related industry (55% of the listed projects are not renewable energy projects).

The study purports to provide a “potential” for employment impacts relative to regulatory processes and obstacles like… lawsuits and threats of legal action that associate with, essentially, nimbyism (i.e., not in my backyard objections to development). Apparently, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce takes a dim view of anyone, for whatever reason, legitimate and/or self-serving, opposing proposed energy projects – go figure!

The study methodology is weak and the study authors acknowledge considerable refinement is required to properly assess economic impacts of delayed/stopped energy projects…
in any case, the study in no way, shape or form, arrives at any comparative conclusion of renewable initiatives versus non-renewable initiatives. That ‘conclusion’ isn’t even one drawn by the article’s own authors; they actually treat the study properly by not drawing any comparative conclusions… and yet… they include it in their article presuming to speak to, “the creation of very few green jobs and the destruction of lots of real ones”…

Study 2: The Green Mirage, published by the UK think-tank Civitas and written by the director of the Renewable Energy Foundation (REF)

- I won’t give this piece of ‘green-washing’ the time of day – it’s written by John Constable, the director of the “Renewable Energy Foundation (REN)… a most disingenuous organization name if there ever was one. The REN has been well researched to recognize it for exactly what it is… an organization that has absolutely nothing to do with renewable energy; an organization acting as a front for nuclear power and fossil-fuel lobby groups; an organization whose single-most purpose is to campaign against UK wind-power.

instead, here's your opportunity to review a real independent (U.S.) analysis - from Brookings (2011) - Sizing the Clean Economy: A National and Regional Green Jobs Assessment:

(note: Brookings somewhat uses multiple terms, “green” or “clean” or “low-carbon economy”, under the same broad definition => defined as the sector of the economy that produces goods and services with an environmental benefit)

-
The clean economy, which employs some 2.7 million workers, encompasses a significant number of jobs in establishments spread across a diverse group of industries
.

- Though modest in size,
the clean economy employs more workers than the fossil fuel industry
and bulks larger than bioscience but remains smaller than the IT-producing sectors.

- The clean economy grew more slowly in aggregate than the national economy between 2003 and 2010, but
newer “cleantech” segments produced explosive job gains and the clean economy outperformed the nation during the recession
.

-
Median wages in the clean economy are 13 percent higher than median U.S. created from 2003 to 2010 congregate in the nation’s 100 largest metro areas
.

-
The clean energy sector in particular grew by 8.3 percent between 2003 and 2010, nearly twice as fast as the overall economy

Posted
... did you actually read the article you've provided a link to?
Yes, I did.

And btw, the NPR piece was titled: "Keystone Oil Pipeline Deadline Puts Obama In A Pinch"

----

As much as I find the NPR biased, on this issue, I reckon that it accurately describes Obama's dilemma.

Posted

Yes, I did.

And btw, the NPR piece was titled: "Keystone Oil Pipeline Deadline Puts Obama In A Pinch"

----

As much as I find the NPR biased, on this issue, I reckon that it accurately describes Obama's dilemma.

and you don't know what you're talking about... Obama has no dilemma over this. The GOP has handed him 'easy outs' - he is completely in control over how he wants to leverage this.

Posted (edited)

instead, here's your opportunity to review a real independent (U.S.) analysis - from Brookings (2011) - Sizing the Clean Economy: A National and Regional Green Jobs Assessment:

(note: Brookings somewhat uses multiple terms, “green” or “clean” or “low-carbon economy”, under the same broad definition => defined as the sector of the economy that produces goods and services with an environmental benefit)

Yes this study looks very unbiased.

BY M A R K M U R O , J O N AT H A N R O T H W E L L , A N D D E VA S H R E E S A H

http://www.brookings.edu/metro/Staff/sahad.aspx

She holds a Ph.D. in public policy from the University of Texas at Austin and a master’s in political science from Purdue University.

http://www.brookings.edu/metro/Staff/rothwellj.aspx

He earned a master’s degree in economics from the New School (:lol:) and a Ph.D. in policy from Princeton University.

http://www.brookings.edu/experts/murom.aspx

University of California, Berkeley, Master's of American Studies; Harvard College, Cambridge, MA, Bachelor of Arts, 1982

So a bunch of Arts academics and a guy with an "economics" degree from The New School.

"The New School continues the Graduate Faculty's tradition of synthesizing leftist American intellectual thought and critical European philosophy."

"Although all "New Schoolers" are required to complete rigorous core training - usually of a literary, conservatory, or artistic nature - students are expected to be the primary designer of their own individualized and eclectic education."

"Historically, The New School has been associated with leftist politics, campus activism, civic engagement, and social change.[58] It is "Periclean University", or member Project Pericles, meaning that it teaches "education for social responsibility and participatory citizenship as an essential part of their educational programs, in the classroom, on the campus, and in the community."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_School

Excuse me while I gag.

Edited by CPCFTW
Posted
Yes this study looks very unbiased.

Excuse me while I gag.

your apparent concern over bias hasn't been correlated to the study itself... is there a problem? You would appear to limit your in-depth expertise to questioning degrees and educational institutions. For the little your insight/addition is worth, why not carry your undergrad degree gag on over to the same author's Ph.D granting institution, hey? :lol:

c'mon, buddy... step-up and take a stab at identifying your concerned bias - sure you can... c'mon, let's play!

Posted
You want to 'play' at midnight? What's up with that, are you a night owl or something?

:lol: tonight? Depends on another running thread and whether August1991 will actually align his (apparently) unrelated questioning to that threads discussion. As for this thread and the "FTW" guy, I can be seriously motivated when 'new meat' shows up!

Posted (edited)

your apparent concern over bias hasn't been correlated to the study itself... is there a problem? You would appear to limit your in-depth expertise to questioning degrees and educational institutions. For the little your insight/addition is worth, why not carry your undergrad degree gag on over to the same author's Ph.D granting institution, hey? :lol:

c'mon, buddy... step-up and take a stab at identifying your concerned bias - sure you can... c'mon, let's play!

No thanks to playing. :lol:

A country that forms its policy on the advice of arts academics would be doomed to fail. Pol.sci, public policy, and American studies graduates advising us how to create jobs? No thanks.

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that arts grads lean very far left. The bias is self-evident.

Edited by CPCFTW
Posted
A country that forms its policy on the advice of arts academics would be doomed to fail. Pol.sci, public policy, and American studies graduates advising us how to create jobs? No thanks.

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that arts grads lean very far left. The bias is self-evident.

still nothing to say about the actual studies bias, hey? Is there a problem... or is this simply just another one of your ongoing stream of unsubstantiated claims/statements?

clearly you haven't bothered to even give the study a cursory review... clearly, policy/recommendation is not the study emphasis - assessment is; i.e., a 'green jobs assessment'. Of course, if you actually bothered to look at the study, you would realize it's quite clear on the existing and future challenges related to the 'green economy'... it's certainly not a one-sided presentation.

there is certainly nothing stopping you from actually rising above your juvenile attachment to degree & school assessment/qualification... to actually critique the study - to actually put up something that alternately presumes to provide a current accurate assessment of 'green' jobs in the U.S. - one that you feel counters the findings of this Brookings study. You could do that, or you could continue to show you have nothing substantive to offer, hey?

Posted (edited)

hey "FTW"... don't run away, run away! By the by, I guess you didn't bother to have a look at the extent of the studies fully cited references... all 191 of them, hey?

guess you didn't bother to notice that the study is co-authored by Batelle R&D, specifically its Technology Partnership Practice (TPP) division... have a look at TPP's client list, hey? :lol:

TPP has access to Battelle's vast wealth of resources and expertise in statistics, mathematics, survey research design, and other fields. TPP has direct experience evaluating technology programs and measuring their economic impact. Battelle's team can work with you to develop a set of measures to determine success, collect and analyze relevant data, develop performance and progress indicators, or carry out economic impact studies of proposed technology infrastructure investments. Battelle's team can help move your region toward a New Economy future.

guess you've never heard of Brookings either, hey? :lol:

Edited by waldo
Posted

:lol: tonight? Depends on another running thread and whether August1991 will actually align his (apparently) unrelated questioning to that threads discussion. As for this thread and the "FTW" guy, I can be seriously motivated when 'new meat' shows up!

I'm not sure what to call that, but it goes beyond nightowl. Seriously motivated about that?

Posted

hey "FTW"... don't run away, run away! By the by, I guess you didn't bother to have a look at the extent of the studies fully cited references... all 191 of them, hey?

guess you didn't bother to notice that the study is co-authored by Batelle R&D, specifically its Technology Partnership Practice (TPP) division... have a look at TPP's client list, hey? :lol:

guess you've never heard of Brookings either, hey? :lol:

Can help move your region towards a New Economy future? That's hippy talk for make everyone poor so we can hug trees. Everyone knows the "new economy" values trees and economic stagnation over growth and hdtvs.

Posted

Can help move your region towards a New Economy future? That's hippy talk for make everyone poor so we can hug trees. Everyone knows the "new economy" values trees and economic stagnation over growth and hdtvs.

let's recap: out of the blue, you drop into this thread to presume to challenge a referenced study. At this stage, you haven't addressed a single point within the study itself, or the references I have made to and drawn from the study. In fact, you've not even offered/stated your own thoughts/position... you've said nothing at all about the study, what you don't agree with, or what you alternatively accept/propose. Of course, the only reason you appeared in the thread in the first place was because I spanked you a few times elsewhere! :lol:

you've managed to showcase your absolute ignorance in not recognizing the study was co-authored by one of the world's largest and prestigious R&D organizations through its renowned division that bridges public-private sectors.

why not critique the study itself... while you actually state your own views/position. Sure you can, hey?

as for your above most recent quoted asinine reply, perhaps you missed the following from my previous post:

-
The clean economy, which employs some 2.7 million workers, encompasses a significant number of jobs in establishments spread across a diverse group of industries
.

- Though modest in size,
the clean economy employs more workers than the fossil fuel industry
and bulks larger than bioscience but remains smaller than the IT-producing sectors.

- The clean economy grew more slowly in aggregate than the national economy between 2003 and 2010, but
newer “cleantech” segments produced explosive job gains and the clean economy outperformed the nation during the recession
.

-
Median wages in the clean economy are 13 percent higher than median U.S. created from 2003 to 2010 congregate in the nation’s 100 largest metro areas
.

-
The clean energy sector in particular grew by 8.3 percent between 2003 and 2010, nearly twice as fast as the overall economy

Posted (edited)

well, bully… now the referenced (2) studies certainly don’t support TimG’s, as yet, unsupported, un-cited, unsubstantiated claim that, as TimG states, “This is why studies that look at "green jobs" conclude that 2 jobs are destroyed for every "green job" created.” Oh ya… once more with vinegar! TimG… (another) citation request!

ok, ok, August… why put up the reference to two studies if you have no desire to, ‘argue their merit’? Let’s have a look, hey?

Study 1: U.S. Chamber of Commerce - Progress Denied: The Potential Economic Impact of Permitting Challenges Facing Proposed Energy Projects

- aside from the well documented fact that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is a recognized front for BigOil… that it has been waging a decades long attack on renewable energy, the study referenced details a grouping of projects that, in themselves, are actually dominated by fossil-fuel related industry (55% of the listed projects are not renewable energy projects).

The study purports to provide a “potential” for employment impacts relative to regulatory processes and obstacles like… lawsuits and threats of legal action that associate with, essentially, nimbyism (i.e., not in my backyard objections to development). Apparently, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce takes a dim view of anyone, for whatever reason, legitimate and/or self-serving, opposing proposed energy projects – go figure!

The study methodology is weak and the study authors acknowledge considerable refinement is required to properly assess economic impacts of delayed/stopped energy projects…
in any case, the study in no way, shape or form, arrives at any comparative conclusion of renewable initiatives versus non-renewable initiatives. That ‘conclusion’ isn’t even one drawn by the article’s own authors; they actually treat the study properly by not drawing any comparative conclusions… and yet… they include it in their article presuming to speak to, “the creation of very few green jobs and the destruction of lots of real ones”…

Study 2: The Green Mirage, published by the UK think-tank Civitas and written by the director of the Renewable Energy Foundation (REF)

- I won’t give this piece of ‘green-washing’ the time of day – it’s written by John Constable, the director of the “Renewable Energy Foundation (REN)… a most disingenuous organization name if there ever was one. The REN has been well researched to recognize it for exactly what it is… an organization that has absolutely nothing to do with renewable energy; an organization acting as a front for nuclear power and fossil-fuel lobby groups; an organization whose single-most purpose is to campaign against UK wind-power.

instead, here's your opportunity to review a real independent (U.S.) analysis - from Brookings (2011) - Sizing the Clean Economy: A National and Regional Green Jobs Assessment:

(note: Brookings somewhat uses multiple terms, “green” or “clean” or “low-carbon economy”, under the same broad definition => defined as the sector of the economy that produces goods and services with an environmental benefit)

Did my old eyes just miss it or does all this stuff fail to mention if this "green economic salvation" is self-sustaining or just pumped up by subsidies?

I don't pretend to know all the economic factors but I am familiar with the actual equipment and how it is made, installed and marketed. Frankly, it all seems kinda "lame-ass" = smoke and mirrors to impress the rubes.

In fact, from what I see I wouldn't be at all surprised if it eventually comes out to be another Bre-X trip.

Is there sound evidence that all this hoopla is profitable on its own? I'm reminded of the out and out propaganda for us to switch to CFL's, FOR US TO SAVE MONEY! Any techie instantly knew that this was ridiculous. The amount of power in the average home consumed by lighting represents mice nuts of what you have to pay. The significant amount is consumed by motors and heaters, like furnace/AC blowers, stoves, refrigerators and whatnot. I doubt if using those curly CFLs in our lamps saved the price of 2 beers in a typical month.

I'm not asking for you to spend a lot of time on it as I'm sure you have your own interests to pursue but if you have something near at hand to show this is not dependent on subsidies I'd appreciate it. We've all read about how some European countries have cancelled subsidies and subsequently wind farms have closed, taking any related jobs with them.

Edited by Wild Bill

"A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul."

-- George Bernard Shaw

"There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."

Posted (edited)

let's recap: out of the blue, you drop into this thread to presume to challenge a referenced study. At this stage, you haven't addressed a single point within the study itself, or the references I have made to and drawn from the study. In fact, you've not even offered/stated your own thoughts/position... you've said nothing at all about the study, what you don't agree with, or what you alternatively accept/propose. Of course, the only reason you appeared in the thread in the first place was because I spanked you a few times elsewhere! :lol:

you've managed to showcase your absolute ignorance in not recognizing the study was co-authored by one of the world's largest and prestigious R&D organizations through its renowned division that bridges public-private sectors.

why not critique the study itself... while you actually state your own views/position. Sure you can, hey?

as for your above most recent quoted asinine reply, perhaps you missed the following from my previous post:

You want me to read some 50 page study and do additional research on the side to critique some "study" written by arts majors and "New School" economics graduates?

I think I'll pass.

:lol:

And you've never "spanked" me and never will. Sorry to disappoint you, maybe try Church and Wellesley? :lol:

Edited by CPCFTW
Posted
why not critique the study itself... while you actually state your own views/position. Sure you can, hey?
You want me to read some 50 page study and do additional research on the side to critique some "study" written by arts majors and "New School" economics graduates?

I think I'll pass. :lol:

it was a positive suggestion; something to allow you to actually contribute to the thread... clearly, I don't want you to do anything beyond your capabilities and comfort zone. However, can you presume to legitimately critique something without actually stating... and supporting... what your own view/position is? I appreciate putting yourself out there actually opens you up to direct challenge - I can see why you have extreme reservations in ever doing that. Although it was evident in the past, it's even clearer now - you simply don't have the wherewithal to actually review, analyze and frame an argument. I truly do encourage you to attempt to reach, to grow... to rise above drive-by insult throwing.

I am somewhat intrigued by the only critical angle you've offered... presuming to attack the educational backgrounds of the studies 3 named Brookings members - perhaps it's simply a reflection of you having a limited working experience... in the real world. You're flat out negating career experience; the study's key principal author has 30 years of working experience beyond his undergrad/Masters degrees from UC Berkeley/Harvard; something which appears to carry no weight with you, at all. Of course, you're doing all this while continuing to ignore the technical expertise side of the study coming from it's co-authors - Batelle R&D, specifically its Technology Partnership Practice (TPP) division...

And you've never "spanked" me and never will. Sorry to disappoint you, maybe try Church and Wellesley? :lol:

quite interesting that your immediate spanking go-to is Church and Wellesley? Is this simply another affirmation link between right-wingers presuming to denigrate their inherent predilections?

Posted (edited)
I'm not asking for you to spend a lot of time on it as I'm sure you have your own interests to pursue but if you have something near at hand to show this is not dependent on subsidies I'd appreciate it. We've all read about how some European countries have cancelled subsidies and subsequently wind farms have closed, taking any related jobs with them.
It all comes down the the subsidies. If an energy source is not viable without subsidies for every kWH produced then it is not scalable because no government has the fiscal capacity to replace our existing energy with subsidized sources. If renewables were even remotely viable without subsidies there would be no debate: people would use them even if there was a slight cost premium. The fact that renewables are never used unless the government offers massive subsidies is all the evidence I need to know they are a waste of money at this time. Edited by TimG
Posted

It all comes down the the subsidies. If an energy source is not viable without subsidies for every kWH produced then it is not scalable because no government has the fiscal capacity to replace our existing energy with subsidized sources. If renewables were even remotely viable without subsidies there would be no debate: people would use them even if there was a slight cost premium. The fact that renewables are never used unless the government offers massive subsidies is all the evidence I need to know they are a waste of money at this time.

THAT makes perfect sense, Tim! I think part of the problem is that people without a technical background can be blinded by the "GeeWhiz!" factors and end up bamboozled.

"A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul."

-- George Bernard Shaw

"There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."

Posted
THAT makes perfect sense, Tim! I think part of the problem is that people without a technical background can be blinded by the "GeeWhiz!" factors and end up bamboozled.
The biggest problems the renewable fanatics have is they cannot distinguish between subsidies for R&D and subsidies for production. For example, the government was heavily involved in developing the shale gas technology but once the concept was proven the private sector took over and the wells become revenue generators for the government. This is not what is happening with renewables - despite decades of R&D they are no closer to having technology that can compete without subsidies.

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,857
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Tony Eveland
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...