User Tag List

First 36444546474856 Last

Results 451 to 460 of 798

  1. #451
    respect the brick C.J.Woolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    424

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    The Republican party would really stand to gain by having all of their states institute open ballots for all their races including primaries. It's one of the few detailed ways they can reduce the malignant effect of an extremist base.
    I'm not seeing how open ballots would help here. The extremists themselves are extremely proud of their views, so it's not like they can be shamed into voting differently by open ballots.

  2. #452
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,910

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by C.J.Woolf View Post
    I'm not seeing how open ballots would help here. The extremists themselves are extremely proud of their views, so it's not like they can be shamed into voting differently by open ballots.
    I wasn't referring to an open ballot in the sense of the opposite to the secret ballot. I meant that as in an open primary. I suppose I should have said that to make it less confusing. Right now it's often the case that the only people who can vote in Republican primaries are registered Republicans. An open primary means independents and Democrats can vote, too. This would hopefully make the candidates somewhat less extreme by working outside the strictest Republican base.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  3. #453
    respect the brick C.J.Woolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    424

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    I wasn't referring to an open ballot in the sense of the opposite to the secret ballot. I meant that as in an open primary. I suppose I should have said that to make it less confusing. Right now it's often the case that the only people who can vote in Republican primaries are registered Republicans. An open primary means independents and Democrats can vote, too. This would hopefully make the candidates somewhat less extreme by working outside the strictest Republican base.
    Ah, I see now. I can see three potential snags, though:

    1. Where I live, if both major parties have a primary election then you can cast a ballot for only one party. Independents could vote in any party's primary, but presumably Democrats would vote in their own party's primary even if the primaries were open.

    2. In an open Republican primary, partisan Dems might vote for the most extreme candidate figuring he or she would be easier to beat.

    3. Open primaries just bother me philosophically. Why should non-party members have a say in who the party will run? Say what you like about the candidates the base chose in the primaries, they do represent them.

  4. #454
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,910

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by C.J.Woolf View Post
    Ah, I see now. I can see three potential snags, though:

    1. Where I live, if both major parties have a primary election then you can cast a ballot for only one party. Independents could vote in any party's primary, but presumably Democrats would vote in their own party's primary even if the primaries were open.

    2. In an open Republican primary, partisan Dems might vote for the most extreme candidate figuring he or she would be easier to beat.

    3. Open primaries just bother me philosophically. Why should non-party members have a say in who the party will run? Say what you like about the candidates the base chose in the primaries, they do represent them.
    1 remedies 2, I think. As for 3, I'm proposing this because I think it would soften up the extremism of the Republican party, which in turn would be better for the majority of people in almost very case. The suggestion is singularly for that purpose. That being said, I guess one of the reasons I'm comfortable with the open primary is that I don't like how the primaries work anyway. In the end, a very narrow population of people give the entire country their only two choice (and of course there are only ever two feasible choices).
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  5. #455
    null Jonny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    FREE
    Posts
    2,486

    Default

    This graph is to be used in conjunction with the one above, which deals with the increase in production in the United States. Where is that increased wealth going? Dun dun dun....

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  6. #456
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    When people are deciding to work less so that they can still qualify for benefits, something is wrong.

    Surely we owe a duty to our people to help them get on their feet in their time of need. Barring issues that justifiably qualify others for ongoing assistance (disability etc..) every assistance program should have weaning feature that diminishes benefits over time and incentivizes a full return to the labor force while also spending $ more efficiently.

    More specifically, quit running the benefits as tax expenditures or some other financial/legal vehicle that's going to require entire agencies of federal workers to analyze and distribute the benefit. It should be a strait transfer into the hands of the needy so that bureaucratic hands stay out of the pie.

    Also, if you want to offer unemployment assistance, make public works labor a requisite to qualify. No money should be given to those unwilling to labor in some manner for it, and the labor should be designed to get as big a bang for the assistance buck as possible.

    My thoughts on the issue are still nascent, but that's a beginning.
    Part of that issue is the fine line attitude of benefits. Not all work is created equal and not all needs are created equal, but they often try to act like they are.

    Some people have to avoid work above the table because if they make a few extra dollars to help themselves get by, they are stripped and worse off than if they hadn't worked at all. Also there's often a 1 for 1 attitude of 'money that you make is equal to money that we don't have to pay you' which is some times not the case.

    We have less of a safety net, and more of a rope that you need to hold onto with both hands.

  7. #457
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sprinkles View Post
    Part of that issue is the fine line attitude of benefits. Not all work is created equal and not all needs are created equal, but they often try to act like they are.

    Some people have to avoid work above the table because if they make a few extra dollars to help themselves get by, they are stripped and worse off than if they hadn't worked at all. Also there's often a 1 for 1 attitude of 'money that you make is equal to money that we don't have to pay you' which is some times not the case.

    We have less of a safety net, and more of a rope that you need to hold onto with both hands.
    Which I addressed in the first sentence of my post.

    That is an issue with the system (one of thousands) that needs to be addressed.

    That does the exact opposite of incentivize moving off gov't assistance which is what the whole program is supposed to be about in the first place.

    How can people be resistant to common sense changes like this?

  8. #458
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    From the Editor of The National Interest:

    A Fundamental Fiscal Disagreement

    Most of the coverage of the big budget battle between President Obama and House Republicans has missed the significance and magnitude of the issues involved and in the process has given the president something of a pass on the matter. This is unfortunate because the stakes are much greater and more ominous than one would think from following the ongoing battle through the media. And Obama faces a much more serious leadership challenge than is generally understood.

    It all boils down to two questions of immense consequence. The first is this: What is the U.S. government going to do about the debt overhang—currently at sixteen trillion dollars and rising—that threatens the financial stability of the nation? The second question: What kind of nation are we going to be—a European-style social democracy or a nation committed to traditional U.S. concepts of limited government and measured federal intrusion into the private economy?

    Reading the accounts in major media outlets last week, one would get the impression that this is really a typical partisan battle of the kind that has marked U.S. politics for years—and which could be settled if House Republicans would merely abandon their aversion to tax increases and opt for an outcome approaching Obama’s last offer. Michael D. Shear of The New York Times reflected this outlook in the language he selected to frame the matter on Saturday. “Though it has been 45 days since voters emphatically reaffirmed their faith in Mr. Obama,” he wrote, “the time since then has shown the president’s power to be severely constrained by a Republican opposition that is bitter…[and] unmoved by Mr. Obama’s victory.”

    This passage, designed to sum up the essence of the battle, misses it entirely. First, the voters did not emphatically reaffirm their faith in Mr. Obama. He won by a margin of 3.68 percentage points. Only three presidents have been elected a second time by smaller margins—and all had disastrous second terms (Grover Cleveland, Woodrow Wilson and George W. Bush). That is not the kind of victory that puts significant wind into the sails of a second-term presidency. The Washington Post’s Karen Tumulty wanders into the same thicket by suggesting Obama’s reelection victory, coupled with polls, demonstrates that the tax issue has been settled in Obama’s favor—or should have been.

    In fact, the election was notable for the fact that it didn’t settle the fundamental issues facing the country—of which Obama’s insistence upon raising tax rates on the wealthy is such a small matter as to be essentially inconsequential. Although the president made much of the extent to which the top 2 percent of wealthy Americans could seriously ameliorate the country’s fiscal problems if they would just “pay a little bit more,” that simply isn’t true. The problem is much greater than that, and while the president’s appeal to the politics of envy may have galvanized a slice of his base in the election, it will never be a successful governing approach in a country facing dire fiscal consequences from a debt overhang very close to flipping out of control.

    Though taxes clearly must be part of any effort to address this fiscal threat, the biggest contributor to the country’s problem is federal entitlement spending, something the president didn’t deign to discuss during the campaign and shows little interest in accepting as a subject for serious negotiations now. The president’s first post-election offer encompassed additional tax revenue of $1.6 trillion over ten years and spending cuts amounting to $400 billion—four dollars in tax increases for every dollar of spending cuts. This was not the proposal of a serious negotiator.

    The president’s blithe attitude toward the talks was reflected also in the following exchange, reported in The Wall Street Journal, between House Speaker Boehner, who traveled a considerable distance on taxes, and the president:

    Boehner: I put $800 billion [in tax revenue] on the table. What do I get for that?

    Obama: You get nothing. I get that for free.

    Later, when Boehner asked the president if he would revert back to his offer of 2011, when he had put forth a plan with a closer parity between tax increases and spending cuts, the president said no. “You missed your opportunity on that,” said the president, ignoring that he had upended those talks himself with a last-minute demand for a further $360 billion in tax increases beyond anything discussed up to that time.

    Thus does the media’s fixation with the Republican tax philosophy shroud a significant element of the story, which is the Democrats’ fixation with keeping essentially intact the entitlement programs—primarily, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security—that are the largest contributors to the country’s looming fiscal crisis.

    But behind that reality is the broader question of what kind of country we are going to be. For the past four years, federal deficits have exceeded 8.5 percent of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product, far surpassing anything seen by the nation in the nearly seventy years since the end of World War II. Clearly, a contributor was the federal government’s stagnant revenue picture resulting from the Great Recession and the country’s anemic economic growth since the start of the recovery. But in the meantime federal spending has surged by 27 percent, or $812 billion, and spending has hovered between 24.1 percent and 25.2 percent of GDP throughout Obama’s presidency.
    Any effort to address this situation largely through tax increases would transform America’s fiscal posture, inserting the federal government into the private sector to a much larger extent than ever before. Concentrating on the spending side, by contrast, would serve to restore the nation to its traditional fiscal moorings of the postwar era—with tax receipts generally between 18 percent of GDP and 19.5 percent; and outlays between 19 percent and 22 percent. During President Bill Clinton’s years of budget surpluses, it’s worth noting, federal outlays as a percentage of GDP ranged between 18.2 percent and 19.1 percent, while receipts ranged between 19.5 percent and 20.6 percent.

    That’s a far different order of magnitude than what we see in the Obama administration, and the president shows no apparent interest in restoring the country to that kind of governmental proportion. Of course, Clinton also proved successful in generating significant economic growth, with a second-term average annual growth rate of 3.25 percent. That contributed to his ability to get the government into the black. By contrast, Obama’s greatest failure as president has been his inability to craft a fiscal approach that could generate that kind of growth.

    But that doesn’t seem to be much of a priority for this president, who appears more interested in getting tax receipts up to the current unprecedented spending levels, thus expanding the scope of government to unprecedented levels as well.

    That’s the crux of the issue for those anti-tax Republicans who repudiated Boehner last week and who constantly rail against the president’s approach to the country’s looming fiscal crisis. Shear of the Times and Tumulty of the Post may not recognize this, but it’s crucial to any serious understanding of the big fiscal battle that has the nation, and hence Congress, in its grip. The issue isn’t simply about numbers or Republican attitudes on taxes. It’s definitional, meaning it turns on questions that will define the country. And those kinds of issues don’t get resolved easily, particularly when their true nature is obscured by both the political participants and the journalists who cover them.

  9. #459
    null Jonny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    FREE
    Posts
    2,486

    Default

    @DiscoBiscuit

    This article is terrible for many reasons. First and foremost, it places the national debt and an implicit definition of our country's economic policy as the central issues facing our political system at this juncture. It then goes on to justify the Republican position by downplaying the Obama 2012 election victory, which is absolutely irrelevant to a discussion about what direction is best to take the country. Then, it concludes with a very misleading analysis of historical federal recepts and expenditures which is meant to serve, I think, as some counter referendum on Obama's economic policies. It's utter garbage, if only because it offers a man's opinion without a clear path for his reasoning, and no quality evidence or analysis to substantiate that opinion.



    Debt facts that lead me to conclude that our national debt shouldn't be our primary concern

    1. Almost 60% of our national debt is owed to… ourselves (e.g. the federal government and US citizens).
    2. For every $1 that the U.S. owes a foreign nation, there is $0.89 that a foreign nation owes to the US.
    3. From the two facts above, it follows that, of the total national debt (~$16 tril), a net 4.4% of it is owed to foreign countries (~$700 bil).
    4. Arising from the way the US utilizes its foreign assets vs. the interest rates applied to foreign held U.S. debt, it actually earns more from its foreign assets than it pays foreign investors.



    Other facts/ideas that lead me to conclude that our national debt shouldn't be our primary concern

    So, if the debt isn't our biggest problem, what is?

    Inequality leading to malcontent and inefficiency (laziness)

    Historial US growth & efficiency:


    Allocation of Historical US growth:


    As I addressed earlier, in response to your assertion that increased labor participation coupled by lesser increases in production lead to "more people clamoring for slices of a pie that isn't growing as quickly as the economy means less pie for each," the data overwhelmingly contradicts this belief. Rather, it seems that we have an economy that is growing quickly (relative to the growing labor force and the growing population), but whose growth is being allocated disproportionally to the rich.

    Now, this growth is largely due to capital investments (tech, processes, etc), and there is a legitimate debate to be had over where the proceeds of such improvements should be allocated. I'll give you an analogy: A landowner hires a serf to dig holes on his property. At first, the serf uses his hands to dig the holes; he isn't very efficient. The landowner pays him accordingly. Then, the landowner purchases a shovel and gives it to the serf; a substantial increase in productivity (more holes per man-hour) ensues. Should the proceeds of the increased productivity, net of the costs of acquisition and opportunity, be granted to A) the owner of the capital (landowner), B) the wielder of the capital (serf), C) both, D) neither (given back to all of society)?

    A case can be made for an equitable distribution of the net proceeds of capital investments. Central to this idea is an appeal to an equitable society where the needs (both physical and emotional) of every member are met, and an appeal of economic necessity. The latter is chiefly a concern for the overwhelming malcontent that arises from a system that continually rewards the same subset of the population while ignoring the rest. Research has shown that, to achieve ideal efficiency (and happiness), a person must feel adequately rewarded for his efforts (through pay, esteem, etc). It is increasingly the case that people in lower wage jobs, which are still essential to production, are insufficiently rewarded for their efforts, causing a decrease in productivity which further perpetuates the devaluation of their efforts (both potential and realized) and continues the cycle of decreased productivity and devaluation. However, given that we are a first world nation, these needs are relative in nature rather than absolute: "it isn't that I should have more than I have now, but that he shouldn't have more than I could ever realistically hope to have."



    One could argue, rightfully so, for the need to have adequate reward granted for risks undertaken. Investments in new capital/tech aren't without risks and uncertainty, and we must also provide incentives for undertaking these risks so long as they are born by the investor. A balance must be struck to mitigate the risks undertaken to the extent that the proceeds are equitably distributed. I won't go into details here since A) I don't have adequate data to do so at this point, and B) it would take away from the central point of my post (a repudiation of the article you posted). Suffice it to say, it can be done, and we can discuss it at a later time.


    Joblessness

    It goes without saying that the prevailing concern in the US at this juncture is the willingness of able bodied people to work, and the absence of opportunities for those same people to exercise that willingness. This is, at its heart, another issue of inequality. Should we decrease taxes on business to spur growth and hiring? Should we increase government spending to temporarily provide demand, in turn spurring growth and hiring? These are also questions that can be addressed at another juncture.




    So, having talked about why I think inequality and joblessness should be the focus, rather than the national debt, I now move on to discuss "The president’s blithe attitude toward the [fiscal cliff] talks." To the extent that we should increase taxes at all, upon which groups should this burden be placed?

    Effects of various budget proposals:


    Although there was no group explicitly targeted in the Republican tax proposals (closing loopholes, changing deduction rules, etc), it is clear that, relative to the President's proposal, the Republican proposal shifts the burden from those with higher income to those with lower income (and single parents). What is the justification for this? Since the poor spend their income at a rate that is practically 100%, any revenues generated by their increased taxation would serve only to reallocate those resources (which would only further the current inequality). Further, I question the extent to which increased taxation on the wealthy (coupled with government stimulus spending) would negatively affect small business growth and hiring: 1) A small percentage of businesses would experience a tax increase; 2) Wages are paid pre-tax (any monies previously available to pay an additional worker would still be available), and the marginal rate would increase modestly only on those dollars earned above several hundred thousand dollars; 3) Any decrease in growth due to increased tax burden would come from a decrease in capital investment (made with post tax dollars), and would, I believe, be offset by increased revenues from government spending; 4) The increased government spending would provide much needed support to those unemployed or underemployed.




    I'm sorry Discobiscuit, but I find you to be a consumer and regurgitater of opinion, rather than a critical thinker. The few original thoughts you've presented seem to come straight through your anus, and aren't based on any real data. Sure, they sound reasonable on the surface, and there is no doubt that you can write well and sound believable, but I don't buy it. You offer nothing of value. I could just as easily subscribe to a conservative RSS feed. Prove me wrong. I love to learn, and really want to think positively of others.
    Last edited by Jonny; 12-26-2012 at 06:08 PM.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  10. #460
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    So are you saying that the availability of buyers in the bond market is an unimportant factor because those buyers happen to be domestic?

    The nationality of the creditor is unimportant.

    What is important is the continuing availability of creditors.

    Especially when you have a system that almost forces the gov't to spend more than it takes in.

    If the US continues to allow the interest on our debt to grow at its current pace, we won't have the money to afford much else in the not too distant future.

    If there is a loss of confidence in the USD (or more specifically the ability of the US to meet its debt obligations) , it won't matter who our creditors are because no one will want to buy our bonds.


    The fact that other countries owe us 89 cents on the dollar wont matter because the global economy will have already followed the US into the toilet.

    That article was written by the Editor of The National Interest, which if you don't know is a very highly regarded publication.

    Your entire case makes the assumption that there will always be willing creditors regardless of the ability of the US to pay them back.

    How is the amount of our budget being taken up by debt service not a problem?

    Sure it may not be a house on fire, let's turn the world upside down to fix it now problem, but the writing on the wall cannot be ignored.

    And it isn't ignored by those who know...

    For instance the Congressional Budget Office, who I hope live up to your standards for a recognized authority on the subject.

    The 2012 Long term budget outlook

    What Is the Impact of Growing Deficits and Debt?

    The projections discussed above understate the severity of the long-term budget problem under the extended alternative fiscal scenario because they do not incorporate the negative effects that additional federal debt would have on the economy. In particular, large budget deficits and growing debt would reduce national saving, leading to higher interest rates, more borrowing from abroad, and less domestic investment—which in turn would lower the growth of incomes in the United States.

    Taking those effects into account, CBO estimates that gross national product (GNP) would be lower under the extended alternative fiscal scenario than it would be if debt remained at the 61 percent of GDP it would reach in 2022 under the extended baseline scenario. The reduction in GNP would lie in a broad range around 4 percent in 2027 and in a broad range around 13 percent in 2037. (Under the extended baseline scenario, GNP would be nearly identical to what it would be if the nation’s debt burden remained constant.)

    Rising debt also would have other negative consequences beyond those estimated effects on output. It would:

    Result in higher interest payments on that debt, which would eventually require higher taxes, a reduction in government benefits and services, or some combination of the two.

    Restrict policymakers’ ability to use tax and spending policies to respond to unexpected challenges, such as economic downturns or financial crises.

    Increase the probability of a sudden fiscal crisis, during which the government would lose its ability to borrow at affordable rates.
    Here's a little info on The National Interest:



    The National Interest (NI) is an American bi-monthly international affairs magazine published by the Center for the National Interest. It was founded in 1985 by Irving Kristol and until 2001 was edited by Anglo-Australian Owen Harries. The National Interest is not restricted in content to “foreign policy” in the narrow, technical sense but attempts to pay attention to broad ideas and the way in which cultural and social differences, technological innovations, history, and religion impact the behavior of states.

    Positions

    In 1989, NI published Francis Fukuyama's controversial article, "The End of History?".In covering the fall of the Soviet Union, The National Interest's featured contributors included not only specialists like Richard Pipes and Robert Conquest but also Nobel Prize-winning novelist Saul Bellow. The magazine was one of the first to devote attention to questions such as geoeconomics and has explored concepts such as "superpower fatigue" and "developmental realism."[citation needed]

    In 2005, 10 of the 14 members of NI's editorial board, led by Fukuyama and upset by the Nixon Center's changes to editorial policy, decided to leave the journal and create a rival publication, The American Interest. This split was seen as representative of a larger schism among Republicans and the end of an uneasy alliance between neoconservatives and realists that had characterized the Reagan years. In recent issues articles broadly critical of the direction of foreign policy under the George W. Bush administration have been published by senior members of the old Republican party establishment, most recently Brent Scowcroft and James Baker.

    While The National Interest still has contributions from neoconservative and liberal authors, it articulated growing opposition to a number of Bush Administration policies, including skepticism about democracy promotion and the feasibility of taking military action against Iran; in recent years, NI has even published some libertarian views regarding freedom, the role of the executive, and foreign intervention.[citation needed]

    The magazine tends to support continued engagement with China and Russia despite non-democratic practices at home and challenges to U.S. policies abroad.[citation needed] Articles by a number of long-time conservative thinkers—Robert Tucker and Graham Fuller among them—have questioned[when?] the conservative credentials of the administration, and the magazine has tended to gravitate toward positions taken by Senator Chuck Hagel, to a lesser extent Richard Lugar (with the exception of his stance on policy toward Russia) and John Warner.

    Readership and design

    NI has an international readership, and excerpts from its articles have been published in the New York Times, Financial Times, The Australian, International Herald Tribune, Shin Dong-A, The Spectator, and Austria's Europäische Rundschau, as well as on online sites such as the Russian Inosmi.ru.
    The rest of your points are issues, but they are much more manageable than the structural financial problems facing the country.

    I'm sorry Discobiscuit, but I find you to be a consumer and regurgitater of opinion, rather than a critical thinker. The few original thoughts you've presented seem to come straight through your anus, and aren't based on any real data. Sure, they sound reasonable on the surface, and there is no doubt that you can write well and sound believable, but I don't buy it. You offer nothing of value. I could just as easily subscribe to a conservative RSS feed. Prove me wrong. I love to learn, and really want to think positively of others.
    I thought more highly of you before this post of yours @Jonnyboy.

    In my first couple of years here I posted and wrote much more extensively. I got tired of explaining this shit to people.

    I post articles that I happen to agree with, and come from exceedingly reputable sources.

    If you have the mental horse power to keep up and stay with me fine. But I don't have the time to explain to you why you don't understand what you don't understand.

    Going the opposite direction, I understand the need for a welfare system, and aid etc.... It might not be something that keeps me up at night, but most things don't. That's OK.

    You would sound much more reasonable if you would concede the legitimacy of the oppositions argument that things need to be run (spending and taxes need to be addressed) better if we are going to get fiscal house in order.

    I think I may have had it with this website.

Similar Threads

  1. Former Republican staffer's extremely scathing critique of the Republican party.
    By Magic Poriferan in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 11-23-2011, 07:29 PM
  2. The Future of Microprocessors
    By ygolo in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 04-15-2011, 04:23 AM
  3. Unity within the upper echelons of the Republican Party begins to crack.
    By DiscoBiscuit in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 10-26-2009, 12:18 PM
  4. The Death of the Republican Party, Stardate Unknown
    By Wind Up Rex in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 08-08-2009, 01:58 PM
  5. Your Predictions About the Future of Psychotherapy
    By ThatsWhatHeSaid in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 08-06-2008, 07:58 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO