User Tag List

First 3456 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 54

  1. #41
    Minister of Propagandhi ajblaise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    7,917

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    Interesting, on that list Denmark is right behind the U.S.

    As for what "economic freedom" means (with regard to that list),
    Index of Economic Freedom

    I actually learned something here.

    Index of Economic Freedom -Rankings

    The countries at the top:


    The countries at the bottom:


    Says something to me at least.
    Places like Singapore aren't exactly bastions of freedom and liberty.

  2. #42
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajblaise View Post
    Places like Singapore aren't exactly bastions of freedom and liberty.
    No, but Hong Kong isn't bad. Chile under Pinochet would have scored relatively high on Economic Freedom during his time in power, and he was awful for civil liberties. Still, the numbers illustrate a stark reality: the wealthiest and politically freest countries in the world are in the upper third to half of those lists.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  3. #43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    meanlittlechimp, the death toll figures for the Second Congo War are still higher than any conflicts in which the United States has been involved. That is a fact, and you didn't even address that. Also, you are adding casualties to the toll wreaked by the United States in which they did not even pull the trigger. It's disingenuous and wrong and you really do not have a leg to stand on. I'd love to see your estimates of the number of non-citizens killed directly or indirectly by the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia. . . You know, it was only a couple of million. Gotta break some eggs for omelettes and all that. And 20,000,000 dead Soviets OBVIOUSLY doesn't count. Way to be selectively moralistic.
    I've already addressed the Soviet and Chinese deaths BEFORE you even mentioned it; so why do you want to keep harping on something I've already made clear. Count? Count for what? My statement was clear. If you want to make another statement - which societies killed their own people, go ahead. But to say everything in my post was wrong, is absurd. Since you didn't seem to comprehend much of it.

    Furthermore, the "Second Congo War" is not a nation. It was a war with more than 5 participants. I said what nation, has killed more folks. Maybe you didn't know what I meant by "nation".

    Secondly, According to wikipedia, "By 2008 the war and its aftermath had killed 5.4 million people, mostly from disease and starvation". If you wanted to count disease and starvation the US tolls would also be higher. Tens of millions, ok.. Way to be selectively WRONG with the numbers you make up Not to mention there were several nations involved. Do you actually have numbers or do you want to stick to tens of millions caused by a nation you can't even name.

    So go ahead and name the NATION that was responsible for the most amount of deaths since WWII, outside of their own populace and compare that to US caused deaths.

    If you think socialism was the cause of the deaths in China, and the Soviet Union; do you think Capitalism was the cause of the deaths perpetrated by us? Everyone wants to always point out what's wrong with everyone but us, but have insanely little knowledge of the brown people we bomb, exploit, or who's governments we overthrow with impunity. Which is why the moronic masses, can get all morally bent out of shape, by the evil terrorist scourge blighting our way of life. The 100s of thousands we kill every decade aren't worth harping on. Only 9/11 matters in the public conciousness (why they're angry in the first place is inconsequential).

    Wonder why Europe voted the US as the largest threat to world peace? Probably not.
    Killing millions of farmers in SE Asia isn't terrorism. Hell, it's not even our fault according to you.

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    I couldn't let this one go. YOU are the one who doesn't know what socialism means. Here are three dictionary definitions:

    1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
    2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
    3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.
    Reread what I wrote again. I stated, "Free trade has nothing to do with being socialist or capitalist. It's the degree to which their economy is influenced or controlled by the state." which is exactly what #1 states. You seem to have a serious problem with reading comprehension.

    China's economy is far more state controlled, than anything in Europe. But since you claim they aren't socialist anymore but rather capitalist. Who is socialist according to your definition of it. What did you even think it was, before you had to look it up?
    Last edited by meanlittlechimp; 08-19-2008 at 11:47 PM.

  4. #44
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by meanlittlechimp View Post
    I've already addressed the Soviet and Chinese deaths BEFORE you even mentioned it; so why do you want to keep harping on something I've already made clear. Count? Count for what? My statement was clear. If you want to make another statement - which societies killed their own people, go ahead. But to say everything in my post was wrong, is absurd. Since you didn't seem to comprehend much of it.
    Dead citizens count just the same as dead non-citizens. Mentioning it beforehand doesn't make it any less bad. Most murderous countries of the 20th Century = China, Soviet Union, Germany. That is the truth.


    Furthermore, the "Second Congo War" is not a nation. It was a war with more than 5 participants. I said what nation, has killed more folks. Maybe you didn't know what I meant by "nation".

    Secondly, According to wikipedia, "By 2008 the war and its aftermath had killed 5.4 million people, mostly from disease and starvation". If you wanted to count disease and starvation the US tolls would also be higher. Tens of millions, ok.. Way to be selectively WRONG with the numbers you make up Not to mention there were several nations involved. Do you actually have numbers or do you want to stick to tens of millions caused by a nation you can't even name.

    So go ahead and name the NATION that was responsible for the most amount of deaths since WWII, outside of their own populace and compare that to US caused deaths.
    The Democratic Republic of Congo (formerly Zaire), Uganda, and Rwanda. Between those three countries in particular, between 5 and 7 million are dead. Many were slaughtered, and many starved to death or died from disease. I have seen estimates up to 13 million. There is no way to divvy up the number killed between them precisely, but that was the deadliest conflict in the world since WWII, and far more were killed than in Vietnam or anything else in which the U.S. has been involved.

    If you think socialism was the cause of the deaths in China, and the Soviet Union; do you think Capitalism was the cause of the deaths perpetrated by us? Everyone wants to always point out what's wrong with everyone but us, but have insanely little knowledge of the brown people we bomb, exploit, or who's governments we overthrow with impunity. Which is why the moronic masses, can get all morally bent out of shape, by the evil terrorist scourge blighting our way of life. The 100s of thousands we kill every decade aren't worth harping on. Only 9/11 matters in the public conciousness (why they're angry in the first place is inconsequential).
    No, capitalism wasn't the cause of deaths perpetrated by us. Capitalism, unlike socialism and communism, isn't bloodthirsty BY NATURE. Nationalistic foreign policy, stupid treaties, political pressure, etc. do not = capitalism. You must understand this, or you're deluded or defective.

    Wonder why Europe voted the US as the largest threat to world peace? Probably not.
    Killing millions of farmers in SE Asia isn't terrorism. Hell, it's not even our fault according to you.
    Of course, killing Vietnamese counts. That was a stupid war. It wasn't our fault that it started, but we shouldn't have gone in. Way to put words in my mouth! I'm a libertarian. I'm against ALL offensive wars. You're REALLY testing my patience, since you don't even care to learn anything about what I believe.


    Reread what I wrote again. I said control of the economy by the state, which is exactly what #1 states. You seem to have a serious problem with reading comprehension.
    Completely wrong. Scandinavian governments do NOT own the vast majority of the means of production, capital, and land in their countries. Not at all. You're 100% off-base in that claim.

    China's economy is far more state controlled, than anything in Europe. But since you claim they aren't socialist anymore but rather capitalist. Who is socialist according to your definition of it. What did you even think it was, before you had to look it up?
    China has introduced major economic reforms in the last thirty years. Their economic growth is due to a huge increase in private economic entities. The government still controls a big portion of the economy, but it is taking a far more capitalist approach than it had in the past. Who would be truly socialist? North Korea, Cuba, Haiti, Laos, Venezuela, etc.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  5. #45
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ExTJ
    Posts
    1,377

    Default

    To memebrs of this thread arguing: You obviously have strong feelings on these issues, but please keep away from attacks on value judgements (Which cannot really go anywhere except "I'm right!" "No, I'm right!"), philosophical arguments (Which have a similar issue), definition arguments, etc. There are some interesting points to be made, but they don't need ot be interfered with by attacks on value judgements.

  6. #46

    Default

    OK. I'll retract my statement about socialism being a cover for human rights abuses (at least for now).

    I would like a simple answer, how is socialism supposed to work?
    It is a simple, though open ended question.

    Capitalism makes sense to me. Supply and demand, in liquid markets, where people are allowed (and expected) to look out for themsleves. An ideal, not often met. Messy? yes. But more or less functions with a few tweaks and regulations where needed.

    How is socialism supposed to work? Whats the motivation for it? What is the three sentence sumary of the idea? What is the "big-picture" we are trying to implement with it? What is the basic reason for believing it will function?

    The picture I have in my mind of socialism is simply a temporary stop-gap or transition-period to communism (which we seem to agree doesn't work). Perhaps I am mistaken here. Please correct me.

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  7. #47
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,911

    Default

    Haven't I suggested After Capitalism on this forum before?
    Go to sleep, iguana.


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

  8. #48

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    Haven't I suggested After Capitalism on this forum before?
    Perhaps. Please remind us briefly.

    What is the crux of the design of a socialist system?

    What is the equivalent of the market idea of capitalism, or the sate-planned production and rationing in Communism?

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  9. #49

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    Dead citizens count just the same as dead non-citizens. Mentioning it beforehand doesn't make it any less bad. Most murderous countries of the 20th Century = China, Soviet Union, Germany. That is the truth.
    Again, I don't deny this. But foreign policy wise, the US is the most murderous post WWII. Most Americans live under this fantasy that the evil socialists and terrorists of the world are causing all the problems and we go around spreading democracy like a gift from our benevolence.

    The reality is the opposite. We've overthrown dozens of legitimate democracies and replaced them with dictatorships. You can probably name some them too (but post WWII); however, you would have to think very hard of an example of a dictatorship we replaced with a democracy (if you can at all). The fighting socialism/spreading democracy angle is a bullshit, Orwellian, PR tactic used by us, to bully and dominate weaker nations than ourselves.

    Stalin and Mao were nutjobs but I don't think it's necessarily socialism that caused this. Individual nutjobs can rise to power in a variety of different types of governments. Hitler was elected in a democracy with the mandate of fighting communism as one of it's goals.

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    The Democratic Republic of Congo (formerly Zaire), Uganda, and Rwanda. Between those three countries in particular, between 5 and 7 million are dead. Many were slaughtered, and many starved to death or died from disease. I have seen estimates up to 13 million. There is no way to divvy up the number killed between them precisely, but that was the deadliest conflict in the world since WWII, and far more were killed than in Vietnam or anything else in which the U.S. has been involved.
    There were more nations involved than that. But if you took the realistic estimates and ascribed them to a particular nation, the US death tolls would be higher. If you want to count starvation (preventable deaths from loss of health care and infrastructure) and other side effects of war, the US tolls would be significantly higher than I listed. There were roughly a million Iraqis that starved to death (or died from lack of access to basic necessities) just by the embargo before the 2nd invasion.

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    No, capitalism wasn't the cause of deaths perpetrated by us. Capitalism, unlike socialism and communism, isn't bloodthirsty BY NATURE. Nationalistic foreign policy, stupid treaties, political pressure, etc. do not = capitalism. You must understand this, or you're deluded or defective.
    That was my entire point! Neither socialism nor capitalism is the root. Which is why it's ridiculous for the US to use the existence of socialism, as a pretense to bomb civilians or overthrow their legitimate governments (which it has done for decades).
    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    Completely wrong. Scandinavian governments do NOT own the vast majority of the means of production, capital, and land in their countries. Not at all. You're 100% off-base in that claim.
    Again socialism is merely to the extent which the government has control of their economy. Let me repeat this again. No country is completely capitalist or socialist. Only shades of gray. The Scandinavian governments are more "socialist" than the US, but less so than the Chinese.

    A truly free market, capitalist society, would not have public schools, imposition of tariffs, extra taxes on alcohol and tobacco, bailouts of banks from the sub prime scandal, bailout of banks from the S&L debacle, bailouts of airlines, Chrysler or any other corporation for failing in the free market. We wouldn't have medicare or social security. We wouldn't have the energy industry regulated by the state. We wouldn't even have a space program. Even pollution controls set by the government is a socialist policy. Any policy that artificially effects free market forces is anti-capitalist or socialist by nature....

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    You're REALLY testing my patience, since you don't even care to learn anything about what I believe.
    You started off saying everything in my OP was wrong in an insulting way, so I decided to respond in kind. It's actually been fun for me, since it's motivated me to compile some more detailed numbers on the subject.

    I know your not a neo-con, but saying the millions we killed in SE wasn't our fault is absurd. And if the situation was reversed, every person who supported that war or thinks it wasn't our fault would without question say it was THEIR fault, if we were on the receiving end, of that bombing.

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    Of course, killing Vietnamese counts. That was a stupid war. It wasn't our fault that it started, but we shouldn't have gone in. Way to put words in my mouth! I'm a libertarian. I'm against ALL offensive wars.
    How do you figure it wasn't our fault?

    It was our fault, beyond question. We didn't like the fact Ho Chi Minh would have won 90% of the popular vote (which is why we weren't trying to push for democracy), so we set up a puppet government with a corrupt Diem (who we shipped out from New Jersey). Once we tired of him, we assassinated him anyways.

    When the Cambodians wouldn't help us invade Vietnam, we overthrew their popular leader, Sinahoek, and bombed more millions there, which left the vacuum for Pol Pot to take over. If it's not our fault, who deserves the blame for carpet bombing all those people in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, merely because we didn't like what leaders they elected?

    To say it's not our fault is the definition of American arrogance and imperialism. No one here questions that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan wasn't the Soviet Union's fault. They wanted to control the valuable oil pipeline there. When analyzing US actions, however, many Americans, comfort themselves that we were actually trying to help those people, from having the leaders they wanted to elect, by bombing the shit out of them. If they bombed us because we elected Bush, I'm sure you wouldn't blame them either.

    Who's fault was it for dropping all that napalm and agent orange on women and children? For some crazy reason, some of them actually blame us for it, along with the tens of millions of land mines, we left in SE Asia. Don't know what they're whining about since they won the war. Maybe their socialist tendencies to look for handouts from the state?

    The Vietnam Syndrome: Agent Orange CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS / Vanity Fair 1aug2006
    Opinions: Korean soldiers & Vietnamese civilians sue Dow & Monsanto for poisoning them with herbicide Agent Orange Archives
    Green Left - Issues: Vietnam's Agent Orange victims call for solidarity
    Attached Images Attached Images

  10. #50
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by meanlittlechimp View Post
    Again, I don't deny this. But foreign policy wise, the US is the most murderous post WWII. Most Americans live under this fantasy that the evil socialists and terrorists of the world are causing all the problems and we go around spreading democracy like a gift from our benevolence.
    Fair enough. We're in the same book, if not on the same page, on this one. I will address the capitalism vs. socialism violence question later on.


    The reality is the opposite. We've overthrown dozens of legitimate democracies and replaced them with dictatorships. You can probably name some them too (but post WWII); however, you would have to think very hard of an example of a dictatorship we replaced with a democracy (if you can at all). The fighting socialism/spreading democracy angle is a bullshit, Orwellian, PR tactic used by us, to bully and dominate weaker nations than ourselves.
    Oh, we agree for the most part here. The United States has committed several atrocities in the name of fighting communism/spreading democracy. I am a noninterventionist at heart. You won't find me arguing for almost any U.S. military engagement in the 20th- and 21st-Centuries (Afghanistan is about the only one that I really support; WWII had some underhanded FDR shit going on, but I see the point of that war after Pearl Harbor, too). Actually, the single worst thing I can think of the U.S. doing to another country ever was dropping the A-bombs on Japan. That was sheer bloody murder, bordering on genocide. At the same time, democracy is not an end-all, be-all for me. I am more concerned about setting up a constitutional system and civil society and courts, etc. than making sure everyone is voting all the time. Think about how poorly we choose in America in our elections. Now think about people who vote in countries which have FAR less education and no real history of republican government.


    Stalin and Mao were nutjobs but I don't think it's necessarily socialism that caused this. Individual nutjobs can rise to power in a variety of different types of governments. Hitler was elected in a democracy with the mandate of fighting communism as one of it's goals.
    I think that nutjobbery is part and parcel of communism/socialism. Some leaders are better than others in those systems, but it's inherent to their way of governing that people will die, opposition will be silenced, and so on.


    There were more nations involved than that. But if you took the realistic estimates and ascribed them to a particular nation, the US death tolls would be higher. If you want to count starvation (preventable deaths from loss of health care and infrastructure) and other side effects of war, the US tolls would be significantly higher than I listed. There were roughly a million Iraqis that starved to death (or died from lack of access to basic necessities) just by the embargo before the 2nd invasion.
    Of course there were more nations involved, but those three had roving death squads responsible for deaths upwards of 1,000 per day. The amount of deaths may never be known totally. If you just look at killings, the numbers in that one conflict are higher than anything in which the U.S. has been involved, and may, in fact, be higher than total deaths directly responsible due to U.S. intervention. Some of the numbers you cited were estimates of total deaths in the conflict, which would include U.S. soldiers and those of our allies! That is totally unfair.


    That was my entire point! Neither socialism nor capitalism is the root. Which is why it's ridiculous for the US to use the existence of socialism, as a pretense to bomb civilians or overthrow their legitimate governments (which it has done for decades).

    I think I was unclear here. Socialism and communism ARE bloodthirsty at their roots. Capitalism is not. It can be when pursued via military bullying, but it's not inherent.


    Again socialism is merely to the extent which the government has control of their economy. Let me repeat this again. No country is completely capitalist or socialist. Only shades of gray. The Scandinavian governments are more "socialist" than the US, but less so than the Chinese.
    This is a MUCH different argument than saying that Scandinavian countries are "socialist." That just isn't true. Their governments soak up a big portion of GDP, but they have thriving markets and big corporations and small businesses and foreign investment. Really, it's the generous welfare statism that even has the government role in the economy as high as it is. Certainly, the U.S. federal government via military spending and Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid has a gigantic amount of influence over certain sectors of our economy.

    A truly free market, capitalist society, would not have public schools, imposition of tariffs, extra taxes on alcohol and tobacco, bailouts of banks from the sub prime scandal, bailout of banks from the S&L debacle, bailouts of airlines, Chrysler or any other corporation for failing in the free market. We wouldn't have medicare or social security. We wouldn't have the energy industry regulated by the state. We wouldn't even have a space program. Even pollution controls set by the government is a socialist policy. Any policy that artificially effects free market forces is anti-capitalist or socialist by nature....
    That is not necessarily true. There are a few situations in which regulation might actually have pro-free market effects (there are some sectors in which natural monopolies spring up, and national defense and infrastructure like roads are things that there aren't possible to provide on an individual user fee basis). And pollution control via tort law wouldn't be socialist, and I'd prefer it to the current system. Still, I don't see where this is going, because I'd LIKE to see most or all of the things you list gone. I don't want tariffs or sin taxes or bank bailouts or Medicare or Social Security. I'd get rid of the Department of Education, too. What is the point here? The U.S. is not a completely capitalist country. That is true. In fact, we're nearing a welfare-warfare state, and I don't care for it one bit.


    You started off saying everything in my OP was wrong in an insulting way, so I decided to respond in kind. It's actually been fun for me, since it's motivated me to compile some more detailed numbers on the subject.
    Debates are fun when people are actually throwing out ideas and backing them up somehow. Unlike, say, a former left-wing poster who is no longer here, you've got some facts and figures to back your points up.

    I know your not a neo-con, but saying the millions we killed in SE wasn't our fault is absurd. And if the situation was reversed, every person who supported that war or thinks it wasn't our fault would without question say it was THEIR fault, if we were on the receiving end, of that bombing.
    THAT was our fault. However, we did NOT start the war in Vietnam. You know the history involved. We didn't have to go in, but the war began in 1950s, without the U.S. there. We didn't have combat troops until a decade into the conflict. That wasn't a situation like Iraq, where we went into a sovereign nation to start a war.


    How do you figure it wasn't our fault?
    Not our fault the war started in 1950s, before we were even in it. I know that Truman and Eisenhower were involved with sending money to the French and to the State of Vietnam, but the Chinese were the first to act in the conflict by arming the Vietminh. Clearly, our government is responsible for the actions of Kennedy, LBJ, and Nixon.

    It was our fault, beyond question. We didn't like the fact Ho Chi Minh would have won 90% of the popular vote (which is why we weren't trying to push for democracy), so we set up a puppet government with a corrupt Diem (who we shipped out from New Jersey). Once we tired of him, we assassinated him anyways.

    When the Cambodians wouldn't help us invade Vietnam, we overthrew their popular leader, Sinahoek, and bombed more millions there, which left the vacuum for Pol Pot to take over. If it's not our fault, who deserves the blame for carpet bombing all those people in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, merely because we didn't like what leaders they elected?

    To say it's not our fault is the definition of American arrogance and imperialism. No one here questions that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan wasn't the Soviet Union's fault. They wanted to control the valuable oil pipeline there. When analyzing US actions, however, many Americans, comfort themselves that we were actually trying to help those people, from having the leaders they wanted to elect, by bombing the shit out of them. If they bombed us because we elected Bush, I'm sure you wouldn't blame them either.
    The U.S. is clearly at fault for atrocities in Vietnam between 1963-1973. I NEVER CLAIMED OTHERWISE. You're arguing something that never happened.

    Also, I know this will sound completely unfair to you, but: a revolutionary Communist government is never legitimate, so your analogy of attacking a country for electing Bush is not valid, as far as I am concerned. The situation in the United States is not great right now, but armed revolution is not necessary to change it. If there were a serious chance that the United States were about to elect or be overrun by a Communist dictatorship, armed revolution would be absolutely appropriate.

    Who's fault was it for dropping all that napalm and agent orange on women and children? For some crazy reason, some of them actually blame us for it, along with the tens of millions of land mines, we left in SE Asia. Don't know what they're whining about since they won the war. Maybe their socialist tendencies to look for handouts from the state?
    Again, gigantic moral failing of some very, very bad presidents, members of Congress, and military people in our nation.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

Similar Threads

  1. The Great Global Warming Swindle
    By reason in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 07-08-2015, 12:04 PM
  2. Global Warming, Man made or Naturally caused (And other earth questions)
    By Didums in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 72
    Last Post: 08-14-2008, 11:29 PM
  3. Global warming
    By Nocapszy in forum Home, Garden and Nature
    Replies: 80
    Last Post: 04-09-2008, 11:18 AM
  4. [MBTItm] Can you move from J to P?
    By Cindyrella in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 10-30-2007, 10:08 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