Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
10 Nobel Laureates (Economics) Endorse Kerry  
User currently offlinePacificjourney From New Zealand, joined Jul 2001, 2734 posts, RR: 8
Posted (10 years 4 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 1450 times:

Story from AFP-JiJi press speaks for itself.

In a public letter the 10 americans stated that Mr. Bush had,

" ... embarked on a reckless and extreme course that endangers the long-term economic health of our nation".

Of his much touted tax cuts they said they were,

" ... poorly designed and have therefore given scant stimulus to job creation."

and that their main effect has been to,

" ... turn budget surpluses into enormous budget deficits."

OUCH !!!

Of Mr. Kerry they claimed,

" ... (he) understands that sound economic policy requires a substantial change in direction and we support him for President."


" Help, help ... I'm being oppressed ... "
67 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAndreas From Germany, joined Oct 2001, 6104 posts, RR: 31
Reply 1, posted (10 years 4 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 1437 times:

So what do you expect to happen now? I'll tell you:

Certain Forum members will declare wholeheartedly that every bloody moron can get a Nobel Prize, that Nobel Prizes are for pinko-commie-surrender-sissies anyway, real men do work, and not think up cheese-eating theories and who the f#@k listens to those idiots anyway.

Wanna bet?  Big grin



I know it's only VfB but I like it!
User currently offlinePacificjourney From New Zealand, joined Jul 2001, 2734 posts, RR: 8
Reply 2, posted (10 years 4 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 1431 times:

You are right of course and the usual shit will begin BUT a lot of opinions are expressed on here about the merits or otherwise of tweedle dumb and dumber but so far not much worthwhile (or original).

I think this is different and why I posted it, otherwise I avoid this joke of an election altogether.



" Help, help ... I'm being oppressed ... "
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29840 posts, RR: 58
Reply 3, posted (10 years 4 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1431 times:

Just out of curiousity, I noticed that you elected not to name these nobel lauriets.


That wouldn't to keep us from challenging their conclusions, would it?



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlinePacificjourney From New Zealand, joined Jul 2001, 2734 posts, RR: 8
Reply 4, posted (10 years 4 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1427 times:

Not that which ones sent the letter really matters but rather that 10 of them combined did so. With an iota of effort you can surely find the names for yourself.

Not that you'd would know one laureate from another but I'll play. The article only names 2, Paul Samuelson (1971) and Joseph Stiglitz (2001).

It is the absolute clarity of the meassage that caught my eye. Economists are usually all 'ifs' and 'buts' ... until now.



" Help, help ... I'm being oppressed ... "
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29840 posts, RR: 58
Reply 5, posted (10 years 4 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1427 times:

Well I want to know.

These guys sound like Kensyans and convets to the nationalized economy, which the Soviet bloc proved doesn't work.

It would also go a long way to explain their hatred of GW's economic policies.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlinePacificjourney From New Zealand, joined Jul 2001, 2734 posts, RR: 8
Reply 6, posted (10 years 4 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1415 times:

WTF is Keynesian (note the spelling) in the comments I posted ? Where do you get the idea they are "converts to the nationalized economy" from the 3 quotes posted ?

Please stop pretending you actually have a clue what you're talking about. People are not fooled much less impressed.

Is it so painful that people of standing have a strongly dissenting opinion that you attempt the usual character assasination ? Just keep trying it in this case I dare you.



" Help, help ... I'm being oppressed ... "
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29840 posts, RR: 58
Reply 7, posted (10 years 4 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1411 times:

Now that was just mean.

And as far as questioning the individuals who made up this letter and their qualifications.

Being a Nobel Lauriate doesn't mean that you actually have done anything productive.

See Jimmy Carter and Yassar Arafat.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (10 years 4 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1406 times:

Andreas, you called it. To L-188, anyone who doesn't believe in what's going on now-increasing the gap between rich and poor; giving corporations and the most wealthy Americans huge tax breaks of breathtaking proportion, while shifting the burden to the middle class; seeing excellent jobs shipped oveseas, being replaced by inferior jobs; the poverty rate climbing every year Bush as been in office, is just a leftie commie, who doesn't get it.

If Americans were smart, and REALLY looked at what Bush is doing economically, he wouldn't stand a chance in hell to be re-elected.


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29840 posts, RR: 58
Reply 9, posted (10 years 4 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1405 times:

Ah, Alpha1, your bitterness shows through.

It is sad that the only way you can defend your viewpoint, is denegrate others.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (10 years 4 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1402 times:

Ah, Alpha1, your bitterness shows through.

Don't make me laugh, Mr. Republican! Bitterness? No. The state of the U.S. economy as it stands today? Absolutely. The gap between rich and poor, since Bush has taken office, is increasing faster and faster; the rich and corporations are receiving huge windfalls, while the burden of taxation falls harder on the middle, as they support the poorer of us, and make up for the taxes not paid by those who easily could; poverty is increasing at an alarming rate, even as the rich get richer; outsourcing is a national policy, and bringing back jobs that pay a lot less.

These are FACTS, L-188. The fact is you're so far up The Bush isn't my fault. If you lived in NE Ohio, you'd actually see all this, and couldn't brush it off like you do there living in Alaska.

What is sad, is you support everything I mentioned. And if you deny it, you're lying thorugh your teeth.


User currently offlinePacificjourney From New Zealand, joined Jul 2001, 2734 posts, RR: 8
Reply 11, posted (10 years 4 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1400 times:

" Being a Nobel Lauriate doesn't mean that you actually have done anything productive. "

Oh really, thanks for the insight.

Now it's the whole concept of the Nobel prize which is a joke.

Just keep talking.

PS It's spelt Laureate not Lauriate



" Help, help ... I'm being oppressed ... "
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29840 posts, RR: 58
Reply 12, posted (10 years 4 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1398 times:

Give me a break.

It is 5 am here, and I am not taking breaks to use the spell checker.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (10 years 4 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1392 times:

And you're not taking breaks to put in any facts, either, L-188.

The fact remains that under Bush, the most wealthy have seen their income go way up, and the middle and the poorest are seeing it go down. But then again, that's what the GOP wants, since the GOP believes that the best way to national security is to help the rich and big business, and to hell with everyone else.


User currently offlineN6376m From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (10 years 4 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1381 times:

Does anyone want to, in an objective manner, define what a good economy is?



User currently offlineJaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (10 years 4 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1371 times:

"Being a Nobel Lauriate doesn't mean that you actually have done anything productive."

Yeah, right.

Try telling that to the Nobel laureates in Medicine, Physics, and Economics. The work of Modigliani and Bob Solow is fundamental to the way economic growth is analyzed by markets today.


User currently offlinePacificjourney From New Zealand, joined Jul 2001, 2734 posts, RR: 8
Reply 16, posted (10 years 4 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1366 times:

Stop deluding yourself jaysit, they're all worthless losers.

Them and that guy that split the atom and those dickheads that maped the human genome ... a waste of skin the lot !!!



" Help, help ... I'm being oppressed ... "
User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (10 years 4 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1366 times:

A good economy, in my veiw, N6376m is this:

-A lot of Americans, not a select few, benefitting from it. That's not happening today, as the poverty figures will help to tell anyone with half a brain.

-It's when American companies are adding good-paying jobs here, not shipping them overseas, to be replaced by lower-paying jobs, and jobs with fewer benefits.

-It's when the gap between the richest-who are benefitting enormously from the economics now, and the poorest, is decreasing, not expanding, as it is today. That is a sign that things are way off kilter.

-It's when more Americans can afford health insurance, and not drop it because they have to choose between housing, feeding and clothing themselves, and having a protection for illness.

These, in my mind, define a good economy, not the kind of economy we have today. When well over a million jobs have been lost, replaced by lesser-payng ones; when the gap between the richest and poorest are increasing at an alarming rate; when Americans have to give up health care in order to eat (something the rich won't ever have to face), then it's not a good economy.


User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 14140 posts, RR: 62
Reply 18, posted (10 years 4 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1360 times:

There is something I wonder about an economic attitude, which I observed mostly with Americans, but sometimes as well with British asnd South Africans.
I´ll give an example:
The last two managements in our company have essentialy been screwing us over, more work for less money and little respect.
Now by German labour law the thing to do would be at least to elect a spokesman (Betriebsrat) with certain negotiating powers (doesn´t have to be a union member, but e.g. he can get an auditor to look in the company´s books if the bosses are complaining again how bad business goes). Our American, some British and South African colleagues are strictly against such a move, they are often siding with the bosses, in complaining about "too high labour costs", or public holidays. It seems that these guys are gambling a few hundred dollars in day trading on the stock or forgeign currency exchange and are thinking of themselves as the big capitalists. They seem to hope that some day they will be bosses of a aircraft maintenance company (which will never happen) and they don´t want those "pesky" labour laws to restrict them.

Jan


User currently offlineFDXmech From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3251 posts, RR: 34
Reply 19, posted (10 years 4 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1352 times:

Alpha

I agree, especially with the overseas outsourcing which is akin to termites eating at the foundation of a house. Not readily visible and easily dismissable until the structure collapses.

But I'm curious how PJ and others in favor of o/s outsourcing (from past posts) reconcile their views with Kerry's.



You're only as good as your last departure.
User currently offlineB757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 22
Reply 20, posted (10 years 4 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1353 times:

Does anyone want to, in an objective manner, define what a good economy is?

Well in the liberal mind, a good economy is what we have when a Democrat is in the White House and a bad economy is what happens when a Republican is in the White House.

A good example of that is how CNN said during the Clinton administration that 5.6% unemployment was "low" and how during the Bush administration 5.6% is considered "high".



"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (10 years 4 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1341 times:

Well in the liberal mind, a good economy is what we have when a Democrat is in the White House and a bad economy is what happens when a Republican is in the White House.

Right, B757300. You say that because you see EVERYTHING in such black and white terms. I don't.

We had some pretty damn good economic times under Ronald Reagan. We had a damn good economy under Dwight Eisenhower. We had two good years under George H.W. Bush.

We had a lousy economy under Jimmy Carter. The economy, because of war and his bid for a "Great Society" did suffer under LBJ.

We've had good economies under Harry Truman, JFK and Bill Clinton. We had economic troubles under Richard Nixon.

It doesn't work that way, although both parties like to claim what you said, but that's polltiking. The truth is, a good economy, nor a bad one, is the sole property of one party or another. Nor is the the sole property of a president, since he must have help from Congress.

So, as usual, you're dead wrong.

Does anyone want to, in an objective manner, define what a good economy is?

Well in the liberal mind, a good economy is what we have when a Democrat is in the White House and a bad economy is what happens when a Republican is in the White House.

A good example of that is how CNN said during the Clinton administration that 5.6% unemployment was "low" and how during the Bush administration 5.6% is considered "high".


You left out one thing, B757300: In Clinton's 8 years, millions of jobs were created. Under Bush, over a million have been lost, and the ones coming back are paying less than the ones leaving. The unemployment stat that is being reported isn't the problem-it's how many jobs are/aren't being created that is more important. Plus, the unemployment stats don't count those who aren't even looking anymore-and read the latest poverty figures, and you'll see there a lot of those folks.


User currently offlineCaptoveur From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (10 years 4 months 4 days ago) and read 1337 times:

Ok guys, there are two very different schools of thought in Economics, someone correct me if I am wrong.

Keynesian: Believes that the key to long term success is messing with things in the short run, to quote Keynes himself "In the long run we are all dead." This is the school of thought more commonly accepted by the Left wing types because It typically calls for more government intervention to force a macro equilibrium.

Classical: This is a school of thought that concerns itself far more with long term economic issues. This school of thought on Economics has also been around a lot longer and calls for a more hands off approach to economic issues, this is favored typically by Republicans. In this school of thought the market finds its own equilibrium over time.

Finding 10 Keynsians to call Bushes Economic policies stupid is not a hard thing to do. Finding 10 classical theory followers to call them the work of a genius is about as easy. The same is true in any clash of basic schools of thought. (Designated hitter vs not, Astroturf vs grass, etc)

Personally I think some of Bushes stuff is pretty good, like the talk of dropping the farm export subsidies which hurts all of us in the short term because the price at the store will rise for now http://www.masslive.com/news/republican/index.ssf?/base/news-5/109247490536710.xml

Keynsians hate this idea because it hurts in the short run, but I will say it again, in the long run it helps. If you think 2-3 years down the road the market prices will stabilize at a level that is better for everyone. This goes back to that comparative advantage thing, if any of you remember that from my last economics lesson, it is where countries produce what they can produce better than anyone else, meaning the market has cheaper goods with higher quality

someone will say the source is biased but the facts in the article speak regardless of spin.


Also, a while back Bush was de-valuing the dollar to try to encourage other countries to buy more American stuff, it was a pretty good idea and worked to a certain extent. Believe it or not our economy is actually in a recovery.
http://www.sounddollar.org/mnews67.html

"He said the recent slide in the dollar, which makes imports from Europe and Japan more costly in U.S. markets, was not the issue for those economies."

OK think about that for a second, if imports cost more because the dollar is devalued, isn't that a way of protecting US jobs and manufacturing without doing anything as asinine as slapping a protective tariff on something, which only weakens the industry in the long run? I know Bush is out to put all the unskilled workers out of work, but think beyond your political biases for a second. It is not a long term solution but in an economic downturn it is a good way of slowing the dive.

OK, lets see some intelligent arguments, I know most of you are capable of doing it.

edit: grammar

[Edited 2004-08-27 16:52:41]

User currently offlineB2707SST From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 1371 posts, RR: 59
Reply 23, posted (10 years 4 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1306 times:

That's a generally accurate summary, Captoveur, but the schools can be broken down a little more:

Keynesian: recessions are the product of inherent instabilities in the capitalist system. Market "failures" need to be fixed with fiscal and monetary policy tools. "Old" Keynesians placed more emphasis on fiscal policy than most modern Keynesians.

Monetarist: pioneered by Milton Friedman; also called the Chicago School (a broader term also incorporating microeconomic policies). Recessions are the product of monetary imbalances in the economy, usually caused by unstable money supply growth. High and increasing money supply growth produces inflation, while declining or negative money supply growth causes recession. Monetarists would probably blame the recent recession on the Fed's contractionary policies in 1999 and 2000.

New Classical: recessions are caused by unanticipated changes in aggregate demand or the money supply. Anticipated changes cause adjustments in firm and worker behavior that offset the initial change. Since policy reactions are easy to anticipate, government interventions are counterproductive. This is the famous "New Classical policy ineffectiveness proposition."

Real Business Cycle: booms and recessions are due to "technology shocks," specifically those impacting the productivity of labor and capital. Since technological advances are out of government control, there is nothing policy-makers can do to avert or mitigate a recession.

Austrian: recessions are due to government manipulation of the interest rate. Expansionary monetary policy drives interest rates below their equilibrium level, setting off booms in the financial and physical capital markets. When the resulting inflation causes the Fed to tighten, fixed capital investments become unprofitable and must be liquidated.


I'd say 30% of prominent macroeconomists are Keynesians of one sort or another, 20% are monetarists, 30% are New Classicists, 10% are RBC, 5% are Austrians, and 5% fall into some other category. The Austrian School embraces a quite different conception of economic methodology than the others, which accounts for its slim representation in academia, but its cycle theory is not particularly radical.

Most of the 10 economists who signed the letter are Keynesians, if they subscribe to any macro school at all. Paul Samuelson is Mr. Keynesian himself. This is just bizarre, in that Keynesian theory explicitly calls for deficit spending and tax cuts during economic recessions. Keynesians spent decades arguing that deficits don't matter, at least in the trough phase of the cycle. For Samuelson and others to pull a complete 180 and attack Bush over deficits is completely inconsistent with Keynesian theory.

Then again, Keynesianism has been on the decline for 30 years. It could not explain the stagflation of the 1970s and its policy tools have been singularly ineffective in Japan and the US (we should be growing like gangbusters right now if Keynesian theory were true). Each new edition of Samuelson's textbook has backed further away from Keynesian policy recommendations. Partisans on both sides have never let economic theory get in the way of a juicy political attack.

--B2707SST



Keynes is dead and we are living in his long run.
User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 24, posted (10 years 4 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1298 times:

Being a Nobel Lauriate doesn't mean that you actually have done anything productive.

There is a difference between winning a Nobel Peace Prize and winning a Nobel Prize for science.

The scientists have all accomplished something of monumental import to the human condition.

N


25 Post contains images Slider : Austrian: recessions are due to government manipulation of the interest rate. Expansionary monetary policy drives interest rates below their equilibri
26 Post contains links Spinzels : A good example of that is how CNN said during the Clinton administration that 5.6% unemployment was "low" and how during the Bush administration 5.6%
27 B2707SST : am a backer of the Austrian school, notably Ludwig von Mises. I am as well. The current recessions in the US and Japan fit the Austrian cycle theory
28 MD-90 : Hayek wouldn't support Kerry (or Bush), that's for sure. The tax cuts didn't create the huge deficits, it's Bush's free-spending absolutely unconserva
29 Post contains links B2707SST : Unemployment is at 5.5-5.6% not because this economy is creating a lot of new jobs, but because discouraged workers have dropped out of the work force
30 N6376m : Who are these 10 Nobel Prize winning economist? Have they ever run an organization themselves or do they just make their living writing about what oth
31 Post contains links Spinzels : Finding 10 Keynsians to call Bushes Economic policies stupid is not a hard thing to do. Finding 10 classical theory followers to call them the work o
32 Post contains links Spinzels : Interestingly, it isn’t just the Nobel laureates in Economics who are signing petitions against Bush. In July a scientific organization collected th
33 Captoveur : "Who are these 10 Nobel Prize winning economist? Have they ever run an organization themselves or do they just make their living writing about what ot
34 MD-90 : (and I think even Hayekians accept that these days). Not on your life.
35 Jaysit : "They are economists, all they do is write about theory, they are the business equivalent to physicists, eg they know the theories about why everythin
36 Post contains links B2707SST : But Keynes is now accepted across the political spectrum. Unfortunately true, because politicians love meddling with the economy. There's too much pol
37 Post contains images JeffM : And the other 50 plus Nobel Laureates (economic), have not spoken up. Your right, that statistic does speak for itself.
38 Post contains links Spinzels : Wrong. The Bureau of Labor Statistics' own data shows that this explanation is bogus. The souce is their "alternative measurements of labor underutil
39 B2707SST : Here’s your mistake: you are using data from “the Household Survey”. True, but if you want to argue that the official household survey unemploym
40 Post contains links Spinzels : True, but if you want to argue that the official household survey unemployment rate is misleading because it doesn't include discouraged workers, as
41 Slider : First, I have to tell you that it's good to read about hard-core economics here without it devolving into name-calling and ad hominem epithets. This h
42 WellHung : And the other 50 plus Nobel Laureates (economic), have not spoken up. Your right, that statistic does speak for itself. Interesting point. Does you "r
43 Spinzels : Therein lies the inherent flaw of Keynesian economics--it requires a sadistic perpetuation of feeding the beast. That may be theory, but it is not pr
44 MD-90 : Bush has sold some very aggressive tax and spending policies based on the assertion that those policies would improve the economy. Good grief. Bush's
45 Post contains images JeffM : "Interesting point. Does you "reasoning" (for lack of a better word) apply to the swift boaters, too?" It just might, it j u s t might. Though I reall
46 Post contains links WellHung : Username: N6376m From United States, joined Aug 2003, 1760 posts, RR: 22 Reply: 30 Posted Fri Aug 27 2004 19:07:04 UTC+1 and read 187 times: Who are t
47 L-188 : Captoveur: Thank you for more eleqently makeing the point in reply #22 that I was trying to blurb out earlier. The Kensyans will never admit that thei
48 Post contains links WellHung : Hate to do this N6376m, but since you're so adamant about people answering your questions (see http://www.airliners.net/discussions/non_aviation/read.
49 Slider : Really? Individual rights were important, but if you read through the Declaration of Independence it seems our founding fathers were much more concern
50 N6376m : Hung my answer is on reply 12 to that thread. Based on the time stamp, it was posted almost 2 hours before you post on this thread? What else can I do
51 Post contains images WellHung : See reply #46 on THIS thread. And take your time to read and understand the statement.
52 N6376m : Hung, as amazing as it may seem to you, I don't spend my day reading every post on every thread made on this forum. When I did check in on this post I
53 Spinzels : Yes, the right of free commerce is certainly a foundational plank in the Declaration of Independence, but you will kindly note that MOST of the Colon
54 Jaysit : You guys must realize that Nobel Laureates in Economics who have spent much of their lives studying and understanding the economy, and who have come u
55 Pacificjourney : Spinzels you are clearly new around here. Moderation and the nicetes of intellectual discussion will get you nowhere. In order to get your point acros
56 N6376m : Jay, Boy your memory is short - criticizing GWB for insider tips on options. Wasn't the spouse of the former President accused of the same. Something
57 Cfalk : I have a degree in economics, and I knew a whole bunch of supposedly educated and respected economists who believed in all sorts of loony stuff, like
58 Post contains links WellHung : Actually, 76m, you are totally incorrect. The original thread was about Kerry's commitment to science, NOT non-economic nobel laureates who were again
59 Jaysit : "I have a degree in economics, and I knew a whole bunch of supposedly educated and respected economists who believed in all sorts of loony stuff, like
60 Post contains images N6376m : Hung, I've now taken the time to dig through all the links (I wonder why Kerry took the original link off his website ). That being the case, you are
61 WellHung : Indeed. A Nobel Prize is only relevant when it supports your point of view. I agree that a Nobel Prize winner in literature is not qualified to commen
62 Post contains images Slider : And since we're on the topic of being a Nobel winner, let's not forget that Yassir Arafat won a Nobel Peace Prize! A terrorist being awarded a peace p
63 Cfalk : Jaysit, all I am saying is that if you get 100 economists together in a room, you will have 100 different opinions on the best economic policies to ad
64 N6376m : I wonder if Yasser Arafat (the Nobel Prize winner) signed a letter supporting Kerry whether his campaign would also issue a press release? Charles - I
65 Cfalk : Charles - I've got a minor in econ and really like the subject. My experience is that an economist can explain just about anything as long as you acce
66 N6376m : I see great parallels between studying economic and studying algebra and calculus in that you are learning more a way of thinking about problems than
67 Yyz717 : 10 Nobel Laureates (Economics) Endorse Kerry Well, that's nice. This tiny community of 10 people will have about much voting influence as perhaps the
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
48 Nobel Laureates Urge US-Voters To Go For Kerry posted Tue Jun 22 2004 13:10:03 by Rabenschlag
NASCAR: Richmond 10/36 posted Thu May 3 2007 00:01:33 by AllegiantAir
Fascist America In 10 Easy Steps posted Tue Apr 24 2007 21:45:53 by DrDeke
Economics Of Illegal Immigration posted Sat Apr 14 2007 05:13:07 by ZOTAN
Kerry And Gingrich Debate Next Week! posted Fri Apr 6 2007 02:04:22 by GuitrThree
Rush Limbaugh Nominated For Nobel Peace Prize posted Tue Apr 3 2007 20:00:18 by ConcordeBoy
Major Problems With ULead Video Studio 10 posted Mon Apr 2 2007 04:34:14 by DeltaAVL
Any A.netters At DTW/STL 4-10 In The Am? posted Tue Mar 27 2007 04:11:08 by Falstaff
Where Were You 10 Years Ago Roughly? posted Sun Mar 25 2007 21:17:03 by Jamesbuk
$10 For A Cup Of Coffee? posted Wed Mar 21 2007 22:21:58 by AsstChiefMark