RE: Failure of the world-wide capitalist system ... kinda.

RE: Failure of the world-wide capitalist system ... kinda. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

NorthernGent -> RE: Failure of the world-wide capitalist system ... kinda. (12/25/2006 5:32:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne I think the lottery here got up over 100mil a couple times... i actually bought my one and only ticket when it did too! LOL i think his fortune is far supassed that now as that was a number from several years ago i think Real0ne, similar here, it's been up to £20 million on rollovers and we have a quiz show where you can win £1 million......I mean, a million quid for answering a few questions about Henry VIII and sheep movements in 18th century Belguim! It's beyond a joke.

Real0ne -> RE: Failure of the world-wide capitalist system ... kinda. (12/25/2006 5:39:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave With regard to the subject of the Soviet Union's contribution to the allies 2nd World War victory, my guess is that many Americans have no idea how significant it, the contribution, really was. I expect you believe that the Soviets just ended up in Berlin by mistake or accident. Ahh well, and then the ingratitude of instigating the Cold War under the aegis of that old Peace Loving War Monger W Churchill, .....good for business tho' What !! Seems to me that the germans were bogged down on their way to hmm stalingrad was it?, with one of the worst winters in the countries history for cold temp and snow, they were starving and under equipt and that fortunately slowed the german war machine down... If i remember russians had a go forward and fight or die , no retreat similar to the germans only worse... Had the germans broken through and got to the eastern oil fields i gulp at how the war would have turned out as my guess is that it would have substantially prolonged it with all the extra resources at their disposal... Especially considering that they had subs in the new york harbor and they were what was it 6 months from completion of a long range bomber to bomb us directly... So a lot would have, or at least could have been very different if the russians were not able to hold them back. then there was the a bomb,,, sound about right? If, if ,if but it didn't happen the way 'if' would have it happen, it happened the way it did. If any one country won WWII, it was Russia first, Britain second for fighting alone, winning the Battle of Britain and keeping the possiblity of a second front open, without that, all the equipment America could produce would have been meaningless. Germany had great generals but a crap leader, they weren't going for the oil fields they were going for Moscow. i cant comment on your analysis because my brain cant connect the dots to reconcile of what you said as compared to the way i understand the events happening, but Moscow is the city i meant to say, not stalingrad thanks.

thompsonx -> RE: Failure of the world-wide capitalist system ... kinda. (12/25/2006 5:41:56 PM)
When I read about Bill Gates or Ted Turner or some such giving so much to charity I go and look a little deeper and what I have found is that they are not giving any thing away that they own, they are giving away money that would otherwise be given to the tax man. So far I have not found anyone of real wealth giving any meaning help to aleviate poverty but rather creating foundations that will carry their name and make them live on as "benafactors" after they die. thompson

meatcleaver -> RE: Failure of the world-wide capitalist system ... kinda. (12/25/2006 5:49:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne i cant comment on your analysis because my brain cant connect the dots to reconcile of what you said as compared to the way i understand the events happening, but Moscow is the city i meant to say, not stalingrad thanks. It's pretty easy, it was Russia that ripped the guts out of the German army and gave the allies in the west a far easier job than they could have hoped for. In reality no one country won the war, a group of countries were on the winning side and a group of countries were on the losing side.

Real0ne -> RE: Failure of the world-wide capitalist system ... kinda. (12/25/2006 5:54:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx When I read about Bill Gates or Ted Turner or some such giving so much to charity I go and look a little deeper and what I have found is that they are not giving any thing away that they own, they are giving away money that would otherwise be given to the tax man. So far I have not found anyone of real wealth giving any meaning help to aleviate poverty but rather creating foundations that will carry their name and make them live on as "benafactors" after they die. thompson yes sorry he was talking about after his death, but it didnt go into any detail it was some interview i was watching at the time

thompsonx -> RE: Failure of the world-wide capitalist system ... kinda. (12/25/2006 6:00:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave With regard to the subject of the Soviet Union's contribution to the allies 2nd World War victory, my guess is that many Americans have no idea how significant it, the contribution, really was. I expect you believe that the Soviets just ended up in Berlin by mistake or accident. Ahh well, and then the ingratitude of instigating the Cold War under the aegis of that old Peace Loving War Monger W Churchill, .....good for business tho' What !! Seems to me that the germans were bogged down on their way to hmm stalingrad was it?, with one of the worst winters in the countries history for cold temp and snow, they were starving and under equipt and that fortunately slowed the german war machine down... If i remember russians had a go forward and fight or die , no retreat similar to the germans only worse... Had the germans broken through and got to the eastern oil fields i gulp at how the war would have turned out as my guess is that it would have substantially prolonged it with all the extra resources at their disposal... Especially considering that they had subs in the new york harbor and they were what was it 6 months from completion of a long range bomber to bomb us directly... So a lot would have, or at least could have been very different if the russians were not able to hold them back. then there was the a bomb,,, sound about right? If, if ,if but it didn't happen the way 'if' would have it happen, it happened the way it did. If any one country won WWII, it was Russia first, Britain second for fighting alone, winning the Battle of Britain and keeping the possiblity of a second front open, without that, all the equipment America could produce would have been meaningless. Germany had great generals but a crap leader, they weren't going for the oil fields they were going for Moscow. i cant comment on your analysis because my brain cant connect the dots to reconcile of what you said as compared to the way i understand the events happening, but Moscow is the city i meant to say, not stalingrad thanks. The Germans has several army groups on the eastern front. One was trying to take Moscow in an effort to "cut off the head" so to speak of the enemy. Another army group went into the balkans and then split and one part went with a little over a million men to Stalingrad. In the end both failed. It is convenient and politically correct to give the credit to the cold weather and not to any ability of the Russians to fight the mighty German army. The supermen just went to an ass kicking contest and forgot to bring their boots. The end result is that the poor, dumb, poorley armed, poorley led, poorley fed Russians kicked their asses all the way back to Berlin. They did it with a minimum amount of help from the U.S. or any one else. If the Germans had never involved themselves in western Europe they would have had only about another thirty divisions (approximately ten percent more than they already had) for the Russians to devour. thomposn

Sinergy -> RE: Failure of the world-wide capitalist system ... kinda. (12/25/2006 7:45:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: losttreasure quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy ...Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden, Fight Club. This comment relates to the fact that calling the United States a democracy does not actually make it one. I agree... and you've admirably demonstrated that you can call something or someone whatever you chose but it doesn't make it true. The evidence abounds as to the democratic principles which were originally set up in this country in the original Bill of Rights have been systematically dismantled by this Government, almost from it's inception. Jefferson even wrote about the future problems to Adams back in 1789. Plato wrote about the future problems of the political system of democracy thousands of years ago. But as you have not bothered to articulately respond to any of the examples I have given where the government of the United States has abridged democratic principles and civil liberties and constitutional guarantees, and continue to apply dictionary definitions (square peg) to the (round hole) US political system, I can only assume that you have taken the blue pill. I am still puzzled why are we talking about the United States political system on a thread you started about the economic principles of capitalism. However, I really do not expect an articulate rationale behind this rhetorical oddity, so... Peace out. Sinergy

NeedToUseYou -> RE: Failure of the world-wide capitalist system ... kinda. (12/25/2006 8:04:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent You're missing my point. What on earth is going on in a place where one person can amass riches equivalent to 110 million people? This is a wealth gap out of hand. Don't get overly touchy. It's a discussion with people offering points of view. I don't see where I was touchy, just using your own "Unbelievable" statement at the end. The rest was pointing out that using a guy that is giving all his wealth he accumulated in one generation is probably not the best example to use when one is proposing forced wealth redistribution. Because honestly, that is all this is about. And the real difference between Capitalism(which is generally present in democracies or a version thereof) to socialism to Communism to a Full out dictatorship. They are all just varying degrees of acceptance of wealth distribution or caps on personal wealth with increasing reliance on the government the further along the chain you go. It does disturb me quite a bit that people think they should be able to tell other people the maximum they can make. Why? Using Bill Bates, he created a little tiny company that any of us could of if chose to persue the same path. He didn't come from old money, and ended up building that little company to be worth 10's of billions of dollars. What's wrong with that? The essential problem is the capping of someones worth at some arbitrary amount. There are people that never risk anything on any business venture, there are those that risk everything and lose everything, and some risk everything and make a fortune. So what? If there wasn't the potential for a huge payoff people wouldn't take as much risk in opening new untested businesses. But to answer your question why the growing gap. Taxes, mandatory insurance, license fees, optional health insurance military spending, etc.... Along with globalization which shifts the effective wage downward. Gaps in international tax distribution. Plus materialism of the country, that so readily buys things it doesn't need on debt. It's impossible to build wealth if indebted. Companies and the wealthy are doing the exact same thing they've always done as far as I see it,though. The government has gotten more into everyones pocket, and globalization has put hard downward pressure on wages. So, since you have external and internal pressure on the wage, and the amount of money one gets to keep from that wage. They have less money to save, and also this country is very materialistic, and most people live in a constant state of spending that leaves little excess left for investing or savings, more actually spend more than they earn mostly on crap. How to correct it, lower overall tax rates(or really totally change the tax scheme), eliminate the corporate loopholes, reduce the military. Besides that the fault is with the people, as honestly people are very materialistic to there detriment. I see some people working at dead end jobs wearing NIKE, or FUBU, or TOMMY clothes. I'm sure if England is like here, people putting thousand dollar stereos in crappy old ford escorts. Well, those people are always going to be broke in terms of "market wealth". Of course those are just examples but having lived in three states and seeing the same types well it's pretty much obvious that it's not a local anomaly. Mass media in the form of easily digestable MTV cliches doesn't help to alleviate the situation. So, it's people, government, military and corporations that have been enabled by government to defer taxes. To redistribute wealth without addressing materialism won't do anything in my opinion except encourage more materialism. And of course shit happens to some poor people and I agree some net needs to be there but anything more than supplying the basics would seem to encourage abuse. *Didn't spellcheck got up at 3:30 last night so am tired Good Night***

FirmhandKY -> RE: Failure of the world-wide capitalist system ... kinda. (12/25/2006 8:56:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: losttreasure quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy ...Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden, Fight Club. This comment relates to the fact that calling the United States a democracy does not actually make it one. I agree... and you've admirably demonstrated that you can call something or someone whatever you chose but it doesn't make it true. The evidence abounds as to the democratic principles which were originally set up in this country in the original Bill of Rights have been systematically dismantled by this Government, almost from it's inception. Jefferson even wrote about the future problems to Adams back in 1789. Plato wrote about the future problems of the political system of democracy thousands of years ago. But as you have not bothered to articulately respond to any of the examples I have given where the government of the United States has abridged democratic principles and civil liberties and constitutional guarantees, and continue to apply dictionary definitions (square peg) to the (round hole) US political system, I can only assume that you have taken the blue pill. I am still puzzled why are we talking about the United States political system on a thread you started about the economic principles of capitalism. However, I really do not expect an articulate rationale behind this rhetorical oddity, so... Peace out. Sinergy You know Sinergy, the rest of us are having a rather nice discussion about very sensitive subjects without rancor or hard feelings. I see little or no snarky or snide comments in the last few pages, and very little at all, if you take LaM's comments away from the bulk of the thread. I, losttreasure, NorthernGent, thompsonx, LTRsubNW, seeksfemslave, subfever, marc2b, NeedToUseYou, luckydog, RealOne (even juliaoceana) and all the other posters don't (and probably never will) agree about some of these subjects, but we are calmly exploring each others' viewpoints. None of us have displayed "know-it-all-itis" in this thread, and I'm actually very proud of everyone here, even if I do disagree, and will rhetorically attack their positions. But your posts here are of an entirely different kettle of fish. Your last few posts add nothing to the content, or to the free flow of information. You use your rhetorical "skills" to attempt to prove how much more you know than everyone else. You use snide insinuations of stupidity and gullibility of other posters, and attempt to couch it in such a manner that you can claim "innocence". I don't buy it. If you want to discuss - fine. If you just want to do a "peacock of the walk" - please go elsewhere. Could be wrong, just me, yada, yada, yada ... Peace out. FirmKY

Lordandmaster -> RE: Failure of the world-wide capitalist system ... kinda. (12/25/2006 9:43:38 PM)
Oh cut the shit. Your own comments are as snide as they come. I got into this thread by mistake and see that you still can't stop talking about me five pages later. Christ Almighty. quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY I see little or no snarky or snide comments in the last few pages, and very little at all, if you take LaM's comments away from the bulk of the thread.

Zensee -> RE: Failure of the world-wide capitalist system ... kinda. (12/25/2006 10:40:20 PM)
quote: None of us have displayed "know-it-all-itis" in this thread, and I'm actually very proud of everyone here, even if I do disagree, and will rhetorically attack their positions. Roger that, Huston - The Ego has landed. Z.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Failure of the world-wide capitalist system ... kinda. (12/25/2006 10:59:26 PM)
FR: LaM: Still watching I see. Zensee: I have a big enough ego to argue my beliefs, but also big enough to know that I'm not always right, and that giving other people personal respect (when they act respectful) also takes something more than simply a big ego. Let me know when you get past the "big ego" bit, to the humility required to respect others, even if and especially if, you think they are probably wrong. FirmKY

ModeratorEleven -> RE: Failure of the world-wide capitalist system ... kinda. (12/25/2006 11:05:17 PM)
Last warning to the sniping participants in this and other political threads. Since the participants are the same in most all of the threads I'm only saying this once. Keep your discussions civil and schoolyard commentary free or you'll be gone. This garbage behavior has gone on far longer than it should have. XI

seeksfemslave -> RE: Failure of the world-wide capitalist system ... kinda. (12/26/2006 2:30:19 AM)
A mixed bag of points.... Though not intimately acquainted with the campaign details of the German onslaught into Russia , the only major error that I have read about is that the Germans sent many troops on a right turn to attack Kiev. This was judged in hindsight to have been a mistake but I think can only be assessed in the light of the German success at the time. The Germans got within 20 miles or so of Moskow and were sitting awaiting for their logistical lines to be strengthed when WHAM the Russkies under Marshal Zhukov launched a totally unexpected counter attack that turned out to herald the beginning of the end for the German War machine. It seems obvious that the Russkies must have been involved in some major tactical withdrawal and in so doing completely outwitted the Germans. The Battle of Britain had very little affect on the survival of the UK since unfortunately we were technically defeated by then anyway. With regard to wealth creation of US individuals overshadowing the wealth of many nations....surely thats a critiicism of those nations. Anyway much of the wealth is in stocks, not easily realisable in total in the short term. NG asks what is going on to bring about the existance of such wealth, well basically NG, someone built a better mousetrap. The wealth "skimmed off" or "created" by the finance houses is a different matter ! This business of the 16th Amendment to the constitution, well Wikipedia says 42 states ratified it....so I dont know. It appears that is was not about the raising of taxes by the Federal government per se, but HOW those taxes were raised.

Real0ne -> RE: Failure of the world-wide capitalist system ... kinda. (12/26/2006 3:42:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou The essential problem is the capping of someones worth at some arbitrary amount. *Didn't spellcheck got up at 3:30 last night so am tired Good Night*** wow do people really use spell checkers on here? LOL i never cared enough to bother LOL quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: losttreasure quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy ...Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden, Fight Club. This comment relates to the fact that calling the United States a democracy does not actually make it one. I agree... and you've admirably demonstrated that you can call something or someone whatever you chose but it doesn't make it true. The evidence abounds as to the democratic principles which were originally set up in this country in the original Bill of Rights have been systematically dismantled by this Government, almost from it's inception. Jefferson even wrote about the future problems to Adams back in 1789. Plato wrote about the future problems of the political system of democracy thousands of years ago. But as you have not bothered to articulately respond to any of the examples I have given where the government of the United States has abridged democratic principles and civil liberties and constitutional guarantees, and continue to apply dictionary definitions (square peg) to the (round hole) US political system, I can only assume that you have taken the blue pill. I am still puzzled why are we talking about the United States political system on a thread you started about the economic principles of capitalism. However, I really do not expect an articulate rationale behind this rhetorical oddity, so... Peace out. Sinergy i always thought democracy or some form of it amd capitalism were bed buddies, (at least to the ruling elite who can afford to pay for it), where democracy imo is considerably more argueably "on topic" as far as capitalism is concerned than 13 pages of global warming, finger pointing and general bickering about slighted egos. Granted the resources of the planet will effect how the business of capitalism is conducted but it certainly does not define either its failure or success. That and speaking of failure and success i think its important in any discussion like this to at least understand what the hell failure of a system is in the first place? i see no defintions as to exactly what is failure which i suppose is yet a whole nuther topic in itself. Leaving this topic as "open ended" and boundless as it is makes the eco system, democracy and stubbing my toe all fair game to discuss as part of capitalism which in itself since it is an interdependent econo-political system has many avenues to examine to be able to come to any reasonable conclusion in success or failure in the first place imo. It seems to me that greed for money can and will ruin any political system where if there is a failure to be had in capitalism it would evolve from the foibles and atrocities of greed not the ism in itself and we could take this back to the good ole 10 commandments or ethics if we really wanted to get down to failure mode analysis of a system as i do not see capitalism in its pure sense being capable of failing anyone without greed woven into the fabric. So the failure mode as i see it is one word. "greed".

MrrPete -> RE: Failure of the world-wide capitalist system ... kinda. (12/26/2006 4:05:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx When I read about Bill Gates or Ted Turner or some such giving so much to charity I go and look a little deeper and what I have found is that they are not giving any thing away that they own, they are giving away money that would otherwise be given to the tax man. So far I have not found anyone of real wealth giving any meaning help to aleviate poverty but rather creating foundations that will carry their name and make them live on as "benafactors" after they die. thompson I know one person, who isn't in the Gates/Turner class of wealthy but makes millions off the sale of a book. He has a day job that he receives no salary and returned 25 years salary when the money started rolling in. He didn't buy a new house or new car. He gives 90% of his income to charity and created several foundations none of which bear his name. His current focus is on Darfur and is personally involved in Darfur voluntarily on his own dime. You may have heard of him. His name is Rick Warren. Mr. Pete

meatcleaver -> RE: Failure of the world-wide capitalist system ... kinda. (12/26/2006 6:22:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne i always thought democracy or some form of it amd capitalism were bed buddies, (at least to the ruling elite who can afford to pay for it), where democracy imo is considerably more argueably "on topic" as far as capitalism is concerned than 13 pages of global warming, finger pointing and general bickering about slighted egos. Granted the resources of the planet will effect how the business of capitalism is conducted but it certainly does not define either its failure or success. That and speaking of failure and success i think its important in any discussion like this to at least understand what the hell failure of a system is in the first place? i see no defintions as to exactly what is failure which i suppose is yet a whole nuther topic in itself. Leaving this topic as "open ended" and boundless as it is makes the eco system, democracy and stubbing my toe all fair game to discuss as part of capitalism which in itself since it is an interdependent econo-political system has many avenues to examine to be able to come to any reasonable conclusion in success or failure in the first place imo. It seems to me that greed for money can and will ruin any political system where if there is a failure to be had in capitalism it would evolve from the foibles and atrocities of greed not the ism in itself and we could take this back to the good ole 10 commandments or ethics if we really wanted to get down to failure mode analysis of a system as i do not see capitalism in its pure sense being capable of failing anyone without greed woven into the fabric. So the failure mode as i see it is one word. "greed". Ultimately, any failure of capitalism is human just like any failure of communism is human. The problem is that the majority let the ideologues call the shots and that is the failure of democracy. Why do I think that capitalism in its present form will fail? Because it uses the the planet and its resources as free assets that are replenishable and abundant and as a free dumping ground for its waste without consequences being considered. We are now all to well aware of the consequences but capitalism isn't responding because those people with power and money won't modify their actions until they see their competitors modify their actions. The only solution to this inertia is regulation and forced change which is anti-captialist because it kicks against the markets but not anti-democratic if backed by the majority. Sooner or later the backing of the majority for a forced change will happen when people realise the consequences of not backing change. Hopefully it won't come too late. Capitalism and democracy are not the same and just because they co-habit in our current socio-economic culture, doesn't mean they are dependent on each other, they are not. The problem is that most people who see their affluence based on capitalism will inevitably back capitalism until it robs them of their affluence, that is human failings. Too many people buy into the ideaology that individualism requires the freedom to own private property, even if it is ownership of shit and shit they'll sink and drown in. Freedom is in the head and not in private or collective ownership.

thompsonx -> RE: Failure of the world-wide capitalist system ... kinda. (12/26/2006 7:05:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne i always thought democracy or some form of it amd capitalism were bed buddies, (at least to the ruling elite who can afford to pay for it), where democracy imo is considerably more argueably "on topic" as far as capitalism is concerned than 13 pages of global warming, finger pointing and general bickering about slighted egos. Granted the resources of the planet will effect how the business of capitalism is conducted but it certainly does not define either its failure or success. That and speaking of failure and success i think its important in any discussion like this to at least understand what the hell failure of a system is in the first place? i see no defintions as to exactly what is failure which i suppose is yet a whole nuther topic in itself. Leaving this topic as "open ended" and boundless as it is makes the eco system, democracy and stubbing my toe all fair game to discuss as part of capitalism which in itself since it is an interdependent econo-political system has many avenues to examine to be able to come to any reasonable conclusion in success or failure in the first place imo. It seems to me that greed for money can and will ruin any political system where if there is a failure to be had in capitalism it would evolve from the foibles and atrocities of greed not the ism in itself and we could take this back to the good ole 10 commandments or ethics if we really wanted to get down to failure mode analysis of a system as i do not see capitalism in its pure sense being capable of failing anyone without greed woven into the fabric. So the failure mode as i see it is one word. "greed". Ultimately, any failure of capitalism is human just like any failure of communism is human. The problem is that the majority let the ideologues call the shots and that is the failure of democracy. Why do I think that capitalism in its present form will fail? Because it uses the the planet and its resources as free assets that are replenishable and abundant and as a free dumping ground for its waste without consequences being considered. We are now all to well aware of the consequences but capitalism isn't responding because those people with power and money won't modify their actions until they see their competitors modify their actions. The only solution to this inertia is regulation and forced change which is anti-captialist because it kicks against the markets but not anti-democratic if backed by the majority. Sooner or later the backing of the majority for a forced change will happen when people realise the consequences of not backing change. Hopefully it won't come too late. Capitalism and democracy are not the same and just because they co-habit in our current socio-economic culture, doesn't mean they are dependent on each other, they are not. The problem is that most people who see their affluence based on capitalism will inevitably back capitalism until it robs them of their affluence, that is human failings. Too many people buy into the ideaology that individualism requires the freedom to own private property, even if it is ownership of shit and shit they'll sink and drown in. Freedom is in the head and not in private or collective ownership. meatcleaver: Pretty hard to disagree with the truth. thompson

thompsonx -> RE: Failure of the world-wide capitalist system ... kinda. (12/26/2006 7:07:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrrPete quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx When I read about Bill Gates or Ted Turner or some such giving so much to charity I go and look a little deeper and what I have found is that they are not giving any thing away that they own, they are giving away money that would otherwise be given to the tax man. So far I have not found anyone of real wealth giving any meaning help to aleviate poverty but rather creating foundations that will carry their name and make them live on as "benafactors" after they die. thompson I know one person, who isn't in the Gates/Turner class of wealthy but makes millions off the sale of a book. He has a day job that he receives no salary and returned 25 years salary when the money started rolling in. He didn't buy a new house or new car. He gives 90% of his income to charity and created several foundations none of which bear his name. His current focus is on Darfur and is personally involved in Darfur voluntarily on his own dime. You may have heard of him. His name is Rick Warren. Mr. Pete Mr. Pete: Rick Warren is a rare and wonderful person whom many of us could take lessons from. thompson

thompsonx -> RE: Failure of the world-wide capitalist system ... kinda. (12/26/2006 7:11:20 AM)
Seeksfemslave: It would appear to me that you have a pretty good handle on the structure and substance of the war on the eastern front. thompson

Page: << < prev 19 20 [21] 22 23 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625