Go Back   Marijuana.com > Election 2008 > Republican Candidates
Register FAQ Gaming VB Image Host Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-13-2007, 07:07 PM   #1
Trocisp
Now, with Extra Honesty.
 
Trocisp's Avatar
 

Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,571
Grams: 26,463.67
Groans: 20
Groaned at 25 Times in 21 Posts
Trocisp has entirely too much reputationTrocisp has entirely too much reputationTrocisp has entirely too much reputationTrocisp has entirely too much reputationTrocisp has entirely too much reputationTrocisp has entirely too much reputationTrocisp has entirely too much reputationTrocisp has entirely too much reputationTrocisp has entirely too much reputationTrocisp has entirely too much reputationTrocisp has entirely too much reputation
Thanks: 582
Thanked 1,018 Times in 671 Posts

Stock Portfolio
Total Value: 0.000
Gain/Loss: 0.000%
Default Ron Paul...

It's fashionable to support Ron Paul - and I understand that. Mucho coolio to have Ron Paul bumper sticker, etc.

But, did you know that Ron Paul support building a 700 mile fence along a 2100 mile border with Mexico? I'm not a mathematician but that doesn't add up to me. Not to mention that even if we did build it, chances are it could be easily bypassed. Go... around it! under it, through it, over it... They do have ladders in Mexico, you know. The plurality of illegal immigrants in our country are on expired visa's anyway, not just random guys who walked past the border and said "Yo, we're in america now sonny!"
  • Ron Paul is against a womans right to chose.
  • Ron Paul would abolish Federal Education - which is one of the most important things in advancing our country.
  • Ron Paul is against net neutrality: (In ten years, without Net Neutrality, think about this as your new Hosting package. Alarmist? Yes. Unrealistic? Nope.)
  • Ron Paul is Against the 17th Amendment. That means more power in the hands of less elected officials.
  • Ron Paul is for the complete removal of any gun restrictions. I'm Pro-2nd Amendment, but so-much-so that I'm for for the completely removal of Gun-Free Zones (Schools, for instance)
  • He's against Children's health care. Seriously, who isn't for an extra 3 dollars per year per person in taxes to fun health care for children? Not just the 2 kids/2 adults/20,000 yearly income that Medicare currently covers, full health care for children.
  • Ron Paul is for the complete removal of the IRS, and in it's place wants nothing. He wants to completely remove the Income tax and reduce the size of government to account for it. I'm no mathematician, but once again - I don't think the math works out there.
I'm not saying you shouldn't vote Ron Paul - but if you do, know who you're voting for. Don't do it because it's fashionable.
__________________
"No references to the need to fight terror can be an argument for restricting human rights." - Vladimir Putin
"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." - Sir Winston Churchill
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
"Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months." - Oscar Wilde
"I count him braver who overcomes his desires than him who overcomes his enemies." - Aristotle
Trocisp is offline Award Trocisp Grams  
Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Trocisp For This Useful Post:
loki (10-15-2007), sterbo (10-13-2007), tekkenlaw (10-20-2007)
Marijuana.com Sponsor
Advertisement
 
Old 10-14-2007, 03:44 AM   #2
Plainsman1963
Senior Member
 
Plainsman1963's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 5,052
Groans: 14
Groaned at 5 Times in 5 Posts
Plainsman1963 Is From The Planet Reputationexxus Where Only Rep Gods May Set FootPlainsman1963 Is From The Planet Reputationexxus Where Only Rep Gods May Set FootPlainsman1963 Is From The Planet Reputationexxus Where Only Rep Gods May Set FootPlainsman1963 Is From The Planet Reputationexxus Where Only Rep Gods May Set FootPlainsman1963 Is From The Planet Reputationexxus Where Only Rep Gods May Set FootPlainsman1963 Is From The Planet Reputationexxus Where Only Rep Gods May Set FootPlainsman1963 Is From The Planet Reputationexxus Where Only Rep Gods May Set FootPlainsman1963 Is From The Planet Reputationexxus Where Only Rep Gods May Set FootPlainsman1963 Is From The Planet Reputationexxus Where Only Rep Gods May Set FootPlainsman1963 Is From The Planet Reputationexxus Where Only Rep Gods May Set FootPlainsman1963 Is From The Planet Reputationexxus Where Only Rep Gods May Set Foot
Thanks: 343
Thanked 785 Times in 419 Posts

Stock Portfolio
Total Value: 0.000
Gain/Loss: -1.000%
Default In the interest of knowing your candidate...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trocisp View Post
It's fashionable to support Ron Paul - and I understand that. Mucho coolio to have Ron Paul bumper sticker, etc.
Eh, I don't keep up with what is fashionable in politics, just what makes sense to me.
Quote:
But, did you know that Ron Paul support building a 700 mile fence along a 2100 mile border with Mexico?
Well, I am not a Ron Paul expert by any means, but all I've seen from him about immigration seems to make sense. Secure our borders (was the 700 miles a bill he voted on or sponsored? Perhaps he considers it a start?) is one of the first things that should be done, imho. Not only the physical border to mexico but also canada and all our ports and airports. Seems kind of silly to keep wringing our hands about terrorism and folks can just walk or float in at any time.
Quote:
Border Security and Immigration Reform

The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked. This is my six point plan:

* Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
* Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
* No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
* No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
* End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
* Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.
Immigration and the Welfare State by Rep. Ron Paul
Quote:
Ron Paul is against a womans right to chose.
Yeah, he personally is. Not surprising being a baby doctor.
But again, I believe his position is it should be a states rights issue.
Quote:
Paul adopted the Republican Liberty Caucus Position Statement:

Q: What is the RLC’s position on abortion?

A: Neutral. We have both pro-lifers to pro-choicers, and in between. As far as libertarian groups go, you’ll find that we are probably the most tolerant of the pro-life viewpoint. Our immediate past chairman, Cong. Ron Paul (R-TX, 14th Dist.) is very pro-life. Many other members are pro-choice. As libertarians, we oppose Federal funding of abortion under any circumstances. It is not a litmus test, and it is not an issue that is often debated internally. However, the California RLC website RLCUSA Political Action Committee, has sponsored a debate on the issue between two prominent members.
Ron Paul on Abortion
Quote:
Ron Paul would abolish Federal Education - which is one of the most important things in advancing our country.
Well, that's your opinion. No Child Left Behind seems to be leaving a lot of children behind from where I'm at.
Ron Paul wants to abolish the federal board of education. I can see his point.
Quote:
Abolish the federal Department of Education.
Paul adopted the Republican Liberty Caucus Position Statement:

* As adopted by the General Membership of the Republican Liberty Caucus at its Biannual Meeting held December 8, 2000. WHEREAS libertarian Republicans believe in limited government, individual freedom and personal responsibility;
* WHEREAS we believe that government has no money nor power not derived from the consent of the people;
* WHEREAS we believe that people have the right to keep the fruits of their labor; and
* WHEREAS we believe in upholding the US Constitution as the supreme law of the land;

1. BE IT RESOLVED that the Republican Liberty Caucus endorses the following [among its] principles:The US Department of Education should be abolished, leaving education decision making at the state, local or personal level.
2. Parents have the right to spend their money on the school or method of schooling they deem appropriate for their children.
Ron Paul on Education
Quote:
Ron Paul is against net neutrality
Yep, he voted against the bill. He is not a flip flopper. He means it when he says less government regulation.
Libertarians for Ron Paul
Quote:
Ron Paul is Against the 17th Amendment.
You say this like it is a bad thing?
Repeal the 17th Amendment
Quote:
Ron Paul is for the complete removal of any gun restrictions. I'm Pro-2nd Amendment, but so-much-so that I'm for for the completely removal of Gun-Free Zones (Schools, for instance)
Gun free zones just means only the criminals will have the guns in that zone.
Quote:
He's against Children's health care. Seriously, who isn't for an extra 3 dollars per year per person in taxes to fun health care for children?
Anybody that is against socialized medicine or government run programs.
Quote:
Ron Paul is for the complete removal of the IRS, and in it's place wants nothing. He wants to completely remove the Income tax and reduce the size of government to account for it. I'm no mathematician, but once again - I don't think the math works out there.
It's been shown that the government would have to go back to year 2000 spending...Oh, the humanity!!!
Measure would repeal 16th Amendment
Quote:
I'm not saying you shouldn't vote Ron Paul - but if you do, know who you're voting for.
I agree completely which is why I provided links to show the other side of the issues.
__________________


"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." - Claire Wolfe
Plainsman1963 is online now Award Plainsman1963 Grams  
Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Plainsman1963 For This Useful Post:
Acidrain09 (06-16-2008), ADIDAS (10-15-2007), Fryguy22 (06-16-2008), loki (10-15-2007), Perplexed Pixie (10-14-2007), SpiralArchitect (10-14-2007), tekkenlaw (10-20-2007), Wickedshot (06-20-2008)
Old 10-14-2007, 02:34 PM   #3
Jake
Sr. Member
 
Jake's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,458
Grams: 14,542.95
Groans: 38
Groaned at 4 Times in 4 Posts
Jake Suffers From ReputationitisJake Suffers From ReputationitisJake Suffers From ReputationitisJake Suffers From ReputationitisJake Suffers From ReputationitisJake Suffers From ReputationitisJake Suffers From ReputationitisJake Suffers From ReputationitisJake Suffers From ReputationitisJake Suffers From ReputationitisJake Suffers From Reputationitis
Thanks: 288
Thanked 754 Times in 490 Posts

Stock Portfolio
Total Value: 0.000
Gain/Loss: -1.000%
Default

The 17th Amendment is horrible. Why do you think that states lost less and less power? It wasn't just because of a changing country, with new responsibilities added to the executive branch. There had to be something systematic for the states to lose as much power as they have.

The 17th amend. did that to the states. Before then, they had representation in Congress. Their state legislatures would elect the Senators. The intent of the bicameral legislature is to have one house for the people of the state (Reps) and another house for the governments of the states (Sens).

Take the senators away from the state governments, and give them to the people? NO wonder states haven't been standing up for themselves lately.

Quote:
Ron Paul is for the complete removal of any gun restrictions. I'm Pro-2nd Amendment, but so-much-so that I'm for for the completely removal of Gun-Free Zones (Schools, for instance)
I'd like to see what would have happened at Virginia Tech if someone other than the gunman had a gun...

Quote:
Ron Paul is against a womans right to chose.
Plains hit it on the head. He is, but he isn't. He believes that abortion should be condemned, but he's not about to put a gun to the head of 16 year old and force her to have a baby...
__________________
Jake is offline Award Jake Grams  
Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Jake For This Useful Post:
loki (10-15-2007), SpiralArchitect (10-14-2007)
Old 10-20-2007, 01:37 AM   #4
fat_enchilada
New Member
 

Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 21
Grams: 900.85
Groans: 0
Groaned at 1 Time in 1 Post
fat_enchilada has begun their Karma Journey
Thanks: 0
Thanked 5 Times in 4 Posts

Stock Portfolio
Total Value: 0.000
Gain/Loss: 0.000%
Default

Just do it at a state level.
fat_enchilada is offline Award fat_enchilada Grams  
Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says NO Thank You to fat_enchilada For This Un-useful Post:
poeticbliss (10-25-2007)
Old 10-20-2007, 03:21 AM   #5
Trocisp
Now, with Extra Honesty.
 
Trocisp's Avatar
 

Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,571
Grams: 26,463.67
Groans: 20
Groaned at 25 Times in 21 Posts
Trocisp has entirely too much reputationTrocisp has entirely too much reputationTrocisp has entirely too much reputationTrocisp has entirely too much reputationTrocisp has entirely too much reputationTrocisp has entirely too much reputationTrocisp has entirely too much reputationTrocisp has entirely too much reputationTrocisp has entirely too much reputationTrocisp has entirely too much reputationTrocisp has entirely too much reputation
Thanks: 582
Thanked 1,018 Times in 671 Posts

Stock Portfolio
Total Value: 0.000
Gain/Loss: 0.000%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fat_enchilada View Post
Just do it at a state level.
Just do what at a state level?

This is the second, or third time I've seen you say this, with no direct link between the word "it" in your statements and any meaningful definition of what "it" is. What does "doing it at a state level" comprise of?
Trocisp is offline Award Trocisp Grams  
Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Marijuana.com Sponsor
Advertisement
 
Old 10-20-2007, 04:13 AM   #6
fat_enchilada
New Member
 

Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 21
Grams: 900.85
Groans: 0
Groaned at 1 Time in 1 Post
fat_enchilada has begun their Karma Journey
Thanks: 0
Thanked 5 Times in 4 Posts

Stock Portfolio
Total Value: 0.000
Gain/Loss: 0.000%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trocisp View Post
Just do what at a state level?

This is the second, or third time I've seen you say this, with no direct link between the word "it" in your statements and any meaningful definition of what "it" is. What does "doing it at a state level" comprise of?
ANYTHING

Want to make sure all kids have insurance, or even better universal healthcare? Great, get it passed in your state. This is the great thing about Ron Paul's federalist nature - while he might not be keen on having many federal programs, these all can be done on a state level.

If people in one state don't want one program, then they don't have to. If people in another do, more power to them! As our 50 states - or better put, our 50 experiments - progress we'll be able to compare the results and see what programs work best.

If a program in another state works well, then people are bound to want to try it in their own state - the good stuff will spread throughout the nation, the bad stuff will ultimately fail and do less damage to the nation as a whole since it ain't forced on everyone at once.
fat_enchilada is offline Award fat_enchilada Grams  
Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to fat_enchilada For This Useful Post:
DankDealer (10-24-2007), Fryguy22 (06-16-2008)
Old 10-20-2007, 04:20 AM   #7
steakii
Sr. Member
 
steakii's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,488
Grams: 14,214.10
Groans: 10
Groaned at 18 Times in 9 Posts
steakii is loved by allsteakii is loved by allsteakii is loved by allsteakii is loved by allsteakii is loved by allsteakii is loved by allsteakii is loved by allsteakii is loved by all
Thanks: 145
Thanked 279 Times in 231 Posts

Stock Portfolio
Total Value: 0.000
Gain/Loss: 0.000%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fat_enchilada View Post
ANYTHING

Want to make sure all kids have insurance, or even better universal healthcare? Great, get it passed in your state. This is the great thing about Ron Paul's federalist nature - while he might not be keen on having many federal programs, these all can be done on a state level.

If people in one state don't want one program, then they don't have to. If people in another do, more power to them! As our 50 states - or better put, our 50 experiments - progress we'll be able to compare the results and see what programs work best.

If a program in another state works well, then people are bound to want to try it in their own state - the good stuff will spread throughout the nation, the bad stuff will ultimately fail and do less damage to the nation as a whole since it ain't forced on everyone at once.
I weak federal governmet would be worse than keeping most of the power in the federal level. Just think about it.
steakii is offline Award steakii Grams  
Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2007, 04:43 AM   #8
Trocisp
Now, with Extra Honesty.
 
Trocisp's Avatar
 

Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,571
Grams: 26,463.67
Groans: 20
Groaned at 25 Times in 21 Posts
Trocisp has entirely too much reputationTrocisp has entirely too much reputationTrocisp has entirely too much reputationTrocisp has entirely too much reputationTrocisp has entirely too much reputationTrocisp has entirely too much reputationTrocisp has entirely too much reputationTrocisp has entirely too much reputationTrocisp has entirely too much reputationTrocisp has entirely too much reputationTrocisp has entirely too much reputation
Thanks: 582
Thanked 1,018 Times in 671 Posts

Stock Portfolio
Total Value: 0.000
Gain/Loss: 0.000%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fat_enchilada View Post
ANYTHING
Yeah, well - too bad the United States doesn't work that way. Read a bit more into what the Federal Government can and can't do, as opposed to the state governments can and can't do. Also, read into how much revenue the individual states have, versus how much the federal government has.

Not to mention the efficiency difference that implementing something on a Federal Versus State level would have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fat_enchilada View Post
Want to make sure all kids have insurance, or even better universal healthcare?
Yeah, it would be nice if kids didn't die from the flu, or pnemonia because their parents can't afford to take them to the hospital.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fat_enchilada View Post
Great, get it passed in your state.
I would, if I was a magical gene who could just wiggle his nose (or is that witches... yeah, it's witches - my bad) and make things happen. Too bad efficiency would be greater if it were implemented on a federal level.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fat_enchilada View Post
This is the great thing about Ron Paul's federalist nature - while he might not be keen on having many federal programs, these all can be done on a state level.
At a greater cost to the citizens. Federalism is a great idea, but not all things need-be federalist. Highways, for instance... before the federal government stepped in and standardized Highway names (70, 270, 33, etc), they were extremely confusing. With some roads having three or four names (Big Walnut Road, Main Street, Cut-across way, etc). Also, they were much more dangerous, because safety wasn't a standardized thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fat_enchilada View Post
If people in one state don't want one program, then they don't have to.
Ever heard of optional health insurance? Opt-out of the program if you don't want it, and don't pay the tax.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fat_enchilada View Post
If people in another do, more power to them!
You're right! Lets make Alabama pay more because Arkansas doesn't want health insurance, when the people from Arkansas could just as easily opt-out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fat_enchilada View Post
As our 50 states - or better put, our 50 experiments - progress we'll be able to compare the results and see what programs work best.
At the expense of the citizens.

Or, we could put some of our best Medical, Economic and political minds in a room, lock the door, and tell them that until they figure out a solution, they're not allowed to leave. I like my way more. It costs less.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fat_enchilada View Post
If a program in another state works well, then people are bound to want to try it in their own state - the good stuff will spread throughout the nation, the bad stuff will ultimately fail and do less damage to the nation as a whole since it ain't forced on everyone at once.
Unless the good stuff can't work at a state level, because it's to inefficient.

Federalism is not the end all and be all of politics. There's a reason we're a union, single country, and not 50 independent ones. Because some things work better in bulk.

And, once again, I'll reiterate. I'm not asking you not to vote for him, I'm asking you to know what you're voting for before you do it, if you read the original post - you'll see that. This wasn't meant as a "ron paul sux lolz" thread, it was meant, simply, to inform people that just because he's popular, and their friends support him - it doesn't mean that he's the end-all-and-be-all of political candidates.

Last edited by Trocisp : 10-20-2007 at 04:51 AM.
Trocisp is offline Award Trocisp Grams  
Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2007, 11:35 AM   #9
fat_enchilada
New Member
 

Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 21
Grams: 900.85
Groans: 0
Groaned at 1 Time in 1 Post
fat_enchilada has begun their Karma Journey
Thanks: 0
Thanked 5 Times in 4 Posts

Stock Portfolio
Total Value: 0.000
Gain/Loss: 0.000%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by steakii View Post
I weak federal governmet would be worse than keeping most of the power in the federal level. Just think about it.
No, a federalist structure insures that the actions of the govt are more in line with the will of the people. Think about it this way: Would you rather abortion be restricted in a few states, or have the religious right be able to screw over the entire nation at once?
fat_enchilada is offline Award fat_enchilada Grams  
Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to fat_enchilada For This Useful Post:
DankDealer (10-24-2007)
Old 10-20-2007, 11:46 AM   #10
fat_enchilada
New Member
 

Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 21
Grams: 900.85
Groans: 0
Groaned at 1 Time in 1 Post
fat_enchilada has begun their Karma Journey
Thanks: 0
Thanked 5 Times in 4 Posts

Stock Portfolio
Total Value: 0.000
Gain/Loss: 0.000%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trocisp View Post
Yeah, well - too bad the United States doesn't work that way. Read a bit more into what the Federal Government can and can't do, as opposed to the state governments can and can't do. Also, read into how much revenue the individual states have, versus how much the federal government has.
Oh, because after all your highness I'm just a stupid shit who hasn't read anything.
Get real.

There's not a single thing that's done on a national level that you can't do on a state level.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trocisp View Post
Not to mention the efficiency difference that implementing something on a Federal Versus State level would have.
Since when did the federal govt. know anything about efficiency?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trocisp View Post
At a greater cost to the citizens. Federalism is a great idea, but not all things need-be federalist. Highways, for instance... before the federal government stepped in and standardized Highway names (70, 270, 33, etc), they were extremely confusing. With some roads having three or four names (Big Walnut Road, Main Street, Cut-across way, etc). Also, they were much more dangerous, because safety wasn't a standardized thing.
That's funny. I still know of plenty of roads that have multiple names, or that change names half-way through.
I'm sure those areas are so dangerous.
Better call the ambulance, I'm sure people are dying just left and right because it has more than one name!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trocisp View Post
You're right! Lets make Alabama pay more because Arkansas doesn't want health insurance, when the people from Arkansas could just as easily opt-out.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Trocisp View Post
Unless the good stuff can't work at a state level, because it's to inefficient.
If it won't work at a state level, it won't work at a federal level. The money is taxed from the same source - teh people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trocisp View Post
Federalism is not the end all and be all of politics.
Nope, it puts it where it should be - on a local level, which also puts more power into the hands of an individual person. One vote on a state level is much more important than one vote on a nationwide level.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trocisp View Post
There's a reason we're a union, single country, and not 50 independent ones. Because some things work better in bulk.
Well heck, why not just make a one world govt while you're at it. After all, if things are better in bulk.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trocisp View Post
to inform people that just because he's popular, and their friends support him - it doesn't mean that he's the end-all-and-be-all of political candidates.
You're delusional if you think he's popular.
fat_enchilada is offline Award fat_enchilada Grams  
Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to fat_enchilada For This Useful Post:
Fryguy22 (06-16-2008)
Marijuana.com Sponsor
Advertisement
 
Reply



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 09:55 PM.