Heading North?

Palomar · 2004-11-05 14:09:11

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s … a_dc]Click

*Didn't really want to start a new thread, but the "Presidential Elections" thread is nearly 350 posts and will likely crash anytime soon...and this doesn't quite fit in with Bill's "Predictions" thread, so....

Probably shouldn't, but what the heck. (And be sure to check out the last paragraph...bwa-ha-ha-ha)

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-11-05 14:24:11

As Canadians, you'll have to learn to embrace and use all the products and culture of Americans, while bad-mouthing their way of life

:laugh:

Sounds like an everybody wins solution actually, if that many disgruntled Democrats really want to go.

I have a few family members that steadfastly claimed they would move to Canada if Bush was re-elected. Of course they also believed that he wouldn't be.

I'll rub it in at Thanksgiving dinner no doubt.

BWhite · 2004-11-05 14:39:11

Tylenol with codeine. Over the counter. (Kaopectate needs a doctors script but codeine over the counter. Go figure that.)

I have family and friends near Detroit. At one time in Detroit, where I was born, but no more.

But the Strohs stays in Michigan.

Cobra Commander · 2004-11-05 15:52:37

...friends near Detroit. At one time in Detroit, where I was born, but no more.

Did I just get jabbed? ???

BWhite · 2004-11-05 16:05:29

...friends near Detroit. At one time in Detroit, where I was born, but no more.
Did I just get jabbed? ???

No, the city did. :;):

My extended family lives in the metro-area, outside city limits. 40 years ago, they all lived inside Detroit proper. No more.

Now its Livonia, and Bloomfield Hills, and Burton (next to Flint) and even Gaylord (waay north) and Kalamazoo.

Cobra, you have political beliefs I think are simply daft. But you are a good guy.

= = =

My Mom and Dad moved when I was 6 weeks old.

To Dallas. And I've been a Chicagoan since I was 6 years old.

Cobra Commander · 2004-11-05 16:18:10

No, the city did.

Oh, well that's to be expected. Everyone who knows Detroit knocks it.

Cobra, you have political beliefs I think are simply daft. But you are a good guy.

Guess I just got my daft notice.

DonPanic · 2004-11-08 13:12:47

LO
Canadians are so compassionnated :
http://www.marryanamerican.ca/]Marry an American

To these http://72.3.131.10/]Sorry, World,
take it easy, thanks for your efforts ...

Cobra Commander · 2005-01-17 08:30:15

A friend of mine steadfastly claimed he'd leave the country if Bush was re-elected. Warmongering evil rich Republican sticking it to the American working people and all that.

This weekend he left for Mexico. Got work as a foreman at a factory making parts for Chrysler. Way to look out for the American worker!

But I'll give him credit for actually following through. Of course I'm still going send a postcard with the rest of the crew under the Stars and Stripes with George Bush and a "wish you were here" caption.

Martian Republic · 2005-01-17 11:24:04

Actually, George Bush lost the 2005 election. There a small thing called voter fraud that the Republicans engaged in to get back in office. That fraudulent election was even challenged in both the house and the Senate, but the Republican had the majority, so they rubber stamped it through. There were testomonies as to this voter fraud too. Like using old voter registrations so they could force people to fill out a provisional ballot that they can either lose or through out and not count. Denying the people the right to vote by deliberately putting too few voting booth and/or not having the material on hand so people could vote. Send people to the wrong voting places so that they would not have a chance to vote. Touch screen that register vote cast for Kerry and give those votes to George Bush. Other Percents arbitrarily give more votes to George Bush than there are people in a given district and the list goes on. They didn't win the 2000 election either in that George Bush had to be illegally appointed president by the U.S. Supreme Court which is an unconstitutional act by the way.

However we will stop thieving Republican at the Social Security System. These Republicans want to ripe off Social Security for there Wall Street thugs. Here the place to stop those bandits that call themselves Republicans with there privatization program or to put it in a more understandable for "PIRATIZE SOCIAL SECURITY"! To begin with Social Security is not broken, but Wall Street is after that trillion dollar bounty which they would like to steal. So the tell there puppet George Bush to Privatize Social Security (Piratize Social Security) for them. This Idea to Privatize Social Security, is not a new idea and has been done in other countries already.

So a good question to ask would be, how did it work in those other countries?

It didn't work and was a total failure and cost more than the system that they use to have, which was similar to the Social Security System that we currently have.

So what went wrong with it.

This privatization was not designed for the retired people or as a safety net or as an insurance policy. But it was designed by Wall Street and for Wall Street to steal the public money from the Social Security fund and put that money into there own pockets. In Chile they use to have 100% coverage of there people under there old social program, but after there privatization now only about 26% of there population is covered by there social program at about 50% of the coverage they would have got under there old system and there servicing there debt for privatizing there social program and the government still come up with even that little bit that is being paid out. Britain did it too and they got similar results.

I works like this:

If this Wall Street crowd can raid the Social Security fund, it would account for about 1/4 of all the money in the Wall Street crooked Crap table called the Stock Market. With that much new money on the Wall Street Stock Market, it will be an industry maker all by itself and it would fund a Stock Market rally. Now of course these broker are going to want fee's for there services and the combined fee's and services charges will be in the hundreds of billions to one trillion dollars.

Now we can't just take a trillion dollars out of Social Security and that means there going to have to cut benefits and borrow over a trillion to two trillion to do a George Bush Privatization program. But, it doesn't stop there, over the next forty to fifty years there going to have to borrow another three to four trillion dollars at about 5% to 10% interest to keep that system going or commit the U.S. Government to five or six trillion dollar debt for forty or fifty years.

Now once this money has been given to Wall Street and they have taken there 28% right off the top before they even start investing this Social Security money into the Stock Market. This money will no longer be available to those people that are retiring and if the tumbles the way I know it going to, then that total amount is going to be even less than the total amount minus that 28% for commissions.

This basically how it went down in those other countries that tried to privatize Social Security and this same program or ripe off is not being pushed on us by the Bush Crime Syndicate. The same people that are pushing the Bush plan were the same people the did Chile, British plans and it will have the same results and is intend to have that same result too.

Larry,

Cobra Commander · 2005-01-17 11:52:13

And here we go...

Actually, George Bush lost the 2005 election. There a small thing called voter fraud that the Republicans engaged in to get back in office. That fraudulent election was even challenged in both the house and the Senate, but the Republican had the majority, so they rubber stamped it through.

Wacko-Leftist Dems challenged it, even their own Party wouldn't get behind the challenge, it died almost immediately. If the election was even close, if there was substantial real evidence of fraud the Kerry campaign would have challenged it.

They didn't win the 2000 election either in that George Bush had to be illegally appointed president by the U.S. Supreme Court which is an unconstitutional act by the way.

Since we've been over this ad nauseum I'll just say this: To believe that the Supreme Court appointed Bush President requires a total lack of understanding of the events following that election.

Now for SocSec. Right now the government, the government you have repeatedly blasted as a tool of manipulation for the benefit of international bankers, takes your money and gives it to someone else. The dollar amount steadily grows to keep up with inflation while the government loots anything left in a given year to pay for other expenses. It has no real money but what it takes from current workers. No surplus, no lockbox, no trust fund, no security. Therefore, you need significantly more people paying in than taking out. The numbers have been steadily narrowing and they're about to get worse. Either they cash in those IOU's and run up some debt or the whole thing implodes.

The Bush proposal involves letting individuals invest a small percentage of their contribution. The benefit of doing so is that the value of the stock market increases faster than the rate of inflation. Generating wealth, another concept you throw about except when it's inconvenient. Sure some brokers will collect fees, so the hell what? Right now all sorts of paper-shuffling peons make a living off the money you put in for retirement, what's the difference?

Oh, I forgot. All good comes from government.

Martian Republic · 2005-01-17 12:07:29

Now for SocSec. Right now the government, the government you have repeatedly blasted as a tool of manipulation for the benefit of international bankers, takes your money and gives it to someone else. The dollar amount steadily grows to keep up with inflation while the government loots anything left in a given year to pay for other expenses. It has no real money but what it takes from current workers. No surplus, no lockbox, no trust fund, no security. Therefore, you need significantly more people paying in than taking out. The numbers have been steadily narrowing and they're about to get worse. Either they cash in those IOU's and run up some debt or the whole thing implodes.
The Bush proposal involves letting individuals invest a small percentage of their contribution. The benefit of doing so is that the value of the stock market increases faster than the rate of inflation. Generating wealth, another concept you throw about except when it's inconvenient. Sure some brokers will collect fees, so the hell what? Right now all sorts of paper-shuffling peons make a living off the money you put in for retirement, what's the difference?
Oh, I forgot. All good comes from goernment.

This website will give you some of the numbers of what these bandit have done to other private social programes throughout the world. So that you know it not an opinion as to who these people are and what there game plan is. There are other website too, but this was the first one that I ran into.

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2005/s … ...ts.html

Private Enterprize his it place in the physical economy, But the Wall Street Sharks have no place at all when it come to having a healthy economy. They basically are nothing more than a bunch of bandits that loot the physical economy for there own selfish interest.
Larry,

Cobra Commander · 2005-01-17 12:24:59

the Wall Street Sharks have no place at all when it come to having a healthy economy. They basically are nothing more than a bunch of bandits that loot the physical economy for there own selfish interest.

Much like elected officials and their minions. :;):

Martian Republic · 2005-01-17 12:47:39

the Wall Street Sharks have no place at all when it come to having a healthy economy. They basically are nothing more than a bunch of bandits that loot the physical economy for there own selfish interest.
Much like elected officials and their minions. :;):

It all depends on who the elected officials are and what they stand for if anything. If that elected official acts like most of the common verity elected officials, then I don't have much use for them. But, if that elected official believe in and stand for the General Welfare for the American People and up holds the U.S. Constitution and what it stands for, then it is worth having him or her for our Congressman or President or Supreme Court Justices. Then they are acting as our representative in a Constitutional Republic and they are doing our bidding to run this country. A government that function on this bases is worth having and they will set the policies that will make America have a healthy economy again. It is only a Federal Government operating on that bases that can set bases for being able to transform the United States back to health. Now there will still be private ventures, but it needs to regulated to keep those bandit in Wall Street from stealing that venture capital throw fee's, commissions and scam investment in companies like Enron and such.

Here a few more links so you might know what kind of ripe of this Social Security privatization is.

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2005/s … ...ed.html

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2005/s … ...as.html

Larry,

BWhite · 2005-01-17 13:02:50

The Bush proposal involves letting individuals invest a small percentage of their contribution. The benefit of doing so is that the value of the stock market increases faster than the rate of inflation. Generating wealth, another concept you throw about except when it's inconvenient. Sure some brokers will collect fees, so the hell what? Right now all sorts of paper-shuffling peons make a living off the money you put in for retirement, what's the difference?

The problem is when some goofball "invests" in Enron and instead of earning 10.5% loses everything and then in 25 years when his crying widow cannot buy groceries we either say "too bad, soo sad" and let her starve or we appropriate more tax money to feed her.

In the meanwhile the stockbroker who sold this goofball his Enron stock is eating cavier on the federal dime. :;):
Edited By BWhite on 1105988596

Cobra Commander · 2005-01-17 13:14:00

It all depends on who the elected officials are and what they stand for if anything.

We know the kind that get elected, those idealists such as you describe consistently lose if they can get enough backing to run in the first place.

So in that context the question of SocSec reform is essentially moot simply because if the character and vision of those in office is the fulcrum, we need total reform. Reform which likely cannot be achieved strictly within the system.

SocSec, Medicare, the War on Terror, political corruption, etc. must be addressed on a holistic or systemic approach. And before quoting the "wisdom of LaRouche" it must be said that the holist approach must also be founded on correct interpretations of events and conditions. Claiming FDR's New Deal ended the Depression is decidely incorrect and anything drawn from that sort of thinking will be equally flawed.

Back to SocSec, if the overall economic policy of the nation is sound a system with private investment is preferable, returning much higher returns to it's participants while removing the temptation to loot it on the part of government. If the overall ecenomic policy is flawed, SocSec will fail regardless. So you see this isn't a question of private or not, but to what degree under the umbrella of a viable economic policy.

But in the meantime they'll continue to piratize our paychecks.

Cobra Commander · 2005-01-17 13:18:17

The problem is when some goofball "invests" in Enron and instead of earning 10.5% loses everything and then in 25 years when his crying widow cannot buy groceries we either say "too bad, soo sad" and let her starve or we appropriate more tax money to feed her.

No current proposal involves letting people invest in whatever they want. Any plan will involve the voluntary investment of a small part of an individual's SocSec taxes in a conservative indexed fund of some sort with government oversight. There won't be anyone investing their entire take in some corporation that folds.

The concept is entirely sound, it's the details that need scrutiny.

BWhite · 2005-01-17 13:23:59

But in the meantime they'll continue to piratize our paychecks.

A solid social framework and legal infrastructure is a prerequisite for that paycheck even existing in the first place.

See Hernando de Soto - - The Mystery of Capital.

A social safety net purchases the peace and tranquility that allows commerce to flourish.

BWhite · 2005-01-17 13:28:41

The problem is when some goofball "invests" in Enron and instead of earning 10.5% loses everything and then in 25 years when his crying widow cannot buy groceries we either say "too bad, soo sad" and let her starve or we appropriate more tax money to feed her.
No current proposal involves letting people invest in whatever they want. Any plan will involve the voluntary investment of a small part of an individual's SocSec taxes in a conservative indexed fund of some sort with government oversight. There won't be anyone investing their entire take in some corporation that folds.
The concept is entirely sound, it's the details that need scrutiny.

Heh!

Lets see, if you are a Texas Pioneer (donate $1,000,000 plus to Re-elect Bush) then your mutual fund gets included on the list.

Or, to be bi-partisan. Do you want Hillary Clinton's administration deciding which indexed mutual funds are suitable for social security investment?

= = =

Maybe QQQ would work, or a fund that invests pro rata in every public company - - but which brokerage houses get the commissions?

IF it were a felony with MANDATORY lengthy prison to make political contributions IF you are an owner, director shareholder, associate or employee of a company earning revenue from social security investment then maybe we can avoid a huge source of potential corruption.

Edited By BWhite on 1105990286

Cobra Commander · 2005-01-17 13:38:59

A solid social framework and legal infrastructure is a prerequisite for that paycheck even existing in the first place.

In such a form but not in principle, unlike capital in a general sense. Wages are merely an exchange of goods (or the means to acquire goods) for labor. There is no profit, therefore we shouldn't even be taxing wages at all, but I digress.

A social safety net, or more accurately imposition of order provides the framework of commerce but not trade. Without that framework organized business, complex manufacturing, investment and profit would not exist. But trade would.

So if 12% of your wages is taken from you and given to another, weren't you working for others without compensation. Since it's taken off the top and you need to work to survive, it's compelled. Compelled labor without compensation, there's a word for that... :;):

A bit excessive, but worth bearing in mind when we're talking about these matters.
Edited By Cobra Commander on 1105990784

BWhite · 2005-01-17 13:59:49

Today, I am being compelled to pay for a military action I oppose and which I believe will prove profoundly harmly to the best interest of my children. Yet I file my 1040 nonetheless. ???

The mere fact of compulsion, standing alone, is insufficient to render the use of tax revenue inherently immoral.

A stable and content society benefits everyone, as does a prudently employed military. To compel everyone to pay, within the boundaries of legitimate political procedures is altogether appropriate.

IMHO, the libertarian position does have academic and philosophic attractions, however things like the minimum wage, OSHA and the social safety net absolutely do help sustain the golden goose that has given America so many golden eggs.

= = =

Society prospers with sensible planning for things like streets, sewers, water works and the like. I believe my town should establish a very high bandwidth wi-fi intranet as a public utility. Other towns have done exactly that.

Aggresive enforcement of weights and measures and quality protection laws (label 95 octane gas as 97 octane or sell rusty metal bolts as stainless and you go to jail) promotes more efficient trade, which benefits everyone.

A social safety net that keeps our elderly from starving in the streets (and a sensible health care system) is one of the bulwarks our society can offer to prevent a reprise of the French Revolution, with the rich getting murdered in the streets.

Making everyone pay a share for that social safety net is merely fair because everyone benefits.

= = =

Far more than 12% of my paycheck is being taken in taxes and the money used to employ prison guards to incarcerate people who are imprisoned for certain drug crimes in contexts where I believe prison is not appropriate.

Buying a flawed missile defense shield is a "waste" of my paycheck. :;):

Why is your angst at giving Granny her monthly Social Security worthy of greater consideration?

Edited By BWhite on 1105993387

Cobra Commander · 2005-01-17 14:21:33

Today, I am being compelled to pay for a military action I oppose and which I believe will prove profoundly harmly to the best interest of my children. Yet I file my 1040 nonetheless.
The mere fact of compulsion, standing alone, is insufficient to render the use of tax revenue inherently immoral.

It is not the use of tax revenue being questioned, but more fundamentally the taking of it in the first place.

Is theft less morally wrong if the money is used to do good? It may be an inescapbale fact of modern life, but that's what we're talking about. We accept a certain amount of thievery regardless of the use to which the loot is put.

A stable and content society benefits everyone, as does a prudently employed military. To compel everyone to pay, within the boundaries of legitimate political procedures is altoghether appropriate.

We don't need to compel everyone to pay. It may seem that way as a result of inneficiency and outright corruption on the part of government but the basic elements needed for a stable society can be achieved with much lower tax rates than we pay at present and through less direct means.

You Lefties might like this one, we shouldn't tax the working people's wages at all as they have made an even trade, money for labor. It's the rich who've made their fortunes off investments, lending capital and other non-labor, non-producing means whose wealth is dependent entirely on the social order in place and therefore can be considered as "owing" something.

:;):

IMHO, the libertarian position does have academic and philosophic attractions, however things like the minimum wage, OSHA and the social safety net absolutely do help sustain the golden goose that has given America so many golden eggs.

In the absence of minimum wage laws it would be self-correcting. You can only pay so low before no one does the work, not to mention that most people working minimum wage jobs aren't supporting families to start with. OSHA need not be junked, certainly there should be some base level of safety required on jobsites. Not that any employer with any sense would have vats of acid laying around or anything, but a little oversight is good. Finally, the "social safety net" can mean many things to many people. To some it's just cops to enforce some basic laws, for others it's a full welfare state. In the absence of the former someone will impose it, but the latter is in no way necessary for a prosperous society nor was it a factor in the rise and greatness of this country.

The golden eggs didn't come from the government goose.

But that green stuff did.

Martian Republic · 2005-01-17 14:24:53

It all depends on who the elected officials are and what they stand for if anything.
We know the kind that get elected, those idealists such as you describe consistently lose if they can get enough backing to run in the first place.
So in that context the question of SocSec reform is essentially moot simply because if the character and vision of those in office is the fulcrum, we need total reform. Reform which likely cannot be achieved strictly within the system.
SocSec, Medicare, the War on Terror, political corruption, etc. must be addressed on a holistic or systemic approach. And before quoting the "wisdom of LaRouche" it must be said that the holist approach must also be founded on correct interpretations of events and conditions. Claiming FDR's New Deal ended the Depression is decidely incorrect and anything drawn from that sort of thinking will be equally flawed.
Back to SocSec, if the overall economic policy of the nation is sound a system with private investment is preferable, returning much higher returns to it's participants while removing the temptation to loot it on the part of government. If the overall ecenomic policy is flawed, SocSec will fail regardless. So you see this isn't a question of private or not, but to what degree under the umbrella of a viable economic policy.
But in the meantime they'll continue to piratize our paychecks.

I agree with you that the Federal Government has dipped into the Social Security fund and George Bush has dipped into the Social Security to the tune of 1.5 trillion dollars and has put I.O.U's in it place. We need to pass a law or even a constitutional amendment to make it illegal for the U.S. Government dipped into the Social Security fund. I have not problem with that.

But, you still have not explained why giving these Wall Street bandit 28% of everything in the Social Security fund right up front for commission then on top of that adding other fee's of buying and selling on Wall Street and then borrowing a like amount of another two trillion dollars at an interest rate and having to 5% to 10% interest on money borrowed?

Our Social Security account would have to make over one trillion dollars in the first year to not lose on the Stock Market. Matter of fact, Social Security will have about 1/4 of all the money in the Stock Market, those Social Security would have to make two hundred to five hundred billion dollars each and every year so that it will not lose money on that amount of money that Social Security is going to be invention in that Stock Market. Our Social Security is going to have to cover over a trillion dollars of commission and fee's and then cover another trillion or more in interest before it even breaks even, let alone make any money. The Stock Market works on winner and loser in a redistribution of wealth from those that invest in the Stock Market. Social Security with ¼ of the money in the Stock Market is going to be one of the loser with the U.S. Tax payer being the patsy that going to pick up the bill to pay the bad debt and then salvage the Social Security System and it will be in the trillion dollar range and maybe even ten trillion dollars range.

Another issue about Social Security is, they want to direct where that Social Security money is going to go. Like it not like there going to let you invest it, that just another one of there lies. If they were really interested in the us individuals, they could raise the amount that we could put in our IRA's accounts, but they could not control that and it not in the amounts that they intend to steal either.

Larry,

BWhite · 2005-01-17 14:33:58

You Lefties might like this one, we shouldn't tax the working people's wages at all as they have made an even trade, money for labor. It's the rich who've made their fortunes off investments, lending capital and other non-labor, non-producing means whose wealth is dependent entirely on the social order in place and therefore can be considered as "owing" something.

Jeez-Louise, Cobra, you've been reading Marx?

Good on you! (Such people should be paying for the Marine Corp and missile defense as well, right?)

= = =

Americans have traditionally been less angry about wealth and income disparities and some say this is because America is seen as being a socially mobile place. Horatio Alger and all that. http://www.economist.com/world/na/displ … 3518560]An article on the subject

Therefore, no income tax on wages, and a high inheritance tax might seem appropriate.

First $10 million? Fine, No death tax. Index for inflation, so its $20 million by 2020, say. But after that, an estate tax would encourage hard work, no?

= = =

In a consumer society, a rising tide lifts all boats. Pay a man $10 dollars per day and he can BUY that new Model A Ford. Problem is that too many of the uber-wealthy forget that a strong middle class makes for a strong economy and a strong nation.

Not "trickle down" but "float up"

Edited By BWhite on 1105994285

Martian Republic · 2005-01-17 14:40:28

The problem is when some goofball "invests" in Enron and instead of earning 10.5% loses everything and then in 25 years when his crying widow cannot buy groceries we either say "too bad, soo sad" and let her starve or we appropriate more tax money to feed her.
No current proposal involves letting people invest in whatever they want. Any plan will involve the voluntary investment of a small part of an individual's SocSec taxes in a conservative indexed fund of some sort with government oversight. There won't be anyone investing their entire take in some corporation that folds.
The concept is entirely sound, it's the details that need scrutiny.

I have already mention the fact that no other country that has gone into this privatization program with there Social Program have any good experiences with this program. It was a complete bust, they lost hundred's billions and even trillions of dollars.

OK, now let go to these private retirement programs inside the United States. Where we have these Union Benefit programs in the tens of billion or even hundreds of billions of dollars. Most of these private funds that are invested in Wall Street are also going bankrupt. Now our Social Security Money is going to be invested in those same stocks and bonds that those private retirement fund's have been invested in. Now those retirement account are going bankrupt and we now want to invest our Social Security Funds in those same stocks and bonds.

Why, would we want to do something stupid like that?

In not in my best interest to lose this Social Security Money in a scam like this.

Larry,

BWhite · 2005-01-17 14:56:53

Here is an interesting statistic.

It appears the UK has 659 MPs (members of the lower House of Commons) witha total population of around 60 million, IIRC.

Every 90,000 to 100,000 people have an MP.

In our House of Representatives, the ratio is more like 600,000 people per Representative.

Suppose we tripled the size of the House of Representatives and somewhat reduced their pay. Wouldn't that dilute the power of individual representatives and perhaps dilute the power of organzied political parties?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-11-05 14:09:11

Re: Heading North?

#2 2004-11-05 14:24:11

Re: Heading North?

#3 2004-11-05 14:39:11

Re: Heading North?

#4 2004-11-05 15:52:37

Re: Heading North?

#5 2004-11-05 16:05:29

Re: Heading North?

#6 2004-11-05 16:18:10

Re: Heading North?

#7 2004-11-08 13:12:47

Re: Heading North?

#8 2005-01-17 08:30:15

Re: Heading North?

#9 2005-01-17 11:24:04

Re: Heading North?

#10 2005-01-17 11:52:13

Re: Heading North?

#11 2005-01-17 12:07:29

Re: Heading North?

#12 2005-01-17 12:24:59

Re: Heading North?

#13 2005-01-17 12:47:39

Re: Heading North?

#14 2005-01-17 13:02:50

Re: Heading North?

#15 2005-01-17 13:14:00

Re: Heading North?

#16 2005-01-17 13:18:17

Re: Heading North?

#17 2005-01-17 13:23:59

Re: Heading North?

#18 2005-01-17 13:28:41

Re: Heading North?

#19 2005-01-17 13:38:59

Re: Heading North?

#20 2005-01-17 13:59:49

Re: Heading North?

#21 2005-01-17 14:21:33

Re: Heading North?

#22 2005-01-17 14:24:53

Re: Heading North?

#23 2005-01-17 14:33:58

Re: Heading North?

#24 2005-01-17 14:40:28

Re: Heading North?

#25 2005-01-17 14:56:53

Re: Heading North?

Board footer