New Bush Plan Set To Coincide With June Speech - Link included....talk amongst yourselves

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-11 14:42:46

I wonder if any military has ever studied the art of Aikido.

Sometimes you're better off starting with Iaido and taking it from there.

Oh yeah, Reagan's and Bush's trickle-down economics -- tax breaks to the rich -- may help the economy, but trickle-up economics would work much faster. This is because giving a tax break to the poor will inject money directly into the demand side of the economy. Poor people spend their money immediately while rich people invest and save it cautiously.

Why not give tax breaks to everybody? Or is that the rich deserve to be punished?

Don't you hate how war gets in the way of peaceful space exploration?

Exploration made possible by the technology of war. Quite a pickle ain't it?

Euler · 2004-05-11 14:51:10

$500Bn signifigant? Why? In comparison to what?

In comparison to the government's total budget. That is more than double the government's total civilian purchases. It is also more than the total government military purchases.

GCNRevenger · 2004-05-11 14:52:54

Oh it might boost consumption of goods temporarily, but what do you think happens to all that money that Warren Buffett doesn't give to the IRS? They invest it! Even money put into the bank doesn't just sit there, it is lent out by the bank to people for various things, which in turn makes money on interest so you have even more to invest with. If you simply dump all those dollars into the hands of people and they buy goods, then that money goes into companies which will work its way up the chain until it reaches the hands of stock holders who - upon predicting that spending will decline after the tax break shopping spree ends - will be reluctant to reinvest it as readily.

Violence begets violence ey? Well then, the Middle East will be a threat to us forever until their culture changes... or someone changes it for them... because their culture is largely very violent. This region of the world has a very violent culture, and has produced some of the most hate-filled inhuman murderers of all time... And they won't stop, there is nothing you can do for them or give them that will stop them, the aim of the worst of them is to kill us. That is their ultimate goal. So, what to do? Ask them nicely to quit? Rely on "international pressure?" There aren't many options other to stop them by force... they can cause no more harm if they are dead.

Euler · 2004-05-11 15:02:54

Oh it might boost consumption of goods temporarily, but what do you think happens to all that money that Warren Buffett doesn't give to the IRS? They invest it!

So the basic choice is between taking Warren Buffet's money or just borrowing it. They work out the same in the short term, but if you just borrow the money Warren Buffet will eventually want it back.

Ian Flint · 2004-05-11 16:44:31

Why not give tax breaks to everybody? Or is that the rich deserve to be punished?

Frankly, the poor deserve to be paid a decent wage. The rich are rich because their workers don't get paid what they're worth. If you doubt this, ask yourself this question: Can a family live on an income of $5.15/hr (minimum wage).

To relate supply side vs. demand side economic stimuli to Mars --
In 40+ years of spacefaring capabilities our vehicles' propulsion systems haven't progressed past chemical rockets, for example. If we had set up a base on Mars in the 80's, this would have created a real demand for better propulsion systems like NTRs. Pumping $15 billion per year into a NASA with no destination (no demand) didn't advance our spacefaring capabilities very much. But if this $15 billion were given to a destination driven NASA with a distant Mars base to support (demand) then better methods of travel will have been developed.

This is analogous to supply-side economics. If tax money is given to the rich it surely makes them richer and may create new jobs, but if given to the poor it makes more of an impact on their finances and the money gets back to the rich people anyway through purchases. In short you get your Mars base and a better set of rockets.

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-11 17:18:23

Quote
Why not give tax breaks to everybody? Or is that the rich deserve to be punished?

Frankly, the poor deserve to be paid a decent wage. The rich are rich because their workers don't get paid what they're worth. If you doubt this, ask yourself this question: Can a family live on an income of $5.15/hr (minimum wage).

One, minimum wage is an entry level wage. There are very few families that try to live off a single person making minimum wage.

For the most part the rich are rich because they either worked their asses off, came up with a product or service people were willing to pay for, or inherited it from someone who did one of the first two.

To relate supply side vs. demand side economic stimuli to Mars --
In 40+ years of spacefaring capabilities our vehicles' propulsion systems haven't progressed past chemical rockets, for example. If we had set up a base on Mars in the 80's, this would have created a real demand for better propulsion systems like NTRs. Pumping $15 billion per year into a NASA with no destination (no demand) didn't advance our spacefaring capabilities very much. But if this $15 billion were given to a destination driven NASA with a distant Mars base to support (demand) then better methods of travel will have been developed.

Yes.

This is analogous to supply-side economics. If tax money is given to the rich it surely makes them richer and may create new jobs, but if given to the poor it makes more of an impact on their finances and the money gets back to the rich people anyway through purchases. In short you get your Mars base and a better set of rockets.

No. Look, lower taxation is good for everybody. When that tax is a progressive income tax, any cut shows up as larger dollar amounts for the wealthy because they pay a larger percentage. Redistribution of wealth does nothing but put small sums of money in the hands of people that didn't earn it at the expense of those who did. It stifles the economy by punishing successful business.

Back to Mars rockets. If you want any real progress in space beyond LEO, you're going to need government involvement. This means military involvement and those evil defense contractors. This idea that some enlightened people are going to get together, somehow evade you're punitive taxation when they amass capital, and build a better rocket to go colonize Mars for the good of mankind is pure delusional fantasy.

PurduesUSAFguy · 2004-05-11 17:19:42

Yeah, if we get into the war debate, Josh will come down here and threaten to close the thread for being off topic... suffice it to say that it is naieve to "believe in peace" at the moment or for the forseeable future, and it is completly suicidal to not have a credible, feared military... or the will to use it.
I would like to think that the F-22 program was big and expensive because the aircraft itself is more complex (pilot, gun, bigger bomb bay, countermeasures, etc) than the little UAVs and it pioneered alot of new technologies for the UAVs, like 2nd-generation stealth design.
Anyway, i'm writing this post to mention that money going into defense and into the space program doesn't really evaporate and disapear, with alot of that money going back into the economy as large contractors are paid and they pay out this money to employees and subcontractors and their taxes.

There is some truth in that the F/A-22 broke alot of new ground but (and, sorry but this is one of those if I told you I'd be forced to kill you areas) the UCAVs we are playing with now are doing much to supplant the strike mission that the F/A and F/B-22 were going to fufill. In any event my point was merely that we've finally gotten out of the cold war paradigm of keeping things in development for decades. The perfect example of this would be the Preditor and Global Hawk, both were deployed while in the test phase, both were/are being modified to carry weapons in theater, and on the fly, something unheard of during the cold war era.

Bill White · 2004-05-11 17:49:20

For the most part the rich are rich because they either worked their asses off, came up with a product or service people were willing to pay for, or inherited it from someone who did one of the first two.

By and large I prefer the supposed Republican political philosophers. Adam Smith, John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, people like that. (Milton Friedman mis-reads Adam Smith, IMHO). Marx is useful as an historian - lousy as an architect of societies.

Hobbes vs Locke? Now there is a debate.

Bottom line, however, I just do not believe your above statement is true as a factual matter. So you see, Cobra, you and I probably agree far more than we disagree on the theory of economics and politics I just reject the idea that being rich proves that one is more virtuous or that the rich usually earn their wealth in praiseworthy manner.

(Clinton's chicken deals with Tyson deals come to mind, to use a leftie example, yet I can find others if we choose to throw mud. . . but lets not, okay?)

I also believe in the lesson taught by Jesus. People can love God or money but not both.

Making a decent living and finding security for your family? Okay, no problem. Getting really, really rich? Probably had to be un-Christian to accomplish that.

And for the record, I proudly assert that Catholics are Christian despite what the evangelicals may say. Jerry Falwell types saying that we Catholics are damned doesn't endear me to his close friend GWB. :;):

Ian Flint · 2004-05-11 17:49:52

I don't think I ever said I was in favor of progressive income taxes. I think they are simply a band-aid to try and fix the prevalent capitalist idea that if you can get away with paying people next to nothing while making yourself rich, then you should. In business this is called 'charging (or paying) what the market will bear'.

The point is this: capitalism is screwed up. Did you ever stop to think about the term "Human Resources"? It sounds like metal, wood, oil, or some other natural resource, doesn't it? But no, it's people...Soilent Green is people!!!
Seriously, capitalism has historically treated people like animals. Heck, not too long ago blacks were animals, legally. The last century has seen a reaction to capitalism, namely Communism, Socialism, and Liberalism. They are all imperfect, but at least they are trying to fix the problem.

In my opinion, though, it will take a change of heart by each individual, not taxes to fix the disparities of capitalism. Maybe it will happen on Mars. (See that little Mars tie-in?)

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-11 18:07:13

Bottom line, however, I just do not believe your above statement is true as a factual matter. So you see, Cobra, you and I probably agree far more than we disagree on the theory of economics and politics I just reject the idea that being rich proves that one is more virtuous or that the rich usually earn their wealth in praiseworthy manner.

Ah, but I never said they were virtous or praiseworthy, merely that they found something people would pay for. I think the guy that started charging to use the tire pump at gas stations is a prick, but people willingly drop in the quarters.

I, of course go down the road to the station where it's still free.

I also believe in the lesson taught by Jesus. People can love God or money but not both.

Dammit! Atheism and still no fat bank account. I'm gettin' screwed on this deal. :angry:

Tax my employer, I'm not paid enough.

I don't think I ever said I was in favor of progressive income taxes. I think they are simply a band-aid to try and fix the prevalent capitalist idea that if you can get away with paying people next to nothing while making yourself rich, then you should. In business this is called 'charging (or paying) what the market will bear'.

Well, that's how a free market works. State-run and supposedly more just systems have been tried, but they never work out too well.

The beauty of it is no one is forcing anyone else to work a low-paying job. Whether it be to start a business, work somewhere better or go be a desert hermit in a capitalist system you can just quit, and depending on market conditions you might even get a better offer.

Try that with the communists.

In my opinion, though, it will take a change of heart by each individual, not taxes to fix the disparities of capitalism.

Quite right. Which is why it is odd that in order to make people more compassionate and generous to their fellow man we rob from some to pay others, pissing off both groups and pitting them against each other. Seems counter-productive.

Euler · 2004-05-11 18:23:00

We never should have gotten rid of the estate tax. The only people that would be affected by it are millionaires who did not earn their wealth. We should also increase taxes on alcohol, tobacco, and gas, to earn money while discouraging the use of those substances. It would also be reasonable to legalize marijuana and tax that too. That is not enough to solve all of the budget problems, but its a start.

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-11 18:34:59

We should also increase taxes on alcohol, tobacco, and gas, to earn money while discouraging the use of those substances.

The problem with this is that the state quickly becomes dependent on that revenue and must either encourage people to engage in those activities or raise taxes elsewhere when people quit. Look at NYC, they raise the tax on tobacco to cover a budget shortfall, then ban smoking in the city!? What the hell is that?

Still, 'smoking your way to Mars' is an interesting concept. Or tokin' your way to Mars as the case may be.

GCNRevenger · 2004-05-11 19:44:09

The point is this: capitalism is screwed up. Did you ever stop to think about the term "Human Resources"? It sounds like metal, wood, oil, or some other natural resource, doesn't it? But no, it's people...Soilent Green is people!!!
Seriously, capitalism has historically treated people like animals. Heck, not too long ago blacks were animals, legally. The last century has seen a reaction to capitalism, namely Communism, Socialism, and Liberalism. They are all imperfect, but at least they are trying to fix the problem.
In my opinion, though, it will take a change of heart by each individual, not taxes to fix the disparities of capitalism.

Imperfect? Imperfect? Thats a little somthing of an understatement I think... Communism and Socialism are clearly unmitigated total failures, and Liberalism in Europe/Canada/Japan/etc isn't looking too good either (Canada bankrupt, European economies stagnant, Japanese recessions). Capitalism works, all the "better ideas" have failed... In fact, I would say capitalism works because it takes advantage of the desire for personal material wealth, which goes unrewarded or punished in other mechanisms. Karl Marx even had praise for the efficency of the system... cold and uncaring though it may be.

The estate tax I think is a form of socialist "economic justice," considering our society is (still) arranged around the family unit, since it isn't bound to a single human lifetime, and putting taxes on "bad" things as other have mentioned doesn't work very well... taxing fuels is economically a terrible idea too.

Back to rockets... I disagree that simply "build a base and they will come," if it is too hard/expensive to get to Mars without an advance in technological reach, then the wishy-washy congress will have an exuse to wield the axe: "okay, we're on Mars, and there aren't any bugs, Nasa your mission is over." I don't think the support will materialize just like that...

In closing, our technology limits the physics of what is possible; right now we cannot put modest masses into orbit easily, since gravity is strong and rocket fuel is only so-so, which inherintly limits what we can do for a given investment. It may well require next-next generation technology to make colonization practical (Shuttle-II, beyond Nerva-NTR).

Euler · 2004-05-11 19:45:09

The idea is that these activities all have a hidden cost to society. Smoking causes second hand smoke and raises medicare/medicade costs. Alcohol causes traffic accidents. Using gas causes smog, global warming, uses up the world's oil supply, and increases the wear on our roads. If the cost of the tax is equal to the cost to society of these activities, then it does not really matter whether people do these things or not.

Euler · 2004-05-11 19:59:53

Imperfect? Imperfect? Thats a little somthing of an understatement I think... Communism and Socialism are clearly unmitigated total failures, and Liberalism in Europe/Canada/Japan/etc isn't looking too good either (Canada bankrupt, European economies stagnant, Japanese recessions).

The per capita GDP is a little lower in Europe, Canada, and Japan, but workers in those countries also work less. It is a trade off of money vs free time, not simply having less money. Also Europe/Canada/Japan have higher life expectancies than the US and lower crime. That is actually part of why their economies are struggling right now- they have a lot of retirees to support.

Earthfirst · 2004-05-11 20:06:50

John Kerry is evil, and if he wins it will be th death of us all though PC logic. Bush is only choice over death!
Also kerry would get rid of most NASA funds to give to illegal alians, and other scum. Kerry= death of NASA.
Any one who does not agree with me, should be deported.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Bush is are only hope for slavation, god bless him and the GOP!

deagleninja · 2004-05-11 21:34:19

Isn't it time for capitalism 2.0? Sure capitalism was great getting us to this point, but even my rightie cousins can see problems with it, they just don't know of a better system.

I believe that there's nothing wrong with 'getting rich', hell I'm trying for that myself. However, when a company becomes so big and powerful that it can squash any upstart competition, we are left with decades old tech, in short, stagnation.

Is the solution progressive tax rates till a cap is reached? Maybe. I doubt that the wealthiest people in the world think they have enough so it's quite possible that an outside force (government) is needed to regulate wealth.

Don't think of it as punishing the rich. Rather, think of it as their civil responcibility to pay for the freedom of being wealthy and enjoying more freedom than the average person. Wealth equals greater freedoms. Shouldn't the wealthy pay for the right to be rich?

Maybe that doesn't seem fair to some, but is it more fair that someone struggling with poverty pay it? The government needs X dollars a year. That money has to come from somewhere doesn't it?

When the poor are heavily taxed it only creates more need for social programs which eat up more money thanks to pork. Taxing large buisnesses can cost people jobs, but it also drives a buisness to be more efficent or at least to drive up their price. If their product is truely useful, people will pay the higher price which is good for the economy.

Ever notice that companies that spend the most on advertising like Coke or Niki have to because their product isn't all that great? They have to sell you a celebrity or a feeling to buy their product.

Airlines regularly drop their fares to the point they are losing money when some upstart company comes along and starts stealing their buisness by offering a good deal or good service. The prices usually stay low just long enough to drive the new company out of buisness then they go back up.

This is capitalism out of control. Too often, buisnesses employ 'dirty' tactics to stay on top. So keep capitalism, but forbid the dirty tactics with legislation.

Do this and one day we will all be driving solar powered cars, flying cars, traveling to space, and many other wonderful things that we don't have now because buisness would rather maintain the status quo than be pioneering.

idiom · 2004-05-11 22:32:28

People are inherently good and society make them evil vs. People are inherently evil and society keeps them apart.

This age old debate has been solved empirically yet again with the horrors commited inside the "ideal" states. Capitialisim gains traction based on the fact that it will motivate anybody (be rich so you give to people or be rich so you can be rich). It breaks down when one comapny is too successful and creates a commune out of the competition and becomes a monopoly. It takes work to keep the free market free.

Whether this has anything to do with politics is a completely different kettle of fish. In practice Democracy is to weak to affect space in the U.S. Power seems to lie with lobbies to congress and Presidential favour. It may be possible get to Mars with either Party.

What is really needed is to somehow propagate the idea that getting to Mars and colonizing it is vital to social justice and the free market.

I dunno how to do this, certainly the first stop, Hollywood, has never broached this, Space is always an expensive toy/scientific endeavour or historical ineviablitiy but never something vital to the human condition and nessecary in scale.

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-12 06:35:05

Back to rockets... I disagree that simply "build a base and they will come," if it is too hard/expensive to get to Mars without an advance in technological reach, then the wishy-washy congress will have an exuse to wield the axe: "okay, we're on Mars, and there aren't any bugs, Nasa your mission is over." I don't think the support will materialize just like that...

Quite right, if we just build a base. Which is why a more ambitious goal is needed. A sort of "research colony" could be set up with current technology at relatively modest expense. Rather than sending four people to live in a can for a year, we can send two hundred to stay there. You'd have no shortage of volunteers.

Optimistic yes, but when Mars is a destination worth travelling to, whether it be for trade, further colonization, tourism etc. the drive will be there to improve the means. Government will probably have to set up the initial base camp, private consortia may be involved in the colonization, but once the ball gets rolling there's no stopping it.

GCNRevenger · 2004-05-12 07:12:48

The concept of free market does need to be protected from unfair monopoly power (natural monopolies, eg water company, are okay) by a noneconomic mechanism, and the most readily qualified one is the government...

Progressive taxation has at least one foot in the "economic justice" catagory, which is on a slippery slope to Socialism or worse. Whether it is titled such or not, it is a levy on the "privilage" of being rich, which is not a privilage, it is a right if you earned it - a reward for being efficent, and thats one of the basic tenants of the capitalist system... mess with that, and then you've got a socialist state before you know it.

No Cobra, I think you miss my point... You cannot simply force a destination on the space program like that when the means of getting there is limited by our technological capacity; its a chicken and egg thing, it is not possible not just difficult to build and operate a large colony for under a trillion dollars. If Zubrin's semi-hairbrained plan can only get ~20-25MT down to the surface for a $1Bn rocket (maybe more, counting lander), then the cost of making a large colony will be untennable and nobody will do it to begin with.

Even if you cut the cost in half and double the flight rate, which I think is quite generous considering how hard it is to build large rockets, thats still not much material to Mars on the dollar. It is a limitation of technology, that it is too hard at the moment to get off the ground without somthing better than LOX/LH expendables and too hard to get to Mars because of the huge fuel bill, even for a modest NTR. A large base like that will have to wait.

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-12 08:27:33

No Cobra, I think you miss my point... You cannot simply force a destination on the space program like that when the means of getting there is limited by our technological capacity; its a chicken and egg thing, it is not possible not just difficult to build and operate a large colony for under a trillion dollars. If Zubrin's semi-hairbrained plan can only get ~20-25MT down to the surface for a $1Bn rocket (maybe more, counting lander), then the cost of making a large colony will be untennable and nobody will do it to begin with.

If done incrementally it is possible. I'm not suggesting we try to build a functioning colony from day one, we can start with a MarsDirect or similar four-in-a-can approach. But if in-situ resource utilization proves feasible in practice we can continue sending teams, just not bring anyone back. The settlement would gradually grow and in a decade or two greater incentive would exist to devise better methods of transportation.

Not as efficient as a government agency forcing the development of a better rocket, but less subject to the whims of Congress once it gets moving.

If we'd been doing this instead of launching shuttles for the past 20+ years...

Bill White · 2004-05-12 09:00:25

Even if you cut the cost in half and double the flight rate, which I think is quite generous considering how hard it is to build large rockets, thats still not much material to Mars on the dollar. It is a limitation of technology, that it is too hard at the moment to get off the ground without somthing better than LOX/LH expendables and too hard to get to Mars because of the huge fuel bill, even for a modest NTR. A large base like that will have to wait.

If one or another human group had the foresight to put a base on Mars just before low cost Earth to LEO access came on-line, that group would be in the driver's seat for leading humanity out into the solar system.

Possession, after all, is 9/10ths of the law.

deagleninja · 2004-05-12 09:18:09

Cobra is exactly right. The beauty of the 'hair-brained' Mars Direct Plan is that it does take a step-by-step approach similar to PlanBush. While we do explorational science, we are also building the beginnings of a base. Mars Direct wasn't meant to be "The Plan' to get people to Mars. It's intention is to show that we don't need a huge government effort like Bush Sr.'s to get to Mars and stay. It also shows that with a reasonable investment we can go to Mars today and not 30+ years down the road.

I would think that any reasonable person would see that PlanBush and Mars Direct go hand in hand. While NASA is testing new techniques and technology on the Moon (getting our space legs back), techniques for growing a self-sufficent colony on Mars are being tested right here on Earth.

There's no need to go to Mars and hope that our habitat is efficent enough to maintain a healthy environment long enough for our colony to grow its own food and make its own air. We will know what can and can't be done before we go. After we get a sample return we will have a very good idea what can be made from local Mars resources and what is needed to grow plants in martian dirt.

I only wish W.'s plan had gone something like this:

Wrap up modifications to the shuttles in 6 months.
Finish the ISS with the existing fleet.
Modify the existing fleet to be more efficent and use as many existing facilities possible.
Sample return missions from Mars no later than 2010.
Primary objectives for new missions to Mars to test local resource utilization.
Secondary objectives to gather climate and geological information on site.
Manned missions to Mars no later than 2020 with the directive to build up a base.

Requirements for a successful base are:

Standardizing as many mission parts as possible so that earlier rovers/landers can be salvaged for parts.

Base site should be choosen as soon as a rover can access subsurface ice/water.

Missions should be directed to within 50 miles of locating water so we learn as much as possible about the region over time that people will be living in.

Robotic missions to Mars should be selected on what I call a 'cost/bonus' plan. Meaning that the contract go to whoever can do it cheapest and recieve a bonus for longevity and versitility. For instance, a rover that can drill down about 10 feet to find ice and later use it's robotic arm(s) to clear a landing site or recognize and gather appropriate materials.

Aggressive marketing must be pursued both before and during manned missions. Our human/robotic missions should look like NASCAR cars, covered in decals. Pay-per-view should be used as often as possible. Selective rock sampling should go to the highest bidder back on Earth. The biologist we send should go where curious PAYING companies suggest.

I may have ranted about the drawbacks of capitalism awhile back, but the problem is NASA doesn't use it. Capitalism is the key to getting the public interested and staying interested in Mars.

Bill White · 2004-05-12 09:24:06

Aggressive marketing must be pursued both before and during manned missions. Our human/robotic missions should look like NASCAR cars, covered in decals. Pay-per-view should be used as often as possible. Selective rock sampling should go to the highest bidder back on Earth. The biologist we send should go where curious PAYING companies suggest.

I agree with your spirit but not necessarily your marketing sense.

Look at how Michael Jordan is marketed - - his exposure is carefully regulated. Increased then withdrawn. Over exposure can be death to a brand name.

NASCAR style stickers everywhere would turn too many people off, IMHO.

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-12 09:46:43

NASCAR style stickers everywhere would turn too many people off, IMHO.

I just had this vision of a rocket sitting on the pad, ready to go, with 'Viagra' emblazoned on the side.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2004-05-11 14:42:46

Re: New Bush Plan Set To Coincide With June Speech - Link included....talk amongst yourselves

#27 2004-05-11 14:51:10

Re: New Bush Plan Set To Coincide With June Speech - Link included....talk amongst yourselves

#28 2004-05-11 14:52:54

Re: New Bush Plan Set To Coincide With June Speech - Link included....talk amongst yourselves

#29 2004-05-11 15:02:54

Re: New Bush Plan Set To Coincide With June Speech - Link included....talk amongst yourselves

#30 2004-05-11 16:44:31

Re: New Bush Plan Set To Coincide With June Speech - Link included....talk amongst yourselves

#31 2004-05-11 17:18:23

Re: New Bush Plan Set To Coincide With June Speech - Link included....talk amongst yourselves

#32 2004-05-11 17:19:42

Re: New Bush Plan Set To Coincide With June Speech - Link included....talk amongst yourselves

#33 2004-05-11 17:49:20

Re: New Bush Plan Set To Coincide With June Speech - Link included....talk amongst yourselves

#34 2004-05-11 17:49:52

Re: New Bush Plan Set To Coincide With June Speech - Link included....talk amongst yourselves

#35 2004-05-11 18:07:13

Re: New Bush Plan Set To Coincide With June Speech - Link included....talk amongst yourselves

#36 2004-05-11 18:23:00

Re: New Bush Plan Set To Coincide With June Speech - Link included....talk amongst yourselves

#37 2004-05-11 18:34:59

Re: New Bush Plan Set To Coincide With June Speech - Link included....talk amongst yourselves

#38 2004-05-11 19:44:09

Re: New Bush Plan Set To Coincide With June Speech - Link included....talk amongst yourselves

#39 2004-05-11 19:45:09

Re: New Bush Plan Set To Coincide With June Speech - Link included....talk amongst yourselves

#40 2004-05-11 19:59:53

Re: New Bush Plan Set To Coincide With June Speech - Link included....talk amongst yourselves

#41 2004-05-11 20:06:50

Re: New Bush Plan Set To Coincide With June Speech - Link included....talk amongst yourselves

#42 2004-05-11 21:34:19

Re: New Bush Plan Set To Coincide With June Speech - Link included....talk amongst yourselves

#43 2004-05-11 22:32:28

Re: New Bush Plan Set To Coincide With June Speech - Link included....talk amongst yourselves

#44 2004-05-12 06:35:05

Re: New Bush Plan Set To Coincide With June Speech - Link included....talk amongst yourselves

#45 2004-05-12 07:12:48

Re: New Bush Plan Set To Coincide With June Speech - Link included....talk amongst yourselves

#46 2004-05-12 08:27:33

Re: New Bush Plan Set To Coincide With June Speech - Link included....talk amongst yourselves

#47 2004-05-12 09:00:25

Re: New Bush Plan Set To Coincide With June Speech - Link included....talk amongst yourselves

#48 2004-05-12 09:18:09

Re: New Bush Plan Set To Coincide With June Speech - Link included....talk amongst yourselves

#49 2004-05-12 09:24:06

Re: New Bush Plan Set To Coincide With June Speech - Link included....talk amongst yourselves

#50 2004-05-12 09:46:43

Re: New Bush Plan Set To Coincide With June Speech - Link included....talk amongst yourselves

Board footer