Politics What is happening????

rogue49 · Dec 10, 2012

I've always been keen on rational reduction in government by increased efficiency.
NOT CUTS.

I do know the current administration is attempting to get to the bottom of it,
but it has languished due to one distraction or crisis or another...

But at least they're still putting it out there...now if they can just get the pork-laden and do-nothing congress to actually make decisions and act.

Here's a good report on the redundancies and glut by our own GAO.
Summary

I still think Obama is planning on them letting it go over the "fiscal cliff" to initate discretional cuts that he would decide on...not Congress.
Of course, he can't just come out and say this...it would freak everyone out and then the opposition would be able to take steps.
Now he's got a scapegoat and an excuse.

Baraka_Guru · Dec 19, 2012

This is probably just a coincidence, so never mind....

EventHorizon · Dec 19, 2012

pan6467 said: ↑

a bigger war effort to wipe out innocent Muslims in a country half way around the world that costs more in 1 week than EVERY SOCIAL PROGRAM COMBINED COSTS IN A YEAR.
Click to expand...

could you find more solid evidence on this stat please? i think you're mistaken.

redux · Dec 19, 2012

EventHorizon said: ↑

could you find more solid evidence on this stat please? i think you're mistaken.
Click to expand...

Social safety net programs outside of social security/medicare/medicaid are budgeted at about $1/2 trillion/year.

The Iraq War cost more than $5 trillion and still counting.

Baraka_Guru · Dec 19, 2012

redux said: ↑

Social safety net programs outside of social security/medicare/medicaid are budgeted at about $1/2 trillion/year.

The Iraq War cost more than $5 trillion and still counting.
Click to expand...

You mean "billion" in all these instances, right?

redux · Dec 19, 2012

About 15% of the $3+ trillion federal budget goes to non-entitlement, non-defense domestic social programs (unemployment insurance, food stamps, vets assistance, other family assistance, etc).

I was high on the war cost. The latest CBO projection is $2.5 - 3 trillion long term; much of which was off-budget during the Bush years so as not to contribute to an annual deficit.

Baraka_Guru · Dec 19, 2012

redux said: ↑

About 15% of the $3+ trillion federal budget goes to non-entitlement, non-defense domestic social programs (unemployment insurance, food stamps, vets assistance, other family assistance, etc).

I was high on the war cost. The latest CBO projection is $2.5 - 3 trillion long term; much of which was off-budget during the Bush years so as not to contribute to an annual deficit.
Click to expand...

Oh, sorry. I was looking at the figures wrong. You were stating an overall cost. I was still stuck on weekly costs as from above.

EventHorizon · Dec 19, 2012

i'm pretty sure that social programs cost more than DoD spending does. now is it easier to avoid wars than it is to avoid old people? sure. i think it'd be just as easy to cut back on the 99 weeks of welfare to prevent people from abusing the unemployment insurance and buying a $10 pack of marlboros

redux · Dec 19, 2012

EventHorizon said: ↑

i'm pretty sure that social programs cost more than DoD spending does. now is it easier to avoid wars than it is to avoid old people? sure. i think it'd be just as easy to cut back on the 99 weeks of welfare to prevent people from abusing the unemployment insurance and buying a $10 pack of marlboros
Click to expand...

The defense budget is 60 percent of discretionary funding. All other domestic programs combined, including the social safety net programs, account for the other 40%

I would suggest that there also is far more waste, fraud and abuse in the DoD budget than all other programs combined as well.

EventHorizon · Dec 19, 2012

not sure where you got the graphic but... Federal Budget Spending, Deficits, the National Debt, and Social Security i think disagrees with you. i'm not saying that we're not spending too much on defense, but that social programs are still taking the cake

redux · Dec 19, 2012

EventHorizon said: ↑

not sure where you got the graphic but... Federal Budget Spending, Deficits, the National Debt, and Social Security i think disagrees with you. i'm not saying that we're not spending too much on defense, but that social programs are still taking the cake
Click to expand...

Only if you include Social Security and Medicare, programs paid for by workers and employers rather than general revenue, as social programs.

EventHorizon · Dec 19, 2012

arent workers + employers = everyone?

redux · Dec 19, 2012

The difference is dedicated funds (payroll tax) vs general revenue funds.

There is a reason that the federal budget is divided into entitlements (based in part on contributions) and discretionary funds.

DoD is by far the largest recipient of discretionary funds. No economist would dispute that fact.

But you can compare apples and oranges if you would like.

rogue49 · Dec 31, 2012

Interesting perspective... how most of our twists and turns may be just paranoia...

Not totally out of reality, I've often thought we were leaning at windmill and fighting straw men.

When Prophecy Fails
By PAUL KRUGMAN - December 23, 2012

Back in the 1950s three social psychologists joined a cult that was predicting the imminent end of the world. Their purpose was to observe the cultists’ response when the world did not, in fact, end on schedule. What they discovered, and described in their classic book, “When Prophecy Fails,” is that the irrefutable failure of a prophecy does not cause true believers — people who have committed themselves to a belief both emotionally and by their life choices — to reconsider. On the contrary, they become even more fervent, and proselytize even harder.

This insight seems highly relevant as 2012 draws to a close. After all, a lot of people came to believe that we were on the brink of catastrophe — and these views were given extraordinary reach by the mass media. As it turned out, of course, the predicted catastrophe failed to materialize. But we can be sure that the cultists won’t admit to having been wrong. No, the people who told us that a fiscal crisis was imminent will just keep at it, more convinced than ever.

Oh, wait a second — did you think I was talking about the Mayan calendar thing?

Seriously, at every stage of our ongoing economic crisis — and in particular, every time anyone has suggested actually trying to do something about mass unemployment — a chorus of voices has warned that unless we bring down budget deficits now now now, financial markets will turn on America, driving interest rates sky-high. And these prophecies of doom have had a powerful effect on our economic discourse.

Thus, back in May 2009 the Wall Street Journal editorial page seized on an uptick in long-term interest rates to declare that the “bond vigilantes,” the “disciplinarians of U.S. policy makers,” had arrived, and would push rates inexorably higher if big budget deficits continued. As it happened, rates soon went back down. But that didn’t stop The Journal’s news section from rolling out the same story the next time rates rose: “Debt fears send rates up,” blared a headline in March 2010; the debt continued to grow, but the rates went down again.

At this point the yield on the benchmark 10-year bond is less than half what it was when that 2009 editorial was published. But don’t expect any rethinking on The Journal’s part.

Now, you could say that The Journal’s editors didn’t give a specific date for the fiscal apocalypse, although I doubt that any of their readers imagined that they were talking about an event at least three years and seven months in the future.

In any case, some of the most prominent deficit scolds have indeed been willing to talk about dates, or at least time horizons. In early 2011 Erskine Bowles confidently declared that we would face a fiscal crisis within around two years unless something like the Bowles-Simpson deficit plan was enacted, and Alan Simpson chimed in to say that it would be less than two years. I guess he has about 10 weeks left. But again, don’t expect either Mr. Simpson or Mr. Bowles to admit that there might have been something fundamentally wrong with their analysis.

No, very few of the prophets of fiscal doom have acknowledged the failure of their prophecies to come true so far. And those who have admitted surprise seem more annoyed than chastened. For example, back in 2010 Alan Greenspan — who is, for some reason, still treated as an authority figure — conceded that despite large budget deficits, “inflation and long-term interest rates, the typical symptoms of fiscal excess, have remained remarkably subdued.” But he went on to declare, “This is regrettable, because it is fostering a sense of complacency.” How dare reality not validate my fears!

Regular readers know that I and other economists argued from the beginning that these dire warnings of fiscal catastrophe were all wrong, that budget deficits won’t cause soaring interest rates as long as the economy is depressed — and that the biggest risk to the economy is that we might try to slash the deficit too soon. And surely that point of view has been strongly validated by events.

The key thing we need to understand, however, is that the prophets of fiscal disaster, no matter how respectable they may seem, are at this point effectively members of a doomsday cult. They are emotionally and professionally committed to the belief that fiscal crisis lurks just around the corner, and they will hold to their belief no matter how many corners we turn without encountering that crisis.

So we cannot and will not persuade these people to reconsider their views in the light of the evidence. All we can do is stop paying attention. It’s going to be difficult, because many members of the deficit cult seem highly respectable. But they’ve been hugely, absurdly wrong for years on end, and it’s time to stop taking them seriously.
Click to expand...

--- merged: Dec 24, 2012 5:18 AM ---
Interesting perspective... how most of our twists and turns may be just paranoia...

Not totally out of reality, I've often thought we were leaning at windmill and fighting straw men.

When Prophecy Fails
By PAUL KRUGMAN - December 23, 2012

Back in the 1950s three social psychologists joined a cult that was predicting the imminent end of the world. Their purpose was to observe the cultists’ response when the world did not, in fact, end on schedule. What they discovered, and described in their classic book, “When Prophecy Fails,” is that the irrefutable failure of a prophecy does not cause true believers — people who have committed themselves to a belief both emotionally and by their life choices — to reconsider. On the contrary, they become even more fervent, and proselytize even harder.

This insight seems highly relevant as 2012 draws to a close. After all, a lot of people came to believe that we were on the brink of catastrophe — and these views were given extraordinary reach by the mass media. As it turned out, of course, the predicted catastrophe failed to materialize. But we can be sure that the cultists won’t admit to having been wrong. No, the people who told us that a fiscal crisis was imminent will just keep at it, more convinced than ever.

Oh, wait a second — did you think I was talking about the Mayan calendar thing?

Seriously, at every stage of our ongoing economic crisis — and in particular, every time anyone has suggested actually trying to do something about mass unemployment — a chorus of voices has warned that unless we bring down budget deficits now now now, financial markets will turn on America, driving interest rates sky-high. And these prophecies of doom have had a powerful effect on our economic discourse.

Thus, back in May 2009 the Wall Street Journal editorial page seized on an uptick in long-term interest rates to declare that the “bond vigilantes,” the “disciplinarians of U.S. policy makers,” had arrived, and would push rates inexorably higher if big budget deficits continued. As it happened, rates soon went back down. But that didn’t stop The Journal’s news section from rolling out the same story the next time rates rose: “Debt fears send rates up,” blared a headline in March 2010; the debt continued to grow, but the rates went down again.

At this point the yield on the benchmark 10-year bond is less than half what it was when that 2009 editorial was published. But don’t expect any rethinking on The Journal’s part.

Now, you could say that The Journal’s editors didn’t give a specific date for the fiscal apocalypse, although I doubt that any of their readers imagined that they were talking about an event at least three years and seven months in the future.

In any case, some of the most prominent deficit scolds have indeed been willing to talk about dates, or at least time horizons. In early 2011 Erskine Bowles confidently declared that we would face a fiscal crisis within around two years unless something like the Bowles-Simpson deficit plan was enacted, and Alan Simpson chimed in to say that it would be less than two years. I guess he has about 10 weeks left. But again, don’t expect either Mr. Simpson or Mr. Bowles to admit that there might have been something fundamentally wrong with their analysis.

No, very few of the prophets of fiscal doom have acknowledged the failure of their prophecies to come true so far. And those who have admitted surprise seem more annoyed than chastened. For example, back in 2010 Alan Greenspan — who is, for some reason, still treated as an authority figure — conceded that despite large budget deficits, “inflation and long-term interest rates, the typical symptoms of fiscal excess, have remained remarkably subdued.” But he went on to declare, “This is regrettable, because it is fostering a sense of complacency.” How dare reality not validate my fears!

Regular readers know that I and other economists argued from the beginning that these dire warnings of fiscal catastrophe were all wrong, that budget deficits won’t cause soaring interest rates as long as the economy is depressed — and that the biggest risk to the economy is that we might try to slash the deficit too soon. And surely that point of view has been strongly validated by events.

The key thing we need to understand, however, is that the prophets of fiscal disaster, no matter how respectable they may seem, are at this point effectively members of a doomsday cult. They are emotionally and professionally committed to the belief that fiscal crisis lurks just around the corner, and they will hold to their belief no matter how many corners we turn without encountering that crisis.

So we cannot and will not persuade these people to reconsider their views in the light of the evidence. All we can do is stop paying attention. It’s going to be difficult, because many members of the deficit cult seem highly respectable. But they’ve been hugely, absurdly wrong for years on end, and it’s time to stop taking them seriously.
Click to expand...

rogue49 · Dec 27, 2012

Nate at 538 is putting his numbers to work again,
showing that BOTH Dems & GOP in their efforts to make themselves safe in election from the other party,
have promoted more craziness during the primaries...and partisan actions and attitude when they finally are in Congress.

Personally, I think we should get rid of all redistricting and gerrymandering,
make the whole damn nation a grid of equal size...then that "set" of grid squares becomes the district.

However, a sub-law should state if possible to make the squares as contiguous to the center of the district as possible.

Anyways...here's the summary, stats and graphs for ya.
FiveThirtyEight

rogue49 · Jan 6, 2013

Following on the notion that our districts are becoming more entrenched, forcing pandering to the extremes...not the middle,
is the overall idea of election reform...balancing our voting methods allowing for easier and faster voting.

We DO need to push for this...it is 2013...there shouldn't be a scenario where we are still voting on the par of the 1800's

Hopefully we can move this forward...unfortunately, there are many with another agenda, who like their "safety",
both in getting elected and in focusing one idealogy.

Obama facing pressure on election reform
By: Jennifer Epstein - January 5, 2013

President Barack Obama is already taking heat over the first promise he made after winning reelection — and he may not be able to deliver on it at all.

Obama’s thank yous on election night included a special nod to the voters who “waited in line for a very long time” — some as many as seven hours in Florida, Ohio and Virginia. Then he stopped his speech to make a point: “By the way, we have to fix that.”

“Fix that” has become a rallying cry for lawmakers and election reform advocates who’ve long been looking to tackle problems with voting machines, long ballots and under-prepared poll workers. And though Obama has almost no direct power to bring about changes — the mechanics of elections are largely determined by state and local governments — they’re frustrated that he hasn’t used his bully pulpit to force a conversation past election night.

“The president is sworn to uphold the Constitution, and if he doesn’t speak out on problems with voting, he’s not really fulfilling that responsibility,” said Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who introduced a bill in December to eliminate waits by requiring the Justice Department and the Election Assistance Commission to issue minimum standards for voting machines and election workers in an effort to prevent long lines.

“The right to vote is the key to our democracy,” Boxer said. “And I believe if citizens are made to wait on line, it is an infringement of that right.” One study, conducted by a professor at Ohio State University, found that as many as 49,000 people in central Florida were discouraged from voting because of long lines at their polling places.

Freshman Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Fla.), whose district includes some of perennially electorally challenged southern part of the state, agrees.

“If the president took it up as one of his big issues and spoke about it for a couple of days, lots of people would realize this is a real problem and want action,” he said.

But the president isn’t saying more about what he’d like to see done — or might do himself. Instead, the White House directed inquiries to a recent speech by Attorney General Eric Holder.

Speaking in December at the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library in Boston, Holder laid out the administration’s general position, saying that election officials should be “taking steps to address long lines at polling places — and ensuring that every polling place has an adequate number of voting machines.”

Extended hours and early voting were among the possible solutions discussed.

“We must acknowledge,” Holder said, “that giving our fellow citizens access to the voting booth for longer hours and over additional days will enable more of them to cast their ballots without unduly interfering with the work or family obligations that so many have.”

Tom Perez, the assistant attorney general for civil rights, said soon after Election Day that the Justice Department had “already begun discussing ways to address long lines and other election administration problems, whether through proposed legislation, executive action and other policy measures.”

Democrats on Capitol Hill began proposing legislation in December, but while the issue had momentum in the weeks after Election Day, it dissipated amid the fiscal cliff negotiations. And though the new Congress has been sworn in, election reform isn’t at the top of anyone’s list — Obama’s focusing on the fallout from the cliff deal, immigration reform and gun control.

(PHOTOS: Who won, lost with the cliff deal)

Changing the system has bipartisan support — former Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson, a Republican, called the hours-long waits that many voters encountered “crazy, just unacceptable.” Former Gov. Christine Todd Whitman (R-N.J.) said during a TV appearance just before Election Day that the lines were “inexcusable,” referencing her time monitoring elections in other countries to say what happened in November was “the kind of thing you expect in a third-world country, not in the United States of America.”

But Republicans are wary of too much federal involvement.

“I’m a big 10th Amendment person and I don’t think it’s the federal government’s role to make sure that there are no long lines in every state,” said Rep. Candice Miller (R-Mich.), the new chairwoman of the House Administration Committee, which oversees federal elections.

Before being elected to Congress a decade ago, Miller was Michigan’s secretary of State, and said her experience managing voting machine and polling place issues taught her to keep the control out of Washington. “Voters need to hold their state and county officials accountable. They’re the ones who should be making elections run smoothly, not the Congress,” she said.

Likewise, a spokesman for Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said the long lines that many of his constituents faced are an issue for state and local governments to handle, and not for Washington.

Democratic aides expect more legislation and Senate hearings in the coming weeks. But none of the existing bills have Republican support.

Still, Republican and Democratic lawmakers agree that there’s pressure to make changes before the next presidential election to minimize the length of the lines in states such as Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania and other states that are often key to presidential elections.

But with the federal effort still in its infancy, states have begun to take action. Gov. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), who opposed extending early voting hours and other reforms before this year’s election, has had an about-face and said in late December that he would support it.

Scott Tranter, a GOP consultant, said on a post-election panel hosted by the Pew Center on the States last month that election officials “need to be better prepared and they need to spend more resources to make sure that people can vote, and they don’t have to wait in lines till 1 a.m.”

Wendy Weiser, director of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, offered a few possible solutions. First, she said, the voter registration system must be modernized and digitized, perhaps linked to motor vehicles records. The use of “ramshackle” printed poll books that workers through to find names is “the single biggest problem, it really delays things.”

Weiser added that these poll books are frequently what lead to registered voters being turned away from the polls.

“It would really alleviate some burdens,” Weiser added, for more states to introduce early voting and for states with early voting to increase the number of days of voting. Some of the long lines voters encountered in Florida were the result of a shortened early voting period that Democrats claim were the work of Republicans hoping to cut down on the number of black and Hispanic voters able to get to the polls.

Weiser also wants to see “minimum federal standards” for voting, a “baseline to ensure a functional voting system.” In her view, that would mean stipulating that no voter should wait for more than an hour and that there should be an “equitable allocation” of voting machines, poll workers and support for polling places.

Boxer’s bill is the latest of a few pieces of legislation that Democrats have introduced since the president’s “fix that” comment. Just a week after voters went to the polls, Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) proposed a separate bill that would fund challenge grants for states that innovate in planning future elections. A similar bill has also been introduced in the House, as has another from Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.) that would require all states to offer a minimum of 15 days of early voting.

The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing just before Christmas to begin examining voting issues that emerged this year, including long lines. “How can we be satisfied when our fellow citizens stand in line for seven hours to vote until 2:30 in the morning?” Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) asked.

© 2013 POLITICO LLC
Click to expand...

rogue49 · Jan 8, 2013

OK, this will pretty much piss everyone off...no matter what side.
The audacity is just amazing.

Washington's jaw drops at possibility of AIG lawsuit
By: Ben White and Anna Palmer - January 8, 2013

Remember when AIG took a $182 billion bailout only to turn around and hand out seven-figure bonuses to the same guys who tanked their company?

Grab the pitchforks — it gets better.

Now the insurance organization might join a lawsuit against the U.S. government over the terms of the bailout — saying the deal that saved the company cheated shareholders.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner — who faced calls for his firing over the AIG bailout — and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke are furious, according to one Democratic lawyer. Other officials inside the agencies were angered by the news, too, sources in the department told POLITICO.

Neil Barofsky, former inspector general for the Wall Street bailout said AIG’s possible lawsuit would be a “giant middle finger to the taxpayer.”

One of President Barack Obama’s top aides agreed: “Definition of Chutzpah: AIG, saved by taxpayers, contemplating suit,” David Axelrod tweeted.

Many Treasury and Fed insiders have long believed the terms of the AIG bailout — which only wrapped in recent weeks — were far too generous, not too punitive as the lawsuit is expected to contend.

This week, the AIG board will consider whether to join a $25 billion lawsuit over whether the terms of the bailout were unfair to shareholders, who claim they were deprived of billions of dollars.

AIG began airing ads in recent weeks that say "thank you" to Americans for the rescue — a sentiment AIG's CEO Robert H. Benmosche assured is sincere in a statement the company released Tuesday night.

“AIG has paid back its debt to America with a profit, and we mean it when we say thank you to the American people,” said Benmosche.

He went on to explain that the company has no choice but to consider suing the government. “At the same time, the board of directors has fiduciary and legal obligations to the company and its shareholders to consider the demand served on us and respond in a fair, appropriate, and timely manner. Tomorrow’s board meeting is about listening to all of the parties involved and gaining a thorough understanding of the issues. We anticipate making a decision in the next several weeks.”

The Treasury and the Fed haven’t released official responses to the news of the potential lawsuit, first reported by The New York Times.

One former administration official, who worked on the AIG bailout, was in a state of disbelief.

“I can’t imagine that they will actually do it. Because whatever recovery they might possibly gain would be totally swamped by the enormous hit to their reputation,” the former official said. “What I don’t understand is why they have not ruled it out already. They have had plenty of opportunity to do so.”

Word swept across Washington from Capitol Hill to K Street and the administration — and the response wasn’t positive

“AIG should thank American taxpayers for their help, not bite the hand that fed them for helping them out in a crisis,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said in a statement. “Taxpayers across this country saved AIG from ruin, and it would be outrageous for this company to turn around and sue the federal government because they think the deal wasn’t generous enough. Even today, the government provides an ongoing, stealth bailout, propping up AIG with special tax breaks — tax breaks that Congress should stop.”

Warren served on a congressional task force that helped provide oversight of the $700 billion Wall Street bailout law.

Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), ranking member on the House oversight committee, agreed.

“[The] idea that AIG might sue the govt is an unbelievable insult to our nation’s taxpayers, who cleaned up the mess this firm created,” Cummings said, according to a tweet by @OversightDems.

“It highlights the worst about what people think of the financial services industry,” said one senior Democratic House aide. “It undermines any sliver of credibility they may have had.”

The aide said if AIG pursues the litigation he would expect hearings on Capitol Hill.

The company’s board of directors is set to hear arguments by the government and Starr International, once one of the largest investors in AIG that is led by former AIG CEO Hank Greenberg, according to The Wall Street Journal.

Dennis Kelleher, chief executive of the financial reform group Better Markets, called the notion of AIG suing taxpayers over the terms its own bailout absurd, but he believes there may be an unintended and beneficial impact of pulling back the curtain on where the bailout money went, including to AIG’s Wall Street counterparties. The idea that the AIG rescue was a “backdoor bailout” for Wall Street has long been a rallying cry for progressive groups.

“The idea of AIG, which got this sweetheart bailout deal with no strings attached, forcing Treasury and the Fed to parade into a board meeting and explain the terms of that deal is incredible,” Kelleher said. “But a lawsuit that actually explains exactly what went on with this mess might be a great public service.”

Scott Harrington, a professor at Wharton School of Business, said that the company actually benefited from the government bailout beyond just the financial investment.

“AIG was able to keep a lot of its commercial property casualty business especially because of government bailout. Those clients would have moved to other major insurers,” Harrington said, leaving a smaller business portfolio if the company had to go into bankruptcy. “The fact that AIG was backed up by the government allowed them to retain business that they probably should have lost given what occurred.”

© 2013 POLITICO LLC
Click to expand...

Baraka_Guru · Jan 12, 2013

Indeed.

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPlyBX4TDyg

The Debt Distraction: 5 Falsehoods Hurting Our Economy by Annnabel Park

redux · Jan 16, 2013

The White House just upped the threshold from 25,000 to 100,000 signatures in 30 days for petitions to receive an official response.

The paranoid patriots are not happy! It is a plot to silence their opposition!

Baraka_Guru · Jan 16, 2013

It's because it's America.

It's because of the Internet.

You could easily get 25,000 Americans to "sign" a petition to build a space cannon that can shoot chocolate and turn the moon into a giant truffle.

Log in or Sign up

Politics What is happening????

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

EventHorizon assuredly the cause of the angry Economy..

redux Very Tilted

Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

redux Very Tilted

Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

EventHorizon assuredly the cause of the angry Economy..

redux Very Tilted

EventHorizon assuredly the cause of the angry Economy..

redux Very Tilted

EventHorizon assuredly the cause of the angry Economy..

redux Very Tilted

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

redux Very Tilted

Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

Log in or Sign up

Politics What is happening????

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

EventHorizon assuredly the cause of the angry Economy..

redux Very Tilted

Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

redux Very Tilted

Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

EventHorizon assuredly the cause of the angry Economy..

redux Very Tilted

EventHorizon assuredly the cause of the angry Economy..

redux Very Tilted

EventHorizon assuredly the cause of the angry Economy..

redux Very Tilted

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

redux Very Tilted

Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

Useful Searches