Jump to content


House Democrats Propose $825 Billion Stimulus Bill


  • Please log in to reply
433 replies to this topic

#41 Balloon guy

Balloon guy

    Deplorable Lives Matter

  • Members
  • 24,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:So Cal
  • Interests:Cigars, Flying, Golf, Bible
  • Favorite Poker Game:Golf

Posted 27 January 2009 - 02:46 PM

Well it appears that the advisors that were hand picked by the Obama administration have interesting ideas of where they money SHOULD NOT GO!to white males construction workers, or people with skills.Robert Reiiiiiiiiisssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
I use my cigar smoke as idiot repellent

The government was set to protect man from criminals - and the Constitution was written to protect man from the government. - Ayn Rand

#42 El Guapo

El Guapo

    Like A Boss!

  • Members
  • 16,439 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Carmen's Flower

Posted 27 January 2009 - 03:40 PM

View PostBalloon guy, on Tuesday, January 27th, 2009, 2:46 PM, said:

Well it appears that the advisors that were hand picked by the Obama administration have interesting ideas of where they money SHOULD NOT GO!to white males construction workers, or people with skills.Robert Reiiiiiiiiisssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
I had heard this already. It was so absurd I forgot about it. I do not see how any democrat can defend that.

#43 strategy

strategy

    Internet expert

  • Members
  • 15,932 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:strategy
  • Favorite Poker Game:strategy

Posted 27 January 2009 - 08:14 PM

View PostBalloon guy, on Tuesday, January 27th, 2009, 4:46 PM, said:

Well it appears that the advisors that were hand picked by the Obama administration have interesting ideas of where they money SHOULD NOT GO!to white males construction workers, or people with skills.Robert Reiiiiiiiiisssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
he responded to this in his blog. his defense is also laid out here: http://mediamatters....0015?f=h_latestI'm all for honesty, but let's work on the word choice there, bob.
QUOTE (ShakeZuma @ Wednesday, November 2nd, 2011, 4:25 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
seriously though, with that grammar it's really like, I mean it doesn't bother me as much that she gets beat, you know?


#44 akoff

akoff

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,942 posts
  • Location:The 700 Level
  • Interests:Golf, investing, Eagles football, golf, baseball, coaching Little League and golf
  • Favorite Poker Game:PLO

Posted 28 January 2009 - 04:55 AM

View PostBalloon guy, on Tuesday, January 27th, 2009, 2:46 PM, said:

Well it appears that the advisors that were hand picked by the Obama administration have interesting ideas of where they money SHOULD NOT GO!to white males construction workers, or people with skills.Robert Reiiiiiiiiisssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
This sad...and scarey to think this man actually has the ear of the president! He shouldn't have the ear of a Burger King manager much less the leader of the free world.Democrats....sigh.
"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America 's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America 's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, "the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."
~ Senator Barack H. Obama

#45 Mercury69

Mercury69

    Half man! Half man!

  • Members
  • 14,244 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pftph!
  • Favorite Poker Game:NLHE

Posted 28 January 2009 - 07:05 AM

Is it a bad idea because the Dems proposed it or because it's a pissload of $$$? I mean, ****, what are they thinking? That's almost 3 years of money that could go towards perpetuating the Iraq war. Seems a shame to blow it on the homeland, rather than a foreign war.And, btw, many of you "analysts" of this economic bail out don't know shit about economics. All you are doing is running around saying "Sky is falling", etc. You have a different plan? Make a proposal or stop bitching. Fckn know-it-alls.
"We had all the momentum. We were riding the crest of a high and beautiful wave. So now, less than five years later, you can go up on a steep hill in Las Vegas and look west, and with the right kind of eyes you can almost see the high-water mark, that place where the wave finally broke and rolled back." —Raoul Duke, Fear And Loathing In Las Vegas

"Those are brave men knocking at the door. Let's go and kill them!" - Tyrion Lannister

#46 akoff

akoff

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,942 posts
  • Location:The 700 Level
  • Interests:Golf, investing, Eagles football, golf, baseball, coaching Little League and golf
  • Favorite Poker Game:PLO

Posted 28 January 2009 - 07:57 AM

View PostMercury69, on Wednesday, January 28th, 2009, 8:05 AM, said:

Is it a bad idea because the Dems proposed it or because it's a pissload of $$$? I mean, ****, what are they thinking? That's almost 3 years of money that could go towards perpetuating the Iraq war. Seems a shame to blow it on the homeland, rather than a foreign war.And, btw, many of you "analysts" of this economic bail out don't know shit about economics. All you are doing is running around saying "Sky is falling", etc. You have a different plan? Make a proposal or stop bitching. Fckn know-it-alls.
1. it is a bad idea for spending a piss load of money. The sheer size and scope means it iwill wasted to all new levels. The fact that Democrats are digging a hole deeper is not a suprise to anyone is it?2. my plan would be to lower taxes and have government stay out of the freakin way. The markets will correct. Things will get better. Printing money, paying interest for years to over spend on waste programs that won't kick in for severals years until things are already correcting....is just dumb.
"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America 's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America 's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, "the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."
~ Senator Barack H. Obama

#47 Zealous Donkey

Zealous Donkey

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,219 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Missouri, USA
  • Interests:Poker, Reading, Sports
  • Favorite Poker Game:NL Holdem

Posted 28 January 2009 - 09:07 AM

How exactly does this stimulate the economy? $335,000,000 FOR STD PREVENTION IN ECONOMIC STIMULUS BILLWed Jan 28 2009 09:58:30 ETDemocrats may have eliminated provisions on birth control and sod for the National Mall in the "job stimulus" -- but buried on page 147 of the bill is stimulation for prevention of sexually transmitted diseases!The House Democrats' bill includes $335 million for sexually transmitted disease education and prevention programs at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned. In the past, the CDC has used STD education funding for programs that many Members of Congress find objectionable and arguably unrelated to a mission of economic stimulus [such as funding events called 'Booty Call' and 'Great Sex' put on by an organization that received $698,000 in government funds.] "Whether this funding has merit is not the question; the point is it has no business in an economic plan supposedly focused on job creation," says a stimulated Hill source.
"Never play pool with a guy that brings his own stick. And Never, Ever play pool with a guy that brings his own table." ~Hoyt Axton

#48 LongLiveYorke

LongLiveYorke

    Ending the world one proton at a time

  • Members
  • 8,356 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Manhattan
  • Interests:fizziks, teh maths, Raid-o-head, Rod Reynolds

Posted 28 January 2009 - 09:12 AM

View PostZealous Donkey, on Wednesday, January 28th, 2009, 12:07 PM, said:

How exactly does this stimulate the economy? $335,000,000 FOR STD PREVENTION IN ECONOMIC STIMULUS BILLWed Jan 28 2009 09:58:30 ETDemocrats may have eliminated provisions on birth control and sod for the National Mall in the "job stimulus" -- but buried on page 147 of the bill is stimulation for prevention of sexually transmitted diseases!The House Democrats' bill includes $335 million for sexually transmitted disease education and prevention programs at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned. In the past, the CDC has used STD education funding for programs that many Members of Congress find objectionable and arguably unrelated to a mission of economic stimulus [such as funding events called 'Booty Call' and 'Great Sex' put on by an organization that received $698,000 in government funds.] "Whether this funding has merit is not the question; the point is it has no business in an economic plan supposedly focused on job creation," says a stimulated Hill source.
As a person who wants to avoid getting STD's, I'm fine with this. But you're right, attacking < .1% of the bill really gets at the heart of the issue.Also, the money still goes to people who live in the United States. It still is paying for jobs of people who, for instance, do AIDS research or whatever. So it will still go toward stimulating the economy in that sense.

#49 akoff

akoff

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,942 posts
  • Location:The 700 Level
  • Interests:Golf, investing, Eagles football, golf, baseball, coaching Little League and golf
  • Favorite Poker Game:PLO

Posted 28 January 2009 - 09:15 AM

View PostZealous Donkey, on Wednesday, January 28th, 2009, 10:07 AM, said:

How exactly does this stimulate the economy? $335,000,000 FOR STD PREVENTION IN ECONOMIC STIMULUS BILLWed Jan 28 2009 09:58:30 ETDemocrats may have eliminated provisions on birth control and sod for the National Mall in the "job stimulus" -- but buried on page 147 of the bill is stimulation for prevention of sexually transmitted diseases!The House Democrats' bill includes $335 million for sexually transmitted disease education and prevention programs at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned. In the past, the CDC has used STD education funding for programs that many Members of Congress find objectionable and arguably unrelated to a mission of economic stimulus [such as funding events called 'Booty Call' and 'Great Sex' put on by an organization that received $698,000 in government funds.] "Whether this funding has merit is not the question; the point is it has no business in an economic plan supposedly focused on job creation," says a stimulated Hill source.
this will be just one of thousands of cases of this garbage....stimulate!! 353M LOL the best part is the jackass who added it may have been looking for 3.5 or 35M and it ends up being 335m LOLour government in motion!!! "CHANGE" I tell you we are going to have "CHANGE"
"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America 's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America 's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, "the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."
~ Senator Barack H. Obama

#50 Zealous Donkey

Zealous Donkey

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,219 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Missouri, USA
  • Interests:Poker, Reading, Sports
  • Favorite Poker Game:NL Holdem

Posted 28 January 2009 - 09:32 AM

View PostLongLiveYorke, on Wednesday, January 28th, 2009, 11:12 AM, said:

As a person who wants to avoid getting STD's, I'm fine with this. But you're right, attacking < .1% of the bill really gets at the heart of the issue.Also, the money still goes to people who live in the United States. It still is paying for jobs of people who, for instance, do AIDS research or whatever. So it will still go toward stimulating the economy in that sense.
I would like not to get lung cancer, colon cancer, pancreatic cancer, breast cancer, mouth/ esophogus cancer, the common cold, pnemonia, Influenza, Diabetes, lupis, Alzheimers, asthma, emphisema, leukemia, arteriol sclerosis, MS, ALS, CP, hypertension, ect. ect. ect...But of course your right this is only a minor abberation of this stimulas bill and I'm sure most americans will agree with you that this does indeed stimulate the economy in a way consistant with how the democrats and president have presented it to the American people.PS My spell check would quit working when I have a post where I list several diseases. Im just running bad right now.
"Never play pool with a guy that brings his own stick. And Never, Ever play pool with a guy that brings his own table." ~Hoyt Axton

#51 hblask

hblask

    Perpetual slow learner

  • Members
  • 9,860 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Minnesota
  • Interests:Just deal the cards already

Posted 28 January 2009 - 10:07 AM

View PostZealous Donkey, on Wednesday, January 28th, 2009, 11:07 AM, said:

Democrats may have eliminated provisions on birth control and sod for the National Mall in thejob stimulus; -- but buried on page 147 of the bill is stimulation for prevention of sexually transmitted diseases!
The fact that, out of a huge ridiculous bill, this is the thing they choose to pick on, is the main reason Republicans are not in power. In a bill that is 99.9% stupidity, they pick a part that is at worst neutral to be their poster child?But it does make them talk about "stimulus" and "sex" at the same time, so that's worth something.
"Isn't it enough to know that I ruined a pony making a gift for you?" -- J. Coulton


#52 Zealous Donkey

Zealous Donkey

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,219 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Missouri, USA
  • Interests:Poker, Reading, Sports
  • Favorite Poker Game:NL Holdem

Posted 28 January 2009 - 10:17 AM

View Posthblask, on Wednesday, January 28th, 2009, 12:07 PM, said:

The fact that, out of a huge ridiculous bill, this is the thing they choose to pick on, is the main reason Republicans are not in power. In a bill that is 99.9% stupidity, they pick a part that is at worst neutral to be their poster child?But it does make them talk about "stimulus" and "sex" at the same time, so that's worth something.
I disagree. The reasons the repulicans are out of power is that they allowed too much of this kind of thing when they were running the show. Hopefully, this won't be the only 'thing they choose to pick on' It makes for a catchy headline which hopefully will bring attention to the ridiculousness of the bill as a whole. It caught my eye as it was headlined on Drudge Report.
"Never play pool with a guy that brings his own stick. And Never, Ever play pool with a guy that brings his own table." ~Hoyt Axton

#53 hblask

hblask

    Perpetual slow learner

  • Members
  • 9,860 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Minnesota
  • Interests:Just deal the cards already

Posted 28 January 2009 - 11:59 AM

http://hotair.com/ar...t-bill-of-2009/The Wall Street Journal calls it the “40-year Wish List”. Michelle calls it the “Generational Theft Act”. Others have started calling it the Obama-Pelosi-Reid Debt Act. Whatever name one gives it, the least likely is stimulus. The WSJ calculates that no more than 12 cents on the dollar in the trillion-dollar whale goes to actual economic stimulus, and that the rest go to Democratic wish lists for electoral advantage: We’ve looked it over, and even we can’t quite believe it. There’s $1 billion for Amtrak, the federal railroad that hasn’t turned a profit in 40 years; $2 billion for child-care subsidies; $50 million for that great engine of job creation, the National Endowment for the Arts; $400 million for global-warming research and another $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects. There’s even $650 million on top of the billions already doled out to pay for digital TV conversion coupons. In selling the plan, President Obama has said this bill will make “dramatic investments to revive our flagging economy.” Well, you be the judge. Some $30 billion, or less than 5% of the spending in the bill, is for fixing bridges or other highway projects. There’s another $40 billion for broadband and electric grid development, airports and clean water projects that are arguably worthwhile priorities. Add the roughly $20 billion for business tax cuts, and by our estimate only $90 billion out of $825 billion, or about 12 cents of every $1, is for something that can plausibly be considered a growth stimulus. And even many of these projects aren’t likely to help the economy immediately. As Peter Orszag, the President’s new budget director, told Congress a year ago, “even those [public works] that are ‘on the shelf’ generally cannot be undertaken quickly enough to provide timely stimulus to the economy.”The bill contains a hefty increase in subsidies for public transportation. Will that stimulate the economy? Not really, but it does protect public-sector jobs, almost all union positions, and that helps Democrats get more union money. It’s the Democratic Party Stimulus Act, not a recipe for economic revival.The Journal discovers another “lu-lu” in public transportation, but not the kind you’d expect. Congress wants to spend $600 million on new cars for federal agencies. Do you have the money to buy a new car in 2009? Well, you won’t if this bill passes, but apparently a few thousand federal employees will enjoy that luxury, thanks to your tax dollars.Remember when Barack Obama promised to end ineffective government programs in his inaugural speech? That was just eight days ago. Apparently, we’ve hit the expiration date: As for the promise of accountability, some $54 billion will go to federal programs that the Office of Management and Budget or the Government Accountability Office have already criticized as “ineffective” or unable to pass basic financial audits. These include the Economic Development Administration, the Small Business Administration, the 10 federal job training programs, and many more.The Department of Education gets a whopping $66 billion in this bill. In 2001, the federal government spent $35 billion in total in the Department of Education, and by 2006 the Bush administration raised it to $85 billion, almost tripling the outlay. Now Congress wants to add $66 billion on top of what we’ve already budgeted for the DoE, a figure that almost doubles the entire 2001 DoE budget from just eight years ago. Will it stimulate the economy? Not at all. It pays off a Democratic Party constituency.Congress should be embarrassed by this kind of naked political exploitation of economic crisis. Unfortunately, they’re not. It’s up to us to embarrass them. Time to Melt the Phones in DC.
"Isn't it enough to know that I ruined a pony making a gift for you?" -- J. Coulton


#54 vbnautilus

vbnautilus

    psychonaut

  • Members
  • 10,326 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:venice beach, ca

Posted 28 January 2009 - 01:04 PM

View Posthblask, on Wednesday, January 28th, 2009, 11:59 AM, said:

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/01/28/the-...t-bill-of-2009/


#55 Loismustdie

Loismustdie

    What year is this?

  • Members
  • 7,236 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Phoenix

Posted 28 January 2009 - 02:14 PM

View Posthblask, on Wednesday, January 28th, 2009, 12:59 PM, said:

http://hotair.com/ar...t-bill-of-2009/The Wall Street Journal calls it the “40-year Wish List”. Michelle calls it the “Generational Theft Act”. Others have started calling it the Obama-Pelosi-Reid Debt Act. Whatever name one gives it, the least likely is stimulus. The WSJ calculates that no more than 12 cents on the dollar in the trillion-dollar whale goes to actual economic stimulus, and that the rest go to Democratic wish lists for electoral advantage: We’ve looked it over, and even we can’t quite believe it. There’s $1 billion for Amtrak, the federal railroad that hasn’t turned a profit in 40 years; $2 billion for child-care subsidies; $50 million for that great engine of job creation, the National Endowment for the Arts; $400 million for global-warming research and another $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects. There’s even $650 million on top of the billions already doled out to pay for digital TV conversion coupons. In selling the plan, President Obama has said this bill will make “dramatic investments to revive our flagging economy.” Well, you be the judge. Some $30 billion, or less than 5% of the spending in the bill, is for fixing bridges or other highway projects. There’s another $40 billion for broadband and electric grid development, airports and clean water projects that are arguably worthwhile priorities. Add the roughly $20 billion for business tax cuts, and by our estimate only $90 billion out of $825 billion, or about 12 cents of every $1, is for something that can plausibly be considered a growth stimulus. And even many of these projects aren’t likely to help the economy immediately. As Peter Orszag, the President’s new budget director, told Congress a year ago, “even those [public works] that are ‘on the shelf’ generally cannot be undertaken quickly enough to provide timely stimulus to the economy.”The bill contains a hefty increase in subsidies for public transportation. Will that stimulate the economy? Not really, but it does protect public-sector jobs, almost all union positions, and that helps Democrats get more union money. It’s the Democratic Party Stimulus Act, not a recipe for economic revival.The Journal discovers another “lu-lu” in public transportation, but not the kind you’d expect. Congress wants to spend $600 million on new cars for federal agencies. Do you have the money to buy a new car in 2009? Well, you won’t if this bill passes, but apparently a few thousand federal employees will enjoy that luxury, thanks to your tax dollars.Remember when Barack Obama promised to end ineffective government programs in his inaugural speech? That was just eight days ago. Apparently, we’ve hit the expiration date: As for the promise of accountability, some $54 billion will go to federal programs that the Office of Management and Budget or the Government Accountability Office have already criticized as “ineffective” or unable to pass basic financial audits. These include the Economic Development Administration, the Small Business Administration, the 10 federal job training programs, and many more.The Department of Education gets a whopping $66 billion in this bill. In 2001, the federal government spent $35 billion in total in the Department of Education, and by 2006 the Bush administration raised it to $85 billion, almost tripling the outlay. Now Congress wants to add $66 billion on top of what we’ve already budgeted for the DoE, a figure that almost doubles the entire 2001 DoE budget from just eight years ago. Will it stimulate the economy? Not at all. It pays off a Democratic Party constituency.Congress should be embarrassed by this kind of naked political exploitation of economic crisis. Unfortunately, they’re not. It’s up to us to embarrass them. Time to Melt the Phones in DC.
Yes, but, well, we have to do something. EDIT: SUCK IT OBAMA. Every Republican voted no. No holding this over Repubs heads come reelection time.
So much for a comeback.

#56 85suited

85suited

    Politics Forum Pundit

  • Members
  • 1,686 posts
  • Location:In The Obamanation
  • Favorite Poker Game:Vast Right Wing Conspirator

Posted 28 January 2009 - 05:14 PM

This is the biggest sham of all time... If he signs this and it doesnt work... We will have 4 years of Obama and No More290,000 spent per Job Created... Estimated 4 Million Jobs...

#57 coug2828

coug2828

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,099 posts
  • Location:seattle, wa

Posted 28 January 2009 - 08:29 PM



#58 hblask

hblask

    Perpetual slow learner

  • Members
  • 9,860 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Minnesota
  • Interests:Just deal the cards already

Posted 29 January 2009 - 06:54 AM

I guess this is why they call it a stimulus package:

Quote

Porn Part Of Job At U.S. AgencyWed, 01/28/2009 - 11:57 — Judicial Watch BlogEmployees at the multi billion-dollar federal agency that promotes science and national health spend substantial amounts of work hours viewing pornography on government computers yet a chunk of economic stimulus money is coming its way. With an annual budget of $6.6 billion, the National Science Foundation (NSF) was created by Congress in 1950 to promote the progress of science, advance national health, prosperity and welfare and to secure national defense. The NSF has about 1,700 employees at its Arlington Virginia headquarters, including about 150 scientists from research institutions. According to a 68-page semiannual report published by the NSF Inspector General, many of them spend quite a bit of time—often significant portions of their workdays—watching, downloading and e-mailing pornography. Investigators found “numerous reports” and more than half a dozen investigations into “abuse” of NSF information technology resources. The abuse took place over periods of months or even years, according to the report, which states that one “senior official” spent as much as 20% of his working hours over a two-year interval viewing sexually explicit images and engaging in sexually explicit online chats with various women. The estimated cost to U.S. taxpayers for that one case was nearly $60,000, investigators said.A selective sample of a single internal server at the agency found even more NSF workers harboring hard-core porn images on their government computer hard drives, according to the report. Overwhelmed investigators say the number of “inappropriate use” cases was too large to thoroughly probe them all. The limited nature of the sampling—its restriction to only one computer drive—cannot therefore measure the actual extent of the misbehavior, the report points out. Yet, on the heels of this shameful revelation, the NSF will get $3 billion from the Democrat-sponsored economic stimulus bill making its way through Congress this week.

"Isn't it enough to know that I ruined a pony making a gift for you?" -- J. Coulton


#59 akoff

akoff

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,942 posts
  • Location:The 700 Level
  • Interests:Golf, investing, Eagles football, golf, baseball, coaching Little League and golf
  • Favorite Poker Game:PLO

Posted 29 January 2009 - 07:12 AM

View Posthblask, on Thursday, January 29th, 2009, 7:54 AM, said:

I guess this is why they call it a stimulus package:
LOL, hey the guy needed a break!! does anybody monitor poker sites or or forums??
"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America 's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America 's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, "the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."
~ Senator Barack H. Obama

#60 vbnautilus

vbnautilus

    psychonaut

  • Members
  • 10,326 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:venice beach, ca

Posted 29 January 2009 - 09:58 AM

View Postakoff, on Thursday, January 29th, 2009, 7:12 AM, said:

LOL, hey the guy needed a break!! does anybody monitor poker sites or or forums??
:club:




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users