Urban planning community

+ Reply to thread
Page 81 of 162 FirstFirst ... 71 80 81 82 91 ... LastLast
Results 2,001 to 2,025 of 4045

Thread: The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

  1. #2001
    Quote Originally posted by Mud Princess View post
    *soapbox on*

    May I suggest the following: Walk a Mile in Someone's Shoes

    I'm so tired of the blame-the-victim mentality in politics today. Empathy and compassion are associated with the much-maligned "bleeding heart liberal," as if there is something wrong with it. But I've known too many people in dire circumstances due to factors beyond their control, including major or chronic health problems. Try not to judge them so harshly.

    *soapbox off*
    Reminds this not terribly religious fellow of a gospel I find valuable: Judge not, that ye be not judged. (Matthew 7:1).
    On pitching to Stan Musial:
    "Once he timed your fastball, your infielders were in jeopardy."
    Warren Spahn

  2. #2002
    Cyburbian wahday's avatar
    Registered
    May 2005
    Location
    New Town
    Posts
    3,778
    Quote Originally posted by michaelskis View post
    Many of the homes people that ask me if I have any cash are not going to clean up their act and go out and be a productive member of society just because the government is going to offer them healthcare.
    You are right. There will always be a segment of the population that is unable to really integrate and be productive members of society. That is not something unique to us, but of all humanity. Some people are mentally ill, some have addictions, some are veterans or others suffering from PTSD, etc. And as much as we may try to serve this population, a certain number will never get it together and will die a sad death. This is the reality of life and society. It can be cruel and messy.

    But a) I really don’t think the indigent in our country are the ones dragging down the system and driving up healthcare costs. Creating a more streamlined system to provide services to these people when they do need it will save money (money that, again, we are already paying to cover these medical services), b) There may in fact be people among those populations that WILL be able to pull it together through this kind of support and c) What kind of society would that make us to turn our backs on these folks? Toss them to the curb because they don’t have a job? In a recession? One of the main features of a recession is THERE AREN’T ENOUGH JOBS FOR THOSE WHO NEED WORK. That’s just a fact. Asserting that such people just need to go get a job makes no sense in my mind (and I am not asserting this is what you are saying, its just not an uncommon point of view)

    Besides, I don't think anyone is asserting that the healthcare legislation is going to end homelessness.

    Being homeless is not a pleasant life to lead. I have been fortunate through various experiences both here and in DC to work with homeless service and advocacy groups and I can tell you that the homeless are a very diverse group of folks. The current term of choice in this field is “people experiencing homelessness” because the fact is it is not a stagnant state of being for a lot of people. Many move in and out of work and housing situations, live in their cars while trying to put their lives back together, etc. They are families and men and women, vets, people displaced by natural disaster, and so many others who for a variety of reasons have found themselves in a very difficult situation. As someone with only one brother and a sister in law left in my immediate family, I can see how tenuous stability can be. I don’t have very many people to lean on if things really went bad for me. Which is not to say I am inches away from homelessness, but that I can imagine, if one lacked a social safety net, how hard it would be to pull themselves out of this trap if things went badly.
    The purpose of life is a life of purpose

  3. #2003
    The majority of people without health insurance are in working families who earn too much for medicaid, work in jobs that don't provide health insurance, and are too young for medicare. The very poorest of the poor tend to be qualified for medicare.

    The law worked very well and is extremely popular in Massachusetts. Our unemployment rate is 6%. The sun still rises and sets in our state.

  4. #2004
    Cyburbian mgk920's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Appleton, Wisconsin
    Posts
    4,166
    Since this is a political discussion thread, what effect will that ruling have on the forthcoming election, especially considering Obamacare™'s continuing strong unpopularity with the USA's public?

    Mike

  5. #2005
    Cyburbian
    Registered
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Wherever
    Posts
    1,177
    I honestly don't think it will have any significant effect on the election. We're talking about something that passed 2 years ago and is essentially old news to most of the electorate. On top of that, Romney is probably the least credible person to argue against the law.

  6. #2006
    Cyburbian Plus
    Registered
    Sep 2011
    Location
    newark nj
    Posts
    184
    Quote Originally posted by mgk920 View post
    Since this is a political discussion thread, what effect will that ruling have on the forthcoming election, especially considering Obamacare™'s continuing strong unpopularity with the USA's public?

    Mike
    Personally, I wasn't going to vote for either of them before this happened, and that hasn't changed. Recently I have swung over to support the mandate, although I dislike lots of what they included, and am very upset at things they missed. I don't support "socialized medicine" or "universal government run healthcare" on the grounds that your healthcare is subject to political whim, budget cuts, etc depending on whose in charge. Imagine we got a sweet government run healthcare system, and then in November Ron Paul won, and the Republicans took over the Senate. They could ruin everything. I'm willing to put my health in their hands At least if a private organization screws you over you can take them to court and fight it out. I would however support a public option for those who are "uninsurable".

    With that said, this whole "Biggest tax hike EVAR!!!' nonsense will hurt Obama not a lot, but a little bit. I just don't think (right now) Romney has what it takes (charisma/likeability) to win in November. Although, being honest I think Romney will govern the US exactly like he did in Mass. He's putting on a show to appease the hard line right wing and make sure he locks up their vote. Romney is a moderate Republican, and minus an itchier military trigger finger I can't see the next 4 years being meaningfully different no matter who is in charge.

  7. #2007
    Cyburbian Plus Whose Yur Planner's avatar
    Registered
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Dixie
    Posts
    5,713
    Quote Originally posted by mgk920 View post
    Since this is a political discussion thread, what effect will that ruling have on the forthcoming election, especially considering Obamacare™'s continuing strong unpopularity with the USA's public?

    Mike
    The people who were anti Romney/Republican Care lite weren't going to vote for him anyway. Btw, how are things going in Gary, Indiana?
    When did I go from Luke Skywalker to Obi-Wan Kenobi?

  8. #2008
    OH....IO Hink's avatar
    Registered
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Hang on Sloopy...land
    Posts
    9,610
    Quote Originally posted by mgk920 View post
    Since this is a political discussion thread, what effect will that ruling have on the forthcoming election, especially considering Obamacare™'s continuing strong unpopularity with the USA's public?

    Mike
    Obama is up roughly 3 points in the polls right now. We will see in a week. This shouldn't the main issue in the election, the economy should be. I think that if Republicans put together a plan that could replace ACA and people liked it, it could hurt Obama. I don't really see that happening though. I think most people know that Romney was the firestarter for the ACA and that he would be no "better" dealing with healthcare than Obama.

    I do think Romney could sell himself better as a protector of the medical profession as a cost savings measure. That might get some traction. Otherwise most people see Romney and Obama on the same level when it comes to healthcare IMHO.
    A common mistake people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. -Douglas Adams

  9. #2009
    Cyburbian btrage's avatar
    Registered
    May 2005
    Location
    Metro Detroit
    Posts
    6,410
    Quote Originally posted by mgk920 View post
    Since this is a political discussion thread, what effect will that ruling have on the forthcoming election, especially considering Obamacare™'s continuing strong unpopularity with the USA's public?

    Mike
    In a one-on-one debate, Obama will slaughter Romney on this issue. Romney has no credibility regarding the health care debate. Now if he wants to talk about the economy he may have a chance.
    "I'm very important. I have many leather-bound books and my apartment smells of rich mahogany"

  10. #2010
    Cyburbian WSU MUP Student's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Lowering the PCI in the Hills
    Posts
    5,465
    Quote Originally posted by mgk920 View post
    Since this is a political discussion thread, what effect will that ruling have on the forthcoming election...

    Mike
    My prediction is that the ruling did very little to sway additional voters to Obama's side while convincing some of those who were on the fence and leaning towards Romney and already didn't like the ACA (and some of the ultra-Tea Partiers who found Romney not conservative enough) to side with Romney.

    I think the bigger outcome, in terms of the presidential election, is that this ruling will be used as a huge rallying point for fundraising. It's already been reported that Romney was able to raise a big chunk of money immediately following the ruling and I wouldn't be surprised to see more of the same for him for a few weeks. I would expect that this will be a boost for Obama's fundraising as well, except that his will come in much smaller doses from many more people.

    The ruling might have bigger implications for congressional and senatorial elections though as I can imagine a renewed push by the Tea Party folks, who seem to be relatively quiet over the past year or so, to get rid of Democrats in November.

    especially considering Obamacare™'s continuing strong unpopularity with the USA's public?
    I keep hearing people say that it's overwhelmingly unpopular with the public but I've never seen a poll that actually shows that. The vast majority of reliable polls I've seen, ever since the ACA was officially passed more than 2 years ago show the public to be pretty evenly split, and quite a few of those polls show those in favor of the act to be the majority. The last Gallup poll on the topic, back in February, found 45% thought that the passage was a good thing and 44% thought it was a bad thing. The most recent Kaiser poll found 44% found the passage unfavorable while 37% found it favorable. Yes, that's more "unfavorable" than "favorable" but I still wouldn't call something less than a majority "strong" or overwhelming.
    "Where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost." - 1980 Republican presidential candidate Ronald Reagan

  11. #2011
    Cyburbian Plus Whose Yur Planner's avatar
    Registered
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Dixie
    Posts
    5,713
    Quote Originally posted by michaelskis View post
    You are, I am missing the point. I guess I can not see past the idea of a small business owner having to lay people off because they need to pay fees because it is cheaper than paying the insurance. You are correct, a healthy workforce is a productive workforce. But I doubt that they are the ones without insurance right now.

    Many of the homes people that ask me if I have any cash are not going to clean up their act and go out and be a productive member of society just because the government is going to offer them healthcare.
    First, it appears that employers that employee less than 50 people are exempt. Second, it could help those who are working to get the care they need. Which in turn makes them more productive. Plus, if they have kids, they will be healthier so the parents will be able to stay at work and not have to worry about them. Third, it will make American businesses more competitive with companies located where there is nationalized health care.

    So do you unto the least of these, so do you unto me.

    Many of you have entertained angels unaware
    When did I go from Luke Skywalker to Obi-Wan Kenobi?

  12. #2012
    Cyburbian imaplanner's avatar
    Registered
    May 2004
    Location
    Snarkville
    Posts
    6,587
    Quote Originally posted by Blide View post
    I honestly don't think it will have any significant effect on the election. We're talking about something that passed 2 years ago and is essentially old news to most of the electorate. On top of that, Romney is probably the least credible person to argue against the law.
    All that. But also expanding on the idea that this is old news for most of the electorate, I do think that the majority of the electorate do not look favorably upon platforms that are rooted in the past. If Romney makes repealing a two year old law his main platform I think its a losing argument for the general populace. People like to move forward. morning in America, our best days are ahead, etc.
    Children in the back seat can cause accidents - and vice versa.

  13. #2013
    Cyburbian
    Registered
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Wherever
    Posts
    1,177
    Quote Originally posted by WSU MUP Student View post
    It's already been reported that Romney was able to raise a big chunk of money immediately following the ruling and I wouldn't be surprised to see more of the same for him for a few weeks. I would expect that this will be a boost for Obama's fundraising as well, except that his will come in much smaller doses from many more people.
    Obama's campaign has already claimed they raised more money after the ruling than Romney. They're declining to say how much they raised though.

  14. #2014
    Cyburbian Planit's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2005
    Location
    In a 480 square foot ex baseball nacho stand
    Posts
    6,932

    Lets go after it again - remix

    The GOP-controlled House of Representatives has introduced a bill that will repeal the Affordable Care Act. Of course, there's no way it could possibly pass, as its passage would require the Democrat-controlled Senate to vote on the thing, which it won't, and the President, who bet his entire political career on the thing, to sign it, which he won't. It's a good thing America doesn't have any real problems right now!

    According to NPR, this will be the 31st time that the Republican-controlled House has attempted to repeal Obamacare in since January of 2011, when right wingers & tea partiers took control of Congress. That seems like a lot of time and taxpayer money to waste on symbolic votes. And these people say they're fiscal conservatives - bullsh!+. It almost seems like we're paying these guys to run 2-year-long reelection campaigns consisting of meaningless grandstanding on CSPAN.

    I just can't beleive they're at it again just after the Sumpreme Court said okie dokie to it. Anyway, I'm sure they'll solve the whole jobs and economy and crumbling empire thing as soon as they're done with this minor issue. Ms. Palin - where are the 'Death Squads"?????
    "Whatever beer I'm drinking, is better than the one I'm not." DMLW
    "Budweiser sells a product they reflectively insist on calling beer." John Oliver

  15. #2015
    Cyburbian stroskey's avatar
    Registered
    Dec 2008
    Location
    the delta
    Posts
    1,193
    Ignoring the politics, and I am by no means an economist, but it seems like a one-payer system would have a lot less overhead due to less administration costs / profit motive. I think the Mayo Clinic system of paying an annual salary instead of based on the number of patients might decrease unnecessary procedures and increase time with patients.
    I burned down the church to atone for my transgressions.

  16. #2016
    OH....IO Hink's avatar
    Registered
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Hang on Sloopy...land
    Posts
    9,610
    Quote Originally posted by stroskey View post
    Ignoring the politics, and I am by no means an economist, but it seems like a one-payer system would have a lot less overhead due to less administration costs / profit motive. I think the Mayo Clinic system of paying an annual salary instead of based on the number of patients might decrease unnecessary procedures and increase time with patients.
    You will lose qualified doctors by the thousands if they have to work for a set salary (especially if they are required to be paid a certain amount deemed "acceptable" by the government). We already have too few doctors, mainly because reimbursement is so bad for provided services. We are also now allowing less qualified people like PAs, or nurse practitioners to make decisions that really only a qualified medical doctor should make so we can save money on the decision. Really the system is broken. Single payer would most likely not fix it.

    I will again state the four problems:
    1. The expectations people have for healthcare and those who provide it without understanding the costs;
    2. The time / effort/ expense it takes to be a doctor and the lack of reimbursement / lack of qualified professionals;
    3. The way we deal with medical liability / The cost of doing preventative medicine / Tort reform;
    4. Caring for those who cannot afford it / Requiring everyone to pay something / Using the system correctly (Primary Care Physicians for general care, emergency rooms for emergency care, etc.).
    A common mistake people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. -Douglas Adams

  17. #2017
    OH....IO Hink's avatar
    Registered
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Hang on Sloopy...land
    Posts
    9,610
    http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/18/politi...tml?hpt=hp_bn3

    Aww this makes me feel good.....

    That's because in addition to making great contributions to America -- such as Katie Holmes, who calls Toledo home; Halle Berry, who hails from Cleveland; and LeBron James, who comes from Akron -- Ohio is also one of the biggest battleground states in presidential politics.
    I think Ohio is going to be a pretty interesting State this year. You have the anti-Kasich crowd (which includes Rs and Ds alike), you have the pro-union (auto industry) folks, and you have the anti-Obama in everything he does crowds. After 2010 I would have put the State cleaning in the Obama camp. With how horrible Kasich has been for local economies (all the while balancing the State budget - yea..) I would have guessed people would vote against him... but it doesn't exactly seem like that is the case.

    Many people feel that Obama didn't do enough to get the economy moving faster. I think if Obama pushes the $250k tax hike, he will be hurting himself here. If he pushed $1 million it wouldn't be viewed as poorly. I think Obama really can do a couple things to keep Ohio on his plate. Romney will get the farm and rich white man vote. It really will come down to middle class, independents, and women. It should be fun.
    A common mistake people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. -Douglas Adams

  18. #2018
    Cyburbian btrage's avatar
    Registered
    May 2005
    Location
    Metro Detroit
    Posts
    6,410
    Quote Originally posted by Hink View post
    Many people feel that Obama didn't do enough to get the economy moving faster. I think if Obama pushes the $250k tax hike, he will be hurting himself here. If he pushed $1 million it wouldn't be viewed as poorly. I think Obama really can do a couple things to keep Ohio on his plate. Romney will get the farm and rich white man vote. It really will come down to middle class, independents, and women. It should be fun.
    I think Obama is setting the House up. I believe he will relent on the $250K and indeed push it to the $1M. He will be compromising, and what will the GOP do?
    "I'm very important. I have many leather-bound books and my apartment smells of rich mahogany"

  19. #2019
    OH....IO Hink's avatar
    Registered
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Hang on Sloopy...land
    Posts
    9,610
    McCain refutes accusations by fellow Republicans about Hillary Clinton aide
    http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/0...-clinton-aide/

    So McCain was a good, honest guy, then he turned and became a "maverick" and picked Palin and screwed up America for a while. At least he isn't as batshit crazy as Bachmann.

    Seriously, Bachmann was a leading contender for the Republican nomination last year... Are you kidding me?

    If these 5 people are reelected there is something really wrong with our country.
    Bachmann
    Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX),
    Trent Franks (R-AZ),
    Rep. Thomas Rooney (R-FL)
    Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA).

    We can't get a vote on job creation from either the Rs or Ds, but we can go on wild goose chases.... yea that is worth our tax payer money.
    A common mistake people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. -Douglas Adams

  20. #2020
    moderator in moderation Suburb Repairman's avatar
    Registered
    Jun 2003
    Location
    at the neighboring pub
    Posts
    5,200
    Quote Originally posted by Hink View post
    McCain refutes accusations by fellow Republicans about Hillary Clinton aide
    http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/0...-clinton-aide/

    So McCain was a good, honest guy, then he turned and became a "maverick" and picked Palin and screwed up America for a while. At least he isn't as batshit crazy as Bachmann.

    Seriously, Bachmann was a leading contender for the Republican nomination last year... Are you kidding me?

    If these 5 people are reelected there is something really wrong with our country.
    Bachmann
    Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX),
    Trent Franks (R-AZ),
    Rep. Thomas Rooney (R-FL)
    Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA).

    We can't get a vote on job creation from either the Rs or Ds, but we can go on wild goose chases.... yea that is worth our tax payer money.
    Gohmert's district covers a particularly backward part of Texas with a strong history (and present) of active racism. I used to have to go out there on a somewhat regular basis with a previous job, and would do everything I could to avoid an overnight stay out that way. Really pretty forests & state parks, but the people out there... good lord... I think they're still fighting the civil war.

    "Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

    - Herman Göring at the Nuremburg trials (thoughts on democracy)

  21. #2021
    Cyburbian michaelskis's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Someplace between yesterday and tomorrow.
    Posts
    11,960

    Gun Laws

    In response to last week’s shooting there has once again been an outcry for increased gun control laws. From what I understand of their argument, they think that if less people have guns, less people are going to commit gun related crimes. But few are willing to quote statistical evidence to back up their claim. On the other side, there are some people who think that people should be required to own a gun,(which I also think is wrong since it is a requirement and a person should have the right two choose.

    This article has some interesting and I believe insightful thoughts including statistics regarding gun crime and gun regulations in places like Chicago IL where it is very difficult to get a permit to even have a handgun in your house, or Kennesaw GA, where the head of a household is required to own a gun.

    I am a pro-gun rights person and firm believer in the 2nd amendment. However, I also believe that people NEED to understand how safely handle and operate a gun. When I was little, I would help my grandfather dissemble and clean guns way before I was permitted to shoot them. Then I worked my way up from a BB gun, to a shot gun, to a riffle, to a hand gun.

    What are your thoughts on Gun control laws? Do you think that they should be increased to prevent crimes, or decreased to allow more people to own hand guns.
    Not my monkey, not my circus. - Old Polish Proverb

  22. #2022
    Super Moderator luckless pedestrian's avatar
    Registered
    Aug 2005
    Location
    in a meeting
    Posts
    8,372
    I do think gun safety training with anger management class should be required every few years if you own a gun
    - if you own a gun you should be trained to be safe and sound

    My husband hunts so I am not against guns per se but I struggle with the assault weapons and such

    I think Michael Moore raises good issues in this article but his solution is weak though I don't have a better one:

    http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mi...ot-really-guns

  23. #2023
    OH....IO Hink's avatar
    Registered
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Hang on Sloopy...land
    Posts
    9,610
    We we have too many gun deaths. That is clear in the data. We have 10.27 gun related deaths per 100k (per the CDC). Let's see that puts only behind 11 second world countries. Let me look on the list where the next world power is at... France with 6.35. If you argue they aren't a power then we go to Canada at 4.78....Australia is 2.94.

    From lots of articles:

    A study in the Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery found that the gun murder rate in the U.S. is at 19.5 percent, almost 20 times higher than the next 22 richest nations combined.

    Among the world's 23 wealthiest countries, 80 percent of all gun deaths are American deaths and 87 percent of all kids killed by guns are American kids.
    Personally, I think only those who need guns should have them. I don't disagree with having guns.... I disagree that anyone in the U.S. needs a semi-automatic gun. I disagree that it should be easy to get a gun or that we shouldn't force 30 or 60 day wait periods before you get those guns. I think background checks and a national database of who has bought what is reasonable.

    If you want a handgun because you like to shoot, that is fine by me. You can go through the process, get approved and be on the radar as a gun owner. If you happen to buy 4 guns in two months, you get flagged as a suspicious person or are denied your 3rd and 4th guns.

    Limiting gun ownership isn't going to stop all acts of violence, but it has been proven to lower the rate of them. Guns don't kill people, people kill people is true, but only in the context that books don't make people smart, people make people smart. You can't get book smart without a book. You can't kill someone with a gun if you don't have a gun.

    I see no reason why semi-automatic or large caliper guns are sold to the average citizen. I think if you want to own one, you should be cleared in every way, and be on a national database that is reviewable by the average citizen.


    Check out this study from 1998.... http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/27/2/214.full.pdf


    ps. I agree with Jon Stewert.... if now isn't the time to talk about gun control... when is?
    A common mistake people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. -Douglas Adams

  24. #2024
    Cyburbian dw914er's avatar
    Registered
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,105
    I think that the Colorado event is a poor examples for either side. One, the shooter strategically planned his attack, and used weapons that the majority of people, including gun owners, do not have. Sure, gun laws will make it harder for someone to do something stupid (i.e. pulling a gun in a emotional fit of rage), but those who are beyond determined will find a way around the law. And second, while I agree that you should have the right to protect yourself, the reality is that it wouldn't have matter in this situation. The shooter had the element of surprise, darkness, smoke bombs, and body armor. Any sort of amateur vigilante justice would have resulted in more casualties. The most anyone should have done is hit the floor, and help those around them. And they did. If anything, this should be an example why it is important to help those with some sort of mental illness before they do something extreme.

    My thoughts on gun laws are mixed. I like guns, and enjoy shooting them for sport, and I was an NRA member. That said, I had a chance to like in the UK, which has very strong gun laws, and I generally felt much safer there than I did here. Society's own perception of the people around you seemed to make a bigger difference; why do I need a gun if they don't have one. Then again, England is on an island, so smuggling illegal guns is a bit harder.

    Both sides of the argument ploy very outrageous scenarios to elicit an emotional response. I do think that we're a rather violent country, which doesn't make a great case for gun rights; we're kind of screwing ourselves over in that regard.
    And that concludes staff’s presentation...

  25. #2025
    Cyburbia Administrator Dan's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 1996
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Posts
    14,514
    Blog entries
    3
    Downstate, folks. Downstate. Politics, MySpace style.

    I'M SENATOR AND I KNOW IT



    Can't wait until Howard Stern gets her into his studio.
    Growth for growth's sake is the ideology of the cancer cell. -- Edward Abbey

+ Reply to thread
Page 81 of 162 FirstFirst ... 71 80 81 82 91 ... LastLast

More at Cyburbia

  1. Replies: 6
    Last post: 04 Sep 2013, 8:26 AM
  2. Replies: 3
    Last post: 30 Apr 2013, 2:53 PM
  3. Rules discussion thread
    Cyburbia Issues and Help
    Replies: 12
    Last post: 16 Mar 2012, 9:37 AM
  4. The non-political political thread
    Friday Afternoon Club
    Replies: 19
    Last post: 17 Sep 2004, 1:17 PM