Gamingforce Interactive Forums
85239 35211

Go Back   Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis > Garrmondo Network > Political Palace

Notices

Welcome to the Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis.
GFF is a community of gaming and music enthusiasts. We have a team of dedicated moderators, constant member-organized activities, and plenty of custom features, including our unique journal system. If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ or our GFWiki. You will have to register before you can post. Membership is completely free (and gets rid of the pesky advertisement unit underneath this message).


Should Infrastructure be Politically Controlled?
Reply
 
Thread Tools
BlueMikey
TREAT?!?


Member 12

Level 35.70

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Aug 9, 2007, 01:36 PM Local time: Aug 9, 2007, 11:36 AM #26 of 101
You shouldn't try to fix a broken system that you can't fix. Yes.

There's nowhere I can't reach.
and Brandy does her best to understand
Bradylama
Banned


Member 18

Level 51.14

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Aug 9, 2007, 03:19 PM Local time: Aug 9, 2007, 03:19 PM #27 of 101
Quote:
By specifically setting up this corporation as a non-profit, you've removed the income motive. Any profits the corporation are subsequently redistributed to the "shareholders" based on their usage of the roads. This means that people who use the roads less get less money back than those who use it more, if they are able to get anything back at all, since it would stand to reason that those who use it more would get first priority on refunds. But, however money you get back, since you're paying the money in in the first place, your net income would still be a negative.
I understand the income is a negative, I think you're confusing the need for income as a profit incentive (or confusing what I said, I mean).

If a bridge collapses, then the corporation can't extract tolls from it, obviously. Replacing the bridge would be far more expensive than simply repairing it. So, in order to avoid the greatest negative, there's an incentive to keep the bridges in good condition.

Governments don't have this incentive, because if funds are required for a project, they are simply taken. There's no incentive for a government to avoid the greatest negative, since they're always making revenue through taxation. The result places road maintenance at a low priority, because it isn't in the government's interest to keep them well maintained.

If the bridge collapses for the corporation, then tolls have to be raised in order to finance its replacement. If the bridge collapses for the government, then it's no sweat off their back.

In both cases, the public/shareholders are losing money, but in the case of the corporation there is at least an incentive for the shareholders and the board to avoid the greatest cost with proper maintenance.

Quote:
This bridge in Minneapolis was considered deficient for seventeen years. What do you mean that no one is using the shitty roads? Tolls will still be made until you can't get over the road without a 4x4.
I meant to say as in your shitty roads. Commuters coming in from out of state are going to avoid the worst infrastructure if they can, and poor road conditions will encourage locals to avoid travel which extracts a toll. The end result being that you lose commerce.

You live in, what, Arizona? What are the conditions of your roads? Because without many bridges, 25% approval may actually be the appropriate amount of spending.

Quote:
It doesn't, which is the point. If it's broke and you can't fix it, don't.
That's hideously defeatist, particularly when we're talking about an untested method. I'd like to see more solutions to the problem, which is why I made this thread, and why I didn't put out Paron's example in the opening.

I'm guessing that there's some non-privatizing solutions to the problem of infrastructure priority, but there is apparently no solution, according to you.

Quote:
If anything, with how much you hate the spending, the stadium example only shows that voters can't vote on the right spending and that they can't elect officials that will get them the proper maintenance, and I have no idea why you don't think those same shortcomings wouldn't transfer to a populace selecting a board to handle the problem.
As Styphon pointed out, the bridge is payed for with Federal money and maintained by the State. I'd argue that there was a lack of incentive for voters in the case of Minnesota because the money more than likely isn't extracted from themselves.

With state gas taxes you can get an inkling of where the money goes, but with a Federal money pool who the fuck knows?

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.
Sarag
Fuck yea dinosaurs


Member 748

Level 53.85

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Aug 9, 2007, 04:07 PM #28 of 101
No, I am saying precisely the opposite.
Then why do you / the article writer keep holding it up as an example of excessive pork-barrel spending in the context of this bridge? If you don't think it has anything to do with the bridge, it shouldn't be part of the discussion. You are being intellectually dishonest.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?
BlueMikey
TREAT?!?


Member 12

Level 35.70

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Aug 9, 2007, 04:12 PM Local time: Aug 9, 2007, 02:12 PM #29 of 101
You live in, what, Arizona? What are the conditions of your roads? Because without many bridges, 25% approval may actually be the appropriate amount of spending.
Arizona's problems are roads that need frequent repair due to the intense heat and roads that can't handle the amount of traffic put on them, meaning widing projects and strengthening everything underneath them. Arizona has some of the worst traffic in the country and one of the highest traffic death rates.

Plus, we own part of what is probably the most important interstate highway in the country: I-10.

We actually have many bridges (they are relatively new, however). Dry rivers still have to be crossed.

I'm guessing that there's some non-privatizing solutions to the problem of infrastructure priority, but there is apparently no solution, according to you.
Nah, I wasn't saying that. I don't believe this is a workable solution or at least worth the effort it would take to make the changes. There might be a modest increase in quality, at best, assuming everything works absolutely perfectly. As many have stated, this will most likely just lead to more of the same.

I was speaking idiomatically.
and Brandy does her best to understand
Sarag
Fuck yea dinosaurs


Member 748

Level 53.85

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Aug 9, 2007, 04:33 PM #30 of 101
If a bridge collapses, then the corporation can't extract tolls from it, obviously. Replacing the bridge would be far more expensive than simply repairing it. So, in order to avoid the greatest negative, there's an incentive to keep the bridges in good condition.

Governments don't have this incentive, because if funds are required for a project, they are simply taken. There's no incentive for a government to avoid the greatest negative, since they're always making revenue through taxation. The result places road maintenance at a low priority, because it isn't in the government's interest to keep them well maintained.
You mean it doesn't cost the government any greater amount of money to build a new bridge vs. repair existing bridges? I.. what?

you're fucking trolling

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?
Bradylama
Banned


Member 18

Level 51.14

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Aug 9, 2007, 05:41 PM Local time: Aug 9, 2007, 05:41 PM #31 of 101
Quote:
Then why do you / the article writer keep holding it up as an example of excessive pork-barrel spending in the context of this bridge? If you don't think it has anything to do with the bridge, it shouldn't be part of the discussion. You are being intellectually dishonest.
I thought you meant a new tax being levied, since I was referring to Airanach talking about an increase in taxes.

Quote:
You mean it doesn't cost the government any greater amount of money to build a new bridge vs. repair existing bridges? I.. what?
Alright look at it this way:

Let's say I accrue a tab at a local bar. It's been increasing for quite a while and it's been called in. I can't pay the tab, so I mug somebody and use the money I stole to pay it off. In this case, my tab is paid, but I lose nothing. The bar is paid, I take care of the debt, and the only person at a loss is the guy I mugged.

Governments do not lose money because they don't produce wealth. If budgets dip into deficits, then the deficit is financed by either an increase in taxes, buying debt, or printing money. In all three cases the government loses nothing, because it doesn't finance the deficit. Taxpayers do.

It costs taxpayers more to rebuild a bridge, and it costs the government nothing.

Quote:
Arizona's problems are roads that need frequent repair due to the intense heat and roads that can't handle the amount of traffic put on them, meaning widing projects and strengthening everything underneath them. Arizona has some of the worst traffic in the country and one of the highest traffic death rates.

Plus, we own part of what is probably the most important interstate highway in the country: I-10.

We actually have many bridges (they are relatively new, however). Dry rivers still have to be crossed.
You're still not answering my question about road conditions.

If the graph you provided is any indication, the state is certainly on the ball in regards to bridges.

Quote:
Nah, I wasn't saying that. I don't believe this is a workable solution or at least worth the effort it would take to make the changes. There might be a modest increase in quality, at best, assuming everything works absolutely perfectly. As many have stated, this will most likely just lead to more of the same.
I was kinda hoping that somebody would channel Al Gore's lockbox, to be honest. I think it's a shame, though, that the opportunity to test potential solutions will likely never present themselves in light of general apathy and lack of debate.

FELIPE NO
Sarag
Fuck yea dinosaurs


Member 748

Level 53.85

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Aug 9, 2007, 06:47 PM #32 of 101
Let's say I accrue a tab at a local bar. It's been increasing for quite a while and it's been called in. I can't pay the tab, so I mug somebody and use the money I stole to pay it off. In this case, my tab is paid, but I lose nothing. The bar is paid, I take care of the debt, and the only person at a loss is the guy I mugged.

Governments do not lose money because they don't produce wealth. If budgets dip into deficits, then the deficit is financed by either an increase in taxes, buying debt, or printing money. In all three cases the government loses nothing, because it doesn't finance the deficit. Taxpayers do.

It costs taxpayers more to rebuild a bridge, and it costs the government nothing.
Oh, brady. You think taxes are like mugging people and that the government accrues defecit without any thought about the future. Sure, it might seem like that at times, but things are more complicated than that!

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?
BlueMikey
TREAT?!?


Member 12

Level 35.70

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Aug 9, 2007, 08:53 PM Local time: Aug 9, 2007, 06:53 PM 1 #33 of 101
If the graph you provided is any indication, the state is certainly on the ball in regards to bridges.
So, what are you saying, that bridges are the only thing that applies in your scenario here? That the interstate highway system is perfectly fine if not for those pesky rivers it has to cross? That, infrastructurally, everything else is doin' great and doesn't need money set aside in federal and state budgets?

Or do you just want these special non-government governments on everything?

Jam it back in, in the dark.
and Brandy does her best to understand
How Unfortunate
Ghost


Member 4460

Level 13.04

Apr 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Aug 9, 2007, 08:57 PM #34 of 101
All this shareholder idea is doing is creating a highly complicated second political system JUST for road maintenance. Rather than fancy tolls and such, set up semi-independant transportation ministers and use some of the taxes from licenses, or gasoline. So much simpler. But as noted, you don't avoid the political element.

You could try to pass a law requiring maintenance to be funded before building a new project. But then if there are bad times, and people let maintenance languish a bit, they're going to run up such a tab they won't want to build anything.

A method that works on the small scale is the media. In a few towns I've lived in, the local paper would once a month shame the municipal government into filling in potholes. Similarily, maybe an advocacy group could hire a few civil inspectors to shame/scare the governments into action.

How ya doing, buddy?
RacinReaver
Never Forget


Member 7

Level 44.22

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Aug 9, 2007, 11:14 PM Local time: Aug 9, 2007, 09:14 PM #35 of 101
The problem isn't unique to Minnesota. If you compare the percentage of bridge deficiencies with taxes raised, you'll find that some of the highest-taxed states also have some of the worst problems with bridge maintenance. Rhode Island is in the top ten when it comes to taxes collected, and has a higher percentage of deficient bridges than any other state. Pennsylvania has taxes higher than 31 other states, and a bridge deficiency rate that is the second worst in the country. New York is number ten in taxes collected, and is one of the worst when it comes maintenance. In fact, half of the top ten-taxed states are in the bottom ten when to comes to bridge maintenance.
So the states with the most bridges have the most problems with bridges? HOLY SHIT ALERT THE MEDIA. Pittsburgh has more bridges than Venice and it's had a shrinking population for the past 60 years.

Also, which taxes are they talking about? State taxes in Pennsylvania are actually pretty low, sales tax is 6% for most of the state (except for food and clothing where it's 0%), and property taxes and such vary greatly between counties and municipalities.

Also, having been a frequent traveler on toll roads I have to say that it really doesn't make them any better to drive on than typical state roads. I just drove on I-80, a free road, and it was in better condition than the PA Turnpike which I pay around $16 each way to drive across most of the state.

Finally, Brady, it's not like this is something new where a city is giving money to a sports team to stay in their city. It's a pretty established practice that many teams do when they either feel attendance is dropping or their facilities are lacking. After all, they're using their ability to move to a different city as a bargaining chip. What's so terrible about that?

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.
Bradylama
Banned


Member 18

Level 51.14

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Aug 10, 2007, 06:13 AM Local time: Aug 10, 2007, 06:13 AM #36 of 101
Oh, brady. You think taxes are like mugging people and that the government accrues defecit without any thought about the future. Sure, it might seem like that at times, but things are more complicated than that!
OF COURSE! It's more complicated than that! Thank you, Lurker, for reminding me that paying taxes under the threat of imprisonment isn't like a mugging, and that the government doesn't defecit spend without thinking about the consequences.

Where would I be if you didn't speak to me like a child with meaningless platitudes?

Quote:
So, what are you saying, that bridges are the only thing that applies in your scenario here? That the interstate highway system is perfectly fine if not for those pesky rivers it has to cross? That, infrastructurally, everything else is doin' great and doesn't need money set aside in federal and state budgets?

Or do you just want these special non-government governments on everything?
This thread, in case you didn't notice, concerns a bridge collapse. Bridges possess a certain import since sinkholes are such a rarity.

You're also skirting my question again. What would you say the state of roads and highways are in your state?

Quote:
A method that works on the small scale is the media. In a few towns I've lived in, the local paper would once a month shame the municipal government into filling in potholes. Similarily, maybe an advocacy group could hire a few civil inspectors to shame/scare the governments into action.
I think media watchgroups are the best solution, but it just doesn't happen enough.

Quote:
Also, having been a frequent traveler on toll roads I have to say that it really doesn't make them any better to drive on than typical state roads. I just drove on I-80, a free road, and it was in better condition than the PA Turnpike which I pay around $16 each way to drive across most of the state.
Well, so long as we're using anecdotal evidence, I use the Indian Nation Turnpike to travel towards Eastern Texas, and it's in much better shape than the highways and city roads in my immediate area.

Quote:
Finally, Brady, it's not like this is something new where a city is giving money to a sports team to stay in their city. It's a pretty established practice that many teams do when they either feel attendance is dropping or their facilities are lacking. After all, they're using their ability to move to a different city as a bargaining chip. What's so terrible about that?
It's basically like a Union that oversteps its bounds. These teams don't necessarily need bigger and better facilities, they need to win games. Cycling through stadiums every 5-8 years is a waste of taxpayer money. They have to threaten to leave, because otherwise nobody in their right mind would think that a new stadium is justifiable.

It's strong-arming millions out of taxpayers, and a disgusting form of rentseeking.

Just because it occurs frequently does not make it okay.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?
Sarag
Fuck yea dinosaurs


Member 748

Level 53.85

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Aug 10, 2007, 08:37 AM #37 of 101
OF COURSE! It's more complicated than that! Thank you, Lurker, for reminding me that paying taxes under the threat of imprisonment isn't like a mugging,
It isn't.

Quote:
and that the government doesn't defecit spend without thinking about the consequences.
In general, they don't.

your libertarianism is the political equivalent of vore fetish. You sound like you're been out there and tried all the other things, but luckily it's imaginary so you don't actually have to do anything.

I was speaking idiomatically.
Bradylama
Banned


Member 18

Level 51.14

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Aug 10, 2007, 10:52 AM Local time: Aug 10, 2007, 10:52 AM #38 of 101
Quote:
It isn't.
You're right, it isn't, but that wasn't the comparison I was trying to draw. Taxation is theft, and whether or not you believe it is so depends on how much stock you put into the Social Contract. Even then, you should understand why these projects cost the government nothing.

Quote:
your libertarianism is the political equivalent of vore fetish. You sound like you're been out there and tried all the other things, but luckily it's imaginary so you don't actually have to do anything.
Your liberalism is the political equivalent of a MAD meeting. You claim to know what's best for everybody, but your emotional responses blind you to alternatives and stifle debate before it begins.

I can do this all day, don't start this bullshit. Everything is SO much more complicated. It's so complicated you don't have to explain any goddamn thing.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?
Lord Styphon
Malevolently Mercurial


Member 3

Level 50.41

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Aug 10, 2007, 11:03 AM Local time: Aug 10, 2007, 11:03 AM 1 #39 of 101
Originally Posted by Bradylama
Taxation is theft, and whether or not you believe it is so depends on how much stock you put into the Social Contract.
Oh for fuck's sake.

Paying taxes to government is no more theft than paying tolls to this corporate public works department of yours.

FELIPE NO
Bradylama
Banned


Member 18

Level 51.14

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Aug 10, 2007, 11:09 AM Local time: Aug 10, 2007, 11:09 AM #40 of 101
Paying a toll to use a road involves an act of consent. Paying taxes does not involve consent, since the taxes are extracted regardless. Governments do not have to compete for revenue, but a privately owned road does between alternative transit.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?
Lord Styphon
Malevolently Mercurial


Member 3

Level 50.41

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Aug 10, 2007, 11:19 AM Local time: Aug 10, 2007, 11:19 AM #41 of 101
What alternative transit? Your proposition involves taking public works away from government and turning it over to a non-profit corporation, which would handle it instead. There was only one of these in the original proposal, which would handle everything the government did. There wasn't any competition. The financial incentives you talked about would be about the corporation not being able to make money off damaged infrastructure, not that they might lose customers to competition.

This idea was pretty fucking stupid to start with; it just gets ever more so as this discussion goes on.

Jam it back in, in the dark.
Bradylama
Banned


Member 18

Level 51.14

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Aug 10, 2007, 12:07 PM Local time: Aug 10, 2007, 12:07 PM #42 of 101
Quote:
What alternative transit?
Air, rail, cycling, and mass transit.

You're not addressing what we're arguing, either, that tax is a form of theft and that there's a difference between collecting a toll and extracting a tax.

There's nowhere I can't reach.
Lord Styphon
Malevolently Mercurial


Member 3

Level 50.41

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Aug 10, 2007, 12:36 PM Local time: Aug 10, 2007, 12:36 PM 1 #43 of 101
Originally Posted by Bradylama
Air
Unless you're rich and own a helicopter, air travel is a pretty impractical way to get around town. It's also impractical for fairly short distances, like, say, from Houston to Galveston.

Quote:
rail... mass transit
I'm including these together since, except for the Northeast, long-distance passenger rail is essentially dead, and that light rail systems in cities are frequently offered by mass transit companies.

However, in your case, you still couldn't escape the Coropration if you used them. The government is responsible for building the infrastructure they use; this duty would be turned over to the Corporation in your model, and the fares you pay to use them would be in part payed to the Corporation to make use of their services.

The fares would also probably rise considerably since tax money wouldn't be made available to keep them low (since taxes are bad), and since they would be competing with the Corporation, the Corporation has no incentive to do anything to help anybody out there.

Which is meaningless if the Corporation owns the mass transit system as well as the roads.

Quote:
cycling
Like air travel isn't practical for short distances, cycling isn't practical for long distances. It would break someone to ride a bike from their home in the suburbs to work in the city, put in their 8 hours a day, and then ride back home five days a week.

And it doesn't escape the Corporation, either; the man in question would be riding his bike on their road, and would concievably be required to pay for the use like a driver would.

Quote:
You're not addressing what we're arguing, either, that tax is a form of theft and that there's a difference between collecting a toll and extracting a tax.
Taxes are just as much a payment for services rendered as a toll is. Local taxes, for instance, pay for such things as the police and fire departments. They also pay for keeping my bus fares low.

And, to top it all off, the pay for things like public sanitation and the water system, which are useful for disposing of various forms of waste.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.
BlueMikey
TREAT?!?


Member 12

Level 35.70

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Aug 10, 2007, 12:42 PM Local time: Aug 10, 2007, 10:42 AM #44 of 101
You're also skirting my question again. What would you say the state of roads and highways are in your state?
I already told you, crumbling from the heat and not wide enough. You came back and told me that it didn't matter because Arizona didn't have many bridges.

Your idea wouldn't even work here because you can't toll Arizona residents. They would just stop using the pay roads and all the traffic would funnel through city streets, making things even worse.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?
and Brandy does her best to understand

Last edited by BlueMikey; Aug 10, 2007 at 12:44 PM.
Lord Styphon
Malevolently Mercurial


Member 3

Level 50.41

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Aug 10, 2007, 12:58 PM Local time: Aug 10, 2007, 12:58 PM #45 of 101
Your idea wouldn't even work here because you can't toll Arizona residents. They would just stop using the pay roads and all the traffic would funnel through city streets, making things even worse.
The way I'm reading his idea, they wouldn't have an alternative. Governments are to be relieved of their road infrastructure, which would then be turned over to this corporation; since cities have governments, too, their roads would likely be privatized along with state and county roads. If there's a road, the Corporation owns it and charges you for its use.

Which reminds me; how much would it cost for the Corporation to buy these roads from their respective governments in the first place?

I was speaking idiomatically.
BlueMikey
TREAT?!?


Member 12

Level 35.70

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Aug 10, 2007, 01:22 PM Local time: Aug 10, 2007, 11:22 AM #46 of 101
So all roads are tolled? Heh.

And all the poor people stop grocery shopping because their food stamps don't pay for toll roads.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?
and Brandy does her best to understand
Sarag
Fuck yea dinosaurs


Member 748

Level 53.85

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Aug 10, 2007, 01:24 PM #47 of 101
Taxation is theft,
Taxes are the price you pay for the three amenities the government affords you - infrastructure, social services, and defense.

you learn this in seventh grade

Quote:
Even then, you should understand why these projects cost the government nothing.
You're serious. You're bona-fide serious in that you think the government has unlimited resources.

Your libertarianism is an affected youth reading Mein Kampf in the only non-Starbucks coffee shop in town.

Additional Spam:
Paying taxes does not involve consent, since the taxes are extracted regardless.
Laws are also non-consentual.

that is so unfair

FELIPE NO

Last edited by Sarag; Aug 10, 2007 at 01:25 PM. Reason: This member got a little too post happy.
Guru
:wink wink:


Member 85

Level 27.73

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Aug 10, 2007, 01:36 PM Local time: Aug 10, 2007, 01:36 PM #48 of 101
Like air travel isn't practical for short distances, cycling isn't practical for long distances. It would break someone to ride a bike from their home in the suburbs to work in the city, put in their 8 hours a day, and then ride back home five days a week.
Only in Western countries, where people are fat and lazy. People ride bikes everywhere in China, and I bet those Chinese people that ride to work, work longer days doing more strenuous things than we Americans that sit our fat asses in cubicles and type on computers all day long.

Cycling is practical, but people don't like doing things that require effort. It's very practical in the sense that it costs nothing and it gets you from point A to point B in a substantially shorter amount of time than walking would.

Of course, it's not practical if people absolutely must live 30 miles away from where they work. But the only reason people live that far away is for impractical reasons, like wanting to live in a big house that they don't really need. One impracticality begets another.

In short, the suburbs are making people fat.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?
<@a_lurker> I like zeal better than guru.
<@a_lurker> There, I said it, I'm not taking it back.
Arainach
Sensors indicate an Ancient Civilization


Member 1200

Level 26.94

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Aug 10, 2007, 01:42 PM #49 of 101
Guru: Places like Europe and China are much tighter together than the American suburban communities. The Chinese don't bike 20-60 miles to work.

Jam it back in, in the dark.
Guru
:wink wink:


Member 85

Level 27.73

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Aug 10, 2007, 01:51 PM Local time: Aug 10, 2007, 01:51 PM 1 #50 of 101
Guru: Places like Europe and China are much tighter together than the American suburban communities. The Chinese don't bike 20-60 miles to work.
I realize this. Still, nobody is ever really forced to live that far away from where they work. By and large it's a personal decision, and usually one rooted in luxury.

Which is why, obviously, that I think it's OK that if people want to live extravagant, impractical lives (by living in big houses 50 miles away from work), that they shouldn't gripe about being taxed on infrastructure. (To keep with the context of the thread, at least).

There's nowhere I can't reach.
<@a_lurker> I like zeal better than guru.
<@a_lurker> There, I said it, I'm not taking it back.
Reply

Thread Tools

Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis > Garrmondo Network > Political Palace > Should Infrastructure be Politically Controlled?

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.