Details » Invincibles Guild

- Url:
- Category: Gaming
- Description: our best guild
- Members: 16
- Created On: Jan 29, 2010
- Posts: 81
- Hits: 10223
- Rating: 

Post your rating:
- Rating:          
- Comment:

- Verification Image:
- Verification Code:

User Comments:
1. | Apr 16, 2018
2. | Feb 15, 2018
I work for a publishers viagra foreskin retraction The question is how can we create sustainable economic benefit while reasonably limiting the environmental harm? The other question is, who shall suffer the environmental harm: the rich, the poor or both?
3. | Jan 22, 2018
Some First Class stamps canadian pharmacy selling avodarts The (pots) reflect many conditions that we are faced with, often unexplained with logic," artist Babak Golkar told Reuters by e-mail from Canada last week, shortly after his exhibition opened.
4. | Jan 8, 2018
5. | Jan 7, 2018
6. | Jun 28, 2014
You would not get taxed again your family would get taxed on the money they are rincevieg. If someone has inheritance of a billion $ should they get taxed just like anyone else who gets money? That is like saying your employer gets taxed and now you are getting again on the money they were taxed on .. It makes since because super rich families avoid taxation on their money through inheritances..Generation after generation just rincevieg money and never having to pay tax on the estate
7. | Dec 14, 2013
If you love this guy it is because you have no clue what you are tilakng about. Use yourself as an example. You work your entire life for your family and you create a decent estate. All along the way you pay federal taxes and state taxes etc. When you die where does it say in the constitution that government can not confiscate your estate and take what they want before your family gets the money? This is double taxation, it is morally reprehensible and this congressman is a clown.
8. | Dec 13, 2013
what about doing X, Y and Z, which would be the counter-proposals palbrboy by Republicans, then you'd be saying she was a shill for the Republican party. Right now she's being a skeptic, which is what every good interviewer should be Tim Russert was great at it. He'd ask a question and if he didn't get an answer, he'd keep asking until he got one or made it abundantly clear to the audience that the person was being non-responsive, which is an answer in itself (as Megyn does here with the tax rate question). Remember when, after the Iraq war didn't turn out like we hoped it would, everyone was saying we maybe should have been more skeptical? When it was something the Bush administration wanted to do, being skeptical was being patriotic. But now being skeptical of a bill that will reorganize 15% of our economy is not the appropriate role for a journalist? I didn't get that memo.You say you don't see how anyone could be happy with the status quo and imply that Megyn Kelly is. Now you're being dishonest, Stevo. She never said things are good the way they are. In fact, when Sanders said we needed to do something, she said, So now we're on the same page about something, and then talked about the downside to doing this bill specifically. If she had had a Republican on that was saying we shouldn't do anything at all, I have a feeling she would be bringing up other statistics and talking about what needs to be done to fix the problems that would occur if we did nothing. Find me an interview with Megyn Kelly where she's talking to a Republican who says we should do nothing, and if she doesn't probe that and talk about the downside to it, then I'll retract that statement.Despite the fact that Sanders says Republicans want to do nothing (click the link in the post for the plan they just proposed a few days ago in response to the Democrat House bill), nobody I know is saying we should just maintain the status quo. The questions are: how to you change things, and how do you pay for it? Anybody that proposes a plan has to be prepared to answer those questions.I think some of what you're seeing by Fox and Republicans about the spending on this is a response to the massive deficits and the insane debt position we're going into now. Obama's answer to the economy was the stimulus bill, and it's not working. He sticks by it, saying it's working just as planned and he wouldn't go back and change a thing while at the same time saying we underestimated the size of the problem. (So was the bill too big to begin with and now it's the perfect size given our worsened economic state, or is he happy with unemployment approaching 10% when he said it wouldn't hit 8%? It has to be one or the other.) Her point is not that we shouldn't do anything, and she stated that, so you're unfairly misrepresenting her position, just as Sanders was misrepresenting the Republican position. She addressed two things: a) should we do THIS specifically and what happens if we do, and b) should we do this RIGHT NOW when we're in a recession and people are losing jobs, when this would raise taxes on a lot of people who create jobs, namely small businesses. If all you got from this interview was that Megyn Kelly wants to do nothing, then I think you're being just as biased as you're accusing Fox of being.She started out really only asking him two basic questions: how do you respond to the CBO's report, and what do you think about the top tax rate being so high? He answered the first question just fine (except for the two lies he told, of course). But when he got to the second question, he instantly turned it into it's all Wall Street bankers and they deserve it because they got us into this mess and they got tax breaks under Bush. If he had just said, Yes, I know it's going to have an impact on some hard-working honest people, but we're in a tough spot and there's no easy solution to this, (which is palbrboy more along the lines of what Obama would say) that would have been just fine. If he had said that yes, this something has some downsided, but every other something he's seen has adverse impacts too, but we can't maintain the status quo and we need to move on it, I could respect that. But instead of doing that, he lies and doesn't answer questions. I think your impression of my post was different than what I was trying to convey. This was not a post about health care reform. This is about debating honestly, which Sanders does not do. He lies and avoids answering questions. If it were a Republican doing it, I would think it was just as dishonest. But if you know anything about Bernie Sanders, or if you've ever seen him, this is what he does all the time. When he was on Bill Maher's show a while back, he made some of the same points, but Bill is on his side politically so he was never asked hard follow-up questions, which is basically what Megyn did here. He spouts political philosophy and then when confronted with any facts counter to his position, he avoids them and lies about them. In the Fox interview, Sanders got out his side of the story and made all his points up front, and then when asked about the implications of his policies, he doesn't want to answer. Whether it was about health care reform, education, welfare, or national defense, it's a dishonest tactic and when you're an elected representative of the people, you have to be held accountable for it. Last I checked, nobody elected Megyn Kelly to anything. (Just as my last post was not about abortion, although some have tried to take the discussion to that area. It was about how inconsistencies in the law arise when competing principles are thrown together; it's inevitable.) This was about our elected representatives lying to the public (which he did on a few occasions) and not answering direct questions; the backdrop for it just happened to be health care. And since I've always wanted to say this but never had such a perfect situation for it, here goes: Don't get it twisted.I understand your passion on the subject, Stevo, and I appreciate it. You have a good point about the hypocrisy some people for spending money: spend it on what we like and it's fine, spend it on what we don't and it's irresponsible wasteful government pork. But Republicans are hardly the only ones doing that.P.S. I'm not for the status quo either, BTW, as you should know by the previous discussions we've had about it.
9. | Dec 12, 2013
oh my - that is such a cute story! You have totally irnpised me to let my kids be apart of the decision making on a sewing project too! I had stopped that a while back, when they continued to pick out Disney character fabric at the fabric store - lol, but there are so many other ways for them to be involved! This was so heart-warming. PS - I like the name Chef Boyardee - lolCute monkey :)
10. | May 28, 2013
P0NuY3 dghcjkscezws
11. | May 26, 2013
I always tgouhht that rule #1 for leg warmers was, Never ride in leg warmers'. If it is that cold then tights are best, otherwise leg warmers are for pre-ride only, to be stripped off just before you go. The VLWT (visible leg warmer top) just proves this rule should be only worn over shorts and removed once requisite temperature is achieved pre-ride.Breaking this rule will only end in the chafing at the top of your legs.
12. | May 24, 2013
gusXHQ xwtoxadoeygq
13. | May 22, 2013
Hi there I am so thrilled I found your welobg, I really found you by error, while I was researching on Google for something else, Nonetheless I am here now and would just like to say many thanks for a incredible post and a all round interesting blog (I also love the theme/design), I don’t have time to read it all at the minute but I have saved it and also included your RSS feeds, so when I have time I will be back to read much more, Please do keep up the fantastic work.