Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-04-2008   #11
pnw, Washington
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,404
RM, I am no political genius and I am always in the deep end of the pool with these guys and I am no phelps. I have voted republican and democratic. I am a registered republican. When Bush ran for president I abandoned the republican party due to it being hijacked by the religous party. I believe in the seperation of church and state and maybe I am sensitive to it because of living in the springs but I am sick of what is going on now. Obama is not the answer to all my problems but he is a quantum leap above any republican right now. These are my issues. I dont want James Dobson having a direct line to the Whitehouse anymore. I want women to have the right to do what they want with their bodies. I dont want a supreme court that rolls back most of the personal freedoms that I have now. And one last issue, my understanding is that most company's offshore their work not due to salaries but due to the high cost of insuring their employees. I also believe that large companies, including the one I work for, are beginning to bully employees based on providing health care. I dont know if Obama's plan will work but I know what we have currently isnt. I never voted for Bush, ever. I never wanted to go to war in Iraq, Afghanistan yes. I wouldnt call myself a liberal but I am no longer interested in anything the repub's say or do. Last time around I did nothing other than vote against Bush, this time I am being more proactive. I voted Republican when they were fiscally conservative. The last 3 terms of Repubs have almost bankrupted this country. Its that simple.

"Yesterday I was clever and tried to change the world. Today I am wise and try to change myself." -Rumi
gh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2008   #12
Livingston's Avatar
Denver, Colorado
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 679
Look deeper than headlines...

If all you read are headlines or listen to FOX, Limbaugh, and O'Reily, I could see how you could come to the above conclusions.

Why would we want government to control our lives like Obama says it should? Maybe control isn't the best word but it is pretty close. So my first question to the libs is why are you for big government?
Show me where Obama says he is going to increase the size of the government. I can actually SHOW you how the BUSH administration increased government. Rep's say small gov and less spending but do the opposite.

Health Care:
Here is what the republicans think of health care.

Ehrlichman: " private enterprise one."
President Nixon: "Well, that appeals to me."
Ehrlichman: "Edgar Kaiser is running his Permanente deal for profit. And the reason that he can the reason he can do it I had Edgar Kaiser come in talk to me about this and I went into it in some depth. All the incentives are toward less medical care, because "
President Nixon: [Unclear.]
Ehrlichman: " the less care they give them, the more money they make."
President Nixon: "Fine." [Unclear.]
Ehrlichman: [Unclear] " and the incentives run the right way."
President Nixon: "Not bad."

History of the Kaiser Permanente Medical Care Program

Coming from Chicago should be a clue to all of us right... or should I say correct? I personally am tired of these elitists telling us that they know what is best for us. I really like the idea of change but do not believe that Barrack will ever change things.
Uh, yeah... not red or blue, sure. Did Romney put you up to this?

"I think I handled my alcohol pretty well considering how drunk I was." -Cousin Dan
Livingston is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2008   #13
El Flaco's Avatar
Golden, Colorado
Paddling Since: 1984
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,879
rmpeddie -
Contrary to your lamenting the lack of bipartisanship and "coming together as a country", your tone of "Colorado Libs"-this and "commie"-that pretty much drips with contempt. Which is fine, because you have your filter and every one of us has ours. But if you really want this country to be less partisan, you could *try* to bring that tone down a bit. As for your "questions" regarding Michelle's plagerism or Obama's Chicago politics - you didn't really want an answer, you just wanted to take a shot at them....which is fine, they're public figures and you've clearly made up your mind about them given whatever you've heard on talk radio.

Just keep in mind as you're listening to political talk that everyone has an agenda. And if Rush and Glenn Beck tell you that Obama wants to take over your life and control all your health care, it just might be an over-generalization at best, or a flat out lie. Obama's plan is OPTIONAL for adults and coverage is handled by private insurance corporations. Here's what Obama's plan is:
  • Obama's Plan to Cover Uninsured Americans: Obama will make available a new national health plan to all Americans, including the self-employed and small businesses, to buy affordable health coverage that is similar to the plan available to members of Congress. The Obama plan will have the following features:
    1. Guaranteed eligibility. No American will be turned away from any insurance plan because of illness or pre-existing conditions.
    2. Comprehensive benefits. The benefit package will be similar to that offered through Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), the plan members of Congress have. The plan will cover all essential medical services, including preventive, maternity and mental health care.
    3. Affordable premiums, co-pays and deductibles.
    4. Subsidies. Individuals and families who do not qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP but still need financial assistance will receive an income-related federal subsidy to buy into the new public plan or purchase a private health care plan.
    5. Simplified paperwork and reined in health costs.
    6. Easy enrollment. The new public plan will be simple to enroll in and provide ready access to coverage.
    7. Portability and choice. Participants in the new public plan and the National Health Insurance Exchange (see below) will be able to move from job to job without changing or jeopardizing their health care coverage.
    8. Quality and efficiency. Participating insurance companies in the new public program will be required to report data to ensure that standards for quality, health information technology and administration are being met.
  • National Health Insurance Exchange: The Obama plan will create a National Health Insurance Exchange to help individuals who wish to purchase a private insurance plan. The Exchange will act as a watchdog group and help reform the private insurance market by creating rules and standards for participating insurance plans to ensure fairness and to make individual coverage more affordable and accessible. Insurers would have to issue every applicant a policy, and charge fair and stable premiums that will not depend upon health status. The Exchange will require that all the plans offered are at least as generous as the new public plan and have the same standards for quality and efficiency. The Exchange would evaluate plans and make the differences among the plans, including cost of services, public.
  • Employer Contribution: Employers that do not offer or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees will be required to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of the national plan. Small businesses will be exempt from this requirement, and will receive a new Small Business Health Tax Credit that helps reduce health care costs for small businesses.
  • Support for Small Businesses: Barack Obama will create a Small Business Health Tax Credit to provide small businesses with a refundable tax credit of up to 50 percent on premiums paid by small businesses on behalf of their employees. This new credit will provide a strong incentive to small businesses to offer high quality health care to their workers and help improve the competitiveness of America’s small businesses.
  • Mandatory Coverage of Children: Obama will require that all children have health care coverage. Obama will expand the number of options for young adults to get coverage, including allowing young people up to age 25 to continue coverage through their parents' plans.
  • Expansion Of Medicaid and SCHIP: Obama will expand eligibility for the Medicaid and SCHIP programs and ensure that these programs continue to serve their critical safety net function.
  • Flexibility for State Plans: Due to federal inaction, some states have taken the lead in health care reform. The Obama plan builds on these efforts and does not replace what states are doing. States can continue to experiment, provided they meet the minimum standards of the national plan.
  • SOURCE: Barack Obama | Change We Can Believe In | Health Care
Now this still may not suit you; which I would presume to mean that you like things the way they are. As an adult under this plan, you could still refuse to get coverage and you can continue to receive large bills from your trips to the ER. Your choice, but realize that those bills may become a little cheaper because a national health insurance plan such as this means that:
  1. Preventative care will help catch health issues earlier, and mitigate the current problem of the uninsured waiting until their issue becomes catatrophic health crisis & required emergent care
  2. If those instances are reduced, and most patients are covered for preventative & emergent care, the hospital won't have to eat that cost when all those previously uninsured people can't pay - which means that they don't have to pass that uninsured cost onto you when you get hurt.
sure, there are a lot of anectdotal stories about socialized medicine. I lived in England for a year and had to go to the doctor a couple of times, and all I can tell you was it wasn't a problem at all. There are nightmare stories about government-run programs, but Obama is not proposing a Canadian model. Ask a Canadian how they feel about their maternity leave policies.

What I can tell you now is that my brother-in-law left an architechure firm to start his own business, and 2 months later was diagnosed with cancer. The temporary coverge he got was completely insufficient for this kind diagnosis. His only means of staying alive and in treatment is to rely on government programs, but their out-of-pocket costs are going to bankrupt my sister and him. All because he had the temerity to start a business; and as most small business owners will tell you, getting health care is completely cost prohibitive when you're trying to get off the ground. I would contend that if you were facing what my brother-in-law is facing, you would be very, very grateful for a health care program like this one.

Oh, and our current president completely killed any chance of earning my unwavering support when he shit all over our Constitution; or as he was reported saying in Woodward's book, "it's just a goddamn piece of paper" .
El Flaco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2008   #14
lhowemt's Avatar
at my house, Montana
Paddling Since: 2020
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,347
I'm responding without reading everyone else's, so as not to get taken off-question.

For me, the question of social responsibility vs autonomous individuals comes down to the simple tenet of treat others the way you want to be treated. I am very fortunate. Born white in a small town, I had more advantages than most of the kids, even in this country. So I got good schooling, lots of athletic and other opportunities, went to college, got a good job, bought a house, got married, and I have always played like crazy. I live in a state where many people can hardly get by, and they were also born with the same advantages as me. We all can't be successful, it just doesn't work that way. If I had shit hit the fan, couldn't afford my home, or food, or such, I'd sure hope folks help me out. And if I am so messed up that I'd rather bum for money on the corner than go get a job, well god help me, until then I choose compassion on such folks. Sure, some abuse it, but all the way up the ladder that is the case.

The autonomous question is a philosophical one. We are, up to a point. If that point didn't exist, then advertising wouldn't work.

The western autonomous belief also has strong social aspects. Take care of your neighbors, stick together, protect your own. The problem is that on the national level, we don't see many others as "our own", and even locally we don't see many people different from us as "our own".

That's where it is for me.

And why can we entrust our government with a trillion dollar war (or whatever) and NUCLEAR WEAPONS, but we can't trust them to run an insurance program? I see lots of reasons, but it still is ridiculous as we focus on things other than taking care of each other, stripping down the us -vs- them even within our own country.

Originally Posted by rmpeddie View Post
Hello folks:

I've been reading a few of the political threads here on the buzz and have come up with some questions for the liberal supporters in Colorado... well across the country for that matter. I must say that I'm neither red nor blue and stay pretty independent but lean towards the libertarian side. I will never claim to be politically savy as heliodros, marko, or even durango steve but I do read a few blogs from time to time and listen to some talk radio whenever I don't have clients in my truck. Spending 10/12 hours daily on the river over 200 days and another 100 on the snow doesn't allow me to stay up to date as most.

I understand that most Coloradans are liberals and I have a hard time understanding why. I think that most of us out here in the rocky mountain west are pretty independent people able to survive on our own. I hear in Obama's speech that he is his brothers keeper and I agree with him to a point but in the end aren't we all free autonomous individuals? Isn't that why we paddle and ski/ride? We choose our lines at our own discretion. Sure there are times when those paddling or riding with us push us a bit but in the end it's our choice to run or drop it. Why would we want government to control our lives like Obama says it should? Maybe control isn't the best word but it is pretty close. So my first question to the libs is why are you for big government? Doesn't big gov go angainst the roots of our country? I realize that there are some issues that are really important for libs such as health care. As a small business owner, and a guy who has had close to a dozen e-room visits in the past 5 years for dislocated shoulders, I understand the health care issues. I can't afford coverage either but I sure don't want the government to take over. I've heard the horror stories from Canucks and Euros and do not want to go through that.
Ooops - PS, I guess I shouldn't have posted as I am not an Obama supporter. Oh well.
I am a river, babe - I've got plenty of time, I don't know where I'm going, I'm just following the lines..... - "We are water" by Shaye
lhowemt is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2008   #15
saratoga, Wyoming
Paddling Since: 1980
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 111

Thanks to all for replying. It is always nice to read others opinions. I feel I must defend myself a little here though. I don't listen to Rush (always on the water at that time) I can't stand O'riley and his "what say you" as well as Hannity and Michael Regan... whiners in my opinion. I read a bit on the American Thinker, Andrew Sullivan, and Victor Davis Hanson as well as a few other blog sites.

I am in no way trying to compare Colorado Liberals to "commies" it just seems to me... from the little research I've done that Obama is one of the most liberal senators and was trying to make that connection. And I'm sorry if you think my tone was out of place but you might try reading it in the voice of a young kid who is asking questions and not attacking anyone. I do want to know what others think about Michele's plagarizing or quoting without crediting one of the biggest marxist of the 20th century. I had no clue that Obama himself was accused of plagarizing. I also want to know what others feel about Chicago politics. Is it really as corrupt as people suggest?

I didn't realize that Canuck and Euro was an ethic slur. I spend some time up in Canada both working and playing and never has anyone up there been offended by that word. Euro was an abbreviation for European and still don't see the slur there. As far as frenchie goes take it for what it's worth. I also kind of understand that communism and socialism are two different things but they are closely related don't you think? But saying a women should give up their career to raise a family is interesting. In high school I wrote a paper about women's lib and how it has contributed to the declination of our society. But now my sister who is in her late 30's with 5 children, has a pretty good job in the health care sector, and manages to raise her children with success without daycare. She along with others has changed my opinion about women working and raising kids. Don't you think that the VP position would allow Palin to do both? From what I know it's not a real demanding position. Go back to Quail and see what he did as VP.

I realize that my writing may come off as conservative (red) but I can assure you that I am not. I don't feel I need to ask questions about McCain. I never have liked his positions and that's that. I do have compassion for his past but don't think that we should elect him because of it. I am more liberal (blue) than red on most issues. I despise the corporate world (another reason I live in Saratoga,Wyoming) and the greed that rules. This weekend is "conquistador weekend" here in Saratoga which means all the big wigs in the airline industry are at Charlie Gates A bar A ranch and the Old Baldy Club gambling, fishing, and playing golf. There are over two dozen huge private jets sitting at Shively Field (our airport) and the site disgusts me. They'll fly in some Vegas girls, throw very little money around to local businesses, then pollute us with their noisy jets Sunday morning as they head out. I might think differently if they shared the girls (joke). Big oil and gas companies are another sore subject for me. Our state this year alone made over 160 million than expected and it sits in some general fund. Yet our section of I-80 is one of the worst interstates, in my opinion, in the country. I hear of this surplus every year yet rarely see any of it getting put to good use. Why do you think many Coloradans like coming up and spending time with me? It's definately not because I preach capitalism... we have a lot in common beside politics and the love of the outdoors.

And to those of you who knock our state and our sheep. We have a bluff here called sheep rock. It's where the cowboys rustled up a bunch of sheep in the North Platte Valley and drove them to their death. The cowboy/sheepherder war was very interesting. Remember that broke back was about sheepherders and not cowboys. I really hope that was a joke anyway. I have been saddened to read some posts turning into personal attacks on folks who are just expressing an opinion. Just beacuse a person struggles with writing, disagrees with you, or loves the warm, wet, feel of a sheep doesn't mean they aren't credible.

I am truly gr8ful for this site and it's members. It amazes me how educated everyone is. Though I need a thesaurus and dictionary at times to read some posts I do learn a great deal.
rmpeddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2008   #16
DurangoSteve's Avatar
Durango, Colorado
Paddling Since: 2001
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,907
"Just because a person struggles with writing, disagrees with you, or loves the warm, wet, feel of a sheep doesn't mean they aren't credible."
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Wyoming.jpg
Views:	100
Size:	259.4 KB
ID:	683  
DurangoSteve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2008   #17
Self-Aggrandizing jackass
heliodorus04's Avatar
The Ranch, Colorado
Paddling Since: 04
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,134
Chicago got its rough reputation in the first Mayor Daly era, and aside from that era, I think it's anecdotally more known for corruption than actually.

I think Michelle's "plagiarism" is a non issue, as TMTTR points out.

Obama is a liberal, in some ways, but temperamentally, he's conservative, as evidenced by his time in leadership positions within the state, in Law school, and in the senate. He is clearly a skilled listener, a pragmatic decision maker, and a realist both in terms of seeing the US economy where it currently is and the world affairs stage as what it is.

Read accounts from Obama's "opponents" in Chicago and the State Legislature to get an idea how he operates. That's what has convinced me that despite his policy liberalism in some areas, he's the best man for now. I'd prefer Ronald Reagan, personally, but that era has passed.

Also, if "Canuck" is a slander, perhaps Vancouver should change their hockey team's name
"self-aggrandizing jackass" - it says it right on the label
heliodorus04 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2008   #18
TakemetotheRiver's Avatar
Durango, Colorado
Paddling Since: 05
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,477
I suppose it was the tone of the post that made the use of Canuck and Euro seem offensive- often a harmless term used among friends becomes offensive when coupled with other people and their ideologies. And frenchy is certainly a slur.

I was not trying to attack you however, only to respond to the questions.
TakemetotheRiver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2008   #19
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 498
Helio is right. Both sides want big Gov. And if a person on the right says they are for small Gov. They need to do a little research on the last 8 years.

I am voting D for the same reason I have been since the Social Conservatives took over the Republican party. I beleive the D,s version of big Gov. to be less harmful to the US in the long run than the R,s. Its pretty much Tax and Spend vs Don't tax and Spend then borrow from China. sj
sj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2008   #20
raftus's Avatar
Boulder, Colorado
Paddling Since: 2000
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,128
Originally Posted by rmpeddie View Post
I hear in Obama's speech that he is his brothers keeper and I agree with him to a point but in the end aren't we all free autonomous individuals? Why would we want government to control our lives like Obama says it should? So my first question to the libs is why are you for big government? I realize that there are some issues that are really important for libs such as health care. I can't afford coverage either but I sure don't want the government to take over. I've heard the horror stories from Canucks and Euros and do not want to go through that.
Please list the specific ways that Obama wants to control your life.

Last I heard he wants us to have more freedoms. Under Bush our freedoms have been eroded - Like our 4th amendment rights against search and seizure. Also McCain/Palin wants to restrict our rights to abortion, even in cases of rape and incest.

As far as horror stories from Canadians and Europeans, every system is imperfect, and many Americans have had horrible experiences with our health care system. Have you seen actual data, surveys, etc from those countries indicating the overall satisfaction and efficiency of their health care systems? Can you give a reference? Or is it simply anecdotal evidence?

My second question deals with ethics. Obama chose Biden as his running mate and this has me puzzled. Biden has sided with McCain more than Barrack on most issues including the war. He has said that Obama wasn't ready to be president but now he's all for it. It seems that washington liberals flip more on issues than conservatives and that is a big problem for me. I realize that socialism reads great on paper, and that we would all love if Moores Utopia really could work, but in reality it is impossible. As most commie regimes have proven absolute power corrupts... period. Why would Obamas wife plagarize one of the most marxist writers/thinkers in the 20th century and why should I stand for it? I taught high school English for a few years so this might hit closer to home for me than most. I just can't stress enough the importance of a student turning in thier own work... it is crucial in building a persons character. While on the issue of palgarism why should I elect a vice president that flunked a college course for getting caught plagarizing? Yet it's not just O.K. but we're expected to look the other way when the Obamas's wife and running mate do this. I realize there are more important issues but couldn't the same be said for picking on a 17 year old being pregnant? When did Obama's mamma have him? Wasn't it at the age of 18?
Plagiarism is bad. However if we are going back to mistakes made by people in college and high school, almost everybody has done things to be ashamed of. Is this really the criteria to judge people by? Mistakes from 20+ years ago?

As far as ethics go, check out Palin's speech last night. She repeatedly lies on national TV. Check out the AP story: Attacks, praise stretch truth at GOP convention - Yahoo! News

As far as Palin's pregnant daughter goes, we shouldn't pick on her. However, her daughter is a powerful illustration (anecdotal) of the failure of Abstinence only education. But her daughter's story no more proves that abstinence only education fails than horror stories about state managed health care prove it's ills. After reviewing the relevant studies the American Psychological Association,[15] the American Medical Association,[16] the National Association of School Psychologists,[17] the Society for Adolescent Medicine,[18] the American College Health Association,[18] the American Academy of Pediatrics,[19] and the American Public Health Association,[20] all oppose abstinence only education programs. Major studies have been carried out that say that Abstinence only programs fail to delay onset of sexual activity, reduce number of partners or increase use of birth control and safe sex practices. Yet the Bush administration has spent over $1.3 billion on these programs. To me that sounds like big government wasting our money in pursuit of a socially conservative agenda - no sex before marriage.

My third question deals with change. I hear many people, as well as the man himself, say how he (Obama) is going to change Washington.

I personally am tired of these elitists telling us that they know what is best for us. I realize that Palin may be too conservative for most libs but overall don't you agree that she repesents change? Blue-collar, hard-working, and no silver spoons. I think it would be great if McCain were elected, fell sick, leaving Palin in charge. She doesn't seem the type to take shit from anyone and can't do any worse than our current President. I honestly think that she is better qualified than Obama. It is my belief that a govenor gets more presidential like experience than a senator.
I agree that anybody will be an improvement from Bush.

As far as change goes - Obama is a Democrat with significant policy differences from McCain and Bush - that is a change.

In truth Obama is fairly close to being the least "insider" that a major party presidential candidate can be and still get the parties nomination. That is of course to say that both parties will only nominate certain politicians as their parties candidate, and these people will generally be "insiders." This fairly inherent in the two-party system we have.

Palin is far less an insider than Biden, McCain or Obama. Of course McCain is about as "insider" as you can get. While he does about 5-10% of the time split form the republican party line, mostly he is a established Washington "insider." If being a Washington "outsider" is the criteria McCain fails more than Obama - and he is the candidate for President, not Palin.

As far as Obama being an "elitist" - he is no more an elitist than McCain. Both of them make tons of money and are part of our countries political elite. Both candidates propose tax cuts for the Middle class - Obama's would equate to $2,200 more in the pockets of middle class Americans, McCain's plan equates to $1,320. But McCain proposes larger tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of Americans, Obama wants to tax this group more heavily, not give them tax breaks. McCain also said that he thinks the definition of rich is income of over $5 million. Obama said rich is over $250,000. Who is more elitist on this issue?

I realize I've opened myself to personal attacks from some of you buzzards but I have pretty broad shoulders so I'm not too concerned. I am from Wyoming and as posted in another thread most of us here don't get it. But that's really why I choose to live here. I am surrounded by like minded people who, to most of you, don't get it. I don't understand why anyone would choose to live in a place where he is surrounded by people he thinks are inferior. What's funny to me is that over half of my income comes from liberal Coloradans who choose to come here and spend time with me. Would you consider that ironic?
Most people prefer to be around like minded people. One thing I like about Obama is that among the three main written documents he wants to bring to the white house is Lincoln's biography. Lincoln is famous for having close advisers in his cabinet who disagreed with him. I think that having a few republicians in Obama's cabinet would be a good step to reducing the amount of partisan politics we have. I also believe that through honest and open debate with people that hold opposing ideas from our own we can gain insights and find faults in our own reasoning. I respect a politician that also believes in this idea.

It is too bad that we can't get behind our president like we got behind Phelps and the other Olympians. There is nothing better than watching a room full of different people slap high fives and smile because an American just beat the shit out of some shit-talking frenchie. Nothing scares me worse than having a President that will bow down to those same shit-talking frenchies.
I also loved the Olympics and watching Lezak make the French men's relay team eat their words. However politics and national policy are far more nuanced and important than swimming. Our relationship with France is complicated, and doesn't lend itself to simply winning or losing. America shouldn't "bow down" to France or any other country, but we should also avoid the international relations nightmare that President Bush has orchestrated over the last 8 years.

P.S. I edited down the original post to fit the 10,000 character limit.

raftus is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Similar Threads
Topic Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Obama "Our Savior" mr. compassionate The Eddy 57 09-01-2008 02:36 PM
Grateful Dead reuniting for Obama! marko The Eddy 22 02-06-2008 11:50 AM
Some other questions fet123 The Eddy 15 10-26-2006 06:28 PM
AT questions lennie Winter Buzz 7 11-05-2005 05:36 PM
Have a few questions for someone in the know....... waterfrk09 Whitewater Kayaking 3 04-30-2004 11:49 AM

» Classified Ads
Fluid Flirt (med)

posted by dlanci

Medium Fluid Flirt. Bought brand new in 2007. Great river...

Shitty Mank Boat

posted by deepsouthpaddler

Jackson Villian L Mank Boat If you have ever dreamed of...

Dagger Mamba 7.6 Red

posted by Rendezvous River Sports

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities

Copyright 2002-2012 Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:13 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.