Jump to content
3000AD Forums
Sign in to follow this  
LostInSpace

Would the real John Kerry please stand up, please stand up

Recommended Posts

Hey I'm not saying Kerrys perfect or even good for that matter. I was just saying that the economy is only really comming back because of the war. Most of the time when we have used Tickle Down, which is the theory that give to the rich and they give to the poor who then buy stuff in a nut shell, it hasn't worked. Maybe I am wrong thats just what I thought. I havent done much research on the subject I just thought I would add my opinion. Personally I havent heard much of Kerrys speaches. He doesn't come to Plover much <---- Joke the only reason to come to Plover is to go to Stevens Point and the only reason for that is to go to UWSP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Cadet

Member # 5761

Member Rated:

posted 05-20-2004 07:04 PM Hey I'm not saying Kerrys perfect or even good for that matter. I was just saying that the economy is only really comming back because of the war. Most of the time when we have used Tickle Down, which is the theory that give to the rich and they give to the poor who then buy stuff in a nut shell, it hasn't worked. Maybe I am wrong thats just what I thought. I havent done much research on the subject I just thought I would add my opinion. Personally I havent heard much of Kerrys speaches. He doesn't come to Plover much <---- Joke the only reason to come to Plover is to go to Stevens Point and the only reason for that is to go to UWSP.

cadrian, your right. check it out. do a little research into the 1980's recession. THE REAGAN years. Also check out the FIRST 6 things reagan did when he came into office. It was during the reagan administration...they coined the whole philosophical phrase:"TRICKLE DOWN ECONOMICS"

the Reagan administration tore the livin crap out of the boom of the 70's and vertually eliminated the middle class.

YeaH!! we need more years like that!! HEIL BUSH!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

the Reagan administration tore the livin crap out of the boom of the 70's

Would that be the boom that led Jimmy Carter to coin the phrase "malaise factor?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

quote:

Originally posted by street:

quote:

Cadet

Member # 5761

Member Rated:

posted 05-20-2004 07:04 PM Hey I'm not saying Kerrys perfect or even good for that matter. I was just saying that the economy is only really comming back because of the war. Most of the time when we have used Tickle Down, which is the theory that give to the rich and they give to the poor who then buy stuff in a nut shell, it hasn't worked. Maybe I am wrong thats just what I thought. I havent done much research on the subject I just thought I would add my opinion. Personally I havent heard much of Kerrys speaches. He doesn't come to Plover much <---- Joke the only reason to come to Plover is to go to Stevens Point and the only reason for that is to go to UWSP.

cadrian, your right. check it out. do a little research into the 1980's recession. THE REAGAN years. Also check out the FIRST 6 things reagan did when he came into office. It was during the reagan administration...they coined the whole philosophical phrase:"TRICKLE DOWN ECONOMICS"

the Reagan administration tore the livin crap out of the boom of the 70's and vertually eliminated the middle class.

YeaH!! we need more years like that!! HEIL BUSH!!


Boom of the 70's?

WTF are you talking about?

Boom of the 70's, you are absolutely hilarious.

The Boom of the 80's and 90's were because of Reagan, and the new Boom is Bushes....

Kennedy tried it, and it worked, Reagan tried it and it worked, and Bush just tried it and it worked.

Tax cuts and trickle down economics works and ALWAYS works.

And I see that Cadrian claimed it because of the war, just as you did....

What kind of children are we raising these days and what are we teaching them?

The war has pushed around 100 billion dollars into the economy, after of course it was yanked OUT of the economy through taxes.

The taxe cuts pumped over a TRILLION dollars into the economy, which number is bigger? Which are dollars that are created, and which are removed and then put back in?

The only war that brought the economy back, was WWII, because of the amount of resources it took to fight the war. If the war had not broken out, Roosevelts new society would have destroyed the economy, NOT helped it.

The government does NOT and cannot create wealth, it can only TAKE it. When it takes less of that wealth, it builds the economy, when it TAKES that wealth, it slows the economy down.

Trickle down works, and has ALWAYS worked, whether you like it or not....LOL

Economics 101 here people, it is NOT rocket science...

There, now that I have put my daughters to bed, I can finish this post.

Government does not and CANNOT create wealth, it can only confiscate it through taxes.

So, when you say that military spending somehow helps the economy, you have to remember one thing, that money was REMOVED from the economy first through TAXES!!!

That money also goes to certain places and certain communities that have defense industried within them. It helps LOCALLY, NOT nationally.

We spent 100 billion dollars on the war, out of a budget of 2.2 trillion dollars, out of a GNP, of about 10-12 trillion dollars.

How is pumping 100 billion dollars into and economy, that ALREADY gave that money up through taxes, help the national economy?

Hint: It doesn't.....

Now, when investors have confiscatory tax rates, their money sits where it is, interest is accrued and taxed, but the principle and the capital gains sit still. Why? Because if they cash in their money, which is invested in stocks, real estate, and other hard assets, when the capital gains and income tax are high, they loose a HUGE percentage of it in taxes, therefore they leave it where it is. What does that money do, when it sits there? Grows because of inflation, appreciation, etc, but it sits there and STAYS there.

Also, when this occurrs, the government loses tax money, because the taxes it would normally recieve from the money moving from one thing to another is NOT there, therefore the government LOSES tax income.

What happens when you LOWER those tax rates?

The investors are more willing to move their money around, because the Capital gains tax won't hurt so badly, and the income tax won't hurt so badly. So, when you LOWER the taxes, the money starts moving, ALSO, the government revenue from taxes SKYROCKETS, because so much money is moving.

What is happening to that money? It is being invested in other ventures, new business startups, further invenstment in large corporations etc, which creates what? Jobs, because as those companies get that injection of cash, from those NOW moving investments, they must CREATE something, and how do they do that? By HIRING workers.

So, by CUTTING taxes we have A: Gotten the locked up money moving again.... B: Raised the tax revenue of the government, BECAUSE so MUCH money is moving around, and C: Create more jobs, because those investments give business the lifeblood they need to get moving.

So, by JUST cutting taxes the government has given the economy a kick in the butt with a FRESH infusion of cash, that would otherwise sit where it is, because of the tax bite the investors would take if the tax rates were higher, and it actually RAISES it's revenues because so much money is moving around, and the investors feel good about it, because it is not such a big bite for them.

The war in Iraq, gave us 100 billion max pushed INTO the economy, but that money had to be TAKEN OUT of the economy in the first place.

But the tax cuts infused the economy with 1 TRILLION dollars of NEW money, and has actually RAISED government revenue through taxes, because so much money IS now moving around.

This is trickle down economics, it is BASIC, it is COMMON sense, and it WORKS!!

It has always worked, will always work, and when the control freaks and class warfare crazies get back into power, they will reverse it again, destroy the economy, JUST as they always do, by PUNISHING the rich through confiscatory tax rates, and will put the brakes on the economy, just as they ALWAYS do, and then another Reagan, or Bush, or Kennedy will come along, cut taxes, and the economy will come ROARING back, just as it ALWAYS does.

Again, this is NOT rocket science people, it is basic economics...

"Trickle down economics" works, and always does...

The MAIN thing you MUST get through your skulls, is this.....

The government DOES NOT create wealth, it can ONLY TAKE it......

When it takes too much, it destroys the economy, when it takes a little, the economy EXPLODES, and the government actually gets MORE money.

When the government PUNISHES the "rich" it is cutting it's own economic throat, and so are you when you allow them to use their class warfare tactics to get you all emotional, when in fact you should be hammering them for destroying the economy that allows you the job you have, or the business you own......

Class warfare not only destroys everything this country is founded upon, it also destroys the economy in the process...

[ 05-21-2004, 12:42 AM: Message edited by: Jaguar ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

What is happening to that money? It is being invested in other ventures, new business startups, further invenstment in large corporations etc, which creates what? Jobs, because as those companies get that injection of cash, from those NOW moving investments, they must CREATE something, and how do they do that? By HIRING workers.

[/QB]

It does not necessarily mean they are going to hire new workers. If the products they make are not selling then there is no reason to hire new workers. In fact it would only lower their profits. They could buy more equipment/Capitol but again no reason to do this.

What drives the economy is consumer spending. So in the long run sure tax cuts can move the economy along it can be a long wait though.

So what "can" move the economy along faster? War

War does increase the demand for labor. Not, just in one sector, but in many sectors. A single company no longer produce's every part in their products. So when a company A see's greater demand for their product so do all the companies that company A outsources to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

quote:

Originally posted by jamotto:

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

What is happening to that money? It is being invested in other ventures, new business startups, further invenstment in large corporations etc, which creates what? Jobs, because as those companies get that injection of cash, from those NOW moving investments, they must CREATE something, and how do they do that? By HIRING workers.


It does not necessarily mean they are going to hire new workers. If the products they make are not selling then there is no reason to hire new workers. In fact it would only lower their profits. They could buy more equipment/Capitol but again no reason to do this.

What drives the economy is consumer spending. So in the long run sure tax cuts can move the economy along it can be a long wait though.

So what "can" move the economy along faster? War

War does increase the demand for labor. Not, just in one sector, but in many sectors. A single company no longer produce's every part in their products. So when a company A see's greater demand for their product so do all the companies that company A outsources to. [/QB]


Will you guys do the fricking math?

100 billion compared to 1 TRILLION...

Hello?

Which number is bigger? Which amount will have the greater effect?

Hello?

This is basic economics, basic math.

War helps locally, but does not have the same effect as tax cuts nationally, and never has.

Common sense here, this is NOT rocket science people....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Boom of the 70's?

WTF are you talking about?

Boom of the 70's, you are absolutely hilarious.

The Boom of the 80's

Jag, You are so Misinformed, or completely blind, it is uterally rediculous. Anyone who lived, and worked in the 70's and through the 80's KNOWS, we went through the BIGGEST recession since the GREAT depression ,during the early 80's.

did you forget about the chrysler bail out?..Whole cities went bankrupt. The Federal Government Bailed out STATES!!...

Man..talk about ignoring REALITY!!!.

The ONLY BOOM was in TEXAS..due to lack of regulation in the building industry,and it completly dwindled to near nothing, by 1985!!!

The ENTIRE automotive industry was in trouble. Most auto workers in the united states were layed off..going back to 20 years senority. 1/3 NEVER went back to work. It wasnt until around 1987-88 that the economy started to pick back up and leveled off.

We have YET to reach an equitable position, in economic recovery, as we enjoyed from 1969-1979.

MAN!! it is no wonder, there are so few people willing to discuss these issues on this forum

You, my man, need to do some READING, if you do not know from first hand experience!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

You said Boom Street, and now you just corrected yourself and called it a recession, and then call me names because I called you on it.

You need to get a grip.

The early to mid 60's we saw a recovery and a little boom as the Kennedy tax cuts took hold, then Carter and his mess came in, the 70's were a disaster, Reagan came into office with a country in a national economic crisis.

He cut taxes as much as he could, and we began to make a slow, but definite recovery, then as he was leaving office, the recovery really began, and the 90's proved to be an economic powerhouse for us. That was REAGANS economy, then Bush and then Clinton both, raised taxes, and killed it, and it was HARD to kill, because it was STRONG....

This Bush inherited the Bush/Clinton recession, and then he got 911 right on top of it, it could have been a totaly disaster, but he stuck to his guns, CUT taxes, and got the money moving again, and now we are recovering, if the tax cuts become permanent, we will probably see a boom, just as we had in the 90's because of Reagans economy, but we won't see that until after Bush is out of office most likely. Because this economy is big, it takes a while for this behemoth for get moving, but once it gets moving it's hard to stop until the class warfare guru's again raise taxes on the ones that move it, and put the brakes on again.

You said Boom, I called you on it, and you got mad and corrected yourself, and then said I didn't know what I was talking about.

This is something that I know about through personal experience, and schooling.

Trickle down economics works and has ALWAYS worked.

The reason that trickle down upsets socialists, is because it proves that when they punish the rich through confiscatory taxrates, that they are indeed cutting their own throats, which is why they say it doesn't work, because they feel they can somehow ignore the blade that is in their very own hands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

cadrian, your right. check it out. do a little research into the 1980's recession. THE REAGAN years. Also check out the FIRST 6 things reagan did when he came into office. It was during the reagan administration...they coined the whole philosophical phrase:"TRICKLE DOWN ECONOMICS"

above I said RECESSION

quote:

The ONLY BOOM was in TEXAS..due to lack of regulation in the building industry,and it completly dwindled to near nothing, by 1985!!!

The above was a sarcastic response to what YOU say were boom years...as you well know

And, by the way, This small piece of prosperity which TEXAS enjoyed DURING the RECESSION, had very little influence on the overall economy of the nation, at the time of the 1980's RECESSION.

quote:

The ONLY BOOM

NOTE: the word ONLY!!!!

quote:

The Boom of the 80's and 90's were because of Reagan, and the new Boom is Bushes..

YOUR statement saying BOOM of the 80's directly above: NOTE: there are no contridictions as to my statement. YOU CALLED ME ON NOTHING.

The very IDEA, that you THINK we are in a BOOM, at the PRESENT, only PROVES your logic has NO accurate basis, by which to come to LOGICAL conclusion.

Telling ME to get a grip...is nothing more than a futile attempt to establish some credibility to your own subjective conclusions based on FALSE premises.

quote:

and then call me names because I called you on it.


WHERE, in God's Great name, did I CALL YOU NAMES????????????

As SC always says, when confronted with RUBBISH:

street says: "RUBBISH"

[ 05-21-2004, 01:28 PM: Message edited by: street ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Where did you get the values 100 billion compared to 1 TRILLION... I will be more than happy to do the math if I knew where you got those values.

fact is, if one were to be REAL critical, I would imagine, it comes from the same subjective reasoning, as statements similar to the following:

quote:

The government does NOT and cannot create wealth, it can only TAKE it. When it takes less of that wealth, it builds the economy, when it TAKES that wealth, it slows the economy down.

He forgets, ALL the money being fused into the society, due to this war, is in the form of a

HUGE dollar DEFICIT..(2billion plus per day at present)..the DEFICIT,like LOANS, has to be collected by the government. This causes temporary increase in the economy TODAY, but MUST be paid for in the future....and how would one propose the money be paid back without some TAX increase.

This has been the methodology of the REPUBLICAN party for YEARS. they always do TREMENDOUS deficit spending, then blame the democrats for trying to balance an impossibly huge deficit budget through small tax increases.

Bush is showing his ineptness, in playing BOTH roles. TAX decrease..with Tremendous Deficit spending. This will put the load on our childrens's children, or we face a NATIONAL bankruptcy in the future.

In a way, though I would bush loose this coming election, I wish he could spend enough time in the white house, to be the one who has to wrestle with

the terrible situation which MUST come in the future. The pendulum will always swing back, and he has given THIS one, a tremendous push, which we will ALL regret in the future.(problem is, he can only serve two terms and this will haunt the american people far longer than 4 years)

here let me do a little bit of the math:

2.3 billon per day for 42 days(6weeks)= 96.6 billion every 6 weeks......LOL

[ 05-21-2004, 05:35 PM: Message edited by: street ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

And I never said once that we are in a Boom right now, we are recovering, but it is taking a little more time then it could have because.

A: the tax cuts were smaller, and B: they are not yet permanent.

If they had been BIGGER, and if they had been permanent, we would be a in a boom time right now, EVEN with the war and the WTC....

And I come up with $1 trillion because that is the money that has REMAINED locked up because of taxes.

Investors will not move that money, because the tax hit would take most of it from them.

When the tax cut becomes permanent, you will see a LOT more of the locked up money move again.

Probably close to $2 trillion.

You guys really are clueless as to what actually makes money move and lockes it up, it is rather sad actually.

But nothing that I don't expect from the education system and political climate in this country.

This is BASIC economics folks, it is NOT rocket science, it is NOT hard to understand.

But you both are stuck in the class warfare, there is only so much money garbage. And the rich take money from the poor in order to be rich crap.

It's sad really, I thought most of us here would know better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jag, all the tax cuts are gonna do is put us in a bigger defiecit. Right now we have the biggest defiecit any country has ever had... ever. I belive its at a bout 2.4 trillion dollars. If we keep getting tax cuts then the defiecit will get bigger and the value of the dollar will go down to nearly nothing. I don't know about you but I don't want to see what happened in WWI Germany to happen to us. Burning dollars (marks) for firewood being more usefull then buying things with them because of the massive inflation. And in Tickle Down the money that goes to the rich well... they keep it. I mean if you got a billion bucks from the government would you make your multi milion dollar corporation better or just keep it. Me I would just keep it. I know its not ethical but how many rich folks are amazingly ethical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

But you both are stuck in the class warfare, there is only so much money garbage. And the rich take money from the poor in order to be rich crap.

ROFL!!!!

My bank account is a VERY Private matter(or would be, if it were'nt open to the government EYEBALL (Thank YOU again bush!!!..)

I would'nt bother attacking the statement immediatly above, as it is there as an attempt to poke fun

But seriously: you speak as if, I live in poverty... or something.

I suppose, I should put some sort of history concerning myself in that thread where everyone tells who they are; however, even though that may serve to put a LITTLE credibility to the things I say; I do NOT believe it would be the prudent thing to do.

quote:

This is BASIC economics folks, it is NOT rocket science, it is NOT hard to understand.

I would contend:It would APPEAR simple to those who do NOT take the time to view EVERY aspect.

There are many, many variables in what comprises: "A NATIONS" economic viability.

And,it does take some "IN DEPTH" research and learning, to comprehend how it all works together.

My personal conclusion, concerning this whole subject,has slowly come to the following end:

street says: " I have grown very weary with this, and do not have the time, nor the patience, to TEACH......... READ, READ, READ, READ, and READ some more; however, read some NON-FICTION and NON-POLITICAL "BOOKS" You would be AMAZED, how far off your views, in fact, ARE! "

believe what you will.

[ 05-21-2004, 05:50 PM: Message edited by: street ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

quote:

Originally posted by Cadrian Almondo:

Jag, all the tax cuts are gonna do is put us in a bigger defiecit. Right now we have the biggest defiecit any country has ever had... ever. I belive its at a bout 2.4 trillion dollars. If we keep getting tax cuts then the defiecit will get bigger and the value of the dollar will go down to nearly nothing. I don't know about you but I don't want to see what happened in WWI Germany to happen to us. Burning dollars (marks) for firewood being more usefull then buying things with them because of the massive inflation. And in Tickle Down the money that goes to the rich well... they keep it. I mean if you got a billion bucks from the government would you make your multi milion dollar corporation better or just keep it. Me I would just keep it. I know its not ethical but how many rich folks are amazingly ethical.

Please Cadrian, can we get real here?

The government does NOT give ANYTHING TO ANYONE!!

It is NOT the government that makes that money, the government does NOT give $1 billion to a corporation, the corporation gets to keep $1 billion of it OWN money.

It is NOT the governments money, do you understand that? it is the corporations that EARNED it, it is THEIR money, NOT the governments.

Also, a rich person does NOT get rich by sticking their money under their mattress. They get rich by investing it so that it will make MORE money for them.

NO rich person HANGS onto their money, they invest it.

Please Cadrian, read my posts better, and understand that A: the government does NOT create anything and B: it is NOT the governments money.

And Street, quit mistating my posts, read them carefully, and maybe, just maybe you will get it, so far you are just as lost as you were before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm really saddened that Jaguar thinks we took this war with a minimum of casualties...more than 700 is a MINIMUM? It's a total disgrace what this country has done and we will continue to see more and more die until the warmonger is removed from office. Minimum of casualties...how pathetic....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

quote:

Originally posted by El Che:

I'm really saddened that Jaguar thinks we took this war with a minimum of casualties...more than 700 is a MINIMUM? It's a total disgrace what this country has done and we will continue to see more and more die until the warmonger is removed from office. Minimum of casualties...how pathetic....

Oh please El Che,

Get a grip.

700 lost in war that frees 25 million is an insanely low casualty count. Especially against the most "modern" and blooded army in the Middle East.

We lose more soldiers in training in the US in 3 months, then we have in Iraq. Each death is bad, but 700 compared to the losses in Veitnam of 50,000, and the millions lost in WWII, and the 10's of thousands lost in Korea.

You El Che, need to get a grip, this is no longer the world you grew up in either, Instead of the cold war, we now have the war n Terror, Instead of communism and socialisn to fight we now have Islamofascism.

Maybe you would like to be forced to become Muslim, give up the entire idea of constitutional government, and have a sharia law based government.

Is that what you would like El Che, or perhaps you just want them to finally just show up and kill you because you're an American.

WHy they hate us does NOT matter, because they are never going to leave us alone until either they, or we, are destroyed.

Take your pick, either you want them to destroy us, or you don't, which is it? Because if they destroy us, you will die....

Time's a ticking, make your choice, I have made mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's how a favorite columnist of mine used satire to put the losses in perspective: Don't count on Koppel for whole war story:

quote:

Likewise, the cost of war is a tragedy for the families of the American, British and other coalition forces who've died in the last year. But we owe it to the dead, always, every day, to measure their sacrifice against the mission, its aims, its successes, its setbacks. And, if the cause is still just, then you honor the fallen by pressing on to victory -- and then reading the roll call of the dead.

If that doesn't quite have the sweeps-month ratings appeal ''Nightline'' is looking for, since Ted has now established himself as a $6 million list reader he might like to remind people of the comparative costs of war. At two seconds per name, to read out the combat deaths of the War of 1812 he'd have to persuade ABC to extend the show to an hour and a quarter. To read out the combat deaths of the Korean War, he'd need a 19-hour show. For World War II, he'd have to get ABC to let him read out names of the dead 24/7 for an entire week. If he wants to, I'd be happy to fly him to London so he can go on the BBC and read out the names of the 3,097,392 British combat deaths in World War I, which would take him the best part of three months, without taking bathroom breaks, or indeed pausing for breath.

As Stalin said, one death is a tragedy, 1 million is a statistic. The fact that America's dead in Iraq are not yet statistics, that they're still small enough in number to be individual tragedies Ted can milk for his show tells you the real cost of this war. In Afghanistan, the numbers are even lower, which is why ''Nightline'' hasn't bothered pulling this stunt with America's other war.

Yes, the dead are husbands, wives, fathers, daughters, best friends, and for those who knew them in that capacity the loss is grievous. But Americans know them only as warriors, and they should honor them as such. Those British losses in the Great War reached deep into every family in the land. By contrast, in a nation of 300 million, the vast majority of families are personally untouched by military deaths, and that, paradoxically, makes it easier for the defeatists to exploit the small number of the dead as evidence of the hopelessness of our cause. The historically low rate of combat fatalities amplifies each one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I'm sorry El Chi but 700 isnt that much. I mean any loss of life is bad but in Vietnam we were losing hundreds a week. In Iraq we lose one or two a week. Sorry man but this war is very light on casualties. And casualties doesnt mean deaths you gotta remeber that to. If i get shot in the butt in the military (which I might join after highschool) I am a casualty of war. I would probably even get to go home for awhile. So sometime being a casualty isnt all that bad. Note sometimes. Like rarely but still 700 is quite low.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must disagree based on my opinion that 700 is a ridiculously high number for a war that was started under false pretenses (have we located the elusive weapons of mass distraction yet?) No...I didn't think so. So let's put things into perspective....if your son/daughter/wife/husband, etc. were to lose their life in a war that had absolutely nothing to do with defending their country, although you were led to believe that initially, would you then think that maybe just maybe 700+ deaths were way too high a price? Seriously, if it were a member of your family who died needlessly, wouldn't you be just a little angry? Maybe my comments are falling on deaf ears....which is fine. I would just like each of you who compared death rates for various wars to think about the mother in anywhere, america who has just lost her son in Iraq. Do you think she gives a rat's behind how many perished in WWII?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Maybe my comments are falling on deaf ears...

"In time, though MANY do not speak, the entire truth, as to what this "so called" war, will

precipitate, will be known. We may be DEAD, but the

future generation, of the WHOLE world, will have the oportunity to LEARN from our DISGRACE, as a NATION."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×