|
|
|
|
|
| Sarah Palin Stepping Down As Alaska Gov. Running for Pres. 2012?
Posted: 7/6/2009 6:21:15 PM | Yuppers...crazy as batshite. "Energy independce" code for drill baby brill.
Iran and Iraq..brown people with OUR oil under OUR sand.
VALUES..pregger teen aged daughter, forced into birth, shithead father, sounding librul, inconvenient, can't handle the media, unless they pledge to protect her, even right wing outlets, is paranoid beyond the Bush standard, has more enemies, and pretends to play "just a normal victim of this vast left wing conspiracy". She is in a meltdown. Those who protect here are in the same meltdown. And those, who celebrate reality, thank you.
Listen to her words, her message, and how you were raised. Then come back to Earth...and compare notes. Unbelievable nonsense from the far side. Moderation is the key to excess. Long live the moderates. | |
|
| |
| Sarah Palin Stepping Down As Alaska Gov. Running for Pres. 2012?
Posted: 7/6/2009 8:22:47 PM | Mr smartfun:
Because they are not in and of themselves "liberal." The Patriot Act was "liberal"? News to me. Expansion of goverment is always "liberal"? I didn't see liberals cheer on said wiretapping and surveilance. I did see them complain about it, and then the Bush Adminstration supported by "conservative" Republicans in Congress
Unfortunately (like most of the country) you are paying more attention to labels then actual actions taken.
Google Obama wiretapping, and you will see that he voted to continue illegal wiretapping. The Democrats have ran the house since 2006 and they've done absolutely nothing to stop it, despite complaining about it when it first began under Bush.
Foreign aid is always "liberal"? Yeah, it's always been the "liberals'" idea to shovel tons of money to Third World dictators in the name of global realpolitik
Actually, liberals are always crying we need to give relief to Africa to fight AIDS, and that it is American government's responsibility to give money to foreign nations who are suffering through a terrible experience.
Obama and the Democrats pledged a billion of tax payer dollars to Georgia for the recent conflict they started with Russia. Do you know this, or is this the first you've heard of it? My point is that it's not a conservative action to throw ANY tax payer dollars to any foreign nation for any reason.
Increased military spending by a huge degree by launching 2 wars. (Conservative)
So then by your defintion John F. Kennedy, LBJ, Harry Truman and FDR were all conservatives then, since they all increased military spending by a huge degree launching wars.
Cut taxes regressively- that is, primarily at the top income brackets. (Conservative)
He did cut some taxes, but his increased spending and growth of government are not conservative actions. It would have been fine for him to cut taxes if he had reduced government at the same time. This must be understood.
Increased the goverment's surveilance and detainee powers in the name of national security. (Conservative- maybe not in the classical sense, but in the political one)
Obama voted to continue the Patriot act, and guantanamo is NOT closing.
Started "No Child Left Behind". (The increase in education spending might be considered "liberal", but not the method)
"No Child Left Behind" was cosponsored by TED KENNEDY, and it is NOT a conservative action to increase federal spending on education. It is a state issue. You are unfortunately confusing Republican with conservative.
Increased the Medicaid Perscription Program. (Another "liberal" move- however the next Republican Congressperson I see decry Medicaid as "wasteful liberal spending" will be the first)
That program caused prescription drug prices to skyrocket, and it involved BIGGER government, not small.
It doesn't add up to "liberal"
Yes it does.
And you're not suggesting that there's a correlation between having an income tax and a goverment going bankrupt?
No liberal could ever grasp this concept. It's not a coincidence that every state going bankrupt also has a state income tax.
However, they have seen their taxes reduced GREATLY since 1980. And of course the multi-national corporations who probably pay less in taxes than you and I (precentage-wise), if at all. There's your budget hole- the amount the very top is NOT PAYING.
This is false. The top five percent of America pays 65% of the taxes our government takes in.
First of all, Social Security and Medicare aren't going anywhere. They are one of the BEST things our goverment does.
Except for the part where our government CANNOT afford them. You do realize we have to borrow money from China just to continue running our government, right? Both SS and Medicare are going bankrupt.
Sure, we overspend on our military but that "global empire" ain't just for show. From Somali pirates to rogue nations, a bunch of rotten apples would happily fill the void left by us. Think that doesn't mean anything to Joe Blow in Anytown, USA? Er, do you use oil? Do you rely on anything that is manufactured overseas, or on any raw materials from beyond our shores?
I understand. You're all about America being the policemen of the world. Got ya. And you call yourself liberal?
Seventy percent of the "public" wants something like a public option in health care reform, and the Democrats have the majorities in both houses of Congress to produce that sans the GOP. And yet that is languishing due to the influence of the insurance companies, looking out for themselves. If 70% of the public is behind something, what does it say about "representative democracy" that well placed millions can blunt that?
This is typical liberal gibberish that displays an infinite misunderstanding of the Constitution of the United States and our form of government.
We are NOT a Democracy. The word Democracy does not exist in the Constitution, The Declaration of Independence, or the Constitutions of the 50 states. We are a Republic ruled by law and our Constitution was written to restrain the federal government. Just because the majority of people in America want something, it does not mean we have the right to break our own laws to do so.
If you want government sponsored healthcare in your state then push for a governor and state legislator who will help make it happen. There is no Constitutional authority for our federal government to involve itself in healthcare. You either care about the rule of law or you do not.
Complaining that "only 1/10th" of the country "chose" Obama and McCain is besides the point
I said that to help you understand better just how few people in America actually care about who we elect. We have become a true nation of sheep that doesn't even know what or who we are electing.
To get back to Palin...how do you know she didn't quit because she was fed up with all the crap she was dealing with? She's NEVER claimed she intended to run for President in 2012. The liberal media just assumed it and have decided to go after her. | |
|
| |
| Sarah Palin Stepping Down As Alaska Gov. Running for Pres. 2012?
Posted: 7/6/2009 10:53:06 PM |
It's only fringe-loons and people not actually educated with the classical meaning of the terms of liberal and conservative OR those who actively seek to hijack the meaning of those terms for the purpose of turnspeak who will use them purposefully in the fashion of some of the posters seen here. Mainstream scholarship does not, thankfully, and fortunately supports the conclusions you are making
Do you know what liberalism really is? When I speak of liberals, I'm not talking about the true definition of what they are stupposed to stand for. I am referring to current government is the answer to problems in the world, I have no problem spending and wasting your money liberals.
Unfortunately leftists do not even grasp what being "Liberal" is really about. If they did, they wouldn't advocate government controlling the market or people's lives.
The classical meaning of the term liberal is the same as libertarian. It was about freedom from coercion, individual freedoms and liberty. The current labels for liberal and conservative are complete opposites, but the behavior of those who label themselves conservative or liberal are not opposites.
When Bill Clinton drastically cut spending and welfare, he was acting like a conservative, not a liberal. (Of course Republicans ran the house for six of his eight years) When Bush went into office and did everything I mentioned in my previous posts, he was acting like a liberal. If you vote or even have a political opinion you should really grasp the concept of liberal -vs- conservative, because it makes all the difference in the world as to why we are where we are in today's America.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
From the wiki link...
political liberalism, which encompasses support for: freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, an individual's right to private property,[2] and a transparent system of government...
...Liberalism comes in two broad forms. Classical liberalism emphasizes the importance of individual liberty and contemporary (or welfare) liberalism tends to emphasize some kind of material equality | |
|
| Sarah Palin Stepping Down As Alaska Gov. Running for Pres. 2012?
Posted: 7/6/2009 10:54:06 PM |
We are NOT a Democracy. The word Democracy does not exist in the Constitution, The Declaration of Independence, or the Constitutions of the 50 states. We are a Republic ruled by law and our Constitution was written to restrain the federal government. Just because the majority of people in America want something, it does not mean we have the right to break our own laws to do so.
BZZZT! Wrong. This fallacy has been beaten to death and debunked by professional political scientists over in this thread:
http://forums.plentyoffish.com/12561180datingPostpage2.aspx
Primarily by NotGorshkovAgain, in post 32 and mungojoe in post 36 where I quote:
I shiver every time I hear anyone who failed civics put this line of drivel out. The US IS A DEMOCRACY! I think you are slightly confused regarding the relationship between respresentative democracy and republic as it applies to the U.S.
Republic: Is a form of government in which the head of state is usually elected by the citizens. (Not to be confused with "democracy" because many republics, past and present, have heads of state who came into power by military force, or were elected by a small minority of the population.) The leaders are elected into power intermittently.
This is not exactly wrong, just inaccurate as it applies the the U.S. In this application even a monarchy can be a republic as long as the monarch is elected. In otherwords, the power of the head of state can be unlimited between elections and there is not necessarily a body of representatives like the House of Representatives.
Democracy: Literally means that the common man rules. Examples include aggregative, participatory, minimalism, and deliberative. It is a political system by the people in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
I have highlighted the parts which apply to the U.S. Other elements of the forms of democracy which apply the the U.S. is 1) the rule of law (which limits the power of the head of state) and 2)division of power such as the House and the Senate (which enact legislation and act as an additional limiting factor on the power of the head of state) Where you have a republic based on an elected head of state, power limited by the rule of law, a division of power and constitutionaly guaranteed rights for the governed you have a form of democracy considered to be 'liberal representative democracy' Where you have a republic based on an elected head of state, power unlimited by the rule of law, a division of power and no constitutionally guaranteed rights for the governed you have a form of democracy considered to be 'illiberal representative democracy' If you go back and reread the Constitution of the U.S. you will see that the U.S. was clearly established to be a liberal representative democracy. You should also go back and reread the writings of Thomas Jefferson, they will do a lot to clear this issue up for you. No, it is not a PURE democracy (51% lord over 49%) but it IS a REPRESENTATIVE democracy. To be more specific, the US is a liberal, representative democracy organized as a federal republic. The constitutional part applies to both the political philosophy (representative democracy) and the organizational structure (federal republic).
Direct democracy, classically termed pure democracy, is a political system where the people vote on government decisions, such as questions of whether to approve or reject various laws. It is called direct because the power of making decisions is exercised by the people directly, without intermediaries or representatives. Historically, this form of government has been rare, due to the difficulties of getting all the people of a certain territory in one place for the purpose of voting. All direct democracies to date have been relatively small communities; usually city-states. The most notable of these was ancient Athens
Representative democracy is a political system where the people vote on government members, who are then expected to make decisions in accordance with the interests of their voters. It is called representative because the people do not vote on government decisions directly, but elect representatives to decide for them. This form of government has been increasingly common in recent times, and the number of representative democracies experienced such explosive growth during the 20th century so that the majority of the world's population now lives under representative democratic regimes (which are sometimes also referred to as "republics"). In turn, representative democracies may be subdivided into "liberal" and "illiberal" forms.
Liberal democracy is a type of representative democracy where the ruling government is subject to rule of law and separation of powers, while the people are guaranteed certain inviolable rights. Illiberal democracy is a type of representative democracy where there are no effective limits on the power of elected representatives to rule as they please.
The original framers of the United States Constitution were notably cognizant of what they perceived as a danger of majority rule in oppressing freedom of the individual. For example, James Madison, in Federalist Paper No. 10 advocates a constitutional republic over a democracy precisely to protect the individual from the majority. However, at the same time, the framers carefully created democratic institutions and major open society reforms within the United States Constitution and the United States Bill of Rights. They kept what they believed were the best elements of democracy, but mitigated by a constitution with protections for individual liberty, a balance of power, and a layered federal structure.
Now if you notice, this is a political system or philosophy and forms the basis for the division of power at both the state and federal level (individually) predominantly in the forming of the constitution (to insure the rights of the people) but also in the establishment of the House of Representatives as the primary constitutional legislative body and the representative of the will of the people, which are characteristics of a representative democracy.
States of the United States are required, like the federal government, to be republican in form, with final authority resting with the people. This was required because the states were intended to create and enforce most domestic laws, with the exception of areas delegated to the federal government and prohibited to the states. The founding fathers of the country intended most domestic laws to be handled by the states, although, over time, the federal government has gained more and more influence over domestic law. Requiring the states to be a republic in form was seen as protecting the citizens' rights and preventing a state from becoming a dictatorship or monarchy, and reflected unwillingness on the part of the original 13 states (all independent republics) to unite with other states that were not republics. Additionally, this requirement ensured that only other republics could join the union.
In the example of the United States, the original 13 British colonies became independent states after the American Revolution, each having a republican form of government. These independent states initially formed a loose confederation called the United States and then later formed the current United States by ratifying the current U.S. Constitution, creating a union of sovereign states with the union or federal government also being a republic. States joining the union later were also required to be a republic. The United States could be argued to be a supra-national republic on the grounds that the original states were independent countries and was formed of several nations, most notably the original 13 colonies/states, the Republic of Texas, and the Kingdom of Hawaii, all of which would be considered "nations" under a strict definition of the word.
Now if you notice, this is an institutional or organizational structure which separates out the sovereignty of the state and federal authorities and establishes the relationships between them. It also establishes the Senate as a deliberative body to represent the interests of the states and the office of the president (governor at the state level), both of which are characteristics of a republic. You are correct in stating that the U.S. a federal republic but this is more of an organizational or structural application as a republic requires neither a house of representatives nor a constitution. To deny that the U.S. is also a "liberal" representative democracy is too deny the basis for which the House of Representatives and Constitution were established. One is the system of political philosophy behind the U.S. gov't and the other is the organizational structure behind the U.S. gov't.
This should put to rest this silly notion that the USA is not a democracy because it is also a republic. As to this...
Do you know what liberalism really is? When I speak of liberals, I'm not talking about the true definition of what they are stupposed to stand for. I am referring to current government is the answer to problems in the world, I have no problem spending and wasting your money liberals.
Unfortunately leftists do not even grasp what being "Liberal" is really about. If they did, they wouldn't advocate government controlling the market or people's lives.
The classical meaning of the term liberal is the same as libertarian. It was about freedom from coercion, individual freedoms and liberty. The current labels for liberal and conservative are complete opposites, but the behavior of those who label themselves conservative or liberal are not opposites.
I've known the meaning all along...I did not need to look them up. Trying to debate liberal versus conservative, libertarian versus authoritarian on a single, two way continuum is what is leading to this confusion...
As illustrated neatly by the site, Political Compass, you can structure these things on a four way graph which makes far more sense...thus it is possible to have Authoritarian Capitalism (fascism leans towards this, more or less) and libertarian socialism (anarchism in the classical sense). Oh no, I am WELL aware of what the terms mean, thanks all the same. | |
|
| Sarah Palin Stepping Down As Alaska Gov. Running for Pres. 2012?
Posted: 7/6/2009 11:46:11 PM |
BZZZT! Wrong. This fallacy has been beaten to death and debunked by professional political scientists over in this other thread
Did you even read what I said? I'm going to copy and paste it again here...
We are NOT a Democracy. The word Democracy does not exist in the Constitution, The Declaration of Independence, or the Constitutions of the 50 states. We are a Republic ruled by law and our Constitution was written to restrain the federal government. Just because the majority of people in America want something, it does not mean we have the right to break our own laws to do so
You said I was wrong. Yet our government is described as a Republic. It's completely true that the word Democracy does not exist in the Constitution of the US, The Declaration of Independence, or the Constitutions of the 50 states. It is indeed true that our Constitution was written to restrain our federal government. It is also true that just because a majority of people want something, it does not mean they have a legal right to it.
Instead of directly debating what I said, using evidence or quoting the Constitution or Declaration of Independence, you did absolutely nothing to debunk anything I said, other then post the retyped words of a guy who admires a communist.
The US IS A DEMOCRACY
No it is not. The American form of government is not up for debate, although yourself and many other left wing revisionists would love to change how our Constitution, rule of law and country were created.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
The definition on wiki:
Democracy is a form of government in which the right to govern is vested in the citizens of a country or a state and exercised through a majority rule...
The Founding Fathers of the United States rarely praised and often criticized democracy, which in their time tended to specifically mean direct democracy; James Madison argued, especially in The Federalist No. 10, that what distinguished a democracy from a republic was that the former became weaker as it got larger and suffered more violently from the effects of faction, whereas a republic could get stronger as it got larger and combats faction by its very structure. What was critical to American values, John Adams insisted,[66] was that the government be "bound by fixed laws, which the people have a voice in making, and a right to defend." As Benjamin Franklin was exiting after writing the U.S. constitution, a woman asked him Sir, what have you given us?. He replied A republic ma'am, if you can keep it
The highlighted part in this above quote from wiki is the key part here. We have a Constitution written to restrain government. It is the supreme law of the land. The founders set it up so that it can be changed. If something in the Constitution is no longer considered ok, then there is a legal way to change it.
Ask yourself why no one in government ever talks about changing the Constitution to give healthcare to people, or to declare war? Because changing the Constitution puts way too much attention on what they are doing. They would rather just pass legislation that is unconstitutional and hope no one tries to overturn it.
As illustrated neatly by the site, Political Compass, you can structure these things on a four way graph which makes far more sense...thus it is possible to have Authoritarian Capitalism (fascism leans towards this, more or less) and libertarian socialism (anarchism in the classical sense). Oh no, I am WELL aware of what the terms mean
Political compass was created by a journalist who's not even from America. It does not explain it's scoring system or reveal who works on the site.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_compass
From wiki on political compass:
The Economic (Left-Right) axis measures one's opinion of how the economy should be run: "left" is defined as the view that the economy should be run by a cooperative collective agency (which can mean the state, but can also mean a network of communes), while "right" is defined as the view that the economy should be left to the devices of competing individuals and organisations
Do you understand? Discussing history and politics with you is like pulling teeth. | |
|
| Sarah Palin Stepping Down As Alaska Gov. Running for Pres. 2012?
Posted: 7/7/2009 12:27:10 AM |
Instead of directly debating what I said, using evidence or quoting the Constitution or Declaration of Independence, you did absolutely nothing to debunk anything I said, other then post the retyped words of a guy who admires a communist.
ad hominem.
You don't like the fact that the definition of a republic is clearly a form of democracy and that as such clearly debunks your attempt to selectively redefine the word republic to mean something it does not.
Founding Father James Madison himself used the term representative democracy when describing the Republic in Federalist Number 10.
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm
That should be more than suitable "historical evidence"...revisionism is what others seem to be practicing when they attempt to redefine the word republic to not include democracy as part of the definition. Sorry but in the English language, a republic is a form of democracy, representative and limited but still a democracy.
Political compass was created by a journalist who's not even from America. It does not explain it's scoring system or reveal who works on the site.
Which has "what" to do with it's efficacy in describing socio-political realities? Next you'll tell me that because Adam Smith was an Englishman, his writings have no bearing on capitalism in America?
Do you understand? Discussing history and politics with you is like pulling teeth.
Well you can stop trying at any time...the first time I actually see you "debate" something, in a dialectic form, instead of just frothing and thrashing about wildly as your Limbaugh-esque talking points get torpedoed below the water line, then perhaps we can debate. I won't hold my breath though...could be a while. | |
|
| Sarah Palin Stepping Down As Alaska Gov. Running for Pres. 2012?
Posted: 7/7/2009 1:15:10 AM |
You don't like the fact that the definition of a republic is clearly a form of democracy and that as such clearly debunks your attempt to selectively redefine the word republic to mean something it does not
You are trying to redefine the american form of government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States
from wiki:
The United States of America (commonly referred to as the United States, the U.S., the USA, or America) is a federal constitutional republic comprising fifty states and a federal distric Do yourself a favor and read through that entire wikipedia page, and find the word DEMOCRACY used to describe American government, highlight it and point it out to all of us. The closest thing you can find, (which your confusion stems from)...is located... Here... The United States is the world's oldest surviving federation. It is a constitutional republic, "in which majority rule is tempered by minority rights protected by law."[44] It is fundamentally structured as a representative democracy, though U.S. citizens residing in the territories are excluded from voting for federal officials The US is a constitutional republic. Describing the fundamental structure as a representative democracy is not fully accurate, due to the fact that not all federal officials are elected by the people. Founding Father James Madison himself used the term representative democracy when describing the Republic in Federalist Number 10. I do not believe for a minute you've ever read the federalist papers. You wouldn't be spouting this. You have not the slighest clue what you are talking about. James Madison clearly said in the Federalist papers:From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.
A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. And his closing remarks... In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government. And according to the degree of pleasure and pride we feel in being republicans, ought to be our zeal in cherishing the spirit and supporting the character of Federalists Ok now... Next you'll tell me that because Adam Smith was an Englishman, his writings have no bearing on capitalism in America You just compared Wayne Brittenden, a UK journalist who created a website, to Adam Smith. Wow. Please read the federalist papers and stop babbling about subjects you know nothing of. | |
|
| Sarah Palin Stepping Down As Alaska Gov. Running for Pres. 2012?
Posted: 7/7/2009 2:28:21 AM | You do like to cherry-pick don't you?
You are trying to redefine the american form of government.
Pot to kettle, come in kettle...
Do yourself a favor and read through that entire wikipedia page, and find the word DEMOCRACY used to describe American government, highlight it and point it out to all of us.
Apparently the misunderstanding that seems to be had is that the nature of a republic is that it is fundamentally a form of democracy.
from said wiki stub on Republic...
A republic is a state or country that is not led by a monarch,[1][2] in which the people (or at least a part of its people)[3] have an impact on its government.[4][5] The word 'republic' is derived from the Latin phrase res publica which can be translated as "public affairs".
Both modern and ancient republics vary widely in their ideology and composition. The most common definition of a republic is a state without a monarch,[6] In republics such as the US and France the executive is legitimated both by a constitution and by popular suffrage. In the United States Founding Fathers like James Madison defined republic in terms of representative democracy as opposed to direct democracy[7], and this usage is still employed by many viewing themselves as "republicans".[8] In modern political science, republicanism refers to a specific ideology that is based on civic virtue and is considered distinct from ideologies such as liberalism.[9]
Most often a republic is a sovereign country, but there are also subnational entities that are referred to as republics. For instance the Soviet Union was composed of distinct Soviet Socialist Republics. Article IV of the Constitution of the United States "guarantee[s] to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government."[10]
What is "popular suffrage" and what is it a feature of? Starts with a D... you can say it...
All a republic is primarily is a state without a monarch where some or all of the people have an impact on government. Right in the wiki stub as you are so quick to rely on and as the quoted material I already provided and any good dictionary definition will also supply... The USA and France are republics where "the executive is legitimated both by a constitution and by popular suffrage." Popular suffrage is the right to vote - IOW - democracy - in the USA and France for representatives. Q.E.D. They are republics that are representative democracies.
As to this...
I do not believe for a minute you've ever read the federalist papers. You wouldn't be spouting this. You have not the slighest clue what you are talking about.
I'll let your reading for comprehension stand on its own...and having gone through these ridiculous debates more than once now, yes, I have taken the time to read the Federalist Papers...the fact that Madison does not recommend a "pure democracy" in the quotation above that you cherry-pick does not mean he is, unlike yourself, aware of the almost ubiquitous acceptance of the idea that the republic is a form of democracy...ubiquitous except outside the ueber-right fringe.
You just compared Wayne Brittenden, a UK journalist who created a website, to Adam Smith. Wow.
Uh...no. Again, you need to read for comprehension. The fact that a journalist from the UK makes a website that bases it's ideas on mainstream scholarly notions of political and economic thought instead of fringe American ueber-Conservative talking points is not rendered invalid as you indicated because he is from the UK and we are discussing the US. Thus, the analogy to Smith which seemed to go right over your head...small wonder.
Ain't no babbling here... although I think this train's done gone off the tracks...right by the ol' militia compound... | |
|
| Sarah Palin Stepping Down As Alaska Gov. Running for Pres. 2012?
Posted: 7/7/2009 6:50:16 AM |
"No Child Left Behind" was cosponsored by TED KENNEDY, and it is NOT a conservative action to increase federal spending on education. It is a state issue. You are unfortunately confusing Republican with conservative.
This wretched bill was a bi-partisan product.
It was neither a 'liberal' nor a 'conservative' effort.
Interestingly, the Republicans seem to have supported NCLB in the hopes that it would bring the African American vote their way.
Richard Rothstein (December 17, 2007, The American Prospect) says, in part:
Many Republicans supported NCLB out of loyalty to President Bush and because Karl Rove assured them that their vow to improve minority achievement would entice African Americans away from the Democrats. But now, with Democratic congressional majorities and a possible presidency, Republicans have rediscovered their belief in local control of education. Few now support reauthorization. | |
|
| Sarah Palin Stepping Down As Alaska Gov. Running for Pres. 2012?
Posted: 7/7/2009 11:42:21 AM |
It's not a coincidence that every state going bankrupt also has a state income tax.
Only two states, Montana and North Dakota, have budget surpluses for fiscal 2010. They have state income taxes. Every other state either has had to or will have to make significant cuts in order to meet their budgets, including my own state of WV, which had a surplus until this year, and has an income tax. Care to reconsider that particular line of logic?
Dave | |
|
| Sarah Palin Stepping Down As Alaska Gov. Running for Pres. 2012?
Posted: 7/7/2009 12:15:14 PM |
Apparently the misunderstanding that seems to be had is that the nature of a republic is that it is fundamentally a form of democracy.
It states it was fundamentally structured as a representative democracy, but the form of government is a constitutional republic. Which means the Constitutional law is the supreme law of the land. I'm surprised you have no refute of the below...
The United States is the world's oldest surviving federation. It is a constitutional republic, "in which majority rule is tempered by minority rights protected by law."[44] It is fundamentally structured as a representative democracy, though U.S. citizens residing in the territories are excluded from voting for federal officials
The US is a constitutional republic. Describing the fundamental structure as a representative democracy is not fully accurate, due to the fact that not all federal officials are elected by the people
Your argument has derailed. If we elected all federal officials you may have more of an argument. But it is not in question that the US is a Democracy. It is not.
It's hilarious to listen to left wingers try to demand the US is a Democracy though...it is even funnier to listen to them complain about forms of Democracy when the people vote on issues like Prop 8, and the results do not turn out the way they want. Then they start screaming that the court should overturn the people's vote.
It gets even more hilarious when they do not understand the TENTH amendment of the Constitution, which gives the people the right to vote on issues that our federal government has no business being involved in such as healthcare and education. | |
|
| Sarah Palin Stepping Down As Alaska Gov. Running for Pres. 2012?
Posted: 7/7/2009 1:20:12 PM | Wait...you've just affirmed what I have said the whole time...
It states it was fundamentally structured as a representative democracy, but the form of government is a constitutional republic. Which means the Constitutional law is the supreme law of the land. I'm surprised you have no refute of the below...
I never denied the material you quoted below... and you won't be able to find such in anything I posted. You just - until now - had your teeth sunk, bulldog like, into the affirmation that in NO WAY was a republic any form of democracy - a position that according to any mainstream definition of republic is untenable as a republic is defined simply as being a form of state not led by a monarch where some or all of the people have an impact on government.
And the only thing that has been derailed, is this thread, by you, which is about Sarah Palin...
It's hilarious to listen to left wingers try to demand the US is a Democracy though...it is even funnier to listen to them complain about forms of Democracy when the people vote on issues like Prop 8, and the results do not turn out the way they want. Then they start screaming that the court should overturn the people's vote.
It gets even more hilarious when they do not understand the TENTH amendment of the Constitution, which gives the people the right to vote on issues that our federal government has no business being involved in such as healthcare and education.
Now you're engaging in one of your all too common knee-jerk responses that you do when caught out in error here... straw-man. If you can't actually win a debate, invent a position for an opponent to take and fight the imaginary position for them. It's much easier than actually taking them on with the real position they are defending... well good luck with that. My actual words and position are pretty clear, do not need to be cherry-picked by you and stand on their own merit. I'm not going to respond to any of your further posts unless they address the actual topic of the OP...if you want to stump for your personal ideology, do it in a newsletter on your own time or on the FreeRepublic forums. | |
|
| Sarah Palin Stepping Down As Alaska Gov. Running for Pres. 2012?
Posted: 7/7/2009 1:24:15 PM | | Ok education thing passed is crap. But what is your real problem with the government being involved with our medical system? Our medical system needs help! So many people need medications and medical treatment that they can not afford. Retirement benefits are disappearing and that means more and more people will not be able to afford food let alone medication or seeing a doctor. I could pick up my Canadian citizenship, haven't done so, but looked into the medical benefits doing so. Now their system isn't perfect either, but if we could take some of the positive results they have, wouldn't that be great for the US? I worked for an insurance company, so I do know about their huge profits, denials, etc. to medical claims. | |
|
| Sarah Palin Stepping Down As Alaska Gov. Running for Pres. 2012?
Posted: 7/7/2009 1:49:25 PM | Sarah Palin has failed...again.
Just like college.
Just like taking care of her family.
Just like trying to get her ex-brother -in-law fired.
Just like her run for VPOTUS.
Sarah Palin is a failure.
Is anybody when she continues to fail?
I mean.. other than her? | |
|
| Sarah Palin Stepping Down As Alaska Gov. Running for Pres. 2012?
Posted: 7/7/2009 1:55:35 PM | the mad fiddler
I never denied the material you quoted below... and you won't be able to find such in anything I posted. You just - until now - had your teeth sunk, bulldog like, into the affirmation that in NO WAY was a republic any form of democracy - a position that according to any mainstream definition of republic is untenable as a republic is defined simply as being a form of state not led by a monarch where some or all of the people have an impact on government
You still do not understand.
The term Democracy means majority rules. You added the "representative" part and tried to use James Madison's mention of representative democracy as evidence that our nation was a democracy, even though in the same papers he goes in detail to talk badly about democracy. I said very clearly that we are not a democracy, we are a republic. The entire reason this was brought up is because someone here stated that 70% of the people want our federal government in healthcare, and I brought up the Constitution.
http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html
I strongly suggest you read the above link and study on the difference between Republic and Democracy.
On Democracy:
The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.
This is true whether it be a Direct Democracy, or a Representative Democracy
and further explanation...
In both the Direct type and the Representative type of Democracy, The Majority’s power is absolute and unlimited; its decisions are unappealable under the legal system established to give effect to this form of government. This opens the door to unlimited Tyranny-by-Majority. This was what The Framers of the United States Constitution meant in 1787, in debates in the Federal (framing) Convention, when they condemned the "excesses of democracy" and abuses under any Democracy of the unalienable rights of The Individual by The Majority[/quot] Do you understand now? The law of the Constitution is what keeps us from being a Democracy in any form. That means that no matter how many people vote for an issue, the Constitution still trumps their wishes. Ok education thing passed is crap. But what is your real problem with the government being involved with our medical system? Our medical system needs help! So many people need medications and medical treatment that they can not afford. Retirement benefits are disappearing and that means more and more people will not be able to afford food let alone medication or seeing a doctor. The Constitution does not authorize our federal government to be involved. The states have the rights to do whatever they want within their own state. So start pushing your governor or elected state reps to push for healthcare reform. If you really want costs to go down in our healthcare system, then you should really look back to 1973. The HMO Act of 1973 required all but small employers to offer their employees HMO coverage, and the tax code allows businesses – but not individuals – to deduct the cost of health insurance premiums. The result is the illogical coupling of employment and health insurance, which often leaves the unemployed without coverage. The current system we have was pushed on the American people through federal law. Government already covers half of all healthcare costs in America. Just think about that for a minute. Our government is and has been for a long time already in the way. If you look at prices in the healthcare market before government got involved, compared to where it is today, you will see a drastic overbloating of prices. Prices tend to be more expensive in the market where government has the most regulation and control. If government would get out of the way, patients could negotiate prices with their own doctors for most healthcare situations, and prices would drop significantly. The problem comes when people start asking for other people to pay for their own healthcare. Just look at CALIFORNIA, for crying out loud, who spends nearly 70% of their budget on education and healthcare! Not only are they bankrupt, but they are among the bottom of the country in education! I will spend my entire life trying to awaken people to the concept of liberty and more freedom from big government. Big government has caused nearly every major problem we face in America today. With more freedom to choose our own lives, everything would be much better. Government never takes care of anything as well as an individual can take care of for themself. I could pick up my Canadian citizenship, haven't done so, but looked into the medical benefits doing so. Now their system isn't perfect either, but if we could take some of the positive results they have, wouldn't that be great for the US? I worked for an insurance company, so I do know about their huge profits, denials, etc. to medical claims There are plenty of obvious examples of flaws of the Canadian healthcare system. I suggest you go to youtube and watch John Stossels report on healthcare. He interviews Michael Moore, several Canadian doctors and systems, and insurance companies on the issue, giving everyone a fair chance to speak their piece. | |
|
| Sarah Palin Stepping Down As Alaska Gov. Running for Pres. 2012?
Posted: 7/7/2009 2:03:04 PM |
Just because an accusation can be voiced does not mean the accusation is true. I see accusations, however, no evidence to support it.
I guess it depends on who and what accusations are being discussed. For example, you probably are convinced they just had a mass memorial for a pedophile out in LA today.
Her brother in law needed removal.
And you base that opinion on what? Abuse of authority? Isn't that what Palin is accused of? Illegal hunting? Do you realize the Palin family didn't have a problem with him filling his now-ex-wife's hunting tag (which she probably never intended to personally fill anyway but obtained so some other family member could use it) until they wanted him removed from his position due to the ending of the marriage? And how would the Palin family KNOW all they know about the incident unless they were THERE and PARTICIPATED?
I'm not a statist. I'm a realist. I know bullsh** when I smell it. You wanna talk smack? Talk about why Palin and her administration haven't been charged with Obstruction for still having failed to surrender emails an entire year after they were requested (but maybe that's the boot that is about to fall and why she QUIT (yes, Sarah, you're a quitter AND a whiner)) or why the h*** they felt compelled to use yahoo accounts (at Palin's suggestion!) to conduct government business in the first place. There is NO legal and reasonable explanation for such irregular and clandestine behavior. | |
|
| Sarah Palin Stepping Down As Alaska Gov. Running for Pres. 2012?
Posted: 7/7/2009 2:03:04 PM | Now their system isn't perfect either, but if we could take some of the positive results they have, wouldn't that be great for the US? Again, half my relatives are Canadian, I am aware of their system and it DOES have some great parts and I see no reason that we shouldn't adopt some. We have the fabulous opportunity of seeing other countries' systems and adopting the best, the sytems that do work. I don't see what you specifically find is so horrible about that idea.
As far Palin, she is working on ways to pay her enormous legal bills. I am leaning toward a book and guest appearances. Of course she could start a fishing show | |
|
| Sarah Palin Stepping Down As Alaska Gov. Running for Pres. 2012?
Posted: 7/7/2009 3:02:13 PM | The real problem with the US situation right now is tax cuts... Bad ones. About half the population will not be paying any Federal tax after the next round of low-income tax cuts pass...
So how do you get tax reform which is so desperately needed to meet global competition and maintain financial solvency when 1/2 the voters have no stake in changing a failed system because they can only lose -- at least financially!
It sure isn't pretty folks. Sooner or later -- and I am guessing sooner the Chinese will stop buying T-Bills to finance the trillions in debt -- or demand a junk bond interest rate be paid -- and then the whole pyramid scheme on which this insane over-spending and unsecured borrowing is based will free-fall.
Worse yet are the insane mechanisms lacking any sustainability in the tax code such as mortgage loan interest deductibility and even worst of all: no federal Value Added Tax.
When governance becomes too POLITICAL -- as Canada has under as series of very inept minority governments the quality and vision of the leadership declines -- everything has a political calculus -- and long term social, economic and industrial perspectives are lost in the smoke and mirrors of political games.
| |
|
| Sarah Palin Stepping Down As Alaska Gov. Running for Pres. 2012?
Posted: 7/7/2009 3:32:19 PM | Let's get back to Sarah Palin.
Today she had a press conference so she could tell us she's not a quitter. I'm sure she believes that, but she isn't very bright if she doesn't know that when you stop in the middle of doing something, you quit. People who leave their job are said to have quit their job.
This chick is getting dumber by the day, and something tells me her loyalist are going to start getting on here and saying, "She didn't quit. You were fed that by the liberal media."
I want to say now, "My first impression was that she quit her job. The media did not influence my conclusion." There. I said it. The media doesn't have to tell me the obvious.
For some reason Palin thinks she can say that she didn't quit and somehow that makes it true. | |
|
| Sarah Palin Stepping Down As Alaska Gov. Running for Pres. 2012?
Posted: 7/7/2009 4:13:27 PM | I will spend my entire life trying to awaken people to the concept of liberty and more freedom from big government. Big government has caused nearly every major problem we face in America today. With more freedom to choose our own lives, everything would be much better. Government never takes care of anything as well as an individual can take care of for themself.
Sarcasm On...
So I take it in the name of abolishing 'Big Government' we should also abolish the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Surface Mine Control and Reclamation Act, Civils Rights Act, etc... all administered by government to make our collective lives better.
And while we're at it, let's toss the minimum wage, give all road and utility right of ways to adjacent land owners for them to maintain and charge tolls for use of, with no regulation for how well they are built or maintained. Dismantle all public bridges.
Close all public university and schools. Shut down the internet. Remove protection from bank failures. Eliminate social security, medicare, medicaid, unemployment compensation.
Bye bye CAFE standards, or for that matter seat belts, airbags, or any other vehicle safety requirements. And imagine how cheap those vehicles would be when made by slave labor. No need for air traffic controllers. Let the pilots find their own way, using whatever technology they are inclined to include on their aircraft. No need to make sure they can communicate with anyone else. Maybe they can borrow a gun from a passenger and fire warning shots when they're coming in for a landing.
No more border patrol, coast guard, satellites or radar to provide any protection from whoever might want to wander our way to do as they please. Let monopolies rule whatever economic system might emerge with no common currency, lynch mobs handle any transgressions like being the wrong gender or skin color or looking cross eyed at someone.
And that's just off the top of my head. I'm sure there are many, many more benefits we'd all enjoy with our new found freedom and liberty if that pesky government would just go away. No other species on the planet needs government. ****oaches seem to be thriving. Why shouldn't we deserve the same freedom?
Sarcasm off.
Dave | |
|
| Sarah Palin Stepping Down As Alaska Gov. Running for Pres. 2012?
Posted: 7/7/2009 8:33:15 PM | I want to congratulate wvwaterfall, for just posting the most uninformed babbling post I've ever seen on a message board.
So I take it in the name of abolishing 'Big Government' we should also abolish the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Surface Mine Control and Reclamation Act, Civils Rights Act, etc... all administered by government to make our collective lives better
All of those issues (with civil rights being the only exception) are all issues that each state should deal with. Every state in America has their own programs to deal with these issues.
Even though I disagree with him in many areas, I'm actually a Ralph Nader fan (believe it or not) because he is what every Democrat should be. An openly honest populist. Just look at how liberals treat him to understand how distorted the left has become in America.
And while we're at it, let's toss the minimum wage
This is a brilliant idea. I fully agree.
give all road and utility right of ways to adjacent land owners for them to maintain and charge tolls for use of, with no regulation for how well they are built or maintained. Dismantle all public bridges
With federal highways being the exception, these are all state issues. We are talking about the US Constitution and federal government here. Please do not stray.
Close all public university and schools.
Why do schools and universities need to be closed? These are in state functions and legal.
Shut down the internet.
No form of government controls the internet in America. However if you take a look at who wants to control or regulate it, it's not Republicans.
Remove protection from bank failures.
I would reduce government involvement in banks as much as possible. There needs to be some regulation in place, but we should not be controlling or overregulating banks.
Eliminate social security, medicare, medicaid, unemployment compensation.
This is the most brilliant thing you've ever said. Do you know that people are less likely to give to charity if they think they are already paying into it? Everything you mention is unconstitutional and not a federal government issue.
Bye bye CAFE standards
State function again. You sure are confused about the role of our federal government and the Constitution! But then again, you are a left winger, so I've come to understand your misunderstanding.
or for that matter seat belts, airbags, or any other vehicle safety requirements.
I agree with not forcing people to wear seat belts. To say there should be no regulation on vehicles for safety is a stretch though.
imagine how cheap those vehicles would be when made by slave labor.
This comes out of the mouth of a leftist who stands up for the rights of illegal immigrants to come here and work for slave wages.
No need for air traffic controllers. Let the pilots find their own way, using whatever technology they are inclined to include on their aircraft. No need to make sure they can communicate with anyone else. Maybe they can borrow a gun from a passenger and fire warning shots when they're coming in for a landing
Maybe if our federal government hadn't cracked down and told the airliners how to run their businesses and that they were not allowed to protect their own planes, maybe 9-11 WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED THE WAY IT DID.
No more border patrol, coast guard, satellites or radar to provide any protection from whoever might want to wander our way to do as they please.
Our Constitution authorizes our federal government to defend the nation. This does not apply. Once again you don't know what you are talking about.
Let monopolies rule whatever economic system might emerge with no common currency, lynch mobs handle any transgressions like being the wrong gender or skin color or looking cross eyed at someone
This is the most ridiculous, pathetic thing you have said.
I'm sure there are many, many more benefits we'd all enjoy with our new found freedom and liberty if that pesky government would just go away.
I never said government should go away. I said our federal government only needs to exist to defend civil liberties, defend our nation, and operate the three branches of government. If you want your state to do something special for you and the taxpayers in your state then ask your governor to help you out.
But this notion that our federal government can do anything right for the entire country by cracking down and controlling things more then they already do, is fantasy land psychobabble. | |
|
| Sarah Palin Stepping Down As Alaska Gov. Running for Pres. 2012?
Posted: 7/7/2009 8:55:59 PM | Personally I feel like the North or Union won the Civil War so that the states were united so that some things such as health care issues can be addressed. Canada's system or other countries' systems aren't perfect, but I'll be darned if I can see a good reason not to have our government try to get some of the health care problems remedied by looking at other countries' systems and seeing what works. I am told we have one of the highest unmarried young women that give birth. Seems like better medical care and education is part of that problem.
Like I mentioned before Palin saying that people can help our country while not in office, yeah right. You can send all the letters you want, but it is the company with the money that speaks loud and is heard. Unless we are near an election, no one is asking anyone for opinions on how things should be done. You know where constituents letters go, file 13. | |
|
| Sarah Palin Stepping Down As Alaska Gov. Running for Pres. 2012?
Posted: 7/7/2009 9:48:36 PM |
I want to congratulate wvwaterfall, for just posting the most uninformed babbling post I've ever seen on a message board.
My goal was to call you on blanket statements along the lines that government is responsible for most of our problems, illustrate some of the problems we'd face without government, and engage you on some specifics. Looks like it worked pretty well. Thanks for the congrats.
All of those issues (with civil rights being the only exception) are all issues that each state should deal with. Every state in America has their own programs to deal with these issues.
Uh. Huh. My state has a law that prohibits any state environmental regulation being enacted that is stricter than minimum federal mandates. Hardly any states had water, air, or mining regulations prior to the cited federal acts. Take away those and a race to the bottom would ensue as states compete for power plants, manufacturing facilities, and the like.
And while we're at it, let's toss the minimum wage
This is a brilliant idea. I fully agree.
Yup, let's let those coal companies go back to 'paying' in company scrip, only redeemable at the company store at company prices. Your state did the same, I might add.
Why do schools and universities need to be closed? These are in state functions and legal.
Remove all federal funding and see what quality we have left in our schools. Or how many students can afford college without federally supported grants and loans.
No form of government controls the internet in America. However if you take a look at who wants to control or regulate it, it's not Republicans.
The internet engineering task force develops and promotes internet standards, and is currently funded by the national security agency. The US government continues to have the primary role in approving changes to the root zone file that lies at the heart of the domain name system.
Perhaps some other government or entity would step in should the U.S. government drop these roles. Perhaps not.
I would reduce government involvement in banks as much as possible. There needs to be some regulation in place, but we should not be controlling or overregulating banks.
Not sure how reduced you'd like that role to be, but I take some comfort in knowing that my deposits are federally guaranteed. I expect we'd already be seeing a lot of runs on our banks without that under our current economic situation.
Eliminate social security, medicare, medicaid, unemployment compensation.
This is the most brilliant thing you've ever said. Do you know that people are less likely to give to charity if they think they are already paying into it? Everything you mention is unconstitutional and not a federal government issue.
Sure it is based on your determination that you know more about the constitution than the Supreme Court does. Who granted you that authority? Why don't we compare what life was like for those in need of those programs back before they existed, when, by your reasoning, everyone was taking such good care of them through charitable giving.
Bye bye CAFE standards
State function again. You sure are confused about the role of our federal government and the Constitution! But then again, you are a left winger, so I've come to understand your misunderstanding.
I consider myself a progressive. You're adamant about others not labeling you. Please extend the same courtesy to the rest of us.
Automakers would just love every state setting separate vehicle standards. You've made it clear that your Constitution interpretation differs from all those tasked by their Constitutionally mandate roles in all three branches of government. Get enough votes and maybe you can get an amendment added that interprets it the way you like to. Until then, I'll join the rest of us in more conventional interpretations.
I agree with not forcing people to wear seat belts. To say there should be no regulation on vehicles for safety is a stretch though.
Wearing seat belts is one thing. Not having the option because they're not in the cars is another. And it appears you do support some sort of uniform safety regulation for vehicles? Is that specifically mentioned in the constitution somewhere, or you starting to accept there might be a role for federal government NOT explicitly stated there? Do tell.
Our Constitution authorizes our federal government to defend the nation. This does not apply. Once again you don't know what you are talking about.
I dunno, we existed as a country before any of the programs I cited existed. Every time one was added, government got bigger, and I'm sure someone, somewhere, was complaining like you at the growth.
imagine how cheap those vehicles would be when made by slave labor.
This comes out of the mouth of a leftist who stands up for the rights of illegal immigrants to come here and work for slave wages.
Please show me where I have ever said such a thing. I support the right of immigrants to come here, just as your and my ancestors did, and work for the prevailing wage, which should be well above slave status. Remember my support of minimum wage law?
Maybe if our federal government hadn't cracked down and told the airliners how to run their businesses and that they were not allowed to protect their own planes, maybe 9-11 WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED THE WAY IT DID.
So air traffic controllers facilitated 9-11? Care to elaborate? Where we actually might agree is that maybe if our government hadn't utilized such flawed foreign policy, particularly under but not limited to Republican administrations, maybe the motivation for 9-11 wouldn't have been there.
Let monopolies rule whatever economic system might emerge with no common currency, lynch mobs handle any transgressions like being the wrong gender or skin color or looking cross eyed at someone
This is the most ridiculous, pathetic thing you have said.
Oh? Where in the Constitution are monopolies prohibited? If our court system was limited to strictly local control, what would prevent the lynch mob mentality that once was not too rare of an event? Was it not bigger government involvement that moved us beyond that era?
With federal highways being the exception, these are all state issues. We are talking about the US Constitution and federal government here. Please do not stray.
So what about those federal highways? And all the federal money states get to maintain them?
I never said government should go away. I said our federal government only needs to exist to defend civil liberties, defend our nation, and operate the three branches of government. If you want your state to do something special for you and the taxpayers in your state then ask your governor to help you out.
But this notion that our federal government can do anything right for the entire country by cracking down and controlling things more then they already do, is fantasy land psychobabble.
That would be your interpretation. Mine differs. I remember when the Cuyahoga River caught fire. I remember when I was chased from my local fishing hole as the river I was fishing on became covered by noxious foam from the paper mill upstream. I'm on the board of an organization focused on bringing life back to hundreds of miles of streams that run orange, acid, and lifeless to this day from the impacts of mining before federal regulation.
My grandparents suffered through a Depression without the protections that keep me from having to endure the same horrors today. I believe that the mark of an advanced society is not how easy we make it for the rich to get richer, but how well we care for the least fortunate among us, and how well we protect future generations from short sighted practices of today. That takes an engaged federal government, one that lives by the principles of the constitution but treats it as a living document, not one that limits us to the circumstances of over two centuries ago.
I agree that there is much room for improvement in how our government functions. I disagree that the answer is to revert back to little more than loosely connected independent states.
Dave | |
|
|
| Page 4 of 16
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 |
|
Home
login 
