Page 9 of 13 FirstFirst ... 5678910111213 LastLast
Results 121 to 135 of 192

Thread: Biden: Lower Medicare Age From 65 To 60: YES!

  1. #121 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    34,430
    Thanks
    23,941
    Thanked 19,095 Times in 13,072 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 5,908 Times in 5,169 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Hello T. A. Gardner,

    Quote Originally Posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    Maybe Puerto Rican's should question why their Democrat run island allows utterly substandard buildings and infrastructure to be built that can't withstand a hurricane. That was 90% of the problem when Maria hit the island. Most of the damage was due to what I'd call "Third World" construction standards and nothing else. You could see it in the photos of destroyed homes if you knew what you were looking for.

    I have little sympathy for those that build a substandard structure, can't be bothered to do it right, then bitch when a storm comes and destroys their home. You get what you pay for. Do it right from the beginning.
    Blaming the poor for their own condition is convenient for the rich who hold all the power, control all the major decisions.
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.

  2. #122 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    34,430
    Thanks
    23,941
    Thanked 19,095 Times in 13,072 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 5,908 Times in 5,169 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Hello NiftyNiblick,

    Quote Originally Posted by NiftyNiblick View Post
    How about setting the medicare age at birth as in most civilized nations?

    Let's see if the Trumpanzees hate abortion as much then.
    Maybe the best case would be to go ahead and set up a National Health Service. (If only we could...)

    Obviously the healthcare for profit model is too exclusive for many, and the trajectory is for it to become even more expensive, and more exclusionary.

    Healthcare for profit is the wrong goal. The goal of healthcare needs to be health, not wealth. We need a healthcare system, not wealthcare.

    An effective healthcare system should have the goal of keeping America healthy. That is in everyone's interest. Having a robust healthcare system that serves everyone, not just the rich, is the most effective method to deal with disease which could become a pandemic.

    Because of the propaganda of big money, America is not ready to accept the most logical healthcare system. We continue to cling to wealthcare.

    We cannot just throw out what we have and start over like we should because we cannot convince enough people to do that. And big money will fight it to protect their ginormous income.

    So we have to take baby steps like lowering the Medicare age to 60. Biden is right.
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.

  3. #123 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    34,430
    Thanks
    23,941
    Thanked 19,095 Times in 13,072 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 5,908 Times in 5,169 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Doctors once thought the best way to administer healthcare was to bleed the patient.

    One would think that in 2020 we would have moved beyond that.

    Incredibly, we now have a capitalist healthcare system focused on bleeding patients of as much of their wealth as possible.

    We are still bleeding patients.

    It used to be their blood, now it's their money.
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.

  4. #124 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Location
    'Murica
    Posts
    3,641
    Thanks
    1,394
    Thanked 1,132 Times in 908 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 24 Times in 23 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Hello Woko Haram,

    Personal anecdotes are rarely convincing to others.
    I'm not really trying to convince you to change your mind. All I'm hoping is that you actually look into it more.

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Taxing - We cannot win a race to the bottom. We cannot attempt to out-tax-cut other nations that don't play by the same safety, environmental and work-rights rules as we do. And neither can we compete with local economies where most houses cost a fraction of what we pay.
    Agreed, but that's why I mentioned the EU. Those countries are comparable to our own, and actually tend to be more regulated than us, so that's an opportunity to separate ourselves from them in terms of market freedom and red tape.

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    We have to be our own country. We have to collect enough revenue to run our government. We must abandon any pipe dreams of drastically cutting government spending - not going to happen. We need more revenue. We must tax the rich more and tax the big corporations more. We have to find that way. If they are doing business in the USA, and they want to, then they need to be paying taxes in the USA. They cannot and should not have it both ways. Period.

    We cannot cling to an idea that revolves around low taxes, de-prioritizes everything else, and then the whole rest of the world fits around that one immobile principle. Our taxes must instead reflect the reality of running our nation, paying our bills as they are, and likely expanding our budget for needed new initiatives. If we want a great nation we have to pay for it. If we want the whole nation to suffer, do without, to serve the super-rich so they enjoy low to no taxes then that is a completely different priority, a wrong one imho.
    If cutting spending is a pipe dream, then so is financial stability. Also, as I've mentioned before, you eventually have to raise taxes on everyone when you spend more, not just on the rich. Good luck getting the public to agree with higher taxes on themselves.

  5. #125 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Location
    'Murica
    Posts
    3,641
    Thanks
    1,394
    Thanked 1,132 Times in 908 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 24 Times in 23 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Hello Woko Haram,

    A completely unprovoked, unwarranted, definitely untrue and unsupported personal attack? I'm sorry. I don't play that game. OK, we are done for now. I am not going to respond to any more of your posts until this new degradation of our discussion is cleared up.

    I will give you some time to think about our relationship and if you wish to continue it. I am only doing this because we have a history. I thought you were enjoying these discussions. It was so academic. And then you went personal. That just changed everything for me, I hope you know.

    If somebody with whom I had no history had said that to me I would not hesitate to place them on Ignore forever. You are getting limited special consideration right now.

    I have to decide if this is a one-time thing or if this is how little you respect me. I have never attacked you or talked about you. I do require the same in return.

    I am so inclined to break it off right now. When somebody shows they think so little of me that it is nothing to make up incorrect things about me in order to justify their own beliefs, that is a warning to me that if they will do this once, they will do it again. This is my chance to ensure that will never happen again. I have only one method to do that. Permanent Ignore.

    Is that what you want? It sounds like maybe you don't care about me, have zero respect for me. Is my respect for you misplaced?

    I come here for fun, for challenging discussions. I thought we had that. It has been great for me. Are my arguments that challenging for you that you cannot directly refute them? And now you have stooped to personal attacks? That's new.

    I have no desire to have somebody unload their personal attacks on me to justify their own beliefs.

    Do you think you can back off on this? Was this a hiccup? Or has it been a chore for you to hold off on downtalking me. Something you no longer want to put up with. Maybe we should just part ways.

    That's what I am wondering right now.

    Do we have a mutual respect and shared enjoyment of these discussions? I thought so, hoped so.

    Or is that meaningless to you.

    I hope we can continue, but if you think so little of me then I will have to break it off, and it will be permanent.

    Please consider your answer carefully. Forever is a long time.

    Blow me off, double down, or back off.

    I'll leave our future of possible, or maybe now ending discussions, on hold and up to you.

    You wanna get personal, this is where I'm at. I am not attacking you. I don't want to play that game. You either back off or we are done.

    What's it gonna be?
    That's fair. My intention wasn't to end our discussions, and I guess I got carried away there. I saw a pattern, and I made an observation. The intent wasn't to deeply offend. We disagree on a number of things, and despite that, I do respect you. We do have some good discussions.

    So, I'll retract my wealth envy statement.

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Saudade For This Post:

    PoliTalker (10-24-2020)

  7. #126 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Location
    'Murica
    Posts
    3,641
    Thanks
    1,394
    Thanked 1,132 Times in 908 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 24 Times in 23 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    Sorry, that's what you're stuck with.

    So is a Black who's name is say, Sanchez, who speaks Spanish Hispanic? How about a paunchy, balding, White guy with a wife who's a hot blonde who are for Chile and look more European than I do. Are they "Hispanic?" (that would be the guy who was my supervisor at a company called Keramont back in the 80's)

    Hispanic is a language, not an ethnicity. What nation are you from if you are "Hispanic?" Are Brazilians Hispanic? How about Filipinos who speak Spanish? Are they Hispanic? "Hispanic" is the most absurd racial categorization there possibly every was.
    Hispanic/Latino is pretty broad. But yes, it does encompass anyone of Spanish descent, which includes many Filipinos, white people, and black people. As for Brazilians, they are considered similar but not the same. Since they are usually of Portuguese descent, they are a separate group, although there seems to be a growing trend of lumping those of Portuguese and Spanish descent together.

  8. #127 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    107,358
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 19 Times in 18 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    But it still has to be defined otherwise anyone can claim that status simply because they want to.
    Anyone can claim that status simply because they want to.

  9. #128 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    34,430
    Thanks
    23,941
    Thanked 19,095 Times in 13,072 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 5,908 Times in 5,169 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Hello Woko Haram,

    Quote Originally Posted by Woko Haram View Post
    Agreed, but that's why I mentioned the EU. Those countries are comparable to our own, and actually tend to be more regulated than us, so that's an opportunity to separate ourselves from them in terms of market freedom and red tape.
    Wealth inequality in the EU is a fraction of the US.

    Quote Originally Posted by Woko Haram View Post
    If cutting spending is a pipe dream, then so is financial stability. Also, as I've mentioned before, you eventually have to raise taxes on everyone when you spend more, not just on the rich. Good luck getting the public to agree with higher taxes on themselves.
    Selfish people will never agree to be taxed more. Responsible people will accept higher taxes when they understand it is required to pay for the country. Everything we need can be paid for by taxing the rich and the big corporations equitably. Also, along the same line of minimum wage, there should be a maximum ratio of executive pay to average worker pay. When workers are paid fairly for their contribution to profits, they will have so much more income that they could afford more taxes and still come out ahead.
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.

  10. #129 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    34,430
    Thanks
    23,941
    Thanked 19,095 Times in 13,072 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 5,908 Times in 5,169 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Hello Woko Haram,

    Quote Originally Posted by Woko Haram View Post
    That's fair. My intention wasn't to end our discussions, and I guess I got carried away there. I saw a pattern, and I made an observation. The intent wasn't to deeply offend. We disagree on a number of things, and despite that, I do respect you. We do have some good discussions.

    So, I'll retract my wealth envy statement.
    Very much appreciated. I didn't really want to break it off but was totally prepared to. I'm glad we can continue. We do have some great discussions. Thanks for backing off.
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to PoliTalker For This Post:

    Saudade (10-24-2020)

  12. #130 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Location
    'Murica
    Posts
    3,641
    Thanks
    1,394
    Thanked 1,132 Times in 908 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 24 Times in 23 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Hello Woko Haram,

    Wealth inequality in the EU is a fraction of the US.
    Economic mobility is as well. In most of Europe, you're not likely to fall into poverty as compared with here, but you're also not likely to rise above the status of your parents in terms of wealth. The funniest thing about the Western left is that they claim to be against classism, but the systems they create have more rigid divisions in class. Yes, the upper class holds less of the overall wealth in the economy, but reaching the upper class is extremely difficult in these countries. It's practically all a matter of inheritance.

    In comparison, a huge portion of the upper class here is "new money." These are people that rose from the working class into the upper class through ambition and good business acumen.

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Selfish people will never agree to be taxed more. Responsible people will accept higher taxes when they understand it is required to pay for the country. Everything we need can be paid for by taxing the rich and the big corporations equitably. Also, along the same line of minimum wage, there should be a maximum ratio of executive pay to average worker pay. When workers are paid fairly for their contribution to profits, they will have so much more income that they could afford more taxes and still come out ahead.
    Or maybe people understandably distrust government. You can see a high amount of corruption in America's biggest cities. NYC, LA, and Chicago are deep blue in politics, but they are terrible places to live if you're working class. This is why so many working class people are leaving these places. When people see this corruption, they often decide to keep government small and spending low in the places they move to. Is that really selfish or just logical? I would say government is more selfish than any individual.

  13. #131 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    34,430
    Thanks
    23,941
    Thanked 19,095 Times in 13,072 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 5,908 Times in 5,169 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Hello Woko Haram,

    Quote Originally Posted by Woko Haram View Post
    Economic mobility is as well. In most of Europe, you're not likely to fall into poverty as compared with here, but you're also not likely to rise above the status of your parents in terms of wealth. The funniest thing about the Western left is that they claim to be against classism, but the systems they create have more rigid divisions in class. Yes, the upper class holds less of the overall wealth in the economy, but reaching the upper class is extremely difficult in these countries. It's practically all a matter of inheritance.

    In comparison, a huge portion of the upper class here is "new money." These are people that rose from the working class into the upper class through ambition and good business acumen.
    It's not always good business acumen. There's a significant portion of bad. The 'wealth machines' created in the USA face the challenge of deciding how moral they want to be, how much concern to have for others, for workers, for the environment, for the government, and for the future. They almost invariably fail to have an acceptable amount of such concern in my view.

    Quote Originally Posted by Woko Haram View Post
    Or maybe people understandably distrust government. You can see a high amount of corruption in America's biggest cities. NYC, LA, and Chicago are deep blue in politics, but they are terrible places to live if you're working class. This is why so many working class people are leaving these places. When people see this corruption, they often decide to keep government small and spending low in the places they move to. Is that really selfish or just logical? I would say government is more selfish than any individual.
    Well, naturally, we disagree on that. Corrupt governments serve those in power. Less corrupt governments serve the people. Ideally, a government does not generate any profits at all. Every function of government is designed to serve the people.

    Profit-generating enterprises are designed to serve the owners. They try to do this by offering some service or product to a market. Since they control all the aspects of the structure, it is invariably skewed toward the enterprise. Whether or not it crosses moral boundaries is a subject of interpretation, but very often they do, depending on who is asked for their interpretation. Naturally the owners say it is moral. But workers, customers, and the general public often say otherwise.
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.

  14. #132 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Location
    'Murica
    Posts
    3,641
    Thanks
    1,394
    Thanked 1,132 Times in 908 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 24 Times in 23 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Hello Woko Haram,



    It's not always good business acumen. There's a significant portion of bad. The 'wealth machines' created in the USA face the challenge of deciding how moral they want to be, how much concern to have for others, for workers, for the environment, for the government, and for the future. They almost invariably fail to have an acceptable amount of such concern in my view.



    Well, naturally, we disagree on that. Corrupt governments serve those in power. Less corrupt governments serve the people. Ideally, a government does not generate any profits at all. Every function of government is designed to serve the people.

    Profit-generating enterprises are designed to serve the owners. They try to do this by offering some service or product to a market. Since they control all the aspects of the structure, it is invariably skewed toward the enterprise. Whether or not it crosses moral boundaries is a subject of interpretation, but very often they do, depending on who is asked for their interpretation. Naturally the owners say it is moral. But workers, customers, and the general public often say otherwise.
    In a free market, the bolded isn't true at all.

    Then again, we don't have many free markets. Most markets have government intervention that limit competition, which shifts power toward ownership.

  15. #133 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    34,430
    Thanks
    23,941
    Thanked 19,095 Times in 13,072 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 5,908 Times in 5,169 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Hello Saudade,

    Cool new name. Thanks for choosing it and causing me to learn a new word. If you would care to talk about what prompted you to choose it, I'd be interested to hear.

    Quote Originally Posted by Saudade View Post
    In a free market, the bolded isn't true at all.

    Then again, we don't have many free markets. Most markets have government intervention that limit competition, which shifts power toward ownership.
    An unregulated free market is generally a race to the bottom. As population expands and competes for finite resources; as technology improves productivity, thus eliminating more and more well-paying jobs; workers are forced to compete for fewer lessor jobs, dwindling benefits, hours and wages. Eventually the richest titans of industry hold most of the wealth (as we certainly see happening in America,) and the youngest workers become unable to save, pay off student loans, nor buy a home. Home ownership is the standard for achieving middle class wealth, and home ownership in the USA is down.

    Markets, like powerful engines, need to be regulated. They cannot be allowed to simply run full bore or they blow up. Capitalism is not the end-all be-all miracle of universal prosperity many dream of. It is simply the most powerful flexing their power for their own benefit, and everyone else along for the ride. We need capitalism for the ingenuity and creativity; and we need a powerful responsive low corruption government to properly manage capitalism. The key is efficient education and a well informed and engaged populace actively and responsibly managing government. Even Singapore has a significant part of the economy generated by government.
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.

  16. #134 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Posts
    28,541
    Thanks
    3,864
    Thanked 12,030 Times in 8,285 Posts
    Groans
    29
    Groaned 2,673 Times in 2,479 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Saudade View Post
    Hispanic/Latino is pretty broad. But yes, it does encompass anyone of Spanish descent, which includes many Filipinos, white people, and black people. As for Brazilians, they are considered similar but not the same. Since they are usually of Portuguese descent, they are a separate group, although there seems to be a growing trend of lumping those of Portuguese and Spanish descent together.
    Hispanic would mean either the person, or their ancestors speak, or spoke Spanish. Filipinos would be Hispanic, because before the USA invaded, they spoke Spanish. Portugal and Brazil speak Portuguese and not Spanish.

    Latino would be from (or their ancestors would be from) Latin America. Those are the parts of North and South America where Spanish and Portuguese are spoken. In other words, Brazilians are Latinos, but Portuguese are not. Filipinos would also not be from the Americas, and therefore not Latinos.

  17. #135 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Location
    'Murica
    Posts
    3,641
    Thanks
    1,394
    Thanked 1,132 Times in 908 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 24 Times in 23 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Hello Saudade,

    Cool new name. Thanks for choosing it and causing me to learn a new word. If you would care to talk about what prompted you to choose it, I'd be interested to hear.
    Thanks. It's one of those words that encompasses a mindset I often have when I look at how I used to have more faith in Western culture. The Portuguese have a certain morose outlook on life at times that I share in some respects. I already had my doubts about various individualistic principles, but now, I know I've reached the point of not turning back to them. My saudade is for the times when I used to believe in those things.

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    An unregulated free market is generally a race to the bottom. As population expands and competes for finite resources; as technology improves productivity, thus eliminating more and more well-paying jobs; workers are forced to compete for fewer lessor jobs, dwindling benefits, hours and wages. Eventually the richest titans of industry hold most of the wealth (as we certainly see happening in America,) and the youngest workers become unable to save, pay off student loans, nor buy a home. Home ownership is the standard for achieving middle class wealth, and home ownership in the USA is down.
    Home ownership is something that one has to reach through earnings, not through government regulation. Part of the reason for the collapse in 2008 was encouraging banks to lend to risky customers.

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Markets, like powerful engines, need to be regulated. They cannot be allowed to simply run full bore or they blow up. Capitalism is not the end-all be-all miracle of universal prosperity many dream of. It is simply the most powerful flexing their power for their own benefit, and everyone else along for the ride. We need capitalism for the ingenuity and creativity; and we need a powerful responsive low corruption government to properly manage capitalism. The key is efficient education and a well informed and engaged populace actively and responsibly managing government. Even Singapore has a significant part of the economy generated by government.
    Crashes happen with or without regulation. The difference is that most crashes are smaller without intervention. The bailouts of Wall Street, for example, set the stage for another collapse. Without bailouts, the short term is more painful, but the long term is more stable.

Similar Threads

  1. Medicare D: When BU$HCO "Broke" Medicare!!
    By Mr. Shaman in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 09-02-2016, 04:50 AM
  2. Lower than Bush
    By Big Money in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-27-2013, 12:24 AM
  3. can they go any lower ?
    By NOVA in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-12-2013, 10:23 PM
  4. Can They Get Any Lower?
    By Cancel7 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-07-2008, 06:43 AM
  5. how to lower gas prices
    By Don Quixote in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 06-26-2008, 12:35 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •