Hmm. I think at this point in time, with polls being extremely close and a large proportion of her supporters actively campaigning against Obama she should barely have mentioned her own views/campaign besides thanking her staff etc.
A little bit of hubris snuck through... I don't really blame her though, that's asking for a lot. Especially from a politician who was all but the candidate until Obama rocked up. _________________
Both parties stand for "big government" and if you pretend otherwise, you're deluded.
I think you misunderstand me. Democrats = more government.
Democrats = More fiscal restrictions
Republicans = More social restrictions
Both are more government in one area and less government in another. Add the military dimension and Republicans are generally bigger government.
yep thats right kids, rep will keep you safe if you elect them, bc they believe in the military and national security. i think thats the most important thing, having a country with all its civilians safe from foreign countries invade. _________________
Funny how she stopped short of saying Obama is ready to lead. She's said that since the primaries, and she stopped short of saying it in her speech. Great job at unifying the party!
And to Marxx who said that Republicans are "left-wing".. you have got to be kidding me. If JFK were alive today, he quite possibly could be a Republican or a very moderate Democrat because of how far left the Democratic party has gone. _________________
^ HP Chat & Games
Yeah, because we all know it's the Democrats who are the ones who stand up for the wealthy and elite vs. the Republicans who represent the working man.
Meh, the Democrats always use that as their platform. I see them as representing big government and not the working people. The crappiest parties in any country always say "We represent the working man!".. and it's all crap. The only person who can represent the working man is the working man himself.
I'm afraid you've got it all wrong...The republicans could care less about the middle-class, and their health care and education. If John McCain is elected into office, there will be no universal health care. Republicans deem it a trivial matter, a privelege for only the wealthy. As for education, the democrats are working for world-class education and admittance to college for all citezens, not just the "wealthy and elite".
If you had been following Barack Obama's campaign and are watching the DNC, then perhaps you would understand. Wait for the republican convention, and then tell me about their faithful representation of the working class.
Both parties stand for "big government" and if you pretend otherwise, you're deluded.
I think you misunderstand me. Democrats = more government.
Democrats = More fiscal restrictions
Republicans = More social restrictions
Both are more government in one area and less government in another. Add the military dimension and Republicans are generally bigger government.
yep thats right kids, rep will keep you safe if you elect them, bc they believe in the military and national security. i think thats the most important thing, having a country with all its civilians safe from foreign countries invade.
I believe we are currently invading a foreign country ourselves. And when our boys and girls come back home (which should happen within 6 months to a year of Obama being president), they will not have the benefits they were "promised". Such as money for college (which is THE top reason many 18 year olds enlist), free healthcare (or in the very least, extremely afforable health care), a job waiting for them back home...a lot of veterans are homeless.
All of this NOT being a fact if Obama is, of course, president. _________________ Yas and Simmy - Putting Luna on catwalks since 2008!
I believe we are currently invading a foreign country ourselves. And when our boys and girls come back home (which should happen within 6 months to a year of Obama being president), they will not have the benefits they were "promised". Such as money for college (which is THE top reason many 18 year olds enlist), free healthcare (or in the very least, extremely afforable health care), a job waiting for them back home...a lot of veterans are homeless.
All of this NOT being a fact if Obama is, of course, president.
My oldest brother's 5 years in the Navy just ended. <.< They paid off all his college loans, then paid for his Master's degree, still pay for his healthcare, and within a month and a half was hired by Honeywell, as a Finance Manager, or something like that, in the Aerospace and Defense division. <.< Jus sayin. _________________
they are already starting to line up job opportunities for me and i still have a good 2 years and half to go. i will not be homeless, besides that they already gave me the money for college. imo i think a lot veterans go homeless cuz after being taken care in the military and dealing with that life style they forget how to be a civilian. i know when my times up... all be like holy hell what do i do? _________________
Yeah, because we all know it's the Democrats who are the ones who stand up for the wealthy and elite vs. the Republicans who represent the working man.
Meh, the Democrats always use that as their platform. I see them as representing big government and not the working people. The crappiest parties in any country always say "We represent the working man!".. and it's all crap. The only person who can represent the working man is the working man himself.
I'm afraid you've got it all wrong...The republicans could care less about the middle-class, and their health care and education. If John McCain is elected into office, there will be no universal health care. Republicans deem it a trivial matter, a privelege for only the wealthy. As for education, the democrats are working for world-class education and admittance to college for all citezens, not just the "wealthy and elite".
If you had been following Barack Obama's campaign and are watching the DNC, then perhaps you would understand. Wait for the republican convention, and then tell me about their faithful representation of the working class.
I've been watching it. And it makes me want to puke.
Universal health care has its problems too buddy, and the number of uninsured Americans has actually gone down recently. I'm sorry, but I don't want to pay for some hypochondriac's health care through taxes.
Admittance to college for all citizens? Good luck with that.
Do you not realize that the government has to pay for all that crap? Yeah, lets just give everyone everything and make every body pay for it.. then nobody will be poor.
Geez people. Take economics.
Everyone thinks Republicans are only for the wealthy and elite, and that's crap. There will always be a wealthy and elite class, and they are good at what they do or else they would not be wealthy. They are good at whatever business they take part in - but there are plenty of rich business people out there that believe in what they do and that even though they make tons of money that other people don't, they like to create jobs. They like to grow companies. They like to keep their workers happy. With that said, there's a lot of idiots out there that are greedy and abuse the system and should be locked up. But Democrats always go against big business, and their own constituents suffer because in the end, companies fail because of Democrat taxation, regulation, and overall spite towards the businesses that make America great. Everyone wants to be rich, but only a few can be. People have to see that that is NOT a bad thing and that the rich invest in many many things that are an important part of America's infrastructure. Democrats want the government to do this and that for everything - making a bloated and disorganized government even more of a bloated and disorganized government. It may sound good, but it just. doesn't. work. and history can tell you that. _________________
^ HP Chat & Games
There's a lot of stuff in your post so I'm not sure exactly to begin. I think I'll start with the irony.
Fiendfyre wrote:
Geez people. Take economics.
There will always be a wealthy and elite class, and they are good at what they do or else they would not be wealthy. They are good at whatever business they take part in - but there are plenty of rich business people out there that believe in what they do and that even though they make tons of money that other people don't, they like to create jobs. They like to grow companies. They like to keep their workers happy.
So what this really boils down is the "free market" and it's "invisible hand" being able to create a stable and prosperous economic system. Everyone has different opinions and I would have let it go at that, except you had to take a jab at everyone offering a contrary point of view by saying "Take economics" - clearly implying that "economics" has proved the efficiency and stability of the laissez-faire system. That's clearly not the case any student of economics would understand the contradictions inherent within your argument.
Quote:
There will always be a wealthy and elite class, and they are good at what they do or else they would not be wealthy.
Any dissection of the first part of that sentence will end up being a pretty esoteric and long-winded discussion, so whilst I disagree I'll let it lie. The second part bites. The issue is not so much "They are good at what they do" but actually what it IS they do and the fact that you seem to thing it's good. And here's the part where a study of economics helps.
Net wealth is brought about by the creation of profit. What the "wealthy" are good at is creating profit. Is this some kind of magical power, the ability to create profit? No. Why? Because profit is unpaid labour, and as a result whilst the wealth of few grow it can only do continue to do so while the workers beneath them grow in relative poverty.
Once you understand the profit = unpaid labour, the rest of market economics makes a lot more sense. Including why the rich are rich, the poor are poor and why a free-market system is inherently unstable.
Cost of making a commodity (Let's say a chair) = cost of labour + cost of material + overheads (Rent for factory etc.). Let's say Cost = C.
However the commodity (chair) isn't sold for C, it's sold for S which is equal to C + Profit.
So we have this chain: I (Investment) - K (Commodity) - I' (Initial investment + an increment, what we call profit). If we break them up into I-K and K-I' we see that each stage is simply an exchange of equivalents. That is, the investor is exchanging his capital for a commodity, produced by labour, which is then exchanged back into capital. However, if goods are exchanged at their real value the investor can't make a profit can he? I - K - I = No profit. So to extract the profit which gives us I' the investor has to find a commodity which creates more value in it's consumption than it costs. Now we know that doesn't hold true for wood, rent, nails etc. The commodity that does have this unique property is labour. The value of labour is measured like that of any other commodity, by the amount of labour-tine necessary to produce it. Adam Smith wrote "The demand for men necessarily governs the production of men, as of every other commodity." - same idea.
So what is the value of labour-power? As any successful corporation will tell you, going back to the East India Trading Company and all the way to Microsoft, Nike and Exxon-Mobil, they are paid the subsistence they require to keep them in a normal state as a working individual - enough to keep up with their natural needs such as food, clothing and housing.
So say their subsistence is reached after working 6 hours. However the labourer is not permitted to work for 6 hours, to get their wage they have to work for another 5 or 6 hours. This is the "surplus labour" which creates surplus value, or profit.
A comparison is made to the conqueror who purchases commodities from the conquered with the money he has stolen from them. Since the investor now knows the secret to creating profit is to pay the worker less and work them harder, he does so until it gets to a point where the government ends up having to legislate a minimum wage and a restriction on working hours to prevent people from being worked to death.
This is why profit is unpaid labour and this is why the free-market system will ultimately lead too a small core of extremely wealthy and powerful individuals with a mass of impoverished people below them. America has managed to export most of its poverty to places like China and India but shouldn't really be patting themselves on the back with a poverty rate of 30%.
Quote:
But Democrats always go against big business, and their own constituents suffer because in the end, companies fail because of Democrat taxation, regulation, and overall spite towards the businesses that make America great.
This particularly point is pretty silly since the biggest contributors to both parties are in fact businesses and corporations and Democrats and Republicans have both introduced and voter for legislation which is pro-business and anti-consumer. Democrats and Republicans don't represent a different side of the economic scale, they both believe in the wonders of the free-market though neither of them are fiscal conservatives.
Proof? The current Republican administration posted a budget deficit of half a trillion dollars. Budget deficits do not fiscal conservatives make. Forget the fact that it was the biggest in history. And really what you're seeing now is that overall, Democrats are promising to cut red-tape and government spending over all which ironically shows that they are more conservative when it comes to economics than the Republicans.
Quote:
People can be rich but only a few can be. People have to see that that is NOT a bad thing
Why is that not a bad thing? America is founded on the "American Dream", the idea that everyone CAN be rich. I'm glad to see you don't think that's the case but the majority of Americans, Democrats or Republicans, haven't woken up to that yet.
Quote:
and that the rich invest in many many things that are an important part of America's infrastructure.
Good on them. However it's been shown that large-scale, Government led Keynesian style projects do more to increase employment & GDP and stimulate growth and investment then private investment and philanthropy.
Quote:
It may sound good, but it just. doesn't. work. and history can tell you that.
This links in with the rest of your post:
Quote:
Universal health care has its problems too buddy,
Quote:
Admittance to college for all citizens?
Where has history shown that universal health care and free education "doesn't work"?
Here's some countries with an extremely high standards of living, low poverty rates, low unemployment rates and rank highly on liveability and happiness indices - Australia, New Zealand, Britain, Sweden, Denmark, Canada, Germany and Switzerland. Universal healthcare? Tick. Heavily government subsided education? Tick.
Of course we could continue to swallow propaganda from both sides of American politics and believe that free health care and education is a privilege, not a right, and any move to implement the above will destroy the economy and foundations of American society. _________________
And to Marxx who said that Republicans are "left-wing".. you have got to be kidding me. If JFK were alive today, he quite possibly could be a Republican or a very moderate Democrat because of how far left the Democratic party has gone.
Marxx is referring to the original Republican party, before it was renamed.
Quote:
yep thats right kids, rep will keep you safe if you elect them, bc they believe in the military and national security. i think thats the most important thing, having a country with all its civilians safe from foreign countries invade.
I highly doubt that any country is interested in invading America. Considering we've been invaded all of zero times in history.
Regardless, Money could be better used improving the lives of citizens rather than pouring it into a military that will go to another country and beat anything that moves with a stick.
I'm not saying a military is bad, so please don't think that. They're a vital component to any country. But I think a military's tactics should be largely defensive as opposed to offensive. Invasion and war should be an absolute last resort. Peace and verbal negotiations are always preferred.
Quote:
Admittance to college for all citizens? Good luck with that.
Admittance into college isn't the goal of an equal society. The goal is that everyone can live comfortably in their chosen profession-regardless of the opportunities available to them.
Just because you're a farm worker doesn't mean you aren't entitled to a good living. _________________ Here's How!|Graphics
You have to remember that all those other countries are pretty different from America, and those countries are not without their problems too. For example, all of them pay higher taxes for those things. The majority of Americans don't want to pay higher taxes for things they may never get the benefit of. There are also many many logistical problems with implementing universal health care in America. America is bigger and much more populated than any of those countries you mentioned. That means a bigger system to make all of it work. Another big concern is the quality of health care that will be given. Canada itself has experienced a brain drain from doctors going to the US because they can make more money in private practice. On a bigger note, it is truly a government monopoly on an industry, which goes against the economic principles that America was founded upon. This is why health care controlled by the government hasn't happened, and I hope doesn't happen.
Quote:
I once believed in the lofty goal of "universal health care". Who wouldn't support that goal? Doesn't everyone have a "right" to health care?
It was easy to agree with a meaningless campaign promise such as "Affordable Health Care for All". It takes effort to research the topic and understand economic reasoning and history.
Once I questioned the sound bites, I realized that government intervention in the market (e.g., Medicare, FDA regulations, physician licensing, insurance regulations) is the reason for artificially high health care prices.
So-called Universal Healthcare amplifies all problems:
1) Reduces patient incentives to find the best possible prices for the best possible services/products available.
Patients in the U.S. who receive "free" (taxpayer-funded) health care have no incentive to conserve their health care dollars. Care is "free" so they visit the doctor's office several times a month or request "free" prescriptions for over-the-counter medication such as Tylenol.
2) Reduces physician incentives to provide competitive care and reduces drug companies' incentives to provide new drugs and treatments.
With no incentive to provide quality care, physicians and nurses leave the government-monopolized area for better opportunities in a freer country. Shortages result. Drug companies are hindered by price controls and regulations and soon cease research and development of new medication. In the U.S., start-up drug companies cannot afford to run the FDA gauntlet, so the market is dominated by a few established corporations.
3) Steals from your wallet to pay for my health care.
Yes, you do have a right to health care, just as you have a right to food, shelter and property. However, you have no "right" to force others to provide these things for you - All "free" medical care is subsidized through taxes stolen from other people.
4) The quality of "free" health care will deteriorate and the average citizen will get sicker.
As the poor and middle-class wait in agony for simple procedures, those with resources can travel to other countries for treatment.
5) Destroys your privacy.
Suddenly your problems are mine and mine are yours. If you eat unhealthy foods or drive a motorcycle without a helmet, I have a direct interest in your business - you are going to see a provider on my tax dollars. Your neighbors might support government bans on smoking, "unsafe" sex or other "risky" behaviors to reduce costs. Politicians will use the federal bureaucracy to force you and your family to comply with programs such as the "New Freedom Commission on Mental Health".
6) Destroys your liberty.
When you blindly support a system that bestows power on politicians and bureaucrats, they will receive their orders from those with the most money - and this will not be you, your friends or your family. The power of government will be used against you as you are forced to use medicines or accept treatments from well-connected health care companies.
A quick search shows that pharmaceutical companies donated $152,437,727 to political campaigns since 1990. Who do you think has the ear of those elected politicians?
Conversely, if government power is eliminated (e.g., abolish the FDA - whose restrictions benefit the most powerful companies by eliminating most competition), those same companies would have to use their funds and resources to sell their drugs to the most people in the least expensive, most reliable and safest way. They would need to outperform their competitors to get your money - otherwise they lose business.
Most links below direct you to newspaper articles from different established sources and different countries, including the New York Times, the BBC, the Daily Mail, ABC or CNN. These articles show widespread problems such as physician shortages or increased waiting times that are inevitable when businesses are monopolized by the government.
Other links below direct you to articles from free-market institutes and groups. The authors use facts and logic to explain the superiority of the free-market process when compared to government bureaucracies. You can dismiss these links as "libertarian propaganda" or you can read the reports and question your own emotionally-based opinion, as I did. Please see Harry Browne's excellent Compassion of the mind and ask yourself if you are hurting others with your socialism.
Countries with socialized health care experience all sorts of problems - especially the first decade or so that the system is implemented. Waiting lists, bureaucratic bull crap, it doesn't end there. Here's a portion of the extremely long list of headlines compiled in Great Britain that high light the problems of national health care:
Quote:
# Heart patients dying due to poor hospital care, says report
- Sarah Boseley, June 8, 2008 [Guardian Unlimited]
# NHS dentistry loses almost a million patients after new dentists' contract
- David Rose, June 6, 2008 [The Times]
# Private healthcare managers could be sent to turn round failing NHS hospitals
- Philip Webster, Political Editor, and David Rose, June 4, 2008 [The Times]
# Cancer patients ‘betrayed’ by NHS
- Sarah-Kate Templeton, June 1, 2008 [The Times]
# NHS scandal: dying cancer victim was forced to pay
- Sarah-Kate Templeton, June 1, 2008 [The Times]
# Pensioner, 76, forced to pull out own teeth after 12 NHS dentists refuse to treat her
- Olinka Koster, March 26, 2008 [Daily Mail(UK)]
# Dental patients face care lottery
- March 26, 2008 [Metro(UK)]
# Lung patients 'condemned to death as NHS withdraws their too expensive drugs'
- Jenny Hope, March 24, 2008 [Daily Mail(UK)]
# Women in labour turned away by maternity units
- John Carvel, March 21, 2008 [Guardian Unlimited]
# Health inequality has got worse under Labour, says government report
- Andrew Sparrow, March 13, 2008 [Guardian Unlimited]
# Angry GPs reluctantly accept plan for weekend and evening surgeries
- John Carvel, March 7, 2008 [Guardian Unlimited]
# NHS chiefs tell grandmother, 61, she's 'too old' for £5,000 life-saving heart surgery
- Chris Brooke, February 28, 2008 [Daily Mail(UK)]
# Patient 'removed' from waiting list to meet target
- January 31, 2008 [The Scotsman]
# One in eight patients waiting over a year for treatment, admits minister
- John Carvel, June 8, 2007 [Guardian Unlimited]
# Audit Office asked to investigate record £500m NHS underspend
- John Carvel, May 30, 2007 [Guardian Unlimited]
# The drugs the NHS won't give you
- May 11, 2007 [Telegraph UK]
# UK lagging behind on cancer drug access, study finds
- May 10, 2007 [Guardian Unlimited]
# One in six trusts is still putting patients on mixed-sex wards
- Daniel Martin, May 10, 2007 [Daily Mail(UK)]
# Specialist stroke care 'lottery'
- May 9, 2007 [BBC News]
# Smokers and the obese banned from UK hospitals
- May 2, 2007 [Healthcare News]
# Cancer patients told life-prolonging treatment is too expensive for NHS
- Lyndsay Moss, February 13, 2007 [The Scotsman]
# UK health service "harms 10 percent of patients"
- Kate Kelland, July 7, 2006 [Reuters]
# 5,000 elderly 'killed each year' by lack of care beds
- June 26, 2006 [Telegraph UK]
# Dental Socialism in Britain
- Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr., May 9, 2006 [LewRockwell.com]
# Pay for nurses and surgeons doubles NHS overspend
- Beezy Marsh, Patrick Hennessy and Nina Goswami, April 23, 2006 [Telegraph UK]
Now, profit = unpaid labor? Okay, just with anything else in the world, you can look at it that way. I say that's crap, because profit is simply how much your revenues exceed your costs. You need profit to grow the company. You need profit to expand capital. You need profit to pay off finance debt. You need profit to invest. If you take your profit, and put it all towards labor so it won't be "unpaid labor", your company will die very quickly.
Poverty exists for very simple reasons. Limited resources for unlimited wants. It doesn't matter what you do, it will always be there until we can find ways to give everyone the essential needs. As long as we have money, currency, etc., that won't happen. Also, I believe the only way that poverty would virtually become extinct is if the world united as a planet instead of 150 or so different nations. That. Will definitely not happen any time soon. Blame government, blame religion, I really don't care - it's human nature to fight, especially for resources. There are losers, and there are winners. It's sad when families cannot afford food. But I believe that is a problem best addressed by non-government entities and local communities banding together. Non-profit organizations do a lot for many countries that pretty much goes unnoticed because people want their government and their politicians to come up with a solution that never works out.
In America, free education exists, up to the high school level. Sometimes the quality isn't so great. Schools also have lots of funding problems for a number of reasons. States, where the responsibility of education lies with, have big problems with coming up for funding for schools. The problem is that only the parents want to pay for education, understandably. College is a little different, and even more expensive to maintain. If we nationalized that, many colleges would fail. Because they could only take what the government would pay them for each student, which of course would be very little. If you want a free college education, you can join the military for a few years and get it all paid for. Many people take advantage of that - the others cry that they don't want to join the military.. well, i'm sorry. This is reality, the real world. You cannot always get what you want. What can you do about it? Work hard and work your way up to where your kids don't have to do the same thing when they grow up. That doesn't mean I don't support better government assistance programs and scholarships.. but guaranteeing every American health care and a college education is ludicrous. It sounds great, the politicians will mention it to get votes because it sounds so great, but it's only the smart people who know that it would fail. Issues such as these is where moderate things need to be done, no extremes. _________________
^ HP Chat & Games
Here's the thing, what do Americans want? lower taxes right? look at countries with national wide medical insurance and free college. how much are the being taxed? way higher than the US has ever been and pretty much out the butt. The democrats 'support' the poor right. Who is going to suffer with taxes flying out the butt? The poor, the middle class, even. Uhuh, this is so going to work guys! I cant wait! I cant wait to pay for all the obese peoples health issues, I cant wait to wait 6 months to go and see the doctor! If im lucky, the flu wont kill me!
Quote:
If you want a free college education, you can join the military for a few years and get it all paid for. Many people take advantage of that - the others cry that they don't want to join the military.. well, i'm sorry. This is reality, the real world. You cannot always get what you want. What can you do about it? Work hard and work your way up to where your kids don't have to do the same thing when they grow up.
can you hear it? i can. its a sound of a thousand people coming to mob that statement. want to know what they are going to say? that the military only screws you over and you never get college paid for.
to free college thingy. right, elementary-high school is free, it has issues staying that way... so are we going miraculously add college to it?
oh yeah has anyone noticed that a school that takes for you to pay to get in is always always better than ones that are free (public schools)? could it be cuz they have funds. could it be that once college is free we wont get a quality education now even in college? um... duh. so in the end we're dumbing down america again?! yep. _________________
Here's the thing, what do Americans want? lower taxes right? look at countries with national wide medical insurance and free college. how much are the being taxed? way higher than the US has ever been and pretty much out the butt. The democrats 'support' the poor right. Who is going to suffer with taxes flying out the butt? The poor, the middle class, even. Uhuh, this is so going to work guys! I cant wait! I cant wait to pay for all the obese peoples health issues, I cant wait to wait 6 months to go and see the doctor! If im lucky, the flu wont kill me!
Quote:
If you want a free college education, you can join the military for a few years and get it all paid for. Many people take advantage of that - the others cry that they don't want to join the military.. well, i'm sorry. This is reality, the real world. You cannot always get what you want. What can you do about it? Work hard and work your way up to where your kids don't have to do the same thing when they grow up.
can you hear it? i can. its a sound of a thousand people coming to mob that statement. want to know what they are going to say? that the military only screws you over and you never get college paid for.
to free college thingy. right, elementary-high school is free, it has issues staying that way... so are we going miraculously add college to it?
oh yeah has anyone noticed that a school that takes for you to pay to get in is always always better than ones that are free (public schools)? could it be cuz they have funds. could it be that once college is free we wont get a quality education now even in college? um... duh. so in the end we're dumbing down america again?! yep.
Where I come from, pre-k to high school is not free...at all. In fact, the last few weeks (this has been going on for a few years now), there have been long lines of parents trying their damnest to get their kids in school with the little money they have. I come from a family that had to go through this three years in a row and I already know that I'm going to be thousands of dollars in debt for college and this is why I'm only doing the two-year thing (Associate's degree) in Nursing because I can not afford anything else and with a war going on, I am so NOT joining the army! _________________ Yas and Simmy - Putting Luna on catwalks since 2008!
Public school isn't completely free, you still have to pay school taxes. In some school districts that can be very costly. Some families are able to get help, though.
Kesington! wrote:
I highly doubt that any country is interested in invading America. Considering we've been invaded all of zero times in history.
Sorry, a little off topic, but this part isn't entirely true, hun. We have been invaded a couple of times. Not the way we've invaded other countries, but still... _________________ Blame it on a simple twist of fate ~ Bob Dylan Team Cucumber, FTW!
Public school isn't completely free, you still have to pay school taxes. In some school districts that can be very costly. Some families are able to get help, though.
Kesington! wrote:
I highly doubt that any country is interested in invading America. Considering we've been invaded all of zero times in history.
Sorry, a little off topic, but this part isn't entirely true, hun. We have been invaded a couple of times. Not the way we've invaded other countries, but still...
Agreed. With the families getting assistance for public education though, the lines for that are even longer. I should know, I've been in lines like that. _________________ Yas and Simmy - Putting Luna on catwalks since 2008!
Rules
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in
sig made by Kino 
