0
   

Socialism and California

 
 
Baldimo
 
  0  
Reply Wed 11 Oct, 2017 11:58 am
@Senter,
Quote:
Where do they tow it to? You don't know English grammar but you want us to believe you know politics and economics??

If the best you can do is pick at the wrong word, then you really have nothing to say.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Oct, 2017 11:58 am
@Baldimo,
Quote:
Yes it is a liberal thing! It's an anti-oil thing and an anti-choice thing, which all add up to a liberal thing. If you live directly in Denver, which a majority of the people who work there do not, biking to work isn't feasible and trying to force such social engineering is counter productive. You also forget that Denver is a place that biking to work is a seasonal proposal due to cold weather and snow. I know then those people should be using public transit... if you don't mind a 2-3 hour travel time to work.


I spent a decade biking 5 miles to work, each way. So it's bullshit to say that it's not an option for dozens if not hundreds of thousands of people in Denver. Obviously it won't work for everyone, but for a lot of people - it will. I'll also point out that if you don't like it, vote in new representation who will spend money on things you'd prefer. Oh, what's that? You can't do so because a majority of your fellow citizens disagree with you? Better keep heading east to Iowa or something.

Quote:
I'm all for getting rid of some of the "loopholes" for business but only if pared by actual tax rate decreases.


Nope. If you truly gave a ****, you'd be for removing those loopholes without asking for anything in return. I mean, if you agree they are a problem, why should anything be necessary in return to fix the problem?

As for the artist housing thing, I'm not really a huge fan of that but I do think that there is a vested interest in creating works of public art for everyone to enjoy. Lemme put it this way, 75 years from now, people will still be enjoying and experiencing the artwork created on behalf of the city and it does enrich people's lives. Whereas, whatever it is that YOU do, nobody will remember or give two fucks. Isn't that right? From that angle, maybe they're worth MORE to society than you ever will be.

Cycloptichorn
roger
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Oct, 2017 11:58 am
@Baldimo,
Outstanding!
0 Replies
 
Real Music
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Oct, 2017 12:18 pm
Do Lower Taxes Create Jobs? Let’s Look at the States

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/05/03/do-lower-taxes-create-jobs-lets-look-at-the-states
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  0  
Reply Wed 11 Oct, 2017 01:44 pm
@Senter,
I'll try and address your separate posts:

Quote:
OH!!!! I get it now!!!!
In your playbook, if we don't grant greedy businesses and rich elite every opportunity, every tax break, every chance to rake in more at less and less cost, we're "anti-capitalist"!!!

Greedy businesses? I'm not worried about the big corporations, I worried about the middle to small size companies who don't have the huge amount of capital to keep up with extreme left-wing regulations. Why is it greed to keep more of what you make but not greed to take what you didn't make?

Quote:
Where does it end with you people? It doesn't. Right?

It ends when the US has a truly senseable tax policy that isn't a naked grab by the leftists in the US to supply every whim they imagine society needs.

Quote:
Maybe it has something to do with drought and wildfires?

Yeah, I'm sure that's what it is... drought and wildfires...

Quote:
Oregon is a pretty leftist state, thankfully. But your thinking is now exposed as partisan to the point of abandoning reason.

Such as? I've never denied being partisan but a vast majority of those here on A2K are partisan one way or the other, you haven't exposed anything.

Quote:
Like that of the greedy rich elite, for example. Capitalism legalizes theft.

Selling a product or service is theft? Last I checked, that was considered commerce and that is the point of starting a business. You don't want Socialism, you want Communism.

Quote:
You're informed regarding CA's problems and Denver's bad choices. Are you equally aware of how much Trump's tax plan would hand the rich vs. how much it would cost the rest of us to hand all that over to the rich? Or is this a one-way street for you?

I usually ignore any comments on tax plans when someone's first comment deals with the rich.
From what I have seen of his proposal, it looks to reduce the number of tax brackets down to 3 and allows for the lower income people/families to not pay any income taxes on the first $37k for single people and $75k for married people, as the initial proposal goes, Congress still has to actually write the new tax code.

Hand what over to the rich, more of their own money? Which one way street are talking about? Do you not think you would get a tax break or are you afraid you will have to pay more in taxes? Me, I would end up paying less taxes as I make under 100K a year but over the $75k limit in the original proposal for a married person. I'll get the mortgage dedication since I'm a home owner against since Aug.
Baldimo
 
  0  
Reply Wed 11 Oct, 2017 02:05 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
I spent a decade biking 5 miles to work, each way. So it's bullshit to say that it's not an option for dozens if not hundreds of thousands of people in Denver. Obviously it won't work for everyone, but for a lot of people - it will. I'll also point out that if you don't like it, vote in new representation who will spend money on things you'd prefer. Oh, what's that? You can't do so because a majority of your fellow citizens disagree with you? Better keep heading east to Iowa or something.

Wow, 5 miles. Did you miss the part where I said a majority of the people who live around Denver have a 20 minute car ride to the city? That exceeds your 5 mile mark. My current commute for work takes me 45 minutes by car and that is going to be the average soon with the way housing prices are going up. You should check rents and house prices in the Denver market before you say something stupid.
https://www.apartments.com/denver-co/1-bedrooms-1-bathrooms-over-500/?bb=lzipmwpggMj7qwxme

Quote:
Nope. If you truly gave a ****, you'd be for removing those loopholes without asking for anything in return. I mean, if you agree they are a problem, why should anything be necessary in return to fix the problem?

I don't believe in soaking a business for everything they are worth just because YOU think society is has a right to the companies profits. Give you leftists an inch and you take a mile.

Quote:
As for the artist housing thing, I'm not really a huge fan of that but I do think that there is a vested interest in creating works of public art for everyone to enjoy.

Works of public art are one thing, but this isn't doing that, this is building them new and converted housing so they can create their art. So based on that and your thoughts, we should pay for their housing and then pay them for their art as well? So these artists do nothing but live for free and create things? Yeah, total waste of taxpayer monies. Dildos hanging from the ceiling of a public library isn't really "public" art, it's dildo's hanging from the ceiling.

Quote:
Lemme put it this way, 75 years from now, people will still be enjoying and experiencing the artwork created on behalf of the city and it does enrich people's lives.

No it won't, the city of Denver has a 5 year limit on public art, that way to can swap it out and keep it fresh. Well except for that stupid blue Bull with the red eyes outside of the Denver airport, it got an extension for another 5 years.

Quote:
Whereas, whatever it is that YOU do, nobody will remember or give two fucks. Isn't that right? From that angle, maybe they're worth MORE to society than you ever will be.

Such petty words from such a petty person.

I'm not a narcissist, so I could careless if people remember who I an in 75 years. It has never been my point in life to be famous or be remembered, except by my family because in the long run they are the only one's who matter. I'm a tech support dude for a digital storage company not really a "rock star" position in life. I'm very good at what I do and my customers appreciate me when I save their asses from company wide data loss.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Oct, 2017 02:07 pm
@Baldimo,
Quote:
Hand what over to the rich, more of their own money? Which one way street are talking about? Do you not think you would get a tax break or are you afraid you will have to pay more in taxes? Me, I would end up paying less taxes as I make under 100K a year but over the $75k limit in the original proposal for a married person. I'll get the mortgage dedication since I'm a home owner against since Aug.


No, you won't. You can't take an expanded Standard Deduction and itemize to get the mortgage interest deduction simultaneously. You can also forget about itemizing and getting a break on your State sales and income taxes, as the currently announced plan removes the ability for you to deduct those.

People in your (reported) income range will almost certainly see a tax INCREASE from the plan Trump is pushing. However, the extremely wealthy (like, say, Trump, Mnuchin, Cohn, and the rest of his damn cabinet) would see HUGE decreases due to the proposed removal of the Estate tax and the AMT, not to mention lowering the Corporate tax rate and top-line marginal tax rate.

So while you're busy paying more, or if you're lucky, slightly less, the very wealthy pay... tremendously less. And, the current proposed tax plan adds a LOT to our already 700 Billion a year deficit. And you're cool with this? You think this is a plan that was developed with the average person in this country in mind?

You guys need to do some more research, you talk about things but you don't actually think about them in depth. Trump preys on people who are like that, because it all 'sounds good' until you actually read the details.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Oct, 2017 02:16 pm
@Baldimo,
Baldimo wrote:

Quote:
I spent a decade biking 5 miles to work, each way. So it's bullshit to say that it's not an option for dozens if not hundreds of thousands of people in Denver. Obviously it won't work for everyone, but for a lot of people - it will. I'll also point out that if you don't like it, vote in new representation who will spend money on things you'd prefer. Oh, what's that? You can't do so because a majority of your fellow citizens disagree with you? Better keep heading east to Iowa or something.

Wow, 5 miles. Did you miss the part where I said a majority of the people who live around Denver have a 20 minute car ride to the city? That exceeds your 5 mile mark. My current commute for work takes me 45 minutes by car and that is going to be the average soon with the way housing prices are going up. You should check rents and house prices in the Denver market before you say something stupid.


https://www.apartments.com/denver-co/1-bedrooms-1-bathrooms-over-500/?bb=lzipmwpggMj7qwxme


The Denver metro area is home to millions of people. Hundreds of thousands of those people live within 5 miles of where they work. It's incredibly stupid to say that these people can't walk or bike to where they are going - they can. Just because YOU bought a house in the suburbs, doesn't mean everyone else did.

And, forget about work - what about all the other stuff people go do? There's a lot of things close to people's homes that can be biked to, it's foolish to focus only on commuting. Maybe you should try riding a bike sometime before slamming it, who knows, you might like it.

As for housing prices, I live in the most expensive housing market in the country. By a lot. So yeah I'm not too impressed by Denver's prices. **** is downright affordable compared to where I'm at, so stop complaining.

Quote:
Quote:
Nope. If you truly gave a ****, you'd be for removing those loopholes without asking for anything in return. I mean, if you agree they are a problem, why should anything be necessary in return to fix the problem?

I don't believe in soaking a business for everything they are worth just because YOU think society is has a right to the companies profits. Give you leftists an inch and you take a mile.


The number I quoted originally was from the CATO institute, and it was what they truly considered to be unnecessary 'corporate welfare.' As in, tax breaks that were being offered to corporations to influence their behavior in some way or help them out, but they were very likely to have made those same decisions without a tax break.

If you think those guys are 'leftists,' I dunno what to tell ya. They are anything but. Most of these items are special exemptions that were carved out for specific industries after heavy lobbying of Congress, IE, classic corruption. I guess you're cool with that tho

Quote:
Quote:
As for the artist housing thing, I'm not really a huge fan of that but I do think that there is a vested interest in creating works of public art for everyone to enjoy.

Works of public art are one thing, but this isn't doing that, this is building them new and converted housing so they can create their art. So based on that and your thoughts, we should pay for their housing and then pay them for their art as well? So these artists do nothing but live for free and create things? Yeah, total waste of taxpayer monies. Dildos hanging from the ceiling of a public library isn't really "public" art, it's dildo's hanging from the ceiling.

Quote:
Lemme put it this way, 75 years from now, people will still be enjoying and experiencing the artwork created on behalf of the city and it does enrich people's lives.

No it won't, the city of Denver has a 5 year limit on public art, that way to can swap it out and keep it fresh. Well except for that stupid blue Bull with the red eyes outside of the Denver airport, it got an extension for another 5 years.

Quote:
Whereas, whatever it is that YOU do, nobody will remember or give two fucks. Isn't that right? From that angle, maybe they're worth MORE to society than you ever will be.

Such petty words from such a petty person.

I'm not a narcissist, so I could careless if people remember who I an in 75 years. It has never been my point in life to be famous or be remembered, except by my family because in the long run they are the only one's who matter. I'm a tech support dude for a digital storage company not really a "rock star" position in life. I'm very good at what I do and my customers appreciate me when I save their asses from company wide data loss.
[/quote]

I already told you I'm not big on the public housing bit, so you won't see me bend over backward to defend it. I would have to ask, what's the problem that it's trying to solve? If that can't be clearly stated, it's a waste of money. I'm not for spending money on whatever, just because I'm a liberal guy. I'm for spending money on things that matter, and yes, works of public art add value to our society.

I couldn't find anything online about a 5-year limit on public art... but I highly doubt those pieces of art are then destroyed once removed. They still go on enriching our society and species elsewhere.

You can describe me as Petty if you like, it doesn't bother me. Whatever you need to say about me to feel good about yourself and your argument here, go right ahead.

Cycloptichorn
Baldimo
 
  0  
Reply Wed 11 Oct, 2017 03:14 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
The Denver metro area is home to millions of people. Hundreds of thousands of those people live within 5 miles of where they work. It's incredibly stupid to say that these people can't walk or bike to where they are going - they can.

There is about 2.8 million people in the greater Denver metro area and not all of them actually work in Denver. Some of the best tech jobs in CO are not even in Denver, they are along the Hwy 36 corridor which spans from North of Denver all the way to Boulder.
You seem to think I'm against bikes being used in the city, which I'm not, people can ride all they want to, the problem is taking millions of dollars in taxpayer money and using it on things that won't benefit the majority of people who live in the Denver area.

Quote:
Just because YOU bought a house in the suburbs, doesn't mean everyone else did.

Unless you own an apartment in Denver, then yes, you are indeed buying a house in the burbs because there is no where to build new houses, well affordable houses in Denver. You should really check out that link I sent.

Quote:
And, forget about work - what about all the other stuff people go do? There's a lot of things close to people's homes that can be biked to, it's foolish to focus only on commuting. Maybe you should try riding a bike sometime before slamming it, who knows, you might like it.

You really do have no idea what it is like to live in CO. I'm not and haven't slammed bikes, I've slammed the foolish politicians who want to spend a lot of money that could be better used.

Quote:
As for housing prices, I live in the most expensive housing market in the country. By a lot. So yeah I'm not too impressed by Denver's prices. **** is downright affordable compared to where I'm at, so stop complaining.

Oh, I'm sorry because housing prices are more expensive in CA I shouldn't complain about housing prices here, I should just count my lucky stars? You are a moron and worse your are an elitist moron.

Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Oct, 2017 03:35 pm
@Baldimo,
Haha, not 'elitist' but in fact 'elite.' You were pretty close though.

I may be a moron, but I'm one that knows more than you do about any political or economic topic there is. I am quite confident of that. And it's not because I'm inherently smarter, but because I do a ton of research and actually try to read about things before spouting off about them.

I guess you're just not going to respond to the CATO bit or the fact that you don't know the first thing about Trump's proposed tax plan. That's too bad, because I really wanted to see you try to square those circles, it would have been fun to watch.

Cycloptichorn
Senter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Oct, 2017 09:47 pm
@Baldimo,
You're saying Trump's tax plan eliminates income taxes for a "married filing jointly" tax return with taxable income of less than $75k???? And you believe it?? LOL!!!!!

Is it "their own money? Do you realize that productivity and incomes of the top 1% went way, way up in the last 15 years but workers' real wages have been flat for 30 years? Didn't those workers participate in producing that increased productivity and increased income of the top 1%? The top 1% didn't share it. If both CEO and worker participated in increasing productivity, shouldn't both benefit from the increase?

And actually, if you understand growth of businesses under capitalism, you would know that the workers were responsible for most of that income increase and most of the value of the company. But you don't understand that.
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Oct, 2017 02:41 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
I've had some family emergency things to deal with the last few weeks so I'll answer this now...

Quote:
Haha, not 'elitist' but in fact 'elite.' You were pretty close though.

No, I'm pretty sure I got it right the first time.

Quote:
I may be a moron, but I'm one that knows more than you do about any political or economic topic there is.

Your comments on the Denver Metro area housing market shows how "informed" you are...

Quote:
I am quite confident of that. And it's not because I'm inherently smarter, but because I do a ton of research and actually try to read about things before spouting off about them.

I don't think you do as much research as you claim you do, I think your elitist attitude provides you with most of your input research. If you had, you would know a majority of what you said about Denver is crap.

Quote:
I guess you're just not going to respond to the CATO bit or the fact that you don't know the first thing about Trump's proposed tax plan. That's too bad, because I really wanted to see you try to square those circles, it would have been fun to watch.

I did some research on this $100 Billion figure and I'm actually in agreement with a majority of what they say, I don't think you really are though. Did you read their policy paper?
https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/PA703.pdf
There are many "programs" which I'm sure you actually support, like High Speed Rail systems, alternative energy, auto makers for "greener" vehicles, community development block grants, housing subsides (FHA), and Rural Broardband subsidies to name a few. The Cato Institutes biggest complaint with these is that regardless of who they are created for, the majority of large companies get these corp welfare handouts. They even mention celebrities who own "farm land" and get farm subsidies even though no one farms the land. I'm all for these things going away, it's part of what I have said about killing the loopholes, I'm not against businesses keeping more of their own money but some of the things I have read about a stupid. Did you know the Cato Institute is against any form of corporate welfare at the Federal level? They have a strong belief in the 10th Amendment and feel the Federal govt has overplayed the Commerce Clause with govt subsidies, but they don't seem to have a problem with such things at the State level as long as the States don't violate their own rules on such things.

When it comes to the Trump Tax Plan we really don't know anything about it other than a rough outline of his request. Until Congress gets to work on it we won't know what it really looks like, so there are no "circles to square" as you put it. Has there been a GAO score?
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Oct, 2017 03:11 pm
@Senter,
Quote:
You're saying Trump's tax plan eliminates income taxes for a "married filing jointly" tax return with taxable income of less than $75k???? And you believe it?? LOL!!!!!

Why not I'm sure you believed Obama when he said "If you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance..."
Until Congress works on the plan or any plan all I can really do pass judgement on the outline.

Quote:
Is it "their own money?

Why wouldn't it be?

Quote:
Do you realize that productivity and incomes of the top 1% went way, way up in the last 15 years but workers' real wages have been flat for 30 years?

I keep hearing that but no one actually proves it except to use the min wage as their argument. The implication is that no one has increased their income in 30 years outside of min wage going up. I don't think that is actually true. I know what a basic technical support person makes and I have a good idea of what advanced technical support people make. I can tell you that there is a big difference in skills required to fix someone's home email password and fixing an entire companies digital storage array's, I know this because I have done both jobs over the last 18 years and the more I know how to do the more I get paid and the better jobs I get. 15 years ago someone working a help desk made more money then the people who do that work today. Why is this? It's easy work and people with those basic skills are a dime a dozen so they are paid less than their predecessors who had rare knowledge.

Quote:
Didn't those workers participate in producing that increased productivity and increased income of the top 1%? The top 1% didn't share it. If both CEO and worker participated in increasing productivity, shouldn't both benefit from the increase?

I think you are giving "workers" more credit than is warranted. The last 30 years has seen a major increase in automation which has fueled the increase of productivity. There are less workers today getting more done because of automation, have you ever watched an episode of How It's Made? Who do you think is paying for the creation and production of automation machines, the worker or the person/persons who operate the company?

Quote:
And actually, if you understand growth of businesses under capitalism, you would know that the workers were responsible for most of that income increase and most of the value of the company. But you don't understand that.

I explained above why I think this comment is crap. You don't have the same of people doing more work, automation has taken on a big part of the increased productivity, not people. I understand that a company would rather pay for the creation of a machine to punch widgets out of a sheet of metal 24 hours a day, then pay for 3 different shifts of 4 works each to do the same work. The initial cost will be greater but the increase of productivity will offset the initial cost after a short amount of time as long as they can produce what they need to sell. I'll mention it again, have you ever watched an episode of "How It's Made"? Watch a few of those shows and tell me how many workers there are vs machines and how much those companies actually produce a minute...
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Oct, 2017 05:49 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
I guess you're just not going to respond to the CATO bit


Lets also separate what I was originally talking about, cutting "tax loopholes" and removing tax writes-offs for corporations while lowering their tax rates would be a good way to bring in more tax revenue from that sector of the tax base. Corporate welfare as described and talked about by the Cato Institute in the link, which is what you referenced, is not the same as the tax issue.
0 Replies
 
Senter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Oct, 2017 08:13 pm
@Baldimo,
Baldimo:
Why not I'm sure you believed Obama when he said "If you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance..."
Until Congress works on the plan or any plan all I can really do pass judgement on the outline.

Me: It's pretty simple to figure out whether it will reduce your own taxes or not. And with brackets being reduced to three for the benefit of the rich, it is also pretty easy to see what it would do to the tax bill of others, too. In addition, there is plenty of commentary out there from tax experts in government who have examined the idea. You don't have to just trust. This is not big enough to be even a shadow of the ACA.

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Me: Is it "their own money?
You: Why wouldn't it be?
Me:Do you realize that productivity and incomes of the top 1% went way, way up in the last 15 years but workers' real wages have been flat for 30 years?

Baldimo:
I keep hearing that but no one actually proves it except to use the min wage as their argument. The implication is that no one has increased their income in 30 years outside of min wage going up. I don't think that is actually true.

Me: Actually there is no "implication". The statement is clear itself. Maybe you don't know the difference between "real wages" and "nominal wages".

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Baldimo:
I know what a basic technical support person makes and I have a good idea of what advanced technical support people make. I can tell you that there is a big difference in skills required to fix someone's home email password and fixing an entire companies digital storage array's, I know this because I have done both jobs over the last 18 years and the more I know how to do the more I get paid and the better jobs I get. 15 years ago someone working a help desk made more money then the people who do that work today. Why is this? It's easy work and people with those basic skills are a dime a dozen so they are paid less than their predecessors who had rare knowledge.

Me: Right and I was a software developer P/A for 22 years. Tracking each person's income as they develop their skills and their value to business is not a valid indicator of the performance of wages over time. Being a person with an analytical background and career, I'm sure you see that.

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Baldimo:
Didn't those workers participate in producing that increased productivity and increased income of the top 1%? The top 1% didn't share it. If both CEO and worker participated in increasing productivity, shouldn't both benefit from the increase?

I think you are giving "workers" more credit than is warranted. The last 30 years has seen a major increase in automation which has fueled the increase of productivity. There are less workers today getting more done because of automation, have you ever watched an episode of How It's Made?

Who do you think is paying for the creation and production of automation machines, the worker or the person/persons who operate the company?

Me: Automation is irrelevant to my point, which you didn't understand. So allow me to elaborate.
When a person starts a business, he starts either with a personal investment to fund it, or a bank loan. In most cases it's a bank loan. And at the start on day one, he has no business income. He hires people to do work. He, himself, works doing various tasks from production along with the employees to planning strategies for marketing and organizing. And he earns money. From the money coming in he allocates for different needs and purposes: wages, debt amortization, rent, utilities, services, maintenance, future expansion, and profit to name a few.

Who produced the money to pay for all that? Answer: they all did. The owner contributed the concept and planning and the worker provided his work as directed. So that is where the money for growth and expansion, the money to pay off the start-up costs and debt, and the money for the profit came from. The workers had a role in creating all that.

And when the company has grown to a multi-national corporation with annual sales of hundreds of millions of dollars, it is still a fact that the workers had a role in creating all that. But they had NO SAY in what to do with the income and profits. If the workers did 80% of the work and the business owner's planning, strategy, and marketing accounted for the remaining 20% of the value of that corporation by some particular metric, then we have to ask ourselves why it is that the owners (in a corporation the top executives and the Board members) own 100% of the business PLUS they get an income that is much, much greater than what the top managing employee is paid. They all created it together, but most of it goes to the owner. THAT is "the growth of business under capitalism."

So I then said:
"And actually, if you understand growth of businesses under capitalism, you would know that the workers were responsible for most of that income increase and most of the value of the company. But you don't understand that."

To which you quickly replied:
"I explained above why I think this comment is crap." But you didn't understand my original comment, so your answer here was wrong in relation to it.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama Socialism? - Discussion by Lusatian
Is Socialism Anti-Christ? - Discussion by RexRed
Why stupid people want socialism - Discussion by gungasnake
Let's privatize all - Question by dalehileman
Jeremy Corbyn. - Discussion by izzythepush
Are socialist more moral than Capitalist? - Discussion by argome321
 
Copyright © 2017 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/18/2017 at 02:51:07